People are against a lot of things. Inexplicably, they are most strongly against things that are inevitable and have absolutely no effect on them at all. Those things have some glaringly obvious things in common. Those things are teenage sex, drugs, abortion and homosexuality. The things they have in common are the cold, hard facts that those things have always been. They are now. And they always will be. In other words, those things are inevitable. Come hell or high water, in spite of thunderous condemnation from the pulpit, they're going to happen. Count on it.
Being against the inevitable is irrational. The sun coming up is inevitable. Being against the sun coming up is just as irrational as being against teenage sex, drugs, abortion and homosexuality. Being against them is beside the point since they are going to happen anyway. The point in question is how you handle the inevitable, since being against it has no effect on it.
Take the war on drugs. It makes criminals of millions of people who are drugging themselves of their own free will. It has created a huge criminal class of drug dealers. It spends billions and employs who knows how many hundreds of thousands enforcing unenforcable drug laws that could be better used preventing crime. It makes drugs exorbitantly expensive. The war on drugs is the reason that marijuana is the United State's number one cash crop. The war on drugs has increased supply, increased demand and increased cost, for all of us.
Rather than spend billions and untold man hours on the war on drugs, let's have the government take over the drug trade and give the drugs away. That would be a whole lot cheaper than trying to prevent them. The effect would be to take the profit out of drugs, eliminating drug dealers, those who are now criminals for using drugs and the billions they spend on buying them and the billions spent on trying to prevent them from buying them. It would also cut back on those who first try drugs because it's cool, because it's illegal, like stealing stop signs, a revolt against authority. You'd go to the local government distribution center and pick up your drugs. Nothing cool, glamorous or daring about it. The movie stars, stock brokers, bankers, televangelists and Washington movers and shakers would get in line with the winos, homeless, street people, prostitutes and ordinary folks to get their drugs. That's just one way to handle one inevitaable.
People can be against things for strictly selfish reasons. Take Social Security. George Bush, the chief proponent of abolishing Social Security, did it to appeal to his conservative Republican base and because he has no need for it, so no one else should either. Have you noticed that all the people who are for eliminating Social Security have no need for it? Bush has his future secured with a luxurious, comfortable retirement paid for by the government, but he doesn't want anyone else to have even a penurious, uncomfortaable retirement paid for by the government. But you can bet that when he's eligible, even with all the millions he's looted, he'll take his government retirement pay, every penny he can get.
George Bush is against all the things mentioned above. He's a good example of irrationally being against the inevitable. If he had his way and could abolish the things he's against, it would be of no benefit to anyone and the only effect would be to make it harder for those affected. Can anyone name even one thing that George Bush has done that can be shown to of benefit to any of us ordinary folks? I thought not.