Forward to about the 15 minute mark
NJ Senatorial Debate
10/20/2000
From the start, Mr. Corzine was put on the defensive about his campaign spending by Mr. Franks and the moderators, Roz Abrams of WABC and Marc Howard of WPVI.
Wednesday, January 8, 2025
My 2000 Debate Appearance
My participation in the NJ Senatorial debate in 2000: Corzine/Franks.
Forward to about the 15 minute mark
NJ Senatorial Debate
10/20/2000
Money a Focus In Last Debate In New Jersey
Forward to about the 15 minute mark
NJ Senatorial Debate
10/20/2000
Thursday, April 20, 2023
My Commentary On State/Church Separation
What's hard to understand about "separation"?
A friend brought to my attention that State Senator Gerald Cardinale wants our kids to begin their school day by reciting part of the Declaration of Independence. My problem with it is that he seems to be thinking too small. Below is the entire preamble of the Declaration, with the part the Senator would omit in bold:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
You can read the whole thing here.
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 07/03/08 at 10:55PM
This is an excellent piece. However, I couldn't disagree more concerning Mr. Hart's assertion that the highlighted part of the preamble is "the truly revolutionary part of the document." Not to diminish this part's historical importance, but the first, un-highlighted lines are the core of the American Revolution. Never before had a nation been founded on the moral premise of the supreme value of the individual possessing inalienable rights, with the government's role as protector of those rights, as opposed to being his ruler. It is the first part that validates the second.
Having said that, I agree that the mere memorized recitation of a small part of the Declaration without a full knowledge and understanding of the complete document in full context would be futile. I'm not saying that is Senator Cardinale's intention, but that would likely be the effect.
As to the issue of "separation", the Founders were deeply suspicious of organized religion, including Christianity and its multiple sects. They understood fully the inherent dangers to liberty of placing into the hands of people whose beliefs rest on faith rather than reason the coercive power of government. They saw that danger as not only a threat to the non-religious but to other religious sects lacking political power as well.
It is not against religion that the "wall of separation" was erected, but against religious tyranny. That "wall" is our only guarantor of the freedom to practice any religious belief, or no belief at all. Far from being an inhibiting force against religion, it has actually been a boon. This fact became clear early on in our history. As Brooke Allen writes in her book,Moral Minority, Our Skeptical Founding Fathers:
"Madison was noticing what was becoming a peculiarly American phenomenon: namely, that full religious freedom, protected by the Constitution, seemed actually to foster religion and fan its flames rather than to spread atheism, as its opponents had feared. There could be no doubt about it: Americans, especially in the once-skeptical Southern states, were becoming more and more pious. Religious freedom had created an explosion of thriving sects, just as free-market capitalism was creating an explosion of new wealth. But this, perhaps, was not quite what Madison and Jefferson had in mind."
In America, the practice of religion by one is no threat to any other. We owe the unfettered right to our own beliefs free from fear of persecution to that "wall of separation." As an athiest, I cannot understand how any religionist would want to begin chipping away at that safeguard with such nonsense as "faith-based initiatives." With Senator Obama now throwing his support behind that program, the assault against state/church separation has apparently gone bipartisan. (Never mind his "re-invention" ploy. Any scenario that involves public funds going to any religious organization means that some people will be forced to support, with their tax money, religious beliefs that they may or may not agree with. It represents a violation of the First Amendment, of inalienable individual rights, and of the wall of state-church separation. Period.)
There is not much of the Left's agenda that I can support. But one great value they have traditionally offered is as a steadfast guardian against political intrusion into the religious sphere. If Obama's action is a precursor of a breakdown of the Left's resolve, the consequences for America long term will not be good.
Other's Commentary:
Posted by blarneyboy on 07/04/08 at 3:42AM
Didn't the veterans' bill after WWII smash this separation of church and state concept to smithereens?
Massive federal money went from the feds to every religious college that wanted it, and is still going there.
ROTC on a religious school's campus also helps that religion. It fills classrooms with ROTC scholarship students and rents space for the gov't instructors and their supplies....like rifles. Does the 'wall' appear and disappear depending upon the circumstances or is the whole "separation" argument a bogus creation of the ACLU?
Lastly, the first moslem attack on the West for several centuries was repulsed by adamantly christian armies. Can a 'secular humanist' state or civilization fight off a moslem terrorist onslaught over a period of a century or two? Will our atheists in foxholes prevail? and why does the gov't pay for religious chaplains if there really is a 'wall" that you want to strengthen against support of religion?
And what will happen if Baptists and Catholic and Methodist clergy decide that sending their kids off to fight for an atheistic gov't, serving as the lapdog of international corporists, serves no purpose within the concept of a "just" war?
And look at the UK with its state religion cursed with empty churches. The chief judge is ready to apply Sharia law, because the moslems of the UK DO attend services, and sometimes plan bombings there.
This thoughtful article raises a lot of questions for a civilization trapped in a religious war. We may need an Augsburg Confession, though, to unify the West now, as the confession did in 1530 against the moslem military offensives, then. Theoretical discussions of a 'wall' are of little use if the West becomes subject to Sharia Law as massive population shifts continue with the aid of the democracies.
My Response:
Posted by Zemack on 07/05/08 at 8:25PM
The principle of church-state separation, more accurately called religion-state separation, is no mere floating abstract theoretical idea without connection to reality. It is an issue crucial to a free society, as the Founders clearly understood. It is as vitally relevant today as then, especially in light of the rise of the threat from totalitarian, imperialistic Islam. As Mr. Hart says, there isn't "anything going on today that suggests throwing away our history would be a good thing."
The "wall" does not, however, mean atheistic government. The intellectual package-deal implied in that idea sets up a false alternative. And this goes straight to the heart of those words in the Declaration that the senator wants recited in schools. The choice is not between atheistic government and religious (Christian, Islamic, or any other) government. The choice is between either a government with the power to impose a particular set of beliefs on its people, or a government that protects the right of its individual citizens to hold and act upon his own beliefs and judgements, free from coercive interference by others. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Government is a tool. Its proper function is to protect the inalienable rights of its people, as individuals, and that's all. Neither an atheistic government, nor a Christian one, nor an Islamic one is consistent with America's revolutionary founding principles. A government that acquires the power to impose a particular set of beliefs thus becomes a tool of any group that happens to seize political control. Therefore, our best protection against the imposition of Sharia (i.e., Islamic) law in America is to prevent our government from ever acquiring that power...i.e., to maintain that "wall of separation."
The battle today is not between Islam and Christianity. It is between theocratic tyranny and political freedom. Our soldiers are fighting not for an atheistic government or a Christian government, but for the freedom to hold his, and our, own personal beliefs and for a government that protects that freedom.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
These revolutionary words should be repeated, and understood, because we Americans...all of us...are fighting for, and defending, the same thing.
Others' Commentary:
Posted by blarneyboy on 07/05/08 at 1:43PM
Zemack, the Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document.
It is NOT a part of American law, though; however pleasing it may sound.
It may well be time for the religions of america to trump your wall with a declination to help corporists build their greedy empire. Let them send their own offspring to protect their investments abroad.
I wish them God's speed, if that's permitted.
Posted by richl on 07/05/08 at 2:04PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Our Founding Fathers had a very specific intent in making the establishment of a religion an unconstitutional act, and a very specific definition of what that means. Most of them came from England where the government gave preference to and provided money and support for one of the Christian religions (the Anglican Church) and chose it as that country's "official" religion. They did not want the government establishing a national religion here. They wanted the government to stay out of religion, not for religious principles to be eliminated from government. Their desire was for the United States to be a nation with it's values and laws based on Christian principles, but did not want the government choosing one Christian religion (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) over another and establish it as it's "official" religion.
The same Founding Fathers who wrote the First Amendment that prohibited the government from establishing a national religion also believed that allowing and encouraging public religious practice was not the same as establishing a religion. Establishing a religion would require a government-sponsored set of beliefs, rules which must be obeyed by everyone, official ministers to teach the selected doctrine and penalties for those who do not conform. Our Founding Fathers were men of faith and wanted Christianity to be included in every aspect of life. The intent of the First Amendment was never to separate Christianity and state. If that had been the intent, it would never have been ratified.
The Constitution guarantees everyone freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Liberal and politically correct interpretations have their intentions going in the wrong way. Government cannot influence or create religion NOT religion influences cannot reside in government priciples and buildings.
Posted by blarneyboy on 07/06/08 at 9:25AM
A particularly repugnant example of statist destruction of a religion is the New York Court's decision to force Catholic hospitals to pay for abortion coverage for their employees.
Kind of like asking Jews to contribute to the upkeep at Bergen-Belsen, and in a Catholic's view, no less depraved towards humanity.
I didn't hear of any atheists protesting this repudiation of a religious belief (Life, Liberty...... Thou shalt NOt Kill etc.) in a religious institution, by the government.
My Response:
Posted by Zemack on 07/06/08 at 10:15AM
Blarneyboy, you are certainly correct that the Declaration, technically speaking, is not part of American law.* But however imperfectly implemented in practice, it is (or was intended to be) the philosophical basis for that law. A nations legal framework, to be just and fair, must be based upon some set of ideas...of universal principles...that all people can relate to and that can be the basis for resolving disputes peacefully. The Declaration of Independence is America's set of universal principles.
Otherwise, you end up with what we have today in America...the "controlled anarchy" of countless pressure groups and special interests fighting for control of the apparatus of government in order to impose some law or regulation or judicial edict or whatnot that coercively benefits one group at the expense of another. It is the fact that we have largely abandoned the Founding principles as laid out in the Declaration that has led to this free-for-all. What replaced those principles is...nothing. No principles, no ideas, no guideposts of any kind.
The primary victim of all of this is the individual and his inalienable rights, the protection of which is the very purpose of the Declaration. Unless we rediscover and take seriously that our Founding document is the set of universal principles that our law should be based on, the expanding "cold civil war", and the "polarization", now gripping America will continue to degenerate into either a "hot" war, as in Weimer Germany, or outright dictatorship, or both.
So, Blarneyboy, I must ask this question, which I ask in all sincerity, because I don't want to misunderstand your position. When you say that "the Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document. It is NOT a part of American law, though; however pleasing it may sound," are you saying that the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant?
Just asking.
* [I have since been corrected on this. The Declaration is part of American law--in fact integral to it. See Timothy Sandefur, The Conscience of the Constitution, Chapter 1, Democracy and Freedom.]
Other's Comments:
Posted by blarneyboy on 07/06/08 at 6:52PM
Drericablair sums up the problems in Jersey accurately.
As the central gov't increases control over the individual and breaks us down into separate groups, it undermines the philosophy set forth in the declaration as a reflection of the natural law, not merely universal principles.
My Commentary:
Thomas Hart responded to my comments on his blog, which I much appreciated.
Here is an excerpt:
Mr. Hart goes on to take apart Blarneyboy's reference to the "veterans’ bill after WWII" statement, which I want to republish here:
Thomas Hart is one Christian who understands that any attempt to impose his religious beliefs on others would necessarily put his own freedom of religious faith and practice in jeopardy. The "Wall" is specifically designed to protect that freedom.
By
on July 03, 2008 at 2:07 PM, updated July 03, 2008 at 2:45 PM
on July 03, 2008 at 2:07 PM, updated July 03, 2008 at 2:45 PM
A friend brought to my attention that State Senator Gerald Cardinale wants our kids to begin their school day by reciting part of the Declaration of Independence. My problem with it is that he seems to be thinking too small. Below is the entire preamble of the Declaration, with the part the Senator would omit in bold:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
You can read the whole thing here.
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 07/03/08 at 10:55PM
This is an excellent piece. However, I couldn't disagree more concerning Mr. Hart's assertion that the highlighted part of the preamble is "the truly revolutionary part of the document." Not to diminish this part's historical importance, but the first, un-highlighted lines are the core of the American Revolution. Never before had a nation been founded on the moral premise of the supreme value of the individual possessing inalienable rights, with the government's role as protector of those rights, as opposed to being his ruler. It is the first part that validates the second.
Having said that, I agree that the mere memorized recitation of a small part of the Declaration without a full knowledge and understanding of the complete document in full context would be futile. I'm not saying that is Senator Cardinale's intention, but that would likely be the effect.
As to the issue of "separation", the Founders were deeply suspicious of organized religion, including Christianity and its multiple sects. They understood fully the inherent dangers to liberty of placing into the hands of people whose beliefs rest on faith rather than reason the coercive power of government. They saw that danger as not only a threat to the non-religious but to other religious sects lacking political power as well.
It is not against religion that the "wall of separation" was erected, but against religious tyranny. That "wall" is our only guarantor of the freedom to practice any religious belief, or no belief at all. Far from being an inhibiting force against religion, it has actually been a boon. This fact became clear early on in our history. As Brooke Allen writes in her book,Moral Minority, Our Skeptical Founding Fathers:
"Madison was noticing what was becoming a peculiarly American phenomenon: namely, that full religious freedom, protected by the Constitution, seemed actually to foster religion and fan its flames rather than to spread atheism, as its opponents had feared. There could be no doubt about it: Americans, especially in the once-skeptical Southern states, were becoming more and more pious. Religious freedom had created an explosion of thriving sects, just as free-market capitalism was creating an explosion of new wealth. But this, perhaps, was not quite what Madison and Jefferson had in mind."
In America, the practice of religion by one is no threat to any other. We owe the unfettered right to our own beliefs free from fear of persecution to that "wall of separation." As an athiest, I cannot understand how any religionist would want to begin chipping away at that safeguard with such nonsense as "faith-based initiatives." With Senator Obama now throwing his support behind that program, the assault against state/church separation has apparently gone bipartisan. (Never mind his "re-invention" ploy. Any scenario that involves public funds going to any religious organization means that some people will be forced to support, with their tax money, religious beliefs that they may or may not agree with. It represents a violation of the First Amendment, of inalienable individual rights, and of the wall of state-church separation. Period.)
There is not much of the Left's agenda that I can support. But one great value they have traditionally offered is as a steadfast guardian against political intrusion into the religious sphere. If Obama's action is a precursor of a breakdown of the Left's resolve, the consequences for America long term will not be good.
Other's Commentary:
Posted by blarneyboy on 07/04/08 at 3:42AM
Didn't the veterans' bill after WWII smash this separation of church and state concept to smithereens?
Massive federal money went from the feds to every religious college that wanted it, and is still going there.
ROTC on a religious school's campus also helps that religion. It fills classrooms with ROTC scholarship students and rents space for the gov't instructors and their supplies....like rifles. Does the 'wall' appear and disappear depending upon the circumstances or is the whole "separation" argument a bogus creation of the ACLU?
Lastly, the first moslem attack on the West for several centuries was repulsed by adamantly christian armies. Can a 'secular humanist' state or civilization fight off a moslem terrorist onslaught over a period of a century or two? Will our atheists in foxholes prevail? and why does the gov't pay for religious chaplains if there really is a 'wall" that you want to strengthen against support of religion?
And what will happen if Baptists and Catholic and Methodist clergy decide that sending their kids off to fight for an atheistic gov't, serving as the lapdog of international corporists, serves no purpose within the concept of a "just" war?
And look at the UK with its state religion cursed with empty churches. The chief judge is ready to apply Sharia law, because the moslems of the UK DO attend services, and sometimes plan bombings there.
This thoughtful article raises a lot of questions for a civilization trapped in a religious war. We may need an Augsburg Confession, though, to unify the West now, as the confession did in 1530 against the moslem military offensives, then. Theoretical discussions of a 'wall' are of little use if the West becomes subject to Sharia Law as massive population shifts continue with the aid of the democracies.
My Response:
Posted by Zemack on 07/05/08 at 8:25PM
The principle of church-state separation, more accurately called religion-state separation, is no mere floating abstract theoretical idea without connection to reality. It is an issue crucial to a free society, as the Founders clearly understood. It is as vitally relevant today as then, especially in light of the rise of the threat from totalitarian, imperialistic Islam. As Mr. Hart says, there isn't "anything going on today that suggests throwing away our history would be a good thing."
The "wall" does not, however, mean atheistic government. The intellectual package-deal implied in that idea sets up a false alternative. And this goes straight to the heart of those words in the Declaration that the senator wants recited in schools. The choice is not between atheistic government and religious (Christian, Islamic, or any other) government. The choice is between either a government with the power to impose a particular set of beliefs on its people, or a government that protects the right of its individual citizens to hold and act upon his own beliefs and judgements, free from coercive interference by others. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Government is a tool. Its proper function is to protect the inalienable rights of its people, as individuals, and that's all. Neither an atheistic government, nor a Christian one, nor an Islamic one is consistent with America's revolutionary founding principles. A government that acquires the power to impose a particular set of beliefs thus becomes a tool of any group that happens to seize political control. Therefore, our best protection against the imposition of Sharia (i.e., Islamic) law in America is to prevent our government from ever acquiring that power...i.e., to maintain that "wall of separation."
The battle today is not between Islam and Christianity. It is between theocratic tyranny and political freedom. Our soldiers are fighting not for an atheistic government or a Christian government, but for the freedom to hold his, and our, own personal beliefs and for a government that protects that freedom.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
These revolutionary words should be repeated, and understood, because we Americans...all of us...are fighting for, and defending, the same thing.
Others' Commentary:
Posted by blarneyboy on 07/05/08 at 1:43PM
Zemack, the Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document.
It is NOT a part of American law, though; however pleasing it may sound.
It may well be time for the religions of america to trump your wall with a declination to help corporists build their greedy empire. Let them send their own offspring to protect their investments abroad.
I wish them God's speed, if that's permitted.
Posted by richl on 07/05/08 at 2:04PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Our Founding Fathers had a very specific intent in making the establishment of a religion an unconstitutional act, and a very specific definition of what that means. Most of them came from England where the government gave preference to and provided money and support for one of the Christian religions (the Anglican Church) and chose it as that country's "official" religion. They did not want the government establishing a national religion here. They wanted the government to stay out of religion, not for religious principles to be eliminated from government. Their desire was for the United States to be a nation with it's values and laws based on Christian principles, but did not want the government choosing one Christian religion (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) over another and establish it as it's "official" religion.
The same Founding Fathers who wrote the First Amendment that prohibited the government from establishing a national religion also believed that allowing and encouraging public religious practice was not the same as establishing a religion. Establishing a religion would require a government-sponsored set of beliefs, rules which must be obeyed by everyone, official ministers to teach the selected doctrine and penalties for those who do not conform. Our Founding Fathers were men of faith and wanted Christianity to be included in every aspect of life. The intent of the First Amendment was never to separate Christianity and state. If that had been the intent, it would never have been ratified.
The Constitution guarantees everyone freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Liberal and politically correct interpretations have their intentions going in the wrong way. Government cannot influence or create religion NOT religion influences cannot reside in government priciples and buildings.
Posted by blarneyboy on 07/06/08 at 9:25AM
A particularly repugnant example of statist destruction of a religion is the New York Court's decision to force Catholic hospitals to pay for abortion coverage for their employees.
Kind of like asking Jews to contribute to the upkeep at Bergen-Belsen, and in a Catholic's view, no less depraved towards humanity.
I didn't hear of any atheists protesting this repudiation of a religious belief (Life, Liberty...... Thou shalt NOt Kill etc.) in a religious institution, by the government.
My Response:
Posted by Zemack on 07/06/08 at 10:15AM
Blarneyboy, you are certainly correct that the Declaration, technically speaking, is not part of American law.* But however imperfectly implemented in practice, it is (or was intended to be) the philosophical basis for that law. A nations legal framework, to be just and fair, must be based upon some set of ideas...of universal principles...that all people can relate to and that can be the basis for resolving disputes peacefully. The Declaration of Independence is America's set of universal principles.
Otherwise, you end up with what we have today in America...the "controlled anarchy" of countless pressure groups and special interests fighting for control of the apparatus of government in order to impose some law or regulation or judicial edict or whatnot that coercively benefits one group at the expense of another. It is the fact that we have largely abandoned the Founding principles as laid out in the Declaration that has led to this free-for-all. What replaced those principles is...nothing. No principles, no ideas, no guideposts of any kind.
The primary victim of all of this is the individual and his inalienable rights, the protection of which is the very purpose of the Declaration. Unless we rediscover and take seriously that our Founding document is the set of universal principles that our law should be based on, the expanding "cold civil war", and the "polarization", now gripping America will continue to degenerate into either a "hot" war, as in Weimer Germany, or outright dictatorship, or both.
So, Blarneyboy, I must ask this question, which I ask in all sincerity, because I don't want to misunderstand your position. When you say that "the Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document. It is NOT a part of American law, though; however pleasing it may sound," are you saying that the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant?
Just asking.
* [I have since been corrected on this. The Declaration is part of American law--in fact integral to it. See Timothy Sandefur, The Conscience of the Constitution, Chapter 1, Democracy and Freedom.]
Other's Comments:
Posted by blarneyboy on 07/06/08 at 6:52PM
Drericablair sums up the problems in Jersey accurately.
As the central gov't increases control over the individual and breaks us down into separate groups, it undermines the philosophy set forth in the declaration as a reflection of the natural law, not merely universal principles.
My Commentary:
Thomas Hart responded to my comments on his blog, which I much appreciated.
Here is an excerpt:
Mike Zemack was kind enough to post a thoughtful commentary on one of my posts at NJ Voices. Though his answer is almost two months old, I’d like to respond to it here –
As far as the separation of church and state go, however, I think we are in full agreement – and I think that is more important that quibbling over which part of the Declaration means what. Even if I love to do things like that.
Mike goes on to take to task one of the commenters on the original piece. He does a good job answering this tripe [from Blarneyboy]:
"Didn’t the veterans’ bill after WWII smash this separation of church and state concept to smithereens?
Massive federal money went from the feds to every religious college that wanted it, and is still going there."
Mike does a bang-up job on this:
"The 'wall' does not, however, mean atheistic government. The intellectual package-deal implied in that idea sets up a false alternative. And this goes straight to the heart of those words in the Declaration that the senator wants recited in schools. The choice is not between atheistic government and religious (Christian, Islamic, or any other) government. The choice is between either a government with the power to impose a particular set of beliefs on its people, or a government that protects the right of its individual citizens to hold and act upon his own beliefs and judgements, free from coercive interference by others."
Mr. Hart goes on to take apart Blarneyboy's reference to the "veterans’ bill after WWII" statement, which I want to republish here:
Veterans earn their educational benefits with their service. It is their right to use those benefits as they see fit – even if it means studying anarchist philosophy to justify destroying the government they once served. Even if it means studying the Bible, the Koran, or whatever scripture they want to study. Is the government promoting religion by allowing a veteran to study religion? No, they are promoting higher education. The veteran is choosing the field. That’s the end of that. Think of it the other way around – if a veteran wants to use his or her benefits to study religion, would a neutral government stop it? It hardly seems so.
Thomas Hart is one Christian who understands that any attempt to impose his religious beliefs on others would necessarily put his own freedom of religious faith and practice in jeopardy. The "Wall" is specifically designed to protect that freedom.
Friday, September 9, 2011
S/L: Mandate Birth Control Insurance Coverage for Women
Cost should not matter when deciding birth control
My commentary:
My commentary:
Posted by zemack July 25, 2011 at 11:39AM
“But it’s up to every woman to decide for herself whether or not to use birth control.” Who would disagree with that? But it’s also up to that woman to pay for it herself, not force others to pay through a compulsory insurance mandate. But, there are hundreds of benefit mandates forced upon our “private” health insurance across the nation. So, if a woman is forced to pay for some guy’s prostate cancer treatment of Viagra in the same way, why shouldn’t she demand he pay for her birth control? It seems only fair, right?
What’s unfair is for government to impose any mandates at all. Insurers and their customers have a moral right to contract freely with each other, to mutual benefit, without government interference. Government’s job is to enforce those health insurance contracts and prosecute fraud and breech of contract, not redistribute wealth through regulation and law. That is not only immoral, but is one of the prime reasons for out-of-control health costs. When each of us is forced to pay for everyone else’s healthcare, but not our own, then the incentive is to not give a hoot what our’s costs, but to simply pressure government to dump our costs on others. Socialism turns everyone into predators, not “brothers and sisters”.
Our health insurance system is a socialized system through and through. “Private” insurance is only nominally so, and is really an extension of government. It is far from anything resembling a free market, being more in the nature of economic fascism – i.e., socialism through the back door. Of course, we have real socialism in the system too, through Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, and so on.
The S/L justifies this new mandate on the grounds of “public health” because “About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, which places a heavy strain on society.” But who switched the burden of unplanned pregnancies onto “society” – onto others through their taxes – in the first place? It was the statists themselves through government programs. To “fix” that problem, they propose to widen government control of medicine through our quasi-governmental insurance industry in the form of this new mandate.
No one is morally responsible for another’s health care needs, except as dictated by personal choices and actions – such as bringing a child into the world. Beyond that, the moral standards of individual rights, free markets, and a free society means every adult individual is responsible for his own healthcare needs only, until and unless he/she volunteers to give financial help to a neighbor or friend or even a stranger. No one’s unfilled needs places an automatic moral claim on the money or services of another, beyond private voluntary charity. Until we accept these moral truths, we will continue to build toward totalitarian socialism one brick at a time.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
On income taxes and job creation, history debunks the Star-Ledger
On income taxes and job creation, history debunks GOP views, NJ Star-Ledger Sunday, July 17, 2011.
I've left the following comments:
I can't pass up the chance to make a few remarks regarding this:
I've seen this view before. Put simply, Hinderer is essentially saying that theft is good, because it will provide an "incentive" to go out and work hard to replace what has been stolen. I trust that if a burglar robbed Hinderer's home, he would not file charges. Instead, he would be thankful, since it would encourage him to work to replace the stolen goods!
Only a slave mentality would conceive of so hideous a rationalization for tax increases.
I've left the following comments:
July 17, 2011 at 1:12PM
Several corespondents have already pointed out the blatant context-dropping, selective use of facts, and outright falsehoods employed by the editors. Here are a few more:
The 1950s economy limped along through three recessions. So anemic was it that JKF ran his 1960 presidential campaign on a promise to “get America moving again”. The 1960s featured accelerated growth after Kennedy cut tax rates from 91% to 70%.
The Reagan tax cuts brought rates down from 70% to 28%. Tinkering by the Bush –Clinton--Bush administrations bounced those rates around between the upper 20s and upper 30s, but all three presidents left the bulk of the Reagan cuts essentially in place. Those cuts were a prime reason for the 1982-2000 economic boom that saw interest rates, inflation, and unemployment all trend steadily downward from double digits simultaneously – a feat that Keynesianists thought to be impossible. Clinton benefited enormously from that boom, especially after the 1994 Republicans aborted his statist schemes and pushed him to the “Right” on economic policy (ex. welfare reform, spending restrain, and capital gains tax cuts). Of course, as Melland points out, in retrospect the beginning of the housing bubble – of which Clinton and Bush share equal blame – “helped” Clinton also.
The 2001-03 “tax cuts for the rich” vastly benefited the middle class, lowering the average family’s tax burden by tens of thousands of dollars over the past decade, even as those cuts were justly spread across all income brackets.
But the Bush rate cuts – the most important aspect economically - were small. The benificial effects of those meager rate cuts were overwhelmed by other factors. The real reason for the sub-par economy of the 2000s was the terrorist attacks and subsequent onset of war, along with Bush’s large increase in government regulation, government spending and deficits, trade barriers, the draining away of investment resources to feed the government-induced housing bubble, and the subsequent bust.
The editors ridicule private job creators, as any statist who worships government must. But jobs come from somewhere – that somewhere is the energy and ability of business creators and growers. Government can not create real, productive jobs. It can only shift resources by force from some people to others, and then claim credit for the jobs “created” by the politically favored recipients of that largess but paid for by the killing of other jobs drained from those who finance government spending.
The polls may or may not favor tax hikes on the wealthy. But sound economic policy is not determined by public opinion polls, or the moral perversity of any hypocrite who beats the drum for higher taxes, but only on the other guy.
I can't pass up the chance to make a few remarks regarding this:
David_Hinderer_298 July 18, 2011 at 10:42AM
Follow
Tax increases would be an incentive for the rich to create jobs once to see their wealth dwindle. Raising taxes would provide some motivation. They are under no preassure to create jobs since they getting richer for not doing but collect interest from their investment.
I've seen this view before. Put simply, Hinderer is essentially saying that theft is good, because it will provide an "incentive" to go out and work hard to replace what has been stolen. I trust that if a burglar robbed Hinderer's home, he would not file charges. Instead, he would be thankful, since it would encourage him to work to replace the stolen goods!
Only a slave mentality would conceive of so hideous a rationalization for tax increases.
Rand/Jesus Flap and Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck Backtracks After Seeing AVN "Rand vs Jesus" Ad, by Eric Sapp
My initial response posted 07:11 PM on 6/15/2011:
" 'I think the vast majority of us will agree that Rand's vision of America where selfishness is the greatest virtue and compassion and love of neighbor are some of the worst evils... this is not the America we want' - Eric Sapp.
"Anyone who would deny to his neighbor the moral right and sanction to work for the achievement of his own selfish well-being and happiness can not claim the mantel of “compassion and love of neighbor”. Rand saw the predatory nature of altruism, and why it is the vital ethical tool of collectivism. If selfishness (properly understood) is not a virtue, then preying upon others is. If it is right to place the interests of your neighbors before your own, then it is right to demand that your neighbors do the same for you. Altruism, as Rand discovered, is an inverted morality that enshrines the unearned as a moral absolute. Socialists are desperate to defend their ethical standards against the rational Objectivist alternative that is the philosohical foundation of capitalism. That is why false alternatives such as the one embodied in the passage above are used to distract attention away from the true nature of Rand’s benevolent, rights-respecting morality.”
Eric Sapp responds, posted 10:04 PM on 6/15/2011:
My rebuttal posted 11:08 AM on 6/18/2011:
"Thanks for responding, Mr. Sapp. Yes, I’ll keep “shouting it loud and clear”, b/c as Ayn Rand said – and I think you would agree with her – the battle for America’s future is fundamentally a moral one.
"My side is a tiny minority, as of now. And I agree that most Americans cleave consciously to the 'servant heart' ethic. But the Rand/Jesus flap your side unleashed can only help my side by raising Rand’s profile. And I would argue that the Objectivist minority has a potent weapon working: Most Americans – Christians included – live their actual private lives more in tune to the Objectivist ethics; that is to say, as rights-respecting, rationally selfish individualists.
"In his time, Jesus’ ethics may have made some sense. But his ancient code does not jive with a nation born on the principle of the supremacy of EVERY individual’s right to the pursuit of his own happiness. The 'meek' – the everyday man – did inherit the earth. It is called capitalism.
"I believe that when Americans come to understand Ayn Rand’s moral message as the true validation of the Declaration of Independence, her code will become the dominant one. That will take time, of course, well beyond one election cycle. But time is on the side of better ideas, and when that day comes, that will be the end of the predatory welfare state, and the final realization of the Founding Fathers’ vision.
Let the moral battles begin."
MontanaSouth posted 02:59 PM on 6/16/2011 :
My response posted 03:43 PM on 6/17/2011:
"I will not let pass your framing the issue on a false premise – that altruism equates to benevolence and charity and the rejection of the first means ipso facto a rejection of the second. They are not the same. Charity is rightfully a personal, private matter, properly offered only within the context of one’s overall hierarchy of values. Objectivism makes no blanket moral judgement concerning charity one way or the other, other than that it should be consistent with your overall long-term self-interest (properly understood). This is, in my decades-long observation, the way most people view charity.
"But the obsession with charity is a sideshow straw man held up for purposes of a misrepresentative smear campaign. The main issue is: Do you have a moral right to your own life, or does everyone else have first moral claim on you – and vice versa? You state that you reject both altruism and Rand’s morality as impractical. But what are you counting on when you demand “a strong working society” (the collective) over “Greed is Good … capitalism” (individual self-determination)? You are counting on altruism, which holds that the good of others is one’s only moral justification for living.
"Thank you for vindicating my position concerning the correlation between collectivism and altruism. I reiterate my uncompromising position: It is Rand’s rational selfishness, not altruism, that is the benevolent, rights-respecting morality – and, I might add, the practical one, if a free society is your goal.
GlennBeckReview, Media critic, blogger, posted 11:59 AM on 6/18/2011, in response to Mark Dohle (03:22 PM on 6/16/2011), who wrote, "The irony of all this...Ayn Rand spent her life smashing typical conservative thought. Perhaps people will finally realize that her ideas are not conservative (abortion, marriage, immigration...look it up). The left always tried to pin her as a conservative, but she is as far from them as she is from the left. Fascism and Socialism are both statism. Ayn Rand favored individualism, the opposite of statism."
My response posted 12:16 PM on 6/18/2011:
“There appears to be a typo: The term is revolutionary (at least in regards to Rand) - in the same nature as the Founding Fathers. It is individual rights, not statism, that is new in history. The American Revolution has been under attack from statist reactionaries almost from the beginning.
"It is defenders of Judeo/Christian ethics who are the reactionaries. Ayn Rand's moral revolution is needed to compliment the Founders' political revolution - and complete the American Revolution.
"Ayn Rand is truly America's Last Founding Father!”
Sophiacherie posted 02:11 AM on 6/17/2011:
My Response posted 09:58 PM on 6/17/2011
"Though this has nothing to do with Objectivism or the current debate, I’ll comment anyway. You are guilty of major context-dropping. Rand did not idolize a serial killer, but abstracted an apparent individualist character trait of [ William Edward] Hickman’s for the purpose of creating a profile for a potential novel (which was never written). She abhorred the depravity of his behavior, of course, and said so.
"Just as admiration for the intelligence of a master thief doesn’t imply idolization of the actor or his crime nor invalidate the virtue of intelligence, so it was with the 23-year-old Ayn Rand in regard to Hickman.
"Context is always crucial, and it’s right there in its entirety in 'Journals of Ayn Rand'. It was 1928, and the youthful influence of Nietzsche was still there (the “superman” comment); an influence which she later officially rejected. One should take care to take isolated bits from never-intended-for-publication private journals and twist something ridiculous out of it. That statement is not an endorsement of murder, as your quoting it absurdly implies. The totality of her published writing is an unequivocal condemnation of the initiation of physical force in human relationships, which she regarded as an unmitigated evil. How does that jive with idolizing a killer? To believe that is to put yourself in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge.
If you’re going to critique Objectivism, then just do it, if you can. Don’t resort to the cowardly ad hominum fallacy."
To clarify a bit further, Hickman is discussed extensively in "Journals" on pages 22, 27, 36-39, and 40-44. On page 22, I quote from editor David Harriman:
My initial response posted 07:11 PM on 6/15/2011:
" 'I think the vast majority of us will agree that Rand's vision of America where selfishness is the greatest virtue and compassion and love of neighbor are some of the worst evils... this is not the America we want' - Eric Sapp.
"Anyone who would deny to his neighbor the moral right and sanction to work for the achievement of his own selfish well-being and happiness can not claim the mantel of “compassion and love of neighbor”. Rand saw the predatory nature of altruism, and why it is the vital ethical tool of collectivism. If selfishness (properly understood) is not a virtue, then preying upon others is. If it is right to place the interests of your neighbors before your own, then it is right to demand that your neighbors do the same for you. Altruism, as Rand discovered, is an inverted morality that enshrines the unearned as a moral absolute. Socialists are desperate to defend their ethical standards against the rational Objectivist alternative that is the philosohical foundation of capitalism. That is why false alternatives such as the one embodied in the passage above are used to distract attention away from the true nature of Rand’s benevolent, rights-respecting morality.”
Eric Sapp responds, posted 10:04 PM on 6/15/2011:
you are of course welcome to your opinion, and please keep shouting it loud and clear b/c you are making my point. But for me and most Americans, the whole love your neighbor as your self and there is no greater love than this, that a man would lay down his life for another and blessed are the meek and importance of a servant heart will be the values we at least aspire to hold up above love of self.
My rebuttal posted 11:08 AM on 6/18/2011:
"Thanks for responding, Mr. Sapp. Yes, I’ll keep “shouting it loud and clear”, b/c as Ayn Rand said – and I think you would agree with her – the battle for America’s future is fundamentally a moral one.
"My side is a tiny minority, as of now. And I agree that most Americans cleave consciously to the 'servant heart' ethic. But the Rand/Jesus flap your side unleashed can only help my side by raising Rand’s profile. And I would argue that the Objectivist minority has a potent weapon working: Most Americans – Christians included – live their actual private lives more in tune to the Objectivist ethics; that is to say, as rights-respecting, rationally selfish individualists.
"In his time, Jesus’ ethics may have made some sense. But his ancient code does not jive with a nation born on the principle of the supremacy of EVERY individual’s right to the pursuit of his own happiness. The 'meek' – the everyday man – did inherit the earth. It is called capitalism.
"I believe that when Americans come to understand Ayn Rand’s moral message as the true validation of the Declaration of Independence, her code will become the dominant one. That will take time, of course, well beyond one election cycle. But time is on the side of better ideas, and when that day comes, that will be the end of the predatory welfare state, and the final realization of the Founding Fathers’ vision.
Let the moral battles begin."
MontanaSouth posted 02:59 PM on 6/16/2011 :
benevolent? it is benevolent to view charity as an evil? Neither altruism or Rand's morality are realistic views in a world populated by human beings. It is not altrusitic to assist those whose circumstances have put them at a disadvantage. It is beneficial to society to help establish a strong working society with protections from the Greed is Good view of capitalism.
My response posted 03:43 PM on 6/17/2011:
"I will not let pass your framing the issue on a false premise – that altruism equates to benevolence and charity and the rejection of the first means ipso facto a rejection of the second. They are not the same. Charity is rightfully a personal, private matter, properly offered only within the context of one’s overall hierarchy of values. Objectivism makes no blanket moral judgement concerning charity one way or the other, other than that it should be consistent with your overall long-term self-interest (properly understood). This is, in my decades-long observation, the way most people view charity.
"But the obsession with charity is a sideshow straw man held up for purposes of a misrepresentative smear campaign. The main issue is: Do you have a moral right to your own life, or does everyone else have first moral claim on you – and vice versa? You state that you reject both altruism and Rand’s morality as impractical. But what are you counting on when you demand “a strong working society” (the collective) over “Greed is Good … capitalism” (individual self-determination)? You are counting on altruism, which holds that the good of others is one’s only moral justification for living.
"Thank you for vindicating my position concerning the correlation between collectivism and altruism. I reiterate my uncompromising position: It is Rand’s rational selfishness, not altruism, that is the benevolent, rights-respecting morality – and, I might add, the practical one, if a free society is your goal.
GlennBeckReview, Media critic, blogger, posted 11:59 AM on 6/18/2011, in response to Mark Dohle (03:22 PM on 6/16/2011), who wrote, "The irony of all this...Ayn Rand spent her life smashing typical conservative thought. Perhaps people will finally realize that her ideas are not conservative (abortion, marriage, immigration...look it up). The left always tried to pin her as a conservative, but she is as far from them as she is from the left. Fascism and Socialism are both statism. Ayn Rand favored individualism, the opposite of statism."
Ayn Rand was a reactionary, like [Glenn] Beck.
My response posted 12:16 PM on 6/18/2011:
“There appears to be a typo: The term is revolutionary (at least in regards to Rand) - in the same nature as the Founding Fathers. It is individual rights, not statism, that is new in history. The American Revolution has been under attack from statist reactionaries almost from the beginning.
"It is defenders of Judeo/Christian ethics who are the reactionaries. Ayn Rand's moral revolution is needed to compliment the Founders' political revolution - and complete the American Revolution.
"Ayn Rand is truly America's Last Founding Father!”
Sophiacherie posted 02:11 AM on 6/17/2011:
Did you know that Ayn Rand idolized a serial killer who murdered and dismembered a 12 year old girl and called him a "superman" because "other people don't exist for him and he doesn't see why they should" as she write in her diary?
My Response posted 09:58 PM on 6/17/2011
"Though this has nothing to do with Objectivism or the current debate, I’ll comment anyway. You are guilty of major context-dropping. Rand did not idolize a serial killer, but abstracted an apparent individualist character trait of [ William Edward] Hickman’s for the purpose of creating a profile for a potential novel (which was never written). She abhorred the depravity of his behavior, of course, and said so.
"Just as admiration for the intelligence of a master thief doesn’t imply idolization of the actor or his crime nor invalidate the virtue of intelligence, so it was with the 23-year-old Ayn Rand in regard to Hickman.
"Context is always crucial, and it’s right there in its entirety in 'Journals of Ayn Rand'. It was 1928, and the youthful influence of Nietzsche was still there (the “superman” comment); an influence which she later officially rejected. One should take care to take isolated bits from never-intended-for-publication private journals and twist something ridiculous out of it. That statement is not an endorsement of murder, as your quoting it absurdly implies. The totality of her published writing is an unequivocal condemnation of the initiation of physical force in human relationships, which she regarded as an unmitigated evil. How does that jive with idolizing a killer? To believe that is to put yourself in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge.
If you’re going to critique Objectivism, then just do it, if you can. Don’t resort to the cowardly ad hominum fallacy."
To clarify a bit further, Hickman is discussed extensively in "Journals" on pages 22, 27, 36-39, and 40-44. On page 22, I quote from editor David Harriman:
Hickman served as a model for Danny [Renahan, a charactor in Rand's "The Little Street"] only in strictly limited respects, which AR names in her notes. Danny does commit a crime in the story, but it is nothing like Hickman's. To guard against any misinterpretation, I quote her own statement regarding the relationship between her hero and Hickman:
"[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
A GOP Idea Comes Back to Bite, But...
...it's unfair to paint all Republicans with the same RomneyCare brush. That said, The Star-Ledger makes an important political point in the December 2010 editorial.
Republicans liked what they now decry in health care reform
My Commentary
Other's Commentary:
For more on the relationship between individual rights and personal responsibility, read my post 5/11/09 post, Responsibility Depends on Individual Rights
Republicans liked what they now decry in health care reform
My Commentary
zemack December 15, 2010 at 7:04PM
The Star-Ledger is partially right, here. The dirty little secret of the entire healthcare debate is that the centerpiece of the entire ObamaCare package is a gift from Republicans. What I disagree on is the characterization of today’s GOP opponents of the individual mandate as the “Right” – if by Right one means support for individual rights and a government limited to protecting those rights.
How is it that “Without [the individual mandate], millions of younger and healthier people will go without coverage, gambling that they won’t get sick — and knowing that if they do, the cost will be spread to the rest of us through higher premiums or Medicaid”?
“Higher premiums” are a result of government mandates that force insurers to cover “pre-existing conditions” and hospital emergency rooms to treat the uninsured without charge. Medicaid is a government program that forces taxpayers to cover “the poor”. The GOP supports all three, even though they necessitated the individual mandate. They call the court ruling “a great blow for personal liberty”, even though many of the same conservatives hailed RomneyCare in Massachusetts as a “free market solution”.
But, it’s obvious that neither the Republicans nor the conservatives even know what “liberty” means. If they did, they would fight to overturn all three mandates, and the privatization and eventual phaseout of Medicaid. These immoral government intrusions into healthcare violate the rights of insurers, hospitals, doctors, and all taxpayers, who are forced to involuntarily provide or pay for the healthcare of others. Without their elimination, the ObamaCare individual insurance mandate does indeed appear to “seem reasonable”, as the Editors put it.
The sad fact is, there is no Right in American politics today. The Democrats are far Left, and the Republicans are moderately Left, and both keep marching farther and farther Left. Thus, the so-called “political center” keeps moving Left as well, by default. Most Americans, though, still lean toward individualism, which is manifested in the Tea Party Movement and the recent election: even though the movement still lacks a coherent ideological framework. Unfortunately, there is no major party political voice for individual rights, yet.
The consequence of all of this is that totalitarian socialism in medicine is almost here, and the rest of the economy is following suit, by default of a Republican Party that has abandoned its principles. Government controls beget more government controls, which beget more government controls, as the statist beat goes on. This editorial proves the point.
Other's Commentary:
jrsyshorjohn December 15, 2010 at 8:58PM
Folks, it's all true that 'Obamacare' is a Repubican program (first proposed by then President Richard M. Nixon) that now is reviled by third millenium Republicans, but that's not the issue here.
As an inner city kid who spent 13 years being taught very well by the Sisters of Charity, I learned that every right carries with it a concomitant responsibility. For example, the right to drive carries with it the concomitant rsponsibility to purchase auto insurance. The sisters believe that access to health care is a basic human right. I fully agree. However, with that right comes the responsibility to participate in the system by purchasing health insurance, even if you are a healthy twenty something who thinks he or she is immortal.
Talk to anyone who works in an Emergency Room and let them tell you about the young uninsured delivered by EMS after some traumatic injury, and the huge hospital bills that follow. Who's paying for their care? The rest of us responsible citizens who understand that rights carry responsibilities. It's that simple.
zemack December 16, 2010 at 4:56PM
jrsyshorjohn
“Responsibility”… determined and imposed by whom? It’s crucially important to understand exactly what we are talking about, as the stakes are high. What you are saying, in essence, is: “To secure these rights, governments are instituted to trample these rights”!
Rights are a guarantee and a sanction to freedom of individual action in a social context. They are moral principles that govern human relationships, by banishing force as a means of associating with one another. They assure each individual the freedom to think and act upon his/her own judgement, free from coercive interference by other people, including those acting in the capacity of a government official. Rights are unconditional, so long as you respect, and refrain from violating, the same rights of others. Rights are not, however, a claim to material benefits that must be supplied by others. Nor do they impose any involuntary, unchosen obligation to act against your own beliefs. Rights protect you from these kinds of coercion. By definition, rights can not conflict, with the rights of one necessitating the violation of the rights of others. Rights, in other words, are unalienable and possessed equally and at all times by all individuals. Rights are not a gift of the state, society, or God, accompanied by arbitrary “responsibilities”. They do not pop into existence because of the assertions of any persons who happen to “believe that access to health care is a basic human right”. Individual rights are an unconditional, unalienable birthright of every human being, because he is a human being.
The correct wording is: “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”.
The same principle of rights that protects an individual’s freedom of action, also defines the limits of that freedom. No one has a right to force some people to pay for the healthcare of another. No one has a right to force some people to provide medical treatment for another. No one has a right to force another person to buy health insurance. No one has a right to impose involuntary servitude on another human being. There is no price tag on rights. A “right” that imposes an unchosen obligation on some to provide unearned benefits to another is not a right at all – it is a privilege bestowed by a tyrannical government and paid for out of the exploitation of others. Sound familiar? Check your history. It’s a sad fact that, even in this day and age, we still can’t let go of some manifestation of the age-old scourge of slavery. Like a vampire, it keeps re-incarnating, returning in different forms that allow many to evade the truth of what they are advocating. Only a proper recognition of and understanding of individual rights will finally eradicate this dark human evil, once and for all.
For more on the relationship between individual rights and personal responsibility, read my post 5/11/09 post, Responsibility Depends on Individual Rights
The Constitution - It's About More than just Words
The following editorial was written in response to last January's Republican gimmick to open the 2011 session of the House of Representitives with a reading of the US Constitution. I use the term "gimmick" because ... well ... the GOP doesn't exactly have a good track record of living within its meaning.
Be that as it may, here is the editorial followed by exerpts from the comments section:
Reading of the Constitution should include every word
Be that as it may, here is the editorial followed by exerpts from the comments section:
Reading of the Constitution should include every word
fpparent January 10, 2011 at 6:53AM
And if you knew anything about Consitutional history, you'll know that the 3/5 clause that liberals are so quick to judge has absolutely nothing to do with human value. It was a measure added to prevent slave owners from using those slaves to enhance their states' representation in Washington.
zemack January 10, 2011 at 6:49PM
Fpparent is right here. Slavery was wrong, not the 3/5 clause. That clause was a victory for anti-slavery factions – which couldn’t at the time muster the political strength to completely eradicate that ancient evil from American soil - because it limited the electoral power of the slave states. In essence, the South was not allowed to have its cake and also eat it. It was not allowed to accrue any political benefits from a segment of the population that at the same time was denied its individual rights – i.e., treated as less than fully human.
The 3/5 clause is politically irrelevant today, not because it’s shameful or unimportant, but because that particular manifestation of slavery no longer exists in America. Today, we partially enslave the productive members of society under an unconstitutional predatory welfare state.
zemack January 10, 2011 at 7:59PM
The Constitution is indeed an “imperfect document”. But that imperfection stemmed from the fact that it didn’t fully implement the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is the philosophical foundation of America. The principles it laid down were unalienable individual rights possessed equally and at all times by all people and a government charged with the task of protecting those rights. Those rights were understood to be sanctions to freedom of action to pursue one’s own happiness, not an automatic claim to material benefits that must be provided by the forced labor and confiscation of the property of others.
Aside from the abolition of slavery, the constitutional change mechanism bestowed by the Founders was not employed to remove the imperfections so as to fully implement America’s Declaratory principles. Instead of moving America toward the fully free society envisioned by the Founders, the “living document” feature exploited those imperfections, such as the unfortunate wording of the Commerce Clause, eminent domain, and tolerance for tax-funded education, to completely eradicate the Founding principles, and instead push the nation steadily down the road to ever more omnipotent government.
The result is an “empty constitution” – one devoid of any guiding principles. But a free nation that abandons its core principles, as America has, will not remain free. The editors laud the “ever-changing rough draft of history”. But without the constraints of a constitution based upon rational political principles such as those laid down in the Declaration, a nation’s government is like a sociopath lacking morals or conscience. It is a rogue government, guided by nothing but the latest whims of any court, legislature, or electoral majority that chooses to reinterpret the “unfinished document” according to the political winds of the moment. The big winner in such a game is government power. The big loser is the individual.
America’s “living document” no longer protects our freedom because the “changes and scratch-outs and doodles in the margins” weren’t confined within the boundaries established by the Declaration of Independence – a document that in its essentials is a perfect one. It established the framework for a servant government that recognizes the supreme value of the individual – which each and every one of us is – and that “promotes the general welfare” by protecting individual rights from violation by fellow men and, most importantly, from the government itself. We're not quite at "rogue government" status yet, but we're getting there. We must rediscover and relearn our unique heritage, and bring our nation back within its bounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)