Archive for March, 2010

“…the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” are words immortalized in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

These are powerful, profound words with meaning that ought to be dear to all our citizens. Because of this power and profundity we need to carefully consider any claim to a “right.” People often speak of a right to something, but just what is a right? What is the definition of the term?

There are two principles fundamental to a legitimate understanding of the way our society uses the word “right.” First, a right exists simultaneously among people. Second, a right conveys no obligation on another. Violate either of these doctrines and you are simply not dealing with a human right. Consider an example regarding the right to travel freely. I have the right to visit family in another state, but I do not have the right to demand you pay for the trip!

The Good

Basic human rights, as recognized in our Declaration of Independence, are the foundation upon which a free society is built. Establishing and defending these rights constitutes the sole purpose, entire scope, and ultimate justification for the government of the U.S.

The Bad

There is an unmistakably clear drift away from the legitimate understanding of what comprises a right. Many good, noble, important and valuable concepts simply do not belong in the “rights” category. Education, housing and health care are three prime examples.

The Ugly

Governments have no resources of their own so any dollar “reallocated” by government has been taken from another citizen. By labeling things like education or health care as “rights” we inevitably diminish the most basic right of other citizens, that being the right to do as they will with their own property (money, if you will.) No amount of rhetoric can change the fact that if someone has the right to what they did NOT earn someone else must be denied the right to what they DID earn.

So, basically, if what you consider your “right” entails someone else bearing the cost(s) whether financially, physically or in violation of their will it is not a right. PERIOD!

Thanks for reading.

Calling all Democrats!

This will be a short article, not because there’s little to write, but because there’s so much that needs to be said. It’s quite overwhelming! I am boiling it down to one simple question and here it is:

Is your personal vision of how American society ought to look worth enslaving your fellow citizens?

Forcing men and women to work against their will sounds like slavery to me! Forcably confiscating the property of men and women in a systematic way sounds like slavery to me! Forcing men and women to “buy” a product they don’t want may not meet the absolute definition of slavery but it certainly has nothing to do with freedom. Is this what Democrats really want? Where is the moral high ground?

Please answer these tough questions and be true to yourself, to freedom and to your posterity. I cannot believe what America is becoming is what you want to bequith to your children and grandchildren. Personal freedom and personal responsibility is not with out hardship but it is surely better and preferable to slavery.

Thanks for reading.

Perspective is a ticklish thing, personal and subject. It is not always reliable as a guide and especially so in isolation. For example, the same hurricane presents vastly differing experiences depending on whether your perspective is that of a meteorologist behind a desk or that of a crew member of an ocean going vessel caught in the storm’s fury. We often need to broaden our view and expand our considerations in order to get a truer picture of life.

The study of History provides us an invaluable and very practical resource for evaluating perspective. But such study can act as a wet blanket when we discover that cherished ideas are not in the least novel or even untried. An ancient wisdom text reads “There is no new thing under the sun.” We, with collective chagrin, bow our heads in reluctant agreement.

So I turn (rather return) to a respected voice from America’s past whose perspective has the added credibility of that of an outsider with no iron in the fire, as it were. Alexis deToqueville authored the classic work Democracy in America as the culmination of his search for what the greatness of America was all about. You need to read the book but the following quotes are quite telling.

“It must never be forgotten that religion gave birth to Anglo-American society. In the United States, religion is therefore mingled with all the habits of the nation and all the feelings of patriotism…”

“The Americans, having admitted the principal doctrines of the Christian religion without inquiry, are obliged to accept in like manner a great number of moral truths originating in it…”

There is no use attempting to ignore or avoid the solid Judeo-Christian base upon which America was founded and even now rests! DeToqueville could see it and we must acknowledge it also. Move away from these principles and their “moral truths” and America becomes something other than the greatest, most prosperous, most sought after nation on earth.

Now some would say that is just what should happen and claim it will be “better.” If you hold that opinion my challenge to you is to demonstrate how abandoning our founding principles results in “good” or in something “better.” But remember that notions of good and better are meaningless apart from an objective standard. As a Christian I know these standards. Do you?

Be careful you don’t saw off the branch upon which you sit.

Thanks for reading.

Socrates said “The unexamined life is not worth living.” I believe he was on to something and so let’s indulge in a little speculative thinking. Let’s ask “What if?”

What if candidates for representative office were drafted by random lottery?

This could function something like jury duty does now. The emphasis is on duty, which is where most citizens believe it should be. Notice I am suggesting candidates be selected this way, popular vote would still decide who was to actually serve. Additionally, all the same Constitutional qualifications would still apply as are required now.

Some likely outcomes include:

Term Limits – serve your tour of duty and then come home.

Special Interests’ Power Curbed – groups could no longer promise support for a future election.

Truly Representative – millionaire status would no longer be required. Most Americans are not “rich” despite what the Left constantly asserts!

De-emphasis of “Experience” – what is political experience anyway unless it refers to effectively spending other people’s money?

Emphasis on Character – the public would be inclined to scrutinize the character of prospective candidates rather than a professionally polished image.

The most interesting thing about an idea like this lies in how it completely changes the way Washington currently operates. Power immediately returns to the people and the entrenched establishments suddenly find themselves utterly up-rooted. It stirs the imagination, don’t you agree?

Unfortunately this does nothing to rid the nation of the so called “Fourth Branch of Government.” Bureaucracies are the unelected lawmakers of the nation. Anyone have a “what if” that might rid us of their tyranny? Please let us know!

Thanks for reading.