Extreme Concepts Worth Considering for the Benefit of the Individual

 Chuck Marshall's Humble Opinion on Freeing the Mind of Humanity 

By Charles Eldridge Marshall 

     Dear readers-  I'm often frustrated by the lack of action or effectiveness of the government regarding defense of individual rights and effective governing.  There are all kinds of concepts that have been tried to "help" situations for groups but they never work because they're watered down by herd mentality and the never- ending political circus between the "right" and the "left".  

Truth be told,  if we want results then we need bold action to enable the individual to succeed, not any particular group.  If life is good for all individuals, then it's good for us all, right ?  

For example;

Controlled Gun Control  -  Instead of "controlling" guns, they should be legislated only as far as who gets them- restricting persons with a tendency towards violence, insanity, lack of intelligence to learn to handle them.  To truly control guns they should be provided to ALL people that want one and all people that want one should be educated in their handling.  The goal is that only intelligent, capable people are carrying guns and those with a tendency to mishandle them would not carry them.  The results would be far fewer lunatic shooting binges since he (probably a he) would think twice to take out grocery store or a school.  In addition,  I would think violent crime would take a "nose-dive" because  the potential victim would be more likely capable of defending themselves, regardless of their gender.  How could a potential rapist or thief know if his victim  knows how to handle a gun ?  If it's likely she can, he's not going to try.  

No more bricks and mortar Schools   The petri dishes for our children known as "Public schools" are a complete failure and have lead to mostly incapable population of adults that don't know basic history or practical understanding of finance or many adult necessities of modern life.  They  lead frustrating lives working at jobs they hate and/or are not appropriate for them.  They vote for incompetent and incapable politicians because they never learned what to look for in leadership other than the vitriol you see in today's MSM. Get rid of the cattle boxes and enable children to learn from home or in a virtual school environment.  This would be massively less expensive and you could have the best teachers instructing a much higher number of students all at once.  Kids that need the extra attention could get it in "question and answer sessions" with "virtual questions" and the brats that disrupt the setting of the virtual room would be simply muted by the teacher/monitor.  No more expensive buses and greenhouse emissions from them which I'm sure is massive on a daily basis.  No more school clothes to reveal a social background at early ages.  No more sexual signals lurking beneath tight fitting clothes amidst all the hormones of the creatures known as "teenagers".  Just learning.  

Government Assistance for all.... with one "catch" -  I think the government should be there to help people who are down on their luck and/or need an avenue to gain independence through self sufficiency.  The problem is certain political groups have gotten very good at promising all kinds of things to specific groups of people and their enablers (enablers- well meaning liberal minded citizens that want to help the downtrodden but lack the energy or interest to actually DO anything about it other than vote.)  I think this assistance should be there for food, shelter, and medical care through government subsidies and tax breaks.  Even welfare has its purpose in certain extreme circumstances.  Tuition or tuition debt relief ?  No problem !  But there is  a catch to this government assistance.  If you take government assistance you CANNOT vote while you're taking that government assistance.  It's obvious those who want or need government assistance would be very motivated to continue voting for the politician that promises more "goodies" to them.  Remove that possibility altogether.  This would have the additional advantage of motivating them to get back to being contributors to society and participants in the democratic process.  The individual need no longer feel the frustration of supporting people who don't want to work but then get a say in leadership that will enable this laziness.  

Of course there are details to be worked out., but this seems a good foundation for establishing an avenue to happiness for all while protecting the rights of the individual.  

In My Humble Opinion.  

Comments welcome !  

Follow me on X

Follow Me On Facebook

Gary Johnson For President

By Chuck Marshall

     As I'm sure most of you know,  like the name of this blog indicates, I am a political moderate.  That does not mean I'm boring.   I would safely say the same for Gary Johnson.  The man has quite a life experience including climbing Mt. Everest,  and his even temper and tenacity make him an excellent choice for President.  His Libertarian ideas of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism bring him in synch with  most Americans way of thinking.  I believe his balanced approach to governing and his ability to bring the two political parties together to get things done make him the only logical choice this year.

I wrote a letter to the Orlando Sentinel today griping about the lack of media coverage for Gary., so as part of my endorsement I am including what I said to them.   This has been stirring in me for months, but I've been so busy criticizing the other two candidates I didn't do my homework and clarify why I prefer Gary Johnson.  That's "my bad" for sure., and shame on me for piling on the existing candidates.  But, part of  my reluctance has been that it just seems so hopeless for him, but it suddenly occurred to me that's always been the case with new ideas.   There is hope, and hope is a lot better than criticism, doubt, and divisiveness.    

My letter reads;

Over and over again in this election and in all elections we are served two dishes, the Republican dish and the Democratic dish.   The media, both print and cable continue to box us all in to the same old way of thinking.   Your endorsement last week and your  "letters to the editor" column that you had today was all about the two main candidates as if there is no other choice this year.  There is another person on the ballot named Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. I know he's not "polling well" but he IS another choice.  He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal which means he is a "moderate" to either party choice.   He speaks in full sentences.  He's not a product of our dysfunctional, corrupt and bloated federal government.   He served as governor of New Mexico for 8 years, so he has the exact experience to be a chief executive, unlike the other two candidates.   People say "he can't win", but the reason he "can't win" is nobody pays attention to what he says unless it's a mistake.  I've watched him in interviews and he's intelligent and fully capable.   His ideas are logical and would help steer our country to finally shake off the tyranny that is the dominant two-party political system.  Best of all, he's neither of the other two candidates.  So you see,  there is a choice, "none of the above" would be Gary Johnson.  

I will note/edit this blog if they do print the above letter.

Role of Government...... to Enforce Manners ?

By Chuck Marshall

Miss Manners

     The title of this blog "Marshall in the Middle"  implies  my belief in a more moderate political angle (and a moderate approach to many things in life, but that's another topic).   I usually see both sides of issues and I feel I usually understand "why" the right or left feels and act as they do.  That being said, I do tend to have ideas that I think are much more pragmatic than other people which leans my core ideas of what the government should and should not be doing towards the right.   I just feel things usually work better without the government involved in the challenging issues of the day.   Case in point;  the responsibilities of the courts to uphold "fairness" in business activities.   Much of this spins from all the recent controversy involved in the state laws  that seem to allow a business to refuse service to a homosexual citizen.   

     If I ran a business, such as restaurant, I would welcome anyone who came in- as long as they behave themselves, are respectful of other customers, and they pay their bill.  To me, this is just good manners and the right thing to do (and - as luck would have it- is congruent to my morals as an active Christian man).  Does that mean everybody else in the world needs to judge "proper" behavior the same way as I do ?  Of course not !  That's why we have different businesses and we should all be free to go where we're comfortable.   If  I, a heterosexual white man, went to a business run by a gay man and they refused me service because I was straight I would be very insulted and outraged, however I'm not sure that's the government's problem.  Why do I need the government to fix the narrow mindedness and insulting habits of this one situation?   Word of mouth and my not returning to the business would hurt them and eventually they would probably go out of business anyway.  The problem solves itself.  

     This is not to say that government involvement has never been necessary.  In the south of 50 years ago a black person could not sit at the lunch counter of a Walgreens drugstore or even enter certain businesses.    That was an off-shoot of great bigotry and the horrific slave owning history of the south.  That situation required government action at that point in time, but as is often the case,  I'm not sure  laws enforcing business to allow everyone into their establishment are still necessary. Wouldn't word of  mouth from a bigoted business eventually sink them today?  Bad manners are bad manners and they will eventually cause the failure of the narrow minded, bigoted business.  

     In public places the law of the land should be to shield anyone from being refused access.  This includes corporations, ie  publicly traded companies (Walgreens, McDonalds, etc...) because by their very name they are a part of the public realm and all existing laws are warranted.  But do all "private" businesses have to be legislated and ordered to allow and serve customers they don't want ?   Isn't it their right to have bad manners and suffer the consequences that come with that?  The left always sees the government as the answer to a problem.,, but I seriously do not think that laws can make us all be  nice to each other.   Manners just as many other issues in life are better left to each citizen to decide.  Much of all this reminds me of George Orwell's novel "1984" where the government had such control over people that you couldn't even "think" things that were contrary to government edicts.  I sincerely care about all people and do my best to be fair in all situations but I can't agree with people who believe the government should be "fixing" us of our "bad thoughts".   Leave people alone and let them make their own mistakes.  Government action rarely is necessary to "fix" bad thoughts.  Hateful, bigoted, angry thoughts usually circle back around to fix the "thinker" as a natural consequence and often serves to teach the "thinker" a lesson or two. Such is the way of the Universe not Washington, DC.  The government brings conflict and lawsuits, and angry citizens and simmers distrust and dislike between people because it is simply not effective at controlling human behavior. Controlling private businesses in such a manner is not, in my humble opinion, the role of the government.