Posted by J.M. on July 29, 1999 at 05:15:27:
In Reply to: Beware the pitfalls of overzealous paranoia... posted by Brad Wayne on July 26, 1999 at 20:40:39:
Mr Wayne,
You bring up a number of interesting points in your statement and I am wondering if I might clarify some that still seem shrouded in mystery to me. Why is distrust of the machinery of government “fervently ignorant” in this case? This statement seems to be begging the very question that we grappling with here. Is it fervently ignorant to mistrust the mechanisms of government when that government rules with totalitarian methods? “Well” you say, “our government does not rule by totalitarian means.” But it does. What would happen if you didn’t pay your taxes? Do you think your friend, the government, would allow you to get away with it? Do you think that violence would not soon come to your doorstep? What is the difference between the violence that hangs over all of us American “citizens” and the violence committed by the armed thug who comes to your house and robs you? When you say that history teaches us to beware of those “who spew dogmatic mantras of fear and mistrust” who exactly are your talking about and what mantras were they spewing? Perhaps you are talking about the framers of the Declaration of Independence who “spewed” about the totalitarian atrocities of King George and the British Empire? History can be a two-edged sword for those who wish to use it. Totalitarianism is only a hop, skip, and a jump away for our government, as it becomes the biggest, non-producing industry in the world. What happens to democracy when 30, 40 or 50 percent of the voters are on the government payroll? Do you think you have democracy then? For support, I will also turn to history and point to your examples of communist regimes such as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. These are case studies where history has proven what happens when government is massive, inclusive and parasitic.
I gather from your statements that you feel the proper role of the “state” in this case is advertising? You mention that the Michigan citizen living in Wyoming and/or the person in Monroe who is unaware of the shipwreck resources in Thunder Bay should somehow be informed. Is that what Government is for, advertising? Who is paying? No one pays for advertising the products I sell but myself. But maybe it’s okay to FORCE the taxpayers to shell out the money so the Federal Government can ADVERTISE the National Marine Sanctuary to the uninformed in Wyoming? I’m glad you are an NRA member; because if enough people swallow the pill of statism like you have, guns may be the only thing that stands between freedom and a future of miserable slavery to the will of the state. If you think that is a wild statement think about how much time you have already “worked” for the state. If your neighbor came to your house with a gun and made you work in his fields by threatening you and your family with violence you would feel wronged and yet you feel good when the Federal Government does it? That’s slavery.
The real issue is one of choice. If a person chooses to use these resources for his or her enjoyment then they should have the unencumbered freedom to do so. There is no ownership or “fiefdom” to be protected here; currently, as Mr. Trotter has pointed out, everyone has equal access to the wrecks in Michigan and state law is adequate to cover the protection of these wrecks. NOAA supporters would have us believe that things would not change much but that is exactly what was said of the Marine Sanctuary proposal in the Florida Keys almost 10 years ago. Since then there have been countless fishermen forced out of their livelihoods as well as more and more restriction and control placed on those that use the area for their enjoyment.
You say there is no rational reason to not support the sanctuary and I say there is every reason to oppose it and anything like it of its kind.
Respectfully
J.M.
: As someone who has absolutely no stake in the Thunder Bay issue, I find the amount of fervently ignorant distrust of the sanctuary and NOAA to be highly suspicious. History teaches us to beware of individuals who spew dogmatic mantras of fear and mistrust - this is how the Communists exerted their influence over those with weak minds and wills. All this zeal against what is essentially an underwater National Forest suggests in the strongest manner that the opposition views this area as its own fiefdom to use as it wishes. I seriously doubt that those who cite this situation as an example of governmental expansionism truly have the "state's" best interests at heart. Rejection of the sanctuary benefits only a select few who are enjoying the privileges of the status quo. I fail to see how a Michigan citizen living in Wyoming or Monroe benefits from this shared state resource if they are unaware that it exists. I find it highly amusing that Mr. Trotter cites the Alpena referendum as evidence against the sanctuary. First, the lakes and the bottomlands do not belong to the city of Alpena, rather they belong to the state and all of its citizens. Second, the percentage is only of the voter turnout - 70% of say 50% of the electorate is far from a majority. Minority rule is a typical hallmark of liberalism. I believe the National Marine Sanctuary would provide greater access and awareness for Michigan's citizens of this shared resource. There is no rational reason to oppose the sanctuary unless one fears it may interfere with current activities that profit at the expense of the citizens of the state of Michigan.
: Brad Wayne
: I'm an NRA member and I VOTE.