Something's been bothering me for a while. People feel that if they are on the side of the democrats they are opposing the morality legislation of the Bush administration, and that the Democrats will protect them from anti-porn legislation and other cultural restrictions that harm our lifestyle. I can state examples, most recently Hillary Clinton's call for federal regulation of violent video games, to prove my points, but I want to take a stab at a deeper issue than legislation.
Why would the democrats want to help people like us? Are they not subject to the same huge voting block that is persuaded to vote Republican on flimsy moral issues? What is to keep them from completely embracing the Puritan moral ethic that harms us? My point is that it is not Republicans or Democrats that will protect the first amendment, because they both believe in the consolidation of federal power over everyone, and most of us (by this I mean outsiders, different people) are easy targets to mobilize the majority of the country against, which allows them to abuse their power (we've seen Bush do this time and time again). Bush has set a precedent, and you should have no desire to continue to see Democrats and something different. They are simply Republicans who haven't siezed the opportunity to consolidate power, which Bush has done an excellent job of doing. Bush is out in two years, and the framework he laid for the Executive Branch will remain after he is gone.
The essential element, the vast and powerful network will still remain. The man holding the position of power will make no difference. Outsiders in American society will continue to be marginalized by a Democrat or a Republican.
When in history has a large nation with a fascist-like power base ever promoted tolerance and equality? What did the empires of old do? Rome enslaved the marginalized and treated the conquered like beasts. England created a vast empire on the back of its African and Indian subjects. Stalin and Hitler killed off anyone they felt was politically, socially, or racially undesirable. It is a story that plays out all the way through antiquity. What we are seeing now in regards to the legislation hampering the first amendment is a "lite" version of said oppression. Not lethal, but no less aggravating.
Frederick Bastiat said that anyone marginalized in a political system will respond in one of two ways. He will either seek to do the enlightened thing, which is to return the law to its proper domain and end the legal plunder of his libery, person, or property or he will do the savage thing, which is to join in the plunder as a way of protecting himself.
If you value your rights as a human being to do and act as you please, you must do the enlightened thing, or you will end up joining in the plunder of your fellows and be no better than your oppressors. Don't become a savage.
Why would the democrats want to help people like us? Are they not subject to the same huge voting block that is persuaded to vote Republican on flimsy moral issues? What is to keep them from completely embracing the Puritan moral ethic that harms us? My point is that it is not Republicans or Democrats that will protect the first amendment, because they both believe in the consolidation of federal power over everyone, and most of us (by this I mean outsiders, different people) are easy targets to mobilize the majority of the country against, which allows them to abuse their power (we've seen Bush do this time and time again). Bush has set a precedent, and you should have no desire to continue to see Democrats and something different. They are simply Republicans who haven't siezed the opportunity to consolidate power, which Bush has done an excellent job of doing. Bush is out in two years, and the framework he laid for the Executive Branch will remain after he is gone.
The essential element, the vast and powerful network will still remain. The man holding the position of power will make no difference. Outsiders in American society will continue to be marginalized by a Democrat or a Republican.
When in history has a large nation with a fascist-like power base ever promoted tolerance and equality? What did the empires of old do? Rome enslaved the marginalized and treated the conquered like beasts. England created a vast empire on the back of its African and Indian subjects. Stalin and Hitler killed off anyone they felt was politically, socially, or racially undesirable. It is a story that plays out all the way through antiquity. What we are seeing now in regards to the legislation hampering the first amendment is a "lite" version of said oppression. Not lethal, but no less aggravating.
Frederick Bastiat said that anyone marginalized in a political system will respond in one of two ways. He will either seek to do the enlightened thing, which is to return the law to its proper domain and end the legal plunder of his libery, person, or property or he will do the savage thing, which is to join in the plunder as a way of protecting himself.
If you value your rights as a human being to do and act as you please, you must do the enlightened thing, or you will end up joining in the plunder of your fellows and be no better than your oppressors. Don't become a savage.