Skip to content

LETTER: A poor excuse for regulation

"But it’s an easy sell; the old “if only one life can be saved” is a solid go-to for politicians because it makes them sound caring and concerned, and doesn’t require a high standard of proof to show the ends, the loss of individual rights, justify the regulatory means."
letter-sta

"If only one life can be saved."

The phrase that’s commonly used by the left as the lead-in to some sort of strangling piece of legislation. It's one that goes like this: If only one life can be saved – fill in the blank.

Politicians cite this with eye-rolling frequency.

If only one life can be saved, this ban on children riding in the front seat would’ve done it’s job.

If only one life can be saved, this prohibition against pain meds will be justified.

If only one life can be saved, this requirement that the wearing of non-medical face masks in public will be worthwhile.

The left (those social justice warriors who usually profess to know what is better for you more than you do), typically call on legislators to profess much the same – by always invoking the very weak and deceptive "if only we can save one" argument to boot.

Some politicians, ever on the alert for the winds bringing votes, are always trying save people’s lives through regulations and laws and legislation that have the cumulative effect of leaving the citizens in a permanent state of No Can Do – in a society where all is regulated and individual freedoms are stripped. The lifesaving results of these regulations are more often than not negligible. But it’s an easy sell; the old “if only one life can be saved” is a solid go-to for politicians because it makes them sound caring and concerned, and doesn’t require a high standard of proof to show the ends, the loss of individual rights, justify the regulatory means.

How to prove a life saved by a non-medical mask not worn? Elephant, meet room.

Randy Kish,

St. Albert




Comments