Minneapolis Expression

Republicans at Pride??

Certainly, read about my experience right here:

http://www.mplsmirror.com/joomla3/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=370:republicans-at-pride&catid=35:local-politics&Itemid=104

Let's Talk Foreign Policy, Shall We?

Minneapolis Expression took on a few guests this time and we had ourselves a discussion, delving into the truth behind America's foreign policy (at least as deep as our knowledge and time permitted).  It'll air Thursday, July 9th at 9pm Channel 16 in Minneapolis.

 

Check it out!

Where Have All the Leaders Gone? Feature

Well, here's a good step!  The piece I wrote on leadership was reworked and featured on the MN Free Market Institute's website. 

It's cleaner, sharper and overall, just a better piece: ENJOY!

http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/06/18/guest-post-where-have-all-the-leaders-gone/

Where is the American Leader?

American Leader:  an individual who gives of his time to serve as leader and representative of his constituents; a person who serves to protect the freedoms that will steadfastly be challenged by countless sources, foreign and domestic; an individual with the strength to hold his position, the integrity to maintain it, and the moral insight to understand its reason, all being performed by the motivation to protect this land for his love of humanity.

And so America was born with these defined leaders.  Because of this freedom, and the founding protectors of it, America soon grew to be the greatest country in the world.  Never has leadership taken this form except during America’s founding.  It is a leadership not of power but of the inner-strength to refuse power, and rather, to maintain that power in the hands of everyone else.  Like taking a turn to stand guard at night, this country has always been charged with having these leaders watch and protect this way of life. 

But as America grew more prosperous, the pressure from within to relent, and to give, and to take and manipulate this power became too much, and the American Leader broke…          

I recently attended a neighborhood meeting nearby in Minneapolis.  It was what I imagined—potluck, residents familiar with each other talking it up, and a few kids around.  I knew going into it that these residents and I wouldn’t see eye-to-eye.  What I didn’t expect was such an obvious and clear misunderstanding from them regarding basic economics and such a sheer dismissal of basic, freedom-minded morals that are inherently American (at least they used to be).    

One thing became very clear: this neighborhood is in bad hands.  And soon after, it struck me that from the neighborhood to the Capital, from top all the way to the bottom, America is almost completely represented and led by the inadequate and inappropriate. 

Over the last century, we have witnessed an exodus of the American Leader.  Today, we are being represented by individuals who lack the understanding and capabilities of the American Leader recipe.  This has resulted in harmful consequences. 

The American Leader needs to re-establish himself.

Where are the intelligent, the insightful, the one’s “who get it”?  What happened to the American Leader? 

In the 1900’s several signs that the relinquished, or perhaps, vanquished American Leader came to be.  In 1913, the morally incompatible income tax amendment was passed.  (American Leaders do not take; they empower the citizens.)  Around the same time saw the first nationwide narcotics legislation.  (American Leaders do not tell others what they can and cannot do, save for interfering in other’s rights.)  And since then, hundreds of federal laws have been passed in direct contrast to the principles of a free society—social security, hate-crimes laws, minimum wage, nationalized education, Patriot Act, The War on Drugs, and on and on.  All of these laws and regulations, intended for good, do more harm to the people they are trying to help.  But the present leaders are misguided or simply not smart enough to see this or moral enough to understand it.  Not one of these measures would be given an ounce of consideration in a government of American Leaders.  They would see the harm and refuse to inflict it upon American citizens.  From Roosevelt’s gold confiscation of ’33 to Obama’s Civil Service of ’09, the American Leader has been shut out and depopularized, left on the fringes and considered radical, because well, he is.

So the chink in the armor defending our way of life that were those early 1900’s legislative efforts has started snowballing.  Many factors have compiled to create the monstrous federal government and the population of inappropriate leaders that comprise it.  I can imagine it starting like this: seeing these first loses of individual freedom via drug laws and income taxation, American Leaders were turned off from the posts they held and felt dejected and hypocritical to the oaths they swore—they do swear to uphold and protect the Constitution, after all.  There would then be a two-part replacement of the American Leader: one part them wanting out of this prosperity-soaking movement and the other part a new breed of politicians who have a misguided outlook or born-in insecurity and are attracted to just this type of authority. 

Witness the replacement of the statesman with the politician. 

This two fold process is gradual but continual; it builds upon itself and the adequacy and appropriateness of leadership has dwindled ever since.  (Kennedy was elected as the “liberal” of his day.  Listen to his speeches and you’ll hear what today is considered “conservative”.  40 yrs later and there is hardly a republican in Washington who is as small-government minded as Kennedy.)  As more laws passed, even less appropriate candidates stepped with no moral qualms about the immorality being conducted.  They then, would pass even more restrictions, gaining more power and the quality of the pool of candidates becomes even less  And the more they passed these restrictions, the more the American Leader became disgusted and wanted nothing to do with it. appropriate.

Pick you particular representative in Washington and compare them to Benjamin Franklin.  It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.  

If your party is looking for a candidate to federal office, good luck finding an American Leader to run.  The job description is completely incompatible with their morals and personal responsibilities.  Even if they get elected, they’ll be charged to write new gun laws or education or drug legislation.  The American Leader’s response in Congress might be, “it would be in America’s best interest if we, at the federal level, didn’t handle these subjects at all”.  The politicians amongst him would scoff and jeer and call him lazy or irresponsible, themselves being completely out of touch with what their duties truly are.  To be at sea with this peer group!

What would the American Leader want with this sort of position?  Which American Leaders would want to be with these sorts of co-workers?

(These facts make Ron Paul’s presence that much more amazing.)

These are all byproducts of a system gone awry.  There is nothing inherently “bad” about the people in DC today; they simply are not the people to protect America, in fact, they threaten it.  Yet there they are, unchallenged by the American Leader.

This chink in the armor a hundred years ago didn’t just enable poorer representation by itself.  Most of the citizenry, cut from the same cloth as the inappropriate leaders, buys into the control and “protection” that big government can grant them.  Until their fear that promotes more government—fiscal regulations, FEMA, stimulus—is outweighed by concern for what that enables—ghettos, poor school performance, financial bubbles—people will support the immoral laws that restrict our freedoms and the kind of inappropriate leaders that this style of government attracts. 

It is liken to the drug addict—one more hit of government will make it okay—all the while the ship is slowly sinking into high drug abuse, lack-luster education, crime, and insurmountable debt.  All of America’s problems are attempted to be repaired with less freedom—it’s the only remedy the current leaders know.  Yet, all of the problems worsen.    

So where is the American Leader?  Are they still being born? 

Sure, but they have taken up their individual enterprises without any interest in their need to protect America.  Having so far drifted from its original intent, Washington seems an impossibility for the American Leader.   

But, alas, the American Leader must stand guard.  He is overdue.  Indeed it is much harder to undo the damage done than it is to prevent it, but who else has what it takes to get the job done?  Either the American Leader stands up or he watches the greatest country continue to fall.        

I do believe the American Leader was mistaken in his original and subsequent refusal to stay and fight when policy began to favor groups over individuals and force over freedom.  The longer they have been away the harder it will be for the American Leaders to reclaim the country, giving it back to the people, and the more damage the inappropriate leaders will have caused.  It was their responsibility to hold those reigns; it always will be. 

America was founded with a demanding formula, a formula to be protected and guarded by the great.  A pure faith in freedom that is so regularly challenged and feared, yet free enterprise, markets, and personal choice have made this country great beyond the Founder’s dreams. 

This system requires the American Leader because only they have the moral capacity to grasp the American concept.  Only an American Leader can do the honor of serving in the only way it can be done—not with short-gained power and wealth in mind, but out of genuine love for his fellow citizen.  It is necessary to have such conviction, integrity, morality and strength, that they may keep the inappropriate from entering, damaging the defense, and to refuse the constant requests from countless people as they seek others’ money for “the good of the country”.       

America citizens will cry for the American Leader in time.  I ask my American Leaders to step up, whether wanted by the public or not.  Plant the seed and prime the pump. 

People are beginning to listen…  

I Get Angry; I Get Afraid

When talking to some folks the other night, I was in a state of physical discomfort. I was having some headaches. This tilted my emotional stability.

When people shared, I had little to no toleration for their opinions that I disagreed with. In a healthier state, I typically have more empathy and can try to understand another’s opinion. I can also see them as mere opinions—not a threat.

That night, however, I became angry. I know being ill increased that tendency to be cranky and impatient, but why get angry at other’s opinions at all? Because of my ailment, I was privy to the inner workings of why this is so. When ill, my emotional defenses are down and the threshold lowered. This helped expose my thinking and emotion.

An individual supports Obama. They express their admiration and enjoyment of his presence in Washington. One black woman in the group I was in said she was thrilled because Michelle Obama is the First Lady and one white woman said she was grateful she didn’t have to be embarrassed for her president any longer. We hear this kind of talk all the time.

Why did it anger me?

What was so clear this night is that I became angry and I became defensive because… I got scared. I have within myself a certain amount of fear regarding today’s political realities. This is what shown tonight.

I want to explain any anger and fear that arises within me when becoming emotional about these topics. Conversely, I also want to express why I feel more optimistic than ever.


Let me introduce you to my fear.

We will work this backward. I see Obama act in Washington in ways that I believe will harm the country—so ultimately, me. I see him act in ways that I consider immoral—wasteful spending, extraordinary theft via taxation, support for drug prohibition, invasive foreign policy, stifling of relevant truths, inconsistent stances on important topics, etc. I see this happen and acknowledge that when immorality is done, results are unfavorable.

Think of it this way: few people disagree that bad will come from a policy of torture. Whether it is enemy motive or retaliation, the effects on the ones committing the torture, or a tearing of our American moral fabric which worsens the tendencies of Americans in general, many can see these potential outcomes.

This is what I, and others who think like me, see in the policies of Obama. America passively allows and supports the cold, facelessness that is the government seek unprecedented control of private corporations, banks and healthcare—this is socialism and proves destructive. With the bailouts, we see some Americans paying for others without the payer’s consent—this is theft. Regarding the stimulus, we see the continuation and promotion of over-spending that put us in this compromised position. We know that this stimulus will help to delay and make worse the inevitable drop of our economic system. This is all being performed by the leadership with no regard or knowledge for what is truly responsible and appropriate.

Here is an excerpt from the Cato Institute’s website:

"And you don’t want to think about the total bill as Washington bails out (almost $13 trillion worth so far) everyone within reach, “stimulates” (the bill passed earlier this year ran $787 billion) everything within reach, and spends money (Congress approved a budget of $3.5 trillion for next year) within reach. Indeed, according to CBO, the president’s budget envisions increasing the additional collective federal deficit between 2010 and 2019 from $4.4 trillion to $9.3 trillion.) Then there will be more federal spending for government entities, such as the Federal Housing Administration; failing banks, which are being closed at a record rate by the FDIC; pension pay-offs for bankrupt companies, administered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; and covering the big tab being up run up by Social Security and Medicare, which currently sport unfunded liabilities of around $100 trillion.
Oh, to be an American taxpayer — and especially a young American taxpayer — who will be paying Uncle Sam’s endless bills for the rest of his or her life!"



As we have no authority over these matters, we see all this and feel completely helpless—particularly when there is such avid support from the American public, as well as from much of the world, for this harm. We can only watch it occur and fear the dissolving of our once-proud, beacon of righteousness. We see America as the only place in the world today that has a chance to live and prosper and face challenges with freedom at the helm. We see America as the leader of the world because of freedom, not despite it. We see America as the place to function as the world’s role-model.

(More challenging for me is seeing my friends, with whom I have connected, support radiantly this damaging momentum. The ones you love will anger you most when in disagreement about such topics. It is because I fear most their allegiance for this destruction.)


Now, rather than continuing to shine as a beacon, we see America lower its standards of individual freedom to the likes of the rest of the world. It doesn’t fit. We don’t believe it can fit. America is America and despite much of the world applauding our over-spending, big government, freedom soaking ways, the rest of the world, as well as America, of course, will be worse off. Is it not America’s productivity that the rest of the world has/is enhanced from? Is it not America’s freedom that led to this productivity to happen? So is not the current political landscape in America a threat to our freedom, thus, ours and the world’s productivity and prosperity?

After I whittle down my anger, I see the realm of fear within me. I fear the negative outcome of such policy. I fear the mass ignorance of solid logic—logic replaced with faulty reasonings like; “look what the free market did” or “if drugs were legal everyone would get high” or “if the government didn’t give domestic and foreign aid, no one would”.

I get afraid when the fickle nature to trust and like someone is used to support these destructive policies. My fear flared that night when I considered people endorsing forced civil service and tax dollars being used for abortions all because it is also in favor to those before me to have a tan, presentable president. I see us letting our freedoms and continued prosperity be stolen from us via the ease in which people fall into favor with a leader.

*and here’s an aside—I get it; I understand people’s enthusiasm. I like Obama, too. I like him, but I abhor is policy. It isn’t the support itself that scares me, because I understand how important looks and presentation are to winning over an audience. My fear comes from seeing this avid support countering any concern to be had about his activity. I see the tendency worldwide to like him and feed his political aspirations. It is those aspirations that sometimes scare me. The question is: why do we give such power to the executive branch? No power should be bestowed upon one person—especially in America where it was written to prevent such rule. People’s fickle support for a president would not be a threat if his authority was at the appropriate level. I digress.*

This is not just Obama, of course. Most representatives in Washington condone this. But Obama represents a new low in this morality—that’s just his way of presiding. He does not prefer individuals, or does not trust them, to do these acts on their own merit. He does not trust people, he does not trust freedom, and here in front of me tonight were two women applauding “all this”—or so my fear would tell me.

But, that is just the fear talking and I know this to be a defect. But when I do fear, and even get angry, I hope those that read this can understand a little better why that is.


More than the fear, however, I do have faith. I have three points of optimism which do outweigh this element of fear.

First, I can see that regardless of what happens to America, even if it would completely collapse, I will be okay. I am not attached to America in the sense that its status is mine. This enables me to see a world-view and not be tied to the happenings of one country. I can watch cars drive by with off-putting bumper stickers and observe it as sort of an outsider—even chuckle at the American sway these days. I realize that this is humans doing what humans do—being enamored with charisma, especially is times of struggle.

Second, there is that element, that X factor of the human spirit, if you will, that is seemingly, inevitably progressive and especially alive in America. What is that factor that has allowed us to continue toward prosperity? Poverty is being wiped out all over the world. Technology is accelerating. With all the ominous signs my fear wants to recognize, I cannot seem to ignore this obvious reality. This realization has me realize that though most may be ignorant of the illogical rhetoric in American leadership, people are content, and also seem to acknowledge, this “obvious reality”. It can be frustrating to grant these people credit for their accuracy in this regard as they seem to mistake their leaders as appropriate, but that “mistake” does not mean they are wrong in their seemingly “baseless” optimism. I, too, can see the good around me.

Perhaps Obama is wrong about the items mentioned previously, but maybe it does not matter as much as I fear it does—not because he’s “right” but because there are much larger forces at work. Obama may do his best to be himself and be the inspiring, presentable, albeit, illogical and misplaced leader that he is, but maybe it doesn’t really matter THAT much.

Last, I’ve an enduring faith cemented as a result of my local political involvement. The maneuvers I once thought highly improbable now seem likely. It has made it so clear the situation that exists and the utter inevitability of its repair. I have a renewed optimism in seeing the clean, local, no-media-filter-cleanliness that is local politics, renew my optimism in the replacement of old leaders with new, better-fitting ones. I see this as the seed and foundation of policy in the near future. I see the cyclical nature of this political see-saw of leadership over time and the voter’s preference for our turn at the helm.

I see how logic can prevail and truth can set the nation free again!

Ultimately, I relearn that though I prefer not losing my freedoms and prosperity and so will fight to my limits for what’s right, I don’t have to fear it. For even if powers greater than I do take away my freedoms, only I have the power to take away my happiness.

Fear is unnecessary.

And the more I observe, learn and see, the more I realize that I have less and less reason to fear.

TWO BUBBLES

The wisest among us—those few who foresaw this imminent economic collapse—avoided direct calamity, but were nevertheless caught up in the resulting political and economic repercussions.  And they are considered the “fortunate”.    

How about the other 99% of people who didn’t notice this bubble as it was happening?  For them, the damages range from inconvenient—not eating out quite as often, to the devastating—losing their home or retirement savings. 

(On my wall is a photograph taken by a local artist.  It is of an abandoned, boarded up home that sits across the street from an abandoned school built in 1992.)

There is much to realize about the interplay between different bubbles that occur in society.  To better understand them, we need to examine these relationships as well as decipher what factors allow bubbles to wreak havoc as they do.  Bubbles are dangerous and a destructive phenomena—but only potentially, and it depends on the type of societal bubble we are addressing...

http://mplsexpression.typepad.com/weblog/two-bubbles.html            

Minneapolis Expression TV

Craig Stellmacher is this episode's star.  Check out this local photographer's unique take on things such as poverty, environmentalism, and of course, his art!  

Minneapolis Discussion Week 4

Once again the Minneapolis Discussion crew met to discuss the affairs of humanity. 

Energy was the topic on this week’s docket.  How does energy transfer occur?  Is it a private or government enterprise?  How does one effect change in the energy system?  What are the concerns of energy today?

Leslie was kind enough to flesh it out for us and get us going.  Addressing some general concerns with current energy usage, he also introduced a current proposal being attempted into legislation. 

Here’s the rundown:

  

Leslie:  I wanted to talk about energy—the problems with current procedures and some possible solutions.  I see a real problem with unsustainable resources being used and the environmental hazard present with them.  Classically, there are two sources used to produce energy: burning coal and nuclear power.  Burning coal is bad for the environment and nuclear waste disposal is very difficult and potentially dangerous.  We need to promote better methods of energy creation—both in the energy resources used and in the structure we use to disperse the energy we “create”. 

CBED is a proposal to simplify the contractual language used in permitting authority in energy development to allow for communities the ability to create energy sources locally i.e. windmills.  They then can use the energy from these sources as well as energy needed “from the grid”.  Energy created locally that isn’t used can be sent into the grid. 

It creates “smaller” energy sources which increases efficiency in energy transmission, because much energy gets lost over distant transmission.  It also creates local jobs.  The biggest hurdle for an idea like this is the contractual language used between the government and the power companies.

Brandon:  I’m uncertain of how energy gets transmitted today.  Can you take me through the basics?

Leslie:  Today we mainly burn coal at large facilities.  The burning coal boils water, creating steam, and uses that energy to create electricity. 

Brandon:  Who’s in control of the energy?  Government is involved, but Excel is a private company, right? 

Zhac:  I believe it’s similar to Comcast regarding their ability to be the exclusive local cable provider.  Excel pays for the right to be the exclusive provider of energy. 

Brandon:  So, if I own a power company I can’t just set up shop in Minneapolis and offer power to compete with Excel? 

Zhac:  No. 

Brandon:  Okay, so like Leslie was addressing with CBED, if we want to promote better energy options, we need to do it through government.  That creates a tricky scenario because the potential for a market-based solution is hindered. 

John:  Actually, that may be appropriate.  Because if one believes there to be concerns large enough to take action, then the market isn’t going to necessarily promote change in behavior all by itself.  On one hand hybrid cars are selling out, but on the other hand, I spent a lot of money on my house remodel to make it “green”.  I calculate only a 5-10% reduction in utility costs.  In this case, “green” activity isn’t economical. 

We do have much technology in the works like house paint that has solar panel-like structures in it.  This may one day replace the large solar panel we see.  But, of course, it’s very expensive.

Bruce:  It’s going to be more expensive if we do not stretch ourselves to decrease current trends.  The costs of man-made global warming will dwarf the investments we need to make to save us from calamity.  The market won’t provide the answers so we need large government investment into “green” projects.

 

There sums up the conversation.  I know there are tangent potentials that weren’t spelled out in the time we were together.  So, add to it below.

The topic is interesting, because the governmental and private interests are so intimately involved with energy production and distribution.  CBED tries to open up that relationship to involve more local involvement, decrease the power of the current players, and create jobs. 

And is economic feasibility the only consideration to take into account anyway?  Perhaps there are dangers present that require initiatives by the government. 

What do you think?

Minneapolis Expression TV

Alright, Dog Lovers, just in time for spring check out this episode with the founder of K9 Connection, Angie Gwiazdon!  Check out: www.k9-connection.com for events that you and your Dog can enjoy all summer long!

Minneapolis Discussion Round 3!

A provoking topic indeed, we had a great mix of returning faces and new folks to spice up the chat and intrigue the table. 

 

Chris was the brains behind the topic this week and shone as the most outspoken, challenging others while explaining his points.  He came prepared as he introduced for the group the topic of “Rights”.  What are they?  Who determines them?

 

It was a thick and sometimes confusing topic: )  It got us going, though, and set us off in more specific directions.  Namely, how do we see the “right” to bear arms? (now we’re talking)

 

Usual players present were John, Chris, Mark, Kami, and Brandon.  Newcomers were Greg, Bruce, and Leslie. 

 

Here’s the rundown:

 

 

Chris:  I’d like to start with this:

           

[In 1960, the Democratic Platform made a declaration that a Democratic Administration would "reaffirm the economic bill of rights which FDR wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago."

Now, in outlining the rights declared in their platform from 1960, I ask you to bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of "rights".]

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

4. The right of every businessman, large or small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.

5. The right of every family member to a decent home.

6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents, and unemployment.

8. The right to a good education.

[Now the question becomes, are these rights??? Why or why not? And, more importantly, what is a right and what defines a right? Does such a thing as "collective rights" exist? Do Americans have "right" to healthcare, education, a job, or any of a myriad of things?]

Brandon:  I don’t think rights change over time.  Rights have a moral backing.  Saying that morals change with time is not my idea of what rights are.  The “rights” mentioned in the 1960 Democratic Platform have evolved as a result of a certain level of prosperity.  Education wouldn’t have been a “right” 150 yrs prior.     

Chris:  I don’t like the above description, because if these are defined as “rights”, then, as rights, they are forced to be provided—despite the circumstances.  This is problematic because it then is deemed necessary for government to control all these arenas.  Also, with this amorphous code of “rights”, we run the risk of tilting how “rights” are defined into the hands of political players.  Look at the smoking ban.  We turned the “right” to a healthy work environment to mean the “right” for lawmakers to dictate benign behavior in our own private property. 

John:  Should we abandon all health codes, abolish anti-discrimination hiring laws?

 

Chris:  Freedom dictates that man will see his err in these matters without the interference of law.  Case in point: Owner 1 doesn’t hire blacks because of bigotry, while Owner 2 does.  Owner 2 gets more quality employees and Owner 1 is going to suffer because of his bigotry.  We don’t need forced morality; one’s bigotry is their own punishment. 

 

John:  But in a system born out of a racist past, we need to use law to correct it. 

 

Chris:  American law had created it in its necessary entirety in the words of the Constitution.

 

John:  The Constitutional law was created by men with racist practices and outlooks; law at the time reflected this.  Rights are something defined by the rule of law. 

 

Brandon:  Rights exist whether law recognizes them or not—inalienable rights.  I would argue woman and African Americans always had the right to vote, law simply took that right away from the outset of our founding.  Law is there to protect rights, not grant them.  Laws don’t “give” us rights.  The amendments allowing women’s suffrage and abolishing slavery simply acknowledged the rights that were previously taken. 

John:  They [rights] had never been granted.  Rights are determined by society and law.

 

Brandon:  But I believe them always to be there.  Rights can only be protected and taken by law.   

Chris:  Simply put, our rights end when we infringe on the rights of others.

 

John:  So do we have the right to own nuclear weapons?

 

Leslie:  You don’t have the right to threaten your neighbor’s security with the possession of such dangerous possessions, but you certainly maintain the right to protect yourself. 

 

John:  To what degree?

 

Mark:  To the degree of being a viable threat to government in case they entertain invasive thoughts.

 

John:  That won’t happen.

 

*This discussion was meaty and hard to capture with this brief recreation.  All said, it spanned a lot of ground.  Chris introduced one party’s view of rights—the 1960 Democratic platform.  That brought up the question of how rights are determined.  The 1960 Democratic Party wanted to view regular, important aspects to many American’s lives as “rights”.  To some, an evolved system of “rights” ensures a level of certainty of having them. 

 

But we quickly saw the issue of seeing “rights” as concepts that evolve.  While it’s nice to work toward those goals—education, health care, good career—the danger of appropriating them as “rights” is that they are regarded as indispensable and morally backed.  This usually denotes law, government, and force and replaces freedom as a way to bring about them.  As well, when rights are created by the whims of politicians and/or the public, they often unintentionally spill into the rights of others i.e. the smoking ban.  Hasty to base this on one’s “right”, government interrupted the free market, already cleaning up restaurants and bars of the smoker’s air pollution.  But, we certainly did see this process quicken, to the joy of many non-smokers. 

 

Finally, the real schism of the night came when John was struck by the consideration many at the table were giving to the idea of government seriously threatening one’s existence.  It seemed that that was the major source that split apart and created the differences in opinion of why many advocate for the right to bear arms and why others wish guns to be more restricted.       

 

So in question were many layers of thought.  Are rights determined by humans?  Can they be “taken” or “given”?  Can they change over time?  How should we approach “rights” when considering law?  Are not the rights given in the Constitution—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—sufficient?