A recent Hot Air article drives my point home regarding laws that demand “free” individuals in a “free” country to engage in forced interactions with each other against their will under the threat of Government violence necessitating the ridiculousness of yet more laws to protect people from such threats of Government coercion and allow them to remain “free” in a “free” country.
As the author quoted in the article said:
There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.
What’s dangerous is that states are actually finding it necessary to protect the right of individuals to engage in mutually beneficial voluntary arrangements via nullification legislation.
Dear reader, there are only two principles that you could hold when it comes to this question. Please consider each below and determine who you are.
- If you accept the ethical universality that we are all born with the right to engage, or not engage with each other to each others mutual advantage, voluntarily without coercion, then life is simple, and so much of politics can be resolved on a single 3X5 flash card.
- If, however, you reject this premise, then you must accept the premise that we are all born with the right to use Government as a tool to force other individuals, not even specifically people we may know or may ever know, to conform to our personal opinions and beliefs under threat of Government violence (fines/imprisonment). Therefore, you must also accept that others have that same right to force you to conform to their millions of personal opinions and beliefs under threat of violence; a raft of laws and regulations from which a skyscraper filled of 3X5 flash cards would be created.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you believe people have this power over other people, then they have that power over you and your family too.
Once you agree that people can use people in Government to make other people do things or not do things that you believe, then the way in which you run your life, and your families life, is now subject to the opinions and judgements of 318.9 million people (population of the U.S.) and they can use Government to force you to agree with them whether you like it or not, or face fines or imprisonment. Is that freedom? Is that a free country?
Does premise #1 sound like a much better option yet? It is the one the Constitution uses.
What you believe. Who you are. The decisions you make about you and your family. Millions disagree with you. This is a fact. By believing in premise #2, you are simultaneously authorizing those millions, if sufficiently organized, to strip you of those decisions, strip you of your beliefs, and redefine who you are by forcing you to conform to their will. You might argue that in most things, you agree with the majority, but do you believe the majority will always believe what it believes today? What if your children don’t believe in the majority’s view in the future, are you willing to authorize today, the use of the majority rule and Government coercion over your children’s beliefs and decisions in the future, long after you are gone? Or do you believe in Government puritanism and that it is beyond the influence of the minority opinion and so Government would never respond to graft, influence or expansive power and force even the majority opinion to yield to the minority one when it is in their own best interest?
That is a lot to gamble on just to let a gay couple have cake when they can just walk down the street to a different baker.
If a baker, Christian or not, is forced to bake a wedding cake by a gay couple, is the baker a free man in a free country? If a baker, Jewish or not, is forced to bake a Hitler cake for a Nazi celebration by some Nazi sympathizers, is the baker a free man in a free country? If a Muslim butcher is forced by a local farmer to process the local farmers pigs, is the butcher a free man in a free country? If you are forced by your neighbors to engage or not engage in “x” that you don’t believe in, are you a free person in a free country?
Or how about this…what if I am a baker of no religious affiliation at all, and I have no problem with gay people at all, and I still don’t want to make a cake for a couple that happens to also be gay? Can the Government threaten me with violence even though my choice is not based on religion or sexual preferences? Am I allowed to just say to someone else, for no particular reason, “No.” It appears not. That a group or individual can use Government to force you to do something you don’t want to do, or not do something you want to do. Is that freedom? The reality of that “slavery” should scare the shit out of you.
If you believe the Government should force people to bake cakes for other people, regardless of the ‘for’s’ and ‘why’s’ and ‘how’s,’ then you believe that people can force you to do what they want too. Is that what you want? Is that freedom?
Please read full article here…
The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child’s full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance.
Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the nearby ShopRite, but also with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article about the cake.
Heath Campbell, who is 35, said in an interview Tuesday that people should look forward, not back, and accept change.
“They need to accept a name. A name’s a name. The kid isn’t going to grow up and do what [Hitler] did,” he said.
Categories: Government Failures