Should People Be More Questioning of Ridiculous Restrictions and Protest Those More?


I posted this in response to a thread on another board about a handicapped patient from St. Jude Hospital in Memphis who received some rough treatment by the TSA when she tried to fly home to Chattanooga, Tennessee. I have thought long and hard about these issues. Specifically I wonder why sophisticated, intelligent and busy people, whose time is valuable, don’t object to the TSA gelling up the air travel system, with little gain as to stopping terrorism. People meekly take off their shoes, since one person approximately fifteen years ago, The Shoe Bomber’s World, tried to blow up a plane with a bomb hidden in his sneaker. Presumably a similar response to the December 25, 2009Underwear bomberattack would have imposed some difficulties so nothing similar was done to require people to fully disrobe at airports.

Still, people accept these rules, which are apparently imposed without much thought, deliberation of discussion.

And here are some examples:

**Political Correctness Overrides Law Enforcement (and not only big cities)
[quote=Wyckoff, NJ Police Officer] Wyckoff Police Chief Benjamin Fox takes leave after profiling email[/quote][quote=Wyckoff, NJ Police Officer]WYCKOFF - The Wyckoff police chief is taking a temporary leave while prosecutors investigate whether he told his officers racial profiling has a place in policing.
Chief Benjamin Fox reportedly asked the town’s committee to go on administrative leave while the investigation is pending. Fox says it’s in the best interest of the police department to avoid distractions.
Acting Attorney General Robert Lougy and acting Bergen County Prosecutor Gurbir Grewal said in the statement that the email from Wyckoff Police Chief Benjamin Fox appears to be a violation of state policy prohibiting racial profiling. They say they are investigating and will take “appropriate measures.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              [**See also***2014 Wyckoff Police Memo*](                   

                             The email says that profiling has its place in law enforcement when used correctly.

Another example concerns terror. It is obvious that most, though not all terror emanates from certain groups. In an effort to maintain a spurious “fairness” we force all people to undergo security checks when entering New York City office buildings. Clearly, almost all of those people are going about their day to day business, and having to add 15 minutes to the needed time to make a meeting is bad for productivity and society. Yet to spare the feelings of communities that more or less refuse to integrate we are inconveniencing all.

Similarly, in Brussels and Paris, as well as other European cities (and a few communities in the U.S.) there are large areas that are “off limits” to police and to majority communities. Common sense dictates that nothing good is happening in those communities. It is not as if the people in those communities are plotting out peaceful demonstrations. Nor are they working on arguments that they will ask their members of Parliament to debate. They are devising ways to hurt or kill us. And given the relative lack of employment, largely on the Government’s “dime.”

All that I ask is some common sense, not racism.

**Why So Much Overregulation?
Over recent months, there have been several seemingly unrelated and innocuous events highlighting some glaring problems, all involving over-regulation. These rules and procedures are costly, inefficient and provide few benefits.

[]Security desks and entrance regulations at schools – Last year I went to drop a cell phone off for my son at his high school. He had called and I said I would leave it at the principal’s office. I was greeted at the front door by a friendly and pleasant security guard. I had to leave it with him. We got to talking. I pointed out that back in the day I visited my high school alma mater and went right to teachers’ offices, and to my old club offices. Now that would be impossible. He pointed out that there used to be all kinds of entrances and exits that people could use. Now every entrance is a cluster and a delay, all because of the one-off incident in Sandy Hook. We went centuries before Sandy Hook without such rules; are there suddenly hundreds of monsters out there that would kill children? Remember most such tragedies, such as Columbine, involve current students, not outsiders.
]Cell phone and texting restrictions while driving - I get that people can be distracted by such activities. But wouldn’t it be better if people could alert their destination that they were running late rather than speeding?
[]Security at office buildings - Right after 9/11 we began seeing almost all office buildings having restricted access for “security” reasons. Any reason a terrorist bent on making a statement couldn’t just blow himself up anywhere he sees a line, such as a theater entrance or subway station? We have made it impossible for people such as myself, for example, who are looking for jobs to simply show up, hand in a CV and demonstrate motivation and drive. Or for spouses to surprise each other at work? Or close friends similarly? How many terror attacks are really prevented this way?
]Security at airports - We have made air travel cumbersome. Thus, for example, I am planning to travel to Washington, DC a few weeks from now from the New York City area. Train travel is ridiculously expensive for a trip of about 5 hours. If I take a plane, back in the day it was a shuttle that was about a one hour flight. Now, adding security time at airport, it’s 3 hours. Maybe I’ll just drive. Heck, gas is cheap these days. Imagine the financial impact this must be having on the air industry? It would make far more sense to do spot checking, behavioral profiling, and the random use of sky marshals. But hey, it’s racist to target people at war with us.
[*]Low speed limits - Where I live, the New York City area, major secondary roads have close to uniform limits of 30 mph. New York City now has a 25 mph limit.Low limits allow politicians to take credit for taking “action” on highway safety, yet are at best ineffective or at worst harmful. In Westchester, someone got killed doing 100 mph on King Street, a local road. The speed limit was reduced from 40 to 35, either shortly before or after that tragedy. Does someone taking a two-lane (one each way) road really take the speed limit into account. Same with DiBlasio’s reduction of the NYC limit from 30 to 25, in response to high-speed accidents. Motivated by stupidity? Or his thinking voters are stupid? I’m not sure. Limits should be between 40 and 50 on secondary roads, and 25 or 30 on true neighborhood streets where tricycles mix with cars.

The situation is equally absurd on highways. Back in the day, the LIE had a 60 mph limit in Nassau and 65 in Suffolk. The limits were never raised to prior limits after the “energy crisis” despite safer cars and better tires. Many roads had 60 mph limits, such as I-287 in Westchester, the Connecticut Turnpike, and similar semi-urban freeways, such as the parts of the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway not at 65. Those are still stuck at 55. Back in 1995 New York, lagging almost all other states, returned to a 65 mph limit. The new limit was applied only to a few roads. After 684 went back to 65 in 2004 the progress stopped.

Limits should be increased because we’ve invested huge amounts in safer (and more expensive) cars, and better highways. The low limits are a waste. Low and arbitrary limits are only selectively enforced on a “shooting fish in a barrel” basis. They contribute nothing to safety since in general traffic flows at around 70 on highways, and 40 or 45 on most secondary roads.

All of these rules, and more that other think of, are annoying at best. At worst, they detract from productivity and waste valuable time and resources.
I really wonder why people have not really fought most of these. The closest that people have come to “fighting back” was the 55 mph national speed limit, created by executive order on or about November 10, 1973 and enacted by Congress in March 1974. In response to popular resistance it was partially repealed in stages starting in 1988 and entirely effective December 1995. Other than that people have accepted other purposeless restrictions on their lives meekly. I suspect the reason that rule was resisted was that the biggest “victims” were more liberty-minded residents of the Western states, whereas urban Northeasterners are more prone to accept regulation.

Also, absence of rules may be perceived to work well in a more homogeneous society than we have now. My preference would be to educate the more diverse population how to handle a self-regulating society, than to have a clumsy, poorly compensated array of bureaucrats running out lives.


I may have been the first person in the US to get a ticket for driving in excess of 55 mph back in the day. I was in the Army, traveling on Interstate 10 E to Ft Benning GA, IIRC and it late at night. As I approached the time zone change from CST to EST a car pulled out behind me and I thought nothing of it. Just as I crossed into EST the red lights came on and I got a ticket.

The purpose behind extreme rules, regs and laws is to put fear in the people. Clearly with the 1000’s of law Obama has released thru EO no one have any idea of whether or not they may or may not be breaking the law. So you begin to live in fear of the govt which is what is wanted. If you fear the govt then they have power over you, again their goal, power = control.


I may have been the first person in the US to get a ticket for driving in excess of 55 mph back in the day.
Don you may have been first BUT I perfected getting tickets. There’s a 5 mile stretch in Texas just across the border from Oklahoma that should have my name on it. I think that at 23 years old I had 10 tickets on my record all gotten in that 5 miles. It took me a while to smarten up, But I was young, my gf lived a long way a way & I’d go home on weekends.


Of COURSE racial profiling has its place in law enforcement! Only a moron would claim otherwise. If you get a radio report that a bank was just robbed by 4 black men who escaped in a green Cadillac, why would anyone expect you to start checking out white Toyotas occupied by two blue-haired old ladies?


[quote=“Pappadave, post:4, topic:49332”]
Of COURSE racial profiling has its place in law enforcement! Only a moron would claim otherwise. If you get a radio report that a bank was just robbed by 4 black men who escaped in a green Cadillac, why would anyone expect you to start checking out white Toyotas occupied by two blue-haired old ladies?
[/quote]Great post.

And the thread is all about common sense, or its absence.


Regulation is about empowering government and neutering the individual citizen, the obvious results are that it makes things worse instead of better but that to is a win for government; the worsening state of whatever was regulated then serves as justification for more regulation.

Like 17Oaks said, it is about creating fear of the government and I would add revenue generation as a secondary motive; nowhere does “improving the lives, safety and efficiency of society” enter into the agenda.

Profiling is the single most valuable tool for effective Law Enforcement, racial or any other relevant factor; that is why profiling has been criminalized.

And to answer the question, absolutely we should refuse to honor these regulations and thousands of others; governments do not possess the power to enforce their draconian measures without the consent of the governed expressed by voluntary compliance for the most part.

The day we start simply saying “no” will be the day the government starts to fear for their position, things will change for the better pretty quick when Americans quit bothering to even read the mail that originates from government bureaucracies and start walking around all the hoops that government holds in front of them to jump through.


The sword is double edged: As the number of regs, rules, etc grows the govt gains more and more power but with each rule and regs and code the govt loses its power. At first no one notices.

People wanting to start a business don’t because gone are the days that you, some friends, a Mastercard and a garage is borne a mega corp or even just a company that employs 50 people.

Big companies don’t expand, owners sell, take the cash and retire down in Mexico on the beach.

The body of lawyers grows and grows and lawyers at best are parasites on society. They add little to a country other than slow down the wheels of progress and make things more expensive than they already are. I am sure some of you have been a party to a class action lawsuit, I have on at least 3 occasions. In spite of a settlements in the tens and 100’s of millions, how much did you get? I got 2 $15 checks.

Soon the govt begins to move like molasses pouring out of a jar in the winter time. The govt begins to collapse under its own rules and regs and it becomes a govt of “THEM” and THEM are the faceless bureaucrats that cannot make a decision other than to tell ou it has to be approved by another office and when you get to the other office they only send you to another office. The govt begins to exist to say no and never yes. What I found out in 26 years of govt was that that to say yes or give your approval can get you in trouble, LOTS of trouble, after a while you just say NO because NO ONE gets in trouble for saying NO…THINK Benghazi


People in groups become sheep. Reminds me of an old tv show where aliens landed & they were transporting people back to their planet so that they could “serve” humans. It was all laid out in one of their books, which turned out to be a cook book.
Oddly some would think about that story & think about aliens coming across our borders now & us serving them by supporting them. Not me of course, but some people. (wink)