Give me...lieberty?

“Government should not tell you what to do unless there’s a compelling public purpose.”

~Michael Bloomberg.

(HT: Allahpundit at Hot Air)

The irony is he's arguing that those who oppose same-sex marriage to have to recognize it. So in expanding rights for one group, he's encroaching on the liberty of another.  And as Allahpundit points out,

I wonder if he recognizes the tension between that statement and his own previous attempts at micromanaging city residents’ health but doesn’t care, or if this is another case of Bloomy groovin’ on righteousness to the point where it blinds him to key facts. Remember the time he went on Stewart’s show to lecture opponents of the Ground Zero mosque about freedom of religion, and claimed he couldn’t understand why Americans would be more interested in where a mosque’s financing is coming from than, say, a synagogue’s? Any FBI agent in America could have explained that to him in 30 seconds, but then why should we expect any deep knowledge of counterterrorism from, er, the mayor of New York City?

Liberty is a fundamental idea that goes well beyond the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, as great as those documents were. Liberty is a fundamental human right, endowed upon us by God. Even if you don't believe in God, you can still agree with fundamental human right part of that point. But Democrats believe the lie they tell. The lie is that some freedom is more valuable than other freedoms. Bloomberg, a faux Republican proves it in that insipid quote.

Life is a playground - a sandbox. Government is the playground monitor or referee. They have a responsibility to ensure that no one cheats or harms and all abide by fair play. They do not have a responsibility to tell those in the sandbox how to play (i.e. what to do). Banning pop in schools, while based on a notion of healthy living is not the government's job. It's the parents' job. Or in college, the kids' job. A referee doesn't pick winners and losers. Soda for example, is apparently chosen to lose.

"Compelling reason"? There is nothing compelling about soda.  And liberty is bigger than soda. When you pre-pick winners and loser you stifle the playing of the game. There is no incentive to take risk. There is no innovation. Even the chosen winners don't have to try hard - they get support no matter what. Losers are even less motivated. If you want a vibrant economy, let business take risks and suffer the consequences or enjoy the success of their risk-taking. In turn, if you want to let them take risks you need less telling and more neutral refereeing. Give them liberty at all levels - individual and business, don't tamp them down. You are killing the nation by doing so.