The journey from there to here
Published on July 7, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

The word "liberal" used to, at least implicitly, refer to a person who believed in the protection of individual liberties.

Now it refers to those with a hard driving agenda to take it away.

The liberal camp is increasingly pushing for mandatory, universal oversight of parenting practices. In short, having a child and not allowing government inspectors into your home could be automatic grounds for removal of the child, and, quite possibly, criminal prosecution. The liberal camp further pushes regulations on businesses that could potentially drive mom and pop operations out of business, and, in the ultimate ironic twist, favors big businesses such as WalMart that it claims to loathe. Want to build a shed out behind your house? Not so fast. That "weed" that just grew in that spot is a federally protected species; you'll have to scrap those plans.

Now, the conservatives don't get off the hook for some of their intrusions on Constitutional rights. But this article isn't about them; and any response that attempts to steer criticism towards the conservative camp will meet with deletion as quickly as I see it (which may be a few days). Frankly, there are plenty of bloggers who are ready and willing to cover what they see as the Constitutional violations of the right. But as for the American left, which seems to be set about absolutely destroying the constitution in favor of a Stalinist America, not enough has been said. And this is despite the fact that MUCH has been said.

I want the word "liberal" returned to those who are inclined to PROTECT liberty, not destroy it. There are plenty of other, more appropriate terms for the American left.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jul 12, 2005
It is really a shame that people don't recognize the open-mindedness of the liberal camp. There are many of us who disagree with homosexuality or abortion but believe that it is the choice of the individual, not society,


You want to talk this after saying this?

With regard to the original message, I'm a liberal and prowd of it. Though some people who call themselves liberals want to take away individual rights, I don't think that parents who do not allow their children to be inspected by Child Protection Services should be allowed to keep them, for the sake of the child. Parents can raise their children in any manner they see fit, on the stipulation that society can be assured that no abuse is taking place against the child.


Sounds a tad hypocritical to me. I can see no reason for anyone to be inspecting someones child unless there is "suspected" abuse. Other than that, stay the hell out of other people's lives!


Bush made it illegal to bring coffins of American soldiers into the country except between 2 AM and 4 PM (so that the media would be discouraged from collecting footage of them),


And this is a problem, why?
on Jul 12, 2005
silenced us with his "USA PATRIOT Act,"


I'm no fan of George Bush or the USA PATRIOT act...but since you were able to type what you did, I don't think you've been "silenced."

I'm as liberal as they come, but it's just that sort of hyperbole that makes us look silly.
on Jul 12, 2005
And this is a problem, why?


Well, it's rather sneaky.
on Jul 12, 2005

welcome back, myrrander...

Greetings being out of the way, I have to say I find your support for "child licensing" to be frightening. Do you really long for a world where a child is stripped from its mother's breast because the mother can't prove herself "fit" to the standards that a nanny state deems necessary? Come on, I really hope you're playing devil's advocate here!

on Jul 12, 2005

Myrrander,

Another note: it's more popular among the left than you realize; it was a pretty common topic of discussion in and around Madison, Wisconsin coffeehouses.

And it all underscores further why I find the left appalling. The left, quite frankly, is out to destroy the Constitution while accusing the right of doing the same.

on Jul 12, 2005

And this is a problem, why?


Well, it's rather sneaky.


Lets start with why do you consider it sneaky? What it has done is stop the media from making a circus out of it. And didn't give our enemies the chance to use it as propaganda. And you "know" that both of those would have happened given the opportunity.
on Jul 12, 2005
No, I long for a world where people are limited on the amount of children they can have, they must pass psychological and financial standards -- literally, people should have to buy a baby liscense. Breeding is out of control.

I'm a sincerely hardcore "zero population growth" person. My wife and I decided years ago to never have children. I'd like to see so few children around that there's not a problem of babies needing to be ripped from a mother's breast because the vast majority of births will be wanted.

This is not a point of view that jives with "democracy," I know. But just because the human estrus cycle is so regular doesn't mean we have to take such advantage of it. We can put a man on the moon and yet we can't stop breeding like rabbits.

I know you don't think there's an overpopulation problem now, and it's an area where I'll respectfully disagree with you with every breath.

And thanks for the "welcome back."

I don't see the right to incessant breeding in the constitution.
on Jul 12, 2005
Personally, I'd love to make you a gift of the word "liberal," if I could -- I'm rather sick of the label.

*grin*
on Jul 12, 2005
I don't see the right to incessant breeding in the constitution.


First of all, does a right have to be expressly stated to be understood?

Secondly, I respect your views on population control. The decision you and your wife made is fine...for YOU. One of the inherent problems, however, with such an approach overzealously applied is that we stand to inherit an aging population without a large enough workforce to provide the service needs to the elderly, the national defense, manufacturing, agriculture, and all of the other needs of our remarkably diverse economy (although retraining a few lawyers shouldn't be out of the problem...but I digress).

As for "financial standards", who's to make that decision. As you well know, someone making $50,000 a year could live like a prince in areas such as those where you and I live, while those in Southern California and/or Washington, DC would be barely scraping by.

But the largest, and most pressing concern I have is that the government, like soylent green (lol), is made of PEOPLE. Giving them the mantle of "government" does not make them mystically benign and void of personal biases and prejudices, and when you empower them to make undue decisions on your life and those of others, you enter into a dangerous slippery slope that makes your own rights even more suspect. A family making $20,000 a year in Arkansas and attending the Baptist church might suddenly have a little creative accounting make them to be "fit", while an atheist couple making the same amount of money might somehow be determined to be unfit. In all reality, given their income levels, the family would be unlikely to afford a lawyer to litigate the case to the highest courts.

I respect your intentions, Michael, I really do (even as I disagree about the population issue). But I have serious concerns about empowering a government that almost certainly would NOT be as civic minded as you hijacking the power and oversight that you gave them to create a state in which the average citizen has much to fear.
on Jul 13, 2005
Secondly, I respect your views on population control.


I dont. It smacks of the worst possiblity of a Brave new World. It scares me that there are some people who would actually try to force such a view not through the force of ideas, but through subjugation of body and mind of the individual.

The Ashinn would be proud of such people.
on Jul 14, 2005
..
on Jul 14, 2005

want Gideon Back! 7 days without an article from you makes one weak! ;~D

I concur!

on Jul 14, 2005
Eh, well I could say that the sun shining is a good thing and Guy would accuse me of being pro-skin cancer. He's blinded by what he thinks I am and not what I actually say. That's fine, he's a narrow minded prat.

I don't have every answer, but I do think that there are too many unwanted pregnancies. Part of this is our horrid practice of putting abstinence education over other forms -- that's detrimental. The second part of it is this religious mindset of "be fruitful and multiply" and it's getting out of hand. The third, which correlates to the first is the backward stance of many churches, especially the Catholics, who have their heads....in the sand about birth control.

Honestly Gid, you aren't really arguing about a Constitutional right here -- you're arguing for what you feel is a God given right. Which is fine, but we should call it what it really is.

Baby liscenses aside, I'd be all for laws limiting the number of kids people have -- and tax breaks for people who don't put the burden of their little bundles of joy on society. But that's my own childless bias

Cheers.

PS

force such a view not through the force of ideas, but through subjugation of body and mind of the individual.


This is one of the best definitions of Christianity I've ever read. May I quote you?
on Jul 24, 2005

I dont. It smacks of the worst possiblity of a Brave new World. It scares me that there are some people who would actually try to force such a view not through the force of ideas, but through subjugation of body and mind of the individual.

I said I respect, not agree with myrr's point of view in this area. I don't have to agree with someone to respect their opinion.

on Jul 24, 2005
I don't have to agree with someone to respect their opinion.


This ought to be plain common sense, but because it needs to be re-iterated again and again, I'll do my little bit by offering an 'insightful'.

BTW, that doesn't mean that there aren't opinions unworthy of respect
2 Pages1 2