Winning the war of Ideology

There is a war of ideologies going on in this country which has been growing in intensity.  Whether it began in 1860, or in 1900, or in 1776, is all debatable.  What is no longer debatable is that it has now reached an intensity that we have not seen in my lifetime.  Our ancestors left whatever lands they hailed from to come here for a reason.  They no longer wanted to be ruled.  They came from countries ruled by “the divine right of Kings”, Dictatorships, Theocracies, and many fled the tide of Socialism and it’s children Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.  They came because only in this country could a person be free to rule themselves.  To determine for one’s self, what was in one’s own best interests.  To risk, and to either reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences, on their own terms.

The old battle of  whether there could be Self Determination or to be ruled and  taxed by someone unaccountable to you was won on the battlefields of the Revolutionary war. It was a radical concept at the time that men could be free to rule themselves, and we won it, briefly at least. But in that battle of ideologies’ place came a newer more insidious battle. 

I wrote yesterday that in the continuum between Anarchy (lack of Government) and Tyranny (total Government control) our left and right has been constantly sliding down the hill towards Socialism, and Tyranny,  for over 100 years.

   It was easy to make the distinction between a king sitting on a throne who got his power from his father and would give his power to his son, who was wholly unaccountable to the people and ruled by the sound of his voice; and a body of citizens, chosen by citizens, to protect us from criminals and foreigners.  That argument is easily summated and digested.  It can be understood by the smallest child.  It really comes down to being bossed around by a bully, or being governed by a group of your peers.   A much harder debate is the Role of that government once enacted.  The Founders were very aware that once started a government just grows and grows and they tried to warn us of it.  Now our Government no longer listens to the people.  We are not represented.  Those of us who produce things are being bled dry by those who produce nothing to give what we have worked for to those who will not work.

Here is the question: Is the role of government to fulfill all of your wants and desires, or is it to remove roadblocks in your pursuit of happiness?

The problem is that it is difficult to properly articulate freedom’s principles into a  slogan easily shouted or to hold the goldfish-like attention span of TV addicted people today. All of the debates over Liberty vs. Tyranny boil down to just a few simple questions.

What do you want out of life?  Which system of government will best allow you to achieve those goals?  Are you a dependant or are you free?  These are the questions we should focus on. 

Let me start with the last one first.  You cannot be both “Free” and “Dependant” Children are dependant on their parents for the Housing, Education, Food, and their Healthcare.  Likewise, many of our “citizens” are dependant on the Taxpayers, via the Government for all of these things.  The price for these “Free” things and this willing dependency on the government is the loss of your “Freedom”.  It is that simple.  If you willingly accept Government Housing (which more and more of it is indirectly), Government Food (in which governments regulate every aspect from growth to consumption), Education (which between the public schools controlled at the federal level and the takeover of student loans as part of healthcare reform encompasses nearly everything), and Government Healthcare, which was just proclaimed via fiat across the land, then you have given up your Freedom for Dependency and you should be aware that now, just like when you lived under your parents’ roof, your Provider has the right to dictate all aspects of your behavior as a condition of your dependency.  You have willingly given them the right to tell you where to live, what to eat, what doctor to use, and not only what school to attend but soon probably what course of study. It is not a far step to how many children you have, indeed if your are beholden to the taxpayers for your existence that is a logical, reasonable, parental function.  That is the price for your Free stuff from the Government.

So, ask your liberal friend or family member what their goals in life are, and then demonstrate to them how it is absolutely within the Nanny State’s purview to re-direct their goals to something else in the interests of those in power. 

I choose Freedom, not Dependency;  Liberty, not Tyranny.

-KOOK

Winning the war of Ideology

There is a war of ideologies going on in this country which has been growing in intensity.  Whether it began in 1860, or in 1900, or in 1776, is all debatable.  What is no longer debatable is that it has now reached an intensity that we have not seen in my lifetime.  Our ancestors left whatever lands they hailed from to come here for a reason.  They no longer wanted to be ruled.  They came from countries ruled by “the divine right of Kings”, Dictatorships, Theocracies, and many fled the tide of Socialism and it’s children Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.  They came because only in this country could a person be free to rule themselves.  To determine for one’s self, what was in one’s own best interests.  To risk, and to either reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences, on their own terms.

The old battle of  whether there could be Self Determination or to be ruled and  taxed by someone unaccountable to you was won on the battlefields of the Revolutionary war. It was a radical concept at the time that men could be free to rule themselves, and we won it, briefly at least. But in that battle of ideologies’ place came a newer more insidious battle. 

I wrote yesterday that in the continuum between Anarchy (lack of Government) and Tyranny (total Government control) our left and right has been constantly sliding down the hill towards Socialism, and Tyranny,  for over 100 years.

   It was easy to make the distinction between a king sitting on a throne who got his power from his father and would give his power to his son, who was wholly unaccountable to the people and ruled by the sound of his voice; and a body of citizens, chosen by citizens, to protect us from criminals and foreigners.  That argument is easily summated and digested.  It can be understood by the smallest child.  It really comes down to being bossed around by a bully, or being governed by a group of your peers.   A much harder debate is the Role of that government once enacted.  The Founders were very aware that once started a government just grows and grows and they tried to warn us of it.  Now our Government no longer listens to the people.  We are not represented.  Those of us who produce things are being bled dry by those who produce nothing to give what we have worked for to those who will not work.

Here is the question: Is the role of government to fulfill all of your wants and desires, or is it to remove roadblocks in your pursuit of happiness?

The problem is that it is difficult to properly articulate freedom’s principles into a  slogan easily shouted or to hold the goldfish-like attention span of TV addicted people today. All of the debates over Liberty vs. Tyranny boil down to just a few simple questions.

What do you want out of life?  Which system of government will best allow you to achieve those goals?  Are you a dependant or are you free?  These are the questions we should focus on. 

Let me start with the last one first.  You cannot be both “Free” and “Dependant” Children are dependant on their parents for the Housing, Education, Food, and their Healthcare.  Likewise, many of our “citizens” are dependant on the Taxpayers, via the Government for all of these things.  The price for these “Free” things and this willing dependency on the government is the loss of your “Freedom”.  It is that simple.  If you willingly accept Government Housing (which more and more of it is indirectly), Government Food (in which governments regulate every aspect from growth to consumption), Education (which between the public schools controlled at the federal level and the takeover of student loans as part of healthcare reform encompasses nearly everything), and Government Healthcare, which was just proclaimed via fiat across the land, then you have given up your Freedom for Dependency and you should be aware that now, just like when you lived under your parents’ roof, your Provider has the right to dictate all aspects of your behavior as a condition of your dependency.  You have willingly given them the right to tell you where to live, what to eat, what doctor to use, and not only what school to attend but soon probably what course of study. It is not a far step to how many children you have, indeed if your are beholden to the taxpayers for your existence that is a logical, reasonable, parental function.  That is the price for your Free stuff from the Government.

So, ask your liberal friend or family member what their goals in life are, and then demonstrate to them how it is absolutely within the Nanny State’s purview to re-direct their goals to something else in the interests of those in power. 

I choose Freedom, not Dependency;  Liberty, not Tyranny.

-KOOK

Project Camelot (update)

A friend pointed this out to me recently.
Here is an interesting video about Project Camelot.
It's really long but the interesting part in reference to government is at 24:15 but you can start around 23:00 to understand the topic:

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic70cVN5IdQ//>

Ultimately, it's liberalism morphing into libertarianism. it boils down to people deciding that central planning and organizing aka huge federal or central government will claim to "help" people but will ultimately do more harm than good which is why our founders made our federal government weak, and gave state governments far more latitude. Even my great grandmother who was the first woman Sheriff in tenessee considered herself a tennesseean American. State used to come first to people. elections were the same way, where local and state elections were much more important to people than national.and presidential elections. corporations are no different. multinational corporations have no love for the tea party or as I call it "the pro-liberty" movement. "too big to fail" means too big to this movement.
It's those corporations in conjunction with governing bodies like the UN, NATO ,EU, that are supporting obamacare. why, because they want the small businesses which still have the biggest piece of the overall pie out of the way. our big corpoations aren't capitalist, they are in the business of "manipulative consumerism." then the government call capitalists-small business owners...the boogeyman. Why is obama going after people making $250K a year? because that is the mean income for someone to have or begin their own business. What segment of our economy has the most small businesses? Doctors offices. There is no "walmart" of the medical care industry. Each doctor works for his/her self or with small group of other doctors. in the tea party movement, people ask, what can you do, what are you good at, now do that within the movement. If you can write, start a blog, if you are a good organizer, start a group, etc. every person do a little, donate what you can.
When Christianity was in it's infancy, there were no clergy in charge of regions, no pope, just small individual groups if people gathering, giving what they could to contribute, and each group picked a group of leaders from within to be organizers of that group. They engaging in willful socialsm on the local level. Peter was never a "pope" despite what you were taught in Catholic theology. Groups of Christans met, and dealt with their problems and needs on their own. The first record of a "church" picking a single leader begins at 120 a.d. and that was "Clement" who is often called the second Pope. The original idea was individualism not clergy issuing all powerful decrees. The reasoning for that, the pro-liberty movement all the way to our founding fathers separating the powers of the Federal Government was prevention of a few making decisions for everyone. That discussion about "project Camelot" is the simple notion that we don't need ever growing government bodies or multinational corporations telling us how to do things.
We can, at the local level, take care of ourselves. The closer we get to a "nanny
state," the more self serving that state will be. This is happening all world at the same time. Now violence is starting to uptick, not from the "pro-liberty" movement but from statists. That teacher who shot up that college, and the pentagon shooting yesterday were statists, as are the recent rash of Muslim terrorists such as the pantie-bomber and the Ft Hood. These people who are behind what we are ideologically opposed to have no problem with resorting to and have ties to, on many levels, to terrorism and gang violence, and if push comes to shove will not hesitate to use such means.

Earlier, I stated that the Ft Hood Bomber died the other day. I am positive I heard it on Fox news the other day but i can find no evidence to confirm this, so I am retracting the statement with an apology to those who read this. I made a mistake here and I am now correcting it. Big thanks to JDS for letting me know I missed that one as I am not out to mislead people here, and I am honestly spread so thin working on multiple state and national midterm election campaigns that I am having a hard time doing all the checking and rechecking that I prefer, but the workload will lighten up fairly soon as there is one special election in a month and I will be able to get back to a more normal posting schedule.
Sent from my Iphone

Project Camelot (update)

A friend pointed this out to me recently.
Here is an interesting video about Project Camelot.
It's really long but the interesting part in reference to government is at 24:15 but you can start around 23:00 to understand the topic:

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic70cVN5IdQ//>

Ultimately, it's liberalism morphing into libertarianism. it boils down to people deciding that central planning and organizing aka huge federal or central government will claim to "help" people but will ultimately do more harm than good which is why our founders made our federal government weak, and gave state governments far more latitude. Even my great grandmother who was the first woman Sheriff in tenessee considered herself a tennesseean American. State used to come first to people. elections were the same way, where local and state elections were much more important to people than national.and presidential elections. corporations are no different. multinational corporations have no love for the tea party or as I call it "the pro-liberty" movement. "too big to fail" means too big to this movement.
It's those corporations in conjunction with governing bodies like the UN, NATO ,EU, that are supporting obamacare. why, because they want the small businesses which still have the biggest piece of the overall pie out of the way. our big corpoations aren't capitalist, they are in the business of "manipulative consumerism." then the government call capitalists-small business owners...the boogeyman. Why is obama going after people making $250K a year? because that is the mean income for someone to have or begin their own business. What segment of our economy has the most small businesses? Doctors offices. There is no "walmart" of the medical care industry. Each doctor works for his/her self or with small group of other doctors. in the tea party movement, people ask, what can you do, what are you good at, now do that within the movement. If you can write, start a blog, if you are a good organizer, start a group, etc. every person do a little, donate what you can.
When Christianity was in it's infancy, there were no clergy in charge of regions, no pope, just small individual groups if people gathering, giving what they could to contribute, and each group picked a group of leaders from within to be organizers of that group. They engaging in willful socialsm on the local level. Peter was never a "pope" despite what you were taught in Catholic theology. Groups of Christans met, and dealt with their problems and needs on their own. The first record of a "church" picking a single leader begins at 120 a.d. and that was "Clement" who is often called the second Pope. The original idea was individualism not clergy issuing all powerful decrees. The reasoning for that, the pro-liberty movement all the way to our founding fathers separating the powers of the Federal Government was prevention of a few making decisions for everyone. That discussion about "project Camelot" is the simple notion that we don't need ever growing government bodies or multinational corporations telling us how to do things.
We can, at the local level, take care of ourselves. The closer we get to a "nanny
state," the more self serving that state will be. This is happening all world at the same time. Now violence is starting to uptick, not from the "pro-liberty" movement but from statists. That teacher who shot up that college, and the pentagon shooting yesterday were statists, as are the recent rash of Muslim terrorists such as the pantie-bomber and the Ft Hood. These people who are behind what we are ideologically opposed to have no problem with resorting to and have ties to, on many levels, to terrorism and gang violence, and if push comes to shove will not hesitate to use such means.

Earlier, I stated that the Ft Hood Bomber died the other day. I am positive I heard it on Fox news the other day but i can find no evidence to confirm this, so I am retracting the statement with an apology to those who read this. I made a mistake here and I am now correcting it. Big thanks to JDS for letting me know I missed that one as I am not out to mislead people here, and I am honestly spread so thin working on multiple state and national midterm election campaigns that I am having a hard time doing all the checking and rechecking that I prefer, but the workload will lighten up fairly soon as there is one special election in a month and I will be able to get back to a more normal posting schedule.
Sent from my Iphone

Slap Chop (updated!)

Has anyone besides me noticed that there appears to be a "liberal brain drain" happening withthe far left bloggers? I am seeing it on the far left loon blogs, on TV news and even here with those who come here and disagree with us. Here is the wiki explanation of "brain drain"

Brain drain or human capital flight is a large emigration of individuals with technical skills or knowledge, normally due to conflict, lack of opportunity, political instability, or health risks. Brain drain is usually regarded as an economic cost, since emigrants usually take with them the fraction of value of their training sponsored by the government. It is a parallel of capital flight which refers to the same movement of financial capital. The term was coined by the Royal Society to describe the emigration of "scientists and technologists" to North America from post-war Europe.^[1] The converse phenomenon is brain gain, which occurs when there is a large-scale immigration of technically qualified persons. Brain drain can be stopped by providing individuals who have expertise with career opportunities and giving them opportunities to prove their capabilities.^{[citation needed]}

A good example of that is how Arianna Huffington (Huffpo) has recently called out Glenn Beck for "inciting violence" in America. Now when the murder rate of the district that mr. obama (who Huffpo supports) "organzied" as a community organizer is higher than the murder rate in Yemen, I can't help but wonder if maybe things aren't a tad off. Also, I went to see Beck and Bill-O doing their comedy show in Tampa. The traffic was bad enough to incite violence, yet there was none. Even the rednecks took a night off from aimlessly shooting their guns in the air. Meanwhile, in Obama's old district, there were 37.4 murders from the time the show started to the time it ended. (I'm just kidding, I really don't know how many murders there were in that district at that time as the cops flee from there after dark.) But seriously, our latest detractor has a real pension for name calling and mincing words. I am going to break down exactly what was said for accuracy and I will let you tell me who is right or wrong.

This all began over a comment I made regarding liberalism exchanging vice for freedom:

"Most "liberals" have that view about replacing freedom with vice. They support "legalizing" drugs, gay marriage, early pregnancy termination, etc. At the same time, they want to restrict how much toilet paper I can use. This leaves nothing positive to put back into society besides vice. I have libertarian leanings, and and while such views allow vice, they also allow achievement. In America, we "get" a luxury and a thousand laws come with it. Electricity was a luxury, but laws requiring use of electricity for home ownership. We got cars and roads, and lost property rights, had to buy insurance, pay taxes for road maintenance etc. If this doesn't stop, we will have have few luxuries because they will all be illegal."

(I will let you think of this comment what you choose)

So we get this comment from a totally new blogger who has never even read a post here:

Your comment is wild with paranoid thinking. I honestly don't know why you believe the United States is going to start rationing toilet paper any time soon, but I don't believe there is much I can do to free you from this belief. I do wish you a long and happy life, and may the great US socialist revolution never happen within said lifetime, forcing you to use one piece of tp at a time instead of two. Also admire your equation of legalizing a harmless drug like marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion rights with "vices". Not only are you entirely dismissive of other people's rights to hold different belief systems from you, but you go on to speculate wildly about things that would never happen in this country provided the resources to maintain our consumptive lifestyles continue to be plentiful. Some great libertarian stylin' there!

1.The socialist revolution has been happening for the last century, and as a historical footnote, unlike it's cousin communism, socialism is usually implemented gradually to prevent pro-liberty rebellions.

2. Whether we like it or not, homosexuality, drug use, even alcoholism, cigarette smoking and eating unhealthy foods are vices. There are rights and wrongs in life whether you agree with them or not. By your logic, murder would not be wrong, it would just be an "alternative lifestyle choice."

3."My comment is wild with paranoid thinking". If you read this blog for any length of time, you would know that I have a fairly good understanding of wild as I both have a wild animal is a pet, and take and interest in wildlife. I think I know the definition of wild, thank you.

4. Libertarian Stylin? I called a tuxedo shop asking to rent a suit with "Libertarian Stylin" to go see the Super Bowl 40 minutes' drive from here. They thought it was a prank call. I got the same reaction when I called a barber shop asking for a "Libertarian stylin" for my hair. And the local Lamborghini dealership could not could not get me a Murcielago with a "Libertarian stylin" paint or interior scheme.

So I responded at the time in this manner:

My pro-liberty stance is consistent. I do believe that right and wrong exist. That makes me a flat Earth Nazi, right? I stand by my beliefs that there is a right and wrong. Why, just because I take a chainsaw and cut an unborn baby from a womb in three pieces just before it is born doesn't mean I did anything wrong, right? First, I am for decriminalization of pot, by the way, but that doesn't change the fact that drugs, alcohol and things like prostitution are vices and offer nothing positive to a great society, and in fact were the undoing of the Roman and Chinese empires. Study a little history. You are the one pushing views on me that are totally biased and untrue. I suggest that you go over to the other post about gay marriage and actually read my comments on gay marriage where I state that we should GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGES ALTOGETHER AND THEN LET CHURCHES DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO VIEW MARRIAGE.

I continue to stand by my statements as consistent with the views expressed here from the time I began posting here. So after KOOK gave a small reply that these comments are entirely consistent everything I have ever posted. Paranoid Joe responded in this way:

Well, I'm glad you've decided you're qualified to anoint yourself as the most intellectually honest and consistent blogger out there! No need to ask for judgment outside of your circle :P Seriously though, you seem to have assumed an awful lot about my beliefs from one post, and provided me with defensive and (again) paranoid replies. I'm not sure where I pushed any views on y'all, I just critiqued the things that were said. Surely that's why people post their thoughts on the internet? To create conversation? Or is this just shouting into the void? I happen to agree that the government should just do civil unions rather than marriages, but that would never fly with the fundamentalists in this country. The Roman and Chinese empires (which Chinese empire?) fell for myriad reasons. To imagine that prostitution caused the fall of the Roman empire isn't even in the realm of reducing a complex story to a simplistic idea, it's like you haven't even started talking about the topic yet. Also it is a topic I think is pretty much irrelevant except in the interest of historical study.

1.You pushed your views of morality on us.

2.Most people when they critique books or movies, writings or blog posts, don't begin with name calling and insults to the writers. We welcome debate here, but not when it begins by hurling insults. When you start by name calling, all you will be doing afterwards is shouting into the void because we don't care what you say anymore.

3.You don't know squat about history. Read about the "Opium war" that led to the enslavement of generations of Chinese to English opium grown in India.

4."To imagine that prostitution caused the fall of..." I said that vice caused the fall of the Roman Empire, not prostitution. Now is the time where I have to question either your intelligence or your honesty. To be nice I will assume that you are using one of those Dictatorial Slap Chops that Huffpo is selling to inexperienced wannabe liberals to pay for itself now that readership has fallen below MSNBC's 3 .1 people. (By the way, look at Vinny the slap chop salesman in the photo and ask him how prostitution helped his career)

5. History is relevant because it repeats itself. When the founding of our government was a model of the Roman Republic, and we as a nation are undergoing the same moral and social decay that led to the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire, it is absolutely relevant.

6. You were the one that went off topic with your rant about us or me being paranoid

7. You say I assume alot about your beliefs, but you put words in my mouth that are not true, such as I think the Gov. should do civil unions. I called for getting the government out of the Marriage game altogether. I challenge you to find any statement on this blog (all my work here is archived) where I called for government civil unions. My assumption about your beliefs is that they are wrong, and the way you put the slap chop on my statements proves that. Now, does archiving your work sound like the activities of someone that is paranoid?

So after I sent Joe Paranoid an e-mail saying I was using his comments in a post and inviting him to debate me I got this e-mail as a response:I don't really care. Can we end this correspondence now? I'm not planning on looking at your post. This is starting to be tiresome.

I guess we can put that in the win column, then.

Slap Chop (updated!)

Has anyone besides me noticed that there appears to be a "liberal brain drain" happening withthe far left bloggers? I am seeing it on the far left loon blogs, on TV news and even here with those who come here and disagree with us. Here is the wiki explanation of "brain drain"

Brain drain or human capital flight is a large emigration of individuals with technical skills or knowledge, normally due to conflict, lack of opportunity, political instability, or health risks. Brain drain is usually regarded as an economic cost, since emigrants usually take with them the fraction of value of their training sponsored by the government. It is a parallel of capital flight which refers to the same movement of financial capital. The term was coined by the Royal Society to describe the emigration of "scientists and technologists" to North America from post-war Europe.^[1] The converse phenomenon is brain gain, which occurs when there is a large-scale immigration of technically qualified persons. Brain drain can be stopped by providing individuals who have expertise with career opportunities and giving them opportunities to prove their capabilities.^{[citation needed]}

A good example of that is how Arianna Huffington (Huffpo) has recently called out Glenn Beck for "inciting violence" in America. Now when the murder rate of the district that mr. obama (who Huffpo supports) "organzied" as a community organizer is higher than the murder rate in Yemen, I can't help but wonder if maybe things aren't a tad off. Also, I went to see Beck and Bill-O doing their comedy show in Tampa. The traffic was bad enough to incite violence, yet there was none. Even the rednecks took a night off from aimlessly shooting their guns in the air. Meanwhile, in Obama's old district, there were 37.4 murders from the time the show started to the time it ended. (I'm just kidding, I really don't know how many murders there were in that district at that time as the cops flee from there after dark.) But seriously, our latest detractor has a real pension for name calling and mincing words. I am going to break down exactly what was said for accuracy and I will let you tell me who is right or wrong.

This all began over a comment I made regarding liberalism exchanging vice for freedom:

"Most "liberals" have that view about replacing freedom with vice. They support "legalizing" drugs, gay marriage, early pregnancy termination, etc. At the same time, they want to restrict how much toilet paper I can use. This leaves nothing positive to put back into society besides vice. I have libertarian leanings, and and while such views allow vice, they also allow achievement. In America, we "get" a luxury and a thousand laws come with it. Electricity was a luxury, but laws requiring use of electricity for home ownership. We got cars and roads, and lost property rights, had to buy insurance, pay taxes for road maintenance etc. If this doesn't stop, we will have have few luxuries because they will all be illegal."

(I will let you think of this comment what you choose)

So we get this comment from a totally new blogger who has never even read a post here:

Your comment is wild with paranoid thinking. I honestly don't know why you believe the United States is going to start rationing toilet paper any time soon, but I don't believe there is much I can do to free you from this belief. I do wish you a long and happy life, and may the great US socialist revolution never happen within said lifetime, forcing you to use one piece of tp at a time instead of two. Also admire your equation of legalizing a harmless drug like marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion rights with "vices". Not only are you entirely dismissive of other people's rights to hold different belief systems from you, but you go on to speculate wildly about things that would never happen in this country provided the resources to maintain our consumptive lifestyles continue to be plentiful. Some great libertarian stylin' there!

1.The socialist revolution has been happening for the last century, and as a historical footnote, unlike it's cousin communism, socialism is usually implemented gradually to prevent pro-liberty rebellions.

2. Whether we like it or not, homosexuality, drug use, even alcoholism, cigarette smoking and eating unhealthy foods are vices. There are rights and wrongs in life whether you agree with them or not. By your logic, murder would not be wrong, it would just be an "alternative lifestyle choice."

3."My comment is wild with paranoid thinking". If you read this blog for any length of time, you would know that I have a fairly good understanding of wild as I both have a wild animal is a pet, and take and interest in wildlife. I think I know the definition of wild, thank you.

4. Libertarian Stylin? I called a tuxedo shop asking to rent a suit with "Libertarian Stylin" to go see the Super Bowl 40 minutes' drive from here. They thought it was a prank call. I got the same reaction when I called a barber shop asking for a "Libertarian stylin" for my hair. And the local Lamborghini dealership could not could not get me a Murcielago with a "Libertarian stylin" paint or interior scheme.

So I responded at the time in this manner:

My pro-liberty stance is consistent. I do believe that right and wrong exist. That makes me a flat Earth Nazi, right? I stand by my beliefs that there is a right and wrong. Why, just because I take a chainsaw and cut an unborn baby from a womb in three pieces just before it is born doesn't mean I did anything wrong, right? First, I am for decriminalization of pot, by the way, but that doesn't change the fact that drugs, alcohol and things like prostitution are vices and offer nothing positive to a great society, and in fact were the undoing of the Roman and Chinese empires. Study a little history. You are the one pushing views on me that are totally biased and untrue. I suggest that you go over to the other post about gay marriage and actually read my comments on gay marriage where I state that we should GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGES ALTOGETHER AND THEN LET CHURCHES DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO VIEW MARRIAGE.

I continue to stand by my statements as consistent with the views expressed here from the time I began posting here. So after KOOK gave a small reply that these comments are entirely consistent everything I have ever posted. Paranoid Joe responded in this way:

Well, I'm glad you've decided you're qualified to anoint yourself as the most intellectually honest and consistent blogger out there! No need to ask for judgment outside of your circle :P Seriously though, you seem to have assumed an awful lot about my beliefs from one post, and provided me with defensive and (again) paranoid replies. I'm not sure where I pushed any views on y'all, I just critiqued the things that were said. Surely that's why people post their thoughts on the internet? To create conversation? Or is this just shouting into the void? I happen to agree that the government should just do civil unions rather than marriages, but that would never fly with the fundamentalists in this country. The Roman and Chinese empires (which Chinese empire?) fell for myriad reasons. To imagine that prostitution caused the fall of the Roman empire isn't even in the realm of reducing a complex story to a simplistic idea, it's like you haven't even started talking about the topic yet. Also it is a topic I think is pretty much irrelevant except in the interest of historical study.

1.You pushed your views of morality on us.

2.Most people when they critique books or movies, writings or blog posts, don't begin with name calling and insults to the writers. We welcome debate here, but not when it begins by hurling insults. When you start by name calling, all you will be doing afterwards is shouting into the void because we don't care what you say anymore.

3.You don't know squat about history. Read about the "Opium war" that led to the enslavement of generations of Chinese to English opium grown in India.

4."To imagine that prostitution caused the fall of..." I said that vice caused the fall of the Roman Empire, not prostitution. Now is the time where I have to question either your intelligence or your honesty. To be nice I will assume that you are using one of those Dictatorial Slap Chops that Huffpo is selling to inexperienced wannabe liberals to pay for itself now that readership has fallen below MSNBC's 3 .1 people. (By the way, look at Vinny the slap chop salesman in the photo and ask him how prostitution helped his career)

5. History is relevant because it repeats itself. When the founding of our government was a model of the Roman Republic, and we as a nation are undergoing the same moral and social decay that led to the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire, it is absolutely relevant.

6. You were the one that went off topic with your rant about us or me being paranoid

7. You say I assume alot about your beliefs, but you put words in my mouth that are not true, such as I think the Gov. should do civil unions. I called for getting the government out of the Marriage game altogether. I challenge you to find any statement on this blog (all my work here is archived) where I called for government civil unions. My assumption about your beliefs is that they are wrong, and the way you put the slap chop on my statements proves that. Now, does archiving your work sound like the activities of someone that is paranoid?

So after I sent Joe Paranoid an e-mail saying I was using his comments in a post and inviting him to debate me I got this e-mail as a response:I don't really care. Can we end this correspondence now? I'm not planning on looking at your post. This is starting to be tiresome.

I guess we can put that in the win column, then.

Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage, Let’s get Government out of Marriage.

I probably will not win any fans from my more religiously conservative readers with this post, but if you will persevere and hear me out you may be able to formulate a new opinion on this issue.  The more I read, and study, and think about these issues the more Libertarian I become.

Let me start at the beginning.  When a couple gets married there are usually two  things that actually happen, but frequently we only recognize that one thing happened.   Harry meets Sally, Harry and Sally fall in love, Harry spends a ridiculous amount of money on Sally a ring, they set a date, find someone to officiate (usually some flavor of preacher), go to the courthouse and get a marriage license…wait, do you see what just happened?

When you get “Married” what most of us think about are white dresses and churches.  We are joining together in Holy Matrimony, professing our love in front of God and our families.   Why does the Government need involved in that? Because of the second thing that happens after the “I do’s”.  Someone pulls out a marriage license and the happy couple and their witnesses and official sign it.  Now it is “legal”.  I even have a cute little funny picture somewhere of my (ex) wife holding the marriage license while we hug and she winks for the camera behind my back.  Sort of a , ‘I got him now’, picture.  (I didn't realize it was a catch and release program, but that is another topic)

Our government gives tax breaks and all sorts of goodies to people when they get married.  After thinking about it the reason is obvious: It is part of the social contract with the citizenry for procreating and contributing to the future of society.  We give you tax breaks, and ‘married-only’ deals on government loans and all kinds of things because you are assumed to be on the road to making babies.  So what happens if Harry and Sally decide never to have kids?  I think they should be in breach of contract.

Meanwhile, what does the Deity care if you have a legal document?  I believe Jesus  said ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's’.  I have not yet heard of anyone’s faith not recognizing the marriage vows based on whether it was duly recognized by the State.  What does God care?  God’s laws are not man’s laws.

Buddha certainly doesn’t care, I asked him at the Chinese restaurant the other day, paid my check rubbed his little tummy and asked, and he said it was cool with him. 

So two things happen… Church, and State.  Well I thought that the Liberals among  us were dead set against Church and State collaborating on anything…

Now really, and this is key, I am for Individual and States rights, and if I say that is what I am for I should be willing to put up or shut up.  If Tom and Jerry want to get married it does not hurt me in the least.  Really it doesn’t; I don’t have to like it, or agree, or anything, it simply doesn’t harm me at all.

 

  If Ellen and Portia want to tie the knot, how does that hurt me or my kids?  Remember I am for Individual and State’s rights, and so if I had my way, my kids would not be receiving a state education.

I am not currently married, and I am certainly not gay.  But what if I didn’t have any family, would I not want to be able to designate a caregiver, a beneficiary, an executor, etc as whoever I wanted it to be?  Isn’t it ridiculous to give tax breaks (even though I am against having an IRS anyway) to people just because they cohabitate no matter what their sexual practices?  If you have kids, you and whoever else is raising them should be able after proof of dependency to get whatever tax credit you are eligible for.  I half raise a kid that isn’t mine, I spend tons of cash on her and provide her a place to live at least 50% of the time, what makes me less of a parent than if I had married her Mother (yuck) or her (*gag*) Dad (gross double yuck) but I love the little stinker and her Dad needs help raising her so I do. Think Uncle Joey from Full House and you get the picture.

Over half of all marriages end in divorce anyway.  Look at all the step parents and single or unwed parents.  Think how much simpler it would be if it worked another way. Maybe this way:

You can marry whoever your preacher and congregation will allow, and let God be the judge if it works for Him or not. Neither forcing a congregation or preacher to marry any two people.  And really, who would want to force a preacher and congregation to marry them if they were not wanted in the church?  Church is not a place you can frequent very easily if you are completely at odds with everyone who attends.

Then, you go to the courthouse and sign a declaration listing emergency contacts,  executors, transfer on deaths, caregivers, who gets all your stuff when the relationship splits,  whatever.  That takes care of all our emergency and end of life needs, no matter what your status with a Church is. 

Then if you end up raising kids: yours, theirs, or someone else’s, you get tax breaks and whatever else you have coming.  If no kids are involved, why have a special status? 

It really is, and should be, Separate.

One last item, no sane person on the “Gay Rights” side is going to argue with the definition of  as being between “two people of legal age”.  If they do then we just have to write them off as ridiculous.  That prevents Triads (which are already legal or ignored many places), bestiality (I think every sane person agrees this is gross), Underage Marriage (which happens already with guardian consent at ages I am not comfortable with), and all other ridiculous notions.  If this solution was offered and not acceptable, then that would tell me that the issue was not one of being treated equally, but one of trying to change someone’s religious views and force acceptance of the way you live your life on someone else, which is Statism at its’ absolute worst.

There simply is no other way to give both sides what they want, and what they deserve.  Unless we remove emotions and look  at things rationally, i.e. Civil Rights  vs. Religious Freedom, we will never solve this issue.  I am for both Civil Rights, and Religious Freedom.  We cannot take away one group’s (or everyone’s) Religious Freedom, in order to guarantee some other group’s civil rights, and we do not have to.  The problem with Civil Unions as they have been discussed in the past is that they did not go far enough.  Remember there are two things that happen when you have a “wedding”. Let’s keep them separate and make it equal for everyone.

-KOOK

p.s. I cannot finish this post without stating that I am in no way agreeing that the Prop8 Protestors are correct.  A constitutionally mandated process was done as per the fervent wish of those seeking to redefine someone else’s religious beliefs, and they lost.  That is democracy, isn’t that what the left always wants?

 

 

-KOOK