Just Me

Just Me
Look,I'm just sayin'

Sunday, February 26, 2017

liberty ?

 It is a common theme of mine, the defining of standards. I do believe we need a set of standards to live by. These standards are necessary in our private lives, and necessary for a nation. Isn't that what the big struggle is all about ? You have those that wish to adhere to a set of standards, and you have those that wish to alter those standards to suit their individual needs. When enough individuals get together they can effect a change. In the United States we chose the format of a republic to make those changes. Strangely we teach our children it is a democracy, without explaining the difference. Our founding documents delineate that in a clear and reasonable fashion. The problem arises with the notion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are living documents.  Oh that sounds good that doesn't it ? Living breathing documents establishing our freedom as human beings ! The truth is, those documents are not living documents, they are a set of standards. We hold these truths to be self evident, that man has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 Shall we begin with life. The right to life is self evident. Yet somehow, that was changed to the right to choose ? Do we need to rewrite the standard ? We hold this truth to be self evident, you have the right to live after you are born, before that not so much. Do you really think that is what the founding fathers had in mind ? I can't say with 100% certainty, but I rather doubt that was the intent. I'm thinking that is an individual choice not within the parameters of a national standard. That is were the wheels fall off isn't it ? We didn't call ourselves the United States for nothing. We are not the " individual " peoples of the world living in North America. No, we are Americans. And what do Americans stand for ? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Okay, maybe not so much for life anymore, that's an individual choice. In fact the woman's' choice. The father has no choice about that. Of course if it comes to capital punishment that may or may not be allowed, depends. If a man rapes a woman, we won't kill him, but we will kill the baby, if the woman chooses that. The sanctity of life and all that. We shouldn't be killing people, at least not after they are born that is. I do believe the right to life is self evident, you do get a chance anyway. I also believe you may do certain things that justify me taking that life away from you, that right has been rescinded by your own hand. I don't feel guilt for that.
 Now what of liberty ? What is liberty ? Is it the freedom to do whatever we want to do ? No, it is the freedom to live within the boundaries of a society. That society does have standards. The government sets the standards. It is also the government that defines those standards. And how does that happen ? It happens when enough individuals get together to pass legislation to alter the existing standard. It is usually done for a common interest. It is the nature of that interest that causes all the problems. I would say very few pieces of legislation are written for the common good. On the contrary, they are written to deviate from the common standard. Legislation can be used as justification for just about anything. Evidence of that isn't hard to find. You can refer to the right to life standard for that. Legislation now justifies that choice. We are even trying to draft legislation that says a boy is a girl, if the boy chooses that. We have redefined marriage after two thousand or more years of a standard. What's next ? Legislation that says a boy can be a dog if that is what he chooses to identify as ? Hey, saw just that on the Jerry Springer show once. A professional psychiatrist said it was a fetish. Some will say it is a choice. Sounds far fetched doesn't it ? So did legalizing abortions and same sex marriages. But you say I have the liberty to do just that. I disagree, you have the liberty to live within the constraints of our society. The distinction may be a bit blurry to some but it isn't lost on me. A society without standards is no society at all.
 The pursuit of happiness. What is that ? That I believe is different for each off us. The question is how is that obtained. It is gained through individual pursuit. Happiness can not be granted by government or another person. It is gained within the constraints of a society. When we can not pursue our interests because they are in conflict with the society we are unhappy. Is it reasonable to expect the society to change ? I don't believe it is. There are certain standards. Whether those standards are delineated with a million pages of litigation or reduced to a simple rule, Do unto others, the standard exists. And is that what all this litigating is about ? Are trying to get everyone to do unto others ?  No, the truth is we are trying to get everyone to allow us to do whatever we want to do. If we can pass litigation we can then cite that as the standard. No need for religion or spiritual values. We will write the standards ourselves. The " self evident " standards are inconvenient and an impediment to commerce. Not only that but I must exercise restraint in the conduct of life.
  Even though I think of myself as a Christian, maybe not a very good one but a Christian nonetheless, none of this has to do with that. It has nothing to do with any religion. The founding fathers knew that and that is why they said it was self evident. No one needs to tell you that you have a right to live, to co-exist within a society of men and be happy. Laws are most often established to tell you what is not acceptable in the society. These are the things you will be punished for. The reason is obvious, to assist you in restraint. Like teaching a child, punishment is used to correct behaviors. When a society begins making laws to allow what are unacceptable behaviors, that is when the society begins to go into decline.