The idea that the state has the right and the responsibility to eliminate any and all actions, habits, and things considered ‘hazardous’ to one’s health or safety is the dream of those seeking to regulate the lives of others with the intent of ensuring the conformity necessary to frame the world to their liking, comfort, and benefit. They are eager to point out the sugar of social engineering while hiding the decay of liberty that usually results. Their tool is usually the point of a government bayonet. They like it. It feeds their Inner Fascist.

This is partially analogous to the farmer who, seeking a healthy herd, ensures that only a certain feed combination is used, the animals are kept securely behind fencing, the runts are culled (killed), mating is restricted to those matches that will encourage the traits deemed beneficial, and all get sent to market when they are of a certain age/weight thus avoiding the onset of age related decline and decreased value. This is an uber-efficient strategy, but who is going to be the “farmer” who decides who is to be culled, fed what, or caged when?;-)

Or if you prefer an all-human analogy, it is like a plantation master guarding the productivity of his human property by determining what his slaves can do, what they are to be fed, which ones will be allowed to mate, and how many resources will be expended on the sick or the aged. Again, a very efficient strategy of asset management, however who is going to be the master?

In today’s hi-tech world, a political collectivist strategy would envision genetic exams used to determine whether a ‘citizen’ should be sterilized because of genes that might pass ‘criminal’ tendencies onto their kids, or a genetic tendency to pass a disease or deformity onto offspring, pregnancies would require testing of the unborn child and if it showed any anomaly that would incur a cost to ‘society’ the pregnancy would be terminated, and pre-hiring genetic exams would be used to determine if the productivity of the prospective employee would
outweigh her potential health related costs.

Any activity that is shown to increase the possibility, however slight, of contracting a costly disease or injury would be eliminated. As we see time and again, it would not matter if there is or is not proof as long as the item/activity is currently in political collectivist disfavor. Smoking would of course be criminalized, as well as ingestion of salt, sugar, meat, milk, beer, wine, white flour, pastries, in short everything other than a few grains, nuts, and an occasional vegetable/fruit (“occasional” because only the professional class serving the powerful could afford the few Gaia-friendly, ‘sustainable’, ‘organic’ vegetables and fruits that would still be available after the bugs, mice, and other PETA protected critters had their fill). Other activities that would be criminalized would be the ownership and operation of private vehicles, travel in general, gun use and ownership, hunting and fishing, boating (at least motorized), skiing, biking without full-body armor, swimming in anything other than a life-guard controlled pool, ad infinitum.

Of course, the political collectivist’s goal of a healthy human herd of productive low-cost and socially obedient ‘citizens’ would be and is supported by corporate world — a low cost ‘citizen’ can be, after all, a low cost employee — all within the hagfish model of hollowed-out ‘rights’, ‘freedom’, and ‘justice’ relative to Aristotle’s concept of “form”.

Comments are closed.