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.

Locke-Smiths

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

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

A Matter of Disclosure

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

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?

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)