<$BlogRSDUrl$>

28 April 2023

Gun and Birth Control 

Those who oppose gun control claim that  the right to possess firearms is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. If there were no Second Amendment, or no Constitution at all, they would probably own guns, as well, in order to defend themselves in an ultimate libertarian paradise.

Those same libertarians, particularly if they are also Christian nationalists, typically also oppose the freedom of women to employ abortion, if not birth control medication, to control their personal reproductive systems. (They must consider using in vitro fertilization artificially to promote reproduction to be an acceptable interference with the natural consequences of sex because it is a willful act.)

Apparently, sexual abstinence is as unobjectionable a practice as self-defense.  In their view, sexual activity for mutual gratification is less desirable a human impulse than murdering others in anger and not in order to protect a person’s life or property.

Like it or not, society has succeeded in developing methods of controlling the unintended creation of babies more effectively than of suppressing sexual emotions. Likewise, unfortunately, our ability to produce and foment the use of dangerous weapons has outstripped the ability of some people to control themselves.

Nevertheless, a vocal and influential political faction in our government, including a majority of justices on the Supreme Court, seems not to recognize that science has liberated women from biological entrapment by a majur consequence of sex acts. Nor do they acknowledge that in the absence of a liberal democratic legal or medical method to suppress violent impulses the only effective way to limit homicidal gun violence is to reduce popular access to weapons of war.

Arbitrarily ending the lives of ambient minor and adult humans is incontrovertibly and scientifically antisocial behavior. Whether destroying or preventing the conception of a non-self-sustainable fetus harms the community’s general welfare is a matter for metaphysical debate. Its answer does not challenge the welfare of people in a liberal democratic state.  But the absence of effective gun control does.


25 April 2023

Reactionary, Not Conservative 

The MAGA Republican coalition which backed former President Trump professed to be the heirs of the conservative Republican Party. However, that wing of opponents to the Democratic administrations of both Barack Obama and Joe Biden really only defined their platform as rejecting most if not all of the incumbents’ progressive policies.

As Groucho Marx sang it 90 years ago, their policy merely is “Whatever it is, I’m against it.” The MAGA Republican Party is not conservative; it is reactionary. Its members have no goal but to defeat any party whose objective is to adopt programs that have a more general purpose than their own personal welfare.  This is libertarian in the extreme.



23 April 2023

Religion and Law 

 

Besides Abortion Limitation, there are other examples of liberal democratic laws that enforce faith-based rules. These include Sunday Holidays and liquor sales restrictions, inclusion of religious activities in the tax exemption awarded to charities and other public services, acceptance of religious belief to justify conscientious objector status, etc.

However, are these concessions to a person’s freedom to honor principles of spiritual rectitude commensurate with the Dobbs decision to eliminate the Court’s nationwide grant of a woman’s personal freedom to obtain an abortion? On one hand, this USSC dictum seems to use the anomaly of America’s federal system as a convenient way to pass the buck on a controversial issue. Notwithstanding, it apparently was not intended to have given the authority to determine national policy to state legislatures or to lower courts. On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s effective codification of the imposition of a religious belief held by any state’s majority on all others in that state is different from the other examples of special legal treatment for religion cited above.

It concerns a woman’s control, to the extent physically and philosophically possible, over her own body. Her body is commonly believed to be her single most essential identity. How dare a system of artificial laws, not to mention a bench of jurists, interfere in that personal process?


05 April 2023

A Tax Fraudster President? 

The most compelling of DA Bragg’s felony charges against Donald Trump seems to be that the former President committed tax fraud by characterizing some of his payments as business expenses instead of personal purchases of silence from sexualized women. It’s not that the payments were campaign expenses; nor that they were actually meant to prevent discovery of these peccadillos by Trump’s wife.

Of course, John Edwards was able to escape campaign expense charges by using the latter rationale to explain his own hush-money payment. However, apparently, he had not also tried to use that payment to fraudulently reduce his income taxes.

To paraphrase Nicole Wallace, Trump has perhaps sealed his own conviction on Bragg’s charges by being not only dishonest, but also by being cheap. 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?