web hosting short URLs photo sharing

Home

Top -)(- Abortion -)(- Marriage -)(- SacredLiberty  -)(- Drug Laws -)(- Medicare End

Top

Start-)(- Liberty -)(- Principle -)(- Human Sacrifice -)(- Tyrants -)(- Responsibility -)(- General -)(- Principles-)(- Conscience

Abortion

Marriage

Southern Judge -)(- Talmud -)(- Conclusion

SacredLiberty

 Drug Laws

Tyrannical Laws -)(- Growing Tyranny -)(- Generally Recognized as Safe-)(- General Principle -)(- Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Medicare

End

Of Tyranny

This is in response to, or exercise of Mr. John Stuart Mill's book "On Liberty". It is possibly a trifle late since Mr. Mill published his book in 1859, ninety-six years before I was born. I found a copy of his book at goodwill for 20 cents, and being somewhat profligate with my limited financial resources could not resist the temptation to buy it. This is in many ways a unique book. One might say that it is androgynous in its origins. That word androgynous means male and female combined. The inspiration for the book was quite clearly the strongly held opinions of his wife. He on the other hand was widely held to be the most important intellectual figure of his time. Since his name appears on the book, it is fair to assume that the book represents the best effort that he and his wife could make to present a clear and logical description of their feelings and understanding of what constituted real human liberty and its relationship to the authority of the state.

I found on reading the book that I was immediately in agreement with its fundamental precept. I suspect that I had heard it quoted or read it many times before. For those of you who are not familiar with it, I will quote it here.

Start-)(- Liberty -)(- Principle -)(- Human Sacrifice -)(- Tyrants -)(- Responsibility-)(- General -)(- Principles-)(- Conscience

Liberty

"The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

In his book, Mr. Mills excepts children, and others who for some reason may be considered incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves. Other than this, for the purposes of this essay, I will accept Mr. Mills idea concerning individual liberty and the state's right to interfere with individual liberty as essentially correct. I will define tyranny as any instance in which the laws and or practice of the state overstep the bounds expressed in the above paragraph. I.E. the state is guilty of tyranny, infringement of individual liberty, in any instance where it's laws or practices interfere with individual freedom for any reason other than to protect other citizens.

Start-)(- Liberty Principle -)(- Human Sacrifice -)(- Tyrants -)(- Responsibility-)(- General -)(- -)(- Principles -)(- Conscience

Human Sacrifice

Several instances of such tyrannical laws currently in force in America immediately came to mind. While in many cases, I found that I indeed disagreed with these laws, considering them truly tyrannical, considering these real cases led me to at least one hypothetical case where I was willing to tolerate, even advocate tyranny by the state. Thus, I must admit that while I am basically in agreement with Mr. Mill's opinions. I found that in specific cases they must needs be limited by my own opinions of what is and is not acceptable in the society in which I live.

One such hypothetical case is human sacrifice. History records many many cases of religions where human sacrifice was practiced, and while frequently the victim was an unwilling participant. Surprisingly frequently, the person being sacrificed was a willing and cooperative victim, believing that he or she would thus be assured a higher station in that religions afterlife.

Let us consider Mr. Mill's dictum, "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right." Clearly, in the case of voluntary human sacrifice, we are not interfering to protect others, but to protect the individual himself. Clearly, by preventing a person from voluntarily being sacrificed to their pagan gods, we are indulging in an act of Tyranny.

For those of you who are confused let me recap. Tyranny is a bad thing, human sacrifice is a bad thing, how can stopping human sacrifice be tyranny or 'a bad thing'? Earlier I defined tyranny in accordance with Mr. Mills book on liberty. By this definition, stopping human sacrifice is tyranny. By this definition, in this case, it is clearly open to question if tyranny is always a bad thing. The Greeks did not automatically consider a tyrant to be a bad person. They had both good and bad tyrants. Depending not on the fact that the person was a tyrant, but rather on how well or poorly the tyrant ruled his people. In fact, it is a classic statement that the theoretically perfect government is a benevolent dictatorship, or rule by a good tyrant.

Start-)(- Liberty -)(- Principle -)(- Human Sacrifice -)(- Tyrants -)(- Responsibility -)(- General Principles -)(- Conscience

Tyrants

In America, it is fundamental to our system of government, that while rule by a good tyrant may be good for as long as he is alive, the next tyrant to come along will probably be a real nightmare. So no tyrants in America, thank you very much. Once you let a tyrant get in charge, it is very hard to get rid of them. In the long run, representative government and carefully checked and balanced power in the state works a lot better. No matter how frustrating they may occasionally become. Therefore, it is imperative to us as Americans to always be on guard against tyranny. In order to be on guard against tyranny, we need to have some clear definition of what tyranny is.

Even though, I have shown a clear example where laws from the government which are tyrannical according to Mr. Mill's standards of liberty are acceptable to me, his standards remain excellent. Possibly the best ever put on paper. They are clear, and provide excellent guidance in an area that is critical to the future of freedom in America. Even though they are clear, and provide excellent guidance, I find, that while I agree with them in general, in some cases, I simply cannot live with them. I suspect that most American's are in agreement with me.

It is therefore clear, that while America is generally a free country. We as Americans are willing to accept a certain limited tyranny from our government if we are all agreed that it is necessary. This is a dangerous attitude. Once we open the door to a little socially acceptable tyranny, how do we make sure that it does not devour our every freedom. If we abandon the clear line that Mr. Mill drew for us, how do we avoid wandering ever farther and farther away from real liberty and freedom for the sake of safety and security. We have certain safeguards built into the system. The constitution, and the Supreme Court are two of these safeguards. It is the Courts job to prevent us, as a people from enacting and enforcing laws that take us clearly from the area of freedom with reasonable government restraint right into the area of slavery and tyranny by the state. The courts guidance in this area is the Constitution. The Court is an excellent institution, and the Constitution an excellent document. Neither should be tampered with without fair, and perfectly clear reason. (I will be dogging the Court out later in this essay.)

Start-)(- Liberty -)(- Principle -)(- Human Sacrifice -)(- Tyrants -)(- Responsibility -)(- General Principles -)(- Conscience

Civil Responsibility

The Supreme Court by itself is not enough. We as citizens should have a clear grasp of the issues involved, know when we are stepping across the line from theoretically perfect liberty into the area of tyranny, and do so only when we are absolutely certain that the good from such limited tyranny outweighs the potential evil of accepting any tyranny at all from our government. I shall argue some potential and some real cases of tyranny by the state over the individual. Sort of practice for looking at laws and issues to determine how we should react when they are proposed. It is my gut feeling, that Mr. Mill's principle is inherently sound, and should provide guidance in every circumstance where we can in good conscience accept them. They should be the first test that we apply when looking at a government proposal, law, or practice. If such a proposal, law, or practice fails to meet this stringent criteria, we should immediately and skeptically attack it, until sufficient evidence is produced to prove conclusively that the good it produces outweighs the inherent threat of tyranny. More than this, the exception should be clearly noted as an exception, clearly limited to specific cases, not representing general principles. An argument which justifies one tyranny will be used to justify many instances of tyranny if it is interpreted as a general principle. Creeping tyranny from growing government may be the worst enemy that America faces today.

Start-)(- Liberty -)(- Principle -)(- Human Sacrifice -)(- Tyrants -)(- Responsibility-)(- General Principles -)(- Conscience

Human Sacrifice

Let me take my example of human sacrifice, and seek some justification for denying the citizens of America the right to be voluntary victims of their religions. Mr. Mill's excepts minors from his perfect conception of liberty for individuals. This exception may be considered to extend to the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, and any who do not clearly understand the consequences of their actions. Possibly, it could be argued, that a person who is willing to be made into a human sacrifice is clearly not able to really understand the consequences of his own actions. Thus on the principle that such persons are mentally unbalanced because of their religious convictions, and injuring themselves, voluntary human sacrifice is illegal.

Sounds good doesn't it? However, I have made a mistake. I have developed a general principal, to justify an exception. If I apply that general principal to other religious duties that can be considered harmful to the individual, it can easily become a justification for destroying all religion in the United States. Let us consider the act of Tithing, and other cash contributions to organized religion. Here you are, giving money away for nothing, except your religious belief that it is right. In some cases, where religions require you to turn all your worldly possessions over to them, it has come under serious criticism in America. A nonreligious person might have an opinion like this. 'Obviously tithing is harmful to the people who do it, and should be outlawed to prevent religious people from harming themselves.' This would effectively deny all organized religions the right to exist, just as taxing churches would allow the government the power to destroy them. The general principle I proposed for justifying outlawing human sacrifice, has turned upon me, and become a general principle which justifies destroying all organized religions in America. So, while there may occasionally be specific cases, where the state has the right to interfere in the freedom of an individual to do himself harm, such cases should not be taken to supply general principles, but must be considered specific and isolated exceptions to the principle of liberty proposed by Mr. Mill.

Why is this so important? Why should we so zealously guard a persons right to do something that we believe is harmful or bad for that person? Mr. Mill's argues this effectively in his book. I strongly recommend reading it. I will say it is because we make mistakes, and we might be wrong. Even though we are sure we are right, that belief of ours does not give us the right to force others to live as we think they should. That is basically it in a nutshell. My statement does not specifically echo Mr. Mill's arguments. It is this kind of agreement, the decision to agree to disagree with others on the basis of individual freedom which America and American freedom is based upon. Every infringement of this agreement between us as citizens, especially when enforced by the government represents a serious threat to our freedom and liberty.

If you, "win", by forcing other people to live the way you think they should, destroying their freedom to live as they wish. We all as Americans lose. All of our personal freedoms are terribly threatened by every such "victory".

I will try again to justify my objection to human sacrifice, and my willingness to accept some limited tyranny by the state to prevent it. How do we know the person is really willing? What if some satanist group or other kidnapped you, sacrificed you, and then claimed that you were willing? How could anyone prove otherwise? You, the only hostile witness present at the ceremony would not be around to testify. Does the freedom to become a human sacrifice, by it's nature so threaten other people's right to not become a human sacrifice, that it must be outlawed? It sounds good, but it does not apply in all cases. If the law required that a person to be sacrificed be interviewed under circumstances where no possible coercion existed, this might be considered to provide sufficient protection to the rights of others as to allow human sacrifice. It is still not enough. I remain opposed to human sacrifice simply because it is wrong. It is an exception, not justified by a general principle.

Wait a minute. What about suicide? Suicide is illegal. So, voluntary human sacrifice should be illegal to. No. The laws against suicide, themselves, represent tyranny by Mr. Mill's principle of liberty. More, since suicide by volunteering to be a human sacrifice is a religious form of suicide, and since religious freedom is especially protected in our country, it should deserve greater protection from government restriction.

Start-)(- Liberty -)(- Principle -)(- Human Sacrifice -)(- Tyrants -)(- Responsibility -)(- General Principles-)(- Conscience

General principles

In fact, I would state the principle, if an action is allowed by law for civil purposes, it must also be allowed for religious purposes. Forbidding an action for purposes of religious practice, while allowing it for purposes of civil practice is clearly a violation of religious freedom. The contrary however does not necessarily apply.

Let us formulate our general principles to guard liberty, and not accept general principles that justify infringing it. While a general principle may provide support for an acceptable tyranny. No general principle should ever be accepted as automatically justifying a tyranny.

Human sacrifice remains an exception. A case where I completely support the right of our government to maintain its illegality, though it clearly infringes Mr. Mill's principle of liberty.

Suicide is not so clear cut. My attitude concerning suicide depends largely upon the circumstances. In cases of the healthy, those not afflicted with a terminal disease and living in constant pain, I agree that it should be illegal. In other cases, I am not so sure. It is tempting to suggest that since both these cases involve the individual harming themselves, it is a clear instance of mental illness, and the state therefore has the right to intervene. This sounds good, but Mr. Mill's principle states clearly that the State is not proper in intervening to prevent a citizen from harming himself. The fact that the state considers an action to be harmful to the individual is not sufficient reason for the State to declare him insane.

Because I support the states right to infringe the rights of citizens in the case of suicide where the individual is healthy and has life ahead of him, and in all cases of human sacrifice, it is tempting to draw a general principle from this. It might read, "The state is proper in infringing the liberty of a citizen in those cases where by preventing an action in one instance, it secures additional liberty for that citizen in the future." This sounds quite limited. However, later in this discussion of other cases I will show how it justifies the destruction of religious and personal freedom.

Start-)(- Liberty-)(- Principle -)(- Human Sacrifice -)(- Tyrants -)(- Responsibility -)(- General Principles -)(- Conscience

The Authority of Conscience

How then can we justify my apparently irrational acceptance of both Mr. Mill's principle of liberty, and the necessity of the state to outlaw suicide and human sacrifice. Simply because both have the same authority. I feel strongly that Mr. Mill's principle is fundamentally correct, though not absolute. I feel just as strongly that human sacrifice is wrong, and suicide is tragic. Both feelings originate in my conscience, and I am obliged to act as my conscience directs. Therefore, I support Mr. Mill's principle in general, but allow one or two specific exceptions to it. Thus, while my behavior is not perfectly consistent with Mr. Mill's principle, it is perfectly consistent with my conscience, and since I am the one who must live with my conscience, it is sufficient for me.

My conclusions are that while Mr. Mill's principle is in general correct, it is not, as he asserts, absolute, but being a matter of conscience must be considered only equal in authority to, not ruling over other questions of conscience. However, being a principle, of wide application, it provides valid and useful guidance in determining if the state is acting with respect to the liberty of the citizens, or tyrannically infringing that liberty. Such guidance allows me to then find those actions of the state which must be carefully and sceptically challenged. More, even in those actions where my conscience supports the states actions, general principles which support the infringement of individual liberty by the state, being inherently terribly dangerous to the freedom and liberty of its citizens should never be accepted as automatically justifying a tyrannical law, lest they become a form of creeping tyranny which eventually extinguishes all real liberty and freedom in that state.

This being stated, I will now consider specific questions of real laws and policies of the state and whether or not they are examples of tyranny, and if examples of tyranny, if they are justified or not, as matters of conscience.

Grimwulf's Gallery Grim Links Web of Art Grimwulf's Den Other Papers

Top -)(- Abortion -)(- Marriage-)(- SacredLiberty -)(-  Drug Laws -)(- Medicare-)(- End

Abortion

The question of abortion is widely debated in this country. Let us apply the test to it. According to Mr. Mill's principle, if abortion only effects the woman, she is free to do as she wishes. If abortion is injurious to another human being, the state has the right to intervene. The question therefore becomes, is the unborn child a human being or not. If the child is not a human being, a law against abortion is tyranny, if the child is a human being, a law against abortion is not tyranny. Note, Mr. Mill's prnciple is quite clearly his wife's principle as well, and his wife was not inclined to bow to the opinions of others. If the child is not a human being the further question of whether the tyranny is justified or not may be raised. My opinions on this matter have been clearly expressed elsewhere, and I will not repeat them here.

Human or Not

This question was supposedly settled in the courts. Arguments being presented by doctors and scientists which apparently 'proved' that the child was not a human being. These arguments are quite exceptional when considered in a scientific context. Nowhere in biology is a member of a species considered to not be a member of that species because of the state of its development. An alligator inside an egg, inside the mother alligator is considered to be an alligator. An unborn horse is considered to be a horse. In all species, an infant of that species is considered a member of that species from the moment of conception to the moment of death. For scientific purposes, it remains a member of that species for as long as remains that may be studied and learned from still exist. Nowhere in common scientific practice is there justification for saying that a member of a species is not a member of that species because of its state of development. So clearly, an unborn child is a member of species homo sapiens from the moment of conception to at least the moment of death. Science does not really have a definition of human being, except to say that human beings are members of species homo sapiens. To argue that an unborn child is at once a specimen of species Homo Sapiens, and at the same time not a human being contradicts accepted scientific methods and thought. Scientific arguments are based upon using words with extreme precision of definition. Taking words out of context, using them imprecisely, or in a manner not supported by common practice renders arguments based on such usage unscientific and invalid. Thus from a scientific sense, the idea of arguing that a member of species homo sapiens is not a human being because of its stage of development is extraordinary to say the least. The arguments themselves are also remarkable. They appear to be based on the development of the child, I suppose this has something to do with the child's awareness or intelligence. On this basis, if a member of another species were shown to be self aware, or intelligent within the range of intelligence and awareness experienced by members of species homo sapiens, then that member of that species should be scientifically considered a human being, and given all the legal rights appertaining thereunto.

As it happens gorillas satisfy these requirements. Intelligence tests have shown them to have intelligence that overlaps the human range. Therefore the criterion by which unborn children were determined to not be human would imply that some gorillas at least are human and should have the same legal rights that human beings possess. Science, however, does not recognize gorillas as human. So again, we have this peculiar circumstance, a 'scientific' argument that was invented and applied in one court case, which is inconsistent with real and reputable scientific practice. This 'scientific' argument can therefore be clearly stated to be completely unscientific, and in fact to be pseudoscience generated by paid professionals for the benefit of the courts.

Religion, unlike science, does deal with what makes a human being a human being and sets it apart from other species. This unquantifiable something is frequently referred to as a soul. Religions around the world agree that a human being is ensouled at the moment of conception, not the moment of birth, and certainly not at some nebulous inbetween of development in the womb.

Reputable science would agree that a member of species homo sapiens is such from the moment of conception. Religion would state that a human being is ensouled and fully human from the moment of conception. Religion and reputable scientific practice are essentially in agreement.

Somehow, by taking some facts and ideas out of context, and framing them in an argument that is inconsistent with and in fact contradictory to truly reputable scientific practice, a contradiction between religion and science was generated out of nothing, for the benefit of the court, and abortion was legalized.

Considering the extremely doubtful quality of the arguments that were used to justify legalizing abortion, and the unanimity of reputable scientific practice and religion on this question, I am forced to conclude that a child is a human being from the moment of conception. The corollary to this is that laws making abortion illegal are not tyranny and do not represent an unfair infringement of a citizens rights. The fact that such laws protecting the innocent from those having power over them do not exist may be considered an act of gross negligence by the state which should be corrected.

The Outlaw Logic that was here is also in the Abortion Paper in the interest of conserving site space it has been deleted here.

Start-)(- Liberty-)(- Principle -)(- Human Sacrifice -)(- Tyrants -)(- Responsibility -)(- General Principles -)(- Conscience

Grimwulf's Gallery Grim Links Web of Art Grimwulf's Den Other Papers

Top -)(- Abortion -)(- Marriage -)(- SacredLiberty -)(-  Drug Laws -)(- Medicare -)(- End

Marriage

Southern Judge -)(- Talmud-)(- Conclusion

In a decision sometime in the sixties, the supreme court decided a case where a husband was accused of rape because he forced his wife to have sex with him. This effectively killed the traditional obligation of the conjugal duties that a wife owed her husband. It would appear on the surface that this is a blow in favor of individual liberty. It is not as simple as that. Marriage is one of the most fundamental of our social institutions, and is almost universal throughout human culture. Likewise, the idea of the conjugal duties of the wife is almost universal throughout human culture. By arbitrarily redefining marriage as not including conjugal duties, the supreme court altered one of the most fundamental of our social institutions. This change to what marriage was, changed its psychological nature, because the psychology of marriage is shaped by its legal obligations. If conjugal duties were a part of the religious concept of marriage, this change changed marriages religious significance. Obviously, this change changed the legal significance of marriage as well. If any of these changes produced so radical an alteration in marriage that it no longer properly fulfilled its social, psychological, religious, or legal role, then it is fair to say that this change caused marriage to cease to be marriage. It may have literally abolished the institution of marriage as it was practiced by our grandparents stretching back to biblical times from American society.

Southern Judge -)(- Talmud -)(- Conclusion

Southern Judge

I was once told a story about a judge in the south whose son was having trouble with math. His son simply could not remember pi, 3.14159 was just too hard to remember. The son complained to his father. The father convened court and issued a legal decision that henceforth pi would be equal to 4. If abolishing conjugal duties so radically changed marriage that it no longer fulfilled its traditional legal, psychological and religious role in society, then the Justices of the Court are guilty of the same error that that southern judge was.

I have dealt elsewhere with the psychological and legal consequences of this decision. Here I will deal with the religious consequences of this decision. There is a real chance that, if this decision changed marriage so radically that it is no longer the institution referred to in the bible, the decision effectively denied all Christians the right to be married in the biblical sense, and thus denied them free practice of religion. In order for a Christian to avoid the sin of fornication, he or she must be married to his partner. Only then, is he or she able to engage in sex without being guilty of fornication. This is based upon one of the epistles of St. Paul, where he specifically states that one should be married in order to avoid fornication. St. Paul was a noted student of rabbinic law, and there can be no doubt that what he meant by marriage was the kind of legally binding marriage contract that existed in Israel at that time. St. Peter, also was a notably religious jew who knew and kept the laws of Moses, and rabbinic law, except where commanded otherwise by God. It is clear that if conjugal duties were one of the fundamental legal obligations of marriage in Israel at the time, then abolishing them so radically changed marriage that it would no longer be marriage in the eyes of St. Peter and St. Paul. This implies that all Christians in America since this decision have been guilty of fornication and living in sin. Some may say that this is nonsense, the legal obligations of marriage are not as important as the church ceremony. The state obviously does not agree, since marriages by Justices of the Peace are legal with no church ceremony. The question is, does rabbinic law at the time of Jesus make a legally binding contract with specific duties between marriage partners necessary to avoid the sin of fornication. In order to answer this question, it would be necessary to study case law from rabbinic courts at the time of Jesus.

Southern Judge-)(- Talmud -)(- Conclusion

Talmud

As it happens, there is a collection of case law with commentaries from about 400 BCE to about 400 CE. This collection is made up of the Mishnah, the Amora, and the Talmud. I refer you to the Steinsaltz English Translation of the Talmud Volume VII, Tractate Ketubot, Part 1, Introduction to Ketubot, Page 1, Paragraph 3. I will not quote it here, but it is quite clear that the thing that makes the difference is not the marriage ceremony, but the marriage contract. It is the marriage contract, not the ceremony which sanctifies sex within a marriage and makes it something different from fornication. It is the existence of legally binding duties between husband and wife that means sex is not fornication, there can be little doubt that is the existence of specific conjugal duties that is critical to this issue. The absence of this legally binding set of obligations between husband and wife means that they are not married in the biblical or religious sense.

There can be no doubt that everyone in the United States has been guilty of fornication and living in sin in the eyes of St. Peter and St. Paul since conjugal duties were abolished by act of the Supreme Court. This act by the Court denied Christians free practice or religion, since to become married to their sexual partners in the biblical meaning of marriage is a religious duty. To deny a citizen free practice of religion must be considered an act of tyranny.

In order to avoid Tyranny in the case, the Court should have noted the traditional existence of conjugal duties as legal obligations between husband and wife and a necessary part of free religious practice. It should have noted, that the courts decision did not apply to marriages in church in which accepting such legally binding conjugal duties were a part of the religious obligations of the persons being married in order to avoid the sin of fornication. It should have noted that in the case being considered the existence of conjugal duties as a legally binding obligation was not clear to the wife at the time of marriage and therefore she had not knowingly consented to them, they did not bind her. Such a decision however might itself be unconstitutional, since ignorance of the law is no excuse for failing to obey it, and since up to that time conjugal duties were a common law legal obligation. To the best of my knowledge the Supreme Court in its decision took no notice of its decisions effect upon free practice of religion, and took no steps to safeguard such practice with the result that no person in America today is married in the biblical sense of the word. By issuing a general decision that abolished conjugal duties without addressing the changes that it made to marriage as a religious institution, the Court also implied that it was illegal for a woman to knowingly enter into a legally binding contract concerning sexual obligations to a partner.

The decision therefore so radically changed the institution of marriage for religious purposes that it is no longer marriage at all. The Supreme Court may not like being compared a southern judge who decrees that pi = 4, but my grandmother had a saying, "If the shoe fits, wear it". I commend my grandmothers advice to the Court.

Since this is clearly an example of tyranny, the question arises, is it acceptable tyranny or unacceptable tyranny. The question is, does a woman have a right to enter into a legally binding contract which obligates her to have sexual relations with her husband?

"The state is proper in infringing the liberty of a citizen in those cases where by preventing an action in one instance, it secures additional liberty for that citizen in the future." Sound familiar, this is the principle extracted from voluntary human sacrifice and suicide, which made the tyranny involved in outlawing them acceptable. Applied here, it would make the Court's decision an acceptable tyranny. By denying a woman the right to accept legally binding conjugal duties to her husband it would secure for her additional liberty in the future. It would however deny her freedom of religion. Which is more important? In addition, it makes it illegal for marital partners to accept any legal obligation to be faithful to each other, since accepting such a legal obligation would make them less free in the future. You can see how dangerous a general principle is when it is used to justify tyranny.

"If an action is allowed by law for civil purposes, it must also be allowed for religious purposes." This is a principle I deduced earlier for defending liberty. It would apply in this case if there were another institution than marriage in which a woman accepted a legally binding obligation to have sex with someone. Interestingly enough there is. Sex occurs as part of marriage, between more casual lovers, and as part of prostitution. In states where prostitution is legal, the transaction of sex for money implies a legal obligation between the participants. One is legally obliged to provide sex, the other to provide money. It appears that in America today it is legal for a woman to accept a legally binding obligation to have sex with a partner for the purposes of prostitution, while being illegal for her to do so in order to be married and a wife in the biblical or religious meaning of these words.

This is a situation which is quite ironic and amusing if you are inclined to laugh about such things. I suspect that some people might not find them funny.

Southern Judge -)(- Talmud -)(- Conclusion

Conclusion

My conclusion is that this is an unacceptable form or tyranny. That the legal decisions of the Court must be corrected, and the right of men and women to agree to a legally binding marriage contract which specifies their conjugal duties to one another be restored to the citizens of the United States. More, marriage should be considered to imply such duties, unless a written contract specifically excepts the parties involved, since that is what marriage is supposed to be.

If people want to go through a ceremony and pretend that they are married with no real legal obligations between them, thats fine. It's a free country. I do not object to people living in sin, as long as the law does not require Christians to live in sin.

Grimwulf's Gallery Grim Links Web of Art Grimwulf's Den Other Papers

Top-)(- Abortion -)(- Marriage -)(- SacredLiberty -)(-  Drug Laws -)(- Medicare -)(- End

Sacred Liberty

I will provide a religious justification for Mr. Mill's principle of liberty. God gave man free will. Man's right to exercise free will is backed by the authority of God. Any state which imposes unavoidable limitations upon the free will of it's citizens is overruling the decisions of God. The more a state infringes the ability to exercise free will of a citizen, the more displeasing that state becomes in the eyes of God. The more carefully a state preserves the liberty of its citizens, the better God will be pleased with that state.

This may strike you as an unusual doctrine, so I will back it up from the bible. If you read the Old Testament, you will find that God decreed years of jubilee, in which slaves were freed and debts forgiven. This ensured that even when an Israelite messed up and forfeited his freedom, he would be freed, and not permanently be a slave. It guaranteed his eventual exercise of free will. When the Israelites told God that they wanted a king. God said no. The Israelites insisted. God gave them a king.

God did not want them to have a king for two reason. One, by giving a king power over them, they lost some of their freedom. Two, by accepting a king as a symbol of higher power on earth, they placed an obstacle, an idol of sorts between themselves and God. God gave them a King. Why? He had given them free will. If they chose a king, over his objections, he respected their freedom enough to give them one.

This demanding a king marks the loss of grace of Israel. The worship of kings was one of the faults of the kingdoms around them. Demanding a king was almost the same as demanding an idol. How can a people who have legendary heroes or Kings between them God be as close to Him as a people who are not afflicted with such obstacles?

Giving a state moral authority, the right to dictate behavior on the basis of what the state decides is good or bad for an individual puts it into the place of God. Eventually the people look to the state as a source of moral authority rather than God. Giving a state moral authority is a form of idolatry. Up until America, the world was largely ruled by kings, and these kings derived their authority from God or the gods of their countries. After America, the state stood alone, separate from religion, a legal contract between individuals arranged for their peaceful coexistence. The state lost it's divine moral authority when we abandoned kings, and in doing so abandoned the fault of Israel in asking for a king. Let us not give the state authority God does not desire it to have.

When Israel asked for a king, God gave them one. First, he remonstrated with them and told them it was wrong. Mr. Mill's principle of liberty says, "the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute."

In dealing with Israel's request for a king, God acted almost as though guided by Mr. Mill's principle of liberty. He knew and being God, he knew without doubt, that a king was not good for Israel. So he told them it was wrong, he counseled and remonstrated with them, even as Mr. Mill's principle suggests. Then, seeing they were set upon it, he allowed them a king. Respecting the free will that he had given them. If God, knowing absolutely that he is right, can show such respect for freedom and liberty. It is arrogant of us, not knowing absolutely that we are right, to attempt to force our fellows to behave as we believe proper. It is beyond foolishness of us, to allow such power to a state, knowing that it will eventually be turned upon us.

I do not claim that Mr. Mill's principle of liberty was divinely inspired. I have no doubt that as a guide in limiting the authority of the state, it is good in His eyes. I firmly believe in the sacredness of liberty. It is clearly ordained and sanctioned by God. Thus, I defend the right of others to liberty, even when they act in a fashion I disapprove of. So long as others than they themselves are not injured by their actions.

Grimwulf's Gallery Grim Links Web of Art Grimwulf's Den Other Papers

Top -)(- Abortion -)(- Marriage -)(- SacredLiberty -)(-  Drug Laws-)(- Medicare -)(- End

Drug Laws

Tyrannical Laws -)(- Growing Tyranny -)(- Generally Recognized as Safe -)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Obviously a Tyranny

All of the drug laws, the laws against marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc., are based upon the general principle that if a substance is sometimes physically or psychologically addictive, citizens should not be allowed to use it because they might injure themselves. This principle offends Mr. Mill's principle of liberty, "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise." They are all examples of tyranny by the state against the rights of the individual. More, I pointed out earlier how dangerous it was to outlaw something on the basis of a general principle. These laws are all based upon a general principle. Citizens of America have gotten used to giving up their sacred liberty, if some substance is found to addictive dangerous. Americans have given the state the right to deny them freedom and liberty, for their own good. This is an extremely dangerous doctrine for a free people to accept.

Tyrannical Laws -)(- Growing Tyranny -)(- Generally Recognized as Safe-)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Growing Tyranny

Let us consider how dangerous. These drug laws have been growing more and more extensive since they were first introduced. One substance after another has been outlawed. It now looks as though tobacco will be outlawed in a year or two. Clearly, this tyranny is growing in America. One by one, items that have been freely available to citizens of America for their use as medicines, painkillers, tonics, and means of relaxation are being denied to them. It might appear that tobacco will be the last of these things to be outlawed. After all, tobacco is bad for us. We are not children, I for one am old enough to make my own choices. If you are not, sell yourself into slavery to a kind master, but stop trying to make us all slaves. Bureaucracies grow, regulations grow, laws become more complex and all encompassing. Tobacco will not be the last. The new head of the FDA or the new surgeon general will look for more, just so when the press ask him what he is doing he can show he deserves his job. Each new surgeon general, or each new head of the FDA will have to find something new to outlaw.

What will be next? My guess would be chocolate. Chocolate contains chemicals which closely resemble those naturally generated in the body during romance. It is almost certainly both chemically and psychologically addictive. Beyond doubt, if you know any chocoholics, many of its users are addicted. More, chocolate is a major health problem. Chocolate products contribute greatly to obesity. From obesity, come high blood pressure, heart attacks, and a multitude of other ills. The health cost to America from chocolate may not be as great as that from tobacco, but it may actually be greater. No one has studied how seriously chocolate abuse is damaging America's health. You think this is a joke, chocolate abuse, ha ha. Twenty years ago it would have been inconceivable to consider outlawing tobacco. Everything I said about chocolate, its chemical properties, and health problems is true. Our government is just as justified in outlawing chocolate as it is in outlawing tobacco.

What is after chocolate? Nutmeg comes to mind. Nutmeg is a known hallucinogen, causing trips, some trippers describe walking through fields of metallic grass. More, nutmeg, like cocaine, was considered something of a wonder drug when first introduced into Europe. It almost certainly contains some mood altering chemicals.

Tyrannical Laws -)(- Growing Tyranny-)(- Generally Recognized as Safe -)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Generally Recognized as Safe

Ok, we might see chocolate and nutmeg outlawed, but surely it stops there. No, it doesn't. You see, America is high on G.R.A.S.. Not marijuana, G.R.A.S., an acronym used by the FDA, Generally Recognized as Safe (G.R.A.S.). Basically, if people have been using a plant product for hundreds or thousands of years, and people are not dying from it, it can be used by the average citizen. This is a good rule. It has allowed us to use tobacco, chocolate, etc for centuries. Now, however, as organic chemistry advances, and our intimate chemical knowledge of the plants we have used for centuries increases, we are finding more and more which contain (OH MY GOD) drugs. I would venture to bet that there is not a single plant on the planet which does not contain at least one chemical which can be used as a drug to effect the human metabolism in a medical or psychological manner. All of these chemicals are (OH MY GOD) drugs. All of these plants are subject to being treated as controlled substances under the drug laws, for our own good, of course. That means every plant on the planet can be outlawed, and American citizens denied the right to own, grow, or possess them, for our own protection.

Let us look at some common plants and plant products which should be outlawed to protect us from ourselves, (because we are not grown up enough to take responsibility for our own actions). Apples, Pears, Peaches, Plums, Cherries, virtually all the fruits of family rosaceae except a few exceptional varieties. Why, because they are poisonous. Poisonous, but fresh fruits are good for us. Yes, but cyanide is secreted by this family, and while probably present in very small amounts through the plant is concentrated in the seeds. Deaths from eating apple seeds have been recorded, and cyanides nickname, bitter almonds comes from its close association with stone fruits such as peaches and plums. It would probably be best, if it were illegal for people to buy these fruits fresh, because they might eat the seeds. It might be alright to sell processed fruit, but trafficing in fresh fruit of the rosaceae family should be a felony. Growing your own fruit in your backyard should be illegal, lest someone illegally tresspass there, and steal your fruit, and then poison themselves by eating the seeds of the poison fruit.

Watermelon contains a mood altering drug that mellows you out. Is it seriously addictive? Science doesn't know, yet.

Potatoes, tomatoes, peppers are all close relatives of an extremely deadly poison plant. Nightshade I believe, or maybe belladonna, I forget. I think the active agent is strichnine. It is present to one degree or another in the green parts of these plants. Fried green tomatoes are poisonous. Not very many people die of them every year, but they should probably to outlawed as a health hazard. When potatoes were first introduced to England, the kings chef did not know which part to cook, so he cooked the greens. Everyone at the party suffered food poisoning. Probably why the english gave potatoes to the irish. What if a young child were to wander into a garden, and eat some of the leaves, almost certainly get ill, and in a nation of 270 million people it will amost certainly eventually kill someone. Growing tomatoes, potatoes, bell peppers, hot peppers, etc., in the home garden should probably be outlawed for public safety. It's only common sense. Selling fresh potatoes should be illegal. They frequently turn green and start to sprout if exposed to the sun, the green parts are poisonous, and can cause illness, or in the weak or young possibly death. It should be illegal to buy, sell, grow, or traffic in fresh potatoes, for our own safety. Processed, canned or frozen potatoes would be safe.

What about flowers? A surprising number of the really beautiful ornamental flowers that we grow are deadly poison. Not mild poisons that threaten the aged, infirm or very young, but really deadly stuff that will kill a strong man quickly and painfully. Flower gardens should probably only be grown under circumstances where access can be strictly controlled. Private flower gardens in the neighborhood should be rooted up as a public health menace. Trafficing in flower seeds should be strictly controlled and many varieties made illegal to grow.

Even lettuce is mentioned in home medicine books as having a medicinal effect. If confirmed by science it may be necessary to outlaw salads because they contain (OH MY GOD) drugs.

As I said before, it is a good bet that every plant on the planet contains (OH MY GOD) a chemical that can be classified as a drug.

General Principle

This general principle that any substance or activity which is potentially psychologicaly or physically addictive or poisonous to some or all of our citizens and which through that potential addiction may cause some of our citizens some health problems should be outlawed for the general 'good' is clearly too far reaching. We should never accept a general principle to automatically allow a continually growing body of tyrannical laws. This general principle which potentially applys to every plant on the face of the earth, and many harmless and pleasant activities in our daily lives should be rejected as false. For an example of a harmless and pleasant activity that could be outlawed under this principle read the paper Shopping v Cocaine Abuse also published here.

Tyrannical Laws-)(- Growing Tyranny -)(- Generally Recognized as Safe -)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Ignorance

If every plant on the planet contains drugs, why do we panic when we hear (OH MY GOD) that a plant contains drugs. Why do we have such strict laws about them? What is all the fuss about.

Like most nonsense, it has its roots in ignorance. Drug laws were first put on the books during the early part of this century, when electric lights were a novelty. Probably around the same time as prohibition. We simply did not know as much about organic and drug chemistry then as we do now. The discovery of the fact that some chemicals could be physically addictive and the knowledge of opiums effect on china produced some panic. No one really understood or could have predicted that laws like this would grow and grow, eventually having the potential to make almost every plant in the world illegal or a controlled substance. More, this was a time of socialist reforms. Socialist philosophies gives the state the right to dictate what citizens can and cannot do for their own good, caring more for their 'good' than their liberty.

Under the growing power of socialism, these laws which clearly are tyrannical infringements of our liberty were enacted. So we can define these laws as socialist tyrannies. As we have seen, they are growing, and will continue to grow. So we can define them as creeping socialist tyrannies.

Tyrannical Laws-)(- Growing Tyranny-)(- Generally Recognized as Safe -)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Church and State

The state, being a legal institution created for the sole purpose of enforcing a contract between the citizens of the state, does not have the legal authority to use force to infringe the freedoms of a citizen unless that citizens actions are endangering the welfare of another citizen. The state does not have moral authority and cannot judge good and evil, and therefore cannot infringe the freedom of a citizen for that citizen's own good. The church has moral authority, but because of separation of church and state, it does not have the power to use force to coerce obedience to it's moral dictates. When the State assumes a moral authority it violates the separation of Church and State, and any law which gives the State a moral authority is unconstitutional. The drug laws, being an assumption by the State of a moral authority, properly reserved to the Church, to decide what is good for it's citizens, are a violation of the separation of Church and State and therefore unconstitutional.

Tyrannical Laws -)(- Growing Tyranny-)(- Generally Recognized as Safe -)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

History

The question is, are these creeping socialist tyrannies really justified?

History does not suggest that they are. Up until the time these laws were passed, cocaine, opium, etc. were available at the corner drug store. Coca Cola contained cocaine. As did many patent medicines and tonic elixers. Such things were used daily by many Americans. Home cough remedies and sleeping draughts used opium as a component. It would be truer to say that this country was built by habitual drug users than the opposite.

You notice that I said users, not abusers. It appears, that prior to the drug laws, most Americans could take it or leave it. They might take a touch of opium for a bad cough, or a bit of cocaine in their daily tonic, but they had no problem with it. That poor woman before electricity, who had to do all her housework by hand while watching five kids and cooking on a wood stove may have been a little high on the cocaine in Dr. Majestyks Elixer Vitae, but she did what had to be done, working easily ten times as hard as any housewife in America today.

No doubt there was a minority who were addicted, and who couldn't handle it. No doubt, it appeared that a law making these things illegal was for the greater good. Socialism is very much about making free people give up their freedoms for the 'greater good'. So in the socialist climate of the times, laws like this were passed.

What was the result? We all know about prohibition. Huge growth of organized crime. Murder and bloodshed on the streets. Prohibition was repealed. Why not the other drug laws? No one cared. Americans, despite having had free over the counter access to these drugs since they were discovered just weren't addicted.

However, since these drugs are illegal, it is very profitable to sell them. Whenever it becomes very profitable to sell something a group of people start pushing it on the public. Probably a higher percentage of Americans are addicted to drugs now, than when they were legal to buy across the counter, because now people are working hard to make them that way. In addition, we have a huge organized crime syndicate that is more powerful than most third world countries. In addition we have a huge health hazard due to the unregulated production of drugs that are frequently poisonous and kill people.

So, because of the drug laws we have more people addicted than ever before, Organized crime, chemically poisonous drugs that are readilly available everywhere. It is clear that these laws created a problem where none existed. Shows what socialist tyranny will get you. Yet what do we do? We keep on making more and more drugs illegal, and increasing the power of organized crime.

Albert Einstein said, "When people keep doing the same thing over and over, and expect a different result, that is idiocy". These laws are idiocy according to Einstein.

Tyrannical Laws -)(- Growing Tyranny -)(- Generally Recognized as Safe -)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Racism (Adaptive Considerations)

What else can we determine about these laws? People adapt to their environment. People adapt to their food supplies. For millenia, dairy products have not been a part of the diet in china. Today, the inability to digest dairy after being weaned is far more widespread among chinese than other people.

Let's apply this process to alcohol. For thousands of years in europe, it was literally safer and healthier to drink alcoholic beverages than fresh water. You see, lots of bad things live in water, bacteria that can kill you. These are killed by the process of brewing wine and beer. It was literally healthier to drink wine and beer than water. So for thousands of years europeans have drunk alcoholic beverages with every meal. It is inevitable that some of them will have adapted to alcohol as a necessary part of their diet. Alcohol effects the nervous system, both beneficially and negatively. Due to its major effects, and the centuries that europeans have had to adapt to it, I can state, beyond any shadow of serious doubt that some portion of the people of europe now actually need it as a part of their diet. I can say, beyond any doubt, that some people cannot live their lives with the maximum health possible to them without moderate regular intake of alcohol. Denying them alcohol will actually hurt them.

Let's look at cocaine. Cocaine is derived from coca leaves. People of South America have chewed coca leaves on a daily basis for thousands of years. Some of them are bound to have adapted to the point where they will suffer mental, emotional, and physical health problem is they cannot chew coca leaves any longer. This is real people, this is science. Studies haven't been done to prove this, but there cannot really be any doubt about it considering what we know of other examples of population adaptation to local conditions. Outlawing the cultivation of coca leaves will cause health problems in countries where people have used them for millenia.

So, we have alcohol, white man's drug to which he is adapted and which he needs. Legal, we have coca leaves to which South Americans are adapted and which they need. Illegal. So, we, a predominantly white country have forced South American countries to outlaw growing coca leaves, regardless of the health problems that will cause for the benefit of people in our country who can't handle the stuff responsibly. This is quite viciously racist.

Now, of these substances we can say. For some people they are dangerous, others may actually require them on a regular basis. If you outlaw them you force health problems on some. If you legalize them, you allow others, to, of their own free will, injure their own health. You have health problems either way, but one path leads to tyranny, the other to liberty. The path that leads to tyranny also leads to organized crime, and impure poisonous drugs that kill many that addiction would not. In addition, the way the laws are enforced, they are viciously racist and discriminatory against the culture, religion and health of Native American peoples. More than this, the tyrannical principles which justify these laws also justify eventually outlawing half or more of the plant products which we as Americans use every day with almost perfect safety.

Tyrannical Laws -)(- Growing Tyranny -)(- Generally Recognized as Safe -)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Religion and the Bible

The bible says that plants were given to man for their use. These laws make that statement a lie. The bible says God gave man free will. These laws deny citizens the right to exercise that free will. These laws imply that the bible is a lie. Like all forms of socialist tyranny, these laws when carried far enough become anti-bible, anti-religion and anti-god, putting the allpowerful state in the place of the divine.

Tyrannical Laws-)(- Growing Tyranny -)(- Generally Recognized as Safe -)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Conclusion

So, the drug laws of America today are a creeping socialist tyranny, based upon a dangerously broad general principle, pure anti-social idiocy according to Einstein's definition of idiocy, quite viciously racist, anti-bible, anti-religion, and anti-god, and a violation of separation between Church and State, therefore unconstitutional. I am forty years old as I write this. I have a vision of myself one christmas at the age of seventy. I go out to the neighborhood pusher. I pay him a hundred dollars for five ounces of chocolate chips, another fifty dollars for half an ounce of nutmeg. Then, I sneak back into my kitchen. Fearing that the DEA will break into the house at any minute I make some chocolate chip cookies and eggnog with nutmeg, and I try to remember what it was like to live in America when it was a free country.

It is not a vision that makes me feel good. My conclusion is that these laws are an unnacceptable tyranny and must be reformed. They should be reformed in accordance with Mr. Mill's principle of liberty, which as I have shown, reflects the Divine Will concerning the Sacred Liberty of Man.

"In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." These substances which we call 'drugs' should be available with appropriate warning labels for purchase to adults in our country. The state does not have the right to outlaw them to protect citizens from possibly harming themselves. More than this, Americans must remember to safeguard their liberty from general principles which justify the continuos erosion of those liberties. Possession of liberty requires courage. To be free you must have the courage to accept responsibility for your own actions. You must accept a few risks in your life in order to preserve your freedom. Insisting that the government protect you from all possible dangers, is the same as insisting that the government deny you all conceivable freedom. Only by controlling your every action can the government protect you from all possible dangers.

"the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." The state can and should enact laws requiring honest labeling and clear warning of hazards involved in the use of these substances. Companies that market them being held legally liable for any misrepresentation or falsehood in their marketing.

Things that Americans have traditionally enjoyed the freedom to purchase under G.R.A.S. should not be outlawed because of new discoveries about the chemistry of the plants. Instead new warning labels should be required. Americans should be allowed the freedom to make up their own minds.

The bible clearly gives men the right to use the plants of the world. Some of these controlled substances are essential in the practice of various religions. Outlawing them infringes freedom of religion, in the name of socialist tyranny, and suggests that the bible is a lie. Raw plant materials, especially, should be available for sale to adults, with appropriate warnings.

These are the standards which should form the basis of a reform of our drug laws if liberty is to be preserved in America.

Tyrannical Laws -)(- Growing Tyranny -)(- Generally Recognized as Safe -)(- General Principle Ignorance -)(- Church and State -)(- Conclusion

Grimwulf's Gallery Grim Links Web of Art Grimwulf's Den Other Papers

Top -)(- Abortion -)(- Marriage -)(- SacredLiberty  -)(- Drug Laws -)(- Medicare -)(- End

Medicare

"the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Tax increases are harmful to the citizens of the state. Therefore, if a citizens actions will automatically increase the taxes other citizens have to pay, it can be argued that the state has the right to make that citizen modify his actions to prevent that harm. Medicare is a major tax burden. If it has no limits, any habits which injures a persons health increase his burden on the system, and the tax burden of other citizens. Therefore the state has the right to mandate or forbid any behavior that is harmful to the citizen. If the citizen does not exercise regularly, this is harmful to his health. The state has the right to mandate that he exercise every day. If the citizen eats fatty foods, this is harmful to his health. The state has the right to dictate his diet.

Otherwise, the state will have to pay for his medical expenses, at the expense, and harm to other citizens. If the state assumes unlimited responsibility for the medical care of its citizens, it assumes the authority to deny all citizens all freedoms, and dictate their lifestyles completely for their own good.

In order to safeguard liberty, it is necessary to limit the financial responsibility of the state for the medical care of individual citizens. There must be a cap on medicare and medicaid. Otherwise, freedom and liberty will eventually vanish completely from America.

Top -)(- Abortion -)(- Marriage -)(- SacredLiberty -)(-  Drug Laws -)(- Medicare -)(- End

End

You may not like the implications of safeguarding liberty. It requires bravery to live in a free country and accept responsibility for your actions. I spent the last 20 years of my life facing a communist menace in a foreign country. Every day I got up and trained realistically to fight a foe who outnumbered me 3 or 5 or more to one. I joined during the last year of two of Nam, and volunteered twice for Desert Storm. I didn't go to either. Nonetheless, after decades of facing me and other like me, the Soviet Union peacefully and quietly faded into history. I look now at my own country and find that socialist attitudes and beliefs about the governments responsibility to provide for its citizens are eroding and attacking the fundamental freedoms and liberties that I spent my life defending. It would be sad to defeat tyranny overseas and find it triumphant at home. I hope you read Mr. Mill's book, 'On Liberty'. Consider how American values have changed, and how much we have forgotten about the importance of Liberty.
 

Top-)(- Abortion-)(- Marriage -)(- SacredLiberty -)(-  Drug Laws-)(- Medicare -)(- End
 

Home