I
have a rather libertarian bent in my views and I make no apologies for
that. This is not to say that I am a member of the Libertarian Party, a
political party. It means that I preach liberty as a way of life.
This has been my guiding philosophy in my views in government,
politics, civil affairs, and even in church life.
When
I was a member of the Planning Board in the Town of Selma, I voted with
liberty in mind. I believe in private property rights as long as they
do not infringe upon the rights of others. With that in mind, there is a
place in society for rules and regulations on property use and
business, but a limited one, in my opinion.
I
realize that my views are about to sound like fingernails on a
chalkboard to legalistic church folks, especially here in The Bible
Belt, but I really don’t care. My views are theologically sound and I
am at perfect peace with what I am about to say.
Back
when Johnston County was debating about whether to allow liquor by the
drink, I heard some preachers hammering against the evils of alcohol.
It is not the alcohol that is the problem, it is the people who abuse
it. Alcohol consumption is not a sin, drunkenness is the sin mentioned
in Holy Writ. I believe in Christian liberty, and since I doubt Jesus
turned water into Welch’s grape juice as his first recorded miracle, I
don’t want to hear some legalistic whining about it.
I
take the same view on gambling. I had no problem with North Carolina
instituting a lottery. I lived in states that had lotteries before.
Our country has a history of colonial and state lotteries. What I had a
big problem with was the way in which North Carolina passed its lottery
bill. It was sneaky, underhanded, and unethical, but that is another
discussion for another day.
When
I was in Florida recently, I took note of how many internet sweepstakes
cafes there were. In the city of Jacksonville, they were all over.
When visiting my cousin, she took us to one and my wife and I both
spent $20 each. After depleting my online credits playing video slot
machines, I recouped all but $3 or so of the cash staked. My lovely
bride actually won $66 or so, for a net profit of $46. My cousin and
her boyfriend did not fare as well.
The
Town of Selma has decided to delay action on a petitioned request to
open an internet gaming cafe. The whole idea was to put off the
decision on allowing the business or not until the state clarifies a ban
on the businesses. This to me is the epitome of hypocrisy, on both the
part of the town and the state.
The
town wants to increase business but has declined to allow a tattoo
parlor and delayed a decision on an internet gaming business within the
past year or so. Personally, I don’t plan on allowing myself to be
stabbed with a needle and ink, nor do I plan on sitting in front of a
computer terminal playing video slot machines or Texas Hold ‘em poker.
However, a town cannot constantly cede their decision taking authority
to the state, nor frown upon every legitimate, legal business that some
may find a tad unsavory. I hate tobacco products, but I defend
wholeheartedly the right of JR’s Outlet to sell all the cigarettes they
can to interstate travelers and locals alike.
Every
once in a great while, I will buy a Powerball ticket. I don’t do it
often, but when I was in Florida for the aforementioned trip and the
jackpot was over $200 million, I did buy five tickets. I won $15 and am
still waiting for the State of Florida to process my claim and send me a
check.
I
don’t drink a lot, but I do like the occasional mudslide or Samuel
Adams draft beer with my dinner. At least we have decent quality
restaurants in Johnston County and not just McDonald’s, country buffets,
or barbecue restaurants because we chose to allow liquor by the drink
and attract better quality restaurants. I am sure that also helps with
sales tax revenues.
I
am not a big gambler, but if I want to put a few dollars in a slot
machine or play a few video games, that is totally my business and my
freedom. I was recently in two casinos, one aboard a cruise ship and
one in the Bahamas. I spent nothing at the casinos. If I wanted to, I
could have. That is my choice, and my freedom either way. There is an
internet gaming establishment across the walkway from the church my
family attends each week. If I want to walk over after Sunday service
and play video poker, that is my choice. I don’t do so, but I would
have no problem with my conscience even if I did.
I
would rather err on the side of liberty than tyranny when it comes to
what some consider vices. That is the freedom we have in this country,
and we should not hesitate to encourage it rather than defer or decline
it.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Column for Nov. 4, 2011
It is an odd numbered year. Signs are all over town for local candidates, whether they are large plywood ones, cardboard ones, or plastic ones. It must be municipal election season. This is pretty much an open letter to any candidate running for municipal office, in any town, but primarily my own.
I don’t know the position of every candidate running for office in my hometown. There are incumbents who have a voting record that I have followed. There is at least one candidate from whom all I have ever heard expressed for years has been, “Don’t raise taxes”. There are candidates with whom I am not familiar and have heard nothing about their views. As of this writing, I have looked for articles and questionnaires about candidates, but so far nothing has been found. I am writing this column a few weeks ahead of time, so I can understand why that may be the case.
The first thing I would say to candidates is to not be afraid to do what you were elected to do. If you were elected to stop irresponsible spending, then do just that. If you were elected to keep the tax rate down, lower utility costs, etc., then stand firm and do it. Do not let bullying tactics and political pressure keep you down. I was telling two candidates that I really want to see an end to dictatorial style leadership in my town. They were in full agreement.
As a citizen, I am interested in eliminating the superfluous spending on stupid stuff. I commented years ago about how the Town of Selma has Christmas lights on all year long and was criticized for my stance that it is tacky, a waste of electricity, and unnecessary. I stand by those comments, especially when I drive through town at night and see so many strands and bulbs that are burned out or non-functional throughout downtown. What a waste. Other wasteful things were the hiring of consultants for an unused “streetscape” plan, for a proposed new town hall, and for someone just to apply for a historic neighborhood designation. The historic neighborhood designation would realistically only benefit those who had older homes and have their personal egos stroked by having a house so designated. Those thousands of dollars could have been much better spent on fixing sidewalks, cleaning up the curbsides of town streets so they are not jungle-like, and many other projects.
I keep hearing one common theme from citizens and the couple of candidates with whom I have had the pleasure of speaking. That is about lowering the high utility bills in our public power community. I agree that something needs to be done, but it is probably more involved than just trimming rates. In reality, we need to divest ourselves of the electricity business and let private industry take it over. There would be more regulatory protections, lower rates, and we would get the exact same product. By and large, if a business provider can be found in the phone book, we probably should not have government doing the job.
I am a big proponent of personal freedom and property rights, unless those rights infringe upon my own. This can apply to forced annexation and the extension of planning jurisdictional authority. We do not need to greedily bring in more square miles in order to grow our town. We need to offer a better climate for growth. It seems that there are some sorts of businesses we can’t keep going in town. We do need a better approach to downtown development. I was opposed to the all antiques, all the time concept fifteen years ago and still am, as just one example.
Speaking of business development, I am not a fan of incentive packages for business. We need to be judicious if we are going to use them at all. I read about an incentive package the Town of Selma is giving to a Wendy’s franchise to build at Exit 97 off the interstate. Quite honestly, it is a good location and a serious business would be building regardless of an incentive, but at least the package offered was not a huge one. If it goes awry, or even well, taxpayers can get the short end of the stick, as with Dell, Verizon, FedEx, and other businesses that relocate to North Carolina.
Even Sysco was a successful failure as an “incentive”. Though Sysco came to Selma, the company calls the Selma facility its Raleigh Division, the facility has not necessarily employed a bunch of Selma residents or attracted hundreds of people to live in Selma. Even their vice president bought his house in Clayton, not Selma. There is so much more that I could write, but brevity is not my friend this week.
So, candidates for public office, know that citizens are looking for common sense, fiscally responsible, and freedom loving governance. Hopefully, the citizenry will hold you accountable to these standards.
I don’t know the position of every candidate running for office in my hometown. There are incumbents who have a voting record that I have followed. There is at least one candidate from whom all I have ever heard expressed for years has been, “Don’t raise taxes”. There are candidates with whom I am not familiar and have heard nothing about their views. As of this writing, I have looked for articles and questionnaires about candidates, but so far nothing has been found. I am writing this column a few weeks ahead of time, so I can understand why that may be the case.
The first thing I would say to candidates is to not be afraid to do what you were elected to do. If you were elected to stop irresponsible spending, then do just that. If you were elected to keep the tax rate down, lower utility costs, etc., then stand firm and do it. Do not let bullying tactics and political pressure keep you down. I was telling two candidates that I really want to see an end to dictatorial style leadership in my town. They were in full agreement.
As a citizen, I am interested in eliminating the superfluous spending on stupid stuff. I commented years ago about how the Town of Selma has Christmas lights on all year long and was criticized for my stance that it is tacky, a waste of electricity, and unnecessary. I stand by those comments, especially when I drive through town at night and see so many strands and bulbs that are burned out or non-functional throughout downtown. What a waste. Other wasteful things were the hiring of consultants for an unused “streetscape” plan, for a proposed new town hall, and for someone just to apply for a historic neighborhood designation. The historic neighborhood designation would realistically only benefit those who had older homes and have their personal egos stroked by having a house so designated. Those thousands of dollars could have been much better spent on fixing sidewalks, cleaning up the curbsides of town streets so they are not jungle-like, and many other projects.
I keep hearing one common theme from citizens and the couple of candidates with whom I have had the pleasure of speaking. That is about lowering the high utility bills in our public power community. I agree that something needs to be done, but it is probably more involved than just trimming rates. In reality, we need to divest ourselves of the electricity business and let private industry take it over. There would be more regulatory protections, lower rates, and we would get the exact same product. By and large, if a business provider can be found in the phone book, we probably should not have government doing the job.
I am a big proponent of personal freedom and property rights, unless those rights infringe upon my own. This can apply to forced annexation and the extension of planning jurisdictional authority. We do not need to greedily bring in more square miles in order to grow our town. We need to offer a better climate for growth. It seems that there are some sorts of businesses we can’t keep going in town. We do need a better approach to downtown development. I was opposed to the all antiques, all the time concept fifteen years ago and still am, as just one example.
Speaking of business development, I am not a fan of incentive packages for business. We need to be judicious if we are going to use them at all. I read about an incentive package the Town of Selma is giving to a Wendy’s franchise to build at Exit 97 off the interstate. Quite honestly, it is a good location and a serious business would be building regardless of an incentive, but at least the package offered was not a huge one. If it goes awry, or even well, taxpayers can get the short end of the stick, as with Dell, Verizon, FedEx, and other businesses that relocate to North Carolina.
Even Sysco was a successful failure as an “incentive”. Though Sysco came to Selma, the company calls the Selma facility its Raleigh Division, the facility has not necessarily employed a bunch of Selma residents or attracted hundreds of people to live in Selma. Even their vice president bought his house in Clayton, not Selma. There is so much more that I could write, but brevity is not my friend this week.
So, candidates for public office, know that citizens are looking for common sense, fiscally responsible, and freedom loving governance. Hopefully, the citizenry will hold you accountable to these standards.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Column for June 10, 2010
I just finished a several yearlong teaching on the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in which I went through the notes taken by James Madison during the Philadelphia Convention with two of my cohorts. During the course of the debates of the convention, the ideas, the purpose, and limitations of government were discussed.
What about state and local governments? Just today I started re-reading through North Carolina's state constitution. Many of the same principles found in the national constitution are present in the state document. It is always a good idea to brush up on such things so that my garbage detector can operate more accurately. I always have my garbage detector operating on my core values and principles, so when I hear of a news story or incident, my antennae go up when I catch a trickle of garbage.
Four garbage stories grabbed my attention lately. Three of the stories are from North Carolina and one is from Michigan. Here in The Old North State, our legislature seems to have adopted the idea that anything that is personally distasteful to a legislator can be banned. The idea that a person or group of people can and should control or limit something they detest, whether it is a moral issue or not, I often find even more distasteful than the item in question they seek to regulate.
There is currently a bill in the state legislature that would slap a one-year moratorium on further placements of electronic billboards alongside the state’s highways. Since when is it the job of the state to regulate what sort of billboards are along highways? That tends to be a local planning and zoning issue and should be treated as such. If billboards are allowed in a certain area, of what concern is it the type of the billboard? I have no problem with electronic billboards. Here in Selma and Smithfield, we have a couple of them owned by a local company and I find them no more distracting than a still board.
This is obviously not a safety matter but rather a matter of personal taste. If you want to regulate personal taste, I found it distasteful to cut down trees that buffered the view from Selma's cemetery at the corner of Pollock Street and Highway 70 to put up a billboard, instead. And that billboard does not change electronically. Even so, I would not want the state legislature getting involved in that decision taking process.
Another state issue is a bill proposed to limit local governments from entering the internet and data delivery business. This is one issue that requires full disclosure up front. I work for the area's largest cable television and data provider. Yet this does not have a bearing on my thoughts either way.
Cities like Wilson are using public dollars to provide their own broadband data network to attract industry and compete with big telephone and cable companies. Though I generally am not for regulation by large governments, I am equally opposed to governments at any level providing services at taxpayer expense that are readily available in the private sector. Cities and towns have no business getting into the broadband data business.
Two other governmental regulations proposed involve licensing. North Carolina wants to require providers of hair braiding services to be licensed just like cosmetologists and barbers. They don't cut, color, or treat hair; they just braid it. For that, the government wants to stick its dirty fingers into the pot, stir it, and extract more revenue and control in the form of licensing fees.
The other licensing issue proposed is from Michigan. Some Michigan elected officials actually want to require licensing for journalists. Now I will agree that there are many people in the journalism industry that are better off finding other careers. However, I also believe in a First Amendment principle that says that says, "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" The Michigan State Legislature is not the U.S. Congress, but this is one principle that you would think is inviolable. Even intellectually and ethically challenged journalists, usually employed at the Associated Press, New York Slimes, or The Washington Compost should not require licensing. The art of journalism is seemingly a lost one and journalists should study their craft, but not be required to hold a license. I doubt that the bill will pass.
Government is often over-reaching and over-bearing. There are just some lines that government should not cross, some things they should not regulate, and some endeavors from which they should stay away.
What about state and local governments? Just today I started re-reading through North Carolina's state constitution. Many of the same principles found in the national constitution are present in the state document. It is always a good idea to brush up on such things so that my garbage detector can operate more accurately. I always have my garbage detector operating on my core values and principles, so when I hear of a news story or incident, my antennae go up when I catch a trickle of garbage.
Four garbage stories grabbed my attention lately. Three of the stories are from North Carolina and one is from Michigan. Here in The Old North State, our legislature seems to have adopted the idea that anything that is personally distasteful to a legislator can be banned. The idea that a person or group of people can and should control or limit something they detest, whether it is a moral issue or not, I often find even more distasteful than the item in question they seek to regulate.
There is currently a bill in the state legislature that would slap a one-year moratorium on further placements of electronic billboards alongside the state’s highways. Since when is it the job of the state to regulate what sort of billboards are along highways? That tends to be a local planning and zoning issue and should be treated as such. If billboards are allowed in a certain area, of what concern is it the type of the billboard? I have no problem with electronic billboards. Here in Selma and Smithfield, we have a couple of them owned by a local company and I find them no more distracting than a still board.
This is obviously not a safety matter but rather a matter of personal taste. If you want to regulate personal taste, I found it distasteful to cut down trees that buffered the view from Selma's cemetery at the corner of Pollock Street and Highway 70 to put up a billboard, instead. And that billboard does not change electronically. Even so, I would not want the state legislature getting involved in that decision taking process.
Another state issue is a bill proposed to limit local governments from entering the internet and data delivery business. This is one issue that requires full disclosure up front. I work for the area's largest cable television and data provider. Yet this does not have a bearing on my thoughts either way.
Cities like Wilson are using public dollars to provide their own broadband data network to attract industry and compete with big telephone and cable companies. Though I generally am not for regulation by large governments, I am equally opposed to governments at any level providing services at taxpayer expense that are readily available in the private sector. Cities and towns have no business getting into the broadband data business.
Two other governmental regulations proposed involve licensing. North Carolina wants to require providers of hair braiding services to be licensed just like cosmetologists and barbers. They don't cut, color, or treat hair; they just braid it. For that, the government wants to stick its dirty fingers into the pot, stir it, and extract more revenue and control in the form of licensing fees.
The other licensing issue proposed is from Michigan. Some Michigan elected officials actually want to require licensing for journalists. Now I will agree that there are many people in the journalism industry that are better off finding other careers. However, I also believe in a First Amendment principle that says that says, "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" The Michigan State Legislature is not the U.S. Congress, but this is one principle that you would think is inviolable. Even intellectually and ethically challenged journalists, usually employed at the Associated Press, New York Slimes, or The Washington Compost should not require licensing. The art of journalism is seemingly a lost one and journalists should study their craft, but not be required to hold a license. I doubt that the bill will pass.
Government is often over-reaching and over-bearing. There are just some lines that government should not cross, some things they should not regulate, and some endeavors from which they should stay away.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Column for March 4, 2010
Just like a bad penny, some things just keep showing up. The federal government take over of the health care system is one of those things. The problem is that we have to be incessantly vigilant against such intrusions and control. Every single time it comes up, we have to say "NO!" It only takes one single time to say "Yes" and we are permanently hosed. Government intrusion is not limited to the feds, however.
Just like the health care take over, the Town of Selma is again seeking to extend its tentacles of control into more unincorporated territory in the county. Johnstonians as far as two whole miles away from the town limits may wind up beholden to this little town. This is repulsive to the principles of American freedom and is patently unethical. There is absolutely no way that a town this small geographically and in population should be allowed to control territory greater than its corporate limits just because it wants to.
The bottom line is that there is but one reason a town would extend its planning jurisdiction, regardless of the fallacious arguments about wanting development consistent with it's own. The reason is to be a precursor to forced annexation. I have read the statutes on extraterritorial jurisdiction. The entire context of having an ETJ is for the future expansion of a town.
Once again, this unfair, unaccountable, and unethical issue has come up like the proverbial bad penny. The concept of an ETJ amounts to regulation without representation. People are subjected to the regulatory whims of the town even though they live outside the corporate limits and have zero voting capability for those who make such regulations. The only representation that they do get is on the Planning Board, which is an advisory board only.
This is one of the very frustrations that led me to take the decision to not seek another term on that board. During my travels, I sometimes run across current and former members of Selma's Planning Board. To a person I hear the complaint that they feel/felt like they are/were wasting their time. Regardless of the recommendations of the board, there is no binding authority behind decisions taken. Sure, a few ideas may be taken into consideration to help shape the town's zoning ordinances, but I personally have a hard time reconciling the idea of taking personal freedom away from people. I have read too much behind the Founding Fathers to be a partaker in abridgment of freedom.
Make no mistake. I have no issue with the work of the Planning Board and the Planning Director to simplify the town's zoning ordinances. They needed to be simpler and clearer. However, I take great umbrage at the idea of exercising control over people outside the town limits who have absolutely no say or sway in a Republican government. People, we fought a war over ideas like that.
My plea to the town council and mayor would be to please stop exerting control where you have no business controlling. Honor the freedom of those outside the town. Do not even think about setting up forced annexation in years to come. Let freedom reign. The county already has planning laws and the they are fairly consistent with the town's.
A reason such as bringing the zoning of outlying territories into close approximation to Selma's is a moot one. I have seen the maps and compared. I served on the Planning Board when this came up the first time. Heck, I even commented that if we are going to look towards the proposed ETJ map then we should assign zoning similar to its present use and as congruent as possible to our own zoning. Right after that, I refused to vote in favor of the adoption of said map so that I would not be a party to extending the tentacles of control where they do not belong. I thought that if we were going to move in a direction I abhor, then the town should at least do it right.
In order to preserve freedom, each and every time some immoral plan like this comes forward, we have to say "No!" It is much like saying no to personal temptation. It only takes one time of saying yes to fall into sin, or in this case, institute a soft tyranny.
Just like the health care take over, the Town of Selma is again seeking to extend its tentacles of control into more unincorporated territory in the county. Johnstonians as far as two whole miles away from the town limits may wind up beholden to this little town. This is repulsive to the principles of American freedom and is patently unethical. There is absolutely no way that a town this small geographically and in population should be allowed to control territory greater than its corporate limits just because it wants to.
The bottom line is that there is but one reason a town would extend its planning jurisdiction, regardless of the fallacious arguments about wanting development consistent with it's own. The reason is to be a precursor to forced annexation. I have read the statutes on extraterritorial jurisdiction. The entire context of having an ETJ is for the future expansion of a town.
Once again, this unfair, unaccountable, and unethical issue has come up like the proverbial bad penny. The concept of an ETJ amounts to regulation without representation. People are subjected to the regulatory whims of the town even though they live outside the corporate limits and have zero voting capability for those who make such regulations. The only representation that they do get is on the Planning Board, which is an advisory board only.
This is one of the very frustrations that led me to take the decision to not seek another term on that board. During my travels, I sometimes run across current and former members of Selma's Planning Board. To a person I hear the complaint that they feel/felt like they are/were wasting their time. Regardless of the recommendations of the board, there is no binding authority behind decisions taken. Sure, a few ideas may be taken into consideration to help shape the town's zoning ordinances, but I personally have a hard time reconciling the idea of taking personal freedom away from people. I have read too much behind the Founding Fathers to be a partaker in abridgment of freedom.
Make no mistake. I have no issue with the work of the Planning Board and the Planning Director to simplify the town's zoning ordinances. They needed to be simpler and clearer. However, I take great umbrage at the idea of exercising control over people outside the town limits who have absolutely no say or sway in a Republican government. People, we fought a war over ideas like that.
My plea to the town council and mayor would be to please stop exerting control where you have no business controlling. Honor the freedom of those outside the town. Do not even think about setting up forced annexation in years to come. Let freedom reign. The county already has planning laws and the they are fairly consistent with the town's.
A reason such as bringing the zoning of outlying territories into close approximation to Selma's is a moot one. I have seen the maps and compared. I served on the Planning Board when this came up the first time. Heck, I even commented that if we are going to look towards the proposed ETJ map then we should assign zoning similar to its present use and as congruent as possible to our own zoning. Right after that, I refused to vote in favor of the adoption of said map so that I would not be a party to extending the tentacles of control where they do not belong. I thought that if we were going to move in a direction I abhor, then the town should at least do it right.
In order to preserve freedom, each and every time some immoral plan like this comes forward, we have to say "No!" It is much like saying no to personal temptation. It only takes one time of saying yes to fall into sin, or in this case, institute a soft tyranny.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Column for Jan. 7, 2010
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do these words sound familiar? Of course they do. They are from one of the founding documents here in America, the Declaration of Independence. This premise is the basis for our freedoms and later the Bill of Rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
Do you have a right to pursue happiness? Sure you do. As long as your rights do not infringe upon mine, I say go for it. I am very libertarian in my philosophy in that regard. Even in things I detest, I believe that you have free will, whether for good, for evil, or for innocuousness.
Apparently, the North Carolina Legislature and Governor Beverly Perdue disagree with me on that point. They also disagree with your right to do with your private property as you wish. This time, this disregard has manifested itself in the form of a ban on smoking in public, specifically in restaurants and bars.
Let me start by saying this. I detest smoking and always have. I have never tried a cigarette, pipe, or cigar simply because I find the purposeful inhalation of products of combustion unfathomable to my good senses. I also find the putrid odor detestable. I have walked out of many restaurants simply because they did not offer a non-smoking section or have sufficient separation between smoking and non-smoking. Several of these establishments are right here in town. I refuse to sit in or near a smoking section.
I will admit that part of me really loves the idea that any restaurant I choose to patronize will be smoke free and not offend my sense of smell. However, I am even more offended at the abridgement of private property rights and the pursuit of happiness. Hey, if smoking tobacco products makes you happy, knock yourself out. Just keep it away from me and my family.
A restaurant (or other business) owner should have the ability to decide if he/she wants to allow smoking in their establishment. Sure there are health concerns over tobacco smoke. I have the same concerns. If you have ever had a family member smoke like a chimney and later die of a heart attack, cancer, or emphysema, you would have the same concerns, too.
The problem is that the right to stupidly inhale cigarette smoke is, I believe an inalienable right. That means that it is given by God, not man. Government tends believe that it is the giver of rights. If a government can give rights, as it is attempting to do with the so-called right to health care or the right to an abortion, then it can also take those rights away.
Property rights are encompassed in the right to the pursuit of happiness and were actually considered to be the object of the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration. That right has been rescinded not by the giver of the right, but by a controlling governmental body who apparently knows more about you and your good health than you do.
I believe that a ban on smoking on airplanes was an excellent idea for the same reason that smoking is not allowed on elevators. An enclosed space with no way of escaping the smoke is an inappropriate place to keep people for any length of time. The right to breathe non-cigarette tainted air is abridged in such cases. One can not step outside of an airplane flying "at altitude" to avoid a toxic tobacco cloud and its stench. One can easily step outside of a dining establishment.
Fresh air as provided by God should be considered part of the words "life" and "liberty" in the Declaration of Independence. Just as I can avoid establishments that serve alcohol (a legal product) if I am morally opposed to the substance, I can also avoid restaurants that allow smoking (of a product that is also legal). I vote with my wallet in the marketplace rather than demand that government take that decision for me by abridging someone else's rights. This was the very problem with the 18th Amendment and Prohibition from 1920 to 1933.
Yes, I believe that someone's right to smoke ends where my nostrils begin. I will enjoy the air at restaurants that will be fresher henceforth than it was up through January 1st of this year. Part of me leaps on the inside with joy in that knowledge. Part of me also weeps with despair as I watch government continuously erode the rights of private citizens.
Do you have a right to pursue happiness? Sure you do. As long as your rights do not infringe upon mine, I say go for it. I am very libertarian in my philosophy in that regard. Even in things I detest, I believe that you have free will, whether for good, for evil, or for innocuousness.
Apparently, the North Carolina Legislature and Governor Beverly Perdue disagree with me on that point. They also disagree with your right to do with your private property as you wish. This time, this disregard has manifested itself in the form of a ban on smoking in public, specifically in restaurants and bars.
Let me start by saying this. I detest smoking and always have. I have never tried a cigarette, pipe, or cigar simply because I find the purposeful inhalation of products of combustion unfathomable to my good senses. I also find the putrid odor detestable. I have walked out of many restaurants simply because they did not offer a non-smoking section or have sufficient separation between smoking and non-smoking. Several of these establishments are right here in town. I refuse to sit in or near a smoking section.
I will admit that part of me really loves the idea that any restaurant I choose to patronize will be smoke free and not offend my sense of smell. However, I am even more offended at the abridgement of private property rights and the pursuit of happiness. Hey, if smoking tobacco products makes you happy, knock yourself out. Just keep it away from me and my family.
A restaurant (or other business) owner should have the ability to decide if he/she wants to allow smoking in their establishment. Sure there are health concerns over tobacco smoke. I have the same concerns. If you have ever had a family member smoke like a chimney and later die of a heart attack, cancer, or emphysema, you would have the same concerns, too.
The problem is that the right to stupidly inhale cigarette smoke is, I believe an inalienable right. That means that it is given by God, not man. Government tends believe that it is the giver of rights. If a government can give rights, as it is attempting to do with the so-called right to health care or the right to an abortion, then it can also take those rights away.
Property rights are encompassed in the right to the pursuit of happiness and were actually considered to be the object of the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration. That right has been rescinded not by the giver of the right, but by a controlling governmental body who apparently knows more about you and your good health than you do.
I believe that a ban on smoking on airplanes was an excellent idea for the same reason that smoking is not allowed on elevators. An enclosed space with no way of escaping the smoke is an inappropriate place to keep people for any length of time. The right to breathe non-cigarette tainted air is abridged in such cases. One can not step outside of an airplane flying "at altitude" to avoid a toxic tobacco cloud and its stench. One can easily step outside of a dining establishment.
Fresh air as provided by God should be considered part of the words "life" and "liberty" in the Declaration of Independence. Just as I can avoid establishments that serve alcohol (a legal product) if I am morally opposed to the substance, I can also avoid restaurants that allow smoking (of a product that is also legal). I vote with my wallet in the marketplace rather than demand that government take that decision for me by abridging someone else's rights. This was the very problem with the 18th Amendment and Prohibition from 1920 to 1933.
Yes, I believe that someone's right to smoke ends where my nostrils begin. I will enjoy the air at restaurants that will be fresher henceforth than it was up through January 1st of this year. Part of me leaps on the inside with joy in that knowledge. Part of me also weeps with despair as I watch government continuously erode the rights of private citizens.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Column for May 14, 2009
Determine your core values and stand thereupon
A friend of mine commented to me a few days ago that she thought I was a Libertarian, meaning a member of that political party. I must admit that many of their beliefs fall within my scope of opinion. There are some views, however, with which the Libertarian Party and I diverge.
I had commented upon my support for Chad Adams for the chairman's position for the Republican Party of North Carolina. I left the Republican Party several years ago because I saw a serious leftward slide in the party, lack of local support at the county level for local candidates, and a general malaise amongst the GOP leadership.
I have met Chad, corresponded with him, and read behind him for several years. He and I have many of the same values when it comes to the role of government, the size of government, and personal freedom. I had commented more than once that if Chad wins the chairman position, I may just be persuaded to rejoin the Republican Party.
Chad is not necessarily a politician, but he is what I consider to be a core values sort of guy. He is what he is and sticks by his beliefs. I am very much the same way. I have values applicable to politics, religion, family, and most other facets of life. My values have been forged over time, have been revised, and often extended as I have read, studied, prayed, and fellowshipped with others.
My core values, though many of them are similar to the Libertarian Party, are antithetical to that party's current platform. For instance, I am staunchly pro-life in the abortion debate. When standing for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", nothing could embody that view more than standing up for the rights of the unborn. As a former fetus, I am glad that I am allowed liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and above those two, life. That is just one example, but it is one of my core values.
By the way, this is a core value that I did not always hold. It is one that came as a result of maturation, a total change of heart, God's grace, and logic. At one time, I was an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose an abortion. I assented to this to the point where, and I am not proud to admit this, three of my own offspring were slaughtered in utero when I was a young, stupid heathen. This is just one reason that I am excited about the upcoming birth of my firstborn in about 10 weeks.
Core values can get you into a lot of trouble. They can also be the only way you can withstand with peace of heart. Core values can cost you a lot. They have me during my lifetime, and yet it is because of those losses that I have learned to stand firm.
I fellowship often with church people. I have said for years that one of the greatest parts of being a Christian is that you get to be around the saints of God. I have at the same time said that one of the worst parts of being a Christian is that you have to be around the saints of God. This dichotomy has at times made me gregariously misanthropic. Yeah…I know…but just look it up.
My core values in the faith have been tried. When years ago I was booted out of the very church congregation I co-founded, I had to stick by my convictions. It took years, but I have enjoyed a little slice of vindication in the past few months. Without those core values, how could I know I was doing the right thing when I stood firm?
My point is that in politics (just as in matters of religion, etc.), I have opinions. Those opinions are based upon careful consideration of what my core values should be. My friend who thought that I was a Libertarian because I was not a registered Republican recognized some values that were similar. I am libertarian in my views, meaning that I believe in liberty and the God who gave us our liberties. I am not Libertarian according to the so-called political party. My values make up who I am, not some party name.
Political parties come and go, slide to and fro in their platforms. I have resolved that my values, however, are forged and will stand. They may continue to be refined as I continue to age and mature as a man, but they will guide me nonetheless. If your political party has left you, then you are in good company. If your church denomination has left you standing on your core value beliefs and you watched their collective values slouch towards Gomorrah, you are in good company. Forge your values, then stand firm.
A friend of mine commented to me a few days ago that she thought I was a Libertarian, meaning a member of that political party. I must admit that many of their beliefs fall within my scope of opinion. There are some views, however, with which the Libertarian Party and I diverge.
I had commented upon my support for Chad Adams for the chairman's position for the Republican Party of North Carolina. I left the Republican Party several years ago because I saw a serious leftward slide in the party, lack of local support at the county level for local candidates, and a general malaise amongst the GOP leadership.
I have met Chad, corresponded with him, and read behind him for several years. He and I have many of the same values when it comes to the role of government, the size of government, and personal freedom. I had commented more than once that if Chad wins the chairman position, I may just be persuaded to rejoin the Republican Party.
Chad is not necessarily a politician, but he is what I consider to be a core values sort of guy. He is what he is and sticks by his beliefs. I am very much the same way. I have values applicable to politics, religion, family, and most other facets of life. My values have been forged over time, have been revised, and often extended as I have read, studied, prayed, and fellowshipped with others.
My core values, though many of them are similar to the Libertarian Party, are antithetical to that party's current platform. For instance, I am staunchly pro-life in the abortion debate. When standing for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", nothing could embody that view more than standing up for the rights of the unborn. As a former fetus, I am glad that I am allowed liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and above those two, life. That is just one example, but it is one of my core values.
By the way, this is a core value that I did not always hold. It is one that came as a result of maturation, a total change of heart, God's grace, and logic. At one time, I was an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose an abortion. I assented to this to the point where, and I am not proud to admit this, three of my own offspring were slaughtered in utero when I was a young, stupid heathen. This is just one reason that I am excited about the upcoming birth of my firstborn in about 10 weeks.
Core values can get you into a lot of trouble. They can also be the only way you can withstand with peace of heart. Core values can cost you a lot. They have me during my lifetime, and yet it is because of those losses that I have learned to stand firm.
I fellowship often with church people. I have said for years that one of the greatest parts of being a Christian is that you get to be around the saints of God. I have at the same time said that one of the worst parts of being a Christian is that you have to be around the saints of God. This dichotomy has at times made me gregariously misanthropic. Yeah…I know…but just look it up.
My core values in the faith have been tried. When years ago I was booted out of the very church congregation I co-founded, I had to stick by my convictions. It took years, but I have enjoyed a little slice of vindication in the past few months. Without those core values, how could I know I was doing the right thing when I stood firm?
My point is that in politics (just as in matters of religion, etc.), I have opinions. Those opinions are based upon careful consideration of what my core values should be. My friend who thought that I was a Libertarian because I was not a registered Republican recognized some values that were similar. I am libertarian in my views, meaning that I believe in liberty and the God who gave us our liberties. I am not Libertarian according to the so-called political party. My values make up who I am, not some party name.
Political parties come and go, slide to and fro in their platforms. I have resolved that my values, however, are forged and will stand. They may continue to be refined as I continue to age and mature as a man, but they will guide me nonetheless. If your political party has left you, then you are in good company. If your church denomination has left you standing on your core value beliefs and you watched their collective values slouch towards Gomorrah, you are in good company. Forge your values, then stand firm.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Column for May 7, 2009
Swine flu, government control, and your personal freedom
It is axiomatic that those who have power do not voluntarily relinquish it. Rather, those with power usually seek more of it. We have seen this as a society on all levels of life, whether it is business, small town government, state, or national government.
I have received scathing reviews for pointing these things out, though they should be plain as day even to a casual observer. Along with the warnings about power grabs have come real life examples. Yet I was called an alarmist, as if I was the little boy who cried wolf.
What happens when the wolf is indeed stalking his prey? What if the wolf was so cunning that he was able to take advantage of a diversionary scare in order to secure his position? Folks, that is exactly what we see going on right now.
I type this while coughing from time to time and sniffling. This is not to mention the lack of energy that comes from the onset of a head cold. And yet I don't mind saying that the current scare of the Swine Flu is no big deal. In fact, I am tired of hearing about it. Every day, every hour, newscasts are barraging us with fears of some mild strain of influenza. Why are we hearing so much about it? It is a mere scare tactic to condition sheeple into accepting government directed control for the sake of avoiding an epidemic. And the news media is soaking it up for a lazy sell in order to have something to report.
Amongst the clamor of the alarmist rants about an epidemic, I have actually heard health experts occasionally get their message through that the Swine Flu is nothing to worry about. In fact, there will be fewer cases of Swine Flu infections than normal influenza. And yet we hear the newest death toll each hour on the radio.
Scared sheeple will buy into the tactics and allow themselves to be controlled over something minor. Yet these same sheeple have criticized people like myself who have been warning about socialist incursions into our everyday lives.
I was told I was crying wolf about socialism and yet now the federal government owns huge chunks of General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, and Citi Bank at your expense. I was told I was crying wolf about attempts at gun control, yet I have read about legislative bill after bill that provide for stringent restrictions on your freedoms. I was told that I was crying wolf about the increasing control on what you can and can not express in public, and yet I read just this week about a mayor of a small town that had one of the town council members arrested for speaking his mind at a town council meeting. The list goes on and on, folks.
I am amazed at the hysteria over a mild strain of influenza by both the government and the media and yet there is no call for sealing off the southern border of the United States, which is where most carriers of this illness enter the country. Of course it would not be politically correct to call for that, since these same people are the ones who want wide open borders and do not mind an influx of people from third world nations full of disease.
In the Bible, in Matthew chapter 10, Jesus said, "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." That is a good principle to follow in life in general, not just in Christianity. We are told that there are "wiles of the devil". There are wiles of the world's system as well. One very effective wile is to scare people into accepting more and more control and to give up more and more freedom in the name of peace or safety. As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
In the coming days, keep watching the news, keep listening to the tactics employed by the mainstream media, and watch what our governments at all levels do. You will see the Law of Entropy at work. It does not only apply to thermodynamics; it also applies to our society as well.
It is axiomatic that those who have power do not voluntarily relinquish it. Rather, those with power usually seek more of it. We have seen this as a society on all levels of life, whether it is business, small town government, state, or national government.
I have received scathing reviews for pointing these things out, though they should be plain as day even to a casual observer. Along with the warnings about power grabs have come real life examples. Yet I was called an alarmist, as if I was the little boy who cried wolf.
What happens when the wolf is indeed stalking his prey? What if the wolf was so cunning that he was able to take advantage of a diversionary scare in order to secure his position? Folks, that is exactly what we see going on right now.
I type this while coughing from time to time and sniffling. This is not to mention the lack of energy that comes from the onset of a head cold. And yet I don't mind saying that the current scare of the Swine Flu is no big deal. In fact, I am tired of hearing about it. Every day, every hour, newscasts are barraging us with fears of some mild strain of influenza. Why are we hearing so much about it? It is a mere scare tactic to condition sheeple into accepting government directed control for the sake of avoiding an epidemic. And the news media is soaking it up for a lazy sell in order to have something to report.
Amongst the clamor of the alarmist rants about an epidemic, I have actually heard health experts occasionally get their message through that the Swine Flu is nothing to worry about. In fact, there will be fewer cases of Swine Flu infections than normal influenza. And yet we hear the newest death toll each hour on the radio.
Scared sheeple will buy into the tactics and allow themselves to be controlled over something minor. Yet these same sheeple have criticized people like myself who have been warning about socialist incursions into our everyday lives.
I was told I was crying wolf about socialism and yet now the federal government owns huge chunks of General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, and Citi Bank at your expense. I was told I was crying wolf about attempts at gun control, yet I have read about legislative bill after bill that provide for stringent restrictions on your freedoms. I was told that I was crying wolf about the increasing control on what you can and can not express in public, and yet I read just this week about a mayor of a small town that had one of the town council members arrested for speaking his mind at a town council meeting. The list goes on and on, folks.
I am amazed at the hysteria over a mild strain of influenza by both the government and the media and yet there is no call for sealing off the southern border of the United States, which is where most carriers of this illness enter the country. Of course it would not be politically correct to call for that, since these same people are the ones who want wide open borders and do not mind an influx of people from third world nations full of disease.
In the Bible, in Matthew chapter 10, Jesus said, "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." That is a good principle to follow in life in general, not just in Christianity. We are told that there are "wiles of the devil". There are wiles of the world's system as well. One very effective wile is to scare people into accepting more and more control and to give up more and more freedom in the name of peace or safety. As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
In the coming days, keep watching the news, keep listening to the tactics employed by the mainstream media, and watch what our governments at all levels do. You will see the Law of Entropy at work. It does not only apply to thermodynamics; it also applies to our society as well.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Column for Jan. 15, 2009
Beware that planning and zoning ordinances can lead to regulatory tyranny
There are many tools at the disposal of legislators for the control of the masses. Control can take many shapes. Speed limits are a form of behavioral control. A speed limit curbs one's freedom to operate a motor vehicle at any speed one so desires in consideration for the safety of the whole of society. To that end, we in this nation do indeed legislate morality.
In the effort to legislate moral issues, there are always standards employed. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to stamp out private property rights. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to deny two people, allegedly in love with each other, the right to marry. We regulate marriage all the time. Law dictates that I have but one wife at a time. That is a moral stance on the issue, as articulated in statute.
I am free to own property. To deny the right to own property would be antithetical to our nation's founding principles. To allow me to own property and yet deny me the freedom to use it for reasonable purposes can be just as tyrannical as to deny me the right to own it in the first place.
When I speak of legislation I do not refer only to the national level of government. Cities often use planning and zoning laws to restrict behavior and freedom. For instance, it is required to have a certain amount of square footage of land upon which to build a dwelling. That is not an unreasonable requirement, considering that with a lot the size of a postage stamp, one dwelling would infringe upon the neighboring property and the property rights of others.
By the time this column is published, the Selma Town Council will have held a public hearing on whether or not to disallow future duplex (two family) homes in the MDR, or Medium Density Residential district. Since I serve on the town's planning board, I have seen this issue come up twice in the past two months.
Selma has a problem with 60% or more of its citizens being renters rather than single family dwelling owners. Renters typically do not have as much vested interest in the town, in property taxes, in the aesthetics of the property, and rental homes often attract a lower quality resident than would purchase property. This is a fact that the town wrestles with, as it has pointed out in its Strategic Plan. I have previously commented upon the plan extensively, yet not exhaustively in this column.
In the planning board meeting, I made the following observations and declarations.
1. The town does indeed have a problem of a disproportionate number of its residents being renters as opposed to home buyers.
2. Regardless of the need to change the proportion of home owners versus renters, private property rights need to be respected.
3. There are many people who own duplex and rental homes for a living.
4. The MDR district is fairly full as it is. There are not a large number of empty lots on which to build, anyway. I doubted that the move would have much impact, if any.
5. The MDR district was designed precisely for single family homes and duplexes.
6. To eliminate duplexes from future additions to an MDR zoned area is contrary to the very essence of what makes the MDR district MDR.
7. To tell a person what he can or can not do with his private property when it fits the intent of the zoning ordinance is not ethical and is denying private property rights.
It is for these reasons that a month ago, the motion was made in the planning board meeting to change the zoning ordinance to eliminate the future building of duplexes in the MDR district but it failed for lack of a second. The second time this discussion and vote came up on January 5th, the majority of the board members felt as I did and voted to recommend that the town council not change the zoning ordinance. Of course the planning board is only an advisory body with no binding authority, and the town council will do what it wants.
I grow tired of the quality of tenants in the duplexes in my own neighborhood. I despise Mariachi music at 1 AM as much as anyone. I have seen drug deals go down with other tenants in the neighborhood. I hate it. But I hate the deprivation of private property rights even more. I agree that Selma needs to have a better quality of residents moving here and a higher percentage of single family homes. I just do not believe that oppressing land owners with zoning requirements that can lead to local regulatory tyranny is the correct methodology. By the time this column is published, we will know where the town council stands on the matter.
There are many tools at the disposal of legislators for the control of the masses. Control can take many shapes. Speed limits are a form of behavioral control. A speed limit curbs one's freedom to operate a motor vehicle at any speed one so desires in consideration for the safety of the whole of society. To that end, we in this nation do indeed legislate morality.
In the effort to legislate moral issues, there are always standards employed. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to stamp out private property rights. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to deny two people, allegedly in love with each other, the right to marry. We regulate marriage all the time. Law dictates that I have but one wife at a time. That is a moral stance on the issue, as articulated in statute.
I am free to own property. To deny the right to own property would be antithetical to our nation's founding principles. To allow me to own property and yet deny me the freedom to use it for reasonable purposes can be just as tyrannical as to deny me the right to own it in the first place.
When I speak of legislation I do not refer only to the national level of government. Cities often use planning and zoning laws to restrict behavior and freedom. For instance, it is required to have a certain amount of square footage of land upon which to build a dwelling. That is not an unreasonable requirement, considering that with a lot the size of a postage stamp, one dwelling would infringe upon the neighboring property and the property rights of others.
By the time this column is published, the Selma Town Council will have held a public hearing on whether or not to disallow future duplex (two family) homes in the MDR, or Medium Density Residential district. Since I serve on the town's planning board, I have seen this issue come up twice in the past two months.
Selma has a problem with 60% or more of its citizens being renters rather than single family dwelling owners. Renters typically do not have as much vested interest in the town, in property taxes, in the aesthetics of the property, and rental homes often attract a lower quality resident than would purchase property. This is a fact that the town wrestles with, as it has pointed out in its Strategic Plan. I have previously commented upon the plan extensively, yet not exhaustively in this column.
In the planning board meeting, I made the following observations and declarations.
1. The town does indeed have a problem of a disproportionate number of its residents being renters as opposed to home buyers.
2. Regardless of the need to change the proportion of home owners versus renters, private property rights need to be respected.
3. There are many people who own duplex and rental homes for a living.
4. The MDR district is fairly full as it is. There are not a large number of empty lots on which to build, anyway. I doubted that the move would have much impact, if any.
5. The MDR district was designed precisely for single family homes and duplexes.
6. To eliminate duplexes from future additions to an MDR zoned area is contrary to the very essence of what makes the MDR district MDR.
7. To tell a person what he can or can not do with his private property when it fits the intent of the zoning ordinance is not ethical and is denying private property rights.
It is for these reasons that a month ago, the motion was made in the planning board meeting to change the zoning ordinance to eliminate the future building of duplexes in the MDR district but it failed for lack of a second. The second time this discussion and vote came up on January 5th, the majority of the board members felt as I did and voted to recommend that the town council not change the zoning ordinance. Of course the planning board is only an advisory body with no binding authority, and the town council will do what it wants.
I grow tired of the quality of tenants in the duplexes in my own neighborhood. I despise Mariachi music at 1 AM as much as anyone. I have seen drug deals go down with other tenants in the neighborhood. I hate it. But I hate the deprivation of private property rights even more. I agree that Selma needs to have a better quality of residents moving here and a higher percentage of single family homes. I just do not believe that oppressing land owners with zoning requirements that can lead to local regulatory tyranny is the correct methodology. By the time this column is published, we will know where the town council stands on the matter.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Column for April 10, 2008
Martin Luther King and Moses
This past weekend was bittersweet for many Americans. Saturday and Sunday marked the anniversary of the loss of one leader and the recent loss of another. Though very different in many respects, they had the same end desire, freedom and equality. Even so, their respective views of equality may have been different.
April 4th marked the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. King is revered by millions, vilified by others, and is held with indifference of estimation by still others. King's life was indeed ended prematurely and tragically, which unfortunately, made him a martyr in the minds of many. He has been deified by many, which I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. For some reason, he has become an object of worship among some of his race. Personally, I believe that King would have found this abhorrent. Unlike many White folks, I have actually read behind King. The internet is full of documentation and audio of his speeches. I personally spent three days with one of King's disciples at a conference discussing racism.
King said in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." It is unfortunate that so many of those who claim to follow King's vision do just that. All one has to do is listen to one of his disciples, Jesse Jackson. Even worse has been the rhetoric of Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which has been full of pure venom. Oddly enough, many of these people carry the title of "reverend", and yet I never hear them preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, I hear a social gospel, which tickles the ears of those who feel wronged by their status and position in life and blame society as a result.
One thing of which I am sure is that racism is not exclusive to Caucasians. It is certainly more prevalent, yet less overtly so, in the minds and actions of so called liberals. Liberals tend to tell people of color, whether of African or Hispanic heritage, that they can not advance in society without the assistance of the government. Over forty years ago, the great hope was for equal treatment under the law. Today, it seems that it is a hope that the government will supply their needs rather than having the opportunity for pursuing the dreams that equality can offer.
King said in the same aforementioned speech, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" These words are the foundation of this nation, and many were excluded by law from this creed. Today, the work of those like King resonates with the result. There is indeed equality under the law for all, regardless of skin color. The rest is up to the individual to rise above circumstances and thrive rather than flounder in pity and doubt.
One of my favorite lines from King's speech is "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." A big amen to that line. If it would be so, however, then we would no longer have the enslaving paradigm that so called affirmative action brings. We would no longer allow welfare, regardless of skin color, to be propagated generation after generation.
One man who actually marched with King and the civil rights movement, was Charlton Heston. Heston was a staunch conservative and later, president of the National Rifle Association. He was very politically incorrect in a very politically correct society such as Hollywood. Yet, Heston knew that the opportunity for equality was an essential tenant of what I refer to as "classic liberalism". Classic liberalism bears no resemblance to modern day liberalism as we know it. Actually, classic liberalism is what is true conservatism today. Few actually practice it, however. Liberalism refers to the practice and promotion of liberty with accompanying exercise of responsibility.
Heston knew that gun rights were essential to the exercise of freedom. That is just one aspect of individual liberty, as he obviously understood, hence, his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. His dream, however, was a bit different than those liberals of today. He believed in the principle of being free to succeed, yet free to fail; of being free to participate in the American dream and take advantage of the freedoms available, yet taking responsibility for one's own actions and success or lack thereof.
Heston, who portrayed Ben Hur, Moses, El Cid, and John the Baptist, died this past weekend. I was saddened to see this, though it was not unexpected. Charlton Heston was 84 years of age and suffered from Alzheimer's Syndrome.
I am amazed at the difference between civil rights activists like some of Martin Luther King's disciples, who have perverted the message of King to be a self serving and ironically enslaving paradigm and someone like Charlton Heston, who preached freedom and equality for all until the day he died. Heston's message actually embodied the concept of "…a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". I wish that there were more that preached that message in this nation.
Selma, Alabama may have been where MLK and his disciples chose to bring the message of freedom, but I have chosen Selma, North Carolina to do the very same thing, regardless of skin color. The civil rights movement was a necessary thing, and has made great changes in our nation. What we need today is a civil responsibility movement to follow up and free minds now that the bodies have been freed.
This past weekend was bittersweet for many Americans. Saturday and Sunday marked the anniversary of the loss of one leader and the recent loss of another. Though very different in many respects, they had the same end desire, freedom and equality. Even so, their respective views of equality may have been different.
April 4th marked the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. King is revered by millions, vilified by others, and is held with indifference of estimation by still others. King's life was indeed ended prematurely and tragically, which unfortunately, made him a martyr in the minds of many. He has been deified by many, which I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. For some reason, he has become an object of worship among some of his race. Personally, I believe that King would have found this abhorrent. Unlike many White folks, I have actually read behind King. The internet is full of documentation and audio of his speeches. I personally spent three days with one of King's disciples at a conference discussing racism.
King said in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." It is unfortunate that so many of those who claim to follow King's vision do just that. All one has to do is listen to one of his disciples, Jesse Jackson. Even worse has been the rhetoric of Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which has been full of pure venom. Oddly enough, many of these people carry the title of "reverend", and yet I never hear them preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, I hear a social gospel, which tickles the ears of those who feel wronged by their status and position in life and blame society as a result.
One thing of which I am sure is that racism is not exclusive to Caucasians. It is certainly more prevalent, yet less overtly so, in the minds and actions of so called liberals. Liberals tend to tell people of color, whether of African or Hispanic heritage, that they can not advance in society without the assistance of the government. Over forty years ago, the great hope was for equal treatment under the law. Today, it seems that it is a hope that the government will supply their needs rather than having the opportunity for pursuing the dreams that equality can offer.
King said in the same aforementioned speech, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" These words are the foundation of this nation, and many were excluded by law from this creed. Today, the work of those like King resonates with the result. There is indeed equality under the law for all, regardless of skin color. The rest is up to the individual to rise above circumstances and thrive rather than flounder in pity and doubt.
One of my favorite lines from King's speech is "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." A big amen to that line. If it would be so, however, then we would no longer have the enslaving paradigm that so called affirmative action brings. We would no longer allow welfare, regardless of skin color, to be propagated generation after generation.
One man who actually marched with King and the civil rights movement, was Charlton Heston. Heston was a staunch conservative and later, president of the National Rifle Association. He was very politically incorrect in a very politically correct society such as Hollywood. Yet, Heston knew that the opportunity for equality was an essential tenant of what I refer to as "classic liberalism". Classic liberalism bears no resemblance to modern day liberalism as we know it. Actually, classic liberalism is what is true conservatism today. Few actually practice it, however. Liberalism refers to the practice and promotion of liberty with accompanying exercise of responsibility.
Heston knew that gun rights were essential to the exercise of freedom. That is just one aspect of individual liberty, as he obviously understood, hence, his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. His dream, however, was a bit different than those liberals of today. He believed in the principle of being free to succeed, yet free to fail; of being free to participate in the American dream and take advantage of the freedoms available, yet taking responsibility for one's own actions and success or lack thereof.
Heston, who portrayed Ben Hur, Moses, El Cid, and John the Baptist, died this past weekend. I was saddened to see this, though it was not unexpected. Charlton Heston was 84 years of age and suffered from Alzheimer's Syndrome.
I am amazed at the difference between civil rights activists like some of Martin Luther King's disciples, who have perverted the message of King to be a self serving and ironically enslaving paradigm and someone like Charlton Heston, who preached freedom and equality for all until the day he died. Heston's message actually embodied the concept of "…a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". I wish that there were more that preached that message in this nation.
Selma, Alabama may have been where MLK and his disciples chose to bring the message of freedom, but I have chosen Selma, North Carolina to do the very same thing, regardless of skin color. The civil rights movement was a necessary thing, and has made great changes in our nation. What we need today is a civil responsibility movement to follow up and free minds now that the bodies have been freed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
