True Progressiveness

I have a progressive heart and a Conservative mind. I like to think that given time, our society becomes a better place. I believe that innovations in the marketplace have and will continue to lift the common man from having to struggle through life just to survive. I believe that in the Free World, where we allow each man to pursue his own happiness, that it has the fringe benefits of producing a greater standard of living for the common man. Not that some still don’t struggle, or that men will ever get to a point where they don’t struggle. Just that there is such abundance in a system such as ours, that struggle is no longer a matter of life and death. That in America, even a man living off the scraps does not have to worry about starvation. No one is desputing that there are no problems in America. Poverty, unemployment, High School dropouts, the ghettoezation of our urban centers, everyone would like to see these problems surmounted. But the problem enters in when we use blame, instead of thankfulness.

The problem is that those who see Big Government as a means of correcting social issues, usually end up causing more problems than they solve.

For instance, rural electrification was originally intended as a means of helping the poor in rural areas. But the result has been very different than what was intended. Rural electrification, along with another Big Government project, The Interstate Highway System, has opened up vast tracts of land for development. The people moving to these areas are usually upper-middle class and the wealthy. Whereas before, where people needed the cities, now they move away, leaving a city without the resources to maintain itself. But worse yet, leaving the poor behind to fend for themselves.

In the cities of the early 1900s, rich and poor lived side by side, they knew each other, and that interaction was to the benefit of both. Now Big Government has artificially took the product of cities, and spread it out into the countryside.Instead ofroads and electrification following expansion, now expansion follows the roads and electrification. Into every nook and cranny of the countryside.

And Big Government doesn’t always mean Federal Government either. Big Government is also Government which seeks to control the behavior of it’s citizens.
Something which local governments do which actually has widespread public support is Zoning Laws. Zoning Laws have almost become something holy to most people, and they forget a time when they didn’t exist. They are something holy in the sense that people feel that if you were to abolish them, that it would lead to our damnation. But far fromleading to our damnation, the abolition of Zoning Laws may actually be the Salvation of many of the forgotten segments of society.

Zoning Laws artificially inflate the prices of property. Both through lot sizes and “Use Zoning”. It makes land scarce through lot sizes, making homes more expensive, and it makes owning your own business extremely expensive by making commercial land very scarce and expensive. And also, it makes it very difficult to help your poorer neighbors and relatives, when the Single Family Residential Zoning Labelis slapped on apiece of property. Because then, the only way for the well to do to help the poor with a cheap place to stay, is to allow them to live with them as roommates. And not too many people with families and children would be willing to do that.

The fear that people feel at lifting the Zoning Laws stem from much propaganda given over the years by proponents of Big Government. False arguments that on the surface seem valid, have been repeated so many times that people accept them without considering their truthfulness. The reasons given to enforce zoning laws don’t really hold up under scrutiny, however.

We’ve all heard how Zoning Laws protect us from noise, smog, unattractive buildings, and unwanted elements wandering into “our safe neighborhoods”. On the surface, these arguments seem to make sense. It stands to reason that having a store in your neighborhood may lead to someone building a monserous structure on the street corner. But is this really an argument. Someone may just as much build an ugly house in your neighborhood, as an ugly store. And the same mechanisms for discouraging ugly housing, can be applied to stores and businesses. Noise concerns are irrelevant also, when we already have noise ordinances in many municipalities. What is the difference between machinery noise and lawnmower noise. And most noise ordinances don’t allow noise past a certain time of day. The argument of Strangers in the Neighborhood holds even less weight than these, for if everyone is gone to work in the neighborhood, then it is actually more suseptable to criminal activity. People being allowed to work at home in their neighborhoods keeps extra sets of eyes and ears in the neighborhood, and makes them safer. And the original reason for Zoning Laws, smog and pollution, are actually delt with in a different way altogether now, and can be delt with in the same ways as noise ordinances deal with noise.

And the benefits derived from easing Zoning Laws are many. Shorter commutes and less dependence automobiles has the side benefit of less overhead devoted to roads and auto repair. More small businesses create more competition and innovation, as these benefits are already realized in homebased businesses of a less conspicuous nature (such as ebay which started in a garage, as well as construction contractors). More housing can be fit into a given area, and stores are closer and within walking distance. All these benefits are already realized in the older urban and suburban communities. And many middle class Americans choose to live in them. In those areas people enjoy the benefits of dynamic and vibrant communities.

Conservative Libertarianism

Part 1

There is the belief that I have heard expressed many times. That Social Conservatism (the branch of political thought concerned with Traditional Moral Values) is incompatible with Libertarianism.

This idea has more to do with the mistaken stance held by many who affiliate with Libertarian Movements, than it does with the heart of Libertarianism itself. Libertarianism at its core is the belief that man should be free from force. That men instituted Government as a way of administering Justice in an impartial manner, free from favoritism and blood feuds.

For example, if someone steals something from you, it is Just that the police and courts restore to you what belongs to you. It is the job of the courts to determine if what you claim was stolen actually did belong to you. If you held the rights to it. If Justice is done, then the item stolen is returned to you, and the criminal is punished for his theft. Justice demands that a man be able to have rights to what he has made or traded for, and that no one can violate those rights. Libertarianism asserts that it matters not if the man who stole it broke into your house, or if he stole it by passing a law. Your rights to your property are moral rights. Theft does not cease to be theft, just because a majority vote to steal.

So we see that Libertarianism is mainly about rights. That is, about having title to, or ownership. Now if you trade something you have for something someone else has, then you give up your rights to that object that you traded away. That does not mean you didn’t have the rights to it. It is because you had rights to it, that you were able to give those rights to someone else.

Now most people of conscience will agree on the points already laid out. And in them, Conservatives will agree with Libertarians. The disagreement does not lie here, but in the area of other Rights.

The largest two areas of disagreement lie in the so-called family-values issues. They are Abortion, and Same Sex Marriage. So in the hopes of reconciliation between people of conscience, let me outline my views of a solution. For I consider myself a Libertarian, but I do not believe that that means I must automatically be for Abortion or Same Sex Marriage.

As stated before, Libertarianism is about Rights (Title and Ownership). Now on the issue of Aborting Pregnancy. That is the Medical Procedure that destroys the Fetus that is living in a pregnant womans womb. On the issue of Rights. Some will argue that the Fetus is a Human Being with the Full Rights of all persons, including the Right to it’s own life. Others will assert that it is not a person, that it has no rights at all. Now I’m sure that if someone attacked you and threatened the destruction of your life, that there would be a trial. And suppose that it was asserted by the attacker that you were not a person, so that no Rights were being violated. In order for that assertion to be valid, it would have to be proven in a court of law. Simply asserting something is not a valid means of circumventing the legal system. We have a system where that, in order for Rights to be relinquished (such as imprisoning a criminal or requiring restitution) the burden of proof lies with the accuser. The accuser must prove that the accused gave up their Rights by committing some act.

Now I do not claim to know if a human life, a person, begins at conception, or at birth, or at some time in between, or even at some time after birth. But I cannot just assert that I know the answer, and then not prove it to be true. One must have evidence and witnesses, ect. In order for Justice to be done, due process must be observed, along with the Right to have a Trial in a court of Law. As well as the Right to be presumed innocent until Proven Guilty. If someone is going to try to circumnavigate this by simply asserting that a Person (whether they are a person or not) is not a person, Justice still demands due process, and innocent till proven guilty.

I would say that knowing for sure when life begins is an unknowable thing. I for one do not know, and I believe if you were to be honest with yourself, you would agree that you do not know either.

So not knowing, does this necessarily mean that we should error on the side of caution??? Absolutely Yes.  Innocent till proven guilty can mean nothing, if something unproven can dictate potentially ending someones life. Ignorance is no excuse in a court of law.

 Now some will say that the Woman has the Right to have the Fetus killed, because she has the Right to her body which includes her womb. This basis seems more acceptable, at least to me. But this also I must reject on this basis: no Rights to your own body can take precedence and allow you to kill another person. The Law has established that a person, who sees another drowning in water, must use their own body to throw a life preserver to save the person. And if you were using your hand to stop the flow of blood in an accident victim, would it not be murder to remove your hand from the wound, thus allowing them to die. Perhaps the extreme length of time (9 months) could be seen as an extenuating circumstance. But my point is not to quibble over the details, but to show that opposition to Abortion is a valid Libertarian Position. And with that goal in mind, I think I have made my case.

This is Part one of a two part series. Part two, having to do with Libertarian is and Same Sex Marriage, is contained in another post.

Patriarchy is Not a Dirty Word

   The basic premise is that Feminist Ideology is the same as Socialism/Communism/Marxism. This ideology is that the Government must protect certain segments of society from freely associating with other segments of society. To put it simply, Feminism states that women must not be allowed to enter into the voluntary social structures of Patriarchy. Patriarchy being nothing more than a system where men who are able to direct themselves to useful and productive tasks will naturally accumulate an attractive lifestyle. In other words, they will no longer be living hand to mouth, but will have stored up for themselves a surplus of necessities, thus making themselves more independent of outside influences. These surplus can take many forms, but they are all the direct result of the inherent abilities of Men to produce, and to protect what they have produced. The surplus is the result of a man converting his time into tangible goods, and then trading them goods for other goods and benefits.

From time to time, in order to increase his productivity, as well as to show his good-will and affection, a man of abilities may take it upon himself to employ other men. These other men will voluntarily allow themselves to be directed by the Man of ability, so as to provide for themselves and their families.

Also from time to time, men of ability will take on a wife. She will voluntarily join his household for her own benefit. She is free to be his wife, or not, as she so chooses. It is because of the benefits of a mans production and protection that a woman finds a husband.

Under a system of absolute liberty (that is, of freedom to do as one pleases as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others) , the natural state that society will settle into will be Patriarchy.

Thus,it is impossible for a person to be a Feminist, and be in favor of Liberty. All  societies depend upon the production and protection of Men, the natural abilities and attributes of men. Feminism/Statism/Marxism also depends upon the Production and Protection of Men, but they believe that a mans labors are to be directed and collected for the use of the state to distribute to society at large. Where as Liberty is the principle that a Mans time and labors are his own, to be directed and collected by himself to be used and shared at his own discretion.

Feminism tries to do what it claims it wants to do: It tries to “free” women (and to a certain extent, younger males, and children) from the natural desire to put themselves voluntarily under the direction and authority of Older and Established Men of ability. It wants to limit people from accepting direction in exchange for the provision and protection that masculinity and Paternity provides.

In other words,Men must work, produce, and protect; but are not to be entitled to the benefits of such. They are not to be compensated for their presence. Young men can not be allowed to apprentice under and be taught by older men. They must be given a “minimum wage”. And so they are forced to go into debt to pay a college to teach them a trade. And they are told that an older Patriarch only wants to take advantage of them.

Women are also taught that the Masculine wants to take advantage of them, and so they miss out on the benefits of a Masculine presence in their lives. They learn that a woman must control men to keep them in line. That without women to control them, men would cause trouble.

Patriarchy is NOT a forced system. Under a system of Liberty, women and young men are allowed the freedom to pursue their own means of production on their own. It is the advantages of mature masculine authority and direction that draws young men into apprenticeships,and women into marriages.

Throughout history, especially when the earth was less populated and wilderness was more plentiful, most women have been free to leave the provision and protection of men, and strike out on their own. Women have been free to dig ditches to drain swampland. Chop down trees to clear farmland and pasture. Construct dwellings and other structures. Dig in the earth to mine materials.  Construct forges to refine metal. And to dream of innovations and inventions. And every other thing that men have done.

And throughout history, women have wanted to find a man who cares enough to do these things for her. To protect her and provide for a family.

Feminism is about hate, whereas Liberty is Love.

Socialism grants degrees and diplomas.  Liberty grants knowledge from man to son, from Patriarch to Young Men. This gives security to society, safety for women and children, and is inherently stable.

Patriarchy isn’t about forcing women to submit to men, it is about rejecting the revisionist history that says that women were forced to submit to men. It is about women appreciating what men provide.  It is saying that when aman uses his abilities and attributes to say, build a home for his family, we celebrate his strength and refuse to callit coersion when a woman appreciates what her husband has provided. It is rejecting the belief that the tangible proofs of a mans love for his family, is called “greed”and “selfishness”.It is not selfish that a man protect his production from theft by others who neither appreciate nor love him.

In a free society,Older Men help younger men to provide for themselves and their families.They help young men to become mature men. They pass on not only knowledge,but also wisdom. In exchange, the Oldermen recieve the vitality and energy of youth,and this vitality is directed by the established and wise mentor,until such time the young man become wise and established himself. At which point the young man deems himself ready to strike out on his own and take an apprentice for himself. This is the natural means of Social Security, and it is independent of Technological Progress, for anything which can be taught can be taught in this way.

Socialism takes these free associations and uses propaganda and pride to destroy. Socialism tells the young man, “you don’t need the old man,you should be independent, you are smart enough and he is taking advantage of you.” It says that knowledge equals wisdom.

Socialismtakes the free association of husband and wife and tells the woman “If you become a mans wife and show him respect, then you are his slave.”It confuses mutual benifit with slavery.

However, true slavery is,and always has been,at the point of a sword. There is no slavery without force.There is no such thing as voluntary slavery. The wise man knows that his wife, his children, and apprentice are  his security in old age, and he protects them as a treasure.

Socialism is true slavery. It is forced confiscation of a mans life and his production to the state and for the state. And  the discretion and distribution of a mans life and production is decided by others. If a man refuses to part with his life and production, the life and production that others rely upon for their survival,he is locked up. Locked up for defending himself and defending those who rely upon him.

Fundamentalist Ranting

My name is Jerry. This is my blog. I am starting this blog as a place to share my thoughts on Society, Freedom, Politics, and Religion.

My goal is to voice things that I heve been unable to voice in “polite” society. I hope to find kindred spirits in this world who are also concerned with the same things as I am. This is my way to express what the Apostle Paul meant when he said “be not conformed to the pattern of the World, but be Transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

Being Transformed can be lonely when so few others are seeking to be Transformed. So if you like my blog,please contact me.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!