Come and Take It

"You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."

Archive for the tag “Classical Liberalism”

Towards Liberty

Several days ago Republican Sen. Rob Portman, in a major switcheroo, came out (in support of gay marriage). Good on you, Senator.

People often accuse me of being a conservative, or even a Republican. I understand their confusion, but I am neither. I hew to an antiquated definition of liberalism. I am a Lockean. Much like the majority of the Framers, the guiding star of my political firmament is John Locke. I try to conduct my political commerce according to his creed:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order, and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.” – John Locke, from Two Treatises of Government Read more…

The above is my re-post of a TWG re-post of an excellent 2nd Amendment apology by Forbes blogger Lawrence Hunter. Hunter’s article is one of the most cogent defenses of the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment that I have ever seen.

THE WAKING GIANT

billofrightsandbullets

 

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/

It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.

A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats…

View original post 1,389 more words

The Trusting Ape

An image of Beaker Culture artifacts from Great Britain

Beaker Culture artifacts from Great Britain

Will your genes survive the speciation event?

As the current craze over climate change (and just about every other Malthusian craze to date) clearly indicates, we humans tend to think of our world, and ourselves, as static. For both our planet and our species, nothing could be further from the truth. Anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, have only been around for 200,000 years or so. Behaviorally modern humans have been around for less than 40,000 years – a blink of the eye in geologic terms. And agricultural, deeply technological humans have been around only since the end of the last Ice Age, about 12,000 years – the briefest of geologic instants.

Humans, far from being a static species, are evolving at an astonishing pace. This rapid evolution is no doubt continuing even as I write. Although there are minor anatomical differences between us and the Cro-Magnons (our brains are a tad smaller, for instance), I submit that the primary difference between the current crop of humans and our recent antecedents is behavioral. This difference doesn’t show up in the fossil record, but evidence is present in the archaeological record, and I suspect there is almost certainly a (currently unidentified) genetic marker. The behavioral trait I speak of is the capacity for trust. In fact, I suggest that our particular subspecies be tagged Homo sapiens fides. Read more…

Post Navigation