The legal system has many flaws – the chief one being many of the laws, themselves, which are more accurately described as arbitrary rules one is required to obey, just because. But at least the legal system is founded on the idea that a conviction must precede punishment – and that punishment does not follow upon mere accusation.
Perhaps someone will explain why the same reasonable standard doesn’t apply when it comes to government regulations?
After all, millions of individuals are punished by each new regulation, without any kind of due process. Regulations impose costs (the equivalent of fines) and reduce choices – both of which impinge upon freedom just the same as any court-ordered loss of freedom.
Violating some regulations can entail criminal penalties, too.
Yet there is no requirement that proof of necessity precede the promulgation and enforcement of the regulation. Nothing more is required than the we-say-so of the bureaucrats within the regulatory apparat, in whose interest it is to assert the need for more regulations, ad infinitum.
It is, as the saying goes, what they do.
Without new regulations – and enforcement of the ones already posited – there would be less and perhaps even nothing for them to do. And that would make it harder to justify what they do.
We’d be a lot less resentful if the regulators were obliged to do the same as any court before taking away any person’s money, choices or freedom, viz – establish that the assertion levied against the accused is true.
Laws are often ridiculous – even tyrannical, if you believe it is vicious to punish people merely for not obeying a law, irrespective of any harm they haven’t caused. But at least people aren’t punished before the assertion they have disobeyed the law is established as fact by a sufficiency of evidence.
Imagine the boon to our wallets – and choices – if the same standard held for regulations.
Consider this business of carbon dioxide “emissions” – in air-fingers quotes to emphasize the perversion of definitions, as in the case of “vaccines” that are no longer defined as conferring immunity upon those who take them. Carbon dioxide was redefined as an “emission” by the regulatory apparat. This was done deliberately, so as to conflate this inert, trace gas with the reactive gasses that cause air pollution, smog and so on – thus causing people to believe it as necessary to regulate the former as if they were much the same as the latter.
Which, by the way, it no longer is, as regards the latter – as the emissions of reactive gasses are so slight today that further regulation of those emissions is akin to insisting that the sky must be absolutely, perfectly blue all the time, no matter the cost – and irrespective of any harm.
Of course, there is the assertion that “emissions” of the inert gas – carbon dioxide – must be regulated else there will be catastrophic “climate change,” a compound Megillah that packages multiple assertions together. It is first asserted the “climate” is “changing” – a nebulous ominousness clearly designed to frighten rather than enlighten. The “change” is then asserted to be “catastrophic.”
Demonstrate that the “climate” is in fact “changing” – in a catastrophic way. And that the “changes,” if actually happening, are happening because of our driving cars that “emit” carbon dioxide. It ought not be sufficient – given the costs imposed by the regulations – that mere assertions (some of them based on nothing more than computer models) be all that the regulatory apparat is obliged to adduce before saddling us with them.
The danger of accepting being so saddled ought to be incandescently apparent by now. Millions of people were forced out of work, tens of thousands of businesses ruined, over assertions made about a “virus” that proved be about 99.8-something percent less lethal than asserted. The health apparat continued to regulate – “masks” and “vaccines” – long after the facts established that assertions regarding both were almost entirely wrong.
But assertions about the “climate changing” – catastrophically – on account of our driving cars (including electric cars, which also “emit” the inert gas – or cause it to be “emitted”) and heating our homes and refrigerating our food have the potential to end our freedom to drive cars and make it increasingly unaffordable to heat our homes and refrigerate our food.
We “emit”the inert gas with every exhalation. If these exhalations are, in fact, causing the “climate” to “change” – catastrophically – then it will become necessary to regulate us, too.
Perhaps via “vaccines” that don’t immunize – but which are quite effective at causing us to breath less or even not at all.
That may be a bit much. But it’s not too much to ask – to insist on – that all regulations be founded on facts rather than assertions and that the facts justify the costs imposed. If not, we’ve agreed to be deprived of our money, our choices – our liberty – based on nothing more than because-we-said-so.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)