Piers Morgan: People Need Dictators and Slave Masters “Occasionally”

Piers Morgan and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s want to be dictators and slave masters. Regulating a person’s diet is the regulation of a person’s life. Here was Morgan’s response to a guest who disagreed with him on sugary drink control:

“I think people need [these types of laws] occasionally, particularly on issues like smoking, drinking, guzzling sodas too big for them, you know, eating 16 Big Macs a day, whatever it may be, the reality is we all need a bit of nannying about that. That’s why so many people are on diets. That’s a form of nanny state.”

When governments pass laws that force people to eat a certain way in the name of “this is good for you and society,” they are not being nannies. They are being dictators and slave masters.

Once you go down the road of forced good intentions, there are no stop signs along the way. Today it’s sugary drinks; tomorrow dictators will want to tell us where to live, the jobs we should have, the friends we should associate with, how to spend our money, and what we can say.

In fact, we’ve already gone down this road. Watch what you say or you’ll be cited for “hate speech.” The money we earn is not really ours. When government dictators determine by law to “exempt” some of our income from taxation, that’s a sure indicator that the government believes it can claim all our income. “We could take it all, but we’ve decided to ‘exempt’ some from taxation.”

The Democrats have just proposed $1 trillion in new tax confiscation because they believe it’s their money to spend. We’re not capable of spending it in the right way.

Democrat Nancy Pelosi said: “Tax cuts are spending. . . . They are called tax expenditures. Spending money on tax breaks. And that’s the spending that we must curtail as well.”

Taxation is never sold as being bad for anyone. It’s always for the “greater good.” The same is true for laws governing speech that is said to make people uncomfortable or is defined as “hateful.”

How many times have we heard liberals pontificate over how they are “pro-choice”? One of the favorite pro-abortion slogans is, “Our bodies, our lives, our right to decide!”

Being pro-choice is only legitimate if a woman wants to kill her pre-born baby. But don’t ever propose this slogan: “Our bodies, our lives, our right to decide what to eat and drink!”

It’s one thing if well-concerned people put campaigns together to help people make good dietary choices. I’m all for it, as long as (1) they pay for it, and (2) the government doesn’t force anybody to comply.

There was a time when blacks were said not to be capable of freedom. They needed the security of slavery because they couldn’t make the right choices on their own. Slavery was said to be “necessary” for them. Here are two examples of how slavery was often justified:

  • “Slavery was good for the slaves; the slave owners took on the burden of caring for the interests of inferior beings, seeing that they would be fed, clothed and given religious instruction.”
  • “The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves. This idea was popular in the United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries among people, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who regarded slavery as morally reprehensible yet continued to hold slaves and to obtain personal services from them and income from the products these ‘servants’ (as they preferred to call them) were compelled to produce. It would be cruel to set free people who would then, at best, fall into destitution and suffering.”

Piers Morgan and Mayor Michael Bloomberg would fit right in with the slavery arguments of the past. “We need masters to force us to behave a certain way because some people aren’t capable of making good decisions as we see them.” Slavery is alive and well in America, and it does by the name “liberalism.”