I’m sure there will be some interesting stuff about Belmar to talk about soon. In the meanwhile I just want to make a couple of quick points about two issues that have been in the news that seem unrelated but are actually related.
They are both about the right to contract.
Government must honor the right of any adult of sound mind to enter into contract with any other person or group of people. And the government is obligated to enforce the terms of legal contracts on the parties to those contracts.
Of course the problem with gay marriage is that it’s about more than legal contract. By calling it “marriage”, the federal government is imposing it’s moral values here, but each person’s moral values should be up to that person and not the government. Separation of church and state, remember? This is why government should get out of the marriage business altogether and simply use civil union contracts for gays, straights or even people who aren’t romantically involved but want civil union contracts for other reasons. The philosophical or ceremonial aspects of the union should be outside the government’s purview and the government should not be endorsing or condemning any of it or forcing anyone else to agree with any of it or not. The people make the culture, not the government.
But if the government recognizes the absolute right of contract when it comes to entering into a gay marriage, why won’t it recognize the right to work for $6 an hour? Just as some people have legitimate reasons for wanting to enter into a gay marriage, some people have legitimate reasons for wanting to enter into a $6 an hour job. Maybe there’s some other benefit that the government doesn’t know about. Maybe the worker plans to goof off a lot. Who knows? In any case it’s not the government’s business to pass judgement on it. Let the individuals involved work it out. Just enforce whatever contract they enter into.
21 Comments
This same sex marriage decision was the final death knell of our Constitution. Also, justices, Kagan and Ginsburg were honor bound to recuse themselves from rendering a decision in that they had already officiated at same sex “weddings.” They didn’t, thus shaming themselves and the court.
Let me see if I have this correctly. I hear you saying many times that you want less government involvement in our lives yet you want that same government to enforce contract, apparently written and oral between two individuals. How is this less government involvement? I am Just asking for clarification, not passing any judgements on any issues.
Enforcement of legal contracts, civil union, employment, rental, etc is a legitimate and necessary function of government.
Dave – isn’t this the Milton Freeman thought / approach to government involvement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom
Robert, Milton Friedman said a lot of really great things and did a lot for freedom in the world, but his economics were Chicago School, while my own economic beliefs are more aligned with the Austrian School. Both are for limited government, the differences are mainly over monetary policy.
#1 Tom I am inviting you to my coming out party as I always had the feeling I was born a Tiger. Hey if a guy with all the male anatomy can say he was born a woman I am in the right with my right to become a Tiger.
The best government is the government that governs least. Heard that at a gathering a long time ago
How about SB277 – Mandatory vaccination? No philosophical or religious exemptions. Passed the CA Assembly and has been sent to the Governor.
Vaccines=product=consumer=manufacturer. Unfortunately GOVERNMENT put itself in the equation. Mandatory vaccination without product liability from the manufacturer. That just seems wrong doesn’t it?
They should not require or prohibit anything going into our bodies. Should be completely up to us as individuals.
Speaking of government, now that Christie has announced his run for President; when do you think some of our local folks will looking for the move-up nod?
That would be the only reason for hoping Christie wins.
The thing that really irks me is our Constitution, written by men who were Giants in every intellectual, and moral sense of the word is being brought down by these moronic dwarfs. Lord help us all.
Cathi a good friend of mine is part of a movement lobbying to prevent our State from enacting the same measures CA just did in regards to vaccinations. Parents need to have a choice in what is injected into their child’s bodies, especially when such high risks are involved. The preservatives and chemicals these major pharmaceuticals are utilizing can have damaging effects especially to many children who may have predispositions and susceptibility. Yet our government is now attempting to force it. Disgraceful. If you would like more information feel free to contact me and I will put you in touch with the movement to stop this. My email is tracy@betterbelmar.com. The founder’s daughter died at the age of five from her second round of MMR. These side effects are no joke!
Thanks Tracy. I’m involved myself and have attended hearings in Trenton. I’d say the entire process is a joke but it’s beyond sad. The people who were elected to represent the “people” are puppets for PHARMA and it’s blatant. The council meeting where Belmar (Lake Como area) residents BEGGED the council to unbundle the lake project reminded me of the hearing in Trenton on A1931 where parents BEGGED for the choice to vaccinate or not or when to vaccinate. Their pleas fell on deaf ears. We’ll keep fighting.
“Tom Burke wrote:
Let me see if I have this correctly. I hear you saying many times that you want less government involvement in our lives yet you want that same government to enforce contract, apparently written and oral between two individuals.
”
This really annoys me. Is he playing dumb or is he really lost? Who does he think should be in charge of enforcing contract law?
Great to hear your sentiments, I will be there fighting alongside. It is a sad state we are in right now.
The state is in charge of our bodies now?
I am glad Tom Burke is not running for police officer
Going to public school requires parents to ensure their kids are not a risk to others.
Thus, logical that if parent refuses immunizations for kids, they can home school them.
#19 – Why are children required to go to school?
#19 – not at risk to others. Define risk? Bullying, strep throat, lice just to name a few have no vaccine. Does 49 doses before age 6 or 69 by age 18 not concern you at all? I trust my God and my body before I trust the CDC or the lobbyists that help push this legislation. Follow the money. Our government has been BOUGHT.
Post a Comment