We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Laws against homosexual practice or marriage are clearly a freedom issue. Abortion, of course, is an impossible issue. I would prefer that people talk about freedom rather than rights. Laws are mostly made to restrict freedom but a rare few are made to assert freedom. For me, when in doubt, freedom is the default position. Courts do not "invent" rights but, when necessary, they should reveal freedoms when laws attempt to obscure them. Our Bill of Rights was forced to make this explicit:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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.
A QQQ on religious-like faith in government to cure all ills, via Cafe Hayek.Herbert Spencer, 1853
"Though we have ceased to assume the infallibility of our theological beliefs and so ceased to enact them, we have not ceased to enact hosts of other beliefs of an equally doubtful kind. Though we no longer presume to coerce men for their spiritual good, we still think ourselves called upon to coerce them for their material good: not seeing that the one is as useless and as unwarrantable as the other. Innumerable failures seem, so far, powerless to teach this. Take up a daily paper and you will probably find a leader exposing the corruption, negligence, or mismanagement of some State department. Cast your eye down the next column, and it is not unlikely that you will read proposals for an extension of State-supervision. Yesterday came a charge of gross carelessness against the Colonial Office. Today Admiralty bunglings are burlesqued. Tomorrow brings the question, “Should there not be more coal-mine inspectors?” Now there is a complaint that the Board of Health is useless; and now an outcry for more railway regulation. While your ears are still ringing with denunciations of Chancery abuses, or your cheeks still glowing with indignation at some well-exposed iniquity of the Ecclesiastical Courts, you suddenly come upon suggestions for organizing “a priesthood of science.” Here is a vehement condemnation of the police for stupidly allowing sight-seers to crush each other to death. You look for the corollary that official regulation is not to be trusted; when, instead, à propos of a shipwreck, you read an urgent demand for government-inspectors to see that ships always have their boats ready for launching. Thus, while every day chronicles a failure, there every day reappears the belief that it needs but an Act of Parliament and a staff of officers to effect any end desired. Nowhere is the perennial faith of mankind better seen."
Last year he announced his retirement from his regular columns and academia, but he keeps writing anyway. Some Thomas Sowell quotes here.
I picked a rebellious one for the 4th because, in my lifetime, the "best and the brightest" have produced nothing but trouble:
In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume: 1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted, and 2) that this is the relevant comparison. The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but rather the total direct knowledge brought to bear through social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group.
The vision of the anointed is one in which ills as poverty, irresponsible sex and crime derive primarily from ‘society,’ rather than from individual choices and behavior. To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by ‘society.'
Why is it that when anybody (including returning Americans) coming to the US through a port of entry requires papers, passports, etc or they are sent back immediately to whence they came?
But if you wade through the Rio Grande, they put you up and feed you.
It will overrule Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortions and to criminally prosecute any physicians and nurses who perform them. It will allow shopkeepers, restaurateurs, and hotel owners to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds. It will guarantee that fewer African-American and Latino students attend élite universities. It will approve laws designed to hinder voting rights. It will sanction execution by grotesque means. It will invoke the Second Amendment to prohibit states from engaging in gun control, including the regulation of machine guns and bump stocks.
and he concludes with this ignorant statement:
... the Constitution grants only those rights that the Supreme Court says it grants, and a new majority can and will bestow those rights, and take them away, in chilling new ways.
If the US government bestows rights, it's news to me. That turns the Constitution upside-down. The American idea is that individual freedom is a gift of God, and limited powers are given to government only to protect that freedom from threats to it. Rebels wrote the thing, rebels who believed government was a necessary evil. I do not think the youth are taught that.
It's the one thing all Americans have in common, other than summer vacations. If it's too malleable, it's nothing, and then America is nothing. The Constitution embodies the radical idea (with a few compromises to get it accepted - all since corrected).
Krauthammer:
“America is the only country ever founded on an idea. The only country that is not founded on race or even common history. It's founded on an idea and the idea is liberty. That is probably the rarest phenomena in the political history of the world; this has never happened before. And not only has it happened, but it's worked. We are the most flourishing, the most powerful, most influential country on Earth with this system, invented by the greatest political geniuses probably in human history.”
Much as I detest the idea of abortion (it is killing, of course), I also detest the notion that the Constitution confers limited rights on individuals. It was not meant to do so. It was designed to confer limited powers to government.
Murray might be the most important social scientist of our time, but he became toxic to the Left for speaking truth about subcultural issues. Most of his recent work has been concerned with the white underclass, which is far larger than other ethnic or racial underclasses in the US.
Yes, suicide does correlate precisely with US spending on science. Fun topic, fun book. But you can get the gist of it just by looking at the site: Spurious Correlations.
Cooking With Glass: How Pyrex Transformed Every Kitchen Into a Home-Ec Lab