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
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Government Mandated Charity
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)
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)
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Religious Quiz
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.
Which religion is the right one for you? (new version) created with QuizFarm.com |
Sunday, June 25, 2006
An analysis of Money
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
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
Monday, June 05, 2006
OK Cupid Political test...
| You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (95% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Costs of Big Government
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 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
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
The limitations of Natural Rights
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)
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)
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Big Government's Successes
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
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
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Collecting our thoughts
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.
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.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
Morality in the law
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
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
Thursday, December 22, 2005
The Purpose of a Social Contract
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
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
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Public Service
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
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
Monday, December 12, 2005
On a side note
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
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Our Rights
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
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
Sunday, October 16, 2005
The Second Amendment
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
"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
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Government Theft?
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
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
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Big Government vs. Small Government
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)
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)
Friday, September 23, 2005
Economics In Government
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)