A letter to the editor in today's Chronicle was directed to me:
"In a lighter vein Rich in his Wednesday, Nov. 23, column makes a couple of valid points on his shots at the Bozeman City Commission re. prohibition of cell-phone use while driving. However, he’s not consistent about nanny government as he supports the party who wants less government interference in our lives except for telling us how to run our personal lives, e.g., women’s rights, gay rights, when life starts, birth control, pro choice, marriage definition to mention a few. When Rich acknowledges the contradictions in what he believes and writes, he has a remote possibility of being legitimate and credible — although frankly, I doubt it."
Jerrold E. Johnson
It's letters like these that continually reinforce my convictions, because my opposition consistently manifests a lack of knowledge and weak logic when they try to refute me. If only they would make an attempt to get the facts right, maybe they would render a devastating rejoinder. But until that happens, I can only conclude that I am nearly always right, and that the Left is nearly always wrong.
Mr. Johnson's claim is that I am not consistently for liberty, supposedly because I am on the wrong side of the ennumerated issues.
First, I have not expressed an opinion many of the things on his List of Liberal Talking Points.
Things for which I have not expressed an opinion: Women's rights, when life starts, birth control, pro choice.
Things for which I have expressed an opinion: Gay rights, marriage definition.
Second, for those things I have written about, his point is refuted by what I have written. Third, I do not support any political party. Clearly Mr. Johnson is conflating my positions with that of the Republican Party, despite my express and frequent explanations to the contrary.
Women's rights: I have not expressed a position on women's rights, because there is nothing to take a position on. The Declaration describes rights as self-evident and unalienable. Neither it nor the Constitution expresses any rights applicable to gender. Therefore, women have always had every right as men. Laws preventing women the right to vote, or owning property, or whatever other restriction women have experienced, were in contradiction to the Constitution.
So, the women's rights issue is illusory. As is gay rights . There is no sexual preference built into the concept of unalienable rights. Gays may feel that certain parts of the law are hostile to their agenda, but this is not a rights issue.
When life starts is a matter of biology. I'm not eactly sure why Mr. Johnson names it as a separate issue from pro-choice. I have a feeling that he simply wanted to create a more extended litany of supposed "liberty" issues in order to magnify his assertion that I was being inconsistent.
I'm pretty sure that for the pro-choice crowd there is no concern as to when life biologically begins. It's a matter of when life legally begins, and that standard was set by Roe v. Wade. Since the law can change as Supreme Court Justices change, this is shifting sand for pro-choicers. Hence their vociferous defense of the "right to choose," which is really nothing more than a court granted privilege to treat their fetus as they wish. They have to keep the issue (as they define its parameters) in the forefront.
Birth Control: This item is further proof that Mr. Johnson has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn't even bother to note what part of birth control has to do with freedom from government interference. Is he referencing birth control as a health insurance coverage? Is he making note of Catholic opposition to its use? Is he trying to make a point about making sure school kids have access to birth control since they're going to be sexually active anyway? We simply don't know, so there is no reason to pursue the issue further.
Marriage definition: Well it just so happens I wrote an entire editorial regarding this very issue. And in it I defended, surprise, the removal of government interference. Marriage has been co-opted by government, and has been defined by government with a plethora of laws.
That is the problem, for which there is a relatively easy remedy. Repeal all marriage laws. Get the government out of it and increase liberty. There are many relationships (employment, business, legal) which are created by contract. If someone wants to create a legal relationship, no matter the genders involved, then do it via contract. Simple.
If you want an arrangement called marriage, find a church that will marry you and get married. If you want legal rights and benefits, get a lawyer and sign a contract.
The government has no business in the marriage business. Removing them increases liberty. Except we know that gay marriage isn't about marriage, it is about obtaining legal and moral approval from society. It's to silence critics with epithets and shout downs.
No one really cares what consenting individuals do in the privacy of their own homes. I don't. I also don't care how relationships are solemnized, whether hetero or homo. And the government shouldn't, either.
So, in conclusion, the contradictions are nothing short of glaring in Mr. Johnson's feeble diatribe. It is him, rather than in me, whose credibility has been impeded by his shallow analysis and bumper sticker logic.
0 comments:
Post a Comment