Government: Let Me Save You From Your Personal Freedoms

Here we go again.  In yet another misguided effort to "...reduce everyday gun violence..." Washington state voters have instituted a ban of semi-automatic "assault rifles" to anyone under the age of 21.  Where should we start with this one?

Should we start by pointing out that an "assault rifle" is a made up phrase by politicians to scare people into voting a certain way?  Or perhaps we should start with the suggestion that these these weapons - which are "...generally thought to be more lethal" (they are not) - have the same rate of fire as your typical semi-automatic hunting rifle or pistol?  Or maybe we should talk about the glaring fact that simply passing a law does little to stop behavior (i.e. it's already illegal to kill people).

But let's get to the real goal, which is the outright ban of evil, black, assault rifles. We can easily see this coming with a few words from the bill's sponsor, when he says it is a "... step in the right direction" (read: more to come).

I get it: something is bad for us and we need to pass laws to restrict it. Sounds like a good approach, right? After all, who could be against banning something that's bad? So let us, for a moment, indulge this fantasy of banning bad things from our world. Surely there will be nothing but upside!

According to the CDC, “...more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined” (443,000 annually).  Given these horrifying statistics, shouldn't Congress should propose a ban on cigarettes? Using the same logic that is used on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, it is clear that such chemicals "...are not necessary." At the very least, can’t we agree that a restriction in the length of “high capacity” cigarettes is in order?

Similarly, according to the Governor's Highway Safety Association, “...in 2010, 10,530 people died in crashes that were linked to speeding.”  Given that the top speed limits in most states are 70 mph, why is there no proposed ban on cars that can exceed 70 mph? Shouldn’t we be proposing the immediate elimination of new vehicles that can exceed this limit?  Surely we can agree that a Corvette, (with a top speed of 190 mph), “...is not necessary” for daily commuting or recreational driving!  Perhaps a ban on these high speed vehicles can be expanded to all law-abiding owners of vehicles that have the potential to exceed these limits?  We could ensure compliance by requiring our citizens to install governors (no pun intended) on their cars that must be registered and inspected annually.  Think of the lives that could be saved!

Or perhaps Congress would like to restrict the intake of our sugar which, according the journal of Nature, can contribute to as many as 35 million deaths worldwide each year!  Next we could restrict our intake of coffee. It is apparent to me that no one really needs a $4 soy mocha latte with Madagascar cinnamon when a simple cup of Joe is enough!

I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already. "Oh don't be ridiculous! The government would never ban or restrict items unless their only purpose was to kill or destroy." Sure - tell that to the people of New York.

The obvious argument here is not whether or not such excesses of cars, cigarettes, sugar or guns are necessary.  We can probably all agree that they are, in fact, not needed  at all.  The point, however, is that when we start allowing our government bodies to restrict our lives through legislation based on what they (or their constituents) believe is needed for us, we erode the liberties of all through the good intentions of protecting a few.  

But who needs personal freedom anyways?

Oh Most Wise Government! Please Protect Us From FAANG!

In a recent opinion piece, Juan Williams is outraged that Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google (FAANG) have become too powerful and they seemingly have no regard for the privacy of their customers.  He argues that they seek to profit off selling their customers' private information while maliciously manipulating the outcome of the - wait for it - the 2016 election.

Predictably, the answer is, of course, more government regulation. After all, what can one person do against the tyranny of FAANG?  The government must protect us from our own decisions these titans of industry as they seek to exploit our privacy and control our minds!  Unbeknownst to us all, FAANG lulls us into the thinking our data is our own and our privacy is completely within our control as we blithely skip the 144 page legal agreement and click on "I Agree."

Juan argues that the free market has failed to curb these actions and our very democracy is at stake should congress not act. What else can be done but to make laws to protect people from their own uninformed decisions?  Surely we can no longer afford to sit idly by and hope that our citizens become self-enlightened!

Perhaps we need these companies to subsidize legal counsel for every new subscriber?  An on-demand lawyer paid for by Mr. Zuckerberg can pop up on the screen and walk us through the legalese before we click "I agree."

Perhaps every ad on Facebook can be like a political ad which has the tag line "I am Vladimir Putin and I approved this message."

Or perhaps there is another way.

Perhaps we should take take responsibility for the contracts to which we agree.  If we are concerned with what could happen, perhaps we should actually read the terms and understand what we are agreeing to rather than blindly hoping for the best and keeping a personal injury attorney waiting in the wings.

Perhaps we should let the market decide when a business makes a bad decision.  As Juan correctly noted, Mark Zuckerberg lost $15 billion as a result of these recent mistakes.  Even for Zuckerberg, that had to hurt.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, we should exercise some free-will by opting out of a service when we are unsure of what we are getting.  Had we put our instant gratification aside and not signed onto thousands of adjustable rate mortgages in the run-up to the 2008 financial recession, we would not have had a financial collapse.

When we allow our government to coddle us with laws in an effort to protect us from our own decisions, we become weak and reliant.  We point the fingers at others rather than looking inward to ourselves.  We make decisions we otherwise wouldn't make because there is little risk of failure.  And with each law that is passed, we cede a bit more freedom to the government in the hopes that we are protected from our own stupidity. 

Or perhaps, that is what we want after all.