Introducing the Neighborhood Game
These older blog entries have been reformatted and entered into the current directories.
Read More...Response to my Ebert entry
“Brother Offers Support To Sister In Car Wash”
“The brother of a girl hilariously terrified of a car wash comforts her on the backseat as she cries to go home.”
Read More...Minority rights
Real & impossible rights
In the United States, women have more rights than any where else in the World. Period. This cannot be disputed. The Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution pretty much took care of that. It's not perfect by any means, and yes, some males can be total a*holes about it. But (and this is a darn important but), American women enjoy rights that are impossible for other women in much of the World.
To start with, American women are secure in their persons and that is protected by law. They are not usually forced into radical surgical modification such as female genital mutilation. They can not be forcibly married. They can't legally be forced into sex. They can't be required to provide body parts, organs, or blood on demand.
American women can AND usually do own property. They can exchange their labor for cash. They can have bank accounts (even if there were problems with that until well into the 1970s). Their property is protected by law just as any man's property is.
Third and most importantly, American women have the right to vote. As citizens, they have every right to try changing government within the system if they don't like it. And if they and enough of their fellow citizens agree, they have the right to abolish the government and start again.
There are other rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the right to bear arms, and so on. Somehow these other rights are never under discussion, even though they do not exist for women elsewhere on the planet.
These are the very same rights that every American citizen possesses.
Then there are four sets of rights that some women want that are not guaranteed by the Constitution and law.
The first set concerns equal pay. This can be confusing. Some jobs are inherently more dangerous and pay more. Some jobs require much more than the normal time and a near obsession with the job itself, these often pay more. Jobs are like anything else, there are tradeoffs.
❝❝The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. And no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers.❞❞
— Christina Hoff Sommers, No, Women Don’t Make Less Money Than Men
The second set concerns the sexualization of women. Some describe it as the hyper-sexualization of women.
Yeah.
Well, I have news for you. Humans are sexual creatures. Men are going to pay attention to women. Yes, even homosexual men. It's hardwired into the biology. The fact that the overwhelming majority of men do not have sex all the time with every female in sight at every opportunity is a credit to morals and Western Civilization. You're going to get speculative looks and appreciative looks. Sometimes you may get comments.
And you know what? Not all ladies are offended by that. Please don't act as if women are a monolithic block who all speak and act as one.
Sometimes women dress to get attention. Men are going to respond.
But since America is not a rape culture, women are still secure in their person. Or they should be anyway.
There's a difference between admiration and forced sex.
The third set concerns privileges for women because of past wrongs done against the gender by men. These aren't rights because everyone (men and women) share rights. These are special privileges that apply only to women because they are women.
That's not going to work.
In my case, I'm not going to take responsibility for something I didn't do. If the guy three streets over did it, I'm not responsible. If it happened in my grandfather's time, I'm not responsible. If my brother did it, I'm probably not responsible, but we'll talk it over and see.
Guilting someone into giving you privilege means the privilege will only last as long as the guilt.
That brings us to the fourth set. Somehow this set gets more attention than the rest, it concerns reproductive rights. As nearly as I can tell, this is reduced-cost and/or free contraception and abortion.
Going back to the first right I discussed in this post, American women are secure in their persons.
This means that sex is a voluntary activity. I'm going to say that again.
Sex is a voluntary activity.
I'm not responsible for a woman's sexual behavior any more than I am responsible for the color of her shoes. It's her choice and her responsibility. It's not her neighbor's responsibility. It's not society's responsibility.
Unless it's with me, who you have sex with, how you have sex, and how many times you have sex is frankly none of my business. Likewise, unless it is sex with me, I'm not responsible for the consequences.
So that is four sets of impossible "rights" that some women call "women's rights." These rights can't be granted. And the only set that President Trump threatens is the last set, the "reproductive rights."
I can't support these "women's rights."
I can support American rights as I discussed in the first part of this post.
Those are actually rights and worth defending.
Four amendments
At this point, I’m honestly not sure it can be saved.
I’m not sure it should be saved.
There are some ideas I have been playing with the last few years or so. I’ve tried to talk these out with people I trust. And now I am putting them here. All are Constitutional amendments.
Remember that the Constitution was designed to restrain the actions of government, not citizens. Remember too that many of the checks and balances have been removed over the years. And finally, the Federal government was never intended to run smoothly and efficiently. The checks and balances were designed to protect freedom.
Liberty is the goal, not democracy.
• Repeal the 16th Amendment
The income tax is one of the biggest threats to freedom ever enacted. With it, the Federal government assumes you are guilty unless you can prove that you are not. This is a complete reversal of the rule of law prior to the amendment.With the 16th, the Federal government is not restrained by the need for a warrant. Your employer, your bank, any financial company that you do business with, all are required by law to report transactions over a specific amount or any “suspicious activity.” There are “rewards” if other citizens turn you in. Effectively, everyone around you is required to spy on you and penalized if they do not.
Tax cases are heard in an administrative court run by the Internal Revenue Service with it’s own rules of evidence. Your money and property can be seized and the only way you can get it back (less interest) is to prove that the IRS is wrong by it’s own regulations. Regulations that are so complex that it is literally beyond the ability of any one person to understand.
The “progressive” tax system is designed to foster envy and “class” disruption. The income tax is one of the most despised Federal laws in American history. The only thing that keeps Americans from hanging IRS agents is that citizens think the “system” hits someone else worse. It fosters scapegoats so it seems “fair.”
An income tax system inevitably leads to political corruption. Unpopular groups find themselves under extra scrutiny. Politicos use it to keep their enemies and rivals in line.
There are technicalities that I could spend pages and pages examining. For example, if there is a “standard deduction,” then by definition taxes are too high.
The income tax took away your freedom. You have to acknowledge this every year by signing a Federal form. Under penalty of law.
• Repeal the 17th Amendment
Brought to you by the same merry madcaps who gave us the 16th, the 17th Amendment reduces freedom in the name of popular democracy. The 17th has made Senators political bosses in their own states, with control of the Federal money spigot and a guaranteed spot high up in the political parties.The popular election of Senators took away some of the oversight the state legislatures were supposed to have on Congress. But since Senators no longer answer to their state legislature, they have become tools of their party.
This does not serve freedom.
This part of popular democracy destroys freedom. It’s an illusion designed to expand the major political parties while fooling the voter into thinking that they have influence.
There’s a place for popular democracy, but not unrestrained popular democracy. The Bill of Rights is the best example.
• None of the Above and Alternative Voting
Every election should have a None of the Above choice. If NOTA won, then those candidates on the ballot would be barred from serving in that office for that term.One choice that people should always have is the choice to walk away.
We should never assume that the default is to elect someone. Especially if the voters aren’t picking who gets to run.
Alternative voting just means ranking the candidates in order of your favorites. The biggest advantage is that the minority candidates have a better chance of being elected and major parties are forced to pay closer attention to all the voters. Instead of voting against a bad candidate, voters could choose someone closer to their beliefs and priorities.
• Laws and Regulations
As things stand now, there will always be more laws and regulations unless Congress takes direct action. Think about that carefully.The default state of the American Federal government is more government.
That is not freedom.
I suggest a three pronged attack.
First, ALL government regulations would sunset within three years unless made law by Congress and the President.
Second, state legislatures would approve Federal regulation before it applies in that state. This approval could be withdrawn at any time. Congress has the power and authority to pass laws for the nation, but it can’t delegate that power. Every single Federal regulation that governs individuals and states is unconstitutional.
This would reduce Federal regulation to it’s proper scope and shift coercive power away from millions of unelected technocrats.
I know this seems excessive, but it is actually well within Constitutional principles. There’s nothing in the Constitution that provides for regulatory agencies except the much abused and overused commerce clause. Certainly there is nothing that provides for administrative court systems outside the Federal courts.
Third, each state legislature could choose one Federal law annually for referendum at the next Congressional election. Each Congressional election, there could be up to 100 Federal laws on the ballot. And if a law does not get a national majority voting to retain it, it would be gone.
Practically, this would effectively be automatic repeal. Unless it was a very good idea, I can’t see a majority voting to keep a law. But the possibility is there. The automatic repeal means that Congress would have to convince voters of the worth of each and every law. And if the state legislatures are canny, one carefully chosen law could defang dozens of others.
In other words, this proposal gives the states direct oversight of Congress.
There are other things that I would love to see done. But these four would do wonders. I welcome your comments and ideas.
Almost the last advocate
It's not a right unless everyone else has it too. Otherwise it's a privilege taken at someone else's expense.
Read More...United We Stand - Dragging religion into politics
Blogs and information channels
Same thing only better with new management
Judging a book by it's cover
Private sector or public sector?
Victims and paying for bad choices
Individual or collectivist?
Should we waste money from your pocket or mine?
Why does your enlightenment demand that I sacrifice?
Dreaming of liberty
What does the call for a "progressive judge" on the United States Supreme Court really mean?
Read More...Christian America Redux
The Ten Commandments Controversy
The Ten Commandments Controversy
Does religion really define public morality? Should government control religion?
Read More...And justice for all?
What does the call for a "progressive judge" on the United States Supreme Court really mean?
Read More...Who decides?
Why I MARGINALLY prefer
conservatives over liberals
conservatives over liberals