- You knew this was coming, didn’t you? (And not a bad thing, IMHO, though why the government should have anything to do with it, I don’t know.) Same-sex marriage and plural marriage.
- “A Modest Proposal.” If withdrawing just under $10,000 from your bank account should be a crime, then how about … oh, driving just under the speed limit?
- Carol Browne didn’t have to die.
- Creative people. Yes. It’s true. They tend to be crazy. “[A]nd writers, specifically, are likelier to possess some sort of mental illness.” (Thanks a bunch, guys.)
- True, he’s just a Republican politician and it’s nerve-grating to hear him called libertarian. But Rand Paul is still a cut above.
- And finally, via Never Yet Melted, hilariously inappropriate covers of children’s books.
Sumner’s modest proposal is supposed to be sarcastic and over-the-top, I presume, but in fact he’s far behind the curve. There are plenty of venues where driving just under the speed limit will in fact draw the attention of cops, who will use the assumption that you’re trying to hide something as probable cause for flipping on the lightbar.
I know because…never mind why I know. It’s true.
Plural marriage? I’m actually a big fan and supporter of the idea. My spouse on the other hand…. First I am a strong believer that the government(s) should not be regulating marriage. If one is of a religious bent, then let the rules of their religion suffice. If one just has to have a binding legal contract filed with the state then form an LLC or similar with your loved one. It is totally possible to live in a long term, healthy, loving relationship (etc) without a piece of paper from the govt. I have many relatives and freinds who have done this were productive and very happy.
Driving under the speed limit? I don’t understand the concept. I think withdrawing large amounts of cash is a “crime” because the economy is so bad and taxes so high that the government automatically assumes any serious amount of cash must of been acquired without government consent. I would suggest that if possible if one works with cash, one should avoid banks. If the govt doesn’t steal it the banks will.
I have thought plural marriage interesting ever since reading Heinlein’s take on it in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, although I have my doubts how well it fits the instincts of ordinary human beings. Yes, why is the state sticking their nose in it at all? I’ll bet there are a lot more of these type of marriages than most people realize, people living under the radar.
The day will come when cops don’t pull people over any more, because they fear for their lives.
Eh, I have some doubts about the Carol Browne thing. I have to ask the question, is there no place for gun prohibitionists to live? In a free world there may well be some places where people voluntarily decide there should be no guns. The fact we consider that stance idiotic is no excuse for imposing on them. Now I understand we are far from being in such a world, and I know there are people in New Jersey who are not gun prohibitionists. But remaining in such a state, when virtually any other state is far better for “gun rights” folks, is a choice. Browne made that choice. Choices are actions, and actions have consequences…
I’m against the notion of a President Rand Paul for the same reason I was against seeing a President Ron Paul:
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/2011/07/04/bonneau.html
For starters, the ‘constitutional’ argument for Big Brother (central, now unfortunately mis-named ‘federal’) involvement in marriage in any way whatsoever is precisely zero.
And by definition, anything that involves a license or permit from the feudal master cannot be called a “Right”.
Having said all that, and given that the First Amendment is similarly a non-issue in Amerika — note ironically that the first major blow against it was Reynolds v US in 1878 — there is at least one more point to be made on that score, and plenty more “irony”:
Polygyny is not only permitted by the Bible, it is in some cases prescribed. (Exercise for the reader — there are several such cases throughout Scripture. All of them ignored just as much now as those who prattle about the Constitution ignore that written text.)
While, of course, male homosexuality is unequivocally prohibited by the Bible in at least five specific places. (Yes, note the caveat. Most people won’t read that text carefully either.)
Which is why those who object to what Big Brother fully intends to complete when it comes to licensed marriage on “religious grounds” miss the boat:
When they shriek about “traditional” marriage, and then ask for Caesar’s license, they don’t have a leg to stand on. Their own Scripture warns against trying to “serve two masters” — especially one so pernicious. And He was incredibly critical of “traditions” which “make the commandments of God of no effect.”
But their hypocrisy bites them in the ankle when they oppose polygyny, which is central to the entire story from Genesis on, and then fall back on a Bible they otherwise ignore.
PS> Re: First Amendment and Reynolds.
Well, first major OFFICIAL blow, particularly to freedom of religion. Lincoln’s war on Free Speech and arrests of newspaper editors had already put a wooden stake in THAT Right.
Plural marriage… shoot, I could never convince one woman to marry me. Just my darned luck that I’m attracted to smart ladies.
Paul’s comment on plural marriages in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” was precisely what I was thinking, too. It struck me as a sort of corporation with sexual benefits. But then Heinlein did have some unusual ideas about sex.
One advantage to such an arrangement which I’ve never heard discussed would be that it would permit you to avoid estate taxes. Under current (federal) law you can leave your entire estate to your spouse without tax. Structure a plural marriage correctly (i.e., keep adding new younger members) and you’d defer estate taxes indefinitely. And if there were several economically-producing members of the marriage the estate could grow quite large.
Speaking of Robert A. Heinlein, he did say to wash your hands after writing, among other such quotes about writing.
I have always thought that “gay rights” people were in error in their arguments by pushing for government approval of marriage. The US Constitution (Art. I, section 10) states that “No State shall ……pass any ..law impairing the Obligation of contracts”.
Marriage has always been just an agreement or contract. Whether recorded or sanctified, it is a marriage contract. There should be no limit on gender or number. Government should not be involved.
Having said that, no person or group should be required to provide their approval, witnessing or their conducting of said contract ritual.
Jim Carrey’s 1st. cameo role was in a movie called High Strung which had a main character, Thane Furrows, an uptight children’s book writer who rarely leaves his house, eats only cereal, and is irritated by everything around him. With titles like “How to start the family car” [in case someone chokes on a chicken bone and there are no adults around] or “Bye Bye Grandma” which he wants to help accustom children to death. If you get a chance to watch it you’ll be pleasently surprised by how subtly funny it is.
writers, specifically, are likelier to possess some sort of mental illness
Hadn’t heard it expressed that way before. How do you “possess” illness? Seems like illness, particularly mental, would possess you. Not surprised at the link. Creativity and mental illness are both defined as deviations from the “norm.”
I’ve read several accounts of people having funds confiscated for “structuring” who had completely legitimate reasons for making several deposits. As I recall one was a person who managed vending machines. He would drive around collecting the cash, and make several deposits during the day to avoid carrying large sums. Fedgov didn’t like that.
Their own Scripture warns against trying to “serve two masters”
See? The Bible is against having more than one wife. 😉
In a free world there may well be some places where people voluntarily decide there should be no guns.
In order to be safe from violence, it would have to be a place where 100% of the people agreed to voluntarily have no guns. Firearms are simple to make, modern firearms are nineteenth-century technology. Essentially, you’re looking for a place where there are no criminals.
And when you arrive, you’ll find that since other weapons work on strength, it’s the big guy, or whoever controls the big guy, who gets to be king. What develops then is a warrior class, people who have the strength basically dedicating their lives to learning how to kill, in service to the ruling class.
The last time we saw this, just before firearms were introduced, we called it “The Dark Ages,” for a reason.
“Gun prohibitionists” seek to eliminate violence by eliminating firearms. But only the opposite would work, first eliminating violence to reduce the necessity for firearms.
Of course once society gets to that point, firearms and indeed all weapons will no longer be a threat, and could be completely deregulated. After all, fencing can still be a sport, martial arts will still be good exercise, target shooting will still be fun, and hunting will still be green.
I’m not suggesting such a society would be workable; in fact I think it would not be. But that is the gun prohibitionist’s cross to bear, not mine. We gain nothing by preventing them from living in the kind of society they desire; and maybe they would learn something by trying it.