Skip to main content

Politicians, Freedom, Marriage and Individual Rights

Given the loss of private and public morality how do we judge a politician?  Since this country is about freedom, I guess that is where we should go with the discussion. 

Does a particular politician represent a "force shift" or a "freedom shift"?  Are they career power seekers or concerned citizens capable of serving for a time in governmental office?  We can and must judge the motives of people that are seeking public office. If they are elected will we have preserved freedom or lost it?

A good litmus test of a policy or ideology is to ponder what the results would be if everyone did it.   If somehow the US had the resources to finance every person's basic necessities. What would the result be?

What does it mean to be selfish? Taking from the rich or producer and giving to the poor or non-producer?  Is it selfish to take from the next generation and give it to the present?

A portion of our society would seek to consider all things as amoral and remove God from their activities in an attempt to deny accountability.  This they do by professing to be agnostic, atheistic or that God is some kind an aloof deity, not really interested in our affairs.

Rights, civil or otherwise are not based on behavior or granted by men or government.  People do not have special rights because they choose to have sexual relationships as they choose.  No group does.  Rights are grounded in the principle of natural law.  They are an endowment from our Creator.

Life as a highway is an analogy I consider useful in looking at marriage as a method of giving order to our society. Say there are eight lanes of traffic, full of cars moving at highway speed.  This is symbolic of our journey through life.  Billions of people are making daily choices.  

Each person in a car can decide how they will handle their vehicle.  So it is with our body.  We direct it according to our freedom to choose.  Many profess that they can't choose or control their desires and emotions. They say that they are bound by some force of nature.  The fact is we all are.  If this is so then why can so many choose to control it and do so?

When we get in our car to go somewhere we do so on some basic assumptions. We hope that the other drivers also adhere to those assumptions.  One is that if they don't they could die.   That is the laws of physics.

The traffic laws are designed taking into account that there is a higher unforgiving law.  The law of physics.  Automakers also take this law into account.  Even the most ignorant attempts to prove it false or to break it have similar consequences.   When a driver in a distracted state reacts and crashes into or cuts off another driver he has infringed into the space of the other driver. 

If the occurrence is severe enough a collision can cause a wreck and involve multiple vehicles.  It can stop all the traffic on that particular road or highway until it is cleaned up. Wreckless actions in a car or in behavior can have consequences that damage others and ourselves.

Rights are not based on emotional reactions.  Marriage is not an institution developed by emotional whim. Relationships often develop based on emotional dependency but that is not the reason the Institution of marriage was placed into existence. 

Marriage exists to bring stability and order to society so that families can develop as a central unit of society governed in principle and by love.  In this way we chose to live in harmony with our neighbors rather than be forced into it.

People have a right to do with their body what they please but it is not inalienable.  There are consequences attached to ideology and choices that are allowed to permeate our society  

Whenever I see legislation that ignores the ideals of freedom  I just remind myself that most I them would not have signed the Declaration of independence.  As they put forth their short sighted justifications for expanding government and calling it constitutional is major self deception.  

The purpose of the original constitution was to limit government.  So you can't expand it and justify it as Constitutional. That really is an absurd comparison especially when it falls outside of the enumerated powers.

The enemies of freedom use various tactics to persuade uninformed souls to accept their limitations on individual liberties.  Two of these tactics are outright lying and the less blatant and often more deceptive use of fallacies.  Narratives are developed that use lying and deception to promote personal and corporate agendas.

One of the most common is a variation on the idea that: "If the government doesn't do it no one will."  Government is force and can only preserve freedom when restrained.

The proper use of that force is protecting our freedom by securing the border and being prepared to defend us against invasion.   The more common and wrong use of that force in the congresses of the last century has been to encroach on our liberties and inalienable rights. They are eliminated by boundless legislative encroachments and administrative bureaus that dictate laws by unelected officials.

This they do in the name of protecting us and from both our enemies and each other.  They tell us by their actions and words that they, the politicians, of what has become a ruling class,  in the political parties of today, are looking out for our best interests.  By keeping us controlled by their infinite wisdom and by abusing their taxing authority they take property from citizens and administer their faux charity.

From what I have seen, it seems our soldiers have defended the ideals of freedom with life and limb for modest pay and an uncertain future.  Their service is selfless and most often a sacrifice of any comfort or convenience.

On the other hand our individual liberties that should exist because of our freedom have been legislated away with bureaucracy. They are buried and eliminated by bureaucrats and politicians that give themselves ever increasing pay and retirement benefits. Their policies and laws enrich themselves as they tax and spend and spend some more.

Popular posts from this blog

James Madison, Essay on Property

Property
James Madison, National Gazette March 29, 1792

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.  In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandise, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his ri…

What is the Reason that Things Happen?

Does Everything Really Happen For a Reason?
Experiences from my family and family history have made me think about the veracity of certain ubiquitous cliches used by many to convey their outlook on a circumstance.  Please don't think I am a skeptic because I am not or maybe I am of some things.

I am not a real philosopher, theologian or psychologist.  Many have weighed in on this subject.  I am just looking to find correct principles and understand them better, hopefully with an objective critical thought process.

We all go through difficulties in life. Those difficulties can be caused our own decisions or by others. Will we take responsibility for how we react by disempowering ourselves and defaulting to a notion that has no basis and delude ourselves by saying that all things happening for a reason?

The fact is we are all alive until we die and there is a purpose for that unless you are an atheist.  There is a difference between the purpose of life and the reasons that things happen…

The Eternal Nature of Freedom

By Charles Brown

As we consider the principle of freedom, how far back should we go? When did it begin to exist as a precept or principle? A study of world history will give various examples of the idea.   Would it not have root in eternity?  Is it grounded in the philosophies of man or eternal truth?

For freedom to exist, at least three things must be present. Opposition or choices, Creation and Individuals capable of experiencing it. If none of these exist then freedom cannot. The fact is they all exist naturally. Are these things from God? That is the real question. Does God exist as a natural being in eternity or is he something men have invented to fill gaps in the theories of natural creation and their biblical interpretations?
Read here for an explanation.
Those familiar with world history will tell you about the many societies that had wonderful moments of freedom and then lost it. The founders knew of those other societies. Their intent was to correct the mistakes of thos…