Prohibition laws and agency regulations


Depending on the longevity of one’s experience, the history of government’s inhumanity to man grows deeper. A person, who has lived through four score and seven years ago, may very well be similar to an individual hearing the Gettysburg Address at the time when Abraham Lincoln originally spoke those words. Eight-seven years is a long time, witnessing the Great Depression, World War II and every succeeding administration, which transformed the country from a Republic, into an Empire. Reflecting on the dramatic departure that took off under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the course of the federal government has intensified in size and escalated in scope of intrusion.

Most people hardly give a second thought to this transition. Younger generations have lived their entire lives under the social welfare state. Understanding, much less experiencing, individual freedom is foreign to their way of life. Public rebellion and anti-social conduct has been a phrase of passage for many eras. However, most folks eventually grow up to the extent that they comprehend that life is not a beach and there is a high price paid to become a responsible American.

The sorry fact is that there are a diminishing number of conscientious and dependable neighbors, who act as solid citizens. Blaming the ills of society on elected officials alone ignores the systematic living organism that grows, when the political culture adopts authoritarian principles as the normal method of administration.

Labels put aside, all subjects of a national regime live under laws that establish prohibitions as a matter of course. When using the term Prohibition, the normal association is that of outlawing alcohol. Even cohorts of Carrie Nation have to admit that banning booze for moral reasons does not match the motive for repeal, because of the loss in tax revenue. Yet, Eliot Ness agents developed an untouchable culture of regulation, when lifting the ban became politically expedient.

What is a law? A simple definition is “The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.” For a more scholarly and legalize viewpoint, Black’s Law Dictionary is often the standard. However, the popular notion that a law is enforceable by some entity called “government” is an assumption based upon intimation and compliance.

By this interpretation, free will can be dangerous to your well being and safety, since some artificial body of professed authority deems that transgressions risk punishment. Therefore, it sounds like laws are prohibitive by nature. Notwithstanding, can a law be a positive enactment, for surely government authorities want to conquer the high moral ground, even when it has a foundation of quick sand.

The Ten Commandments identify only “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy and Honour thy father and thy mother” as positive didactics, while the other eight are “Thou Shalt Not” directives. It certainly seems to be an incontrovertible prerequisite that prohibition on behavior and demeanor occupies the realm of moral conduct. Conversely, the supposition that government operates on a moral plane is a deadly assumption, even under the best of circumstances.

Prohibition features become mandates that make up the meaning in most laws. For a definitive reason explaining, why laws seldom make any social circumstance or condition any better, just look to the coercive nature of legal demands. Criticism of proscriptive attitudes likes to blame intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded and parochial outlooks. Quite to the contrary, the progressive, socialist, collectivist and government advocates are the persona of authoritarians.

A reactionary is frequently demeaned as “a person or a set of views opposing political or social liberalization or reform.” Tear off the layers of deceit in such allegations of disparity and compare the actual beliefs and values of an ultraconservative.

The unbroken chain of autocratic government during this eighty-seven year time era is the unequivocal proof that liberalization or reform has never existed. Liberalization needs a definition as a protector of individual liberty, not an endorsement of expanding government regulations. Reform means changing a system that is going in the wrong direction. Indubitably, the pattern for all these decades is bigger government and more policies that are progressive in lip service.

Written by: SARTRE of BREAKING ALL THE RULES where you can read this complete article.

Leave a Reply