Freedom

Do church CHL bans violate the First Amendment?

/ hsoi

David Kopel has an interesting legal analysis of church (or other place of worship) bans on concealed carry. And this isn’t talking about “free speech”…. remember there’s other things in 1A too.

Moreover, the CHL ban also violates the Establishment clause because it favors some denominations over others. In effect, the statute privileges pacifist denominations over non-pacifist ones, by forcing the non-pacifist religions to obey pacifist standards of conduct in their own houses of worship. This is not only a Free Exercise violation, it is an Establishment clause violation, because it plainly creates the message that the pacifist way of being is the only way of being which the state will allow in any church, anywhere in the boundaries of the state.

It seems in so many ways we create problems because we poke at things too much. Consider the large structuring of laws that got us to even have to consider the above. If those laws were stripped away, we wouldn’t be having this discussion and all involved groups would be able to freely practice whatever it is they believe.

When are we going to learn to sometimes leave things alone?

What would you have done?

/ hsoi

Marko points out a thought-provoking article.

Three militants stormed into Rukhsana Kauser’s home in a remote village in Jammu region on Monday and started beating her parents in front of her.

Ms Kauser, 18, and her brother turned on the gunmen, killing one and injuring two more. Police praised their courage.

Here in the US there would be little praise for those actions, and likely followed by recommendations that people not fight back and take that course of action, and probably saying such things should call the police or just say “NO!” in a loud voice, run away, or other such fairly useless actions.

“Without saying anything they [the militants] started beating my parents and my uncle. They beat them so badly that my parents fell on the ground. I could not see that and pounced on one of the militants while my brother hit him with an axe,” she said.

“I thought I should try the bold act of encountering militants before dying.”

Ms Kauser said she grabbed one of the militants by the hair and banged his head against the wall. When he fell down she hit him with an axe, before snatching his rifle.

“I fired endlessly. The militant commander got 12 shots on his body.”

Her brother, Eijaz, 19, grabbed one of the other militants’ guns and also began shooting.

Ms Kauser said the exchanges of gunfire with the militants had gone on for four hours.

“I had never touched a rifle before this, let alone fired one. But I had seen heroes firing in films on TV and I tried the same way. Somehow I gathered courage – I fired and fought till dead tired.”

So to those that wish to ban guns, to those that feel women and elderly are better left at the mercy of predators, that feel violence is never the answer… tell me, how would you have handled this situation?

Send a gift, make a choice

/ hsoi

Healthcare discussion is all the rage these days. When you boil it down, there’s really only one thing at the heart of it all:

Money.

I had someone comment to me that they make more money than average and thus are willing to pay more. That is, they’re happy to accept a government program and thus increased taxes to pay for this.

If you make so much money that you’re willing to send that “extra” away in the form of taxes, why aren’t you doing anything about it right now? The Federal Government accepts gifts! Furthermore, there’s lots of charities out there right now that could really use the funding. Here you go: Donate to St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. Send all that extra money you have.

The simple fact is, once taxation occurs, once a government-based program is put in place, freedom of choice withers and eventually dies. I find it so interesting how those clamoring for nationalized healthcare programs are also the same people that at least on the surface clamor for “choice” in so many other areas. To those people I ask, where’s the choice in this? If I don’t want to participate — because it’s my body (and money) — I cannot do that. There is no choice. Taxation requires you to fund and support not only the things you like but also the things you don’t like. Where is the freedom? Where is the choice?

As it is now, we have choices. If you truly believe that no one’s health should be at the mercy of financial matters, then what are you doing today to make that happen? What healthcare charities have you donated to? Have you given any of your time to care for sick people? If you are doing these things today, great. Next step, encourage others to do the same. If there’s truly enough merit to it, it will flourish and all through the choices people made. You have a choice today to help make this right, and to do so in a manner that demonstrates not only the compassion that you so strongly feel, but retains the freedom of choice so cherished in this country.

I agree the system is broken, but eliminating the ability to choose and the freedom that goes with that is not going to bring about the desired ends.

What it feels like to be a Libertarian

/ hsoi

Via John Stossel, an article from John Hasnas (Assoc. Professor, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University) on What It Feels Like To Be A Libertarian.

Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

Call me a heartless bastard devoid of compassion, a despicable flack, an unthinking dogmatist, and perhaps even a member of the lunatic fringe. Call me a Libertarian. What is a Libertarian?

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

[…]

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.

Call us crazy….

The Bill of Rights – Amendment 10

/ hsoi

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.

Source: The National Archives and Records Administration, “The Charters of Freedom” exhibit.

The Bill of Rights – Amendment 9

/ hsoi

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Source: The National Archives and Records Administration, “The Charters of Freedom” exhibit.

The Bill of Rights – Amendment 8

/ hsoi

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Source: The National Archives and Records Administration, “The Charters of Freedom” exhibit.

The Bill of Rights – Amendment 7

/ hsoi

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Source: The National Archives and Records Administration, “The Charters of Freedom” exhibit.