Tuesday, November 26, 2013
John Stossel relays
a tale of government intrusiveness that should astound -- although it is
apparently par for the course today's regulatory state. Here's a sample:
The inspectors told Marty[, a magician by trade, on one of ten unannounced visits to his home] that the Animal Welfare Act required him to file paperwork demonstrating that he had "a comprehensive written disaster plan detailing everything I would do with my rabbit in the event of a fire, a flood, a tornado, an ice storm."Our government should worry a tenth as much for the rights of its citizens as it does for the welfare of captive rabbits. If it did, it would confine itself to acting within its proper scope, which would frequently entail acting (and costing) far less than it does now.
The federal forms list "common emergencies likely to happen to your facility ... not necessarily limited to: structural fire, electrical outage, disruption in clean water or feed supply, disruption in access to facility (e.g., road closures), intentional attack on the facilities ... earthquake, landslide/mudslide/avalanche ... "