I almost never include personal information on the blog, but in this case it is necessary. Here is a picture of Yours Truly from about two weeks back.
(I am demonstrating, like King Canute, the futility of commanding the waves to obey me. His subjects didn’t believe him, either.)
Anyway, the following conversation, stripped to the essentials, took place between Yours Truly and the manager (a good guy, and I’d say twenty years younger than me) at a chain grocery store. I was buying wine.
“Do you have an ID?”
What for? I bought wine here many times and never needed an ID.
“It’s a new policy.”
Why? Don’t I look old enough?
“Well, we need the ID.”
Why? Do I look anywhere near 21?
“All the major chains [he named them in the area] are now doing it.”
That they are. But why? Do I look too young?
“It’s for your safety.”
Safety? How is it making me safe for you to see my ID?
But why is it policy? I don’t look anywhere near 21.
And now you see why I include today’s photo, to show you, dear reader, that I do not look underage.
The conversation went on like this for a little while. I could see the poor manager saw my point. I am obviously older than 21, and not even close to 21. And any sane, rational, even partially sober adult could see that I am far past 21. But he could not bring himself to admit this obvious fact out loud.
In the manager’s favor, and because I don’t carry an ID, he let me slide, “This time”, he said, by having me state my birthday, duly entered into the computer by the clerk.
A woman behind me in line nodded whenever the manager mentioned “safety”. I mentioned in the conversation that I could understand ambiguous cases, people who look close to the edge. This is why some stores, fearing being attacked by the State, have signs like “We card if you look under 40”, policies which are, I think, a reasonable compromise between asinine, but aggressive, government desire and common sense.
But no. We have to pretend, in our Safety First! effeminocracy, that adults can no longer judge a person’s age. We have to leave that crucial difficult error-prone measurement to the government, which is staffed by Experts, and only they alone can certify age, and have you by mandate must carry a document which prints that age on it. Which grocery store clerks can look at, instead of your face.
Because there might be a chance, even a disappearing one, but still a chance, that somebody might make a mistake, and a man like my dad, who looks past 80, and is past 80, might ackshually be 20 and trying to sneak a beer.
And just think how low society will sink if, once or twice a decade, a 20 year old, who appears to be 80, manages to buy a six pack!
Hey, if the policy saves just one life, it’s worth it. Right?
Now here, if you are like most, you would say to me, “What’s the big deal, Briggs. Just show them your ID. It’s painless.”
It isn’t painless. It’s stupid. It’s dumb. It’s senseless. I don’t want to carry an ID wherever I go, and only for the purpose of demonstrating what is plain to anybody, except Experts or their designated stand-ins.
Because it’s creeping incrementalism. Because if they require an ID for buying a damned bottle of wine, they will require it for something else. Because if we authorize Experts to make decisions in this small stupid thing, they will insist on making decisions in all things.
Good grief! The Slippery Slope is not only not a fallacy, politicians and activists spend their mornings with great barrels of grease. Whatever is not forbidden is mandatory is not only a slogan, it is stated desire. If we only create enough rules, and manage enough behaviors, Utopia can be ours. (The same thing is found in those who demand sports, which is only entertainment, have mandatory computerized reviews.)
I know I am waging a losing battle. I know that resistance is futile, especially when the young—“our future”, as politicians always needlessly remind us—are a pack of sniveling cowardly timid touchy frightened shivering blob of Safety Firsters.
79% of students believe ‘Students that feel threatened should always have their demands for safety
respected’ (up from 68% in 2016) while 4% disagree (down from 10% in 2016) pic.twitter.com/RvsYZgR0UZ
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) June 23, 2022
This tendency toward fear can only grow worse, especially as fewer marry, and seek protection not from family, but from the State. The State is mother, the State is father. The State must protect us!
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.