CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MARRIAGE

For roughly 3,000+ years, give or take a year, “marriage” was defined as the formal union between a man and woman (husband and wife).
At different times and places, more than one wife was deemed acceptable (I haven’t researched whether wives ever had multiple husbands), but the term “marriage” always defined a union between a man and a woman.
In recent years, in the name of “equal rights,” many are demanding that the definition of marriage be changed to exclude either the man or the woman (but not both) in the relationship and replace them with the opposite sex.
That brings to mind two questions:
1) Why can’t we keep the definition for marriage as it has been for a few thousand years, and come up with a new term for those other types of sexual unions. Then, grant those other types of unions “equal rights”?
2) If gay couples deserve “equal rights,” why don’t polygamists deserve equal rights? And what about a man and a woman who are in love but one (or both) of which is under 18 years of age, why are they being denied their rights?
Humm...

CORRUPTION IS A ZERO SUM GAME

Most people are honest, some are not.
Most people in private industry are honest, some are not.
Most people in the government are honest, some are not.
Corruption among the public and private sectors is a zero sum game.
Government agencies formed to stop corruption in private industry do not decrease corruption they simply shift it from the private sector to the public sector.
The resources taken in the form of taxes from private citizens in order to fund the new government agency shifts workers and money from private industry to government, with no net change in the total amount of corruption.
Examples of corruption in private industry are many and well known.
Examples of corruption in government are equally as many.
Resources spent on bureaucracies are generally non-productive while resources spent in private business are generally productive.
As resources are increasingly shifted from the private to the public sector, the economy stalls ever more.

PEOPLE ARE STRANGE

In the 1960's, the emerging young liberals were loudly and unceasingly denouncing the conservative "Establishment" for repressing and even trying to block their free speech rights.

In 2010, those young liberals have grown up, risen to power, and become the new "Establishment". Now it is they who are constantly working to supress, and even block where they can, the free speech rights of conservatives.

THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

The battle over the mosque that is proposed to be built near Ground Zero highlights one of the basic problems with present day politics. Many conservatives, of which I am one, are upset that such a strong symbol of the Islam religion might emerge so close to the site of the horrendous al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist attack. However distasteful, or “obscene” as some have called it, that the existence of a mosque at that location would be, the real issue is that of property rights.

Strong support for private property rights has long been an important principle of conservative ideals—or so I’ve been told by conservative leaders. Thus, if the builders of the mosque are within their legal rights, conservatives should be defending those rights to develop the property as the owners see fit.

As I stated, this debate points up one of the major problems with politics today. Both Republicans and Democrats are quick to set aside their foundational “beliefs” to protest any situation that does not suit their tastes at that moment—particularly if they see an opportunity for political gain.

A few decades ago, political parties and their candidates had clearly stated platforms that delineated their core beliefs. If not directly stated, it was at least inferred that the actions of the parties and their candidates would mirror those beliefs. These days, however, political platforms are incomplete, dreadfully vague, and undergoing constant alteration--if they exist at all. This is because the platforms (should) dictate the behavior of their followers, thereby, greatly cramping the style of politicians today who prefer to base their actions on the potential for short-term political advantage, with little or no regard for one’s so-called core beliefs.

Such it is, it seems, for many conservatives and the mosque.

ANIMITERRA: The Heartland

Its 2025, and the central US states have seceded from the union: thirteen US states from Alaska in the north down through Montana and the Dakotas and ending with Texas on the gulf. With low income taxes and no corporate tax, businesses are moving to Animiterra by the thousands. And for internet businesses in particular, this move can be made in a matter of days.

The US Government is in an uproar because Animiterra is "stealing" a major portion of its tax revenues. Its seemingly infinite goldmine of taxable resources is shrinking at an intollerable rate.

It was not economics, however, that was the primary motivation for the formation of Animiterra but freedom--religous and otherwise. The policies of the US government increasingly led to the stifling of individual freedoms and to the disparagement of religion, particularly Christianity. When the secession of the states and formation of Animiterra had appeared imminent, there was a trememdous migration of Christians to those 13 states. This migration was the final pillar that made Amimiterra a reality. The rapid growth of the new country's economy came afterwards, fueled by the freedoms that the country's capitalist system offered, cheap enerty (relatively), and by the low taxes.

"The economy is not a zero sum game." Robert H. Bork

What this means is that just because Bill Gates is unimaginably rich doesn't mean that everyone else needs to be correspondingly poorer. On the contrary, most all productive activity contributes to lifting everyone up economically.

ANIMITERRA

I'm designing a new virtual country called "Animiterra", roughly translated "the heartland". Help me design it. It is a country based on:
1. Capitalist economic system
2. Strong, high profile Christian social fabric
3. Rule of Law based on the Bible
4. English is the official language
5. Republican form of government
6. Strong states rights
7. Very limited federal government w/ strong national defense
8. Low taxes
9. Maximum personal freedoms
10. Powered primarily by nuclear, oil, natural gas, and coal
11. School voucher system

Comprehensive, widely accepted, sound doctrine is essential for a stable and just society.

This explains much of the social and economic problems that the USA is experiencing today. Rather than any accepted doctrine or ideology for social and economic cohesion, our society promotes just the opposite: relativism, secular humanism, radical individualism, multiculturalism (opps, I should say diversity), and narcissism (opps, I should say self-esteem).

So how do we as a country come to agree upon and institute sound doctrine? It starts by the voters demanding that political leaders construct a comprehensive, explicitly stated social and economic ideologies. Then, when elected, we must weigh their every action for consistency with what they stated and promised in their ideological statements. Explicit political ideologies have been largely dismissed by politicians for the very reason that the doctrine makes them accountable.

Liberty necessarily leads to inequality: all peoples have a unique set of physical and mental skills (and limitations). Given complete freedom of opportunity, the number of resulting outputs would be as diverse--and unequal--as those skill sets.

Though they can never be fully attained, both equality of opportunity and equality of result are admirable goals. Although on the surface these goals seem to be closely realted, in fact, they are not. The two conditions are wholly incomparable, producing radically different results and requiring radically different policies to advance.

Equality of outcome can only be achieved through the coersion of a powerful, omnipresent, controling government, the policies of which would necessarily result in a universal decimation of individual liberty.

Equality of opportunity, on the other hand, is the natural outcome of a capitalist, free enterprise system in which all participants were nonprejudicial. The "nonprejudicial" requirment is, of course, the major stumbling block in this system's superstructure. This major flaw can only be overcome by a citizenry that has a highly moral character. Hence the need, in a society that emphasizes individual freedom, for a social order in which morality is central.

"A nation's moral life is the foundation of its culture." Robert H. Bork

That is not to say that any nation must abide by a strict moral code, only that the nature of its moral character will be a major defining component of its culture. The USA, as with all nations, is experiencing that truth today.
Each US citizen ought to recognize that they are responsible for their portion of the nation's collective moral order.