Happy New Year!
In an effort to educate interested persons about the Libertarian party and their principles, I'm going to try and tackle the positions of the Libertarian party in pieces. It's my hope to find local applications to these principles, and perhaps get some discussions on how they may apply to local issues, and how we can use libertarian principles to guide our elected leaders into a more libertarian style of government in the Concho Valley.
The Libertarian Party of Texas 2010 Platform begins with a preamble that sets those principles in motion:
"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their lives and no individuals are forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others."
"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be eliminated from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest."
We clearly have our work cut out for us, as the current use of government in the United States, and to an extent locally, is far from a libertarian ideal. Individual rights, small government, and personal responsibility are the key ideals of libertarian thought. Group rights, large nanny-state government, and no responsibility are the marks of our current governmental situation, both liberal and conservative. The only difference between the two national parties is who gets the largess of federal funds: individual moochers or corporate moochers.
How do we, as individuals or even as a group, affect change to our government to more align towards libertarianism? I would suggest the following as a starting point:
Get Informed - keep up with local politics and council activities; read the local paper and article comments; check local political-leaning blog sites and social media; go to a council meeting.
Get Involved - register; vote; step up and speak your mind at council meetings; contact your city/county/state/federal representatives and tell them what you think.
What other ideas do you have? Please leave a comment if you have more to offer.
2011 is the year of "tilting windmills" for me. On the national level, politicians are on notice -- and our local politicians should be as well. They work for us, not the other way around, and it's time they get the message.
((Next week, we'll look more into the basic principles of the Libertarian Party.))
A blog for the Libertarians in the Concho Valley.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Speaking of Bad Days
I was wrong. As was so eloquently pointed out by my predecessor, the current combined city/county/state sales tax is already at the maximum allowed by current state law. Mea Culpa.
I do wonder how the State is planning to handle their budget overrun, not to mention what will happen with all of the cities in Texas that are in budget crunches themselves due to promises of unsustainable salaries and pensions. I suppose the state will have to get a second job? It's not like they can legislate themselves more money through changes to the tax code and additional "fees," right?
Even in San Angelo, we are in the middle of a massive recession, but I'm not sure our town knows it. Our city council has just announced a brand-spanking new holiday for city workers, giving them one more holiday than even the bloated federal government. The small percentage of citizens that bothered to vote earlier this month passed permanence on the 1/2 cent sales tax so that we can pay to get another water source "for the future," even though we've already paid for this one once. Two or three years ago our water fees doubled to replace the water and sewer lines that were supposed to be being maintained by the extant water fees we had already been paying. While not directly city controlled, there was also the increase in property values (up as much as 500% in some areas) by the "non-city government" assessment district, so that we are now paying more in property taxes even though the tax rate officially "decreased."
Historically, the city council of San Angelo has a poor track record of keeping it's word on infrastructure issues. It also has a history of making ordinances that lessen individual freedoms (one example is the "garage sale" issue just weeks ago), but then don't bother to enforce existing ordinances that would probably preclude the new issues in the first place. In contrast, they will enforce obscure, ancient ordinances if it suits their purposes ("no tossing a ball to and fro on city streets", that is if you happen to be suspected of being a drug dealer).
Pardon me if I don't trust the city council and local government to be looking out for the best interests of the individual San Angeloan. The city is looking out for the city government's best interest. That's how bureaucracy works -- its purpose is to decentralize decision making (to cover bureaucratic butts) and to expand to fill available space. While everyone else is having to cut corners and spend less, it's business as usual for government.
That's why I "joined" the libertarian party. I was looking for like-minded individuals who would work for the REVERSAL of government spending and handouts, commercial or private; people who would stand up to the local governments to prevent them from stepping on the individuals of San Angelo, not just watch them do it.
Perhaps ConchoInfo was right. Maybe I shouldn't have been the one to take over this blog. I tend to say what's on my mind. But I was the only one who would step up, and I will keep it until directly asked to leave. Funny thing about libertarians: individuals tend to be, well, individual.
In the coming weeks, I'm going to try and get back to what I wanted to do in the first place, and explain in layman's terms what libertarianism really means, and how it can be used at the local level to improve citizen government of themselves. It's about protecting individual rights and the limitation of government intrusion on consensual human interaction.
We really can have that in San Angelo. If we try.
SnS
I do wonder how the State is planning to handle their budget overrun, not to mention what will happen with all of the cities in Texas that are in budget crunches themselves due to promises of unsustainable salaries and pensions. I suppose the state will have to get a second job? It's not like they can legislate themselves more money through changes to the tax code and additional "fees," right?
Even in San Angelo, we are in the middle of a massive recession, but I'm not sure our town knows it. Our city council has just announced a brand-spanking new holiday for city workers, giving them one more holiday than even the bloated federal government. The small percentage of citizens that bothered to vote earlier this month passed permanence on the 1/2 cent sales tax so that we can pay to get another water source "for the future," even though we've already paid for this one once. Two or three years ago our water fees doubled to replace the water and sewer lines that were supposed to be being maintained by the extant water fees we had already been paying. While not directly city controlled, there was also the increase in property values (up as much as 500% in some areas) by the "non-city government" assessment district, so that we are now paying more in property taxes even though the tax rate officially "decreased."
Historically, the city council of San Angelo has a poor track record of keeping it's word on infrastructure issues. It also has a history of making ordinances that lessen individual freedoms (one example is the "garage sale" issue just weeks ago), but then don't bother to enforce existing ordinances that would probably preclude the new issues in the first place. In contrast, they will enforce obscure, ancient ordinances if it suits their purposes ("no tossing a ball to and fro on city streets", that is if you happen to be suspected of being a drug dealer).
Pardon me if I don't trust the city council and local government to be looking out for the best interests of the individual San Angeloan. The city is looking out for the city government's best interest. That's how bureaucracy works -- its purpose is to decentralize decision making (to cover bureaucratic butts) and to expand to fill available space. While everyone else is having to cut corners and spend less, it's business as usual for government.
That's why I "joined" the libertarian party. I was looking for like-minded individuals who would work for the REVERSAL of government spending and handouts, commercial or private; people who would stand up to the local governments to prevent them from stepping on the individuals of San Angelo, not just watch them do it.
Perhaps ConchoInfo was right. Maybe I shouldn't have been the one to take over this blog. I tend to say what's on my mind. But I was the only one who would step up, and I will keep it until directly asked to leave. Funny thing about libertarians: individuals tend to be, well, individual.
In the coming weeks, I'm going to try and get back to what I wanted to do in the first place, and explain in layman's terms what libertarianism really means, and how it can be used at the local level to improve citizen government of themselves. It's about protecting individual rights and the limitation of government intrusion on consensual human interaction.
We really can have that in San Angelo. If we try.
SnS
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Good Days and Bad Days
Today is a good day to be a Republican. Republicans have taken over control of the House of Representatives. Hopefully, they have learned a lesson from the massacre of 2008. The "Tea Party" movement had a so-so night, but most of the Republicans took notice of them anyway. The most likely Speaker of the House mentioned smaller government, lower taxes, personal responsibility. Sounds like a good plan. I hope they stick to it.
Today is a good day to be a Democrat. They held onto the Senate (and the Presidency, which was not up for grabs). They don't have a filibuster proof majority any longer, but the Majority leader won his race, and the hard-core leftists are still with us. (It was mostly the moderates that got creamed last night.) So, we'll have to see if the Democrats in the Senate can work with the Republicans in the House to get work done in Washington D.C.
Today isn't a good day to be a Libertarian, at least not locally. The "majority" (actually about 1/6th of registered voters) in San Angelo decided that private property rights just aren't that important anymore. The most restrictive smoking ban in the state will begin on January 1st right here in Monterey East.
To make it worse, the 1/2 cent sales tax has now been made permanent. Looking into my crystal ball, I see a rise in the 1/2 cent tax to 3/4 cents in a couple of years, later to be replaced with the 1 cent sales tax. The only way they had a chance to raise the limit was to make it permanent first.
On the bright side, my children and grandchildren won't have to worry about paying the extra taxes. Neither one can find a decent job here in town, even with the economic slush fund (funded by the 1/2 cent sales tax, no?). They'll move on to greener pastures, where perhaps, just perhaps, they can open a business without "good ole boys" getting into their business.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat
SnS
Today is a good day to be a Democrat. They held onto the Senate (and the Presidency, which was not up for grabs). They don't have a filibuster proof majority any longer, but the Majority leader won his race, and the hard-core leftists are still with us. (It was mostly the moderates that got creamed last night.) So, we'll have to see if the Democrats in the Senate can work with the Republicans in the House to get work done in Washington D.C.
Today isn't a good day to be a Libertarian, at least not locally. The "majority" (actually about 1/6th of registered voters) in San Angelo decided that private property rights just aren't that important anymore. The most restrictive smoking ban in the state will begin on January 1st right here in Monterey East.
To make it worse, the 1/2 cent sales tax has now been made permanent. Looking into my crystal ball, I see a rise in the 1/2 cent tax to 3/4 cents in a couple of years, later to be replaced with the 1 cent sales tax. The only way they had a chance to raise the limit was to make it permanent first.
On the bright side, my children and grandchildren won't have to worry about paying the extra taxes. Neither one can find a decent job here in town, even with the economic slush fund (funded by the 1/2 cent sales tax, no?). They'll move on to greener pastures, where perhaps, just perhaps, they can open a business without "good ole boys" getting into their business.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat
SnS
Friday, October 29, 2010
THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE WITH ME
In the past month or so, as I have been reading the comments in the on-line version of the Standard Times, I have noticed an unusual amount of libertarian thought being expressed by people who are both Democrats and Republicans. Many have expressed a desire to vote for the Libertarian candidate Kathie Glass for Governor. Unfortunately, these expressions are usually followed by "but I would be wasting my vote," or "a vote for Kathie Glass is a vote for Bill White."
I feel that Texas needs a new governor. Unfortunately for us all, the Republicans would only put up two political class participants for the run, and then they held their noses and voted to run the Emperor again. While the ‘Tea Party’ force is strong in this state, even they were not able to put up a viable fight against Perry. The Democrats, having a prime opportunity to make hay by moving towards the center, picked a left-leaning, sanctuary city loving statist with Clinton baggage (endorsed by the Standard Times) to oppose Perry. Now, they expect us to choose between those two.
Kathie Glass is a better choice. We will not only be making a statement to the political class, we could be giving Texas a governor that does not want to rule Texas, but to lead Texas through these tough times. Kathie Glass will look not to massive government and regulation to “stimulate” us into bankruptcy, but will start to get government out of our way so we ourselves can stimulate the economy.
If you go to the polls, and hold your nose and vote for your "party," you are telling the political class in this state that it's "business as usual." We poor "chattering class" of people would be stating with our votes that we do not have the power to affect change in the political system.
I hope that the people who are as fed up as I am with BOTH political parties would join me in throwing away our votes for Kathie Glass for Governor.
I feel that Texas needs a new governor. Unfortunately for us all, the Republicans would only put up two political class participants for the run, and then they held their noses and voted to run the Emperor again. While the ‘Tea Party’ force is strong in this state, even they were not able to put up a viable fight against Perry. The Democrats, having a prime opportunity to make hay by moving towards the center, picked a left-leaning, sanctuary city loving statist with Clinton baggage (endorsed by the Standard Times) to oppose Perry. Now, they expect us to choose between those two.
Kathie Glass is a better choice. We will not only be making a statement to the political class, we could be giving Texas a governor that does not want to rule Texas, but to lead Texas through these tough times. Kathie Glass will look not to massive government and regulation to “stimulate” us into bankruptcy, but will start to get government out of our way so we ourselves can stimulate the economy.
If you go to the polls, and hold your nose and vote for your "party," you are telling the political class in this state that it's "business as usual." We poor "chattering class" of people would be stating with our votes that we do not have the power to affect change in the political system.
I hope that the people who are as fed up as I am with BOTH political parties would join me in throwing away our votes for Kathie Glass for Governor.
Friday, October 15, 2010
It's Not About Left and Right
What, exactly, is a conservative Democrat in this congress? They've voted, in masse, for every far-left liberal hair-brained scheme of every liberal wet dream for two years, and spend over a Trillion dollars over what they brought in. That's not "conservative" in any way.
This isn't about "left" and "right," as much as the press and current administration want everyone thinking it is. It's the "statists" (big govenment, higher spending/taxes) and "libertarians" (little "L", small government, lower spending/taxes) that are duking it out. And the statists, both Democrat and Republican, are getting their rear ends handed to them. That's what is going on this election.
The current Democrat Party has swung so far left in the past four years that even it doesn't recognize itself, let alone the Republican party. The fringe far-left is in charge of the Democrats.
Some in the Republican party have been trying to pull it to the left as well (Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain). But the Republican base, largely conservative, is beginning to fight back.
The people in "flyover country" are still "middle-right/slightly libertarian", where they have always been, and their wishes are being completely ignored by the political elite.
Now they're fed up.
SnS
This isn't about "left" and "right," as much as the press and current administration want everyone thinking it is. It's the "statists" (big govenment, higher spending/taxes) and "libertarians" (little "L", small government, lower spending/taxes) that are duking it out. And the statists, both Democrat and Republican, are getting their rear ends handed to them. That's what is going on this election.
The current Democrat Party has swung so far left in the past four years that even it doesn't recognize itself, let alone the Republican party. The fringe far-left is in charge of the Democrats.
Some in the Republican party have been trying to pull it to the left as well (Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain). But the Republican base, largely conservative, is beginning to fight back.
The people in "flyover country" are still "middle-right/slightly libertarian", where they have always been, and their wishes are being completely ignored by the political elite.
Now they're fed up.
SnS
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Constitution Day
There was a letter published in the Sub-Standard Times recently by a professor of Political Science at Angelo State University. I don't know what I find more disgusting: Either this professor is blindly spouting a political philosophy that he doesn't believe for the sake of his party, or he really believes this drivel.
The "complex" issues and situations we are facing today were certainly imagined by the Constitution's framers. They warned us about tyranny. They warned us about
charlatanism. They warned us that the tree of liberty, from time to time, must be watered by the blood of tyrants. They warned that a free press (not the dog washing, cheer leading "mainstream" media) was essential to freedom. The only thing that they didn't foresee was the complete collapse of freedom of thought and unbiased education in the United States.
It is the FOUNDING PRINCIPLES contained in the Constitution that the liberals are trying to change. Those PRINCIPLES are non-negotiable in a free society. That's why people are so angry. It's not about the Democrats being "in charge." It's not because the President is black (or, half-black to be honest for a change). It's because the liberal left has chosen now to try and FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE (President's words) this country.
You see, it doesn't matter that the founders didn't know about Twitter or Facebook, only that the right to free speech should still be unencumbered, regardless of the means.
The FOUNDING PRINCIPLES are found in the preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We, the People of the United States: All of us. Not the nobles, or the upper class, middle class, or the poor. ALL OF US. The people are establishing this constitution to limit what other of our citizens may decide to do to us at a later time. The Constitution is about control; control of those who would govern the rest of us. Control by the people over the government they are creating.
In order to form a more perfect union: The Articles of Confederation just wasn't working. The founders felt there was already a "union" of like-minded people looking towards a common purpose. They were trying to make it better.
Establish justice: all people treated equally. No special favors for a perceived elite, nor special treatment of a perceived "under-served" or "disadvantaged". A man's worth is his own.
Insure domestic tranquility: the Federal government needs the power to squash rebellion and smooth tensions between states.
Provide for the common defense: This should be self-explanatory. It really would be nice if the jokers in Washington would bother to actually do this.
Promote the General Welfare: General welfare, not the seizing of one person's property or life in order to serve another. There are numerous historical events which back up the fact that the framers, and most congresses and administrations through the liberal/progressive insurrections of the 1920s, knew that the federal treasury was not to be used for charity. Now under the charity clause, er, I mean general welfare clause we have TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in individual handouts (meaning taking money from person "A" and giving it to person "B"), Medicare, Medicaide, OBAMACARE, Social Security, etc, etc, etc. Over HALF OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET is in handouts.
Secure the blessings of liberty: There are over 140,000 FEDERAL LAWS that you could be breaking right now. Do you know even 1% of them? This nation is so completely overwhelmed with regulation that it is nearly impossible to do anything. This government was supposed to be limited in its purpose. We were supposed to be free to do as we desired, so long as our desires did not deprive other citizens of their rights or property.
To ourselves and our posterity: All we've done is screw our posterity with debt and regulation.
Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's the principle of the thing.
SnS
The "complex" issues and situations we are facing today were certainly imagined by the Constitution's framers. They warned us about tyranny. They warned us about
charlatanism. They warned us that the tree of liberty, from time to time, must be watered by the blood of tyrants. They warned that a free press (not the dog washing, cheer leading "mainstream" media) was essential to freedom. The only thing that they didn't foresee was the complete collapse of freedom of thought and unbiased education in the United States.
It is the FOUNDING PRINCIPLES contained in the Constitution that the liberals are trying to change. Those PRINCIPLES are non-negotiable in a free society. That's why people are so angry. It's not about the Democrats being "in charge." It's not because the President is black (or, half-black to be honest for a change). It's because the liberal left has chosen now to try and FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE (President's words) this country.
You see, it doesn't matter that the founders didn't know about Twitter or Facebook, only that the right to free speech should still be unencumbered, regardless of the means.
The FOUNDING PRINCIPLES are found in the preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We, the People of the United States: All of us. Not the nobles, or the upper class, middle class, or the poor. ALL OF US. The people are establishing this constitution to limit what other of our citizens may decide to do to us at a later time. The Constitution is about control; control of those who would govern the rest of us. Control by the people over the government they are creating.
In order to form a more perfect union: The Articles of Confederation just wasn't working. The founders felt there was already a "union" of like-minded people looking towards a common purpose. They were trying to make it better.
Establish justice: all people treated equally. No special favors for a perceived elite, nor special treatment of a perceived "under-served" or "disadvantaged". A man's worth is his own.
Insure domestic tranquility: the Federal government needs the power to squash rebellion and smooth tensions between states.
Provide for the common defense: This should be self-explanatory. It really would be nice if the jokers in Washington would bother to actually do this.
Promote the General Welfare: General welfare, not the seizing of one person's property or life in order to serve another. There are numerous historical events which back up the fact that the framers, and most congresses and administrations through the liberal/progressive insurrections of the 1920s, knew that the federal treasury was not to be used for charity. Now under the charity clause, er, I mean general welfare clause we have TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in individual handouts (meaning taking money from person "A" and giving it to person "B"), Medicare, Medicaide, OBAMACARE, Social Security, etc, etc, etc. Over HALF OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET is in handouts.
Secure the blessings of liberty: There are over 140,000 FEDERAL LAWS that you could be breaking right now. Do you know even 1% of them? This nation is so completely overwhelmed with regulation that it is nearly impossible to do anything. This government was supposed to be limited in its purpose. We were supposed to be free to do as we desired, so long as our desires did not deprive other citizens of their rights or property.
To ourselves and our posterity: All we've done is screw our posterity with debt and regulation.
Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's the principle of the thing.
SnS
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Smoke "Free" San Angelo
I’m wondering: Is “Smoke Free San Angelo” worried about our collective health? Or are they worried about their own?
I would like to know why these 4,500 people (those who signed the petition) really want to go to The Lone Wolf, or the Saddle Bronc. Maybe it’s La Casa or the Horseshoe Lounge. I’m not sure, but they are demanding that those establishments be smoke free in case they want to take their children there.
Or, perhaps they are really concerned about the patrons of those places. After all, bars and taverns would otherwise rival fitness clubs for health if they just wouldn’t allow SMOKING. It’s not like alcoholics driving home have ever harmed anyone.
So, what’s next? How about a city ordinance that mandates the use of condoms for any and all sexual activity? That is another pleasurable, personal choice that people make that may harm others. And why not? If 4,500 people can demand that the other 96,000 people bend to their will, it will only be a matter of time until they outlaw other behaviors they find distasteful. I sure hope they aren’t of a particular denomination…
Maybe my personal pet peeve will be next on the “ban” list: driving while distracted. I’m sure these soccer moms are really personally counseling the U.N. on world peace just after dropping off their spawn at the local no-one loses activity, but I seriously doubt it. I cannot think of a single reason to call anyone while operating a motor vehicle. Let’s ban that next.
OK. Enough childish venting from me; I’ll never be able to compete against the smoking banners in that department.
Instead, I’ve got a personal challenge to “Smoke Free San Angelo” to see if they are a reasonable group, or if they are just self-important, self-appointed former hall monitors wanting to control other’s behaviors:
Option One: Request the proposed ordinance be dropped. Get your people together, get with the local restaurant association, and petition them to ban smoking in their restaurants. If the business owner wants your business, they will comply. That is the way community activism is supposed to work. The business owners would be allowed to choose. This would mean losing your control over the lives of people, but it would mean that you can go to a restaurant – even a restaurant that serves alcohol, without having to deal with the “evil smokers.” They can continue to pollute their lungs in other places. Caution: this will anger your corporate sponsors.
Option Two: Modify your proposed ordinance to exclude any business that carries the “51%” sign. Those businesses make more than 51% of their revenue from the sale of alcohol. All of those establishments cater to adults, and generally aren't known as fitness establishments. This option would show that, while you still want to control other people’s behavior, you understand that there are individuals who do not share your values. That ordinance would probably gain more popular support, as there are even smokers (as evil as they are) who do not smoke in restaurants. They don’t even have to have statists (look it up) tell them not to. This is known as a compromise: it means everybody loses.
Option Three: Continue operating as you are. Your group’s demeaning, belittling, and emotion-based arguments will only persuade more people who are fed up with government to fight against you and your trumped up cause. Come November, you will actually lose in the election, and will have to put up with those evil smokers in the city parks that were built by other’s money JUST FOR YOU and your little overprotected liberal spawn. Maybe then you can petition the City Council to just do it on their own. This is known as the power of government over the will of the people.
I look forward to hearing from the “San Angelo Banners” on this matter. There are other ways to get their desired results. Forcing people to do what you want is childish.
I would like to know why these 4,500 people (those who signed the petition) really want to go to The Lone Wolf, or the Saddle Bronc. Maybe it’s La Casa or the Horseshoe Lounge. I’m not sure, but they are demanding that those establishments be smoke free in case they want to take their children there.
Or, perhaps they are really concerned about the patrons of those places. After all, bars and taverns would otherwise rival fitness clubs for health if they just wouldn’t allow SMOKING. It’s not like alcoholics driving home have ever harmed anyone.
So, what’s next? How about a city ordinance that mandates the use of condoms for any and all sexual activity? That is another pleasurable, personal choice that people make that may harm others. And why not? If 4,500 people can demand that the other 96,000 people bend to their will, it will only be a matter of time until they outlaw other behaviors they find distasteful. I sure hope they aren’t of a particular denomination…
Maybe my personal pet peeve will be next on the “ban” list: driving while distracted. I’m sure these soccer moms are really personally counseling the U.N. on world peace just after dropping off their spawn at the local no-one loses activity, but I seriously doubt it. I cannot think of a single reason to call anyone while operating a motor vehicle. Let’s ban that next.
OK. Enough childish venting from me; I’ll never be able to compete against the smoking banners in that department.
Instead, I’ve got a personal challenge to “Smoke Free San Angelo” to see if they are a reasonable group, or if they are just self-important, self-appointed former hall monitors wanting to control other’s behaviors:
Option One: Request the proposed ordinance be dropped. Get your people together, get with the local restaurant association, and petition them to ban smoking in their restaurants. If the business owner wants your business, they will comply. That is the way community activism is supposed to work. The business owners would be allowed to choose. This would mean losing your control over the lives of people, but it would mean that you can go to a restaurant – even a restaurant that serves alcohol, without having to deal with the “evil smokers.” They can continue to pollute their lungs in other places. Caution: this will anger your corporate sponsors.
Option Two: Modify your proposed ordinance to exclude any business that carries the “51%” sign. Those businesses make more than 51% of their revenue from the sale of alcohol. All of those establishments cater to adults, and generally aren't known as fitness establishments. This option would show that, while you still want to control other people’s behavior, you understand that there are individuals who do not share your values. That ordinance would probably gain more popular support, as there are even smokers (as evil as they are) who do not smoke in restaurants. They don’t even have to have statists (look it up) tell them not to. This is known as a compromise: it means everybody loses.
Option Three: Continue operating as you are. Your group’s demeaning, belittling, and emotion-based arguments will only persuade more people who are fed up with government to fight against you and your trumped up cause. Come November, you will actually lose in the election, and will have to put up with those evil smokers in the city parks that were built by other’s money JUST FOR YOU and your little overprotected liberal spawn. Maybe then you can petition the City Council to just do it on their own. This is known as the power of government over the will of the people.
I look forward to hearing from the “San Angelo Banners” on this matter. There are other ways to get their desired results. Forcing people to do what you want is childish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)