Liberty Lobby

Government Grants?

2007-03-08T17:17:00.000-05:00

When I glanced at my blog today I noticed that the advertisement said "Free Government Grants". I considered, in that moment, emailing Google to complain about the obvious disassociation from the nature of my content. Instead, I think I'll educate my readers (if there are any) on the reason I disagree with government grants. That's right, I don't want those people who want to start businesses getting grants from the U. S. Government.

First, however, I think it is appropriate to analyze loans as a whole. Loans, by nature, permit someone to borrow money they don't have but need or want. In exchange, the person recieving the money has to pay it back within a specified time period with interest (extra money for the person they borrowed it from based on how long before they paid it back). Loans are extremely easy to obtain for any individuals because that is how banks make money and banks need lots of money to cover the interest they pay their patrons. Isn't that a cool little system? All that started without any government intervention.

Now, grants are also given out by the free market. Don't believe me? Do a scholarship search on google. There are millions of scholarships in existence for college students, and many more grants and charitable organizations that pay cash. Grants, by definition, are money that is given out freely with no need to pay it back, and no interest.

Now what about those Federal Government Grants. Millions of these exist also. In fact, so many of these exist that the .gov websites don't even contain information on every one. But the free market does. As it should be obvious from that little web ad, somebody has collected a list and detailed information about every Federal Government Grant in existence. He then charges you a fee to use his search service and find a government grant that fits you, so that you can get this "money that is given out freely with no need to pay it back, and no interest". Sounds like a nice system right? WRONG!

In order to understand where I'm coming from, we have to return to our old lessons. First, where does the government get its money? From taxation. Who gets taxed? Everyone not in the U. S. Government (ironically enough). So the government gets its money from you. These grants come from you, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. Heck, the government cares so little about getting your permission that you have to pay guys like the above ad just to see a few of the ones that are out there! We went over the separation of charities before. Here's an example of government charity. There are literally millions of charities in the U. S. Do we really need to add the federal government to that list? (don't let me forget to discuss dispersement of charitable funds, the major argument for Federal charity)

So, quite frankly, these grants are Theft. Moreover, if you remember from our much earlier lessons, they are not listed in the U. S. Constitution and are, therefore, breaking our social contract. Anyhow, I was just a little flustered by that. I bet this post will incite more government grant ads, and people searching for information on government grants might read it and learn a little. But that might be wishful thinking.

Sincerely,
Ted

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'Rourke

I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights. – Abraham Lincoln

Discrimination Laws Discriminate?

2007-02-22T16:44:00.000-05:00

For a while I thought I was moving at a reasonable pace, but it is occuring to me that what we have gone over so far is so extremely basic that we still haven't really gotten anywhere yet. So, we understand government theft. We understand how welfare recipients are associated with that, but we have not established an essential immorality of the people, simply of the system. Why? Because people are not inherrently immoral.

Today, I think it would be good to analyze discrimination, that terrible word. I suppose a definition is relevant, since so many people misuse the term. Until modern verbiage changed the term (much more recently than you think) it meant:

discriminate - to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately

So discrimination is something you do every day. You pick out your car in a parking lot. You are discriminating right now at the difference between this word and the next. Quite simply, to discriminate is only the act of observation, not of action. Now, the word has recently been noted to mean:

discriminate - to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality

Thus, discrimination has come to mean an action, specifically, treating someone different based on the observation made. This is because of politics, but I'm not going to get into that right now. Instead, we understand that there can't be anything wrong with noticing that there is a difference in skin color between two people, let's analyze whether or not there is something wrong with treating them differently based on that observation.

In the formally ethical sense, ABSOLUTELY NOT. In my personal opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Even the law currently says ABSOLUTELY NOT. I'd bet that most of you feel exactly the same way. But how would a government legislate such actions? It seems very difficult to monitor the observations people make without a camera in their heads. So what does the government do to stop people from making decisions based on observations?

There are thousands of ways that politicians have found. Among the most popular of which are "wrongful termination" and "affirmative action". The direct result of these has not, however, been the elimination of discrimination, but the expansion of it. Let me reiterate:

Discrimination laws increase, not decrease, discrimination.

That doesn't make sense? Of course it does. In order to identify what people are thinking, the government must first discriminate (observation) which people are in which categories. Then, it must discriminate (treat differently) and tell their employers either to hire them or not, based on solely the color of their skin. However, it goes much deeper than that. Discriminating practices on the part of the government have increased the discrimination involved in employment. Employers, afraid of government interaction, discriminate on their own and avoid not hiring, or firing employees who are of specific characteristics lain out by the government. At the moment, I'll leave the specifics on those characteristics for another post because that discussion will be lengthy.

In any case, the major thing to take away from this post is that discrimination laws do not minimize discrimination,but necessarily maximize it.

Sincerely,
Ted

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. – Henry George

How do you view God?

2007-02-08T17:24:00.000-05:00

What is it that people around me think about our creator. I've noticed that it's not what's on the surface. Most religions claim a loving, caring God. This is the God I believe in. What, I ask do you believe in? Now, hold on, don't answer yet. I've got more to study first.

When you see someone on the street, apparently homeless, and looking all-and-all down on his luck, what do you think? Me, personally, I think that he needs to get a job. But hey, I'm not always a nice guy. Does that mean I wouldn't give him money? Not necessarily, but it does mean that I will be handing him a business card and inviting him to apply for a job where I work. What do you think? How tragic? Hardly.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbegprofit.html
Beggars make more money than I do! And it'ts all tax free! These people make more than enough on the street to find reasonable clothing, get a job and a basic apartment.

So what do you think when you see that someone's house was destroyed by a hurricane on the news? This is obviously more close to home here in the states with Florida and Louisiana lately. A lot of people think "that's so sad! Somebody should do something" and they choose to do nothing themselves. They are "too busy" or "can't afford" or something to help. Is that how things go with you? Do you get depressed when you see that? I think that they should move and shouldn't be living on a coastline in the first place.

What do you think when you see thieves entering your house? It seems the rationale changes here. Often people get upset, or even angry at this. Most of the time there is a risk that someone (homeowner or thief) will be shot as a result of such an incident. I know that I get angry, but I also understand that he is just another form of that beggar we saw above.

If you responded to the above much like everyone else does, then you might want to pause to think about what that means about your God. If those people that are disheveled are there by a stroke of bad luck, then your God is not just. If those people who's houses are destroyed because they live on a fault line need federal aid, then your God is not merciful. If your God is not just or merciful, he is not loving and caring, but cruel. The God that punishes those who are undeserving is not a God at all, but Satan himself. God is just and loving, so God gives people lemons from time to time to return to them the sense of humble acknowledgement that we all need to remember. If that thief deserves a bullet in his leg and not the money in his pocket, why do these others who recieve money that is stolen by force (welfare and FEMA in this case) deserve anything less? Think about how you really view your deity.

Sincerely,
Ted

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. – Tacitus

How do you make people do stuff?

2007-01-25T17:38:00.000-05:00

The desire to help others is a major part of everyone's concept of morality. I support anyone who would like to see wonderful things done in society. People often say things to me like "I want to protect the environment" and I smile in agreement. I want to help the environment like everyone else. I want to see other people help the environment, just like you do. The environment is one of my favorite reasons that people argue a need for government intervention. "Look at those poor kittens being killed in China!" Yes, it is disgusting.

In fact, I agree with every one of you in almost every way you want to help others. I don't have a desire to cause others anguish. Quite the opposite. The reason I espouse Libertarian philosophy is because I don't want to see others in anguish. The simple fact of the matter is that there are two ways to convince people to stop doing things they shouldn't be or start doing things they should. The question I present to you all today is "which one do you support?".

What are these two ways? Let's see, hypotheticals are fun for this. Let's say you want a friend to be your designated driver this evening. Often, you appeal to them on their emotional level "PLEASE!!!" but this isn't always effective, especially if you don't know them very well. The easiest way to convince them is to offer them money. "I'll fill up your tank!" This is the first way to convince someone to do something they don't want to do.

The second scenario involves someone attempting to rob you. When a man comes up to you in a mask asking for your money, what does he use to persuade you? He uses fear, through the initiation of force. He will hit you, point a gun at you, or hold a knife to your throat. This is the second way to convince someone to do something they have no desire to do.

There are no other ways to convince someone to do something they do not want to do. There is offering them value (money) and threatening force.

So, the question I leave with you all today is, "Which do you support?"

Sincerely,
Ted

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. – George Washington

Government Mandated Charity

2006-08-30T08:01:00.000-04:00

So I promised a deeper study of charity. Since it's been a while, I suppose I kind of owe you. We're going to look at charity in the form of welfare. Well, let's stop for a second. That's a funny word, welfare, because of where it comes from. The word "welfare" originally had nothing to do with charity. In fact, the definition is essentially the equivalent of that of well-being. A parent would provide for his/her family's welfare. Providing for their well-being, not their charity. The term welfare is used for the government charity in the US because of its association with a clause in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

In fact, by using this term in this manner, many people have come to think it reversed. They believe the term as it is written in the Constitution is a direct advocation of government charity, as opposed to the term being used afterward to refer to charity. If you read the clause without the charity mind-set surrounding it, it takes on a different tone. Try it, trade well-being for welfare in the sentence.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general well-being of the United States

In fact, the whole of Section 8 is rather extensive. This is not it's entirity. It is only the opening clause. There are 17 other clauses, or sub-clauses, following it, not including the second half of the clause that I have omitted for our purposes.

Now that we have clarified the proper reading of this particular clause, we see no specific mention of charity anywhere in the Constitution. Now, whether there is an implied mention of it somewhere is a debate we'll set aside for a time. It is, largely irrelavent. No specific mention of charity exists in the Constitution, so the government's choice to give out charity, if not downright unconstitutional, is not mandated.

So, let's analyze the logic behind government charity. First, this is your money. It is not the government's money. This is something that needs to be perfectly clear to begin with, because it is so often forgotten. Government cannot give money it doesn't have. Instead, it takes tax dollars and gives them out as charity. So, this is your money, your neighbor's money, my money, and everyone else in the country. Unlike money you donate to the Red Cross, these are not voluntary contributions. If you don't pay your taxes, you will be arrested and jailed...after all of your things are confiscated to "pay back taxes".

So, let's examine how the government decides to give out this money. Well, this could take months (on this blog at least) to fully examine. You can get all the details at government websites though. The basics are "need-based". The government gives money to those who don't have it, or at least, those who the government thinks don't have it.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/about_us/fraud_stats.htm

"between 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2005[...] There were 3446 convictions for welfare fraud involving $41.2 million in debts."

So, now we know that the government also does a bad job at it. The government is "trying" though. Isn't that the point? Wait, the government doesn't have to try! We've been over this. There is no mandate for charity in the Constitution. Therefore, the government could stop taking my money and giving it to the wrong people and not be doing anything wrong! On that note, I think we'll leave this topic for now. This can continue to expand, so I will come back to it. Anywho, next tiime we'll try and close up something else and get us moving in a new direction.

Sincerely,
Ted

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money – if a gun is held to his head. – P.J. O'Rourke

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

Religious Quiz

2006-08-12T02:35:00.000-04:00

I haven't had a whole lot of free time (ok, I've had next to none) lately so I figured I'd drop something a little different this time. Bravo to whomever created this quiz. It's impressively accurate. Rare for religious quizes. Yes, this is my religion of choice, and contrary to popular belief regarding Libertarians and Capitalists, I am a DEEPLY religious person. It is because I am so deeply religious that I stand so firmly behind the principles of Liberty in my everyday life. I think everyone would benefit from a little religion now and then.

You scored as Buddhism. Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Buddhism. Do more research on Buddhism and possibly consider becoming Buddhist, if you are not already.

In Buddhism, there are Four Noble Truths: (1) Life is suffering. (2) All suffering is caused by ignorance of the nature of reality and the craving, attachment, and grasping that result from such ignorance. (3) Suffering can be ended by overcoming ignorance and attachment. (4) The path to the suppression of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right-mindedness, and right contemplation. These eight are usually divided into three categories that base the Buddhist faith: morality, wisdom, and samadhi, or concentration. In Buddhism, there is no hierarchy, nor caste system; the Buddha taught that one's spiritual worth is not based on birth.

Buddhism

96%

Hinduism

79%

Paganism

67%

Islam

63%

Christianity

63%

Satanism

58%

Judaism

38%

agnosticism

21%

atheism

17%

Which religion is the right one for you? (new version)
created with QuizFarm.com

An analysis of Money

2006-06-25T14:54:00.000-04:00

Giving money out freely is, more or less, the American way today. We, who are more prosperous than most, find ourselves obligated to give money to those in need. Organizations like the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, thrift stores, and many others have been built around this concept of charity. In fact, many for-profit organizations have found that they have to give to charity to keep themselves looking positive in the public eye. So let's do some analysis of this.

In 2005, Americans gave a total of 260.28 BILLION DOLLARS in charity contributions. In fact, this is not unusual. There was no boost from Katrina despite all its news, instead it just was a beneficiary. Americans are very generous, and I have more proof. Within just 1 month of September 11th, Americans gave, to New York alone, over 1 BILLION dollars. These are massive charitable contributions, even when today we have over 8.4 TRILLION dollars in national debt.

It's interesting to me that people look at these numbers and can even concieve of them as "small". Therefore, the rest of this post is to explain the actual amount of money that we are dealing with. Let's start with 1 billion dollars. This is more money than most of you will ever see in your life. Let's look at it more detailed. The vast majority of this country will not make this amount of money if you put together every dollar they've made in their entire lives. In fact, if you take 500 people's lives, odds are they're combined total income from birth to death will not equal 1 billion dollars. That's considering the increased income of today.

What about that $260.28 billion? Well, now that you understand the $1 billion, let's try and concieve of the above, which is just one single year's contribution total. Let's look at it in more reasonable numbers. Let's assume that a family of 4 buys about $100 per week in groceries. In this case, 1 million families could be fed for over 50 years. That's feeding the entire population of the Kentucky for half of a century, and having food left over!!! That's a LOT of money!

Now that 8.4 trillion is my favorite of the numbers, because the US government has been trying like crazy to talk it down and find ways to make it sound smaller. Note, first, that this is only the actual debt. This is not how much we owe, but how much we owe to other countries after calling in ALL debts owed to us. This doesn't include how much is owed internally for purchasing things like military technology from companies like Lockheed Martin, or how much is owed assuming we don't call in debts from other countries (who may or may not be able to pay those debts). What's so fantastic about this number is that most Americans have no idea how big this number is. So let's try to view things from a more effective perspective.

First, to help analyze this, consider this. If you were to try to count to 8.4 trillion, you would die first. In fact, you would die several times over first. It is so massive that it is hard to percieve, so let's try to examine it differently. Let's try something everyone can understand, houses. Let's assume that the average house costs $100,000. Now, this is somewhat of a low number, but it's close enough for our studies. So, let's divide this debt into houses. That's 84,000,000 houses, 84 million! Ok, so a million's a big number too and that still may not quite be clear. So let's clarify it further. Assuming 1 person per house (Yeah RIGHT!!) if we were to pay off that debt tomorrow, we would make 84 million people homeless, or about 1/3 of the ENTIRE population of the US. That's right, and consider that I'm lowballing here! In order to pay off that national debt (again just the excess export debt) we would have to make 1/3 of the entire US population homeless.

Next time we'll study charity from a different angle.

Sincerely,
Ted

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'Rourke

OK Cupid Political test...

2006-06-05T02:08:00.000-04:00

You are a
Social Liberal
(80% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(95% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Libertarian

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Costs of Big Government

2006-05-11T19:41:00.000-04:00

Now, let's analyze those costs. The government has been largely successful at a lot of things it does, so lets see if those successes are worth it.

The Federal Reserve's choice to print money has helped us avoid recessions. The result, however, has been that the value of each dollar has significantly decreased. This is why you can no longer go buy a turkey for 30 cents for thanksgiving, but now you pay upwards of $15. Inflation is a very real issue in America today.

The US government's decision to support Israel has been successful. One thing I didn't mention was that the US government also CREATED Israel. Essentially, we chopped up the surrounding countries and stuck it in the middle. It is located in the middle east, surrounded by middle eastern countries. Strangely, now, those countries support the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. The cost of life has been largely ignored by the US government who continues to support Israel today. Also, this is not the only cost. Moreover, these major oil-producing countries formed an alliance (OPEC) that has drastically raised the cost of oil, and therefore gas, to what it is today.

Now, what about the government's alternative fuel. With oil running over $70 per barrel today, surely this alternative fuel from coal will be useful. This is, sadly, not the case. The liquified coal, when it was originally created, ran $8000 per barrel to produce. It is still a long way from being worth the money to produce and distribute.

Finally, let us analyze sin taxes and subsidies (taxpayer dollars to support struggling businesses). These two are best when combined because we don't have to get too confusing and detailed.

Primarily, subsidies have protected farmers (primarily family farms) from dying out when their product is less wanted, and sin taxes have discouraged the use of tobacco and alcohol. Now, there are other unwanted effects, but lets examine this on these sole, successful grounds.

The unfortunate result has been that the government's excess taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, force tobacco and hops farmers near bankruptcy, so it takes our tax dollars and uses them to bail the farmers out. So, you and I end up paying for them to produce a product that isn't selling. I hope that's enough prove that politicians seem to miss the cost every time.

This ignorance of "unforseen" costs is ignored by politicians who still support these programs today. The government has chosen to ignore the solution and recreate one through its own beaurocracy which results in further unforseen, unwanted, costs. Essentially, the government does more than it should. How much should it do? We'll get to that soon.

If this isn't enough, and you want more on unforseen costs (or anything you don't understand) just drop a comment or email and I will do my best.

Sincerely,
Ted

As you increase the cost of the license to practice medicine, you
increase the price at which the medical service must be sold and you
correspondingly decrease the number of people who can afford to buy the
service. – William Pusey, then president of the American Medical Association

When more of the people's sustenance is exacted through the form of
taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government
and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes
ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a
free government. – President Grover Cleveland

The limitations of Natural Rights

2006-05-02T09:57:00.000-04:00

Those three beautiful Rights are very powerful.

Life
Liberty
Property

None of these three can be lost without hurting another. Nothing can be added without weakening the others. Let's try it.

Life
Liberty
Property
Health Care

Ok, so if Health Care is a Right, then where do we get the money...oh, from your property. There went property Rights. Let's try something else.

Life
Liberty
Property
Food

Again we run into the same issue. By guaranteeing food, the government has to pay for it from other people's money therefore violating their property Rights. Now, here's where things get interesting. Let's consider that the government is allowed to tax us to complete its goal of protecting these three Rights. Life, and Liberty, as we examined, come before property for a reason. People will gladly give up property for freedom or their lives. People will often give up freedom and property for their lives. Moreover, people will never give up their lives, except in rare cases desiring Liberty, for anything.

This is why Property is listed last, but adding anything else to the list violates it. Property is the finality of the list of Rights. Anything after it is worthless because it would violate the right to property (or liberty if you remember your last visit to the DMV). In any case, the 3 Natural Rights are a closed circuit. They cannot be added to or changed. This is why they are our ONLY three Rights.

Sincerely,
Ted

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. – Henry George

The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. – Albert Gallatin (1789)

Big Government's Successes

2006-04-13T18:00:00.000-04:00

Understanding the value of free market economics requires a lot of study and analysis. A study of history teaches us a lot of this. Primarily, throughout history, governments have proven themselves successful. Yes, that's what I said, successful.

It is a very real fact that the government can successfully change the economy for the better. However, when it does this, it is always very minute changes.

There are great examples of this. For one, governments have found that, by controlling the printing of money, instead of sticking by a gold standard, they can ensure that recessions are less severe than they would be otherwise.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardDocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm

The Federal Reserve board, the group in charge of the money supply in the US, has worked to control both inflation (rapidly rising prices) and deflation (rapidly falling prices) to avoid recessions. This has been a success on the part of the government.

There are many other examples. The US Government has been remarkably successful in its decision to support Israel. Israel is one of the major players in the Middle East, and by supporting them, we have assured ourselves an outpost in a very dangerous area of conflict.

The US Government has successfully produced an alternative to gasoline, made by liquifying coal. It has also managed to limit the usage of tobacco by its "sin tax."

It has ensured that companies survive and that industries don't break down during times of low revenue through subsidies. It has successfully rebuilt almost every country it has attacked.

Overall, there are a large number of things the US Government, through its place as a larger government, has successfully done. Unfortunately, there is more to the equasion. Next time, we will analyze the costs of these successes and realize an interesting fact that politicians today tend to neglect.

Sincerely,
Ted

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

For more on the Federal Reserve Board and Deflation: http://www.ameinfo.com/69637.html

Collecting our thoughts

2006-04-12T11:40:00.000-04:00

Ok, since it's been so long, I'm going to do a recap of the major points touched on and see where we should go next. I have been running a few different directions that will all come together in the end, so I'll break them up for now.

1) First, We established that there are 3 Natural Rights: Life, Liberty, and Property. We then remembered "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" from the Declaration of Independence, and realized that the Constitution was built to restrain the government, not to enable it to expand. Following this, we found that the government only acts in one manner, through force.

We further learned that theft is simply the act of taking without permission and that this can never be justified. We established the importance of the Laffer Curve and the negligence in the concept that higher taxes equal higher revenue. We examined illegality in this area and understood that the only things that should be made illegal are those that are already Natural Rights to be protected. Therefore, our study of Natural Rights fit this one.

2) We studied that a market is the action of buying a good and all the variabilities involved. Then we examined two major economists who are cited as the greatest minds in the industry, Adam Smith and Karl Marx and compared the two though we have yet to clearly define which had a better plan for society. We then examined what Economics have to do with government and that Economics, as the study of people, is exactly what the government needs for its every action.

2) We looked at the "General Welfare" and "Interstate Commerce" clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. We learned that the only power Congress has within that section is to "lay and collect taxes". Through this study we learned that Congress follows a 'strict constructionist view' of the Constitution and the courts are the only ones capable of following a 'living document' approach. Through this continuing study, having cited our founding fathers a lot, we studied what they thought of the Constitution and their views on the size of our government.

We learned that the best government, which is especially true in the United States, is one which governs least. Small government is better than big government. In our beginning to tie this group to the above, we learned that taxation not permitted under our "Social Contract" the US Constitution, is theft. During this time, we studied the purpose of a social contract and its existence in the United States.

In further discussion of the Constitution we fully examined the First Amendment and found that, when broken down, it reads:
Congress shall make no law referring to an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free excercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law lessening the freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law lessening the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
Congress shall make no law lessening the right of the people to petition the government to rectify any harm it caused.

We then studied the Second Amendment and learned that, based on a proper reading, the government is violating it. We learned about the ex-post facto clause and bills of attainder and how that portion of the Constitution is also being violated. We hav avoided discussion on whether violating the Constitution in these cases is a good or bad thing as of yet.

We also studied what a politician, or "public servant" is and what "morality" has to do with laws. This is where we will continue next time. Hopefully after that, we will be able to begin further discussion on economics in government and tie these 3 finally into one.

2006-01-19T21:50:00.000-05:00

How many wars are we in right now? I did the math on most of the major ones for you :).

Morality in the law

2006-01-13T03:07:00.000-05:00

Let's start with the First Amendment here. As we discussed earlier:

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free excercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law referring to an establishment of religion.

This is where we get the famous line "Separation of Church and State". The argument arises, however, that religion is already deeply ingrained in our laws. People say "You can't make murder illegal without a religion." As we've discussed, this, in the US, is the concept of Natural Rights. I'd like to expand on it myself, but it has been said much better by someone else. I warn you, this podcast is lengthy, so listen to it when you know you have time.

Sincerely,
Ted

What is so bad about big government? My indictment of big government is that it is bad because it attacks liberty, prosperity, progress, harmony, andmorality . Thanks to big government, we have significantly less of all of those good things than we would if we had been able to keep government right-sized. Big government is cancerous. Like a cancer, it hurts the body and tends to spread, doing more and more harm as it grows. It is time for some radical surgery. – George C. Leef, director of FEE's Freeman Society Discussion Clubs

The Purpose of a Social Contract

2005-12-22T18:46:00.000-05:00

Ok, so we know that a life of public service is supposed to be a life of servitude. Politicians call themselves Public Servants, but why? Well, it all comes from the origin of a social contract. A social contract puts them at our will. This is our Constitution's goal.

The Constitution is the list of ways that they can serve us. Why do we need a list? Why not just let them serve us as they like? This is why most social contracts prior to our Constitution were unwritten. These other contracts have given their ruler's almost supreme power. We ended up with vicious dictators and kings with unstoppable power. These people even tried election systems in minimally drawn out contracts and they found themselves electing idiots. They created democracies that resulted in the French Revolution and many bloody messes in Europe.

Our founders decided to change that. They decided to draw out a social contract that, as we learned, was meant to keep the government in line. They put limit after limit on government power. They drew line after line telling them how they must run their processes and how it would take 3/4ths of the people to accept any changes to that process. Then, when they finished, they added to it. They added, after all these limitations and specifics, 10 more notations, known as Amendments. Each one specifically naming Rights of the people except for the last 2. The last 2 had one sole purpose, to note that there were more Rights, and that the government was not to go outside the bounds of that social contract because it may trample these other Rights. The founders very adamantly said that there was no reason for the government to do anything that they had not yet specified. As such, they had simple, specifically outlined purposes. And these purposes are listed in their respective sections of the Constitution.

This is the purpose of a social contract. A social contract controls the relationship between the people and their government. The people give up some of their freedoms to the government in exchange for it's protection. Our founders wanted to keep the government's protection very minimal in exchange for very few of our freedoms. So now we know what a social contract does. Next time we'll answer more questions.

Sincerely,
Ted

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)

The Constitution is not hearsay. It is not a bunch of legal myths passed along by word of mouth. It is not a depository for judicial delusions and ideological pipe dreams. It is not a figment of some justice's Marxian imagination. It is a written document – a legally binding contract whose words, spirit and intent are clear. – Linda Bowles, nationally syndicated columnist

Public Service

2005-12-21T12:39:00.000-05:00

Why do we have a social contract? Why do we want a social contract? What good comes from it? What do we get out of keeping our government under one? For that matter, what does the government get out of it? These are all the questions we need to ask before deciding if it is important when things are unconstitutional. This is a big topic, so let's break it down. First, let's under stand the concept "public service". Sadly, this definition has been altered as well, but we find under definition 2 an effective rendition of what it means:

public service - A service performed for the benefit of the public, especially by a nonprofit organization.

This is what public service has always meant. Now, however, when someone intends to get a career in politics, they say they're going for "a life of public service". So public service has been altered to mean "a government career". That is definition 1 at answers.com.

Sadly, as a result of this, politicians have mastered the art of saying nothing and sounding fantastic at it. One example is when they say "I want to be a public servant." They are serving themselves by appearing to be at our whims. This is known as sales. Every salesman out there knows this trick. The only difference is that, as a politician, you're selling yourself. Anyhow, now we know what public service means. Make sure you note that next time the president declares war on someone he's doing it out of "public service"; service to the public; service to you...

Sincerely,
Ted

War is just one more big government program. – Joseph Sobran

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated. – Thomas Paine

On a side note

2005-12-12T16:55:00.000-05:00

They recently banned guns in San Francisco. I'm a bit bothered by that, as we have already discussed the unconstitutionality of gun bans. However, it is also a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution. Let's hop on that gravy train today :)

First, let's have a read of this clause within the Constition.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. "

This is a very concise sentence, but it isn't entirely clear. So let's look up some of these words:

ex post facto - Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively

attainder - In the ancient common law, the state of an offender who had been sentenced for a capital offense.

I think these are pretty clear. Congress cannot pass a law that creates a debt for someone sentenced to capital punishment (the death penalty) and cannot pass a law that acts retro-actively. Therefore, when they required all those who had purchased handguns in San Francisco to turn them in within 90 days or face a "yet to be determined" punishment, they acted very Unconstitutionally. We're getting pretty close to discussing whether or not Unconstitutionality is ok, so get psyched. I'm hoping we can conclude our discussion before the end of this coming year.

Sincerely,

Ted

America needs fewer laws, not more prisons. – James Bovard

Our Rights

2005-11-22T07:25:00.000-05:00

What to discuss today. Well, primarily, I'm back. I've found time to post again. Shall we? Let's ask the obvious question, what are Rights?

Discussing Natural Rights, we analyzed that there are three rights that human beings possess. The Declaration of Independence was, of course, not the first document to contain the concept of these rights. Thomas Paine was a guide to our founders when he wrote about "The Rights of Man". We understand what the concept of inalienable Rights is from past discussion, but what are Rights in general? Well, let's look at the definition of a Right:

Right - Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

Another definition, which I think explains it better, is given in Anderson's Business Law. To paraphrase:

A right is the ability to require someone else to do, or refrain from doing, something.

For example, our Natural Right to life requires others to refrain from killing us. It is not a pure and indefinite stoppage of such action, but merely justification of our retalliation when such an action is taken. There are three different types of Rights as described above, Natural, Traditional, and Legal. Natural Rights, as we have discussed are inherent by birth. In other words, when a mugger points a gun at your face, if you're crazy enough, you are legally allowed to break is arm and even kill him. The reason it's legal is because it is moral. You have a Natural Right to life, so society sees your actions to protect your life as completely justified. Welcome to the concept of self-defense. See, the law isn't all that difficult, it's just very occult. As such, we gain the one group of rights, Natural Rights.

Now, there was a basic overview of the concept of what a Natural Right is, let's examine others.

The rest of our Rights are given either through Tradition or Legislation.

In America, we don't have 'traditional Rights'. That is generally associated with communes and tribes. The addition of that to the definition, I believe, was because some argue that Natural Rights are not given through nature. In any case, in America, we only have our Natural Rights. But, before we delve fully into that, let's learn about Legal Rights. Legal Rights come about as a result of a social contract. What, you might ask, is a social contract?

Social Contract - a real or hypothetical agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens

Not bad. In fact, Wikipedia does a fine job, so I'll give you a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Our social contract, for all intents and purposes, is the Constitution. This is the contract that, as we learned, binds our government and us. It outlines the government's functionality and our Rights individually. The rights were not originally listed explicitly in the Constitution, but added to it as the first 10 amendments or 'Bill of Rights'.

However, as we read the Constitution, we realize that it was mostly written as a directional document for our government. Even the Rights aren't listed as Rights, but as things Congress may not change. In fact, it intentionally avoided attempting to specify every Right, which is apparent in the ninth and tenth Amendments. We will discuss those in detail, however, at a later date. Today, we're just trying to understand our Rights.

The Supreme Court has doctored the term Right quite a bit. It has separated them into Individual Rights, and Party Rights, and even Corporate Rights. In any case, these are all given by legislation, thus the term legal Right. Whether legal Rights are acceptable is a topic for further discussion. Currently, the legal system has attempted to create a number of Rights for every American ranging from the Right to Privacy to the Right to a Home. Some have failed, and some have passed. We'll turn to our founders later for further information. Until next time, keep reading :) I'll keep posting.

Sincerely,
Ted

I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights. – Abraham Lincoln

The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense. – Congressman Ron Paul, (R) Texas

The Second Amendment

2005-10-16T20:10:00.000-04:00

It's been a while, I apologize for that. Today we discuss the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Hello gun lobbies. This is the most debated and hated legislation by our government. No, I don't hate our government; this is just the truth. It's a control issue. The government's purpose is to control. This is what we've discussed. The reason we need limitations on government control is because it only controls one way: through force. We'll elaborate further on this when we discuss the Social Contract. Today we're discussing what the Second Amendment means and how our government is following it (and not following it).

"A well regulated militia"

What is that? What is this militia?

mi·li·tia - 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

I think, in this case, we need all three definitions to full understand the meaning of this word. An army of ordinary citizens. In this case, a well regulated army of ordinary citizens. Expanded, it means a military force that is not part of a regular army, but subject to call for service in an emergency. But we still are refering to a well regulated group. What does this mean? The third definition is a body of physically fit civilians eligible for military service. Ok, so that's what a militia is. If you combine the three, you understand that these are ordinary citizens who are not part of the army, but can be called up, and are eligible by law.

The Second Amendment notes the importance of this group of average, but well trained, people when it says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

This group of people is NECESSARY. This is the reasoning behind the Second Amendment. The wording itself is saying 'Because of the importance of a militia' (in, of course, longer terms):

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

ok, here's where we find the ultimate problems withour government. What is an arm?

arms - weapons considered collectively

An arm is a weapon, so what does bear mean?

bear - 1. To hold up; support. 2. To carry from one place to another; transport.

So bear means basically to carry openly (or unopenly), or to show to others. When Charlton Heston holds his rifle in the air, he is bearing it. So we understand the words (we've already discussed infringed), but what does the second half of phrase mean when we put it together?

The right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be limited.

Now, many people believe the second half to be subject to the first. The argument is that the right to keep and bear weaponry is limited to the aforementioned militia. The question is, how would you define this militia? Well, our federal government has openly given way for the states to individually create a National Guard. This National Guard, they believe, qualifies as this "well-regulated militia". By naming and limiting the members of this group, the government is able to force limitations on the people outside it (in its eyes) because the only militia is this Guard. What happened to "ordinary citizen" and "physically fit civilians"? Well, by collecting this group into armed military, they are able to treat the clause as though it is ubordinate. Let's ignore that decision on their part, and decide for ourselves.

Because of the importance of well trained, armed, ordinary citizens, the right of the people to keep and openly carry weapons shall not be limited.

OK, so that's a little editorializing on my part, but if you put together the meaning of militia, that's the most effective meaning. These are armed ordinary citizens who for be called up. That's why I worded it that way. By putting them into a single group, we eliminate this 'ordinary citizen' status. More important, that's not who the right is for. The right is of the people, not of the militia. This militia is every individual who carries these arms, it is not intended to be this group, but that is not the biggest problem with the federal government's actions here. The problem is that this right has been limited. We cannot carry weapons on planes, or openly on our person (not even swords!). We cannot even buy many different weapons. The government has clearly broken from the Constitution. Whether or not this is a good thing, we leave for another date.

Sincerely,
Ted

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State. – Heinrich Himmler

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. – William S. Burroughs

Government Theft?

2005-10-05T13:54:00.000-04:00

I'm back. Let's see. What would you like to talk about today? Let's discuss the relationship between the government and Theft. What are taxes?

Common sense would suggest that taxes are a given in relation to government. Every government since the begining of time has taxed it citizens. It is an inevitable requirement that a government must tax its citizens to pay for its law enforcement. This is commonly referred to as a social contract. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a social contract is an agreement between the citizens and the government. It sets the obligations of the government to protect the citizens as they want to be protected and the obligations of the citizens to follow the rule of the government and pay it enough to successfully protect those citizens. This is the origin of taxes. The pleasure of living in a Constitutional Republic is that our "social contract" is clearly written in the form of the Constitution. This is why it is so important to understand our Constitution. We will be discussing it at length as we continue here.

What, though, are taxes? Let's get a dictionary definition of the word taxes.

tax - A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.

Of course, this definition has been politically corrected as well. It does, however, contain the obvious word "required" that shows that this money cannot be witheld from the government. We've discussed some of the problems with bad laws and some of the problems with bigger government. But we haven't fully addressed the obvious problem with a larger government: more taxes.

What's so bad about more taxes? What's wrong with further supporting our government, let's say, to the extent of giving it money to help small businesses grow? The problem is not with the idea of helping others, but with the requirement that taxes invoke. When the government creates extra laws beyond those in its social contract (in our case the Constitution) it is forced to require more of our tax money to enact them.

Let's expand on this. What's wrong with this extra requirement? I know you're already saying "isn't that obvious" but lets try to expand on why. The reason is because these laws outside of our social contract take our money without our permission. Wait, we've already discussed that; isn't that the definition of theft? Yes, it is. Let's put that together. Laws that go beyond our social contract (in our case, the Constitution) create theft. Let's repeat that:

Laws that are not called for in the Constitution are theft.

Theft is wrong and cannot be justified. In fact, we can further expand this, but we'll save that for another day.

Sincerely,
Ted

The power to tax is the power to destroy. – John Marshall

The American Dream was not about government's taking huge sums of money (under the label of "taxation") from citizens by force. The American Dream was about individualism and the opportunity to achieve success without interference from others. – Robert Ringer

Big Government vs. Small Government

2005-09-28T19:29:00.000-04:00

Yes, it's been a few days. Busy would be an understatement for my current schedule. No complaints here though, just a desire to teach. Let's see, what shall we learn today... I think we're ready for this. Big Government vs. Small Government is our topic today.

We discussed a lot about Smith and Marx and the Constitution and ways to interpret it. Today we ask the simple question: Which is better: Bigger Government, or Smaller Government?

First, we're going to go over the basics. We know that economics is directly related to government. For this reason, the difference between Adam Smith and Karl Marx is significant. Marx's security ideal, we have seen, has failed time and again. Smith's liberty ideal, we have seen, has created prosperous nations every time. More important, we understand that the liberty that Smith's ideal gives us keeps the government small and avoids using force excessively.

We've learned that using force (government) to enforce laws that don't protect life, liberty, or property not only infringes on liberty, but is innefective. We understand that excessive legislation stems from larger government and small governments are limited a great deal by their size.

Let's learn something we don't know yet. What did the founding fathers intend for our country? Did they want our government to be big or small? Let's find some quotes by them.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

Whoa! Hello Ben Franklin. Could you lay your feelings out any clearer? I think it's clear that Benjamin Franklin chooses Smith over Marx, or Liberty over Security. Let's hear from another one.

The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills. – Thomas Jefferson

Hmm... This is actually rather unnecessary. The quote atop the page and other quotes from Jefferson that I have used in the past show that he is a Liberty proponent. This one, however, I like most because he notes an interesting point. Even God himself will not save men against their wills. It is major evidence of the importance of Liberty over Security. It emphasizes the true meaning of Smith's arguments.

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. James Madison

James Madison seems to be against big government as well. I will be using more quotes from him in the future. In any case, I can go through a number of others, but let's just assume that a good number of the founders agreed on the importance of Liberty over security. If you don't believe me, then look at the Declaration of Independence and Constitution again. I have quoted them on several occasions. Let's ask the obvious question: Did any of the founders disagree? There are quotes out there that say that Alexander Hamilton and even James Madison disagreed with this small government concept. Let's look at one such quote:

A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people.
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 31, January 1, 1788

Ok, sure, but what did he mean by that?

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32, January 3, 1788

Hmm... So, he did expand it to point out the importance of the limitations on the Federal Government. In fact, he was a major proponent of Liberty:

A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired.
--Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775

And Moreso:

Good constitutions are formed upon a comparison of the liberty of the individual with the strength of government: If the tone of either be too high, the other will be weakened too much. It is the happiest possible mode of conciliating these objects, to institute one branch peculiarly endowed with sensibility, another with knowledge and firmness. Through the opposition and mutual control of these bodies, the government will reach, in its regular operations, the perfect balance between liberty and power.
--Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 25, 1788

So, yes, Hamilton wasn't as deeply rooted into the principles of liberty as the other founders, but he advocated it to, to a great deal even:

And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments.
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788

Now that we understand which economic philosophy is best for our nation, which size government our founders advocated, and which laws are effective and 'good', we find that ultimately, smaller government is the true foundation of a good nation. How small? That's another question entirely. Take care; I'll return when I can.

Sincerely,
Ted

No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. – Mark Twain (1866)

Economics In Government

2005-09-23T11:35:00.000-04:00

Why do I keep talking about economics. Where am I going? Wasn't I talking about the Government? What does economics have to do with government? Everything. That's right, everything.To understand why, we'll go over some of the things we've already discussed.

Economics is the study of how people make decisions in a world of scarce resources.

Ok, so economics is the study of how people make decisions on Earth, right, because Earth is a 'world of scarce resources'? What do we know about government?

The government has one simple function: Force.

Interesting, how does force have to do with how people make decisions? Well, force decides what decisions would recieve retaliation, right? Obviously, but why does it matter that we consider force? Doesn't the government make all the decisions for us? If something's illegal, do we do it? I addressed this in my last post:

Just because something is illegal, does not mean it stops occuring.

Oh, ok. So the government uses force to help us make decisions a certain way, but it is not 100% effective in this means. This means that the government is a guide for economics, right? Let's put it all together:

The government uses force to compel people to make decisions a certain way.

But it is not 100% effective, so why use it? Why are governments instituted? Let's see if the Declaration of Independence can tell us:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Interesting. So governments are instituted to compel men to respect each others' life, liberty, and property. Therefore, the government is instituted so that people's decisions do not interfere with other people's decisions. This is how we understand that economics is deeply integrated into the concept of governing. See you tommorrow.

Sincerely,

Ted

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. – Henry George

To Be or Not to Be....Illegal

2005-09-23T10:46:00.000-04:00

A day late and a buck short, so-to-speak. Been busy. Why are we discussing illegality today? If you don't understand what illegality results in, you cannot truly understand the consequences of your government's actions. Let's try to understand the concept of legislation and I'm going to then post about economics in government later today.

So, what do we know about laws? We know that the laws are what the government uses to control our actions. In our case, the Constitution controls what actions the government can and cannot control. We know that the government can (and has) make lots of different laws about all sorts of things, most of which are related to Interstate commerce. How does the government enforce laws? Through force. In fact, the word 'enforce' has the word force in it. Fascinating how, over time, the definition has been politically corrected to:

en·force - To compel observance of or obedience to

Sure, this is accurate. It just doesn't explain that such compulsion involves force. If you don't obey the laws, the government puts you in jail. Compelling as it may be, the government enforces them by threatening one of your three Natural Rights. If you steal, they take away your property and/or liberty. If you rape, they take away your liberty. If you kill, they take away your liberty and/or life.

Today, we ask the question, what makes a good law? The ones above are surely good. They protect our three Natural Rights, but are there any bad laws? Well, clearly, good laws are where the government uses force to protect someone's life, liberty, or property. Because, in its own nature, it is forced to take one of the three from you. Ok, we're gonna stay away from touchy subjects like drug legislation and abortion for now, and simply address the government in this simple context.

Let's consider, when we make something illegal, is it not done? Are there still murderers? Murder is illegal. Are there still rapists? Rape is illegal. Are there still thieves? Theft is illegal. We have to come to the terms with an understanding that, by making something illegal, does not stop its occurence. Let me repeat that:

Just because something is illegal, does not mean it stops occuring.

What should and shouldn't be illegal then? Obviously, if your actions harm someone, take away their freedom, or steal from them, such actions should be illegal because the government can forcefully return such to you. However, what if your actions do none of the above? That needn't be legislated. In fact, by legislating it, the government is taking away your freedom to do it. Not only is it a bad law because it takes away our Natural Right to freedom, but it is ignorant on the government's part, because not all legislation is followed. Therefore, something should only be illegal if it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property.

Sincerely,
Ted

Useless laws weaken the necessary laws. – Montesquieu

Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx

2005-09-20T20:52:00.000-04:00

- My computer acted up, so I'm expanding this post slightly and posting it a day late...
We've discussed their opinions. Let's discuss the relevancy and effectiveness of both with regards to human beings. First, we know they were both economists, so what is economics? Are we listening to a bunch of accountants? This is my favorite (based on simplicity) definition of economics:

Economics is the scientific study of how people make decisions in a world where wants and needs are unlimted, but resources to meet our wants and needs are scarce.

Let's simplify that a little further:

Economics is the study of how people make decisions in a world of scarce resources.

Interesting. Economics is the study of people. We're not looking at accountants. We're looking at the people who study people. These gentlemen studied people. Let's see how the people who followed these very different economic ideals faired 'in a world of scarce resources'.

Karl Marx advocated a society with governmetn intervention to equalize everyone. It has been attempted on several occasions, though never successfully implemented in full. He did not expand on his ideas, in his essay, so much as simply cite that the "Communist Party" was right in the matter. Therefore, Communism is commonly attributed to him today. Communism, as we said, though never full implemented, has been attempted in Cuba, Russia, China, and a number of other countries.

Using Russia (called the United Soviet Socialist Republic at the time) as one of our examples of the closest yet achieved, we can look at the lives of the people. The average person in the USSR spent 70% of their lives in line. That's right, 70%. In addition, many citizens were killed or tortured for disagreeing with the Communist philosophy of the country. This, you will find, is generally true across the board with communism. In fact, Communism is so well-known for this attitude that the "Socialist-Libertarian" party of England argues that communism needs to be effectively implemented without Marx's advocated revolution, and can only be effective when humanity's viewpoint changes. What about the other viewpoint?

Adam Smith advocated an 'every man for himself' type of system. The first government to be set up based on his economic policies in pure ideal, is America. Really? Yes. It's still imperfect. Frederik Bastiat addressed its imperfections in his famous "The Law". However, the US has brought about many inventions (inventors even flocked here from Europe and Canada) and was able to become a Major World Power under the direction of this approach in less than 100 years.

Their policies can be compared by Stalin's "Iron Fist" approach and Smith's "Invisible Hand". The 'iron fist' is that of the government wiping out those who disagree by whatever means necessary. Adam Smith argued that market forces act like an 'invisible hand' creating the best possible outcome. Some have found middle ground between these two philosophies and the majority of today's governments fall in that middle ground. If you look at it on a graph from Liberty (Smith) to Security (Marx) it looks kind of like this.

Anarchy-Capitalism-Types of Socialism-Communism-Totalitarianism
Complete Freedom----------------------------------Complete Security

Smith advocated a small government because the market, he argued, more effectively helps people and the environment. He was expanded later, but that will be for another day. Marx advocated large government to equally distribute everything. While benevolent, it creates problems with human beings competetive nature. In the end, people wanted things instead of wanting to work. This resulted in 70% of lives in line on average. Also, we find that these countries cannot effectively compete in a global market with Capitalistic countries. The Capitalistic countries expand knowledge faster because they are freer to think.

Further, lets examine how things are done. With Adam Smith's small government, the government only protects our three Natural Rights. By doing so, it only uses force when it has been initiated by the person it is using force on. Karl Marx advocates using the government to take money and distribute it evenly. Not only does this violate our Natural Right to property (resulting in revolts or worse), but it is THEFT. The government is taking our money, through its only function: Force. This is forced theft. We cannot justify theft, even in the event of helping others. Charity is the only proper option ethically, within Rights, and legally.

Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx. Who won this? Marx wrote an essay; Smith wrote a book. Marx advocates Forced Theft; Smith advocates protecting our Natural Rights. Marx advocates an Iron Fist; Smith advocates the Invisible Hand. Those following Marx's ideals stop growing; those following Smith's expand exponentially. I'm not going to spell it out any more than this. You must decide for yourself: Liberty or Security?

Sincerely,
Ted

There is only one way to kill capitalism – by taxes, taxes, and more taxes. – Karl Marx

Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own gain, and he is, in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention. – Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Government

2005-09-19T14:37:00.000-04:00

Today we'll go over what it is the government does. We're going to be very basic and take it to the fundamental. What does a government do? Ok, it helps us. Maybe it protects our rights. But not all governments throughout time have helped their people. Some nasty dictators have enslaved their people. So what power do governments have? What do they do?

To understand this, lets examine all types of governments. When there were feudal lords and serfs, what did the lords do? They gave the serfs' a plot of land in exchange for yearly pay. How did they enforce this? If they didn't pay, the government forcibly removed them from the land or killed them. Seems that this government owned everything and controlled it with force.

What about Britain? There are quite a large number of laws in Britain that define everything from property rights, to speech rights. But what do they have in common? If you kill someone in Britain, what happens? They force you into a jail cell (or the London tower) and then might force you to die (depending on the time period). The government thus controls your actions through force.

Let's look at slaves. They were owned by those who would whip them for not working. They were given almost nothing in exchange for immense amounts of labor. How did this work? If you (a slave) were to stop working, you would be whipped, and punished until you either work or they kill you. If you tried to run, they would kill you and/or rape your family. They forced the slaves to work by forcibly controlling their actions.

Let's look at America. Here we have Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. If someone else tries to forcibly take these rights from you (or govern you), you can find aid in the government. It protects you, by controlling other's actions through force. You can be electricuted to death for taking someone else's life. Even here, the actions are similar.

What does a government do? Clearly, it controls your actions, but how? With what function? It controls your actions through force. The government has one simple function: Force. It uses force to achieve its goals. We'll examine this further soon enough.

Sincerely,
Ted

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. – George Washington

The "Commerce Clause"

2005-09-17T12:30:00.000-04:00

It seems my last post showed up under yesterday. Meh. Today we are going to check out the 'Commerce Clause'. We mentioned earlier the 'Welfare Clause' and how it is not a hole in the Constitution from the strict constructionist perspective that Congress views it. But today we have lots of government welfare programs. Where did Congress find this power? That's right; the 'Commerce Clause'. This is very close to the 'Welfare Clause'. It is Section 8, Clause 3:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

If read with the beginning of Section 8, as appropriate, we get:

Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes.

Where's the hole here? "among the several states" is not defined effectively in this document. As such, the Supreme Court expanded it immensely. According to "Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment":

"In 1937, the Supreme Court began expanding the concept of interstate commerce. By 1946, the power to regulate interstate commerce had become very broad. By that year, the power had expanded to the point that it gave authority to Congress to adopt regulatory laws that were 'as broad as the economic needs of the nation.'"

Since the Supreme Court took the Living Document approach and read the Constitution differently, Congress suddenly had much more power than it had before. This is where we get welfare programs, business subsidies, Social Security, and much much more. The government has grown immensely from what it was originally intended to be. Again, whethe or not this is a good thing, I leave for later. I'm keeping it short today. Happy Constitution day!

Sincerely,
Ted

It took about 150 years, starting with a Bill of Rights that reserved to the states and the people all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government, to produce a Supreme Court willing to rule that growing corn to feed to your own hogs is interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by Congress. – David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom

Living Document and Strict Constructionism

2005-09-17T02:19:00.000-04:00

Sorry, I missed a day. I had to attend my brother's school's reading of the Constitution. Today, however, is Constitution Day. I will make up for it... Today we discuss the differences between the Strict Constructionist approach to reading the Constitution and the Living document approach to the same.

A Strict Constructionist reads the Constitution literally. He holds to its words and tries to remember the meaning when it was written. A Living Document approach advocate sees the Constitution as adjustable to fit the times. He would argue things like: the founders didn't understand the level guns could become when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Strangely, there is a discrepancy in our own government's reading of the Constitution. The Congress and President read it from a Strict Constructionist perspective and only 'adjust' what the courts say they must. The Supreme Court has taken to a Living Document approach and tries to understand what might change if it were written today. This was not, however, always the case. Because Congress and the Executive branch are both 'bound' by the Constitution they are limited to reading it as a Strict Constructionist would. They were well tied by it for more than 70 years because the Supreme Court was reading it from that same perspective.

In Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. 158 U.S. 601, as recently as 1895, the Supreme Court had this to say, IN ALL CAPS:

"The words of the constitution are to be taken in their obvious sense, and to have a reasonable construction. In Gibbons v. Ogden, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, with his usual felicity, said: 'As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly EXPRESS THE IDEAS THEY INTEND TO CONVEY,'"

Resulting from this approach, the federal government was kept extremely small and limited for quite a while. The Living Document approach has resulted in a larger, more powerful federal government and has moved much of the governing powers from the states to the federal power. Whether or not this is a bad thing, I leave for later. I will expand on how the government has expanded recently later today when I address the Commerce Clause. It's Constitution Day, sit down, take out a copy of the Constitution, read a small portion and look up any words you don't know. Then sit down and try to understand what was being said.

Sincerely,
Ted

The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it. – Thomas Edison

The First Amendment

2005-09-15T21:54:00.000-04:00

Since I am apparently the new freelance political columnist for a not-so-known newspaper, I guess I should take this time to start discussing the first amendment. I'll keep things simple today.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first little bit is almost a whole sentence. The rest is just different endings to it. Let's examine it:

Congress shall make no law

Ok, that seems pretty straight forward. The only part of the government that can make laws is not allowed to make laws... about what? Let's look at the first thing:

respecting an establishment of religion

OK, we know the religion line, but what does 'respecting' mean?

re·spect - 1.To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. 2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit. 3. To relate or refer to; concern.

Feel? Regard? I don't think it's the first one. This is an important political and economic document. It wouldn't allow emotion in it. The second two definitions actually contradict each other, so let's look at the way it would look if defined by each definition. Under the first, congress must make no law avoiding interference with religion. Let's try that again:

Congress shall make no law that doesn't interfere with an establishment of religion.

Not only is this a double negative, but it would mean that every piece of legislation would have to intefere with religions. This is obviously not the intended meaning. It must be the last meaning. It would look like this

Congress shall make no law referring to an establishment of religion.

Short, simple sweet. Next:

prohibiting the free excercise thereof

Obviously this is a reference to the first. So this is further emphasizing the point.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free excercise of religion.

I don't think there's any confusion there, so lets go to the next one.

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

First we need to find out what abridging means.

a·bridge - to diminish or reduce in scope

Well that's interesting...

Congress shall make no law lessening the freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

Fascinating. Speech and the press, according to this, must be 100% free and cannot be touched. What's next?

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Hmm. That's a long one. Let's assume that it has no reference to the other phrases and try to read it:

Congress shall make no law or the right of people...

No, that doesn't work. It must use another portion of the sentence. According to English, you draw back to the most recent. That would be abridging. We've got that, but do we know what all of that phrase means? It all seems pretty clear, but what's a 'redress of grievances'?

re·dress - 1. To set right; remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends to. 3. To make amends for

griev·ance - 1. An actual or supposed circumstance regarded as just cause for complaint. 2. A complaint or protestation based on such a circumstance. 3. Indignation or resentment stemming from a feeling of having been wronged. 4. The act of inflicting hardship or harm. 5. The cause of hardship or harm.

According to the dictionary, the 4th and 5th definitions of grievance are obsolete. They are, however, the ones the Constitution was written with the understanding of. The first 3 definitions are all related to legislative definitions that have been doctored by the law. As is quite apparent if you tie the first definition of redress with the 3rd or 4th definition of grievance, this is the most clear way to define this sentence:

Congress shall make no law lessening the right of the people to peaceably assemble.

Congress shall make no law lessening the right of the people to petition the government to rectify any harm it caused.

That, in essence, is the First Amendment. It's much more complicated than it looks, huh? It's been a long day. I'll talk to you all tomorrow.

Sincerely,
Ted

Painful as it may be to hear it, there's nothing special about the people of this country that sets them apart from the other people of the world. It is the Bill of Rights, and only the Bill of Rights, that keeps us from becoming the world's biggest banana republic. The moment we forget that, the American Dream is over. – Alexander Hope

Adam Smith and Karl Marx

2005-09-14T17:20:00.000-04:00

Adam Smith is sometimes referred to as "father of modern economics". His most famous publication was titled "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" which is more commonly known as "Wealth of Nations". This book expanded his political philosophy that: Self-Interest most effectively guides the market to the best possible end.

Let's break that sentence down and make sure we understand it. Self-Interest, ok, interest in oneself. Also known as selfishness if you consult your dictionary. Guides the market. What did we say the market was? A purchase/sale made when there is supply and demand, the seller is serving something the buyer wants or needs, and the buyer is willing and able to make the purchase. So he's saying that being selfish most effectively guides a purchase/sale to the best possible result? Yes. He argued that the market forces (which are based on self-interest) are the fastest solution to problems and that government involvement slows things down and weakens the economy.

Karl Marx is another famous economist. His most famous publication was titled "Manifest der kommunistischen Partei" or "Communist Manifesto" in English. His basic political argument is much different from Smith's. He argues that the interests of the rich force the poor to become only poorer. He argues that the best way to fix this is for the government to take all of our money and redistribute it to us equally. He idealizes a society where everyone is equal. In it, doctors and scientists make the same as gas station attendants and grocery baggers. While Smith's arguments are placed in a rather lengthy book on Economic Philosophy, Marx (and Engels) produced more of an essay.

In this essay they emphasize the class warfare between the lower and upper classes and argue that the interests of the upper classes ultimately force the poor to work harder and harder for less money. The argument further evolves to state that the only way to solve this is through a revolution of the lower classes. Stalin further expanded this idea and emphasized the need for an 'iron fist' in controlling those who disagreed with this argument. It is argued (even by Karl Marx) that the only way for Communism to work is through force.

These are the two opposite ends of the economic spectrum. Many nations have taken to somewhere in between. Later on we will discuss the merits and flaws of both. For now, think about it for yourself. I'll leave you a famous quote from each.

Sincerely,
Ted

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. – Manifesto of the Communist Party - Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens. – Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

The 'General Welfare' Clause

2005-09-14T10:53:00.000-04:00

When many people first read the Constitution, they are confused by its vagueness. The phrase that most people are taken aback by is:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Because of the way this phrase is written, many people assume that it actually says:

"The Congress shall have the power...to...provide for the...general welfare of the United States."

This comes from a blatant misunderstanding of the English language. The phrase contains a preposition within a preposition. This means that everything in the second preposition is subservient to the first. It would look like this in today's U.S. Code or other legislative actions:

The Congress has the power 1)to lay and collect taxes, duties,
-------------------------------------imposts, and excises
--------------------------------------A)to
----------------------------------------1)pay the debts and
----------------------------------------2)provide for the
------------------------------------------a)common defense and
------------------------------------------b)general welfare of the United
--------------------------------------------States
--------------------------------------B)but all duties, imposts and excises
----------------------------------------shall be uniform throughout
----------------------------------------the United States;

Therefore, the only power given to the legislative body under this clause is to lay and collect taxes. Ok, but how can Congress spend this money? This is answered in several other clauses in Article I. The first, is Section 6:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services"

The rest are all listed under Section 8 right after that clause. Here they are, as listed:

Sec. 8, Clause 7: "To establish post offices and post roads"

Sec. 8, Clause 8: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

Sec. 8, Clause 9: "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court"

Sec. 8, Clause 12: "To raise and support armies"

Sec. 8, Clause 13: "To provide and maintain a navy"

Sec. 8, Clause 16: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia"

All the powers are listed right there for you. Now, I know some of you are asking "But where does the government get the power to provide for the general welfare?" Believe it or not, they read this clause just as we have. They did not find the power here. It is in another Clause in the Constitution which we are not addressing today. Go ahead and have a read of Article I Section 8, digest this information, and come back tomorrow. We've got lots to discuss.

Sincerely,
Ted
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html

The Market

2005-09-13T20:01:00.000-04:00

I was going to discuss Adam Smith today, but the market looks to need explanation. What is the market? No, its not the place we go to buy things. We're going to examine the market in a purely economic sense, so let's use an economics dictionary.

market: The organized exchange of commodities (goods, services, or resources) between buyers and sellers within a specific geographic area and during a given period of time. Markets are the exchange between buyers who want a good--the demand-side of the market--and the sellers who have it--the supply--side of the market. In essence, a buyer gives up money and gets a good, while a seller gives up a good and gets money. From a marketing context, in order to be a market the following conditions must exist. The target consumers must have the ability to purchase the goods or services. They must have a need or desire to purchase. The target group must be willing to exchange something of value for the product. Finally, they must have the authority to make the purchase. If all these variables are present, a market exits.

Ok, that's a whale of a definition. Let's break it down. Market is: the organized exchange of goods, services or resources--buying stuff--between buyers and sellers within a specific geographic area --at a certain place--during a given period of time.at a certain time. Lucky for us, a good portion here is explanation, but we have an explanation of what is required for a market to exist. Let's examine that. " The target consumers must have the ability to purchase the goods or services." Ok, the buyer has to have money in our case. "They must have a desire to purchase." Ok, they have to want it (or need it). " The target group must be willing to exchange something of value for the product." Ok, they have to be willing to buy it. "Finally, they must have the authority to make the purchase" They have to be able (by law or physics) to purchase it.

Let's look at this again. A market is a purchase at a certain time at a certain place. But for it to exist, the buyer must have money, they must want the product, they must be willing to buy it, and they must be able to buy. What does this all boil down to? Basic economics. Markets only exist when there is a supply (seller) and a demand (buyer) and the buyer is willing and able to purchase something that serves their wants or needs.

Let's simplify our definition a bit and forumulate a definition that makes sense. If they are able to buy the product, they have money, so we can skip that portion. Let's word it like this. A market only exists when there is supply and demand, the seller is serving something that the buyer wants or needs, and the buyer is willing and able to make a purchase. If we look at what this all says at once, what is going to happen? A purchase is going to be made. That is the market.

Sincerely,

Ted

P.S. Why do I keep citing dictionaries? They're unbiased.

Theft

2005-09-12T14:04:00.000-04:00

Theft is a funny concept when looked at in perspective. What is theft? What constitutes theft? Let's consult the dictionary.

theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Is theft simply the act of taking? Is there no middle ground? Let's make sure we know what stealing and larceny mean.

steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

lar·ce·ny - The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.

It looks like this is so. Sometimes it can take reference to legality, but we're leaving complexities like that for later. It looks like theft is taking another's property without permission. Now, the big question: Can theft be justified?

Let's ignore current government legislation in answering this question and leave it at its fundamental. Can theft be justified? If you are to steal $50 from my wallet for your healthcare, is that ok? If you break into my car and steal my stereo to feed your children, is that ok? The question quickly becomes: Can theft be ethical?

eth·ic - 1. A set of principles of right conduct. 2. A theory or a system of moral values

OK, but who defines them? Society. That's right, society sets ethics. Ethics are based on the general consensus of the population. Personal morals are completely irrelavent to ethics. For proof of this, look to the concept of situational ethics and find that there is no such thing. So, what does society say about stealing? The answer, of course, is that its wrong. There is no justification for stealing when there are plenty of charitable organizations out to help. This is society's stance. How do we know that? Simple, who calls the police when they find the $50 missing from their wallet or the stereo missing from their car.

We, as human beings, extend our Natural Right to Property over our things with ferocious intensity. Some people go to the extent of taking another's life for stealing or damaging their property. This, of course is our other definitive conclusion about theft. It violates our Natural Right to Property. We have discussed Natural Rights, but I left Property Rights for this occasion. That is what pursuing happiness is.

The right listed by our founders was "pursuit of happiness" because that gives both perspectives on Property. Whether pursuing happiness means acquiring property or giving it away, it can only be referenced to property. Prove it, you ask? Easy. Pursuit of Happiness was listed after both Life and Liberty thus it is least in importance. Name all pursuits of happiness that do not infringe on another's Natural Rights to Life and Liberty. Whether it's running in your yard, playing video games, or caring for your children, it all involves property. Property is a Natural Right that even the smallest animals in our planet fight to protect.

Let's Summarize. If we understand that theft is only the taking of property, taking property is unethical, and theft violates our Natural Right to Property, this leaves us only one conclusion. Theft cannot be justified.

Sincerely,
Ted

Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his. – John Locke

Constitution Basics

2005-09-11T03:34:00.000-04:00

As elementary as this particular post will be, these basics are often missed by even some of our most popular politicians. We are going to discuss exactly what it is the Constitution does. The Declaration of Independence is vital to this understanding. This is where we will begin.

To continue where the last quote from the Declaration of Independence left off:

"--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --"

This is what the government should do. Its purpose is to protect our rights. The only powers it has, are those that we give it. The word "just" in that phrase, however, is too often forgotten, but that debate will be left for a later date. What does the Constitution do? Some argue that it gives us our Rights. We've already discussed Natural Rights. A piece of paper can't give us Rights that we already have. Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What was that? "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". This is one of our founders' many direct references to liberty. Obviously, at least part of our constitutional purpose was to make sure we had freedom. Let's look deeper into this with a quote from our founders. This is one of my favorites:

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson helped write our Constitution, so what is he trying to say here? Bind? Chains? The Constitution must be a restraint of some sort, but on what? "In the matters of Power" Is our Constitution a restraint on power? Yes, yes it is.

Let's examine a few other notes before we summarize all of this.

"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights." - Edmund A. Opitz

Wow, that's a lot of No's! It's almost like pointing a finger at the government and telling it "No!" like you would a dog peeing on the carpet. Let's look at a couple of my favorites:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Whoa! That's a big one. Just because it isn't written here, doesn't mean it isn't a right. In other words, 'Government, you don't have the power just cause we didn't say you don't have it."

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

They said it again, only more directly. 'Government, this is it. You have nothing else, everything else is for the States and the people.' It seems like there is a lot of evidence to show that the Constitution was written speaking to the Government, not the people. It is a "chain" on the government. Let's also note the words of a woman who made quite a name for herself as a writer.

"The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government." - Ayn Rand

Now, don't take my word for it, combine these facts and the words straight from the Constitution. It seems a given that the purpose was to restrain the government. Even the preamble of the Constitution says "to secure the blessings of liberty". The Constitution ties up the government to keep it from interfering in the freedom we have inherent of being human. It does not give us that freedom, freedom is a Natural Right. This is what the Constitution does. It was written and directed at the government, not the people. Power to the people!

Sincerely,
Ted

P.S. We have a long way to go still, but if you understand this, then we are moving in the right direction.

Taxes vs. Revenue

2005-09-10T12:34:00.000-04:00

A common mistake people make is assuming that the higher the tax rate is, the more money the government is making. This is excessively innacurate. In fact, it has been tried.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to increase government revenue in the 1930s and 40s. He instituted a 100% income tax on all income over $25,000 in 1942. Sadly, this information is hard to find. Even harder to find is the number of Americans who filed for taxable incomes over $25,000 dollars that year: 0. People don't like taxes. As a result, higher taxes just cause more people to try to evade them. This is the origin of the Laffer Curve.

The Laffer Curve

The Laffer Curve tells us that there is a point T that is the highest possible revenue the government can recieve from taxing. When the tax is raised above point T, revenue begins to fall again. Most economists agree that point T is somewhere between 27 and 29%.

Why, then, does the government tax more than 29%? It is simple, they want more money. As much information is out there to prive this point, the government continues to try to sneak higher taxes past the people so that it can get more revenue. Why do I say sneak? It's true. The government has to make the law confusing in this manner because if people know what they are being taxed, they will not pay. This is proven by the Laffer Curve which politicians know all too well.

Still, human beings are found to be overwhelmingly good at protecting their property (note: Property is a Natural Right). The government has yet to slip something past us. The obvious example is that the massive businesses that are being taxed the highest are paying accountants to find every possible tax exemption including moving headquarters overseas.

Conclusive of this information, we find that higher taxes do not equal higher revenue. Next time the government mentions raising taxes on the rich (they're the ones with the money to pay 15 accountants) remember that you will be the one suffering the burden of debt.

Sincerely,
Ted

Inalienable Rights

2005-09-10T03:56:00.000-04:00

Natural Rights are often discredited or ignored as being undefined or nonexistent. This idea that Natural Rights don't exist is, of course, idiotic. The simplest way to explain that you have Natural Rights inherent by birth or given by your Creator is to propose a hypothetical. Let's try one.

Assume you are walking down the street and a man starts firing a machine gun and spinning around in circles near you. What would you do? The obvious answer is that you would duck and run. Even the youngest child will make efforts to protect his/her life, no matter the cost. This is your Natural Right to Life. Let's try another.

Assume that you are enslaved by another person. If it were not a risk to your life to escape that enslavement (and sometimes even if it were) would you make every effort to escape it? A good example here is loans and credit cards. If your credit card company told you that you had to either pay of the card or work for them for free for the rest of your life, you would do the former. You will make every effort short of risking your life (and sometimes even with that) to avoid enslavement. This is your Natural Right to Liberty.

The founders understood these rights and one other. The third is the Right to the "Pursuit of Happiness" which can best be described as "Property" by any economics professor. This I leave you to look up on your own. So, where did the founders say all of this? To quote the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Now, the real question. What exactly is meant by "unalienable"?

unalienable - Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable

just for safety, what's inalienable

inalienable - incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

So what does that mean? The answer is that unalienable is an adjective. Inalienable rights cannot be surrendered. You cannot surrender your Right to Life for someone else's use. It was not to state that such Rights would not be surrendered so much as they could not be surrendered. Inalienable Rights are those which we cannot surrender to another's will.

Sincerely,
Ted

2005-09-09T16:07:00.000-04:00

Here's a pic of me. I'll be uploading this to my profile accordingly.

Me

Open Up

2005-09-09T15:38:00.000-04:00

The first requirement of this blog is that you open up your mind. Those who are close minded will not understand that which I am posting here. I do not plan to be anywhere near perfect in my endeavor to raise the understanding of Freedom, but I take on this task to do that to the best of my ability. I wish you all well, and hope you will share this with all those who need to learn the true meanings of the words: "Let Freedom Ring!"

Sincerely,
Ted

If my mind can be pure and simple like that of a child, I think that there can be no greater happiness than this. - Leonardo DaVinci