post

Get your copy of Laura Carno’s new book Government Ruins Nearly Everything

Ruins-no-border(1)
Get your copy of Laura Carno’s new book Government Ruins Nearly Everything
Available on Amazon.com
post

Wondering what my new book is about? Wonder no more!

Government Ruins Nearly Everything

Visit Laura’s website: LauraCarno.com

We are in the final stretch! My new book, Government Ruins Nearly Everything, is due out March 30, 2016. It will be available on Amazon.com and I will send the pre-order link to my email list, and post it on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn as soon as it’s available. If you are not yet on my email list, I’d be honored to have you as a part of it. You can sign up right here.

What is Government Ruins Nearly Everything about? Does the subtitle Reclaiming Social Issues From Uncivil Servants give you an idea?

We all know that the government isn’t good at much of anything. Sure, it put a man on the moon, but can you name two things government has done right? Can you name ten things it has done right? Most of us have a lot of difficulty getting past one or two government accomplishments.

Why, then, do we turn to the government to solve our problems —especially the most important problems in America?

In Government Ruins Nearly Everything, I detail why government can’t solve big problems and why individuals like you and me are better equipped to develop workable solutions. There are individuals and organizations —today— improving problems outside of government and the political process. I tell their stories in this book.

Just what are these big problems that government can’t fix but we can? In Government Ruins Nearly Everything, I write about 4 issues that cause the most “fireworks” in the political process: Abortion, Schools, Guns and Marriage.

One side of the aisle wants government out of abortion and marriage, but wants government to fix failing schools and reduce gun violence. The other side of the aisle wants government out of schools and guns, but wants government to reduce abortions and strengthen marriage.

For most voters, one or more of these issues is very important to them. But if we know government can’t solve our problems —especially those most important to us— why do we keep expecting that they can? And how can we, outside of government and the political process, have a positive impact on those issues most important to us?

Government Ruins Nearly Everything answers these questions.

I hope this has piqued your interest! I am excited for these ideas to become part of the political conversation.

Visit Laura’s website: LauraCarno.com

post

The Government Cannot Compel Speech

March 24, 2015
By Laura Carno

The Government Cannot Compel Speech

ConservAFA-185x117atives and civil libertarians were up in arms last year over the case of the bakery that was required by law to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. The baker didn’t want to bake the cake as same-sex marriages were against his religious values.

This was largely debated as a religious liberty issue, and there is certainly a case to be made for that. There is also my preferred argument that it isn’t the government’s job to tell anyone how to run their business, or what products they must sell, and to whom.

The government should not be able to compel speech. The government compelling speech is as wrong as the government prohibiting speech. It’s not the government’s job to tell us what we must or must not say.

It is this same principle that applies to a story about four US Congressmen who are sponsoring a bill that would require cadets at the Air Force Academy to say, “So help me God” as part of their annual oath. My own Congressman, Doug Lamborn, is one of the four.

Rep. Sam Johnson from Texas is the bill’s prime sponsor. He said the bill, called the Preserve and Protect God in Military Oaths Act of 2015, would protect the religious freedom of American troops. Fair enough. It is currently an optional part of the oath, and cadets may say it.

But why try to compel those cadets who are not religious to say, “So help me God?” Why is it acceptable to compel this speech, when it’s not acceptable to compel the speech of the baker? And for those who were in favor of requiring the baker to bake the cake, but are against this “So help me God” bill, that is not philosophically consistent either.

Both sides need to check their premises. The government either can tell us what to say or they cannot tell us what to say. You can’t have it both ways.

See the original post here.