gold in ied

RULE OF LAW

Finally some sanity. The Supreme wisdom of 5 people but echoed by many with a D in front of their names, and implied D's in front of their names - as in the case of journalists, has been presented to the Benighted. Terrorists finally get their day in court - show the corpse - er wait (the people the terrorists blew up?) Strange is it not, how the Supremes bring foreign law into the US or extend Constitutional Law outside our Nations borders and citizens, whichever suits their fancy - almost like they are making it up as they go along. Now, Now, their vision is quite consistent, its just not consistent with the Declaration of Independence, or US Constitution, or the Founding Fathers, nor Natural Law theory. Its a unique elixir of Marxism, Fabianism, Progressivism, and Pacifism. It is definitely not the rule of law. 65 senators approved the law of military tribunals that Kennedy the swinger threw out. Presidents conduct wars with oversight from Congress - except in the US where apparently there are now black robed generals. Now the military should take no prisoners...

In the glory days of the cold war, the US and Soviets faced off every 4 years in the Olympic games - except the boycott years. The Long War - the popular moniker for the war on terror - does not have the pizazz that the cold war did. Where is the space race between us and Al-Qaeda? Why no missile gaps or missile crisis or sputniks? Al-Qaeda, newly liberated from Guantanamo, needs an Olympic Team - we know they have been training!

the time for debate is over

DIVISIVE POLITICS

What is this bring the country together united belamy? If everyone agrees on a public policy that does not make it good public policy. If by disagreeing with a policy against a super-majority of people, does that make one unpatriotic (or divisive to use the parlance of the Dems)? Well lets trot out some mobs, er... unity governments from the 20th century to present. Oh the National Socialist party of Germany comes to mind, lets see, the Bolshevik revolution, FDR during depression and war, and Bush/republican congress spending. Some would call these super-majorities of unity produced some terrible policy. Other unity movements have been better, such as: for-the-most-part unified US foreign policy during the cold war, the bipartisan Regan tax cuts, and the overthrow of the Taliban. So what is a way of delegating government power to control which policies go through and which are stopped? Well for starters compromise is overrated often producing the worst of evils rather than the lessor. Candidates whose appeal for unity (other than the standard stump BS) are really calling for a mass conversion to either their point of view or a belittling of legitimate differences of opinion. Given that reasonable differences of opinion will always exist and given that political opponents will always think that all reasonable people have to think alike... - It is almost like we need a written governing law to protect peoples natural rights against the mobs of unity (conformity), something we could call a Constitution. In this document could be put provisions to protect against rapid change wrought by group-think, and a separation of government powers - limiting government. This separation of powers could be among federal and local levels, maybe called federalism, and division of government into different branches with "checks and balances of power." That way a legitimate process would allow for a maximization of policies to reflect peoples different values and facilitate coexistence, by allowing them to participate in shaping/changing those values rather than Judicial/doctoral fiat taking that away (See some decision circa 1973). So it would be wise for people to resist calls for the sheep of the world to unite!

freedom from reality

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

FDR promoted freedom from want. As if such a goal could be achieved. Across the whole of human history, suffering has existed and its a safe bet will always exist. The line between dreamers who push the envelope and the madman's fantasy world is very hard to discern. The politics of meaning of the day during the Fascist Roosevelt years, has not been undone to this day. Its often said who doesnt deserve a good life - as though all freewill is removed from the people and replaced by sovereign policy makers. But unlucky stuff has to happen - how could it not based on simple probability. Material wants can only be obtained by self efficacy. If it is being provided by another source (other than family, friends, mutual self-interested business transactions) it is tainted with blood. Every child in america deserves a good upbringing but its not going to happen no matter how hard the village tries. There will always be some outlier - the receiver of misfortune - and the more powerful government is made to fight Murphy's law the more people will subcome to it. Be it education, healthcare, living wages the result is always the same ("I just want you to know how sorry we are that things got so [messed] up with us and Mr. Wallace. We got into this thing with the best intentions and I never... "). Legitimate government is only comprised to protect an individuals abstract rights, not to be a giant make a wish foundation for their wants.

progressives fight progress

OWNERSHIP SOCIETY

Liberal progressives can be downright bulwarks against change. They favor mostly the unstabilitating kind of change - social change. This change in effect leads to humanities long natural history of self-efficacy to diminish into state oppression, with all the promises of government to help the broken family actually removing all incentives for nuclear family formation. Once upon a time the 'downtrodden' aspired to improve their lot - or were at least too proud to take handouts - now these transfer payments are seen as an entitlement by both giver and receiver. Other than the initial civil rights movement most of this has been disastrous. The so called 'conservatives' are a force for change by preserving the historical institutions that allow rapid material progress without upheaval. When it comes to free-trade, retirement/pensions, school-choice, lawsuit restraint, and other market driven ideas, progressives fight to protect the status quo and thwart change. Somehow the progressive Democrats are labeled liberals (FDR stole this term) even as they fight for union-jobs by preventing the de-institutionalization of individuals with disabilities. They also fight sprawl which only results in home prices going up, and alas, we need government solutions to affordable housing. The so called 'conservatives' ownership-society is a revolutionary vision that is a much too frightening change for the progressives. If the populace is on-its-own (in Hillaryspeak) then what need have they for governing elites? This liberal policy most be stopped.

soup lines for everyone

UNIVERSAL RIGHTS

There are only two certainties in life - death and taxes. Despite this, a lot of people believe in universal positive rights. Everyone has a right to health care, a home, a decent paying job, a good education (material rights) the socialists say. Not just the right to pursue these things but rather they must be given to everyone on earth even if they are capable but unwilling to get things on their own (due to systemic dicrimination of course). And to achieve this 'material security' they propose taking away other's negative rights (liberty of action, the right to own property, freedom of thought). Progressives dictate that it is everyones legal responsibility to make sure everyone else has these material rights through paying taxes to the state which then provides all these benefits - and if you refuse to subsidise the materially challenged, you will be imprisoned. And that sums up the problem with positive rights in the first place. How can they exist across time? Did they apply when humans lived as hunter-gatherers? Will they apply when the earth goes out of balance due to global warming in ten years? If positive rights don't have this continuity of existence, then when were they created and by whom? If one willingly chooses to do nothing, is the rest of society still obligated to provide them with positive rights though government? Does one have the right to willingly harm themselves? If one expects "from all: what one is capable" then who judges what ones capabilities are? (or is the assumption that human nature is altruistic when removed from the capitalist rat race?) The same problem arises in determining "to all: what one needs." Legitimate governments are created to protect individuals' negative rights not to bestow positive rights on select groups. The only thing universal in socialist mantra is suffering.

removed from accountability

FEDERALISM

Sitting at the bar, hat with sunglasses on the bill - cell phone plopped down on the table (to be spun occasionally), Joey contemplated all the injustices in the nation. You see, the states are cash strapped - their peoples don't tolerate large tax increases, and state government is often limited in open ended borrowing. Inbetween cell phone calls at the top of his lungs to Friends, Joey decided that the true culprit was the U.S. concept of federalism. He agreed that the federal government already ran roughshod over the states, but he thought the whole concept should be thrown out completely. The federal government should just open up its pocket book and shovel cash to the states - that way local politicians could talk about all the new programs they have proposed and enacted without having to show the price tag. Headstart, medicaid, cops-on-the-street, homeland (pork) security, job training, and college tuition should all be lavished with more federal funding, Joey thought. With the direct election of senators the pork flows pretty good, but certain concepts of federalism still stood in the way. For instance, schools are funded mostly at the state level, and even though education dollar per pupil is tops in the world, no child left behind remains an unfunded mandate. He also lamented the Gingrich revolution taking away the federally mandated speed limit of 55. After stating his whole agenda for the day to the waitress - and describing his car and official job title in exacting detail, Joey left determined to undermine limited government and peoples natural rights - he despised the tenth amendment. He totally disagreed with the statement that "a government powerful enough to promise everything to everybody is powerful enough to take it away", because he knew that with a little slight-of-hand, the only thing being taken away was wealth from the rich.

western imposition

HISTORY OF VALUES

Ok, slavery has existed across all cultures and all times until the present. It is not a fundamental characteristic unique to the west. The same with colonialism and conquering so called native peoples and taking their land. In antiquity, when new successful civilizations expanded, they displaced or absorbed less successful ones. The original native Americans were displaced many times by new groups of asian/pacific peoples from the pacific islands or across the Bering strait long before Columbus showed up. And the borders among the various tribes of native Americans were always in flux, with the stronger conquering the weaker before the Spanish, British and French warred over the new world. Europeans gave the west "indians" small pox, they gave Europe tobacco (organic and not grown by multi-nationals though) and maybe syphilis. The only thing unique about western culture is that it ended slavery world-wide, even against the protestation of African tribal kings who greatly profited from capturing rival African tribes and selling them into slavery. The Barbary pirates may have enslaved more Europeans into Africa than the number of Africans taken to the new world, yet this was ended by western society (with their evil western tradition and moral vanity). It is also the present western culture that dominates the international system with rules regarding the static freezing of national borders. Colonialism brought many advances into the third world that would not have been achieved otherwise (including the excuse of colonialism to explain ones present backwardness). The concept of a nation state with fixed borders was more advanced than many primitive people had yet discovered and this is why most of the worlds national borders were drawn by the west. The concept of the individual with natural rights and equality under the rule of law are western in origin. These concepts have been forced on the benighted mostly against their will. This is not an argument that colonialism or slavery are justified by the results. But it reminds me of that scene in Life of Brian, where the Palestinians are making a decree against Roman tyranny but have to exempt all the good things the Romans brought such as: law and order, the aqueduct, roads ect., ect. We should pay reparations to the real victims here: Neanderthals.

dc corrected

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

See one can apply rhetoric to imply a perceived wrongdoing, and it always helps ones cause if it is pointed out the fallacy in ones opponents previous position. But a close reexamination of the supposed fallacy usually determines a misdefinition in an attempt at logic. Such is the case in the DC gun ban being overturned by the courts. Traditionally conservatives decry judicial activism which may mean different things to different conservatives depending on the sophistication of their understanding of the term. Modern liberals are decrying the ruling saying its a case of judicial activism overturned a local elected bodies laws. Well judicial activism properly defined is overstepping the courts delegated powers to decide the intent of the lawmakers who passed a law - and staying within constitutional bounds. In this case the court properly struck down a legislative bodies laws regarding gun ownership properly citing the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prevents government from banning guns. Judicial activism is not defending the Constitution as it was written and properly amended - justices take an oath to do that.

football is better than futbol

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

Yes America is exceptional. An outlier in any plot of industrialized nations. The origins of this are no secret mystery shrouded behind demonic fumes of cultish smoke - but rather self evident. Here people have rights - power is ceded from the people to government by consent - not the other way around. The U.S. has more freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, gun rights, freedom from search and seizure, due process rights than any other nation. And yet many would allege that we are living in police state. Europe can easily apprehend terrorists because domestic intelligence is much less constrained. Libel is much easier to prove in most other democracies than ours. Guns and self defense are state monopolies in other advanced nations. People are tried and convicted in absentia in other places. These governments are illegitimate according to natural law theory. Unfortunately, here, the commerce and general welfare clauses have been used by activist judges and progressive politicians in an attempt to right all the wrongs in life and have created quite a bastardised enforcement of enumerated powers - and yet the U.S. is still the leading nation, among the world, in limited government. Economically individual states have 1st world sized output, and individual cities have more production than entire 2nd world countries. So a glass half full outlook should inspire us to maintain our political competitive advantage, bestow this knowledge to the next generation, and hope for a future when "in the course of human events...

wehmeyer doctrine of self determination

SELF DETERMINATION

Michael Wehmeyer defines Self-Determination as “acting as the primary causal agent in one’s life and making choices and decisions regarding one’s quality of life free from undue external influence or interference.” This is an extension from natural law theory, and a repudiation of the nanny welfare state. Although Wehmeyer developed this more for individuals with disabilities and with implicit positive rights, I believe it to be a valid statement for all people more inline with the negative rights that Lock and Hume believed in. As Hayek points out, that once the state gets involved in governing peoples lives, ultimately self efficacy is removed from the individual to be replaced by the state, no matter how sincere the original intentions were. The state ultimately, as an entity is removed from negative consequences of ill conceived social policy, and often makes matters worse by increasing program X even after it has been proven ineffective. The mis-logic of program X failing and proposals of "we need more of program X to meet our progressive goals" should be self evident. It is illegitimate to just take (steal) the funding from the rest of society as if it is a fundamental positive right. As a matter of practice, it would be legitimate for advocates to inform the public to vote to give stipends to individuals with disabilities, to use or misuse as they see fit, to meet basic needs and recreation, with support staff of their choosing. Persuasion is always better than coercion - unless one wants to travel down the road to serfdom.

overrated democracy

CHINA

China and India are the growing powers that are attracting all the attention - but who will win the title as heir-apparent of the pax-americana if the U.S. gets too soft. India, the worlds largest democracy, benefits greatly from anglosphere institutions and language - but has a recent past mired in the Fabian Society. Their development could mirror the decline of the west - under-productive, over-socialist. China also relatively newly independent has a communist past but capitalist future. The greatest potential (good or bad to be determined) lies in China because of their one party rule. Democracy is overrated, it should be viewed as a means not an end. If China's one party wrote a constitution, inspired by Locke but even more progressive proof than the American's, then they could easily become a global hegemone and the world would be better off for it. This theoretical constitution could embrace life, liberty and property in a way only dreamed about by the wests classical liberals - just as Hong Kong is more capitalistic than any nation in the west. Right now China has just unrealised raw potential but history shows that even the near future can be wildly unpredictable.

overpowering the weak

NIETZSCHE

The weak, seeking to define the powerful elites attributes that keep them in power as evil, is seen as a sort of common movement of ill will against elites. The powerful elites with their more muted moral judgment of ethics is envisioned by Nietzsche as a superior worldly outlook, and shared by progressives. In this view lack of action and acceptance of the human condition is cringed upon (elites have better characteristics that their subservients should aspire to). Well a more accurate depiction of good and evil would have to better account with the historical evolution of political ideology as a moral actuator. In natural law theory, there are truths out there to be discovered by human reason. These are absolute good and evil, not good and bad as Nietzsche's noble man would have it. People can discover this embedded wisdom handed down through societal customs and trial and error over human existence. All people have rights that are unalienable and governments are legitimate only if they are constituted to protect those rights. The noble man or today's modern progressive seeks to become the overlord in totalitarian fashion of the masses. All people weak or powerful have the same rights and should be treated equally under the law, but the progressives have removed themselves from the negative consequences of their over governing - making them above the law. A humble existence is virtue - live and let live.

in a perfect world

DEATH PENALTY

Well the death penalty is a hot topic as of late. The supremes have decided that, citing foreign law and so called consensus among the states, that juvenile criminals, and individuals with cognitive disabilities cannot be executed. Foreign powers refuse to extradite captured suspects to the U.S. if they could face the death penalty. Texas the evil red state is seen as the devil incarnate, for executing the most each year even though deep blue California has more on death row. Every person has the right to life, liberty and property, so the question is if someone takes a life do they yield the rights to their own? Trusting the state with the lives and lively hoods of humans is always a risky endeavor - especially the modern welfare state. The death penalty is morally justified - yet there is always that risk of killing an innocent. It would be nice to live in a utopian world - much like heaven - where all is fair and right. But we ultimately live here on earth where pragmatism has some sway. Yes justice is not 100% perfect, but for there to be justice, the rule of law has to be upheld, and a majority of people support the death penalty as they have throughout histories common law. Its an imperfect solution to an imperfect world.

pirates of our being

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Stealing is taking property from someone without permission. Civilized society recognizes property as belonging to an individual, not communal nor for barbarians to plunder. People can lay claim to something and there may be disagreements about property rights, damages and defaults on loans, however a wise chief does not decide such disputes on a case by case basis, rather, civilized society has developed the rule of law. The legislature passes laws, the executive enforces them, and courts following judicial procedure, make rulings regarding the intent of the lawmakers. Natural law is humankind's claim to ownership of all rights as long as no one elses rights are infringed upon. There are two glaring abominations of this ethos that are in complete violation of evolved civilized philosophy. Kelo and progressive (as opposed to flat) income taxes. Barbarians have been evolving too and are now experts at gaming the legal system to pirate things they envy. The masses shop lift transfer payments and the elite ransom hot real estate. Just because these robin hoods are getting reelected (except the five who dont face reelection), their pillaging and rapping of our natural rights doesn't mean their final judgement will be kind, nor those who willingly receive the blood money.

club of dictators

UNITED NATIONS

The League of Nations was an idealistic foreign policy dream to end conflict, now called the United Nations, and its still a fantasy. True legitimacy of foreign action is not granted nor denied by a gang of nations who's objectives may or may not be to advance the lofty U.N. charter that they signed to get into the club. Natural law is the architecture that is the true governor and judge of humankind. The individual has a right to self defense, and when people came out of a state of nature to form a nation, one of the powers granted from the individual to the nation was protection from other nations. The people within a nation provide laws that govern themselves, but governments powers come from the people and governments cannot set up a structure that supersedes their granted powers from the people. International law is lacking in legitimacy if comprising more than a treaty between nations that is limited in scope to protecting their peoples natural rights.

The U.N. is the last best hope for the progressives. It meets all their requirements. Centralized top down design. Appointed technocrats and bureaucratic committees. A one size fits all vision. Scientific management by elites over individuals. A forum where the less successful can pass resolutions demeaning their supposed oppressors. No accountability and immune from failed policies. (Why can't our government be more like this they lament) When the U.N. gets its own revenue stream, other than nations contributions, the death star will be indestructible.

bring back debtors prison

GENERAL WELFARE

As a thought experiment: there should be a re-institution of debtors prison. People who default on debts to the public, could be thrown into jail with the rest of free society responsible for the expense. If the cost was fairly distributed among free society, i.e. a flat rate, then through the elective process, it could be determined what the appropriate debtors prison rate would be (penalties, taxes, number of prisoners.) That way productive society can move along reforming socialised welfare programs, that could be eliminated and replaced where applicable, by a more individualized system. A way to pay for fire department protection of property would be billing the people who use actual fire department services to fund the entire fire department. For most (risk averse) people this would involve buying an insurance policy that would cover fire department costs. This would more accurately and efficiently assign costs where benefits are received, providing better feedback loops for people to adjust their behavior. Police, health care, retirement, could all be handled this way. In all instances insurance/savings would not be mandatory but one could be thrown into jail for not paying for incurred benefits (theft from the rest of society.) A lot of people could potentially be thrown into jail - but this can be mitigated by the fact that 'enlightened' society would not want to see some 85 year old grandmother thrown into jail for not paying the fire department for getting her cat out of a tree, and the cost of too many in jail would be expensive for productive society to pay for. So people in need (not people in want), whom society deems as worthy, should receive a stipend/voucher to pay insurance/annuity costs for governments former economic redistribution benefits, the rate to be determined by economic and social trade-offs. One way or another, modern liberal democracy demands that the one third of people with an income, subsidize the other two thirds without money, both voluntarily(supporting family) and by coercion(government). This method would be more benign on individuals natural rights. Debtors prison would penalize the proper people (thieves) 'in debt to society' unlike the present tax code.

natural rights of the unborn

ABORTION

Roe v wade was not decided correctly and now is a supper dupper precedent. Well born humans have a right not to be killed and the courts are not supposed to legislate nor invent new constitutional rights. Ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere in between conception and birth. Killing an infant one hour old would be a crime handed down by societal evolution from antiquity. Killing an infant before birth is viewed as somehow different. A civilization that allowed or encouraged killing infants would not survive more than a few generations. Womens liberation was the main justification of unlimited abortions, seems how evolution had played a dirty trick on women who engaged in casual sex as opposed to men. So two competing claims of rights are best decided on a state by state basis and through the legislative process as the constitution says all rights not granted explicitly to the federal government are retained by the states and their people. That is the best way for legitimacy of the rule of law and civilized society to be upheld. It is when the elites in robes' actions are indistinguishable from sovereign rulers evoking divine rights, that sets us back to medieval times instead of advancing society like they fantasize they are doing.

ban anarchy not guns

SECOND AMENDMENT

L.A. riots post O.J. verdict, New Orleans post Katrina - these are examples of the the right of people to bear arms not to be infringed upon. The citizen militia becomes crucial for protection of life and property when regular law and order break down. The police and courts provide protection of ones rights under normal conditions - however after the trial of the century or the storm of the century anarchy ensued (is global warming the next such event!?!) Under these potentially disastrous circumstances natural law applies - and that includes the right to self protection. People who live in privileged neighborhoods, who feel safe, are often the first to impose their will on the rest of society. Anti gun activists tend to bowl over facts. Such wishful thinking will not reduce inner city gang violence, nor suicide which is most of all gun deaths. Background checks don't prevent domestic violence. Criminals do fear law abiding citizens' concealed weapons. Gays with guns don't get bashed. Guns provide minorities with an equalizer against an oppressive majority or state. The saying goes if you outlaw guns - only outlaws will have guns.

declaration from dependence

CONSTITUTION

"...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..." Well that was a good thought - too bad very few practice it. FICA social security and medicare taxes are forcibly stolen from me every week. I didn't sign up for these ponzi schemes, I don't want to assume their unfunded liabilities - why can't I opt out? (the fact that these programs still exist is due to ignorance among the voters and cowardice among the politicians - mutually embracing economic doom) Oh, I'm taking the Constitution literally. See I thought that when it said "the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." that it meant, well just that. People have a natural right to opt out of this mammoth social insurance program. It will be hard because this mammoth social insurance program has an army.

soul asylum

FUSION PROJECT

Virtue does not count if it was not by choice. A good deed only counts as good if one had opportunity to do other vise. If government tries to enforce morality it does not make its subjects more virtuous, just more depraved of the very feedback loops that give humanity information to make their own decisions. Only government has fiat power to forcibly coerce the individual through taxes and regulations. The only legitimate use of this police power and tax power should be to protect the rights of the people and to provide a common defense against enemies. Somehow government has evolved into an evil nanny dictating social and economic behavior. Even if the net result in a few instances could be judged as good, it would not be virtue. When all self directed opportunity to strive toward virtue has been effectively removed by government, humans will have surrendered their souls.