There's No Right To Work

President Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, is confused as to the "rights" that are properly possessed by foreigners who illegally violate our borders.

This is in part understandable, as her questioner, Mr. Sessions, is more than a little confused as to the concept himself. My thoughts today touch on how the words we employ affect our comprehension.

Here's a link to the uncut hearing.

EVERYONE has the same rights. That's why they're "inalienable". They're not bestowed upon you by the government. The problem is that few people recognize the distinction between "rights" and "privileges".

You might argue that it's semantics, and the unfortunate thing is that we have allowed it to become so. It's not a trivial difference, and it underscores the importance of getting the language right. We do ourselves no favors as individuals or as a nation when we let privileges become rights or grants become entitlements. Yet we do it all the time, to our detriment.

Voting, for instance... that's a privilege, not a right. It's reserved for citizens in good standing, which is why felons may be disenfranchised. When you claim that voting is a right of citizenship rather than a privilege and obligation, it quickly becomes confused with those inalienable rights due to all people. Muddy language leads to muddy understanding, to the point where elected politicians would cede control of elections to non-citizens, effectively ceding sovereignty. The slippery slope is real, and visible. Idiot lemmings are already sliding down it.

Mis-labeled "right to work" laws notwithstanding, working is also a privilege, not a right, even for citizens. It's why your employer can fire you... he doesn't owe you a job. It's why you can be denied employment by the state. Child molesters can't work with children; doctors and lawyers (and many others) must be licensed, etc. Even if you're self-employed, nobody has to buy your efforts, and you serve at the pleasure and forbearance of those customers who keep you self-employed.

Work is not a right for anybody, and quite frankly, your life gets a whole lot easier when you realize what a privilege it is to be able to serve others and you act accordingly. It changes your entire outlook. Clear language leads to a clarity of purpose; and in this case, makes you more employable.

---

In the case of illegals, they are plainly illegal, and should go through the same channels to acquire the privilege of working in this country as were used by the millions of legal immigrants. Either that, or they can go home and exercise the privileges that they already have there.

This single comment of Lynch's isn't as damning as many on the Right claim. In the clip above she's merely indicating that people should pull their own weight. That by itself is reasonable. The problem with it is that they should be doing it in their own country. She blythely states, "...if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not...".

Well... no. I would prefer that visitors not participate in the workplace. Visitors should visit, then go home. Certainly you would agree with this in principle, rather than implying (however obliquely) that you'd rather have every Disneyland tourist pressed into a job than not.

She doesn't mean that, of course, despite the words she used. And these aren't tourists we're talking about. They are would-be immigrants. We  have laws that spell out rather completely the procedures required of immigrants. Rather than effectively argue that they be changed, and support the proper legislative process; the President appears to believe he can "selectively enforce" them. By this he means "ignore them". I disagree. It is his primary job to defend our nation's Constitution and provide for the common defense of its citizens. His job description requires him to secure our border. To that end, I prefer that people who are not visitors be here legally.

That's not an anti-immigration stance. Rather, it's simultaneously a pro-immigration and pro-security stance. It's a pro-American position which reserves permanent residency in this country to those who were born into it or who swear to abide by its Constitution. It's the same position taken by the other countries on our planet regarding their borders and privileges of citizenship. It's the porous border mentality that is logically unfit and needs serious explanation.

---

It's a matter of legality and constitutionality. When Senator Ted Cruz asks if selective enforcement of laws is unconstitutional, we learn that "unconstitutional" is far too nebulous a concept to be nailed down by a brilliant legal scholar like Lynch. (for the record, selective enforcement is a far cry from prosecutorial discretion. Presidents are allowed the latter within limits). Cruz's hypothetical is interesting in that skirts the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. That amendment requires that each State treat its citizens equally under the laws of that State. It doesn't place that requirement on the Federal government. As this is a matter of interpretation, and therefore fluidity, the question is a fair one. The reigning interpretation is that such selectivity is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's mandate of due process.

But beyond that, Cruz is asking whether a President can choose to treat States unequally despite the clear intent of Congress that the law be equally applied. For instance, can the President choose not to enforce laws in a specific state? The correct answer really shouldn't be difficult. Those laws duly passed by the representatives of the People in Congress should be enforced as they were intended, and are not subject to the whim of one man.

Nevertheless, despite numerous pointed requests, no actual answers were offered. Such answers as we got indicate that Lynch would at least consider the constitutionality of the violation of equal treatment of States under Federal law. And it's Lynch's circuitous answers in their entirety and in context that cast some doubt on her suitability to be Attorney General. As this Congress seems to value answers far less than displaying skill in avoiding them, of course she'll probably be approved.

Pick One

Be very cautious of anyone who tells you that they want a world where people live in harmony.

You can have Harmony or Tolerance, but never both. For tolerance is only possible where people are allowed to disagree; whereas harmony only exists where opposing views are not tolerated.

In a land of harmony you have no assurance whatsoever that the prevailing view will be yours, whereas in a land of tolerance you can rest assured that you will not be persecuted for your beliefs.

DISCUSSION

I posted this to Facebook where the hoped-for discussion took place. Since they didn't post here in comments, the comments I'm reproducing them here without identification, along with an expansion of the more terse answers I gave. I'm not reproducing them all, as there was overlap. I may paraphrase, and if I got something wrong in spirit, feel free to comment and correct me below.

The first commenter thoughtfully considered my metaphor:

"Well, at least musically, harmony implies a level of both difference and agreement. Total agreement of sound with no difference is just plain old, boring unison. Total difference of sound with no agreement is dissonance. So harmony implies a set of "rules" to limit the acceptable differences, and how they get resolved. 

"So in this metaphor, tolerance is like atonality: dissonance is just as acceptable as consonance. Of course, not many people actually enjoy listening to atonal music for very long. Interesting..."

He should have finished the metaphor. Harmony further implies that everyone is playing the same song. If you're a fan of baroque, you might want to ponder those that pick the tune, and consider how likely it is that your tastes are represented. 

I, for one, like the idea of writing my own tune.

Moreover, dissonance has value, and is used in some compositions by choice. So yes, it is acceptable. Not only that, but in a free society, dissent (for which dissonance is an analog) is not only acceptable, but encouraged. We have exceptions to copyright law reserved specifically for parody and commentary because we value the right to disagree. The value to society is immense. Dissent tells us where the problems exist.  It is purely for the protection of dissent that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment exists. There's no need to safeguard the rights of those in power.

But he knew that. And he brings to mind a point regarding "acceptable differences". In politics, a huge fuss is made over opinions that are acceptable or unacceptable. It is not enough to be tolerant; one must be "accepting"... which is simply another way of saying "intolerant of those who do not agree with this opinion/lifestyle/etc." I may give a specific example or two in a while.

Another thoughtful comment:

"If, at a minimum, everyone agrees to disagree, one can have both harmony and tolerance. Otherwise one encounters the conundrum of how to tolerate intolerance."

Not really, no. The phrase exists to mask the fact that these are mutually exclusive concepts. "We agree to disagree" is just an inefficient way of saying "we disagree". 

"It's far more harmonious than it might be."

That's a measure of tolerance, not harmony.

You need neither agreement nor permission to disagree with someone. Each person has a right to an opinion. As in inalienable right, the kind that is bestowed by no other person.

Furthermore, it's condescending to say to someone, "we'll have to agree to disagree" as if you had a controlling interest. They will agree with you or not as they wish. When you offer your stamp of approval of their disagreement, you tacitly claim that you have the authority to do so. There are few better ways to piss off those who jealously guard their independence and are paying attention.

But the phrase is more insidious than that. While you're assuming approval authority over their opinions, you're simultaneously fishing for their approval of yours. Not only should you not need it; they're under no obligation to provide it. Should they give it, then that is an endorsement of the validity of your position. Though it's weak as endorsements go, it blunts the emotional pain of having an opinion someone else doesn't like.

Reality check: the fact that you have a right to be wrong doesn't make you right when you exercise that right (and I blame the English language for any lack of clarity in this sentence). 

In other words, you may believe whatever you like, but that doesn't keep you from being wrong. I've mentioned this before in the context of science vs. pseudoscience... not all opinions are created equal. Some are bolstered by fact, evidence, logic. Others are spun out of dreams and wishes. You have a right to them, but don't expect me to endorse them with useless empty platitudes of "agreeing to disagree." Likewise, I expect you to stand by your opinions when you know them to be right. I could be wrong, but you might have to work at convincing me with evidence and logic. You're not going to do that if you're flapping around in the breeze.

"I disagree."

And I tolerate that.

"I guess my point is that I see the potential for something I see as harmony in a tolerant environment, even in the absence of total consensus."

That used to be called "disagreeing without being disagreeable", which describes Tolerance; and as phrases go is a big step up from "agree to disagree". I noticed the hedging here, but someone else beat me to it:

"Well agree doesn't mean unison, right? Two people agree on a stance for different reasons or agree on a course of action for fear of the alternative rather than because they hold the same view point."

My take on it is this: 

Of course there's potential for agreement even if it's not total. In any large group of people, there will be substantial consensus. But there will also be disagreement. It's not potential; it's unavoidable. And the real test is how we treat those whose opinions we find offensive. 

Here in America there's a growing tendency to sue; to vilify; to ruin the lives of people who don't know you, weren't thinking about you, and don't give a shit about you for the supposed "crime" of holding an opinion of which others choose to take offense. To my mind, that can't be right.

You have choices: you can tolerate opinions of others or you can force them to hide or abandon those opinions. The use of force, including the force of legal action, doesn't make you right. Usually it just makes you both wrong.

A third option is segregation, which is how we get national borders, and frankly, I'm OK with those, too, when they're by choice, not force. I like the idea that when the differences are great, people can pick up and move to a place here other people do endorse their choices. If communism works for you, you should be in a communist country. There's no need to transform yours if there's already one out there that fits. Pick One. On a smaller scale, the United States is full of states that should be distinct in many ways, while adhering to the same Constitution. Pick One. I think that those who try to erase those boundaries are misguided, to put it politely. Vive la différence.

I'll get to examples later. For now, the final word is this contribution:

"There's no Museum of Harmony. Your Honor, the Defense rests." 

There is, however, this: [link]. And of course, there's the Harmony Museum, which totally not what he's talking about. 

Skeptical about Skeptic Bias

It really hasn't been my intention to make so many posts about Islam, but I keep seeing news that demands comment. This one arrived in email. Fortunately, Skeptic.com's communications are also posted on the web.

Here is a link to Skeptic magazine's take on the "war with Islam".

Charlie Hebdo: Why Islam, Again?

The author generalizes his conclusion to state that "Abrahamic monotheism" is inherently violent. You can expect that an atheist writing for Skeptic is going to have his agenda. In this case you have an atheist who begins with the assumption that all monotheism is a nursery for violent tendencies.

But let's look at the data:

"Consulting a variety of worldwide sources, Stark assembled a list of all religious atrocities that occurred during 2012. In order to qualify, each attack had to be religiously motivated and result in at least one fatality. Attacks committed by government forces were excluded. In the process, Stark’s team “became deeply concerned that nearly all of the cases we were finding involved Muslim attackers, and the rest were Buddhists.” In the end, they discovered only three Christian assaults—all “reprisals for Muslim attacks on Christians.” 

"In all, 808 religiously motivated homicides were found in the reports. A total of 5,026 persons died—3,774 Muslims, 1,045 Christians, 110 Buddhists, 23 Jews, 21 Hindus, and 53 seculars. Most were killed with explosives or firearms but, disturbingly, 24 percent died from beatings or torture perpetrated not by deranged individuals, but rather by “organized groups.” In fact, Stark details, many reports “tell of gouged out eyes, of tongues torn out and testicles crushed, of rapes and beatings, all done prior to victims being burned to death, stoned, or slowly cut to pieces."

You'll note that his raw data do not support his general conclusion. For one thing, Buddhism is second only to Islam as a source of religiously inspired attacks, and it is not an Abrahamic religion. We do not know how this compares to atheistic violence because all of the results are filtered to include only "religious atrocities". Secular atrocities are ignored. The author's bias is known and is well-demonstrated here. But it is useful to keep in mind that NO analyst writes with pure objectivity, no matter how skeptical or objective he pretends to be. It's not my pretense to be objective here, though I'll try to be fair.

What the data clearly show is almost all religiously-motivated violence is instigated by Muslims. Most Muslims favor death for apostasy (leaving the religion). A huge minority (at or around 40%) favor honor killings. This jumps to clear majority in fundamentalist Middle-Eastern countries. Almost all Muslims want government legislation based in Shari'a law. We're talking above 95%. Furthermore, and very importantly, when in a country in which Muslims are prevalent and do not face a serious threat of Western justice, Muslims act on their violent beliefs.

As stated in the piece, this tendency toward violence is not universal. It is far less in Free Western societies. But within the worldwide population, if you're a Muslim who truly abhors violence, you're in the minority. Moreover, religiously-motivated violence in the West is but a small tip of the iceberg when compared to overall violence. There is no basis, I think, for the author's more general complaint about "Abrahamic religions". Whereas most of the violence we hear of in the Middle East is religiously motivated, most of the violence in the West in indisputably secular. One could make the same complaint about non-religious violence vs. religious.

Some Comparisons and a Hypothesis

Let's look for a moment at the Abrahamic religions that did not account for almost all of the religious atrocities perpetrated in 2012

Judaism:
It is amazing, is it not, that of those 808 atrocities, 6 of which occurred in Israel, none were perpetrated by Jews? If the problem were "Abrahamic religions", then surely the Israeli Jews, living in a country surrounded by and permeated with Muslims, should have committed a good number of those. Rockets have been fired on targets in Gaza only in response to Hamas attacks; and Israel gave fair warning prior to each launch. No other country places a direct telephone call to the site of a missile strike and personally warns them to evacuate. Israeli hospitals treat the children of the people who would destroy them. Israeli trucks bring food across the border. Israel is militarized only because it has to be; because it is surrounded by people whose mainstream belief is the eradication of Israel. The Law of both Jew and Muslim ultimately derive from the Torah. How does this fit the author's narrative? Why do the Jews not return hate for hate?

In short, Jews are tolerant of other religions because they have always practiced tolerance. The Law was given to tell a Jew what he should do; not what he should force others to do. Furthermore, to a Jew it's preposterous to assume that obedience to the Law has any meaning if that obedience is imposed by force. There is a reason that the Hebrew word "mitzvah" means both "good deed" and "commandment". Jews keep the 613 mitzvot in the Torah only because God commanded it. And God only commanded it of the Jews.

Even in ancient times, the Jews took the Torah to apply to Jews only. It was not their business to impose their Law on others. And Jews dealt with the issue by not associating with those they felt were not bound by the Law. This was a Big Deal in the founding of Christianity (documented in Acts 15), when the bulk of Christians were still Jews and James held influence. What of the Law applied to Gentiles? Did they need to be circumcised; did they need to keep kashrut? Acts 15:19 has the answer given by James: "Therefore, I have decided that we should not trouble these gentiles who are turning to God."

Jews do not hold that it's necessary to be Jewish to get into Heaven, believing that the righteous of all nations have a place. They consider the Law a blessing and a burden. They don't proselytize. If you ask a Rabbi about conversion, he'll tell you "don't bother". So long as you're not bombing him or trying to saw the heads off his children, a Jew has no interest in your religious beliefs. Thus, the conflicts of the Jews have been political.

Christianity:
When someone wants to castigate Christians for violence, they invariably reach back to the Crusades. Since then, centuries have passed in which Christians have demonstrated an increasing trend toward tolerance. Importantly, that trend is one toward the basic teachings of the religion's founder, Jesus Christ. Now keep in mind that Christianity sprang from Jewish roots, with important differences in doctrine and proselytizing.

As for doctrine, we've already noted that Gentiles are not bound by the strict requirements of the Torah, and they never have been. Today, most Christians are Gentile. A lot of Christians do quote the Old Testament and hold "the Ten Commandments" in high regard; but as we saw with James, from the very first they were told they weren't bound by the Law. And here it gets a little weird for Christians, with a great amount of usually civil disagreement in interpretation. Jesus himself said,

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)

So the armchair analyst concludes that Christians have to adhere to the Law. Except that Jesus was talking to Jews, and we already know that the Jews considered the Law reserved for Jews. And in all of Matthew 5, Jesus says a number of things that align with Mosaic Law; but in every case he tells you what you should do; not what you should force others to do, and not what you should do to others. On that subject, he left a simple rule, in Matthew 7:12.

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

The attitudes of Christians have swung back and forth between active proselytizing ("the Great Commission" of Matthew 28:16-20). And tolerance. It has ranged from the forced conversions of the Inquisition to quiet acts of charity (it is forbidden for Christians to attempt to convert Muslims in Muslim countries. That does not abate their charity). The current state for most of Christianity is to do both... actively invite converts, encouraging them with good works. The days of Torquemada and forced conversions is long gone.

One might presume that the Holocaust of World War II was a religious atrocity, but I think the point is eminently arguable. The Nazis' bigotry was racially and politically motivated. The Holocaust was not limited to Jews, but included homosexuals and Gypsies as well. And, though most people in Germany were Protestant Christian, the leadership of the Nazi party were Atheist and openly hostile to religious groups except as a means of control.

Today the most intolerant of Christians, the Westboro Baptist Church, do not engage in violence. Rather, they voice their hate through picketing and media using deliberately offensive language. Other American Christians respond with their opinions, but none with bombs or guns.

Samaritans:
You might want to consider the Samaritans, left behind in the Babylonian conquest and thus an example of Judaism that has been "arrested in development". A mere 760 remain. Where are the atrocities committed by them?


Of the "Abrahamic religions" as practiced and understood in modern times, ONE is violent.

Wrong, Newsweek: Islam Does Forbid Images of the Prophet

This week Newsweek gives us this inaccurate headline.

The Koran Does Not Forbid Images of the Prophet

Beneath the picture is the inaccurate caption, "The Charlie Hebdo killers were operating under a misapprehension." The author of the piece, Christiane Gruber,  is associate professor and director of graduate studies at the University of Michigan. Nevertheless, she got it very wrong.

To set the record straight, the bit about not making graven images doesn't have to be in the Qur'an, and the fact that it's not there doesn't mean it's doesn't have a basis in Islamic scripture. There are four (4) holy scriptures in Islam. They are:

1. the Tawrat (which Jews call the Torah and Christians call the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Old Testament), 
2. the Zabur (Psalms of David), 
3. the Injil (that's the word of God as thought to be originally revealed to the prophet Jesus, and not those Gospels that are distributed by Christianity today), and 
4. the Qur'an. 

Three of them are complete surprises to most people.

The restriction on images is taken directly from the Tawrat: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Notice it doesn't say "of Muhammad", because it was written long before Islam... but it doesn't say "idols" either. It flatly says "anything". That's the basis in scripture that the clerics are using. And it is the very same scripture used by Jews and Christians. Now, the fact that Jews and Christians do make representational art doesn't change the fact that the restriction exists right there in Exodus 20:4. The next verse, Exodus 20:5, tells us that the context of this restriction is idolatry. That's how it's interpreted by Jews, Christians, and those Muslims who commissioned the art mentioned by Gruber. Nevertheless, there are two restrictions according to fundamentalist interpretation: 1. don't make an image, and 2. don't bow down and worship it. That's because there's a full stop between the two verses.

Fundamentalist Muslims interpret their scripture as literally as possible... at least, they stick to what they agree is in the book. Their view is that all scripture but the Qur'an has been handed down in a corrupt state, and that the Qur'an is there to correct them. But generally speaking, if the Qur'an is influenced by the contents of the Tawrat. That's also the basis for dietary restrictions. The reasons for keeping halal and kosher spring from the source.

Note that the fact that clerics disagree doesn't make the fundamentalists demonstrably wrong. It does mean that there's a difference of opinion; but to be perfectly fair about it, the fundamentalists have the advantage of adhering to the literal statements as they appear in scripture.

The point here is that no professor of anything has any business stating that "a search for a ban on images of Muhammad in pre-modern Islamic textual sources will yield no clear and firm results whatsoever".  Wrong. I just showed it to you.  And here I take the words "clear and firm" as being unequivocal and universally accepted as Islamic scripture. As with anything, there is disagreement on interpretation, which doesn't make the wording of the source unclear. It's not unfair to claim that it's more like, "I don't want to do that, so I'll read into it what I wish."

At least since the prophet died, Islam has not been a monoculture. Gruber's conclusion presumes that it is very nearly so. What the professor should have said is that there is genuine disagreement on the matter, and that there is an alternate interpretation made by a sizable body of mainstream Muslim clerics. You'll find bigger disagreements among the denominations of Christianity, or among rabbinic scholars.

Nevertheless, for the first six hundred years of Islam, that disagreement didn't exist.

A very early depiction of Muhammad, from 1307CE.
Here he is receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel
Wikimedia Commons 

The above image is a big "no-no" for most Muslims, and was even at the time it was created.

---===//oOo\\===---

"The short and simple answer is no. The Koran does not prohibit figural imagery. Rather, it castigates the worship of idols, which are understood as concrete embodiments of the polytheistic beliefs that Islam supplanted when it emerged as a purely monotheistic faith in the Arabian Peninsula during the seventh century."

We've already examined the first sentence. But while I'm at it, I might as well point out that when Islam first arose on the Arabian Peninsula, there wasn't a whole lot of supplanting of polytheistic beliefs. Mostly it supplanted Nestorian* Christianity and Zoroastrianism. This is why you will find the Injil held up as a holy scripture. As Judaism is to Christianity, Christianity is to Islam. In either case, the practice is pretty drastically transformed from that of the parent religion. And Zoroastrianism was already monotheistic. The magi ("wise men") of the Gospels were Zoroastrians, who also abhor idolatry.

Of those tribes that were historically polytheistic, most had already converted to some form of monotheism before Islam. Nevertheless, there were some traditional polytheists, and more encountered as Islam later swept outward. So the professor isn't wrong here, but her wording -- mentioning only polytheism -- might lead you to believe that Islam supplanted rampant polytheism on the peninsula, and that isn't the case. Those that they did encounter "got all the headlines", as it were (and with good reason as the Kaaba at Mecca was replete with idols in Muhammad's day). I think the clarification is necessary.

---

* Nestorians held Jesus to be of human nature. Islam's views Jesus as an honored prophet. In other words, it's not hard to see how Nestorians would readily convert.

---

Blatant Editorial Note:

Gruber's piece isn't one that educates. She gets a fundamental principle agreed upon and accepted by most Muslims wrong, and her credentials rob her of any excuse of ignorance. She uses 13th and 16th century images (because there are none earlier) to support a personal opinion of a doctrine regarding religion that began in the early 7th century. She ignores that trends toward not depicting Muhammad are not recent innovations, but a return to the state that existed for the first 600 years of Islam. She has the hubris to announce that clerics and their devout followers are wrong about their own religion. And the worst part is that she is so easily proven wrong herself. This is simply shoddy scholarship of which she should be ashamed.

When speaking out against a group, it's always best to get their views right. After all, ultimately you not only want to educate the public, but change the group. And getting their fundamental beliefs wrong won't incline anyone to listen to you seriously. Those credentials that you flaunt become instantly meaningless if you don't acknowledge the basics. And... importantly... no ideological combat can be won with falsehood.

With regard to imagery: Yes, Islam forbids it. But the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were not Muslim. This is something that the Islamic terrorists knew before they trotted down there and started shooting. The price of admission to a Free society is Tolerance. It is the understanding that other people do not share your beliefs. In the end it does not matter if you believe that Charlie Hebdo was wrong. They were within their rights. On the other hand, the Islamic gunmen were both wrong and outside of their rights.

A Free society is built on a principle that we in the West sometimes forget ourselves. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo reminds us of its importance. People have the natural right to express their opinions no matter how badly it offends you, no matter what the subject. You have an equal right to give as good as you get, so long as this is limited to the expression of opinion. Both of you have responsibility to tolerate the opinions of others, no matter how harshly expressed. And you both have a sacrosanct right to Life. If you, like those gunmen, can't do that... if you think that your offense is an excuse for violence or censorship... then you have the option and obligation to pick your ass up and leave. There are places in the world for you. Free Western society isn't one of them. And this is a message for everyone, not just Muslims.

You Can't Cherry-Pick Rights.

I recently re-shared this graphic that was passed on to me

I have pointed this out previously on this blog; and others as far back as Hamilton and Adams have done the same. There's really nothing controversial about it. My liberal and conservative friends alike have no problem agreeing with the principle...

...until you point it out in practice. Then people's brains explode. Mine, too. This essay went a bit further afield than I originally intended, and you may be steamed by the time you get to the end. IF you get to the end.


CASE STUDY 1: The Second Amendment

It's funny to me is that immediately I thought of the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). This was before I knew that the graphic came from Cold Dead Hands, a "Second Amendment Society". So why would I make that connection, and why would a "Second Amendment Society" push this particular graphic? You may wonder, "Don't they have the Second Amendment to grant the right to bear arms?"

AMENDMENT II: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well no, they don't. It doesn't grant anything, and doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms either. As stated in the graphic, rights are inherent in you. The Second Amendment merely asserts that right and prohibits the government from infringing it. And the only thing that guarantees any of your rights is your own vigilance and your willingness to elect representatives that will defend them on your behalf by restraining themselves in the passage of laws... and your willingness to defend them on your own behalf should the need arise.

The Second Amendment is not necessary for you to have the right to bear arms. The Ninth Amendment reminds you that you are not limited to those rights enumerated in the Constitution. A good example is the "right to privacy", which is recognized by all US courts and is not enumerated.

AMENDMENT IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You know what else isn't in the Constitution? Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, though the Declaration of Independence assures us they're "unalienable". The Ninth Amendment exists so rights like this won't be forgotten.

The Tenth Amendment reminds you that those powers not specifically delegated to the government are reserved to the People. (The government has no "rights". It has only those "powers" granted by the people and no right whatsoever to anything more.)

AMENDMENT X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Delegated, not created. Reserved, not granted. Going back to the Second Amendment, you don't have a right to bear arms only because the government allows it, but because it is recognized here as a natural right. Now, many people make much ado about the "well regulated militia" clause and imagine it to mean that only the militia may be armed, and try to limit certain firearms based on this. Many other pro-gun activists swallow that fallacy and twist themselves inside out to demonstrate that the "militia" of colonial times consisted of the populace (and here in South Carolina that's explicitly stated in our state constitution). Still others try to deflect the difficult aspects of the argument by trying to appease "hunters" and "sportsmen", as if hunting and target practice were the only relevant aspects of your fundamental rights to consider.

However, these arguments miss the point. Consider that the Ninth Amendment explicitly states that any enumeration of rights does not deny others. The Second Amendment doesn't limit this right; it gives a reason. The federal government cannot infringe on the Peoples' right to bear arms, and the Fourteenth Amendment trickles this down to the states. The mere enumeration of one reason in the Second Amendment does not deny or disparage the other reasons that individuals have for holding that right. Its foundation is your fundamental natural right to self-defense arising from your right to Life. That is a right of all living creatures, and there is no limit upon it. I get to use whatever means are at my disposal to defend myself. It's held up for millennia in courts around the globe. If you corner me and threaten my life, I can kill you. I don't need an amendment to assert it. I don't need to limit myself to specific means. Furthermore, if you claim that the government has the power to limit this to specific means, you must point out where in the Constitution this power is delegated to the United States. Good luck with that, because it's not there. You might throw a Hail Mary pass by invoking the "general welfare" clause, but that clause cannot negate a person's rights. It's a no-go. So,

1. It's a right that is founded in the natural right to self defense (Ninth Amendment)
2. It's asserted along with a second foundation, the security of a free state. This assertion takes the form of an explicit order that the government may not infringe the right (Second Amendment). 
3. No portion of the Constitution empowers the government to limit the right of the People to bear arms. The inclusion of one reason in the Second Amendment does not preclude others. (Ninth Amendment)
4. All powers not delegated belong to the People (Tenth Amendment)

Prohibition of arms ownership in America is unconstitutional. Q.E.D.

If you're a Liberal and you like that graphic, you should be backing gun rights. If you don't like gun rights, that graphic should be giving you a guilt trip.


CASE STUDY 2: Drugs, and The Right to Die

In the first case study, the Left tries vehemently to deny your rights, and the Right have opposed them with varying degrees of success. In this second case study the opposite is true. Conservatives would deny you a right that should be obvious under natural law. Not just Conservatives, either. While Conservatives focus on drugs, Liberals focus on things as innocuous as food or the size of soft drinks.

Natural Law is a very pertinent subject, in that it forms the foundation of all of our rights. It's directly referenced in the Declaration of Independence as the reason we as a nation are "entitled" to "separate and equal station". You may remember those three "unalienable" rights listed there: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Your right to Life is absolute.

But whose right is it? It seems perfectly obvious that my right to my life is mine alone. Not yours, not the government's, not a court's, not a doctor's. Mine. The hallmark of something that is yours is that you control it. You may do with it as you like, and you may dispose of it as you will. A thing that you can't control... not even when doing so harms no other creature on Earth... isn't really yours at all. Instead you are managing it in accordance with the rules and dictates of your Master.

Now that may be perfectly acceptable to you if your master is God and you've given your life over to Him voluntarily. But even God makes it voluntary, whereas the government has decreed it their business to tell you what you can or cannot ingest or smoke. Well, it's really not their business. It's none of their business whether you smoke, or do drugs, or get fat or get thin. What you do is only their business when it infringes on the rights of other people.

This doesn't mean that it's their business if you merely offend someone. In a free society where everyone has equal rights, it follows of necessity that there can not be a "right not to be offended". That line of thinking results in stupidity and death. It most recently resulted in the massacre at Charlie Hebdo in France. A free society absolutely depends upon tolerance, and that means that when you're offended you simply suck it up. You must actively infringe someone's rights for the government to have a legitimate stake in anything you do.

Now, that might be the case if you're defrauding someone. If through misrepresentation, deceit, or force you sell dangerous products, then may the long arm of the law rest on your shoulder. But every single day dangerous and poisonous products are sold legally. Bleach and gasoline will kill you if you drink them, but you know that, and distributors clearly label poisons. Rat poison is just flat-out called "poison". The point is, I can legally buy poisons. However, though a Gordian knot of logic, it's illegal to buy other substances that are far less toxic. Granted, these are substances that are actually intended to be ingested, but I know that, too. There's not a hint of deceit or fraud in the purchase of marijuana or other drugs. But somehow it's become the "conservative" position to deny liberty to individuals regarding their own lives. Not with regard to all drugs, though... the knot's not that easy to unravel. Socially acceptable drugs like tobacco and alcohol get strong defense from the Right... that is, unless you're really, really Right, in which case you're back to teetotalling.

The very fact that you are alive is a daily choice, and it should be yours to make. Some believe it to be a sin to take their own lives. Others ridicule that belief, saying, "how dare you die before God is finished fucking with you?" There's a solid point behind their irreverent tone. The fact is, different people have different religious beliefs. Not all believe in an afterlife, or the same kind of afterlife, or that suicide is a sin. Some find themselves with degenerative diseases and want to exit Life while still in command of their faculties. Some would not burden their families. Your religious beliefs are appropriate to you, and you should have every right to exercise them as you will. By all means, hang on until God is finished with you. But other people have the same right to live according to their convictions. Your rights stop where their rights start.

Your life is yours, not theirs.
Their lives are theirs, not yours.
You can exert control over what is yours. 
It's really not that hard. 

Nor does acknowledging their rights need to make you any less conservative. Continue to not do drugs and continue to not smoke and not drink if you don't want to, and even encourage others not to as well; don't kill yourself; all while understanding that you can't force your will on other people. God didn't give you a badge to enforce what He will not, so be religiously tolerant. You're supposed to lead by example, not fiat. That's most of what it takes to get you from just being on the Right to being actually right.

At the end of the day, you have a natural right to ingest what you want and do with your life as you will. We don't need laws to make that legal. Not even one law. We should instead remove the laws that prohibit it.

Sauce for the goose, friends: If you like that graphic, you should be for decriminalization of drugs. But if you'd rather dictate what a person can or can't ingest or imbibe, you should feel shame at the sight of it.


CASE STUDY 3: My Mind Explodes

All of what is stated above is ideological perfection according to the founding principles of the United States. It's basically what was intended by all those men who wrote the bloody documents and built the bloody buildings and fought the bloody wars. It's not an ideal that is shared by the country at large, except as lip-service.

We have failed to give a proper education in civics for decades now. The result is that most people are convinced that they are prohibited from doing anything unless they are permitted by the government. The government now believes that, too. Individualists are the odd men out, and our Founding Fathers wouldn't like what we've done with the system.

For instance, that bit about the "general welfare clause". Here it is, leading Section 8 - Powers of Congress:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

It was never intended that this simple statement of purpose should be taken as carte blanche to usurp rights of the people. The "general welfare", taken far too broadly, is an excuse for the government to do anything and everything it wants. That it is taken too broadly is proven by the existence of the Bill of Rights and its references to enumerated rights and the limit of power to those powers delegated "by the Constitution".

Nevertheless, that's exactly what's happened. The "general welfare clause" is the excuse for every law passed in modern legislation. It has been taken by increasingly clueless Courts to mean that the government can do anything unless it's specifically prohibited. It has diminished the rights of the People to a few that the politicians couldn't sweep under the rug because they had the bad fortune of being in writing. If it weren't for those we wouldn't have free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms... none of it. Read the news. Places you think of as "free" don't have a guaranteed right to freedom of expression. It's not written down, so the courts have concluded that it doesn't exist. Australia's a classic example.

The original, proper, and intentional reading of the Constitution is that government can do nothing unless it's specifically allowed. The default position was that the American individual had the right to self-determination except where specifically prohibited. Individuals have broad, sweeping rights except as otherwise written there. I'm not guessing at this. It's not interpretation. It was a Big Deal, and part of the public record. The arguments about the Bill of Rights were not about whether those rights existed. Rather it was concern over the fact that if they were written down, that might imply to people who don't know better that they're the only ones that exist. That's why Hamilton and Madison resisted a Bill of Rights and would not get behind it at all until the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were added.

Those two Amendments were a Very Big Deal. Nevertheless, in 1931 the Supreme Court called it a "truism" that added nothing to the Constitution as originally written. And those are the magic words... "as originally written". Because today it is not interpreted "as originally written". Every single fear that Madison and Hamilton expressed has come true.

Part of the reason, I think, is the elephant in the room: Slavery. Obviously slaves had the same natural rights as any other person, including the same "unalienable" right to Liberty as their owners. But because this was flatly ignored for so long, the general perception is that the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, when it actually asserts a right that has always existed, and had long been violated. As such, the Thirteenth Amendment is no less a "truism" than the Tenth. Had the Courts not been so dismissive about the Tenth Amendment, the Thirteenth wouldn't have been necessary. Hamilton was right.

The Fourteenth Amendment followed shortly after to identify persons born in the United States as citizens and assert their rights to due process and equal protection under the law. You can see why these provisions would be applicable to the time. The concern of the Fourteenth Amendment was those former slaves born in the states who should have been citizens the entire time, and had nothing to do with immigration. The citizenship of slaves had to be guaranteed here because the Supreme Court, that bastion of very often bad decisions, ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that former slaves were not and could not become, citizens. But equality under the law was a right even before it was written down for the benefit of those too blinded by bigotry to see it.

Now, as I'm wrapping this up, I have a Facebook friend who commented on my original re-share there. He says:

That may have been true in 1787, but there was different thinking at work in 1865, at which point the federal government became a custodian of certain rights that the states might otherwise curtail. The 14th Amendment, which delegated significant additional powers to the federal government and significantly constrained the powers reserved to the states, constituted a major change in context for the 10th Amendment, one that is often overlooked today.

I have to both agree and disagree on a couple of points here. First, that "different thinking" was at work in 1865. Sure... Madison and Hamilton's fears were so blatant that they anticipated such thinking in 1787. But I think to say that at that point the federal government became a custodian of certain rights is erroneous. The 14th Amendment does not change the nature, origin, or ownership of any rights. To use the word "custodian" carries a false implication of ownership. I'm pretty sure he meant it in the sense of "stewardship", but I'd vastly prefer the word "guardian" instead.

Second, I feel the point about the "additional powers" of the federal government bears comment. The constraint upon the states was to prevent them from passing unconstitutional laws, specifically those that deny due process or equal protection. I understand it to mean that all the rights you have with regard to federal law, you also have with regard to state law. The additional power of the federal government is to enforce that through "appropriate legislation". Now, when it says that a state can't deny any person equal protection under the law, at the time it would have been clear that it was referring to the citizens of a state. For instance, Georgia can't pass a law that applies to White Georgians differently from Black Georgians. It took a while to get that right, too... it had to wait for the 1960s.

But while that's a positive move, we're arriving at a situation where the courts increasingly interpret this to mean uniformity of laws between states. So a federal court might look at a law passed in Georgia that treats all Georgians the same; and applying precedent from Tennessee, rule that it's still unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This, I think, is a misreading and a mistake. Part of the value of having several states is that people disagree. And when they disagree, it's useful to be able to "send them to their own rooms". If you don't like New York, you can always move to South Carolina. My mother did... it works when there's a difference. But if there's no difference, then homogenous laws simply increase dissent. It's the opposite of what their proponents intend, but it's a consequence of applying pressure with no escape valve.

The important point here is that states were given autonomy for a reason, and it's not so we can name the college football teams. The states have vastly different geography, industry, population, culture, and needs. They disagreed on a lot of specifics then, and it wasn't going to get any better. Look at any "Red State/Blue State" map. Forcing one group to conform to another's ideals is silly. So we have different states, and the world has different countries because not everyone agrees to those ideals we agree on and hold precious amongst ourselves.

And that brings me back to that graphic. It's an ideal. 

I've heard people disparage the "old White men" who framed our system of government. I've heard people say how irrelevant the Constitution is because it was never followed perfectly.

I look at them like I would a high jumper with terrible form who says that the bar doesn't exist because he's never cleared it. The problem's not with the bar, it's with them.

When you don't clear the bar you fix your form. In 1787 "old White men" cut their ties with an unfair, exploitive monarchy and put together a system of government based on certain ideals. They had to compromise on the execution to make it happen, but the ideals were clearly stated. A mere 73 years later in 1860, more "old White men" split the country in two to fix its form and get rid of slavery. And 100 years after that, still more "old White men" passed Civil Rights legislation that should have been unnecessary under the Constitution of 1865.

The Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments didn't add a single right that those people didn't have naturally. And that's a problem. According to Hamilton, none of the Amendments that assert rights should be necessary. The example of other countries show they are. The big reason is that people are conditioned to believe that the government grants them rights. They think they need laws to grant them that which they already have. And the politicians and the courts alike are very happy to encourage that belief by pretending they don't have those natural rights so that they can "grant" them all manner of things and keep this upside down system of power in place.

Ideals tell us what we're supposed to do. At this time that upside-down system is the #1 thing wrong with our country's form. It keeps people from recognizing that they are empowered and acting on it. People sit around waiting for someone else to fix their lives and make them right. My mind explodes because I look at this and see how hard people make it for themselves, and for each other, and how it could all be avoided if they looked at that graphic at the top of the page and believed it.

Suicide Isn't Smart Politics

Recently WesternJournalism.com reported that the House of Representatives voted to continue Trey Gowdy's investigation of the Benghazi attacks.

What interested me as much about the article, though, was the reaction of right-wing Republicans who would rather focus on the fact that John Boehner was re-elected to the position of Speaker of the House. Somehow, Boehner's re-election makes Gowdy some kind of traitor.

Disclaimer I'm a Libertarian, so it's probable that Gowdy doesn't like my politics. I'm pretty sure from context that he believes the platitude that "Libertarians are right of Republicans on fiscal issues, and left of Democrats on social issues". It's balderdash. Libertarians are consistently pro-Freedom on all issues. That says nothing about whether they're individually conservative or liberal. For instance, I can be a teetotaler who is vehemently against alcohol while at the same time recognizing that my opinion doesn't rob other people of their right to put what they want in their bodies. As much as I'd like Congress to share my views, they don't. They typically act in the interest of their parties; and those that would like to change their party's policies must do it from within, from a position of strength. So here I'm in the position of defending a politician you can assume disagrees with me on more than a few issues.

Let's point out first that Gowdy's flight was cancelled and he missed the vote entirely. So no, he didn't vote for Boehner.

However, he would have had he been there, and for good reason. With exactly zero alternative candidates nominated in the November conference (count them... zero), no number of last minute nay votes would have ousted Boehner in favor of a more conservative Speaker. This is because the Speaker must be elected by absolute majority of all Representatives. Denied a Republican majority, it would have been thrown into a House-wide election in which the Democrats would have the swing vote.

There are about forty (40) solidly conservative members of the House. It depends a bit on who you ask, but that's the number that Trey Gowdy and Mick Mulvaney claim. There are 435 voting seats in the House. That means there are 355 more non-conservatives (liberals and moderates) than conservatives. Which of those 40 conservatives is going to amass the 218 votes needed for a majority? Some media outlets have made it out to be a big deal that 25 Republicans voted against Boehner, but their votes were all over the map. The most any single candidate got was 12.

Seriously... who here thinks that Boehner's replacement would be more conservative than Boehner? Who actually believes that the Democrats would not first foment a media frenzy over the fact that Republicans given a clear majority can't even elect a leader among themselves? Who thinks they would not then cut a deal to "rescue" the country from the "crisis of leadership" and replace those missing Republican votes in exchange for choice committee memberships and other favors?

There are those who believe that a vote against the Speaker would curtail such deal-making instead of cause it. I heard from one recently who does not seem to recognize that the result for the conservatives who voted against the Speaker would be to lose that same influence and marginalize themselves.

For the record, there is no chance whatsoever that Boehner would not be re-elected. Frosty the Snowman would reign long as the King of Hell before that happened this session.

The only message a vote against the Speaker would convey is that the congressman has no idea how politics works. It would not advance conservatism; it would set it back. That same media frenzy would absolutely certainly be slanted to favor the Democrats as noted above. And quite rightly, it would take conservatives out of positions of influence. People who deliberately screw their own party so royally should be in another party. As much as I personally might love a mass exodus, that's not the kind of transformation the conservative Republicans are aiming for.

In short, for Republicans, a vote against Boehner as Speaker would be the Bad Idea that bad ideas have when they're drunk. It would be bad for all Republicans, but even worse for the conservative broncos.

There might be a news story that actually analyzes the vote rather than just tell you how to think. But those conservative voices I heard didn't bother with rational analysis. Rather, they reflexively parroted some form of "tsk, tsk, now we've seen his true stripes". This silliness would have easily been avoided had they considered consequences. Nevertheless, everyone sang the same song:

"Trey Gowdy Is Not a Conservative Leader" (Redstate.com)

"Gowdy Reveals Who He Would Have Voted for Had He Been in Washington — and It’s Not Who You Might Expect" (TheBlaze.com)

Google more on your own. For reference, GreenvilleOnline.com reports on how the entire South Carolina delegation voted.

Reality

Mick Mulvaney appeared with Gowdy on the Bob McLain's Wednesday evening drive-time show on WORD 106.3. Mick was one of those who voted against the Speaker last time, and described the experience as a lesson learned. You cannot effect change by marginalizing yourself. This particular protest vote was poorly planned and poorly executed, and suffered from the worst flaw of poor strategic planning: there was no plan for what to do if it worked. As noted above, the results would have been catastrophic, and the dissenters had exactly nothing planned to mitigate it. Ask Jeff Duncan, who did vote against the Speaker: all he has is some vague idea that "a new Speaker of the House would send the signal to the American people that we’re hearing their concerns while also letting the president know that Congress is committed to upholding the rule of law" without any apparent realization that any such message would be totally lost in the turmoil of choosing that Speaker and dwarfed by the fact that the new Speaker would in no way be one that furthered his agenda.

One of the things that amazed me the most about the callers' comments on Wednesday was the similarity of their attitudes to the love-hate mindset of a jilted lover. Some couldn't believe that things wouldn't have turned out vastly different had Gowdy only run for Speaker himself. Basically a good percentage of those who called in to berate him did so because he didn't act out their unrealistic fantasies.

The reality is that Trey Gowdy is very popular among a segment of the population. This same segment tends to self-select their friends and their news sources such that perhaps their perception of that popularity is inflated due to being the only thing they allow themselves to see. In the process, what they don't notice is that the at-home C-SPAN kibbitzers are not the ones voting for Speaker. And most of those who are voting for Speaker would not vote for Trey Gowdy.

Gowdy, bulldoggin'

They also fail to notice that Gowdy doesn't want the job, and for several good reasons. One that he mentions often is 40+ days on a fund-raising trail in summer, raising money across the country for Congressmen who are not in his district. Gowdy's skillset doesn't recommend him for the party cheerleading and fundraising that form an important part of the Speaker's job. Another reason is that Gowdy isn't ready to let Benghazi go, and he is the best resource Americans have in that position. He has a well-earned reputation as a conservative bulldog. As you can see yourself on television, he cuts straight to the heart of whatever matter he addresses, making the absolute most of his limited time in Congressional hearings. Gowdy gets the conservatives' message in front of the American people far more effectively by example in hearings than he ever would as Speaker, and receives far more television airtime to do so. His trial lawyer skills are his #1 asset, and it's completely wasted in the position of Speaker. The Speaker is a fundraiser, an administrator, and a conciliator. That's not Trey.

Ultra-Right Wing Hypocrisy

Nancy Pelosi's failure to be a conciliator is in large part what lost Pelosi's party the majority and Pelosi the Speakership. I think America has had quite enough of tactics that are alternately underhanded and strongarm. "You have to pass it to see what's in it," anyone? Nobody with any sense wants more of that.

Nevertheless, a sizeable number of ultra-conservatives do. You can hear them calling in on talk radio daily. What they want is an Anti-Pelosi... another "my way or the highway" dictator, only with an 'R' instead of a 'D' after the name. It's completely lost on them how hypocritical it is to demand for themselves the same thing they screamed about at their opposition. Frankly, single-minded totalitarianism isn't welcome from the Right any more than it is from the Left.

Know this: what you call "an eye for an eye" is exactly the same thing you label as "moral equivalency" when done by the other side. It's the juvenile excuse that you can do something wrong because "they did it too!" Hogwash. It's still wrong.

Libertarians know a thing or two about working with others. As I mentioned before, Libertarians are consistently pro-Freedom on issues. Most of the time, that is or should be the conservative agenda as our Founding Fathers were champions of Liberty who lived according to their morals out of free will. As my state has no Libertarians in Congress, we are left to support those are most likely to fight for Liberty on most issues; and more importantly, those who are likely to actually effect change in favor of Liberty over those who would make themselves irrelevant.

So you don't think Trey Gowdy is a conservative leader?
Then as we say in my neck of the woods, "Bless your heart!"

My Calling

America's Moral Code: What Matters

Saw this on Politichicks.com:

The Intentional Dismantling of America’s Moral Code

While in the whole I agree with it, the author grossly mis-states a tenet of Libertarianism. According to her, "My Libertarians friends believe that fiscal conservatism is enough to revive our nation and that social conservatism does not matter."

That could only be very slightly further from the truth. The classical definition of 'liberal' has been so corrupted in modern times that neither the Left nor the Right qualify. Classical Liberalism -- what we call 'Libertarianism' today -- simply demands that the government stay out of your business. That is certainly not the case with regard to moral issues for the Left today. They're all about regulating your morality, as the article itself notes through example. They're also about controlling your finances through Big Government and heavy taxation, fines and regulations. That's not liberal. They only use the word as lip-service to mean 'compliant', as in 'votes for me'.

On the other hand, laissez-fair capitalism doesn't have anything to do with being 'conservative', either. Allowing maximum personal choice, a free-market economy, and economic regulation though the natural processes of supply and demand is about as liberal a policy, in the classical sense, as it's possible to adopt. But since modern progressives have successfully hijacked the term 'Liberal' (with a capital "L"), neither side knows what the word actually means anymore. So new a new label is adopted, and the meaning further skewed. Hence, in the minds of some, the modern 'Conservative' label has become almost as far removed from common sense as that of 'Liberals'.

For instance, since when has intolerance been a conservative principle? It certainly has never been so historically. The Republican President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The Ku Klux Klan was fostered by Democrats, not Republicans. I know... Democrats hate being reminded of it, but it's factual history.

Tolerance is not a 'conservative' stance, as it is about being liberal in the choices you allow others to make for themselves. It is, however, also not a 'Liberal' stance by today's definition. The Left has long-since eschewed tolerance for that very same 'compliance'. Under modern progressive liberalism, nearly anything can be tolerated of anyone who votes Democratic. Conversely, intolerance is actively encourage against those who don't. Thus, blacks need be tolerant only of blacks and can advocate killing white cops with impunity. Atheists need only tolerate other atheists, freely shaming Christians for their 'crazy' beliefs (while carefully avoiding New Age Democrat voters).  Feminists need tolerate only other feminists regardless of gender, so that the hypocrisy of wearing a T-shirt celebrating misandry while shouting down misogyny is completely invisible to their senses.  All 'right-wingers' can be safely labeled idiots, white people from the South can be lampooned as being inbred, etc.

'Liberals' aren't liberal: they haven't been for decades. Their claim to the title is patently absurd. Likewise, for 'Conservatives' to claim to uphold traditional values while excluding tolerance as one of those values is likewise absurd.

Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower reminded us of this in his state of the Union address in 1959,

"One of the fundamental concepts of our constitutional system is that it guarantees to every individual, regardless of race, religion, or national origin, the equal protection of the laws. Those of us who are privileged to hold public office have a solemn obligation to make meaningful this inspiring objective."

We Libertarians recognize that we don't need laws stating what we can do. We need fewer laws because we are constitutionally recognized as free. Read for yourself the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth Amendment reminds us that we are not limited to the rights that the Government bestows on us. The Tenth reminds us that we are not limited to the powers that the Government allots us.

To the point at hand ('social conservatism' in the context of morality): in matters of morality and religion, the Federal government is constitutionally prohibited by the First Amendment from taking a stand. That is what 'wall of separation' means. What it does not mean is government validation of your intolerance toward seeing other people exercise their religious freedom.

I can't tell you not to pray; but I can't force you to do it, either. It's sauce for the goose and gander; completely fair and impartial. We need fewer laws because a law that tells you what you can do is constitutionally unnecessary in a free society. The extent to which you desire such laws is a measure of your belief that you are not, in fact, free. The very concept that you need a law to prohibit someone from making a moral choice is the complete opposite of Liberty. Our system has been so perverted for so long that few people on either side have even the slightest clue about how it's supposed to work.

Libertarians are Libertarians because they do know. And though apologists for the Big Two Parties have made feeble attempts to 'define' Libertarianism for the Libertarians, we don't need the assistance, thankyouverymuch. As a rule of thumb, a Libertarian will tell you that the use of force is justified only in response to someone else who imposes their will by force. Laws themselves are a form of force. Why else do you think the police are called Law Enforcement, hmm? Pretty self-explanatory. That single justification... defense... is how a Libertarian views the totality of the law. As such it's not anarchist. Murder, robbery, rape... all manner of violent crimes... are the imposition of force, so we believe in laws against them. The military prevents the use of force against our populace. The Second Amendment recognizes our individual right to exercise force in defense of ourselves and our country. But many of our laws have nothing to do with crime, or force, or justice, or defense. Rather, they're nothing more than the deliberate imposition of one group's will on another merely because the second group is making some choice the first group wouldn't. That's despotism, and it's immoral.

The author of the Politichicks.com piece notes:

"The Christian right understands that God will not enlighten, protect, comfort or restore a nation that defies His moral code."

Think about what that means, and more importantly what it doesn't mean. Is it possible for a nation to be a moral nation if that morality is forced upon them? Is compliance with law on a par with willful submission to God's will? Do you think God might be able to tell the difference? How would you respond to the Muslims in Syria who persecute Christians for the sake of creating a nation that does not defy God's moral code. Can you simultaneously hold your position as righteous and theirs as not? Perhaps God gave us free will in order to allow us to make those choices as individuals. Perhaps a righteous nation is that which chooses to follow Him of their own volition, out of love; and not because they were driven to follow Him by force, out of fear.

As important as it is for us to make the right choices, it is important for us to make the right choices.

It's time for people to screw their heads on right and realize that 'Land of the Free' does not mean that you're 'free to do what they allow you to do'. I hold myself to traditional morality because I choose to. Prominent in that list of things that are traditionally considered moral, I see the rights of others to make their own choices and not be fettered by those that I or others force upon them. That's a far cry from saying that 'social conservatism doesn't matter'. Rather, it's a position that's codified in our Constitution, in the Federalist papers, and in every other source regarding the founding of this country that you care to examine. It is the very essence of Freedom. It is, in fact, THE conservative principle. It is also THE liberal principle. Neither "side" gets it right. It's time to join a new side.