What About This? By Wayne William Cipriano
I watch a lot of television during football season, but that is mostly during the daytime, on weekends. Unless Monday Night Football and Thursday Night Football comes back from cable, that’s how it will stay: very little daytime TV. And so I was amazed to see a TV commercial for distilled spirits during the daylight hours that wasn’t on cable, wasn’t on late at night. I have seen a spot or two for whiskey late at night, but never during the daytime. The spot was on at about 2 p.m. on CBS. It was a Sunday football game and the beverage as a vodka spiked can of fruit juice. I do not remember the name of the product, which makes the commercial a failure, but I’m sure that’s because I was so surprised.
Now, if this is becoming a regular thing, and I’ve just not noticed, chalk it up to a cloistered entertainment universe. And don’t consider this as any sort of complaint. Of all the distilled liquors available for consumption, the only one I’ll drink is vodka ( it doesn’t taste as badly as the rest.) And when mixed with a fruitjuice, you wouldn’t tase anything at all – just feel the alchohol. So, I might be interested in that product, although for the most part I’m a beer guy: Wayne Six Pack.
Anyway, I was happy to see the ad because I’m a fan of “lots.” I like lots of everything and I dislike “littles.” Lots is getting as much information, as many experiences, as many people, as many things as possible without risking or sustaining any serious injury. Littles is having all that stuff, information, experiences, people, things limited – always by others, almost always “for my own good.” Of courrse, I don’t want to get false information, experience radioactive fallout, meet crazy people (really crazy, not cool crazy), and collect things that explode and do me harm. It is quite all right for people in authority positions to limit that stuff that everyone agrees is bad, but that list is very limited, isn’t it?
What I think is best (and I’ll bet you agree) is to tell us all the relevant facts, “good” and “bad”, then get out of the way while we decide what we want to do. Then, we accept the responsibility for all the repurcussions that come from our decision. Sounds easy enough to me. Sounds like FREEDOM.
I think this is different from the Libertarian positions as I understand it in some entities and organizations and some individuals would do things, usually through government, that I can’t do or decide for myself (very limited as I said.)
A good example of this is industrially prepared drugs. I do not want a cure-all for shyness sold to me that will kill me when I take it. And I do not want to be the guy that serves as an example to my neighbors why that medication should be avoided. I want an effective competent organization like the FDA to check that product out before I use it. And I want that organization to be free from outside pressure and committed to truth. And I want an organization like the FDA for the other stuff I am not able to evaluate on my own.
But, for the stuff that has “good” in the eyes of some, and “bad” in the eyes of others, I want the facts – the good and the bad – and then I’ll make up my mind, for me and for my family. Just because there are more people, or more “significant” people supporting or opposing, that doesn’t make it “good” or “bad” for me, it makes it “good” or “bad” for them, based, one would hope, on good sense. And that being the case, I’ll probably see the issue in the same way as most of them do, and decide the same way. But it will be up to me.
My point is, of course, that with stuff and ideas, I should have the ability to make up my mind after I have the facts, all the facts. If someone, anyone thinks some stuff and some ideas should be embraced or avoided, let them embrace or avoid them. If those persons think I should embrace or avoid, give me the facts that decided them, – I’ll probably see it the same way. And if I don’t, then it’s on me right?
Maybe that’s what Libertarians believe, and if so, I guess I’m one.