Intrusive Freedom
By
Hans Wienhold
Here is
another letter that I sent to the editor a couple of years ago in
response to several other letters commenting on the
proposed (at the time) bicycle helmet law. No, the
Spectator didn't print this one either.
It is
perhaps a little unfair to post my response without
giving you the opportunity to read the letters to which I
am responding. For this I apologise.
Let me
say, however, that Jason Brooks wrote a fine letter in
opposition to the intolerable limit on personal freedom
represented by the helmet law. Linda Lamb and Morgan
Krantz both supported the law.
A while
back a poll was taken asking Canadians what they thought
was the best way of funding new government programs:
- taxes,
- borrowing
or
- the
government should use it's own money.
A
significant number of respondents picked (c).
In her
rebuttal to Mr. Jason Brooks Linda Lamb states the
following, "The one sentence in his letter about
'the government using my tax dollars for the whole
abominable scheme' is the one I wish to address because,
simply speaking, it is sadly uninformed."
Then how
has the scheme been financed? Ms. Lamb doesn't bother to
say.
But
since she refutes Mr. Brooks claim that tax money was
used... and since borrowed funds are merely deferred
taxes...
reference to the above noted poll leaves the happily
informed Ms. Lamb with the uncomfortable claim that the
one remaining source of financing, (c), was used.
Interesting.
Instead
of explaining why Mr. Brooks is uninformed she goes on to
explain some of the horrors that befall brain injured
people and that when a person receives a brain injury the
taxpayer ends up picking up the tab.
Welcome
to Ontario Ms. Lamb. That's called socialized medicine.
The
truth is that when you embrace socialism you renounce
freedom. The two are absolutely incompatible.
In a
free society Mr. Brooks might well purchase long term
personal insurance or he might not. He might even get a
discount if he agrees to wear a bicycle helmet. Either
way, his decision does not put the taxpayer at risk.
In a
system where the financing of health care has been
coercively monopolized by the government is it any
surprise that the peaceful activities of our neighbours
become a matter for legislative compulsion?
When it
comes to the point where the government decides to
mandate the use of condoms or other birth control to
alleviate pressures on the welfare state we can expect
another letter from Mr. Brooks decrying the tyranny.
Surely
we can expect also a rebuttal from Ms. Lamb happily
informing us of the costs associated with a laissez-faire
sexual regime (all of the BILLIONS of dollars associated
with welfare, the treatment of venereal diseases,
government run daycare etc.).
Is it
time to license sex and romance?
A word
also on the letter from Morgan Kranstz. It was titled,
"Momma, why wasn't Uncle Jason wearing a bicycle
helmet like I do?"
This is
a very convenient title since it can be used over and
over again as the nanny state becomes ever more happily
informed and new laws proliferate restricting and
regulating all kinds of activities, from taking a shower
to maneuvering a wheelchair.
All you
have to do is replace the word 'bicycle helmet' with the
relevant safety device.
Examples,
"Momma, why wasn't Jason wearing a (life jacket, ear
plugs, safety goggles, Scott air pack, steel toed boots,
shoulder pads, jock strap, condom etc.) like I do?"
Mr.
Kranstz says that he would rather lose some 'personal
freedom' than have to explain to a child that Jason might
not have been hurt if he'd been wearing a bike helmet. It
never ceases to amaze me at how easily some people will
forgo their 'personal freedom'.
How much
'personal freedom' is Mr. Kranstz willing to lose in
order to avoid the necessity of explaining other
unpleasant facts to young children?
Perhaps
a law mandating that everyone wear helmets all of the
time would eliminate the need for Mr. Kranstz to explain
anything to children.
Mr.
Kranstz most interesting statement has to be that,
"Personal freedom is essential in our society, but
when I have to pay for someone else making a mistake
while exercising that freedom, it becomes
intrusive."
Well Mr.
Kranstz, so long as you live under a system of socialized
medicine you are forced to pay for the mistakes of
others. That is, after all, the essence of socialism.
If you
do not wish to pay for the mistakes of others then it is
socialized medicine which you must oppose... not
'personal freedom'.... unless you really think that at
some point there will be sufficient restrictions on
behavior to prevent anyone from making a mistake... ever.
Of
course, you can not support such a regime since you have
clearly stated that 'freedom is essential'.
If Mr.
Kranstz finds the repair of bicycle head injuries
intrusive then one can only wonder at his reaction to the
fact that over 40% (U.S. figures 1987) of all accidents
happen in the home where 'personal freedom' still
predominately reigns. As long as this situation is
allowed to continue Mr. Kranstz must feel that he is
living under the gravest form of intrusive tyranny.
But
really now, Mr. Kranstz, don't you think you're
stretching it a bit when you say that someone's decision
not to wear a bicycle helmet is intrusive? Since
everything we do involves a degree of risk, Mr. Kranstz,
is there anything at all that a person could do without
being 'intrusive'?
According
to a recent Spec Article, "The risks of obsession
with risk" (Aug 23) your chances of injuring
yourself in a chair or in bed are 1 in 400. So, even
though I may sustain injuries when I go to bed tonight I
won't lose any sleep knowing that Mr. Kranstz considers
my 'personal freedom' to do so 'intrusive'.
|
