Tyranny and the Denial of Happiness

Tyranny and the Denial of Happiness

It is a legitimate function of government to keep others from denying your liberty, choice, and pursuit of happiness. It is tyrannical to use government powers to deny others their liberty, choice, and pursuit of happiness.

Tyrants often require denying somebody else their pursuit of happiness. A person with an honest concern is seeking a solution that allows them to pursue their happiness, not a solution designed to deny others their pursuit of happiness.

Tyrants in America often dishonestly try to cloak denying others' liberty and pursuit of happiness by claiming some infringement on the tyrant's rights. A telltale sign of this dishonesty is that any attempt to resolve this claimed "infringement" that does not deny others their pursuit of happiness will be summarily rejected. This is because a solution to the "infringement" is not the goal, the denial of another's freedom is the goal.

If your idea of religious liberty is to impose your religion on others, you are not for religious liberty, you are a tyrant. If you use your religion as an excuse to prohibit others from making their own choices, you are a tyrant.

If your idea of women's rights is to use the law to deny men their pursuit of happiness, you are a tyrant. Promoting women's pursuit of happiness does not entail denying men's pursuit of happiness.

Common Law Marriage Violates United Nations Principles

Common Law Marriage Violates United Nations Principles

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/MinimumAgeForMarriage.aspx


"Article 1

1. No marriage shall be legally entered into without the full and free consent of both parties, such consent to be expressed by them in person after due publicity and in the presence of the authority competent to solemnize the marriage and of witnesses, as prescribed by law."

Why do so many people think it is acceptable (nay, even a good thing) to force marriage upon unwilling men via "common law marriage?" 

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/p/no-means-no-except-when-man-says-no.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/p/the-pros-and-cons-of-forced-marriage-in.html

A Good Read on Filling Justice Scalia's Chair

http://www.newsweek.com/scalia-founding-fathers-427371

Unintentional "Sexual Harassment" - Women's Sensibilities Versus Women's Tyranny

Unintentional "Sexual Harassment" - Women's Sensibilities Versus Women's Tyranny

This is directed at "women's sensibilities." (Perhaps there is unintentional "sexual harassment" associated with "men's sensibilities" also? I would not rule this out, but I have not experienced this.)

There are things that men did in workplaces that were devoid of women that surely were not intended to harass the nonexistent women. For instance, men read Playboy magazine and posted girlie calendars and pinups. Nonetheless, some women's sensibilities are such that seeing a girlie calendar constitutes such a "severe or pervasive" hostile work environment that these women are significantly distressed.

Whether or not one thinks that it is reasonable for an adult woman to be so distressed by the display of a bikini calendar, apparently it is just too much for some women to handle without seriously affecting their employment. The society has decided that these women's sensibilities must be protected.

I believe that people should be able to work in environments that they enjoy and that some protection is needed to ensure that a hostile work environment is not imposed upon them. I am not against reasonable accommodations to women's sensibilities, but some women are not seeking reasonable accommodations to their sensibilities. Some women seek to impose a "woman approved" work environment upon men, even if this is an unfriendly work environment for men.

If a man reads a men's magazine at lunch and women are offended by viewing the pictures in the magazine, then a reasonable accommodation should be made so that women do not have to view the pictures. Men have a first amendment right to read such magazines and it is tyrannical for women to negate this right just because women do not approve of men seeking pleasure in reading men's magazines.

For women to require that an employer provide women a friendly work environment, but forbid the employer from providing men a a friendly work environment is outrageous. The employer should make  reasonable accommodations so that all employees, female and male, can have a friendly work environment. If women object to viewing swimsuit calendars, then reasonable accommodations should be made to ensure that women need not view these calendars. On the other hand, a woman claiming that her "mere knowledge" that such a calendar exists constitutes a hostile work environment needs to supply convincing evidence to a court of law. She should have to demonstrate to the court why the accommodations are not sufficient to assuage her sensibilities. Tyranny should not be allowed just because she would like to be a tyrant in control. Reason, not tyranny should rule the workplace.

A Personal View of Male vs Female "Privilege"

A Personal View of Male vs Female "Privilege"

The first problem is that many, if not most, of the so-called "privileges" are really advantages and not privileges. There are advantages to being male and there are advantages to being female. Which group is "more advantaged" obviously depends on how one ranks the importance of the various advantages and disadvantages. So, the second problem is that men and women are dueling over which group is more "privileged" without any kind of metric for "privilege." It is quite possible that women see their advantages as unimportant compared to men's advantages while men see their advantages as unimportant compared to women's advantages.

My personal assessment of relative advantage/disadvantage is just that; it is personal. I make no claim that somebody having different importance rankings would, or should, agree with my assessment. Similarly, there is no reason that my assessment would, or should, agree with anybody else's assessment.

The closest comparison of advantages/disadvantages that I can think of is myself to my sisters. On average, they will live substantially longer. There is no "fault" involved; I simply drew the short chromosome. Additionally, inasmuch as having biological children was one of the most important things to me, I would much rather have had my sisters' set of advantages/disadvantages than my own set of advantages/disadvantages. I absolutely required a woman for children. My wife and I agreed on three children before we got married, but she only gave me one and kept putting off any more children, even as she got older and older. Women do not need men for more than a few minutes to get their biological children. (If women use a sperm bank, they don't even need the men for a few minutes.) Women are essential, men are not. This procreative advantage has been expressed as  "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

It is not unlikely that my sisters would rather have had my set of advantages/disadvantages than their own set. So, without specifying  a metric, the discussion of who is more "privileged" is meaningless. Partly perhaps it is simply that "the grass is always greener on the other side."

Note that, on average, women live substantially longer than men. To add insult to injury, the retirement age and pensions (or social security) take no account of this difference in longevity. On average, men subsidize women's retirement. Thus, men will work a longer fraction of their shorter lives so that women can work a shorter fraction of their longer lives.