@80. Marc Malone:
Our Founding Fathers were true radical revolutionaries bent on true freedom, which they achieved.
I hope you don’t actually believe that “true freedom” was achieved by forming a nation that denied rights to slaves and women. The founders started a project that will always be aspiring to greater freedom for all.
Calvin Coolidge put it best when he said that we believe our rights come from God. That is final. Anything else is not progress, but moving backwards. (Not exact quote.)
Who believes that our rights come from God? Certainly not the founders. They understood that these rights are a function of our humanity – not handed down on some divine platter. These are the rights that people claim for themselves as people. Resting this on the foundation of faith in a divine entity is absurd and unnecessary.
Those who would dismantle this limited government in favor of greater government are regressives, not the lying term “Progressives”. During the cold War, any nation with People or Democratic in its name never was for the people nor democratic. [example: DDR (East Germany) Deutches Demokratische Republik = People's Democratic Republic]
Nobody is talking about dismantling the government – just making it better, moving closer to the “true freedom” that is the goal.
When you state that you do not believe there is a role for government to do good, you deny the basic premise of government. If the role of government is not to do good, it has no purpose. Maybe you should review the Declaration of Independence?
@81. Rob:
I’ve noticed for years that when people on the left talk about freedom, they’re almost always talking about sexual freedom–the freedom to have sex with whomever they please and not to suffer any consequences (such as “unwanted” pregnancy).
Let me just say that this is totally absurd. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience – these are the foundation of our freedoms, and are championed by the left.
Look at the left’s signature issues–abortion and “gay marriage”–the filth that constantly pours out of left-dominated Hollywood, and the push within the left-dominated education establishment to teach graphic sex-education courses to young children and distribute condoms in our schools.
I don’t see these as the left’s signature issues. They are in fact the signature issues of the religious right “values” voters that the GOP has been courting for decades. The interest of the left is in preserving freedom and equality – the right is advocating forced birth and unconstitutional discrimination in marriage laws. Preventing this erosion of freedom is a legitimate defense of individual rights. The argument against sex education is based on what? Nothing but religious prejudice, a desire to restrict freedom and prevent education.
Yet every civilized society in history has placed restrictions on sexual freedom, mainly for the protection of women and children. When those restrictions begin to erode, societies gradually become less civilized and eventually die out (cf. ancient Greece, ancient Rome, modern-day California).
There are plenty of restrictions on sexual freedom that protect women and children. Age of consent laws and rape statutes, along with domestic violence legislation, have made women and children safer from sexual violence and exploitation than ever before.
On the other hand, when people on the right talk about freedom or liberty, they generally mean those freedoms specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights–the right to own property, to bear arms, to speak one’s mind on any subject. Those things, not sexual freedom, are what the Founders meant by “liberty”–yet it appears plain to me that the left does not believe in any of them. To wit: Obama’s stated desire to “redistribute wealth”; the left’s long history of attacks on gun ownership; and repressive, leftist-driven campus speech codes.
Along with the right to property comes the responsibility to pay taxes – they have the same origin. The right to bear arms is under no threat – restrictions have been eased since Obama was elected (NP). And the “free speech zones” of the Bush administration are a thing of the past – which is real progress in restoring the freedom to speak one’s mind. The assault on sexual freedom has been unusually strident, so the response has matched – this should not be shocking.
So there are your concrete examples. You might not agree with our premise, but that’s what we’re talking about. What the left calls “freedom” we call license; what we call freedom, the left calls greed, beligerence, and hate speech.
The freedom to speak one’s mind, the freedom to choose one’s partner, and the freedom to control one’s body are not “license” – they are the essence of freedom itself. The right to property is not absolute, nor should it be. The left may call your speech hateful – but will also defend you if you face discrimination based on your expressions. I may despise what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
@83. myth buster:
If independence is the criterion that the right to life is based in, then logically, one can slaughter any invalid or welfare recipient without penalty.
An invalid is not a dependent entity in the same way that a fetus is – you are making no sense. An invalid can be cared for by anyone, and easily handed off from one to another – so can a welfare recipient. A fetus is dependent in a categorically different way.
Besides the sheer absurdity of that logic, it reduces human beings to the level of property. A fetus is not the property of its mother, cf the 13th Amendment.
If you want to address the 13th amendment, my interpretation is that the mother can’t be made a slave to the state, and forced to bear a child for the government. Nobody is claiming that the fetus is property – just that the woman retains her right to her body. Bearing a child against her will would constitute involuntary servitude.
Also, David, it is you who needs to reread the Declaration of Independence, because apparently you missed the “Endowed by their Creator,” phrase. Since you reject that premise, you also reject the rest of the line.
The “Creator” referred to is the laws of nature. I don’t reject the laws of nature – I reject the misinterpretation of this phrase as a religious endorsement of Christianity.
Lastly, it is no more totalitarian to ban abortion than it is to ban and enforce the ban on any other form of homicide. Prohibiting homicide and punishing it harshly, including executing those who commit premeditated murder or solicit the same, is justice, and it is the primary reason for the government to exist. If the government refuses to punish homicide, it is an unjust government, and ought to be disbanded.
Abortion is not a form of homicide. There is no way to enforce a ban on abortion that does not impermissibly deny the rights of women to control their bodies and seek medical care. Moreover, you cannot claim to be “pro-life” when you advocate the execution of other human beings. As seen recently in Texas, the state makes mistakes, and enacting capital punishment in cases where the defendant is innocent is now a fact in the USA. There is no legal argument that can justify a system that takes irreversible action of this nature. Capital punishment is perhaps the most anti-life policy the state can adopt. Your claim that the execution of murderers is the primary reason for government to exist evinces a complete lack of appreciation for the nature and purposes of government.
@84. Snorri Godhi:
What is Marxist in your thinking is, obviously, expressed in your sentence that I first used to “smear” you as a Marxist.
So my observation that moneyed interests are supported by, and provide support for, the GOP, is simply marxist because you say so. Got it. You don’t know what marxism is, and you are just parroting the term.
As for abortion, you still have not addressed the author’s point, which is that “pro-choice” is not correct language. In fact, you are getting further and further away from it. But don’t bother to debate this with me, because it is of no interest to me one way or the other. I might stop reading this thread anyway.
Being pro-choice is not synonymous with pro-abortion or pro-death. It is in fact the pro-life crowd that seems to be advocating for the death penalty – which puts in stark relief their so-called respect for life. Being pro-choice means respecting the right of others to their own opinion, and not seeking to impose your view on others. It is entirely possible to be pro-choice and also be pro-life – in fact, this is what I would suggest as a better model for the GOP to pursue. If you truly believe in freedom, and not in the power of the state to impose your religion on others, you ought to support the freedom of conscience and action that the pro-choice side advocates.
Peace.
DS
