I have lost count how many editorials I have read by these same editors railing about the need for seat belt laws, then about how we needed the state follow through and mandate seat belt usage in pickups and SUVs that were exempted in the initial seat belt legislation. The editors also have called for neighboring South Carolina to mandate motorcycle helmet usage for the good of the motorcyclists.
It does not interfere with my freedom and liberty if you do not wear your seat belt or motorcycle helmet, and I will not tell you via legislation to do so. I will recommend for your own safety that you do so, but it is not the state’s business to force you to do so because I feel that it is for your own good.
The very next day you took the right side of the eminent domain issue and property rights (“Fighting for life and property,” Nov.7). The editorial writer cites when the Supreme Court, in most people’s minds, ruled incorrectly in the Kelo v. New London case. This also made me laugh as I have read all the ranting and raving about the need for counties, cities and states to pass “public” smoking bans. The courthouse, the schoolhouse and the tag office are public places that citizens are required to go into, and the state should regulate the use of tobacco in these public places.
A business that is open to the public is not a public place. Entry by any citizen into a private business is made solely by the choice of that citizen, and is not required. What of the property rights of the private business owner that is open to the public?
It is no wonder our liberties are constantly under attack by government. Citizens no longer can draw the line between what is and what is not within their rights to ask government to regulate. You only confuse and mislead the people that read this editorial page when you one day speak of liberty and the next call for the state to interfere where it need not.