Government Turned Upside Down.

     I don't think anyone, no matter which position they choose to take in the political debate, can deny that we have serious problems with the functioning of our government these days. I contend that most of our problems stem from the fact that our government, in its current form, is nearly the opposite of what is necessary for our system to work.
     In its present incarnation, our government is a highly centralized federal system in which the federal level is viewed as supreme, followed by the States, with the local governments picking up the scraps, so to speak. Many mistakenly believe that this is the best system based on their belief that they can not trust the local officials to do what is best for the people, so they prefer to have a single, central presence to do this. This, however, is a completely flawed argument, no matter the justification, for if we can not trust elected to properly run something as small as a city, how does it follow that they can be trusted to properly run an entire nation?
     Let's reverse the system and see what it looks like.
     Starting with the federal level, what was it intended to do? First, protect us from foreign entities and handle relations with these entities, including trade and treaties. Second, make sure that the various States respect one another's laws and people, and to ensure that States do not interfere with each other's trade or internal affairs. This is essentially the end of the assigned federal authority.
     The role of the States is much more involved, and diverse. Each State is expected to enact its own Constitution detailing its responsibilities with regard to, and in accordance with, the wishes of the citizens of that State, and that State alone. the majority of the governing currently taking place at the federal level was intended instead to be done at this level. In this way, the State would, and should, each be unique, with the people of that State selecting the form and structure of their own governance, or failing that, relocating to a different State according to their preference.
     It is the local governments which should be supreme. It is only at this level where the people of a community can actually control directly how the government conducts daily business. It is not the fault of the system that the local government so frequently do not work, but the fault of the residents of that local area. They must, whether they like it or not, take an active role in this local structure, or resign themselves to be ruled by the wishes of their neighbors.
     The very idea of restructuring things this way leads to opposition based, in my experience, on two questions. What about taxes, and who would provide services?
     The answer to taxes is simple. The local communities would collect revenue from those who reside there in whatever form they select. This could range from voluntary contributions, to tolls, to sales taxes, or any other of a myriad possibilities. The important thing is that the local community would decide for themselves. As this would cause each community to have its own unique system, a person who didn't wish to be involved in a particular system would be able to move to an area which had adopted a preferable one. In the initial stages of development, this would be quite inconvenient for some people, but in time it would begin to run much more smoothly.
     The States, in their turn, would collect needed revenue from the local communities and from activities exclusive to that State, but not directly from the people. The federals would do likewise, drawing revenue only from the States themselves, or from sources such as allowable tariffs.
     What about services? Where will these come from? Since the people and the communities will not be sending an unduly large percentage of their wealth to a higher level of government, they will immediately have the option of directly selecting and paying for whatever services that they decide upon. If they decide to have a fire department, they will have the wealth available by virtue of not having to support a top heavy government to either hire a contractor for this or to create a department of their own. Likewise with law enforcement. Who will build the roads? Those who will use them. They will either build them or do without. If the need is legitimate, the roads will follow, paid for by those who use them, not by wealth confiscated from hapless individual who will never see this road, let alone use it. Here too, the means will be determined by the community itself, not by mandate from on high.
     This is just a brief view of my position in this, but it should provide a fair glimpse of my concept of government. Hopefully it will also provide content for further thought.
   

"Buy American" Back Again.

     A new bill is on its way to the House Capital Investment Committee in St. Paul. The chief author is Carly Melin, DFL Hibbing. It would require the State of Minnesota to purchase only American made steel for public works.

     The idea sounds pretty good on the surface. It is intended to bring business, unions, and government together to strengthen the economy of Minnesota by ensuring demand for the ore from the Iron Range. 

     It won't work. Yes, it will ensure demand and help the production side in the short term, but in the long term, it will further damage the economy and create more problems as time goes on.

     First, it will ensure a demand, but it will not do this by increasing the demand for the product, it will do this by restricting competition. Disqualifying some of the potential bids will allow the remaining bids to possibly be quoted at a higher rate, and it leads to the situation where the government decides which companies will be allowed eligibility to be awarded a contract. This gives rise to the opportunity for a company to either influence the government to either add them to the list or exclude their competition. It is obvious where that can lead.

     Second, by arbitrarily excluding bids which may be at a lower cost, it necessarily drives the price of the product up. Those who support this theory would have us believe that the price would be worth paying to make sure jobs are available in one area, but who pays the price? All of us. This is just a well camouflaged redistribution tactic in which the government forces us to pay taxes, then takes those revenues and sends them to corporations of their choosing, in this case domestic steel. In spite of the beautiful, rainbow colored appearance, this is the definition of crony capitalism, which most would vehemently oppose were it in a different setting.

     This bill will likely pass into law. When it does we can expect the price of the projects the State of Minnesota decides to make us pay for will be maintained at an inflated level. I doubt that it will create any jobs, as it can not possibly change the overall demand that much, but it will benefit the unions (although probably not the union members), the industry lobbyists, and the politicians they influence. The rest of us will bear the cost in the form of higher prices for these building projects that the government selects for us.

When Did "Allow" Become a Word to Fear?

     I read the following article as soon as it was released and viewed it, as one would expect, as good news. From what I observed shortly thereafter, many other people did as well.

South Dakota approves guns in the classroom — RT USA

     Later on I thought about this for a while, and realized that there is something far more important to consider than whether or not guns will be allowed in some schools. What we are facing today is a fundamental flaw in our way of thinking, at least for most of us. It is the acceptance of the fact that we must ask the government permission to do something. This is an all to common way of thinking which evidences itself in nearly all typical conversations about laws and regulations.
     "You're not allowed to park there."
     "You're allowed to have a rally only with a permit."
     "You're allowed to build only according to our code specifications."
     "You're not allowed to run a business without a license."
     "You're allowed to possess a registered firearm of an approved type in your own home."
     "You're not allowed to drive until paying the fees and receiving a license."
     "You're allowed to reside in your home only if the property tax is paid."
     I could continue on almost indefinitely. My point has been made, though. We are now at a point where instead of allowing the government to administer only those tasks designated by the Constitution, which is the way it was intended to be, in which system the government would be powerless to do anything which we did not specifically allow, the relationship between the government and the people has been inverted.
     When the original colonies broke away from England, it was not because they wanted their independence. Although I am sure many people did have that as their main goal, the status quo would have prevailed but for one thing. The government of England at the time was a government which granted the citizens permission to engage in each aspect of their daily lives, or restricted their ability to do so. Leading up to the beginning of the Revolution, the combination of the King's complacency and Lord North's heavy handedness led to a situation in which the government had rapidly become far more oppressive than was their wont. When petitions for redress failed, falling on deaf ears, insurrection began, rapidly growing into full rebellion, then separation.
     When our current government was formed, the intention was for it to be allowed privilege to do only what we allowed, and nothing more. In the intervening years, that has been almost completely reversed. Now, with few exceptions, the government does what it will, allowing us to do only what it grants us specific permission for, frequently through the means of licensing and registration, for which it charges us the highest tolerated rate. It also prevents us from doing many things which neither harm ourselves nor our neighbors, merely because someone, at some point in time, decided that their version of how we were to live our lives was superior to our own version. Our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property are now only a picturesque facade. These rights are now fleeting privileges either granted or removed by the will of the state.
     It is time for us to take back these rights, or forever lose them, never to be regained. We must be dedicated to this task, and also dedicated to causing as many of our neighbors as possible to join us, or we will live to witness the expiration of the American Experiment, never to be resurrected.

Political Correctness. Should We Surrender, or Have We Just Begun?

     After reading several reports on Rand Paul's notable filibuster yesterday, I should be fully encouraged by the noble stand he took against the march toward destruction on which we, as a nation, find ourselves. Unfortunately, I am still filled with a sense of dismay when I view numerous comments on the results of the filibuster. How many times in the last twelve hours have I read or heard statements which all seemed to follow the same pattern: Someone finally forced the administration to admit that they believed that drone strikes against US citizens on US soil without due process are unconstitutional!
     Hallelujah! What a victory! They actually said that they believed it was unconstitutional. This is a fine example of an empty victory. How many times have they said what we wanted to hear when they obviously believed something completely different, and how many times have they said one thing only to do precisely the opposite? Will we really be so quick to bury our heads back in the sand that we have only just recently began to extricate ourselves from?
     It is not time to relax after hearing what we wanted so much to hear. Rather, it is time to turn the heat up even higher, and scrutinize their activities with even greater magnification. It is not the time to force them to say the correct things, but the time to force them to stop doing the incorrect and dangerous things.
     Where do we go from here? I sincerely hope that we have managed to find a few real leaders in Washington who can steer us back toward the proper path. Even if they don't go far enough in the restoration of our liberty, pointing us in the right direction will be a refreshing change.
     That being said, it is not their responsibility to lead us back down the path toward freedom. It is theirs only to lead the forum in which they exist. It is our responsibility to walk the path to freedom, bringing as many of our neighbors along as we can convince to take up the journey. True, we are individually responsible for our own welfare, as our neighbors are for theirs, but in this no individual can stand against the reckless might of a power hungry state.
     Now is the day that all of us who value our individual rights must work together to humble the state, so that later we will still have the freedom to go our separate ways.
     Let us not meekly accept the answers given and return to our daily routines as if satisfied, but instead let us voice our questions and complaints with an ever louder condemnation of the misconducts of those who would control us.

Could Robots Replace Jurors? - Law Blog - WSJ

Could Robots Replace Jurors? - Law Blog - WSJ

     Although this article seems to discount the possibility, I find the fact that there are some people willing to entertain the idea disturbing. Can artificial intelligence replace jurors? I believe that this topic transcends mere speculation and enters the area of a debate about individual rights.
     Can an algorithm legitimately be developed to judge an individual human being? Would it even be desirable? I do not think that there is anyone who would honestly be willing to be judged by anything less than a jury of their peers. The only reasons I can attribute to the search for a possible AI jury would be either economic or consistency, but how can economy of action or consistent results supersede justice in an infinitely variable world?
     Something to think about.

Revealed: Holder Says President Could Authorize Military Drone Strikes Inside U.S. in Emergency | TheBlaze.com

Revealed: Holder Says President Could Authorize Military Drone Strikes Inside U.S. in Emergency | TheBlaze.com

     The following are some excerpts and an image from the above referenced article.

In a response dated March 4, 2013, Holder wrote that the U.S. government “has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.” The attorney general went on to note that federal officials believe that in areas where there is “well-established law enforcement,” these officials serve as the preferred mode of handling terrorist threats; military options inside U.S. borders are, thus, “rejected.”

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront,” the letter continues. “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”




     I would like to add two comments to this, in the form of questions.
     The first question. If federal officials recognize law enforcement as the preferred means to combat what they call domestic terrorism, at what point does it cease to be the preferred means? By failing to specifically rule out domestic drone strikes, does that not mean that drone strikes, instead of being ruled out, are considered as less than preferred, but are still considered an option?
     The second question. What extraordinary circumstances are there short of invasion or armed insurrection are being referenced here? Are there any other circumstances besides these two which call for military strikes, especially domestically? The only other circumstance I can envision is a clear case of defense from imminent attack, but in that case, how would a drone be useful if not already on station?
     I would call on the Attorney General to answer these questions specifically and clearly, and would hope that our elected representatives also demand these answers.

Logic and Abortion.

     To use logic in the argument about abortion while at the same time abstaining from emotion is likely to draw the ire and disdain of both sides, however, I feel that it must be done.
     I will not discuss the intermediate positions, as I see no logical validation for them with their lack of scientific evidence. I will focus only on the two positions in the extremities, that opposing all abortions, and that approving of all abortions.
     I will also argue from a point of view that holds that an individual's rights are paramount and must not be infringed upon by another. With this in mind, we are beholden to determine at what point a pregnancy ceases to be one individual and becomes two.
     The arguments from both sides have been lengthy and strenuous. On the one hand, those who approve of abortion point to the fact that the fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for life, and is therefore a part of the mother, and as a part of the mother's body is subject to her will for its disposition. On the other hand, those who oppose abortion maintain that life begins at conception, and has from that instant the same rights as any other individual.
     To put the question in its most basic terms, is the fetus an appendage of the mother prior to birth, or is it a separate individual with rights of its own from the instant of conception?
     First, what are the qualifications to be classified as an appendage? In this setting, would it not be an integral part of the body, able to be identified as such by having the same characteristics? Would this not, according to our most advanced medical science involve having the same DNA as the rest of the body? Failing that, it must be a separate life.
     Now we have deduced that the fetus is its own separate life by virtue of its unique DNA, we are faced with another problem. The fetus can neither sustain itself nor maintain its own life without an integral connection to the mother. So does this give us enough evidence to disqualify the fetus as an individual with rights of its own? Since it has its own unique DNA, and therefore its own unique identity, we simply can not deny that this fetus is a unique individual in its own right, but what of its inability to survive without direct connection to the mother? The answer here may possibly be found in simple definition. Since the mother and fetus are clearly engaged in a fully symbiotic relationship, and the mother can survive without the fetus, but not the fetus without the mother, we must define the fetus as a parasite.
     With the fetus defined as a parasite, but with its own distinct identity, we can greatly simplify, and perhaps eventually solve, the great abortion debate by answering one further question: As a parasite from conception until birth, is the fetus to be recognized as having the same individual rights to life as any other human for that entire time period, or by its status as a parasite, does the fetus lack those rights up until the moment of separation when it leaves its symbiotic connection to the mother?
     This leads us to an uncomfortable place where few wish to go. It appears that we must choose between all abortions being allowed based on the fetus's status as a parasite, or none based on a fetus's status as a unique individual. If the fetus is accepted as a parasite with no individual rights, the mother clearly has the right to do as she will. If the fetus is instead accepted as an individual with the included natural rights, then the mother is obligated to do what she can to ensure the life and well-being of the fetus, as to fail in that would be a clear infringement on the dependent individual.
     I am afraid that I have not solved the debate here, or offered any new solutions. My attempt is just to simplify and clarify the debate, even though by so doing I have surely offended most of the readers. As always, comments are welcome in the pursuit of the truth.