Some might think “fine.”  If it takes cordoning oneself off as much as possible to avoid harassment by security operatives and seldom leaving one’s property or wherever it is one will be permitted to reside as bureaucratic regulations grow increasingly obtuse and the dictatorial impulse more pervasive, that is what stalwart patriots would set their minds on the attempt at doing.  However, though logic would dictate that those conscientiously avoiding public forms of conveyance and interaction should be left unaccosted by those insisting it is their obligation to determine the legitimacy of the motives of those locomoting across communal causeways, social engineers have often expressed an even greater desire to interfere in the lives of those that quietly disentangle themselves from the tentacles of Leviathan.

For example, in the case of Wikard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer that grew his own crop for private consumption not directly participating in interstate commerce was still subject to administrative oversight under that much abused clause of the Constitution because whatever he produced for his own consumption would adversely impact the interstate market.  Thus, judges and bureaucrats with no scruples about restricting the expansion of government power could apply this already warped precedent to argue that those going out of their way to avoid not only public transportation but the public altogether are not only undermining national security but rather social cohesion as well.

Those with limited imagination might find the above scenario too abstract or farfetched .  Fine.

One doesn't have to project that far along possible timelines to make the point.  Already, steps are being taken to set the foundations for a milieu where those trapped within won’t be punished for actual crimes but rather for simply staying to themselves or forced to interact with others against their will.

For example, to many suburbanites, the epitome of domestic tranquility is a sizeable backyard surrounded by a privacy fence into which one can retreat with one's family following a lengthy and grueling workday.  However, under the rubric of a movement some refer to as "New Urbanism", COMMUNTIY planners and sympathetic architects would deny the homeowner this sliver of elusive seclusion.

Instead, each homeowner is to have thrust upon them a front porch.  It is insisted that this feature prompts interaction among residents not for the purposes of fostering friendship but rather COMMUNITY.

Even a number of perspectives within Christianity have gotten onboard.  Some still believing in Heaven as the blissful destination in the Afterlife insist that, if you don't want the neighbors up in your business now, you likely won't be one of those joining the Saints in glory.  Among the Emergent Church types downplaying the existence of Heaven, your unwillingness to fanatically embrace the herd consensus likely means you have no place in the this worldly "Kingdom of God", which sounds disturbingly like a form of religious socialism.

Proponents insist that such environmental tinkering will supposedly bring out the best in human nature, resulting in a new golden age.  However, without regeneration in Christ and even with that the individual is left with too much residue of the sin nature, it is advisable to retain a respectable degree of distance apart from those outside the immediate nuclear family and a few select friends.  All such social manipulation will accomplish will be to fester a variety of behavioral pathologies to the surface.

For example, one particular acquaintance resides in an area where most of the dimwits have been duped into embracing the blather about the joys of gathering on front porches for endless hours of self-denunciation and reeducation.  Some years back, as my acquaintance was restoring a classic automobile, the tranquility of the summer's evening was shattered with, "WHAT THE F--K IS HE DOING WITH THAT CAR?"

You will note that the offense against the COMMUNITY was not that such language would be utilized to inquire as to what a member of the collective was doing. Rather, the deed to denigrate was that of an individual pursuing his own interests rather than subordinating himself to the preferred activities of the group.  

This would not be the last incident where the protections of communal support would be denied to those not so much out to destroy the COMMUNITY but who would rather retain most of their identity distinct and apart from that unit of social organization.  Because a relation of this particular person had expressed on a public forum a sentiment countervailing the prevailing leftwing consensus within the disputed municipality, my associate and his family had a car window smashed on more than one occasion.

When the neighbors assembled to gleefully gawk at the misfortune, my associate was informed that people did not like his family anyway.  At the heart of conservatism and libertarianism, adherents of these related perspectives do not require that those residing  in close proximity to them respond with tidings of affection and camaraderie.  However, what is required is that they respect your property and possessions whether they like you or not.

The vitality of liberty is a precarious thing.  It is seldom lost overnight.  Rather, it slowly slips from our grasp as we often compromise with those assuring that what they are snatching from us is really for our own welfare and protection.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."