Lady Liberty is Crying

The gift was ten years late. 

The Pedestal of Lady of Liberty

It was 1876, and the centennial celebration was underway for that glorious day back in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed. America and France were in negotiations and plans to construct the famous gift of "Lady Liberty," aka, Statue of Liberty. Construction started in the 1860's and was planned to be completed by the Centennial Celebration of 1876. America agreed to construct the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty to rest on. France constructed the rest of Lady Liberty. Fundraising was actually hard to attain for this statue on both sides of the Atlantic. Furthermore, the time, the men, and the materials arranged also added to the delay. So, ten years off the due date, the Statue of Liberty was delivered to New York Harbor. President Grover Cleveland gave the dedication speech. These words are not widely known nor are they reproduced like other presidential speech lines (ie. JFK's "what you can do for your country"). However, the passage was profound and a promise. A promise that has not been kept. 


What were President Cleveland's powerful words that have been predominately left on the dust heap of history? 

We will not forget that liberty here made her home; nor shall her chosen altar be neglected.

America is the home for liberty. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America in 1835 and had some of the most awe-inspiring statements about America that modern day American politicians can't even come close to saying. What is more sad is that Tocqueville was a French citizen and his words can't be matched now-a-days. If so, it is with a small group of virtuous politicians. In reference to America being the home for liberty, Tocqueville said the following:

Americans believe their freedom to be the best instrument and surest safeguard of their welfare . . .that their chief business is to secure for themselves a government which will allow them to acquire the things they covet and which will not debar them from the peaceful enjoyment of those possessions which they have already acquired.

Tocqueville further said, "At the present time, the liberty of association has become the necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority." What Tocqueville was proclaiming in his great work was that America was a home for liberty where the individual had soverigenty and rights as opposed to a tyrannical democratic majority. His book had the title of democracy but Tocqueville was excited that this young country had a type of Democracy that extolled individual liberty and protected it. In fact, the US was not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic. What is more, Tocqueville said, "...the Federal Constitution...disavowed beforehand the habitual use of compulsion in enforcing the decision of the majority." He continues, "The great end of justice is to substitute the notion of right for that of violence and to place a legal barrier between the government and the use of physical force." Some of our Founding Fathers agreed with Tocqueville. Benjamin Franklin said, "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." You guessed it, it was America that Franklin abode. He also said, "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." 

Lady Liberty was a gift bestowed by other men but her meaning is rooted deep into the intertwining of America's fabric. Benjamin Franklin said in reference to America's purpose: 

"God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country." 

The love of liberty was the purpose. America was the home of liberty. 

Now, what about the altar? What was President Cleveland talking about when he said, "nor shall her chosen altar be neglected." That sounds religious. I know you Progressives are just mad has heck seeing that word. There is something sacred about the word altar. I think Thomas Jefferson described it best when he wrote to Benjamin Rush, another Founding Father. He said, "...for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." So, there is a link between God and the altar that President Cleveland was talking about. America was and supposedly still is a Christian nation. I am a Libertarian and I do agree upon historical fact of our founding that America is a Christian nation. On the contrary, I am not obligated to believe that morality and personal choice needs to be legislated by the Government. However, this means that there is something sacred to America's love of liberty. There is something sacred to America's original intent to fighting the War for Independence, to writing the Constitution, and to form a Government independent of foreign rule. Liberty is sacred and tyranny is evil. 

The question is now posed to our current generation. Have we neglected Lady Liberty's chosen altar? I can go down the line of the tyrannical moves by our government over the last 20 years. Yet, we are currently under the Obama administration and I will focus on that. Apart from his various unconstitutional moves, (ie. using Executive Powers improperly) under Obama, two bills have passed with his signature that have neglected the altar. 


First, the NDAA bill sadly passed, which declares the American homeland as another "front" to the "War on Terror." Furthermore, it allows Americans to be indefinitely detained. All Americans are now "terror suspects." We even now have drones flying around in the sky to spy on Americans. I discussed the NDAA more in a previous entry regarding liberty and security here.

Second, the already infamous, Obamacare or what I liked to call, Marxistcare was passed. It was then solidified by faulty reasoning by the Supreme Court. I'm sure our good comrades from past to present, like Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and our Red buddy, Hugo Chavez are honored by this achievement. Oh, and let's not forget the greedy Progressives that are making millions off this new Communist system of healthcare, like Obama's campaign strategist and crony, David Axelrod. Check out this article that lays it all out. 


Lady Liberty was not only assaulted, she was beaten to a bloody pulp with Obamacare. Liberty was supposed to be protected by the sacred Constitution. Obamacare is unconstitutional. The government can't force an individual to enter into private contract or to purchase anything for just existing. The government can't force the individual to enter commerce. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did strike down the argument for the Commerce Clause. But this is where the whole bill needed to be struck down. The mandate was rendered unconstitutional but Roberts, the surprise swing vote, erroneously reasoned that it was a tax. He and some of the other Progressive justices rewrote the Bill. Obama and his cronies argued that it was not a tax. The government's attorneys argued that it wasn't a tax. Even more outrageously, the lawyers argued alongside the non-tax argument that it was a tax at some instances. This was because the IRS was going to enforce it. 


Now, I know the political maneuvering by the Republicans is to say that it is a tax. This is fine because it technically is now and this is a massive tax on Americans. Hence, it is a wrong move by a incumbent president nearing the end of his first term and up for re-election. But, putting politics aside, this was a loss for liberty not a gain. 


Lady Liberty is crying. Our country has moved from being the home of liberty to the facilitator of tyranny. The individual can now be compelled, coerced, and forced by the violent arm of the government to do whatever said Government wants. Any unconstitutional acts of Congress that assess penalties accompanied along with a mandate can now be rationalized as a "tax." It can be rationalized because the IRS will enforce and that there is ignorant Supreme Court precedence to support it. Our healthcare system is now on the road to other failed systems throughout Europe and even our above neighbor, Canada. Canada's supreme court declared in Chaoulli v. Quebec that their government mandated and centralized control over the healthcare system was violating human rights. Source

Below is a video of the political progressive hack economist, Kruegman, asking some Canadian students whether their healthcare system was terrible. He first asked them to raise their hands if they are Canadian. He then asked how many of them believed their system was terrible. All hands remained. Please watch.

Individual liberty and its protection by the Constitution has become irrelevant. The Constitution is perceived by many and sadly, many in our Government as nothing more than a paper document. Our liberty is then nothing more than a word written on paper. Lady Liberty is nothing more than a statue. The sacred altar that she rests on is just kooky old, American religious talk. Liberty is something that just crazy Right-wing racists talk about. What is more, the FBI now considers you a terrorist  if you have a love or strong desire for individual liberty. Government tyranny is the most reasonable and compassionate. Individual liberty and creating success and wealth is selfish and greedy.

Will you be a son and daughter of liberty to continue carrying on that torch in Lady Liberty's hand? We must fight to preserve individual liberty. We must debate, warn, write, vote, and just get involved to effect our political system for good. To bring back leaders like Grover Cleveland and our Founding Fathers who spoke and believed that America was the home for liberty and that we must not neglect the sacred altar. Lady Liberty is crying as were many liberty-minded Americans when Marxistcare was upheld. However, girls don't cry, they get even. Lady Liberty still carries the torch and so can you. I know I will.

Hating Rand Paul

I have this strange feeling that Christians and even Non-Christian Ron Paul supporters believe that Rand Paul is likened to the Prodigal Son character from the Bible. The Prodigal Son turned his back on his father, took his ineritence early, and left, conforming to the world's standards. He ultimately ended up penniless, friendless, living in the muck and mire with the swine. The Prodigal Son does return to his father. I guess the only difference is that most people believe Rand is in with the swines for good.

Most Ron Paul, Libertarian, or anti-government/conspiratorial blogs, forums, and groups have such visceral and at times, libelous rhetoric towards Dr. Rand Paul.  Source 1; Source 2; Source 3.


One article calls Rand Paul, a "dangerous pragmatist who will compromise with the establishment and its neocon wing of forever war advocates and Israel-centric fanatics." 

Why?

People feel betrayed and think Rand Paul has "sold" out. The conspiracy theorists believe that the NWO (New World Order) crowd coerced him some way or paid him off. What is more, he IS part of the NWO.

I must take a moment to...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, I laughed at that last part. I will not delve deep into the NWO and Rand Paul connection; because this accusation is utter lunacy. Rand Paul is not part of the NWO or the NWO Wolfpack.

For you WCW fans. :)

I have been supporting Ron Paul since 2007. I was that "guy" who wore the Ron Paul buttons back in 2008 on my college campus. I would have spirited debates with Liberal Progressives, Conservatives, and Independents. Check out my older entry "How Liberty Found Me" here.

Ron Paul has been so integral in my life when it comes to my political philosophy and love for this country. He bravely stands up to the oftentimes corrupt Two Party system. He courageously fights for Individual Liberty and a sensible Constitutionally-sound foreign policy. He articulated and rightfully argued for limited government and private property rights. He has and continues to fight this behemoth, Leviathan regulatory State.

And so does his, son, Rand Paul! Furthermore, Rand Paul is following his dad's footsteps in working through the Republican party to advance the cause of Liberty. Like his dad, Rand Paul is endorsing the Republican nominee. Ron Paul has done the same thing in past with Ronald Reagan. I am not saying, Mitt Romney is anything like Ronald Reagan, just emphasizing the nominating factor.

Not only is Rand Paul playing the political game you must do in this Two Party system, he has proven with his record that he is a crusader for Liberty. He is on the front lines for the Constitution and our Natural Rights. He fights the over regulatory State and has taken on the TSA. Check out his record! Here, Here, Here, and Here.

Lastly, Rand Paul needs to be the presidential nomination in 2016. Do you think he'd have a chance if he didn't endorse Romney? No! Rand Paul has not sold out and if you are going by that logic then you must say Ron Paul and other more Libertarian-minded politicians are "sell-outs" for working the process through the Republican Party. Jack Hunter, who works on the Ron Paul campaign issued this concise video on why it was "right" to endorse Romney.

I am not going to hate Rand Paul and I am not going to condemn him. What he has done for Liberty and what he will continue to do should be enough to convince you he is not a "betrayer" or "sell-out." He must go through the Two Party system like his dad. I encourage the reader to not hate Rand Paul but to continue to fight for Liberty. Continue to read and study the Constitution and current events. Stand for Individual Liberty and limited government. Continue to look to Rand Paul and Ron Paul to learn and to be inspired.

I will give my personal take on it now. I do think that it was too early to endorse but I also don't know exactly Rand's game plan. It may have been done at the "right" time but I believe it was inappropriately early. I was shocked and disappointed that he would so openly endorse Mitt Romney. However, I believe that it is altruistic for the Liberty movement in America. If I am wrong about his intentions, then I will deal with it and own up to it.

Hating Rand Paul might be a means to vent for those frustrated with American politics over last nine years. It may seem he is a prodigal son that has sunk into the swine's mire. We must, however, remember that Rand Paul is on our side-the side of Liberty. He will continue to have a great influence and may be a greater influence than Ron Paul if he can secure a Vice Presidential position or the Presidential Nominee in 2016.

************************************************
Here are some videos to check out regarding Rand Paul.

Wayne Allyn Root: What Obama and Facebook have in common - WashingtonTimes

ROOT: What Obama and Facebook have in common - Washington Times

This is one of the best articles on Obama's failures and how his lack of "there" there; his whole presidency is based on baseless rhetoric and false promises.

He is leading this country off the edge of the cliff because of his Marxist beliefs, which effect government spending and government intrusion. Intrusion leads to more regulation and bureaucratic aggrandization.

He promised hollow hope based on an unclear and unproven record. Read the article to see what Mr. Root says about the Facebook comparison. Obama's "bromance" with Zuckerberg actually speaks volumes to how similar they are and how both have created a disaster.

I couldn't resist. This picture was so true and hilarious. :)

One more thing regarding Mr. Root. He is a great American patriot who champions and fights for liberty and limited government while promoting Libertarian ideals. Please check out his website and read his articles.

AUGUSTINE ON FREEDOM

AUGUSTINE ON FREEDOM

by Contributing Author, Jacob Enwechter

            The question of what it means to be free is at the heart of every religion and comprehensive philosophy.  The Buddhist system seeks to avoid suffering through desire and to be released from the cycle of rebirth.  When that release happens, one is fully free and until then, he must seek to avoid seeking anything with an inordinate covetousness.  The Islamic faith promotes an unyielding submission to Allah’s will.  One must serve and earn his way to paradise which will ultimately be his freedom.  Judaism waits for the Messiah who will liberate them from their constant oppressors and establish a geo-political rule on Earth.  Until then, Yahweh demands obedience to the law and the prophets.  In philosophy, freedom has been sought through various thought experiments. It seems the underlying problem with philosophy that every philosopher knows, is that a given paradigm for understanding the world is likely to be dismissed shortly after it is put to the page.  There is no everlasting truth and so freedom would mean finding the ultimate (and unshakeable) answer to life’s greatest questions.   For any seeker exploring this question of what it means to be free, Saint Augustine of Hippo offers a most profound rendition of the Christian answer.  According to Augustine, freedom is effected in man when Jesus fixes his broken and enslaved will. 

Of course, this answer to the question presupposes a particular problem.  If one is to ask what it means for man to be free, he must first ask what it means for man to be enslaved. What is it about reality that so burden’s and weakens the heart of a human being?  What is the ultimate problem that leads to the evils so prevalent in this world?  Augustine touches on the root of the matter in his Confessions.  As Peter Brown examines this text, he extracts Augustine’s answer to the question of man’s ultimate problem:  “In the Confessions we are faced with the full force of Augustine’s new awareness of the limitations of human freedom…For when a man came to wish to choose the good, he found himself unable to follow his conscious choice wholeheartedly” (166).  All people know the feeling of regret and it is this feeling which flows from a broken will. 

            If one were to step back in a moment of reflection, Augustine would have him notice that an ineffectual will is indeed an odd and strange element of the individual’s experience.  He expresses the perplexity inherent to the issue saying, “What is the cause of this monstrous situation…The mind commands the body and is instantly obeyed.  The mind commands itself and meets resistance…The mind orders the mind to will.  The recipient of the order is itself, yet it does not perform it” (Conf. VIII, ix, 21).  Why do humans not perform what their wills desire?  This question is in need of an answer.  Did God make man broken?  Was he drunk when he created the world?  What religious or philosophical system most adequately explains this phenomenon?

            Under the influence of Neo-Platonists, Augustine comes up with a rather philosophical answer.  He sees evil as an absence of good and this plays into the general problem with man’s will.  Stanley Hopper clarifies Augustine’s point in a chapter of the book, A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, saying, “Evil is an unsubstantial negation, and sin arises solely in the weakness of human wills” (161).  From this point of view, man’s weakness is only the result of a loss of his full potential.  This coincides well with the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and explains man’s imprisoned condition.  Augustine concludes, “So the will that commands is incomplete, and therefore what it commands does not happen.  If it were complete, it would not need to command the will to exist, since it would exist already” (Conf. VIII, ix, 21).  From the nature of willing, he sees that there is something inherently dysfunctional about man’s volitions.

            Further, he points out what results from a will in conflict with itself.  He infers, “The consequence of a distorted will is passion.  By servitude to passion, habit is formed, and habit to which there is no resistance becomes necessity.  By these links, as it were, connected one to another (hence my term a chain), a harsh bondage held me under restraint” (Conf. VIII, v, 10).  If one desires to do good and desires to do evil, eventually only passion will decide between the unyielding wills.  And that passion leads to habits which come to enslave one against his or her original intentions.  This is Augustine’s answer to the question of what the problem with man is:  he is enslaved to the confusion of his conflicting wills. 

            Now, how does one become free of this bondage?  The Buddhist explanation would be that he ought to cease from desiring a reconciliation of these wills.  One must come to a state of Nirvana where all duality dissolves into the illusion it supposedly is.  On the other hand, Augustine says that mere thought cannot free the will.  Only an act of God’s Spirit and subsequent response from the enslaved can make one free.  Robert Cushman summarizes this saying,

Augustine perceived in the merely rational approach to God an internal contradiction:  it cannot reach God because it does not want to have God.  It withholds commitment until it has sight; but it cannot achieve sight until it yields commitment.  The rational approach to God does not perceive that it founders upon the original sinfulness of the human heart (A Companion, 301).

Augustine thought that a commitment of one’s active life was necessary to reaching a state of provisional freedom. 

            Cushman continues along this train of thought.  He says, “As Augustine will have it, men are born blind in Adam and need Christ to awaken them.  But this is the only shorthand of his real meaning.  Knowledge of God waits upon re-cognition of God” (A Companion, 305).  Freedom only comes through a spiritual encounter with God where the will is surrendered to him.  Cushman elaborates, “It is not that reason is impotent or that it is inherently corrupted, but that it is perverted by the will…Thereby real cognition of God is at the same time the dissolution of the bondage of the will to self-love.” There is an aspect of “surrendering” to God in such an interaction with him.  Augustine’s view is said plainly by Cushman “The will is the problem.  The solution was the divine Visitant and the divine Emancipator.  The Word made flesh, the Mediator, so moves the will that man is enabled to love the good of which he has been aware without acknowledgement” (A Companion, 306).  The implication here is that man is utterly unable to free himself, but must be “enabled” by the Spirit of God.  This is of great concern; for if freedom means no bondage to one’s will, then how exactly is this accomplished? 

            Augustine seems to imply that one’s twisted will makes him responsible before God, but then only allows God to fix it.  If man is incapable of achieving his own salvation, then why is he judged for the sins of his ancient ancestor, Adam?  Why is he “condemned already?”  Augustine’s own words seem to betray him because he sees the will as that which makes one responsible, while positing a supernatural being that “has a grip on” his will.  He blames the Devil for his wretched state saying, “I sighed after such freedom, but was bound not by an iron imposed by anyone else but by the iron of my own choice.  The enemy had a grip on my will and so made a chain for me to hold me a prisoner” (emphasis mine, Conf. VIII, v, 10).  He says it was the enemy and his own choice that enslaved him.  Therefore, it is not purely his own will which kept him imprisoned, but the Devil played a role as well.  Because of this, only another being which is more powerful than Augustine and the Devil could free him.  In fact, this is exactly how he views his conversion.  In book VIII (xii, 30) he says that God converted him through the sound of a child saying, “Pick up and read.”  What does this mean that “God’ converted him?  Did he not make a decision to obey?

            If he believes that every human is enslaved to his or her will, then this implies only another being could free him.  If this is so, then how is he not espousing the kind of gnostic Calvinism that leads ultimately to fatalism?  In his book, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized, John M. Rist seeks to dispel the idea that this is Augustine’s view.  He writes,

He was not denying that the will is free to choose.  He was asserting that only the wrong choices are possible unless the will is properly repaired and maintained by God.  Hence, if it chooses badly, it is nothing but the will that chooses; if it chooses well, the will is ‘prepared’ by God, or, as Augustine eventually puts it, it enjoys full freedom (summa libertas), freedom being a condition in which the soul is in harmony with, and subject to, the truth and the will and love of God (187). 

In this interpretation, Augustine is proposing that the will is enabled to choose the good only by an act of God.  He is not saying that the will must choose the good when it is enabled by God (i.e. irresistible grace).  God does not force the will to choose, but only enables it. 

            If that is his understanding of how freedom is effected then there is great hope for every man.  As the Apostle John said, Jesus is the light “which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”  If God’s justice be assumed, then one might guess that God enables every man to choose the good at some point.  Freedom is not found through contemplation, nor through mere submission to God, but through an act of God enabling the will to function aright. 

            This freedom must be qualified because Augustine sees liberty in this life as provisional.  His own conversion was a turning point, not a complete fix of his broken will.  Brown points this out saying, “The tastes of Augustine’s age demanded a dramatic story of conversion…No such dramatic experience should delude his readers into believing that they would so easily cast off their past identity” (171).  To be free in this life means to choose the good as much as the Spirit empowers the will to do so.  It is a foretaste of heaven where God’s presence heals every will in the bond of his love.  Concerning Augustine’s writing, Brown continues, “The amazing Book Ten of the Confessions is not the affirmation of a cured man:  it is the self-portrait of a convalescent.”  Though the convert to Christianity will only be a convalescent in this life, there remains the most profound and immediate sense of freedom in acknowledging Jesus Christ. 

            In searching through the many answers to the question of what it means for man to be free, Augustine’s revelation that it means living according to one’s God-inspired willing, is a profound Christian answer.  Not only does it identify the core problem with every man, but this answer offers a hope for every man through the sacrifice of Jesus.  How many work a daily job under the influence of other factors that confuse their first will?  How many have murdered, stolen, fornicated, hated, or failed at some task which was but a result of a conflicted will?  This is slavery as St. Paul wrote in Romans 6:16, “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?”  Augustine says that the unredeemed power to choose is overrated; one can only choose sin.  Christ’s Spirit is the only agent that can free the human soul from its inherent brokenness and return it to the purity it once possessed in that garden of innocence.      

Works Cited

Augustine.  Saint Augustine’s Confessions.  Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford:  Oxford       University Press, 1998.

Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography.  Berkeley and Los Angeles:  University Of         California Press. 2000.

Cushman Robert E.  “Chapter XI, Faith And Reason.” in Roy W. Battenhouse (ed.).  A    Companion to the Study of St. Augustine. Grand Rapids:  Baker Book House, 1979.

Hopper, Stanley.  “Chapter VI:  The Anti-Manichean Writings.” in Roy W. Battenhouse (ed.).  A             Companion to the Study of St. Augustine. Grand Rapids:  Baker Book House, 1979.

Rist, John M. Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press,     1995. 

Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com

CLICK HERE - Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com

This article is very, very intriguing. This could be a perfect attack plan for the opposition against Obama. He is the most outright Left-Wing Socialist president, America has ever had. He holds to Marxist dogma and is unashamed.

Wayne Allyn Root was a classmate of Obama and has studied extensively this man for years and years. His article gives an eye opener account of the actual attempts by this Administration to overwhelm the system and cause systematic failure. It is a Marxist plot that puts millions more under government dependency and further solidify the New Progressive Democrat Party.

A Point of Contention

Being a Christian Classical Liberal or what many would nowadays call, Libertarian, is a difficult road to travel on. I guess Robert Frost predicted my direction when he poetically stated, "I choose the road less traveled." It is quite the road.

Anyone who took a History class should be familiar with Patrick Henry's famous and timeless quote, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" This is a personal vow I have made. I would rather die than to have my essential liberties rescinded by the stroke of a cold, calculated bureaucrat's pen. Fortunately, I was born in the greatest country in the world for liberty. However, in this country liberty and the role of government is at a point of contention over certain issues-issues such as gay marriage.

Here is where my proverbial "fork-in-the-road" appears. One of the sad

Professor Snooty Knickerbockers

truths in life that I have realized is that people tend not to be original in thought. Now, what I mean with "original thought" is thinking independently from what you have learned. Hearing both sides of an issue and then developing your own view point. This could mean that after sincere thought and research, you agree with what you have been taught or what the group you associate with believe. More specifically, people tend to just regurgitate what is spoon fed to them from their ideological instruction. This could be the education from a biased establishment or from the guild that the person surrounds themselves with. Instruction is not just from Professor Snooty Knickerbockers in his inveterate style of sweater and disheveled white hair. Instruction or teaching come from whom you associate with and whom also you open your ears and heart to. This could be an author, a radio host, tv personality, celebrity, politician, and etc. From a range of issues, you listen to someone for opinion, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

Here is where it tends to get tricky. We are in the year 2012. I am currently typing this blog with my blogger app on the New Ipad. Information systems can now be applied to this country as a whole. America is an information system with people's opinions, beliefs, and theories available to our ears and eyes constantly. This is where points of contention become even more contentious. People all have opinions, beliefs, and theories. Furthermore, they have had someone else in life influence them. The tricky part is where your original thought comes in. Where does my original thought come in?

I am a Christian but I am also a Classical Liberal. I could just regurgitate what I was taught about marriage and homosexuality. I could just say, "Marriage is between a man and woman." Now, that is fine to say and you have all the freedom to say this. On the other hand, you can just regurgitate the recurring statement, "Marriage is only about love and should be applied to who ever wants to get married to whoever they love."

I left out the word should in both of those statements because that is the next step towards the point of contention. Marriage should be between a man and woman. Marriage should be applied to all outside the traditional view. The word should has lead to "I want the government to." This is where I take the road less traveled. This is where conservatives label me a "morals-less liberal" and where modern liberals attack me as
"right-wing bigot." At this point of contention, I side with liberty. I don't believe the government has the right or authority to define marriage. There should not be a law created by our federal government to either protect marriage or to redefine marriage. Marriage is not in the hands of the bureaucrat. As a Christian, I have a more traditionalist view on marriage. However, as a Classical Liberal, I believe that government has a very limited role and has NO role when it comes to marriage. I believe States through a referendum by the votes of the people can institute their own marriage laws. I believe that the Constitution supports this and it was the intent of Founding Fathers to allow such personal and even religious events to be decided between individuals and their religious leaders. The Framer's intention can be seen from the Tenth Amendment which 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." This involves marriage.

Sorry, conservatives and liberals that want the government to do something about it. Government laws do not make things better. In fact, they make things worse most of the time. What is more, the Supreme Court is not this perfect problem solver to enforce your "shoulds or should nots." They once got into the "defining" game and defined who was property. Ya, you guessed it, slaves. Research the Dred Scott decision.

Most would agree that gay Americans that love each other and want to be in a long term relationship have the right to be, whether a civil union or domestic partnership. However, the issue of marriage is up to the individual and their State respectively. Instead of the government defining marriage, there can be contract laws improved with regards to civil unions. President Obama actually believed this for a while until he "evolved" from it and said he "personally" now believes that gays should have "marriage." However, any person with a mind can see that this admission means nothing legally for the gay marriage movement. It was just a  political ploy to gain more fundraising money.

North Carolina, my home state, is a perfect example of how the marriage issue is properly approached. A referendum of the people determined that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman. The people of North Carolina whether traditionalists or progressives had a chance to exercise their right to vote in order effect their livelihoods. Government is not needed to liberate any slaves. It is a great fallacy of logic to try to compare gay marriage to slavery. Frankly, I am sick of seeing it.

North Carolina in the midst of the referendum on gay marriage.

On the road of life you come to points of contention. We will all disagree on what is right or wrong. Yet, we should all agree that things such as natural rights that include individual liberty, right to life, and property must be first protected. Next, anything that is not authorized to the federal government should left to the people and their States respectively. Marriage is included. America is the greatest country to live and be happy. There are parts of the law that help preserve it. Moreover, our livelihood does not solely depend on the work of some bureaucrat. Gay and straight relationships here in America both depend on a strong economy, security, and liberty. Points of contention like marriage are best left to the individual, not the government.

A Noble Lie (#1): Giving with a Gun to Your Back

Plato wrote a most wonderful work that you can read with your children called, The Republic. That is of course complete hyperbole and purposefully placed sarcasm. Research The Republic and see for yourself some of the more adult themed topics discussed. This book is where the noble lie originated. The Republic is a Utopian-minded progressive's dream of a "perfect" society controlled by an "elect" of intellectuals. These "philosophers" control all facets of life including providing for each individual in the society. It's not voluntary but coerced. The Republic was anti-individual and pro-collective. Of course, what Utopian society upholds the individual? A socialist-Utopian style of government whether Fascist or Communist, strips the individual of his/her humanity and individual desires, and replaces it with a dehumanized collectivist body. The collective becomes more important than the individual. You become a number or object for use by the Central government. Coercion or force becomes the "necessary" and "noble" tool to force the individual to cooperate and help the collective whole.

In order to control the individual and coerce them to do what they want, the government tends to rely not only on force but also on a lie-not just any lie but a noble lie. In short, a noble lie is a myth manufactured by the ruling elite to convince the people that what they are being coerced to do is just. The myth is that the collective whole will be better off if everyone is forced to take care of the collective whole.

Rob Peter to pay Paul.

This article is the first in a series about various noble lies that our government have been manufacturing.

Welfare and other entitlement programs have been enforced by the barrel of a gun along with promoting them with a noble lie. This compassion that comes at the barrel of a gun is a complete contradiction that ends with undesirable unintended consequences. For a great article that goes into depth on this issue check out this link http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/when-compassion-comes-at-the-barrel-of-a-gun/.

Again, the lie is that if you don't subsidize activity for the collective whole then you are a selfish barbarian who contributes to the problem and creates success off the backs of the other less fortunate. As Bastiate explains in The Law:

When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge the arts useless.

 This is also the logic fallacy of "zero sum." If someone is creating success on their own, then someone else is losing. If you create wealth then it is being taken away from someone else. This is wrong and an utter fallacy of reason. Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, spoke and wrote dispelling this myth of zero sum. Here is a short clip of him discussing this fallacy, Milton Friedman on Slavery and Colonization . Thomas Sowell, another brilliant economist, wrote Economic Facts and Fallacies and began with the "four core fallacies;" which, zero sum is one of the them. He pointed to the opposite and correct logical conclusion that "voluntary economic arrangements are 'positive-sum.'" Let me give you an example. And I will use the Ipod, since most people today know and can relate. Apple may spend $50 for the parts (just an estimate for the example, not an accurate one). The Ipod is then available for purchase at $200. You the consumer or purchaser voluntarily enters into a transaction for the Ipod. Now, you estimate the total value of the Ipod based on your entertainment and overall time and enjoyment of the product at $500. This involves all the time you are going to spend on it with downloading music, apps, and other entertaining things. You purchase the product for $200 while profiting $300. Simultaneously, Apple profited $150 off the purchase. Apple did not increase wealth while someone decreased and made a loss. It was a positive-sum. 

The noble lie in regards to force used to facilitate compassion and giving is a perfect example of the anti-liberty and anti-reason activities of Big Government. Basic economics proof that there is no zero sum and in fact there is a positive sum with voluntary transactions. No wealth is gained while someone else loses. Hence, the noble lie of forcing people to give money to redistribute to others that are losing while those whose money is taken have made their wealth off their backs is just that, a lie. This lie does not accomplish anything good. The premise is flawed and also the conclusion that compassion is created through force is equally flawed. Compassion and giving is true and better when voluntary through individual choice. The poor will always be with us as the Bible, economics, and common reason tells us. Furthermore, the poor are not created by those who create wealth. And you can't force compassion with the barrel of a gun. The end result is more poverty, resentment, less liberty, bigger government, and dehumanization of the individual to form the collective whole. 


Watch this ten minute clip of the Robber Baron Myth by Milton Friedman and you will be enlightened. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk&feature=relmfu