Friday, February 17, 2012

Would Santorum Want to Ban Internet Gambling and Porn?

Alana Goodman at Commentary's blog points out some recent comments that Santorum made with regards to internet gambling which you can easily see expanded into other areas like pornography.

I'm someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we've seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It's one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it's another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

Freedom's not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — "let everybody have it, let everybody do it." No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn't have and make available, to make it that easy to do.

Seriously, I don't think I have ever seen a US Presidential candidate rail against individual freedom like Santorum does on a regular basis (you can read my recent post on it here).  Maybe a candidate in Germany, France or Venezuela, but not in a country based on freedom.  Just as a reminder, here is what Ronald Reagan thought about the government protecting you from yourself:

I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle–the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he's stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that's one of our sacred rights–to be stupid.

Do we really want to replace one President who wants government to make decisions for us with another who wants the government to make decisions for us?
 

1 comment:

  1. When the rope started producing Oakley Canadato eye protection within 1983. In June associated with 04 Canada Oakleyagreed upon a worthwhile deal with Oakley Active SunglassesSibel Rushing.

    ReplyDelete