The Left:
"The government indeed may [subject particular ideas to disadvantage], if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.”
-- Elena Kagan, 2010 Supreme Court nominee, 1996, CNS News
1984:
"He would talk ...of thought-criminals [and] the executions in the cellars of the Ministry of Love...Quite likely the person at the next table was a spy of the Thought Police, and quite likely he [himself] would be in the cellars of the Ministry of Love within three days..."*
-- George Orwell, 1984
And this was worthy as well:
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
-- George Orwell, first published 1972
*After deliberating over several ideas of the telescreens, the Thought Police and the children spies, I decided on this one. The intended emphasis is on "Thought Police" and "Ministry of Love" compared to "the government" and "harm-based reasons". This particular comparison is, granted a stretch, but it is important to note that it is incredibly difficult to find a concise quote which fully contained the desired thematic elements while simultaneously staying focused on the current topic; in 1984, the Ministry of Love "maintained law and order".
Showing posts with label Liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberty. Show all posts
13.5.10
26.4.10
Political Smell Tests
I've been giving some thought as to what makes a good, conservative candidate for a political position. Coming forth from all this thinking are some, what I would call, smell tests that I have discovered I use, and which you might want to consider adapting yourself.
Political Smell Test #1: Do They Reek Pro-Choice?
I am not by any means a single-issue voter. However, that being said, where an individual stands on abortion can reveal a lot about that person's character and his moral (and potentially ulterior) convictions. If a candidate is pro-choice, he is stating one of two things. Either he does not attribute inherent value to the sanctity of human life, or he does not realize the extent of the development of a child before birth (which would explain his having value for human life while at the same time being fine with disposing of it). Either way, the candidate is not prime choice for the position; the one shows his lack of regard for humanity, the other his lack of research on a current and relevant issue.
After all, if they do not show reverence for human life, when it is in its most (and only) innocent and defenseless form, why should they value the minority they claim to value. Why would they value liberty and freedom, when they have no problem robbing an unborn child of his entire life?
Look out for further smell tests, coming soon!
Political Smell Test #1: Do They Reek Pro-Choice?
I am not by any means a single-issue voter. However, that being said, where an individual stands on abortion can reveal a lot about that person's character and his moral (and potentially ulterior) convictions. If a candidate is pro-choice, he is stating one of two things. Either he does not attribute inherent value to the sanctity of human life, or he does not realize the extent of the development of a child before birth (which would explain his having value for human life while at the same time being fine with disposing of it). Either way, the candidate is not prime choice for the position; the one shows his lack of regard for humanity, the other his lack of research on a current and relevant issue.
After all, if they do not show reverence for human life, when it is in its most (and only) innocent and defenseless form, why should they value the minority they claim to value. Why would they value liberty and freedom, when they have no problem robbing an unborn child of his entire life?
Look out for further smell tests, coming soon!
24.8.07
First a hilarious story.
Crud. The smoking ban passed. If you don't know about what I'm talking, see the post below this one. Well, what will the government decide to control next?
Let me see if I can explain this to you. There are two kinds of people, politically speaking. There is one group who believes the government should back off and let everyone do their own thing (with the exceptions of law enforcement etc.). Then there is the second group which believes that the more the government handles for us, the better off we are.
The second group, liberals, sounds alright. The government can take a percentage of our money and with that delegate our insurance, our medical system, our workfield etc. to make sure that everything is absolutely safe and everyone is treated equally. Here's the problem though:
How can a single organization (i.e. the government) possibly know what is best for each individual? They can't. And what ends up happening in this situation is the government tries to regulate everything so much to the point where we have lost so much of our liberty.
Here are some for instances.
Taxes: did it ever occur to you that after income tax, social security, medicare, purchase tax, land tax etc. the government gets close to half of your income? By this I mean, instead of making, say 40,000 per year, you would be making 80,000.
The Public School System: go up to any kid and ask them to talk seriously about what they're learning. You're likely to get a response such as, "Our school's a joke." When I started homeschooling, I realized the inefficiency of the public school system. Several hours each day are wasted going from one class to the next, eating lunch, class clowns and students not doing the work they're supposed to. Additionally, the students who are dumber than the others can't get the extra instruction they need, and the smarter kids are not properly challenged.
"But I can't afford to send my kid to a private school (or homeschool)."
Do you know that it costs over $8000 per year per student in the public school system? (Although alot of cost is now to ESL programs and such due to foreigners not learning English and expecting us to cater to them. But don't get me started on that.) On the other hand, a private school costs about $2500 per year per student. And they'll get an education - not propaganda. And we wouldn't be required to argue over what should and shouldn't be taught in schools; parents could send their kids to the school of their choice! Brilliant! Or even more brilliant, they could homeschool, to be sure that they are taught correct material.
"But if they homeschool, they'll become socially inept!"
Are you saying the government now must also teach us how to make friends? Look at me. I was homeschooled and I'm not socially inept at all. No comments from you, Randy. :)
Crises: Now there might be some debate and disagreement on this one, but see from where I'm coming first. The government gets wind of something bad. Then they decide to either ban it or regulate it. Like smoking. They say it causes cancer, but instead of trying to actually help people, they tax it and say where one can't smoke. If they really believed it were bad for you and if they really wanted to help you, they would declare it illegal altogether. Or like global warming. Political figures like Al Gore claim that the earth will burn, melt or flood, due to our pollutants. The they fly around in their private jets to tell everyone to drive a more energy efficient car.
Minorities: The government wants to make sure that everyone is treated equally, that minorities are discriminated. So they set up policies so that it's uncouth to say something about blacks or gays or whatnot. But it's still okay to say something bad about someone who doesn't fall into a special category. Isn't that discrimination? Is it not insulting to blacks that every college has a special scholarship program for you, if you're black? In other words, "You're black, so you're obviously not good enough to pay for college yourself. Let us help you out." That's what it means. If the government really wanted to treat everyone equally, they wouldn't require the US Post Offices to hire this many Mexicans and that many Asians. They would say, "Here's the job opening; whoever can do it best is hired." To say otherwise is to say one is inferior.
Hate Speech: I'll say it right now. Homosexuality is a perversion of God's beautiful gift of sex. guys and girls don't fill the requirements on their own.
Did I just mention the elephant in the room? I think so. Why does no one else say it? Because of fear of a lawsuit. And someday a ticket for a hate crime. This is an elimination of free speech. How ridiculous is that? The very name, "hate crime" makes it sound stupid. "You hate this person, therefore you have to pay a fine." So all the democrats should pay a fine for hating President Bush. For hating our military. For hating Liberty.
And that, my friend, is the tip of the iceberg. Our liberty is slipping away. For every piece of security the government gives, for every service the government does for you, you lose a bit of your liberty. And there's not much left.
Crud. The smoking ban passed. If you don't know about what I'm talking, see the post below this one. Well, what will the government decide to control next?
Let me see if I can explain this to you. There are two kinds of people, politically speaking. There is one group who believes the government should back off and let everyone do their own thing (with the exceptions of law enforcement etc.). Then there is the second group which believes that the more the government handles for us, the better off we are.
The second group, liberals, sounds alright. The government can take a percentage of our money and with that delegate our insurance, our medical system, our workfield etc. to make sure that everything is absolutely safe and everyone is treated equally. Here's the problem though:
How can a single organization (i.e. the government) possibly know what is best for each individual? They can't. And what ends up happening in this situation is the government tries to regulate everything so much to the point where we have lost so much of our liberty.
Here are some for instances.
Taxes: did it ever occur to you that after income tax, social security, medicare, purchase tax, land tax etc. the government gets close to half of your income? By this I mean, instead of making, say 40,000 per year, you would be making 80,000.
The Public School System: go up to any kid and ask them to talk seriously about what they're learning. You're likely to get a response such as, "Our school's a joke." When I started homeschooling, I realized the inefficiency of the public school system. Several hours each day are wasted going from one class to the next, eating lunch, class clowns and students not doing the work they're supposed to. Additionally, the students who are dumber than the others can't get the extra instruction they need, and the smarter kids are not properly challenged.
"But I can't afford to send my kid to a private school (or homeschool)."
Do you know that it costs over $8000 per year per student in the public school system? (Although alot of cost is now to ESL programs and such due to foreigners not learning English and expecting us to cater to them. But don't get me started on that.) On the other hand, a private school costs about $2500 per year per student. And they'll get an education - not propaganda. And we wouldn't be required to argue over what should and shouldn't be taught in schools; parents could send their kids to the school of their choice! Brilliant! Or even more brilliant, they could homeschool, to be sure that they are taught correct material.
"But if they homeschool, they'll become socially inept!"
Are you saying the government now must also teach us how to make friends? Look at me. I was homeschooled and I'm not socially inept at all. No comments from you, Randy. :)
Crises: Now there might be some debate and disagreement on this one, but see from where I'm coming first. The government gets wind of something bad. Then they decide to either ban it or regulate it. Like smoking. They say it causes cancer, but instead of trying to actually help people, they tax it and say where one can't smoke. If they really believed it were bad for you and if they really wanted to help you, they would declare it illegal altogether. Or like global warming. Political figures like Al Gore claim that the earth will burn, melt or flood, due to our pollutants. The they fly around in their private jets to tell everyone to drive a more energy efficient car.
Minorities: The government wants to make sure that everyone is treated equally, that minorities are discriminated. So they set up policies so that it's uncouth to say something about blacks or gays or whatnot. But it's still okay to say something bad about someone who doesn't fall into a special category. Isn't that discrimination? Is it not insulting to blacks that every college has a special scholarship program for you, if you're black? In other words, "You're black, so you're obviously not good enough to pay for college yourself. Let us help you out." That's what it means. If the government really wanted to treat everyone equally, they wouldn't require the US Post Offices to hire this many Mexicans and that many Asians. They would say, "Here's the job opening; whoever can do it best is hired." To say otherwise is to say one is inferior.
Hate Speech: I'll say it right now. Homosexuality is a perversion of God's beautiful gift of sex. guys and girls don't fill the requirements on their own.
Did I just mention the elephant in the room? I think so. Why does no one else say it? Because of fear of a lawsuit. And someday a ticket for a hate crime. This is an elimination of free speech. How ridiculous is that? The very name, "hate crime" makes it sound stupid. "You hate this person, therefore you have to pay a fine." So all the democrats should pay a fine for hating President Bush. For hating our military. For hating Liberty.
And that, my friend, is the tip of the iceberg. Our liberty is slipping away. For every piece of security the government gives, for every service the government does for you, you lose a bit of your liberty. And there's not much left.
16.8.07
Smoking ban.
There's an urge to ban smoking in Fort Worth, among other cities, in restaurants, bars, workplaces etc. Sounds great. I hate smoking; it's vile, disgusting, annoying and unhealthy. But it's legal.
If someone owns a business, do they not have a right to decide what goes on inside? Yes! It's their own business. If you don't like what goes on in there, don't go in there! There will be plenty of businesses eager to get your money by offering a smoke-free environment.
"But there are certain things people can't do! Murder shouldn't be allowed in the business!"
Right. It's not allowed anywhere. What we're talking about here is a legal activity that the business chooses to allow.
"But secondhand smoke is unhealthy!"
What, and first hand smoke isn't?! Fort Worth council member, Wendy Davis, says, "There are consequences to not doing this. There is a public health cost that everyone pays." This is ludicrous. I wouldn't pay that health cost; I don't like smoke, so I choose (yeah I actually use my brain) to not go where there's smoke. If she really cared about health and really believed smoking were unhealthy, she would push to ban cigarettes altogether.
Just think about this. Once you allow smoking to be banned, the next thing to be banned is potato chips, then sodas. They're unhealthy, are they not? Every time you give the government a foothold, you lose a little more of your liberty.
If someone owns a business, do they not have a right to decide what goes on inside? Yes! It's their own business. If you don't like what goes on in there, don't go in there! There will be plenty of businesses eager to get your money by offering a smoke-free environment.
"But there are certain things people can't do! Murder shouldn't be allowed in the business!"
Right. It's not allowed anywhere. What we're talking about here is a legal activity that the business chooses to allow.
"But secondhand smoke is unhealthy!"
What, and first hand smoke isn't?! Fort Worth council member, Wendy Davis, says, "There are consequences to not doing this. There is a public health cost that everyone pays." This is ludicrous. I wouldn't pay that health cost; I don't like smoke, so I choose (yeah I actually use my brain) to not go where there's smoke. If she really cared about health and really believed smoking were unhealthy, she would push to ban cigarettes altogether.
Just think about this. Once you allow smoking to be banned, the next thing to be banned is potato chips, then sodas. They're unhealthy, are they not? Every time you give the government a foothold, you lose a little more of your liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)