To all homosexuals who want to get married, I have an idea on how to make conservative Christians of minimalist government persuasions and homosexuals quite happy.
Let's strike a bargain to suit common needs. We both hate the government telling us what is best for us. The problem is, homosexuals feel the need to embrace the entire progressive thought process over the single issue of gay marriage. Christian conservatives simply do not want the government telling them a lifestyle totally against their religion should be accepted against their will.
Marriage is a religious institution before God going back a very long time. Gays, you got to respect this. However, most of us traditionalist do not care what you do on your off time as long as you do not expect us to change our beliefs to accommodate yours. If you want to start your own church for your religious beliefs, feel free. We'll stick to what we believe about God as well.
As for the government, well we have a common enemy.
Therefore, end government recognition of marital status. Leave recognition and records of marriages up to religious institutions. Couple that with the elimination of the federal income tax, and there is no marital deduction to fight over as there is no income tax in the first place.
The gay marriage debate is a needless and false confrontation between citizens who have the same feelings toward the government from two different viewpoints. The real problem is statist government, per usual. So the invitation is open, I welcome all takers.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Is There a Compassionate Left?
It's an honest question. I mean we all know the stereotype of the general left is to care about the world, show empathy as President Obama put it, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
That is, until you understand the motives.
To know if a person, group, or party genuinely feels for another being is beyond the reach of my knowledge. I have to rely on their actions to pass my judgment as I hope you the dear reader makes a habit of doing as well.
Agreed? Good lets proceed.
Remember how upset the activist were at the most recent Bush administration's inaction over Sudan. It appeared as though Iraq was worth liberating since it had oil and strategic importance for the American Middle East strategy, but poor Sudan had neither the oil or the political value. It just had genocide of Christians. So the heartless Republicans ignored the helpless and only gave freedom to those who would benefit the US financially.
So....where is the outrage over Sudan now? I mean, shouldn't Obama do something about that? It certainly isn't getting any better. Would it not fall in line with his view that America is better off gaining the approval of the world rather than acting in its own self-interest?
Don't hear much from the ONE campaign lately either.
Let's remember who's watch Rwanda happened under. Oh yeah, Clinton who "felt our pain". Except Black Hawk Down made him nervous about sending in troops anymore and political coverage was more important than saving millions from machetes.
Sudan suffers because it is Christians being persecuted by the Muslim government, and it wouldn't be cool for the US to support Christians over Muslims on the world stage. That's why it continues. As for Rwanda, nobody cares about Africa when it counts. Sure the West will throw some aid money at it, but until free, stable capitalist based governments are the norm, it will remain the Dark Continent.
Heck we had the French help us out during our Revolution...oh yeah Britain was their sworn enemy....hmmm strategic value or compassion?
Politicians may say they care about all people, but sometimes it takes more than aid or gestures to solve a problem.
It takes courage.
That is, until you understand the motives.
To know if a person, group, or party genuinely feels for another being is beyond the reach of my knowledge. I have to rely on their actions to pass my judgment as I hope you the dear reader makes a habit of doing as well.
Agreed? Good lets proceed.
Remember how upset the activist were at the most recent Bush administration's inaction over Sudan. It appeared as though Iraq was worth liberating since it had oil and strategic importance for the American Middle East strategy, but poor Sudan had neither the oil or the political value. It just had genocide of Christians. So the heartless Republicans ignored the helpless and only gave freedom to those who would benefit the US financially.
So....where is the outrage over Sudan now? I mean, shouldn't Obama do something about that? It certainly isn't getting any better. Would it not fall in line with his view that America is better off gaining the approval of the world rather than acting in its own self-interest?
Don't hear much from the ONE campaign lately either.
Let's remember who's watch Rwanda happened under. Oh yeah, Clinton who "felt our pain". Except Black Hawk Down made him nervous about sending in troops anymore and political coverage was more important than saving millions from machetes.
Sudan suffers because it is Christians being persecuted by the Muslim government, and it wouldn't be cool for the US to support Christians over Muslims on the world stage. That's why it continues. As for Rwanda, nobody cares about Africa when it counts. Sure the West will throw some aid money at it, but until free, stable capitalist based governments are the norm, it will remain the Dark Continent.
Heck we had the French help us out during our Revolution...oh yeah Britain was their sworn enemy....hmmm strategic value or compassion?
Politicians may say they care about all people, but sometimes it takes more than aid or gestures to solve a problem.
It takes courage.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
There is nothing "good" about Democracy.
Yes,
thats right,
I just killed the sacred cow of Western civilization. Ever since President Wilson's vision of a more moral world order, American and generally Western Civilization has preached the gospel of free and fair elections. American sympathy for democracy movements in general can be found much further back concerning the French Revolution until the frenchies got a little too carried away with rolling heads. Now, it it certainly true concentration of power in the hands of some dictator or top-heavy governmental system is not the way to go unless you always hated the nagging responsibilities of free will does not change the fact that 100 million people can be just as wrong and dangerous as 1 really powerful one. For example, take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election to a second glorious term. No doubt, there were probably plenty of voter fraud in one form or another but regardless many millions of Iranians thought he'd done a commendable job since 2005. Or look north to Iran's benefactor Russia, or there's Venezuela and almost all of Central America, western Europe, or even the US the past century or so. All are examples of voters willing to give away some portion of their power in exchange for state sponsored goody bags. It is quite common for humans to freely vote away their freedom when they find no value for it in their daily lives. Material gifts, feelings of national pride, empathy are all much more valuable to many of us to a degree than having absolute control of our lives.
Man is flawed. There is no other explanation. We are not striving towards perfection, we are skipping into oblivion where comfort and ease trumps all. The people are dangerous, as is the state. The founders knew this very well that the danger to society comes from the top and the bottom, thus an elaborate yet simple system of checks and balances was built into USA 1.0. Only a people that practice basic morality like self-sacrifice towards their neighbor(not government cohered wealth redistribution) can operate the levels of power effectively. It cannot be forced by the state upon the people, it must be taught at the family level freely and gladly. Will such notions prevail?
Don't hold your breath.
thats right,
I just killed the sacred cow of Western civilization. Ever since President Wilson's vision of a more moral world order, American and generally Western Civilization has preached the gospel of free and fair elections. American sympathy for democracy movements in general can be found much further back concerning the French Revolution until the frenchies got a little too carried away with rolling heads. Now, it it certainly true concentration of power in the hands of some dictator or top-heavy governmental system is not the way to go unless you always hated the nagging responsibilities of free will does not change the fact that 100 million people can be just as wrong and dangerous as 1 really powerful one. For example, take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election to a second glorious term. No doubt, there were probably plenty of voter fraud in one form or another but regardless many millions of Iranians thought he'd done a commendable job since 2005. Or look north to Iran's benefactor Russia, or there's Venezuela and almost all of Central America, western Europe, or even the US the past century or so. All are examples of voters willing to give away some portion of their power in exchange for state sponsored goody bags. It is quite common for humans to freely vote away their freedom when they find no value for it in their daily lives. Material gifts, feelings of national pride, empathy are all much more valuable to many of us to a degree than having absolute control of our lives.
Man is flawed. There is no other explanation. We are not striving towards perfection, we are skipping into oblivion where comfort and ease trumps all. The people are dangerous, as is the state. The founders knew this very well that the danger to society comes from the top and the bottom, thus an elaborate yet simple system of checks and balances was built into USA 1.0. Only a people that practice basic morality like self-sacrifice towards their neighbor(not government cohered wealth redistribution) can operate the levels of power effectively. It cannot be forced by the state upon the people, it must be taught at the family level freely and gladly. Will such notions prevail?
Don't hold your breath.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
While I was away...
First and foremost I do apologize for the silence. As you the reader well knows, I have not posted in several months now due to scholastic distractions, logistical interference, and general laziness.
It ends now.
I will try to write more like a "blogger" than columnist as is my habit and thus have shorter, but more frequent posts in the future to change the scenery. However, do not expect me to dwell on trivial subjects as so often is the content of a "blog". Registered Heresy strives to be aggressive, confrontational, and thought-provoking, not absent minded nothingness.
Instead of dwelling on the dull drums of today's headlines which aren't all that interesting unless your drooling over the prospect of a Fiat/Chrysler compact econo-can, I'd like to offer some thoughts on the best way to at least reduce the influence of federal power in the smallest level of governance, your personal life. First off let us ask why the Federal level is so powerfully(or at least powerfully in debt). I mean, why do states care what the feds say anyway? Minus an invasion from a foreign power or another state sending its guard to fight a neighboring state, the feds should in theory not be that important. However, state governments and then county governments rely heavily on the federal printing press to provide all those pressing social services to their citizenry. How to stop this?
END THE DEMAND FOR GOVERNMENT AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL
Now, how to do this? What would make citizens realize the true cost of government in their personal lives? Make them directly pay it. End income tax withdrawals from paychecks so reality burns hot as hell in April. When the true cost is made apparent, the demand will shrink naturally. The invisible hand of Smith's will reveal the invisible fist of statist policy. Once most state legislatures are populated with politicians who are committed to ending federal money flow, they will then be able to cut off state tax revenues to the federal level. Why pay taxes when you have no need for the services? This will destroy the federal level's ability to determine domestic policy from DC, and let it be determined from the kitchen table as intended.
Next, end artificial inflation by reverting back to the gold standard and suspending all federal spending until the national debt is under 1% of GDP. It is fine with me if you wish to increase spending, but only if you balance your checkbook and pay off each generations debt's before the next takes over.
Third, term limits for Congress, and no salary, only provide room and board. If a senator cannot accomplish what he sets out to do in 6 years, he's not much of a senator. Representatives can serve 3 terms as they have more frequent elections, but 6 years is plenty. I'd also consider changing the Presidential term to 6 years with one term, but I am open to debate on that idea.
These are only a starting point, focusing mainly on domestic agenda. I will have to save foreign policy for another post.
Remember, the government needs you more than you need it.
It ends now.
I will try to write more like a "blogger" than columnist as is my habit and thus have shorter, but more frequent posts in the future to change the scenery. However, do not expect me to dwell on trivial subjects as so often is the content of a "blog". Registered Heresy strives to be aggressive, confrontational, and thought-provoking, not absent minded nothingness.
Instead of dwelling on the dull drums of today's headlines which aren't all that interesting unless your drooling over the prospect of a Fiat/Chrysler compact econo-can, I'd like to offer some thoughts on the best way to at least reduce the influence of federal power in the smallest level of governance, your personal life. First off let us ask why the Federal level is so powerfully(or at least powerfully in debt). I mean, why do states care what the feds say anyway? Minus an invasion from a foreign power or another state sending its guard to fight a neighboring state, the feds should in theory not be that important. However, state governments and then county governments rely heavily on the federal printing press to provide all those pressing social services to their citizenry. How to stop this?
END THE DEMAND FOR GOVERNMENT AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL
Now, how to do this? What would make citizens realize the true cost of government in their personal lives? Make them directly pay it. End income tax withdrawals from paychecks so reality burns hot as hell in April. When the true cost is made apparent, the demand will shrink naturally. The invisible hand of Smith's will reveal the invisible fist of statist policy. Once most state legislatures are populated with politicians who are committed to ending federal money flow, they will then be able to cut off state tax revenues to the federal level. Why pay taxes when you have no need for the services? This will destroy the federal level's ability to determine domestic policy from DC, and let it be determined from the kitchen table as intended.
Next, end artificial inflation by reverting back to the gold standard and suspending all federal spending until the national debt is under 1% of GDP. It is fine with me if you wish to increase spending, but only if you balance your checkbook and pay off each generations debt's before the next takes over.
Third, term limits for Congress, and no salary, only provide room and board. If a senator cannot accomplish what he sets out to do in 6 years, he's not much of a senator. Representatives can serve 3 terms as they have more frequent elections, but 6 years is plenty. I'd also consider changing the Presidential term to 6 years with one term, but I am open to debate on that idea.
These are only a starting point, focusing mainly on domestic agenda. I will have to save foreign policy for another post.
Remember, the government needs you more than you need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
