Why Is the State in Our Bedrooms and Living Rooms as Well as Our Bank Accounts?

Soure: OfTwoMinds blog, by Charles Hugh-Smith

There’s a word to describe a state with unlimited power over the private lives, spaces, choices, behaviors, communications and accounts of its citizens: totalitarian.
A limited government is concerned with proscribing the exploitation of citizens by elites and criminals. A Totalitarian State seeks control of everything–including what goes on in the bedrooms, living rooms and minds of its citizens.
A recent conversation with my longtime friend G.F.B. clarified a key distinction between the public and private spheres.
G.F.B.’s example of the state exerting control over its citizens’ private choices and behaviors in their own homes was the Prohibition of alcohol which was the federal law of the land in the U.S. from 1920 to 1933.
Though alcohol consumption in the home was not banned outright at the federal level, the net result of banning the manufacture and distribution of alcohol was the criminalization of everyday citizens’ attempts to purchase alcohol for their home consumption.
A limited government’s purview is actions taken in public that could harm other citizens. Drunken drivers, for example, end up killing innocent citizens. Limiting the “freedom” to drive drunk is a state action that is limited to the public sphere: if a citizen chooses to get drunk in the privacy of his own home, that’s different from driving on public streets while drunk.
In the good old days of the early Republic, the government was focused on matters of sovereignty and defense, not what citizens were doing in their own homes or communicating in private letters. Enforcement of federal laws was largely limited to collecting tariffs and other revenues and adjudicating property disputes.
Central states have long had an interest in control and adjudicating property disputes.ling every aspect of their citizens’ private lives, beliefs and choices.What separated these total-control  autocracies and totalitarian states from governments “of the people, by the people, for the people” was the sacrosanct civil liberties that protected the privacy and private choices of the citizens from state control.
The unholy alliance of “progressive” do-gooders and let-me-tell-you-how-to-live religious zealots delivered Prohibition, and a host of other “we want control of your bedroom and living room” regulations. This moral superiority was of course the height of hubris and hypocrisy, as the zealots and “progressives” were just as sinful, petty and venal as any “unenlightened” non-believer.
The separation of church and state was dissolved by the moral crusades in which the “morally superior” wielded the brute power of the state to punish anyone who didn’t live according to the demands of the “morally superior.”
Look, if a private citizen wants to shoot up smack in the privacy of his own home, and perhaps end his life in an overdose, that should be his right. Who authorized the state to intercede in private choices and behaviors?
The state may limit the “freedom” to inject others with smack, or promote the injection of smack publicly, but it has no right to impose its view of “rightness” on the choices made in the bedrooms and living rooms of private citizens.

Read More Here: oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith: Why Is the State in Our Bedrooms and Living Rooms as Well as Our Bank Accounts?



Categories: Big Brother, Collectivism - For the Greater Good, of course

Tags: , , ,

%d bloggers like this: