I am writing this not so much to preach to the progressives, but to establish what I believe and why I believe it. It scares me when I encounter people, especially conservatives, who believe our rights come from the constitution. They do not. I also want to say that I get wound up sometimes, but I genuinely respect the views of all my interlocutors and I greatly appreciate that you take the time to come here and debate.
A Living Document or Carved in Stone?
Progressivism depends upon a "living document" constitution, malleable and subject to modern reinterpretations, while strict constructionists insist the only valid manner of "reinterpretation" is to go through the amendment process. I am a strict constructionist, but I can see the other side's point.
But anyway, here is my argument...
Natural Rights: The Philosophical Foundation of our Constitutional Republic
Our founding fathers were born in the age of the divine right of kings. The ruler was the lawgiver. Some were tyrants about it, others were merely capricious, while some were downright enlightened in their rule. England's Glorious Revolution restored some power to the people, but Parliament came to be seen as capricious, issuing commands that violated personal sovereignty instead of discovering and enshrining broadly applicable principles as they existed among the people.
The founders based their political philosophy upon concepts explained in Locke's Second Treatise. All people possess the natural rights of life, liberty and property. Man exists in a state of nature, but as Hobbes observed, life there is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," so people gather in clans and communities where mores and societal norms spring forth and evolve.
Further, societies make rules to guarantee the rights of all. As such, Enlightenment minds considered "lawmaking" an abomination. "Law discovery" is a concept more fitted to a free people, for it presupposes that laws naturally exist by history and custom of a people. Lawmakers and judges merely discover and enunciate them as the need arises. A radical concept, but our founders were radical men.
Our Constitution Binds the Government, Not the People
They wrote the constitution to charge the federal government with specific responsibilites like national defense and regulating certain activities among the states. It was written to regulate the behavior of government, not that of the citizens. It was also written with man's natural rights in mind, which is why it is short on strictures on human behavior.
In the founders' minds, there were two spheres, the public and the private. Man is the sovereign of his personal sphere and government may not intrude upon it so long as a man does not intrude upon the personal sphere of another. Government may not compel a man to surrender property to another man, or press him into involuntary service unless it is specifically stated in the constitution, such as military service.
It is significant that the only positive rights mentioned in the constitution are legal rights that protect the citizen from the state, such as habeas corpus, representation, speedy trial, etc. All other rights mentioned are negative ones, essentially the right to conduct your own affairs as you see fit so long as you allow others to do the same.
There are no rights to food, or shelter or other material things. Indeed Hamilton and others argued against a Bill of Rights because they feared craven officials would use such a list to claim that other rights were excluded since they were not mentioned, or that listing them would give a pretext for government to claim to be the source of them and therefor subject to the whims of presidents and legislators.
We have no positive rights granting us the property of others
There is no right to health care, and there is no right to have others pay for it. It doesn't exist. To those who insist it does, I ask you then why you are not vociferously arguing against any religious exemption, especially the one that exempts churches from providing these services to employees? If it is a right, it may not be violated.
Does the federal government have the authority to tell a business to give things away? That's what Obama's tissue-thin fig leaf of a compromise does. It commands insurance companies to give stuff away. If the government can do this, why not command grocery stores to give food away? Better yet, solve the birth control issue by decreeing that all birth control products are free. All someone has to do is walk in and take them.
This is the lala land we find ourselves in when government intrudes upon our personal sphere. It has no business there, it violates the constitution, and leads to much illogic. If goverment can tell you what kind of insurance you must provide your employees, why can't it tell you what kind of food to eat?
The reason it cannot is because nothing in the constitution authorizes it to invade the private realm of the individual. To say otherwise is to expose us all to the whims of our elected officials and their army of bureaucrats. It is tyranny.
Links:
Second Treatise of Civil Government - John Locke
US Constitution
Federalist Papers
See also Chapters 11, 12, and 14 of Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty (Sorry, no linky love!)
Does the federal government have the authority to tell a business to give things away? That's what Obama's tissue-thin fig leaf of a compromise does. It commands insurance companies to give stuff away. If the government can do this, why not command grocery stores to give food away? Better yet, solve the birth control issue by decreeing that all birth control products are free. All someone has to do is walk in and take them.
This is the lala land we find ourselves in when government intrudes upon our personal sphere. It has no business there, it violates the constitution, and leads to much illogic. If goverment can tell you what kind of insurance you must provide your employees, why can't it tell you what kind of food to eat?
The reason it cannot is because nothing in the constitution authorizes it to invade the private realm of the individual. To say otherwise is to expose us all to the whims of our elected officials and their army of bureaucrats. It is tyranny.
Links:
Second Treatise of Civil Government - John Locke
US Constitution
Federalist Papers
See also Chapters 11, 12, and 14 of Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty (Sorry, no linky love!)
82 comments:
Natural rights is a cop out.
We hold these truths to be self evident ... they FUDGED IT.
Community and culture is where you live. Essential to your survival. We need to attend to the health of the society for our own well being and that means dealing with the imperfections of economic systems with concrete action rather than some crap about "natural rights".
The Federalists were opposed to the Bill of Rights. Fortunately more mature minds prevailed.
Rights are whatever the culture and government grants. "Natural rights" other than the right to die a quick brutal death are imaginary.
Libertarian children latch onto Locke's cult of property and think that's the final word. Please bore me later.
You're arguing with the men who wrote the constitution, Ducky, not me.
So what would you do? Wad up the constitution and throw it away, since it is just an impediment to the philosopher kings who are trying to take care of us all?
Seriously. You're good at trashing things, but you are woefully short on any ideas of your own.
How about a link to Charles beard's "Economic Interpretation of the Constitution"?
"Our Constitution Binds the Government, Not the People"
I keep running into leftists who argue that the government is the people (or should be, if not for the interference of corporatists, Republicans, or other convenient excuses they name).
which is a reversal of hundreds of years of attempts to carve out rights for the ruled, regardless of what the rulers thing.
Ah! OK, I get it Ducky. You are challenging the very premise, the foundation of our constitutional republic.
I appreciate your honesty in debate, and your fearlessness in treading where the weasels fear to go. If everyone on the left were as honest as you, I don't know if it would help or harm your cause...
So, what would you have? A pure democracy? Plato's republic? Marxist authoritarianism? Or something else?
Our constitution is not perfect. It is not elastic and it is not cast in concrete. Our constitution provides the means to change it and it has been changed 27 times. Those that argue it is too difficult do so because they know the people would not accept the changes they promote. The idea that all men have certain unalienable rights goes back centuries. Government can only grant privileges they can not give rights.
Unfortunately those that govern always want to govern more and our constitution left enough wiggle room for the seekers of more power to succeed. Also, our government over the years has passed many unconstitutional laws to which We The People did not challenge. There is more than enough blame to go around for the condition we find ourselves in today.
Well Silverfiddle, England has done just fine without a Constitution.
What I would do is ca the idea of natural rights. tter nonsense.
Then pay attention to building the society with an eye on the fact that government must be allowed to act and must also be controlled.
A difficult problem that Founders worship won't solve.
"There are no rights to food, or shelter or other material things."
That's why "rights" do not enter into the subjects of "general welfare." Federal assistance for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, etc, is a duty of the government right off the Constitutional bat. How to pay for these things is enumerated three times in the Constitution.
You're looking at "rights," when that has nothing to do with it.
JMJ
We hold these truths to be self evident ... they FUDGED IT.
We're ruled by the Declaration of Independence?
Who knew?
"Rights are whatever the culture and government grants."
If I believed that for a minute I'd be on the next plane out.
Thank heaven for the 9th and 10th Amendments
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
Note the use of the term "enumeration". The Constitution doesn't 'grant' us rights, it recognizes them. The Bill of Rights preempts and precludes any government under it, Federal or state, from intruding upon them.
Any other interpretation leaves us at the mercy of de Tocqueville's 'tyranny of the majority' A fact I'm sure some will appreciate in about 13 months
viburnum
Federal assistance for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, etc, is a duty of the government right off the Constitutional bat.
Yet aside from various veteran's pensions, NONE of these "general welfare" functions were taken up by the federal government for the first 148 years of the US Constitution (1787 - 1935). And even in that, you don't have the first real federal veteran's pension programs until the 1880's - so, for 100 years, the first 100 years, the federal government wasn't doing what it was chartered to do?
There's convoys of 18-wheeler trucks doing doughnuts in the gaping hole in your argument, Jersey.
The federal government is mandated by the Constitution to PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE it.
Constitutional law professor
@ Ducky: Then pay attention to building the society with an eye on the fact that government must be allowed to act and must also be controlled.
That's what the constitution does.
Jersey:
I have given you my reasoning for why Obama's dictatorial actions on health care are unconstitutional.
Please tell us why you think this is constitutional. What gives the federal government the right to dictate personal choice?
So far, I am not seeing a coherent philosophy from you guys, and you're not doing a good job of identifying your foundational thinking or documents which authorize this level of unprecedented government action.
Not only is Obamacare unconstitutional, it is bad policy and harms families.
It's terrible to force families to cut money for food, housing, college, etc and force them go to buy fancy health plans they don't need.
I guess Obama thinks it is good to micro-manage every family's buget.
I so often see an eagerness in lefties, here and elsewhere, to deny the founding fathers the least amount of praise or validity in anything they did. Lately, we hear that if Geo. Washington had one slave, he can't have done anything at all that was upstanding. This is what we're teaching our kids, too.....
American heroes have no standing, the constitution (really just another American hero, let's face it) is suddenly only one more fallible, fallen hero (ask Justice Ginsberg)
And yes, health care ..to the kind of food you must eat or not eat.....tyranny, developed and finely honed for this 2012 entitlement rush to discredit our founding fathers and the constitution.
This discussion is really about entitlements, isn't it.
... around the time of the great depression there was little resistance to government programs. It was known that people needed the assistance to get by ... the white people that is. It was not seen as a benefit going to minorities and in many cases minorities were strictly excluded.
Then comes the civil rights movement and quickly upon it the human pile Saint Ronnie Raygun with his story of welfare Cadillacs and the new perception that the dough was going to benefit ... blacks. And we can't have that.
So we get "welfare reform" and the like but now we have a problem. Things are in the crapper again for white folks. How do we redefine all this to hide the fact?
We can do it the easy Charles Murray way and demonize them. Or we can try to look more even handed and give austerity a Constitutional foundation. Then pretend this is about what foods you eat.
Or pretend large numbers of families are going to miss the mortgage because they have to buy health insurance.
Ducky said: ",,,Saint Ronnie Raygun with his story of welfare Cadillacs and the new perception that the dough was going to benefit ... blacks. And we can't have that."
It sounds nice, but you are making it up. Reagan's proper indignation at welfare fraud was not aimed at blacks at all. After all, it is a fact that whites in poverty (and this white "welfare queens") outnumber all blacks, period. Your accusation of racism against Pres. Reagan has no basis in fact.
Unless of course you are racist yourself, Ducky, and keep a false stereotype that all blacks are welfare cheats. In your comment, you go on and on about a matter that simply does not involve race at all. Take off the white sheet, dude. Your "Things are in the crapper again for white folks." seems like it might have been lifted from a David Duke speech at a white power rally.
-----------------
"Or pretend large numbers of families are going to miss the mortgage because they have to buy health insurance."
The "Obamacare" mandate requires this. Or they will miss meals, or not be able to pay for gas for their car.
The average annual cost of health insurance for a family is $13,375 (and soaring as "Obamacare" forces insurance companies to raise premium rates).
$13,375 is not chump change. Don't you think families would rather have the ability to make the choice whether or not to pay for this? Whether or not to divert that money to the mortgage (as you mentioned) or other needs?
In fact, as the average American mortgage payment is <a href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Joe>$12,000 per year</A>, the mandage you approve comes pretty close to forcing a "house or insurance?" choice.
Each family should be able to plan its own budget. The First Family has no business doing this for every family in America.
It's very bad for the common good, and for the community. And, of course, for the family.
It sounds nice, but you are making it up. Reagan's proper indignation at welfare fraud was not aimed at blacks at all.
------
Get a freaking clue. Welfare Cadillac was a freaking dog whistle and you(personally) knew exactly what it meant.
Brilliant.
Seriously, what else can one add?
Glad to see folks out in the online world making sense for a change.
" This discussion is really about entitlements, isn't it. "
I thought it was about whether those entitlement programs were properly the role of government? Particularly given that the result of such policies is what's happening these days in Greece. At some point they become unsustainable and will lead inevitably to social as well as economic chaos.
viburnum
Silver,
If one believes that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of our rights, then no there's no right to food, health care or whatever.
Or is there? If there's technically no right to food, does that mean the government can bar you from purchasing food? Can the government bar you from obtaining health insurance?
Mind you, I'm not arguing against natural right theory, I just think that perhaps the constitution, being an imperfect document, is not the best way to argue in favor of natural rights.
Technically, the FCC censoring television is unconstitutional because no one is forced to own a TV, nor are they forced to watch any programs they personally feel are lewd or indecent.
But, you being a God-fearing Christian, my guess is that you're not totally opposed to decency standards in the media.
But the Constitution makes no mention of the FCC does it? The Constitution makes zero mention of lewd or indecent behavior. In fact, the Founding Fathers mostly agreed that freedom of speech meant that even the nasty stuff deserves a public forum. Yet the government regulates TV content anyway.
Heck, where in the constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state," even appear? No where. Yet we all agree that the Founders intended that church and state be separate.
Do I think this gives the government a blank check? No. I just recognize the fact that men 200+ years ago could not possibly have had the foresight to address every future issue that could arise. They did their best, but history and the progression of ideas didn't stop in 1789.
@ Ducky: This discussion is really about entitlements, isn't it.
No its not. Stop changing the subject. It is about individual rights and the constitution.
I've given you my philosophy (which is really the founders' philosophy. Now what is yours? I have heard no defense of Obama's actions from you or Jersey, or an alternative.
Is the left intellectually bereft?
Jack:
If there's technically no right to food, does that mean the government can bar you from purchasing food? Can the government bar you from obtaining health insurance?
Jack: a positive right means someone must pony up to give it to you. There are no such positive rights in the constitution.
The constitution does recognize and defend negative rights, so government stepping into your private life and barring you from purchasing something would violate the constitution.
I'm not using the constitution to defend the concept of natural rights. I am explaining how the constitution was ratified to protect everyone's natural rights.
The FCC is an interesting case, probably defended under the most capacious commerce clause.
"Separation of Church and State" is not the issue...
"Congress shall make no law ..." is.
@ Jack Camwell
I for one do not belive that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of out rights, nor does it proclaim itself to be. In fact it clearly states the opposite in Article 9 and 10.
It wasn't designed to espouse or constrain the rights of the people, but to restrict the powers of government to only those areas which it authorizes.
As someone here said earlier, we have acquiesed over the years in government encroachment on our freedoms which is why the FCC and not your remote controls what you see on television.
,
They may be, perhaps, difficult precedents to overturn, but it is merely precedent plus inertia and not the Constitution that allows them.
viburnum
Is the left intellectually bereft?
Obvious, ain't it?
Viburnum,
I thought I clearly stated that.
Ducky said: "Get a freaking clue. Welfare Cadillac was a freaking dog whistle and you(personally) knew exactly what it meant."
At least you have backed off from the claim that it had anything to with race. And I know exactly what he was talking about. You have made a claim of racism against Reagan with absolutely no evidence.
You are reminding me of the Democrats, who, after the Willie Horton ads against Dukakis' bad corections policy, completely equated black with criminal.
Silver said: "No its not. Stop changing the subject. It is about individual rights and the constitution."
Exactly. It is not about Ducky's believe that "black = welfare cheat", and that any criticism of welfare fraud is an attack on blacks.
The rest of us look at things more critically.
No Silver, the issue is what kind of a society we want. Do we want to get in the wayback machine with you and dmarks and head back to the days of the robber barons?
So what do you propose to do now? Look to the men who lived in a society where the average lifespan was 40 and ask for their experience in dealing with an aged population?
No really, what do we do. We live in a world with a tremendous surplus of labor. Do we just tell the unemployed to get a job? Let's ask the founders, they had experience with unemployment.
Join the 20th century. These problems have to be solved and they can't be solved by looking to 18th century America for the solution.
And dmarks welfare Cadillac has EVERYTHING to do with race. Are you old enough to have been lucid in the 60's?
Gee, funny you mention Willie Horton. Pity, Dukakis did a fine job getting some control of state government. He would have made a good president.
Funny you mention Willie Horton.
Quack, quack, quack...
You can't stay on topic, can you Ducky?
I want a society where people are free to make their own choices free from government coercion.
How hard is that? A woman wants pills, she goes and buys them.
If an employer is averse to pork and iced tea, it doesn't serve them in the company cafeteria.
Government caused this bollixed up mess by chaining business to itself and then chaining employees to business in the matters of health care.
Break the chains and allow people to shop for their health care plans free from employer and government interference.
This way, a woman could work for a Catholic institution and have all the birth control she wants, and its nobody's business but hers.
That's freedom. That's what this is about, and that is the kind of society I want.
You have yet to put forth a coherent philosophy that drives whatever it is you believe in.
SF..bravo.
Ducky...tell us how you differ with SF's latest comment.
Ducky said: "dmarks welfare Cadillac has EVERYTHING to do with race."
"You have failed to provide any
Gee, funny you mention Willie Horton. Pity, Dukakis did a fine job getting some control of state government."
He did a lousy job overall. But on this one policy, he thought it was a good idea to give dangerous felons some time loose in the community. In fact, he resisted efforts to stop this. Dukakis would have made a lousy President, because most of his ideas were bad.
"Funny you mention Willie Horton."
Not funny, as such. Just pointing how silly your "black = welfare cheat" argument is, and your choice to insert race into a non-racial matter. And how similar it was to the Democrats who equated black with criminal on the willie Horton matter.
-------------------
Silver said: "You have yet to put forth a coherent philosophy that drives whatever it is you believe in."
It's pretty clear that it is a type of left-fascism. That the powerful and privileged need to run our lives since we can't be trusted to.
Silverfiddle, your interpretation of the Constitution is irrelevant. As useless as mine.
IT'S SETTLED LAW. What are you going to do other than vote for Ron Paul? Do you really think the political will is there to tear out entitlements?
Not to mention that you have no idea what your Randian wonderland would look like.
Why don't you and z and dmarks petition the courts and get it done?
Once again. IT'S SETTLED LAW. Doesn't need your approval. Doesn't need mine.
Doesn't give two warm farts in hell for your opinion or mine.
Live or die but don't freaking poison everything as a writer once said.
dmarks, what the fuck do you know about the reduction in government corruption in Massachusetts under Dukakis, you blow hole.
Ducky: What exactly is "settled law?" Please be more specific.
And your equating the founders' concept of liberty with Rand's Objectivism is disturbing and ignorant.
It's the main ingredient in that tried and true firebomb "Did the American Revolution meet the Just War criteria?"
What the Totalitarian Right-Wing christians want is, as Christopher Hitchens put it, "a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea."
Gene: Funny... I haven't read anything like that here.
Did you conveniently skip over this comment from 4:26 pm?
I want a society where people are free to make their own choices free from government coercion.
How hard is that? A woman wants pills, she goes and buys them.
If an employer is averse to pork and iced tea, it doesn't serve them in the company cafeteria.
Government caused this bollixed up mess by chaining business to itself and then chaining employees to business in the matters of health care.
Break the chains and allow people to shop for their health care plans free from employer and government interference.
This way, a woman could work for a Catholic institution and have all the birth control she wants, and its nobody's business but hers.
That's freedom. That's what this is about, and that is the kind of society I want.
What is it about freedom that scares you?
And Gene, I sincerely appreciate you and Ducky and others from the other side stopping by.
Ducky, set aside natural rights for a moment and consider this:
" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Don't like the Declaration? Than consider this:
Universal Declartion of Human Rights, Article 21.
"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."
The constitution is a contract between the people and their government. The people chose the wording, voted on it, ratified it, and established a process to modify it.
Protections were put in place to prevent tyranny of the majority (2/3 ratification process), to separate and limit the powers of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. Protections which lately the government has been ignoring.
The government is in violation of its contract. It exceeds its enumerated powers without the legal consent of the people. It exceeds them with the blessings of a corrupt judiciary and with the complacency if not consent of the people's elected representatives.
The problem we have is that we as a people have been acting upon partisanship not principle. For many democrats under Obama, furtherance of their agenda is more important than principle. Not to pick on democrats, the same may be said of republicans under Bush.
Honestly, we need to start being more concerned about due process then results. Had Bush pulled Obama's Recess Appointment trick your liberal heads would have frigging exploded.
Think about it.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander... is that really where we want to go with government?
The end does not justify the means and that approach only weakens our constitutional protections, although perhaps that is one of the goals of your agenda. Presidents have been expanding the boundries of executive authority for about a century now. It is time for congress to reign them back in, as it is also time for the states to reign in federal power.
Face it, on the state and federal level your representatives suck... what does that say about us as a people.
Here's an interesting factoid to support that:
Congress has a lower approval rating than Communism.
Cheers!
Silverfiddle, Totalitarians hardly ever broadcast their designs to impose their religious bigotry although Steve King, Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt all are pushing for religious control of America.
But, hey what would solve this is Medicare for all. However, as has been "proved here" healthcare for the poor is tyranny.
THREE THINGS:
1. The Volstead Act (i.e. "PROHIBITION") was "Settled Law" -- for a while -- until enough people realized that while it's INTENT may have been admirable, the RESULTS it produced were in fact UNTENABLE.
So much for the concept of "Settled Law" as being irremediable, unimpeachable or irrevocable.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––
2. As for the forced purchase of Health Insurance by individuals: As someone helpfully told us above, the average cost for a family is nearly FOURTEEN-THOUSAND DOLLARS a YEAR. Since $20K-$25K is already considered below the poverty one for families, and many parents do not make as much as $14K -- and many bring in even less, it seems OBVIOUS to me -- and should to you too -- that our present government's INTENTION behind the Draconian new Healthcare Act has been to FORCE most people to turn to GOVERNMENT for their Healthcare.
This will have the ultimate effect of driving private insurers our of business, which means, of course, that private health insurance will simply not exist anymore, and even "the rich" will be FORCED to use a One-Size-Fits-All GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED "Socialized-Medical System" -- the longed-for goal for which the Marxicrats have lusted for many decades.
The monstrous thing we call Obamacare, which would more properly be called PELOSICARE, is a SCAM -- a TRICK -- a transparent PLOY designed to DRAG us into SOCIALIZED MEDICINE whether we like it or not by making the private system most of us have fond highly satisfactory SO costly it will of necessity DIE.
"Progressives" do not WANT you and me to have any CHOICE whatsoever. THEY know what is best for us, and if WE don't think so, we can jolly well stuff it.
The assumed aura of superiority, the arrogance and insufferable condescension of leftist-activist types SHOULD be enough to spark VIOLENT retribution.
These are NOT academic points we are discussing. They have material bearing on the way we live our lives -- i.e. the potential to FUCK US UP for a FARE THEE WELL or hundreds of years to come.
It's getting very close to the time for VIOLENT RESISTANCE to TYRANNY to arise one again. When elections can no longer effect any meaningful change, and when entrenched government oligarchs become despots by refusing to recognize, respect and be responsive to the Will of the People, it's for "the governed" to withdraw their "consent."
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
3. The Constitution DID provide for unforeseen exigencies and future contingencies by providing us with the process of AMENDMENT.
What the Constitution did NOT do was vest authority in the Supreme Court to set aside "Settled Law" the Justices might not like by Judicial FIAT, nor did the Constitution gave the Justices sufficient power to enable them to AMEND the CONSTITUTION by Judicial PROCLAMATION.
The now-established practice of "legislating from the bench" justified by the assumed moral superiority of the decisions made is DEFINITELY unconstitutional, and clear and convincing example of "Judicial Overreach," if ever there was one.
~ FreeThinke
PS: People who openly advocate the abolition of our Constitution are guilty of TREASON and should be tried, convicted and punished accordingly. Free speech is great, but it should not be permitted to include TREASONOUS ideas. - FT
In a thread loaded with intelligent observations and eloquent refutations of liberal cant and rhetorical distortions this in my never humble opinion is SMARTEST, MOST APPROPRIATE REMARK made yet:
"The problem we have is that we as a people have been acting upon partisanship not principle. For many Democrats under Obama, furtherance of their agenda is more important than principle. Not to pick on Democrats, the same may be said of Republicans ... "
~ FreeThinke
...PS: People who openly advocate the abolition of our Constitution are guilty of TREASON and should be tried, convicted and punished accordingly. Free speech is great, but it should not be permitted to include TREASONOUS ideas. - FT
As long we differentiate between between the Constitution and the government, since we're rapidly approaching a time when the only way to uphold the former will be to overthrow the latter.
viburnum
Gene: In understand the concern, since hijacking the republic in the name of Christian jihad would be just as great a threat, but you guys have been sounding that siren since the 80's.
We're talking about real threats, right now, and we've included the patriot act, so I stand with you that I don't want a theocracy. I want a constitutional republic that respects individual rights.
As to the concept of GOD-GIVEN NATURAL RIGHTS only those possessed of tyrannical impulses and a despotic, bullying disposition cold possibly deny the moral and intellectual supremacy of The Golden Rule -- the precept from which all honest, decent, kind-hearted attempts to deal with human problems emanates.
One of my favorite homemade proverbs goes like this:
LAWS ARE NEVER MADE UNTIL THEY'RE BROKEN.
That fits splendidly with the enlightenment understanding that [good] laws are DISCOVERED not MADE.
Only a moral imbecile could deny the universal proscriptions against Murder, Mayhem, Rape, Theft, Vandalism, Extortion, and cruel, systematic campaigns of Harassment just as no decent person today would deny that Slavery of any kind could be a good thing.
So, of COURSE the rights to Life, Liberty, the freedom to Pursue Happiness as one chooses, the right to share one's thoughts freely in public (as long as one is willing to suffer the consequences wrought by Public Opinion!), the right worship -- or NOT to worship -- as one chooses, the right to SELF-DETERMINATION as to career choice, choice of location, choice in hosing and home furnishings and decor, choice in landscaping, choice in clothing, etc. is left up to the individual.
That said it's natural also to understand that we have no right to IMPOSE our beliefs and personal tastes on others aside from the general agreement that exposing our genitals and having sex in public and spouting lewd, beastly and treasonous sentiments from public platforms should be prohibited.
It is the INSINCERITY of the left -- their unacknowledged desire always to make MISCHIEF -- to CONFUSE, FRIGHTEN and SEDUCE -- which they cloak in pious-sounding, falsely altruistic rhetoric that has loused up our society to the extent that we are where we are today -- worshipping everything malicious, meretricious, and malignant while mocking and vilifying everything sweet, kind, and wholesome that we once held sacred.
Government may jot GRANT our natural, God-given rights, but unfortunately the wrong KIND of government, when allowed to run amok because it has run too long unopposed, assumes the power to USURP and SUSPEND those rights.
The tragic results of such usurpation may be seen in The French Revolution, The American Civil War, The Bolshevik Revolution, The Rise of the Third Reich, Mao's China, North Korea, all over southeast Asia, the Islamic Republics, Cuba, and the Banana Republics all over Central and South America.
I'm afraid it DID take White, Christian of British and European origins even to BEGIN to understand how things OUGHT to be perceived and how government OUGHT to be conducted. The farther we get from 18th-Century Enlightenment Vision the closer we get to lapsing back into Mediaeval superstition, primitive barbarism and the capriciousness inherent in dictatorship and absolute monarchy.
~ FreeThinke
Okay, having momentarily set aside natural rights...
To Ducky, who thinks his rights come from government I say:
Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.
Government doesn't give rights to the people, the people give rights to government. Our founders summed this up with the statement:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
How did they know this? They knew this from revoking that consent. That consent is your one immutable right and the one from which all other rights are derived.
People can be coerced and they can be killed, they cannot be forced when they decide not to be.
When they decide not to be you get everything from Gandhi to Washington to McVeigh.
"We cannot – we will not comply with this unjust law."
Say the regulation stands... what are you going to do when the church and church institutions refuse to comply.
Fine them?
And when they refuse to pay the fine?
Cart them off to jail?
Seize church property?
You think they'll back down... what if they dont?
How many Catholics do you think do you think will vote Democrat then? How many Americans?
Are you willing to call out the National Guard?
Will they obey?
You push against dangerous boundries in the social compact. How far do you want to push?
This is just one example... Ron Paul has some rather extreme ideas and may not be electable, but he sure is getting a lot of votes.
The people are getting more and more fed up, just look at the governments approval ratings.
We as a society are becoming more and more polarized, blame lies left and right.
This is NOT a good thing.
You ask me, the Administration seriously miscalculated both in its original mandate and its ridiculous compromise.
A compromise would have been something along the lines of:
When deemed medically necessary due to a medical condition contraindicating pregnancy contraceptives/abortifacients shall be required to be covered.
Not, well if the church won't pay for it the insurers will.
"Empty promises of free stuff" would seem to be the Obama motto and it would be funny if it didn't violate every precept this country was founded and has been run on for the last two hundred and thirty some years.
Nuff said?
Ron Paul is not mere "extreme" than were the Founders -- probably less in fact. Ron Paul has not yet told us to resort to violence.
And yes Ron Paul has been getting "lots" of votes, but he's probably gotten a lot MORE votes than those for which he's been credited.
Wasn't it Stalin who said something to the effect that those who COUNT the votes have a lot more to say about how elections turn out than those who CAST the votes?
YABETTABULEEVIT!
~ FreeThinke
Gene:
Totalitarians hardly ever broadcast their designs to impose their religious bigotry
Tell that to Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Assad... need I go on? Oh wait they were secular!
How many totalitarian theocracies are there out there vs secular totalitarian states? Two? Iran and Vatican City.
FT said: "People who openly advocate the abolition of our Constitution are guilty of TREASON and should be tried, convicted and punished accordingly. Free speech is great, but it should not be permitted to include TREASONOUS ideas."
The Constitution said:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
On abolishing (or changing beyond recognition) the constitution:
"on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Sorry, no matter how much you love the constitution you can't defend it by ignoring it.
Cheers!
Ducky: What exactly is "settled law?" Please be more specific.
--------
Rulings that have become established precedent. Rulings wold be respected by moderate judges under the principle of stare decisis.
Activist judges such as Clarence Thomas are not prone to respecting decisis but mot judges do.
If you can't overturn Roe, which most think was poorly decided, you are very unlikely to judicially invalidate social security or medicare.
Obamacare might be a different story since it does not have clear precedent.
And your equating the founders' concept of liberty with Rand's Objectivism is disturbing and ignorant.
----------
As I said, read The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.
To think that you have anything but a rabies radio talking points conception of liberty is disturbing and ignorant.
Of course being a leftist I tend to see most problems as economic so that certainly colors my opinion.
Wasn't it Stalin who said something to the effect that those who COUNT the votes have a lot more to say about how elections turn out than those who CAST the votes?
------
No, that was Sandra Day O'Connor writing for the majority in Bush v. Gore when our democracy was trashed.
Silverfiddle, I notice your all about defending the Bell Curve at Fredd the Cowardly Censor's site.
"Also, the liberals who attacked Murray over The Bell Curve are illiterate morons incapable of critically evaluating a logical argument. It was not a racist book."
Pretty strong language.The argument falls apart if you cannot prove that intelligence s genetic. Absolutely disintegrates.Have you managed to do that or are you just a trash talking dumb Libertarian.
Please list your sources demonstrating that intelligence is genetic. Maybe take us back to the days of Cyril Burt since you fringe righties love living in the past.
"I heard Murray on the radio discussing this, and a large part of what he's saying is for the haves to stop looking the other way as the other half live like apes in the wild."
Getting pretty close to racial epithets there, boyo.
Activist judges such as Clarence Thomas are not prone to respecting decisis but most judges do.
In the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/scourt.html
While stare decis is generally beneficial it can and does occasionally lead to a drift from the original intent.
Silverfiddle wrote in the body of the post:
Does the federal government have the authority to tell a business to give things away? That's what Obama's tissue-thin fig leaf of a compromise does.... If the government can do this, why not command grocery stores to give food away?
I'll be citing the above in my post tomorrow.
So, what are we going to DO about Obama's shredding our Constitution and imposing Draconian measures upon us?
What CAN we do?
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I find it hard to believe that openly advocating the destruction of the U.S. Constitution does not count as treason, and is not considered an act of war or a way of giving aid and comfort to those eager to destroy us. I suppose you think only using guns and bombs or supplying our enemies with weapons, money, food and shelter should be considered "treason."
I disagree. The Thought is Father to the Deed.
The U.S. Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.
We should never have permitted Marxists to teach in our universities. We should never have permitted Communists, Socialists, Collectivists, etc. access to the levers of power, or permitted them to build platforms on which they preached their vile subversive doctrines.
Literal adherence to a text may have its value, but an understanding of implications and ramifications is possibly of greater importance. ALL writings are or should be subject to interpretation.
In music -- something I know quite a lot about -- most of the success or failure of a performance lies in what performers choose to do with the space between and surrounding the notes. The notes, themselves, are to a performance, what a blueprint is to a building -- or what a skeleton is to a human being.
I had already noted the Constitution's provision for amendment above.
~ FreeThinke
"So, what are we going to DO about Obama's shredding our Constitution and imposing Draconian measures upon us?
What CAN we do?"
Apparently, if we accept Finntann's understanding of what the Constitution, itself, defines as "treason," there is NOTHING we can do, AOW, other than humbly accept our fate, and meekly suffer the destruction of all we hold dear.
Too many Conservatives seem to think that Reason alone and a strict, literal adherence to Law ought to be enough to see us through.
NONE of the "War Presidents" or the "Social Activist Presidents" thought so. The war presidents took measures to stifle and punish adverse criticism -- virtually suspending habeas corpus and first amendment rights and -- in some cases property rights -- in the process.
ALL of them were permitted to get away with it.
From TR onward Progressive presidents and arrogant judges have been blithely ignoring or stomping all over the Constitution "for the Greater Good" -- and GETTING AWAY with it.
There has been so much precedent for permitting truly outrageous, unconstitutional conduct on the part of our leaders that it's no wonder that Barack Obama -- and more likely the shadowy, ultra-powerful Oligarchic Figures Behind the Throne who placed him in power to advance THEIR agenda -- feels confident that he can do whatever he -- or his puppet masters -- want with impunity.
I have to laugh. The country made a stinking fuss over Richard Nixon's feeble attempts to protect the men who were simply working to protect the president's interests against the machinations of the Democratic Party Machine, and successfully labelled Nixon "One of the Worst Criminals Ever to Reach High Office," but few-if-any have ever begun to realize, acknowledge, condemn the incalculable harm the "War Presidents" and the "Progressives," and even fewer have ever considered holding them accountable for their egregious misdeeds.
And what does John Q. Publick do?
He SHRUGS!
~ FreeThinke
FT,
Apparently, if we accept Finntann's understanding of what the Constitution, itself, defines as "treason," there is NOTHING we can do, AOW, other than humbly accept our fate, and meekly suffer the destruction of all we hold dear.
So, it's over, then. For the republic, I mean.
FT,
AND what many of us are decrying now has been a long time coming.
Alarm bells were indeed sounded all along -- even going back to TR.
But the majority of Americans ignored those alarm bells. "It'll turn out okay" -- the typical American response. American optimism does have a flaw in that regard.
Ducky, Off-topic again... I was not defending the thesis of The Bell Curve, merely pointing out that is was not racist. Another lefty trope
Ducky: And you can scream the tired old chant of "rabies radio" all you want. I provided what I thought was a well thought out piece, and you insult me by insinuating I got this from the radio.
You have no coherent strategy, just bile and shit slinging, so cram your insults where the sun don't shine.
I presented you a cogent argument, and you won't even refute it or argue with it on its merits or mooted points.
And I know what settled law is, I was asking which law it is that you consider settled, since you screamed it in ALL CAPS.
But at least you answered your own question:
Obamacare might be a different story since it does not have clear precedent.
You're unhinged. It's not settled.
We should never have permitted Marxists to teach in our universities. We should never have permitted Communists, Socialists, Collectivists, etc. access to the levers of power, or permitted them to build platforms on which they preached their vile subversive doctrines.
So if I rewrite it as:
We should never have permitted Republicans to teach in our universities. We should never have permitted Conservatives, Libertarians, Independents, etc. access to the levers of power, or permitted them to build platforms on which they preached their vile subversive doctrines.
It is just a valid an argument as yours.
That's why that type of behavior is expressely forbidden and contrary viewpoints tolerated if not embraced. You are imposing your value judgement on them, trying to impose your views on them. It is as bad as what they are doing.
"there is NOTHING we can do, AOW, other than humbly accept our fate, and meekly suffer the destruction of all we hold dear."
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said it wasn't treason, I didn't say it wasn't wrong. I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't try to do anything about it. You cry rape when someone steals your wallet, and when the cops find no evidence of rape and lets them go, you're pissed. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
How about we focus on those aspects of the constitution actually violated instead of hysterical trumped up charges.
How about we focus on the abuse of executive power, on executive regulations holding the force of law by fiat without the consent of congress, of the violation of enumerated powers, of the trampling on the power of the states.
The problem is the executive exceeding its authority and the congress and states consenting through inaction, incompentancy, or just plain laziness. The problem is courts making law versus interpreting law. The problem is the two houses working contrary to each other and their established purpose.
McCarthyism is not the answer, political purity tests are not the answer, extremism is not the answer, they are the antithesis of everything we stand for.
Honestly, if you can get 2/3rds of the states to call a Constitutional convention and 3/4's to ratify the changes you can trash the whole damn document within the legal framework established, i.e. it is CONSTITUTIONAL. That's why folks like Mike Church who advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater via Article solutions scare the crap out of me.
Cheers!
I can only repeat:
|
|
|
|
|
The U.S. CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT.
|
|
|
|
|
What you seem to advocate, Finntann, is to me the moral equivalent of not only permitting, but encouraging Catholic Priests to advocate Adultery, Sexual Promiscuity, Homosexuality, Theft, Deceit, Justifiable Homicide and Incest from the PULPIT.
I know there actually are Catholic priests -- and clergymen from other Christian denominations -- who do just that. The Church -- and the world she is purportedly attempting to save -- are much the poorer for it.
How would you like it if it became "fashionable" for parents so disposed to condition their tiny tots to enjoy the pleasures of incestuous, child-adult relationships?
There is a huge difference between openly DISCUSSING sin and openly ADVOCATING it. The latter is perverse, degenerate -- and as we have seen from the condition of society today -- deadly dangerous.
Just as we have never (to my knowledge) tried to make a case for justifying MURDER, so ought we never encourage the advocacy of ideas inimical to the health and strength of our republic.
We discussed Communism and Socialism ALL THE TIME when I was in grade school and high school, but the thrust of every discussion was vehemently ANTI- MARXIST. So was every discussion about "recreational drug use." It was always condemned and categorized in no uncertain terms as destructive to health and human happiness.
Once the Marxists among us effectively sued their way to pseudo-respectability thanks to the assumption of Draconian, unconstitutional powers by an Imperial Supreme Court, the nation started to plummet downhill at ever increasing speed.
Mccarthy may have been crude and clumsy, but he also happened to be RIGHT. The view you -- and most others -- now take of McCarthy -- and Richard Nixon to for that matter -- is proof of the enormous success of Cultural Marxism's pernicious influence on American society. It has been a tragedy for Civilization.
A line must be drawn SOMEWHERE if we are to preserve any hope of ever reclaiming society from its rocket ride to Perdition.
It's characteristic of the Devil is that he is at his most dangerous when he appears charming, attractive, beguiling and SEDUCTIVE.
Truly smart people remain steadfast in their determination never to dance with the Devil and never to invite him into their homes.
~ FreeThinke
You're unhinged. It's not settled.
------
But that is exactly what I wrote.
True, it absolutely is not settled.
Ducky:
Oh, my mistake. When you wrote this I interpreted it to mean you were saying it was settled...
IT'S SETTLED LAW. What are you going to do other than vote for Ron Paul? Do you really think the political will is there to tear out entitlements?
[...]
Once again. IT'S SETTLED LAW. Doesn't need your approval. Doesn't need mine.
Don't know how I could have mistaken that to mean you were saying it's SETTLED LAW.
Anyone advocating Charles Murray should simply read the updated 1996 2nd edition of The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. He soundly and cogently defeats all of Murray and Hernstein's claptrap.
I'm not defending Murray's work, merely defending him from charges of racism.
This was a diversionary stink bomb thrown by Ducky.
What "claptrap" would that be, Gene? The Bell Curve? One man's " mismeasure" is another man's ability to do complex mathematics.
When the simple truth is unflattering to designated "victim" groups, the truth is called "racism."
That white men in the aggregate happened to have achieved a great deal more of high quality, complexity and refinement than the majority of other identifiable ethnic groups doesn't mean they did to demonstrate their "hatred" of people of color -- OR -- to try to "show them up."
Most of the time things just are what they are, and it's nobody's "fault."
Bullying people is wrong.
Harassing people is wrong.
Persecuting people is wrong.
Enslaving people is wrong.
Taking unfair advantage of people is wrong.
Simply BEING superior and achieving a great deal more than others is NOT wrong.
That's all there is to it.
End of story.
~ FreeThinke
"What you seem to advocate, Finntann, is to me the moral equivalent of not only permitting, but encouraging Catholic Priests to advocate Adultery, Sexual Promiscuity, Homosexuality, Theft, Deceit, Justifiable Homicide and Incest from the PULPIT."
Look out FT, I think you missed a turn somewhere. How in God's name did you get there?
The only thing I ever advocated was the moral equivalent of the only people who should be encouraging Catholic Priests being Catholic Bishops, certainly not the government, and certainly not you.
You Sir, are simply a statist of a different flavor.
Okay FT... who gets to administer your political purity test? You? The John Birchers? Some bipartisan congressional subcommittee?
McCarthy was not only wrong he was an ass, you can not punish people for their thoughts, you can not punish people for their advocacy or adherence to any particular philosophy. What you advocate is thought crime.
The CONSTITUTION certainly isn't a suicide pact, but you are sure trying to make it one. The constitution is a social compact, a set of rules we all agree (or did at one time) to play by.
So, what if the majority decides that you are the one that is wrong? Are you no longer entitled to your beliefs or the right to voice them?
I do believe if it were 1776 you would be a TORY.
If the Church of the Big Round Butt wants to advocate gay anal sex in a bacchanalia festival while toking on a joint and worshiping Allah and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you don't like it... TOUGH SHIT! Or are you one of those who has a 'right' not to be offended? Hmm... where have I heard that before?
I'll defend to the death Ducky's right to turn this country into a communist hell hole if he can manage to do it constitutionally by persuading the majority of American's that he's right. I may disagree with him on most points, but he is certainly entitled to preach his gospel all he wants, although I may emmigrate afterwards.
Your version of constitutional preservation is the equivalent of the Doctor saying "I'm sorry, you have brain cancer, we're going to have to amputate your head to keep if from spreading".
The line was drawn, it's the constitution. If Ducky can get two thirds of the state to call for a convention and three fourths of the states to ratify the new communist manifesto, so be it. If he wants to do it by executive fiat and regulation, I'll fight him every step of the way.
As I will also defend your right to advocate destroying the constitution in order to preserve it. I won't support you, but I won't silence you unless you cross the line already defined:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
McCarthy was wrong
The Sedition Act of 1918 was wrong
Interring Japanese-Americans was wrong
The Know-Nothings were wrong
The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 was wrong
And you Sir are wrong.
You're entitled to your opinion, Fintann, but I think it is YOU who are wrong. Let's leave it at that, since neither of us is likely ever to budge.
Your thinking is legalistic. Mine is moralistic.
You appear not so much to be a libertarian, but an advocate of utter licentiousness. One more proof that younger generations have lost touch with the standards of decency and propriety that were taken for granted in my formative years.
You're theoretical willingness to submit to Ducky's brand of thinking should he be able to persuade the majority to go along with him appalls me. There is a difference between right and wrong -- and it cannot be determined by "Popular Opinion." It is absolute.
Communism in all its many guises is WRONG just as murder is wrong, and should be given NO quarter. PERIOD.
Sorry to have irritated you, but I'm afraid the feeling is mutual.
I hope you enjoy what's left of Valentine's Day.
Cheerio!
~ FreeThinke
"I may emmigrate afterwards."
The problem is, Fintann, that you will have nowhere to go, unless you can find a way to claim and colonize an asteroid in Outer Space.
The USA was The Last Frontier.
And haven't you ever noticed that existence is loaded with paradoxes -- that Life, itself, is a paradox?
Freedom is not free, and the defense of Liberty always has been and always will be a mighty task.
"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Elements diametrically opposed to freedom must NOT be left free to do their worst.
~ FreeThinke
I just left the following at AOW's blog in reference to the "Contraception" issue. I bring it here, because I think it's germane to this discussion as well.
|
|
|
|
|
This "Contraception" business in truth has NOTHING to do with obeying or disobeying "God's Law." It has nothing to do with RELIGION per se at ALL.
The Tyrannists (Obummer is just a Figurehead, believe me) are using Leftist Thinking and Leftist "Revolutionary" tactics to bring about yet another Great Leap Forward in achieving total control through CENTRALIZED POWER.
Don't you realize that by FORCING private insurance companies to GIVE AWAY products readily obtained at your local pharmacy or through your private physician, insurance rates will have to RISE in direct proportion. In other words the cost will be passed on to YOU and ME. This will make private insurance less affordable than ever, thus bolstering the Tyrannist's case for a "Single Payer" system -- i.e. Euro-Canadian-style Socialized Medicine.
Like everything else the Left does it's ALL about wresting Power and Control away from the private sector and OUT of the hands of the Individual.
"Religion," always a hyper-emotional issue best left alone, has been USED as WEDGE to split the people away from their liberty.
Leftists do not represent "just another point of view." Leftists are The ENEMIES of FREEDOM.
DON'T fall for their insidious tactics. VOTE THEM OUT. And if that fails to work, ROUST them out by MAIN FORCE..
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed [every now and then] by the blood of patriots and tyrants."
~ Thomas Jefferson
If Obama & CO are allowed to get away with THIS, you will soon see businesses of ALL kinds "required" to GIVE AWAY their goods and services to "those in need."
That, my friends, is COMMUNISM. Communism brought about by STEALTH through the relentless dissemination of insidious propaganda disguised as "Truth.". This new rise of Communism -- if left unchecked -- will have to be destroyed by VIOLENCE. The alternative is acquiescence to existence as a virtual galley slave on a state-run Trireme.
There is nothing "academic" about this crisis. It's not "theoretical" or "rhetorical" it is ACTUAL. We are being slowly-but-surely THROTTLED to DEATH by insidious, relentless machinations of the LEFT -- many of whom now call themselves "Neo-Conservatives."
Younger generations, now middle-aged, have been thoroughly DUPED to the point where, even though they may THINK they re "conservative," their indoctrinated views have in truth rendered them virtua PAWNS of the LEFT.
And they now have it firmly fixed in The Public Mind that figures such as Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and RICHARD NIXON were evil!
~ FreeThinke
You can't have it both ways. EIther you are a fanatical ANTI-COMMUNIST, or you are part of THEIR war machine against Christianity, against Capitalism, against the ownership and enjoyment of Private Property, against Profit, against the accumulation of Personal Wealth, and against Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech.
And yes, Finntann, it IS necessary to put limits on Free Speech in order to protect it. THAT is the PARADOX with which a free people must live -- or they won't be "free" for long.
Disbelieve that at your peril.
~ FreeThinke
FT,
I'm glad you posted your comment here. I'll leave my response as well.
This "Contraception" business in truth has NOTHING to do with obeying or disobeying "God's Law." It has nothing to do with RELIGION per se at ALL.
I'm not sure that I agree with that portion of your comment. I know of and personally know a lot of people who feel to the contrary.
I'm not one of those people who cry out, "Overturn Roe v. Wade!" I, of course, have my own personal convictions regarding abortion. That said, Roe v. Wade, in and of itself, doesn't FORCE a woman or a girl to undergo abortion. The abortion is a choice -- legally, anyway.
BUT
I know a lot of people who claim to stand on God's Word as their basis for their pro-life stance. These people are sincere in their belief, IMO.
Are these same people, particularly those who are not particularly political, willing to stand up and be counted -- to be Daniels -- when the financial consequences have the potential to be great? How strong is the pro-lifers' commitment, after all?
You made my other point better than I did:
If Obama & CO are allowed to get away with THIS, you will soon see businesses of ALL kinds "required" to GIVE AWAY their goods and services to "those in need."
Redistribution -- in the name of social "justice."
This will make private insurance less affordable than ever, thus bolstering the Tyrannist's case for a "Single Payer" system...
Isn't that the real goal of ObamaCare?
People need to raise an outcry on one or both levels:
(1) the faith-based one
(2) the Constitutional one
It's now or never!
end of copy and paste -----
It seems to me that those on the Right (religious or otherwise) suffer from a lack of commitment.
The Left, on the other hand, does NOT suffer from a lack of commitment.
Has it ever been thus?
It's not that the Marxists have been teaching in our schools.
Rather, it is that the Marxists have been teaching in our universities WITH IMPUNITY AND NO COUNTERPOINT -- and WITH TENURE.
Back when I was in college (1968-1972), we had two Marxist professors on our campus -- two whom I personally knew, that is.
One taught math, the other taught philosophy.
The philosophy teacher's classes languished because there were other courses one could take. The math teacher got fired for not teaching; instead, he was pontificating or not even showing up to teach.
Neither had tenure.
Today, the situation on many campus is this: a student cannot avoid taking courses filled with Marxist spoutings. Sometimes, the entire department offering required courses (English, for example) is filled with nothing but Marxist professors.
BTW, the best history professor I had was a liberal professor who taught American History.
She really knew her material.
She offered her "editorials," then turned to me and said, "I know that you disagree, Miss M. Tell us your view on this."
Never did she allow another student snort at or ridicule opposing views. Discussions had to be reasoned and include evidence.
Never did she let anyone's contrary views impact their course grades.
I had other liberal professors, too, but they were not as even handed as Dr. P, my liberal history professor.
In fact, I had one conservative history professor who was Draconian and found ways to give bad grades to any students with opposing views.
I did have many professors whose political views were not apparent. They stuck to the course material.
Your history professor, AOW, was not "liberal" the way most "liberals" are today. I frankly think she was laudable assuming she was as fair-minded as you say she was.
The "Draconian" approach you describe, whether it comes from the liberal or the conservative perspective is reprehensible, because it is fundamentally DISHONEST.
I maintained a lifelong relationship with one of my favorite teachers in high school. Long after graduation she came out of the closet and revealed herself to be a card-carrying Communist (Yes, LITERALLY that!). We had considerable affection for one another, but as she grew older, she tried harder and harder to persuade me to accept her Communist views. The relationship became burdensome. I was forced either to play the hypocrite or to assume a confrontational stance. I was comfortable with neither.
But, I have to say that while she taught high school in my very conservative, white, upper-middle-class suburb, she never revealed her Communist sympathies, although I do remember her saying to me once privately that she could not support President Eisenhower as long as Mr. Dulles continued to be Secretary of State. She deplored out then-policy called "brinkmanship."
All that aside the woman was probably THE most dynamic, committed, pedagogue I ever encountered, and her devotion to excellence was highly commendable. Her command of her subject was brilliant -- electrifying even.
Why so many tremendously gifted, highly creative people embrace the left I've never been able to comprehend. Most of them are idealists, I suppose, and spend lots of energy trying to transcend the mundane. Also, they see far beyond the obvious and far beneath the surface, but this may make them too eager to believe that one can find a way to make sure that "fire will not burn you," and "water will not make you wet," as Kipling put it.
So, while I would, indeed, muzzle open advocacy of Marxism and all its hideous derivatives, just as I would frown upon advocacy of theft, blackmail, vandalism, "recreational" drug use, incest, sex between adults and children, and sedition, etc., I am perfectly capable of feeling great affection for and personal loyalty towards certain individuals whose opinions violently conflict with my own.
I just HATE troublemakers, rabble-rousers, "consciouness-raisers" and "activists" who beat the drum for causes deleterious to peace and good order. Life is troublesome and demanding enough without adding artificially stimulated "crises" into the mix.
~ FreeThinke
"It's not that the Marxists have been teaching in our schools.
Rather, it is that the Marxists have been teaching in our universities WITH IMPUNITY AND NO COUNTERPOINT -- and with TENURE."
EXACTLY, AOW!
I, myself, am very interested in HOW and WHY that particular atrocity came to be. There are REASONS for it, and people who SHOULD have been held RESPONSIBLE for it who've never been called to account for their misdeeds.
A person such as Saul Alinsky for instance, should have been taken out of circulation as soon as his evil nature and destructive ideas became apparent.
Would I have any trouble making the decision to render figure with Alinsky's rotten characteristics powerless, if I could?
NOPE!
I like to head Trouble off at the pass and neutralize it before it becomes a BIG problem.
Of course, at his point Finntann -- a good fellow, indeed, but one who, apparently, thinks one can and should accomplish one's goals strictly "by the book" -- would probably like to be in a position to neutralize ME just to prove his point about reciprocal condemnation and punishment, but he'll have to continue to resort to his peculiar brand of logic and his personal attempts to shame or humiliate me instead -- and I ain't backin' down.
But Finntann needn't worry. As soon as the Communists -- or whatever they choose to call themselves these days -- take over COMPLETELY, it is folks like you, AOW, and me who will be hunted down and "neutralized" right quick.
It is the LEFT who shows itself to be intolerant of opposition and viciously punitive and condemnatory to those who dare resist its blandishments publicly.
Conservatives of the Old School may very well condemn themselves to a DEATH of one kind or another by their magnanimous, naive, overly tolerant, blandly optimistic nature. Their love of stability and amicability and their desire to avoid confrontation will probably spell our downfall.
~ FreeThinke
FT,
Dr. P, that wonderful professor that I had, was "one in a million" with regard to the balance that she achieved in her courses. I probably should have mentioned that in my earlier comments here at this thread.
I always enjoy your comments, AOW. And I appreciate your cordial acknowledgement of mine, even when we occasionally disagree.
~ FT
Post a Comment