“If relationships between individuals cannot be prohibited by the state legislature, then there’s no ban that can actually be constitutional that would ban group marriage, and it wouldn’t have to be for reasons of, let me say, love or lust, it could be reasons of profitability or avoiding taxes or accessing benefits,” King said.What is socialism? It is a system where relationships between individuals are determined by the government.
“So in the end, this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off one pot of resources earned by everyone; this is one of the goals they have to go through is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal,” he said.
“Not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis,” King said.
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.A society where relationships between individuals can be prohibited by the state legislature is a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined. What meaning does liberty have if individuals are not free to enter into any relationships they choose - personal, social, economic, political, whatever?
Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual
(EXCERPT)
Separation of state and economics: a new ideal for America
“Do you have a better idea?”
Some form of that question is directed at anyone who criticizes the Obama administration’s runaway spending and its plans to drastically increase government control over health care, energy, and the financial industry. Unfortunately, many of Obama’s critics have not offered a better idea, instead offering vague denunciations of “Big Government” and vague affirmations of “smaller government”–but without spelling out what this would mean in practice, and how it would address today’s economic problems.
At the Ayn Rand Center, we do have a better idea of what the government should do about the economy: establish the principle of separation of state and economics. This is the subject of a recent position paper I authored, “A Call for the Separation of State and Economics.” The paper explains what this principle means, why it’s proper, and lays out numerous examples of what this principle would mean in practice.
Not to bust your bubble there, but you know there's one thing that 11-year-old boys like even less than homosexuality, and that's girls.Via ERV
Principles of a Free Society
This is further proof that altruism is a morality of intentions and not of results; that actually helping people is irrelevant but going through the motions of helping people justifies anything and everything.That's from a comment by Michael John Neibel to a post by Diana Hsieh about Americans United for Separation of Church and State director Barry Lynn's involvement in Obama's faith advisory council.
I am not satisfied with AU's response here. Hence, although I've contributed to them in the past, they won't get another cent from me.The Oklahoma chapter of AU is having its annual meeting tonight. It will be interesting to see what their reaction is to all this.
An obvious limitSome further thoughts on this subject are at my original post about this editorial.
"Americans ready to debate cost, size of government” (Our Views, Sept. 6) failed to address the real roots of the out-of-control growth of government and government spending. Yes, Americans need to make a choice regarding the size of government, but by what standard are they to make that choice? This country was founded on individual rights. A government that does anything more than protect those rights is acting to destroy those rights. This sets an obvious limit for the size of legitimate government. Since our founding, however, generations of people have insisted that we be our brother’s keeper and sacrifice ourselves on the altar of altruism.
A government that we set as our keeper will have no boundaries. It will recognize no rights — such things will be swept aside as impediments to the goals of society. There will be no standard but that of service to an ever-increasing government that sees anything and everything as an object of sacrifice, even the economy and, ultimately, the country itself.
Rights are freedoms of action required for an individual to uphold the value of his life. What rights are needed for a life that holds no value as an individual? The answer to questions such as this will determine the choices Americans make regarding the size of their government.
Rob Abiera, Oklahoma City
Four Important Articles for this God-Awful Date
“End States Who Sponsor Terrorism” by Leonard Peikoff
“Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein
The “Forward Strategy” for Failure by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo
“No Substitute for Victory”: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by John David Lewis
EXCERPT: If Afghanistan now seems unwinnable, blame Bush and Obama. Bush crusaded not to destroy the Taliban but to bring Afghans elections and reconstruction. Obama’s “new” tack is to insist we spend billions more on nation-building and bend over backwards to safeguard the local population. Both take for granted the allegedly moral imperative of putting the lives and welfare of Afghans first--ahead of defeating the enemy to protect Americans.
This imperative lies behind Washington’s self-crippled war--a war which could have worked to deter other jihadists and their state-sponsors, but instead encourages them to attempt further attacks.
How many more Americans must die before we challenge this conception of a proper war?
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David Lewis
and
How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul Hsieh
But the greater sadness here has to do with New York and how the city sees itself. Both the Empire State and Chrysler buildings, built during the Great Depression, were celebrated in their time as emblems of the city’s fortitude. The Freedom Tower, our era’s most notable contribution to the skyline, is a symbol of posturing and political expediency. And now a real alternative to it, one of the most enchanting skyscraper designs of recent memory, may well be lost because some people worry that nothing in our current age can measure up to the past. It is a mentality that, once it takes hold, risks transforming a living city into an urban mausoleum.
Obama Has Dramatically Changed Role of Faith-Based Office
EXCERPT: Such access has upset some on the left, who say religious leaders shouldn't be shaping government policy, and some on the right, who say the work amounts to politically inspired religious outreach. "We would have gotten killed for doing that," says Jim Towey, who directed Bush's faith-based office and notes that religious outreach in the previous administration was handled by the White House Office of Public Liaison, which reported to Karl Rove. "It looks like a political office now."
No one is his brother's keeper--or healer. If we are forced to keep our brother, we'll all be kept by Big Brother.
Posts
All Comments
