Dear Jon Letters

Sorry...

2012-01-27T23:11:00.003-06:00

...Just watching the Florida Republican debate now, DVR yall.... This year I decided to go all in for Ron Paul, even though I have some disagreements with a few of his policies, but it's the fewest disagreements I've had with a candidate ever...But Ron Paul doesn't do a great job actually describing foreign policy, and in this debate it got my gaul more than others; but I don't know why.

....Maybe it's because he doesn't do so well with the argument that bringing people the benefits of capitalism to people WILL bring them freedom...

...Wait, that's exactly it...the more we trade with Cuba, the more free they will become; once people see the benefits of capitalism, they are more willing to fight for the rights those benefits afford...

...I think China has shown that the more we sell them the more free they become...total commies when we cut them off from trade, and in the 35 years we've traded with them they have discovered rights they never knew. now their citizens are fighting to defend the goods they have accumulated, and thus their own freedom. Now the Chinese government is talking about paying the people they confiscate land from; totally unbelievable before we started trading with them. If we had been trading with Cuba, they would be a free capitalist country by now...

...This is where Ron Paul lets me down, he doesn't articulate the power of Free Markets in the creation of FREEDOM...

Hiding Wrongs by Force of Law

2011-05-14T23:49:00.002-05:00

I just read yet another story of people freaking out over what one of the Dr. Pauls (Ron this time, last time it was Rand) said about the Civil Rights Act. In case you're not familiar with it; both Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul have come under fire for their thoughts on provisions in the Civil Rights Act. In both cases it has been over the provision which forces property owners to serve all races at businesses; the Pauls argue that the government should not force property owners to serve anyone. This has caused many to accuse them of being racist, or in the least supporting freedom that would cause racism to flourish. I can't speak for their personal views, I hope they aren't racist; but I have to agree with them. Some of you may think I'm racist, but I have come to this conclusion simply by adhering to my philosophy.

As I have mentioned before on this blog, my political philosophy is based entirely on property rights, and that all humans inherently have this right by the fact that own their own body; this same philosophy leads to the conclusion that no man can own another (although philosophically there is the oddity of one person selling them-self willingly to another), so there goes your idea that I support slavery. This philosophy leads me agree with the Pauls on this issue. But there is another social problem that I find in forcing businesses to operate this way, it's harder to tell which business owners ARE racist. Under current law, you may unwittingly be supporting racist business owners. I would much rather know that have the light of day shining on these things so that we as individuals and actors in the market can weed these people out and face the actual issues; and punish those business owners by not supporting their business.

Yes, it would have been a much longer and more painful civil rights movement if we as a society and individuals had faced the actual issues, and not just hid underground. But it happens all the time. Any argument with my father about gay marriage ends the same way, "well, if you let gays get married, then people will want to marry their horses". Never mind this preposterousness leap, but I answer him the same on this issue, "good, because I would much rather know which guys are having sex with their horses so I can stay the hell away from them."

When you hide bad ideas, they're still there. It's only when you confront them that they can be abolished. There were many good things to come out of the Civil Rights Act, there were many laws pertaining to public spaces that were absurd and against the Rights of Man (I would say human rights, but that has been co-opted and corrupted so much it doesn't mean the same thing anymore).

There are many nuances and such which I have not addressed, as this could easily turn into an entire book on the subject, but hopefully I have said enough to get my point across clearly. Perhaps I'll revisit this in more depth at another time, or perhaps not.

Twitter

2011-02-19T11:19:00.001-06:00

I haven't been updating the blog as often as I'd like. If you want to hear from me more often you can follow me on Twitter @puremilkgenius

Scott Walker

2011-02-19T10:49:00.002-06:00

I live in Wisconsin, have for most of my life. I vote regularly; however I abstained from voting for Governor in the last election; the choices were between the incumbent Democrat Jim Doyle, who was horrible, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, and a third party guy I can't remember. I knew I wasn't going to vote for Doyle, and the third party guy had some odd stances. The only valid choices were Walker or abstaining, I chose to abstain. I don't trust people from Milwaukee, that place is run horribly, and he used too much of the "I'm a regular guy who's going to change things" attitude, I didn't believe him, still not sure if I do. But the last week or so there has been a fight in the state over his new budget proposals, namely his initiative to reform public sector unions, making them contribute more to pensions and healthcare, changing their collective bargaining power, and making the first moves toward making Wisconsin a Right to Work state. I was surprised at how far he went, and I don't agree with his reasoning for why he's doing it, but I'm loving the fact that it's happening.

There are many teachers in the state protesting the proposal, abandoning their responsibilities at school and heading down to the capitol. But, since I heard about this, I have been considering taking up the profession myself. I had thought about it before, but I WILL NOT join a union. Not because I think they are the Devil or run by Socialists, but because I don't like other people making decisions for me. I work for me, not for others. If I'm doing a better job than someone else I want to be paid more, not the same.

The truth is, these union members are not protesting because they think unions help everyone, many have said themselves that they don't care if them keeping their benefits means others get laid off. This is about people not being confident that are the best at their jobs and can demand certain things based on their value to the employer. As a business owner (even though the business doesn't make much money) I know that a good employee can demand more than a bad one, if the person is good enough the employer will pony up to keep them around.

More On Rights

2010-11-29T21:38:00.002-06:00

Since the early twentieth century there has been a change in political thinking about what rights are and where they come from. The American Declaration of Independence states that people are, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights “. The early liberal view represented by the Declaration of Independence held that rights are natural to humans. This is a stark contrast to when Cass Sunstein (2001) says that early constitutions protected rights without “...creating rights to minimally decent conditions of life. But in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, the trend is otherwise, with international documents, and most constitutions, creating rights to food shelter and more” (2001, 222) To be sure, these things are necessities, but they cannot be rights. Many who argue that government can create rights at the same time declare that there are universal human rights. If a government can create rights, then all rights are subjective and there are no universal rights. So in order for there to be universal human rights, they must be inherent in the human condition, and therefore not able to be created by any government.

To call necessities of life a right is to completely misunderstand what rights are. Rights are something a person is born with by the simple fact of being human, irrespective of where in the world that person is located. If it is not something inherent in being a person, then it simply is not a right. Things such as food, water, clothing, healthcare and housing are not something a person is born with, although they are necessities to be sure. When a person is born, no matter where they are in the world, they have one thing: their body. A person born in Ethiopia doesn't have food , a person born in Yemen doesn't have water, and so on.

If a body is the only thing each person naturally has, then it must follow that rights extend from a person owning his or her own body. If one owns his or her own body, they have the ability to communicate (as some people do not have the ability to vocally speak). Given that humans are the only species able to understand the complexities of rights and the consequences of violations of the rights of others, humans are the only species to have rights. So, humans can occupy and improve land that is not inhabited by another human. The improvements of this land can then be traded. To be able to trade, a person must communicate with another his or her willingness to do so, and in doing so enters into a contract. These contracts can then be used to trade for goods which are not provided on the land which the person occupies, i.e.: water, food, etc., since not every parcel of land is equally equitable. For those who are unable to find uninhabited parcels of land, they can use this right of contract to trade labor for these goods, which in turn may be traded for ones own parcel of land.

Necessities do not follow this logical progression from the body, as when a person is born they do not inherently have any of these items. In the case of a child these things are usually traded for by the parents or other caregivers. This is not to say the inhabitants of a country cannot decide to provide these items, but they cannot, and should not call them rights. Rights must be protected by a government, which does bear a cost for the protection; but necessities must be provided by these governments, which costs a great deal more. This presented itself in Hungary, where the Constitution stated, “Citizens of the Republic of Hungary have the right to social security”(Constitution of the Republic of Hungary). Solyom and Brunner (2000) described the difficulties which befell Hungary when its government was unable to provide these benefits due to a severe economic decline. Sajo (1996) points out how the government and the people came to an impasse when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) put restrictions on a loan which would have alleviated some of the governments fiscal problems. The IMF demanded that the Hungarian Government place restrictions on these rights in order the receive aid, an idea which the people rejected (Sajo, 1996). In this case, the Hungarian benefits were permitted to stand for the time as the IMF accepted a slower reform process and granted the loan (Sajo 1996).

After the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009 the cost of such programs has again become a problem for many European countries. In Greece there have been many accounts of riots as the government attempts to reign in the cost of benefits in the wake of a collapse which led to the Greek Government being bailed out by other members of the European Union. More recently, Ireland has fallen into trouble over its spending habits. With each collapse, these governments are losing sovereignty and being forced to acquiesce to the will of other countries.

Countries with extant constitutions which provide for these necessities cannot ignore what is written. A constitution is a promise to the people of what that government can and cannot due. If that promise is broken, then the government loses legitimacy and there is little hope for salvage. Instead what these countries should do is try to amend their constitutions to make these items priorities rather than calling them rights. To call them rights is to say that these things must be provided for the citizens, which is not sustainable. To call them priorities shows a commitment to the practices, but allows the systems to be re-evaluated when there is not enough capital to provide them.

Even if necessities are not rights, it is the right of the citizens to contractually obligate their government to address certain issues through a constitution. These constitutions should allow for breathing room in case of economic downturn. And if these necessities are guaranteed as rights in an extant constitution a government cannot ignore the obligation, but rather should attempt to amend the constitution to set these items as priorities instead of falsely and with great cost calling them rights.

References

Sunstein, Cass. “Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do”

Oxford University Press. 2001.

Solyom, Laszlo and Brunner, Georg. 2000. “Hungarian Benefits Case”

In “Comparative Constitutional Law 2^nd Edition”

Ed. Jackson & Tushnet.

The Foundation Press. New York. 2006

Sajo, Andras. 1996. “How the Rule of Law Killed Hungarian Welfare Reform”

In “Comparative Constitutional Law 2^nd Edition”

Ed. Jackson & Tushnet.

The Foundation Press. New York. 2006

Constitution Day

2010-09-17T22:22:00.001-05:00

From usconstitution.net:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I - The Legislative Branch Note

Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actualEnumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section 4 - Elections, Meetings

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment, section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6 - Compensation

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfareof the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it'sinspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article II - The Executive Branch Note

Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article VII - Ratification Documents

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. Note

Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut - Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York - Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey - Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton

Pensylvania - B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom

Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll

Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler

Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin

Attest: William Jackson, Secretary

The Amendments Note

The following are the Amendments to the Constitution. The first ten Amendments collectively are commonly known as the Bill of Rights. History

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due processof law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The Electoral College

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished. Ratified 1/16/1919. Repealed by Amendment 21, 12/5/1933. History

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933. History

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933. History

1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia. Ratified 3/29/1961. History

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred. Ratified 1/23/1964. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967. Note History

1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay. Ratified 5/7/1992. History

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Immigration

2010-08-13T19:31:00.003-05:00

This is a point where I am split. The immigration laws we have now, they suck. Period. But most of the laws we have now suck.

First of all; illegal immigration is so ubiquitous because employers can pay them less than "minimum wage", which in itself is a horrible idea. If a company raises the minimum wage they pay, then it follows suit they charge more for the product, making the product cost more and then the minimum wage worker can't afford the cheapest product. EXAMPLE: people who work at fast food restaurants; most likely the most food they can afford comes from fast food restaurants, but if the fast food restaurants raise the wage by x, then they raise the price by X/number of employees, so prices remain essentially static. But if the company can pay people "off the books" to work for less than "minimum wage"; the prices remain the same or get lower. So that gives companies an incentive to hire "illegals" who they pay less.

Second; Quotas; seriously, the federal government comes up with arbitrary numbers of how many people can come from each country.

Third; The welfare state: The more free shit wee give away the more people are going to want to get this free shit. Hell, people do all kinds of demeaning shit for free stuff, that's how "Girls Gone Wild" exists, not to mention people trying to force a 72 oz steak into stomach designed to hold like 2 pounds at max.

First off, we have to reform the country and get rid of the shit that is so attractive, and stealing money away from the people who have earned it. Second; until we clean up our system, get rid of quotas based on country of origin, just have a quota for immigration as a whole. Third: Those who ignore the laws now ARE CRIMINALS.

Just like most things, I don't think there should be many laws about immigration; but those who break the existing laws should still be punished. Case in point, drugs, I think all drugs should be legalized, period. Unless someone harms another person while under the influence of a drug they should be able to use or abuse it as they wish. But I still think those breaking withstanding laws should be punished. The "grandfather" clause only exists for people who broke a law before it was written, not those who broke it while it was in force.

We need to enforce the existing laws to show people how shitty our system is and to motivate the change of said laws.

So, in summation; Open boarders is the plan, fight the order, but obey the laws now on the books or get punished for no. The civil rights movement didn't ask for immunity, they took their ludicrous punishment and showed the world it was wrong!

The Boston Tea Party Was Over a Tax Cut?

2010-05-11T12:18:00.004-05:00

You'll have to forgive me if I'm late to the party here; but I was educated in public school. I was always led to believe that The Boston Tea Party was done in outrage to high taxes. However, that was not the case; the Tea Act was actually a tax cut.

Yes, the act was designed to lower the cost of tea in the colonies and cut the taxes imposed on imported tea.

The point being argued wasn't really the the taxes, it was about cronyism. The East India Company complained to the King that Americans were not buying their tea because of the high taxes imposed on the goods. The company was paying a duty in England and the Colonies. To help out his friends at the East India Company the King eliminated the duty in England and lowered the tax in the colonies.

The outrage in the Colonies came from the fact that the act designated who could handle the product once it reached the states. The act set out a system that cut out American business an enriched the favored British merchants and bureaucrats.

From what I understand the President has been in the best schools in the country, so if he doesn't know this fact then it is a sad state of affairs. Worse yet, if he does know the truth, he ignores it for his own gain. Neither seems like a good proposition to me.

The Tea Act

British Parliment - 1773

An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the India Company's sales; and to impower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licences to the East India Company to export tea duty-free.

WHEREAS by an act, made in the twelfth year of his present Majesty's reign, (intituled, An act for granting a drawback of part of the customs upon the exportation of tea to Ireland, and the British dominions in America; for altering the drawback upon foreign sugars exported from Great Britain to Ireland; for continuing the bounty on the exportation of British-made cordage; for allowing the importation of rice from the British plantations into the ports of Bristol, Liverpoole, Lancaster, and Whitehaven, for immediate exportation to foreign parts; and to impower the chief magistrate of any corporation to administer the oath, and grant the certificate required by law, upon the removal of certain goods to London, which have been sent into the country for sale;) it is amongst other things, enacted, That for and during the space of five years, to be computed from and after the fifth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-two, there shall be drawn back and allowed for all teas which shall be sold after the said fifth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-two, at the publick sale of the united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, or which after that time shall be imported, by licence, in pursuance of the said therein and hereinafter mentioned act, made in the eighteenth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, and which shall be exported from this kingdom, as merchandise, to Ireland, or any of the British colonies or plantations in America, three-fifth parts of the several duties of customs which were paid upon the importation of such teas; which drawback or allowance, with respect to such teas as shall be exported to Ireland, shall be made to the exporter, in such manner, and under such rules, regulations, securities, penalties, and forfeitures, as any drawback or allowance was then payable, out of the duty of customs upon the exportation of foreign goods to Ireland; and with respect to such teas as shall be exported to the British colonies and plantations in America, the said dreawback or allowance shall be made in such manner, and under such rules, regulations, penalties, and forfeitures, as any drawback or allowance payable out of the duty of customs upon foreign goods exported to foreign parts, was could, or might be made, before the passing of the said act of the twelfth year of his present Majesty's reign, (except in such cases as are otherwise therein provided for:) and whereas it may tend to the benefit and advantage of the trade of the said united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, if the allowance of the drawback of the duties of customs upon all teas sold at the publick sales of the said united company, after the tenth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-three, and which shall be exported from this kingdom, as merchandise, to any of the British colonies or plantations in America, were to extend to the whole of the said duties of customs payable upon the importation of such teas; may it therefore please your Majesty that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That there shall be drawn back and allowed for all teas, which, from and after the tenth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-three, shall be sold at the publick sales of the said united company, or which shall be imported by licence, in pursuance of the said act made in the eighteenth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, and which shall, at any time hereafter, be exported from this kingdom, as merchandise, to any of the British colonies or plantations in America, the whole of the duties of customs payable upon the importation of such teas; which drawback or allowance shall be made to the exporter in such manner, and under such rules, regulations, and securities, and subject to the like penalties and forfeitures, as the former drawback or allowance granted by the said recited act of the twelfth year of his present Majesty's reign, upon tea exported to the said British colonies and plantations in America was, might, or could be made, and was subject to by the said recited act, or any other act of parliament now in force, in as full and ample manner, to all intents and purposes, as if the several clauses relative thereto were again repeated and re-enacted in this present act.

II. And whereas by one other act made in the eighteenth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, (intituled, An act for repealing the present inland duty of four shillings per pound weight upon all tea sold in Great Britain; and for granting to his Majesty certain other inland duties in lieu thereof; and for better securing the duty upon tea, and other duties of excise; and for pursuing offenders out of one county into another,) it is, amongst other things, enacted, That every person who shall, at any publick sale of tea made by the united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, be declared to be the best bidder for any lot or lots of tea, shall, within three days after being so declared the best bidder or bidders for the same, deposit with the said united company, or such clerk or officer as the said company shall appoint to receive the same, forty shillings for every tub and for every chest of tea; and in case any such person or persons shall refuse or neglect to make such deposit within the time before limited, he, she, or they, shall forfeit and lose six times the value of such deposit directed to be made as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any of his Majesty's courts of record at Westminster, in which no essoin, protection, or wager of law, or more than one imparlance, shall be allowed; one moiety of which forfeiture shall go to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the other moiety to such person as shall sue or prosecute for the same; and the sale of all teas, for which such deposit shall be neglected to be made as aforesaid, is thereby declared to be null and void, and such teas shall be again put up by the said united company to publick sale, within fourteen days after the end of the sale of teas at which such teas were sold; and all and every buyer or buyers, who shall have neglected to make such deposit as aforesaid, shall be, and is and are thereby rendered incapable of bidding for or buying any teas at any future publick sale of the said united company: and whereas it is found to be expedient and necessary to increase the deposit to be made by any bidder or bidders for any lot or lots of bohea teas, at the publick sales of teas to be made by the said united company; be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every person who shall, after the tenth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-three, at any publick sale of tea to be made by the said united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, be declared to be the best bidder or bidders for any lot or lots of bohea tea, shall, within three days after being so declared the best bidder or bidders for the same, deposit with the said united company, or such clerk or officer as the said united company shall appoint to receive the same, four pounds of lawful money of Great Britain for every tub and for every chest of bohea tea, under the same terms and conditions, and subject to the same forfeitures, penalties, and regulations, as are mentioned and contained in the said recited act of the eighteenth year of the reign of his said late Majesty.

III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful for the commissioners of his Majesty's treasury, or any three or more of them, or for the high treasurer for the time being, upon application made to them by the said united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies for that purpose, to grant a licence or licences to the said united company, to take out of their warehouses, without the same having been put up to sale, and to export to any of the British plantations in America, or to any parts beyond the seas, such quantity or quantities of tea as the said commissioners of his Majesty's treasury, or any three or more of them, or the high treasurer for the time being, shall think proper and expedient, without incurring any penalty or forfeiture for so doing; any thing in the said in part recited act, or any other law, to the contrary notwithstanding.

IV. And whereas by an act made in the ninth and tenth years of the reign of King William the Third, (intituled, An act for raising a sum not exceeding two millions, upon a fund, for payment of annuities, after the rate of eight pounds per centum per annum; and for settling the trade to the East Indies,) and by several other acts of parliament which are now in force, the said united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies are obliged to give security, under their common seal, for payment of the duties of customs upon all unrated goods imported by them, so soon as the same shall be sold; and for exposing such goods to sale, openly and fairly, by way of auction, or by inch of candle, within the space of three years from the importation thereof: and whereas it is expedient that some provision should be made to permit the said company, in certain cases, to export tea, on their own account, to the British plantations in America, or to foreign parts, without exposing such tea, to sale here, or being charged with the payment of any duty for the same; be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the passing of this act, it shall and may be lawful for the commissioners of his Majesty's treasury, or any three or more of them, or the high treasurer for the time being, to grant a licence or quantity of licences to the said united company, to take out of their warehouses such quantity or quantities of tea as the said commissioners of the treasury, or any three or more of them, or the high treasurer for the time being, shall think proper, without the same having been exposed to sale in this kingdom; and to export such tea to any of the British colonies or plantations in America, or to foreign parts, discharged from the payment of any customs or duties whatsoever; any thing in the said recited act, or any other act to the contrary notwithstanding.

V. Provided always, and it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That a due entry shall be made at the custom-house, of all such tea so exported by licence, as aforesaid, expressing the quantities thereof, at what time imported, and by what ship; and such tea shall be shipped for exportation by the proper officer for that purpose, and shall, in all other respects, not altered by this act, be liable to the same rules, regulations, restrictions, securities, penalties, and forfeitures, as tea penalties, &c. exported to the like places was liable to before the passing this act: and upon the proper officer's duty, certifying the shipping of such tea to the collector and comptroller of his Majesty's customs for the port of London, upon the back of the licence, and the exportation thereof, verified by the oath of the husband or agent for the said united company, to be wrote at the bottom of such certificate, and sworn before the said collector and comptroller of the customs, (which oath they are hereby impowered to administer,) it shall and may be lawful for such collector and comptroller to write off and discharge the quantity of tea so exported from the warrant of the respective ship in which such tea was imported.

VI. Provided nevertheless, That no such licence shall be granted, unless it shall first be made to appear to the satisfaction of the commissioners of his Majesty's treasury, or any three or more of them, or the high treasurer for the time being, that at the time of taking out such teas, for the exportation of which licence or licences shall be granted, there will be left remaining in the warehouses of the said united company, a quantity of tea not less than ten millions of pounds weight; any thing herein, or in any other act of parliament, contained to the contrary thereof notwithstanding.

Yellowstone, Fires, & The Free Market

2010-04-24T10:45:00.002-05:00

In the early 20th century Yellowstone park had a problem with with wildfires. The thinking at the time was that the fires were bad and had to be stopped as soon as possible. It made people feel good, disasters were averted, only small portions of the forest burned. However, this policy led to the accumulation of fuel: fallen trees, pine needles, dead grass, and leaves. Due to this excess fuel, fires became more dangerous and harder to stop. After a few of these fires, when the forest was thought destroyed to never return to its former glory, something peculiar happened; new trees began to grow and thrive in the ash. What was discovered was that the pine cones from the long pole pines which make up most of the forest won't open and seed until they are heated by fire. It was the very act of destruction which caused growth and lessened the fuel available for new fires, making them less dangerous. Taking this into consideration, the forest service started doing "controlled burns", trying to take this force of fire and make it bend to their will, which although leading to less fires it doesn't always (or usually) work the way they think it will.

Keynesian economics has been very popular for almost a century now; an economic school that advocates government intervention in the market to stop recessions from being as deep as they would naturally be. A competing school in economics is the Austrian/Chicago school which advocates for just the opposite; contending that government intervention may (although probably not) lesson the depth of one recession, but creates a bubble with cheap money and leads to another recession. The Austrian school says if a business is going to fail let it fail don't prop it up, where as the Keynesians are the ones who came up with "too big to fail".

Keynesian economics is like the early 20th century fire control in Yellowstone and the controlled burns of today; people trying to impose themselves onto a natural cycle they don't fully understand, leading to devastating consequences and disrupting the natural cycles.

When the market drops, we need to let it burn, clean out all the dead wood and make room for new growth. If we do that, disasters will be less frequent and smaller in scale. It may seem counterintuitive to let fires burn, but sometimes it needs to happen.

And now a treat for reading this much:

The Commerce Clause and Twisted Logic

2010-03-30T10:20:00.004-05:00

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

This is the clause of the US Constitution which the Federal Government uses to justify just about everything it does in respect to the economy; saying it gives them the authority to make laws about everything that affects commerce among the states. Such laws include gun laws, EPA restrictions, and agriculture laws; just to name a few. They contend this clause gives them the power to regulate even things which stay within a certain state if anything used for that product comes from out of state (i.e. a screw or paint).

However, by that logic, then the Federal Government would have the power to extend these types of laws to foreign Nations. Seeing as they do not have that power and never did or will, how can different logic be applied to a another clause of the same sentence?

The Supreme Court has 40 some case decisions on The Commerce Clause, and I am not familiar with all of them, but I don't see how this twisted logic can stand. The Federal Government can not logically have more power to regulate commerce among the states than it does with foreign nations.

Maybe if the courts actually read the Constitution and not case law this fallacy can be reversed, but I don't hold out hope.

Dominique Dorsey IV

2010-03-25T13:03:00.002-05:00

Dominique Dorsey has signed with the team he first played with in the CFL, the Saskatchewan Roughriders. I hope he has a good season.

I still would like to see him get his shot in the NFL, but after not impressing the Redskins last year and getting up there in age for a running back (he'll be 27 this year) I'm not sure if we'll get to see that. But at least he is getting to play somewhere, too bad CFL games don't air here.

Government Revenue Structure

2010-03-23T11:34:00.002-05:00

One hurtle which needs to be jumped in order to get the US government under control is to change the revenue structure. Right now,the money flows down; individuals pay the federal government and then they give the money to the states. That needs to be reversed in order to control spending and regulation. The states need to pay the federal government, and then the states will control the federal government instead of the backwards way it is now.

And likewise the states should be funded by the counties so the counties can control the states. If each individual county were responsible for funding the state they would be more active in policing the state budget. And this would give the local people more control on how funding is appropriated.

If a county with a large city wanted to have all kinds of social programs they could tax themselves to raise the money, and those areas that decide they don't want those programs wouldn't have to fund them.

The more localized the revenue structure the better it will fit the individuals and the more control it will give them.

One to upset communists

2010-03-12T18:31:00.000-06:00

Drum-roll please......communism is a form of capitalsim! How can this be you ask? Well, lets look at capitalism in it's rawest form; capital is simply something one can trade, capitalism is where that capital is traded in return for something wanted by the person trading the capital. In communism the capital is a person's willingness to comply, which is traded for the things the government provides them. If someone were to not comply, the trade is cancelled and the person doesn't get what they want out of the trade. So, in a raw sense, communism is a form of capitalism. It may not matter, because communism is a horrid form of government no matter. But I just wanted to point this out so communists can be irritated with rationality and reality.

Healthcare Is Not A Right

2010-03-09T10:38:00.004-06:00

Rights are those things that are naturally born to an individual (property rights), or in some cases to protect those natural rights from being usurped unjustly (right to a fair trial). All natural rigths extend from the right of property, the ability to own one's own body and by extention those things created by or earned in trade from the use of that body. Without the right to own one's body, there is no right to free speech or free thought, because those are things derived from the body. The right to gun ownership extends from the right to collect more property through trade of either effort or property and to protect that property. And so on.

Other things which are not natural to the human condition, may be essential, but are not rights. This includes such things as food, healthcare, and even guns, yes you have the right to trade for these things, but not have them provided. The government cannot create rights, only protect those which are natural to the human condition.

Addendum: Some "rights" in the Bill of Rights extend from the fact that we the governed created the government and impose restrictions on it to secure our natural rights, this is the case with jury trials and the right to a lawyer. Healthcare does not fall into this either.

What to say?

2010-01-09T15:52:00.002-06:00

I simply don't know what to say anymore. This past year has been like a political nightmare. Now the President vows to make me an outlaw by the end of the month, with the signing of this health care thing, not reform, not fix, just a thing.

You see, I am one of the thousands of uninsured in the country, because I want to be. If I have medical difficulties I pay for them myself. But, this government is going to make me an outlaw if I don't buy what they want me to.

This is just getting to be too much, very overwhelming. I am not usually a man of so few words on this page, but I guess I have too much to say without knowing how to say it, so for now I will bite my tongue for the most part, but when this writers block ends, there will a tongue lashing I will most certainly deliver.

The underlying assumption

2009-10-18T16:22:00.004-05:00

For every political argument there must be an underlying assumption. Currently both parties claim that assumption is freedom. But if we take that assumption to it's logical end, neither parties policies make any sense.

If one's underlying assumption is freedom, then ponder this: freedom comes from the right of each to do with their property as they wish. That property starts at their own body and extends to anything earned under contractural labour by them.

If one has a right to their own body, how can anyone deny them the abuse of that right; prostitution, drug use or anything else.

If one owns those things which are property by extension; what right does anyone have to confiscate that property? Most would say none, but are taxes not a confiscation of this property.

By the US constitution, the legitimate use of government power is the protection of rights. So, no matter how much things are needed by others, it is not under the constitutional right of the government to take from one and give to another.

Yes, people need health care; but if the government undermines property rights to give health care, what stops them from undermining property rights for any other reason?

We need a new healthcare system, but allowing the government to steal from people is not the answer; granting the government unconstitutional power never is the answer.

Dominique Dorsey III

2009-09-19T08:50:00.002-05:00

After being unable to make the Redskins' roster this season, Dominique Dorsey has returned to Toronto, and it seems they are very happy to see his return.

Can They Hear Us Now?

2009-09-13T10:17:00.004-05:00

Yesterday; on September 12th 2009, Washington DC was flooded with people protesting against government expansion. Some were anti-Obama, some were anti-big government, some were pro-Bush, some were Republicans, some were Democrats, some were Libertarians, some were Independants. Some were protesting recent government expansion, some were protesting a long string of abuses. Some were young, some were old. But they were all fed up with Washington. I've seen some saying this was just this or that group, or this or that group shouldn't support it because this or that group was supporting it. This seems to be missing the point, whether or not all of any of one group's ideas are "correct" doesn't matter. What matters is that they are all fed up with big government. They may not agree on how small a government should be, or what that government should do, but they all think it should be smaller than it is.

This is where the focus should be, once we have shrunk the size of government, then we can have these discussions of what it should be doing, but for now, lets focus on the first step, shrinking the scope of power that Washington yeilds.

Estimates of the crowd size varies from 30,000-2 million. Capitol Hill Police are said to have estimated 1.2 million. I don't know which numbers are correct, but it was a lot of people; and they were joined by many more at Tea Parties across the country. Maybe some one in the monstrosity which calls itself a government took notice.

Dominique Dorsey II

2009-09-07T12:29:00.005-05:00

Well, many of you seem to have read my report on my freshman year roommate Dominique Dorsey getting a try in the NFL with the Washington Redskins. Unfortunately it seems he did not impress the Redskins coaching staff enough, he did not make it past the Sept. 5th cut down to a 53 man roster. Niether was he signed to the practice squad on the 6th, although rumor seemed that he would. If no other NFL team shows interest, his old team in the CFL, the Toronto Argonaugts, are chomping at the bit to get him back. I don't know what's going to happen now, but I wish him the best.

Some More Jefferson

2009-08-26T23:11:00.002-05:00

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.

-Thomas Jefferson

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

-Thomas Jefferson

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

-Thomas Jefferson

Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people.

-Thomas Jefferson

We are all doubtless bound to contribute a certain portion of our income to the support of charitable and other useful public institutions. But it is a part of our duty also to apply our contributions in the most effectual way we can to secure this object. The question then is whether this will not be better done by each of us appropriating our whole contribution to the institutions within our reach, under our own eye, and over which we can exercise some useful control? Or would it be better that each should divide the sum he can spare among all the institutions of his State or the United States? Reason and the interest of these institutions themselves, certainly decide in favor of the former practice.

-Thomas Jefferson

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

-Thomas Jefferson

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

-Thomas Jefferson

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

-Thomas Jefferson

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.

-Thomas Jefferson

Echoes of the Past

2009-08-24T23:42:00.005-05:00

I was reading, and this passage; which is preceded by Jefferson presenting offences of British Parliment and Crown prior to King George III, seemed to have a familiarity with todays political climate.

"That thus have we hastened through the reigns which preceded his majesty's, during which the violations of our right were less alarming, because repeated at more distant intervals than that rapid and bold succession of injuries which is likely to distinguish the present from all other periods of American story. Scarcely have our minds been able to emerge from the astonishment into which one stroke of parliamentary thunder has involved us, before another more heavy, and more alarming, is fallen on us. Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery."

-Thomas Jefferson "A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA"

Addendum

This passage as well seems relevent:

"When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution. "

-Thomas Jefferson "A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA"

In Congress, July 4, 1776

2009-07-04T09:45:00.002-05:00

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
Geo. Walton

Wm. Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thos. Heyward, Junr.
Thomas Lynch, Junr.
Arthur Middleton

Samuel Chase
Wm. Paca
Thos. Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Th. Jefferson
Benja. Harrison
Thos. Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robt. Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benja. Franklin
John Morton
Geo. Clymer
Jas. Smith
Geo. Taylor
James Wilson
Geo. Ross
Caesar Rodney
Geo. Read
Tho. Mckean

Wm. Floyd
Phil. Livingston
Frans. Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richd. Stockton
Jno. Witherspoon
Fras. Hopkinson
John Hart
Abra. Clark

Josiah Bartlett
Wm. Whipple
Saml. Adams
John Adams
Robt. Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Step. Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Wm. Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton

Some Timely Quotes From Mr. Jefferson

2009-06-25T14:46:00.003-05:00

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."

-Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

-Thomas Jefferson

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. "

-Thomas Jefferson

What Should These united states Be Like; In My Opinion

2009-06-18T08:51:00.004-05:00

What does the government need to do?

1. Build Raods

2. Provide For Defense

3. Provide Courts

4. Provide Police

5. Regulation to enforce advertising and Contracts (so you know that things are "as advertised")

6. Powers granted in the Constitution

Things which are optional but the governement should slowly stop handling:

These things should evenutually become private charities

1. A voluntary scholarship fund for children to attend charter type private schools

2. A voluntary medical assistance fund for the poor and disabled

3. A voluntary monetary assistance fund for the poor and disabled

4. A voluntary food assistance program for the poor and disabled

How it should all be funded:

1. taxes should be collected at local levels and dispursed up to state and national level

2. If an income tax is levied, no more than .oooooo3% flat tax (each person is only 1 of ~300,000,000)

3. flat rate tax on all consumption, whenever a product or service is bought

4. All the above voluntary programs should funded voluntarily, not with tax dollars

That is it; nothing more. Now I know it will most likely never get this good during my life time, but we need to start shrinkning government, and maybe one day things can become close.

The Naivitee of Artists

2009-06-09T22:26:00.004-05:00

I myslelf am an artist of sorts; as a writer/producer/director; however, the naivitee of other artists is staggering for me to think about. When the Gulf War happened and we left without doing anything to Sadaam Huusain many artists had a thing or two to say. Most notable of these was David O. Russel's Three Kings

div>However; after George W. Bush invaded Iraq to oust Sadaam, Russel made an anti-Iraq war documentary called Soldiers Paydiv>

Many clebrities now talk about the horrible things taking place in Africa, especially Dafour. However, they fail to mention that such corrupt governments confiscate most of the money and goods that come into the countries. You have to do one or the other; war or ignore them. These ragimes take most of the money and food we send, so this current situation is a black hole. Either have the balls to spend the money to liberate people or have the balls to be fiscally responsible and draw back our military. We can't have both, aid to these countries won't work; if we are going to help these people we need to put some power to our words, otherwise it is just a "feel good" waste of money. I am not one for war; but if you want to free these people, that is the only way, sending aide is like jacking off and hoping to have a child.

The Fear of Freedom

2009-06-08T18:31:00.003-05:00

I think I have finally figured it out, why Republicans and Democrats think the way they do; it's the fear of freedom. Not their own, but of others. Of course they want all the freedoms they can handle, but they are afraid of giving freedom to others.

Republicans fear the repeal of drug prohibition because they fear that everyone else will just be high all the time and driving around selling drugs to kids. They fear gay marriage because they think it will lead to people doing crazy things like marrying horses (no kidding, this is what my dad actually says).

Democrats fear guns, and think if guns are banned that people will run around shooting everything in sight. They fear small government because they think people can't take care of themselves.

How can anyone walk around being this afraid of things? I mean, I have generalized anxiety disorder, I have days where I stay in my house because I'm afraid to go outside. My biggest fear in all the world is puppets. I'm usually convinced people are doing things just to spite me. But even I think it is paranoid to be as afraid of freedom as Republicans and Democrats.

To want freedoms for yourself because those are the freedoms you like, and to deny people other freedoms because you don't like them is not acting in self-interest. If only everyone acted in self-interest (do unto others as you would have them do unto you type stuff) then there would be no problem, and I think if we spent half as much time teaching our children how to properly behave as we dosending them to public schools which teach a horrbly skewed socialist pallet of half-truths and useless nonsense, then we'd be ok.

Counting Blue Cars

2009-05-07T17:37:00.004-05:00

In a few of my posts I have spoken about how religious I tend to be. At this moment I would wish to refine what I have meant by such statements. I do not believe in organized religion, it leaves nothing to the individual. I also do not believe in atheism, it ignores certain evidence, and for the most part asserts as fact something which it may never know.

Organized religion tells people how to think based on what god they follow, and what the church higherarchy decrees. To me, this is absence of thought. To believe what another tells you simply because they claim a closer relationship with God means you abandon your own thought. I bow to no man, and no man shall tell me fables which ignore the facts of this world and tell me they give him power over.

Atheists (the majority anyway) protest to know the unknowable, that there is no God. To know something means one must have concrete undisputed evidence that it is true. Of course, in the case of God, you cannot prove something unprovalbe, and neither can you disprove something unprovable. Iy they were to say, they think or believe there is no God, I could maybe agree.

I, myself am a Deist Catholic (Catholic in a cultural sense not spiritual). I look at the world through the lens of logic. I believe the big bang, and most all other theories. The big bang; there was a cosmic egg of all of existence existing in a singularity. But what created that egg, surely, the laws of nature tells us something cannot come from nothing. And for all that mess to end up creating humans, a life form capable to concieve os such things, the chances are far against it. The universe acts in predictable, describable means. My logic tells me that there is a god of some sort, I don't think it interacts with humans through prophecy.

I don't care what you believe; just don't try and say it is fact. Facts are backed up by real world experimenst. There are no such experiments for God. In practicality, you believe or you don't, you don't know or or know it is not.

Back to the title- Counting Blue Cars by Dishwalla.

Self Interest V Selfishness

2009-05-05T21:41:00.002-05:00

It seems this is a distinction which needs to be made. Self interest is not the same as selfishness. It is out of selfishness a man demotes those under him to the idea of lesser beings. It is out of self interest a man treats each as his equal.

It seems that the so called "liberals" in america (lower cased for purpose) can not distinguish between the two. To them, the man who cheats his employees out of selfishness is the same as the man who treats his employees well out of self interest. To them; both are in need of compulsitory compliance.

There is a difference. The man who acts in selfishness does not worry about future consequences. The man who acts in self interest does.

If one were to steal a loaf of bread out of selfishness, they would only be worrying about survival. If one were to steal a loaf of bread out of self interest they would consider everything, if they were in the position of the bread seller woud they wish to have thier bread stolen?

Self interest is based on the ideal "do unto others as you would have done to you" Selfishness is based onto the ideal "what is good for me is good for me."

A man working on selfishness would steal from another to aquire as much material wealth as possible.

A man working on self interest would aquire goods as he wished them to aquired from him.

In short, a man working out of selfishness is a danger to society. A man working out of self interest is a benefit to society. A man working for an ideal is a parasite. A man working for himself is reality.

Patrick Henry Is Dead

2009-04-23T22:12:00.002-05:00

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry gave a speech which ended in the the amazing quote,"give me liberty or give me death!" Since that day, we citizens of the united states have slowly let that quote deteriorate.

Today; we have given into the quote, "give me liberty or give me a comfortable life at the expence of those who have more money than I." Slowly, our country is fading around us; and for the last 100yrs we have done nothing. We have been fed guilt and hatred, and we have accepted it.

Do you wish to know what has spurred me into action, this very blog, into being? It is the idea that it seems we would rather die as slaves than to fail as individuals. Mid-last year; when I saw this very thing begin to happen is when I could take no more.

I never wished to speak out. My entire political philosiphy is modeled around being left alone. But, for my own self interest; yes I do this out of self interest, I could no longer let my voice go unheard. Someday I wish to have children, and I can not allow anyone to be brought into such a failure of intelligence as this world now is. My hope is that this world will be set on a path of reform before any such point children of mine are maturing.

I would rather fail a free nation than succeed as a nation of slaves.

The Age of Entitlement

2009-04-21T17:43:00.004-05:00

One of my favorite periods to study in history is the Age of Enlightenment. At this time many philosophers, scientists and political theorists began to stress the importance of reason and inquiry, to use rational ideas to explain the world around them. Thomas Paine referred to it as the Age of Reason. This period gave us Adam Smith's explanation of free market economics, John Locke's explanation for the nature of rights, and the united states Constitution. To me, this is the most intellectually exciting period other than Greco-Roman. I understand how these men thought. This is the way I think.

The world I live in today, I don't understand. I don't understand how people think today. It's not the way I think. It seems to me that people today think only about immediate results, and only the good immediate results. People want more for themselves right now, without thinking what that means for later. It seems people don't use reason, they use emotion. When they rebut a point, they don't talk about how logical or illogical it is; they talk about how bad or mean or good it is. It seems everyone wants to gain, but no one wants to lose. Which is contrary to reason that that can occur; but it feels like a good idea. People seem to feel as though they don't want to earn anything, just have it, then and there.

Except meaning the loss of my modern conveniences, I think I would be more at home in the Age of Enlightenment. But it seems like I'm living in the Age of Entitlement.

Just Some Thoughts; WWI

2009-04-19T16:54:00.004-05:00

So much is taught about German involvment in WWI and the consequences which led to Hitler gaining power. But not much is ever mentioned about the involvment of the Ottoman Empire in the war. I would venture to guess most poeple, at least not in America, know what the Ottoman Empire was, much less know it was involved in WWI.

This seems an odd vaccuum of knowledge. Maybe it is the fact that much of US public school teaching is geared towards European history. Or maybe it makes some people feel less guilt ridden, since Germans are white and the Ottoman Empire was largely middle eastern. I'm not sure.

It is odd; given that I was in a public school during the Gulf War, that they had not already begun to teach about the affects of the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, given US trouble in the region had begun more than 15 years prior. From what I know, public schools still aren't talking about this. Almost everything I know on the subject is self taught.

These were just some thoughts I had. I had planned on discussing ethics V morality; but I guess that will be another post.

Property Tax

2009-04-17T14:26:00.002-05:00

As I stated in my last post; I think property tax is the worst of all the taxes. Capitalism is supposed to be a voluntary system. If you do not wish to make capitalist transactions, you should not be forced to. However, paying a tax on land which one already owns means that after they acquired title to that land they are forced to participate in capitalism; in order to make the money to pay the taxes.

If I were to give a good piece of land to a poor family, and on that land was everything they needed to live (food, water, lumber), they could not simply live off that land. They would be forced to participate in capitalism to just pay the taxes.

To take a voluntary system and force one to participate is a horrific thing. The only taxes, if any, which should be levied, should be based on voluntary capitalist transactions. Not on property already owned.

Political Office

2009-04-15T22:03:00.004-05:00

Recently several people have pushed me to run for a public office. I do not want to be a politician. My entire political philosophy is built around the fact that I just want to be left alone. What kind of world is it where for a man to be left alone he must thrust himself into the public light?

In my considerations of these prompts I have thought about any chances I would have. I know Republicans would back me on my small government stance, and Democrats would back me on my social freedom stance. But I think both would reject me because of my overall stance. Will a Republican vote for someone who thinks gay marriage should be legal? Will a Democrat vote for someone who thinks welfare should be abolished? I don't know; and the fact that I don't like people in general really makes me hesitate at having to deal with people so much.

If the government would permit it; I would become a hermit. But even that is illegal I'm sure. For one thing a hermit wouldn't have the means to pay property or any other tax (my hatred of property tax will be another post).

So, I'm left confused. If you read this blog, and have read any of my other blogs; please comment and let me know what you think I think I should do.

Jon

A Free Man Bows To No King

2009-04-12T23:53:00.004-05:00

Recently there has been some buzz about President Obama bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia. Even though many people are outraged, it seems to me that they outraged for the wrong reasons. All I hear about, from the people who care, is this and that about protocol. But to me it is more than that. President Obama is the appointed leader of a country of free men (and women and what ever else they wish to be called). A free man bows to no king. It is not a matter of protocol, but a matter of principle. To bow to a king as a free man shows how little respect one has for the principal of freedom. I don't care if it is the custom. Customs which degrade the free man are not to be abided by.

I know this example may be a little too extreme for some, but I think it's the best way to get my point across; but if the custom were for the king to be called "master", then would it have been right for President Obama to abide by that custom? Of course not! In my eyes it's the same thing. A free man bows to no king!

And for those of you still don't think it was a bow, it was. And for those of you think this is just because I dislike President Obama, it's not. If it was just a reaction, I can understand it, but it doesn't make it any more right.

European Relations

2009-04-10T14:14:00.003-05:00

I have began to wonder why the government of the united states thinks it prudent to take advice on how to successfully run a Republic from countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

France is a republic; but this incarnation has only been in existence since 1958; and is the fifth Republic formed in that country. That is not a good track record on knowing how to run a sestainable Republic.

Germany is a Republic; but this version of their Republic only dates to 1949, since their prior system was overtaken by Hitler.

The United Kingdom is not a Republic. They are a constitutional monarchy, without even a written constitution.

So why does the united states government take advice on how to run a Republic from them? Our Republic has been sustained since 1789.

If they feel it prudent to take advice of any sort on how to run a Republic from any European country, then it would be best to take it from San Marino. San Marino is the oldest Republic in the world, founded in 301. That means while Germany, France and the United Kingdom were using the monarchal systems of the middle ages, San Marino was a Republic. San Marino has had a constitution since 1600. That means when France enacted their latest constitution the San Marino constitution was 350 years old.

Do I think it's prudent to seek advice from San Marino? No, for one it is much too small and does not have the same problems we do. But I don't think we should be asking countries with such horrible records at running Rupublics as France and Germany or a countries which are not even Republics, such as Great Britain, how to run our Republic. If advice is needed on how to solve our problems I believe all the answers are in or own past. We need only look to that thing which has been gathering dust in D.C. these last few years, the Constitution.

Green Bay Tea Party

2009-04-09T21:56:00.002-05:00

This is a piece I did on the Green Bay tea party back on March 7th. I am going to try and cover the tea party in Appleton on the 15th.

If this is a passion for you, I urge you to go out and let your voice be heard. If protesting government spending isn't your bag, then don't participate; but please don't heckle, there's room for all opinions.

Will Atlas Shrug?

2009-04-06T22:11:00.003-05:00

I have recently posited the fact that the united states of america is headed down the road of fascism. However the major flaw in fascism is the fact that it relys on the compliance of the business sector to create this corrupt idea.

Are there any principled buisinessmen left who will simply give up and let the natural course of demise take hold? Or have we become so corrupted that material gain of any kind is our principal?

Atlas Shrugged describes a world where buisinessmen still have a principal of capitalism which still makes them morally justified; but have our businessmen so given into to this as to allow material goods to be the only justification to their actions?

If there is no John Galt, then truly we will be overtaken by fascism; but I still hope there is at least one man left with honor; one man who believes a government granted monopoly is not an answer but a question; Who is John Galt?

The Nature of rights Part II

2009-04-06T21:11:00.005-05:00

I have already shared that logical recourse shows that all other rights are devolved from the right of property. The right of property comes from the fact that we are human beings who can both understand our rights and the consequences of our rights, where animals can not. Previously I posited the belief that property rights decminate from a person clarified as "a being with a body and brain consistant with that of others of the species". Others have challenged this belief with the idea of a person being clarified as "a being which contains two strains of human DNA and is living." This would of course deny the right's of a person to sperm/egg and hair, since sperm/egg contains only half of the human genome and hair, which contains the entire genome, is not actually living. But then I hear this story on the local news. And I began to think about laws of mutilation of a corpse and grave robbing; which seem to give prudence to my earlier assumption of the definition of a human only requiring a "human" to be alive; since this clearly shows that we manifest property right to even those whom are not alive. Therefore; life is not an pre-requisite for human life and thus property right. Which leaves us with the second half of the argument; to be human consists of only human DNA. If that is the case, then we must treat every strand of fallen hair with the same rights as a human. Since we clearly do not make that distinction, then the premise must be false; the qualification for being human does not involve either life or human DNA. Rather it is a more defined explanation; Abody which has a brain and a human-like body.

However; the opposite assertion that a child has no rights simply because it is dependant on the body of the mother is also illogical. If this were true, then we would condone the killing of conjoined twins who depend on the body of thier twin. Clearly we do not do this. What we do is give give them a choice. They can remove the dependant twin and; but the medical proffesionals must give the dependant twin every chance to survive. Why is this not true of abortion? Techniques which intentionally kill the child are murder. The mother has the right to remove the child, but has no right to condone it's murder.

When we take the logical steps to define a "person", both sides become clear. Personally I think abortion is immoral; but politically I cannot find any logical reason why a fetus has rights before it has reached a definition of human. What we can debate, and I encourage, is debate on what constitutes a human. This will remain a problem until we can reach a logical conclusion on this issue. It morally pains me to say that I must accept the political idea of abortion before a fetus has become "human"; but my belief that property right is the right from which all other right deceminates will not allow me at this point to object to such an argument.

Jon

Is Hollywood Oblivious or Enlightened?

2009-04-01T01:00:00.005-05:00

As recent events are showing the united states to be skewing ever closer to what was only thought to be fiction Hollywood is doing something amazing; planned for release in the next three years are film versions of the novels: Atlas Shrugged, 1984 and Brave New World. How can the same people who are unflinchingly supporting President Obama make these movies now? Did they have a sudden realization of what is going on in this country? Is this round of films still only based on the hatred of President Bush? Or are they simply oblivious to what the theme of these novels is.
Atlas shrugged tells of how government control over business will lead to the downfall of the united states and the world. While our President takes it

upon himself to fire (force into resignation) the head of a privatly owned company (GM) and tell bank executives how much money they should earn.

1984 tells of government intrusion into personal lives through telescreens. At this moment the government wants to install a "smart grid" which could regulate how much power is available to you if they think you are consuming too much.

Brave New World tells of a one world government which promotes consumption of goods and reviles individuality; where the people are so conditioned (all be it through genetic engineering) that they don't even care. This at a time when our president is talking more and more about working with other countries, his state department saying we should ennact laws from other countries which are unconstitutional and the secretary of the treasury is considering complying with the requests to create a new world reserve currency.

For the three most anti-government novels of this century to be in the works while the government ever expands is simply amazing. If conditions have not gotten better by the time these films are released, Hollywood gets them right and the movie going audience understands what they are seeing; then that could be like a match being lit inside an oil tanker. I just wonder if anyone in Hollywood realizes that. Who is John Galt?

The Un-Spoken Word

2009-03-31T14:59:00.007-05:00

When I hear people speaking of the politics of President Obama they never seem to use the correct words. Some call him a socialist; he might be, but few of his policies have shown that because with a few exceptions buisnessmen still own thier businesses. Some call him a liberal; but that is a really vague term, what does that entail? No, through his actions so far he has proven to be somthing which has yet to be named by the critics. A word so damning they dare not utter it. A word which has taken on a different connotative meaning than it's actual denotative meaning. A word that if one used it they would be called isane. But this word is the one which properly describes his actions. What is the word? Fascist.

Through the years Fascism has become interchangable with Nazism; when in fact Nazism is only a type of fascism. Through this misconstrued meaning it has come to be believed that a Fascist must be a racist; but this is not the case. Fascism; put simply, is socialism light. Where in socialism the government actually owns all the businesses; in Fascism the businessmen own thier businesses, but the government tells them how to run it. This is exactly what President Obama; as well as the previous administration, has done. The government doesn't actually own General Moters, but yet President Obama is choosing who runs the company.

Sadly, one fact of Nazism that is inherrent of Fascism is that with the extended power of the government in the business sector, they also take power in the civil sector. In 1932 Hitler's Fascist ally Benito Musselini put it like this, "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...." This sounds a lot like the attempts to limit smoking and consumption of fattening foods which have been happening these last few years.

Now the civil and economic factors are both there, so lets stop skirting around the issue.

Let's not be afraid to use the correct terminology, because if what they are doing is so right, then why are they arfraid of naming it? If what you are doing is right, you have no such fears; only when you know what you are doing is wrong are you afraid to name it.

The Nature of Rights

2009-03-17T20:21:00.003-05:00

So where do rights come from? You may feel in your gut or have learned that each person has certain rights, but where do they come from? Are they granted by Gods? Are they granted by governments? In my logical analysis; although God may have created nature, nature is the thing grants us rights; not God directly. This is to say, the position of God on rights is vague, it all depends to whom you speak. Where as nature has made it clear; in a state of nature each person has the right to their own body and the fruits of their labour. In other words, property rights extending from the right of self ownership.

Then where does the right to free speech come from? Well; your vocal chords are part of your body, therefore you can say what you want.

Then where does the right to free press come from? Well; as long as you own the press or have permission to use it, that is an extension of your voice.

Then where does the right to religion come from? It is your mind and your body, do with it as you wish.

Then why is (stealing, murdering, beating...) wrong; because you have a right to your body, since it is property, and those whom harm your property are can be persecuted.

So why don't animals have this same right? The key to human ability to have rights is based on the fact that humans as a species can understand rights. If anyone can prove that another species understands t not only the benefit, but also the consequence of rights; then I will gladly grant that species rights.

Locke-Smiths

2009-03-02T22:17:00.006-06:00

I have recently begun a group that I hope will be more than the average "we want this" political group; The Locke-Smiths, I hope, are more than a one issue band wagon. There is one key issue, smaller government, but other than that it is up for debate on what exactly that small government should do as long as it does not infringe on life, liberty and property. If you are into political philosophy and want to join a group that will actually attempt to make a change, I hope the Locke-Smiths can do it.

Spectral Analysis

2009-02-21T10:25:00.007-06:00

This is how I view the political spectrum, as a circle; starting and ending in anarchy. From anarchy you go counter-clockwise adding more governance. Notice; there are no distinct lines between categories; they simply blend together.

Anarchy: There is no state. There is no governance.

Anarchistic Capitalism: There is no state; all functions of government are performed willingly through capitalist transactions. There is slight governance.

Classical Liberalism: There is a very minimal state, performing only very simple duties; such as national defense and arbitration through courts; personal. liberty is of most importance. The state plays no role in the economy. Personal property is not infringed. There is slight governance.

Conservatism: The state has moderate power; providing defense, arbitration through courts, basic education and moderate taxation. Personal liberties are slightly infringed. The state plays a very small role in the economy. Personal property is slightly infringed. There is moderate governance.

Modern Liberalism: The state has extensive power; providing defense, arbitration through courts, extensive education, progressive taxation and social programs. Personal liberties are greatly infringed. The state plays a large role in the economy. Personal property is regulated by the state. There is extensive governance.

Fascism: The state has over-reaching power; providing defense, arbitration through courts, extensive education, progressive taxation and social programs. Personal liberties are greatly infringed. The state controls the economy through extensive regulation. Personal property is heavily regulated by the state. There is extensive governance.

Socialism: The state has almost complete control; providing defense, arbitration through courts, extensive education, progressive taxation and social programs. Personal liberties are severely infringed. The state controls the economy through ownership of all business. Personal property is completely regulated by the state. There is extensive governance.

Communism: The state has complete control; providing defense, arbitration through courts, extensive education, progressive taxation, social programs, clothing, food and housing. Personal liberties do not exist. The state controls the economy through ownership of all business. Personal property does not exist. There is complete governance.

Anarchistic Communism: There is no state. All functions of the state are performed by the majority in the community. Personal liberties are severely infringed. The economy is controlled by the majority in the community. Personal property does not exist. There is complete governance.

Anarchy: There is no state. There is no governance.

Governance:

The act, process, or power of governing; government: "Regaining a sense of the state is thus an absolute priority, not only for an effective policy against . . . terrorism, but also for governance itself" (Moorhead Kennedy).
The state of being governed.

Govern:

Gov"ern\, v. i. To exercise authority; to administer the laws; to have the control. --Dryden.

I would argue that the current Republican party is somewhere in the blending of conservatism and modern liberalism; the Democratic party is somewhere in the blending of modern liberalism and fascism; and ther Libertarian party is somewhere in the blending of classical liberalism and conservatism. I think true anarchy can not exist when there is more than one person; so it is very hard to come by in reality.

Marxy Marx

2009-02-13T22:34:00.005-06:00

I thought this would be a good time to take another look at Karl Marx's ten steps to make a capitalist country into a socialist country, lets check off the ones already completed.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Getting there; although we still may own our land, it isn't really ours, what with the abuse of emminant domain going on and all the regulations and zoning requirements put on the land.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Check

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Getting there; with the "Death Tax"

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Well; we don't really have emmigrant issues or rebels, yet.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Check

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Getting there; the government now contorls the big three automakers, Amtrak and is giving money away to telecommunications in the new recovery act.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Well; with the state buying up everything, this could be happening, I'm not quite sure.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

It seems more like they don't want people to work at this stage, so as to get them on their side; this one probably isn't far off.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Check

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Check

A Matter of Disclosure

2009-02-08T18:06:00.004-06:00

Aside from Disclosure being a great movie with the in her prime Demi Moore, I have something I feel is my obligation to say. Through all the railing against government spending I do; I to am on the government doll. It is not somthing I am proud of, in fact it has given me many restless night.

My father is a disabled veteran for the US Air Force, and through him I recieve benefits for going to school. I did drop out of school in Las Vegas to come back and help him here in Wisconsin when he fell ill. My parents wanted me to go back to school and get a degree so I could earn more to help take care of the family. So; when things settled down I went back to college; driving 62 miles (each way) a day to attend class while staying close to help take care of my dad. And the VA dissability pays for my schooling and gives me money to live off.

Even though I have never called for the stoppage of veterans assistance from the government; the fact that I get money from this has pained me. I call for less government spending, and yet I am a cause of it. In my ultimate goal, veteran assistance would be the last thing I would cut; since doing their duty to the government is what caused these men to be in the predicament they are in to begin with, but as everything else I would rather it be held in private hands up to the donors.

I often wonder if my predicament jives with what I preach, and the answer I have come up with is yes. I see it like a civil case; if we were to sue in civil court for the loss of my father's limbs we would win, so it seems justified. But somehow it does not sit well with me. If I could could stop all other government waste by denying the fruits of this I would. But then again I suppose anyone else would most likely say something similar.

So what do you think; is my case just or am I a hipocrat? let me know what you think by leaving a comment. Maybe then I could sleep at night.

Always attempting to be truthful

Jon

Dominique Dorsey

2009-02-04T22:04:00.006-06:00

For those of you who do not know who Dominique Dorsey is, you may just find out soon. Dorsey left high school in 2001 as the leading rusher in California High School football history (the record has been broken since). Due to his size, only about 5' 7" 165lbs., none of the big colleges wanted him; he went to UNLV where he quickly made a name for himself as a kick returner. And after gaining 180 yards on 18 carries in a win over Nevada,

this article appeared in the October 15, 2001 issue of Sports Illustrated. That win carries a large significance, because at the time I was his roommate and he was upset about not having a 100 yard performance yet, and I told him, "You only needed 10 carries." To which he replied, "But that would be a ten yard average." And I said, "Exactly." And what do you know; he averages 10 yards per carry on 18 carries, giving him 180 yards. He went on to be the starting tailback at UNLV, piling up yardage against big name schools like Wisconsin and Tennessee.
After he graduated in 2005 from UNLV he went undrafted; trying out for the Baltimore Ravens and Oakland Raiders, but did not make either club. To stay up in football he moved north and joined the Seskatchewan Roughriders of the CFL where he went largley unnoticed. In 2007 he was traded to the Winnepeg Blue bombers of the CFL, only to be waived a month later.
Dorsey then signed with the Toronto Argonauts, and in his first came with the club he returned a record setting 129 yard(a CFL field is 150 yards long) missed field goal for a touchdown. In Toronto he went on to become an all-star player, eventually winning 2008 Special Teams Player of the Year despite missing several games to injury.

Now he has signed a three year deal with the Washington Redskins of the NFL, and I hope we hear a lot out of him this year. Congratulations Dom.

You can view Dominique's UNLV bio and stats here.

Here is a Las Vegas Sun artilce aboutDorsey signing with the Redskins.

Here is a Canada.com story about him signing with the Redskins.

And finally, here is a video of the record setting kick return.

What Powers Should the Government Have?

2009-02-01T00:46:00.003-06:00

For anyone out there who is either Republican or Democrat; when you are thinking about what power the government should have, just think about this, "what powers would you trust in the hands of the other party?"

As to say, Republicans, would you want a Democratic government to have the power you would give to a Republican government?

Democrats, would you want a Republican government to have the power you would give to a Democratic government?

I have noticed this among partisans; they will give all the power in the world to the government as long as thier party is the one in power; but once the other party is in power they appaul the "abuse" of power which is the same abuses thier own party had just done.

So, in closing; if you wouldn't trust the other party with that power, then the government shouldn't have it. (Although there are even more powers the government shouldn't have, but that's for another post)

Las Vegas Best Not Be Counting On A Bailout

2009-01-30T05:23:00.014-06:00

As most cities, states and businesses are waiting with baited breath for thier bailout money one coty that better not be holding it's breath is Las Vegas. I just began studying the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as bailout #2, and right away something struck me, in sec. 1109; which states prohibited uses of the money:

"SEC. 1109. PROHIBITED USES.

None

the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this

Act

may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool."

So, unless Nevada Senator Harry Reid makes some changes when it reaches the senate, it looks like it doesn't matter to Washington if Nevada fails. Which gets me, beacause if Citi Group is too big to fail it would seem to me that an entire state would be as well.

So much for this actually being about helping the economy.

Here's a news article about it.

And, if you feel really jaunty, you can read the bill here in PDF.

Note: I don't think any money should go to casinos; but that's because I don't think this bill should exist at all. If they are going to try and claim this has anything to do with actually helping the economy they should actually help the economy, not just give more money to themselves and their friends.

And here's an interesting chart showing how much money they are printing for this bailout.

Wiemar Republic anyone?

And here's a stilmulous breakdown from Glenn Beck.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

2009-01-27T00:46:00.003-06:00

I just found this article this article. I pasted it here, but you can follow the link and read it as well. Interesting stuff. And sadly right now it seems all to familiar.

Meg Sullivan

| 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-

LSMS368

These united states are not a Democracy!

2009-01-15T01:40:00.002-06:00

You see it every where you look; from school books to TV even from our own federal government, that these united states are a Democracy. But this is not, nor has it ever been the case. From it's very inception this country has been a Constitutional Republic. What's the difference? Well; in a Democracy it is rule of the majority directly or indirectly. In a Direct Democracy every person votes on every issue and what ever the majority wants becomes law. In an Indirect or Representative Democracy the people elect representatives who vote for them; but are still supposed to vote the way they think they people they are representing would vote, and what ever the majority wants becomes law. On the other hand in a Constitutional Republic the people elect representatives who vote for them; but cannot make any law which abridges that of the contitution and do not need to vote how they think the people they are representing would vote. The difference comes down to the power of the majority and collectivism. If we define ourselves as a Democracy it is easy to do as we have been doing for past decades and assume what ever the majority wants is what should be law; say for instance in a Democracy if the majority want to own slaves, they're elected officials have no right to stop them. However if this same place were a Constitutional Republic, even if the Constitution did not explicedly say slavery is wrong, the representatives have the right and the duty to tell the majority that slavery will be outlawed (unless of course the Constitution were to grant the right of slavery). So, a Democracy can quickly lead to mob rule and harm the rights of others simply because the majority want to. It may seem like a small difference, but come the time when you are in the minority, it can be a big difference.

*Republics are also explicitly categorized as not allowing monarchy, where as Democracies do not make that distinction.

Personal Vs Political

2009-01-07T23:32:00.006-06:00

One thing I can't understand is why people can't seem to seperate their personal and political views. To me it seems simple. Political views have to be backed up by reason and logic; while personal views can be what ever crackpot idea you have. I have a standard; the right to property, which all my political views have to live up to, so even if I personaly think something is right or wrong, if it does not uphold this standard then it does not become a political view. There are many such instances, such as: Guns- politically I think they are a naccesity; but personaly I don't really like them (of course I like looking at them and learning about them and seeing them in movies, but I feel nervous around real guns) Religion- politically I think it has no place; personally I am very religious (although I don't believe in organized religion, I'm more of an independant study kind of guy) Sex- politically I could care less how someone enjoys their sexuality; personally I don't think sex belongs anywhere but a long term relationship. Money- politically I think it's a great thing, it makes the world go round, everyone should have as much as they can grab a hold of; personally I don't like big business and think people should only have what they need and share as much as they can. Property- politically I don't care how much you have; personally I feel like too much property is a waste of space and would be fine in a one room shack (however I do like undeveloped land for recreation). Drugs- politically I think they should all be legalized and you only get into trouble if you harm someone (property of any kind) or come close to it; but personally I have not used an illegal substance for years and thier leagalization wouldn't affect me one or the other. Another thing is; politics is about people; personal views are about a person; singular. In my personal and political views there is one thing in common, the golden rule "Treat others as you wish to be treated"; and to me that means leave me the fuck alone and let me live my life how I want to as long as I don't hurt you (or your property), and I'll do the same to you.

"I Kneel Before No Man"

2008-12-26T21:51:00.003-06:00

That's a quote from "The Chronicles of Riddick"; a Vin Diesel vehicle which is a sequal to "Pitch Black". The last few weeks I found myself saying that line to myself while watching movies about European Kings; as well as Christmas movies about Jesus; as long as it is a person telling me what to do I will not, nor cannot, obey any rule which abridges the right of any other person to the basic rights of property. As religious as I can be; if Jesus himself told me to take another persons property (including harming their body) I could not obey without a deep feeling of guilt. "Kneel before no man;" to me those are words to live by; no matter if he were elected by popular demand or annointed by God; "I kneel before no man."

Addendum: I just recently watched the movie again and the quote is actually, "I bow to no man." But I think it makes the same point.

Abortion

2008-12-12T21:53:00.002-06:00

This seems to be a tough topic for people; as it is for me. However, it is also very clear. As soon as a child has a human body and mind, regardless of how well it works, that child has a right to it's body. The mother also has a right to her body; therefore she has the right to remove the child. But the current abortion procedure makes no attempt to remove the child without harming it's body; and therefore should not be legal. A procedure where the child is romoved and affords it every chance to survive should be legal. If every attempt is made to preserve the life of the child and it dies of natural causes outside the womb then it's rights have not been violated. Whether the fetus is viable or even if no such surgery exists; non-lethal removal of the fetus, giving it at least a chance to live, is the only answer for a true libertarian.

Here is an article from Canada.

Down with the Federal Reserve!

2008-12-05T11:25:00.003-06:00

An interesting bit about the Federal Reserves and its effects on inflation and recession from "For A New Liberty" by Murry N. Rothbard:

"The Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking
Inflating by simply printing more money, however, is now considered
old- fashioned. For one thing, it is too visible; with a lot of high-denomination
bills floating around, the public might get the troublesome idea that
the cause of the unwelcome inflation is the government’s printing of all
the bills—and the government might be stripped of that power. Instead,
governments have come up with a much more complex and sophisticated,
and much less visible, means of doing the same thing: of organizing
increases in the money supply to give themselves more money to spend
and to subsidize favored political groups. The idea was this: instead of
stressing the printing of money, retain the paper dollars or marks or francs
as the basic money (the “legal tender”), and then pyramid on top of that a
mysterious and invisible, but no less potent, “checkbook money,” or bank
demand deposits. The result is an inflationary engine, controlled by
government, which no one but bankers, economists, and government
central bankers understands—and designedly so.
First, it must be realized that the entire commercial banking system, in
the United States or elsewhere, is under the total control of the central
government—a control that the banks welcome, for it permits them to
create money. The banks are under the complete control of the central
bank—a government institution—a control stemming largely from the
central bank’s compulsory monopoly over the printing of money. In the
United States, the Federal Reserve System performs this central banking
function. The Federal Reserve (“the Fed”) then permits the commercial
banks to pyramid bank demand deposits (“checkbook money”) on top of
their own “reserves” (deposits at the Fed) by a multiple of approximately
6:1. In other words, if bank reserves at the Fed increase by $1 billion, the
banks can and do pyramid their deposits by $6 billion—that is, the banks
create $6 billion worth of new money.
Why do bank demand deposits constitute the major part of the money
supply? Officially, they are not money or legal tender in the way that
Federal Reserve Notes are money. But they constitute a promise by a bank
that it will redeem its demand deposits in cash (Federal Reserve Notes)
anytime that the deposit holder (the owner of the “checking account”) may
desire. The point, of course, is that the banks don’t have the money; they
Inflation and the Business Cycle 183
cannot, since the y owe six times their reserves, which are their own
checking account at the Fed. The public, however, is induced to trust the
banks by the penumbra of soundness and sanctity laid about them by the
Federal Reserve System. For the Fed can and does bail out banks in
trouble. If the public understood the process and descended in a storm
upon the banks demanding their money, the Fed, in a pinch, if it wanted,
could always print enough money to tide the banks over.
The Fed, then, controls the rate of monetary inflation by adjusting the
multiple (6:1) of bank money creation, or, more importantly, by
determining the total amount of bank reserves. In other words, if the Fed
wishes to increase the total money supply by $6 billion, instead of actually
printing the $6 billion, it will contrive to increase bank reserves by $1
billion, and then leave it up to the banks to create $6 billion of new
checkbook money. The public, meanwhile, is kept ignorant of the process
or of its significance.
How do the banks create new deposits? Simply by lending them out in
the process of creation. Suppose, for example, that the banks receive the
$1 billion of new reserves; the banks will lend out $6 billion and create the
new deposits in the course of making these new loans. In short, whe n the
commercial banks lend money to an individual, a business firm, or the
government, they are not relending existing money that the public
laboriously had saved and deposited in their vaults—as the public usually
believes. They lend out new demand deposits that they create in the course
of the loan—and they are limited only by the “reserve requirements,” by
the required maximum multiple of deposit to reserves (e.g., 6:1). For, after
all, they are not printing paper dollars or digging up pieces of gold; they
are simply issuing deposit or “checkbook” claims upon themselves for
cash—claims which they wouldn’t have a prayer of honoring if the public
as a whole should ever rise up at once and demand such a settling of their
accounts.
How, then, does the Fed contrive to determine (almost always, to
increase) the total reserves of the commercial banks? It can and does lend
reserves to the banks, and it does so at an artificially cheap rate (the
“rediscount rate”). But still, the banks do not like to be heavily in debt to
the Fed, and so the total loans outstanding from the Fed to the banks is
never very high. By far the most important route for the Fed’s determining
of total reserves is little known or understood by the public: the method of
“open market purchases.” What this simply means is that the Federal
Reserve Bank goes out into the open market and buys an asset. Strictly, it
184 Libertarian Applications to Current Problems
doesn’t matter what kind of an asset the Fed buys. It could, for example,
be a pocket calculator for twenty dollars. Suppose that the Fed buys a
pocket calculator from XYZ Electronics for twenty dollars. The Fed
acquires a calculator; but the important point for our purposes is that XYZ
Electronics acquires a check for twenty dollars from the Federal Reserve
Bank. Now, the Fed is not open to checking accounts from private
citizens, only from banks and the federal government itself. XYZ
Electronics, therefore, can only do one thing with its twenty-dollar check:
deposit it at its own bank, say the Acme Bank. At this point, another
transaction takes place: XYZ gets an increase of twenty dollars in its
checking account, in its “demand deposits.” In return, Acme Bank gets a
check, made over to itself, from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Now, the first thing that has happened is that XYZ’s money stock has
gone up by twenty dollars—its newly increased account at the Acme
Bank—and nobody else’s money stock has changed at all. So, at the end
of this initial phase—phase I—the money supply has increased by twenty
dollars, the same amount as the Fed’s purchase of an asset. If one asks,
where did the Fed get the twenty dollars to buy the calculator, then the
answer is: it created the twenty dollars out of thin air by simply writing
out a check upon itself. No one, neither the Fed nor anyone else, had the
twenty dollars before it was created in the process of the Fed’s
expenditure.
But this is not all. For now the Acme Bank, to its delight, finds it has a
check on the Federal Reserve. It rushes to the Fed, deposits it, and
acquires an increase of $20 in its reserves, that is, in its “demand deposits
with the Fed.” Now that the banking system has an increase in $20, it can
and does expand credit, that is, create more demand deposits in the form
of loans to business (or to consumers or government), until the total
increase in checkbook money is $120. At the end of phase II, then, we
have an increase of $20 in bank reserves generated by Fed purchase of a
calculator for that amount, an increase in $120 in bank demand deposits,
and an increase of $100 in bank loans to business or others. The total
money supply has increased by $120, of which $100 was created by the
banks in the course of lending out checkbook money to business, and $20
was created by the Fed in the course of buying the calculator.
In practice, of course, the Fed does not spend much of its time buying
haphazard assets. Its purchases of assets are so huge in order to inflate the
economy that it must settle on a regular, highly liquid asset. In practice,
this means purchases of U.S. government bonds and other U.S.
Inflation and the Business Cycle 185
government securities. The U.S. government bond market is huge and
highly liquid, and the Fed does not have to get into the political conflicts
that would be involved in figuring out which private stocks or bonds to
purchase. For the government, this process also has the happy
consequence of helping to prop up the government security market, and
keep up the price of government bonds.
Suppose, however, that some bank, perhaps under the pressure of its
depositors, might have to cash in some of its checking account reserves in
order to acquire hard currency. What would happen to the Fed then, since
its checks had created new bank reserves out of thin air? Wouldn’t it be
forced to go bankrupt or the equivalent? No, because the Fed has a
monopoly on the printing of cash, and it could—and would—simply
redeem its demand deposit by printing whatever Federal Reserve Notes
are needed. In short, if a bank came to the Fed and demanded $20 in cash
for its reserve—or, indeed, if it demanded $20 million—all the Fed would
have to do is print that amount and pay it out. As we can see, being able to
print its own money places the Fed in a uniquely enviable position.
So here we have, at long last, the key to the mystery of the modern
inflationary process. It is a process of continually expanding the money
supply through continuing Fed purchases of government securities on the
open market. Let the Fed wish to increase the money supply by $6 billion,
and it will purchase government securities on the open market to a total of
$1 billion (if the money multiplier of demand deposits/reserves is 6:1) and
the goal will be speedily accomplished. In fact, week after week, even as
these lines are being read, the Fed goes into the open market in New York
and purchases whatever amount of government bonds it has decided upon,
and thereby helps decide upon the amount of monetary inflation.
The monetary history of this century has been one of repeated loosening
of restraints on the State’s propensity to inflate, the removal of one
check after another until now the government is able to inflate the money
supply, and therefore prices, at will. In 1913, the Federal Reserve System
was created to enable this sophisticated pyramiding process to take place.
The new system permitted a large expansion of the money supply, and of
inflation to pay for war expenditures in World War I. In 1933, another
fateful step was taken: the United States government took the country off
the gold standard, that is, dollars, while still legally defined in terms of a
weight of gold, were no longer redeemable in gold. In short, before 1933,
there was an important shackle upon the Fed’s ability to inflate and
186 Libertarian Applications to Current Problems
expand the money supply: Federal Reserve Notes themselves were
payable in the equivalent weight of gold.
There is, of course, a crucial difference between gold and Federal
Reserve Notes. The government cannot create new gold at will. Gold has
to be dug, in a costly process, out of the ground. But Federal Reserve
Notes can be issued at will, at virtually zero cost in resources. In 1933, the
United States government removed the gold restraint on its inflationary
potential by shifting to fiat money: to making the paper dollar itself the
standard of money, with government the monopoly supplier of dollars. It
was going off the gold standard that paved the way for the mighty U.S.
money and price inflation during and after World War II.
But there was still one fly in the inflationary ointment, one restraint left
on the U.S. government’s propensity for inflation. While the United States
had gone off gold domestically, it was still pledged to redeem any paper
dollars (and ultimately bank dollars) held by foreign governments in gold
should they desire to do so. We were, in short, still on a restricted and
aborted form of gold standard internationally. Hence, as the United States
inflated the money supply and prices in the 1950s and 1960s, the dollars
and dollar claims (in paper and checkbook money) piled up in the hands of
European governments. After a great deal of economic finagling and
political arm-twisting to induce foreign governments not to exercise their
right to redeem dollars in gold, the United States, in August 1971,
declared national bankruptcy by repudiating its solemn contractual
obligations and “closing the gold window.” It is no coincidence that this
tossing off of the last vestige of gold restraint upon the governments of the
world was followed by the double-digit inflation of 1973–1974, and by
similar inflation in the rest of the world.
We have now explained the chronic and worsening inflation in the
contemporary world and in the United States: the unfortunate product of a
continuing shift in this century from gold to government-issued paper as
the standard money, and of the development of central banking and the
pyramiding of checkbook money on top of inflated paper cur rency. Both
interrelated developments amount to one thing: the seizure of control over
the money supply by government.
If we have explained the problem of inflation, we have not yet examined
the problem of the business cycle, of recessions, and of inflationary
recession or stagflation. Why the business cycle, and why the new mysterious
phenomenon of stagflation?"

The Government and Race

2008-12-02T22:37:00.002-06:00

I am of the opinion that the government has no business knowing what race a person is. It should not matter whether a person is white, black, asian, Native American or any other race, it is no business of the government. Yes; 40 or more years ago the government needed to step in to to stop such inane laws as the Jim Crow laws in the south, but what business is it of theirs anymore? In my experience; government preference of one race over another has only worked to strain the burgening relationships. I grew up and still live in an area with with many Native Americans; many of whom were my best friends, but what made me feel any ill will towards them what so ever was the fact that they got special treatment fromt the government that I as a white child was not afforded. The same goes for African Americans; I have many friends and even relatives whom are African American, and I feel no ill will towards them(in fact I have gone to fistacuffs over people using derogatory frasing towards them), but the government pushing obsurd tolerance laws and constantly telling me how racist I am by the fact that I am white is the only cause I have to feel ill will towards them. I think if the government just kept thier noses out of our business there would be no problems. Not to mention the government mishandles everything and then blames thier mishandling on racism. See for instance the Beurou of Indain Affairs in this John Stossel clip:

Difference between Democrats, Republicans and libertarians

2008-12-02T21:43:00.002-06:00

as of late i've been reading a book; ok, i'm listening to the audio version, but still; and it's very intriguing. Of course I don't believe in everything aspoused in the book; as I would never presume to speak for another person and never presume to allow another person to speak for me, but I found one passage in particular which painted the difference between Democrats, Republicans and libertarians quite well:

Murray N. Rothbard

from;

For A New Liberty:

"Sometimes it seems that the beau ideal of many conservatives,

as well as of many liberals, is to put everyone into a cage

and coerce him into doing what the conservatives or liberals

believe to be the moral thing. They would of course be differently

styled cages, but they would be cages just the same. The

conservative would ban illicit sex, drugs, gambling, and impiety,

and coerce everyone to act according to his version of

moral and religious behavior. The liberal would ban films of

violence, unesthetic advertising, football, and racial discrimination,

and, at the extreme, place everyone in a “Skinner box”

to be run by a supposedly benevolent liberal dictator. But the

effect would be the same: to reduce everyone to a subhuman

level and to deprive everyone of the most precious part of his

or her humanity—the freedom to choose.

The irony, of course, is that by forcing men to be “moral”—

i.e., to act morally—the conservative or liberal jailkeepers

would in reality deprive men of the very possibility of being

moral. The concept of “morality” makes no sense unless the

moral act is freely chosen. Suppose, for example, that someone

is a devout Muslim who is anxious to have as many people as

possible bow to Mecca three times a day; to him let us suppose

this is the highest moral act. But if he wields coercion to force

everyone to bow to Mecca, he is thereby depriving everyone

of the opportunity to be moral—to choose freely to bow to

Mecca. Coercion deprives a man of the freedom to choose and,

therefore, of the possibility of choosing morally.

The libertarian, in contrast to so many conservatives and

liberals, does not want to place man in any cage. What he

wants for everyone is freedom, the freedom to act morally or

immorally, as each man shall decide."

Deforestation: A Death Nell?

2008-12-01T11:50:00.004-06:00

Recently I've been thinking about how crazy environmentalists are about trees. They seem to think that there aren't enough trees to do the job; in there eyes to stop global warming. But; if they were so serious about the CO2-O2 cycle, then they would be talking less about trees and more about algae. In a recent conversation with a friend I stunned to find out that he actually thought trees were the most important part of the CO2-O2 cycle; when in fact the most important part of this cycle is algae. This aquatic plant is estimated to be responsible for 70%-80% of Oxygen production. But you don't hear the environmentalists talking about saving the algae. I surmise this is because algae isn't as heart warming as a beautiful tree, and if they didn't rely on emotionalism they wouldn't be able to induct as many people because they would see what the environmental movement is all about: socialism. So next time some one says they are trying to save the planet; ask them about algae.

Female Celebrities

2008-11-26T17:32:00.006-06:00

Today is a two for one; first I will tell who are the five female celebrities whom I keep hearing are hot and I don't get it, I think if you saw a chick that looked like them in a bar they wouldn't even get a second look, unless you were super drunk, but somehow because they're famous guys think they are hot. Then I'll give my five female celebrities whom I think are super hot, my Meccas.

Ones I Don't Get:

Cameron Diaz

Julia Roberts

Paris Hilton

Uma Therman

Drew Barrymore

I Got a Thing For These Chicks:

Rachel Stevens

Shannon Sossamon

Julia Stiles

Kira Knightley

Kate Beckinsale

Libertarian Celebrities?

2008-11-21T22:11:00.003-06:00

Raised in a Republican household which worshiped these fellows, I was amazed to find out their political views were more like mine than my father's;

Clint Eastwood (F'n Dirty Harry!)

Tom Selleck (Magnum PI biotch)

Kurt Russell (Snake Plisskin himself!)

Dennis Leary (He did some cool shit, but nothin quotable)

John Larroquette (not only did we watch Night Court, but he was in Star Trek III)

Drew Carey (myself and my parents loved his show)

Civil Literacy Test

2008-11-20T19:32:00.002-06:00

Try taking this civil literacy test, apparently many people haven't been scoring well on it. My score was 93.94% or 31 out of 33.

from the website:

"Of the 2,508 People surveyed, 164 say they have held an elected government office at least once in their life. Their average score on the civic literacy test is 44%, compared to 49% for those who have not held an elected office. Officeholders are less likely than other respondents to correctly answer 29 of the 33 test questions."

Jerry Bader

2008-11-20T13:02:00.003-06:00

Just thought I'd let you guys in on this; Jerry Bader is a local conservative talk show host here in the Green Bay area. I love to listen to him because he isn't a tow-the-line kind of guy like most of them; I usually agree with what he has to say. Well, now if you're interested you to can view the show live on the radio station website, so even if you're way out in Nevada like my boy Mikey you can listen to what I consider to be a great show. Now, very often he does take up local issues, but there is usally a point to it that can translate to anywhere. The show airs 8:30am-11am Central Time, check it out here if you're interested.

As of right now they are looping the show until they get their other shows streaming

Scientific Fact, Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Theory

2008-11-19T16:43:00.005-06:00

People need to stop throwing science around so casually without actually understanding it, so here are a few tidbits to make you more informed.

A scientific hypothesis is an educated observation of a causal relationship; meaning you see something happen, and you guess what made it happen.

A scientific theory is a more worked out version of a hypothesis; it's a model of how things should work, but as of yet has not been completely proven through repeatable controlled experimentation.

A scientific fact is an observation which can be proven using a physical repeatable controlled experiment; repeatable, meaning you or anyone attempting it have to be able to the experiment over and over with the same results; physical, meaning it can be carried out in the real world where causality is most assured; controlled, meaning you must control every factor involved to show direct cause and effect of what your theory states.

Here are some examples:

Scientific Fact: Evolution-Over time by mixing certain animals in a species the species will evolve this, can be seen through physical repeatable controlled experimentation; this can been seen in breeding, by taking the cows that give the most milk and mating them with the bulls which produce the most meat you will get a line of cows which give a lot of milk and meat.

Scientific Theory: The Theory of Evolution- That all animals have evolved from a common ancestor; this will always be a theory for the simple fact that it has already happened and there is no repeatable controlled experiment which can be done. The same goes for the Theory of Human Evolution; although both are sound theory, there is no conceivable way for them to become fact.

Scientific Theory: CO2 Caused Global Warming-That a rise in CO2 alone can cause the greenhouse effect to increase. Since the world is so big with so many variables, it is impossible to do a controlled experiment to see the exact cause and effect relationships occurring. Computer models are not a physical test, they do not happen in the real world, so they can not prove anything, they can only help support theories.

Scientific Theory: Cigarette Smoking Causes Cancer-Since the human body so complex there is no way to do a controlled experiment to see the exact causality. The best which can be achieved is a correlation; but correlations do not prove anything, if every time I ride my bike I fall down and skin my knee the correlation between riding my bike and skinning my knee is very strong, but the causality is not.

My Favorite Musical Artist

2008-11-19T12:00:00.006-06:00

I though I would share my favorite musical artist with you for two reasons; so you can get to know me better and because you most like have never heard of him even though he is responsible for writing and producing a number of popular songs. His name is Butch Walker, he started out in a hair metal band called SouthGang; then the pop rock band the Marvelous 3 with whom he had a moderate hit called "Freak of the Week". After the Marvelous 3 broke up he started producing and writing for bands such as SR-71, Bowling for Soup, Pink, Fall Out Boy, Sevendust, the All American Rejects, American Hi-Fi, Lindsey Lohan, The Academy Is..., Avril Lavigne and Lit among others. He has released several solo albums, the most recent being "Sycamore Meadows"in the fall of 2008, and last summer released an album called "Maya" from his side project 1969.

Bio here.

His music covers a whole range, from hair metalish pop, to pop punk, to folk; basically he's all over the place. Here are a few videos.

Marvelous 3

Freak of the Week

Solo

My Way

Mixtape

Ships in a Bottle

and here he is playing guitar in SouthGang

Tainted Angel

My Favorite Action Movies

2008-11-17T11:29:00.003-06:00

In a little bit of a departure I want to follow my buddy Mikey's lead and share with you some of my favorite action movies, in no particular order.

The Running Man

The Terminator

Rambo

Die Hard

300

Sin City

Commando

Predator

First Blood

Big Trouble in Little China

Escape From New York

Libertarians and Atheists

2008-11-16T18:07:00.003-06:00

I'm getting fed up with so called libertarians trashing religious people and assuming all libertarians are atheists. I myself am not an atheist, I deeply believe in God, but I don't think that should affect my political views, and there are most likely more like me, who if so called libertarians would stop harassing may join our cause. To be a libertarian is not to view the world the same, it is to view the world differently and debate (not scold) each other without government involvement in our personal beliefs. Libertarianism is not a personal view, but a political view.

The Late, Great Mr. Crichton

2008-11-14T11:39:00.005-06:00

'Aliens Cause Global Warming' an article from the Wall Street Journal by the late Michael Crichton.

This Will Not Be Like The Great Depression

2008-11-13T08:02:00.003-06:00

It's easy to be afraid today that our current economic situation will lead to another Great Depression; what when that's what the news and politicians are saying. But I can give you one huge reason why it won't be like that; the Dust Bowl. The Great Depression began in October of 1929 and then in May of 1930 the Dust Bowl hit. The Dust Bowl; which devastated much American farmland, is what made the Great Depression great, raising the price of food: which not only affects the livelihood of those producing the crops, but also those who transport and sell them; not to mention making it hard for anyone to buy food. At this point, even if we have a severe drought, it will not get as bad as the Dust Bowl because of technologies and agricultural techniques we have in place. So, even though it may get tough, this will never approach conditions of the Great Depression.

Why?

2008-11-05T00:25:00.002-06:00

It took me more than 4 years to decide how I would vote and I was still undecided when I got into the voting booth; would I vote as far left as McCain? That was my dilemma, and I did. I lost out to thinking gradual regression back to what we were could work. But I seriously want to know why anyone voted the way they did.

The Moral of the Story

2008-11-03T16:33:00.002-06:00

From Dictionary.com
mor·al (môr'əl,) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Ok, so what many of the left say about Republicans is they want to legislate morality; this is how I used to describe it as well, until the other day when I was conversing a person of the left persuasion; then I realized that both Democrats and Republicans want to legislate morality. Because, as you can see above, there is no mention of the word religion in the definition of the word "moral". So, when you tell someone else how to live their life because you see it as wrong you are preaching morals, whether they come from the Bible or Al Gore; they are still morals. So Democrats get mad that the Republicans want to make laws using thier biblical morals, and the Republicans gets mad when Democrats try to make laws using thier environmental morals. So, when Democrats complain about Republicans legislating morals they are being hypocritical, they are mad they aren't legislating their morals.
As well as legislating environmental morals, making someone pay for a government program can also be enforcing morals. Let's take an example: welfare v American Family Housing. Welfare serves the same purpous as American Family Housing, they both take care of the poor. So, why should a person be mandated to pay for either? If you think wlfare works, then you should give your money to welfare, if you think American Family Housing works then you should give your money to them; you should not be forced to give your money to either. Just because you think welfare is better doesn't mean that I do. If someone wants to give to a program which they feel better fits their morals they should; but they shouldn't be forced to pay for one that doesn't.
So what laws should we make? Ones that protect property; your body is your property, so no one can harm you. Your land is your property, so someone else can't do something on their land that will harm your land, like dumping chemicals into the river; and so forth.

2008-11-01T19:13:00.005-05:00

From dictionary.com:

Marx·ism [mahrk-siz-uhm] –noun the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

com·mu·nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] –noun

1.	a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2.	(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3.	(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

4.	communalism.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun

1.	a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.	procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.	(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

If the government owns a stake in our businesses what does that mean? That is socialism. Is socialism simply a regulation of our business', no, it is the government having stake in our business'. Deregulation is simply the government allowing business to do business, allowing milk producers to sell milk at the price they demand, allowing a company to offer health care at the price they demand, allowing companies to pay what they demand, but the government must demand that the company does not infringe upon your rights, mainly, once they own a stake in it, it is theirs. They can't enforce upon you anything you did not permit them to enforce. But didn't that cause our current economic problems? No, wrong, regulations did, regulations demanding that banks loan money to people whom the banks did not feel were suitable. Both parties were responsible for this. I said this four years ago when the presidential candidates were saying that everyone should own a home, no, everyone who can afford it should own a home, if they want. Deregulation does not mean that there should not be limits placed on companies, when they violate a persons rights they should be held responsible, But deregulation holds the key of competition, competition is responsible for every advance in human evolution.

Deregulation, does that mean no regulation? No, if someone has impeded one of your rights, of course you have a right to recourse, but does regulation hold the key? Regulation is the government telling the market what it should do, when in fact it should be the other way around, the market should tell the government what to do. Is it any coincidence that we passed the 16th amendment, allowing for the government to take income tax, then 13 years later we had the great depression? I'm not a conspiracy monger mind you, but I do not think those who run for office are usually qualified to run a company, so why should we let them run our companies?

But why is deregulation bad? It's not. The government should be there to protect us for our defense and stopping people from stealing our property. But bad regulations are bad. If they are there to stop them from stealing your property, then they are there to enforce the law. What more does one need? To keep themselves from being stupid? Well, that will never work, because no matter how hard one tries, there will always be stupid people.

Think the Right are the ones who abuse people, look at the left, they abuse eminent domain to increase the revenue base; the government takes (they pay them, but it is not a choice to not accept their offer) the land of a property owner to sell or give it to a business which will pay more in taxes. These laws are there for building roads and other necessities, but as of late they have been used to increase revenue bases for the government and for environmental protection.

Constitutional Rights?

2008-10-30T04:57:00.006-05:00

I'm getting fed up with the term "Constitutional Rights". Why? Because the term implies the Constitution gives you these rights, it doesn't. You have these rights by nature, the constitution simply says the government can't take them away. If they were granted by the constitution then by extension they are granted by the government. If they are granted by the government, then the government can take them away. They are not granted by anyone or anything, they implicit in human life; by right of being alive you have these rights. So please, don't say "It's my Constitutional Right", say, "It's My Right." No one can take your rights away unless you let them; so don't even let them think they can.

Addendum: The only entity granted anything by the constitution is the government, it is granted the power to mediate between us, not to rule over us.

Keep Your Liberty

2008-10-30T03:21:00.007-05:00

Lately several people have posed the question to me, "why is socialsim so bad?" The short of it is because it take away individuality and free choice, it becomes about the collective. It gives government control over your entire being, the government will decide what's best for you, your health, your financial security, your thoughts; you become property of the government through proxy. So? It means I get free health care, home, etc. Well, free in the sense you may not pay directly for it; but you pay by proxy, someone else is paying for you; some one who is making more money than you. These people who pay, they are the ones who create jobs; the greedy rich. So let's play a little thought game; let's say I'm the greedy rich guy and you're the guy getting the government money; let's say I start off with $100 and you start off with $1. With my $100 I pay 10 other people $2, that means I have $80 left; of which the government takes $10, leaving me with $70. The government then gives you $2. So, I'm still way more rich than you, you have $3, I have $70. You spend $1 on my product and so do 3 of my workers, so now I have $74, you have $2. Again, I pay my 10 employees $2 each; now I have $54 dolars, of that the government takes $10; giving you your $2, you now have $4 I have $44. You spend $1 on my product, along with 5 of my employees. You now have $3, I have $50. Again, I pay each of my employees $2, leaving me with $30, the government takes $10, of which you get $2, I now I have $20, I'm still almost 3 times as rich you, but I cannot afford to pay all 10 empoyees or I would be broke, so I cut 5 jobs; and pay out $10 to my remaining 5 employees. See where this is going? It's deminishing returns. Of course this example is much simplier and quicker than reality, but this is how socialism works. Soon we are all equal, great right? Well, then who pays us? Well, the government of course, they bought my factory. Eventually once this happens to every business the government owns all the facotories; and we become communist.
"But what's so bad about communism?" We all get free healthcare and housing and a steady job. Well, now the government has too much invested in you, so to make sure we all stay healthy we need to all eat the same healthy food, wear the same cheap clothes, live in the same cheap building, work in an unsafe factory; to keep the cost down because there are no more rich people to tax to pay for the government. Now the government has to run like a business, but theres no competition, so it doesn't matter how they treat you. Sure, in a perfect world the government would treat us nice because it's the nice thing to do, but the world isn't perfect, so you won't get treated nice, you'll be a commodity.
But you say, "Well, the leader I elect to make us socialist won't be bad to us." Maybe, but you're giving them the power to do it, they may not use it, but that power is there now and you will have to fight like hell to wrest it away from the guy down the line who doesn't treat you right. The only way to avoid this is to keep that power out of anyone's hands, keep the power for yourself and your posterity like the people who founded these united states fought for and handed to us in the Constitution. Limit the size and power of government. Take respoonsability for yourself. Keep your liberty.