"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Rick Perry's Drug War Political Nonsense Comment

Presidential hopeful, Texas Governor Rick Perry, recently said sending U.S. troops to Mexico to fight the drug cartels would be an option if he were to be elected President. That's just political rhetoric.

Besides the fact that Mexico wouldn't allow it--their constitution forbids it--what would be the result of shutting down the Mexican drug cartels?

Well, first, we could do the logical thing and just legalize all the presently illegal drugs just like alcohol and tobacco are legal now. That would shut the violent drug cartels down without firing a shot. It would raise a whole bunch of tax revenue, too. I have studied the issue for many years now and it is my strongly held belief that to re-legalize* the presently illegal drugs may cause a small, temporary rise in drug use. After that, however, drug use would go down. There would be no rebellious or counter-culture cache to it. Being a druggie would just be like being a wino or alcoholic now. Besides, the major illegal drug of choice is marijuana, and government study after government study, starting with the British in 1899, have all said that marijuana is, all things considered, less harmful than alcohol.

But, our politicians are either not logical or they are cowards (politcal suicide to propose the logical thing), so if we sent in enough troops and smart bombs and forced Mexico to let us do it, we might, just might kill all those drug cartel people. But that would just push the problem to somewhere else and drugs would still get into the U.S. in large quantities.

I like the first scenario, of course, because I'm a Libertarian and I want so very much for our government to re-establish the principle of inalienable rights. That would include the right of adults to own, and own completely, their bodies and minds and do with them as they pleased, just so long as they did not violate the rights of others when they did. It is a verifiable fact that the mere use of the presently illegal drugs causes little to no violence or criminal behavior in general. It is the prohibition of them that is the cause of nearly all drug-related violence and crime.

But now, to my real point. If we legalized drugs or were able to put the drug cartels out of business by force and, somehow, stopped the drug flow from Mexico to the U.S., then we stand a very good chance of causing Mexico to collapse financially and fall into anarchy and revolution. Billions of dollars flow south to Mexico. It has been estimated that Mexico gets 35 billion dollars from the illegal drug trade. That is approximately 18% of Mexico's G.D.P. Eighteen percent is nearly one-fifth. What would happen in the U.S. if we took nearly one-fifth of the money out of the economy, one out of every five dollars? Well, it would be a whole lot worse in Mexico.

U.S. economists and political analysts know the potential of an economic meltdown in Mexico should they stop getting the drug money. Rick Perry has people around him that know it too. Therefore, his get tough talk is just that, talk.


* Note: I use the term "re-legalize" because about 100 years ago the presently illegal drugs were legally sold and used in the U.S. and there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use. But Christian temperance groups found their use to be immoral, therefore they lobbied Congress to make them illegal--the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. Basically, they got their version of religion passed into supposedly secular U.S. law. That would seem to be a violation of the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Horny Humans

In my last post, I stated that humans are the most sexual mammals on Earth. I amend that by stating here, that we are possibly the most sexual animals, period. Here is my reasoning.

Most people have a hard time dealing directly with sexual issues in a logical manner, especially when it comes to their own sexuality.  Here is a question of logic for you to answer.  Would the Creator God (assuming such a thing exists) have made humans to be so sexual for no reason whatsoever? 

How sexual are humans?  Both men and women have a great capacity for sexual enjoyment, in many different ways, from many different people…or objects…and, yes, even from animals.  Women do not have a sexual “season”.  If approached in the right way by the right person, a woman will have sex at any time of the day or night, any time of the week, month, or year.  A woman may even initiate such action.  Women have a great capacity to enjoy a lot of sex in many ways and they have this wonderful ability to have multiple orgasms.  (However, having the ability and having the desire, are two different things.) 

Men, of course, are ready to have sex whenever and where ever they can find it.  And, unlike most mammals, most men in their prime can have sex every day, sometimes more than once a day, for weeks or months or years on end. For instance, a stallion used for breeding purposes may "cover" (the quaint term for having sex with) one or two mares a day for a few weeks. Then they will be exhausted and have to be put out to pasture to rest until the next breeding season. 

Also, human males, pound for pound, tend to have the largest penises of almost all, if not in fact all, mammals. A 190 pound human male can easily have a six inch penis length when fully erect. A 1200 pound stallion can have an erect (and usable--that is, outside the penis sheath) penis of thirty inches. (Of course many stallions have shorter erect penises, while some have longer ones. But the figures given are a good average.)

If we divide the length in inches by the weight, we will get a ratio of inches per pounds. For the human that would be 6/190= 0.03. For the stallion it would be 30/1200= 0.025. Clearly the human has a longer penis for his body weight than a stallion does.

Then there is the blue whale, the biggest mammal in the world. Some are as big as 180 tons, but I will use 150 tons which is, again, a good average. The male blue whale has an average erect penis length of six feet. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? But six feet, or 72 inches, divided by 150 tons, or 300,000 pounds, equals a length to pounds ratio of 0.00024. That would be like a human male having a penis length of between 4/10 and 5/10 of an inch long when erect. That's more like a gorilla, which, on average, has an erect penis length of one and a half inches.

And, by the way, gorillas have no trouble breeding. So, having a longer penis does not equate in humans, who are primates like gorillas, to assuring more pregnancies.

Then there is the fact that humans are obsessed with things sexual. It has been extimated that fully two-thirds of all the internet traffic is related to sex. Churchmen and politicians are getting caught up in sexual scandals on a regular basis. And how many divorces are caused by men who can't keep there willy in their pants? For that matter, more than a few divorces are caused by women who can't keep their knickers on.

And we were either made that way, by God, with these mental and physical sexual attributes, or we evolved that way. Whatever you wish to believe, it doesn't change the facts of our innate human sexuality.

Still, as I said in the first sentence of the second paragraph to this article, most people have a hard time dealing directly with sexual issues in a logical manner, especially when it comes to their own sexuality. That's because of religion. Basic Christian dogma would have us believe that sex between one man and one woman, who are married, in which they participate only in face-to-face, penile-vaginal sex, and only for procreation and not pleasure, is proper and correct sex…if you have to do it at all. All things considered, that's just plain silly.

And the laws--blue laws--that have been passed to punish transgressors have been to no avail. Besides, those laws actually promote a specific religious belief and that is a violation of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment.

So, like I said, humans are the most sexual mammals on Earth. What should we do about it . . . besides enjoying it as much as we can? Well, I have three, and only three, logical, objective rules about sex. All sex can be good if you follow these three rules: 1) no unwanted pregnancies, 2) no sexually transmissible diseases, and 3) consensual adult sex only. And I add one caveat to those rules--The Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. That means no unnecessay roughness. That is about domination and control, not about the fantastic beauty and enjoyability of good sex.

These rules are easy to follow. But humans are irrational, illogical, emotional beings, not given to following logic when they can smell sex in the air. Sex is, as May West once said, "emotion in motion." Remember, sex should be enjoyable, and if you're doing it right it will be. And sex should not cause you to worry about pregnancy or disease, and if you think things through and are careful, you won't have to worry about that either.

So be careful, let logic guide you, then let emotion allow you to enjoy all the sex you can have, all the sex you want, whether it is self-sex or sex with other consenting adults. Don't be ashamed or embarrassed of what comes naturally to us as humans. Our sexuality is encoded in our very being.

Sunday, October 09, 2011

Sex and Sex Toys: How religious laws violate our rights

Anyone who has visited my site and done a bit of reading should know that I have a definition for what is an inalienable right: Any and all non-violent, non-coerced, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property and is not a direct and immediate threat to other people and their property; that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, is the right of all adults.

This definition applies, logically, to all sexual behavior. There is no legitimate power of a supposedly rights-protecting and secular government to prohibit and criminalize consensual adult sexual behavior, including the sales, gift, or use of sex toys.

My definition of a sex toy is any object or device designed and produced specifically to provide stimulation of the genitalia and sexual pleasure. (There are, of course, many objects in most homes that could be used as sex toys, but were not specifically designed for that purpose.)

Laws against sexual preferences, sexual practices, sex toys, and the like are actually religious laws and have no place in a secular government. However, the various legislatures of the various states who have sexual prohibition laws (for instance: Alabama, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia) hide behind the ruse of protecting public morals.

But wait! What if my moral precepts are not your moral precepts? And what if I am not violating the rights of any other person with my sexual behavior? Do you, through the government, have the legitimate right to prohibit my moral beliefs, at least to the extent of criminalizing my action--actions that I will be doing in private, either alone or with consenting adults, and which harms no one? (And don't give me any crap about "social harm." Alcohol causes a whole lot more "social harm" than me and my honey participating in something other than penile-vaginal sex or stimulating her doo-dah with a vibrator or dildo.)

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the government from passing laws that establish a religion. If my religion, my belief in what is proper moral behavior, allows me, for instance, to sell or use sex toys, and your religious beliefs are codified in the criminal law to stop me from selling or using sex toys, then that law has, in fact, established one religion over another.

The Ninth Amendment basically states that the ten amendments is not a list of all the rights of the people. But no where did anyone define what an inalienable right is (except for me, above), not even the Supreme Court. The reason, I believe, is because if they had then a whole lot of laws that violate the rights of otherwise peaceful, honest citizens would have to be repealed.

The Tenth Amendment states that the powers not given specifically to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. (Note, it didn't just say to the states. The people figure in here, too.) Remember, governments have powers, not rights. People have rights and powers. We have given some of our powers to the government, both federal and state, but I have never given to the government my power to determine my own personal moral code.

I own, or should own, the property of my body and my mind and I should be allowed to decide how I want to use that property, just so long as I do not violate or threaten to violate the rights of others.

The Fourteenth Amendment made the federal Bill or Rights applicable to the states. That is, the states are not supposed to pass rights-violating laws. The government, both state and federal, are supposed to protect our rights. All the laws against consenting adult sexual behavior are rights-violating laws. They are religious laws pure and simple.

Our nation was not founded as a pure democracy--for instance, two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There were some things, things we call inalienable rights, that were supposed to be beyond any vote by legislators or even the general public. Pure democracy leads to tyranny and the suppression of our rights.

The anti-sex laws regarding consenting adults are a form of religious tyranny and violate the rights of the those who do not go to that particular church or agreed with that particular religious dogma.

Besides, humans, whether through evolution or design, are the most sexual mammals on Earth. But that is an issue for another article.