Waukegan Talk

I love it when a "Libertarian Tea Party type" says "Less Government is Best Government" on a firearm regulation and then doesn't support the repeal of a law which restricts an individuals freedom to get a tattoo in the City of Waukegan by saying "I'm sick and tired of going around looking at people with defaced bodies". In my opinion one of the worst things a person can do is to attempt to restrict or regulate anything a person does as long as that person is harming no other person in their pursuits. You can't say "Less Government is Best Government" and then pick and choose what "less government" constitutes. That seems to be a big problem with these Tea Party "libertarian" types.

If they were henna tattoos I wouldn't have had an objection. At least, they aren't permanent. Does their health permit fee adequately cover the cost of regulation? Or, do you believe that this cost should be born by all county taxpayers who choose not to tattoo or pierce themselves? We regulate a lot of things that I disagree with. I probably shouldn't have injected my personal opinion of tattoos, though. However, when I patronize a tavern or any business establishment, there is a regulation posted from the state that says I am not allowed to smoke in their establishment, even though we pay dearly to engage in this legal activity and the business owner wants to allow it. Talk about freedom. What is the definition harm? Can a business choose to have a policy not to hire those with a visible tattoo? Let's say that you own a local bar/restauarant and you have a thriving business of regulars and all of a sudden these freaky looking people with visible tattoos and body piercings start to frequent your establishment. Let's say that your free spending regular clientele don't like the looks of this new crowd, nor can they relate to them on a philosophical basis. Let's say that your regular clientele begins to go elsewhere because you are not allowed to choose who you allow in the door. Are you with me here? Let's say that your new customers don't spend nor occupy as many seats as your former customers. Let's say that your former business model that worked so well in the past is now on the verge of bankruptcy. What say you, now? Maybe you could just ban those with known gang symbols tattooed on them? Oh, that's right, that would be restricting their first amendment right of free expression. Here are a few extreme examples of free expression

My main point was that in order to be a libertarian one has to be a libertarian "across the board"... all the way. You can't be a libertarian and pick and choose where to be restrictive. Otherwise you are something else... something other than a libertarian... perhaps a fascist dressed in patriotic garb. There is no such thing as a part time libertarian or "libertarian leaning". A true libertarian would have to agree that the people you have posted photos be free to do whatever they wish to their own bodies.

The last time I checked, I am still a Republican. So, what's the matter Danno? Life as a wannabe hippie not providing the fulfillment you so feel you are entitled? You are what other blogsites would refer to as a troll... and a pretty lame one at that. I posed a hypothetical situation that you obviously don't want to admit you agree with. The saddest site I ever laid eyes on was at a wedding I attended, in which the bridesmaids strolled down the aisle with their strategically placed tattoos, followed by the bride, wearing a low back wedding dress with a big tattoo on her back. I don't want to endorse that kind of behavior, just as I wouldn't encourage a young person to smoke. Do you ever wonder why you never see highly successful business people and professionals with tattoos in prominent places on their body? There is a reason for that. They value education, self esteem and self reliance.