ICE Revision

The government’s role as a protector is to only protect the rights of the people of its state to maintain their freedoms and to not be shortchanged by any other member within or without the state. Cultural traditions are often a point of conflict under the overarching realm of government protection, and very ill-placed based on the previous definition. The government should not be partial to a particular group’s interests in any regard as it is the duty of the government to maintain neutrality and be an objective judge when it comes down to conflicts between cultural groups. The US government is no different in the fact that it stands as the balance for the United States and should maintain its neutrality and protect every citizen’s inalienable rights regardless of their cultural group affiliation.

A cultural group brings its traditions wherever it goes and at its own peril of sideways glances from the rest of the population, but it maintains the government’s job to ensure that these cultural groups have their rights protected on a level playing field that all participants in the state share. The government’s task is to ensure that everyone maintains their personal rights, especially when one group unjustly attempts to stymie another group’s freedom of religion, expression, speech or any of the basic freedoms that United States’ citizens enjoy. The government acts as a mediator between groups to ensure that one group cannot affect the other groups in a detrimental fashion, and thus the duty of the government falls to ensure the neutrality of its policies and the precise exaction of the rights it protects for everyone within the state.

From the libertarian standpoint, government is only established in order to ensure that people cannot harm other members of the state. By protecting cultural traditions of certain minority groups the government inherently short-changes other cultural groups by not equally protecting their rights. So, it follows that the government can only step in to ensure that no one group cripples another group and to allow groups their freedoms while maintaining the freedoms of all members of the state as well. The US follows this path as a libertarian state as its duty is to the people, and not to minority groups. The “American voice” is often alluded to in slanted political discussions as of late and yet no one cultural group represented in the media makes up the drastic majority of the United States of America. The American people consist of every American citizen who all share the same rights as human beings and members of the state and it would be wrong of the US government to show favor to a select few while paying little attention to the plights of others.

The American tradition is one of freedom and equality, and our nation has always drawn back to those settings under times of stress and hardship. The American state was set up as one of ultimate personal freedom of choice, there would be no government influence on who you worshipped, who you called your friend, and thus it cannot follow that the US government could protect anything more than these ultimate freedoms. As the neutral observer and protector, the government ensures that the people maintain their freedoms without denying those of others, no more, no less. Anything more would deem an overstepping of the government outside of neutrality and favoritism would arise. Anything less would render freedoms useless if they were not enforced and protected and thus undermine the core fundamentals of the state. The United States can endeavor to help out the less-fortunate swaths of people in the United States but only as far as they do not do harm to the other members of the state. The United States cannot hope to please every single minority, every cultural group, every religious cult, but it can ensure that all of its citizens maintain their inalienable rights as declared by the United States Constitution (and Bill of Rights) with no favoritism or cultural disparities.

If the government were to start protecting individual culture’s traditions things would soon fall to chaos as the American people are not dim-witted enough not to see the favoritism presented in their protections and soon dissent would rise. The American people have always been famously hands-off in their approach to government and it remains one of the largest issues not entirely up for debate but one in which the government continually toes the line. The role of the US government is only and totally to ensure the rights of the members of the state as ensured by the Constitution and not an ounce less or more. Cultural traditions may be important to those personal cultures but they do not receive the same personal protection as individuals do under the protection of the state and therefore the US government cannot protect them. The groups are not individuals, and if the government decides to protect one set of cultural traditions and then repudiates any others, then it has involved itself in favoritism and lost its credibility to protect all members of the United States in an equal manner.

Epic thesis.

The state should not set laws restricting individual liberties if they are not harming others by their behavior, and the state cannot force acceptance on a moral standpoint of anything that others find morally repugnant, because it is the state’s duty to protect the rights of people to participate in those behaviors so long as they do not harm another member of the state. The state does indeed owe the members of the state some protection of individual liberties while maintaining objectivity and concentrating on the level field of the state, and when the state fails to uphold its side of the bargain, it is the duty of the people to abolish the state and establish a state that will hold up their end.

Isn’t everyone an ethical egoist?

An ethical egoist is an individual who finds it in their own self-interest to act, regardless of the case. And ethical egoist may do something that a normal society would deem immoral but if it preserves the person’s self-interest and promotes survival, and then it is within reason for the ethical egoist to do. The argument that everyone is ultimately an ethical egoist is fairly strong in most rational humans because as humans, we tend to our self-interests despite others opposing them. The only places where this argument has holes is in extreme cases where a person may totally sacrifice themselves in order to protect the things that they love but even that could be construed as to promoting self-interest by promoting things that they love but without regard to bodily or emotional safety. A priest, a soldier, and a mother all lend themselves as potentially conflicting arguments against this claim but even these can be clarified as being results of ethical egoism.

A priest is often the target of the counterargument of this claim seeing as though the religious cultures of the world hold their hierarchs in such high regard, but it is clearly self-interest that promoted every action that a priest takes. Many may argue that he chooses celibacy, solitude, poverty in order to promote his religion, which may be true but it is to also satisfy his own personal interest in becoming a priest and satisfying that desire that he holds to promote his religion. Even religion is not without self-interest as it seems though most people who practice religion follow it in order to sort out some personal conflict or fulfill some personal goal, no actions taken are completely external, all require some fulfillment of self-interests.

The soldier is often the image of complete self-sacrifice and humility, without a bit of ego clogging up their judgment. This is construed as such because of the huge sacrifices that soldiers make in the line of battle, and their homage is well deserved but the sacrifices that they make cannot be totally unattributed to self-interest. The self-interest of a soldier is the well-being of his unit, regardless of who is in it, and when a soldier sacrifices himself to protect his unit, yes he is promoting the interests of others, but he is also promoting self-interest in a subtle way in that he is providing that good-will for his unit. And while many people attribute the ultimate sacrifice and hard work that soldiers put into their line of duty, there are some who join for the steady job or maybe because a normal job would not have suited them, either way no one escapes the ties of self-interest, even in a selfless profession.

A mother who births and defends her children will often be admired as she has gone through so much self-sacrifice in order to raise her children so thoroughly. Bullshit. Most mothers complain about children and typically have them due to societal or family pressure and promote their self-interest of being left alone by simply going along with the pressure. Some women want to feel empowered and so they have children to be underneath them, while others still do it for the welfare checks. Even something as natural as motherhood cannot be totally separated from self-interest because self-interest is anything that you do in order to promote your own satisfaction at the outcome of an action.

Despite the apparent selflessness of occupations such as mother, soldier, priest, they all bear serious implications towards promoting self-interests; therefore it is conclusive that ethical egoism is an all-enveloping ideal. But, it cannot be confused with selfishness because not a single one of these occupations in their most pure forms show any degree of selfishness and I believe that promoting one’s self-interests is not a negative ideal in the least, moreover it is the most natural thing for a human to do.

Regarding homosexuality, pornography and marijuana in relation to laws made by a state.

Laws made by the state have to be in accordance with the necessities of the state and not solely based on a statesman’s agenda to fulfill his own slanted world view without regard to the rest of the state’s citizens. Laws involving things such as homosexuality, pornography, and marijuana lend themselves as examples of the state overreaching their bounds into a person’s personal life in ways that would never harm another human being. The necessities of the state cannot include barring anyone passage into any of these three realms because they are all individual activities and do not even include much less harm anyone else inside of the state. Laws regarding homosexuality often fall into a marriage debate which lends itself to religion which should be abolished from government decisions, laws regarding pornography also tend to come from a religious sect and often bar a person from their desired job, and laws regarding marijuana not only are grossly outdated but also infringing upon a person’s personal desires. These infringements upon the personal rights of the people of the state cannot be made by the state because the purpose of the state is to ensure that people do not harm the other members of the state, it does not dictate what these people do with their personal lives.

The laws on homosexuality often have a religious connotation which is an atrocious abomination against the ideology of separation of church and state which precludes a state’s advancement into the first world. The laws of homosexuality almost always regard marriage as the sole objection in the case of homosexual rights, and yet marriage maintains its status as a solely religious affiliation with another person which just so happens to have tax and other societal benefits to follow it. A homosexual couple may not fit into the church’s ideology of marriage as derived from the bible but the state has no right to infringe upon a couple’s rights to those benefits offered to couple’s within that state. The state has a duty to its citizens, all of them, a duty of justice and disregarding that duty in order to push a religion agenda oftentimes marks the decent into a degrading society in which religion dictates professional aspects of the state. Homosexuality is in itself simply an orientation just like political views, it does not affect other people in the world and therefore the state has no place to bar people of that orientation of any benefits that it offers to people of differing orientations.

Pornography, the founder of many institutions like online pay by credit card, the highest efficiency of anti-piracy technology and the internet, has done nothing to affect anyone who chooses not to view it and therefore why should a state try and dissolve the profession? While some members of the state disagree with the morality of the profession, the state cannot appeal to personal morals but rather to the popular demand of the state in order to prevent people from short-strawing other members of the state. Claims against pornography range from, “pornography poisons children’s minds,” to, “pornography is corrupting the foundations of this society,” which are quite ridiculous in nature simply because pornography at its core is a benevolent profession. It is a profession celebrating ecstasy and sexual fervor and there is nothing inter-societal about that, it is a very personal profession where the only interaction with other members of the society is through the sale or display of the fruits of their labor. If the claims against pornography had any validity in procuring a state law on it, then pornography would have to be affecting those who choose not to watch it, which is a mathematical certainty that it cannot.

Laws are often found to be outdated when their implications are completely ridiculous for modern society such as the prohibition to engage in sexual intercourse with socks on in Maryland. Such ridiculous laws are laughable because they cannot be enforced but they are never repealed because no one brings them up within a state forum. Marijuana is one of those ridiculous laws for modern society and yet it is not the dark brooding child of some humorous post within the depths of the internet, it is one of the most widely discussed debates in modern states. States should not be able to prohibit something a person can ingest simply because they disagree with it, rather only when these things affect other people should the state step in, and the latest scientific studies show that smoking marijuana has no affect on people other than those ingesting the plant. It goes against the code of the state to protect individual liberties to be so blatantly offending of those in order to push a personal agenda, and in any case if people do not agree with ingesting marijuana, then they don’t have to do so.

Laws regarding the personalized activities such as a homosexual union, watching pornography or smoking of marijuana cannot be determined by the state because of the personal nature of these activities. The state’s purpose is to ensure that no one in the state harms another member of the state and if an activity does not fall under this condition then the state is overstepping its bounds and infringing upon the personal rights of the citizens. Homosexuality does not affect the fundamentalist religious sects in any way, pornography does not affect the strong-arming feminist cliques in any way except clogging up Google Images, and ingesting marijuana does not intoxicate those who do not ingest it; therefore why has it oftentimes become the duty of the state to enforce laws on such activities? It is not the state’s place to do so and as such, the state cannot dictate personal decisions on the interpersonal decisions.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.

Here are some suggestions for your first post.

1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
3. Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can always preview any post or edit it before you share it to the world.