This is from a post I put on Human events comment section; sorry if it is similar the last post
I get you now Mr. Libertarian; you are a practical (in practice an) atheist who is in love with, or almost worship an idol that you call freedom but could better be defined as radical autonomy.
The difference between freedom and radical autonomy are very important because freedom is the right to do your duty and enjoy the latitude to choose to do things that are morally neutral. That is different from radical autonomy which advances this idea of rugged individuals, but in reality makes every man an island
Marriage for instance to be properly enjoyed must be supported by social and legal pressure as well as morality goodness for goodness sake (or fear of Hell which doesn't cut it in the long run, but it keeps the knaves in line). Now if you think we can have a successful civilization without successful families you are in denial of all evidence ever observed.
Put aside the baby-boomers and how they were able to say "live and let live" and yet still able to follow the law and show up for work every morning. You forget that they were raised in two parent homes (2PH) and taught morals; well not all of them, but among those not raised in a 2PH were more likely to live in poverty, commit crimes and have children out of wedlock.
Now look at their children and tell me that parent involvement from both a mother and a father is not important.I assume you think it is a bad thing to have a class of young men who were never taught the manly arts and are either helpless, worthless or in other ways do not provide value to potential employers.I assume that you understand that a girl who is raised to think that saving herself for marriage is not important, that if you teach her that mindset then she is more likely to act upon your teaching and by the time she senses that she might have wanted to do something else she has two kids with three suspects.
Few things are harder on a family then two dads and a mom per kid. First of all the courts run your life (that is not freedom) Second it is rare that they all agree on rules for the kid. Third the couple is never free of the bio-dad and he is has to pay out until his kid is 18. When same sex couples point to studies that show their kids have similar stats to kids raised in 2PH they won't tell you that the studies used 2PH where the bio-dad was the mothers ex-husband and the man she was living with now was not... the child's bio-dad.
If you believe in evolution (I'm agnostic on it as I like to see science challenged by science) then you can see how important it is to the childrens development to be raised in the balance of their mother and father. They have better mental and physical heath and are more likely to successfully pass those traits on to their children because they are also less likely to be raised in poverty, to join gangs/ commit crimes, more likely to get more education/training, and move up in life.
So what we are talking about is what studies show are the ideal conditions for producing good citizens which comes down to strong traditional families (if you look at the percentages). Good citizens are not a negotiable item in a civilization, it is especially important in a democratic republic where there is more freedom to choose. Libertarians need to understand that if people don't control themselves, historically they have always ended up being controlled by the state.
People are not machines covered in flesh; they are more like flesh you can see which is sometimes ruled by a spirit you can perceive. Libertarian (and socialist) ideology sees only flesh to be trained through reward and punishment. Since they never address the spiritual component their policies never work, and so we don't need to keep trying them.
Here is another post--
"Libertarianism is based on atheism and "radical autonomy" which deny reality of where the man with his radical autonomy came from. A man was once a child, so the "consenting adult" was once a child, raised by a family and within a community to which he owes more than he can repay.
Another problem with the "consenting adult" problem is that the so-called adult doesn't always know what he is consenting to. An 18 yr old girl who stars in a porn movie doesn't always consider how she will feel 20 years later when her sons friends stumble onto that on the internet."
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Libertarians are liberals who don't like paying taxes
Libertarians are liberals who don't like taxes and regulations.Liberalism and libertarianism are both based on radical autonomy. If you presume radical autonomy then between liberals and libertarians the libertarians win every time.
However libertarianism will never work because when all the folks who made bad choices, and there will be more of them when bad choices are legal, when all those folks are at the point where they are supposed to be suffering as a result of their bad choices, starving to death and what not, they will not hold up their end of the bargain.
First of all the type of people who make bad choices are not the type of people who hold up their end of the bargain. This is because people who hold up their end are much less likely to make bad choices because they looked at the choice from that point of view from the beginning.
Next you have to realize that right now we have a lot of folks who only do the right thing because the law compels them or because social pressure compels them. Take away the laws and the social pressure will soon follow it "What? There's no law against it!"
So all summer long the ants will be producing and the grasshopper mob will be playing and then fall will come and the ants will be laughing to themselves at how wise they were to lay in a store for the winter, then when winter actually comes the grasshoppers will form into gangs and storm the anthill for provisions.
So how are liberals the same? Well first of all it is important to realize that liberals look at taxes a bit differently. First of all many of them who make good money just don't pay all their taxes; they either cheat outright and figure if they get caught they will pay up, or they get loopholes designed so that all their competitors pay much more. Another group gets their money from government and are fine with paying taxes on money they don't really earn.
Liberals simply position themselves to benefit from high taxes. They also need high taxes to pay for the welfare state which is how they keep the grasshoppers from storming the, well I was going to say anthill, but liberals are not producers. They tax the anthill and keep the ants in line by threatening their anthill will mobs of grasshoppers.
So basically liberals are smarter than libertarians because the libertarian ant, who believes in radical autonomy, but calls it rugged individualism, works his butt off thinking of all he is going to store up for winter, but the liberal termite simply waits until winter and then tell the ant that the majority has voted for high taxes and generous welfare and that he will now distribute the rich ants wealth to the grasshoppers.
Of course the termite is an important leader who has to fly around in a private jet stocked with free drinks and caviar, and have state dinners with expensive food and wine, with the best medical care and on and on.
However libertarianism will never work because when all the folks who made bad choices, and there will be more of them when bad choices are legal, when all those folks are at the point where they are supposed to be suffering as a result of their bad choices, starving to death and what not, they will not hold up their end of the bargain.
First of all the type of people who make bad choices are not the type of people who hold up their end of the bargain. This is because people who hold up their end are much less likely to make bad choices because they looked at the choice from that point of view from the beginning.
Next you have to realize that right now we have a lot of folks who only do the right thing because the law compels them or because social pressure compels them. Take away the laws and the social pressure will soon follow it "What? There's no law against it!"
So all summer long the ants will be producing and the grasshopper mob will be playing and then fall will come and the ants will be laughing to themselves at how wise they were to lay in a store for the winter, then when winter actually comes the grasshoppers will form into gangs and storm the anthill for provisions.
So how are liberals the same? Well first of all it is important to realize that liberals look at taxes a bit differently. First of all many of them who make good money just don't pay all their taxes; they either cheat outright and figure if they get caught they will pay up, or they get loopholes designed so that all their competitors pay much more. Another group gets their money from government and are fine with paying taxes on money they don't really earn.
Liberals simply position themselves to benefit from high taxes. They also need high taxes to pay for the welfare state which is how they keep the grasshoppers from storming the, well I was going to say anthill, but liberals are not producers. They tax the anthill and keep the ants in line by threatening their anthill will mobs of grasshoppers.
So basically liberals are smarter than libertarians because the libertarian ant, who believes in radical autonomy, but calls it rugged individualism, works his butt off thinking of all he is going to store up for winter, but the liberal termite simply waits until winter and then tell the ant that the majority has voted for high taxes and generous welfare and that he will now distribute the rich ants wealth to the grasshoppers.
Of course the termite is an important leader who has to fly around in a private jet stocked with free drinks and caviar, and have state dinners with expensive food and wine, with the best medical care and on and on.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
The poor and budget cutting.
We are looking at America finally being in a position where she can no longer pay the new bills that have been piled on her. There are about enough straws to break the camels back and the DC Ruling class is still adding straws.
It would seem to those of us who have been personally successful in budgeting in our own lives that what is needed is to cut spending, or get a second job, or both. While the federal government can't get a second job they can raise taxes. They can also cut regulations that keep us from tapping our national resources such as oil, coal and farm ground.
The first option of raising taxes will be tried, but it will not work. The first problem is that the lower income half of earners pay no taxes, and will not be asked to get some skin in the game that would connect them to the pain of wasted spending. They would sooner raise taxes on the rich by which they mean anyone who makes more than they do.
In Africa a missionary friend of mine told me they can tell a man is rich because "he has meat twice a week instead of twice a year." The poor in Europe are much better off than that and can hardly be called poor by Biblical standards; the poor in America have a higher standard of living than the poor in Europe. Many have two cars, a flat-screen TV, a a lot of living space. There are exceptions, but this is the rule.
Next, we have the aged folks; as a group they tend to have more wealth than any other group, but they also include those with no means of providing for themselves and no ability left to do so. They are also becoming a group that is proportionately larger than it ever was because of the baby boom followed by the baby bust followed by advances in medicine that have extended many lives.
The population explosion increase in not happening because people are multiplying like rabbits, but rather because we are no longer dropping like flies soon after retiring. The advances in medicine have also make it possible for men to stay in the workforce much longer. Probably less than 5% of the men nearing retirement still work with their hands so if the retirement age were lifted one year, two years or even 3 years it would hardly be an unbearable hardship.
So while a sane nation would cut military expenditures by 1/3 by withdrawing from Libya right away. We could also come to the conclusion that there is no reason to be fighting the Taliban now that we have killed or captured most of the men who plotted against us including their cult leader Osama Bin Ladin. A sane nation would also dramatically cut the amount of money that goes to the fake poor and focus taxed dollars on those who truly are starving and can do nothing for themselves.
But that is not what is going to happen; too many people (the ruling class) have too much invested in the status quo. So those with defense contracts (and interests in the Mid East) will fund publications that will scream bloody murder. Many of them will also undercut efforts to drill for our own oil. The Democrats will lie about cuts, who gets what, and how bad they need it and how incapable they are of surviving without more government money let alone less.
I've noticed the poor have enough money to have turned Mexico into a drug-running Heck hole so I'm just sure that cuts can be made. In the mean time they won't so expect massive inflation, further loss in the means of production, and a bigger debt crisis than ever. If you don't have some means of production now, some tools with which you can produce a product, a place to plant a garden, then I suggest you go out and get them if you can while you still can because some time within the next few years things will get ugly and the only way we will see it through is if there is a population ready to support themselves.
It would seem to those of us who have been personally successful in budgeting in our own lives that what is needed is to cut spending, or get a second job, or both. While the federal government can't get a second job they can raise taxes. They can also cut regulations that keep us from tapping our national resources such as oil, coal and farm ground.
The first option of raising taxes will be tried, but it will not work. The first problem is that the lower income half of earners pay no taxes, and will not be asked to get some skin in the game that would connect them to the pain of wasted spending. They would sooner raise taxes on the rich by which they mean anyone who makes more than they do.
In Africa a missionary friend of mine told me they can tell a man is rich because "he has meat twice a week instead of twice a year." The poor in Europe are much better off than that and can hardly be called poor by Biblical standards; the poor in America have a higher standard of living than the poor in Europe. Many have two cars, a flat-screen TV, a a lot of living space. There are exceptions, but this is the rule.
Next, we have the aged folks; as a group they tend to have more wealth than any other group, but they also include those with no means of providing for themselves and no ability left to do so. They are also becoming a group that is proportionately larger than it ever was because of the baby boom followed by the baby bust followed by advances in medicine that have extended many lives.
The population explosion increase in not happening because people are multiplying like rabbits, but rather because we are no longer dropping like flies soon after retiring. The advances in medicine have also make it possible for men to stay in the workforce much longer. Probably less than 5% of the men nearing retirement still work with their hands so if the retirement age were lifted one year, two years or even 3 years it would hardly be an unbearable hardship.
So while a sane nation would cut military expenditures by 1/3 by withdrawing from Libya right away. We could also come to the conclusion that there is no reason to be fighting the Taliban now that we have killed or captured most of the men who plotted against us including their cult leader Osama Bin Ladin. A sane nation would also dramatically cut the amount of money that goes to the fake poor and focus taxed dollars on those who truly are starving and can do nothing for themselves.
But that is not what is going to happen; too many people (the ruling class) have too much invested in the status quo. So those with defense contracts (and interests in the Mid East) will fund publications that will scream bloody murder. Many of them will also undercut efforts to drill for our own oil. The Democrats will lie about cuts, who gets what, and how bad they need it and how incapable they are of surviving without more government money let alone less.
I've noticed the poor have enough money to have turned Mexico into a drug-running Heck hole so I'm just sure that cuts can be made. In the mean time they won't so expect massive inflation, further loss in the means of production, and a bigger debt crisis than ever. If you don't have some means of production now, some tools with which you can produce a product, a place to plant a garden, then I suggest you go out and get them if you can while you still can because some time within the next few years things will get ugly and the only way we will see it through is if there is a population ready to support themselves.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Cut Cap and Balance V.S. Crap, Cut and Run
The fact that Cut, Cap, and Balance was bi-partisan and a total compromise (not raising the debt ceiling at all is the hard right position, anything less is a compromise)
but anyway given that CC&B was bi-partisan and Boehner's bill Crap, Cut and Run, is further to the left and yet not Bi-partisan tells us all we need to know about who was right about the wisdom of putting forth a new bill rather than holding firm and concentrating energy on getting that through.
When CC&B was the plan there was no co-ordinated big push to get the message out, bully anyone who didn't "Get their A** in line", and put the pressure on Obama and Harry Reid.
That tells us that CC&B was never their plan, that was just a bone that they through the TEA Party to get us to move to the left a few steps so that once everyone was more comfortable with a small compromise they could stretch that to what they always wanted.
The TEA Party had the left up against the ropes, they had democrats quaking in their boots and afraid to vote against CC&B, but because the RINOs let on that this was not their bill, and that they would undermine it, the Democrats in the Senate took heart and now they even oppose CC&R.
To put this in Weakly Standard speak the Neo-Con Uruk-hai have captured a few key TEA Party Hobbits and are taking them back to Boehnermon who drank too deeply of big government under Bush and is now secretly in league with the Ruling Class of Mordor of the same.
but anyway given that CC&B was bi-partisan and Boehner's bill Crap, Cut and Run, is further to the left and yet not Bi-partisan tells us all we need to know about who was right about the wisdom of putting forth a new bill rather than holding firm and concentrating energy on getting that through.
When CC&B was the plan there was no co-ordinated big push to get the message out, bully anyone who didn't "Get their A** in line", and put the pressure on Obama and Harry Reid.
That tells us that CC&B was never their plan, that was just a bone that they through the TEA Party to get us to move to the left a few steps so that once everyone was more comfortable with a small compromise they could stretch that to what they always wanted.
The TEA Party had the left up against the ropes, they had democrats quaking in their boots and afraid to vote against CC&B, but because the RINOs let on that this was not their bill, and that they would undermine it, the Democrats in the Senate took heart and now they even oppose CC&R.
To put this in Weakly Standard speak the Neo-Con Uruk-hai have captured a few key TEA Party Hobbits and are taking them back to Boehnermon who drank too deeply of big government under Bush and is now secretly in league with the Ruling Class of Mordor of the same.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Ruling class warfare
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already)Party of 2010 created a Republican landslide all throughout the state governments and the House of Representatives, but they didn't get a majority of TEA Party members.
If you consider that the Ruling-Class Democrats still own the White House, the Senate and that half the Republicans in the House of Representatives are either part of the ruling class or aspire to be members then you begin to see why nothing has changed.
We see a lot of hot rhetoric, but the numbers haven't moved. The continuing resolution passed the House after spending cuts of only $62 Billion, which upon further examination was revealed to be $32 Billion and then after the bill was really put under the micro-scope, it came out that the real number was closer to $300 million.
While there was a move to cut spending, cap spending, and vote on a balanced budget amendment, it was clear that the Ruling Class Republicans were telegraphing that they were only going through the motions. They had to give the base some red meat, but they were not going to really put up a fight, they were not going to go all the way and just go back to the alternative which is to not raise the debt ceiling.
What would not raising the debt ceiling do?
1 It would force everyone to stop spending on everything but the most critical priorities.
2 By limiting all spending to priorities we would be able to go line by line through the budget and say hmmm, war in Libya? Not a priority. Social Security checks, pay 'em! Check to Planned Parenthood? Denied! Military pay? Pay the man! Salaries for congress, and so forth? Denied! Programs for medical care for the aged and disabled? Pay it! Budgets for agencies that don't show up to work on "snow days" cut them to the bone or get rid of them!
You get the idea how a prioritization would go. now how about if spending isn't prioritized? Check to Obama's cronies in Planned Parenthood? Obama's man will pay that first; same thing with ACORN. In fact all of the spending that is unpopular with the American people will happen first so that when the money runs out Obama can actually say that cuts in spending will hit the neediest the most.
This is not true now though; we could stop all spending until all spending is prioritized, or we can continue to run up spending for programs that at best do not help the poor or the needy. This means bigger debt now and less for the real poor and needy later. So anyone who cares about the poor and needy is for cutting spending now.
What about just raising taxes on the rich? Well first of all taxes are never increased on the politically connected because they are able to get special treatment from their cronies in office. They get loopholes, they get special contracts, and they get regulations that favor them over their competition. Next after a certain point the more you raise taxes the less you get, and partly that is because you ruin the economy and without a strong economy you cannot fund this level of spending.
The politically connected and their buddies in office, by which I mean the DC establishment or "Ruling Class" need the spending to be so big that it can't all be tracked so they can hide the amounts they are funneling to their cronies. This is why all their posturing is all talk. Big Government is their family business model. Until we really engage in class warfare against the "Ruling Class we will never get to the root of the problem.
If you consider that the Ruling-Class Democrats still own the White House, the Senate and that half the Republicans in the House of Representatives are either part of the ruling class or aspire to be members then you begin to see why nothing has changed.
We see a lot of hot rhetoric, but the numbers haven't moved. The continuing resolution passed the House after spending cuts of only $62 Billion, which upon further examination was revealed to be $32 Billion and then after the bill was really put under the micro-scope, it came out that the real number was closer to $300 million.
While there was a move to cut spending, cap spending, and vote on a balanced budget amendment, it was clear that the Ruling Class Republicans were telegraphing that they were only going through the motions. They had to give the base some red meat, but they were not going to really put up a fight, they were not going to go all the way and just go back to the alternative which is to not raise the debt ceiling.
What would not raising the debt ceiling do?
1 It would force everyone to stop spending on everything but the most critical priorities.
2 By limiting all spending to priorities we would be able to go line by line through the budget and say hmmm, war in Libya? Not a priority. Social Security checks, pay 'em! Check to Planned Parenthood? Denied! Military pay? Pay the man! Salaries for congress, and so forth? Denied! Programs for medical care for the aged and disabled? Pay it! Budgets for agencies that don't show up to work on "snow days" cut them to the bone or get rid of them!
You get the idea how a prioritization would go. now how about if spending isn't prioritized? Check to Obama's cronies in Planned Parenthood? Obama's man will pay that first; same thing with ACORN. In fact all of the spending that is unpopular with the American people will happen first so that when the money runs out Obama can actually say that cuts in spending will hit the neediest the most.
This is not true now though; we could stop all spending until all spending is prioritized, or we can continue to run up spending for programs that at best do not help the poor or the needy. This means bigger debt now and less for the real poor and needy later. So anyone who cares about the poor and needy is for cutting spending now.
What about just raising taxes on the rich? Well first of all taxes are never increased on the politically connected because they are able to get special treatment from their cronies in office. They get loopholes, they get special contracts, and they get regulations that favor them over their competition. Next after a certain point the more you raise taxes the less you get, and partly that is because you ruin the economy and without a strong economy you cannot fund this level of spending.
The politically connected and their buddies in office, by which I mean the DC establishment or "Ruling Class" need the spending to be so big that it can't all be tracked so they can hide the amounts they are funneling to their cronies. This is why all their posturing is all talk. Big Government is their family business model. Until we really engage in class warfare against the "Ruling Class we will never get to the root of the problem.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Debt ceiling the GOP's fault
There is no doubt in my mind that no matter what happens in regards to the debt ceiling/overspending/default the New York Times and their gang will not blame Obama. Also it can be known ahead of time that no matter what happens all or part of the GOP will be blamed.
The liberal hardliners in the media used to get more done by reporting on a center-right country from a center-left position and thereby moving the positions incrementally to the left. Now with the rise of Talk Radio/Fox/and Blogs the liberals have lost their monopoly and they have had to push harder to get the same leftward movement.
The strategic telling of the truth has almost been thrown out and the only time we get the truth out of them is by accident or because the facts are so well known that they can't get away with it. At that point they either ignore it or tell the part of the truth that is well known but put a spin on it with a sob-story, a false study, or an opposing quote from some leftist with a website and a fax-machine who poses as the leader of a large group.
Since we cannot trust the media in this debate we need to gather the facts and say who is in the wrong, right? Well the first set of facts we should look at is that Obama has taken spending as a percentage of GDP from about 20% and raised it to 25%. Historically Federal spending has ranged from 17% to 19% and it cannot go above 19% without crushing the productive sector.
So if you want to look at symptoms you would say that the economy is having a heart-attack and needs an aspirin. If you consider that the patient has not taken care of it's health we could say that the republicans propose to fix the economy by giving it an aspirin. The democrats want to give the patient a combination of donuts and lard as well as half an aspirin.
Neither side wants to get the patent onto a diet and exercise program; the patient wouldn't vote for that! What constitutes a diet and exercise program in our analogy? First of all it will not work to do across the board cuts of all programs. True, all government programs would be forced to adapt the efficiencies of the productive sector if their budgets were cut, but across the board cuts are like mowing your lawn; at first it looks great and by next week it is right back!
The real problem is the concentration of government into a huge centralized government that has way to large of a population to be responsive or accountable to those who vote. We have to distribute power back to the states, the states need to redistribute their power back to the local level. Then what doesn't work can be identified and gotten rid of and things that work can be put in place.
So maybe in a way the Old-line GOP is to blame because they keep the game going while pretending to be an opposition party. They are the folks who were fine with partial birth abortion so long as they could look good voting against it and using it as a fund-raising issue against the Democrats. In the same way they need big government waste fraud and abuse so they can be against it, but they never get rid of it by returning the power to the states.
And you will also notice that they are also almost all part of the "ruling class" which is the group of "crony capitalists" who get rich through inside access.
The liberal hardliners in the media used to get more done by reporting on a center-right country from a center-left position and thereby moving the positions incrementally to the left. Now with the rise of Talk Radio/Fox/and Blogs the liberals have lost their monopoly and they have had to push harder to get the same leftward movement.
The strategic telling of the truth has almost been thrown out and the only time we get the truth out of them is by accident or because the facts are so well known that they can't get away with it. At that point they either ignore it or tell the part of the truth that is well known but put a spin on it with a sob-story, a false study, or an opposing quote from some leftist with a website and a fax-machine who poses as the leader of a large group.
Since we cannot trust the media in this debate we need to gather the facts and say who is in the wrong, right? Well the first set of facts we should look at is that Obama has taken spending as a percentage of GDP from about 20% and raised it to 25%. Historically Federal spending has ranged from 17% to 19% and it cannot go above 19% without crushing the productive sector.
So if you want to look at symptoms you would say that the economy is having a heart-attack and needs an aspirin. If you consider that the patient has not taken care of it's health we could say that the republicans propose to fix the economy by giving it an aspirin. The democrats want to give the patient a combination of donuts and lard as well as half an aspirin.
Neither side wants to get the patent onto a diet and exercise program; the patient wouldn't vote for that! What constitutes a diet and exercise program in our analogy? First of all it will not work to do across the board cuts of all programs. True, all government programs would be forced to adapt the efficiencies of the productive sector if their budgets were cut, but across the board cuts are like mowing your lawn; at first it looks great and by next week it is right back!
The real problem is the concentration of government into a huge centralized government that has way to large of a population to be responsive or accountable to those who vote. We have to distribute power back to the states, the states need to redistribute their power back to the local level. Then what doesn't work can be identified and gotten rid of and things that work can be put in place.
So maybe in a way the Old-line GOP is to blame because they keep the game going while pretending to be an opposition party. They are the folks who were fine with partial birth abortion so long as they could look good voting against it and using it as a fund-raising issue against the Democrats. In the same way they need big government waste fraud and abuse so they can be against it, but they never get rid of it by returning the power to the states.
And you will also notice that they are also almost all part of the "ruling class" which is the group of "crony capitalists" who get rich through inside access.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The only argument FOR Gay Marriage is religious
Gay Marriage proponents like to claim that the only argument against gay marriage is religious; in fact the only argument For it is basically a religious one.
To explain we must first consider normal marriage; I call it normal because persons attracted to the same sex make up less than 5% of the population, perhaps as little as 1.5%.
If you prefer you can call it traditional marriage, but that would be like saying that night is the traditional time for sleeping. No people in any place nor at any time had homosexual legal unions of marriages up until now.
But as I was saying let us consider normal marriage and its' benefits to society. Perhaps we should add that we are speaking of one man/one woman "till death do they part" as anything else doesn't really benefit society.
The man and wife who are bound by vows are the best unit possible for producing and rearing children, and if you are familiar with our current economic situation where we have all the baby-boomers retiring at once without an ordered replacement then you know that children must be produced.
Of course children are really only an economic boon to society if they are law-abiding, well adjusted, and willing and able to pull their own weight. Otherwise they are just as big a drain or worse than the old boomers whose jobs they are supposed to be filling as the boomers retire.
This means that broken homes and other situations where the situation is less than the children being raised in a balanced manner by their real mother and father, well these situations are not as good (statistically speaking) for raising a kid who will benefit society.
The studies that show this doesn't matter are book-cooked by liberals with an agenda. They use divorced and re-married mothers to get worse stats for children raised in strait marriage families. The information is so tweaked that it is worse than worthless.
So basically same-sex unions don't benefit society, and in fact the benefits that they say the have a right to cost taxpayers. This means that not only is there no reason to grant them this special right it actually costs us money and we get nothing in return for it.
So the only reason they have left is that it is the right and just thing to do in their opinion. We should be nice to them and extend the benefits of marriage to them. If you say we should do it because it is "the right thing to do" or that we should do it to be nice, or just then you are basically trying to make a religious or moral argument for why you should get something from us.
As for your right to get married you have the same right to get married as a straight person does; you can also get married to a person of the opposite sex. As to your argument that old people can't produce kids, but can still get married, why don't you try to get the law changed? Go ahead and make your case, just try not to be so preachy, people don't want to hear that sort of thing.
To explain we must first consider normal marriage; I call it normal because persons attracted to the same sex make up less than 5% of the population, perhaps as little as 1.5%.
If you prefer you can call it traditional marriage, but that would be like saying that night is the traditional time for sleeping. No people in any place nor at any time had homosexual legal unions of marriages up until now.
But as I was saying let us consider normal marriage and its' benefits to society. Perhaps we should add that we are speaking of one man/one woman "till death do they part" as anything else doesn't really benefit society.
The man and wife who are bound by vows are the best unit possible for producing and rearing children, and if you are familiar with our current economic situation where we have all the baby-boomers retiring at once without an ordered replacement then you know that children must be produced.
Of course children are really only an economic boon to society if they are law-abiding, well adjusted, and willing and able to pull their own weight. Otherwise they are just as big a drain or worse than the old boomers whose jobs they are supposed to be filling as the boomers retire.
This means that broken homes and other situations where the situation is less than the children being raised in a balanced manner by their real mother and father, well these situations are not as good (statistically speaking) for raising a kid who will benefit society.
The studies that show this doesn't matter are book-cooked by liberals with an agenda. They use divorced and re-married mothers to get worse stats for children raised in strait marriage families. The information is so tweaked that it is worse than worthless.
So basically same-sex unions don't benefit society, and in fact the benefits that they say the have a right to cost taxpayers. This means that not only is there no reason to grant them this special right it actually costs us money and we get nothing in return for it.
So the only reason they have left is that it is the right and just thing to do in their opinion. We should be nice to them and extend the benefits of marriage to them. If you say we should do it because it is "the right thing to do" or that we should do it to be nice, or just then you are basically trying to make a religious or moral argument for why you should get something from us.
As for your right to get married you have the same right to get married as a straight person does; you can also get married to a person of the opposite sex. As to your argument that old people can't produce kids, but can still get married, why don't you try to get the law changed? Go ahead and make your case, just try not to be so preachy, people don't want to hear that sort of thing.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Hey Egypt; Rome wasn't built in a day!
Rome wasn't built in a day. We can take that to mean a few different things. Obviously it was a few hundred years from the time the legendary founding fathers were raised by wolves to the time Rome became a contender. But the mythology is not what people are really referring to when they talk about building Rome.
Rome was a city state blessed with citizens who had the simple moral courage of soldiers and an admiration for what is today called education but back then was called Greek Philosophy. Greek philosophy and learning meant studying everything from science to warfare to the virtues to happiness and the meaning and purpose of life.
We are sometimes shocked at the things they held that we have dismissed, but we should also be shocked at the things that the Romans and Greeks as Pre-Christian peoples were able to figure out about the natural law without divine revelation.
I suppose the reason Rome is great has as much to do with her fall as her rise. The government of Rome had become so large and so centralized that just as we see today in our centralized government and our centralized corporate structures the corruption, fraud and abuse kept growing until the Roman government became weak and the peoples had to look to themselves for defense and regulation.
The Roman empire came into existence through a series of military conquests that were essentially nationalistic in nature.Rome was able to stay an empire for hundreds of years because their young men were taught duty and service. As the ideal of nationalism became exposed the Roman empire weakened. It would have broken up completely except that the average citizens had rediscovered virtue, service and meaning and purpose in life in a way that the Greeks and Romans could only theorize must exist.
Basically they had discovered Christianity; or at least many of them were beginning to discover it. Many moderns point to the American Revolution as the beginning of freedom and then they point to the French Revolution as the next step and so on, but the truth is that Christendom, or what is now called Europe, was from her beginning more free than her contemporaries. It is a modern conceit that we are sure that we today are more free than those old Catholic countries.
Our First problem is our idea that freedom can only happen in a democracy. Actually freedom can happen under most forms of government, and moral peoples who live under a good King actually have more freedom than we in a democracy. Another problem moderns have is our idea that voting makes people free and that a democracy is always better than a dictatorship.
Dictatorships can be horrible; that is not the question. The real question is if the dictator is overthrown who will be the new dictator? Chances are usually pretty good that if a people are ready for freedom tomorrow they wouldn't be living under a dictator today.Next time you take your dog for a walk notice that he stays in front of you by watching your ques as to which direction you want to go. An alien for another solar system might think that the dog is leading you, but that is rarely the case.
The European civilization that rose out of the ashes of the Roman Empire wasn't built in a day or even a century. If you want to replicate European civilization first you have to look at the rock it was built on; you can't buld a civilization on sand.
Rome was a city state blessed with citizens who had the simple moral courage of soldiers and an admiration for what is today called education but back then was called Greek Philosophy. Greek philosophy and learning meant studying everything from science to warfare to the virtues to happiness and the meaning and purpose of life.
We are sometimes shocked at the things they held that we have dismissed, but we should also be shocked at the things that the Romans and Greeks as Pre-Christian peoples were able to figure out about the natural law without divine revelation.
I suppose the reason Rome is great has as much to do with her fall as her rise. The government of Rome had become so large and so centralized that just as we see today in our centralized government and our centralized corporate structures the corruption, fraud and abuse kept growing until the Roman government became weak and the peoples had to look to themselves for defense and regulation.
The Roman empire came into existence through a series of military conquests that were essentially nationalistic in nature.Rome was able to stay an empire for hundreds of years because their young men were taught duty and service. As the ideal of nationalism became exposed the Roman empire weakened. It would have broken up completely except that the average citizens had rediscovered virtue, service and meaning and purpose in life in a way that the Greeks and Romans could only theorize must exist.
Basically they had discovered Christianity; or at least many of them were beginning to discover it. Many moderns point to the American Revolution as the beginning of freedom and then they point to the French Revolution as the next step and so on, but the truth is that Christendom, or what is now called Europe, was from her beginning more free than her contemporaries. It is a modern conceit that we are sure that we today are more free than those old Catholic countries.
Our First problem is our idea that freedom can only happen in a democracy. Actually freedom can happen under most forms of government, and moral peoples who live under a good King actually have more freedom than we in a democracy. Another problem moderns have is our idea that voting makes people free and that a democracy is always better than a dictatorship.
Dictatorships can be horrible; that is not the question. The real question is if the dictator is overthrown who will be the new dictator? Chances are usually pretty good that if a people are ready for freedom tomorrow they wouldn't be living under a dictator today.Next time you take your dog for a walk notice that he stays in front of you by watching your ques as to which direction you want to go. An alien for another solar system might think that the dog is leading you, but that is rarely the case.
The European civilization that rose out of the ashes of the Roman Empire wasn't built in a day or even a century. If you want to replicate European civilization first you have to look at the rock it was built on; you can't buld a civilization on sand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)