Why Protect Existing Businesses from New Competition?

Small freedoms, I called it, two days ago.  Today, I was pleased to see an article in the Deseret News.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765583063/Weeding-out-unneeded-occupation-licenses-in-Utah.html?pg=2

I do think opening a business, and running a business should be considered a freedom, and government should only infringe on it when it is in the interest of the public. Much of the licensing should be done away with. Why, for example, do we need to license barbers? The article points out that often the licensing serves mostly to protect existing businesses, making it hard for competition to open shop.

Why would we, a nation of free enterprise, protect existing businesses from new businesses coming in to compete against them?

I posted in the past that the right to open a business could be considered a basic civil right, even a constitutional right. The Constitution ensures us the right to life, liberty and property. If a business is considered property, then we have the right to not be restricted from owning it simply because the competition does not want us around.

Don't Run from the Topic of Same-Sex Attraction

We might be letting go of this topic too quickly, not wanting to deal with it since there are things about it shaking what we have believed all our lives.

Now is not the time to let it go. If things challenge the way you have thought all your life, that is okay. I once came up with a saying, Truth does not run from knowledge, and think it applies here. Let's not shut down our learning on this topic. Let's pick it up.

If you are an honest seeker of truth, when something challenges your beliefs, you do not run from it, you learn from it. This is not to say you always change your position, but it is to say you give respect and consideration to the knowledge presented to you.

I'm speaking of same-sex relations, this time around. About a week ago, this post appeared on Josh Weed's personal blogsite:

http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html?spref=fb

Read it, if you will. If you do, I suggest you will come away thinking most favorably of Josh, and judging him to be a strong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since reading it, I have reflected on reports that same-sex church members are going to the temple, and serving in significant local church positions.

But, more, I have thought on whether same-sex attraction might be something that comes from birth. I do wish they will understand if I still do not believe it so. I am not yet persuaded it comes from birth. But, science is saying it is so. More convincing than that, perhaps, is that Josh Weed is saying it is so. I cannot read his blog without thinking of him as being an honest person, and one who is being honest on this issue.

I think the scriptures are very clear that same-sex relations are wrong. But, what if, despite this being true, some people are, indeed, born with same-sex attractions?

Would We Fought for Small Freedoms Such as This

Utah took it on the chin, if you will, in today's New York Times, coming in as the example of over government regulation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/so-you-think-you-can-be-a-hair-braider.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

A bill in the last legislature would have saved us from this embarrassment, but it failed. Of all the bills that were introduced, it seems this one should have been a slam dunk. It seems we would have been glad to exempt hair braiding from the cosmetology licensing law. In fact, it seems we would be quick to remove the licensing of cosmetology altogether. Utah is one of the toughest states in the nation to get a cosmetology license in? That's what I understand. It costs $16,000 in tuition to get the education required for a cosmetology license? Why do we allow this? Sometimes, it is not the large freedoms we need to fight for, but the small ones. Holly Richardson is gone from the Utah Legislature, but would that we would rally behind getting new legislation next year, bringing an end to cosmetology licensing altogether.

Sex-Selective Abortions Gaining National Attention

So, abortion is not only legal, but it is a constitutional right.

That puts it right up there with the right not to be discriminated against.

So, what should happen if someone were to get the notion that it should be illegal to discriminate in performing abortions based on the sex of the child? In other words, you can't abort a child just because it is either male or female.

That would pit constitutional right against civil right, wouldn't it?

And, someone did happen on this idea, and a congressman did introduce legislation to ban such abortions.

They call this type of abortion sex-selective abortion, and although it might not be overly common in the United States, it does occur. The idea is to allow parents to select the sex of the child, tossing out the unwanted sex until the favored one comes along.

The bill failed, but who knows but what the issue will be raised again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/us/politics/house-rejects-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortions.html?

I find it difficult to take a stand on this issue. I'm certainly against abortion, but this approach seems to suggest a simple law can trump a constitutional law. As long as Roe v. Wade stands, it carries with it the weight of the Constitution. I would rather see efforts against abortion seek to remove the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade.

Three Book of Mormon Prophecies of Christ

What think ye of Christ? There is much thinking of Christ that can come from the Book of Mormon. Among the great sermons on Christ, the great prophecies of Christ, are those in 1 Nephi 11, 2 Nephi 25, Alma 7. Taking just from those three messages, we learn:

1 Nephi 11. Prophets knew Christ would be born of a virgin who was living in Nazareth. And, there would be one who would come before the Redeemer, and who would baptize Him. And, the Lamb of God would heal the sick and afflicted of all manner of diseases and unclean spirits. And, the Son of the Everlasting Father would be judged of the world, and crucified by the people

2 Nephi 25. Prophets knew Christ would come among man in the flesh and would be rejected of men, who would crucify Him. And, He would lay in a sepulchre three days, and then rise from the dead, and all those who would believe on His name would be saved. We learn the were told when He would come (600 years from that time), and they were told what His name would be (Jesus Christ).

Alma 7. The time was not far distant that the Redeemer would come. This prophecy even gave us the name of His mother, Mary. And, the prophecy taught that He would suffer pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind. And, He would loosen the bands of death, and blot out the transgressions of the people. The prophecy also taught that the people must repent of their sins.

Only While Spouting Curses do We Give to America

We give to the Food Bank, to United Way, and to the poor in Haiti. We give to our church, and to the Boy Scouts. If the high school football team needs a donation, we donate. If Wikipedia wants money, we give it. If politicians come calling, sometimes we even donate to them.

But, our country? 

Only grudgingly to we give to our country, only while spouting curses.

Checks and Balances Don't Allow for Some of the Executive Decrees

Two days ago, I posted on how if immigration law allows those three sisters who faced deportation to remain for a year, then those who favor rule of law should be satisfied. After all, if it is rule of law they want, and this is within rule of law, then why not be happy?

I confess, though, to wondering whether the law does, indeed, allow for the three sisters to stay. If it doesn't, then I do not favor what happened. I wonder how the law is set up. Does it simply give ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) authority to deport, leaving it to the agency to come up with its own rules, exemptions and exceptions?

Or does the law say all people who overstay their visas will be deported, period?

The legislative branch should legislate, not the executive. I sometimes wonder if the Obama Administration operates too much by executive decree. I don't know that, but wonder, and wish I had time to look into it.

I don't know that Obama is any more at fault than past or aspiring presidents, though. Seems I remember hearing of Romney planning to curb Obamacare the day he takes office, returning the maximum power possible to the states.

Romney would do that by executive decree. I wonder how an act passed by Congress can be set aside, even in part, unless Congress or the Supreme Court is the power setting it aside.