You know the government has gotten too big when little (local) government is making your day to day decisions for you. Just a few years ago, Austinites got to chose whether or not they smoked in bars, and weather or not they ate at restaurants that had smoking sections. We used to decide things on our own, now I suppose we can't be trusted by Big Brother to make daily choices. No one was ever forced to smoke, heck no one was ever forced to be near smokers or second hand smoke. Businesses were never required to cater to cancer cravers by providing smoking sections and ash trays. Some businesses chose to allow smoking and others chose not to; customers chose to go to smoking establishments or avoid them. Pretty simple, and it makes sense. But now days we don't get to choose, the choice has been made, made by Austinites - the voters, the non-smokers. Sure some nut-case City Council members are somewhat responsible for the ban, sure there was a million dollar anti-smoking campaign push, but the bottom line is the people of Austin voted - and the people got what they wanted. And that is why I am fully in favor of this unbelievably foolish ban.
Horrible for the economy and small business owners? Certainly. Does it improve the health of the citizens? Absolutely not. Does it mean voters voted away their own freedom? You got it.
But smokers still smoke, and non-smokers feel like they accomplished something. As for me, I don't smoke and I live in Wells Branch, where we don't vote away our freedom. I'm just pleased that the city of Austin let the voters decide instead of imposing this ban on the citizens. Thats the way it should be. Less people smoke than don't smoke. Let the majority decide.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Critique of Gunny's post "Are we really Exceptional?"
A comment I made on this post:
I can certainly appreciate "Gunny's" respect for the law. I also agree that Rick Perry is an excellent choice for president. I do not however, agree with his position on water conservation.
Again I do respect the law and so long as it is not unconstitutional or oppressive I think it should be both obeyed and enforced. Clearly that is not happening in Round Rock and probably many other places. It seems to me that if Round Rock is unable to or (in this case) unwilling to enforce a rule, it should be a suggestion instead of a law. Should they choose to make water conservation laws (as they have), they so certainly enforce them like the do other laws.
I frequently witness petty crimes and violations. Reckless driving erks me the way unlawful watering bothers Gunny. Many laws are ignored each day, I can only presume that these offenses go unnoticed or unpunished because our Law Enforcement Officers have more important things to tend to. I suspect that this is at least part of the issue. If this is in fact the case, I can understand water violation being at the low end of the priorities list.
I disagree with Gunny commending the city for its "proactive" laws. It is my opinion that we will know when the water is running out when our water bills increase. I would stop watering my lawn if it were a burden to my monthly water bill. Capitalism takes care of most any problem if it is allowed to run its course.
I do not approve of Round Rock's and Gunny's position that people should not be able to choose how best to use the water that they pay for. The city is the one selling it for crying out loud! How would you like it if other vendors sold you goods and then told you how you could or couldn't use them. If my utility district has a problem with me using my water as I see fit, they should chose not to sell it to me. As for the comment "it's grass people, who cares!", certain homeowners care. They have the right to care about their investment, they also have the right to let the grass die if they want to. But no one with a dead lawn (or otherwise) can tell me not to water with in my legal limits.
As far as the original poster getting told to mind his own business for reporting violation, that is absurd. If they decide to make a law they should respond to such reports accordingly. Or better yet they should take their own advice by minding their own business and eliminating the law.
Gunny's post was both informative and well written. He made his views clearly and concisely. He made it interesting by inserting a story about how he personally witnessed the violations and reacted. Lastly, he summarized his point in a well laid out conclusion.
I can certainly appreciate "Gunny's" respect for the law. I also agree that Rick Perry is an excellent choice for president. I do not however, agree with his position on water conservation.
Again I do respect the law and so long as it is not unconstitutional or oppressive I think it should be both obeyed and enforced. Clearly that is not happening in Round Rock and probably many other places. It seems to me that if Round Rock is unable to or (in this case) unwilling to enforce a rule, it should be a suggestion instead of a law. Should they choose to make water conservation laws (as they have), they so certainly enforce them like the do other laws.
I frequently witness petty crimes and violations. Reckless driving erks me the way unlawful watering bothers Gunny. Many laws are ignored each day, I can only presume that these offenses go unnoticed or unpunished because our Law Enforcement Officers have more important things to tend to. I suspect that this is at least part of the issue. If this is in fact the case, I can understand water violation being at the low end of the priorities list.
I disagree with Gunny commending the city for its "proactive" laws. It is my opinion that we will know when the water is running out when our water bills increase. I would stop watering my lawn if it were a burden to my monthly water bill. Capitalism takes care of most any problem if it is allowed to run its course.
I do not approve of Round Rock's and Gunny's position that people should not be able to choose how best to use the water that they pay for. The city is the one selling it for crying out loud! How would you like it if other vendors sold you goods and then told you how you could or couldn't use them. If my utility district has a problem with me using my water as I see fit, they should chose not to sell it to me. As for the comment "it's grass people, who cares!", certain homeowners care. They have the right to care about their investment, they also have the right to let the grass die if they want to. But no one with a dead lawn (or otherwise) can tell me not to water with in my legal limits.
As far as the original poster getting told to mind his own business for reporting violation, that is absurd. If they decide to make a law they should respond to such reports accordingly. Or better yet they should take their own advice by minding their own business and eliminating the law.
Gunny's post was both informative and well written. He made his views clearly and concisely. He made it interesting by inserting a story about how he personally witnessed the violations and reacted. Lastly, he summarized his point in a well laid out conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)