Politicians and bureaucrats (from top to bottom on both sides of the political aisle) often use the “if it saves one child it will be worth it” argument as a way to push draconian legislation. Typically this curtailment of liberty is aimed at a yucky “them” who are easy to despise, never at “us,” (heaven forbid!) which makes it all very palatable and often invisible. Deputy Attorney General James Cole tried this recently when taking Apple and Google to task for their intent to encrypt cell phones. He said, “At some future date, a child will die, and police will say they would have been able to rescue the child, or capture the killer, if only they could have looked inside a certain phone.” Every time someone in power uses the “to save a child” line, I immediately back up and go, whoa, let’s take a closer look. If they have to pull out the “for the children” big gun that means they’re trying to get the voters’ blessing to pull a constitutional fast one. I mean, who would possibly say “let the kids die,” right? It’s a specious argument and always reminds me of this: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Posted on: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:34:07 +0000