Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:15:36 PM
What is extreme about opposing the spending of federal taxpayer money on:
- the dismemberment of innocent, defenseless human beings in foreign countries?
- the killing of innocent, defenseless human beings for medical research?
- propping up large corporations with failed business models?
- keeping someone in a house they gained possession of through taking out a loan they can’t repay?
What is extreme about asking our elected leaders to remember that:
- the people have a government, not the other way around?
- we as individuals retain most rights, and should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of our successes and deal with the consequences of our failures?
- we are a nation of laws, not elite cliques of entitled men?
- we are union of states with their own governments, powers, and rights?
- we have a Constitution that restricts what our federal government can do?
- the Constitution provides for checks and balances through separation of powers?
If doing these things makes one an extremist, then I ask what virtue is there in moderation? How it is noble to take by force from those who earn in order to give to those who choose not to? How is it good to trample on the rights of individuals? How does one go moderate in matters of basic liberty, freedom, and responsibility? Perhaps being "moderate" in these things is like being "a little" pregnant, with the "moderation" growing and growing until it gives birth to something new and dependent, forever changing things. But in this case, it is those who were not agreeable to conception who are saddled with paying child support.
"Extreme" stances in defense of life and basic natural rights are no vice.
Why would you be scared of someone who wants to protect their rights, and in doing so, protect yours? Why are you afraid of those who want you to live with the consequences of your own actions, unless you suspect you are incapable of making the best decisions for yourself?