The Concord Monitor Editorial board has a distorted sense of "freedom" - Granite Grok

The Concord Monitor Editorial board has a distorted sense of “freedom”

Gosh, I can start this post just like I ended the last one (w/one small change):

Remember, with Democrats Progressives  it is NEVER the actual purpose of Government (“…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted…”) but quite the opposite:

NH State Rep Leigh Webb (D): “The role of government is to legislate behavior“

Freedom – I choose, not you and not government.  But Progressives have the incessant obsession to take those decisions for themselves, not you.  And the Concord Fishwrap Pooh-Bahs put it on full display; they violate the NH’s “Live Free or Die” ethos right from the get-go.  Let’s do that good old fashioned Fisking:

New Hampshire has a long history of refusing to protect its residents from their worst impulses on the road. Drivers can opt out of wearing seatbelts, and motorcyclists can turn down helmets. Individuals should be free to make their own choices goes the thinking – even if those choices end up being harmful.

I could stop right there – they jump off the cliff in the first 16 words. It IS Freedom to be able to choose even if the consequences are sub-optimal.  That is the Individual’s choice – and it should not be anyone else’s choice.  I wear my seatbelt every time – but I am not forced to but I do it out of responsibility to my family.  Period.  Not because of anyone else’s chiding or kvetching but my decision.  NH bikers don’t have to wear helmets; I’ve told my Eldest that if goes down while riding with no helmet, expect no help from me (where the opposite would be uttermost on my mind).  Decisions have consequences and if he wants to act in a way that I consider stupid, and I have told him that over and over again.  He has made a decision and now he has to abide by it.

I have made a free choice – and so has he.  It should not be up to the State to otherwise mitigate either from either a practical or philosophical standpoint.

But that freedom isn’t unlimited. That’s why New Hampshire recently barred the use of handheld cell phones while driving. A driver’s right to yak on his or her phone ends where another driver’s bumper begins. And that’s why a new bill meant to prevent parents from smoking in cars with their children seems like a good idea.

And it was a wrongful decision as I can tell you that IF the Fishwrap actually did its homework (rather than spouting a Nanny State ideology), they couldn’t find the data to support their premise that this is a huge problem when put into perspective to everything else (or even just in context of the size of NH’s population). But then they go and compound their uppity silliness in just so many ways:

The proposal isn’t at variance with the state’s libertarian ethos. In fact, it protects the individual liberty of every person inside a vehicle.

No, it is ABSOLUTELY at variance with Libertarian philosophy which is FIRST most is that the Individual choosesNot the State.  Stop being Stupid.

The Concord Monitor is all happy-feet that the decision of the driver of and the owner of the car is taken away.  They are all goofy-talking when they say “the individual liberty of every person inside a vehicle” as well – freedom is not defined by the absence of harm even as they “Huzzah!” the idea that the other individuals have had their Freedom taken away as well?  What if those folks in that car didn’t CARE that there was smoking going on in a private vehicle?

And that last point – the Concord Monitor is all fine with diminishing the Right to Private Property as well.  If one cannot control their own property, is it really theirs?  More and more we see that Pillar of our Republic under assault; at one point in our country’s history is was sacred.  Now, with the “Progressive grabbing” and that all must be “in the State”, the pushback to defend that Pillar must be there – certainly the Concord Monitor is falling down on the job.  Else we end up, not with a Free Republic, but a Commutarian set up with no limiting principle.  And without limitation, the lure of grabbing all and ending up a totalitarian state would be irresistible to some who are greedy for power.

Yet, the Concord Monitor is all in for greasing that part of the slide.

Let’s pause for a moment to restate the obvious: Smoking is terrible. It poses well-known hazards to smokers and their loved ones in the form of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. But smoking has even more wide-ranging effects. A study published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that smokers put themselves at higher risk for numerous other problems, including infections and intestinal disease.

At this point, can’t we just all agree that EVERYONE knows this – that smoking is bad for you seven ways to Sunday?  LOTS of bad outcomes – but it isn’t your decision, is it Concord Fishwrap?  Tobacco is still legal – if you don’t think it should be, be my guest and try Prohibition again (look how well that worked out if you remember your past).  People know this – they just have decided for themselves that they will take that risk and that bet.  Their decision, their outcome.

And yes, I can hear it coming – well, it costs us ALL money if they get sick.  So, try this for size – how expensive is HIV / AIDS?  Should we ban THAT dangerous behavior (homosexual) as well?  Or is that OK with you? Different diseases, same outcome (death).  Both are expensive on the public dime (and private insurance) but I bet that purely for Political Correctness you’ll yelp at me for even making the comparison – even though you know in your journalistic hearts I’m right – and you’d be political cowards.

Congrats – welcome to your own pincer movement (aka, you forced socialized medicine and its cost to the public, and now because of that increasing cost, now wish to constrain our choices (our Freedom) because the costs are so high.

So you are easy in trading Freedom for mere cost?

It’s against this backdrop that the legislation – SB 162 – has been introduced. A hearing hasn’t been scheduled, but the House and Senate should ultimately support the proposed law. It’s good for all the state’s residents, young and old.

Good over Freedom.  And then you wonder why we oft refer to you as Pravda on the Merrimac.

The bill itself is simple, calling only for drivers not to smoke in cars with passengers under the age of 18. The punishment is a simple fine of $100. Finally, and most importantly, the bill itself states: “Enforcement of this section by law enforcement agencies shall be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been cited or charged with a violation or some other offense.” In other words, drivers can’t be pulled over simply because they’re smoking.

This seems like the right balance. Police officers don’t need to chase an entirely new class of lawbreaker. But if the occasion arises, it seems entirely appropriate that parents who smoke receive a warning from the state. Putting one’s children at risk through secondhand smoke, especially given what we now know about the health risks, is unconscionable.

A “simple” fine – $100.  That’s not simple – that’s a big chunk of change to a whole lot of people.  And it will only be a matter of time before that Slippery Slide comes into play (and again, with this editorial, you are already greasing the skids) and that secondary becomes primary.  You’d love it – your own words are dripping with it.  Civil unions to gay marriage (which you also supported) is just one example.  The onslaught on Second Amendment Rights, which you also provide support for, sits on the Example Board as well.

Some will no doubt criticize the bill for trampling on individual rights. But that only counts if the individuals in question are the adults with cigarettes. The right of the young passengers in these cars to grow up healthy and disease-free must be given equal weight.

It’s isn’t JUST the trampling of individual Rights for which you are in favor of that should result in you being brought to the woodshed.  You are self described journalists – wordsmiths that know the nuance of a word or paragraph.  You know that words matter – and you chose to deliberately misstate and redefine words (Freedom, Liberty, libertarian) to tit your agenda.

FOR SHAME!  You can’t even be honest with your readers!  And yet, I bet you were smiling over the legerdemain of twisted words when you removed your fingers from the keyboards.  And happy with yourselves as well.  Honesty?  Truthfulness?  I hardly think so.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinions, even you.  But to use the deceptive use of words to support something those words do not?

The state cannot – and should not – solve the problem of smoking on its own. It does have the opportunity, though, to suggest its residents and future taxpayers make healthier choices. That opportunity should be seized.

And you end as you started – the removal of yet another slice of Freedom under the rubric of “Health and Safety” under the guise of Government.  The force of Government.  And who wields that power with joy? “To suggest its residents and future taxpayers make healthier choices” – YOU LIE! (to quote Joe Walsh).  What you are pushing is not giving people a choice – but for the State to remove choice.  If this law is passed, there is no politeness, there is no suggest (hell, you even have the cojones to point out a $100 fine – that’s not “suggest

You can’t even be honest with your own proclamation? Jeeze….

Remember, tyranny can come, not just at the point of a gun barrel but by the point of a pen.

Or an Editorial Board.

>