Gone With The Gold
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I
heard on the TV that the recently concluded Olympic Games cost two billion
dollars. Two billion dollars? Maybe the report was wrong.
Maybe not. I don't know for sure how much the Games cost, but I do
know for sure that it was a lot and that it was misspent.
Imagine,
if you will, all of the things that could have been done with so much money.
Think of the toxic waste dumps that could have been cleaned. Think
of what Habitat for Humanity could have built. Think of the Enron
employees that could have been reimbursed. Consider the college scholarships
that might have been granted. Think of the land mines and unexploded
bombs that could have been removed in Afghanistan, the AIDS facilities
that could have been built in sub-Saharan Africa, the flood damage that
could have been repaired in Ethiopia. They could have rebuilt the
pharmaceuticals plant in Khartoum. Watch the TV any day, and you
will see situations on which the money could have been better spent.
Instead, we spent it on a bread-and-circuses boondoggle that served only
to distract people from the important issues, provide the government with
yet another excuse to exercise it's growing police-state powers, leave
behind another collection of unnecessary venues, and fatten the wallets
of people who probably already hire someone to carry their wallets.
You
want Olympic Games? Fine. We can have Olympic Games, without
the waste. All we need to do is build one or two permanent Olympic
facilities, and have the Games in the same place each year. They
don't move the UN after each session do they? Permanent Olympic facilities
could
be designed from scratch to provide all the advantages (permanent, trained
workforce, "security", etc.) and avoid all of the disadvantages.
What could be more logical?
Weapon of Choice
Sam Aurelius Milam III
For
a long time now, concerns for children have provided an excuse for people
with an agenda to increase the power of government. Does somebody
want restrictions on what can be published?1
Define "child pornography" and publishers no longer have a right to publish.
They must be careful that what they're publishing doesn't violate the restriction.
They have permission to publish whatever isn't prohibited.
Does somebody want to regulate hiring practices? Define "child labor"
and people no longer have a right to hire workers. They have permission
to hire as permitted by regulations. Does somebody want to regulate
who can buy a product? Impose an age limit on its use and customers
no longer have a right to buy it. They must always be ready to demonstrate
that they're qualified customers. They're permitted to buy
as the authorities allow. The list seems endless, and it's all for
the "good of the children".
Even
though age limitations are entirely arbitrary, they might at least
seem
to avoid restricting adults, and impose restrictions only on children.
However, they don't operate that way at all. The purchase of alcohol
or tobacco is a good example. The reformers have enacted ID requirements
as a prerequisite to such purchases, allegedly to prevent sales to children.
Who has to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco? Right. Adults
do.
I'm
tired of having children used as an excuse for the never-ending erosion
of my liberty. I'm no longer willing to trade my liberty for the
"good of the children". If the reformers can't find ways to protect
children without stripping us of our liberty, then I say "don't protect
the children". The liberty of the people is far more important than
the well-being of the children.
|
|
Remember, any restriction at all converts the right into a privilege. |
| frontiersman@ida.net | Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
March 2002
Page 1
|
