Why politicians should have very little power

I'm just going to keep this post relatively short because I just wanted to mention a few things. Basically when you think about the world and you think about successful people some of the most motivated successful people going to the business world. Perhaps they become lawyers perhaps they enter into other areas such as becoming world-class chefs and so on. But I highly doubt that very many of the top most successful motivated people in the world become politicians. Just think about it for a minute.

The people that get up at 5 in the morning and go for a run and they're at the office at 7 a.m. working on their business being successful all day long - those people do not become politicians. Especially look at Newfoundland. Many of our so-called top politicians basically held low level 9 to 5 jobs sometimes even shorter hours. Some of them were Community organizers or substitute teachers and things of that sort. These are not our top performing people in all of society. Also the people with the highest IQs and the most brilliant people generally will go into Fields such as science technology engineering mathematics Etc. They don't choose the life of a politician generally speaking. So why is it that we think that people who would be considered mediocre in any other area of life we believe should rule our lives and should have control over everything that we do. Because that's basically what we're saying when it comes to politicians.

We say they should make decisions in our everyday lives. And remember they are not just making massive decisions that are going to have massive impact on everybody's lives. They are in fact micromanaging every tiny little aspect of Our Lives. What makes us think they have any idea what to do any better than we do ourselves? That's why our whole system of having politicians being in control of so many things is absolutely ridiculous and must be ended right away.

Our “free” healthcare is nothing to be proud of.

Maybe Canadians gloat and brag about the fact that we have "free" healthcare. We are so much more compassionate, loving, caring. We don't just care about profits, we care about people! We are so morally superior to Americans who couldn't care less if a poor person died on the streets!

 

To me, this sense of moral superiority is annoying, for many reasons.

 

First of all, it's not free. Free would imply volunteers built the hospitals, and doctors volunteer their time to help patients, medical supplies are donated, and it's all just a benevolent endeavor. In actual fact, it costs us massive amounts of money. A huge percentage of our income is taken away to pay for healthcare. So calling it free is one of the most factually inaccurate statements one can make.

 

Objection: "Okay, it costs money, but we are just paying for those who cannot pay. It's a mutually beneficial society. The strong look after the weak."

 

Response: There is no moral merit to forcibly taking money from people and then spending it something, no matter how worthy the cause. It would however be morally viable to spend your own hard-earned money to help the less fortunate or those who couldn't afford it. This can be done through donations. There could be a sort of child sponsorship model for people who need medical care. This is just one possible idea. The bottom line is that you should not be proud of taking money from others by force to pay for some service. There is no moral merit to it.

 

Second point about our healthcare is that it's deplorable. Again "free" doesn't describe the quality. A friend of mine recently, who is still in the hospital, arrived at the hospital complaining of intense pain. She had just given birth to twins and was understandably concerned. She spent around 10 hours before anyone would even see her. She had to stay overnight waiting for a doctor to see her. And in the end they basically only gave her painkillers. Then a couple of days later, they told her to go home. She works in the medical field and so she knows a thing or two about medicine. She insisted on staying for a  number of reasons. They allowed it after she insisted, and she is currently facing many issues. She is having a difficult time. But they just wanted to throw her out.

 

This story reproduces itself many times each day. Ask anyone in Canada, even advocates, and they will tell you a medical horror story that happened to either them or a friend or family member of theirs. Whether it's 10-30 hour wait times, inadequate help, being ignored, and low quality care. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance involved. On the one hand, die-hard advocates will always praise our "amazing system" while being able to also talk about many many terrible incidents. These arent' just "one-off" things, but the norm. You have to take an entire day off to visit the hospital, and there you will get very low-quality care.

 

Canada's healthcare system is expensive and immoral and must be massively reformed.

 

 

CBC Gloating Over Trouble of Private Rivals

CBC is posting article after article after article gloating about The Rebel Media and other conservative outlets being in trouble for various reasons. One reason is the federal government will stop advertising there. To this, CBC has penned several giddy articles mockingly saying “boohoo” to Rebel. They brag about how much better CBC is than these low-brow publications. What is so ironic is that CBC could be (and actually is) the worst news outlet the world has ever seen and this would make one iota of difference to their bottom line. They don’t have to work hard to get advertisers or subscribers. They are protected by the full force of the law and not really required to compete in any real sense. They are given over a billion dollars each year to spout their liberal left-wing agenda and there’s nothing we can do about it.

 

The real extreme bias can be seen in their opinion pieces which are pages out of the socialist playbook. Recent articles on CBC have stated that anyone the CBC considers “right wing” or “far-right extremists” or whatever shouldn’t have freedom of speech. They argue for left-wing extremists it’s different. They in fact do have a right to free speech. But far-righters? Not a chance.

 

CBC is pathetic. They are like the trust-fund baby who hasn’t worked a day in his life and then brags about being superior to his hard-working friends who are struggling to make it in the world. They aren’t even aware of their own arrogance and privilege and in fact believe they are champions of the “common man”. In reality, they gloat when their non-wealthy friends, who are trying their best, falter.

 

CBC needs to be defunded. Then we’ll see how much longer they gloat.

Protest at St. John's to fight MASSIVE problem here.

They had that protest apparently yesterday at Bannerman Park in St. John’s against white suprem-acism as if it’s a huge thing in Newfoundland. They said black and indi-genous people are systematically treated badly, etc. but I would ask “what do you want?”

I can guarantee they want other people to give them stuff. I don’t know if that’s an oversimplification. But that seems to be what it boils down to. But isn’t that a position of weakness? How can you say you are equal if you have to be given things? They aren’t even saying they want equality, they want some compensation. But again, it’s like asking for a higher allowance or welfare. Why can’t they just ask to be free and then do their own thing? If there really is systematic discri-mination somewhere, why not fight it? Not vague “attitudes” or perceptions. How can you change those? But I mean laws and regulations. Otherwise you have to admit they don’t exist, on a systematic basis.

Nick Whelan tried to make some comments and he was shouted off stage, because of comments he made a long time ago saying indig-enous people should eat more fish. He apologized for it, and that should be the end of it. But to these fanatics nothing is ever enough. It seems to me they want special treatment, not equal treatment. I’m sure he has said much worse things to many other people, but again, this seems like a special protected group who we can only praise.

Kind of reminds me of how people obsess about se×ism, about comments men make towards women. But men usually make much worse comments towards other men. Take video games for instance. They will say these are not welcome environments for women. As if the gamers should be complimenting them and being chivalrous. At the same time however, men are bashing other men in a much more derogatory manner.

Let land sell for market value

Government officials don’t allow certain land to be used in Labrador for anything but farming. But it could be worth a lot more for other purposes. Also it can’t be passed down. If it can be more valuable, this is the government destroying more wealth, as usual:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/byrne-farming-agriculture-land-1.4248439

 

Don Pittis is Pitiful

Don Pittis writes the most pathetic articles for CBC. Not as bad as Neil Macdonald who doesn’t even write articles but just blabs on about hwo much he loathes conservatives. Anyway Don Pittis is a text-book Keynesian and probably socialist. He can see the dark lining of every white fluffy cloud. He has no idea how the market works. He takes the banal and ever-so-common attitude that the market is stupid, can’t adjust to supply and demand and must be regulated by our government overlords. His articles are predictable and pitiful.

 

Average income goes up? Don Pittis writes about income inequality.

More technology jobs created? Don Pittis writes about the loss of low-end low-wage jobs.

Business profits up? Well, let’s not even go there, that’s just bad news to him.

 

I doubt he even took a single course in economics. He believes in financial stimuli and heavy government control of all aspects of society. He is strongly biased and seeks to prove his anti-conservative bona fides all the time.

 

Why didn’t Pittis write about the low unemployment rate now in the US? Oh right, because Trµmp is in power.

 

Don never talks about the miracles of the market, probably because he sees the market as a threat rather than an opportunity, unless of course it’s a government sponsored green initiative. Then it’s innovative.

 

Practically everything he writes is about the Keynesian concept of boom and bust. To him, it’s absolutely inevitable and for some reason he must write about an inevitability. It’s like being in charge of the physics section of a newspaper and constantly writing about gravity. Or simply stating it exists. Predictably Don Pitti-ful never blames the government for the boom and bust cycle through currency and inflation manipulation, which is the real culprit. That wouldn’t be allowed at CBC.

 

Like Neil Macdonald, Don Pittis has the easiest job ever. Do no research and just sit at a computer and type of random articles about the same thing every week. Glad we are paying these guys hundreds of thousands of dollars. Well, to Pittis that kind of make-work project would be considered an economic stimulus so I’m sure he’s in favor.

Stupid people electing smart people to lead them?

Why do we think some people have to be our overlords? I think for most things people can get along just fine and this has been proven. But government officials always try to interject themselves. Mutual agreements and understanding are a good thing. But think about it. People are allegedly too stupid to make good decisions, but they are smart enough to elect politicians who will make the good decisions for them on their behalf for millions of people. Something wrong with this “logic”.

More & more regulation is ALWAYS the solution apparently

So goes the logic. Today the government of NL announced even more stringent regulations on child care facilities. What libertarian ideologue would oppose new regulation to “protect our children”.

In the article, Dale Kirby who introduced the new rules, dismisses concerns from people in the industry by saying there will always be people who oppose regulation, but it’s necessary because it’s for the safety of children.

There are a number of things at play in this situation.

1)      Who can decide what the right level of quality is? Can a top-down government decide that? Is it the same for everyone? Yes, we are dealing with children. But different parents and different children have different wants and needs. Some might want more stringent regulation. Others might want less. As far as I can tell, some of the requirements were already ridiculous and over the top. Now they want more? It’s like when people say “Best possible healthcare” or “best possible education”. Those are meaningless concepts. What is the “best”? If every child was regulated to have 3 caregivers each, you can still do more. You could have 5 or 10 or 2000.

2)      Prices are eliminated or distorted which makes deciding between options very difficult. If the government pays for all or most of the childcare, people will obviously support maximum regulation. It costs them nothing. If they had to pay the real cost, people wouldn’t necessarily want all of the absurd regulations.

3)      Stringent regulation discourages or prevents innovation. Maybe some entrepreneurs have ideas to decrease price and increase value, whether in terms of safety, learning, or any other aspect. Regulating every tiny detail makes it difficult to work within the system and still innovate.

4)      Government paying for daycare of most of it not only distorts the market, but also creates massive economic loss. The goal of free childcare ostensibly is to allow mothers to work to increase family income. The problem is, with all these new regulations, the amount spent per child per day is enormous. I will have to calculate figures on it. But let’s assume $30 per hour per child. If the government pays for childcare, the mother has no incentive to stay home with her child or children. Economically speaking she is better off putting them in indoctrination camps daycare. However, if she puts them in daycare and then goes off to a job which pays $13 per hour, there is an economic loss of $17 per hour. Obviously there is an ulterior motive to daycare and it’s not just about caring for children. Indoctrination is much easier when it starts early. And it’s also the reason why government is so strictly involved.

I know this article didn’t provide a lot of specifics, but these are general thoughts. To summarize:

-          There is no such thing as “best possible” when it comes to services

-          Government involvement distorts prices and discourages innovation

Hear me on Paddy Daly this morning

I am on Paddy Daly's show this morning 590 VOCM, Thursday, February 16, 2017. I will be on probably around 9:30-9:40.

I will be talking about education and how it should be a voucher system. That's a first step toward a completely privatized system.

A Big Thanks to Occupy Democrats Logic

Hey everyone! A huge thanks to Occupy Democrats Logic for posting my meme I made in response to the Odious Occupy Democrats who spreads only lies and falsehoods! Love to hear from you! Comment below!!

Only in socialist newfoundland

Everywhere I look all over the place whether it's in newspapers online television and everywhere else I see advertising from Newfoundland power saying stop using so much energy. That's right they are actually telling their customers to stop using their products so much. Most of the time they are badgering us to purchase more insulation and to use programmable thermostats to maximize efficiency. Well this is what always happens when you introduce socialism into any sphere of life. No other company on the planet whatever tell you to stop using their products so much. But whenever you have socialism you have shortages and high prices. Then that leads to rationing. We can't have nice things because of this.

I just finished reading an article about a similar situation with hot water and water flow. The municipal and provincial governments regulate the amount of water you can have flowing through a tap or shower faucet also with toilets. That's why half the time when you flush the toilet the stuff doesn't even go down fully it just stays there or you have to use a plunger for the toilet brush to clean up afterwards. This never used to be the case in fact toilets were continuing to get better over the years but then of course the government comes into play and there are again shortages and lack of what you need. The same goes with water temperature. That's why people used to be able to put things in the dishwasher and when they came out they would be sparkling clean. No longer now you put things in the dishwasher perhaps for an hour and when they come out there's tons of food still left on them. That's what everybody always says you have to rinse off the plates and cups before you even put them in the dishwasher. So because the government is in charge of water there is obviously a shortage and a lack of quality and will have to pay for it by having dirty dishes and spending much more time doing your dishes that we normally would have to. This also affects our clothing which comes out of the washer. Instead of being sparkling clean the clothes are just barely passable and not really that clean. Detergent companies even had to go out of their way to develop cold water detergent which clearly doesn't really clean anything.

It's just so typical of the government to just try to ruin our lives at every turn in the name of progress but really it's not progress at all but a regress and regress into a worse and worse quality of life each and every day.

Simplistic Arguments from Non-Libertarians.

Here's one of the problems: While libertarians are asked to provide a start-to-finsih explanation of how their system based on freedom will work, and be able to answer any and all objections, non-libertarians simply have to state "the government will fix it" and that's considered sufficient.

I often engage in such discussions with people. Their thought process is as follows:

1. Problem identification
2. Government needs to spend money to solve this problem
3. Problem solved.

This isn't just people who don't know much about the system who talk like this. I listen to open line shows sometimes and you'll get high-paid executives from various industries or agencies who will use the exact same logic, never going any deeper in their analysis.

They are very good at talking about why their issue is of utmost important, but there is absolutely no creativity in solving it.

Now, #2: Government needs to spend money to solve this problem is often replaced with "government needs to regulate this more". It's always one of the two. Either more regulation or more money. That's it. You present me any problem and I can use this logic to solve it.

Problem: Roads are insufficient
Solution: more gov. money on roads

Problem: Not enough day cares
Solution: More government day cares

Problem: workers don't get enough money
Solution: Legislate higher wages.

Wow, what an easy job. The crazy part is that most people don't believe other solutions even exist. If I were to ask these advocates what the next best solution would be, they would draw a total blank.

And the other thing is people who don't advocate government involvement seem to be required to explain, in detail, how everything will work perfectly.

Oh, and to top it off, they aren't judged against the real world results the government is currently getting. They are judged against utopia. So we must perfectly explain, in detail, how we will achieve utopia, while the statists get away with simple rewording the problem as a solution.

The failures of government are forgiven but any failure in the private sector is harshly condemned. Usually the reasoning is something like "well, yes the government program failed, but they tried their best." but "yes the private sector failed, because they are greedy and only care about profit."

So that's what we're up against.

The Government is the most discriminatory of all

People say we need government to combat discrimination. But in the end, government creates far more discrimination than it eliminates. There are thousands of examples. I will just name a few off the top of my head.

Examples:

• When government takes tax money and uses it to subsidize only certain vocational fields, such as certain trades. This is discriminatory against people not in those trades who have to pay for their own education.
• Tax money that supports only females in certain fields. This is discriminatory against men. Especially when the gov pays 90% of their salary.
• When government automatically gives custody of children to women.
• When there are programs designed to sponsor people of a certain age only. This is ageist.
• Government programs to help visible minorities, even ones that outpace whites overall.
• Preference to bilingual people even when the job interacts very little in the other official language.

This is just briefly off the top of my head. I'm sure if this is open to the public, they could find dozens of specific examples. So one great step in eliminating discrimination would be eliminating government involvement in the economy.

CBC is Such a Joke - Especially their "Business News"

Where I work, I only have access to certain websites. No Facebook, no YouTube, not even Google. One of the sites they allow me to see is CBC. It’s where I get a lot of my news. But I have to make sure my BS detector is turned on every time I see it.

 

One of their stupidest areas is their so-called business section. It’s not even business-related for the most part. It’s more of a leftist Marxist-theory dumping ground which vilifies the activities of businesses. They have no concept of trade-offs or the power of the market. In fact, they see the market as a dangerous and scary place which should barely be legal.

 

One of the main activities of the business section is to warn customers about scary business practices. This goes hand-in-hand with their television coverage in which Bob McKeown waits outside in parking lots for the person in question to be almost in the car, and then start firing machine-gun questions at him as he’s getting in and trying to drive away. The person probably thinks they are under attack by some street person, but Bob McKeown portrays this as proof-positive that he caught them red-handed.

 

Some of the scary business practices include smaller packages of food, 100% juice (although it is indeed 100% juice, it doesn’t necessarily involve people hand-squeezing oranges directly into the boxes *gasp*), commercials appealing to people’s desire to be safe, commercials making big claims about their products.

 

Of course, most sane people already know companies go over the top in promoting their products. Nobody literally thinks the Cool Aid Man will burst through your wall whenever you consume his product. No one actually believes using Mr. Clean will bring the Mr. Clean genie himself into your house to clean everything. But CBC is so smug about “exposing” these evil businesses.

 

John Stossel, who was also a consumer reporter (and a much more interesting one than the people at CBC) and is now a libertarian, said he realized that after years of work that consumer reporting was basically useless. First of all, competition was much more effective in weeding out bad companies than any consumer reporter is. Word of mouth spread much faster than his reports. Good businesses essentially stayed in business and bad ones went bankrupt. I think he needs to talk to CBC.

 

I would say the CBC’s impact is essentially nil, but their goal is to appear to be Canada’s consumer watchdog, a trusted name people can turn to as a way to create a better society. Yet most of the issues they tackle just show how stupid and useless they are. And there’s always a degree of smugness associated with these reports that they produce. They act so proud that they are exposing evil businesses. But consider this: people voluntarily give money to businesses. If a business provides bad service, it’s not long before they go out of business in favor of competitors. But CBC doesn’t operate on this basis. Instead, we are forced at the end of a gun to fork over our hard-earned money to pay for CBC against our will. If they produce a product we don’t like, what is our recourse? While they literally steal our money, they complain that Tropicana is not hand-squeezed. Very hypocritical.

 

And what really gets me is they have one single, solitary response to every problem. The solution, according to the CBC, for every possible problem is *drum-roll please* REGULATION! That’s it, that’s all. I mean they could literally have a show where they just list one perceived problem after another and give their one word solution: regulation! So simple. What a great and simple world they live in. Easy problems, easy solutions. Who cares about actual real-world economics, about real trade-off, etc? We just need regulation! Phone bill too high? Regulation! Water not up to some arbitrary standard? Regulation! Dentist charging too much? Regulation! Wow, look at me solving all the world’s problems! I deserve the Nobel Prize! We pay over $1 billion per year for this (that’s how much the CBC costs)?

 

 

Typical...

How about actually being a business person??

 

Thought of the Day

Scenario 1: After spending several years as a volunteer in very poor areas of former Soviet countries, a dentist is struck at how many do not have access to toothpaste because it is too expensive and because people are not aware of its benefits. Out of compassion, he starts a company to produce and sell toothpaste for a low price. Because of this, there is a huge decrease in the incidence of cavities in these countries. He also advertises his product often to promote the use of toothpaste and almost everyone becomes a customer.

Scenario 2: A very greedy, evil man decides he wants to become rich. He sees an opportunity in the market. In the former Soviet Union, he sees very few people using toothpaste. He decides to manufacture and sell toothpaste, but because there is some competition, he offers the lowest price to maximize market share and sales. He often thinks to himself how much he hates the people in the country in general. To get the seal of approval from the Dentistry association, he meets all the safety standards.

In both scenarios, the price of the toothpaste, the number of customers, and the advertisements are identical. In effect, both produce the same results. The population is just as well off in both cases. This is why capitalism is a good system. It does not depend on the morality or goodness of the people involved. In scenario 2, if the entrepreneur produced low-quality toothpaste or harmful toothpaste, he would not get the seal of approval. If the price was too high, he wouldn’t get customers. Capitalism means all people must provide for others. Unfortunately most people do not see this. They say to have good economics, people must be morally good. This is only true of authoritarian regimes. Another common criticism of businesspeople is they are “greedy”. But again, as the example above shows, this is irrelevant. That’s why capitalism is superior to other systems.

Sometimes I wish I was a Liberal!

As a libertarian, we have to give tough answers to tough questions. You realize that 99% of the people you talk to are not on the same wavelength and will summarily dismiss your ideas. Explanations cannot be given in quick sound bites, and even a well thought-out response is routinely accused of being heartless or unworkable. You are accepted by neither conservatives nor liberals. It’s a true uphill battle.

On the other hand, liberals have easy answers. The solution to any given problem lies in simply restating a question as an answer. It’s like a child talking to Santa Claus. He can just ask for whatever he wants. Any questions as to how it happens is answered with “magic”. The kid is satisfied. Asking a libertarian is more like a child asking a parent for something. The parent reminds the child of trade-offs, expenses, limits. The child might be asked to sacrifice, and sometimes after some calculation the child decides the sacrifice is too much.

The “magic” for liberals is the government. The government in the liberal mind is similar to Santa. There are no trade-offs, no expenses, nothing to consider except for the fact that you want something. For example:

Problem: People want education, education is too expensive.

Solution: Government should provide free education because education is a right.

Problem: Healthcare is really terrible. Wait times are extremely long, there are too few doctors, drugs are too expensive, etc.

Solution: Hire more doctors, spend more money.

Problem: Parents find daycare expensive

Solution: Government will pay for it instead!

Problem: I have a pet project that no one wants to pay for.

Solution: We’ll tax people and give you some of the money!

Problem: We want 35 hour workweeks, 5 weeks vacation, a living wage, and plenty of other perks!

Solution: Government will make those all mandatory!

The list goes on and on and you can surely imagine thousands of similar circumstances. It’s an easy Problem-Solution way of thinking. The problem with this thinking is it’s not real. It assumes an omnipotent government that creates laws of the universe, rather than seeing the government as simply one factor in an overall set of factors which can have either positive or negative influences. Trade-offs are rarely considered, and several fallacies are employed, especially the seen vs. the unseen fallacy.

Liberals have solutions which can be spray-painted on placards and chanted at a rally. A libertarian enjoys no such luxury. Going back to the Santa Claus analogy, liberals sit on Santa’s lap and ask for all the stuff they want and Santa, a god-like figure, simply grants them. The libertarian attempts to explain to these children that although what they want *sounds*good, there are other factors they must consider. A person asks for a puppy and the liberal simply says “Sure!” A person asks a libertarian and the response is more like “Well, you must walk the dog every day, you must feed him, clean him, take care of him. You can’t always go on vacation, and you must pay all the expenses. Is it still worth it?” Which one do you think fits on a placard.

Liberals have bought into the idea that far from being a necessary evil, the government is the main actor in an economy. Businesses are pesky toys of the rich, but serve little utility. All good emanates from the government. All action of consequence is a government action. In Newfoundland, this is the dominate view. On open line radio shows, almost invariably the caller will present a problem with the inevitable solution that the government must do something. The absolute dependence on the government is sometimes so shocking it borders on comical, if not sad.

One person wrote into a newspaper about her brother who recently took his own life. After admitting that she thought about contacting him to see how he was, she decided against it. But who did she end up blaming? The government of course. It was the government’s fault there weren’t more people looking after veterans.

This attitude is extremely common. For instance, instead of bemoaning how bad of a son or daughter they are for not providing for their elderly parent, people will get all up in arms about how the government doesn’t have enough retirement homes. Instead of working harder to make more money so one spouse can stay at home, citizens complain there are not enough daycares or daycare employees. This whole attitude removes personal responsibility and thrusts it upon a nameless, faceless entity and is very damaging to society.

I know libertarianism is right, but sometimes it would just be simpler to have easy answers like liberals.

economics vs. freedom

Some people argue in favor of coercion on the basis that it is effective. But that's an immoral an untenable position. I don't really have a whole lot to say here. But we must first understand human rights. Freedom is one such right. So to say we will arbitrarily restrict someone's freedom because that's "better for the economy" is placing expediency above morality. Then humans are nothing more than cogs in the wheel.

You do not have the right to anyone else's money except your own. Stealing it is immoral. That should be a pretty basic fact.

Are Changing Tables in Restaurants a Human Right Now?

Yes, any whim a person has should be turned into a law, enforced by police and military. This is the modern-day thinking process. You want something, demand a law that makes it happen. Of course, there can be no negative consequences to such laws! What stories like this should say instead are: “There should be a law making it mandatory for restaurants to have a changing room for children, even if that means the price of a meal in large places will increase by an average of 10% and the price in a small restaurant will go up by 20% to cover this new cost. I’m okay with reducing millions of people’s quality of life to have my whim of a change room realized. Also, I refuse to entertain the idea of being limited to choosing restaurants which cater to my specific needs of which there are many. Instead, all places, whether they are targeting families or not, must follow my orders!”

At least this would be honest. But instead of this, those demanding such things imagine their orders will have nothing but beneficial results. It would be as logical as saying “I demand that every restaurant I enter gives me a free appetizer! This is a basic human right!” and then expecting prices not to increase or there to be any negative side effects.

Would places which clearly do not cater to children be required to follow this law? What about downtown restaurants which are open late at night for downtown people? What about tiny small-business restaurants with a single small bathroom? Are they required to add a huge extension onto the tiny restaurant that will accommodate a change area?

One response to such questions is that the legislators should take those things into consideration or make precise laws that will meet the needs of the citizens or some other such pie-in-the-sky declarations. As we all know however, laws are almost never precise. They paint broad brushes.

The proper response to such a request is for businesses to provide changing tables in order to attract customers. Similar to this is many restaurants already offer free meals to kids if accompanied by parents. And many currently offer changing tables and many other services.

Another thing concerned people can do is form groups which ask for such things and say they will boycott anyone who fails to comply. That’s fine. Everything is voluntary. But to force a business to take on an expense which they do not believe is in their or their customers’ best interest is simply authoritarianism.