Wednesday, June 18, 2008

The Entitlement Mentality

Something needs to be done about the entitlement mentality that is so prevalent among Americans today. I am tired of reading and hearing about people’s “right” to [insert whichever contrived entitlement is in vogue today]. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions and refrain from involving the State in their petty quarrels.

Here is an example of what I mean.

The Washington Post recently ran an article about a Pro-life drugstore that will soon open in Chantilly, VA. As a Pro-life drugstore, DMC Pharmacy will stock neither contraceptives nor abortifacients. The “Pro-choice as long as you agree with me” crowd has immediately begun to raise a stink for no reason other than that such a store “deprives women of their ‘right’ to contraception”. Other than the obviously erroneous Griswold v. Connecticut decision, by what twisted reasoning does a woman have a “right” to contraception?


This isn’t rhetorical…

That’s what I thought.

To make matters worse, these selfish fools have been joined by other morons who want the State to pass legislation which would force these pharmacists to dispense these abominable products. Unfortunately, this spectacle of stupidity is not an isolated incident.

A case has recently appeared before the Supreme Court of California regarding a fertility clinic. A lesbian has decided to sue the fertility doctors who refused to inseminate her. So, in addition to the "right" to contraception, we now have a "right" to artificial insemination. This absurd sense of entitlement displayed by these idiots makes me want to vomit with rage!

The entitlement mentality has resulted in an abuse of the word “right”. Everything has become a “right”: marriage, abortion, contraception, conscience, etc.

That’s right, I said conscience.

People do not have a right to act according to their conscience. Rather, they have a duty to act according to their conscience. This means that if their conscience is wrong, then they can be justly penalized. For example, your conscience tells you that it is morally obligatory to euthanize children with painful, debilitating, terminal diseases. You have a duty to act accordingly. However, your conscience is wrong. Resultantly, you can be justly charged, convicted, and sentenced for acting in compliance with your conscience.

But contraception is legal!

What’s your point?

The mere legality of something is not indicative of its morality. Consequently, I am under no obligation to engage or assist in immoral action simply because the action happens to have been approved by the legislature.

Now, I’ve spent a good deal of time talking about rights that don’t exist. What about rights that do exist? Without naming all of them, let’s just talk about one: Property.

The right to property is especially relevant given the events described above. Not only does the right to property include the right to own property, it also includes the right to do as you please with that property. Granted, there are limitations. However, these limitations are with respect to moral obligations and the common good. None of the above incidents involve the limitations on the right to property.

Now, the reason why the right to property applies in the above incidents is simple: the people who are “infringing upon the ‘rights’” of the morons were guilty of nothing more than exercising property rights. Their refusal to treat or dispense drugs to the “aggrieved” parties was neither violative of any moral obligation nor destructive to the common good.

The entitlement mentality is the root cause of the majority of the societal problems in this country. It must be remedied before these problems can be addressed.

- Dominus -

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Political Cowardice

I was recently speaking with Disco Mike, Warrior of CWOD, regarding the upcoming election. Apparently, he and the other Warriors of CWOD have been having a bit of a disagreement over voting. The argument centers on whether or not voting for a third party candidate will help elect Obama.

This is a common theme among voters in this country. Elections are no longer about supporting the candidate who is best for the job. Instead we are merely trying to keep the “other side” from winning. Third party candidates are not “electable” and, therefore, voting for them only helps the “other side”. Regardless of the fact that both varieties of Republicrat are essentially the same, every presidential election that I can remember boils down to the same two camps. Each of these camps treats the election like a life or death struggle, and if you aren’t with them, then you are for “the enemy”.

My response to such a charge?


I support Chuck Baldwin for President. However, it is not likely that he will win. This is not to say that I won’t try to persuade others to vote for him. Rather, I simply acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of voters are fools who would rather sacrifice principle in exchange for some perceived good than vote for a candidate whom they actually believe in. Nearly every conservative that I know is so afraid of Obama winning in November that they race to support McCain despite the fact that he isn’t conservative. Why not flock to Chuck Baldwin? Why not gather around Bob Barr?

Because they aren’t “electable”.

This is ridiculous. Both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party have enough pull to get their respective candidates on the ballots in enough States to win the election. Therefore, if their supporters do their damned jobs and persuade others to vote for them, then they are electable. Anyone who says otherwise is a coward and doesn’t deserve the privilege of voting.

This is the same crap that I got from people when they found out that I supported Ron Paul. This kind of cowardice is what denied him the Republican nomination and consequently resulted in the current “crisis”.

I think I’m gonna go smoke away the hate…

- Dominus -

Monday, June 9, 2008

So much hate...

Stupid people really piss me off.

Now, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me if they can make a coherent argument for their case. Unfortunately, I tend not to be lucky enough to get to hear one.

One of the most recent examples of idiocy thrust upon me was during a protest of the comedian, Bill Maher. Bill Maher decided that it was appropriate to slander Pope Benedict XVI and the entire Catholic Church. After American Life League raised a clamor and demanded that he be fired, he had the audacity to "apologize". Now, when I say that he "apologized", what I really mean is that he recanted one slander and replaced it with another. That having been said, I was recently standing on a street corner while holding a sign advertising my desire to have that slanderous jerk fired. Over the course of an hour, I was treated to the drive-by insults and idiotic remarks of passersby. Very few of the nimrods had the stones to confront me directly. Of those who did, only one was able to put together a coherent argument.

This rant is not targeted at him.

These morons would typically begin with the phrase "Hate Speech!? But what about Free Speech!?"

To the Morons:

The right to freedom of speech does not protect one from civil action. Rather, it prevents the State from bringing criminal charges against someone based on his opinions. Therefore, my desire for HBO to fire Bill Maher for his slander is not violative of his right to free speech.

It isn't as though I'm making this up either. English Common Law has allowed for people to sue other people for slander and libel for centuries.

Other stupid people would actually agree with Bill Maher's lies. This is simply intolerable. If Maher had simply stated an opinion, then the agreement of others wouldn't bother me. However, Maher did not state an opinion. He made a statement of "fact". You would think that the fact that so many people raised such a commotion over his statements would have prompted people to research the validity of those statements. Apparently not.

Now for more instances of stupidity...

I recently started a thread on a discussion forum called Fredtalk. On that thread, I challenged the validity of Incorporation Doctrine and asked those who responded to comment and provide a reason for their opinion. Instead of an actual argument, I received citations of various Supreme Court cases. The entire discussion eventually devolved into a written version of a group of small children with their hands over their ears and screaming "nuh-uh!". No wonder this country is as messed up as it is. No one listens to people with opposing views. No one makes any effort to stop the Federal Behemoth when it lumbers about, hucking money everywhere and then whines when it ends up in debt. People only care about the Constitution when when their gross misinterpretation of it is "violated" when legislatures actually try to do their jobs.

Then, there was this past Saturday.

This past Saturday was spent holding a sign in front of Planned Parenthood. The sign said, "The Pill Kills". What the sign meant was that the standard birth control pill has the ability to kill babies. You see, contrary to popular belief, the Pill does not merely prevent pregnancy. It functions in three ways. The first way is by preventing ovulation. The second is by thickening the cervical mucus and inhibiting the movement of sperm. The third way is by thinning the lining of the uterus, making it nearly impossible for implantation to occur and killing any baby that is conceived.

Pretty straightforward, right?

Well, NOW and a bunch of other idiots decided to stage counter-protests. Now, I don't mind this in and of itself. What bothers me is that these people and their blogger compatriots refuse to utilize logic in their disagreement with reality. Part of the problem is that in the '60s, the American Conference of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) arbitrarily changed the definition of pregnancy in order to allow the Pill to be sold. They changed the beginning of pregnancy from conception to implantation. Holding to this erroneous definition, the idiots claimed that our information was "100% medically inaccurate".

That wasn't the worst of it.

The worst of the stupidity was the absurd conclusions that people would draw from our arguments. They fail to make the distinction between intentional action and accidental action. Taking the Pill can result in the death of a human being. If a woman takes the Pill and a human being dies as a result, then the woman is guilty of murder because she acted with depraved indifference to human life. If a woman miscarries as a result of some cause for which she was not responsible, then she is not guilty of murder. Why is this difficult to understand?

Well, I should probably get back to work. I will undoubtedly find something else to rant about later.

- Dominus -