Tag: liberty

Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade? – My take

Posted on by Karac Avalron

This blog rarely delves into politics, sadly politics has invaded nearly all aspects of citizen’s life. As many of you probably know a draft decision was leaked from the U.S. supreme court that reads as they are going to overturn the landmark decision of Roe v Wade, effectively ending federal protections of abortion. This is a big deal. This is one of the most controversial laws in the U.S. for the last several decades. I am surprised that they want to overturn this, and even more surprised that this was leaked. First to the leak, whoever did it REALLY stuck their neck out because that in of itself is unprecedented. They could face serious time in jail for that, best of luck…

So if this happens (it is not set in stone that it will) then effectively abortion becomes a state issue. That means every state in the U.S. can set up their own laws. This doesn’t preclude congress from passing a new law pertaining to abortion but the immediate impact will be states get to decide. So depending on where you live, abortion might be outlawed completed. Now keep in mind any state legislation that is proposed to affect abortion law will likely be challenged legally.

This is a polarizing social issue (like we need more of those). You will see protests, maybe riots it won’t be pretty. There is a lot of speculation that this was done for political reasons to invigorate democratic voters. Look that is plausible but I don’t know. Long term this is a good outcome because what this means is states will be responsible for abortion law. This puts it one step closer to the actual voter base. A state senator in Michigan is much more beholden to Michigan voters then the federal senator for Vermont.

Vote
Liberty is paramount

The bad news is in states that do not want abortion, this will affect women in those states disproportionately and that was the underlying strength of Roe v Wade, it protected women’s right to choose in states that would otherwise remove that choice. Now for wealthy Americans you could always go “over the border” and get it taken care of but what about low income individuals who don’t have those resources? Tough questions are ahead for sure.

My take: I am a libertarian. So for me I believe in the liberty of the individual. I believe that government should be excluded from the matter. To be clear, I believe a woman should have the right to decide if she wants to carry a child to term or not. As that child is reliant on her body to sustain the child it is her conscious that has to deal with the reprocusions of the choice.

I believe that governments job is to ensure the health and safety of its population. This means that government should be supporting the woman’s choice with reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation, to me means, not creating obstacles for that woman when she makes her choice. Roe vs Wade achieved this to a degree, it wasn’t perfect but it minimally provided federal protection against a state legislature prohibiting this action.

Ideally, neither the state nor the feds would be involved. A woman who is pregnant consults whom she wishes too on the matter (ideally the father) and then once the decision is made she purchases the service (the abortion).

I concede fully that this issue teeters on many social, spiritual and religious issues. I can’t tackle them all here, what I can do is proceed with my value system of liberty. Some might say “god provides your liberty” fine, you are entitled to believe that. At the end of the day, if Roe v Wade is overturned this will have a profound effect on the social construct. I’m going to lean to the side of a woman’s choice here. I think the best outcome is to have individuals responsible for their individual circumstances and governments should help them achieve that outcome not hinder it.

Thanks for coming by and supporting my blog I really appreciate it. Want to see another post like this one? Click here.

“What’s your position on the whole LGBTQ movement”

Posted on by Karac Avalron

I was asked this question recently in an email and I had to think about it longer than I anticipated but likely not for the reason you think. I had to think about the word “movement” and what that meant, in context. You see I don’t look at it as a movement per se, I look at it as a reality more pronounced than before. I’m not going to profess to be highly educated in all the nuances of the LGBTQ community you would see right through that. I can however tell you what my “position” is, keeping in mind that I am a heterosexual middle aged white male….

1.4 Personal Relationships

“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.”

Vote
This means Everyone

This is literally a regurgitation of the Libertarian Party platform but it accurately encapsulates how I view LGBTQ issues. I am baffled at some of the angst we see on all sides. Adults have the right to pursue whatever it is that makes them happy as long as it does not adversely affect others. If you are screaming in my face that I am a Nazi because I won’t fly the rainbow flag at my house, that’s a problem. On the flip side, why would I ever want to deny someone their right to say be a Naval Officer?

If the individual conducts themselves in a respectful legal way, what possible rational could I have to deny them anything? The question on the title was posed to me by someone who is deeply religious, which I am not. To them it was an affront to their religion that someone would engage in behaviors outside of their belief system. It was at that point that I had to conclude that I could not actually provide an answer that would make sense to this person because they were irrational.

What exactly was irrational? The notion that their belief system should be applied, in judgement, to others who do not believe the same. Now the flip side happens too, I’ve seen hundreds of examples of people calling others Nazi’s online because they are religious but this was the question that was asked to me, below is my response.

“I believe law abiding adults should have the ability and right to pursue whatever it is they decide makes them happy. Isn’t that why the gods gave us free will?”

Now the conversation went off on another tangent here because I used the term “gods” not “god” that’s another post for another day. The point? Life is very short and using your time to make yourself happy should be a priority. There is no reason to harm, block or chastise others because you feel differently about their choices. If they aren’t harming you leave them alone.

Thank you for coming by and supporting my blog I appreciate it. Want to see another post like this one? Click here.

Vote

Libertarian principle – Personal Relationships

Posted on by Karac Avalron

As many of you know I am a Libertarian. For the non U.S. readers the Libertarian party is the third largest political party in the U.S. Don’t let that lofty (but accurate) claim fool you. The Democrat and Republican Party dwarf Libertarians, it’s like comparing Jupiter to the other planets. None the less it’s a viable 3rd party and I have been a part of it for nearly 20 years now.

This post isn’t going to be a political piece. I’m not going to rail against dems, republicans etc. The purpose of this post is I was witness to a discussion on discord (yes I am a gamer) about how this individual wanted to adopt but was unable to get support from their family as they identify as Trans gender. It’s complicated, but it struck me as troubling. So I want to take the opportunity to give an alternative point of view, in my small platform.

Here is a link to the Libertarian Party. Here is a key part of the platform

1.4 Personal Relationships

“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.”

“Consenting adults who observe the law and conduct themselves in a manner that is not harmful to others should be able to enjoy all the trappings of society. There should be no limitations on what consenting adults chose to do, assuming there are not underlying cognitive issues. Marriage licenses, adoption criteria… it’s all arbitrary based on assumed best practices and it unfairly denies others their pursuit of happiness.”

The most important thing is to vote !

We need laws to help govern and nurture desired social constructs. We don’t need laws that prohibit accesses to classes of citizens. It’s a very similar argument to homosexuals in the military. If you are a U.S. citizen and want to serve your country you should be afforded that privilege. “But that can cause problems in the ranks for hetro-sexual military members” that’s a fair observation but I would put forth that it is they who have the problem. Meaning if the homosexual is not using or making their sexuality an issue what’s the problem?

Libertarians aren’t perfect. We assume, sometimes foolishly that the rights of the individual are paramount as we assume individuals are equipped to make behavior choices that don’t negatively impact other people. If someone is uncomfortable with a transgender parent that’s a separate issue entirely. We simply can’t be held accountable for every emotion someone else has based on our conduct. Egregious and ridiculous conduct? Okay fine.

Is raising a child as a transgender egregious conduct? I guess it would depend on your point of view. The issue here isn’t that the transgender is behaving poorly or not, it’s the notion that they are given obstacles to get by PRIOR to having the opportunity to display a good or bad outcome. Essentially that’s what libertarianism is, you aren’t penalized for what you might do, or how you make other people feel. You are penalized, or rewarded based on how you act and those actions outcomes.

Interested in more posts like this? Click here.

Surviving 2020 & covid

Quick rant on Cancel Culture

Posted on by Karac Avalron

I don’t normally delve into this kind of topic on this blog but like everyone I am aware of what is happening out there. We are in the midst of a very dangerous trend and that is cancellation. Cancellation is just a catch all phrase for deplatforming, or removing someone’s ability to interact. We’ve seen this play out before, from burning books to communist purges in the 50’s….

We are now removing people’s ability to interact due to what some call “hate speech”. Most of it is deplorable, what many people aren’t talking about is though is the arbitrators of what is or is not acceptable are multi billionaires from Silicon Valley. It’s never been in the interest of society to concentrate too much power into a small group of people or corporations.


Are you fanning the flames or putting them out ?

This of course is all abstract to most of us, it doesn’t affect us, until it does. You see, the problem with “cancelling” anyone whom you don’t like what they are saying is you set the precedent for your own cancellation down the line. A wise person once said “I don’t like what you are saying but I will defend your right to say it”. We are losing sight of this notion piece by piece and eventually what happens is everyone is silenced.

Should people who are racists be silenced? Should we force those people underground and remove their ability to pontificate publically? If you do how will you know who they are? How will you know where they are? You see you can eliminate someone’s access to public forums but you don’t eliminate their thoughts and feelings. If anything you are emboldened them more.

Racism isn’t exclusive to race, meaning Asians can be racist toward Hispanics just as much as a White person can be Racists toward an African American. Don’t fall into the trap that “racism” is exclusive to one race, that would be, well racist…

So what happens next? Freedom of speech comes with a great deal of responsibility and while we need to have ways to rebuttal and temper people with extreme ideas, every time we cancel someone who doesn’t think or say what we think they should we become complicit in our eventually demise.

Does this mean you can’t protest? No. Does this mean you shouldn’t identify and point out what you think is racist? Of course not, but what it does mean is every person silenced or identified by a group as an “ist” becomes a target. Do we have to really do a history lesson here? You know what happens when one group marginalizes another, two wrongs don’t make a right.

That path leads to one end and that’s historically been a very bad outcome for EVERYONE. You think it’s not going to happen to you, until it does. Careful what you wish for.