Government's power

Is it more dangerous to do something stupid or is it more dangerous to have a government which restricts your right to do that stupid thing? I believe the second is far more dangerous.

I have listed in many blog entries where government involvement in our lives based on good intentions has led to dire consequences. Government is primarily responsible for unemployment amongst individuals, especially young people, the housing meltdown and current economic turmoil, and even the Great Depression. It is responsible for so much more but I digress. Because of these historical facts, the latter is far more dangerous in my humble opinion.

I believe it to be stupid to not buckle your seat belt while driving a car. I believe almost all studies show that the chances of someone surviving a wreck with their seat belt on is is far greater than it not being on. But as a libertarian I also defend to the utmost the right for stupid people to choose not to wear their seat belts while driving their own cars. Its their body and lives.

Drive a motorcycle on the highway without a helmet? That is more stupid than not buckling up. But it is even more ridiculous and stupid for the government to force an individual to wear a helmet to protect his/her own head and health. What power delegated from the constitution gives the government that kind of power?

I believe smoking is harmful to a person's health. but to charge an excess "sin" tax on cigarettes and alcohol is more harmful because it adds to the growing power of government. The government has no right to infringe upon my desire to put tobacco in my own body. The government does not own my body. This is also why I support the legalization of Marijuana.

Government has gone even further. They do not allow restaurants that are owned by individuals to allow people to smoke in those establishments. This is insane in that the owner of his/her own business should have the right to allow any activity as long as it does not harm other individuals private property by force. In other words if I am allowed to choose not to eat at the establishment because the owner allows smoking, they should be allowed to go elsewhere and the owner should be allowed to function as he/she pleases.

The government also wants to restrict the amount of Salt (Sodium) restaurants put in their food. The fact that the government has to control our diets is now becoming a huge issue. I should be able to eat where and what I want without the government restricting my right to do so. If a store wants to add salt to their food to make it taste better, I have the right to go elsewhere if I believe it to be harmful. That is what the market is for.

Many of you who are my "conservative" friends might argue that these laws "protect" individuals and are not truly that harmful. But that is exactly the problem. These simple measures lead to more harmful measures. An economist I read made the perfect example: It can start out simple: Less sodium in our foods bought from businesses. Then parents who like turkey with more sodium will buy more sodium. As with cigarettes, salt containers will have to have warning signs put on them. Then if that does not work there will be a "Sin" tax put on the purchase of salt. Then parents who want to adopt children will have to pass a health screenings that does blood work to make sure you do not use too much salt and break the law. On and on we go until one day we say "how did we get here?

What if a vegetarian gets elected and says no more meat to be served in grocery stores or restaurants? What then my conservative friends? They will argue that it is harmful to your body as well as these animals. Should government have the power to restrict that?

Stupidity is a choice and should be allowed. Not allowing that choice it is the height of stupidity! Not to mention unconstitutional