UPDATED and BUMPED (from 10/16/2012): Chris Pappas, now running for Congress instead of NH Exec. Council back then, hates our “Live Free or Die” motto – said so himself. He’s all about putting the “Common Good” above your Freedom. You need to send him a message of “no, it isn’t”:
“…it is clear that the idea of Freedom necessarily is subservient to what he believes to be the constant Progressive Ideal: “the Common Good”.
(H/T: Tom for reminding me I wrote this back then)
Got a tip from a loyal reader of an article that appeared on FaceBook – one that shows that one Democrat Progressive Chris Pappas would be self-righteously fine with New Hampshire getting rid of our State Motto, “Live Free or Die”. He said so himself in a Hippo Press article back in Dec 15, 2005. True, a long time ago both in real time and political epochs. But when you read what he wrote, you may take the attitude of “Humpf, this is an ‘tude not easy to ditch or change” (at least what my takeaway is). That article is after the jump.
Now, at some sundry times, do make a wee joke about that New Hampshire’s beloved icon [The Old Man In The Mountain] lays in rubble at the bottom, but the motto is not just a phrase or a marketing blurb. It is not just a motto – it is a philosophical statement. Sure, it was a toast uttered by General John Stark, but it is one of the most succinct and pithy summaries of what Freedom is all about. It is a truism from one that was willing to lay down his life for Freedom – the complete and all encompassing meaning of the word “Live Free or die – death is not the worst of all evils”. Would you be willing to compromise your life, nay, lay it down, for a faux version of it?
Apparently, Chris Pappas would. Read that article – it is clear that his idea of Freedom necessarily is subservient to what he believes to be the constant Progressive Ideal: “the Common Good”. The article was written around the time that smoking was banned in many public spaces here in NH – especially restaurants.
He confuses what he perceives to be the tyranny of a few taking away a Right of the many (a few smokers, a lot of people “forced” to endure their “freedom”. He, and the others that passed the law, truly believe that their “seeing the future benefit for all” was sufficient to take away just one more Liberty from those that do something with which they disagree and take away just one more aspect of owning, well, what used to be Private Property (you know, the ability of restaurant owners to actually set their own policies. He also believes that the well-to-do should have to give up more of their Private Property (er, their money, which when you get to the blunt point, time from their lives) simply because they are “privileged” (and he has better ways to spend it than they do).
What concerns me the most, being a candidate for the NH Executive Council, is that he will continue this errant philosophy – that the Common Good always should trump Individual Freedoms, and that Private Property, when needed by the Common Good, is subject to the will of the Common Good.
Which doesn’t make it all that Free, nor all that Private, does it?
No, Chris Pappas does not love our state motto. And obviously, not the State icon, either. Instead, it is clear from his own hand that his feelings towards “Live Free or Die” are the same that President Obama has towards the Constitution – an impediment better buried and pushed aside, as it reminds people of what is truly important. It reminds people of their history and what is truly important. And it isn’t this:
“Government has to protect us from our own stupidity.”
It seems that Chris Pappas agrees with Democrat Rep. Kris Roberts – perhaps the Old Man fell down simply because he realized that this current crop of politicians have drifted so far from the original Rugged Individualism that used to the be hallmark of New Hampshire-ite. What, they think us all “New Hapless-ites”? And remember, to be able to carry out the sentiment of that “own stupidity” means necessarily means that the State has to continue to take more of our Freedoms away from us. Freedom’s Death by a thousand overbearing regulations and laws – all happily decreed by Progressives.
Back a while ago, I wrote this – it falls into the right cloud:
The Nanny State has just redefined adulthood to childhood. With a regulation (not even a law passed!). The High Lords of the Keeper of Our Well Being decided that, like all intrusive governments are wont to do when left unchecked and unwatched, adults are not adults. They have deemed that they, simple bureaucrats cannot allow legal adults to purchase a legal product.
Anti-smoking activists are ecstatic. “Boston has taken another step that puts it in the forefront in the United States in protecting people against secondhand smoke,” says the president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But the Boston regulations don’t just restrict smoking.
Sorry, but I have never bought this canard of logic gone bad.
I have the freedom to leave an establishment if I don’t like the decor, the food, the products, the service – or the smoke. Ditto for employees – these overblown ego civil servants seem to want to treat everyone as just plain dopes who couldn’t jump out of the street when a tank comes rolling in.
And these Smoking Nazis, true to form, believe that saving everyone from themselves is yet another incremental loss of freedom of choice. Trust me – smoking? Horrible habit – my Dad had throat cancer and had to have a laryngectomy.
BUT IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DECIDE THAT FOR ANYONE ELSE. DITTO GOVERNMENT!
In a press release, the executive director of the Boston commission says the new regulations “will help reduce young people’s exposure to tobacco products.” Young people? That phrase used to mean minors. Now, apparently, it includes the targets of the new rule: students at “any public or private college, normal school, professional school, scientific or technical institution, university or other institution furnishing a program of higher education.”
On what grounds do college students—not to mention students at professional schools—deserve the kind of paternalism previously reserved for minors? The commission offers two reasons. First, “educational institutions in the City of Boston also sell tobacco products to the younger population, which is particularly at risk for becoming smokers.” Second, “the sale of tobacco products is also incompatible with the mission of educational institutions which educate the younger population about social, environmental and health risks and harms.”
The article ends on this note:
And if that kind of paternalism can be extended so easily from minors to 25-year-olds, who’s next?
My addition – not who but what? The Rubicon of the Nanny State was crossed – now they are on the march to further restrict adult freedoms. Remember: “…first they came for the Jews…”
Hippo Press, December 15, 2005 (not online at the Hippo Press site)