Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Thursday, November 18, 2010

On Making Laws for Specific People

There are a number of local ordinances, state and federal laws that people are suggesting changes and additions for to address particular groups of people.

Be it to allow gays to get married or gays to have their "significant others" as beneficiaries, or gays to be allowed publicly in the military or modifying existing anti-discrimination laws to specifically "protect" gays and others.

Personally,  I will go on the record saying this.   I don't care about gays enough to worry about what they do. For that matter,  I don't care about straights enough to care what they do.

I am never going to buy into the notion that being gay is a biologically 'natural' condition.  Yes, some people might be "born that way", but a lot of people are born with Down's Syndrome too.

Just because it happens doesn't mean it is "normal".

Back to not caring about gays or straights.   I care about people.  Period.   I don't care about whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, straight, gays, mixed.  Just people.

Why make an exclusion to a law that says only married people can have their spouse of the opposite sex can be a beneficiary of benefits or can be recognized as the person who can pull the plug, etc... just for gays?  Why not for anyone the patient or primary person wants to have in that position?

I can think of several situations in which a guy might choose another guy to be a insurance beneficiary and they not be gay.  Same goes for women.

The other person could be a best friend and they don't have many people they trust in their lives.

It could be a nephew or niece and they have no closer family or people they would consider an heir or a friend or family.

There is no reason to single out gays to receive these recognitions.

Why not just change the law that a person can identify anyone of their choice, be it male or female, to be a beneficiary or make those decisions on that persons behalf?

Then everyone is helped, whether they are gay or lesbian or straight or whatever.  As a matter of fact, it trivializes the matter of sexual preference to the non-issue it should be.

I am opposed to making laws or rules on behalf of sexual preferences or identifications.  If we are going to make laws, they need to be based on human needs, people in general needs.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Science and Politics

It keeps coming up "Big Science" prefers Democrat controlled government.  Mostly because they think democrats will spend more money on science.

Many big pharmaceutical companies and chem companies, NASA and others donate millions of dollars to political candidates and parties.

When asked why they prefer democrat controlled government, the answer usually boils down to 2 things;

Money.  Democrats are well known for having more willingness to spend money expand budgets, etc...

The perception that Republicans are more religion based in their thinking and that gets in the way of several scientific endeavors, like stem cell research.

I'm  not going to go too far into whether Republicans are more religious than Democrats or not.  I'm not going to get into whether science and religion are as diametrically opposed as people make them out to be either.

I am going to say that having someone tell you that just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should do it, is anathema to many scientists.

They don't like being told there are lines we shouldn't cross.

They want to "know the truth" they say.  Damn the consequences.

Responsibility and accountability often take a backseat to enthusiasm and determination in many so-called "scientists" way of thinking.

These scientists are the same who suggest that the "scientific" studies that were done on humans in Hitler's death camps are in some ways 'justifiable' based on what information was learned from those atrocities.

Of course, in public, these folks will never say that aloud.  In the backrooms and conference labs however,  I have heard actual squeals of excitement over things learned from diabolical endeavors that wouldn't ever be allowed by a supposed moral and ethical society.

Even "Big Science" needs a check and balance.  It requires it's own Jiminy Cricket to sit on it's shoulder telling it when to draw the line and respect that line.

Science without a conscience is nothing more than a serial killer who fancies himself a scholar by doing experiments on his victims.