Scott Walker

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

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

Immigration

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?

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

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:

Healthcare Is Not A Right

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.

Echoes of the Past

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"

What Should These united states Be Like; In My Opinion

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.

Self Interest V Selfishness

   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

   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.

Political Office

   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

   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.

The Nature of rights Part II

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

The Un-Spoken Word

   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

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.

Spectral Analysis

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:

1. 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).
2. 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

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

What Powers Should the Government Have?

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)

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

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.

By 

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!

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.