The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):


  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”


Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Circle the wagons?

With the Supreme Court entering its last week before adjourning for the summer, both left and right are making all sorts of preparations for responding to the deecision that is sure to come this week on the Obama health care law. (People seem to have forgotten that this week will also see a decision on Arizona's law dealing with illegal immigrants as well, although the Los Angeles Times, at least, put both together on their site.) I read on one site that Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, has written eight different press releases, covering different possible Court decisions. But most people believe that there will not be a possibility of the Court completely upholding “Obamacare.” What a change from Nancy Pelosi's “Are you serious?” response to a question that challenged the constitutionality of that act. The only question is “how much, if any, of the bill will be allowed to stand?”

I like the title of Jonathan S. Tobin's post on Commentary magazine's site: “Liberal Second-Guessing Won’t Make ObamaCare Constitutional.” While the whole post is an interesting one, that should be read, the last-but-one sentence is a very good summary of what he says, with which I agree: “If the bill goes down this week it will be because a majority on the court have realized that a government that is given the power to invent as well as to regulate commerce is a threat to our liberty.”

No comments: