Too close for comfort

“They’re telling you how to live and what to do, and they’re doing it right here in America.”

So complains a smoker who has been told she can no longer smoke in her own home, in a piece titled “Should Smoking at Home Be Illegal?”

I wrote a post on this not-especially-new subject the other day, and I would add is that it’s just another argument against forcing people into high-density housing (something environmentalists want).

The closer together we live, the less freedom we have. It almost comes down to laws of physics.

(Perhaps a quasi-law, along the lines of “as population density increases, freedom decreases.”)

UPDATE: As a post Glenn linked earlier reminded me, living in a rural area will not necessarily save you from urban busybodies with PhDs.

Here’s what a judge told plaintiffs who sought simply to consume whole milk from their own cows:

“….Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”

And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…”

Not to be a bore again, but such tyrannical thinking does follow quite logically from the basic premise of the war on drugs.

When you have no privacy in your home and you are not free to consume the produce of your own land, can you be said to be free?