The proverbial slippery slope, like any major fall, is not painful in and of itself. The pain does not generally occur until the inevitable conclusion once the bottom is hit. There are three points of consternation I will reference at the end of this article, but let us first take a look at the “crazy conclusions” I drew from past events.
In a very literal example of this theory, when I was a young child, I took my sled out one beautiful winter day. All of the crops had long been harvested out of the valley, though the berry bushes remained in place down by the runoff that ran through that particular valley. The slopes however, were ideal for sledding and I intended to take full advantage of an entire day off to make as many runs as I could down that beautiful slippery slope. At first, it was both satisfying and exhilarating as I had my way with that hill and valley which in my young mind, challenged any of the best ski slopes in the world.
Eventually however, I would come to break the steering on my sled, losing control. Despite the best of intentions for deftly maneuvering my sled through the breaks in the berry bushes, I lost control. This ultimately led me to run my sled directly through a frozen berry patch … replete with cold, hardened, frozen thorns.
Suffice it to say that despite my earlier intentions, the end result was substantially less than pleasant. No matter how well-intended my venture on to the slippery slope may have begun, once things got out of control, there was nothing to do but hang on for the ride and hope it would not hurt too bad … or for too long, once I hit the bottom … though there was no predicting just how bad it would end up being … and it got bad.
When I was still a relatively young man, smoking suddenly became an issue of concern for a great many people. At first the efforts were merely to ban smoking in enclosed spaces. Buses and airplanes were the most common examples given to the general public. As I sat in the neighborhood bar listening to people applaud this effort, I thought to enlighten them. I was deemed to be “crazy” when I pointed out that the only logical conclusion to such government intervention, would be the banning of smoking in private business establishments such as the very bar we were sitting in, and one day, even in private homes. Lo and behold and here we are today, government telling us when and where we can and cannot engage in lawful activities.
(Yes, I am aware of the issues of second hand smoke, all based on a UN report from 1974 or 1976 if I remember correctly, that could not find any direct correlation between second hand smoke and disease … and which has since been entirely scrubbed from the UN Library)
Fast forward to today and there are literally places (such as Temecula, California) where you can receive a ticket with no fine for smoking an illegal substance (marijuana … and you may note I only said illegal and not unlawful) but you can be arrested for smoking a legal substance. Such is the arbitrary nature of human government and governance however … and why the slippery slope in itself, no matter how appealing it may seem at first, is so dangerous when it hits rock bottom … or even a thorny bottom for that matter.
In the mid seventies, there was a push by the Supreme Court to avoid having to hear every issue that was brought before them. It was deemed that there were just far too many cases being presented in front of the Supreme Court for them to be able to hear each and every one. Nobody bothered to question the arbitrary nature of government abuses that led to such a backlog, but rather, the government, in its infinite wisdom, deemed that the SCOTUS would only hear such cases as it deemed fit to hear.
Again, I was called crazy and then, even a “Conspiracy Theorist” for correctly pointing out that this would allow them to avoid controversial cases, and even to more openly and blatantly engage in partisanship that would ultimately lead to them having even more power to legislate from the bench.
“But that would never happen in America!” If only I had a dollar saved for each time I heard that I would never have to worry about finances for the rest of my life.
Again, going back to the late seventies and moving on into the early eighties, CCTV became popular and saw the installation of the first traffic lights. Once again, a lot of people thought I was crazy. Why? Because I predicted that these would soon be used for more than just observing traffic and would record the movements of people all over the place.
I further extrapolated, judging only based on my personal experience with humanity and human nature, that these would soon be “monetized” and used to issue traffic tickets and other violations … ultimately leading to them being utilized as a means of revenue generation.
I further postulated that this would likely result in an increase in traffic accidents and ultimately, traffic fatalities due to the desire of people to beat the lights and the cameras. Not only have all these scenarios come to pass, but the inclusion of facial recognition software and other privacy violations … though the government says we have absolutely no right to any privacy in public locations … and benevolent and dear leaders as they are, we should unquestioningly heed the comments and opinions of our dear leaders … we are rapidly moving into a truly Orwellian state that will inevitably end poorly.
SIDENOTE: One of the technologies I have personally witnessed in projects I have worked on, is a CCTV system that also has the ability to fully scan people, facial recognition, and detecting even trace amounts of drugs, knives, firearms and even chemical residual indicating that a person may have recently been in contact with certain types of chemicals or explosives.
I bring this up because I see a great many unnerving trends wherein people are actively petitioning the government to further limit and even restrict our rights … at least to the extents that we have rights left, and not just privileges which we contract out from the “representatives” who tend to laud over us more than represent anything other than their own personal interests. Three of these stand out in particular because of the direction they are taking and I will address these here.
The first troubling trend I see is an unprecedented attack on our Second Amendment Rights. The government of California has recently indicated that demanding technology that is not yet available, be utilized in virtually all of the firearms within the state. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit apparently does not see this demand that can never be met under current limitations of production, as being in any way a violation of the “rights” of the flesh and blood humans living within the state.
Further, some people are demanding that government further restrict our rights by classifying what types of arms we may or may not own … even though other similar firearms fire the same rounds that do the same damage.
In short, we have people demanding a government that, with single digit approval ratings for the legislative branch, is apparently NOT a government that many people trust, use Government Law Enforcement Agents with guns to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms … and this from the same people who are actively protesting … these very same police officers for their actions against unarmed civilians.
The circular logic to draw such conclusions does, admittedly baffle and trouble me, but … why do we need people with guns to enforce the law and to stop criminals, when a great many law abiding citizens are already armed and capable of being held to account if they abuse this right. After all, isn’t the vast majority of the complaints against the police for shooting unarmed civilians?
If a Civilian were to put sixty-three rounds into the back of a vehicle that was not even the same type of vehicle that the suspect that they were pursuing was driving, and seriously injured two elderly ladies in the process, would the citizen not be held to account? The police were not.
If a civilian shot a sleeping man sixteen times during a warrantless search, would the citizen not be held to account? The police were not … but these are the only people we want to trust with firearms?
We do not trust the individual who can be held to account, but we trust the people we do not trust and protest against … huh? Truly there is a “WTF!!!” moment or ten in that set of kind of ill “logic”.
There is currently a movement of some sort … insert your bowel joke of choice here … sweeping through Universities across the nation. Some universities have moved to ban free speech on campus, or limit Free Speech to restrictive and limited zones. “Safe Zones” are demanded for students, often times including coloring books, milk and cookies, pictures of kittens and puppies, and other asinine requests.
Are these not adults? I understand that the American indoctrinational institutions … I mean educational institutions have failed these students and society as a whole, as evidenced by the number of university students requiring remedial classes even after being admitted to the Universities … but seriously.
Furthermore, these “movements” have demanded segregation based on race, class or other distinctions. There is a perverse and sickening reaction to seeing people whose parents and grandparents marched, bled and were often beaten to gain the rights of desegregation … equal rights within society, actively demanding that those rights be rescinded.
If allowed to continue unabated, these “movements” cannot end up anything other than miserably and will ultimately prove to be overly detrimental to the very people they profess to be “protecting” from the “real world”.
Finally, there seems to be a general belief among the Judges of the Supreme Court that something may be in complete contradistinction to the Constitution, yet still somehow or another be seen as wholly constitutional. This flies in the face of all of the founding documents I have ever seen, save perhaps those conclusions of Jefferson who foresaw such actions and demanded more than just the ability to remove these Judges from the bench … which I do not personally recall ever happening if I am not mistaken.
Civil Forfeiture Laws (as opposed to Criminal Forfeiture laws allowing for confiscation of private property used in the commission of a crime or purchased from the proceeds of criminal activities) … The Civil Forfeiture Laws completely disregard any fourth amendment rights regarding unlawful searches and seizures.
Furthermore, when fighting these cases, it is the responsibility of the person whose property has been unlawfully stolen from the citizen, to PROVE that they were NOT in the commission of a criminal activity … often costing more than the original amount that was stolen by … I mean “forfeited” to the government to begin with.
In 2014, Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws allowed the government to steal more from the American People than the criminal element of society was able to steal. Boca Raton in Florida, was prohibited from utilizing Federal Forfeiture laws back in the nineties, not because they stole too much personal property from the American people, but because they did not share enough of their ill-gotten gains with the feds.
The Lautenberg Act was passed as a two paragraph rider in 1996 and does away with any pretense of Due Process under the law, to grant people “Instant Felon Status” sans Judge, jury or executioner … so to speak.
The NDAA passed under Bush and further expanded under Obama (that would be part of the whole “Right Jackboot”/“Left Jackboot” delusion … I mean illusion … that I am constantly referring to) thoroughly dismisses any pretense of individual rights or freedoms based on the opinion of some official somewhere that what you are doing may have some impact on National Defense … No, Proof need not apply, as it is apparently irrelevant in matters of law anymore … neither in Canada nor in the USA.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has fully admitted to seeking “guidance” in SCOTUS decisions from International Law, most notably in matters where she disapproves of the rendering a basic reading of the Constitution would supply.
By its very nature, anything that is in contradistinction to the Constitution is nothing but Unconstitutional in nature … and to state anything otherwise … or even to lay claim to anything else, is more than just foolish, it is at best, blatantly deceptive, and at worst, delusional.
A one hundred mile area within any border of the United States of America has now been declared to be a “Constitutional Free Zone” … meaning that anyone who lives within those areas has no legal expectation of God-given (Or merely as endowed by our Creator if you prefer) and Constitutionally guaranteed rights … and a complete disregard for the Constitution has been ruled to be “wholly constitutional”!
None of this can end well, even for someone who does not see the downside of everything. As I once noted elsewhere, the problem with being a cynic is not being wrong as that will inevitably result in a positive or pleasant surprise. The problem with being a cynic is being correct so often.