I’m Not Buying Bicycle Helmets
by
James Leroy Wilson
by James Leroy Wilson
I
do not doubt that there are many blessings and joys that come with
fatherhood. But from the perspective of a single, childless man,
there are some hassles in parenting I wouldn’t want to deal with.
I don’t mean the diaper changing or the 2am cries, or the patience,
or the disciplining. Those are tough enough, but are part of the
package, things a responsible parent deals with. What I mean is
the b.s., the government telling me how to raise and what to teach
my children.
Take
bicycle helmets, please. I once saw a kid with one on a tricycle,
for goodness’ sakes! I wasn’t the world’s most active kid. But even
on hot days, I would ride my bike to friends‘ houses, or to the
convenience store, or just to bike. What else is a kid going to
do on a summer day? Especially as I got older, I’d bike all around
town. Would I have done so if I felt too hot and sweaty because
of the helmet? If I had to take a shower after every time I biked?
It
is this attitude that makes me a poor candidate for fatherhood:
I would never buy my children bicycle helmets no matter what the
law says. The risks of a head injury sustained at slow speeds and
small heights are too small to justify the cost and inconvenience
for the kids. I don’t want to send the message that riding a bicycle
is unsafe. Besides, kids are supposed to get cuts and bruises,
and wipe out once in a while. It toughens them up.
In
what other ways would I be a bad Dad? From education to alcohol,
from arts to medicine, I would try to do what’s right regardless
of the law or social expectations. Obviously, my course of action
would have to take these into account; no one wants to go to
jail or not have enough money. But while I would want my children
to learn prudence and responsibility, I wouldn’t want them to value
conformity, especially to an unjust regime and absurd social order.
I’d rather home-school in a trailer park and be free than have a
huge house in the ’burbs and send my kids to a "good"
indoctrination camp.
But
my biggest crime as a father would be that I’d discourage my children
from going into law enforcement and the military. Rather, I’d want
them to be constantly skeptical of the government’s claims that
its wars are necessary and its laws are just. Yes, I would also
want my children to be courageous. Physically courageous, ready
to lay down their lives to save somebody in peril. But I would be
a bad Dad, because I would teach my children that love of country
is not the same as faith in government.
I
would not want my children to sneer at cops or soldiers, or doubt
their motives although let’s admit that these branches of
the State do attract their share of bullies who want to "kick
ass" legally. But the patriotism of decent, honorable soldiers
will not excuse them when they lay down their lives for their "country,"
if their country is in the wrong. And the badge is not a moral exemption
from civilized behavior. A cop who falls in the "line of duty,"
when that "duty" is raiding the homes of marijuana growers
or gun dealers, is not a hero. Not any more than were storm troopers
who met the wrong end of Han Solo’s blaster. Storm troopers were
not bad people. They just trusted their leaders and obeyed orders.
But I don’t want my kids to become storm troopers.
I
would be a bad Dad because I would not want my kids to trust their
leaders and obey orders. It might sound attractive to join National
Guard for the scholarships, or enlist in the Marines to learn "discipline."
The trouble with that is, once you’re in, it is hard to get out,
especially when the country is at war. The war may be clearly unjust
and against the nation’s interests, and the President may be incompetent,
insane, or in the clutches of sinister people. But none of that
will matter when you’re court-martialed for going AWOL. Between
joining the military in the hopes of a peaceful stint, and not joining
the military at all, the wiser course is clear.
Dedicating
one’s life to the military, or to law enforcement, is an act of
faith. Often described as a faith in "democracy" or our
"republican form of government," or "the rule of
law." Yet faith that is not grounded in history and reason,
is foolishness. And neither history nor reason can demonstrate that
in democratic republics:
- the best
rise to the top;
- the only
wars that are fought are unavoidable, necessary, and defensive
in purpose;
- the right
to be left alone the right to liberty is respected;
- the best
ideas are embraced and bad ones rejected;
- Constitutional
checks and balances prevent anyone from acquiring too much power;
- the government
is capable of honestly and fairly checking the "excesses"
of free markets, even as special-interest lobbyists dominate
the capital city;
- individual
rights and property are protected from collectivist programs;
- the government
is effectively guarded against infiltration by foreign powers,
organized crime, and secret organizations.
Of
course, other forms of government are no better. And that’s the
problem; the State is the problem, no matter where it originated,
how it is structured, or the virtues of the occasional honest politician.
This isn’t about, "If we had someone like [insert your favorite
President here], faith in our government can be restored."
I agree wholeheartedly with Cindy Sheehan that her son Casey was
killed in the wrong war fought for the wrong reasons. But I think
we must emphasize that all non-defensive wars are wrong,
no President can be trusted, and faith in the government
defies history and reason. And thus it would be foolish to
risk one’s life doing the State’s bidding.
The
State is, after all, composed of petty tyrants who believe it is
their responsibility to make sure Junior doesn’t get on his
bike without a helmet. And force him to sit idly in a mini-van child-seat
when he could be wrestling with his brother in the back of a station
wagon. And "protect" him by banning smoking sections in
restaurants.
In
South Pacific, Rodgers & Hammerstein told us that "you
have to be carefully taught" racism. Well, you also "have
to be carefully taught" statism, too. If I ever become a father,
I would try to carefully teach freedom. From an early age. Even
if it makes me a bad Dad, setting a poor example for the other kids
and their fathers. Some things are worth the hassle.
August
23, 2005
James
Leroy Wilson [send him mail]
is a columnist for the Partial
Observer and blogs at "Independent
Country." He currently resides in eastern Washington State.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
James
Leroy Wilson Archives
|