Friday, March 13, 2009

Alan Keyes is "Loyal to Liberty?"

In an entry at his blog criticizing Michael Steele and his position on abortion, Alan Keyes offers the following interesting observations:

The problem is, of course, that matters of justice, of right and wrong, always involve individual choices. The choice to rob, lie, cheat and murder are all individual choices. The choice to rape, kidnap and enslave another is an individual choice. The choice to serve or not to serve someone in a restaurant, on account of their race, is an individual choice. Obviously the real issue is not whether individuals are free to choose between right and wrong. That's been clear since Eve made her fateful decision to eat the forbidden fruit. The issue is when and whether they have the right to choose as they do. (emphasis mine)

Here's the problem as I see it:

I agree with probably 100% of Keyes's article, minus the line which seems to equate the refusal of restaurant owners, etc., to "serve" people based on race or whatever, with theft, rape, and murder. It may be morally repugnant to do so in some cases (race based), but to equate it with murder and rape and theft is, in my opinion, more morally repugnant.

As an independent business owner, do I have the right to refuse to hire a prospective employee based on his race (or sexual orientation, for that matter) if I so choose? Most certainly! Have I murdered, raped, or otherwise stolen from he or anyone else in doing so? Most certainly not!

What the "federal" government has to do with that, I have absolutely no idea. But, as I've said numerous times before, I don't have to go along with it, and won't. Go ahead and try to collect taxes from my business, if you will, on these premises. Otherwise ... put me in jail. What purpose - and whose interests - does either serve? My appeal, at this point, is to my state legislature. ...


Terry Morris said...

It occurs to me that some folks who read this post might think I'm being a bit radical in stating that I refuse to participate further in the schemes of the federal government. A couple of points to make on that:

1) As Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." And as one of my favorite H.S. teachers put it to me in 1984, "you better be radical about something."

2) If I choose to limit my personal participation in the federal government's schemes to rob me and others of the wealth we create to fund policies and projects that we do not agree with and would not otherwise support, by legal means, what is radical about that?

Let's put it this way, I can choose to work x number of hours or y number of hours. If x is the number of hours I need to work to keep my family up with minimal participation on my part in the government's program, and y is the number of hours I need to work to to support my family and make a maximum personal contribution to the government's program, I'm simply choosing option x as opposed to option y. This means I'm opting out, to the greatest extent possible, of the federal government's tax-and-spend policies.

You think I'm wrong to do so? I challenge you to support that assertion.