And this, my friends, is why we are doomed

Anthony Martin, the Columbia Conservative Examiner who also blogs at the Liberty Sphere, yesterday drew my attention to a Newsbusters.org article regarding Huffington Post blogger Yoani Sanchez.

Basically, Yoani Sanchez is a Cuban blogger who sometimes posts some first-hand truths about Cuba that are uncomfortable to the liberals at the Huffpo…in this case, a video of a Cuban citizen being denied access to the internet by government order. Newsbuster’s point was that Huffpo readers tend to basically ignore anything she writes that doesn’t fit in with their utopian view of Cuban society. At the time that Newsbusters posted their article, there was only one comment to Yoani’s post:

And you think the United States doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of its citizens?

The juvenile mentality exhibited by such a comment notwithstanding, that’s not even the worst of it to my mind.

Since the Newsbusters article, several people (I assume their readers) have posted comments supporting Yoani’s work, to which the Huffpo regulars have felt compelled to respond.

In the now 80 count comment thread, several have expounded upon the “rights” that are being denied citizens of the US:

Like the right to chose a public health plan over a private FOR-PROFIT health pan?

The right to choose now includes the right to choosing to either a) have someone else pay your way or b) force someone to sell you health care at cost.

Why doesn’t this apply to…say…food? Food is even more necessary to life than health care so why don’t we have the right to choose publicly supplied food over private FOR-PROFIT grocery stores?

It’s a good question. Why DON’T we have the right to choose slavery over freedom?

If I were gay I could say that they prevent me from marrying my partner. If I were a poor kid in an inner city schoolI could say that education in this country is preventing me from a decent shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I would agree that rights are being denied and infringed every day in the US…but those ain’t them.

What exactly are rights anyway? Do we have a right to marriage? Or education?

I think this definition sums it up the best: Rights are freedoms of action. Anything that requires the effort of or input from another is not a right.

We have the right to DO what we want (within the bounds of reason, of course) in defense of our life and liberty and in the pursuit of our own happiness. We do not have the right to TAKE what we want (or even what we need) from another in support of those ideals.

That’s the concept that over 51% (and growing) of our population just doesn’t get…and that’s why we’re doomed as a free society.

The writing is on the wall. The majority of the population wants to be given the things that they are too incompetent, ignorant, or lazy to get for themselves. They want those things, whether it be wealth, medical knowledge, social acceptance or any number of other things to which they simply do not have a rightful claim, to be taken under threat of violence from those who DO have a rightful claim to them, and “distributed” throughout society.

They consider it perfectly acceptable to violate the ACTUAL rights of “the have’s”, in an effort to grant IMAGINARY rights to the “have not’s”.

Which, of course, never works…because the “have’s” have the natural and inalienable right (regardless of how hard the government tries to prevent it) to STOP PRODUCING what the “have not’s” want. With the obvious result of, instead of everyone having what the “have not’s” tried to steal…no one has it.

Most people were just born to be slaves. I’m convinced of it. Most people simply are not compatible with freedom and liberty. They must be kept, cared for and ruled. I could get into the religious and theological aspects of this phenomenon, but I’ll spare you this time; regardless, history has unequivocally proven it time and time again.

Our little experiment in liberty and individual responsibility has fallen to the inexorable power of an innately corrupt human nature. Long Live the King.

6 thoughts on “And this, my friends, is why we are doomed

  1. “Most people were just born to be slaves.”

    I agree with that wholeheartedly. In fact, I was expressing a similar sentiment to my girlfriend the other day when we were discussing the ridiculous outrage at Jackie Chan’s comments about the Chinese needing to be controlled.

    My basic response to that was “so that makes the Chinese different from over 50% of this country how exactly?”

  2. Outstanding write-up, Curt… And while I would like to disagree with you (for the sake of our country, not just for the sake of being write), I find I cannot. For too long our country has been building to the mentalities you describe, and too many people have considered it normal for people to “deserve” things that they have absolutely no right to.

    And, unfortunately, I think we are too late to fix that.

  3. I would stand to argue that under the 9th and 10th amendment and coupled with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Since marriage is both a federally and state recognized legal protection extended to citizens… Marriage is a right…

    It isnt enumerated, but it is a right. Now I dont necessarily agree with gay marriage, but if the right is extended to one group, then under our constitution, it must be extended to all groups.

    Frankly, if groups wish to continue to call marriage a religious foundation, then the states and federal government need to get out of the business all together and just start issuing civil union contracts to everyone. Doing anything else violates the 14th amendment and possibly the 1st amendments establishment clause.

    Now education, health care, minimum wage, etc. None of those are delegated as powers of congress under Article I Sec 8, so those are items that should be left up to the states or the people. (Marriage is also not delegated to the federal government, but since the government has taken an interest, it must be applied equally.)

    In my eyes it is not a question of what my morals think is appropriate. My morals are secondary to my belief in freedom for all. Just as I am not crazy about the idea of adult images or extreme profanity on TV, I cannot support making it illegal.

    I do agree that comparing the US to Cuba when it comes to rights violations is rediculous. Cuba is a horrible government to have to live under.

    Yes, our country is in dire straits and the vast majority of that is because of how many people expect something for nothing. However, lumping in a group of people that are asking for equal protection under the well established laws of this country in with those that are demanding something for nothing is a poor comparison.

  4. A little bit beyond the scope of this post but I’ll go there.

    First…just because Government recognizes something doesn’t make it a right. Marriage requires the sanction of a governing body and is, therefore, by definition, not a right. (I don’t see it as a “protection” either. Marriage is a responsibility, a contract, an obligation…not a “protection”).

    A right is something that you can do with or without the sanction of the government. The government may assess consequences for performing the action if it is a tyrannical government, but the right remains and there’s nothing they can do to PREVENT it, only to punish you for it after the fact.

    By very nature, marriage is the official sanction of a familial relationship. Because it requires the sanction of an official body to even exist, it cannot be a right, in my view.

    Now, if anyone wants to live in a familial relationship as if they were married without the sanction of the official body…that IS a right. It requires no input from outside sources. It is the act of gaining society’s sanction for their familial arrnangement that is not a right.

    I will grant you that the concept of “equal protection” applies here. If the government grants marriage licenses to any qualified persons, under the onus of “equal protection”, they must grant them to all qualified persons.

    It is the qualifications that are the stickler. Governmental recognition of marriage is nothing more than codification of a social compact and religious rite that has thousands of years of history. You may argue that the government shouldn’t sanction religious institutions, and I would agree, but that is not at issue here. Gays aren’t demanding that the government get out of the business of sanctioning marriages…they are demanding a redefinition of what a marriage fundamentally IS.

    For at least the past two thousand years, marriage has been defined by all major religious as the joining of men and women into a single social unit.

    To my knowledge, there has never throughout history been a society or major religion that recognized marriage as encompassing same sex relationships.

    As far as I’m concerned, Polygamists have a more legitimate claim to equal protection of their lifestyle choices than gays do. As a society based upon Judeo-Christian values, our “official” definition of marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. That is, very simply, what marriage is.

    The point being that the equal rights of gays are not being infringed. They have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. That is the very DEFINITION of marriage so denying them governmental recognition and societal sanction of a relationship completely outside that definition is not a violation of the equal protection principle.

    Now I, personally, would have no problem with creating an identical status for gay couples and calling it something else. I’ve got no problem with “civil unions”. In fact I’d have no problem if the government ONLY dealt with civil unions and stopped issuing marriage licenses at all.

    In fact, I would prefer that the government get out of the business of sanctioning familial relationships altogether. How is that the proper role of government?

    But as long as it is the insistence of the homosexual activists that nothing less than full recognition of the oxymoronic concept of “gay marriage” will do…I will be in opposition to them.

  5. I am increasingly shocked by what people seem to believe they have a ‘right’ to. Like many others, I believe I have a right to own guns. That does not mean that the government should issue me guns. That means that I have the right to earn my own money to go out and buy one, to keep it at my own, unhindered discretion, and to use it as I see fit within the confines of the law.

    As far as the rights of gay marriage are concerned, I don’t believe it is the government’s place to define a holy union. Therefore, I’m of the mind that the government doesn’t really have any place to say that my marriage to my wife is legitimate or not. It really has nothing to do with a piece of paper issued by the state. It is a mutual commitment between my wife and me, validated only by the eyes of God.

    I personally believe that marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman. If two men can make such a commitment to each other, and feel like God will bless their union, it doesn’t really matter what my personal beliefs are, as they aren’t hurting me in the least. More power to them.

    Sure, my beliefs are religiously-based, but my bible also says that I should not judge, lest I be judged. What homosexuals do behind closed doors, with mutual consent between adults has nothing to do with me, and I’m fine with that. If they are fine with it as well, it’s really between them and the Creator.

    Just my $.02

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.