Let's start the discussion by recognizing that religions were performing marriages long before the United States existed. Historically, the purpose of the ceremony was to sanctify the love and commitment between a man and a woman, before their God, their families, and their friends. It is the bedrock of the religious family.
In recent years, some few religious denominations have accepted gay marriage, but the vast majority still do not.
How, then, does the government get involved in the situation? The government requires a license to officially recognize a religious marriage. The license provides the right to governmental goodies and protections such as rights of inheritance, tax benefits, joint health coverage, divorce rights, etc.
The government is not required to recognize all religious marriages. While some religions accept polygamy, it is illegal in the United States, and is not protected under domestic law. Additionally, the state can perform a "marriage", even though no religious ceremony was performed.
The problem seems to be semantics. When the state started issuing "marriage" licenses, it used the common religious term for joining man and woman together before God...even though the purpose of the state should be to provide legal protections to individuals whom it deems legal to join together.
The Church and the State have two separate and distinct purposes, one religious and one legal, and should not conflict with each other. If the "marriage license" was "civil union license", it could be used for either a religious or a civil ceremony. A marriage would become the most common type of civil union, but would not be the definition of the union of two individuals.
A government should not attempt to perform a religious marriage. It should only license (and perform) a civil ceremony. The civil ceremony should issue a "Certificate of Civil Union" when the ceremony is completed. A Church could continue to issue their "Marriage Certificate" at the completion of their ceremony.
Civil unions would allow religions to perform marriage as they choose. The state could include gays, or any other arrangements they deem proper, as eligible for a civil union. Many atheists and other non-religious individuals would prefer a civil union to a church wedding.
Gays would have a number of choices. They could be joined as a civil union (that would be what the state should call everyone who is joined together, gay or straight).
Only a religion can "marry" individuals. If gays are in a church that does not accept gay marriage, their choice would be to (1) leave the church and find another church that accepts gay marriage, (2) stay in the church and try to work for acceptance of gay marriage, while living in, and being protected in, a civil union.
There has been much sound and fury over this issue, but, at heart, it seems to be an issue of individual freedom and religious freedom. This solution protects individual choices, and allows religions the freedom to debate gay marriage internally, without denying individual benefits for gays.
The federal government should immediately offer legal protections, benefits, and recognition to civil unions...the same benefits offered to marriages.
The states should substitute the "civil union license" for the "marriage license", and move to modify their laws to provide civil unions with all the same benefits they now offer to marriages.
No church should be required to perform a gay marriage. No gay individual should be denied civil benefits provided to heterosexual individuals.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Lands That Stand For Liberty
Am I the only one who wonders what advantage the United States gets out of the United Nations? To me, it seems comparable to a community of home owners inviting a community of thieves over to discuss the best way to secure a house. What purpose is there in discussing such an issue with a group of people who do not respect the principle of property ownership? Who stands to gain and who stands to lose?
Doesn't the thief gain in credibility by being given equal stature to the law-abiding citizen? Why would an organization be set up to do exactly that?
If most of the people of the world are suffering under governments that are totalitarian, governments that are theocracies, or governments that in other ways refuse to recognize the individual rights of their citizens, why should modern free nations give these governments the credibility of equal stature?
America gave birth to government based on the idea of individual freedom and limited central government control. This idea has inspired citizens of the world even to today. Why give credibility to despots?
Forget the United Nations. America should propose "Lands That Stand For Liberty", made up of nations that accept the notion of individual freedom and limited government. Nations that believe that human liberty shall survive in the world. Not all of these countries would have the exact same governments, but all must permit at least the following...
1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of assembly and movement
3. Freedom for all religions to worship in peace
4. Peaceful transition of governmental powers with consent of the governed
5. Property rights for individuals
6. Rule of Law and contracts
7. A free market mechanism
There may be more, but you get the idea. The purpose of "Lands That Stand" is to join liberty-loving nations together in order to ensure freedom's survival in the world, by protecting each other from forces determined to repress freedom. Could there be a more noble purpose?
"Lands That Stand" would not be a political or economic organization...it would be designed to protect member nations from being attacked, and backed by the military might of the entire group. One for all and all for one.
Members must accept the sovereignty of individual nations. Members would not be guaranteed the backing of the group if they attack another country...only if they are attacked by another country.
All countries that meet the standards of freedom must be allowed to join "Lands That Stand For Liberty". If a dictatorship is overturned in a revolution, the new government must show that it has enacted reforms to guarantee individual freedoms to gain temporary acceptance to (and the protection of) the League. To gain permanent acceptance, it must prove those reforms over a five to ten year probationary period.
There is no net gain for freedom if one dictator is replaced by another dictator. We should stay out of internal power struggles in other countries, unless the revolutionaries have succeeded instituting individual freedoms, and have protected those freedoms by limiting governmental power.
The true value of "Lands That Stand" is to provide a road map for reformers and give them a template to institute freedom in their countries, and then allow them the protection to implement their reforms.
"Lands That Stand" would not eliminate or preclude economic or strategic agreements between any and all countries. It would pertain only to the defense of member freedom-loving nations.
In a world where individual freedom is under attack, the birthplace of human freedom should lead the fight for liberty. America should engage in the battleground of ideas, and fight to win the hearts and minds of liberty-loving people throughout the world.
Doesn't the thief gain in credibility by being given equal stature to the law-abiding citizen? Why would an organization be set up to do exactly that?
If most of the people of the world are suffering under governments that are totalitarian, governments that are theocracies, or governments that in other ways refuse to recognize the individual rights of their citizens, why should modern free nations give these governments the credibility of equal stature?
America gave birth to government based on the idea of individual freedom and limited central government control. This idea has inspired citizens of the world even to today. Why give credibility to despots?
Forget the United Nations. America should propose "Lands That Stand For Liberty", made up of nations that accept the notion of individual freedom and limited government. Nations that believe that human liberty shall survive in the world. Not all of these countries would have the exact same governments, but all must permit at least the following...
1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of assembly and movement
3. Freedom for all religions to worship in peace
4. Peaceful transition of governmental powers with consent of the governed
5. Property rights for individuals
6. Rule of Law and contracts
7. A free market mechanism
There may be more, but you get the idea. The purpose of "Lands That Stand" is to join liberty-loving nations together in order to ensure freedom's survival in the world, by protecting each other from forces determined to repress freedom. Could there be a more noble purpose?
"Lands That Stand" would not be a political or economic organization...it would be designed to protect member nations from being attacked, and backed by the military might of the entire group. One for all and all for one.
Members must accept the sovereignty of individual nations. Members would not be guaranteed the backing of the group if they attack another country...only if they are attacked by another country.
All countries that meet the standards of freedom must be allowed to join "Lands That Stand For Liberty". If a dictatorship is overturned in a revolution, the new government must show that it has enacted reforms to guarantee individual freedoms to gain temporary acceptance to (and the protection of) the League. To gain permanent acceptance, it must prove those reforms over a five to ten year probationary period.
There is no net gain for freedom if one dictator is replaced by another dictator. We should stay out of internal power struggles in other countries, unless the revolutionaries have succeeded instituting individual freedoms, and have protected those freedoms by limiting governmental power.
The true value of "Lands That Stand" is to provide a road map for reformers and give them a template to institute freedom in their countries, and then allow them the protection to implement their reforms.
"Lands That Stand" would not eliminate or preclude economic or strategic agreements between any and all countries. It would pertain only to the defense of member freedom-loving nations.
In a world where individual freedom is under attack, the birthplace of human freedom should lead the fight for liberty. America should engage in the battleground of ideas, and fight to win the hearts and minds of liberty-loving people throughout the world.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
80/20 Land of Plenty
The common political discussion over domestic production versus international competition tends to circle around the question of tariffs (or not) on imported merchandise. The arguments against both sides tend to be true.
For example, suppose we placed a tariff of 25% on imported Chinese merchandise. Lets assume for now that they can make the product for 25% less than they are selling it now...if so, then China can still control the market, and the price to the consumer would remain the same, but the government would extort itself into taking 25% of the action.
Not one job would be created. Not one American company would receive an advantage. Not one American would gain anything.
Now let's assume that China cannot produce the products for less than their current selling prices. That would mean that the government would have succeeded in inflating the prices of all those Chinese products, so that the American consumer would have to pay 25% more for those products.
It may help some American companies and workers to be more competitive with foreign manufacturers, but at a huge cost to all consumers...and, there is no guarantee that American goods will remain competitive, unless the tariffs keep being raised higher and higher.
Plus, the government would almost certainly have succeeded in setting off a trade war, resulting in higher tariffs on American-built products being sold abroad, and making an already difficult situation even more so.
In short, placing tariffs on imported products hurts American citizens and American companies. But, if you allow completely free trade, then you are almost guaranteeing that American companies and workers will not be able to compete with the low labor costs and lack of regulations in other countries.
If the political argument is focused on tariffs, the American public loses, no matter who wins the argument.
Why not skip the argument on tariffs, and focus on the products that American companies can and should build?
Why not require the major institutions in America to use American owned and built products for at least 20% of what they build or sell? Why not require construction projects or department stores or automobile manufacturers to use American owned and built products?
Allow 80% of the market to be open to foreign competition, but require large American businesses to make 20% of their purchases from domestically owned and built sources.
I know this may strike you as an odd idea, but stop a minute and think about it. The number one advantage is that it would provide jobs. Numbers two and three, it would provide more jobs and yet more jobs. Number four, it could revive heavy industries such as steel, which not only provide high-wage jobs, but can have national security implications.
It's hard to believe that the nation that was once known as the arsenal of democracy no longer has the capacity to provide the material to build the tanks and planes. In addition to benefiting the steel industry, there would be tremendous opportunities in many fields; electronics, textiles, even such seemingly low-tech fields as souvenirs, to name a few. The opportunity for enterprise would be huge.
The first argument against such a program is that American companies cannot compete on price with the low price imports. That is probably true, so there will be some price increases. But, even if the American products cost twice as much as the imports, prices would not go up as much as that 25% tariff on imports would have imposed on the American people.
There may have to be an opt-out if American companies are so expensive that it isn't economically feasible to use them, but 20% of the American market is a large enough segment that there would be many American companies battling against each other and keeping their prices competitive, even if they are somewhat more expensive than the imports.
Another objection to this program might be that it could lead to a trade war. To counter that argument, we should be willing to accept the same 80% access limitation on our products in their markets. We accept the same terms that we offer them.
It may be difficult to administer such a program, but the benefits far outweigh the difficulties.
It's time that our government takes a stand to protect American workers and businesses. It is time that we are willing to pay a little more to protect our own. We can no longer afford to let our jobs and industries go overseas, leaving our people out of work and dependent.
It doesn't matter whether the job is union or non-union. It doesn't matter whether the industry is high-tech or low-tech. What matters is our people are working in honest jobs, proud they are taking care of their families, independent in their lives...and, oh yes, paying taxes instead of receiving benefits.
Think about it.
For example, suppose we placed a tariff of 25% on imported Chinese merchandise. Lets assume for now that they can make the product for 25% less than they are selling it now...if so, then China can still control the market, and the price to the consumer would remain the same, but the government would extort itself into taking 25% of the action.
Not one job would be created. Not one American company would receive an advantage. Not one American would gain anything.
Now let's assume that China cannot produce the products for less than their current selling prices. That would mean that the government would have succeeded in inflating the prices of all those Chinese products, so that the American consumer would have to pay 25% more for those products.
It may help some American companies and workers to be more competitive with foreign manufacturers, but at a huge cost to all consumers...and, there is no guarantee that American goods will remain competitive, unless the tariffs keep being raised higher and higher.
Plus, the government would almost certainly have succeeded in setting off a trade war, resulting in higher tariffs on American-built products being sold abroad, and making an already difficult situation even more so.
In short, placing tariffs on imported products hurts American citizens and American companies. But, if you allow completely free trade, then you are almost guaranteeing that American companies and workers will not be able to compete with the low labor costs and lack of regulations in other countries.
If the political argument is focused on tariffs, the American public loses, no matter who wins the argument.
Why not skip the argument on tariffs, and focus on the products that American companies can and should build?
Why not require the major institutions in America to use American owned and built products for at least 20% of what they build or sell? Why not require construction projects or department stores or automobile manufacturers to use American owned and built products?
Allow 80% of the market to be open to foreign competition, but require large American businesses to make 20% of their purchases from domestically owned and built sources.
I know this may strike you as an odd idea, but stop a minute and think about it. The number one advantage is that it would provide jobs. Numbers two and three, it would provide more jobs and yet more jobs. Number four, it could revive heavy industries such as steel, which not only provide high-wage jobs, but can have national security implications.
It's hard to believe that the nation that was once known as the arsenal of democracy no longer has the capacity to provide the material to build the tanks and planes. In addition to benefiting the steel industry, there would be tremendous opportunities in many fields; electronics, textiles, even such seemingly low-tech fields as souvenirs, to name a few. The opportunity for enterprise would be huge.
The first argument against such a program is that American companies cannot compete on price with the low price imports. That is probably true, so there will be some price increases. But, even if the American products cost twice as much as the imports, prices would not go up as much as that 25% tariff on imports would have imposed on the American people.
There may have to be an opt-out if American companies are so expensive that it isn't economically feasible to use them, but 20% of the American market is a large enough segment that there would be many American companies battling against each other and keeping their prices competitive, even if they are somewhat more expensive than the imports.
Another objection to this program might be that it could lead to a trade war. To counter that argument, we should be willing to accept the same 80% access limitation on our products in their markets. We accept the same terms that we offer them.
It may be difficult to administer such a program, but the benefits far outweigh the difficulties.
It's time that our government takes a stand to protect American workers and businesses. It is time that we are willing to pay a little more to protect our own. We can no longer afford to let our jobs and industries go overseas, leaving our people out of work and dependent.
It doesn't matter whether the job is union or non-union. It doesn't matter whether the industry is high-tech or low-tech. What matters is our people are working in honest jobs, proud they are taking care of their families, independent in their lives...and, oh yes, paying taxes instead of receiving benefits.
Think about it.
Libertarianist?
So where does the "Poor Man's Philosophy" lead? The heart of the philosophy enables the individual to deal with the inherent conflict between individual freedom and group control.
Can libertarians and statists co-exist within one federal government? Can they co-exist within one person? I think so, IF the individual is willing to afford others the freedoms he wishes for himself, and IF the government is dedicated to protecting freedoms equally for all individuals.
Call me a Libertarianist, because I believe that the individual is absolutely entitled to control his own life, but I also believe that the government is absolutely entitled to control individual behavior, in limited circumstances..
The "Universal Morality" provides the means to evaluate the behavior of the individual and of the government.
I'm never quite sure what politicians are talking about when they speak of American "exceptionalism ", but to me it means that America was the only country in the world that was set up to limit central government control and to grant individuals rights that government could not remove.
From that humble beginning, the greatest economic engine, and the freest land in the world, emerged. Since then, it seems to me those freedoms have been chipped away, little by little.
In the following posts, you will see a Libertarianist take on some of our current problems. Keep an open mind, because you won't find many others coming at the problems from this angle.
While a true statist might demand 100% federal government control, and a Libertarian might demand 98% individual freedom, I feel the correct balance should be more like 80% individual freedom and 20% government control. One could argue forever about the exact balance between government control and individual liberty, but I will argue the case for 80/20 in further posts.
One of the great advantages in not running for political office, in not representing any special interest or political party, and in coming into the discussion with an entirely different morality, is that I don't have to fear losing any constituencies. I don't have any constituencies.
My purpose is merely to follow the logic of "The Poor Man's Philosophy" and see how it could affect current political issues.
Can libertarians and statists co-exist within one federal government? Can they co-exist within one person? I think so, IF the individual is willing to afford others the freedoms he wishes for himself, and IF the government is dedicated to protecting freedoms equally for all individuals.
Call me a Libertarianist, because I believe that the individual is absolutely entitled to control his own life, but I also believe that the government is absolutely entitled to control individual behavior, in limited circumstances..
The "Universal Morality" provides the means to evaluate the behavior of the individual and of the government.
I'm never quite sure what politicians are talking about when they speak of American "exceptionalism ", but to me it means that America was the only country in the world that was set up to limit central government control and to grant individuals rights that government could not remove.
From that humble beginning, the greatest economic engine, and the freest land in the world, emerged. Since then, it seems to me those freedoms have been chipped away, little by little.
In the following posts, you will see a Libertarianist take on some of our current problems. Keep an open mind, because you won't find many others coming at the problems from this angle.
While a true statist might demand 100% federal government control, and a Libertarian might demand 98% individual freedom, I feel the correct balance should be more like 80% individual freedom and 20% government control. One could argue forever about the exact balance between government control and individual liberty, but I will argue the case for 80/20 in further posts.
One of the great advantages in not running for political office, in not representing any special interest or political party, and in coming into the discussion with an entirely different morality, is that I don't have to fear losing any constituencies. I don't have any constituencies.
My purpose is merely to follow the logic of "The Poor Man's Philosophy" and see how it could affect current political issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)