Obviously, most of you reading this believe in some degree of greater personal freedom than is currently allowed by our government.  Having said that, your humble pollster wonders whether or not you allow your attitudes about this recreational activity to influence your decisions in the real world.

Do you seek out and support candidates who support greater personal liberty?

Have you ever lobbied for the repeal of laws criminalizing consensual activities between adults?

Do you oppose attempts to crack down on adult-oriented businesses?

On Independence Day, perhaps it would be good to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin (who, if he were alive today, I believe would have more reviews than Mayor Modprod!):

"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."  

Advocating repeal of laws or electing politicians that wish to repeal laws as a means to restoring personal liberty is ineffective.

For a liberty that a government “allows”, is a liberty a government can take away. We will not have a restoration of truly personal liberty until the abuse of power at all levels of government is checked.

The laws limiting our personal liberty can only be truly eliminated when they are overturned by the judicial branch. For that to happen, the “nothing that says we can’t” argument the legislative (and executive) branches present for justifying their actions must be checked by the judicial branch saying: “nothing that says you can”. Wasn’t that the founding fathers intent?

I don’t see that shift happening, do you? For a plethora of “programs” and “laws” would be repealed or challenged.

Every time we rely on government to “take care of us”; we lose more of the personal liberty you (and I) seek. It is not as obvious as a law precluding certain activities, it is more nefarious. For with our increasing reliance on government comes an increasing means to control us. How many times has a state been threatened by the federal government to “do what we want” or highway funds will be withheld?

So, we should not advocate the election of politicians that share our view of “right” and “wrong” on individual issues; we should advocate those politicians willing to fight against the government’s abuse of power and a restoration of the principles of limited government. A government whose powers are enumerated, and those powers not granted to the government are reserved for the people.

Today, I think we should be happy that we have some remaining freedom, but we should also mourn what our government has become.

Now, I think I’m going to call a lady and plan a visit. For today, that will be my own personal rebellion against the government.

I considered myself an 'activist' when I wrote my congressmen, attended rallies and protests and exercised my voice and my vote any chance I got.

Then I realized how ineffective it actually was.  The abuse of power is expertly smoke-screened so that it does appear that the majority is getting what they're asking for... good ol' democracy!  

9/11 happened and we 'asked' for tighter security.  We turned to the government for protection.  We can't accuse them of abusing power when we continuously hand it to them freely.

I would be considered a 'dissenter' to many.  I have many opinions and unanswered questions regarding the administration of this country.  I know others that feel the way I do, but have assumed that we're in the minority since our questions have gone unanswered and we also have yet to see any 'shift' from current leadership.

I'll happily be the poster-girl for a revolution... but I think there might be a few multi-billion dollar corporations to get through first.

Should we just set up a commune in Canada?  Who's with me?!

Your activism only goes so far, then votes take over.  Deal with it.  At least with this administration, I keep more of MY hard earned money to spend on the HOBBY I choose !!  Please go to Canada, I'll contribute !!

Woah... who's whining?

I admit in my post that I must be in the minority.  Since I do vote... and I deal with the outcome.  But it doesn't mean I have to like all the changes that have been brought.

There are pros and cons to every administration.  Unfortunately all of America doesn't share the same priorities.  Single moms lobby for health care and child care reform.  Middle-class, two-income families lobby for tax reform.  Perhaps instead of popping off with my own opinions (which are going to be biased based on my own personal circumstances) in response to the prior post, I should have just stuck with the questions at hand.
Do you seek out and support candidates who support greater personal liberty?
Yes.  I research political platforms for views on everything from gay marriage to adult-oriented clubs and businesses.

Have you ever lobbied for the repeal of laws criminalizing consensual activities between adults?
Yes.  I’ve voted, rallied, written, stood-in, and contributed financially to organizations seeking to repeal and amend laws involving consensual adults.

Do you oppose attempts to crack down on adult-oriented businesses?
Yes.  I applaud the entrepreneurs that are still alive and well in the Valley and mourn the loss of institutions like Club Chameleon.  I would like to see tax dollars better spent cracking down on ‘crime’ rather than infringing on the rights and freedom of expression among adults.


I’m certainly glad you get to keep more of your hard-earned money to spend on the hobby you choose.   I’d be lying if I said that girls like me don’t benefit from it.  But I wonder how differently things would have gone down if Clinton had paid Monica.  We can smile and say things are groovy, but that doesn’t make it so.  We’ve still got reason to look over our shoulders from time to time... that's all I meant.

You are VERY right on! Don't listen people like to the "Whiner" - he keeps more of his "hard earned money" with the current dumb-ass in office??! What a joke! In energy costs alone most people are have less money (unless they're in the top 1.5% income earners) throw in skyrocketing healthcare from his payback to big drug companies, out of control deficit spending, and that little skirmish in IRAQ!! It has cost WAY more than advertised - the tab grows by $200 million every day, it'll surpass ONE TRILLION DOLLARS very soon. The average American got a $400-$600 tax cut - do the math: the drunken frat-boy cheerleader has cost EVERY American man, woman and child 40 times that on the war ALONE (gee - last time I checked, Canadians aren't paying that much). Forget the fact moron-in-chief couldn't find his ass with 5 maps, a pair of binoculars and a GPS system. We're SO much safer and have SO much more money. Sorry for the rant - just thought you should remeber we "dissenters" are in the majority... Bushies (the last 24%) support the least popular president since Nixon.

I was not deriding any administration, but rather that the institutions have loss sight of the limits of power.

Even if we, collectively, were able to find a candidate that advocated repeal of consensual sex laws – as “allowing” us more liberty; with the next election it could all be undone. If liberty is controlled by the whims of an elected official (or set of), then it is not liberty or freedom. Ever wonder why a driving license is described as a privilege and not a right? Because a driving license can be revoked. If driving were a right, it cannot be revoked.

The more fundamental question I was talking about is: what authority does the legislature have for even enacting these laws? Both parties enter into the engagement willingly and of free will, so there is no victim. Is there a public health argument (that has been substantiated)? No, these laws are based on morality – in which case I suggest they have no constitutional backing. I admit that my argument may be weak, and that we are just paying the price of “will of the majority”.

My reference to the government “taking care of us” as a means to further control us was not limited to overt (or even covert) intrusions into our privacy. No, as we become more dependent on government for “services” the power to control our lives by threatening to withhold those services grows.

For example, there is a government backed loan program for college education. If a condition of accepting a loan was mandatory military service once you’ve graduated, would that not be controlling our lives via the threat of withholding that “service”? What if the condition was mandatory volunteer service? (yah, “mandatory volunteer” is an oxymoron). Or that your major could not be liberal arts or political science or anything else the government didn’t feel was in its best interest or that of the "community".

A Patriot