CAUTION: This post may offend those of you with deep religious sensibilities.  My motivation for writing was sparked by the current  story dealing with the Arizona law to make it ‘legal’ for people to deny service based on religious principles.  That we even have to consider such a law should be enough to condemn this nation, but – sadly – it isn’t.  Worse, we don’t even understand that we are arguing for slavery and not for liberty.  You have a Natural Right to be a bigot – period.  But you also have a Natural Right to discriminate, and it doesn’t necessarily mean you are a ‘hater’ if you do.  In fact, if you are one of those who have accepted this absurdity that ‘discrimination’ makes you a ‘hater,’ then congratulations: you are a bigot and a hater!  But for those of us who understand this issue, we are nothing more than a private citizen trying to live our lives without having others using government to force their beliefs on us.

I usually like to post the definitions of the words involved when I write about matters such as this.  But I am not going to do that this time.  Instead, I am going to use absurdity to make my point (if you have read “Brave New World,” this illustration should be familiar to you).  OK, here it goes:

If you decide to have sex, the government should be able to force you to do so with whoever wants to have sex with you.  In other words, you should not be able to tell anyone no.  The only right you have is to decide whether or not you want to have sex.  Once you decide you do, you must have sex with anyone who asks – or you are discriminating against them and that makes you guilty of a hate crime.

That’s it: that’s all there is to it.  If you decide to have sex and then tell anyone no – for any reason – you are a horrible, hateful person who is discriminating against the person you refuse.  And NO!  This example is not “over the top.”  In fact, it is dead-on accurate to the PC insanity that has seized this nation.

You see, if I own a business, that business is my property!  I have the right to decide what I do with it, just like you have the right to decide what you do and don’t do with your body.  So, if I am a ‘hater’ because I do not want to serve gays, or whites, or one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters, then that is my business!  The government has no role in telling me otherwise, and neither do you!  Otherwise, if you and the government can tell me what to do with my property, then the government and I can tell you what you must do with yours – even if that property is your body.

Also, this does not change just because I sell to the public.  The ‘public’ is just another way of saying ‘society,’ or ‘all people in a given area.’  It holds no special authority to force me to surrender my right to contract with other people.  That is a Natural Right, and – as such – I can neither give it away nor take it from others.  And that means the government cannot be given or claim the authority to force me to do business with anyone I do not want to do business with.  Remember, my business is an extension of my labor, which is an extension of my free will using my body to perform some action beneficial to me.  So if you or the government claims that you can force me to do something against my will just because I am in public, we are back to you having to have sex with anyone who asks.  Only, this time, you do not even have to decide to have sex first.  In fact, once you step onto public property, you become a free play room for anyone who finds you desirable.

Do you see the insanity that has gripped this nation?  And do you see what it is doing to us?  When will it end?  I’ll tell you when it ends.  It ends when the sane among us start telling the insane who are making these claims that they are insane – to their faces, so others can see and hear it.  Lead by example.  The next time someone utters some non-sense about how people should be forced to surrender their Natural Rights just because someone else wants something from them, turn and tell them that, unless they give it up, they are a racist, bigot, homophobic hater!

[You know what really sucks about this post?  Most Leftists who push this insanity are doing it partly because they aren’t attractive enough for anyone to want them in the first place. 🙁 ]

This post goes with my post explaining why the government cannot make end-around runs against your Natural Rights.  Hopefully, these two posts, along with all the rest of the posts in this series, will help you understand just how much of your liberty you have allowed the government to take from you.  So, we start with a story about an issue many ‘law-and-order’ types have accepted as ‘reasonable’ when – in truth – it is open tyranny:

Cops Secretly Tested Drivers for Drunk Driving at Those ‘Voluntary’ Checkpoints…Even Before They Consented

So, what should we make of the government’s claim that traffic stops are ‘constitutional?’  Well, first, let’s look at their arguments.  First, they claim that they own public property and, therefore, they control it.  According to this line of reasoning, you ‘willingly’ surrender your rights when you willingly use the public roads they claim to own and control.  Next, the government claims that driving is a ‘privilege,’ not a right.  And because it is a privilege granted by government, you not only need a license, you must also submit to whatever demands the government makes in relation to your driving ‘privilege.’  Finally, in direct connection to traffic stops, the Supreme Court has actually ruled that the government can ‘legally’ infringe on your rights so long as it doesn’t present an ‘inconvenience.’  The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that, since traffic stops do not take much time, you don’t really suffer any appreciable loss of your rights when you are forced to submit to one.

First, let’s deal with the claim that the government owns public property.  You will find a total refutation of this claim in my post on my other blog, The OYL: PIECES OF THE PUZZLE: The Role of ‘Self-Protection’ in the Process of Indoctrination.

Next, let’s deal with the government’s claim that driving is not a right.  This can be refuted rather easily by asking a simple question: do you have a right to breath?  The answer should be self-evident: yes!  You have a Natural Right to your life, and that means you have a right to pursue those things you need to survive.  No one ‘owns’ the atmosphere.  No person can claim any part of the earth because no one can claim to have used their labor to create it.  But neither can the government claim to own or control any part of the earth.  This is because the government is an artificial creation that you and I create through our Natural Right to contract.  And because we do not have a claim on the earth, we cannot impart that claim to the government, nor can we create it by forming a government.  This is part of the limitations of the Social Contract.  This line of reasoning extends to the government’s claim that driving is not a right but a government granted privilege – only in reverse.  Because the government is not real, it has no rights.  Therefore, it cannot grant them to us.  So, the government is claiming something it does not have the authority to claim.

But there is more to this claim that driving is a privilege.  Thomas Jefferson explained it this way:

 “The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.”

We have a Natural Right to own personal property.  A car or motorized vehicle is personal property.  We impart our claim to it when we use our labor to build or earn the money to pay for it.  Inherent in our right of ownership is the right to use it (so long as we do not harm another person or their property).  Since we also have an equal claim on public property, we then have a right to use our vehicle on that public property.  Nothing in the relationships between these principles requires or grants authority to the government.  The only purpose for the government is to mediate conflicts which may arise from negligent use of vehicles on the public streets and/or  what we call ‘acts of God.’  That is where the rule of law comes in: not to control use, but to justly determine liability between claimants as a result of traffic-related injury.

However, even if we grant that the government has a role in controlling the public roads, this does not and cannot give the government a right to set aside the fourth Amendment protection against unwarranted searches.  Simply driving on a public road is not sufficient reason to claim ‘probably cause.’  Even if the police see a driver turn around before reaching a traffic stop, that is still not probable cause to chase that driver down.  We have allowed the government to so stretch the meaning of probable cause that the term no longer has meaning.  And, even if there is probable cause, the Constitution – which, on these issues, applies to every citizen in every State – the Constitution requires that a warrant be signed describing what the police expect to find and where they expect to find it.  This clause in the fourth Amendment seems to have been totally ignored by all aspects of our government today – and we have allowed it.

Finally, let’s apply a little common sense to what the Supreme Court said.  They ruled that it is not a violation of your rights so long as it there is no real ‘inconvenience’ involved.  Well, what if the search reveals something that places you in legal jeopardy?  Does that now constitute a real inconvenience?  And before you say that it isn’t a problem unless you are doing something wrong, understand that you break at least three to five federal laws every day!  This means they can arrest you and put you in jail any time they want.  If you don’t believe me, go do some searches on this issue for yourself.  This way, you will be more likely to believe what you find than if I just ask you to trust me.  But understand, the cliché, “You don’t have to worry if you’re not doing anything wrong,” is ridiculous.  All of us are doing something wrong every day, we just don’t realize it.  This is what the fourth Amendment was all about: placing a barrier between people who are otherwise seeking no harm to others from being victimized by a tyrannical government.

Are you starting to see that gilded cage in which we all live yet?