Comments on: Progressive Hypocracy

By: Marina

Marina — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:46:26 +0000

I love the way you've pointed out the inconsistencies of the left.

Here's another....people shouldn't be allowed to invest their Social Security dollars in their own choice of retirement plans, as they may be irresponsible with the money and make the wrong choices. The government should make those decisions for you.

That spoken from someone who follows the contention that you shouldn't have anyone telling you what you can do with your own body.
Partial-birth abortion? Why not? It's YOUR body.

By: James R Ament

James R Ament — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:58:13 +0000

Excellent post; and The Man’s comment is spot on… “The crucial distinction between political systems is between those who do, and those who do not, think that the citizen should be ‘the property of the state’ – An idea from Adam Michnik, former Polish dissident, Solidarity activist, and newspaper publisher.”

By: James R Ament

James R Ament — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:22:57 +0000

By: The Man

The Man — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:36:47 +0000

As valiant as your battle against the "taxpayers pay your medical care" argument may have been, you are totally missing the point. The state does not want you to injure yourself, simply because you are their property. You produce whatever it is you produce, and it promotes the general welfare of the state, and the state spent money on some gratuitous attempt to educate you so you could do that. That's all business of the state. You think we're going to let you drive around without a motorcycle helmet and risk losing our investment?

No man is an island, Mr. Coyoteblog. We invested in you whether you like it or not, and we have bigger guns than you, so we plan to make good on our investment.

By: Doug Murray

Doug Murray — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:28:08 +0000

Recently, while writing a letter to an editor about motorcycle helmets, it occurred to me that privacy arguments might carry more weight than liberty with many people. Of course, the die-hard nannies won't be convinced, but they may find it harder to make a case against privacy in a country that doesn't really seem place much value on liberty any more.

I see liberty and privacy as synonyms, but whether or not that's correct, they do have an awful lot of overlap.

By: BobH

BobH — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:07:07 +0000

Your point on leftists' intermittent interest in personal freedom is valid of course.

On the less important issue of freedom of choice re seatbelt, I in general agree that it is a victimless "crime" -- except as regards insurance. I am a victim of those who choose not to wear seatbelts because my insurance rates are commensurately higher.

The solution would be to allow people to choose not to wear seatbelts, with the understanding that they cannot in case of accident collect damages (on the basis of contributory negligence).

That, however, would mean that their medical costs would (in many cases) be pushed back on the state -- which resurrects the "state interest" argument.