RANT: Being philosophical

Monday, May 20, 2013

“By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you’ll be happy; if you get a bad one, you’ll become a philosopher.” – Socrates

# – # – #  

Not clear what happens after you’ve had a good wife?

Do you become “philosophical”?

Spouses should die together.

Push off on that proverbial iceberg.

The surviving spouse SHOULD voluntarily throw themselves on the pyre.

Argh!

Grief is a funny thing.

It sneaks up on you when you least expect it!

# – # – # – # – #   


POLITICAL: Smoking is just the tip of the iceberg

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/129565.html

December 25, 2012
Puff Away in Paley Park!
Posted by David Kramer on December 25, 2012 06:45 PM

*** begin quote ***

Though Hitler-admirer Nazi Bloomberg banned all smoking in public outdoor parks in Nazi York City, there is one small outdoor park where one can still sit back and enjoy a fine cigar: Paley Park. Why? Because Paley Park is a privately-owned park built by the late head of CBS, William S. Paley. Paley, a former smoker, believed that smoking was a God-given right, so he made sure that smoking was allowed on what is effectively his private property.

*** end quote ***

I think we need to throw Gooferment out of our personal lives!

Smoking is just the tip of the iceberg.

Guns, marriage, professional licenses, taxis, flood insurance, mortgage guarantees, “too big to fail”, … … 

All areas of our life that should be off limits to Gooferment action.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #   


POLITICAL: Marriage — MYOB

Sunday, June 3, 2012

http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz44.1.html 

The Right To Marry
by Scott Lazarowitz

*** begin quote ***

Once, again, the “gay marriage” or same-sex marriage distraction is in the news and on the talk shows. Some people say it is a societal or cultural issue that government must address, and others say it is a religious issue.

The same-sex marriage issue is a private issue. And yes, the individual has a right to marry.

Who the hell is the government to allow or forbid private people to establish their own voluntary associations, relationships, contracts and marriages?

Regarding the right to marry, while the Bill of Rights does not mention that specifically, the Ninth Amendment does state that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

There are an infinite number of rights that human beings have. Each individual has an inherent right as a human being to one’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as one doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s same right.

Based on this right of self-ownership, each individual has an absolute natural right to do with one’s life, one’s person and property as one wishes, as long as one is peaceful. Unfortunately, statists and politicians do not understand this.

*** end quote ***

As pro-life pro-choice little L libertarian, I think marriage is between a man and woman for the purpose of raising children. (Yeah, yeah, I know all the arguments about that.)

BUT, I also think that what anyone else does is NONE of my business. 

Communities, Churches, and individuals can form their own opinions. Without my help or the Gooferment’s force.

Peace.

No one should ever be forced to do or abstain from anything.

So to the Gooferment should not be picking winners and losers via tax or benefit policies. 

Just stay out of the bedrooms and all the rooms.

While there is some modest State interest in ensuring that “children” are provided for, they are the future citizens. At some point in their “life”, they have God-given rights. We recognize “rights” as a way to maintain peaceful cooperation amount equals.

The essence of all human problems seems to originate with the meme that one human can “force” another to do, or not do, something.

The proof is drugs in prison.

So too is the meme that “marriage” is any concern of the State.  

MYOB!

# – # – # – # – #   


INSPIRATIONAL: A negative lesson

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Video-of-marriage-proposal-gone-wrong-at-UCLA-ba?urn=ncaab-wp7324

Tue Jan 03 04:08pm ESTVideo of marriage proposal gone wrong at UCLA basketball game
By Jeff Eisenberg

*** begin quote ***

The most memorable rejection of the UCLA basketball season happened in the stands rather than on the court.

Midway through a 71-63 victory over Richmond Dec. 23 at the Honda Center in Anaheim, UCLA’s “Mistletoe Cam” cut to a couple seated courtside. The man reaches into his pocket, pulls out a ring and says, “I knew that I was going to do this since the first day that I met you, and I figured now was as good a time as any.” His girlfriend’s response when he gets down on one knee and pops the question? Well, let’s just say it involved an awkward pause and running in the other direction.

*** end quote ***

Hey, I can empathize with that fellow. First time, I proposed the girl said “no”.

I’d never ask where a rejection would be so public.

Maybe, like in my case, the second time will be the charm.

Argh! But you really have to feel for the guy.

# – # – # – # – #

 

 


LIBERTY: Gooferment should get out of the “marriage” business

Monday, July 12, 2010

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
July 8, 2010 06:55 PM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

*** begin quote ***

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

*** and ***

Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We’re reviewing the decision.”

*** end quote ***

Interesting how the Obama administration is “studying” this one. Studying how it can let it stand. Since it aligns with their identity politics. Isn’t Kagan the Solicitor General? Doesn’t she have to appeal that. Talk about a conflict!

As a little L libertarian, it’s always been my assertion that the Gooferment has no business in the definition of “marriage”. Churches do marriage; not Gooferment. Remember the purposes of “marriage licenses” was, in the South, to keep black men from marrying white women.

The tax code confers benefits to “marriages” that are inexcusable. The Gooferment already has “corporations”. That it favors with tax breaks and stuff. Perhaps it can just extend “corporate status” to individuals. Like a subschapter S.

Or me could just remove the tax favored status of marriage and simplify the tax code.

See, bottom line, it’s really the right of the people to be left alone and to make their choices without the Gooferment trying to influence those choices by picking winners and losers. Or, the things it “likes” better than other things. Gooferment fails at everything; so why is this any different.

It’s always about force. In this case, forcing people to do what the people in chage of the levers of Gooferment want them to do.

A recipe for disaster.

# # # # #


NEWJERSEY: Marriage and politics

Friday, January 15, 2010

http://www.catholicvoteaction.org/blog/cva/index.php

NJ Senate votes no on same-sex ‘marriage’
by Joshua Mercer on January 7th, 2010

*** begin quote ***

Victory!

FoxNews.com reports: “New Jersey’s state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage, the latest in a string of setbacks for advocates. The defeat, by a vote of 20-14, likely ends any chance that the state Legislature approves gay marriage soon.”

*** end quote ***

Now, don’t misinterpret this as support for either side of this “debate”.

I believe that the gooferment has NO role in marriage.

You could make a SMALL role in ensure that children are appropriately supported.

Marriage “licenses” have their origins in the racist past. Time to file them back there. In history’s dust bin of bad ideas with gooferment education, gooferment money, and gooferment licenses of all types.

Churches should be able to “marry” whomever they want. People have the right of free association.

Benefits for state-sponsored “marriage” are anathema to a Free Society. Income taxes are as well.

# # # # #

# # # # #


RANTING: Men, specifically fathers, not required!

Friday, May 29, 2009

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133640.html

New at Reason: Cathy Young on Why Single Motherhood is on the Rise
May 21, 2009, 3:00pm

*** begin quote ***

A new report from the National Center for Health Statistics with the dry title, “Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States,” contains startling news: births to single mothers, which had leveled off in the early 2000s, have risen sharply in recent years. Some sociologists believe we have reached a tipping point: the link between marriage and parenthood is no longer the norm. Why is this happening, and what does it mean for women, children, and men? There are no simple answers, writes Contributing Editor Cathy Young, only difficult questions that we ignore at our peril.

*** end quote ***

(1) Families ensured that children were nurtured.

(2) Positive male role models keep young boys in check and reassure young girls that they are valued.

(3) Intergenerational care was assured.

# # # # #  


LIBERTY: gay marriage affect you?

Friday, May 15, 2009

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/how_does_gay_marriage_affect_y.html

How does gay marriage affect you?
from American Thinker

*** begin quote ***

If past is indeed prologue, the organized, concentrated and continuous assault by a small percentage of zealots will ultimately wear down the resistance of the larger, less focused, non-committed majority.

*** end quote ***

The Constitution’s Tenth Amendment reserves that to Several States. Thus the Federal Government should have NO role in the definition of marriage.

The States really should not have any role in defining marriage either since it’s a “church” thing.

The heritage of marriage licensing is racial discrimination.

So, “marriage” should be left to the civil society; the gooferment should MYOB and butt out.

imho!

# # # # #


INTERESTING: Serious about ending discrimination

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Andrew Wilcow’s program reboardcast on XM168 over the weekend:

“The purpose of opposable thumbs is to pick up things. The purpose of heterosexual marriage is procreation. What is the purpose of homosexual marriage?If everyone was serious about ending discrimination, we remove marriage from the sphere of the government.”

# – # – #

Very interesting!

And, an excellent argument.

# # # # #


RANT: Camile Paglia “government should get out of the marriage business”

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/12/10/hillary_mumbai/index.html

What do the Clintons have on Obama?
What experience does Hillary have to run State? Plus: Avoiding the Muslim issue on Mumbai, and anti-Proposition 8 activists threaten to set back gay rights.
By Camille Paglia

*** begin quote ***

I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past. My position has always been (as in “No Law in the Arena” in my 1994 book, “Vamps & Tramps”) that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement.

*** end quote ***

The gooferment has NO business at all in the marriage or civil unions business.

Prevent invasions, preserve the peace, ensure rights!

Period!

# # # # #


LIBERTY: Marriage? Gooferment MYOB!

Monday, October 27, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Op-Ed Contributor
Taking Marriage Private
By STEPHANIE COONTZ
Published: November 26, 2007

*** begin quote ***

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

*** end quote ***

Why indeed do WE, the free sovereign individuals, need the Gooferment’s permission, pay them, and give them allegiance to their interference?

# # # # #


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,044 other followers

%d bloggers like this: