“Left-wing” versus “Right-wing” versus Me
Each political “wing” (left and right) grants freedom with respect to things they do not value.
The left doesn’t value morality, it values material goods, so it claims to be a civil libertarian with respect to people who, for example, believe they are a fork trapped in a human body. The right doesn’t value material goods, it values morality, so it doesn’t care who is rich or poor, and it doesn’t particularly want anyone’s money.
The left wants to live well in this life. The right wants to live well in an after life. Thus, the left’s god is government, and the right’s god is God, or Allah, or what have you.
Each values, most of all, to get something for nothing. The left wants to live on the fruits of their neighbour’s labours. The right wants an eternity of effortless bliss.
Me: I want to live on this earth, pursuing the material and spiritual values that are here, in this life, on my own steam, and without any other man hitching his wagon to my horse. Neither the left nor the right will let me do it.
Michael Chong’s Assault on Democracy: a “Reform Act” for Disloyal MPs
Michael Chong’s proposed Reform Act, 2013 has been praised as a bill that would shift each party leaders’ power to their respective caucus members, thereby revitalizing an allegedly withered role of Parliament’s confidence in government, and facilitating a broader diversity of party policies and philosophies in Parliament. Whatever the merits of such arguments, they miss the essential nature and function of Mr. Chong’s would-be law, and the threat that it poses to democracy itself. The bill should be rejected by all MPs worthy of re-election. Read the story »
Censorship, and the democratic ‘right’ not to be ignored
Bill Whatcott says that homosexuality is an “abomination”, and that homosexuals are “sex addicts” that have “sick desires”. He says that teaching children tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in our public schools will cause children to die early, and will subject us all to God’s wrath. The Bible tells him so, and he likes to quote it in his pamphlets opposing the promotion of tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in our public school curricula.
A couple of days ago, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott (hereinafter referred to as the Whatcott decision). It said that if we say things that cause others to laugh at Bill and other Christians because of their Christian beliefs, the court will not allow the government to punish us. If we write things that cause others to look down their noses at Bill and his fellow Christians for their beliefs, no problem, they’ve got our backs. We can even say things that cause people to engage in an affront to the dignity of all Christians, and the court will stand on guard for thee and me. But if we say anything true or false that is likely to cause people to hate Bill and other Christians then, whether or not we intended to cause others to hate Christians, the Court will look the other way if the government gags us and punishes us. Read the story »
RealityWilful Blindness, Religion and Politics
ReasonThe Choice: Ayn Rand versus the Status Quo
ConsentIt ain’t the blog that’s dead, Baby
CapitalismRight to work laws: a leftist assault on capitalism
The 5 Most Recent“Left-wing” versus “Right-wing” versus Me
It ain’t the blog that’s dead, Baby
The Choice: Ayn Rand versus the Status Quo
McKeever’s Minimal Maxims and Bon Arrows, Volume 2, Issue 5
Simon Says Sex: The Nature and Purpose of the “Affirmative Consent” Campaign