As children growing up, some of the most devastating phrases that were uttered by our parents included, "Because I said so," or "It's for your own good." As kids, we hated asking our parents why we had to do something and hearing, "Because I said so," or asking if we could do something and hearing our parents say, "It's for your own good," after denying our request.
As we became adults and got into situations where we were being asked "why" or "can I do this or that," we were the ones who uttered the words we felt were words of doom when our parents said them to us. We began saying, "Because I said so," and "It's for your own good." It wasn't as bad being on the giving end of these words as it was being on the receiving end of them.
Recently decisions have been made by some lawmakers and state leaders - I'm not talking about how they were made, just the decisions themselves - which have many people asking "why," and after hearing that said decisions were "for our own good," some accepted the decisions, and some aggressively disagreed (and still do) with them and feel that rights are being taken away.
As parents we weren't always very popular with what we did not allow our children to do, or when we denied a request to do something because we felt it to be the right decision for their own good. Sometimes parents make those decisions based on past experiences, and sometimes it is just a gut feeling. Sometimes parents are right, and sometimes they're wrong. What cannot be disputed in these cases is that parents act out of love for their children and the instinct to keep them safe from harm.
The cases of the decisions recently made by some governmental officials consumes what I feel is this very premise. I believe that these decisions were made out of a genuine concern for the safety of all people, and the desire to do everything possible to keep people as safe from harm as possible. As with being a parent, lawmakers will make decisions that might not win popularity contests with all of their constituents. These recent decisions made appear to be ones that especially will not award politicians with popularity votes.
As with everything, politics needs to include compromise. Politicians trying to construct budgets need to give and take. We've heard so often, especially in this current national administration, that both sides need to reach across the aisle and meet somewhere in that aisle. Politics is supposed to be a governing of the people, by the people, for the people. That does not mean that all people will be doing the governing, or all the people will agree with all the decisions which will be made by those governing, but the decisions being made should be for the betterment or protection of all the people.
Government can't be executed just for the benefit of special interest groups. I am sure we all have an agenda that we wish our lawmakers could and would follow which would address and sugar coat all of our own special wishes, but let's be real, that isn't going to happen, so it is up to everyone to concede that there will be some things we agree with, which will be to our advantage, and there will be some things with which we will not agree and we may have to make some concessions, whether we like it or not. It is called give and take.
I believe in the cases regarding the recent lawmaking decisions made by government groups, no one has been asked to give up their rights. People may still do what they did before, but the government has put some restrictions on how people can do what they still have the right to do. There are speed limits on highways which people have to follow. In some states, these speed limits vary. Governing bodies in each of the states come up with the limits of speed with which drivers can reach before it's against the law. These limits do not take away the right to drive; they just regulate it. That seems to be the case with regard to some of the recent decisions made our lawmakers. Is everyone going to agree? No. Is everyone going to be happy? No, again. Does that make the law or restriction wrong? I don't think so. Are those making the laws and restrictions stripping people of their rights? I don't think so here either. I think this is one of those situations like when we were kids and we asked "why" and were told, "Because I said so," or a situation like one where we wanted a reason and were told because this was "for our own good."
Politics isn't about all people getting their own way, or about people getting everything they want. It's about making decisions, trying to keep all of the people in mind, and realizing that there will be decisions some will agree with, and some people won't agree with, and not letting either scenario affect how decisions are made. Now, does that always happen? Not hardly. Sometimes decisions are made which some feel are harmful, not helpful. Sometimes people have tunnel vision and only see what they want to see, or only take into consideration how things affect them personally.
We want things to be certain ways. We want to be able to do and have more than we do or have right now, but there are certain things (maybe recently made new laws) that sometimes we have to do, or follow, just because someone said so, and just because it really is "for our own good."