![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nwhikerI didn't listen to all of 'em but bits and pieces, plus reporting and I often went back to listen when I saw what I thought had to be misleading headlines.
They were not.
Republicans want to take us back a century.
WTF is the matter with those people? Using the term people loosely here, I think.
I mean, reversing Roe, Griswold, and Loving? And leaving it to the states? Yeah, no. I mean, I know Roe is toast, the stupid little handmaiden will make sure of that, but Griswold? Birth control? I mean, I guess, since it and Roe are both determined based on a certain right to privacy, but damn. I suspect that Eisen... need to look it up.... Eisenstadt vs Baird, the right to birth control for unmarried couples, will go along with. Jesus. Women are truly going to be second class citizens in many states.
1920, here we come.
ETA So I had to look up the spelling for Eisenstadt, and that led me to notice that the right so homosexual relations also falls under the right to privacy. As does Obergefell.
They were not.
Republicans want to take us back a century.
WTF is the matter with those people? Using the term people loosely here, I think.
I mean, reversing Roe, Griswold, and Loving? And leaving it to the states? Yeah, no. I mean, I know Roe is toast, the stupid little handmaiden will make sure of that, but Griswold? Birth control? I mean, I guess, since it and Roe are both determined based on a certain right to privacy, but damn. I suspect that Eisen... need to look it up.... Eisenstadt vs Baird, the right to birth control for unmarried couples, will go along with. Jesus. Women are truly going to be second class citizens in many states.
1920, here we come.
ETA So I had to look up the spelling for Eisenstadt, and that led me to notice that the right so homosexual relations also falls under the right to privacy. As does Obergefell.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Excuse me - saw this on Latest Things
Date: 23 Mar 2022 00:17 (UTC)… in many states.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's very simple: Some things, indeed most things, are not the lawful business of the Federal Government.
“There oughtta be a law!”
No, there ought NOT to be. That's called “Liberty,” and that's what America was once all about. “Don't Tread on Me” - remember?
It's not easy for some people to mind their own business, but the right to be let alone is what made America work.
I hope that helps your understanding.
Re: Excuse me - saw this on Latest Things
Date: 23 Mar 2022 00:34 (UTC)We can talk when any man found to be responsible for an unwanted pregnancy gets his testicles removed.
At this point, "don't tread on me" is a temper tantrum motto cited by whiny selfish people.
Re: Excuse me - saw this on Latest Things
Date: 23 Mar 2022 00:56 (UTC)https://ray-alan.medium.com/rose-lane-wilder-and-the-discovery-of-freedom-326291b9393d
Rose Wilder sought to highlight the difference it made in America that the individual was permitted freedom from government authority.
The Americans broke from the idea that dominated all over human history that they must depend on some overarching authority in government to grant them well being, and thus when good happens, we owe ever more to the powers that be.
The one idea that this is not the case, that human beings have within themselves the capacity to make their own way, she wrote, created the most glorious civilization in world history. Her passion was to help others see the cause: not authority but individual initiative and action.
She traced out this idea to provide sketches of history from the ancient world to the mid-20th century, believing that she had discovered the answer to what transformed the world from a dark, miserable, sickly, and dangerous place to one where humans thrive and create. She further condemned all political trends of her time from Fascism, to Communism, to the New Deal, and blasted war as the most destructive action of all…
I do understand what you are saying, which is why I supported same-sex marriage, abortion rights, &c.
But consider it thus: Should women be permitted to vote? Of course yes. Should they be required to vote whether they wish to or not, on pain of fines or imprisonment? A different story! The one is freedom. The other - is not.
You abhor abortion, consider it murder? Don't do it. But you may not outlaw whatever you don't like.
States should allow abortion. Some would; some would not. Vote with your feet, not by a Federal bayonet.
Re: Excuse me - saw this on Latest Things
Date: 23 Mar 2022 15:09 (UTC)Seriously, libertarianism is often a movement of people who say things like "I did this All By Myself", when, really, no, they did not. They benefited from all sort of things established by government and paid for by everyone.
Voting with your feet is a privilege of those who can, who have the means and the support to move. Easy to say "want to live in a state wtih access to abortion, leave TX and move to CO", completely ignoring the reality of moving, losing close contact with a community. Access to basic freedoms should be granted to all, no matter where they live.
As a very fundamental level, I don't think that, as this point in time, all states are good protectors of their people.
Your example on abortion, don't like it don't have one. Sure, as long as you can, right, because the state hasn't been limiting access or outlawing. But then take the expansion of Medicaid. Some states have refused it, even though it costs them nothing and would help people, at times going against their voters. So someone values some version of freedom that says people should be free to die without federal aid and makes the decision for everyone in the state... and the person making that decision, of course, has access to often government provided health care.
Re: Excuse me - saw this on Latest Things
Date: 23 Mar 2022 15:37 (UTC)Re: Excuse me - saw this on Latest Things
Date: 23 Mar 2022 01:18 (UTC)Or consider weed: Should it be decriminalized, made legal to purchase and consume like anything else? California says Yes; South Carolina says No. Who is right? Should SC's opinion be forced upon CA regardless of their own views? Or is that none of their damn business?
“They govern best, who govern least.”
Re: Excuse me - saw this on Latest Things
Date: 23 Mar 2022 14:45 (UTC)I do think that week should be decriminalized -I'm in WA state- even though I despise the stench, LOL. It has nothing to do with what I think about weed, but rather that I don't think that people's lives should be curtailed over weed, especially since the punishments were not handed out in an equitable manner.
And I totally think it should be on a federal level, not state. Just because you live in SC should not leave you with a criminal record because you happened to have a few ounces or whatever, there should be a continuity in criminal law over the country.
The fundamental thing for me is that people's ability to participate in society in a full, productive manner should not be curtailed because of where they live. That means access to birth control and abortion, for example, and not having your life derailed because of a marijuana conviction.
Re: Excuse me
Date: 23 Mar 2022 15:27 (UTC)And the answer is, Yes, we do.
All we got to say on this proposition is this: First, me and you is as good as anybody else, and maybe a damn sight better; second, nobody ain't got no right to take away none of our rights; third, every man has got a right to live, to come and go as he pleases, and to have a good time whichever way he likes, so long as he don't interfere with nobody else.
That any government that don't give a man them rights ain't worth a damn; also, people ought to choose the kind of government they want themselves, and nobody else ought to have no say in the matter.
That whenever any government don't do this, then the people have got a right to give it the bum's rush and put in one that will take care of their interests.
Of course, that don't mean having a revolution every day like them South American yellow-bellies, or every time some jobholder goes to work and does something he ain't got no business to do. It is better to stand a little graft, etc., than to have revolutions all the time, and any man that wasn't a anarchist or one of them I.W.W.'s would say the same.
But when things get so bad that a man ain't hardly got no rights at all no more, but you might almost call him a slave, then everybody ought to get together and throw the grafters out, and put in new ones who won't carry on so high and steal so much, and then watch them. This is the proposition the people of these Colonies is up against, and they have got tired of it…
Re: Excuse me
Date: 24 Mar 2022 20:05 (UTC)As for me knowing who Rose Wilder is... Like most women of my generation, the two (or more) before me, and at least one after, I read Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House books as a child. And when I grew up, I learned more about the author and her daughter. _Libertarians on the Prairie_ was worth the read, though I'd found out about much of it long before.
Re: Excuse me
Date: 26 Mar 2022 01:38 (UTC)You mistake me for one of the coffee-shop theologians whose fruitless dithering and debating turned the Libertarian Party from a bold new initiative into a justly-disregarded footnote.
No, I'm a Taft Republican - a landowning, taxpaying, law-abiding Goldwater Reagan Republican who remembers when the sole business of the Federal Governmment was to "protect the country, coin money and leave us alone."
It was not through Federal Socialism that America came to "sit bestride the world like a Colossus." Once, half of all manufacturing worldwide was within the USA. Look today: What isn't "Made in China"?
C Northcote Parkinson stated it best: Nations thrive until the ever-growing burden of government crush them into the ground.
Once was le Grand Siècle - and what is France today? Once Britannia ruled the waves - today it, too, is disregarded, pushed aside by America… which is now just another European tax-and-regulate country. In every case, "There oughtta be a law" - and soon there are too many. For the Greater Good, of course - right, Hillary? (Her contempt for the people she sought to govern was always palpable.)
Once, one income was enough to raise a family. Today, two incomes are not enough - but we have a 1.85 trillion "social spending bill".
That's not my America. And so many people agreed that it put D Trump in office. He was a symptom of our awareness: This is wrong.
Too bad he was what he turned out to be.
(“Stimulus check”? Sure! Here's $3,030 for you. Good day… No? Then where are $1,850,000,000,000 of our money going, and what ever is accomplished?
“Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last 50 years and they’re still poor.”
— Charles Barkley)
What a difference a century makes.
Date: 26 Mar 2022 01:50 (UTC)To what new America may Americans now emigrate?
Re: Excuse me
Date: 23 Mar 2022 15:35 (UTC)You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price…
- R Reagan, 1st Inaugural, AD 1981
Re: Excuse me
Date: 23 Mar 2022 15:37 (UTC)