Reply With Quote
That's spot on, isn't it.
I need to start reading their works again. It's been a long time. They are both great Americans.
Anyone who likes their work may like to listen to Larry Elder on talk radio.
A very interesting article by Walter Williams. May be it
will give you an insight on "rights" or maybe we should
just call it "theft".
Jewish World Review June 6, 2007 / 20 Sivan, 5767
Compassion versus reality
By Walter Williams
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Dr. Thomas Sowell, a distinguished economist and longtime friend and colleague, recently wrote a series of columns under the le "A War of Words." He pointed out that liberals succeed in duping the public because they are so clever with words that they give the appearance of compassion. Liberals talk about the need for "affordable" housing and health care. They tarnish their enemies with terms such as "price-gouging" and "corporate greed." Uninformed and unthinking Americans fall easy prey to this demagoguery.
Politicians exploit public demands that government ought to do something about this or that problem by taking measures giving them greater control over our lives. For the most part, whatever politicians do, whether it's rent controls to produce "affordable" housing, or price controls to eliminate "price-gouging," the result is a calamity worse than the original problem. For example, two of the most costly housing markets are the rent-controlled cities of San Francisco and New York. If you're over 40, you'll remember the chaos produced by the gasoline price controls of the 1970s. Socialist agendas have considerable appeal, but they produce disaster, and the more socialist they are, the greater the disaster.
Liberals often denounce free markets as immoral. The reality is exactly the opposite. Free markets, characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights and the rule of law, are more moral than any other system of resource allocation. Let's examine just one reason for the superior morality of free markets.
Say that I mow your lawn and you pay me $30, which we might think of as certificates of performance. Having mowed your lawn, I visit my grocer and demand that my fellow men serve me by giving me 3 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer. In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're demanding that your fellow man, as ranchers and brewers, serve you; what did you do to serve your fellow man?" I say, "I mowed his lawn." The grocer says, "Prove it!" That's when I hand over my certificates of performance — the $30.
Look at the morality of a resource allocation method that requires that I serve my fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces and contrast it with government resource allocation. The government can say, "Williams, you don't have to serve your fellow man; through our tax code, we'll take what he produces and give it to you." Of course, if I were to privately take what my fellow man produced, we'd call it theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft — the taking of one person's rightful property to give to another.
Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.
There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is de able and worthy of condemnation.
That's spot on, isn't it.
I need to start reading their works again. It's been a long time. They are both great Americans.
Anyone who likes their work may like to listen to Larry Elder on talk radio.
I think those who take advantage of the system are de able.
But criticizing liberal politicians for pushing affordable housing and healthcare as a ploy to fool the masses is letting conservatives off the hook.
Is pushing the wedge issues of gay rights and immigration reform any less deceptive? Since when is it right for politicians to use religion as a tool for political exclusion?
This is a good article, but represents only one side of the coin.
Wedge issue? Who pushes these issues? Not the
conservatives. It is always the Gays and pro-illegals, dont
use the phrase immigration. Immigration is not the
issue. It is ILLEGAL's that are the issue.
There is no "other" side of the coin.
What? I hope you're joking. I can admit that blanket welfare is a mistake of liberals.
Why can't you admit that religious and conservative groups pushing against gay rights is wrong as well?
Agreed, but it represents the side you never see in the left leaning mainstream media.
It represents that side of the coin most people never see!
What are you talking about? Those of us with conservative principles are not always basing them on the Bible. The Bible has some great moral laws that should be followed, but it does not define entirely what is right and wrong today.
Gays have every right to get married. Equal rights entirely. A gay man can still marry a woman. He is not excluded from that.
Most religious people do not push against the gays on this issue, rather they push to keep marriage as it has always been. Between a man and a woman.
What is a right? Consider that. Doesn't the cons ution state that government will not interfere with religion? Marriage has always been considered a holy event. Government has no right today to be involved in marriage anyway.
"A gay man can still marry a woman"
ing broad-minded of you.
"Marriage has always been considered a holy event"
are you really, really this ing stupid? read any book on the history of marriage.
But by pushing to keep marriage the way it has always been between man and woman they are denying legal rights gay couples.
Do I think gays should be married in the church? No, not really, thats between God and them.
But gays deserve the same legal rights that marriage allows heterosexuals. Its hypocritical of conservatives to want the government out of their personal lives, but then fight to have the law intervene in the lives of others whose lifestyles they disagree with.
If you want to have government out of marriage all together and make it religious ins ution, that is fine with me. But as long as there is a legal aspect to it, it is discrimination to allow only heteros access to those privileges.
The issue I have with the article above though is not about gay, its that there are issues that both parties politically exploit to gain voters. You realize there's two sides to that coin, but others don't. But you're right though. Unless you watch Fox News dont hear much about the liberal demagogery
Where is there a right to get married? Applications can be denied!
Then maybe you should also get government out of the church function of marriage.
So what's wrong with those of us who advocate a civil union?
As for all the conservatives I speak with, we never though the government should be involved with marriage. It is a religious function.
Not entirely true. There are legal contractual arrangements that can be made to address most of the benefits of marriage. Taxes I think are the only thing that cannot be addressed by a contract. Sometimes, there is a tax penalty for two wage earners to be married! Taxes paid by a couple are generally less with a single wage earner than if they were just living together, but generally higher with both people earning money than if they were living together!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is more normal for both people in a gay or lesbian relationship to work. Why would it be beneficial for them to pay more of their money in taxes?
I can live with a civil union. As long as they have the same legal rights other couples do, call it whatever the you want. I just dont think its fair for two people to be in a relationship for 20 years, one of them dies, and then the family comes in and takes everything as next of kin.
That's one reason for things like a will! Like I said, there are legal tools to cover most items of a marriage. Even in a marriage, other family members can try to take property that the spouse would consider his/hers. Even a married couple should have a will!
Wikipedia:
WILL
Why cant we just have something like this? What if a heterosexual man dies w/o a will? His wife get his stuff. Its a double standard to make gays have to have a will and others dont.
-------------------------
Colombia to recognize rights of gays
By JOSHUA GOODMAN, Associated Press WriterFri Jun 15, 6:38 PM ET
Colombia is set to become the first Latin American country to give established gay couples full rights to health insurance, inheritance and social security under a bill passed by its Congress.
The plan approved Thursday is expected to take effect soon. It is backed by the country's conservative President Alvaro Uribe.
The measure would allow gay couples in long-term relationships to have the same health insurance and social security benefits as heterosexual couples. It also guarantees that assets ac ulated during the relationship will be divided between the two, and in the case of death, inherited by the survivor.
Previously, possessions were passed on to blood relations.
Some states and cities in Latin America have passed similar laws, but no other country in the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic region has done so at a national level, said Marcela Sanchez, director of the gay rights group Colombia Diversa. She said as many as 300,000 gay couples in Colombia stand to benefit.
"I'm elated," said Catalina Gomez, an English teacher, who said she plans to use the new legal status to take out health insurance for her partner Monica, a self-employed designer and disc jockey. "It validates our union before the law so we no longer have to going around lying about our relationship."
Congress' lower house passed the bill 62-43 following a heated debate in which Alfredo Cuello Baute, the president of the chamber, accused gay lawmakers of a conflict of interest.
"I hope photos don't turn up showing some of our colleagues dressed as drag queens on Caracas Avenue," said Baute, referring to a nighttime cruising spot for transves es and male pros utes in Bogota.
Colombia's Senate passed a similar version in April. The two chambers must now agree on a unified text before sending it for Uribe's signature as early as next week.
"This is a victory that only a few months ago seemed unthinkable in this country," said pro-government Sen. Armando Benedetti, one of the bill's sponsors. "To my surprise, the Congress has shown itself to be a modern, responsible and liberal ins ution."
Colombia's Cons utional Court recognized similar rights to shared property and inheritance in a February ruling, but that decision did not deal with health insurance or social security.
While sexuality is still taboo in much of Latin America, there has been increasing acceptance in many areas. Mexico City and the Mexican state of Coahuila recently joined the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires and the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul in legalizing same-sex civil unions.
Opponents of the measure and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church said they feared the Colombian law may open the way to gay marriage and gay adoption. But activists say their campaign is focused for now on obtaining practical benefits.
"Now people will have no choice but to accept we exist and have the same rights as straight couples," said Jose Luis Bautista, 36, who has been living with his partner Jaime for 15 years.
Just recently, Oregon passed both Civil Unions and Gay Rights legislation with little opposition from Oregon conservative. Yes, some were vocal, but only a few. The laws are actually reasonable compared to most the legislation that goes around here in Oregon. What I read of them, I concurred with there passage too.
My state has been one of the first states to address this issue. In early 2004, Multnomah County started issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Four of the five county commissioners all-but-illegally conspired to pass the procedures that were completely secret until it happened. They were Rojo de Steffey, Serena Cruz, Lisa Naito, Diane Lynn. It was shortly contested and deemed uncons utional. Diane Lynn, the head of the commission lost the 2006 election by a huge margin to Ted Wheeler. Wheeler received 69% of the vote against her! Lisa Naito and Serena Cruz didn't run again. Steffey was already re-elected in early 2004 before the full impact of here unethical conspiracy was known. Because she received more than 50% +1 in the primary, she didn't face off an opponent in the November election. She will likely be defeated in 2008 in my opinion. Even as liberal as where I live is, nobody like the method this was done. It was a setback being done in the shadows, not necessary in such a liberal area. The immediate impact was Oregon passing a cons utional amendment specifically banning same-sex marriage. I doubt liberals will not forgive them for that setback. Once the supreme court deemed the actions uncons utional, the county had to pay all kinds of taxpayer money back to those who married under false pretence.
links:
Oregon gay rights bills signed into law
Oregon Politicians Conspire With sexuals To Redefine Marriage
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
