Letters to the editor on libertarianism, family law, racism
08/12/2013 12:00 AM
08/09/2013 6:14 PM
Rise of information aids libertarianism
“Libertarian views on rise” (Aug. 5 Eagle) was one of the most thorough and balanced articles I’ve seen on the subject, but it failed to explain a vital origin: increased access to information.
Before the printing press allowed for the mass production of Bibles, churches would chain their valuable hand-copied editions to the altar to prevent theft. While the intent was not to keep laymen ignorant of the entirety of the Bible’s contents, that was the ultimate result. There had been dissenters in the church before, but by the time Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, the printing press had spread throughout Western Europe, allowing for the early Protestants to propagate their ideas to a mass audience that had never before heard dissent.
Today the masses are armed with technology far more powerful than a printing press. The Internet allows us to access the entire world’s knowledge from a device in our pocket, to share our views with people we’ve never met, to leak government secrets where all can see.
People are inherently different; therefore, easier access to information will heighten philosophical divides. Institutions, though, need homogeneity for power – which is why libertarianism will grow stronger.
Voices not heard
I recently witnessed a case presented to a family law judge who renders decisions on issues such as parental rights. I walked away realizing that the family law legal system is designed only to serve the rich. If people are poor and cannot afford legal representation, their voices will not be heard.
Citizens are allowed to file pro se motions, but the likelihood of the motion being filed correctly is slim. That also has a negative impact on the outcome. Individuals who can afford legal representation will be heard through their attorneys, and the likelihood of the judge rendering a decision in their favor is almost guaranteed. The judge does not require proof from a testifying case manager or the lawyer representing the wealthy. What the case manager and lawyer say is considered factual, and they do not have to provide evidence to support their statements.
When deciding parental issues, there simply has to be a better system for financially struggling people who cannot afford legal counsel.
I wonder how many loving parents have lost their children based upon their inability to afford case management services or legal representation when appearing before a judge.
Congratulations to Davis Merritt on his commentary “GOP voters can change the gridlock narrative” (Aug. 6 Opinion). It was brilliant the way he used Bloomberg News as a creditable source to frame the special group of 41 GOP rebels who are not in lockstep with GOP leadership. This allowed him to proceed to tell us just how “special in other ways” they are.
Merritt reported that 39 of the group are white males, and more than half are from Southern states. They were elected by an average 65 percent of the votes in their districts, and President Obama lost all 41 districts. By traditional measurements, they are returning to “safe” districts for their congressional summer vacation. When they return home to their gerrymandered districts, it will be to a hero’s welcome from other kindred souls, Merritt suggested. While at home, they will attend meetings at civic clubs, churches and other groups that sent them to Congress in the first place.
Merritt insinuated, without saying the word, that these GOP representatives, their constituents and civic clubs and churches are all racist. Painting people and groups in a negative way is what liberals and progressives do when they cannot debate the issue.
I grew up in the 1940s and ’50s in Kentucky, and the elected officials at every level of government were almost all Democrats. So the only racists I knew were Democrats.
Join the Discussion
The Wichita Eagle is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.