creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
3 Feb 2010
Big Government's Cronies

Many window-making companies struggle because of the recession's effect on home building. But one little … Read More.

27 Jan 2010
A Blow for Free Speech

From the commentary in the mainstream media, I thought there had been a coup d'etat in Washington. The New … Read More.

20 Jan 2010
Who Needs Energy Independence?

When you gas up your car, do you think that you're doing something evil? After all, I'm told that burning … Read More.

Anything That's Peaceful

This week the Left arrived in Washington, excited about the wonderful things it will do to us — I mean, for us. They always do it for us.

Liberals say that they, unlike those reactionaries who've held power for too long, want to give us more choices. Abortion-rights advocates (http://tinyurl.com/94zwwh and http://tinyurl.com/584bvk) want women to have the "right to choose." Gay-rights advocates want the choice of marrying someone of the same sex and serving in the military.

Choice is good. As a libertarian, I'm all over choice. But strangely, today, liberals are mostly about what Americans should not be allowed to choose.

AFL-CIO boss John Sweeney says, "[O]ur top priority is passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that will restore workers' freedom to bargain for a better life" (http://tinyurl.com/83f48q).

That sounds nice. But it really means that workers will no longer have the privacy and safety of a secret ballot when voting on a union. If a union can round up signatures from more than half the employees at a plant, other workers will be forced to unionize, too.

Unorganized labor — better known as most of us, or free people making our own way — won't be helped by this coercive limiting of choice.

Parents have little choice when they send their children to school. Government forces everyone to pay into a system that locks most kids into a unionized monopoly.

If low-income parents were allowed $11,000 vouchers (that's about how much government spends per student), that would give poor parents a choice. But liberals don't want that.

If you take risks with your own money to build a business, liberals want to limit your choice as to what you can say, how much you pay, and whom you can hire or fire. Freedom of association? Fugeddabout it. You cannot choose to offer newcomers on-the-job training at less than $7.25 per hour. You can't choose to pay older people or pregnant women less because their medical costs may be higher. So newcomers, older people and pregnant women can't choose those jobs. Liberals don't want to liberalize that.

In a job interview, you better not ask about age, citizenship status, disability, or whether the person goes by "Mr." "Mrs." "Miss" or "Ms." Those questions are forbidden (http://tinyurl.com/9jpf4w).

Liberal litigators have essentially outlawed racial and sexual comments in schools and workplaces.

A cashier at the Senate coffee shop was threatened with firing for addressing customers as "honey" and "baby" because one man complained it was "sexual harassment." (http://tinyurl.com/9m25cu).

Liberal senators like Dick Durbin (http://tinyurl.com/285nlf), John Kerry (http://tinyurl.com/8fnx8a) and Charles Schumer (http://tinyurl.com/6zzk5w) want speech limited further by the "fairness doctrine." Fairness here means depriving people of the choice of all-conservative radio.

And what's more liberal than voluntary exchange between consenting adults? Free trade lets everyone in the world find the best buys, no matter where they are. It gives us more things for less money. Even Paul Krugman supports free trade. But liberals don't want to allow buyers and sellers to make their own choices. Liberals want trade curtailed.

Even life-saving trade: 95,000 Americans are waiting for organ transplants. Thousands die while waiting (http://tinyurl.com/8o6uq2). Legalizing the sale of organs would give people the choice of life, while allowing sellers to choose cash over an extra kidney.

But liberals don't want to let willing buyers and sellers have that choice.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decides what you may put in your own body. A truly liberal FDA would acknowledge that adults own their bodies and can decide for themselves what risks are appropriate. That would give consumers more choice. But liberals want the FDA to be tougher.

Liberals don't want you to have the choice of owning a handgun, a big car or keeping your own money so you can use it as you see fit. Liberals want to restrict our choices.

I'm a classical liberal. I believe people should have the freedom to do anything that is peaceful (http://tinyurl.com/7ykjje). That's truly liberal.

I want the word back.

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment

Re: Eric L: John Stossel is a voice of reason and common sense railing against the nanny-state regulators and lawmakers who think they know what's best for everyone else and want to micromanage every aspect of our lives. Were your comments intended to be ironic? If so, the irony is lost on me.

Comment: #1
Posted by: Scot Penslar
Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:06 PM

After reading John Stossel's column which was titled in my local newspaper as "Liberals invade Washington, bent on cutting choice on schools, guns and even speech" I was struck by Stossel's absurd sense of personal entitlement. A self professed libertarian, Stossel seems to think that a any group activity that limits personal freedoms is a violation of his rights. Stossel then goes on to rip the public school system, unions, lawyers and the FDA. Maybe he's right let's disassemble the whole works, hand out school vouchers, especially to low-income families because, I know they will spend the money wisely, assuring their children have opportunities to rise out of poverty. The FDA? Who needs it? Lets let every person be their own judge of food and drug standards. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was an overblown piece of sensationalist literature anyway. Let's also can workplace restrictions on behavior, we don't need those. If someone has a problem at work they can exercise their 2nd amendment rights and handle it themselves. Lets get rid of the unions too, they never served a purpose anyway. I have faith that when we get rid of the unions that all the corporations will do what is ethical and fair. Just look at their history. Yes sir, libertarianism has its privileges. I can serve my ideals without regard to the effects. Isn't that what freedom is all about?

Comment: #2
Posted by: Eric L
Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:17 PM

liberals have valid reasons for the stances they take. ive had enough of the deregulation agenda john. govt plays a role in protecting its citizens from corporations who would pollute the air and water, pay wages below minimum wage if they could, remove overtime pay, curtail your rights to sue when wronged, sell food that is unedible, etc. vouchers are unwelcome because they would eventually drain resources from the public school system which would affect the poor and even the middle class badly in the long run. republican policies have caused the mess we are facing despite attempts from the right to place the blame on social programs and the poor. regulations were put in place following the great depression to insure it never were to happen again, but greed got the best of business and corrupt politicians and they methodically stripped us of such regulations until we find ourselves in the position we are in now. free trade has decimated much of the country and benefited a select few. other countries enact policies to protect its economy and so should we. we cannot compete worldwide when other nations pay their workers $2 an hour and dont follow safety guidelines. unless, that is, we pay our workers a sub standard wage and disregard safety regulations. big business would have no problem following that road but that is unacceptable. trade policy must benefit both sides.nafta is a bad agreement we need a govt that serves the middle class and not just big business interests. the past 30 yrs since reagan have been a windfall for business at the expense of the people. its time for a change. republican policies havent worked for the average citizen, just for his boss.

Comment: #3
Posted by: ehutch
Sun Feb 1, 2009 1:15 PM

RE: ehutch First, learn to use the shift key on your keyboard. You are obviously a victim of our nation's public school monopoly, which has lead to a severe "dumbing down" of the population. The public schools wouldn't necessarily expererience a drain. If they can compete then they would receive voucher money. Second, grab an economics textbook to learn how free trade benefits just about everyone, not just a select few. You would not have the standard of living that you enjoy without [relatively] free trade. Bad economic policy is not just a Republican idea; Democrats share the idiocy as well. Read Walter E. Williams' excellent article entitled "Socialism is Evil". Third, you might want to reaquaint yourself with a document called the U.S. Constitution. The government it envisions favors the rights of individuals and the several states over the federal government. Our chief problem is that we have lived with the tyranny of the federal government for so long, we don't know any different. To complete your [re-]education consider Plato's "The Cave" and Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

Comment: #4
Posted by: John Morrison
Thu Feb 5, 2009 1:46 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:
Creators.com comments policy
More
John Stossel
Feb. `10
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 9 Feb 2010
William Murchison
William MurchisonUpdated 9 Feb 2010
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 9 Feb 2010

18 Apr 2007 Springtime for Taxes

9 Apr 2008 Bullies

16 Apr 2008 Market Magic