guarantee that Jewish minorities were included wherever minority
rights were recognized. He ruled against corporations, monopolies, and
consumerism.
know the enemy
they are among us
On May 1, 1:11 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: rabiera <rabiera1
>
> Normally I would simply post a link to something like this, but there
> isn't one yet & I didn't want to wait.
>
> Some of you may be aware of the Log Cabin Republicans, who are having
> their convention in Dallas.
>
> One of the guests is Bob Barr, who gave a speech today - the text of
> which I received by email from LCR. I am posting this speech here so
> you can judge for yourself what impact it might have on the whole
> marriage debate. Note that it is prefaced by a quote from Ayn Rand.
>
> BTW, I have mixed feelings about the speech myself, but I want to give
> it a more thorough reading before I say anything about it.
>
> Rob Abiera
>
> Speech to the Log Cabin Republicans
> National Convention & Liberty Education Forum Symposium
> April 30, 2011
> Dallas, Texas
> by Congressman Bob Barr
>
> "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by
> men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
> – Justice Louis Brandeis
>
> "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the
> stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while
> the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the
> darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
> -- Ayn Rand
>
> "If I hear 'not allowed' much oftener," said Sam, "I'm going to get
> angry."
> – J.R.R. Tolkien, "Lord of the Rings"
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having me here today. While some
> folks might express surprise that I stand here today to speak at the
> Log Cabin Republicans National Convention, the common ground on which
> Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and other civil libertarians
> find themselves with increasing frequency standing against government
> encroachments on liberty, should surprise no one here. I am delighted
> and honored to be with you, and to encourage you to continue in your
> work to refresh and restore America's promise of a society in which
> individual freedom is maximized, and in which the countervailing and
> often heavy hand of government power is minimized.
>
> I am here to speak with you about the most important topics of our
> time in history – individual liberty and the role of government in our
> lives. The marriage debate is an important element of this fundamental
> debate of the 21st Century (but certainly not the only one) – have we
> reached the tipping point in the balance between government power and
> individual freedom, such that the former has completely overwhelmed
> the latter?
>
> As Ludwig von Mises wrote, "Government is essentially the negation of
> liberty." Certainly, some degree of government is necessary to
> safeguard our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Any
> degree of government that is more than necessary itself, intrudes on
> these rights, and should (must) be opposed. This includes those laws
> limiting personal choices and relationships that do not harm others.
>
> Just how bad has it become? We lawyers learn and can cite many of the
> more than 4,400 criminal laws limiting and defining behavior under
> federal law. All of us likewise are familiar in our professional and
> community lives with the many thousands more state and local laws and
> ordinances. What many people tend to overlook, however, are the many
> licensing requirements that define so many activities in our lives.
>
> A license is a control mechanism; also a means to raise revenue. To
> license is to grant permission. To license is to control. Which brings
> us to the real question when discussing whether same-sex marriage
> should be legal – why do individuals need the government's permission
> to marry? The real issue here is not marriage – it is control. Control
> – the Big C of 21st Century public policy. The important question is
> whether the government has the proper authority to dictate which
> individuals can enter into a binding legal agreement. The very nature
> and history of government action since our nation's founding reveals
> it is all about power and control. The effort to define marriage
> directly or indirectly is but another of many examples of this
> universal truth.
>
> But how we frame the debate is often times as important as how we
> actually fight the fight. The perspective we bring to discussion of
> issues involving personal liberty will largely determine our chances
> for success in such endeavors. If we define the question narrowly –
> "the Second Amendment simply protects the carrying of a firearm" –
> rather than as an element of a fundamental struggle between individual
> liberty and government power, we make it easier for government to
> succeed in its efforts to control. Defining the debate narrowly makes
> it easier for government to divide and conquer, or to trivialize the
> individual effort. In other words, when defending one's Second
> Amendment rights against government intrusion, the question should be
> framed thus: "the Second Amendment is not simply a mechanism to
> protect gun owners from having their right to possess a firearm taken
> away; but rather a means of protecting the fundamental liberty and
> freedom that comes with being a human being in a free society."
>
> The same applies to First Amendment freedoms. It is not simply about
> being able to read a particular newspaper or attend a particular
> church. Rather it is the fundamental freedom to possess and act on
> one's own, private beliefs and desires; to live one's life as one
> wishes. This reflects the fundamental right to privacy; the most
> important of all rights as noted by Ayn Rand in her 1943 novel "The
> Fountainhead." Justice Louis Brandeis concluded similarly 15 years
> earlier when, in 1928, he penned a famous dissent in the Olmstead
> case; in which he noted, "they [the makers of the Constitution]
> conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone – the
> most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized
> men."
>
> Brandeis was right. Our Founders did understand this principle. As
> James Madison noted in Federalist No. 51, it is every bit as important
> that government "control itself" as it is to have government control
> the governed.
>
> Clearly, however, in recent decades we have not done a nearly adequate
> job of controlling government. In fact, we have permitted the sphere
> of government control to expand exponentially, with a corresponding
> shrinkage of the sphere of personal liberty. In modern times, we have
> done a pitiful job of using government to control government.
> Government and our Constitution are now used almost exclusively to
> expand, not limit, the power of government. Marriage is but one
> example.
>
> With the massive expansion of the regulatory state has come a vast
> increase in the power of the government to control personal behavior
> in every aspect of life; from who can marry and how one can defend
> one's life or property, to what type of light bulbs illuminate our
> homes and how much water can flow through our commodes. This is the
> slippery slope of regulatory creep or incrementalism. A prime example
> of this slippery slope of using government regulation to tighten the
> noose of control and restricting liberty can be seen in how the
> marriage issue has evolved throughout history. What was once a private
> contract between consenting individuals is now a complex web of laws
> and regulations affecting with more than 1,100 rights, duties, and
> entitlements granted only with the state's permission.
>
> Historically, marriage was considered and recognized simply as "a
> civil contract to which the consent of the parties is required."
> Marriage was for procreation as well as building financial, social
> and, in some cases, political alliances. Marriage licenses, however,
> were established to exert control and raise revenues when the state-
> run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in approving
> marriage partnerships. This practice spread to the American colonies,
> where both the church and states allowed marriage by publication of
> "banns." A "bann" was a "public notice that was written, published or
> orally announced for three consecutive meetings at the churches of the
> bride and groom."
>
> Marriage licenses themselves, however, were not issued in America
> until the mid-1800s. Initially these licenses served a negative
> function -- to prohibit interracial marriages. In the intervening
> century and a half, such licenses have been employed to establish and
> enforce myriad prohibitions and benefits. By 1929 every state had
> adopted marriage license laws. One of the last refuges of individual
> liberty – common-law marriage – is being rapidly destroyed. Common-law
> marriage can no longer be contracted in 26 states (including in my
> home state of Georgia), thus forcing individuals who want to marry to
> seek and receive permission from the state.
>
> What was once seen as a contract between two individuals, which the
> state may be called upon to enforce (and which under Article I,
> Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, should be protected against
> impairment by state actions!), became an institution for the state to
> regulate and control; simply another way for government to dictate how
> individuals may live. What was once a contract between two consenting
> individuals, perhaps their God, and possibly even after the groom
> obtained the father of the bride's permission, is now a mandated pact
> between those individuals, their God, and the state; with the state
> essentially "giving away" the bride and the groom with its grant of
> permission to marry.
>
> As libertarian David Boaz, Executive Vice-president of the CATO
> Institute, has pointed out, "privatizing marriage, would,
> incidentally, solve the gay-marriage problem. It would put gay
> relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying
> official government sanction. No one's private life would have the
> official government sanction – which is how it should be." By getting
> government out of the marriage business, or at least limiting its
> involvement by
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment