OFF THE WIRE
Sent by
The Carolinas' Full Throttle Magazine ,
"Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. Webster defines a democracy as 'government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.' In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent force. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government. To highlight the offensiveness to liberty that democracy and majority rule is, just ask yourself how many decisions in your life would you like to be made democratically. How about what car you drive, where you live, whom you marry, whether you have turkey or ham for Thanksgiving dinner? If those decisions were made through a democratic process, the average person would see it as tyranny and not personal liberty. Is it no less tyranny for the democratic process to determine whether you purchase health insurance or set aside money for retirement? Both for ourselves and our fellow man around the globe, we should be advocating liberty, not the democracy that we've become -- where a roguish Congress can do anything simply by mustering a majority vote." --economistWalter E. Williams
Sent by Mark,
Walter Williams is exactly correct.
He is good to read every chance ya get.
He doesn't specifically make the point that the ridiculous list of things no one would ever agree to having someone else make - what car you drive, where you live, whom you marry, whether you have turkey or ham for Thanksgiving dinner -
are being made already in the case of the car, and in the case of what you eat, are already in the process of being taken away from you. Michelle Obama is hard at work trying to get public opinion to the point where they will demand government "do something" about the fact we dont eat what she wants us to eat.
The marriage thing - since I don't care what my lesbian friends do, or who they do it with - it seems odd to having the definition of marriage changed. The California courts changed the definition of "new motor vehicle" 3 years ago and it really fucked everybody who rides street bikes. Oh, they didn't mean to fuck everybody, but it happened.
Unintended consequence.
Marriage is soon to be between a what and a what?
It's so hard to keep up with the hip thing. If it's all about the tax breaks, just give everybody a tax break and quit changing the definition of words that has been the same for - well, since the beginning of time.
Mark
Thorsblood
RonPaul2012
Tony,
Mark:
I don't have anything against same sex marriage, especially if both chicks are hot.
Kit Maira ,
When the anti-gay marriage proposition 8 was up for a vote one of my friends was saying he was for it, until I gave him the best argument that I could come up with for gay marriage—Gay Divorce Court on TV! How funny would that show be! The possibilities for hilarity are endless.
Sorry in advance if I offended any gay BOLT-sters.
Kit
Mark,
Watching a wedding has never gave me a woody, but almost every girl-on-girl movie has.
You might be confusing hot chick sex with dike-to-dike wedding ceremonies.
I have yet to see any les wedding ceremony that caused my imagination to run wild; most of those make me turn the channel. But I have helped a particular les MC club out of a sopt or two, and because of my colorblindness (race) and belief in individual constitutional Rights for all, I have been named an Honorary Lesbian by the sister's Club members.
I try to start any topic research with the history and purpose of said item.
Marriage? Has nothing to do with government sponsorship and am not sure how it ever got hooked up with licensing requirements, other than when it jumped from the realm of Religion to the realm of societal preservation. Thus government recognition of what marriage is was originally linked to promoting and preservation of the society (and similarly, the species).
See the history of the push to change the definition of marriage and you find a strange Alinskyish joining of forces with anyone who could be used to erode the main "pillars" of True American culture and society. An attempt to find what could destroy that which was perceived to keep America strong.
The four Pillars were described as:
1. Government which exists to fight evil with force.
2. Business which makes it possible to grow and move food around society, and secure the physical blessings of liberty.
3. Family where we are taught how to function in society. The corruption of the family means we have no way of ensuring the continuation of our society.
4. Religion sets an ideal, something to aspire to. It encourages us to aspire for it, and lays down the road we follow to obtain it. It is argued that religion is the pillar that bears all other pillars up. Without religious belief that laws must be followed, government would cease to exist. Without a belief that one must work and benefit society, business would collapse. Without a moral belief in the family and in dedicating oneself to it, families would evaporate. This is why Judeo-Christian Values, the Founders said, were critical for the preservation of the Republic.
It became important for the thinking Communist anti-American to work at these pillars. With these pillars intact, America would be impossible to take on the journey to Marxist Utopia.
These pillars became the targets during the Port Huron Statement era, where the Marxist-Left drew their plans, and their courage.
I have no problem with gays, and have gone to the defense of their Constitutional Rights, but I see the "agenda" for what it is, an extension of the Marxist-Left.
The day I can marry whoever I want is the day gays should be able to.
I can't marry my right hand, my sister, or the three 14 year old Swedish sisters on the corner of my block.
Gays claim they want to marry whoever they want, like straights. It is an intellecually dishonest argument.
Mark
