By Selwyn Duke

So, the health Nazi Arnold Schwarzenegger just signed a bill making it illegal to smoke in your car if a "child" under 18 is present.  I must say, I genuinely dislike Schwarzenegger and his smug statism; I don’t cotton to people who are intellectually and ideologically vacuous but fancy themselves true statesmen.  But let’s talk about California’s latest measure, enacted against the backdrop of tolerance for all manner and form of extreme perversion (which I won’t name; I’ll just whistle and look at the Folsom Street Fair).

It simply isn’t the role of government to micromanage people’s lives with respect to health standards.  Yet, some actually think that such laws are a good idea.  In fact, some
leftist politician on Long Island in my state, New York, proposed a similar
law several years ago, inspiring a debate on the matter between me and a man who was taken with the bill.  His is not a fringe opinion, and it’s disheartening that so many Americans have no idea what this country was founded upon, what freedom implies, or what constitutes tyranny and what the prerequisites for forestalling it are.

So, you think that such a law is a good idea because "children need to be protected" from irresponsible, stupid parents, OK.  Well, I suppose then that we ought to also prohibit a parent from feeding his children a diet too high in saturated fat; after all, that would be far more deleterious than intermittent exposure to some second-hand smoke.  While we’re at it, we need to regulate how much sugar and salt parents can feed their kids as well.  Then, don’t forget exercise; we’ve heard much lately about how American children are taking on the proportions of Jabba the Hut, and parents should ensure that little Johnny doesn’t become Johnny squared. 

Really, though, if disallowing exposure to second-hand smoke is indicative of the level of risk we’re willing to tolerate with respect to children, shouldn’t we then outlaw anything that involves a greater level of risk?  It makes sense.  And while this list isn’t even close to exhaustive, this would mean no riding ATVs, scuba diving, or rock climbing.  Moreover, as for prohibiting smoking in cars when children are present, why are we allowing children in cars in the first place?  Doesn’t the gubmint know how dangerous riding in automobiles is?  Or maybe children should be in a protective cage akin to that with which  race cars are equipped.

Let’s face it, smoking is a target because tobacco just isn’t cool anymore (except in every Hollywood movie; while liberals are forever trying to demonize tobacco and guns, they can’t showcase them enough in the cultural effluent they disgorge).  Smoking tobacco is a despised, dirty, politically incorrect habit, unlike sodomy, which seems to be in favor both in and out of movies.  The principle is this: If liberals don’t like it, it should be outlawed.  Hey, I don’t like liberalism. 

The problem with "good ideaism," which is the belief that everything that is a good idea should be legislated, is that most things don’t lie within the legitimate purview of government.  Moreover, as Barry Goldwater said, "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you’ve got."  We empower government to play Big Brother at our own peril.

As for smoking, why don’t we just cut to the chase and outlaw it now?  I mean, that’s where this is heading, and I find incrementalism tiresome.  The city of Belmont, Ca., already banned smoking in some homes, so what are we waiting for?  To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton: We’re supposed to change society to conform to the vision; instead, we’re always changing the vision.  If our vision is a Utopia in which the nanny state controls our lives from cradle to grave, we should establish such a situation now so that those alive today may enjoy being safe, secure, healthy, controlled marionettes.  Why allow even one more person to be hurt or killed when an all-encompassing government could prevent it?  C’ mon, leftists, where are the bold visionaries amongst your number? 

This is one reason why I respect avowed communists or avowed Nazis more than today’s liberals.  The first two groups are more honest and straightforward about their goals, and there is a bit less pretense about how they’re tyrannizing me because they care so much about me.  If you want to enslave me, enslave me.  But, please, don’t insult my intelligence with phony compassion.   The sanctimony is bad for my mental health.