Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Bureau of “Public Safety Law” Injury Prevention to the Rescue

“Public safety” as pushed by the legislature is to prevent some type of injury to the public and individuals.  Thousands of laws are passed supposedly to improve public safety.  Another aspect has occurred to me, we might benefit more by a Bureau of “Public Safety Law” Injury Prevention.

Perhaps we could discuss the great harm caused through financial and mental distress that occurred to some of our local business people by the OSHA in the last year or so.  While no injury occurred to persons or property from supposed dangers to persons or property by violating some OSHA regulations, an injury nevertheless occurred to the local businesses and owners.  In one case I am familiar with, a window was being repaired by a worker elevated on a forklift with no safety restraint, no surrounding safety guards or bars, and further there was no safety meeting with a supervisor to plan the repair of this little pane of glass.

Of course there was no discussion about the financial injury caused by the insistence of having a safety meeting with supervisor and machine operator and worker in a two person company.  All of which would have turned a $75 dollar job into a $250 plus job.  All of this would cause an additional injury to the customer by having to pay the added expense.  Perhaps if the true cost was known in advance the customer would have elected to do the job himself costing the glazier the injury of lost business and the community the injury of a loss of the economic activity.  Perhaps the nonprofessional customer would have been more susceptible to physical injury due to his lack of expertise in glazing repair.

Or what about the physical harm caused to a public who is prevented from providing their own personal protection by carrying a weapon of their choice.  Somehow government deems it too expensive to provide personal police protection for all the individuals as they go about their daily activities, but then turn around a say that you cannot protect yourself unless, for example, you use a nail file, or try to vomit on an offender (advice to women being raped from the ISP website at one time) among other ignorant suggestions.  You cannot have a cop with you all the time, yet the public will be injured by being arrested and charged by police and the prosecutor if we carry a truly equalizing weapon.

I am sure that the stories are endless of the injuries caused by so called government safety programs.  While I think the intent is good, what happens is that the bureaucracy loses common sense in its mindless attention to the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.  You cannot expect a bureaucrat charged with enforcement to ignore the letter.  His job depends on finding issues that justify his paycheck and his pension.  How many businesses leave a little flaw somewhere, like a dirty sink, just so the inspector will have something to write up.  Yep, it happens.

Our Founders instituted a method to solve issues of negligent behavior, that is called a justice system.  The Good Book makes it clear that the one who is responsible for the injury covers the cost (Exodus 21).  If there is a repeat negligent injury the penalty goes up substantially.  We have recourse to settle for an injury to our person or property by another person.  If the government injures via its Public Safety Agencies, just try and collect against an agency with an unlimited budget for legal fees.  Now you’re talking serious injury.  For that injury we need the new Bureau of “Public Safety Law” Injury Prevention.  Just in case a legislator is reading this please don’t take the suggestion of this new bureau seriously.  One more bureau really won’t help.  I am just trying to make a point.

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at:

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Is Public Saftey Important?

I enjoy getting comments on my writing.  Two people called for clarification on my letter last week; they followed the theme, “Is any public safety important?”  My comments could have been taken to mean no attention to public safety is necessary.  That isn’t what I meant.  So let’s take this apart a little more.

What did the Pilgrims move to America for?  Was it for: better streets, better neighborhoods, safer environment, better working condition laws, improved sewer system, better police protection, etc?   No, they moved to no streets, an unsafe neighborhood, maybe environmentally safer if you don’t count wild Indians and wild animals, worse working conditions, no sewer system, no police protection.  So what did the Pilgrims value above public safety?  The answer is Liberty.

They moved to a distinctly risky environment, with no public (governmental) amenities or services.  They moved from an area of increased public safety and tyranny, but minimal Liberty, to an area of substantially greater risk for something we call Liberty.  The Pilgrims cherished Liberty above all of the previously stated government ‘services.’ 

Our Founders did not fight a war for independence for the purpose of gaining increased public safety; they fought a bloody war for increased Liberty.  What we find as we delegate more and more importance to a host of bureaus to increase public safety and security is that each one removes one more piece of Liberty.  So where does it end?

This week in the news we find a school in Florida is contemplating putting in cameras to see if students throw away their veggies in the school lunch program.  At what point will the powers that be decide to penalize adults if they eat too much of the wrong food, like say pizza, and not enough broccoli?  With the advent of Obamacare the government now has a vested interest in seeing what you eat, how much you eat and whether or not we are in full compliance with the recommended daily hygiene list. 

Thomas Jefferson said it best, “that government governs best that governs least.”  So what government services are absolutely essential?  Do I want to do without peace officers?  Well no, not really.  What about OSHA?  All I can say is Liberty has an element of risk.  Do I need government inspections to see if my business is clean enough for its intended purpose?  No, the public will determine that.  The People will vote with their dollars by taking them elsewhere, if my business doesn’t suit them.  If your eating establishment is filthy, don’t count on me eating there. 

A few weeks ago my son was badly injured in a horse accident.  He was transported to the hospital for emergency treatment and examination.  His pain was so great that morphine was administered for the pain.  However inadvertently the amount of morphine he was given was well in excess of what should have been given.  He became violently sick and was sick for several days from the overdose.  Now I don’t say that we should “outlaw” morphine, I would recommend that the overdose be corrected to an amount that is beneficial without harming the patient.  Another example is Warfarin or “rat poison,” administered in judicious amounts it can be beneficial.

The same is true for what I have called “Governmenticin.”  A judicious level can be good, too much and you have an overdose.  I say that we currently have an overdose in our country of Governmenticin.  That overdose is producing a very sick economy and a culture of people who have become dependent or addicted to Governmenticin and are very ill economically and/or socially because of it.

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at:

A Comment from Blackstone

Our Founders read and studied writings by Sir William Blackstone.  He wrote a four volume “Commentary on the Laws of England.”  Blackstone had a gift for clarifying the laws and the reasoning behind the laws.  I have been fortunate to acquire the four volumes.  I have not been able to completely read them and digest all of the ‘arcane’ language. 

This particular quote from Blackstone caught my interest lately: 
“… that the whole should protect all its parts, and that every part should pay obedience to the will of the whole: or, in other words, that community should guard the ­rights of each individual member, and that (in return for this protection) each individual should submit to the laws of the community; without which submission of all it was impossible that protection could be extended to any.”

Now this is interesting because on first reading it would appear that the People should be “obedient” to all the laws.  Then Blackstone turns around and clarifies by saying the community or whole should guard the “rights” of the individual.  Obviously after studying this we can see that the whole can only pass laws which do NOT steal or usurp the fundamental, God given rights of the individual.  Therefore it would appear to me that in order for a law to be just it must also refrain from infringing on a fundamental right.  Natural law does not infringe fundamental rights and would include such laws as: do not steal, do not murder, do not rape, etc. 

With that mouth full we can see that it is the responsibility of the legislator to see that he/she passes only those laws that are absolutely necessary for society to function without infringing the rights of the People.  We also need to remember that the true function of government is to secure the rights of the People, not to make sure they have safe food and safe jobs (OSHA) etc.  We are more likely to lose our fundamental rights from bureaucratic notions of public safety.  The theft of Liberty tends to come with all the thousands of so called “necessary” little stuff.  If they were so necessary then how could America have even gotten started without them?

We need to review, once in a while, the list of reasons in the Declaration of Independence that led to the American Revolution.  One stated reason to think about for today as a most important reason is:  He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass (sic) our people, and eat out their substance.”

Thankfully we do not, at least as far as I know, have any officers close by wanting to pass laws against selling politically incorrect drinks larger than 16 ozs.  You can guess it could be coming though if some zealous bureaucrat could get away with it.  I believe if we guard our Liberty, then peace and safety of society will follow.

I have had several attorneys tell me there is no such thing as society with absolute exercise of fundamental rights.  That may true, but I say, “There is no such thing as a society with absolute safety,” which is what so many of the useless Liberty stealing laws in the real world attempt bring about.
If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: