I searched for a title for my Blogspot by using free association.Considering the parameters (meaningful, relevant and socially acceptable) and craving something that also expressed my views, I created a quick list of approximately ten titles.I really liked the sound of "The Civil Libertarian" but didn't wish to be associated with the Libertarian party, because as an Independent I reserve the right to vote for any candidate I feel represents my values and beliefs as a citizen regardless of party line.
So I turned to 'Webster' and his "International Standard Dictionary". I found the definition of 'civil' on page 65; adj. "of citizens, civilized in manner; formally polite; of matters that pertain to the rights of Individuals".
Then on page 167, 'Libertarian' is defined as: n. "one who believes in freedom of the individual from government intervention."
" Of matters that pertain to the rights of Individuals,one who believes in freedom of the Individual from Government interference." Works for me.
It's not that I don't believe in government.However, it seems increasingly that our civil rights are in peril. A politician attempting to inflame the religious in an attempt to defend an untenable position regarding access to affordable healthcare? http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/19/politics/santorum-prenatal-testing/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3
Employers attempting to control their employees morally,trying to force lifestyle changes, by denying them choice and access in Healthcare benefits? http://wpost.com/national/health-science/different-states-contraceptive-rules-leave-employers-room-to-maneuver/2012/02/15/gIQAN3tsNR_story.html
Politicians trying to take the high moral ground by demonizing one another based on their religious affiliations or lack therof ?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/18/10444177-santorum-obama-believes-in-phony-theology-not-based-on-bible It's fine for politicians to express their personal beliefs. Our founding fathers expressed their beliefs in documents guaranteeing us all the same privilege by asserting "these rights are not granted by humans, but by God" (AMGOV,Losco/Baker,pg.21) . I don't live in a Theocracy, so I don't look to politicians for religious authority. I live in a Democratic Republic and expect my representatives to protect all of my rights, not just those they or their church or their big money contributors wish to allow me to exercise.
Employers attempting to control their employees morally,trying to force lifestyle changes, by denying them choice and access in Healthcare benefits? http://wpost.com/national/health-science/different-states-contraceptive-rules-leave-employers-room-to-maneuver/2012/02/15/gIQAN3tsNR_story.html
Politicians trying to take the high moral ground by demonizing one another based on their religious affiliations or lack therof ?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/18/10444177-santorum-obama-believes-in-phony-theology-not-based-on-bible It's fine for politicians to express their personal beliefs. Our founding fathers expressed their beliefs in documents guaranteeing us all the same privilege by asserting "these rights are not granted by humans, but by God" (AMGOV,Losco/Baker,pg.21) . I don't live in a Theocracy, so I don't look to politicians for religious authority. I live in a Democratic Republic and expect my representatives to protect all of my rights, not just those they or their church or their big money contributors wish to allow me to exercise.
To me, that is the main function of government. Allowing every citizen the same inalienable rights to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness under the Law. I know we need armies and infrastructure and tax laws and safety nets and penal codes, but they should all be formulated and developed with the rights of all citizens in mind. We should remember that the laws we create will harm us if they infringe upon or limit those "Inalienable rights",or when it is decided such rights are not "for all" but just for some.
No comments:
Post a Comment