Many states have found a way of circumventing their state legislatures and putting bills (laws) directly on the ballot. Florida, for example, has a statewide indoor smoking ban that totally offends me. For the record; I’m not a smoker, nor do I wish to eat my meals where others are smoking.
The problem for me is that these kinds of laws are oppressive to minorities and highlight the fundamental flaw with Democracy as a system of government. I have often ranted about this topic before but the point behind my premise is applicable across the board so I feel compelled to spell it out again.
First let me clarify my position on the specific example of the smoking ban. To take the choice of whether to allow smoking or not away from the proprietor of a privately owned business in the back woods of Plant City and give it to the majority of Floridians who reside in Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando (people who would never set foot in said business) is simply wrong.
The way these things are supposed to work is based on our free market system, not Democratic “mob rule”. In America (at least as I remember it) we have the right to go to which ever business we choose. Likewise, we can choose to avoid any business for any reason that strikes us. If there is a large demand for places in which smoking is not allowed, that market WILL be met. The beauty of the free market is that a smaller demand for establishments where smoking is allowed would not be denied. This reality is best summed by the old adage: When a conservative wants to stop eating meat he becomes a vegetarian. When a liberal wants to stop eating meat he makes meat illegal.
Beyond the question of right and wrong, there is a Constitutional component to the legality of these ballot initiatives. The concept of bypassing representative legislation and initiating popular government is known as Democracy. Webster’s Dictionary, in fact, defines Democracy as: “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority”.
On the other hand, Webster’s defines a Republican form of government as: “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”. The difference should be very clear, Democracy allows the majority to have complete control at the expense of the minority while a Republic requires elected officials to act on behalf of all people at the expense of none.
The reason that these distinct differences are important boils down to the legality of State sanctioned Democracy. Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..” . Having seen all of these facts, how is it legal for the States Constitutionally guaranteed Republican government be bypassed by an act of pure Democracy?
If you think that my view of a Republic is flawed then read the words of Thomas Jefferson from his first inaugural address…
“all too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, AND SHALL NOT TAKE FROM THE MOUTH OF LABOR THE BREAD IT HAS EARNED.”
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
The New Urban Order
“NO HOME, NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!” These are the words hand painted on a sign in the window of a vacant apartment building that had been forcefully taken over by homeless people in San Francisco. This movement, known as “take back the land”, started a few years ago but has gained much ground (no pun intended) over the past two years. To those who follow it, home ownership is simply a “natural human right”. The contention is that foreclosed homes belong to banks which were bailed out by taxpayers, and thus, owned by the people.
Maybe there is some truth to that statement but there seems to be something missing. For one, I would like to see the amount of taxes paid by the homeless compared to the amount paid by banks. Secondly, these “agents” (who are nothing but liberal activists) are forcing entry into foreclosed homes and showing them to potential squatters without legal authority. The stated intent of these individuals is to create such a huge draw on legal resources, including law enforcement officers, that they create a long term cushion for the squatters. The underlying intent, however, looks a lot more like socialism.
Below is an excerpt from a presentation by one of their leaders, S’bu Zikode, entitled ‘Re-imagining the City: A New Urban Order’.
“It is very nice to re-imagine the city. We can all start to imagine cities with good housing for everyone and then we can imagine affordable public transport and safe streets with beautiful trees, cool shady parks and welcoming schools, clinics, libraries and sports clubs. We can imagine and imagine cities where everyone’s humanity is respected and where everyone counts. It is very nice to imagine a city where no one has to live like a pig in the mud, where everyone is safe from fires, abuse, police raids, disconnections, evictions and political attacks…..Those who are in power today have the power to distribute our land fairly and freely to those who do not have land. Why have they betrayed us today? The answer is simple. If they do so they will be giving away the very power that makes them powerful.”
“In fact of all the people in society our demands are the most legitimat
e and the most reasonable because we are living in the worst conditions. The demands of those with the most money and power are the least legitimate. Logic as well as justice is on the side of our struggle to put the will of the many against the will of the few which is the only way to turn our imaginings of a new urban order into reality.”
If this sounds reasonable to you then there are a few questions you must ask yourself…
1. Do you believe that a house is a fundamental human right?
2. Are you prepared to build this free house yourself?
3. If you cannot build this free house, then who should be forced to build it for you for free?
4. Where do you think the free lumber, hardware, and supplies should come from and who should you enslave to supply them?
5. If you need to relocate, who should be enslaved to help you find a new free house?
6. What happens to all of the Real Estate agents who will now be forced to give away houses? After all, the commission on free is zero.
You see, nothing that must be provided through the labor of another is a “fundamental human right”. That is, of course, unless the provider is not subject to the right of personal liberty. If you are in accord with the ladder then you would have been quite at home in the former Soviet Union. Here in the USA, our personal liberty is guaranteed by the founding documents that form the base of our legal system.
Make no mistake; those who are propagating this movement are violent and dangerous. Although they profess to be a movement of peace, they are taking property from others and refuse to return this property by any means other than a retaliatory act of violence.
Maybe there is some truth to that statement but there seems to be something missing. For one, I would like to see the amount of taxes paid by the homeless compared to the amount paid by banks. Secondly, these “agents” (who are nothing but liberal activists) are forcing entry into foreclosed homes and showing them to potential squatters without legal authority. The stated intent of these individuals is to create such a huge draw on legal resources, including law enforcement officers, that they create a long term cushion for the squatters. The underlying intent, however, looks a lot more like socialism.
Below is an excerpt from a presentation by one of their leaders, S’bu Zikode, entitled ‘Re-imagining the City: A New Urban Order’.
“It is very nice to re-imagine the city. We can all start to imagine cities with good housing for everyone and then we can imagine affordable public transport and safe streets with beautiful trees, cool shady parks and welcoming schools, clinics, libraries and sports clubs. We can imagine and imagine cities where everyone’s humanity is respected and where everyone counts. It is very nice to imagine a city where no one has to live like a pig in the mud, where everyone is safe from fires, abuse, police raids, disconnections, evictions and political attacks…..Those who are in power today have the power to distribute our land fairly and freely to those who do not have land. Why have they betrayed us today? The answer is simple. If they do so they will be giving away the very power that makes them powerful.”
“In fact of all the people in society our demands are the most legitimat
e and the most reasonable because we are living in the worst conditions. The demands of those with the most money and power are the least legitimate. Logic as well as justice is on the side of our struggle to put the will of the many against the will of the few which is the only way to turn our imaginings of a new urban order into reality.”
If this sounds reasonable to you then there are a few questions you must ask yourself…
1. Do you believe that a house is a fundamental human right?
2. Are you prepared to build this free house yourself?
3. If you cannot build this free house, then who should be forced to build it for you for free?
4. Where do you think the free lumber, hardware, and supplies should come from and who should you enslave to supply them?
5. If you need to relocate, who should be enslaved to help you find a new free house?
6. What happens to all of the Real Estate agents who will now be forced to give away houses? After all, the commission on free is zero.
You see, nothing that must be provided through the labor of another is a “fundamental human right”. That is, of course, unless the provider is not subject to the right of personal liberty. If you are in accord with the ladder then you would have been quite at home in the former Soviet Union. Here in the USA, our personal liberty is guaranteed by the founding documents that form the base of our legal system.
Make no mistake; those who are propagating this movement are violent and dangerous. Although they profess to be a movement of peace, they are taking property from others and refuse to return this property by any means other than a retaliatory act of violence.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes
So the tax rate depends on your income? As far as the left is concerned, the rich deserve to be taxed more, after all, they can afford it. By this logic, if someone makes $250k annually then they deserve to pay 10% more than someone who makes $249,999.99 is required to pay. So the guy making a penny more is evil, more evil that is than the second guy right?
You’re right, that’s absurd. Maybe there should be a cushion for that penny difference right? So let’s let that guy slip under the line, and the guy making a penny less than him, and the guy making less than him etc… The fact is: there can be no fair line between the man with wealth and the poor guy making a penny less.
Another way to look at it is like this: it seems fair to think that someone making more than 10 times your annual income is doing ok, right? Let’s say you earn $25k annually, so 10 times that is $250k which fits the liberal idea of “too rich”. Granted, most people earn more than $25k, but we will work from a low income. Well I think we need to raise taxes on everyone earning more than 10 times my income, would you agree? Not so fast, my disability (my only income) is $2,988 a year. This means that everyone earning more than $30k will see an increase in their taxes. Why not? My number is just as logical as Obama’s is.
Obviously our economy would collapse if we cut middle class income by 10% or more. Even the left admits that simple fact. Since there is no fair way to divide one class of Americans from another, why don’t we stop trying. We could abolish income tax and either establish a universal income tax or a value added tax (national sales tax).
Our federal government is working on a boutique marketing scheme when they should be more like Wal-Mart. Boutiques provide tremendous service at a high price and to a niche market. The left thinks they can provide great service, at a high price, for everyone, and force everyone to use this service at their own expense. The right, on the other hand, wants the government to offer the cheapest crap available, at the lowest possible price, and allow you to choose where you go for your product. For the record, very few boutiques (if any) achieve the level of wealth and provide the number of jobs as Sam Walton has.
You’re right, that’s absurd. Maybe there should be a cushion for that penny difference right? So let’s let that guy slip under the line, and the guy making a penny less than him, and the guy making less than him etc… The fact is: there can be no fair line between the man with wealth and the poor guy making a penny less.
Another way to look at it is like this: it seems fair to think that someone making more than 10 times your annual income is doing ok, right? Let’s say you earn $25k annually, so 10 times that is $250k which fits the liberal idea of “too rich”. Granted, most people earn more than $25k, but we will work from a low income. Well I think we need to raise taxes on everyone earning more than 10 times my income, would you agree? Not so fast, my disability (my only income) is $2,988 a year. This means that everyone earning more than $30k will see an increase in their taxes. Why not? My number is just as logical as Obama’s is.
Obviously our economy would collapse if we cut middle class income by 10% or more. Even the left admits that simple fact. Since there is no fair way to divide one class of Americans from another, why don’t we stop trying. We could abolish income tax and either establish a universal income tax or a value added tax (national sales tax).
Our federal government is working on a boutique marketing scheme when they should be more like Wal-Mart. Boutiques provide tremendous service at a high price and to a niche market. The left thinks they can provide great service, at a high price, for everyone, and force everyone to use this service at their own expense. The right, on the other hand, wants the government to offer the cheapest crap available, at the lowest possible price, and allow you to choose where you go for your product. For the record, very few boutiques (if any) achieve the level of wealth and provide the number of jobs as Sam Walton has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
