Thursday, 9 January 2014

On Liberty V. Equality

"In the battle between liberty and equality, equality is slowly winning."  So declared Swedish socialist scholar Gunnar Myrdal, in a book cited by the proponents of a suit, taken all the way to the Supreme Court, to declare the South's de jure segregation of schools unconstitutional, according to the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment.1  He saw the former issue clearly.  It would appear that for a considerable number of U.S citizens...not so much.

We are, now, deep in this battle, with the Obama administration, and its supporters, bringing it to a head.  'It': the issue of the one v. the other, for America.  The socialists amongst us going after their vision of an ideal American society piece by piece.  To say, State by State.

They got their foot in the takeover wholesale - i.e., by way of the national door - via the Roe v. Wade decision, when the Supreme Court bought an argument of constitutional interpretation that would, if continued to be pursued, 'raise' the nation to a centralized form of a republic, not the federal one which it, properly, is.  Still.  And thus the ongoing, and now intense, attempt to nullify Roe - at least part of that intense attempt.2  And thus the shifting of the battle, by the socialist forces, to the individual States, where they stand on better, to say more solid, constitutional ground.3  By way of such issues as the 'same-sex marriage'/'sexual orientation' one.   

I alluded to this issue yesterday when I quoted from an article in the October issue of the Whistleblower magazine (the overall title of which is 'The New Sexual Revolution: How the 'Gay Rights' Movement Has Become a Trojan Horse For Totalitarianism').  Basically, the issue is boiling down to its, well, basics.4  Example.  One of the articles therein is the one I quoted from, which went on from that beginning to list a considerable number of examples from around the States of how the homosexual/LGBT 'rights' forces are establishing their beachheads in the States, under the general rubric of 'gay rights,' or 'LGBT equality/nondiscrimination' statutes.  Among them there is the case in Hawaii where a Christian couple who run a B&B in their home "violated state law when (the wife) told (the lesbian couple, who sued) she was not comfortable having them stay together in her home because of her religious beliefs…According to the ruling, the bed and breakfast violated the state public accommodations law [barring discrimination based on 'sexual orientation'] and is ordered, from now on, to provide a room to any same-sex couple that wishes [to] stay there." 5

I can imagine a conversation:

'Why would you want to stay here if I don't want you to stay here because of my Christian morals?'  

'It's our right to stay in your house if we want to.  Get out of the business if you don't like it.'

'But it's our livelihood.'   

'Precarious business, that.  Them's the rules now.'

And in a considerable number of other States now, as well…6

If a State's constitution doesn't preclude such heavy-handedness, this is, as I understand the matter, correct: individual States can impose these sorts of limitations on their residents.7  But the essence of these sorts of measures runs counter to the basic principle of this nation, which is essential liberty; as opposed to state-imposed 'equality'.  Which, of course, is the only kind of the latter that there is, since liberty is the default state of humanity - as especially secured in and by this nation. 

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident" reads one of our founding documents; going on to declare:  "that all Men are created equal…"  Indeed we are: we are all the children of our Creator.  We have different skills and abilities, based mostly on the workings of karma; but our essence is the same: all facets, fractals, hologrammatic 'pieces of the continent' - of the One.  Continuing right on: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - Ah.  And what are they, according to this founding document, the  Declaration of Independence?:  "that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".  

There's that fundamental 'liberty' word again.  The Declaration goes on: "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…"  Which led, eleven years later, to the drafting of the Constitution for the United States of America; which announced, to the world, in its Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."   

I rest my case.      

Except for one little factor……

The incorporation 'principle' - headache, really - is a fly in the ointment in this whole matter.  It (the turning of the Bill of Rights on its head, and having it apply from the federal government to the States) has become 'settled law;' and as such, legal beagles don't want to touch it.  Even if 'precedents' have been challenged before…there is a lot of Let's Pretend going on regarding the Constitution.  A lot depends on which 'expert' you listen to.

But as I say: there is something new under the sun coming now; not just for America, but for humanity as a whole.  And maybe we don't have to deal with this sort of headache, in that context, and paradigm.  In coming out from under the structuring of the old forms.  And creating

a New World.


New World.      

Characterized by the quality - the principle - the essence - of Love.

As moderated through free will.

Not Force.


P.S.  there is a parallel issue here, on this subject, that the Obama administration is also deeply involved in.  That is the subject of enhancing the welfare state, and mentality (aka 'weatlh redistribution').  Briefly:
     Thinking to get the government to hold up the taxpayers to put their money in your pocket on a way-of-life basis is immoral.  Period.
     'And all those rich people who are living high on the hog?'
     What's that to you??  Leave them to heaven.  They are responsible for their own fate.  As you are yours….All will be called to account equally.
     And that's a little more on the note that I ended my last blog on, in referring to 'Else what's a heaven for'.  In embedding this business of a Liberty vs. Equality 'debate' in its proper, spiritual context. 



1 Established in the wake of the Civil War, the Amendment reads, in part: "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  The Southern States developed so-called 'Jim Crow' segregation laws, which included the fiction of 'separate but equal' for schools, in an attempt to get around this clause in the 14th Amendment.  
     My use above of the word 'fiction' should indicate which side of that argument I am on.  The 14th Amendment clearly applied in this instance; and it should have been applied long before the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case that retired the Jim Crow era.
     The Southern States were acting as though there were no difference between de jure and de facto segregation; the latter meaning segregation by life circumstances - 'in fact' - rather than by law.  There is a decided difference.  The former is established and maintained by the law.  The latter is maintained by the people, in their free-will choices.  (Thus the huge issue at that time of busing.  'To counter the generational results of de jure segregation,' said its proponents.  'Over my dead body…almost,' said those parents opposed to governmental overreach, in sanctioning busing for the sake of what was widely seen merely as 'diversity;' which was a bridge too far for many.  And rightly so, to my way of thinking.) 
     And on that very note: 
     There are, and have been since the beginning, people who would force, by the use of the law, other people to do what they feel is 'right' for them to do.  I am not numbered among their proponents.  That is what this essay on Liberty v. Equality is all about.

2 By people who know, and understand, full well the basic constitutional issue involved, which exists separate from a lot of the emotion surrounding the particular issue. 

3 It's harder to take over a federal form of government - such as ours - than a central form, when you can make a fundamental change in one fell swoop, as it were.  But a lot of the nation-wreckers are seeing the difficulty in that approach, and so are shifting their attentions to the State level.
   Where all this sort of thing belongs anyway; and the citizenry can duke it out closer to home.   

4 And the fundamental one behind the specific one: Are we going to become a materialistic-oriented society, or a spiritualy-oriented one?  One imposing Equality - i.e., the heavy-handed state - or one honoring Liberty, our natural state, as incarnate souls gifted by our Creator with free will, and thus the basic right to the free exercise thereof???

5 "'Gay' Power Vs. Religious Liberty: How homosexual 'rights'  are destroying freedom of conscience in America" by Peter LaBarbera

6 including my home State of California.  Which as well, now, has such onerous legislation, as signed off on by the governor, which "also allows biologically born boys to play on girls' sports teams (as long as they perceive their 'gender' to be female)".
     Excuse me?  The boy may have a female-sexed brain that tells him that he's a female (another pressing subject); but - 
     hasn't anybody else noticed, that…er……that
     he has the body strength of a male???!!! 
     Sometimes, indeed, the law is an ass.        

7 The Constitution, remember, contains protections of the people from actions of the federal government.  The people need to secure their liberties and rights from their State governments via their State constitutions.  This being a federal constitutional republic.  Not a central one.
     The States are sovereign entities.  They need to be seen, and treated, as such.  By both the federal government, and The People.  To reflect the majority will of their residents.  And thus, e.g., the majority of residents of one State can have a more liberal definition of 'free speech' than the majority of residents of a more conservative one.  
     A work of religious so-called art can go down a treat in, say, New York, that will - legally - get run out of town in, say, Missouri.  Whose state motto, of 'Show Me,' doesn't necessarily mean 'Show Me Everything'.   

No comments: