Whence the statist mentality?

[Rick]

I've often thought that if one could stop the destruction statists and their supporters have on society, they would mainly be of academic interest to psychologists. Where do these control freaks come from? They want the Great Father Government to control themselves and everyone and everything else. They have little interest in non-government institutions. Government, and extending it's reach and power is all they think of. When you see the statists who achieve great heights in government, like hillary and obozo, you see their life outside of government is largely devoid of achievement. Does that motivate them to want to control the lives of real achievers through the mechanism of government? Like - "HA HA - I won the game after all!"?

As for the peons who support the statists - what is their problem - low self-esteem? Why do they think they can't cope with life without Big Brother helping them along?

 

[Dr.Who]

Let's never forget that statism is about controlling people. We can see everyday that is is about controlling other people's money. But it will not stop there and those for whom sexual rights is utmost of importance in their minds should not be surprised when the sights are turned on that next. The repression of the 1940's will be revived with a new statist flair.

We should also never forget that statism must grow to continue. The control that is established today cannot survive unless opposition is countered with greater control tomorrow.

The erosion of rights is inevitable under a statist admin. All rights not just those you ignore. If you are in favor of sexual rights or workers rights or whatever right you champion then you must oppose statism.

 

[Gipper]

I think it is apparent that people like BO, Hillary, and other statists believe they are the chosen ones to control the rest of us. They truly believe they are much more intelligent and capable than everyone else. When in fact, they are most incompetent.

And, many Americans want to be told what to do. They believe the statists are better and smarter. So, they accept what the statist tells them and dutifully do as they are told. Could anything be more UN-American?

Then you have the "default liberal." This is a person who has been brainwashed by the Left to believe that liberalism is the answer...the only answer. Opposing views have seldom been presented to a default liberal. They only know liberalism.

 

[Rick]

What would sexual rights be, and who opposes them?

 

[Dr.Who]

What would sexual rights be, and who opposes them?

One sexual right, for example, would be the right to put your sexual organ into any orifice of any consenting adult as long as you don't hurt anyone without fear of breaking a law. Once some of this kind of behavior was illegal which shows that states are prone to control whatever they can.

 

[Rick]

One sexual right, for example, would be the right to put your sexual organ into any orifice of any consenting adult as long as you don't hurt anyone without fear of breaking a law. Once some of this kind of behavior was illegal which shows that states are prone to control whatever they can.

Can you show that this is a right by referencing the part of the constitution which deals with it? In the US, rights in the legal sense are those which are recognbized in the constitution.

(Note: I don't care who sticks what where among consenting adults, but I'm tired of the casual use of the word "rights").

 

[Dr.Who]

Can you show that this is a right by referencing the part of the constitution which deals with it? In the US, rights in the legal sense are those which are recognbized in the constitution.

(Note: I don't care who sticks what where among consenting adults, but I'm tired of the casual use of the word "rights").

It is basic privacy.

It is a private contract between two parties one of which is not the government.

All rights not mentioned are reserved by the individuals - in other words we do not need to have our rights listed. If the constitution does not mention it then it is already a right. (provided that one is actually talking about a right and not about something else)

What I am not talking about is the kind of sexual rights that some people intend to mean when they say that they can't be denied a job as a hostess at the family amusement park restaurant because they dress like a mardi gras queen* - they have the right to dress that way but not to be given special protections that others don't have. Everyone of us can be denied a job because we dress inappropriately. Getting the job then is not a matter of the applicants rights but of the employers rights to run his own business.


* I am not talking about a person who needs corrective surgery because he has the wrong sexual organs but the person who chooses to dress, literally, like a drag queen in mardi gras.

 

[Rick]

It is basic privacy.

Oh, yes - the fake right squeezed out of the "penumbras" of the constitution to conjure up a tortured pseudo-justification for abortion in Roe v. Wade. You're batting zero so far - there is no right to privacy. Further, claiming that for sex acts is as weak as it was for abortion - as long as something is done in private it's OK - like me murdering my mother-in-law in private?

It is a private contract between two parties one of which is not the government.

That's novel - how about someone "contracting" to buy heroin from another?

All rights not mentioned are reserved by the individuals - in other words we do not need to have our rights listed. If the constitution does not mention it then it is already a right.

Then torturing puppies is a right?

 

[dahermit]

Can you show that this is a right by referencing the part of the constitution which deals with it? In the US, rights in the legal sense are those which are recognbized in the constitution.

(Note: I don't care who sticks what where among consenting adults, but I'm tired of the casual use of the word "rights").

Uh....The Ninth and/or the Tenth Amendments?

 

[dahermit]

One sexual right, for example, would be the right to put your sexual organ into any orifice of any consenting adult as long as you don't hurt anyone without fear of breaking a law.

I like the EAR! The EAR!

 

[Dr.Who]

Oh, yes - the fake right squeezed out of the "penumbras" of the constitution to conjure up a tortured pseudo-justification for abortion in Roe v. Wade. You're batting zero so far - there is no right to privacy. Further, claiming that for sex acts is as weak as it was for abortion - as long as something is done in private it's OK - like me murdering my mother-in-law in private?

There most certainly is a right to privacy. Yes people can invent and squeeze new "rights" out of it but it still exist.

Yes women do have a right to keep their medical experiences private - that right simply does not outweigh the right of another person to not be killed.

What happens in your home is clearly protected under your right to privacy unless you are violating someone else's right. That is why there is such a thing as search warrants.

Therefore, I assert again that what two people do privately in their home is protected under the right to privacy unless it is harming someone. Does private gay sex harm someone?

 

[Dr.Who]

That's novel - how about someone "contracting" to buy heroin from another?

Does the person selling the heroine get hurt through the sale?
Does the person buying the heroine get hurt through the PURCHASE?
Does the SALE hurt some third person?

No one gets hurt in that contracted sale.

Someone might get hurt for example if a pregnant woman uses the heroine. Which is of course why using heroine while pregnant should be illegal. I can think of other ways that people might be hurt from heroine too and most of them should be illegal. But the sale of it is harmless.

 

[Dr.Who]

Then torturing puppies is a right?

Of course one has a right to torture puppies. Like when one cuts up and eats one rather than starving. Right up until the state decides that it has sufficient reason to limit ones right. The state has limited the right of people to torture animals and I don't really understand the legal reasoning. It is not a cause I plan to defend.

The state does not grant rights it only limits them and hopefully only for good reasons.

 

[Dr.Who]

I like the EAR! The EAR!

You and your partner have that right.

 

[Rick]

There most certainly is a right to privacy. Yes people can invent and squeeze new "rights" out of it but it still exist.

You are simply wrong. Most people who haven't read Roe v. Wade don't know that in it the justices (with reasoning so shakey that it has even been criticized by pro-abortionists) "created" two "rights" - first, the "right" to privacy, and then leveraged that to a "right" to abortion. I personally support the creation of a carefully delineated, uncorrupted right to privacy by constitutional amendment, but there is no such right in the constitution now.