Freedom is a Dangerous Thing....by Gerald Frendt

At Monday night's meeting, the city council discussed several proposals made by Councilman Mark Byrne that would reverse city imposed restrictions currently in the form of ordinances passed by previous councils.  The "Nanny State" mentality of those councils is hard to undo.  The intentions of those that would save us from ourselves, smother us like the unwanted hugs of a spinster aunt.  They worry that if we ride a bike without a helmet, we could hurt our head .... if we have a bonfire in the backyard, it could get out of control or the smoke might bother the neighbors, ....if we allow people to drink alcohol in public, we are encouraging all evils associated with alcohol and providing bad examples for our children,...and they're right - all those things might happen - freedom is dangerous.  What were our founding fathers thinking?  

There's also the "Police State" mentality at work.  If we outlaw these practices and then allow the policeman to exercise good judgment and look the other way when no harm is being done, it allows the policeman the option of imposing authorized force whenever he so judges.  The problem with this kind of "benevolent dictator" form of government is that it makes government by men instead of government by law.  It makes people cynical about government, and is contrary to the founding principles of our nation.  The friend of a policeman could get a wink and a warning, the enemy of a policeman could get the book.  It says that freedom flows from the government, rather than from the natural rights of men.

The council struggled with how to undo these restrictions.  Probably much more time has been spent giving back freedom, than was used to take it away in the first place.  I was a little disappointed in the presentation of those in favor of restoring freedom.  They shielded criticism by saying their purpose was to increase tourism, by making Port Huron a fun place to visit.  The "fun governors" may be right, but I would rather they shed their timid argument in favor of stating the obvious - THIS IS AMERICA!  People are free to do what they want, without government permission, and with full responsibility for the consequences of their actions.  Who is Thomas Paine?  

Councilman Relken offered that he could see no good coming out of this.  Councilman McCulloch seemed to agree.  SO WHAT! People do not have to please your sensibilities... that's the thing about freedom - some people will do things that we would never consider doing, or do things that have no socially redeemable value - they do them because it makes them happy - and as long as they are willing to accept responsibility, that's good enough.

Mayor Moeller offered evidence of a recent tragedy for his opposition.  Someone driving drunk on Thanksgiving Day was the cause of a fatal accident. His opposition was not to to alcohol in public areas, but to alcohol in general.  But why not cars in general?  People will have hunting accidents - should we ban hunting? People will have boating accidents - no boating?  I am not trivializing the recent accident - I hope the drunk driver is held accountable for his irresponsible action.  The mayor would like to give officers the encouragement to look the other way when they see no harm and to have the legal power to enforce the law when they see fit.  For reasons stated above, this is dangerous ground and is contrary to our Constitution.

Finally, I commend the council for the civil debate.  It was obvious that differences of opinion were being respected.  No one engaged in personal attack, and everyone's opinion was encouraged.  This method of discourse will serve them well when the difficult task of the budget is tackled.  I encourage the council to continue the debate on this web site and will publish unedited any of their opinions, in a format similar to the pre-election forum.