Search This Blog

Friday, March 20, 2015

Words forgotten in the American dialect

    There are 4 (well 5 actually since one is a conjugate of 2 words) words that we seem to have gone out of style in our normal dialect that if we brought them back might solve of a lot of our problems today.   Those words are:

  IT'S A FREE COUNTRY...

   We used to hear that phrase all the time back in the 60's, 70's, and even 80's.   Anytime someone took an issue with another persons personal behavior or activities this phrase would seemingly put an end to the argument almost immediately.

   You see a person smoking....                                                     IT'S A FREE COUNTRY!
   You see a person wearing skimpy cloths ...                               IT'S A FREE COUNTRY!
   You see a person living out of their car....                                 IT'S A FREE COUNTRY!
   You see a person handing out flyers for a church...                  IT'S A FREE COUNTRY!

    When did this phrase go out of style?    When did we become such a country of nannies where everyone's business is OUR business?   So what if a person decides to send a 10-year old and a 6-year old to the park on their own... that's the parent's decision ... not yours!    So what if a parent sends their kid to school with a sandwich and a Hostess Ho-Ho for lunch.... that's their business and not yours!    So what if a high school student wants to have their rifle or archery bow in their senior picture... that's their business and it's not hurting anyone.    So what if eating fast food is not as healthy as making my own home cooked meal.... it's my body and my business.

    Imagine the different results if a person concerning themselves with each of the cases above said the words "It's a free country!"  as they contemplated what to do next.   I believe it would change their outlook and their decision making in each of the cases.   But instead we have a world where everybody has their fingers in everybody's pie and making an awful mess of things while we are at it.   There isn't a day that goes buy that you don't hear a story about some person somewhere reporting a person for some violation of their social-contract.   Either they are not raising their kids they way you think they should or you think they might possible offend someone somewhere and they should be stopped before that something happens.

    Take for example a 17 year-old girl who had cancer who wished to refuse treatment (see here ). 
The state stepped in and denied her wish to be let alone and forced her to be given medical treatment.  Her body belongs to the state in their opinion (at least until the age of 18) and they could dictate to her what must be done.   Today, her cancer is in remission and now a precedent has been laid for others to follow.  Many new cases will point to this case and say "See?  We were right about that case and so we must be right about this one as well!".   Combine this case with the topic of vaccinations and dangers to "public safety" and you will have a dangerous 1-2 punch against parental control.  If vaccinations must be enforced, then why not ADHD medicine or other psychiatric drugs?   Why not contraception or sterilization?   If the doctors are always right, then why have parents in the doctors office at all?   Since their only purpose would be to agree to whatever the doctor prescribes they could save a lot of time by just staying in the waiting room while their child is taken care of and they can pay the bills (or the government pay them).  

    Of course many will say, "I don't think that will ever happen in THIS country!"  but none of them will say it CAN'T happen.   They say, "I was just trying to help this one girl.   I didn't want to see her die needlessly".    But like the old adage goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".   

2 comments:

  1. I can see your viewpoint, and I think you are right in some ways and wrong in others. To be forced to do anything by a government is inherently wrong... normally. I see the boundary in that the governments of the world are designed to protect their people. If 1 person's actions can infringe on the rights of the other people, then the individual refusing to take a vaccination shot is at fault. If, however, a government is forcing something onto a people with little likelihood of any actual defense of the people (Net Neutrality in my opinion), than the government entity is at fault for being oppressive.

    Overall, I would draw the distinction in that ones actions can affect others, which if these actions harm other people the government should be free to (if voted upon by people or representatives of the people) outlaw said action (Vaccination).

    I do not believe this one paragraph could possibly work out all the issues and controversy associated with the recent anti-vaccination epidemic. That would require solving who would pay for these vaccinations, how would it be enforced, what if someone refuses, all of these issues easily make the issue difficult to solve, but as I stated earlier, government is designed to protect the people which it should be free to do with the peoples voted consent.


    PS: Other than my issues with your argument, it is very well laid out. Thanks for taking your time to write out your thoughts, I am sure it may broaden the perspective of some readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.