If everything affects everything, government needs to control everything. by Rimfrel
Monday, August 24, 2009
Chaos theory is a physics topic concerned with the difference in effects of what seem trivial differences in initial conditions. The popular catch-phrase is "butterfly effect", which encapsulates the idea that, for example, a butterfly may flap its wings in Indonesia and somewhere down the line, a tornado is spawned in Texas. It theorizes that everything that happens affects everything that happens afterwards. Kind of like the commerce clause in the Constitution.
Let's say you decide to grow your own tomatoes. Now you aren't buying tomatoes grown by a farmer in another state, so he doesn't make as much money and doesn't owe as much in taxes. If lots of people grow their own tomatoes, the tomato farmer might not be able to sell his crop at all, so the government has to regulate the growing of tomatoes. (Or wheat: [link edited for length]) There is also some current legislation (HR 2749) that seeks to track where a given serving of food (or its ingredients) come from, to protect public health. I haven't read the bill. Examples of government control of food are common. But government does not stop its interest in control with food.
Let's say you decide to try an extreme sport and you hurt yourself, so you need health care. Well, actually using health care instead of just paying the insurance premiums results in potentially higher costs for you. If a lot of people start to actually use their insurance, then the insurance premiums go up. Maybe some people don't try extreme sports, but they are "weekend warriors" who get sprains and strains, or maybe they overeat and put too much stress on their joints and internal organs. Maybe they travel to foreign countries and become ill after they return. Maybe they just get old.
Chaos theory is applied (not by name) to grab control of everything in the interest of keeping things affordable. The government overlooks or ignores the irony of this being the alleged motivation for an organization famous for buying $400 hammers and building modern airports that only 20 people a day use. The argument is that this or that action, which used to be a personal decision tolerated by society because everybody wanted the tacit societal authorization to make some personal decisions of their own, should now be regulated by the government for the "good" of society, to keep insurance premiums affordable and health care costs low.
When the government talks of taxing soda and other "unhealthy" food choices, you may not care because you are an odd woman in Oregon who quit eating unhealthy food a year ago and now plans to wander around totally naked, with the permission of the police department who can find no law to use to stop her ("Naked Truth", [link edited for length]).
When the government decides that, since most medical costs are incurred in the last year of life, this is a good area in which to cut costs by encouraging people to consider alternatives (e.g. hospice or palliative care instead of extreme medical intervention), you may not care because you are young, healthy, eat only organic food and live in the country where that carcinogenic smog can't get to you.
When the government decides that the pregnancies of women should be terminated whenever the women want, you may not care because you are not a woman, not pregnant, and you are safely out of the womb by twenty-one years or more. Maybe you will care if these abortions are paid for using taxpayer dollars, but maybe you'll feel better about it when you consider the carbon footprint avoided for another human beings You might even wonder why they aren't all terminated. After all, we have plenty of people and not enough jobs.
But why should the government stop there? Why not tell you how to exercise, how much, and when? What to eat, how much, when? What to spend, how much, and when? After all, the government (well, GM) is on track to build cars that no one is clamoring for, and there are lots of other cars not selling because people are worried about the economy. It would be much simpler if the government could just mandate that you buy a new car every five years. Consumers lack confidence? Pass a law to get them to buy stuff anyway. After all, the cars are made in another state, so failure to buy one would violate the commerce clause.
Where would it end? Not where the Founders thought when they put the commerce clause into the Constitution. Their goal for the Constitution was to limit what the government could do to the people, but 220 years of lawyers and other liberals have separated us from the original intent to the point that one day we will wake up, take a water-saving shower and use the low-flush toilet, put on our eco-friendly organic cotton coveralls, eat our government-mandated guaranteed-healthy kibble, and sit down at the computer to telecommute to our jobs (sparing the government the cost of maintaining road and bridge infrastructure and inhibiting the spread of disease). We will have no one to talk to because free speech websites will have been shut down (too many people experienced raised blood pressure) and we will live alone (avoiding disease and population increases). We won't have guns because they give off toxic fumes when used, not to mention the lead poisoning for the victim. (That's a joke.) The 2nd Amendment will be construed to apply to "arms" in general, e.g. mace and pepper spray. With the use of the commerce clause to justify universal health care legislation, and then to control everything else, there will be no powers covered by the 10th Amendment.
And if someone discovers that our kibble is people, there will be no one within earshot to hear him say so (movie reference: Soylent Green). Besides, the dead will have legally been declared non-human, like fetuses, so it's just recycled chemicals, okay? Sheesh.
O, Brave New World, that has such features in it....
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Rimfrel only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Rimfrel is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
There is no missing comma. Government has a role in the case of terminating a pregnancy, which is to determine if the development or birth of the child endangers the mother's life. If not, then the pregnancy should be carried to term. If the mother does not want the child, she can give it up for adoption. The baby has a full complement of human DNA. If it isn't human, what is it? Not a dog, not a rock, not an oak tree. If it were already born, terminating it would be clearly illegal (and unnecessary, as it could be given to Child Protective Services). Abortion on demand for non-life-or-death reasons is a form of age discrimination. Paying for abortions with tax dollars is government intervention in the life of the baby. Part of the rational justification for having government and subjugating our individual will to society is the expectation that government will step in and help us when we are in danger.
I don't think government should make moral decisions necessarily, but it should enforce the laws that have been passed.
No matter what the government will always have control over what you do. You may not notice it, but every single organization, company, and service is run by the government in one way or another. You can't even do anything without the government's approval. Even if you are on the computer all day everyday, the government will find a way to observe and calculate your every steps. Everything in a country is owned and operated by that government. In fact, that's exactly what they want you to do. Since, technology is the future and everything is becoming more technologically advance, the government makes students learn computer skills in public schools and have students become even more familiarized with computers. This way, the future of our children will grow a dependency for mechanical things such as computers, cell phones, televisions, and other such things. They regulate the way citizens think and feel through t.v., music, and other things. Since this is happening, no one will ever suspect the chaos in the future. Only depending on it.