Thursday, January 03, 2008

More Legislation Against Stupidity

"For every action there is an equal and opposite government program." ~ Bob Wells

This Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star article informs us of yet another egregious but typically Democratic abuse of power by another Democrat lawmaker. This time, they are trying to outlaw our private use of text messaging on our cell phones while driving.

In Virginia, Democrat Delegate James M. Scott has introduced legislation to ban text messaging while driving. The legislation would include text messaging while operating bikes and motorcycles as well.

Admittedly text messaging while driving is a stupid, dangerous thing to do, but it is nevertheless a fundamental human right:

The right to be stupid.

This legislation is another example of how the government uses extortion to force it's will on the people, in spite of the people's wishes. Forcing us to wear seat belts, buy auto insurance, and add unwanted accessories to our vehicles engines in the interests of our own safety under penalty of law is the textbook definition of extortion.

The reasoning behind Democrat lawmakers continual introduction of legislation which infringes on our personal private rights to be stupid is this:

Since we are not smart enough to take care of ourselves, the government must take care of us for us. We cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions that will affect our own lives, so the government must make those important decisions for us.

Often the government is right. Some people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

But that is our right.

We have the right to do stupid things without requiring government assistance.

And, because all people have a fundamental right to be stupid, it isn't surprising that Democrat legislators so frequently exercise that right, by introducing legislation that is all but impossible to enforce. Such as outlawing text messaging while driving. How do they propose to enforce this?

Democrats are always squealing about Government invasion of privacy when the government is trying to protect heterosexual law abiding citizens from unwanted homosexual advances and from being blown up by bomb wielding terrorists, etc, but strangely, they seem to have no qualms about preventing us from being stupid.

They want to allow pornographers to assault our sensibilities with offensive pictures, writing, and music lyrics, but they don't want us to be allowed to keep and bear arms, which is our constitutional right.

They want to outlaw smoking, as long as its not pot, but they insist we have a right to destroy our livers and endanger other people by letting us drink until we drown in a puddle of our own vomit.

They want to lower the sexual age of consent to twelve and allow underage girls to get abortions and birth control without knowledge or permission from their parents, but woe to us who want to opt our children out of school classes that teach evolution and global warming as fact instead of theory.

The examples of hypocrisy by Democrat legislators are legion. There isn't enough space here to list them all.

My question is this:

If freedom to be morally stupid is so important to Democrats, why isn't freedom to be intellectually stupid?


Ms.Green said...

First of all, Welcome Back! I missed ya these last few days.

You are right on target. People do have a right to be stupid. Let's face it - there are a LOT of stupid people out there. And once again, the Libs want to take the results of being stupid away - and aren't consequences what help people to learn how NOT to be stupid?

When very small children are told not to run, and they run anyway, sometimes they fall and get hurt. What happens? After a couple of times of falling down and feeling pain, they stop and think about it - if I run, I fall, I feel pain....hmmm. think I'll not run when Mommy says not to.

This was an excellent commentary on the Stupidity of Socialist Democrats in their quest to control every facet of our (in their minds) menial little lives.

Liam said...

I have no problem with people killing themselves by their own stupidity, but texting (or using a phone at all) while driving is just as likely to kill other citizens as well as themselves, which strikes me as curtailing those other citizens' rights too. If children running when told not to killed other children in the process of their falling over, you'd see stricter controls in place faster than you could say "mourning moms!"

Trader Rick said...

Your fight to be stupid ends when it endangers me needlessly.

Mark said...

I agree with that, Rick. Quite a dilimma isn't it? I don't like seeing legislators trying to run our private lives but I also don't want stupid people endangering other people either. What can we do?

I think maybe a massive education campaign could encourage stupid people to wise up without having the Government make expensive laws that are unenforcable and ineffective.

Oh well, to paraphrase Jesus, Stupid people we will have with us always.

Dan Trabue said...

I agree wholeheartedly and 100% with Trader Rick! (Never thought you'd hear that, huh?)

You have the right to do all sort of damage to yourself via your stupidity. You do not have the right AT ALL to do so to others.

While I fully acknowledge there can be a fine line, nonetheless, I appreciate wise gov't policy that addresses this sort of behavior (ie, personally stupid behavior that might kill or harm others).

You don't want to obey the rules of the road? Fine, but then you don't get the privilege (privilege, not "right") of driving.

You don't want to purchase car insurance? No one is forcing you to. But you can't drive without being able to pay for the damages which your driving might cause (and automobile-related wrecks can cost a HUGE bundle - societally, financially and in terms of human lives).

There is no infringement of liberty in requiring people to engage in potentially dangerous behavior in responsible ways. It is, in fact, an infringement of liberty to allow others to endanger life and limb so they have the "liberty" to text message, drive recklessly or drunkenly.

Amen, Brother Rick!

Ms.Green said...

Just for a moment, consider this. The type of thinking that says "all people should be regulated because a lot of people are stupid" leads Libs to the type of legislation that calls for gun control. They use that line of thinking all the time to justify the limitation of firearms.

Liberty is not without a cost. There are always going to be idiots and those who defy the law and reasoning. But regulating the masses because some of them are idiots is not acceptable in a free society. Since the majority of our laws are based on Biblical principles, why not stick to that and leave the grey areas alone.

Ms.Green said...


Why not allow states to make decisions like these based on voter's mandates instead of always leaving the decisions up to the ultimate idiots in Washington?

Dan Trabue said...

So I assume, Ms Green, that you are an abortion supporter? That is, you support the individual's right to make whatever stupid decision they want - even if it hurts or kills another?

Or, do you think the State ought to intervene and have rules about how one acts when it impacts another's welfare?

Are you opposed to having any "regulations" interfering with a stupid person's right to drink and drive? To drive 100mph through residential neighborhoods? To dump their toxic waste in your yard?

I suspect you agree with the rest of us that the State has reason and authority - at least sometimes - to create regulations about what we can and can't do when it hurts others?

Ms.Green said...


Each of the instances you mentioned - Abortion, Drinking and driving, Driving 100 mph through a residential neighborhood, and dumping toxic waste in my back yard, are all deliberate acts that intend to harm others. That is not the same as text messaging while you are driving - which is a skill that some people are too stupid to do without running off the road.
Some people can't can't change the station on the radio in their car without being distracted. Should that be regulated as well? Some people can't stay on the road because they can't talk to someone in the back seat without turning around and looking at them. Should passengers be outlawed?

There is a difference between stupidity and willfull harm to another. Please don't confuse the two.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm sorry Ms Green, but you are quite wrong. People speed all the time or drink and drive all the time with NEVER the slightest intent to hurt of kill anyone.

In fact, NO ONE does those things deliberately to cause harm. Just as no one is deliberately text-messaging to cause harm.

Even the toxic dumper's intent is not to cause harm but rather, just convenience.

No, I don't want to outlaw every little action that might potentially cause harm, I'm just pointing out that we're talking about the same actions - actions that people do for convenience or comfort that potentially can cause harm, intentionally or not.

As far as automobile behaviors go, since driving is a privilege not a right - AND because the potential for causing harm while driving a two ton gasoline-filled contraption - I am much more predisposed to limiting that privilege than giving people the benefit of doubt.

There is a differences between limiting people's privileges reasonably and taking away rights. We ought not confuse the two.