Whenever you are talking to someone about politics, pay attention to what they mean – not what they say.
Modern day liberals claim to want people to have equal opportunities as everyone else, but typically they want to use the power of government to make this come about. Government by it’s nature is force. Why do you need to use force to give everyone opportunity?
One reason is because one person (Person A) is in a position to deny another person (Person B) to take advantage of opportunity. That is all well and good, but unless A actually denies B his liberty, then A has done nothing wrong. To bring sanction against A preemptively is an over-reach of force (government). If A actively denies B of his liberties, then A should be stopped and punitively damaged so as to set precedent to discourage similar future acts by A and anyone else who decides that what A did was a good idea. Otherwise, let people have freedom of association and deal with each other on the merits of their own situation. Punish the bad guys who do bad things, but leave the good guys alone. Also, assume everybody is a good guy until they prove themselves otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, and all, ya know.
The modern day liberal is against this idea. The modern day liberal wants to convict you because of where you ARE, ignoring what you did to get there. Because of what you HAVE, ignoring how you got it. Because of what you take, ignoring what you give.
If you have more than they think you should have, they want to use force to take it and transfer it to those who have less. Forget all the physical or mental work you did to get it, there are people out there who need it and you have more than what they determine you need. Bring in the guys with the guns.
If you have plenty, should you, by some moral compass, decide you should give to those who don’t? Sure, but YOU are the one who knows what you need and what you want to give and who you want to give it to. The modern liberal doesn’t trust YOU to do with what you have earned what they want you to do with it. They only trust the people who can lie well enough to the requisite number of people in order to get the sanction of the populace to use force to hopefully do what they want. See, a modern liberal DEPENDS on forcing others to do what they want done. They’ll condemn you for not “giving to the less-fortunate” then take your money so you can’t. They depend on force; not freedom, not choice not compassion. They want you to do what THEY want, not what you or somebody else wants. So they co-opt the only legal use of force available – government.
Many modern day conservatives do the same thing. Where the liberal wants the state to enforce his fluid definition of right and wrong, the theological conservative thinks he has God on his side and wants the state to enforce his idea of what God says is right and wrong. Both sides have lost sight of the fact that it is not a legitimate function of government to determine morality. The only legitimate function of force is to prevent or punish illegitimate force. In other words, government is supposed to protect the citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and property.
Determining who a citizen freely gives property to is not a protection of liberties. Determining if one citizen owes another property by contract IS a protection of liberties. By the way, Property = Time, Labor, Money, Goods, and/or Services.
Determining what one citizen charges another for goods or services provided is not a protection of liberties. But making sure one person delivers what they promised for what they charged IS a protection of liberties.
Telling one citizen that he cannot freely choose who he associates with in commerce or trade is NOT a protection of the freedom of association. Making sure one or more people do not interfere with the ability of someone else to freely associate with whom they choose, IS a protection of the freedom of association.
Preventing a person from expressing religious beliefs or mandating that religious beliefs be expressed is not a protection of religious freedom. Preventing someone from mandating or suppressing the free expression of religious beliefs IS a protection of religious freedom.
Mandating who one person can or cannot marry just flies in the face of freedom on every level. I have no idea what the anti-gay marriage folks think they’re doing to further freedom by trying to prevent two people who want to get married from getting married. That being said, it shouldn’t matter to the government whether you are married or not. In a legitimate government, what business of theirs is it if you claim to be married or not?
Mandating what a person chooses to ingest, drink, smoke, or whatever is not a protection of freedom. Preventing an intoxicated person from presenting an unreasonable risk to others IS an protection of freedom. Also, determining which days or times a person may purchase or indulge in those behaviors falls right in there with the rest of it.
It is natural to want to prevent people from doing what you think is wrong. But before you get on some bandwagon and start calling for a use of force against that person for their choices, ask yourself, “Does his choice present an unreasonable danger to the rights of anyone else? Is he engaging in a fraud that will cost someone else their time, labor, or property without some agreed upon recompense?” If the answer is “No”, then feel free to speak out against what that person is doing. Criticize him and ostracize him if you will, but don’t fall back on the use of force to stop him.
Because pretty soon, he and a bunch of like minded people could possibly gain political power and bring sanction against you for doing things you do that doesn’t hurt anyone but that they don’t like. And they will use the precedent YOU set against you.
Pi Are Squared 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 13, 2011 at 12:02 AM
David Halliday
You talk about the government as if it was a third party. The government is you. And me. And us. Otherwise it is tyrany.
August 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM
piaresquared
David, I’m not sure about a “third” party, but I do believe the government is a separate party from me. I am not the government. I vote to elect some members of the government but I do not have the legal power to use force to accomplish my goals – the government does.
That is why the Founders wanted a limited government because they understood that a body of unlimited interest with unlimited power to use force will naturally devolve into a tyranny.
So, yes, it is tyranny.
August 13, 2011 at 12:25 AM
H. Callahan
Excellent blog and spot on as to the application of force by liberal governance rather than the will of the majority all things being equal as our founding fathers intended, regardless of race, religion politics or social status.
August 14, 2011 at 3:59 AM
Ken
Excellent entry. Several topics I’ve ranted about before rolled up into one. My only point of disagreement – “Gay Marriage” is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is, by definition, a union between one man and one woman, each bringing unique and distinct attributes to make two incomplete people one whole. Even in polygamy, one man marries many women individually – each an independent “marriage”.
I agree however with your argument on what government’s role should be in this regard though – as a protection of individual liberties in a civicl contract between two individuals, be it between a man and woman married under traditional Judeo-Christian or almost any other world tradition, or two homosexuals seeking a union with similar legal protections. The whole controversy over “Gay Marriage” is really a highlight of the overstepping of Government’s role – into definitions of cultural words – rather than an actual controversy per se. Government can re-define whatever it wants – it can say the moon is made of green cheese – I’m going to keep on sticking to the definitions I know to be true and obeying the law until that point….
August 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM
piaresquared
Ken, I see the word “marriage” defined in both the heterosexual and homosexual sense in Merriam Websters but that’s not really the point. If this were just an argument of semantics, it wouldn’t matter. it is a matter of some people wanting to interfere in the consensual relationships of others.
I don’t think there should be any kind of law that requires you, me, any church, any private entity to accept gay marriage, but there should not be any kind of law that prevents two consenting people from getting married – regardless of who they are.
As for any legal protections, I don’t see that marriage should include or exclude any distinct legal protections under a legitimate government. The government would protect your liberties equally, as an individual, regardless of your inter-personal relationship status.
August 15, 2011 at 2:47 AM
Ken
I have no doubt that the editors of Merriam Websters, and many others, have appended the definition that they originally had for marriage to include a homosexual veriant of marriage. It is a method of the leftist to alter meanings of words to suit their own agenda.
That in no way negates the fact that marriage has been defined for the entirety of the history of mankind as a union between one man and one woman. Even in polygamist cultures, one man (typically) will marry multiple women, individually. There are two parties involved – a bride, and a groom. The fact that we have to use the modifier “gay” before the word marriage highlights how it is a material change to the word.
It’s not just on religious grounds that I oppose redefining the word. It is on grounds of logic and societal structure. If any time some group feels that a definition impinges on its rights we see fit to materially alter the meanings of words, then our language simply has no meaning. Which is the territory where the leftist operates.
It is a thorny issue from a governmental point of view, because our government is supposed to protect individual liberties equally, and yet we have this situation where a historical fact (marriage) creates a dilemna where a subset of society is treated differently. I think the solution is to get the government out of the business of altering or re-defining words. The proper role of government in this context is to provide for individual protections in a contract between individuals. There should be a civil union contract that applies between two individuals and constitutes any protections or considerations under the law. But the marriage comes from a church (for most religious people), or a cultural ceremony (as my understanding of Indian weddings is, though may have religious overtones I’m unaware of), or whatever made up ceremony a-religious, a-cultural people come up with.
If homosexual couples want to go through a ceremony and call them selves married, there is nothing to stop them. And if they go through the process of obtaining a legally binding contract, like heterosexual couples who get legally married, do – then they should be afforded the same considerations as a couple that “traditionally” married people are.
But the government has no business altering language by fiat just to appease a voting block. There is no end to the assault on language. It’s neither a legitimate role of government, nor a constructive use of government power.