We are all Nationalists now

At the end of this article written in 1993 by (apparently) the DOJ on the constitutionality of health care reform:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/1stlady.htm

It concludes:

The Nation's debate over how best to deal with the great national need for health care reform should proceed untrammelled by worries over the national government's lawful powers that were laid to rest over half a century ago.

You should read the article. We are currently screwed because they have buried the constitution in lawyer speak and precedent as exemplified by this article.

The progressives basically conclude based on "constitutional tradition" that:

1. Well being of society trumps individual rights always and at the discretion of Congress
   
• they argue that there is a history of this being done by Congress, so it is OK to keep doing it
  
2. We now have a national government as decided during FDR's reign of power
• the concept of a national government rest on constitutional law settled at the time of FDR
• has seldom been challenged since
• and ultimately stem from the work of the Founders of the Republic
  
3. The national government can proceed untrammeled (unrestrained) deciding what is best for the nation

Next step: Oligopoly followed by One World Government.

I am continually amazed at how bad a year 1913 really was!!!


--- Read more ---

Republic vs Democracy

Listen carefully to the words of politicians. If they say things like:

• The people want this ...
  
• We live in a Democracy ...
  
• Government must step in and ...

then be very afraid of the consequences. Watch the video below and read this link to understand how government in our country was originally setup and the disaster that will result if we lose our Constitutional Republic ...






--- Read more ---

Inconvenient Global Warming Policies

Even if anthropogenic global warming were a proven fact (which, of course, it is not), the policies being bantered about by our “well-meaning” politicians to protect us from global warming will:

1. not really do anything to change/improve the world climate

2. dramatically increase taxes and opportunities for corruption
   
3. will raise the price of energy worldwide
4. accelerate poverty and deaths worldwide

As shown in the following videos, the best approach is to combat the supposed effects of global warming directly:

1. directly combat the problems resulting from current climate conditions (e.g. hurricanes, etc.)

2. reduce poverty worldwide – most effectively done by reducing the cost of energy and improving economic conditions worldwide

These approaches are much cheaper than the indirect approaches like trying to limit CO2 emissions with much less risk of unintended consequences.

Watch the following videos for more details:

Policy Peril: The Truth About Global Warming

The Great Global Warming Swindle

--- Read more ---

Return To Free Market Will Regulate Health Care Costs

Be very critical of both Democrat and Republican proposals for health care reform (see article.) The ultimate goal MUST be to completely remove federal government intervention from health care and return to a true free market private health care industry (see article.) Competition amongst health care providers and price transparency to health care consumers is the only just and fair method for providing the highest quality coverage to the most people. If the government wants to increase health care coverage, then they should stop taxing it completely and give tax rebates directly to individuals (up to, but not over, the amount of taxes the individual has paid!) for ALL their health care costs (see article.) Individuals should be directly responsible for their own health care insurance policies (just like auto insurance) and not masked by big company employer insurance programs subsidized by government tax incentives.

These actions alone would reduce health care costs such that most people can afford health care expenses out of pocket along with the purchase of a catastrophic health insurance policy. Ultimately the market would probably settle on out of pocket coverage for most things like doctors visits and other non-catastrophic needs (e.g. just like you pay out of pocket to get your brakes fixed on your car). Insurance policies would cover catastrophic health needs with costs driven by actuarial sciences similar to the way car insurance policies are done. Any plans to cover the small percentage of people who cannot pay for health coverage should be handled BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES (see article) and do something like handing out vouchers (e.g. that effectively translate to money) to individuals so they can make their own choices about their coverage and their provider. Again, the key is to get the federal government completely out of intervening in the private health care industry/market and to return the control of health care to the free market and to individuals.
--- Read more ---

Who Benefits from Democracy?

I have started to question if my vote for a "representative" means anything. The pervasive opinion of the day is that "majority rules." I have become frustrated that so many issues are being handled by our "representatives" that take away rights and liberties of individuals. The "representatives" use the fact that they were elected by "the majority" and "it's what the people want" to justify their actions and completely ignore the Constitution and the protection of individual liberties. We have lost the checks and balances of our original Consitutional Republic and our individual rights and liberties are no longer protected from the ravages of "the majority." It appears the mindset of "We the People" has become to increasingly sacrifice our individual liberties for the sake of "false" altruism and "false" security. We sacrifice liberty under the false notion that

• government involvement and intervention in the health care market will improve the health of the people
• government can save us from ourselves and knows better how to solve problems than free markets
  
• wealth redistribution is the fair thing to do
  
• government can protect us better by intruding in our lives by using unconstitutional "pre-emptive detainment" techniques.
• the government must intervene to "save the economy" with stimulus and illegally taking over private companies.
  

The government powers expanded during one administration with one "majority group" cheering the expansion on, can also be used by the next with a different "majority group" cheering.

The "majority" is fickle and one day wants one thing while another day they want another. But it seems that the government is always too willing to grow its powers to satisfy the majority.

In the end, we must ponder "who benefits from democracy?"





--- Read more ---

Effects of Government Intervention in Insurance

Government subsidized flood insurance encourages people to live in flood zones and ends up spreading the cost of these people's poor decisions (e.g. to live where there is higher risk of flooding) to other people not living in flood zones. If government didn't intervene, only the people who live in flood zones would share the cost. Additionally (and ironically) it also encourages people to live in ecologically sensitive areas that environmentalists don't want people to live!

In general, government subsidized insurance of any kind is an injustice to the people because it skews the free market in undesirable ways, unfairly redistributes wealth, and has unintended consequences.

See: Save a Tree Hug a Capitalist


--- Read more ---

Our Founders' Framework for Liberty

Some people may think that our government is the reason the United States became such a great nation. However, I believe our country became great in spite of government. The actual reason for our prosperity is liberty, not government. I firmly believe our prosperity has resulted directly from the various, sundry, and unconstrained individual pursuits of happiness of the people. Our country's Founders knew a country built on the pillars of liberty would provide the best opportunity for prosperity and happiness for the most number of people. They understood that government, even when acting with good intention, is tyrannical by nature. This understanding is evident by Thomas Jefferson's wise statement:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

Therefore, to ensure liberty for all, the Founders established an extremely limited government constrained by the rules contained within the Constitution. The Founders did not and could not know exactly what complex sequence of events would need to take place to make our nation prosper. Hence they did, could, and would not establish a complex set of centrally-planned procedures or spending policies (as is being attempted by our Federal government today) in an attempt to make us all prosperous and happy.

On the contrary, the Founders framed a limited constitutional republic to provide the best opportunity for, and enabling of, the prosperity and happiness for as many individuals as possible. They knew they could not dole out prosperity and happiness to people by “central planning” or “spreading prosperity” or “redistributing wealth.” They knew that a powerful centralized government was not the solution, but rather knew that government can be extremely dangerous and were not prone to form a centralized government at all. In fact, the motivating factor at the time for forming a Federal government was to protect the country from outside invaders.

The Founders feared a central, powerful government knowing that it would only confiscate liberty (let alone the fact they had just fought a revolution to escape from the tyranny of one). Furthermore, they knew they could not legislate happiness and prosperity, but only establish a framework for optimally enabling and protecting the liberty of all. This, in turn, would provide the greatest opportunity for the free pursuit of happiness for the greatest number of people.

In the midst of bank and company bailouts by an ever expanding tyrannical central government, out-of-control Federal spending under the guise of “it's the right or patriotic thing to do,” and the feeling that "America is not what it used to be," we need to go back to our roots and "cling" to what has enabled the United States to be so great. If we can re-establish a solid foundation of liberty in this country, then we can weather any "national or world crisis" on an optimal path toward prosperity and happiness for all.

Thus, we must not look to our government, but instead, constitutionally constrain government. We must once again stand on the pillars of liberty to freely allow our many individual pursuits of happiness to once again provide our prosperity and ultimate happiness.

--- Read more ---

Tea Parties and Taxes

Having attended two "Tea Parties" in Colorado, one at the Capitol and one in Loveland, I obtained an interesting perspective on the meaning behind the events. With news media headlines the following day containing words like "Anti-Government Protests," and "Most Americans OK With Big Government," and the Department of Homeland Security releasing warnings about "Right Wing Extremests" being terrorists, I was happy to have attended the events personally so I could get the true story behind the events and the people in attendance.

I didn't just attend the rallies and hold a sign. I walked around and talked to people to find out why they were there. Sure there were people representing fringe groups at the event promoting conspiracy theories or their pet issue; however, from my perspective, the vast majority were there to protest BIG government and out of control spending. Fundamentally, they attended because they felt their individual pursuit of happiness (and that of their posterity) was being infringed on by government.

The atmosphere felt more like a "4th of July" celebration as opposed to a protest. People were celebrating the founding principles of the country as much as they were protesting the erosion of their individual liberties over decades of government growth and expanding statist idealogies within our political system. Each individual may have had their own reason for being there, but everyone I spoke with had tossed aside their party affiliation and were unified by the principles that our forefathers had framed in our country's founding documents.

Unfortunately, much of the mainstream media are not reporting what I found out. In fact, they glossed over most of the true story. They led with stories such as "Most Americans OK with Big Government for now." Not only do they lead with this story but they back it up with statistics that are clearly flawed. It is amazing that a poll can be reported that says "52% of Americans feel they are ok with the amount of taxes they are paying." The poll didn't throw out the ones that weren't paying any taxes! Also, with a progressive income tax system where a minority of people pay the majority of taxes, wouldn't you expect that the majority would say they felt they were being taxed appropriately?

What most people don't realize is there are many hidden taxes they don't know they are paying. Corporations hand off their taxes by raising the price of goods and services. Employers reduce salaries (or hire less people) to pay the hidden portion of the payroll tax. Trickle down taxation is dangerous because hard-working Americans don't even realize they are being raped! To top it off, people are being told that spending (which obviously results in HIGHER taxes) is the solution to our current economic problems. This recovery plan is so idiotic (and ironic) because excessive, uncontrolled spending is what got us in this economic mess to begin with.

Isn't democracy great! Americans are being lied to and big government is being justified by using the tryanny of unchecked democracy. Politicians and the media are twisting the truth to make it appear that "the majority" of people support something (e.g. big government spending solutions and the current levels of taxation) to justify their position. If the United States had relied on this as a basis for determining our principles and policies throughout history, minorities would never have any rights whatsoever. In forming government policy, politicians must always rely on the founding principles of our constitution and that of an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Surely politicians must NOT rely on the tyranny of the majority or the "progressive" whims of the "collective."

--- Read more ---

Government Founded in Liberty

I like the saying "killing two birds with one stone" -- what I like more is when circumstances allow me to apply it in my life. Recently I started listening to audio books while exercising and found it as a great way to keep both my body and mind fit. One book I have been listening to is Murray Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty about the struggle for liberty during the pre-revolutionary period of American history.

A common thread I noted from listening to the book was that governments of that period existed only to protect the government itself or the self interests of a particular group of people in power. Individuals who did not conform to the government were subjected to the tyrannical machinations of those in power ranging from fines to public whippings, jail, or even hanging.

Fortunately for me I can learn indirectly from history and not from directly experiencing these tyrannical governments (at least so far). In applying the foundational truth of an individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", it is evident that one of the fundamental flaws of these pre-revolutionary forms of government was that the governments were not founded on the principle of protecting an individual's liberty. The governments of that period clearly put the rights of elite groups of people over that of the individual.

The book impressed upon me some of the reasons why people were willing to fight so hard to gain their liberty. Individuals of today seem to have grown complacent and appear to be ignorant of the painful history that led up to the American Revolution. Unfortunately, this ignorance has led many people today to take the selfish view of government actions:

"if it doesn't affect me, then it is ok for government to do it"

or

"hey, that would be great for me"

without accounting for the affect the government actions have on the rights of other individuals. Or people justify government actions by saying:

"that's awesome, it is helping that group of poor people"

and don't evaluate the altruistic notion of the government "helping a certain group of people" in the context of how these government actions affect the rights and liberties of other individuals. The bottom line, regarding government actions, is that an apparent collective right cannot trump the right of any individual. First and foremost, every government action must be grounded in protecting individual liberties. One thing to note is that the government is not providing anything here except protection of the individual's liberty. It is up to the individual what they do with their liberty. Once their liberty is secured, it is up to the individual to pursue their own happiness, on their own accord, reaping and sowing the reward (good and bad) of their own endeavors.

All this sort of begs the question as to why we need or even have governments. But, fundamentally, some entity must protect one individual or group of individuals from infringing on another individual's right. One entity that can be created to perform this task is government. In founding this government, the principle of protecting individual liberties is, and must be, the underlying basis for it's framing. If protecting individual liberties is not the underling action of governments, then those governments will eventually degenerate into the tyrannical governments of the pre-revolutionary period of America.

In closing, it is clear that the Founding Fathers of the United States understood the concept that government must not be in business to protect itself or a certain group of people, but rather, to protect the individual liberties of the people it governs:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own. (James Madison)

[A] wise and frugal government... 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. This is the sum of good government. (Thomas Jefferson)

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. (Thomas Jefferson)

It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect. (James Madison)

--- Read more ---

Grounded in Individual Liberty

I decided to start writing. I did not particularly want to write about personal things that go on in my life (although I may interject such things). Rather, I wanted to write about topics that are more relevant to other individuals and use this as a means for conveying to other individuals my pertinent thoughts and ideas.

I may write about random topics (I tend to have lots of random thoughts); however, the basic theme I have chosen is to discuss topics in the context of a basic fundamental principle (or truth):

"an individual has an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Why? Because I am approaching life as an individual who is himself pursuing happiness and I have become extremely interested in how current events affect that pursuit.

Moreover, as I started thinking about events, economics, politics (controversial or otherwise), it was amazing to me how powerful the application of this one fundamental principle is. I believe if this truth is violated, individuals would be subject to tyranny and outright misery. So, if you don't believe that individuals have these unalienable rights, you probably will not agree with much of what I have to say.

Over time I, like most individuals, have learned basic principles and truths. We have learned things like "if you touch a hot stove, it hurts", etc. These truths are timeless and immutable. If you can figure out these truths, you can build on them to "deduce" other truths and principles. This concept is similar to what is done in the world of science and engineering (e.g. "the scientific method"). Furthermore, as we make decisions or decide our viewpoint on things, it is prudent to make sure we don't violate these fundamental principles -- just like once your learn a stove could be hot, you think twice before touching a stove.

Growing up, I always wondered how people came up with quotes and how those quotes became famous. It wasn't necessarily that the person was already famous, or that the the quote was so eloquently stated. What made the quote so profound was that it was born out of that individual's experience and convictions. These quotes were manifestations of fundamental truths and principles that had become clear to these individuals. It is fascinating to go back and learn the experiences that molded their beliefs and motivated these individuals to speak with such conviction.

Thomas Jefferson once said:

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

One thing I note about what Jefferson said was that he brilliantly used the basic principle of an individual's right to liberty to further define what "liberty" is. He is expanding upon the foundation of an individual's right to liberty to further define (or explain) concepts such as "liberty", "law" and "equal rights." He aligned new concepts in the context of a fundamental principle drawing new conclusions, but never violating the original principle. If we, as individuals, do not do the same with our fundamental principles, then we are but tyrants attempting to impose our will upon others.
--- Read more ---