I recently wrote an article about Michael Durbin's article that both compared the anti seat belt argument to the abortion argument, and also claimed that not wearing a seat belt and getting in an accident was a violation of a rescue workers liberties. Here is Michael Durbin's article, and here is my article. Here is the comment he left in regard to my article.
The reason I am titling this article "What Is A Conservative?" in relation to his comments is because I think that they reflect, in my opinion of course, the dilution of true conservative values. Clearly, not necessarily the values of what some people calling themselves conservative retain, but conservative values non the less. I want to kind of take apart Mr. Durbin's comments so we can inspect the values, possibly conservative values, that lead to some of the statements. I am sure that this article will offend, but I think if it can be weathered until the end it will be worth it.
Mr. Durbin asked if I had watched the videos he posted regarding liberty, in particular the one that says a person's labor is a product of their liberty. No, but I did see the one about the trash can controversy. Ya, no government regulations for trash cans, that is super intrusive. Especially, when you have spent $18.00 on your own trash can. Seriously, I do agree with you about the trash cans. Yet, I am curious, are you saying we have the right to make decisions about small stuff like trash can selection, but the decision to buckle up is too important for us to make?
I find it amazing that a person can talk about a person's liberty, especially in regard to their work, and claim to believe it is important, but then turn around and advocate for laws that FORCE a person whose liberty it was to choose the path of a rescue worker to help someone, even if they don't want to. You asked if I would want it another way. Yes! I say yes. A true conservative is a person that holds fast to the values of freedom and liberty, even if the consequences of those values may negatively impact that person. Now, please don't turn this into a shallow exchange by saying that I am saying you are not a true conservative. I can only judge you buy your words. If a liberal sees me in a pool of my own blood and refuses to work on me because I am that jerk that called him a liar last week, well it sucks to be me. Of course, if his boss finds those qualities unbecoming of a rescue worker and fires him, then it sucks to be him. No one has the right to work, only the right to ask to work. More importantly, government has no say in either event.
You asked if I am screaming that my liberties are being lost because my car has to have headlights and turn signals to operate on public roads. See, this is how you tell the real conservatives from the "wanna bes" (not sure how the kids spell that). A conservative knows that his rights, freedoms, and liberties end when they begin to infringe on other peoples rights. Do people have the right to enter public domain and reasonably expect to be safe? The answer seems to be yes since we have police officers enforcing laws that promote public safety. Yet, how does my seat belt help others be safe? Should the law say my child has to be buckled? That argument could be made because my child should have a reasonable expectation of safety when I take them on to public roads. They can't choose not to go in the car with me. Again, I assert that not wearing a seat belt has no adverse effect on other people.
As you said, people that don't wear a seat belt have greater injuries than those wearing a seat belt, for the most part. You mentioned that 1 in 4 trauma patients who are not wearing their seatbelt in your town are on medicare, or don't pay the hospital bill after an accident forcing others to spend their money on them. I think this is where we get into a thick section of poop that the politicians have gotten themselves into. Here is my solution. First, get rid of medicare. There is no right guaranteed, no freedom to have, or liberty given that allows the government to give tax payers money to people for medical care. Yes, yes, I know. I am a heartless #@$@%#$#. Whatever. I find it heartless to take the money from hard working people, by threat of imprisonment, and give it to other people in direct violation of the Constitution. Second, acting as a stop loss for hospitals is not the role of any government. Stop trying to pass regulations to help businesses be more profitable. Your seat belt law acts as a lever which allows government to force private industry to treat injured people regardless of means to pay. If a hospital or doctor chooses to adopt that policy, then that is their right, but it is not the role of government, local or federal, to force companies to accept customers without means to pay. Finally, more injuries means more money for the hospital when patients are able to pay. How is that bad for the rescue worker, hospital, or anyone else being PAID to help that person?
Mr. Durbin, no one is forcing you to choose whose liberty you have to take. A free society is one that regulates itself. Yes, we should have laws that protect people from true violations of their freedom and liberty such as murder, theft, injury due to malice or negligence. These laws are reactive in nature, not preemptive. A true conservative understands that you cannot legislate away crime. Punishment, fast, firm, and public, is the only determent to crime.
OK, that is my case against the substance of your argument. Now, you wonder why I think you should be embarrassed, and said your argument was inept. Also, why oh why would I attack another conservative? Well, I am a conservative. More than that, I am a freedom loving conservative so I have no problem calling out oppressive people, regardless of what they call themselves. OK, I sense I need to back up a minute and explain what I mean by oppressive people. Am I saying that you are an oppressor? Well, I have a very black and white view of freedom. If you aren't for it, your against it. If a person is for freedom, then that person is a freedom lover. If a person is against freedom, then that person is an oppressor. If a person makes, passes, or helps to pass a law that infringes on another person's liberty, then that person is an oppressor. That person can choose, at any time, to stop being an oppressor, but at that moment they are an oppressor. That is what infringing on other peoples liberty does, it oppresses them.
An old proverb says that as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. If I don't "attack" you, as you say, then I have no method to help sharpen you. Alternatively, I have no opportunity to be sharpened myself. This is one reason our founding fathers placed so much value on freedom of speech. I mean, I don't know if they specifically reference that proverb, but I am pretty sure they knew that freedom of speech was, and is, a foundational principal in the growth and enhancement of our society. If we go around being afraid to speak, or being afraid to be spoken to, then we cannot grow as human beings.
OK, but why blast, ridicule, and laugh at people for their inept arguments? I am glad you asked. It is false to believe that people change when they are comfortable. No one has ever said that comfort was the mother of invention, at least not to my knowledge. No, it is necessity that is the mother of invention. If no need is recognized, then no change can occur. If we, as freedom loving people want to change this country back into the way our founding fathers intended, then we must create an environment that forces people to recognize the need for change. To confront them with the absurdity of their ideology. Yes, to ridicule their ideas. To laugh at their baseless arguments. Especially, to ridicule them for having so low minded thoughts. We have become such a PC society today that an attack on ones ideals, their thoughts, has been equated to a personal attack on the person themselves. Especially, if that attack comes from a member of the group that person identifies themselves with. I am a conservative, but I am not a collectivist. I hold no loyalty to any collection of people. I represent myself and the truth as I see it. I welcome attack. I welcome people ridiculing my ideology, my truth. I look forward to defending myself and challenging others. Frankly, I think you should too.
You state in your reply that you think our efforts would be better served attacking those who take our liberties constantly. Yet, does it matter if those liberties are taken slowly or quickly, constantly or intermittently? Liberty lost is liberty lost. Any effort to take liberty should be fought. Also, how can a conservative possibly defend ones self from those that seek to steal liberty when they have the hypocritical log in their own eye? Can we honestly confront those that want to fundamentally change our country with integrity when there are those on our own team that have been willing participants in the effort, regardless of the degree or speed? Isn't that where that saying comes from about throwing stones when you live in a glass house? Can a person honestly call themselves a conservative because they stand up for the right to pick their trash can, but not the right to choose their own safety habits? Is liberty that limited? Do I not have the right to control my destiny, even if that choice leaves me paralyzed or dead? If not, then do I really control my destiny? Or is the depth of my liberty trash can deep?
These are the ideas that define a conservative, at least the way my grandfather defined conservative. He grew up in the great depression and fought in WWII defending the world from a German government that wanted to control or murder every person in the world. When we stop spending ourselves into bankruptcy, move to sound money principals, get government back to the limitations placed on it by the tenth amendment, and stop allowing babies to be murdered under the euphemism of "choice", then I might allow politicians today to tell me what we should say is conservative.
Subscribe