oughta be a law
oughta be a law oughta be a law
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was wrong-headed plunder of unalienable rights, unconstitutional, and should be repealed. It won’t be. No way, but it should, along with the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act, every iteration of minimum wage laws . . . and much more.
As near as I can recall or determine from current review, no one in either the House or Senate – whether voting aye or nay — and neither the President who pushed for the law (John F. Kennedy) nor the President who signed it (Lyndon Baines Johnson) thought rationally and logically. Otherwise, it would be safe to say that all of them, when swearing their oaths upon assuming office, would have had Pinocchio Moments. I believe, however, that they didn’t lie – no hidden-behind-the-back crossed fingers – they were just ignorant.
So-called “civil rights” cannot and may not trump natural law. So-called “civil rights” cannot and may not trump the unalienable rights with which each human being comes endowed “from the Creator or Nature’s God.” “Natural law” is result of rational/logical analysis, based on what can be observed, of what can and cannot make sense. It can and should be applied whether one is religious or not, devout, agnostic or atheist.
Okay, so here comes explanation. It must be consumed rationally and logically. Feelings don’t matter here. Facts and logic do, so thinking, not feeling, mind not heart. First, each human being comes sovereign, that is to say, subject to no other without explicit permission. The one and only exception is temporary, and has to do with children, who are subject to parents until capable of leaving that status. One cannot argue otherwise, say, that some people come sovereign while others not, or that there is no such thing as sovereignty, or that one race comes sovereign, others not, one sex comes sovereign while the other not. Rationally and logically, any such argument or assertion falls apart of its own weight.
Given that, then, it follows that each human being (as opposed to, say, pig or head of lettuce) comes endowed “by the Creator or Nature’s God” with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty (the right to do whatever the heck you want . . . just as long as not infringing on another’s like rights in the process), and to property (from whence comes the pursuit of happiness). Given that, then, each human being also has a right to self-defense of the above. It follows rationally and logically. To argue otherwise would be to nullify all unalienable rights.
Clearly to anyone reading, who pays attention and observes, human beings plunder others’ unalienable natural rights regularly and with impunity. Robbers, rapists, murderers, drunk drivers, dictators, monarchs and other thugs do their things around the globe. So, because you have a right doesn’t mean you get to exercise it. Rights must be defended constantly.
America’s Founders understood, and proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence our unalienable rights as predicate for what was to follow, the United States Constitution. We the People, whether individually or collectively, could not grant authority that we did not ourselves possess. Thus, We the People authorized the U.S. Government to collectively protect and defend the unalienable rights each of us had. So we tasked that government with collectively self-defending us, no more and no less.
Please note that as an adult human being you have an unalienable (may not be taken away) right to enter into any relationship you wish with any other adult who freely agrees. You as well have an unalienable (may not be taken away) right to NOT enter into any relationship you wish. Liberty. Incidentally, implied in the 1st amendment is “freedom of association”.
Does the U.S. Government have legitimate authority to discriminate? No. It must protect and defend the universal unalienable rights of each American equally. Does each human being on Planet Earth possess an unalienable right from the Creator to discriminate, based on age, sex, race, hair color, perceived attractiveness, ability or disability, height, weight, smoking, drinking, 40-time or vertical, or any other conceivable basis? Yes. Absolutely. And we ALL do it constantly. Choose a date? Discriminate. Choose a mate? Discriminate.
Did you take note that unalienable rights do NOT include stuff, commodities, anything produced by someone else. You have no right to groceries, housing, a car, medical care, pharmaceuticals, entry into my home, entry into my restaurant. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor or some people being sovereign while others are not, to some having a right to property and others not, indeed to argue in favor of slavery.
May you smoke in my home or restaurant? If, and only if, I say so. May you carry a gun into my home or restaurant? If, and only if, I say so. May I pay you $2.50 per hour for a job? If you agree to it. May I hire only white people? Sure. I’ll be ignoring a lot of potential talent, but, hey, I have an unalienable right to stupidity. May I hire only black people? Sure. I’ll be ignoring a lot of potential talent, but, hey, I have an unalienable right to stupidity.
May government dictate any of that? No. Definitely not. CAN government do so? Obviously. And it needs to be stopped.