By Nathan Barton
Too many people who claim to be lovers of liberty (libertarians and Libertarians, including anarchists (of the free-market persuasion), are very quick to push the “rights” of homosexuals, transsexuals, and similar persons.
Clearly, these people are human and have the same rights as any other human. And too often, both in the past and today, they have been denied those rights because of the disgust and fear that their behavior generates among the majority of the population.
But their rights, like those of all humans, are limited. Specifically, “my liberties end where your nose begins.” Too many people, including some lovers of liberty (or who believe that they are), forget this important principle.
I find it something very strange. We are in an odd era. People seriously argue that free speech must be curtailed and censored. Why? If someone is offended or made fearful by that speech, or even if someone’s feelings are hurt by the words said or written. Firms can be boycotted, often by government officials, when they support political speech which is deemed to be politically incorrect or offensive to some group or another.
Yet, at the very same time, we are told that people must have the right to do things which are offensive, which cause people to fear, and which hurt their feelings. Which even violate their morals and sense of self-worth. And who is often telling us this? Judges. Not just politicians, but those appointed supposedly to maintain justice and support order and peace.
What do I mean? Consider this report about a ruling by a Federal Judge in Illinois. Although Godfather Politics has a very abrasive and clearly biased discussion, the facts are clear. A sitting federal judge has told the family of a small girl that girls have no right to “visual bodily privacy.” Indeed, “so far, the right not to be seen unclothed by the opposite sex is not on the Supreme Court’s list” of liberties which we have.
Remember our “right to privacy” which we were told for years was a fundamental right? Remember that it has been used to justify the legalization of abortion? Homosexual marriage? The right to go topless on Manhattan and naked in San Francisco?
But when it comes to our right of privacy, it all evaporates when it threatens the liberty of someone in a protected class. In our modern society, here in the Fifty States, the rights of protected minorities trump the rights of majorities AND the rights of unprotected minorities. So much so, that the privileges of protected classes are treated as though they are rights.
And everyone else suffers the loss of essential liberties.
And the courts don’t care. This is obvious. Whether it is the regressive mentality, or arrogance, it is clearly an attitude that is a stark contrast to liberty.
But the real question is, who DOES care? Is it of concern even to many who believe that they love liberty? Much less to the majority of our people here in the Fifty States? Is the exercise of certain rights at virtually any place and any time to dominate society? Even when enjoying those rights is deeply offensive and creates fear in others?
Especially when our society seems increasingly opposed to other rights being exercised, because of being offensive and creating fear? Rights like free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and even to use your own property as you will?
Many (but not all) of these issues have become points of conflict which are creating major fractures in our societies, in many if not most states. Is that because we have changed so much as a society? Or because they are intentionally pushed in order to cause a breakdown in society? And in the rule of law?
Or is it just because neither the courts nor most people care enough about peace and civility any more? Much less liberty?
If we ever thought that we could depend on courts and the judicial system to defend and protect our essential liberties, we know better now.