-
6 weeks 1 day ago
-
6 weeks 5 days ago
-
8 weeks 1 day ago
-
8 weeks 1 day ago
Political Posts |
You may have heard about the latest and greatest threat to our national security: Hopeless romantics seizing an opportunity for one last goodbye kiss. What's truly mind-boggling about this story isn't that this man ducked under a security rope to run after and envelop his girlfriend one more time before she left - it's the nature of those reporting on the story. The Consumerist refers to the man as a dumbass, blaming him for disrupting the flights of over 10,000 Newark passengers and leading to airline delays and general cock-ups worldwide: The man who went through security the wrong way, disrupting airline traffic at Newark and thus nationwide, was neither a terrorist nor a dumbass, as we had speculated last week. He was a romantic fool who wanted a kiss from his girlfriend. Okay, maybe that falls under "dumbass." What's especially disheartening - but not at all surprising - is that these sideshow commentators (a group to which I obviously belong) point at the 28 year old man as being the reason for this disruption. I'm sorry, but all he did was duck under a security rope to kiss his girlfriend. It was the Transportation Security Administration who decided that this horrifying lapse of lemming-line security was sufficient to justify bringing worldwide commerce to a screeching halt. Others bemoan what's perceived as a lack of severity in his potential punishment - defiant trespass - pinning the responsibility of "setting off a terror alert that shuts down a large terminal for six hours, disrupting hundreds of flights, [stranding] thousands of people, and, in the end, costing taxpayers and airlines a million or two" directly on this man. To top it all off, there are reports of potential new legislation dealing with this very "mishap." The only debates being seriously considered by the mainsteam media in this case are those examining whether a lack of proper screening or security contributed to the breach. Let's scrap that entire worthless discussion and place the blame squarely where it belongs: On overzealous, power-hungry bureaucrats whose only joy in life is to brutally and mercilessly exercise their power over us mere "mundanes." All they need is an excuse, and despite the obvious non-danger of this incident, the mainstream media and its followers are chomping at the bit to justify the lengths to which the government will go to make an example out of this man. Not only did the guy get away with it right under the noses of the inept and worthless members of the TSA, the Port Authority actually had to put out a request for help amongst the general populace (meaning someone snitched on this guy). Thousands upon thousands of tax dollars were then wasted to spectacularly arrest and take him away. I feel so much safer. "Never say 'bomb' in the airport. Security is no joke." "Maybe not to you. I think it's absolutely hilarious." |
|||
Ludwig von Mises once observed: No socialist author ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power — whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government — could act in a way of which he himself disapproves. It's simply staggering to observe the number of individuals in the world who support giving the state ever more increasing powers over - well, anything. The naivete of those who prop up government is astounding. Can anyone honestly, truly tell me that empowering the ruling elite beyond its current levels wouldn't result in more hardships? I can hear the answers now: "Well, the government is corrupt, and we have to fix the corruption," or "If there wasn't so much bickering, then giving the government more power wouldn't result in hardships," or "In a perfect world..." Well, let me just stop you there. This isn't a perfect world, and Lord Acton's immortal phrase rings as true today as it did when he first wrote it. Give men power over others and it will be abused. To further empower the government for some "righteous cause," whether that be to provide healthcare to all Americans, to print and control the money supply, to wage undeclared wars on brown-skinned foreigners, or to decide who can and who cannot be married - you are simply setting up a government that will, more likely than not, use these powers to perform acts with which you disagree. |
|||