The Supreme Court decision to uphold gay marriage reveals the contradiction within the conservative ideology. The majority of conservatives have long opposed gay marriage. Presidential candidate Scott Walker called the ruling "a grave mistake."
What exactly is the contradiction in the conservative position? The very foundation of their philosophy is oppostion to big government. They, like libertarians, believe in a small, limited government. They, like libertarians, believe that he who governs least governs best; that we need to minimalize government intrusion and control in our lives.
Given those beliefs, one would think conservatives would have welcomed and supported the Supreme Court decision, instead of greeting it with anger and vitriol. Here is where libertarians and conservatives part company.
From the libertarian standpoint, supporting gay marriage was the proper decision based on one simple proposition: It is beyond the purview of government to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. That is not the proper role of government in a free society. Banning gay marriage is a slippery slope. By accepting the premise that the state can decide which adults can marry, it leaves the door open for future leaders to outlaw marraige between Catholics and Lutherans, or Asians and Hispanics, or marraiges where there is a large disparity in ages. Up until the 70's, a number of states banned marriages between blacks and whites. That degree of intrusion is not what a free society is about.
Ask yourself one question: Which one of your individual rights are being denied when two gay people marry? The answer is: none.
You may be offended by the concept, but the freedom of expression, by definition, means someone may say or do something that offends you. But offending someone shouldn't be a crime. Were it a crime, then we would all have spent time behind bars, because who among us hasn't at one time or another said or did something that offended somebody somewhere at some time?
This is the time for conservatives to face this contradiction. You either believe people should be free to live their lives with minimal government interference, as long as they deny no one their individual rights; or you believe that the state should enforce laws that make it a crime to offend someone's sensibilities.
I find that offensive.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Friday, June 12, 2015
HAIL TO THE WHAT???
I can't contain myself any longer. I must vent over one of my pet peeves: Treating elected officials like they are royalty.
First, let me state the obvious: We have no royalty in the United States of America. That is, in fact, the very reason there is a United States. Starting in the 1600's, Europeans emigrated to the New World to escape the despotic rule of kings and queens. It is the primary reason our Founding Fathers chose democracy over a monarchy, so that individual rights would trump the whims of royal rulers.
Which brings us to the 21st century. In very subtle ways we still have the tendency to treat politicians like royalty, rather than simply the elected representitives of the citizenry. Allow me to site two examples.
It galls me when I hear a former president, governor or senator still referred to as Mr. President, Governor or Senator, as if the title as been bestowed upon them for life. When Lee Iococca retired from Chrysler, did the media still refer to him as Mr. Chairman? Hell, no. He was Lee, or Mr Iococca.
The second item that offends my sensibilities is the playing of "Hail To The Chief" whenever the President appears at an official function. Again, this is not the king of the US making a grand entrance accompanied by blaring trumpets sounding his arrival to the peasants. He is, in essence, the CEO of our country, an executive like any other, albeit an executive with greater responsibilities and powers. But an executive, nonetheless. Was the late Steve Jobs greeted by official fanfare when he appeared in public? Do we have to rise to our feet whenever Bill Gates makes an entrance?
And what's with the official Presidential seal that ordorns every podium when the president makes a speech? Do we need this "coat of arms" to remind us who he is? Are we to be awestruck by such trappings of power? Do the CEO's of Walmart, General Motors or McDonalds travel around with their own "coat of arms?"
The president--whomever he may be--is elected by the people to run the country much the way a CEO runs a corporation. It is dangerous to treat this office holder with undue reverence, as if some supreme being endowed him with special gifts and priveleges far above those of mere mortals. The bottom line is all politicians are hired help. Sometimes that help is heroic, sometimes it is corrupt, incompetent and immoral. But essentially these are people selected and paid to do a specific job. That is the sum of it.
The king is dead! Let us keep his rotting corpse buried.
First, let me state the obvious: We have no royalty in the United States of America. That is, in fact, the very reason there is a United States. Starting in the 1600's, Europeans emigrated to the New World to escape the despotic rule of kings and queens. It is the primary reason our Founding Fathers chose democracy over a monarchy, so that individual rights would trump the whims of royal rulers.
Which brings us to the 21st century. In very subtle ways we still have the tendency to treat politicians like royalty, rather than simply the elected representitives of the citizenry. Allow me to site two examples.
It galls me when I hear a former president, governor or senator still referred to as Mr. President, Governor or Senator, as if the title as been bestowed upon them for life. When Lee Iococca retired from Chrysler, did the media still refer to him as Mr. Chairman? Hell, no. He was Lee, or Mr Iococca.
The second item that offends my sensibilities is the playing of "Hail To The Chief" whenever the President appears at an official function. Again, this is not the king of the US making a grand entrance accompanied by blaring trumpets sounding his arrival to the peasants. He is, in essence, the CEO of our country, an executive like any other, albeit an executive with greater responsibilities and powers. But an executive, nonetheless. Was the late Steve Jobs greeted by official fanfare when he appeared in public? Do we have to rise to our feet whenever Bill Gates makes an entrance?
And what's with the official Presidential seal that ordorns every podium when the president makes a speech? Do we need this "coat of arms" to remind us who he is? Are we to be awestruck by such trappings of power? Do the CEO's of Walmart, General Motors or McDonalds travel around with their own "coat of arms?"
The president--whomever he may be--is elected by the people to run the country much the way a CEO runs a corporation. It is dangerous to treat this office holder with undue reverence, as if some supreme being endowed him with special gifts and priveleges far above those of mere mortals. The bottom line is all politicians are hired help. Sometimes that help is heroic, sometimes it is corrupt, incompetent and immoral. But essentially these are people selected and paid to do a specific job. That is the sum of it.
The king is dead! Let us keep his rotting corpse buried.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
BLOWN OUT OF THE SKY
Prior to 9/11, all airport security was handled by private security firms. After 9/11, the government--in its infinite wisdom and concern for the wellbeing of its citizens--decided that airport secuirty should be handled by the Feds rather than private companies. Afterall, who would be better at protecting us against plane hijackers? A bunch of greedy private contractors or the might and intelligence of the Federal Government?
Well, Homeland Security just did a test of airport security around the country. They planted weapons and explosives in luggage to see how efficient security procedures actually were. If you haven't already heard, you better sit down while reading this. Airport security failed to find these weapons 96% of the time. Think about that the next time you step foot on an airplane.
Let this be a lesson to all those you believe that privatization is evil, and that only the government can properly maintain our security. Name me the government agency that is run as efficiently and economically as Microsoft, Apple, Walmart, Toyota, etc. . Government by its very nature is incompetent and unreliable. Should you be unfortunate enough to get your ass blown out of the sky, on the way down you may wish it was an evil corporation that checked the luggage.
Well, Homeland Security just did a test of airport security around the country. They planted weapons and explosives in luggage to see how efficient security procedures actually were. If you haven't already heard, you better sit down while reading this. Airport security failed to find these weapons 96% of the time. Think about that the next time you step foot on an airplane.
Let this be a lesson to all those you believe that privatization is evil, and that only the government can properly maintain our security. Name me the government agency that is run as efficiently and economically as Microsoft, Apple, Walmart, Toyota, etc. . Government by its very nature is incompetent and unreliable. Should you be unfortunate enough to get your ass blown out of the sky, on the way down you may wish it was an evil corporation that checked the luggage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)