Venting Steam

I am back to blogging. There has been lots going on for me lately, and I must admit that writing has not been a priority (even when I have the time to do it).

I am slightly melancholy at the moment and don’t feel like getting in to all the things that have been happening for me. There really is so much to say. The reason I am writing is because I have been inspired to by Joel.

I must say, his beliefs about such things as gun control, legalizing drugs, and smoking…(ie people’s rights in general) seem to be dead-on. I too, am a libertarian who believes that my 2nd Amendment rights should not be altered or violated in ANY way. The government DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT!!!!!!! I believe that smoking is a disgusting habit, but does that mean it should become illegal? NO! If Joe Blow feels like rotting his lungs out, more power to him. That is HIS decision to make. I think drugs should be legalized. Making them illegal doesn’t stop anyone from getting them anyway. And again, if Joe wants to kill himself by spending 90% of his waking life on a pot-high, he can go right ahead. And one thing, I am REALLY sick of is this line: Think of the CHILDREN! If you really want to make me mad, just go ahead and pull that one on me. The CHILDREN need flat-panel monitors in their schools. They need $30,000 sound systems piped through-out the same school. And if their grades on average are dropping, we better buy them some more playground equipment in order to stimulate their need to play and romp. In my opinion “think of the CHILDREN” is the ONE of the most powerful lines a politician can pull. What the CHILDREN really need is their mother and father’s guidance and love. They REALLY need to be at home with their parents learning from the person who loves them more than any teacher does. Instead the demand for good teachers is high because mommy wants to have a big career and she doesn’t want to be a housewife! How mundane. Doesn’t anyone keep up with the times, she’s EQUAL to all men and therefore should be respected outside of her home. Blah. If her career is more important than her child, then she shouldn’t have HAD one to begin with. It’s the same thing as practicing perverted sexual deeds, and then whining because you caught some disgusting STD. The deeds shouldn’t have been performed in the first place.

And if Mike Spike kills someone…I don’t want to be paying for him to live 100 years in jail, thank you! I want to see him executed. And hey, as for jails…TV, PETS, WORK-OUT ROOMS, SOCIAL OUTTINGS, LEARNING NEW TRADES?!!! I don’t think so!

Oh, and lets not get into WELFARE. There are women (teen-age girls mostly) who, if they have a baby by some man they’re not married too, and can’t go to school or get a good paying job because there’s nobody to watch her kid(s), those women get FREE DAYCARE AND FREE COLLEGE EDUCATIONS. After that, the government pays for their house or apartment. Which is why I can’t support Habitat for Humanity. Alot of those houses aren’t going to the people who really need them. They got to those same mommy’s. And don’t tell me that’s not true! I personally know someone who purposely had two children in order to get her education and living expenses paid for. She was really lucky too, her son turned out to be autistic, which means she gets EVEN MORE money, and his education paid for too!

Meantime, Dave who went to school and did the time for 4 years. Worked his butt off, and has to pay for every cent of it. A debt that will likely take decades to crawl out from under. Would the government compensate him? I think not!

He who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat. Right? Wrong! Lets visit the slums of Detroit. A place I’ve been many times. A pastor’s wife I know spent weeks collecting turkeys to deliver to the poor in Detroit. There are many. She froze the turkeys until the day before Thanksgiving. She visited a family who sported a brood of children, and a husband and wife who didn’t work, but let the government support them. They lived meagerly. Their house was a sty though. The sight of the ragged, dirty children, touched this good-hearted woman. She knocked on the door and handed the wife one of those hard-earned turkeys. The woman grabbed it and tossed it into the nearest garbage can saying “Turkeys take hours to cook, and WE’SE hungry NOW!”

End of story. Enough said. I think I’m sounding as cynical as Autonomous Josh.

  1. This is something I’ve been thinking about since Joel’s post: is there a Biblical basis for libertarianism, or juris naturalis, or whatever you call it? More to the point, can you justify from Scripture that we shouldn’t try to legislate morality; or conversely, that we should make it legal for people to engage in destructive behavior in order to protect their “rights”? Or for that matter, is the concept of individual “rights” in the sense that our legal system has interpreted it, Biblical at all?

    Melissa, you make some good points about things that are wrong with our social systems. And believe me, I am NOT a bleeding heart liberal who wants to see condoms distributed in schools, nor am I a Bible-thumping fundamentalist who wants to put all homosexuals in jail. I just have some honest questions about the Biblical basis for the libertarian worldview. My knowledge of libertarians is pretty much limited to Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and I was not impressed, to say the least, by her worldview. I may have to blog about this. . .

  2. God could force us to be good, but He doesn’t, right?

    Not being good carries its own natural consequences.

  3. Actually, banning drugs keeps a lot of people who would otherwise use them from trying them; not because they’re unavailable, but simply because there are those of us who would rather not get mixed up in anything illegal for the sake of an acid trip. When drugs are outlawed, only outlaws have drugs. I am perfectly fine with the idea that law-abiding citizens don’t use hallicunogens, drugs that cause fits of paranoia, instantaneous death, etc at will.

    By contrast, the idea that only criminals would have guns is terrifying. Banning guns doesn’t prevent people from having them; it prevents non-criminals from having them. Which is a bad thing.

    The role of government is to enforce Law and protect the citizenry. I fail to see how letting us have unrestricted access to heroin accomplishes this. There’s a reason these things were banned to begin with, and wasn’t just uptight pietists.

  4. I think the people who don’t do it because it’s illegal are probably the same people who wouldn’t do it because it’s wrong.

    Wrong actions have their own natural consequences.

    By making the drugs illegal what we’ve really done is sponsered a hugely profitable illegal drug trade, where there are wars and people getting killed, etc.

    The problem here is the misconception that law keeps people from doing anything. No. Law punishes people for doing certain things when they are caught and it can be proven. It’s true that for certain people, the risk of being caught makes them avoid certain activities. But I think these same people would avoid now-illegal drugs because of the risk of side-affects, addiction, etc.

  5. My sentiments exactly. =)

  6. Yeah? Well, that’s what YOU think, Chester!

    Ok, I feel better now.

  7. No fair, you don’t have comments! I can’t say that to you!

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>