The Government Would Rather You Die If It Nets More RevenueChris | InformationLiberation
Oct. 14, 2010
SPLC: It's 'Unacceptable' For MS-13 To Be Described As 'Animals' By The White House
Judge's Ruling That Trump Can't Block Twitter Trolls Could Be A Huge Win For Right-Wingers
#NotMyBattlefield: Gamers Reject SJW-Themed Battlefield V
Report: Scot Peterson 'Covered Up Sexual Assault' On Boy At School Involving Sheriff Israel's Son
Sweden: Anti-Immigration Sweden Democrats Hit Record High Support In Latest Poll
An absolutely astonishing story was quietly reported recently without much fanfare. The story was unquestionably viral, it made the rounds on the internet, but it never got the major boost of coverage from the major media to propel it into the national debate.
Why was this the case?
One can only guess, but perhaps it was because the story was one of the greatest examples of the nature of government and the people who populate it.
That story was of a rather innocuous headline, 'yellow lights are being shortened' all over the United States.
When yellow lights are shortened from 5 seconds to 3, a dramatic increase in accidents occurs. Yet, something else occurs besides more people dying...
Red light camera revenue is increased.
The government is here to help is it not? Their whole purpose is to keep us safe? We're endlessly harangued about how we need to give up our liberties for safety... Surely they will choose keeping people safe instead of netting more revenue at the cost of actively causing more people to die?
Unfortunately, while you or I would choose without question to keep people safe, that's not the nature of the people who populate the reigns of government. They chose more deaths and more revenue.
The government would rather you die if it means they get more revenue. That is a "trade off" they're more than willing to make.
Think about that next time someone tells you the government is "here to help."
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com. He doesn't want to be ruled by people who care more about revenue than helping the people they claim to protect. You can read more of his commentary here.