The Silly Season, as the Brits call the political campaigns, seems to last the entire year. I sometimes wonder how humanity gets through the day. I have a bit of libertarian in me in that we don’t need government at all levels that is intrusive. We have so many laws on the books that no one actually knows if they are breaking one or more of those laws every minute of the day. We have so much regulation that is insane, contradictory, and exceptionally stupid. And our legal system encourages excesses beyond belief.
I do not oppose abortion per se. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the individual for the government to intrude disruptively between a patient and her doctor. If a woman wants an abortion and she can find a doctor willing to perform that procedure then that matter is between those two. Well, what happens if the man that impregnated wants to have the fetus born? What about his rights? And should he have rights? If he is liable for the support of the child if born then shouldn’t he have some say in the termination of that life? Well, I can see his point but I can also see that forcing a woman to bear that child is an act of slavery. As for religious institutions, I don’t see that it is their business to dictate to a any woman what is right and what is wrong. If a woman is a member of that particular church then her adherence to doctrine is her decision and not that of any pastor, minister, bishop, or other religious authority. I view religious authority as having authority only over the spiritual life of its adherents.
On the other hand I do not believe that government on any level should pay for a woman’s abortion or birth control. If you want to take the pill, you pay for it or get your boyfriend or husband to do it. It is not the job of the taxpayer to pay your medical bills. If you aren’t paying for my warfarin then why should I pay for your birth control pill? And if you aren’t paying for my vasectomy then why should I pay for your abortion? And why should my tax dollars go for birth control for under age children? Why do we demand that because it is for the children it should be a free ride? I am willing to acknowledge religion in public schools but I am not willing that the public school should teach it. That is the role of those religious institutions and not the public school system. Similarly we need to teach what sex and birth control is but not how to do it. Take you child to the doctor for proper birth control instruction. Nor it is the job of public school systems to give inoculations against certain types of sexually transmitted diseases and cancers.
There are many problems that government attempts to provide overly broad answers. The thinking is that The Public should do Something because it is the progressive thing to do. One is banning lunches made at Home and brought to school by children. Why is it necessary that we should force children to eat according to the food pyramid and make their parents buy a school made lunch? Well, our children are getting fat and need healthier diets. Our children are getting fat because they are not getting enough exercise. Sitting at home after school playing video games makes then fat. Eating junk food makes them fat. Getting too little exercise during school recesses makes them fat. Did you ever watch children at recess. Most of them are standing around in groups looking bored. I’ve heard some teachers yelling at young children not to get dirty because it is disgusting. Children can’t play softball on school playgrounds because they might get hurt. What we do as a group of people through our governments to keep our children healthy and safe is a crime. We let our children dress in a provocative and claim we are just letting them have self expression. Then we wonder why the teenage rates of sexual acts is so high.
I may be a bit old fashioned but our society needs quite a bit more in the way of moral standards. I don’t see why those who work for not for profit medical organizations should, by virtue of the monopoly they have on health care should be paid some of the most extravagant wages for what was once charity work. Yes, Bankers, Corporate CEOs and others are as equally extravagant in their pay and I would put that as a crime against humanity as well as against their stockholders but those groups don’t have a monopoly per se in their industries. And god knows there are other not for profit organizations that are not health care providers where the outrage of high wage at the top seems to be the norm. If you are running a charity you should not be making top dollar. And if your charity has grown excessive large it should be broken up into smaller groups. A charity should be local, not national or global, and it should reflect the needs of its immediate community. The whole idea of a charity was that for those individuals who had the time, the money, and the experience lend a hand to those in need. A charity is about giving and not taking.
Well, the world needs a great deal of reform. There is pain, suffering, and stupidity everywhere. But easing those conditions cannot be done by fiat. We need to go back to the idea of moral suasion where rather than abetting the Anything Goes ideal we see in our society we take umbrage at such acts and thinking. We need to stop supporting groups, individuals, and organizations that lack a sense of public decency, public humanity.