uggabugga

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
1
It's possible to view the decision as recognizing the libertarian concept of negative rights. I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation - primarily because every-fucking-thing else this Court does is 100% about empowering big government and political parties. The decision, instead, seems to stem from a positive right granted to a minority interest more than a restriction upon government. But I need to read it first. I'm just going by the reporting. And the reporting is, if recent history is any indication, misleading and fraudulent.
Interesting, that's fucking interesting, man. I admit, I'm very pro LGBT, so this could be clouding my judgment with bias. Are there any articles or books you might suggest for me to read about the concept of negative rights?

Sure, dude. Let me hit you with some sources before I take a swing at demonstrating how negative rights and libertarian philosophies arrive at the position you naturally endorse. Unfortunately, it's not light reading - I'm not aware of any book that winnows it down that narrowly or that neatly. It may help to acknowledge that, in many cases, negative rights are the same thing as natural rights or classically liberal rights.

1.  Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government.
2.  Mason, George. Virginia Declaration of Rights.
3.  Paine, Thomas. Rights of Man.

I'm currently reading The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom by David Boaz. So far, it's proven a nice little compendium for libertarian and negative rights oriented positions. I'm sure there is other stuff out there, I'm just not thinking about them.

Now, I hear you on the pro-LGBT thing. But libertarian philosophy is perfectly in accord with these, and other, rights. At essence, a negative right is the right to be left alone. Amendments preceding the New Deal era were essentially negative in nature; that is, they restricted governmental interference with private action. After the New Deal, well, yeah, shit hit the fan. They actually IMPINGED on the natural rights of some people by requiring them to subsidize the artificial "rights" of other people. I think we're seeing a third-wave evolution of that process now. It's all about identity politics, special interests, and voting blocks. The extent of your rights is equal to the amount of political pressure you can bring to bear.

Heretofore, the concept of negative rights has been the best practical limitation on governmental power. Taking things back, to my mind it originated (or at least took modern form) with Magna Carta in 1215. That was an early (western) example of a ruling class (in that case, the king) conceding limitations to power. Now, it was incredibly more complicated than that (King John didn't voluntarily endorse it, the most critical protections were extended only to nobility and clergy, and it was subsequently modified, etc.) but still a very fine start. To make things more complicated, things we now consider "conservative" or "libertarian" are really more akin to what was previously called "classical liberalism." The left (now calling themselves "liberals") has relentlessly misappropriated language for its own purposes.

Sadly, albeit predictably, the modern ruling class (and especially the progressive movement) are not satisfied with the chains fastened by the Constitution. You hear it, particularly through mouthpieces like Obama and Warren, trying to shift voluntary responsibilities and moral obligations into affirmative "Constitutional" rights simply by saying they are.
2
It's possible to view the decision as recognizing the libertarian concept of negative rights. I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation - primarily because every-fucking-thing else this Court does is 100% about empowering big government and political parties. The decision, instead, seems to stem from a positive right granted to a minority interest more than a restriction upon government. But I need to read it first. I'm just going by the reporting. And the reporting is, if recent history is any indication, misleading and fraudulent.
Interesting, that's fucking interesting, man. I admit, I'm very pro LGBT, so this could be clouding my judgment with bias. Are there any articles or books you might suggest for me to read about the concept of negative rights?
3
To be clear, this opinion (King v. Burwell) wasn't the one addressing gay marriage. However, I do think the gay marriage opinion was dropped to overshadow the Obamacare one. No one is paying attention to the more important issue because they've all been taken in by the shiny quarter on the sidewalk.

I'm cool with gay marriage. But the Court really shouldn't pretend it's a Constitutional right. It isn't. I've read the thing. We can MAKE it a Constitutional right. We can pass a statute authorizing it. We can do any number of things to effect this result. But if we allow the Court the power to read such a "right" into the Constitution, we've abrogated a terrible authority to an entity which is fundamentally corrupt and incapable of wielding it responsibly.

It's possible to view the decision as recognizing the libertarian concept of negative rights. I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation - primarily because every-fucking-thing else this Court does is 100% about empowering big government and political parties. The decision, instead, seems to stem from a positive right granted to a minority interest more than a restriction upon government. But I need to read it first. I'm just going by the reporting. And the reporting is, if recent history is any indication, misleading and fraudulent.
4
This aggression will not stand, man!!!

I think the crazy fucks on the High Court are more or less re-writing the US Constitution to suit their fancies, and making, effectively, law from the bench. Most undude of them!! The founding dudes of this nation would yell "OVER THE LINE" for sure, mang! Same sex marriage laws should be a state matter, not a Federal matter. Where in the Constitution is the Fed given (delegated) the right to decide who can marry who?

Amendment 10, US Constitution...........

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

That's just like my opinion, man.

Well the way I see it, and this is also just like my opinion man, but I think there's a blurry gray area when it comes to heavy topics like Gay marriage, race issues, etc. I'm all for churches being able to opt out of the ceremonies and they shouldn't be harassed into performing gay weddings. That's for sure. And I'm not saying the government should make laws to control the states...but what we have here is a moral issue. I just think the constitution needs to be amended when people's rights are being stepped on by the states. If a state tried to make slavery legal again, well...well we saw what happened the first time around a couple hundred years ago. But you just can't have slavery goin' on in a modern world, man. If someone doesn't want to perform a gay wedding, they don't have to. But, if someone DID want to before the recent ruling, they couldn't, and that's an imbalance. Pursuit of happiness and all that, Dude.
5
Wedding Ceremonies / Re: USA Wedding Laws...link
« Last post by TheBigGandalfowski on July 01, 2015, 11:29:29 AM »
Louisiana Dude here. With the new SCOTUS ruling, I have a few friends that may want a Dudeist ceremony. Now, according to that link, I need to register with the Clerk of Court. Anyone else from La with experience in this, or any advice?
6
Movies / Re: Wes Anderson fans?
« Last post by TheBigGandalfowski on July 01, 2015, 11:12:39 AM »
The Life Aquatic and The Darjeeling Limited are my favorites. If you haven't seen Darjeeling, watch it sometime. The feel is very laid back and bittersweet, but very Dude in a subtle and profound sort of way.
Steve Zissou is totally a Dude. Long live BM, (and I'm not talkin' about Bob Marley).
7
General Discussion / The Dude's little helper
« Last post by BikerDude on July 01, 2015, 10:10:51 AM »


I find it very appropriate that in one scene at the bowling alley we see the Dude applying a coat of new skin to his thumb.
It's very common in bowling where you easily develop a blister on the thumb.
And the Dude (being the Dude) just brushes on a new coat of skin and keeps on rolling.

New Skin is very Dude indeed.

I use it on my thumb when I do a lot of finger picking guitar.
I can't get used to a thumb pick and it's tough on the thumb and pointer finger.
9
Human Paraquat / Re: Election day.
« Last post by BikerDude on July 01, 2015, 09:02:43 AM »
A dog and pony show.
The illusion of choice.
And yet average everyday folks get downright adamant in their support of one or the other carpet bagger that would rather see them all working minimum wage.
Mission accomplished.
"Thank you sir may I have another."
10
My 2 cents.
You know I can't help but see the court's decision as the libertarian side.
I don't really see this as court activism when the decision ensures  peoples freedom to choose for themselves how to live.
I'm straight, but I wouldn't dream in a million years of telling gays how they should or shouldn't live.
I mean the term that comes to mind is "ABIDE".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwAuZJsDXQE

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10