Sep 14, 2010

Of non-issues and rednecks, or reason #2396100 why politics makes me crazy

Okay, I know as a libertarian I’m constantly screaming what the fuck?! to 90% of what governments cook up, but… seriously, what the fuck?!

Skim the page I just linked. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Did you read it? No you didn’t — your mouth isn't agape. Actually read the thing. Okay, now do you get it? See what I mean?

If you’re still lost, or too lazy to click links, allow me to summarize: HUNTIN’ SHUD BE A CONST’ITUSHUNAL RIGHT!!!!11

I just don’t know what to say to that.

Okay, I lied; you know I love to rant.

This, dear reader, is what I like to call a solution in search of a problem. Why? Let’s review:

  • Is hunting already legal? (Of course.)
  • Is anyone trying to ban hunting? (Well, there’s PETA, right?)
  • Do they actually stand any chance in hell? (Uh, no.)
  • Why are you doing this again? (LOL JUST IN CASE!!)

There is no serious threat to Arkansans losing their ability to shoot deer and shit every year. There is no chance of that. Too many people here love huntin’ ‘n fishin’ for that to ever happen. Rural folk might be a lot of things, but you try to take away their favorite pastimes and you’ll see the opposition come out in droves. That’s why nobody ever seriously tries to ban hunting or anything. The most they ever try is to limit it in certain ways. Basically, they opt for the incrementalism approach. If anything.

Believe me, I’m no supporter of PETA nutjobs, but their spokeswoman is dead on in this case:

We think these kinds of amendments are silly. Why not a constitutional amendment to shop, or play golf?

My sentiments exactly. Why not a constitutional amendment to officially recognize and protect all of the other already perfectly legal things? Knowing Arkansans, it’ll be sports before shopping or golf, though, so I suppose on that note she’s a bit out of touch.

But actually, PETA Lady, amendments like this are not silly. They’re serious. There is serious support. I have no doubt this thing will pass, because the average person cannot see past the hunting issue. (As much as I sound like I’m lambasting Joe Average, you can read my defense of rational ignorance elsewhere.) They’re simple thinking goes like this: hunting and fishing is okay with me! Whether they are a hunter or not. Most people don’t oppose the practice. Many don’t care. Only the vegans will come out unanimously opposed.

In the words of our fearless leader, let me be clear: hunting and fishing is okay with me, too! That should be obvious, but I’d better say it up front to be sure.

So why am I so vehemently opposed? Because it’s completely unnecessary.

The opposition has no chance on this issue because arguments against try to keep it simple but hamstring themselves in the process.

The simple argument is that it is silly to constitutionally recognize something you can already do.

So what? Why not? Problem is, most people are okay with having superfluous laws on the books. Who cares! Not me! Might as well, just in case Obama tries to take my guns, right?

But this is precisely the problem with all superfluous laws. They complicate the system, giving one more justification for lawyers existing because nobody can keep up with the stuff. It makes it even more difficult to know what the legal status of anything “officially” is.

Constitutional rights are important and, in the words of our vice fearless leader, a big fucking deal. They exist to protect an individual’s fundamental freedoms, like speech and property. They are not for guaranteeing recreational activities or hobbies.

What’s worse is that this amendment won’t actually change anything in practice. It still leaves the Game and Fish Commission in charge just as it already is. People still can’t hunt on private property or anything else new. The only substantial difference is academic when it comes to court and legal questions, where it will become an aegis against dem evil radicals tryin’ to keep me from my ten-point!

Look closer at who supports this. The NRA is all for it. No surprise there; hunting involves guns and that’s their bread and butter. Game and Fish Commission, a state department, is all for it. Duh, as the gatekeepers they directly seek to profit since they control the hunting licenses and, along with those, fees. This is effectively job and financial security for them.

I’ll lump this retarded law in with net neutrality in that both are trying to solve a non-problem and both have proponents getting flustered over non-issues and doomsday scenarios that sound plausible only to people who don’t think about it for more than a moment.

I’m not some enviro-freak or animal-lover. In fact, I’ll argue that animals should have no [government recognized] rights at all. But I have to side with the freaks and lovers this time. This amendment, and any like it elsewhere proposed or already on the books, is stupid. But I expect to be a very lonely “no” vote this November.

No comments:

Post a Comment