“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
This is the way it should be, at least.
View this post on Instagram
Good question.
Source here.
Archives
bookmark_border“A concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters…”
“In addition to being a major threat to public safety, a concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters everywhere and force states to allow people to ignore safety standards,” the Giffords anti-rights organization wrote in a recent social media post.
Wow. To force states to actually… respect people’s fundamental rights. How terrible. Contrary to what the people at Giffords seem to think, forcing states to respect people’s rights is a good thing. Respecting people’s rights is a basic moral obligation.
Additionally, it’s irrelevant that a concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters. Concealed carry is a fundamental right. If the will of voters is for people’s rights to be violated, then the voters are wrong, and they deserve to have their will overturned.
Finally, the claim that a concealed carry mandate would be a major threat to public safety is irrelevant as well. Concealed carry is a fundamental right, and respecting people’s rights is a basic moral obligation, regardless of the consequences for public health.
Individual rights must come first. Always. No matter what. That’s why they’re called rights.
bookmark_borderA reminder from Ron Paul
View this post on Instagram
Source here
This is exactly why democracy, in and of itself, is not something positive. A form of government in which policies are made based on the majority’s preferences, is not a good thing, because the majority could just as easily be wrong in their preferences, as they could be right. If the majority prefers, for example, that a minority’s rights be violated, then the majority would be wrong, and democracy would allow this wrong preference to be implemented as law. This is why the founders (correctly) did not cherish democracy. Individual rights must come first, always.
As the Firearms Policy Coalition correctly points out, individual rights must never be up for a discussion or a vote.
And as an astute commenter pointed out: “This is why libs love democracy so much because they will vote away your rights. We’re a constitutional republic safeguarded by individual liberty.”
bookmark_border“You’re not the Rebellion—you’re the Empire”
I love this Star Wars themed post from the official White House social media accounts:
View this post on Instagram
The caption also states an important truth about the woke, politically correct bullies who hate Trump and his administration: “You’re not the Rebellion—you’re the Empire.” Correct. 100% correct. The politically correct bullies are not rebels. They are not the resistance. They are not “resisting” anything. They are not “standing up to” anyone. They are the authority. They are the establishment. They are what hippies would call “the man.” We, meaning Trump and his supporters, are the rebellion. We are the resistance. We are standing up to them. Not the other way around.
bookmark_borderRebutting a pro-natalist tweet by Robert Reich
Robert Reich recently made a social media post that reads:
“So the Republican Party has historically blocked:
-Paid sick leave
-Paid family & medical leave
-Universal childcare
-Universal pre-K
-Expanded Child Tax Credit
-Programs to support reproductive health
And they’re wondering why more people aren’t having children?”
My first thought upon reading this post: And this is somehow supposed to be a bad thing?? How, exactly, is any of this bad?
Paid sick leave: OK, there is nothing wrong with this. It also has nothing to do with having children. People get sick sometimes, and therefore benefit from having paid sick leave, regardless of whether or not they have children.
Paid family and medical leave: Medical leave is OK for the same reasons as sick leave. But family leave is discriminatory against people who do not have children.
Universal childcare: This is discriminatory against people who do not have children.
Universal pre-K: This is discriminatory against people who do not have children.
Expanded Child Tax Credit: This is discriminatory against people who do not have children. Why should people who have children, get to pay less tax money than people who don’t?
Programs to support reproductive health: These are discriminatory against people who do not have sex.
So Mr. Reich, please explain: How, exactly, is it bad for Republicans to have blocked policies and programs that discriminate against people who do not have children?
As a commenter correctly pointed out: “Parents don’t have the right to other people’s resources.”
100% correct.
Discrimination against people who do not have children is morally wrong, and it is to Republicans’ credit that they have blocked it.
bookmark_borderPresident Trump on the Confederate flag
View this post on Instagram
Source here
bookmark_borderAn excellent response to an anti-statue bully
I came across the following comment on a social media post, and it is an absolutely excellent response to anti-statue bullies:
“Hate and attack. That’s all you people know. Lack any intelligence to seek knowledge or understanding. Just hate and attack anyone or anything that doesn’t think like me. I am right and you are wrong and nothing can be said to make me think otherwise as my feelings count more than yours! That is the whole of you and those like you as seen by the rest of the world. Awful, hateful, spiteful people….exactly what you think you oppose!”
This comment hits the nail on the head. 100%. Spot-on. Exactly.
bookmark_borderFantastic news re: President Trump and Christopher Columbus
No comments are really needed, other than to say that this is completely awesome. The reason why I voted for Trump is because of the prospect that he would make a statement / take a position exactly like this one. To some extent, the Trump administration hadn’t stood up for statues and historical figures to the extent that I hoped they would, instead focusing on other issues, but this makes me feel much more positively about the situation. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
White House Facebook post here
Fox News Facebook post here
bookmark_border“Instinct is something which transcends knowledge…”
View this post on Instagram
Source here
This quote really stands out to me. It captures how I feel about the statues. For five years, I’ve tried one logical argument after another. I’ve tried and tried to find words with the power to convey exactly why these statues are so important to me, and why what happened to them was so wrong. But maybe the value of the statues is one of the truths that Tesla is referring to. Maybe this is a situation in which logical deduction, and willful efforts of the brain in general, are futile. There is something inside of me that knows with complete certainty that what was done to the statues is wrong on the deepest and most profound level. Maybe this something is the instinct, the finer fibers, of which Tesla was speaking.
bookmark_borderExpressing a positive opinion about something is not “bootlicking”
This blog post falls under the category of “things that shouldn’t need to be stated, but apparently they do.”
The other day I was watching a YouTube video in which a doll collector criticized Mattel for laying off designers and other employees involved with the making of Barbie dolls. This YouTuber ranted at length about people who have defended Mattel, repeatedly characterizing these people’s opinions as “bootlicking.”
This reminded me of a situation a while back, in which a Democrat politician characterized a political opponent as “licking the boot” of Russia, because that political opponent failed to demonstrate sufficient enthusiasm about sending additional money to Ukraine.
Both situations make me angry. Expressing a positive opinion of something does not constitute “bootlicking” or “licking the boot.”
Expressing a positive opinion of Mattel is not “bootlicking.” It is expressing a positive opinion of Mattel.
Expressing support for Russia is not “licking the boot” any more than expressing support for Ukraine is. (Plus, the politician in question didn’t even express support for Russia; he merely questioned sending even more money to Ukraine, making the allegation of “licking the boot” even more preposterous.)
People are allowed to criticize Mattel for its layoffs, and people are allowed to feel that Mattel didn’t do anything wrong. People are allowed to support Ukraine, people are allowed to be neutral on the whole Russia / Ukraine conflict, and people are allowed to support Russia.
Usage of terms like “bootlicking” and “licking the boot” is predicated on the assumption that defending something, or expressing a positive opinion about something, is inherently bad. These terms imply that the very act of expressing a dissenting view is somehow pitiful or cowardly or ridiculous. Using such language is a way of presuming the truth of what you are trying to prove. It is both mean-spirited and intellectually dishonest.
People are allowed to have opinions that differ from yours. This shouldn’t exactly be a revolutionary concept. I’m sick and tired of people using pejorative and insulting language towards those who express dissenting opinions.