• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Joe Rosberg of Denver writes:

Be Consistent in Principle.
In an October 27th editorial, the editors of the Rocky Mountain News voiced their opposition to Colorado’s outdated blue laws by saying, “By far the main reason is that blue laws are a needless affront to personal liberty - of both the consumer and business owner.” I happen to agree with the News, not only in opposing the blue laws, but with their main reason as well — a needless affront to personal liberty.
I have to wonder why the Rocky Mountain News (and others, for that matter), won’t use that same reason as the basis in principle for ALL their opinions and positions? Whether the issue is seatbelt laws, the smoking ban in bars and restaurants, and even taxation policies, personally speaking, I’m consistent in my opposition to anything that’s a needless affront to personal liberty. The Rocky Mountain News, in this case, cites personal liberty to keep government out of the business of private business. I challenge the News (and all others) to use the same principled reasoning in all cases.
I won’t hold out much hope, however, of ever seeing such a thing. The Rocky Mountain News editors — and the voters — have consistently been inconsistent when it comes to protecting personal liberty. They’ll either want it protected or they’ll trample all over it, whichever is necessary to advance their preferred agenda.
Be consistent in opposing anything that’s a needless affront to personal liberty (and don’t play games in presuming to define need), and just let the chips fall where they may. Wasn’t that the underlying principle that started our nation in the first place? What a concept!

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Nice letter, Joe. I share your desire that people consistently uphold the principles of individual rights and free markets. You'll probably appreciate the following Colorado-based sites (in case you don't already know about them):

Colorado Freedom Report:
www.FreeColorado.com

Freedom & Individual Rights in Medicine:
www.WeStandFirm.org

- Brian (wakalix.com)

the Blue Laws concerning package liquor (but drink at a bar all you want) and car sales bans on Sundays nowadays exist for only one reason: The protection of certain liquor store owners and car dealers. Rather than let individual car dealers and liquor store ownerss make up their own minds about whether to open on Sunday, they're all forced to stay closed to protect the interests of those who want to close on Sunday but are afraid of competition.

Joe,
Recently the RMN editorial staff posted an editorial calling for an end to the investigations into the behavior of Alberto Gonzales, Rove, and so forth. Apparently, even discerning whether criminal impropriety happened under the watch of the highest post at the Department of Justice is inconsequential to RMN. The Rocky is hardly a journalistic entity that will watchdog this administration. It's best to seek your news elsewhere.

When you refuse to defend anyones liberty, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes, you invite the demise of your own.

It is not for legislative intervention to decide which liberty is to be defended or not from zealousness and fanantical personal preferences and agendas, it is the open market place and the people who will choose what businesses to patronize or not.

When zealous special interests are allowed to dictate, by employing lies and deceptions, what legislators enact into law, the cherished and morally justified freedom, liberty and justice, so many have fought and died to preserve and defend, will disappear into the fetid swap of tyranny.

This just in. President Bush has said if his candidate for Attorney General is not voted in , he will appoint someone to that position for the entire intrim period of his presidency who will have no accountability to congress or the people. How do you Bush zealots like that. A nonaccountable Attorney General owing no alligiance to any one but him? Is that not a president usurping the congresses right, under the separation of powers act, to approve or not any appointees to federal positions the president offers and, by so doing, is he not acting in direct contradiction to the Constitution of these United States laws. You damned straight it is, and I dare anyone to offer any justifiable arguement that would support this violation of the rule of law.

Allen, we have already had Attorneys General who have no accountability to anyone but the President, since Janet Reno was sworn in.

I agree with the opposition to the blue laws. But I also want the government to take even more steps to take away the freedom to drive while under the influence. I likewise like the idea of the government taking away the freedom to not use seat belts, especially for children. I'd just as soon that our taxes not be used to pay for the freedom to do without them. Joe's vague inference that taxation is an affront to personal freedom smacks of anarchy, which is where the government doesn't take away your freedom, those who are stronger than you do.

There isn't a law on the books that doesn't take away some freedom. That's the whole purpose of law. The definition of freedom is not limited to doing good things.

"I likewise like the idea of the government taking away the freedom to not use seat belts..."

Why? Because you are afraid that someone might not wear them and get into an accident, and somehow cost taxpayers money? That's a bad reason. That would leave open the door for government to control a lot of behavior.

If your reasoning is that taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for medical costs if someone isn't wearing his seatbelt, then shouldn't government be allowed to dictate our diets, force us to exercise, ban skydiving and all other dangerous recreational activities, require us to get regular medical check-ups, ban smoking, etc...?

If your answer is 'no' to those scenarios, then why is it 'yes' to seatbelts?

I view what Mike's post as the "slippery slope" argument. And I do think that it is something that should be considered in many cases. But I don't think it is a black or white, all or nothing, argument. The slippery slope argument can be directed at almost any law. For example, a person might argue that the government should not be able to impose speed limits because if it can impose a limit of 70 mph it might later impose one of 5 mph. Or that the government has no right to tax because if it can impose a tax of 20% it might later impose a tax of 99%. Or that the government can't impose gas mileage regulation because if it can require 25 miles per gallon it might later impose 150 miles per gallon. Or that the government should not be able to require seat belt usage on commercial flights because it might later require people to be tied to the seats or some such. Or that the government should not be able to require seat belts because it might later try to prohibit from riding bikes.

I think the slippery slope argument is not a black or white, all or nothing, argument but rather is one of reasonableness.

There are many laws and regulations that prohibit people from doing things which expose them to personal danger. For example, a law or regulation promising people from going on a government construction site without a helmet. Laws or regulation requiring people to stay a certain distance away from a dangerous enterprise. Or laws prohibiting fishing in certain areas because of toxic conditions. If I had a better imagination, I expect I could think of a lot more.

In general, a law must be found to be reasonable. The question of when a law goes too far is not a black or white, all or nothing, question but a question of reasonableness. I do think that one of the considerations should be the extent to which the law invites unreasonable incursions into our freedoms.

There is a great hue and cry about automobile seat belt and motorcycle helmet law. Some seem to argue, as you seem to, that any law which prohibits a person from doing something dangerous to himself is unconstitutional (unless, I presume, the something also imposes an unreasonable burden on others). As I have said, I don't think that is a valid argument. On the other hand, while arguments that such laws are unreasonable have been rejected by the courts, nonetheless, they are valid arguments to make, although much harder to measure than a black or white argument.

A major question is, how much of a burden does the activity impose on others, on society? As best as I can tell, helmet and seat belt laws have been upheld on the basis that the activities they prohibit do impose a sufficient burden on others or society, primarily on the survivors and the heath and police system, to justify their prohibition. Anyone can argue that the activities do not impose an unreasonable burden, but I don’t think it valid to argue that the activity should be permitted regardless of what burden it might impose on others or on society.

"There are many laws and regulations that prohibit people from doing things which expose them to personal danger."

There should be none. Laws and regulations should only be in place when an individual's actions put others in danger, infringe on their personal rights, etc...

No seat belt laws.
No helmet laws.
No smoking bans on private property.
No prohibition (alcohol or any other drug).
No law against suicide.
No law against prostitution.

"Some seem to argue, as you seem to, that any law which prohibits a person from doing something dangerous to himself is unconstitutional (unless, I presume, the something also imposes an unreasonable burden on others). As I have said, I don't think that is a valid argument."

Why? Because of the potential cost to others?

Letting society dictate the actions of an individual (when those actions don't impact another individual) is wrong; whether you are doing it because of your own moral judgments or, you are doing it because those actions might force some cost onto society.

"As best as I can tell, helmet and seat belt laws have been upheld on the basis that the activities they prohibit do impose a sufficient burden on others or society, primarily on the survivors and the heath and police system, to justify their prohibition."

Poor diets, lack of exercise, smoking, and excessive drinking place a far larger burden on society than people not wearing seatbelts or helmets.

If that burden is your justification for infringing on the freedoms of others, you should get to work on those I just mentioned.

Mike: "Letting society dictate the actions of an individual (when those actions don't impact another individual) is wrong;"

There is no point in arguing with you if you think that a person getting killed in a car wreck doesn't impact anyone else.

As far as me getting to work goes, you are the one doing the bitching. You better get high behind if you expect to get all those laws repealed in your lifetime.

"There is no point in arguing with you if you think that a person getting killed in a car wreck doesn't impact anyone else."

What does that mean? The family members and friends of someone who dies in a car accident (and MIGHT have survived if he was wearing a seatbelt) will be upset, so we should pass a law requiring all persons to wear seatbelts? Is that really what you meant?

If that is what you meant, then you are right, there is no point in arguing because you are an absolute moron.

Mike, I agree! I am getting very tired of people telling me HOW to live. So many of the rest of you seem so unconcerned with the loss of personal choice in so many areas. What is worse we now have a justice system that promotes the power of government over the power of the people top make a choice about ones life.

I don't want them telling me to have or not to have a child.

Prohibition of drugs has never worked. And in the case of pot , how can you control something with the commerce claus if no legal commerce exists? Justice O'Connor was right about this. If you can do that with pot you can do it with tomatoes.

I cannot think of anything we do in life that is more personal then dying. How and when I do it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

The rest of you can turn your RIGHTS over to the government if you wish. I choose to live free in the world! If you don't like that TOUGH! And if I just offended you, GOOD! You need to wake up get your own life and stay out of mine!

POST A COMMENT

• Smoking ban becoming ludicrous
• Bush has lied and violated his oath
• Saved from disaster, thanks to Bush
• Limited abilities in ‘Rosen’s world’
• Two memorials
• Puritanical lawmakers
• High cost of textbooks
• Congress should impeach Bush & Cheney