• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Doubtless you’ve heard about the elementary school in Chicago that implemented a draconian policy forbidding students from bringing their own lunches from home. Instead they must purchase lunches from the school cafeteria or go hungry.

The patronizing justification given by the administration focuses on the superior nutrition of the school lunches compared to the soda-and-candy-bar meals some of the students were bringing. But here’s the thing: It’s not the school’s concern if students bring junk food for lunch. Stupid as the parents may be who provide their children with that kind of meal, it’s not the school’s business. Helloooo?

The government loves nothing more than to punish the many for the sins of the few. A few students bring junk food for lunch, and bang! Everyone is guilty. All the moms who take the time to pack healthy food are lumped with the same people who think Coke and Snickers provide optimal nutrition.

This is another small example of the trend over the last 50 years, a trend that illustrates the progressive’s desire to dispense with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. After all, these troublesome documents insist upon limited government interference and maximum individual rights and responsibilities. Instead, the state prefers to impose one-size-fits-all policies on all citizens, forcing them to comply with draconian regulations. Please tell me by what authority the government can control what children eat? Progressives will cite the cost of childhood (and later adult) obesity levels. But obesity is only the concern of government if the government controls health care … and government-controlled health care is another profoundly unconstitutional power grab.

Learn how to achieve a simple lifestyle without “going green” or joining a monastery. Read Patrice Lewis’ helpful new book, “The Simplicity Primer: 365 Ideas for Making Life more Livable”

In our homeschool civics class, we are currently doing a thorough study of the Declaration of Independence with the aid of an excellent study guide. It is captivating to go through our founding documents line by line and discuss their meaning. It reminds us of the ideals these brilliant men installed in our nation – as well as how far we’ve fallen. The Founding Fathers put restraints on government because they were prescient enough to know “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism …” which would result in such monstrosities as Obamacare and (in miniature) forced cafeteria food.

But here’s the thing: We asked for it. We ask the government for security and then act surprised when it gives us tyranny. A friend wrote an excellent blog post outlining this.

If we’re going to send our children to government-funded public schools, do we have the right to complain when those schools impose one-size-fits-all policies that interfere with parental authority? Remember, the State will punish the many for the sins of the few. Every time a couple of parents do something stupid like packing inadequate lunches, the State gleefully jumps in and forces ALL parents into the slot it deems best, regardless of individual choices. Surprise!

The one-size-fits-all philosophy results in endless atrocities. Airport TSA screeners will grope nuns and children as potential terrorists even though they know good and well nuns and kids aren’t known for terrorism. Or the state will send in a SWAT team to kidnap a homeschooled child because the mother refuses to have her daughter given dangerous medication. “The fact they sent a tank to [the mother's] apartment is more evidence that the State will react in a violent knee-jerk fashion when its authority is challenged,” says the article.

And therein lies the key phrase: Its authority was challenged.

If we follow the one-size-fits-all road of micromanagement to its logical conclusion, the result is slavery, not citizenship. This is, of course, precisely what the government wants. Remember what George Washington said: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In exchange for (cough) security, we have given up our unalienable rights to a fearful master that has long since exceeded the lengthy list of abuses outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

This is why the State cannot tolerate any challenges to its authority. This is why homeschooling is so roundly damned. This is why housewives are classified as domestic terrorists. This is why Obamacare is so necessary to impose on this nation.

Children are, of course, the most critical pawns in this progressive game. Their brainwashing is essential. Parents are only grudgingly permitted to influence their kids. The government tells us how we must raise our children in almost every respect: what they should eat, what they should wear, what they should learn and what they should worship (hint: it’s spherical and has continents). At what point do we just hand the baby over at birth? The old science-fiction horror stories about children being raised in state-run institutions in order to turn out clones bred for the State (think Nazi Germany) is closer than we imagine.

“All experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” I guess better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know until “absolute Despotism” is achieved. And then we’ll wonder what happened.

Progressives (who applaud this trend) will never openly admit that pointy-haired micromanagement results in dependency. Dependency, by definition, is antithetical to independence and personal responsibility. The more progressives require kids to eat cafeteria food, the less parents will take responsibility to feed their own children. The more Obamacare is shoved down our throats, the less we will take responsibility for our own health. The result of dependence is apathy, and that, of course, is the best possible thing a tyrannical government can hope for.

C.S. Lewis said it best: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.