The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: Doug Loss on November 16, 2016, 03:59:22 pm
-
A while ago, one of the Trumpers called us (I was a NeverTrumper) “leaderless malcontents” after Ted Cruz endorsed Trump, which I took to heart. Yes, I glory in not being led, but thinking and deciding for myself. And malcontent? Darned straight! If you’re not malcontented with the state of the country today, there’s something WRONG with you!
Then I had this idea:
‘You know, that may be the beginning of a way to revitalize the conservative movement. There are many malcontented people in the country today, but who feel they have no place to go that represents them. If we can present our philosophy to them, separate from the label “conservative” which both the Dems and the GOP have fairly successfully painted as distasteful, we may be able to grow up a new cohort of liberty-minded individualists. The “malcontents” I’m talking about are those quiet people (of all races and ethnicities, not just those we’ve previously thought of as fruitful ground for conservatives) who feel that there’s no one and no group who represents their beliefs, desires, and hopes for the future. They are the ones we need to find and welcome. It bears some thinking about.
‘I’m saying, let’s get back to our original principles. Let’s drop all the political terminology, the dogma we’ve acquired over the years, and try to engage the people looking for something to believe in, some way out of the malaise the left has imposed on the country. Let’s try to build a positive spirit of individualism, of ability, of responsibility for our rights and those of others. Let’s give those people something to believe in, not just railing at those who try to hold them back.’
I’ve started writing up a statement of belief, something of a foundational document for this concept. I’m sure it can be improved, and the language smoothed. I present it to you for whatever usefulness you may find in it.
-
I thought I'd attached this to the previous message, but I guess not. Here it is (I hope).
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Putting this above the fold.
Do me a favor? Copy from the doc into a post in this thread - a lot of people are (rightfully) leery of attachments.
-
Putting this above the fold.
Do me a favor? Copy from the doc into a post in this thread - a lot of people are (rightfully) leery of attachments.
OK, but it's a bit long and I didn't want to inconvenience anyone....
-
It's cool (and also a VERY fine bit of work).
-
What We Believe
We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them. Many people believe these rights to be imbued by God the Creator; others see them as inherent to consciousness and self-awareness. But all agree that these rights are fundamental to all people. These include the right to live, the right to speak freely and without retribution, the right to own property and do with it anything they desire, the right to live their lives in the way they desire, the right to associate with others or to refrain from associating with others, the right to defend themselves against any attacks by others, and the right to defend others exercising the same rights when those others are attacked. These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.
This is not an exhaustive list of the rights people are born with. There are certainly other rights that are inherent with existence, but which we haven’t specified here. There are some rights that might be thought of as growing from the rights listed, but which others might consider individual rights.
You will notice that these rights are not predicated on any particular personal characteristic or on membership in any particular group. These are rights inherent to all people. They inhere to the individual, not to any group.
From these rights grow the concepts of freedom and liberty. “Freedom” is the condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance. It also includes the capacity to act by choice rather than by determination. “Liberty” is a similar concept, the condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power. The rights listed above show that we believe all people are born free. To achieve liberty they must accept only those restrictions upon their freedom that they agree to, acting in consort with other individuals. An example would be agreeing to work together to provide for the defense of the group all belong to rather than each individual trying to defend only himself and those he’s responsible for.
The Right to Live
The right to live is fundamental; without life no other right has meaning. Intentionally depriving an innocent person of his life is a crime in every civilized society in existence. The only legitimate reasons for depriving another person of his life are the defense of yourself or another person who is in danger of being killed, or conviction for a capital crime after having been tried by a jury of peers. Anything else is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.
The determination of personhood is one fraught with difficulty. In times past, the personhood of people was denied because of ethnicity, religion, mental capacity, and various other criteria. We believe that none of these criteria are valid determinants of personhood. A human being is a person from birth until death, automatically and without qualification.
Many believe that personhood imbues a human being even before birth. There are varied beliefs about when an unborn human being becomes a person—some believe this occurs at conception, some when the heart starts beating, some when a response to pain is evident, some when brain activity begins, some when viability outside the womb is possible. But almost none of us believe that personhood only begins at birth. For this reason abortion, particularly late-term and partial-birth abortion, is widely considered immoral and unconscionable.
The Right to Speak Freely and Without Retribution
All people have the right to say whatever they want to say, without fear of retribution. Attempts to prevent others from speaking or to prevent them from being heard because their views disagree with those of the people making the attempts are unacceptable. Rebuttals of disagreeable speech are of course allowed, as such discussion will allow all points of view to be heard.
The right to speak without retribution makes the imposition of speech codes and the public shaming of those voicing unpopular opinions immoral and deplorable. Such activities are not acceptable in a free society. Such actions only serve to show those who do them to be unable to defend their beliefs against opposition.
The Right to Own Property and Do With It Anything You Desire
Everyone has the right to own property and to use it in any way he wants providing he doesn’t interfere with the rights of others in doing so. There is no moral right to restrict a person from using his property as he sees fit. A person can voluntarily agree to restrictions as a condition of acquiring the property, but restrictions imposed after the acquisition of the property are immoral and should not be allowed. The taking of personal property for a societal good (the concept of imminent domain) should only be allowed for a demonstrable benefit to society in general, and with adequate compensation to the owner, not because some authority believes that a different owner would provide the authority itself with some benefit.
The Right to Live Your Life in the Way You Desire
So long as you aren’t harming others or interfering with their exercise of their rights, you are free to live your life however you wish to. You have no moral requirement to get someone else’s permission to do the things you want to do. Of course, no one else is under any moral obligation to do the things you want them to do just because you say so. This right is related to the right to speak freely, the right to associate with those you want to and to not associate with those you don’t, and the right to defend yourself and others from harm. At its base, this right is what the concept of “liberty” means.
The Right to Associate With Others or to Refrain From Associating With Others
You have the moral right to associate with anyone you would like to, and the moral right to not associate with those you find undesirable. No one may force you into associations you don’t desire, or to forbid you to associate with others at your discretion. The right to privacy comes from this fundamental right, as well as the right of security of your personal information. As well, the right to refuse entry to your property to anyone including agents of the government is derived from this right. If you are a business owner or service provider, the right to decide what services or products you provide and the conditions under which you provide them are also derived from this right.
The Right to Defend Yourself Against Attacks by Others
The right to life would be meaningless without the inherent right to defend yourself against attack. You have the absolute right to do so. You also have the right to possess the means of defending yourself, both the objects necessary for that defense and the training and ability to employ those objects competently. This right is unalienable, meaning it can neither be taken from you, nor can you give it up. You always possess it.
“Attack” does not refer exclusively to physical assault. You can be attacked physically, verbally, socially, financially, and in other ways. You always have the right to defend yourself against attacks of any sort.
The Right to Defend Others When They are Attacked
We all recognize that there are some who are unable to defend themselves (the young and the infirm are two examples) against attack. You have the right to defend others who are under attack just as you may defend yourself. Defending others against attack is one of the basic principles of civilized behavior. It is sometimes difficult not to attack the attackers yourself, but doing so is not defending others. Your right to defend others only extends to protecting them from attack and stopping the attack itself.
Current Reality
We recognize that many of the fundamental rights defined above are being abrogated or denied in our society today. That doesn’t invalidate these rights, it merely acknowledges that our society is imperfect. We believe that we must work to change society in all its aspects so these rights are fully recognized and accepted, and are allowed to all people. Only when everyone has freedom and liberty, will we have freedom and liberty.
-
It's cool (and also a VERY fine bit of work).
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
-
Trump Pence are way better than Cruz, who has accomplished little in the Pro-Life movement.
Rick Perry, even Christie and Kasich have done more.
-
Trump Pence are way better than Cruz, who has accomplished little in the Pro-Life movement.
Rick Perry, even Christie and Kasich have done more.
Kind of missing the point of this topic, you know...
-
A while ago, one of the Trumpers called us (I was a NeverTrumper) “leaderless malcontents” after Ted Cruz endorsed Trump, which I took to heart. Yes, I glory in not being led, but thinking and deciding for myself. And malcontent? Darned straight! If you’re not malcontented with the state of the country today, there’s something WRONG with you!
Then I had this idea:
‘You know, that may be the beginning of a way to revitalize the conservative movement. There are many malcontented people in the country today, but who feel they have no place to go that represents them. If we can present our philosophy to them, separate from the label “conservative” which both the Dems and the GOP have fairly successfully painted as distasteful, we may be able to grow up a new cohort of liberty-minded individualists. The “malcontents” I’m talking about are those quiet people (of all races and ethnicities, not just those we’ve previously thought of as fruitful ground for conservatives) who feel that there’s no one and no group who represents their beliefs, desires, and hopes for the future. They are the ones we need to find and welcome. It bears some thinking about.
‘I’m saying, let’s get back to our original principles. Let’s drop all the political terminology, the dogma we’ve acquired over the years, and try to engage the people looking for something to believe in, some way out of the malaise the left has imposed on the country. Let’s try to build a positive spirit of individualism, of ability, of responsibility for our rights and those of others. Let’s give those people something to believe in, not just railing at those who try to hold them back.’
I’ve started writing up a statement of belief, something of a foundational document for this concept. I’m sure it can be improved, and the language smoothed. I present it to you for whatever usefulness you may find in it.
Well, Benjamin Franklin said that to persuade others, it is not enough to appeal to intellect. To persuade one must appeal to interest.
Buckminster Fuller wrote a book titled "Critical Path" which proposes a non-political method for achieving both a better world and a movement to accomplish it which is beyond politics.
Fuller was a proponent of the belief that technology is the only thing in culture which transcends ideology. Regardless of the ideals of a culture, even if they are utterly consumed or eradicated as a philosophical force, whatever technology a culture achieves remains even after their form of government is no more.
Examining history shows that this is true. Even though the Roman Empire vanished into history, the system of building aqueducts they developed remained part of the world's enduring technology forever.
The Etruscan empire is no more, but we still use the alphabet that they created. Same for the ancient Hindu and Arabic cultures which created our modern base-10 numerical system.
The Mongol Empire which once was the largest Empire in the history of Humanity left behind gun powder and firearms (which they introduced to the world but never perfected) even after the Khanates destroyed themselves through civil conflicts (aided by famines and droughts) which left them open to decimation by sundry and various less-potent military forces.
Even if we were atom bombed (God's forbid) by the North Koreans, all of the technology U.S. scientists and businesses have created would remain part of the world.
Manufacturing techniques which permitted mass production of products forever made machines once only affordable to the rich, available to everyone.
This last element is the key to Fuller's entire philosophy. He points out the fact that mass market capitalism has been the socialist's best friend in our time, because it is through technological innovation financed and fueled by free-market economics, that the average standard of living along with the average lifespan of the lowest economic classes in the world has constantly elevated.
It was not any political philosophy per se which enabled the poor to avoid starvation by application of improved land management, refrigeration, food processing, nutrition/medical research and development so much as the technology itself which made all of those things affordable to the common man.
There is a lot more in the book about how technology is probably the best mechanism for creating a movement that is beyond politics (he proposes a Real Wealth-based credit economy to replace both the monetary system and the investment banking industry).
He also has a spiritual side to him which sounds much like the manifesto in this thread.
-
Well, Benjamin Franklin said that to persuade others, it is not enough to appeal to intellect. To persuade one must appeal to interest.
Well, I think the beliefs I tried to describe in my document ought to appeal to the interest of pretty much anyone who doesn't want to be ruled and controlled by others, but wants to be free to make his or her own decisions to the greatest extent possible. I'm hoping to get some assistance in getting this whole concept polished and promoted to America in general.
-
Well, I think the beliefs I tried to describe in my document ought to appeal to the interest of pretty much anyone who doesn't want to be ruled and controlled by others, but wants to be free to make his or her own decisions to the greatest extent possible. I'm hoping to get some assistance in getting this whole concept polished and promoted to America in general.
With all due respect (and that is great) it will certainly appeal to THINKING type personalities.
Sadly, a large and apparently growing portion of our culture seems to be feeling/intuition-centered personalities who are not easily motivated or inspired to action by rationality- even very potent, compelling rational arguments.
Please don't take that as discouragement, (big things have small beginnings).
It's just that I think Fuller has given this very topic a great deal of thought and did a lot of research into his book directly related to the central thesis (which your aspiration shares).
He was an avowed free market capitalist who saw over and over again first hand how technology applied and managed correctly could turn deserts into oases and forests into neighborhoods (he developed the Brazilian infrastructure in the 1970s).
I think he might have some things to contribute to develop a working philosophy which can appeal to both self described conservatives and those who may describe themselves otherwise because it is in a framework that is deliberately placed outside conventional political sensibilities.
-
With all due respect (and that is great) it will certainly appeal to THINKING type personalities.
Sadly, a large and apparently growing portion of our culture seems to be feeling/intuition-centered personalities who are not easily motivated or inspired to action by matters that appeal to rationality.
Please don't take that as discouragement, (big things have small beginnings).
It's just that I think Fuller has given this very topic a great deal of thought and did a lot of research into his book directly related to the central thesis (which your aspiration shares).
He was an avowed free market capitalist who saw over and over again first hand how technology applied and managed correctly could turn deserts into oases and forests into neighborhoods (he developed the Brazilian infrastructure in the 1970s).
I think he might have some things to contribute to develop a working philosophy which can appeal to both self described conservatives and those who may describe themselves otherwise.
Noted. I'll take a look at "Critical Path" as soon as I have a chance. But would non-THINKING type personalities read a document such as I'm working on anyway? For them, perhaps a video presentation would be best. I'm not ready (or probably the best person for it anyway) to make one of those.
-
Trump Pence are way better than Cruz, who has accomplished little in the Pro-Life movement.
Rick Perry, even Christie and Kasich have done more.
There you go again... **nononono*
-
Well, I think the beliefs I tried to describe in my document ought to appeal to the interest of pretty much anyone who doesn't want to be ruled and controlled by others, but wants to be free to make his or her own decisions to the greatest extent possible. I'm hoping to get some assistance in getting this whole concept polished and promoted to America in general.
A nice expansion on concepts fundamental to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Defense of self and others:
I would add to the concept of defending against someone who attacks, the Right to defense extends to non-lethal attacks as well. The measure of force certainly should reflect the seriousness of the attack and not be wildly disproportionate, but in many states the standard for employing lethal force is the attacker placing their victim in the immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Neither the intended victim nor their defender, if such is the case, should be held responsible for the effects of a defense against attack on the attacker, in either Criminal or Civil court.
Serious injury is injury which would require hospitalization or medical treatment including but not limited to internal injuries, broken bones, sutures, or surgical remediation. I would note that rape is included as a form of "serious injury", and that lethal force is permitted in the defense of self or another against forcible rape.
(While in the criminal courts, a charge of Homicide requires a person to die, a lethal force defense may be mounted against someone who would only cripple you.
The universal practical caution is that a fleeing suspect is seldom considered a lethal threat, the entry wounds should be in front.)
-
A nice expansion on concepts fundamental to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Defense of self and others:
I would add to the concept of defending against someone who attacks, the Right to defense extends to non-lethal attacks as well. The measure of force certainly should reflect the seriousness of the attack and not be wildly disproportionate, but in many states the standard for employing lethal force is the attacker placing their victim in the immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Neither the intended victim nor their defender, if such is the case, should be held responsible for the effects of a defense against attack on the attacker, in either Criminal or Civil court.
Serious injury is injury which would require hospitalization or medical treatment including but not limited to internal injuries, broken bones, sutures, or surgical remediation. I would note that rape is included as a form of "serious injury", and that lethal force is permitted in the defense of self or another against forcible rape.
(While in the criminal courts, a charge of Homicide requires a person to die, a lethal force defense may be mounted against someone who would only cripple you.
The universal practical caution is that a fleeing suspect is seldom considered a lethal threat, the entry wounds should be in front.)
I tried to stay to the general and not get too specific in my statement of beliefs. I didn't mention anything about lethality/non-lethality; in fact, I didn't limit the defense of self and others to physical attacks, but tried to include attacks of all sorts. Please let me know if the wording wasn't clear on that point--I want to make this as understandable as possible.
-
I tried to stay to the general and not get too specific in my statement of beliefs. I didn't mention anything about lethality/non-lethality; in fact, I didn't limit the defense of self and others to physical attacks, but tried to include attacks of all sorts. Please let me know if the wording wasn't clear on that point--I want to make this as understandable as possible.
The comment was meant as a sidebar, I suppose. The problem with getting Short Attention Span America to read anything longer than a paragraph that isn't about something salacious, is that if you get involved enough to explain it thoroughly, you lose them.
I think the point I wanted to get across was lethal force should be an option if an attacker places a person under the threat of severe injury as well as just death.
-
The comment was meant as a sidebar, I suppose. The problem with getting Short Attention Span America to read anything longer than a paragraph that isn't about something salacious, is that if you get involved enough to explain it thoroughly, you lose them.
I think the point I wanted to get across was lethal force should be an option if an attacker places a person under the threat of severe injury as well as just death.
It would or should be something about perceived intent.
-
I'll read all of this later. Bookmark.
-
Yes, me too. Bookmark.
-
A nice expansion on concepts fundamental to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Defense of self and others:
I would add to the concept of defending against someone who attacks, the Right to defense extends to non-lethal attacks as well. The measure of force certainly should reflect the seriousness of the attack and not be wildly disproportionate, but in many states the standard for employing lethal force is the attacker placing their victim in the immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Neither the intended victim nor their defender, if such is the case, should be held responsible for the effects of a defense against attack on the attacker, in either Criminal or Civil court.
Serious injury is injury which would require hospitalization or medical treatment including but not limited to internal injuries, broken bones, sutures, or surgical remediation. I would note that rape is included as a form of "serious injury", and that lethal force is permitted in the defense of self or another against forcible rape.
(While in the criminal courts, a charge of Homicide requires a person to die, a lethal force defense may be mounted against someone who would only cripple you.
The universal practical caution is that a fleeing suspect is seldom considered a lethal threat, the entry wounds should be in front.)
I was about to post a similar comment but thank goodness I read through the thread first! I agree on all counts! Well done!
-
Trump Pence are way better than Cruz, who has accomplished little in the Pro-Life movement.
Rick Perry, even Christie and Kasich have done more.
Just when someone makes a serious point, in stumbles Tom all out of sorts spewing non-sequiturs.
Are you incapable of keeping your stupid bullshit to yourself or finding a thread where it is relevant?
-
Presenting this document to you all for critique was just the first part of my idea. Assuming it's in good enough shape (or after it's been tweaked to make it in good enough shape), how can we use it (or should we use it) to start a conversation with those folks who would agree with us on most if not all these concepts but who would never consider identifying as "conservative"? I'm thinking religious blacks, many hispanics, a lot of the union rank-and-file, etc. I look forward to your thoughts.
-
Bookmark
-
Presenting this document to you all for critique was just the first part of my idea. Assuming it's in good enough shape (or after it's been tweaked to make it in good enough shape), how can we use it (or should we use it) to start a conversation with those folks who would agree with us on most if not all these concepts but who would never consider identifying as "conservative"? I'm thinking religious blacks, many hispanics, a lot of the union rank-and-file, etc. I look forward to your thoughts.
Although sample bias is always present in such, how about taking each issue, each Right in the Bill of Rights, and a few other basic concerns and making a 'What kind of government do you really want' poll. Avoiding specific issues, base it on the framework of rights, and those rights applying to everyone, not just one side or the other. It would have to be put up on an apolitical site to get a less biased sample, and it would likely get people who are polarized one way or another on the political spectrum, anyway.
There are no guarantees it would not be botted or "FReeped" by some with a specific political interest, but avoiding specific issues might help.
A series of articles, neutral in tone, citing the benefits of each Right and the result of not having it, moght be another approach.
-
Presenting this document to you all for critique was just the first part of my idea. Assuming it's in good enough shape (or after it's been tweaked to make it in good enough shape), how can we use it (or should we use it) to start a conversation with those folks who would agree with us on most if not all these concepts but who would never consider identifying as "conservative"? I'm thinking religious blacks, many hispanics, a lot of the union rank-and-file, etc. I look forward to your thoughts.
The first thing we must do is figure out how to regain control of public education! IMHO that is job one!
-
The first thing we must do is figure out how to regain control of public education! IMHO that is job one!
While I agree with the goal, I think social media memes would travel faster, quicker, and be more effective in planting the seeds of liberty in young minds.
-
While I agree with the goal, I think social media memes would travel faster, quicker, and be more effective in planting the seeds of liberty in young minds.
Actually I think our ability to accomplish that is going to ab a multifaceted long term effort and social media will play a very big part in it for sure.
-
I recently had a long conversation (probably two hours) with a young woman who grew up in Germany and is now working here on a green card (Medical field) about our recent election and my analysis of it. When we were done all she could say was: "WOW! I've never heard a lot of that before and never had anyone explain any of it in the manner you did. Thanks you!"
I personally think that is very illustrative of the problem we face. It's not that our ideas have been rejected it's that they have never even been heard by a great many.
-
While I agree with the goal, I think social media memes would travel faster, quicker, and be more effective in planting the seeds of liberty in young minds.
So twitter and facebook? Are there any places (I admit that I don't use either of those to any great extent) where we could start cultivating these ideas in their minds, where we would reach more than just the folks who already identify as conservative?
-
Bookmark
Thanks @Doug Loss ! Looks great at first viewing.
-
So twitter and facebook? Are there any places (I admit that I don't use either of those to any great extent) where we could start cultivating these ideas in their minds, where we would reach more than just the folks who already identify as conservative?
MMMMMkay.
Start with a hot young lady doing you tube videos, just popping up with odd situations where the government is doing the wrong thing. Something outrageous, and expose some of the (I'm thinking EPA at the moment) wrong thinking out there for what it is.
Keep it simple, light, short, and something kids can be outraged a bit by.
Maybe under the concept of "learn your rights".
Throw in a web link to a 'heavier' discussion of the Right violated, what it is, How it should work, Where it comes from, why that isn't outdated, put in hyperlinks so people can skip around, allow comments, and try to go viral with it.
Try to appeal to younger (millennial, Gen X) folks, and if busted, well, "I'm a great grandpa trying to pass on to you the heritage and future you should have, your birthright, or the country you have adopted, your future. You need to know this stuff and people in power aren't telling you the whole story."
The basic theme is
Rights are Rights for Everyone, or They Aren't Rights.
(sometimes that means you have to let people you don't necessarily agree with have their say, too).
No profanity in the comments, no personal attacks allowed, on any basis.
-
@Smokin Joe
Good thoughts. I'll have to see if I can put something together that will work for this (or find someone already doing something similar who'd be amenable to taking this on). I can't say how quickly I can get it done, as I have other responsibilities too (don't we all!). If anyone has some more suggestions, I'll be happy to get them!
-
It occurred to me last night that my document is only half-done. I talked about our rights, but I didn't put in anything about our responsibilities. I'll work on that over the weekend and post it here when I have something new to discuss.
-
I am looking forward to reading it @Doug Loss
It's going to be a long weekend for me.
-
Same here. I do have some thoughts on duties versa rights, but want to see what you have first.
-
MMMMMkay.
Start with a hot young lady doing you tube videos, just popping up with odd situations where the government is doing the wrong thing. Something outrageous, and expose some of the (I'm thinking EPA at the moment) wrong thinking out there for what it is.
Keep it simple, light, short, and something kids can be outraged a bit by.
Maybe under the concept of "learn your rights".
Throw in a web link to a 'heavier' discussion of the Right violated, what it is, How it should work, Where it comes from, why that isn't outdated, put in hyperlinks so people can skip around, allow comments, and try to go viral with it.
Try to appeal to younger (millennial, Gen X) folks, and if busted, well, "I'm a great grandpa trying to pass on to you the heritage and future you should have, your birthright, or the country you have adopted, your future. You need to know this stuff and people in power aren't telling you the whole story."
The basic theme is
Rights are Rights for Everyone, or They Aren't Rights.
(sometimes that means you have to let people you don't necessarily agree with have their say, too).
No profanity in the comments, no personal attacks allowed, on any basis.
I can envision a 30 second clip showing pig pen sitting in a mud puddle with Lucy chewing him out and telling him that the EPA is going to fine him!
-
It occurred to me last night that my document is only half-done. I talked about our rights, but I didn't put in anything about our responsibilities. I'll work on that over the weekend and post it here when I have something new to discuss.
Great catch! Right s and responsibilities are inextricably linked together! You cannot have one without the other.
-
Noted. I'll take a look at "Critical Path" as soon as I have a chance. But would non-THINKING type personalities read a document such as I'm working on anyway? For them, perhaps a video presentation would be best. I'm not ready (or probably the best person for it anyway) to make one of those.
Love this thread!!! Some really tremendous posts and ideas from several posters!
Fuller put some serious thought into his philosophy. He decided early in life to dedicate himself to really trying to improve Humanity through technology rather than simply making money. This caused him some difficulty in his long career because he had a family to feed and more than once, he turned down very lucrative offers to do things that compromised his long-term goal and paid for it with financial difficulties.
Another issue he brought up in the book is what he calls the principle of ephemerality. He likens this to the physical principle of orbital precession - how cosmic objects create significant gravity effects when they pass close to each other. He noted that many of the patents he filed over the years did not perform at all as he expected when he filed them. Some of the ones he thought would result in great influence and income were ignored and some he thought would be duds took off like rockets.
So Bucky figured that the goal in work must be to be active and to contribute with energy and dedication, but not to be overly concerned with the results, because the ultimate results of work are sometimes difficult or impossible to foresee. Sometimes the ephemeral, unintended benefits of doing work turn out to be greater than the main focus of the work.
An example of this is how the project to land a man on the moon resulted in a whole host of technological developments which were not the central focus of the effort, but which over the long run, often turned out to be more enduring and important than anything achieved by physically landing on the moon.
Fullers philosophy of benevolent dedication to Humanity also is reminiscent of Christian mystic GI Gurdjieff's instruction to his students that they must "give back to the Universe" in their lives. Gurdjieff taught that we all should rightly take the attitude that we are repaying a debt that we all owe for our own creation / development.
That last idea of course runs completely counter to the typical leftist view that is so prevalent in the pop-kulture that people deserve to be passive recipients of everything and everything else that is good and we ostensibly owe nothing whatsoever to the society which created us.
-
Well, I think the beliefs I tried to describe in my document ought to appeal to the interest of pretty much anyone who doesn't want to be ruled and controlled by others, but wants to be free to make his or her own decisions to the greatest extent possible. I'm hoping to get some assistance in getting this whole concept polished and promoted to America in general.
How does this translate into governance? What "Contract with the American Voter" are you proposing?
-
How does this translate into governance? What "Contract with the American Voter" are you proposing?
I'll answer that if I may be so bold! Educate the electorate and governance will take care of itself! I have, in the past, posted many founders quotes that expressed that very thing and can do so again if you like!
-
I'll answer that if I may be so bold! Educate the electorate and governance will take care of itself! I have, in the past, posted many founders quotes that expressed that very thing and can do so again if you like!
Agree totally. The YouTube video "The Difference Between a Republic and a Democracy" is a perfect example. Simply having a clear understanding of the difference between pure democracy and a republic is an extremely compelling, enlightening experience for most people of normal intellect and intelligence.
-
Agree totally. The YouTube video "The Difference Between a Republic and a Democracy" is a perfect example. Simply having a clear understanding of the difference between pure democracy and a republic is an extremely compelling, enlightening experience for most people of normal intellect and intelligence.
AMEN! Which is why I have been conducting a personal vendetta against local news readers who continually refer to this country as a "Democracy"!
-
I'll answer that if I may be so bold! Educate the electorate and governance will take care of itself! I have, in the past, posted many founders quotes that expressed that very thing and can do so again if you like!
I agree wholeheartedly with the need to educate the electorate. But, in today's world, I'm not sure "governance will take care of itself" holds. Someone has to translate the ideal into the practical---how do these words actually affect the grind and challenges of everyday life?
-
I agree wholeheartedly with the need to educate the electorate. But, in today's world, I'm not sure "governance will take care of itself" holds. Someone has to translate the ideal into the practical---how do these words actually affect the grind and challenges of everyday life?
It took a LONG time for us to reach the thoroughly degraded state we currently find ourselves in and it will take some time to reverse it as well. As I said up thread, mostly it just needs to be explained to the millions who have never heard anything other than leftist dogma!
-
I agree wholeheartedly with the need to educate the electorate. But, in today's world, I'm not sure "governance will take care of itself" holds. Someone has to translate the ideal into the practical---how do these words actually affect the grind and challenges of everyday life?
That is one of the strengths of the far left and of muzz extemists. They have melded practical and ideological views into a single synthesis. Both leftists and muzz combine spirituality with activism so that they are viewed ( whether rightly or wrongly) as synonymous by many adherents. They feel emotionally connected to what they are working to achieve and that is what powers grass-roots social/ideological movements.
Bucky Fuller noted that most successful political movement had either adjunct groups or their foundations in religious or spiritual movements. One of the problems for conservatism is that unless one is well educated and well read, there is little about conservatism to motivate one to become an activist.
Bucky Fuller proposed in his Critical Path, that a spiritual movement built around the idea that we are all travelers on Spaceship Earth, each a crew member with duties to perform so that the whole thing sails on peacefully and stays repaired and functional, is one way to motivate people to feel part of society.
He furthermore points out that having a long-term goal of establishing a Real Wealth-based economy, in which everyone is essentially born a billionaire with an equal share of the entire wealth of the entire plant to spend in their lifetime, is another great way to get people to feel that their life has some purpose and benevolent goal in mind every time they go to work, lift that bale, tote that barge.
See, in Fuller's future, people work as a reward and privilege because they are the best at what they do.
He figured out that the idea that the world does not have enough to go around for everyone alive to have everything that they need without having to take something from someone else, is a fiction perpetuated by those who would pit man against man and control things for their own interests. In short, a Real Wealth economy does not have middle men who do nothing but collect interest or other rewards for essentially manipulating a monetized symbolic system of wealth transfer. Investment banks would go the way of the dinosaur because funding would be available to whoever needed it.
Sure there are elements of the notorious Marxist credo in that, but Fuller was way too smart to be seduced or deceived by collectivism. He preached that taken to its natural conclusion, free market capitalist economics combined with technology would eventually free everyone from the necessity of work, (except for a privileged few) just as they would on a space ship with a ready battalion of robots to do most of the physical work.
One does not need to pay for things on a spaceship - one requisitions them from storage because they are NEEDED. So all one must do is show proof to the commander that it is needed. No money need be exchanged.
Even Bernie Sanders people could be brought on board if the ultimate goal of a movement is to create a situation where nobody has to work unless they want to and everyone gets a check for a billion dollars the day that they are born.
-
You'd want to push the liberty angle pretty hard, too.
Like it or not (I don't because it's BS) conservatism is seen by the younger generation as the "doctrine of No."
-
How does this translate into governance? What "Contract with the American Voter" are you proposing?
It doesn't translate directly into governance. The whole point is to draw people to conservative values who wouldn't consider "conservatism" when it was presented as it has been previously.
-
I agree wholeheartedly with the need to educate the electorate. But, in today's world, I'm not sure "governance will take care of itself" holds. Someone has to translate the ideal into the practical---how do these words actually affect the grind and challenges of everyday life?
Not everything deals with the minutiae of politics. This is more philosophical, aspirational. Once we have people agreeing on principles, we can work on the implementation of those principles in daily life.
-
How does this translate into governance? What "Contract with the American Voter" are you proposing?
As I read Doug's ideas, it seems more like Contract BY the American Voter. The biggest problem with the Contract with America is that it was the employees of the People that wrote it. The boot should, in my opinion, be rather firmly on the other foot.
-
As I read Doug's ideas, it seems more like Contract BY the American Voter. The biggest problem with the Contract with America is that it was the employees of the People that wrote it. The boot should, in my opinion, be rather firmly on the other foot.
I see it more as an annotated creed, along the lines of the Nicene Creed we recite at church every Sunday.
-
I see it more as an annotated creed, along the lines of the Nicene Creed we recite at church every Sunday.
Works. :beer:
Though my description is an easier sell to the pissed off. :laugh:
-
Not everything deals with the minutiae of politics. This is more philosophical, aspirational. Once we have people agreeing on principles, we can work on the implementation of those principles in daily life.
Again, not to be a wet blanket, but the overwhelming numbers of people don't much care about principles (an abstract concept). If asked if they agree with this or that principle, they will shrug apathetically and say, "I dunno!" or something that they hope will get the questioner to go away.
Discussions of principle appeal to intellect. Discussions of things like "being able to not have to work as hard to support your basic biological needs," or less-hypothetically, "having a lot more cool stuff" get and hold people's attention because they appeal to their immediate interests.
-
Again, not to be a wet blanket, but the overwhelming numbers of people don't much care about principles (an abstract concept). If asked if they agree with this or that principle, they will shrug apathetically and say, "I dunno!" or something that they hope will get the questioner to go away.
Discussions of principle appeal to intellect. Discussions of things like "being able to not have to work as hard to support your basic biological needs," or less-hypothetically, "having a lot more cool stuff" get and hold people's attention.
But we (at least I) do care about those principles. If we can start from our first principles and derive our positions on various issues from those principles, we'll be and stay consistent. And there will always be some who will become curious about why we take the positions we do and will look deeper. It never hurts to have a foundational document.
-
But we (at least I) do care about those principles. If we can start from our first principles and derive our positions on various issues from those principles, we'll be and stay consistent. And there will always be some who will become curious about why we take the positions we do and will look deeper. It never hurts to have a foundational document.
Agree totally. Sorry if I sounded like a nay-sayer.
As you doubtless already know, the Founders were big readers of history - Roman, Greek, etc. No doubt more than a few of them had also read Machiavelli and were able to consolidate and distill some very, very sophisticated lessons of the history of governance into the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.
Lack of understanding (much less appreciation for) the genius of the Founders is one of the most disgusting things to me personally about most anti-Conservatives and 'Crats. Often their arrogance is exceeded only by their ignorance in matters of how we have been governed and why the Founders chose to write the Constitution the way they did.
Godspeed and bless you for your activism, sieur!
-
Works. :beer:
Though my description is an easier sell to the pissed off. :laugh:
Have you ever been to a presentation by a motivational speaker? It doesn't really matter what topic; they all use almost exactly the same techniques as a revival preacher. I remember being sent to one with a co-worker back years ago when I worked at a university. About half-way through I leaned over to my co-worker and said, "when this ends, he'll stand by the exit and shake everybody's hand, and give us some literature, just watch." And that's exactly what happened. That's how we need to approach this, I think. We're not trying to win votes, or persuade someone to support our position on some ballot initiative. We're trying to enlist them in a great crusade, where the rights of all will be of premiere importance and where we dedicate ourselves to securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our countrymen. And that's how we have to present it.
-
As you doubtless already know, the Founder were big readers of history - Roman, Greek, etc. No doubt more than a few of them had also read Machiavelli and were able to consolidate and distill some very, very sophisticated lessons of the history of governance into the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.
Lack of understanding (much less appreciation for) the genius of the Founders is one of the most disgusting things to me personally about most anti-Conservatives and 'Crats. Often their arrogance is exceeded only by their ignorance in matters of how we have been governed and why the Founders chose to write the Constitution the way they did.
Yeah, I had a heated discussion with a guy on another thread who claimed that the Founders were 'liberal' like he was.
He gave no backup to that claim, so I chalk it up as someone who failed civics class.
-
As I read Doug's ideas, it seems more like Contract BY the American Voter. The biggest problem with the Contract with America is that it was the employees of the People that wrote it. The boot should, in my opinion, be rather firmly on the other foot.
We have a Contract. It begins "We, the People..."
It has been sorely ignored, except where the name can be dusted off and waved as a battle flag by those who want their 'rights' at the expense of others'.
-
Yeah, I had a heated discussion with a guy on another thread who claimed that the Founders were 'liberal' like he was.
He gave no backup to that claim, so I chalk it up as someone who failed civics class.
Most self-described "liberals" are anything but. Their ideology and philosophy of governance generally does not resemble Classical Liberalism in the slightest but is far more closely aligned with Marxism. The fact that virtually no self-described liberal I have ever debated on an open forum could actually define Classical Liberalism nor the essential difference between a democracy and a republic. Of the few self-described liberals who actually do know a little about government, virtually every one I have encountered were fanatical Statists who had absolutely no interest in (nor capability for) engaging in substantive dialogue on the topic of governance. Their beliefs were universally based on strong emotions/intuition, not on anything even remotely resembling strong rational, thinking-centered reasoning. Therefore I would no sooner engage in debate with them than I would a dog.
-
What We Believe
We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them. Many people believe these rights to be imbued by God the Creator; others see them as inherent to consciousness and self-awareness. But all agree that these rights are fundamental to all people. These include the right to live, the right to speak freely and without retribution, the right to own property and do with it anything they desire, the right to live their lives in the way they desire, the right to associate with others or to refrain from associating with others, the right to defend themselves against any attacks by others, and the right to defend others exercising the same rights when those others are attacked. These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.
This is not an exhaustive list of the rights people are born with. There are certainly other rights that are inherent with existence, but which we haven’t specified here. There are some rights that might be thought of as growing from the rights listed, but which others might consider individual rights.
You will notice that these rights are not predicated on any particular personal characteristic or on membership in any particular group. These are rights inherent to all people. They inhere to the individual, not to any group.
From these rights grow the concepts of freedom and liberty. “Freedom” is the condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance. It also includes the capacity to act by choice rather than by determination. “Liberty” is a similar concept, the condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power. The rights listed above show that we believe all people are born free. To achieve liberty they must accept only those restrictions upon their freedom that they agree to, acting in consort with other individuals. An example would be agreeing to work together to provide for the defense of the group all belong to rather than each individual trying to defend only himself and those he’s responsible for.
The Right to Live
The right to live is fundamental; without life no other right has meaning. Intentionally depriving an innocent person of his life is a crime in every civilized society in existence. The only legitimate reasons for depriving another person of his life are the defense of yourself or another person who is in danger of being killed, or conviction for a capital crime after having been tried by a jury of peers. Anything else is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.
The determination of personhood is one fraught with difficulty. In times past, the personhood of people was denied because of ethnicity, religion, mental capacity, and various other criteria. We believe that none of these criteria are valid determinants of personhood. A human being is a person from birth until death, automatically and without qualification.
Many believe that personhood imbues a human being even before birth. There are varied beliefs about when an unborn human being becomes a person—some believe this occurs at conception, some when the heart starts beating, some when a response to pain is evident, some when brain activity begins, some when viability outside the womb is possible. But almost none of us believe that personhood only begins at birth. For this reason abortion, particularly late-term and partial-birth abortion, is widely considered immoral and unconscionable.
The Right to Speak Freely and Without Retribution
All people have the right to say whatever they want to say, without fear of retribution. Attempts to prevent others from speaking or to prevent them from being heard because their views disagree with those of the people making the attempts are unacceptable. Rebuttals of disagreeable speech are of course allowed, as such discussion will allow all points of view to be heard.
The right to speak without retribution makes the imposition of speech codes and the public shaming of those voicing unpopular opinions immoral and deplorable. Such activities are not acceptable in a free society. Such actions only serve to show those who do them to be unable to defend their beliefs against opposition.
The Right to Own Property and Do With It Anything You Desire
Everyone has the right to own property and to use it in any way he wants providing he doesn’t interfere with the rights of others in doing so. There is no moral right to restrict a person from using his property as he sees fit. A person can voluntarily agree to restrictions as a condition of acquiring the property, but restrictions imposed after the acquisition of the property are immoral and should not be allowed. The taking of personal property for a societal good (the concept of imminent domain) should only be allowed for a demonstrable benefit to society in general, and with adequate compensation to the owner, not because some authority believes that a different owner would provide the authority itself with some benefit.
The Right to Live Your Life in the Way You Desire
So long as you aren’t harming others or interfering with their exercise of their rights, you are free to live your life however you wish to. You have no moral requirement to get someone else’s permission to do the things you want to do. Of course, no one else is under any moral obligation to do the things you want them to do just because you say so. This right is related to the right to speak freely, the right to associate with those you want to and to not associate with those you don’t, and the right to defend yourself and others from harm. At its base, this right is what the concept of “liberty” means.
The Right to Associate With Others or to Refrain From Associating With Others
You have the moral right to associate with anyone you would like to, and the moral right to not associate with those you find undesirable. No one may force you into associations you don’t desire, or to forbid you to associate with others at your discretion. The right to privacy comes from this fundamental right, as well as the right of security of your personal information. As well, the right to refuse entry to your property to anyone including agents of the government is derived from this right. If you are a business owner or service provider, the right to decide what services or products you provide and the conditions under which you provide them are also derived from this right.
The Right to Defend Yourself Against Attacks by Others
The right to life would be meaningless without the inherent right to defend yourself against attack. You have the absolute right to do so. You also have the right to possess the means of defending yourself, both the objects necessary for that defense and the training and ability to employ those objects competently. This right is unalienable, meaning it can neither be taken from you, nor can you give it up. You always possess it.
“Attack” does not refer exclusively to physical assault. You can be attacked physically, verbally, socially, financially, and in other ways. You always have the right to defend yourself against attacks of any sort.
The Right to Defend Others When They are Attacked
We all recognize that there are some who are unable to defend themselves (the young and the infirm are two examples) against attack. You have the right to defend others who are under attack just as you may defend yourself. Defending others against attack is one of the basic principles of civilized behavior. It is sometimes difficult not to attack the attackers yourself, but doing so is not defending others. Your right to defend others only extends to protecting them from attack and stopping the attack itself.
Current Reality
We recognize that many of the fundamental rights defined above are being abrogated or denied in our society today. That doesn’t invalidate these rights, it merely acknowledges that our society is imperfect. We believe that we must work to change society in all its aspects so these rights are fully recognized and accepted, and are allowed to all people. Only when everyone has freedom and liberty, will we have freedom and liberty.
Keep it going
-
OK, here's the expanded version, with responsibilities added. I'm going to attach a copy here, then copy-n-paste it into the next message, which will be a bit lengthy.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
What We Believe
Rights
We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them. Many people believe these rights to be imbued by God the Creator; others see them as inherent to consciousness and self-awareness. But all agree that these rights are fundamental to all people. These include the right to live, the right to speak freely and without retribution, the right to own property and do with it anything they desire, the right to live their lives in the way they desire, the right to associate with others or to refrain from associating with others, the right to defend themselves against any attacks by others, and the right to defend others exercising the same rights when those others are attacked. These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.
This is not an exhaustive list of the rights people are born with. There are certainly other rights that are inherent with existence, but which we haven't specified here. There are some rights that might be thought of as growing from the rights listed, but which others might consider individual rights.
You will notice that these rights are not predicated on any particular personal characteristic or on membership in any particular group. These are rights inherent to all people. They inhere to the individual, not to any group.
From these rights grow the concepts of freedom and liberty. “Freedom” is the condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance. It also includes the capacity to act by choice rather than by determination. “Liberty” is a similar concept, the condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power. The rights listed above show that we believe all people are born free. To achieve liberty they must accept only those restrictions upon their freedom that they agree to, acting in consort with other individuals. An example would be agreeing to work together to provide for the defense of the group all belong to rather than each individual trying to defend only himself and those he's responsible for.
The Right to Live
The right to live is fundamental; without life no other right has meaning. Intentionally depriving an innocent person of his life is a crime in every civilized society in existence. The only legitimate reasons for depriving another person of his life are the defense of yourself or another person who is in danger of being killed, or conviction for a capital crime after having been tried by a jury of peers. Anything else is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.
The determination of personhood is one fraught with difficulty. In times past, the personhood of people was denied because of ethnicity, religion, mental capacity, and various other criteria. We believe that none of these criteria are valid determinants of personhood. A human being is a person from birth until death, automatically and without qualification.
Many believe that personhood imbues a human being even before birth. There are varied beliefs about when an unborn human being becomes a person—some believe this occurs at conception, some when the heart starts beating, some when a response to pain is evident, some when brain activity begins, some when viability outside the womb is possible. But almost none of us believe that personhood only begins at birth. For this reason abortion, particularly late-term and partial-birth abortion, is widely considered immoral and unconscionable.
The Right to Speak Freely and Without Retribution
All people have the right to say whatever they want to say, without fear of retribution. Attempts to prevent others from speaking or to prevent them from being heard because their views disagree with those of the people making the attempts are unacceptable. Rebuttals of disagreeable speech are of course allowed, as such discussion will allow all points of view to be heard.
The right to speak without retribution makes the imposition of speech codes and the public shaming of those voicing unpopular opinions immoral and deplorable. Such activities are not acceptable in a free society. Such actions only serve to show those who do them to be unable to defend their beliefs against opposition.
The Right to Own Property and Do With It Anything You Desire
Everyone has the right to own property and to use it in any way he wants providing he doesn't interfere with the rights of others in doing so. There is no moral right to restrict a person from using his property as he sees fit. A person can voluntarily agree to restrictions as a condition of acquiring the property, but restrictions imposed after the acquisition of the property are immoral and should not be allowed. The taking of personal property for a societal good (the concept of imminent domain) should only be allowed for a demonstrable benefit to society in general, and with adequate compensation to the owner, not because some authority believes that a different owner would provide the authority itself with some benefit.
The Right to Live Your Life in the Way You Desire
So long as you aren't harming others or interfering with their exercise of their rights, you are free to live your life however you wish to. You have no moral requirement to get someone else's permission to do the things you want to do. Of course, no one else is under any moral obligation to do the things you want them to do just because you say so. This right is related to the right to speak freely, the right to associate with those you want to and to not associate with those you don't, and the right to defend yourself and others from harm. At its base, this right is what the concept of “liberty” means.
The Right to Associate With Others or to Refrain From Associating With Others
You have the moral right to associate with anyone you would like to, and the moral right to not associate with those you find undesirable. No one may force you into associations you don't desire, or to forbid you to associate with others at your discretion. The right to privacy comes from this fundamental right, as well as the right of security of your personal information. As well, the right to refuse entry to your property to anyone including agents of the government is derived from this right. If you are a business owner or service provider, the right to decide what services or products you provide and the conditions under which you provide them are also derived from this right.
The Right to Defend Yourself Against Attacks by Others
The right to life would be meaningless without the inherent right to defend yourself against attack. You have the absolute right to do so. You also have the right to possess the means of defending yourself, both the objects necessary for that defense and the training and ability to employ those objects competently. This right is unalienable, meaning it can neither be taken from you, nor can you give it up. You always possess it.
“Attack” does not refer exclusively to physical assault. You can be attacked physically, verbally, socially, financially, and in other ways. You always have the right to defend yourself against attacks of any sort.
The Right to Defend Others When They are Attacked
We all recognize that there are some who are unable to defend themselves (the young and the infirm are two examples) against attack. You have the right to defend others who are under attack just as you may defend yourself. Defending others against attack is one of the basic principles of civilized behavior. It is sometimes difficult not to attack the attackers yourself, but doing so is not defending others. Your right to defend others only extends to protecting them from attack and stopping the attack itself.
Current Reality
We recognize that many of the fundamental rights defined above are being abrogated or denied in our society today. That doesn't invalidate these rights, it merely acknowledges that our society is imperfect. We believe that we must work to change society in all its aspects so these rights are fully recognized and accepted, and are allowed to all people. Only when everyone has freedom and liberty, will we have freedom and liberty.
Responsibilities
All rights come with responsibilities. The very fact that other people exist and have the same rights we do creates the responsibility to not interfere with their rights while exercising ours. And these responsibilities are not corporate, belonging only to some nebulous group, but are personal, belonging to each of us individually. You are yourself responsible for the proper exercise of your rights and the defense of others' exercise of their rights.
Responsibility for Your Life and the Lives of Others
This responsibility applies to several of the rights listed above: the right to live, the right to defend yourself, and the right to defend others. You are responsible for your own life. If anyone is threatening your life or the lives of others, it is your responsibility to do whatever you can to eliminate that threat. If you are able to subdue the attacker or otherwise remove the threatened people from potential harm, you have a moral obligation to do so. If you are unable to do this, you have an obligation to contact anyone else you can in order to try to accomplish this. Depending on some authority to take these actions for you is abrogating your responsibility—you must do what you can to protect your and others' lives, personally.
Responsibility for Free Speech
Everyone has the right to speak freely. You must not allow yourself to be silenced by those who dislike what you are saying. By the same token, you must not try to silence or allow others to try to silence those who say things you disagree with. Rebutting the things others say that you disagree with is certainly your right, but keeping them from saying those things is unacceptable and it is your responsibility to ensure that they can speak.
You must refuse any sort of punitive actions against yourself or others, even those you disagree with, for the things they have said. If such punitive actions are taken by others or by those in authority, it is your moral obligation to refuse to support those who take such actions, until the actions are rescinded. It is also your responsibility to work to get such actions rescinded, whenever they occur.
No speech is automatically criminal, or “hate speech.” If someone's speech causes him or others to engage in criminal actions, those actions are prosecutable. But the only speech that is prosecutable is that which calls for such criminal actions to take place. However much you may dislike the things being said, the right to say them is absolute.
Responsibility for Your Property
You are responsible for maintaining your property and for ensuring that others you invite to make use of it are not harmed by it. If your property is stolen or is used without your permission, any injury caused by its use is not your responsibility. By the same token, you must not attempt to hold others responsible for the misuse of their stolen or otherwise misappropriated property.
Responsibility for Your Life Choices
You may live your life in any way you desire. You are responsible for the direct effect your lifestyle has on others. For example, if you choose to play loud music at 3 AM you are responsible for ensuring that others who wish to sleep at that time are not kept from doing so by your music.
Others may try to take advantage of this responsibility by positing some unquantifiable effect of your lifestyle choices. In general, if your choices don't limit the choices of others you have a moral right to them. You also have a responsibility to support others whose choices are being questioned, if those choices don't actually affect anyone else.
Responsibility for Free Association
You may associate or refuse to associate with anyone you desire, as may anyone else. You must not try to force an unwanted association on others, or try to prevent a desired association. When others attempt this, it is your responsibility to support those being targeted in their intentions. This includes both individuals and businesses—businesses may not be forced to provide products or services they don't wish to provide, or prohibited from providing products or services they wish to. You must support such businesses even if you disagree with their decisions about these products or services.
Individuals and businesses may not be forced to provide information they don't wish to provide unless required to by formal legal proceedings. You must support these individuals and businesses if they refuse to do so.
Responsibility for Defending Yourself and Others
When you or others you are aware of are attacked, you must defend yourself and them in any way you can. As explained above, “attack” does not mean only physical assault. You must respond to any attacks in an appropriate fashion. This response must be measured, and intended to stop the attack and protect those being attacked. The original attack may not be used as an excuse for an attack of your own. However, if such a counterattack is the only to stop the provoking attack it is not only allowed, but required.
Citizenship
In the description of responsibilities above, the phrases “you must” and “you are responsible for” are moral and not legal phrases. These responsibilities are requirements for proper citizenship, allowing us all to protect and support each other in the free exercise of our rights, and to ensure the blessings of liberty to each and every one of us.
-
No comments? Please folks, I want to be sure I'm on the right track.
-
No comments? Please folks, I want to be sure I'm on the right track.
Doug I'm sorry but with the upcoming holiday pressing, I don't have time right now to give this the attention it properly deserves. I have read it and it looks good at first glance. I will get back to it after this week I promise!
-
More or less the same as Bigun, Doug. I like what you've written, but need to print it out and sit down with the paper and pen (for some reason, that simply works better for me) to look for holes and places that need tightening up.
-
What We Believe
The Right to Live
The right to live is fundamental; without life no other right has meaning. Intentionally depriving an innocent person of his life is a crime in every civilized society in existence. The only legitimate reasons for depriving another person of his life are the defense of yourself or another person who is in danger of being killed, or conviction for a capital crime after having been tried by a jury of peers. Anything else is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.
Does this mean agreeing to follow your government's lead into war is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior?
-
Does this mean agreeing to follow your government's lead into war is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior?
In an ideal world the military is there for defense, not offense. Most serving members agree they are defending their country. Very few sign up for a license to kill people.
-
The Right to Speak Freely and Without Retribution
All people have the right to say whatever they want to say, without fear of retribution. Attempts to prevent others from speaking or to prevent them from being heard because their views disagree with those of the people making the attempts are unacceptable. Rebuttals of disagreeable speech are of course allowed, as such discussion will allow all points of view to be heard.
The right to speak without retribution makes the imposition of speech codes and the public shaming of those voicing unpopular opinions immoral and deplorable. Such activities are not acceptable in a free society. Such actions only serve to show those who do them to be unable to defend their beliefs against opposition.
No consequence for words spoken? Lies, slander, personal attacks okay as long they can have rebuttals?
You can state any words but don't expect everyone to accept them without any actions in response. Boycotts, call for public figures to be fired or reprimanded, etc.
Spoken/written words can be damaging to others and thus may have greater consequences than only rebuttal.
The language here seems to put the speaker/writer above others and their allowable recourse.
-
The Right to Associate With Others or to Refrain From Associating With Others
You have the moral right to associate with anyone you would like to, and the moral right to not associate with those you find undesirable. No one may force you into associations you don't desire, or to forbid you to associate with others at your discretion. The right to privacy comes from this fundamental right, as well as the right of security of your personal information. As well, the right to refuse entry to your property to anyone including agents of the government is derived from this right. If you are a business owner or service provider, the right to decide what services or products you provide and the conditions under which you provide them are also derived from this right.
No discrimination laws? I can exclude whites from entering my store. I can prevent woman from entering my restaurant unless accompanied by a male family member and require them to wear a veil?
-
No consequence for words spoken? Lies, slander, personal attacks okay as long they can have rebuttals?
You can state any words but don't expect everyone to accept them without any actions in response. Boycotts, call for public figures to be fired or reprimanded, etc.
Spoken/written words can be damaging to others and thus may have greater consequences than only rebuttal.
The language here seems to put the speaker/writer above others and their allowable recourse.
You need to read the sections on the rights to defend against attack, both attacks to yourself and to others. I tried to make it clear that "attacks" aren't limited to physical assault but also cover just what you ask about here. And look in the responsibilities section for information about boycotts, etc. I don't address all this in fine detail because this is more of a creed than a set of laws to decide your every action.
-
No discrimination laws? I can exclude whites from entering my store. I can prevent woman from entering my restaurant unless accompanied by a male family member and require them to wear a veil?
Morally? Yes. Legally (today)? No. You can be as bigoted as you desire to be. In the long run it will limit you in ways you probably can't foresee. For example, if you had such discriminatory rules for your establishment, I would not patronize you even if I met your requirements, and I would encourage others not to do so. Is this a boycott? Could be; but there's nothing wrong with people making their own decisions based on what they see and how if clashes with their principles. You know, you raise a valid point. I said you must support businesses that are being targeted because of their practices, but now I'm admitting that I would boycott some businesses because of their practices. I'll have to make it clearer that you must support them in being allowed to do business as they see fit, but you aren't required to patronize them if that way of doing business conflicts with your principles.
-
Does this mean agreeing to follow your government's lead into war is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior?
You have missed the sentences about intentionally depriving innocent people of life, and about defending yourself and others. But yes, sometimes following your government's lead into war is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior. Consider the Nazis, or the Japanese government from the 1930s on. This doesn't say war is always immoral; that's too big a topic for here, now, but it's been delved into quite deeply already. (Look for documents about the concept of "just war.")
-
A little off topic and I'm considering opening a thread about monomachy (dueling) so I wonder what you think about that. Historically, it had both advantages and disadvantages and since the latter outweighed the former in the opinions of our nation's leaders (including friends/family of Alexander Hamilton!), it was banned.
I have mused from time-to-time that if it were still legal, it would tend to ameliorate the tendency of vicious cowards to spew hateful slander which succeeds in staying in "legal" territory but which egregiously encroaches into immorality.
I doubt we would have to suffer half of the idiotic, hateful nonsense spewed by cacogens over the mass media or Net if the principles believed that they might well be held accountable through challenge in mortal combat (or forfeiture of their material possessions if they declined) in defense of those views.
If an armed society is a polite society (and I believe it tends to be) then perhaps a society which allows people to be held directly accountable for their public statements with the most direct means possible would be exquisitely polite.
As an adjunct topic, I also wonder if execution by torture should be permitted, since currently in our culture, the only people who suffer death by torture are innocent victims of murder, not those who inflict it upon others.
-
In an ideal world the military is there for defense, not offense. Most serving members agree they are defending their country. Very few sign up for a license to kill people.
In the real world, offense is often part of defense. I believe many of our military actions would be stretched to call defensive.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-grenada/
On October 25 {1983}, U.S. Marines invaded Grenada, where they encountered unexpectedly heavy antiaircraft fire and ground resistance by the Cuban soldiers and laborers building the controversial airstrip. In two days they subdued the air and ground forces.
Reagan's credibility was bolstered by what the 5,000-strong American invading force found on the island: a cache of weapons that could arm 10,000 men -- automatic rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers, antiaircraft guns, howitzers, cannon, armored vehicles and coastal patrol boats. In all, out of 800 Cubans, 59 were killed, 25 were wounded, and the rest were returned to Havana upon surrender. Forty-five Grenadians died, and 337 were wounded. America also suffered casualties: 19 dead and 119 wounded. The medical students came home unharmed.
-
A little off topic and I'm considering opening a thread about monomachy (dueling) so I wonder what you think about that. Historically, it had both advantages and disadvantages and since the latter outweighed the former in the opinions of our nation's leaders (including friends/family of Alexander Hamilton!), it was banned.
I have mused from time-to-time that if it were still legal, it would tend to ameliorate the tendency of vicious cowards to spew hateful slander which succeeds in staying in "legal" territory but which egregiously encroaches into immorality.
I doubt we would have to suffer half of the idiotic, hateful nonsense spewed by cacogens over the mass media or Net if the principles believed that they might well be held accountable through challenge in mortal combat (or forfeiture of their material possessions if they declined) in defense of those views.
If an armed society is a polite society (and I believe it tends to be) then perhaps a society which allows people to be held directly accountable for their public statements with the most direct means possible would be exquisitely polite.
As an adjunct topic, I also wonder if execution by torture should be permitted, since currently in our culture, the only people who suffer death by torture are innocent victims of murder, not those who inflict it upon others.
I think it would not take long before someone who was good at handling weapons could say anything they pleased. That isn't a desirable outcome, especially in a culture where rights of the weak are to be protected against the depredations of the strong. The 'might makes right' attitude is not what we need, more one of right makes might, in that those who speak truth should be reinforced in that effort with the force of government, if need be.
Proficiency at dueling would only establish an ability to kill one's opponent, regardless of the truthfulness of a statement which perhaps should go challenged and would otherwise.
All this would mean is that we would have nasty pundits and news deliverers who would be good with weapons as a prerequisite.
Laws against libel and slander which allow for criminal and/or civil redress remain the preferable option.
Death by torture? While I will agree that in some instances capital punishment is warranted by the nature of a crime, I question the use of death by torture.
Some crimes, by nature of their punishment were considered unthinkable by most.
What crimes would you propose met with what we have defined as "cruel and unusual punishment"? Creative things, like boiling in oil, dismemberment, oubliettes, drawing and quartering, even (in most states) hanging have been pretty much considered to be out of bounds. So what would you do to which criminals?
-
I think it would not take long before someone who was good at handling weapons could say anything they pleased. That isn't a desirable outcome, especially in a culture where rights of the weak are to be protected against the depredations of the strong. The 'might makes right' attitude is not what we need, more one of right makes might, in that those who speak truth should be reinforced in that effort with the force of government, if need be.
Proficiency at dueling would only establish an ability to kill one's opponent, regardless of the truthfulness of a statement which perhaps should go challenged and would otherwise.
All this would mean is that we would have nasty pundits and news deliverers who would be good with weapons as a prerequisite.
Laws against libel and slander which allow for criminal and/or civil redress remain the preferable option.
A well reasoned argument. Thank you. I have some counterarguments but there is a lot of historical precedent to back up the central objection - monomachy became corrupted by aristocrats hiring bravos which effectively gave the moneyed class an upper hand, and corrupted by lower-classes seeking financial gain by challenging nobles who might not have the opportunity or resources to hire a skilled bravo to fight in their stead.
What about execution by torture !?! Sure mistakes might be made but in the long run, maybe lives would be saved since even psychopaths or frenzied drug addicts might retain enough sensibility to be deterred by the prospect.
-
A well reasoned argument. Thank you. I have some counterarguments but there is a lot of historical precedent to back up the central objection - monomachy became corrupted by aristocrats hiring bravos which effectively gave the moneyed class an upper hand, and corrupted by lower-classes seeking financial gain by challenging nobles who might not have the opportunity or resources to hire a skilled bravo to fight in their stead.
What about execution by torture !?! Sure mistakes might be made but in the long run, maybe lives would be saved since even psychopaths or frenzied drug addicts might retain enough sensibility to be deterred by the prospect.
It's a bit off-topic, but you have to think about what the purpose of execution is. Is it to inflict pain on the person to be executed, to prevent the executed from ever committing the crime or crimes again, to deter other potential criminals from committing the same crime, or some other thing (or combination of things)? For myself, I don't think the infliction of pain in the course of execution just for the sake of causing suffering to the executed is either useful or sensible. However, the deterrent prospect of execution is one to consider. That being the case, perhaps returning to public executions is worth considering.
But I'd really like to get back to discussing my proposed credo.
-
@Doug Loss
As someone up thread has mentioned, we already have documents that do what you are trying to do in writing this. Perhaps we should dust them off and use them! Make it very clear that WE support the idea that the FEDERAL government should stick strictly to doing those things outlined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and leave all else to the states as the founders CLEARLY intended!
-
A well reasoned argument. Thank you. I have some counterarguments but there is a lot of historical precedent to back up the central objection - monomachy became corrupted by aristocrats hiring bravos which effectively gave the moneyed class an upper hand, and corrupted by lower-classes seeking financial gain by challenging nobles who might not have the opportunity or resources to hire a skilled bravo to fight in their stead.
What about execution by torture !?! Sure mistakes might be made but in the long run, maybe lives would be saved since even psychopaths or frenzied drug addicts might retain enough sensibility to be deterred by the prospect.
If that end was to be a deterrent, the focus would be on those who could be deterred. Not so much psychopaths, serial killers, frenzied drug addicts who are beyond the reach of reason, possibly well before their crimes are committed, but those who could reason, who would decide that the crime wasn't worth the risk of the punishment.
So the sort of crimes to deter would be ones committed by sane people with a clear head, at least clear enough to be deterred by possible consequences. Crimes of passion, of someone on bath salts, committed out of a deep, personal need that had endured and grown since adolescence or earlier (as with many serial killers), wouldn't be the sort of thing a society could deter--either the perpetrator is mentally ill or they are not in a rational state of mind, whether that is due to hatred, anger, insanity, or chemicals.
Most often, kings of old would use creatively cruel means of execution to intimidate the masses, but for lesser crimes (ones we might not consider capital offenses) and for (especially) treason.
There are dozens of 'Boot Hills" out this way with epitaphs reading "hanged by mistake" or some such. Bad enough to imprison the innocent, worse to execute them (can't be compensated in any way), but the thought of torturing the innocent to death?
No thanks.
Standards which should preclude the conviction of the innocent would have to be strictly enforced, and only on the basis of solid physical evidence should any conviction be considered for capital punishment in the first place. Unfortunately, people have been imprisoned on the basis of 'ginned up' evidence, the suppression of Brady Material, and the misstatements or knowingly false statements of witnesses. There is often incredible pressure to apprehend and convict someone, (anyone!), for heinous crimes, brought to bear by the press and the public who just want to feel safe.
Those arrests may be nothing more than a matter of rounding up some (pardon the expression) half-wit or one of the 'usual suspects' to take the fall for the benefit of a beleaguered police department and/or political leadership who is having trouble solving a crime or a string of crimes.
It is not inconceivable that the same sort of situation could be used to suppress political dissent. Once the door is opened, there is no telling how far, nor what will come through.
When I hunt, I dispatch the animal as humanely as possible, quickly to prevent suffering.
IMHO, capital punishment should be done similarly, but in the public eye, with full disclosure of the crime it is being administered for. That deer doesn't get a slug of 'feelgood juice' before I harvest it, the capital offender should not either. Suffering should be limited to that incidental to the anticipation of and the imposition of their fate, not imposed as a means of 'getting even' for the crimes they committed, or even as a deterrent to others, as tempting as that may be.
-
@Doug Loss
As someone up thread has mentioned, we already have documents that do what you are trying to do in writing this. Perhaps we should dust them off and use them! Make it very clear that WE support the idea that the FEDERAL government should stick strictly to doing those things outlined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and leave all else to the states as the founders CLEARLY intended!
You know, I disagree with that a bit. What you're talking about is how the government should be structured (which I agree with). What I'm trying to do is create an inspirational and aspirational document to get people to join together in support of the principles which drove the Founders and which I think still drive us. Once we get those (new) people committed to supporting those principles we can guide them toward the realization of those principles in the Constitution and in the thinking of our forefathers. But we don't want to get into politics immediately because that will have the opposite effect from what I'm hoping for. We (perhaps I should say "I" at this point) want to get people to affirm the principles of John Locke and to accept them as guidelines for their own behavior.
-
Here's a modification of the Responsibility for Free Association section, brought on by thackney's cogent comment:
Responsibility for Free Association
You may associate or refuse to associate with anyone you desire, as may anyone else. You must not try to force an unwanted association on others, or try to prevent a desired association. When others attempt this, it is your responsibility to support those being targeted in their intentions. This includes both individuals and businesses—businesses may not be forced to provide products or services they don't wish to provide, or prohibited from providing products or services they wish to. You must support such businesses' right to choose how to operate even if you disagree with their decisions about these products or services. This does not mean you must patronize those businesses yourself if they contravene your principles, only that you must support their right to operate as they desire.
Individuals and businesses may not be forced to provide information they don't wish to provide unless required to by formal legal proceedings. You must support these individuals and businesses if they refuse to do so.
-
What about execution by torture !?! Sure mistakes might be made but in the long run, maybe lives would be saved since even psychopaths or frenzied drug addicts might retain enough sensibility to be deterred by the prospect.
Folks that don't consider "regular" death penalty or even life in prison sufficient deterrent are unlikely to be convinced by worse death penalties.
Trying to rationalize the behavior of irrational people, can drive a rational person crazy.
-
You know, I disagree with that a bit. What you're talking about is how the government should be structured (which I agree with). What I'm trying to do is create an inspirational and aspirational document to get people to join together in support of the principles which drove the Founders and which I think still drive us.
The documents the founders created were the summation of their principals, and getting people and the government back to living by those documents is the goal of this conservative.
Honestly, this attempt of a longer more involved "creed" only seems to be a step along the path to the original documents. I see the time better spent on driving the constitution as the controlling document.
-
The documents the founders created were the summation of their principals, and getting people and the government back to living by those documents is the goal of this conservative.
Honestly, this attempt of a longer more involved "creed" only seems to be a step along the path to the original documents. I see the time better spent on driving the constitution as the controlling document.
What you're advocating would be like taking smart kids who had never studied more than arithmetic and putting them into a high school algebra class. They would be capable of understanding it, but wouldn't have learned the background necessary to do so easily. And many of them, while capable of understanding, would be so upset by the initial confusion that they'd just chuck the whole thing. Yes, it's a step along the path to the original documents. But if you think people can get from the start to the finish without crossing the intervening space, you're wrong.
-
What you're advocating would be like taking smart kids who had never studied more than arithmetic and putting them into a high school algebra class. They would be capable of understanding it, but wouldn't have learned the background necessary to do so easily. And many of them, while capable of understanding, would be so upset by the initial confusion that they'd just chuck the whole thing. Yes, it's a step along the path to the original documents. But if you think people can get from the start to the finish without crossing the intervening space, you're wrong.
We will have to disagree. Good Luck on the effort. God Bless
-
We will have to disagree. Good Luck on the effort. God Bless
Thanks! You do know that nothing I said in disagreeing with you was said in anger, I hope. :seeya:
-
Thanks! You do know that nothing I said in disagreeing with you was said in anger, I hope. :seeya:
Yes indeed. After spending a little time, I don't see the need but I don't want to be a distraction to the effort.
-
Thanks! You do know that nothing I said in disagreeing with you was said in anger, I hope. :seeya:
Actually, I think that Rush Limbaugh is on the right track here already with his series of children's books.
And with that, I will also take my leave of this thread while wishing you every success with what you are attempting to do.
-
Thanks! You do know that nothing I said in disagreeing with you was said in anger, I hope. :seeya:
I'm going to contribute here soon. Bit by bit I am putting something together. Hopefully over the T-day long weekend.
-
OK, a new week is upon us. I've sent the document as it now stands to Star Parker, Alveda King, Scott Ott, Patrick Frey (of Patterico's Pontifications), Sonnie Johnson of Breitbart, @nathanbedford (from TOS; as a personal request for comment), Rebel Media, and ThyBlackMan.com. I've also sent it to some SF author friends who are open to the concept although they aren't actively involved in any sort of political education efforts (Brad Torgersen and Sarah Hoyt). So far I've received a few vague encouragements along the lines of "great work, keep going," but no real expressions of desire to work with it. Any other recipients you think would be approachable? Let me know. Oh, and now that you've all had some time to think about it, let me know any other critiques you may have, too.
-
I haven't done anything yet. Truth to tell I have been sleeping a lot over the last 4 days. I want to try and put together a short video demonstration version with your document, if that is ok? I'm not any kind of pro at that. Just want to throw some ideas at you.
-
I haven't done anything yet. Truth to tell I have been sleeping a lot over the last 4 days. I want to try and put together a short video demonstration version with your document, if that is ok? I'm not any kind of pro at that. Just want to throw some ideas at you.
I'd appreciate that more than you can know. I'm not very good at that sort of thing; I'm more of a wordsmith. If I may offer a thought...if we're trying to approach folks who haven't felt previously that "conservatism" had anything to offer them, having your on-camera personality be someone other than an older white man might be a good idea. Just to break up their preconceptions. Perhaps an upbeat young black female... ^-^
-
Here's a bit of news. I was asked by the owner of http://thyblackman.com (http://thyblackman.com) to write some roughly 500 word pieces for his website. (Yes, he knows that I'm not black.) I'm thinking about taking sections from what I've written here and expanding on them, one at a time, in less formal language. Any other suggestions for topics or tone would be welcome.
-
Here's a bit of news. I was asked by the owner of http://thyblackman.com (http://thyblackman.com) to write some roughly 500 word pieces for his website. (Yes, he knows that I'm not black.) I'm thinking about taking sections from what I've written here and expanding on them, one at a time, in less formal language. Any other suggestions for topics or tone would be welcome.
KEWL!
I have one - the major differences between a Republic and a pure Democracy and why the former is the sort of government that our Founders chose for the Greatest Nation the world has ever known!! That is a stumper for most low-information voters and especially leftists (who use the term "democracy" as if it has some holy, sacred significance in and of itself- instead of being little more than synonymous with "mob-rule").
There is a primer video on YouTube by roughly the same name (Republic V. Democracy) that might make excellent source information for you to rescript. 'Can't be said enough, because once a person understands this concept, they will never think of "democracy" the same way again.
For instance the Roman Republic (which was very short-lived relative to and was supplanted by the Roman Empire) was a very civilized, egalitarian, morally-administrated, well-modulated government whereas the Roman Empire was a defacto democracy/oligarchy of exceeding brutality and amorality, in which only the RULING CLASS enjoyed any semblance of equality or unalienable human rights.
Why is the site named thyblackman??
-
The major differences between a Republic and a pure Democracy and why the former is the sort of government that our Founder chose for the Greatest Nation the world has ever known. That is a stumper for most low information voters. There is a primer video on YouTube by roughly the same name that might make excellent source information for you to rescript.
Why is the site named thyblackman??
I don't really know. I'll check around, and if I don't see an answer I'll ask. Oh, I just emailed all this to Mychal Massie, too. He and I used to correspond occasionally, some years ago.
-
Here's a bit of news. I was asked by the owner of http://thyblackman.com (http://thyblackman.com) to write some roughly 500 word pieces for his website. (Yes, he knows that I'm not black.) I'm thinking about taking sections from what I've written here and expanding on them, one at a time, in less formal language. Any other suggestions for topics or tone would be welcome.
Replying to myself. Lame! Anyway, I've finished my first piece for http://thyblackman.com (http://thyblackman.com). I've sent it to the site owner, and will let you know when it's posted. Once it is, I'll repost it here too; if for some reason it isn't posted there, I'll still post it here. But you have to be patient...
-
Replying to myself. Lame! Anyway, I've finished my first piece for http://thyblackman.com (http://thyblackman.com). I've sent it to the site owner, and will let you know when it's posted. Once it is, I'll repost it here too; if for some reason it isn't posted there, I'll still post it here. But you have to be patient...
I look forward to it.
-
OK, the article is up here: http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/02/americans-what-unites-us/ (http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/02/americans-what-unites-us/)
Here's the text of it:
What Unites Us
Everywhere you turn today you hear, “We are more at odds with our fellow citizens than ever before.” I don't know if that's entirely true, because there have been times in the past where Americans have gone into armed conflict with each other over their differing views. However, it's definitely true that our country now has many groups that look at those outside their group as evil, crazy, power-hungry, etc. (fill in whatever other nasty adjective you can think of).
What I realized a little while ago is that while many of us belong to one or another of these groups, the groups are almost invariably organized around only one or two concepts. It's difference on those few concepts that we use to paint all others as “them” rather than “us.” But if we looked at all the things we each believe to be true, I'm sure we'd find that in large part we agree with each other more than we disagree. I think it's important for our country, our families, and ourselves to try to find these areas of agreement with others and to make it plain (both to them and to ourselves) that while we disagree on some things, the larger group of things that we agree on makes us all one people, the American people. If we can do this, we can work on our disagreements more calmly and peacefully, and resolve them to the agreement and benefit of everyone.
In future pieces I'll explore the things I personally believe in, and how I think they apply to everyone. You may not agree with all of them, but I'll be very surprised if you don't agree with many or most of them.
To end this first piece, I'd like to issue both an invitation and a challenge to everyone. If, in your daily life, you meet someone who you believe to be one of “them,” someone outside a group you consider yourself to be a member of, rather than turning away in distaste or saying something less than complimentary, try smiling at that person and introducing yourself. Shake his or her hand, find something that you have in common to talk about. That will probably be easy, since you will have met this person somewhere (in the grocery store, at work, waiting in line for a movie, etc.). Get to know that person as a person, not as one of “them.” Once you've done this, and also become a person to him or her, you can gradually start to talk calmly about your differences.
You'll find that there are many things you already agree on: your hopes for the future, your worries about your kids, your occasional frustrations in daily life. It's only by becoming people to each other that we can bridge our differences and see ourselves as the united American people we really are.
-
My article on http://thyblackman.com (http://thyblackman.com) seems to be being read a bit. It's received 8 "likes," and one comment (which was someone fairly predictably missing the point and crying about how nasty everyone else is). I replied to that comment in as calm and inviting a manner as I could. We'll see if that draws any more discussion.
I'm going to write the next piece on the right to live, the responsibilities that right entails, and how it might apply to abortion and assisted suicide. We'll see where that goes.
-
I just submitted my next piece to ThyBlackMan, on the right to live. Once it's up I'll post the link here along with the text of the article. That should be Friday, probably.
-
Trump Pence are way better than Cruz, who has accomplished little in the Pro-Life movement.
Rick Perry, even Christie and Kasich have done more.
You'll pardon me if I wait for Trump and co to accomplish something for the pro life cause other than defend the nation's largest provider of chopped up baby parts.
-
You'll pardon me if I wait for Trump and co to accomplish something for the pro life cause other than defend the nation's largest provider of chopped up baby parts.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I hope we can keep from going off on a pro/anti Trump tangent on this topic. I'd really appreciate critiques, ideas, thoughts on the outreach I'm hoping to develop. I'm not saying that I wouldn't jump right in on the discussion above elsewhere, but not here, OK?
-
I appreciate the sentiment, but I hope we can keep from going off on a pro/anti Trump tangent on this topic. I'd really appreciate critiques, ideas, thoughts on the outreach I'm hoping to develop. I'm not saying that I wouldn't jump right in on the discussion above elsewhere, but not here, OK?
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I said stated my peace and I'll let it stand at that. I've been reading with interest, but I'm afraid I don't have much to add.
-
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I said stated my peace and I'll let it stand at that. I've been reading with interest, but I'm afraid I don't have much to add.
What might help is if folks could take a look at the posts I'm putting up on http://thyblackman.com (http://thyblackman.com) and the comments there. We can see how such outreach is received, think of ways to modify the presentation to work better, and come up with calm, inclusive responses to any challenges or disagreements. I'm looking at this as a first effort in outreach, sort of a shakedown cruise.
-
What might help is if folks could take a look at the posts I'm putting up on http://thyblackman.com (http://thyblackman.com) and the comments there. We can see how such outreach is received, think of ways to modify the presentation to work better, and come up with calm, inclusive responses to any challenges or disagreements. I'm looking at this as a first effort in outreach, sort of a shakedown cruise.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
-
My second piece on ThyBlackMan is up:
http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/11/the-right-to-live/ (http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/11/the-right-to-live/)
Here's the text of it:
The Right to Live.
As I said in the first piece I wrote for ThyBlackMan, I’m going to talk about the things that I (and many others I’ve talked to) believe in, and what those principles mean when you think about them.
We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them. Many people believe these rights to be imbued by God the Creator; others see them as inherent to consciousness and self-awareness. But everyone agrees that these rights are fundamental to all people. These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.
These rights don’t depend on any particular personal characteristic or on membership in any particular group. These are rights inherent to all people. They attach to the individual, not to any group.
The right to live is fundamental; without life no other right has meaning. Intentionally depriving an innocent person of his life is a crime in every civilized society in existence. The only legitimate reasons for depriving another person of his life are the defense of yourself or another person who is in danger of being killed, or conviction for a capital crime after having been tried by a jury of peers. Anything else is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.
The determination of personhood is one fraught with difficulty. In times past, the personhood of people was denied because of race, ethnicity, religion, mental capacity, and various other criteria. We believe that none of these criteria are valid determinants of personhood. A human being is a person from birth until death, automatically and without qualification.
Many believe that personhood imbues a human being even before birth. There are varied beliefs about when an unborn human being becomes a person—some believe this occurs at conception, some when the heart starts beating, some when a response to pain is evident, some when brain activity begins, some when viability outside the womb is possible. But almost none of us believe that personhood only begins at birth. For this reason abortion, particularly late-term and partial-birth abortion, is widely considered immoral and unconscionable.
We recognize that a woman pregnant with an unwanted child has rights also. This is not a simple problem. Protecting the rights of both the woman and the unborn child is important. However, today the unborn child isn’t considered to have any rights at all. We don’t believe that to be morally supportable. How to protect these children is something that needs to be discussed calmly by everyone, but this is something that seems to be difficult to do from either side today. At the least, we should provide counseling and assistance to the women who are carrying the unwanted children until the children are born, at which time good homes can be found for them.
When I talk about counseling and assistance, I am not talking about something provided by some disinterested government agency. This is something that we as concerned members of our communities should be doing ourselves, through our churches, community centers, and other voluntary agencies. This would benefit us all in many ways. It would give us much more control over how this counseling and assistance is provided. It would demonstrate to our families, our children, how adults take care of those in our society who need help.
Similarly, states are beginning to pass laws allowing assisted suicides. We don’t believe that it’s generally possible to assist someone in taking his or her own life in a moral way. We understand the condition of irreversible, terminal illness as a factor that might make suicide seem like the best of a bad set of options. But if such a condition isn’t present, the right to live and our responsibility not to take an innocent person’s life makes assisting in suicide immoral.
I’d welcome hearing from you in the comments section, to discuss the topics I’ve brought up in this piece, or anything else that relates to the natural right to live that we all have. As I said before, only by finding common ground with each other can we discuss the things we disagree on calmly and with mutual respect.
-
At the least, we should provide counseling and assistance to the women who are carrying the unwanted children until the children are born, at which time good homes can be found for them.
Or ... adoption can be a viable option from the beginning of the pregnancy, rather than waiting to the end. This should include the birth mother's knowledge of the adopting family and financial support from them for medical costs and living arrangements during pregnancy.
-
Or ... adoption can be a viable option from the beginning of the pregnancy, rather than waiting to the end. This should include the birth mother's knowledge of the adopting family and financial support from them for medical costs and living arrangements during pregnancy.
That makes sense to me, but I think it's something that each community should discuss itself. I'm trying to promote the counseling and assistance to come from local, non-governmental groups, not from some cold government agency uninterested in the actual welfare of the people involved.
-
We recognize that a woman pregnant with an unwanted child has rights also. This is not a simple problem.
I think it's pretty simple. Assume a human life begins at day X. If abortion is allowed up to and including day X, we are allowing the murder of a baby when an abortion occurs on day X. If we outlaw abortion after day X-2, we are infringing on a woman's right to choose on day X-1 not to have a child. So, if we set the limit wrong, we either end up with a pretty serious inconvenience or we legalize murder, depending on which way we are off. IMO, since we will never know the value of X, and the implications of setting the limit at X or higher are so much greater than setting it too low, the only sensible solution is not to allow abortion at all.
-
I think it's pretty simple. Assume a human life begins at day X. If abortion is allowed up to and including day X, we are allowing the murder of a baby when an abortion occurs on day X. If we outlaw abortion after day X-2, we are infringing on a woman's right to choose on day X-1 not to have a child. So, if we set the limit wrong, we either end up with a pretty serious inconvenience or we legalize murder, depending on which way we are off. IMO, since we will never know the value of X, and the implications of setting the limit at X or higher are so much greater than setting it too low, the only sensible solution is not to allow abortion at all.
What's simple to one person may be complicated to another. I'm trying to get a discussion, and some buy-in, from people who may not have thought about the implications and the meaning of a right to live. Also, getting everyone (or even a majority) to agree on the definition of your X is not a trivial task.
-
What's simple to one person may be complicated to another. I'm trying to get a discussion, and some buy-in, from people who may not have thought about the implications and the meaning of a right to live. Also, getting everyone (or even a majority) to agree on the definition of your X is not a trivial task.
I think I missed making my point. IMO, we will NEVER get a consensus on what X is (I'm not even entirely certain what *I* believe it to be). Therefore, we need to look at the implications for getting public policy wrong. Since the implications of setting X too high are so great, we need to ensure that we never do so, and there's only one way to do that. Pretty simple logic, to me, though I don't know that I've found an effective way to communicate it.
There are some women who believe that those pro-life types just want to control them or something. The ones that say men should have no say in abortion. I wish I knew how to convince them to consider things from my perspective. They can call me stupid if I've chosen a value for X that they think is too small, but don't call me evil. I don't want to control what you do with your body, I want to protect your child. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but my intentions are to protect your child.
Keep up the good work, BTW.
-
What's simple to one person may be complicated to another. I'm trying to get a discussion, and some buy-in, from people who may not have thought about the implications and the meaning of a right to live. Also, getting everyone (or even a majority) to agree on the definition of your X is not a trivial task.
Well, imho, X is the moment of implantation into the uterine wall. Conception, for all practical purposes. If that implantation can be prevented (we know that fertilization can be, and that is the amazing part, that with all the means of preventing pregnancy in the first place there have been 50,000,000 abortions since Roe), then no baby. If it happens, baby.
I have heard the rape and incest arguments, but will counter with this. The one innocent in the situation is that developing child. It did no wrong. Yet there are those who will argue that it should suffer capital punishment for the 'crime' of existing. That flies in the face of a fundamental precept of jurisprudence in this country: the killing of an innocent--and what the topic of discussion is here. The only exceptions would be complications such as Fallopian (tubal) pregnancies, (ectopic pregnancies), which will self-terminate, but possibly at the cost of the mother's life.
-
mur·der
ˈmərdər/
noun
@Doug Loss @Smokin Joe @InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
noun: murder; plural noun: murders
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
This is really simple.
A male of the species is a human being. It is alive. The female of the species is a human being. It is alive. The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. At conception a new human being is formed. It is alive. The intentional killing of another human being is murder. Passing laws saying this is not so is the personification of evil. A woman who has sex and gets pregnant has the choice to have the kid or commit murder. Anyone who passes such laws to commit murder are accessories to murder. Anyone who uses such laws to commit murder are murderers. Simple.
-
Well, imho, X is the moment of implantation into the uterine wall. Conception, for all practical purposes. If that implantation can be prevented (we know that fertilization can be, and that is the amazing part, that with all the means of preventing pregnancy in the first place there have been 50,000,000 abortions since Roe), then no baby. If it happens, baby.
I have heard the rape and incest arguments, but will counter with this. The one innocent in the situation is that developing child. It did no wrong. Yet there are those who will argue that it should suffer capital punishment for the 'crime' of existing. That flies in the face of a fundamental precept of jurisprudence in this country: the killing of an innocent--and what the topic of discussion is here. The only exceptions would be complications such as Fallopian (tubal) pregnancies, (ectopic pregnancies), which will self-terminate, but possibly at the cost of the mother's life.
So, the question is usually framed as a woman's rights issue, but I think that misses the point. Yes, it is a woman's rights issues right up to the point that a child is conceived. At that time, there is another human involved and I don't think she has a right at that time to terminate their life, any more than a man does if he were to decide he doesn't want to be the parent of a two-year old.
And, come on, we know what causes pregnancy, and we have numerous ways to prevent it - so it's doubly hard to make the "woman's rights" argument.
Rape and incest? Ick. But, again, where is the fault of the child?
-
Well, I wish you luck with a reasoned argument.
Leftists will have ZERO interest in any such thing, for the same reason that Superman avoids Kryptonite (nods to El Rushbo).
For instance, I heard a blatantly foaming-at-the-mouth Mo Kelly on some radio show tonight castigating Pro-Lifers for (in his opinion) "treating ZYGOTES like human beings, but ignoring convicted murderers on death row. You are not pro-lifers at all because if even one innocent person is executed it condemns out whole culture!!!"
Spoke like a true Marxist, Mo! Bravo! Willing to condemn an entire culture for one mistaken execution and an entire movement (pro lifers) because they are more concerned with the lives of unborn babies than convicted black murderers. Brilliant and SOOOOO morally EVOLVED!!! heh
Black supremacy has come out of the closet and its name is Mo Kelly!!
-
This is a good discussion, but it misses some fundamental points. First, we're talking among ourselves, not with those we'd like to convince to agree with us. Second, the people I'm trying to bring into the discussion aren't necessarily (or even likely) leftists. They've just supported the left in their positions because they haven't been exposed to the true positions of conservatism. What I want to do is to bring them into the discussion so we can talk about all these issues calmly, and they can see that we aren't the devils they've been told we are and that they actually agree with us on a lot of things.
-
This is a good discussion, but it misses some fundamental points. First, we're talking among ourselves, not with those we'd like to convince to agree with us. Second, the people I'm trying to bring into the discussion aren't necessarily (or even likely) leftists. They've just supported the left in their positions because they haven't been exposed to the true positions of conservatism. What I want to do is to bring them into the discussion so we can talk about all these issues calmly, and they can see that we aren't the devils they've been told we are and that they actually agree with us on a lot of things.
I think you are going to end up dealing with a couple of fundamental forces of human nature which are going to make those goals difficult.
First, those not inclined to agree with us, for instance, that life begins at conception, usually have an ulterior motive.
They know so-and-so who works at a women's clinic and they aren't willing to brand that person (who is so nice) as an accessory to or a murderer.
Therefore, the whole idea that hoovering that little 'lump of tissue' out of there is actually the murder of a developing human being won't fly with them, because those 'nice', 'caring', people they know, or even are related to and sit down to holiday dinner with, or who sent them through college and bought them their first car couldn't possibly be murderers on the order of magnitude far beyond most ordinary serial killers.
People won't conceive that shredding a live, forming human in the womb or burning them to death with chemicals is murder most foul, when the same actions performed on a prepubescent child, teenager, or adult would be horrific.
The idea that what occurs in the darkness of the mother's uterus is worse than any splatter flick they have ever seen, and it happens hundreds of times a day is just too much. It trips their little psychological circuit breakers and they seek a way to gloss over that slaughter with phrases like 'lump of tissue' and 'reproductive rights' and, more clinically, "procedure", "fetus", "partial birth", anything but humanizing the developing human being.
It is a different twist on the same dehumanizing technique used to justify in the minds of other populations the mass slaughter of other humans, by denying them their humanity, whether that denial was made on religious, racial, or other grounds.
In this case, the inability to speak out on their own behalf had doomed the unborn to being described as less than human by those who either want to eliminate them or who don't want to admit to the depth of the slaughter involved: millions have been killed, not for 'crimes against the state' or 'counterrevolutionary beliefs', but because they can't say a word on their own behalf.
If these techniques were used to kill animals, it would be page one above the fold, and clog the news channels and interwebs with protests of the 'inhumanity' of it all.
So, fundamentally, if you can't get people to acknowledge the humanity of a developing child from conception, they will not oppose the slaughter.
Why won't they?
Maybe they know, are related to, work for/with someone in the industry (because, after all, it is an industry).
Maybe they (for whatever reason) view children as an 'inconvenience' (again, the dehumanizing aspect of the rhetoric works toward this, treating a developing human being as a parasite or tumor, feeding off its host at the host's expense).
Or perhaps they have bought into the eugenicist's bit about (first) life, well, just not being life with a possible physical abnormality, or the extended version of how being born into poverty/low tech society/a cruel and harsh world/contributing to a dying planet or any of a host of other excuses, but the bottom line is that they are selfish.
Too damned selfish to allow another person to live, even in the arms of an adoptive family.
That will take more to get past than words will ever muster.
It isn't that they think we are 'devils'. It is that they do not want to admit siding with or participating in the unspeakable horror that has been (and continues to be) done.
-
I think you are going to end up dealing with a couple of fundamental forces of human nature which are going to make those goals difficult.
It isn't that they think we are 'devils'. It is that they do not want to admit siding with or participating in the unspeakable horror that has been (and continues to be) done.
Joe speaks for me. A large percentage of leftists are fanatics and by definition they are unwilling to reappraise their positions but only participate in discussions as advocates for pushing their own POV, not in order to exchange information, thought or opinions.
So the effort is a good one (to construct a compelling rational argument) as long as we understand that the larger part of the opposition have taken their positions for psychological reasons, not substantive policy or ideological ones. They most often did not arrive at their strong opinions by rational consideration of information and therefore will not be swayed to change their opinions by rational argument.
As Ben Franklin observed, "To persuade one cannot appeal to intellect alone. To persuade, one must appeal to interest."
That is the crux of the matter in terms of appealing to interest - how can one be made to understand that taking a stance contrary to the one they hold is in their own best interests if they perceive their best interests as being apriori, aligned with their own fanatically doctrinaire ideology and preconceptions?
Also there is a tendency for people who are fanatical ideologues to strongly defend their positions because they are overly-identified with them - in other words, they consider any attack or challenge to their beliefs to be a personal attack on they and their own well-being.
The problem with characterological disorders (such as paranoia and detachment from reality aka neurosis) is that telling people that they are behaving irrationally does not help. Feeling/intuition-centered people consider it wholly rational to be feeling/intuition-centered because their feelings/intuitions TELL THEM that it is rational.
That's why CG Jung categorized some personality types as extroverted, irrational feeling-types - whose cognition and decision-making process is fundamentally so far removed from those of Thinking-type personalities that they are psychologically speaking, an entirely different species of human being.
In order to persuade feeling/intuition type personalities, one must gain a deep insight into their thinking and since they are often very muddled and confused in their own thinking and do not have a great deal of insight into their own inner world (being EXTROVERTED) they themselves are often more inclined to obfuscate or interfere with anyone trying to truly understand them. Such people (neurotics) also often have a profound sense of paranoia and mistrust of others whom they identify as disagreeing with them and so will behave defensively and mendaciously in order to (as they see it) defend themselves from danger.
IOW, for neurotic people, reality itself is considered a threat (because they have constructed a massive, elaborate system of illusory ideas to support their attitudes). Anyone who tries to present, or even discuss reality will be seen as a threat and the person will fall back to defensive behavior and never even come close to considering any sort of rational argument because of their own paranoid defensiveness. From their POV, their need to preserve their bastion of illusions (to keep reality at bay) supersedes any interest they might have in morality or rational topical discourse on matters of policy.
-
@Smokin Joe and @LateForLunch, I understand your positions and don't dispute them. But the people I'm hoping to reach aren't the committed leftists, they're the ones who have supported leftist initiatives because they've been taught that conservatives are evil (substitute whatever pejoratives you like for "evil"). If we can open a discussion with them by not couching it as a "conservative" one, they may find that when they think things through they really do have more in common with our beliefs than with the left. I really do believe that exposure to our beliefs will draw more of the mass of people who haven't thought about these issues in any detail to our side.
-
@Smokin Joe and @LateForLunch, I understand your positions and don't dispute them. But the people I'm hoping to reach aren't the committed leftists, they're the ones who have supported leftist initiatives because they've been taught that conservatives are evil (substitute whatever pejoratives you like for "evil"). If we can open a discussion with them by not couching it as a "conservative" one, they may find that when they think things through they really do have more in common with our beliefs than with the left. I really do believe that exposure to our beliefs will draw more of the mass of people who haven't thought about these issues in any detail to our side.
Are these people we are discussing committed leftists? Some, the purveyors and perpetrators, perhaps, but I would include those who do not wish to regard with horror that their beloved sister, friend, even mother made the decision to have a baby shredded in the womb. Ergo, a "lump of tissue". It wasn't human (yet). It was a parasitic growth, not a baby. ...and a host of other rationalizations to live with not just a decision they may have made in a moment of weakness, but one that another loved one may have made in similar straits or while grossly misinformed.
At that moment, they become emotionally wed to the rationalization of the Left, because to admit they were wrong is to admit that a child, of a relative, their own, that of a friend, etc., was brutally murdered, at the behest of their own mother.
That's a big load for anyone, an incredible admission of personal guilt or the guilt of another whom they might be deeply emotionally invested with.
Even granted a greater degree of separation, to have supported that slaughter, for whatever misguided reason, and then to reverse their stance on the issue is something people find hard. Without getting into religion, where one can find the tools to deal with the idea of having been so wrong for however long it was, not many will change their position because few of those who buy into Leftist lies have the tools to deal with the horror they have supported.
Those who can say they were lied to have the ability to make that shift. Those who can say they were misinformed, ditto, whether they actually had the procedure or not.
But this reversal carries a burden of guilt not easily lifted without the sort of forgiveness people find in Christ. Leftists have often already isolated themselves from the very solace they need to make the change, by virtue of the philosophies (often godless) they have embraced. Otherwise, they have to admit they were wrong, and somewhere, somehow, seek amends for that wrong or haul that burden of guilt from day to day.
As for those who have never had to confront the issue on a personal level, all that is left is to debunk and confront the dogma to which they have been exposed. Again, there is the emotional investment, if for no other reason than to have been so horribly wrong about something so fundamentally repulsive as killing a baby by means which would be ruled 'cruel and unusual' for administering Capital punishment to the most hideous of murderers.
You remain, fighting an emotional position with facts. We have seen how that works out.
All that is left is to change the emotional basis on which people make their decisions, to allow them to change their rationalizations, to break down the very fabric of the arguments that at four weeks it is just a lump of tissue and not a baby. That isn't easy.
What is involved is reversing the process of 'dehumanizing' the target population. In a nutshell, making a fetus a baby and human again as opposed to a 'lump of tissue' will be the only way to turn the tide. That won't be easy either, but it can be done with those willing to listen.
The question becomes one of overcoming the dogma surrounding the issue and, even more, the fundamental selfishness which would have someone even consider the various forms of inconvenience that are often the sole motive for justifying the murder of a child.
Perhaps it is Hollywood, the constant desensitization of the viewing public toward violence and the value of human life, the murder and mayhem in the Media, entertainment and otherwise, which have numbed people to consideration of the welfare of a child no matter how young, but whatever the cause, that desensitization will have to be overcome.
In a generation of people so disconnected from each other and reality that what is happening on their phone or the internet is often more real to them than the world mere inches away, re-establishing that human connection is going to be an uphill battle. Face to face interaction has suffered significantly already, and the trend is going away from human to human interaction without some intervening device.
Convincing someone that babies are the miracle they are, that they are a gift and a blessing rather than a parasite or a burden is going to be tough when they are so self-absorbed.
-
@Smokin Joe, the argument that something will be difficult to accomplish (and in this particular instance I completely agree with you) is no reason not to make the attempt. Many of the people I am trying to approach are already religious people. I hope they can come to our understanding of the issue; I'm sure some already have. What we need to do is to help them push that understanding out into their communities. Those communities won't listen to us if we just preach at them. They need to hear the message from fellow members of the community, that they respect. Those are the people we need to reach.
-
The question becomes one of overcoming the dogma surrounding the issue and, even more, the fundamental selfishness which would have someone even consider the various forms of inconvenience that are often the sole motive for justifying the murder of a child.
I recognize the originators intention mentioned in the post above yours and I bow to his wish.
I will say only in response to your fine, fine post SJ, that I take exception to the term "murder" since that is a legal term which technically does not apply (whether good or ill) to the act at this point. I would wholly endorse the use of the term "killing" or even "licentious, horrible, reckless infant-slaughter" but not the legal term "murder". For whatever reason our culture allows this type of homicide and bends over backwards doing semantic acrobatics to avoid calling it was it is - infanticide.
But until our laws change, abortion is not murder because it is not unlawful. This is a very serious point and distinction to draw, because some in the past have used the reasoning behind their own vengeful acts of murder of physicians who perform abortions, based upon the view that abortion is murder and that therefore our legal system is wholly dishonorable and may be rightfully disregarded in totality.
-
@Smokin Joe and @LateForLunch, I understand your positions and don't dispute them. But the people I'm hoping to reach aren't the committed leftists, they're the ones who have supported leftist initiatives because they've been taught that conservatives are evil (substitute whatever pejoratives you like for "evil"). If we can open a discussion with them by not couching it as a "conservative" one, they may find that when they think things through they really do have more in common with our beliefs than with the left. I really do believe that exposure to our beliefs will draw more of the mass of people who haven't thought about these issues in any detail to our side.
Well stated and who could argue with that!?! I would lend my shoulder to that wheel if I could. I will ponder it and get back to you.
There was one great novel I read "A Canticle For Leibowitz", which has in it a chapter or two which has the single most convincing argument against abortion on demand that I have discovered. But it is integrated into the novel and presented in dramatic fashion by the author in a way that exponentially increases it's emotional power beyond simply restating it. If you have the chance, maybe read that book. I will look for the specific part pertaining to this and get back to you in the interim.
-
Well stated and who could argue with that!?! I would lend my shoulder to that wheel if I could. I will ponder it and get back to you.
There was one great novel I read "A Canticle For Leibowitz", which has in it a chapter or two which has the single most convincing argument against abortion on demand that I have discovered. But it is integrated into the novel and presented in dramatic fashion by the author in a way that exponentially increases it's emotional power beyond simply restating it. If you have the chance, maybe read that book. I will look for the specific part pertaining to this and get back to you in the interim.
I read "Canticle" many years ago as a boy and remember it vaguely but fondly. If you do find that passage I'd love to see it again.
-
@Smokin Joe, the argument that something will be difficult to accomplish (and in this particular instance I completely agree with you) is no reason not to make the attempt. Many of the people I am trying to approach are already religious people. I hope they can come to our understanding of the issue; I'm sure some already have. What we need to do is to help them push that understanding out into their communities. Those communities won't listen to us if we just preach at them. They need to hear the message from fellow members of the community, that they respect. Those are the people we need to reach.
If that is the road to be taken, it must be built.
The seminal arguments of the left boil down to "It isn't a human" or "It is less than a human" so killing it doesn't matter.
and ...
Somehow, this 'less than a human thing' is interfering with your rights to live the way you want to.
Note, not "Right to live" (except in the most rare and medically identifiable instances when that would not be the outcome), but "right to live as you want to".
Heck, I want to be independently wealthy, have my own jet, have a few thousand acres and a few toys to go play with on them, etc. But I don't have a "Right" to have that without some good fortune and a lot of hard work (not there yet, might never be).
In short the right to live is being confused with some nebulous "right to live as you want to", and while the Pursuit of Happiness may be a fundamental Right, that does not give one the Right to pursue that at the expense of the Right of another to live.
If my idea of Happiness meant having more land, that doesn't give me the right to just up and take the land of those adjacent to mine (or anywhere else, for that matter). My "happiness" would run headlong into their fundamental rights, too.
The conflict here seems to be one of Life versus Convenience (the latter being the pursuit of happiness).
Again, as long as that baby in the womb, at any phase of development, is less than a human being in the eyes of the people you are trying to convince, it will be a war of the desires of the Human against the sub- or non-human, and the developing child will be accorded no more rights than a tumor.
There are plenty of options in the search for 'reproductive freedom' without conceiving a child. A little responsibility and some knowledge can be sufficient.
Knowledge is important. For instance, some means of Birth Control become ineffective while the woman is taking antibiotics (I got two grandchildren that way--different moms who are sisters). Had they been aware of that, pregnancy could have been avoided, but I am happy with the grandkids, as are their mothers (well, most days ^-^ ). It isn't a question of there not being ample options out there for the prevention of pregnancy in the first place.
You have to do away with the idea that conceiving a baby and then killing it is "reproductive choice", because it isn't.
It is not a choice of whether to reproduce or not, but what to do about it when that is a fait accompli.
Until these concepts are debunked and refuted:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That a developing child is somehow less than a human being with none of the rights any other human has.
That the right of the mother to 'pursue happiness' trumps the right of the child to live.
That destroying the result of successful reproduction is somehow 'undoing the act' and thus a "reproductive choice", and not killing a child.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the Left will continue to use those selfsame arguments to justify the slaughter.
Those are the falsehoods they rely upon, along with some eugenicist twists, to support their position.
I am not saying getting people to reverse their positions on these things is impossible, (All things are possible with The Lord), but at the same time, I recognize these will again be positions in which people are emotionally invested and on which their status may depend on consistency with past stated beliefs. Obtaining that change would be wonderful, indeed, but first you have to convince them they are wrong, and then to publicly admit it
.
For those religious, it may be easier:
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Now, how could that be if he was just a lump of tissue?
-
I read "Canticle" many years ago as a boy and remember it vaguely but fondly. If you do find that passage I'd love to see it again.
So did I. It may well be time to re-read it.
-
I recognize the originators intention mentioned in the post above yours and I bow to his wish.
I will say only in response to your fine, fine post SJ, that I take exception to the term "murder" since that is a legal term which technically does not apply (whether good or ill) to the act at this point. I would wholly endorse the use of the term "killing" or even "licentious, horrible, reckless infant-slaughter" but not the legal term "murder". For whatever reason our culture allows this type of homicide and bends over backwards doing semantic acrobatics to avoid calling it was it is - infanticide.
But until our laws change, abortion is not murder because it is not unlawful. This is a very serious point and distinction to draw, because some in the past have used the reasoning behind their own vengeful acts of murder of physicians who perform abortions, based upon the view that abortion is murder and that therefore our legal system is wholly dishonorable and may be rightfully disregarded in totality.
Perhaps this is just a matter of semantics. I was at a loss for a term which adequately described "mechanical dismemberment", bathing in lethal chemicals, or shredding of a helpless child instead in utero that was adequate but not excessively pejorative.
Perhaps murder isn't so harsh a term, if you consider that the cry to "eliminate" anyone who did this to more autonomous humans would be almost universal.
However, justifying more murder on the basis of murder already committed, even on behalf of the helpless future victims isn't right either.
If you want to save "murder" as a legal term for the killing of those not condemned and adjudicated to suffer the death penalty, fine, but then, that wraps back around to the little humans who are being murdered wholesale and sold retail when the parts look good enough and the demand is up. By any other name, the deed's the same.
-
If that is the road to be taken, it must be built.
The seminal arguments of the left boil down to "It isn't a human" or "It is less than a human" so killing it doesn't matter.
and ...
Somehow, this 'less than a human thing' is interfering with your rights to live the way you want to.
This is a very cogent argument. (I've pared down the quotation so as not to use too much space here.) May I quote your post in its entirety elsewhere?
-
Perhaps this is just a matter of semantics. I was at a loss for a term which adequately described "mechanical dismemberment", bathing in lethal chemicals, or shredding of a helpless child instead in utero that was adequate but not excessively pejorative.
Perhaps "termination of life" would suffice.
-
This is a very cogent argument. (I've pared down the quotation so as not to use too much space here.) May I quote your post in its entirety elsewhere?
Absolutely. Be my guest. Hopefully it will help.
-
Perhaps "termination of life" would suffice.
We have become so inured to the term "terminate" when we discuss killing (murder or sanctioned by some government) from popular fiction, movies, television, that I think the term lacks any impact. "Terminate the pregnancy" is the euphemism many use for "murder the baby" already.
-
We have become so inured to the term "terminate" when we discuss killing (murder or sanctioned by some government) from popular fiction, movies, television, that I think the term lacks any impact. "Terminate the pregnancy" is the euphemism many use for "murder the baby" already.
Hmmm. Then how about "extermination of life?"
-
Hmmm. Then how about "extermination of life?"
Like these guys?
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/medialibrary/images/main-promo/s4_12_wal_07.jpg)
(sorry, perhaps too much levity, but in the science fiction genre, a notable example of those who would exterminate others, and a break from the usual historical suspects)
This isn't the extermination of life, but the selective elimination of people found to be inconvenient by their progenitor(s).
That that has profound implications for those older than the target group already is, as a matter of principle, obvious, or should be. As is the ordinary pattern of things, those least able to defend themselves will be the victims, the very young, the very old, the infirm, those of questionable mental competence, all cut from the herd by words, and preyed upon "for the good of all". History bears this pattern out. Margaret Sanger would have been so proud.
That also has been explored in science fiction, from Logan's Run to Soylent Green and elsewhere. We often extrapolate trends, perhaps to extremes in fiction, but that gave us the fairly prescient 1984 and Brave New World--horror stories of what could be, adopted as a how-to manual by others.
How does one adequately describe the mechanical dismemberment of a living human, without the precision or experimental inquiry of a vivisectionist, solely for the purpose of removing it from the penumbra of responsibility of the progenitor(s)--or even more precisely, to market the parts and avoid damaging the goods?
Done by Mongol Tribesmen with four horses and ropes, we'd see it as a horrific end, whether there was someone there to collect and sell the bits or not.
Done in the dark, it is somehow something we couch in terms which are protective only of the sensibilities of the purveyors and supporters of such acts. "Murder" fits.
-
Convincing someone that babies are the miracle they are, that they are a gift and a blessing rather than a parasite or a burden is going to be tough when they are so self-absorbed.
@Smokin Joe @Doug Loss
Real easy way to fix that.
Stuff a few of the loudest proponents for abortion into their own slightly too small section of well casing. Then drag them out the other end with gaffs.
-
@Smokin Joe @Doug Loss
Real easy way to fix that.
Stuff a few of the loudest proponents for abortion into their own slightly too small section of well casing. Then drag them out the other end with gaffs.
Gaffs? Shouldn't that be some forceps-equivalent around the temples?
-
My third piece for ThyBlackMan is now up, here:
http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/18/life-versus-convenience/ (http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/18/life-versus-convenience/)
Here's the text of it:
Life versus Convenience
This piece is a follow-on to my previous one, “Right to Live.” There are a few points my friend Joe (he goes by “Smokin Joe” online) brought up in a discussion that I'd like to share with you. They follow:
“The seminal arguments of the left boil down to "It isn't a human" [an unborn child] or "It is less than a human" so killing it doesn't matter. And somehow, this 'less than a human thing' is interfering with your rights to live the way you want to [I'll talk about the right to live as you want to in a future piece. - Doug].
“Note, not 'Right to live' (except in the most rare and medically identifiable instances when that would not be the outcome), but 'right to live as you want to.' Heck, I want to be independently wealthy, have my own jet, have a few thousand acres and a few toys to go play with on them, etc. But I don't have a 'Right' to have that without some good fortune and a lot of hard work (not there yet, might never be).
“In short the right to live is being confused with some nebulous 'right to live as you want to,' and while the Pursuit of Happiness may be a fundamental Right, that does not give one the Right to pursue that at the expense of the Right of another to live. If my idea of Happiness meant having more land, that doesn't give me the right to just up and take the land of those adjacent to mine (or anywhere else, for that matter). My 'happiness' would run headlong into their fundamental rights, too.
“The conflict here seems to be one of Life versus Convenience (the latter being the pursuit of happiness). Again, as long as that baby in the womb, at any phase of development, is less than a human being in the eyes of the people you are trying to convince, it will be a war of the desires of the Human against the sub- or non-human, and the developing child will be accorded no more rights than a tumor.
“There are plenty of options in the search for 'reproductive freedom' without conceiving a child. A little responsibility and some knowledge can be sufficient. Knowledge is important. For instance, some means of Birth Control become ineffective while the woman is taking antibiotics (I got two grandchildren that way--different moms who are sisters). Had they been aware of that, pregnancy could have been avoided, but I am happy with the grandkids, as are their mothers (well, most days ). It isn't a question of there not being ample options out there for the prevention of pregnancy in the first place.
“You have to do away with the idea that conceiving a baby and then killing it is 'reproductive choice,' because it isn't. It is not a choice of whether to reproduce or not, but what to do about it when that is a fait accompli. Until these concepts are debunked and refuted:
1. That a developing child is somehow less than a human being with none of the rights any other human has.
2. That the right of the mother to 'pursue happiness' trumps the right of the child to live.
3. That destroying the result of successful reproduction is somehow 'undoing the act' and thus a 'reproductive choice,' and not killing a child.
the Left will continue to use those selfsame arguments to justify the slaughter. Those are the falsehoods they rely upon, along with some eugenicist twists, to support their position.
“I am not saying getting people to reverse their positions on these things is impossible, (All things are possible with The Lord), but at the same time, I recognize these will again be positions in which people are emotionally invested and on which their status may depend on consistency with past stated beliefs. Obtaining that change would be wonderful, indeed, but first you have to convince them they are wrong, and then to publicly admit it. For those religious, it may be easier:
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. - Jeremiah 1:5
“Now, how could that be if he was just a lump of tissue?”
Joe's thoughts here are very clear and (to me at least) undeniable. I thought them important enough to share with you all (with Joe's permission); I hope they are helpful to you in thinking about this important issue.
Finally, I want to issue an invitation and a challenge to you all. Convincing a woman to carry and bear an undesired child is only the first part of protecting that child's right to live. If the woman decides to keep that newborn child, she may very well need the loving assistance of her community to provide the child with the guidance it needs to grow into an honorable adult.
We are all directed to help those in need of our help: “For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me. Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’”
If you're a young person, please look into Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (http://www.bbbs.org/ (http://www.bbbs.org/)). No one can make a difference in everyone's life, but everyone can make a difference in someone's life. If you're an older person (like me), please look into Senior Corps Foster Grandparents program (https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/senior-corps/senior-corps-programs/foster-grandparents (https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/senior-corps/senior-corps-programs/foster-grandparents)). If you can't find these programs in your community, don't despair. Go to your church, your community center, your barbershop, your hairdresser's, wherever people from the community gather, and start an organization of your own. We can all help bring our children up to be responsible people, and in this season of the year it may be the greatest gift we can give them.
-
Gaffs? Shouldn't that be some forceps-equivalent around the temples?
Forceps would crush their tiny eggshell minds.
Get a gaff hook under their chin and a shoulder or two. Yank hard.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2exohs1.jpg)
-
The “malcontents” I’m talking about are those quiet people (of all races and ethnicities, not just those we’ve previously thought of as fruitful ground for conservatives) who feel that there’s no one and no group who represents their beliefs, desires, and hopes for the future. They are the ones we need to find and welcome. It bears some thinking about.
The Quiet People
We all understand the saying, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". It is the neighbor who won't shut up during the Homeowner's Association meeting, the babbling parent who goes on and on about her Johnny during Meet The Teachers day, and the wingnut who monopolizes most of the allotted time during city council meetings. We know these people because we've suffered through them all our lives.
It only takes one. The rest of us sit there quietly, biting our tongues out of common courtesy. But there is another reason why we sit there quietly - it is the path of least resistance. As human beings we understand inherently that avoiding conflict has its upsides. Not only is it easier than picking a fight but it also tends to stop from making a bad situation even worse. Better to let the squeaky wheel babble on and save our energy for more important battles.
I too believe in avoiding conflict most of the time, but I also realize it comes with a downside. And that downside is that too often it allows for minority rule. We alter the rules of the Homeowner's Association for that one crabby neighbor. We stop bringing treats to school because six years ago one kid had a peanut allergy. Or we install speed bumps on a main road because one person complained about noisy cars keeping her awake. Minority rules and the rest of us pay the price.
Individually, any single event of minority rule doesn't usually add up to a hill of beans. The problem is time. Over time these individual events mount up until they become a bigger and bigger presence in our everyday lives. One day we wake up and say, "Good God I can't breathe anymore".
Just take a good look around the next time you drive to work and count the number of impediments that slow you down. The drive that used to take 15 minutes now requires a half hour because of there are a dozen new stop lights, four sets of speed bumps and more warning signs than you can count. By itself, a new stop light is hardly worth noticing. But add all the impediments together and you end up with the equivalent of a road block.
Just Say No
Whether at the local level or national we're smothered by a never ending mountain of rules and regulations. They just keep coming. Politicians can't control themselves and their efforts to make everyone happy ends up making no one happy. The net result is a population of boiling frogs.
Well now the boiling frogs have spoken. If nothing else this last election has proven the boiling frog are willing to Just Say No. We don't want 634 government agencies, we'll give you 6. We don't want every single aspect of our lives being controlled for the sake of 2% of the population. We're sick and tired of minority rule.
The vast majority of Americans simply desire to earn an honest wage, raise their families in a decent environment and go to the Friday night football game. Other than that we pretty much want to be left alone thank you very much.
Which is why I propose the Just Say No Amendment. It includes Term Limits for politicians, requires the appeal of the 17th Amendment, and provides a mechanism to dissolve entire government agencies. I'll spare you the dirty little details for each component, entire books have been written those subjects. Yet they each share a common cornerstone concept - elimination of minority rule.
And while Just Say No is a short and catchy title, it might better be named Life Is Hard - Wear A Cup.
-
The Quiet People
We all understand the saying, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". > snip< (for brevity)
Just Say No
Whether at the local level or national we're smothered by a never ending mountain of rules and regulations. They just keep coming. Politicians can't control themselves and their efforts to make everyone happy ends up making no one happy. The net result is a population of boiling frogs.
Well now the boiling frogs have spoken. If nothing else this last election has proven the boiling frog are willing to Just Say No. We don't want 634 government agencies, we'll give you 6. We don't want every single aspect of our lives being controlled for the sake of 2% of the population. We're sick and tired of minority rule.
The vast majority of Americans simply desire to earn an honest wage, raise their families in a decent environment and go to the Friday night football game. Other than that we pretty much want to be left alone thank you very much.
Which is why I propose the Just Say No Amendment. It includes Term Limits for politicians, requires the appeal of the 17th Amendment, and provides a mechanism to dissolve entire government agencies. I'll spare you the dirty little details for each component, entire books have been written those subjects. Yet they each share a common cornerstone concept - elimination of minority rule.
And while Just Say No is a short and catchy title, it might better be named Life Is Hard - Wear A Cup.
I think you meant "repeal the 17th, in which case, I completely agree. I've been watching as a state is held hostage by 5000 whiners from elsewhere, and it is time for a change.
-
We alter the rules of the Homeowner's Association for that one crabby neighbor. We stop bringing treats to school because six years ago one kid had a peanut allergy. Or we install speed bumps on a main road because one person complained about noisy cars keeping her awake. Minority rules and the rest of us pay the price.
Reminds me of the Democrat party platform.
-
I think you meant "repeal the 17th, in which case, I completely agree. I've been watching as a state is held hostage by 5000 whiners from elsewhere, and it is time for a change.
Oops, my apologies.
-
I have a Christmas piece up on ThyBlackMan now (http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/21/the-true-spirit-of-christmas/ (http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/21/the-true-spirit-of-christmas/)). I wrote it a bit hurriedly, so I can see bits I would have edited and worded differently had I spent more time on it, but I think it holds together:
The True Spirit of Christmas
I have a few stories for you this Christmas season. The first is from the life of Saint Nicholas; rather than repeat it here I’ll ask you to go to this site (http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/three-impoverished-maidens/ (http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/three-impoverished-maidens/)) and read it. Go ahead, I’ll wait…Nice story, isn’t it?
Now for the second story. A long time ago when I was a teenager, my mother was a third-grade teacher. One December she came home and told us that a little girl in her class said Santa wasn’t going to come to their house this year. The family had fallen on hard times, but the little girl didn’t understand that.
My mother didn’t insist, but she made it VERY CLEAR that it would be a good idea if my younger sisters and I found some old, no-longer-used toys around our house, cleaned them up, boxed and wrapped them as presents. Then she asked me to deliver them.
I called a friend and we excitedly made plans. We knew exactly what to do: we watched Mission: Impossible on TV all the time. We would dress all in black, go to the house, quietly put the bag of presents by the front door, ring the doorbell, and sneak away in the night.
Everything went well, right up until we rang the bell. The porch light immediately came on and the front door started to open! Evidently the father had been standing by the door when we arrived.
We threw ourselves off the porch and ran for the car. As we ran, my friend called out in the lowest voice he would manage, “Ho, ho ho!”
The next day in school, an excited little girl came up to my mother and said, “Mrs. Loss, guess what? Santa came to our house last night, and he was dressed all in black!”
Now, I tell this story not to glorify my family or myself, but to illustrate that the story of Saint Nicholas and the legends of Santa Claus are more than just nice stories. They are examples of how we’re expected and requested to behave. When we wish each other Merry Christmas (literally, the Christ Mass, the church service to celebrate the birth of the Redeemer of mankind), Feliz Navidad (literally, the nativity of the Lord), Joyeux Noel (again, literally the Nativity), or Froehliche Weinachten (literally, the Holy Night when Christ was born), we are giving each other little blessings for His birth.
There are many Christmas customs that are often thought to have pagan origins—the Christmas tree, mistletoe, etc. But when they are examined in detail, you will find that although they may have begun as pagan customs, early Christians adopted those customs and gave them Christian meanings to help bring these new people to Christ. Rather than turn our backs on those customs, we should investigate those meanings and reinvigorate Christmas by telling them to everyone we know.
And we should all try to follow the example of Saint Nicholas (Santa Claus!) and give to and minister to those less fortunate than ourselves, never asking for recognition and if possible keeping our identities secret. That’s the true spirit of Christmas!
-
Very nice, @Doug Loss!
-
My next piece at ThyBlackMan is up now: http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/29/you-cant-say-that/ (http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/29/you-cant-say-that/)
You Can't Say That!!
Everyone has the right to say whatever he or she wants to say, without fear of retribution. Attempts to prevent people from speaking or to prevent them from being heard because their views disagree with those of the people making the attempts are unacceptable. Rebuttals of disagreeable speech are of course allowed, as such discussion will allow all points of view to be heard.
The right to speak without retribution makes the imposition of speech codes in schools and the public shaming of those voicing unpopular opinions immoral and deplorable. Such activities are not acceptable in a free society. Such actions only serve to show that those who do them are unable to defend their beliefs against opposition.
You must not allow yourself to be silenced by those who dislike what you are saying. By the same token, you must not try to silence or allow others to try to silence those who say things you disagree with. Rebutting the things others say that you disagree with is certainly your right, but keeping them from saying those things is unacceptable and it is your responsibility to ensure that they can speak. I don’t say that this will be pleasant or easy; what’s easy is allowing speech you agree with. But ensuring that everyone’s right to speak is preserved is something we all must do.
You must refuse any sort of punitive actions against yourself or others, even those you disagree with, for the things they say. If such punitive actions are taken by others or by those in authority, it is your moral obligation to refuse to support those who take such actions, until the actions are overturned. It is also your responsibility to work to get such actions overturned, whenever they occur. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
No speech is automatically criminal, or “hate speech.” If someone’s speech causes him or others to engage in criminal actions, those actions are prosecutable. But the only speech that is prosecutable is that which calls for such criminal actions to take place. However much you may dislike the things being said, the right to say them is absolute.
It is only by speaking out, and by listening to others as they speak out, that we can come to an understanding of the viewpoints of those around us and can work together to build the society we want, where all are treated equally with liberty and respect. If you are speaking wrathfully, or someone else is speaking wrathfully to you, this is a sign that someone is being misunderstood. “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.”
Responding to angry speech calmly rather than returning anger for anger can often be the beginning of understanding. No, it’s not easy; in fact, it’s difficult. But it’s worth the effort. As for silencing those you disagree with, remember the words of Louis Brandeis: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
-
My first piece of the new year at ThyBlackMan:
http://thyblackman.com/2017/01/07/thats-mine/ (http://thyblackman.com/2017/01/07/thats-mine/)
That's Mine!
Everyone has the right to own property and to use it in any way he wants, providing he doesn’t interfere with the rights of others in doing so. There’s no moral right to restrict a person from using his property as he sees fit. He can voluntarily agree to restrictions as a condition of acquiring the property, but restrictions imposed after the acquisition of the property are immoral and should not be allowed. The taking of personal property for a societal good (the concept of imminent domain) should only be allowed for a demonstrable benefit to society in general, and with adequate compensation to the owner, not because some authority believes that a different owner would provide the authority itself with some benefit.
What we’re talking about here is best illustrated by a court case from Connecticut, where a woman named Suzette Kelo had her house and land seized by the city government so they could give it to a property developer because the city believed the property would generate more taxes after it was redeveloped. It’s difficult to see how this is different from outright theft of the property.
You’re responsible for maintaining your property and for ensuring that others you invite to make use of it are not harmed by it. This is just another application of the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If your property is stolen or is used without your permission, any injury caused by its use is not your responsibility. Of course, you need to report the theft for this to apply. By the same token, you must not attempt to hold others responsible for the misuse of their stolen or otherwise misappropriated property. The whole idea of suing someone for damages because something they made or once owned caused you injury, even if they no longer own it or are responsible for it, is just another form of attempted theft.
It all boils down to a few concepts. The right of possession of property includes the responsibility of stewardship, the care and preservation of that property. If you cared enough to acquire some property, you should take care to keep the property in good condition. This isn’t so much a matter of the intrinsic value of the property as it is a matter of self-respect.
The right of enjoyment of your own property includes the responsibility to make sure that your enjoyment doesn’t intrude on the rights of others. This would mean making sure your enjoyment doesn’t endanger others, or intrude upon their own enjoyment of their property. Of course, it works the other way too: if someone is enjoying his property and not intruding on you in any way, you don’t have any right to complain about what he’s doing. I’ve heard this called (in a mocking way), “You’re not having fun the right way!” It’s the Golden Rule again; if you wouldn't want it done to you, you shouldn’t do it to others.
There are a couple of old sayings that serve well to sum these concepts up: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors, and Live and Let Live. If we have respect for each other and tolerance for each other’s differing interests and tastes, we’ll have less stress in our lives and better neighbors. And we’ll be more likely to be able to work together on those things that we agree on!
-
Very clearly expressed.
-
Aaand the next piece at ThyBlackMan:
http://thyblackman.com/2017/01/12/human-life-im-not-bothering-anyone/ (http://thyblackman.com/2017/01/12/human-life-im-not-bothering-anyone/)
Human Life: I’m Not Bothering Anyone.
So long as you aren’t harming others or interfering with their exercise of their rights, you’re free to live your life however you wish to. You have no moral requirement to get someone else’s permission to do the things you want to do. Of course, no one else is under any moral obligation to do the things you want them to do just because you say so. This right is related to the right to speak freely, the right to associate with those you want to and to not associate with those you don’t, and the right to defend yourself and others from harm. At its base, this right is what the concept of “liberty” means.
You may live your life in any way you desire. You’re responsible for the direct effect your lifestyle has on others. For example, if you choose to play loud music at 3 AM you’re responsible for ensuring that others who wish to sleep at that time aren’t kept from doing so by your music.
Others may try to take advantage of this responsibility by claiming some unmeasurable effect of your lifestyle choices. In general, if your choices don’t limit the choices of others you have a moral right to them. You also have a responsibility to support others whose choices are being questioned, if those choices don’t actually affect anyone else. And if they are being forced or coerced to change their way of life against their will, we all have an obligation to help them resist that force.
Now we get to a difficult problem. You may recall an earlier piece I wrote called “Life versus Convenience.” This is an instance where someone’s right to live life as she chooses could come in conflict with another’s right to live at all. The question of abortion can be put in many ways, but here we’ll consider it as a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child. If the mother refuses an abortion, there’s no conflict, of course.
But if the mother doesn’t want to carry the baby till birth, we have a serious question indeed. Clearly, someone’s rights are going to be infringed upon. In this case, I can’t see any way to conclude that the baby’s right to live doesn’t take precedence over the mother’s right to decide how to live her life. From a moral standpoint, the right to live is always the primary right in any such conflict.
What does this mean for those of us who are neither the mother nor the child in this situation? We all have a moral obligation to defend those unable to defend themselves. In this case it would mean we must do everything we can to persuade the mother not to abort the child. At the same time, we have an obligation to defend the mother’s right to live her life as she wants, to the extent we can. I think that would mean that we need to help her find good adoptive parents for the baby after birth if she decides to give it up, and to help her during the pregnancy to the best of our ability.
You have seen that I derived these moral obligations from original principles, but there is another way to come to the same position:
“For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me. Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’”
Isn’t it amazing how moral principles so frequently seem to match directives from the Bible?
-
When I was a young man, I often thought of the Bible as an oppressive list of "Thou shalt nots'...When I got older, and often through painful experience, I realized it contained loving advice from a benevolent deity to His creations on how to live a long and happy life.
-
Actions have consequences. Facing the consequences of one's own actions is hardly a loss of a "right".
-
When I was a young man, I often thought of the Bible as an oppressive list of "Thou shalt nots'...When I got older, and often through painful experience, I realized it contained loving advice from a benevolent deity to His creations on how to live a long and happy life.
Amen to that.
-
Actions have consequences. Facing the consequences of one's own actions is hardly a loss of a "right".
The case can certainly be made that by choosing to have sex and knowing that she could become pregnant (assuming that having sex was her choice), the woman had taken on the moral responsibility of protecting the life of any child that came from that act. But in the roughly 500 word format I was given for these columns, it's difficult to explore all the nuances and possibilities inherent in the situation.
-
The case can certainly be made that by choosing to have sex and knowing that she could become pregnant (assuming that having sex was her choice), the woman had taken on the moral responsibility of protecting the life of any child that came from that act. But in the roughly 500 word format I was given for these columns, it's difficult to explore all the nuances and possibilities inherent in the situation.
I think that sums it up nicely. The creation of a life assumes some responsibility for the welfare of that life until it is able to care for itself, or until someone else embraces that responsibility. With the myriad methods of preventing conception available, although none is 100% effective, the use of murder as a method of contraception is not acceptable.
-
Fate vs. destiny.
I think people today have lost their sense of destiny and are more aligned to thinking they are fated. trump's MAGA restores that sense of destiny somewhat in people. But doesn't necessarily define it.
What defines a generation? How to give back, or restore a sense of destiny? Destiny in the sense that you have the power to change things vs a sense of fatalism.
The Constitution/Conservatism as a destiny and its demise a well deserved fate.
Just throwing this out there. I have to get to work. Putting the thought down before I forget it.
-
My next piece on ThyBlackMan:
http://thyblackman.com/2017/01/20/these-are-my-people/ (http://thyblackman.com/2017/01/20/these-are-my-people/)
These Are My People
You have the moral right to associate with anyone you would like to, and the moral right to not associate with those you find undesirable. No one may force you into associations you don't desire, or forbid you to associate with others at your discretion. We’re not just talking about physical association here; the right to privacy also comes from this fundamental right, as well as the right of security of your personal information. If you don’t want to associate with someone, you most likely also don’t want that someone to have access to personal and private information about you. You also have the right to refuse entry to your property to anyone, including agents of the government. If you’re a business owner or service provider, the right to decide what services or products you provide and the conditions under which you provide them are also derived from this right.
Since this is a universal right possessed by every human being, you must not try to force an unwanted association on others, or try to prevent a desired association. As with so many things, it comes down to the Golden Rule. If you wouldn’t like someone to do something to you, you shouldn’t do it to them. When others attempt to force someone to associate with others they don’t want to or to prevent them from associating with others they do want to, it is your responsibility to support those being targeted. This includes both individuals and businesses—businesses may not be forced to provide products or services they don't wish to provide, or prohibited from providing products or services they wish to. You must support such businesses' right to choose how to operate even if you disagree with their decisions about these products or services. This doesn’t mean you must patronize those businesses yourself if they violate your principles, only that you must support their right to operate as they desire. This is similar to the old saying, “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” You can disagree with their decision, but you have to defend their right to make the decision.
Individuals and businesses may not be forced to provide information they don't wish to provide unless required to by formal legal proceedings. You must support these individuals and businesses if they refuse to do so. The right to privacy is just another form of the right of association if you think about it. Associating with others involves sharing with them, sharing your location, your information, your efforts in whatever you decide to do. Deciding not to associate with someone means that you may also be deciding not to share information with them or to assist them in whatever they’re doing. This is basically what privacy means.
It all boils down to three rules I tell people are my political philosophy:
1. I’m not bothering anyone.
2. It’s none of your business.
3. Leave me alone!
And of course, the complements of these:
1. He’s not bothering anyone.
2. What he’s doing isn’t my business.
3. Leave him alone!
-
After a slight pause, my most recent piece on ThyBlackMan:
http://thyblackman.com/2017/02/05/if-not-me-who-if-not-now-when/
If Not Me, Who? If Not Now, When?
In earlier columns I’ve talked about the natural rights that every person has, from birth. The first and most fundamental of these is the right to life. The right to life would be meaningless without the inherent right to defend yourself against attack. You have the absolute right to do so; you also have the right to possess the means of defending yourself, both the objects necessary for that defense and the training and ability to employ those objects competently. This right is unalienable, meaning it can’t be taken from you, and you can’t give it up. You always possess it.
“Attack” doesn’t refer exclusively to physical assault. You can be attacked physically, verbally, socially, financially, and in other ways. You always have the right to defend yourself against attacks of any sort.
We all recognize that there are some who are unable to defend themselves (the young and the infirm are two examples) against attack. You have the right to defend others who are under attack just as you may defend yourself. Defending others against attack is one of the basic principles of civilized behavior. It is sometimes difficult not to attack the attackers yourself, but doing so is not defending others. Your right to defend others only extends to protecting them from attack and stopping the attack itself.
When you or others you are aware of are attacked, you must defend yourself and them in any way you can. As explained above, “attack” does not mean only physical assault. You must respond to any attacks in an appropriate fashion. This response must be measured, and intended to stop the attack and protect those being attacked. The original attack may not be used as an excuse for an attack of your own. However, if such a counterattack is the only to stop the provoking attack it is not only allowed, but required.
All of this is to say, for rights to mean anything they must be protected and defended. But protecting and defending your rights (and those of people unable to defend themselves) doesn’t give you the right to infringe on the rights of others yourself.
It boils down to us all having to take responsibility for our own lives and our own rights, and for those of others unable to defend themselves. This responsibility lies with each of us individually, but we can exercise it together in concert with other liberty-loving people to the furtherance of a truly civil society. As Abraham Lincoln said in his second inaugural address (under somewhat different circumstances):
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
-
After a slight pause, my most recent piece on ThyBlackMan:
http://thyblackman.com/2017/02/05/if-not-me-who-if-not-now-when/
If Not Me, Who? If Not Now, When?
In earlier columns I’ve talked about the natural rights that every person has, from birth. The first and most fundamental of these is the right to life. The right to life would be meaningless without the inherent right to defend yourself against attack. You have the absolute right to do so; you also have the right to possess the means of defending yourself, both the objects necessary for that defense and the training and ability to employ those objects competently. This right is unalienable, meaning it can’t be taken from you, and you can’t give it up. You always possess it.
“Attack” doesn’t refer exclusively to physical assault. You can be attacked physically, verbally, socially, financially, and in other ways. You always have the right to defend yourself against attacks of any sort.
We all recognize that there are some who are unable to defend themselves (the young and the infirm are two examples) against attack. You have the right to defend others who are under attack just as you may defend yourself. Defending others against attack is one of the basic principles of civilized behavior. It is sometimes difficult not to attack the attackers yourself, but doing so is not defending others. Your right to defend others only extends to protecting them from attack and stopping the attack itself.
When you or others you are aware of are attacked, you must defend yourself and them in any way you can. As explained above, “attack” does not mean only physical assault. You must respond to any attacks in an appropriate fashion. This response must be measured, and intended to stop the attack and protect those being attacked. The original attack may not be used as an excuse for an attack of your own. However, if such a counterattack is the only to stop the provoking attack it is not only allowed, but required.
All of this is to say, for rights to mean anything they must be protected and defended. But protecting and defending your rights (and those of people unable to defend themselves) doesn’t give you the right to infringe on the rights of others yourself.
It boils down to us all having to take responsibility for our own lives and our own rights, and for those of others unable to defend themselves. This responsibility lies with each of us individually, but we can exercise it together in concert with other liberty-loving people to the furtherance of a truly civil society. As Abraham Lincoln said in his second inaugural address (under somewhat different circumstances):
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Very good, @Doug Loss. What kind of reaction are you getting over at that site?
-
Very good, @Doug Loss. What kind of reaction are you getting over at that site?
It's hard to say. There aren't a lot of comments to the various posts over there. Few of my columns get any; the ones that do, get one or two. However, I've also been commenting on other columns there, either to compliment or correct the content of the column (although never angrily) or to respond to other comments on the column (trying to get some dialog going). It's a work in progress, I guess. Go over and take a look!
-
The latest column:
http://thyblackman.com/2017/02/13/walk-it-like-you-talk-it/ (http://thyblackman.com/2017/02/13/walk-it-like-you-talk-it/)
Walk It Like You Talk It.
There’s an important part of being a responsible adult, a role-model for the young people we want to bring up to be good people who will think of others and do the right thing when presented with a difficult decision. That’s to make sure that however we advise them to behave, to act towards others, to care for the people and property around them, we ourselves actually do the things we promote to them.
This isn’t necessarily as easy as it sounds. That’s because exhorting others to be good people is a much easier thing to do than being a good person yourself. Sometimes you just want to rest, or do something other than what you know you should do. But living up to the standards you ask of others, particularly the young folks who look to you for guidance, is vital. Those young people are very sensitive to any instances of “do as I say, not as I do.”
It doesn’t hurt (in fact it probably helps) to let the young folks know that you want them to tell you any time they see you falling short of the standards you’re asking them to meet. Accepting criticism and changing your behavior to address it is another example of how to be a responsible adult, and one that is probably best taught by seeing the role-model doing it. If you want them to follow your example, be a good example to follow!
When the young people fall short of some standard and need correction, it’s best to give the correction calmly and quietly. Loud and angry words only embarrass and humiliate those receiving them, and often have exactly the opposite effect you want; they can make the receiver determined not to comply. But don’t mistake being calm and quiet with letting the unacceptable behavior pass unaddressed. You can be calm and still be an unmovable rock. When I was raising my son I found a good way to approach things was to explain what was expected and required of him, and what the consequences would be of failing to meet those expectations. It’s often the uncertainty about what will happen if you fail that is the biggest problem with trying something.
Role-models (you and I) don’t need to shoulder the burden alone, of course. Sometimes the best way to figure out a course of action when you’re having difficulty getting through to a young person is to talk to other role-models in the community, or even to your own role-model if he or she’s available. That’s something else it’s important to teach—you don’t have to do everything by yourself, it’s OK to ask for advice and help when you need it.
Just remember this, in the words of Christ from the gospel of John: “You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.” The best way to make our young people be good, responsible adults is for us to be good, responsible adults ourselves and let them see us do it. And to let them know that this is what’s expected of them.
-
Doug, did you read Hillbilly Elegy? A very interesting and well written window into the life of a currently young person living in a dysfunctional family and community, and who got past that.
-
Doug, did you read Hillbilly Elegy? A very interesting and well written window into the life of a currently young person living in a dysfunctional family and community, and who got past that.
I haven't read it yet, but I keep hearing about it, over and over. I think it's insisting to be read. ;)
-
I haven't read it yet, but I keep hearing about it, over and over. I think it's insisting to be read. ;)
It's actually enjoyable. :laugh:
-
It's been a while, but here's another column for ThyBlackMan:
http://thyblackman.com/2017/03/13/why-cant-you-get-it-through-your-head/ (http://thyblackman.com/2017/03/13/why-cant-you-get-it-through-your-head/)
Why Can’t You Get It Through Your Head?
Sometimes it seems like we can’t talk to each other about anything sensitive because we don’t speak the same language. The words we use are the same, but they mean very different things to people on different sides of the argument. If we’re really interested in resolving problems and getting solutions everyone can live with rather than letting the issues linger and fester, we need to at least understand the positions the folks on the other side of the question are taking.
Of course, there are some who are invested in keeping issues unresolved. They get money and power from leading protests and ginning up outrage. If a problem actually went away, they’d lose all that. Those are the people who try to redefine words so that the two sides can’t agree on what is being said, and so that each side can’t understand what the other side wants or is upset by.
Here are some examples. We’re constantly told that we must be “tolerant” of others’ different lifestyles. “Tolerant” by the dictionary means “willing to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them.” But now “tolerant” is used by one side to mean “completely approving and promoting” of something. So that side accuses those who don’t approve or promote that thing of being “intolerant,” while those being accused feel greatly insulted about behavior they accept but don’t approve of.
Another example is “discrimination.” By the dictionary, it means “the ability to see the difference between two things or people.” Discrimination, being able to distinguish between two things, isn’t by itself immoral. It’s when that discrimination is used to divide groups in such a way that one group can be disadvantaged that it becomes bigotry, a “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”
So when you see or are involved in a situation where there’s some major principle at issue, ask yourself, “Do both sides actually want to resolve the problem, or are one or both only interested in keeping it going?” If there’s real interest in resolving the problem, ask yourself, “Are one or both sides using language that inflames, insults, or confuses the other?” The last question to ask yourself is, “Will the side or sides using provocative language be willing to change the way they talk about the issue and about the other side, for the purpose of understanding and potential resolution?”
Only if all three of these questions are answered positively is there a real possibility of resolving the problem. Otherwise, we’ll all just continue to shout past each other, constantly insulting and irritating those we need to work with to fix what’s wrong.
Words have meanings. But unless we can all agree on what those meanings are we aren’t communicating with each other, we’re just “virtue-signaling” to those who already agree with us. That may feel good for a little while, but it doesn’t make anything better in the long run.
-
It's been a while, but here's another column for ThyBlackMan:
http://thyblackman.com/2017/03/13/why-cant-you-get-it-through-your-head/ (http://thyblackman.com/2017/03/13/why-cant-you-get-it-through-your-head/)
Why Can’t You Get It Through Your Head?
Sometimes it seems like we can’t talk to each other about anything sensitive because we don’t speak the same language. The words we use are the same, but they mean very different things to people on different sides of the argument. If we’re really interested in resolving problems and getting solutions everyone can live with rather than letting the issues linger and fester, we need to at least understand the positions the folks on the other side of the question are taking.
Of course, there are some who are invested in keeping issues unresolved. They get money and power from leading protests and ginning up outrage. If a problem actually went away, they’d lose all that. Those are the people who try to redefine words so that the two sides can’t agree on what is being said, and so that each side can’t understand what the other side wants or is upset by.
Here are some examples. We’re constantly told that we must be “tolerant” of others’ different lifestyles. “Tolerant” by the dictionary means “willing to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them.” But now “tolerant” is used by one side to mean “completely approving and promoting” of something. So that side accuses those who don’t approve or promote that thing of being “intolerant,” while those being accused feel greatly insulted about behavior they accept but don’t approve of.
Another example is “discrimination.” By the dictionary, it means “the ability to see the difference between two things or people.” Discrimination, being able to distinguish between two things, isn’t by itself immoral. It’s when that discrimination is used to divide groups in such a way that one group can be disadvantaged that it becomes bigotry, a “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”
So when you see or are involved in a situation where there’s some major principle at issue, ask yourself, “Do both sides actually want to resolve the problem, or are one or both only interested in keeping it going?” If there’s real interest in resolving the problem, ask yourself, “Are one or both sides using language that inflames, insults, or confuses the other?” The last question to ask yourself is, “Will the side or sides using provocative language be willing to change the way they talk about the issue and about the other side, for the purpose of understanding and potential resolution?”
Only if all three of these questions are answered positively is there a real possibility of resolving the problem. Otherwise, we’ll all just continue to shout past each other, constantly insulting and irritating those we need to work with to fix what’s wrong.
Words have meanings. But unless we can all agree on what those meanings are we aren’t communicating with each other, we’re just “virtue-signaling” to those who already agree with us. That may feel good for a little while, but it doesn’t make anything better in the long run.
Very nice, Doug.
-
Of course, there are some who are invested in keeping issues unresolved.
@Doug Loss
Nailed it!
-
Well said.