5 oct 2012

i am an advocate of personal responsibility. i believe in the sanctity of marriage. i support states' rights.

let's begin with the much-maligned concept of personal responsibility. this worthy construct is become a code-word for the teach-to-fish/give-a-fish dichotomy. we all know it's not ultimately helpful to simply give folks fishes, but what people conveniently ignore in espousing the former is that someone has to give the fishing lessons. simply strutting about declaring "get your own fish!" won't accomplish anything. self-supporting fishers need: well-stocked fishing locations, fishing equipment, time to go fishing, and knowledge. even then, some people are just terrible fishers, but still, you've got to have the stuff, right? there are plenty of places to go and purchase fishing equipment, and the folks there will gladly tell you how to use it. they're happy to have another fisher on the lake. there's an enviable camaraderie amongst the fisherfolk. all that said to say - personal responsibility means we're all personally responsible for ourselves and personally responsible for each other. the smallest building block of any society is one person. participation in and commitment to the betterment of the lives of our fellow fisherfolk is the most effective way to strengthen society. we need to take personal responsibility for each other.

when two or more folks come together, you have a common household, which brings us to our next loaded phrase: the sanctity of marriage. home is the building block of society, so we owe it to each other to maintain strong homes. society has a stake in ensuring that people who live in a home environment support and care for each other, do not tear each other down, and don't use their own strength to tear others down. this is done not by telling folks what they cannot do, but by incenting them to behave circumspectly and to treat others with dignity. the sanctity of marriage doesn't dictate who gets to marry whom. man and woman? fine. two women? fine. two men? fine. one man and two women? see... this is also acceptable IF it meets the criteria of support and care. but because polygamy is ripe for abuse, society has deemed it unacceptable. we as a society cannot well protect the weak in this scenario, so we've got to rely on regulation. okay, i am probably poorly making this point. i'm trying to distinguish between the types of home-life scenarios into which society is obligated poke its nosy self, and which it is not. it comes back to taking personal responsibility for the well being of each other without judging the circumstances from which that well being arises. clearly, i am verging a dash down a rabbit-hole here, so i'll stop myself.

the last loaded phrase for today is: states' rights. this term got all loaded with bile and venom during the civil war and the civil rights eras because it's been used as a curtain to hide discrimination. not only is discrimination shameful, but it's a shame that the worthy construct of local governance has been sullied thuswise. i realise that i'm more involved and aware of the world now, so i am not 100% sure it wasn't always this way, but it seems to me we hear a lot more about the federal government now than we do about our local. who sits on the city council? school board? county commission? who's your mayor, governor, state representative? federal government obviously has its place in a federation, but just as the home is the cornerstone of society, local government is the cornerstone of government. i am fairly certain the reason that we don't hear more about city or county governments is that they defer to the states, and in turn, the states defer to the federation. local governance is a form of personal responsibility but nobody wants to do it because it takes too much time and effort. it's hard work. but, if we would all step up just a bit and share the load... well, you see where i am going here.

i am an advocate of personal responsibility. i believe in the sanctity of marriage. i support states' rights.