The main inspiration for the Declaration of Independence written shortly thereafter
A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .
Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.
Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.
Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.
Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Uncivil Speech
I have to say that I have had it with the alleged efforts to encourage civil speech. It is insulting how the Left has deemed the rallies and speech of the Tea Parties and other libertarian groups as uncivil and a threat to political discourse.
It is insulting because I remember a Bush speech from not too many years ago. It was in Morgantown and quite a few folks turned up to hear the president. Those attending the speech were pretty well behaved. However, the speech was interrupted often by the chants of those bussed in from Pittsburgh and other cities to create a large anti Bush demonstration. The president paid them no mind. However, as we left, the protesters lined up along the route we took to walk out of the area. They screamed and cursed at everyone, even the children attending the event.
This is a sign of civil speech? The Left has no room to attack anyone on the Constitutional Right.
Bush bore the attacks and the insults from all quarters with dignity. Certainly it had to hurt his and his families feelings, but he accepted it as part of the job and American political discourse. Actual concerns from the Right are treated as attacks that could incite violence.
We cannot back down from these efforts. We cannot let the actions of a madman give the Left permission to define what is and is not acceptable in political discourse.
It is insulting because I remember a Bush speech from not too many years ago. It was in Morgantown and quite a few folks turned up to hear the president. Those attending the speech were pretty well behaved. However, the speech was interrupted often by the chants of those bussed in from Pittsburgh and other cities to create a large anti Bush demonstration. The president paid them no mind. However, as we left, the protesters lined up along the route we took to walk out of the area. They screamed and cursed at everyone, even the children attending the event.
This is a sign of civil speech? The Left has no room to attack anyone on the Constitutional Right.
Bush bore the attacks and the insults from all quarters with dignity. Certainly it had to hurt his and his families feelings, but he accepted it as part of the job and American political discourse. Actual concerns from the Right are treated as attacks that could incite violence.
We cannot back down from these efforts. We cannot let the actions of a madman give the Left permission to define what is and is not acceptable in political discourse.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
From Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedmann
Chapter I
The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom
It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individuai freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.
Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.
The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.
The citizen of Great Britain, who after World War II was not permitted to spend his vacation in the United States because of exchange control, was being deprived of an essential freedom no less than the citizen of the United States, who was denied the opportunity to spend his vacation in Russia because of his political views. The one was ostensibly an economic limitation on freedom and the other a political limitation, yet there is no essential difference between the two.
The citizen of the United States who is compelled by law to devote something like io per cent of his income to the purchase of a particular kind of retirement contract, administered by the government, is being deprived of a corresponding part of his personal freedom. How strongly this deprivation may be felt and its closeness to the deprivation of religious freedom, which all would regard as "civil" or "political" rather than "economic", were dramatized by an episode involving a group of farmers of the Amish sect. On grounds of principle, this group regarded compulsory federal old age programs as an infringement of their personal individual freedom and refused to pay taxes or accept benefits. As a result, some of their livestock were sold by auction in order to satisfy claims for social security levies. True, the number of citizens who regard compulsory old age insurance as a deprivation of freedom may be few, but the believer in freedom has never counted noses.
A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.
Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important becuase of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.
Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.
Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.
History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last seventy years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War I -- are all societies that cannot conceivably be described as politically free. Yet, in each, private enterprise was the dominant form of economic organization. It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free.
Even in those societies, the citizenry had a good deal more freedom than citizens of a modern totalitarian state like Russia or Nazi Germany, in which economic totalitarianism is combined with political totalitarianism. Even in Russia under the Tzars, it was possible for some citizens, under some circumstances, to change their jobs without getting permission from political authority because capitalism and the existence of private property provided some check to the centralized power of the state.
The relation between political and economic freedom is complex and by no means unilateral. In the early nineteenth century, Bentham and the Philosophical Radicals were inclined to regard political freedom as a means to economic freedom. They believed that the masses were being hampered by the restrictions that were being imposed upon them, and that if political reform gave the bulk of the people the vote, they would do what was good for them, which was to vote for laissez faire. In retrospect, one cannot say that they were wrong. There was a large measure of political reform that was accompanied by economic reform in the direction of a great deal of laissez faire. An enormous increase in the well-being of the masses followed this change in economic arrangements.
The triumph of Benthamite liberalism in nineteenth-century England was followed by a reaction toward increasing intervention by government in economic affairs. This tendency to collectivism was greatly accelerated, both in England and elsewhere, by the two World Wars. Welfare rather than freedom became the dominant note in democratic countries. Recognizing the implicit threat to individualism, the intellectual descendants of the Philosophical Radicals - Dicey, Mises, Hayek, and Simons, to mention only a few - feared that a continued movement toward centralized control of economic activity would prove The Road to Serfdom, as Hayek entitled his penetrating analysis of the process. Their emphasis was on economic free. dom as a means toward political freedom.
Events since the end of World War II display still a different relation between economic and political freedom. Collectivisi economic planning has indeed interfered with individual freedom. At least in some countries, however, the result has not been the suppression of freedom, but the reversal of economic policy. England again provides the most striking example. The turning point was perhaps the "control of engagements" order which, despite great misgivings, the Labour party found it necessary to impose in order to carry out its economic policy. Fully enforced and carried through, the law would have involved centralized allocation of individuals to occupations. This conflicted so sharply with personal liberty that it was enforced in a negligible number of cases, and then repealed after the law had been in effect for only a short period. Its repeal ushered in a decided shift in economic policy, marked by reduced reliance on centralized "plans" and "programs", by the dismantling of many controls, and by increased emphasis on the private market. A similar shift in policy occurred in most other democratic countries.
The proximate explanation of these shifts in policy is the limited success of central planning or its outright failure to achieve stated objectives. However, this failure is itself to be attributed, at least in some measure, to the political implications of central planning and to an unwillingness to follow out its logic when doing so requires trampling rough-shod on treasured private rights. It may well be that the shift is only a temporary interruption in the collectivist trend of this century. Even so, it illustrates the close relation between political freedom and economic arrangements.
Historical evidence by itself can never be convincing. Perhaps it was sheer coincidence that the expansion of freedom occurred at the same time as the development of capitalist and market institutions. Why should there be a connection? What are the logical links between economic and political freedom? In discussing these questions we shall consider first the market as a direct component of freedom, and then the indirect relation between market arrangements and political freedom. A by-product will be an outline of the ideal economic arrangements for a free society.
As liberals, we take freedom of the individual, or perhaps the family, as our ultimate goal in judging social arrangements. Freedom as a value in this sense has to do with the interrelations among people; it has no meaning whatsoever to a Robinson Crusoe on an isolated island (without his Man Friday). Robinson Crusoe on his island is subject to "constraint," he has limited "power," and he has only a limited number of alternatives, but there is no problem of freedom in the sense that is relevant to our discussion. Similarly, in a society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom; it is not an all-embracing ethic. Indeed, a major aim of the liberal is to leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with. The "really" important ethical problems are those that face an individual in a free society - what he should do with his freedom. There are thus two sets of values that a liberal will emphasize -- the values that are relevant to relations among people, which is the context in which he assigns first priority to freedom; and the values that are relevant to the individual in the exercise of his freedom, which is the realm of individual ethics and philosophy.
The liberal conceives of men as imperfect beings. He regards the problem of social organization to be as much a negative problem of preventing "bad" people from doing harm as of enabling "good" people to do good; and, of course, "bad" and "good" people may be the same people, depending on who is judging them.
The basic problem of social organization is how to co-ordinate the economic activities of large numbers of people. Even in relatively backward societies, extensive division of labor and specialization of function is required to make effective use of available resources. In advanced societies, the scale on which coordination is needed, to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by modern science and technology, is enormously greater. Literally millions of people are involved in providing one another with their daily bread, let alone with their yearly automobiles. The challenge to the believer in liberty is to reconcile this widespread interdependence with individual freedom.
Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion--the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals--the technique of the market place.
The possibility of co-ordination through voluntary co-operation rests on the elementary -- yet frequently denied -- proposition that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it, provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed.
Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion. A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy -- what we have been calling competitive capitalism.
In its simplest form, such a society consists of a number of independent households -- a collection of Robinson Crusoes, as it were. Each household uses the resources it controls to produce goods and services that it exchanges for goods and services produced by other households, on terms mutually acceptable to the two parties to the bargain. It is thereby enabled to satisfy its wants indirectly by producing goods and services for others, rather than directly by producing goods for its own immediate use. The incentive for adopting this indirect route is, of course, the increased product made possible by division of labor and specialization of function. Since the household always has the alternative of producing directly for itself, it need not enter into any exchange unless it benefits from it. Hence, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit from it. Co-operation is thereby achieved without coercion.
Specialization of function and division of labor would not go far if the ultimate productive unit were the household. In a modern society, we have gone much farther. We have introduced enterprises which are intermediaries between individuals in their capacities as suppliers of service and as purchasers of goods. And similarly, specialization of function and division of labor could not go very far if we had to continue to rely on the barter of product for product. In consequence, money has been introduced as a means of facilitating exchange, and of enabling the acts of purchase and of sale to be separated into two parts.
Despite the important role of enterprises and of money in our actual economy, and despite the numerous and complex problems they raise, the central characteristic of the market technique of achieving co-ordination is fully displayed in the simple exchange economy that contains neither enterprises nor money. As in that simple model, so in the complex enterprise and money-exchange economy, co-operation is strictly individual and voluntary provided: (a) that enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting parties are individuals and (b) that individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary.
It is far easier to state these provisos in general terms than to spell them out in detail, or to specify precisely the institutional arrangements most conducive to their maintenance. Indeed, much of technical economic literature is concerned with precisely these questions. The basic requisite is the maintenance of law and order to prevent physical coercion of one individual by another and to enforce contracts voluntarily entered into, thus giving substance to "private". Aside from this, perhaps the most difficult problems arise from monopoly - which inhibits effective freedom by denying individuals alternatives to the particular exchange -- and from "neighborhood effects" -- effects on third parties for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them. These problems will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter.
So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by the seller because of the presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer because of other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this impersonally and without centralized authority.
Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color-the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit.
It is this feature of the market that we refer to when we say that the market provides economic freedom. But this characteristic also has implications that go far beyond the narrowly economic. Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated - a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.
Economic power can be widely dispersed. There is no law of conservation which forces the growth of new centers of economic strength to be at the expense of existing centers. Political power, on the other hand, is more difficult to decentralize. There can be numerous small independent governments. But it is far more difficult to maintain numerous equipotent small centers of political power in a single large government than it is to have numerous centers of economic strength in a single large economy. There can be many millionaires in one large economy. But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his countrymen are centered? If the central government gains power, it is likely to be at the expense of local governments. there seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed. Consequently, if economic power is joined to political power, concentration seems almost inevitable. On the other hand, if economic power is kept in separate hands from political power, it can serve as a check and a counter to political power.
The force of this abstract argument can perhaps best be demonstrated by example. Let us consider first, a hypothetical example that may help to bring out the principles involved, and then some actual examples from recent experience that illustrate the way in which the market works to preserve political freedom.
One feature of a free society is surely the freedom of individuals to advocate and propagandize openly for a radical change in the structure of the society -- so long as the advocacy is restricted to persuasion and does not include force or other forms of coercion. It is a mark of the political freedom of a capitalist society that men can openly advocate and work for socialism. Equally, political freedom in a socialist society would require that men be free to advocate the introduction of capitalism. How could the freedom to advocate capitalism be preserved and protected in a socialist society?
In order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living. This already raises a problem in a socialist society, since all jobs are under the direct control of political authorities. It would take an act of self-denial whose difficulty is underlined by experience in the United States after World War II with the problem of "security" among Federal employees, for a socialist government to permit its employees to advocate policies directly contrary to official doctrine.
But let us suppose this act of self-denial to be achieved. For advocacy of capitalism to mean anything, the proponents must be able to finance their cause - to hold public meetings, publish pamphlets, buy radio time, issue newspapers and magazines, and so on. How could they raise the funds? There might and probably would be men in the socialist society with large incomes, perhaps even large capital sums in the form of government bonds and the like, but these would of necessity be high public officials. It is possible to conceive of a minor socialist official retaining his job although openly advocating capitalism. It strains credulity to imagine the socialist top brass financing such "subversive" activities.
The only recourse for funds would be to raise small amounts from a large number of minor officials. But this is no real answer. To tap these sources, many people would already have to be persuaded, and our whole problem is how to initiate and finance a campaign to do so. Radical movements in capitalist societies have never been financed this way. They have typically been supported by a few wealthy individuals who have become persuaded - by a Frederick Vanderbilt Field, or an Anita McCormick Blaine, or a Corliss Lamont, to mention a few names recently prominent, or by a Friedrich Engels, to go farther back. This is a role of inequality of wealth in preserving political freedom that is seldom noted -- the role of the patron.
In a capitalist society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support. And, indeed, it is not even necessary to persuade people or financial institutions with available funds of the soundness of the ideas to be propagated. It is only necessary to persuade them that the propagation can be financially successful; that the newspaper or magazine or book or other venture will be profitable. The competitive publisher, for example, cannot afford to publish only writing with which he personally agrees; his touchstone must be the likelihood that the market will be large enough to yield a satisfactory return on his investment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom
It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individuai freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.
Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.
The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.
The citizen of Great Britain, who after World War II was not permitted to spend his vacation in the United States because of exchange control, was being deprived of an essential freedom no less than the citizen of the United States, who was denied the opportunity to spend his vacation in Russia because of his political views. The one was ostensibly an economic limitation on freedom and the other a political limitation, yet there is no essential difference between the two.
The citizen of the United States who is compelled by law to devote something like io per cent of his income to the purchase of a particular kind of retirement contract, administered by the government, is being deprived of a corresponding part of his personal freedom. How strongly this deprivation may be felt and its closeness to the deprivation of religious freedom, which all would regard as "civil" or "political" rather than "economic", were dramatized by an episode involving a group of farmers of the Amish sect. On grounds of principle, this group regarded compulsory federal old age programs as an infringement of their personal individual freedom and refused to pay taxes or accept benefits. As a result, some of their livestock were sold by auction in order to satisfy claims for social security levies. True, the number of citizens who regard compulsory old age insurance as a deprivation of freedom may be few, but the believer in freedom has never counted noses.
A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.
Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important becuase of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.
Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.
Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.
History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last seventy years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War I -- are all societies that cannot conceivably be described as politically free. Yet, in each, private enterprise was the dominant form of economic organization. It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free.
Even in those societies, the citizenry had a good deal more freedom than citizens of a modern totalitarian state like Russia or Nazi Germany, in which economic totalitarianism is combined with political totalitarianism. Even in Russia under the Tzars, it was possible for some citizens, under some circumstances, to change their jobs without getting permission from political authority because capitalism and the existence of private property provided some check to the centralized power of the state.
The relation between political and economic freedom is complex and by no means unilateral. In the early nineteenth century, Bentham and the Philosophical Radicals were inclined to regard political freedom as a means to economic freedom. They believed that the masses were being hampered by the restrictions that were being imposed upon them, and that if political reform gave the bulk of the people the vote, they would do what was good for them, which was to vote for laissez faire. In retrospect, one cannot say that they were wrong. There was a large measure of political reform that was accompanied by economic reform in the direction of a great deal of laissez faire. An enormous increase in the well-being of the masses followed this change in economic arrangements.
The triumph of Benthamite liberalism in nineteenth-century England was followed by a reaction toward increasing intervention by government in economic affairs. This tendency to collectivism was greatly accelerated, both in England and elsewhere, by the two World Wars. Welfare rather than freedom became the dominant note in democratic countries. Recognizing the implicit threat to individualism, the intellectual descendants of the Philosophical Radicals - Dicey, Mises, Hayek, and Simons, to mention only a few - feared that a continued movement toward centralized control of economic activity would prove The Road to Serfdom, as Hayek entitled his penetrating analysis of the process. Their emphasis was on economic free. dom as a means toward political freedom.
Events since the end of World War II display still a different relation between economic and political freedom. Collectivisi economic planning has indeed interfered with individual freedom. At least in some countries, however, the result has not been the suppression of freedom, but the reversal of economic policy. England again provides the most striking example. The turning point was perhaps the "control of engagements" order which, despite great misgivings, the Labour party found it necessary to impose in order to carry out its economic policy. Fully enforced and carried through, the law would have involved centralized allocation of individuals to occupations. This conflicted so sharply with personal liberty that it was enforced in a negligible number of cases, and then repealed after the law had been in effect for only a short period. Its repeal ushered in a decided shift in economic policy, marked by reduced reliance on centralized "plans" and "programs", by the dismantling of many controls, and by increased emphasis on the private market. A similar shift in policy occurred in most other democratic countries.
The proximate explanation of these shifts in policy is the limited success of central planning or its outright failure to achieve stated objectives. However, this failure is itself to be attributed, at least in some measure, to the political implications of central planning and to an unwillingness to follow out its logic when doing so requires trampling rough-shod on treasured private rights. It may well be that the shift is only a temporary interruption in the collectivist trend of this century. Even so, it illustrates the close relation between political freedom and economic arrangements.
Historical evidence by itself can never be convincing. Perhaps it was sheer coincidence that the expansion of freedom occurred at the same time as the development of capitalist and market institutions. Why should there be a connection? What are the logical links between economic and political freedom? In discussing these questions we shall consider first the market as a direct component of freedom, and then the indirect relation between market arrangements and political freedom. A by-product will be an outline of the ideal economic arrangements for a free society.
As liberals, we take freedom of the individual, or perhaps the family, as our ultimate goal in judging social arrangements. Freedom as a value in this sense has to do with the interrelations among people; it has no meaning whatsoever to a Robinson Crusoe on an isolated island (without his Man Friday). Robinson Crusoe on his island is subject to "constraint," he has limited "power," and he has only a limited number of alternatives, but there is no problem of freedom in the sense that is relevant to our discussion. Similarly, in a society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom; it is not an all-embracing ethic. Indeed, a major aim of the liberal is to leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with. The "really" important ethical problems are those that face an individual in a free society - what he should do with his freedom. There are thus two sets of values that a liberal will emphasize -- the values that are relevant to relations among people, which is the context in which he assigns first priority to freedom; and the values that are relevant to the individual in the exercise of his freedom, which is the realm of individual ethics and philosophy.
The liberal conceives of men as imperfect beings. He regards the problem of social organization to be as much a negative problem of preventing "bad" people from doing harm as of enabling "good" people to do good; and, of course, "bad" and "good" people may be the same people, depending on who is judging them.
The basic problem of social organization is how to co-ordinate the economic activities of large numbers of people. Even in relatively backward societies, extensive division of labor and specialization of function is required to make effective use of available resources. In advanced societies, the scale on which coordination is needed, to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by modern science and technology, is enormously greater. Literally millions of people are involved in providing one another with their daily bread, let alone with their yearly automobiles. The challenge to the believer in liberty is to reconcile this widespread interdependence with individual freedom.
Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion--the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals--the technique of the market place.
The possibility of co-ordination through voluntary co-operation rests on the elementary -- yet frequently denied -- proposition that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it, provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed.
Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion. A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy -- what we have been calling competitive capitalism.
In its simplest form, such a society consists of a number of independent households -- a collection of Robinson Crusoes, as it were. Each household uses the resources it controls to produce goods and services that it exchanges for goods and services produced by other households, on terms mutually acceptable to the two parties to the bargain. It is thereby enabled to satisfy its wants indirectly by producing goods and services for others, rather than directly by producing goods for its own immediate use. The incentive for adopting this indirect route is, of course, the increased product made possible by division of labor and specialization of function. Since the household always has the alternative of producing directly for itself, it need not enter into any exchange unless it benefits from it. Hence, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit from it. Co-operation is thereby achieved without coercion.
Specialization of function and division of labor would not go far if the ultimate productive unit were the household. In a modern society, we have gone much farther. We have introduced enterprises which are intermediaries between individuals in their capacities as suppliers of service and as purchasers of goods. And similarly, specialization of function and division of labor could not go very far if we had to continue to rely on the barter of product for product. In consequence, money has been introduced as a means of facilitating exchange, and of enabling the acts of purchase and of sale to be separated into two parts.
Despite the important role of enterprises and of money in our actual economy, and despite the numerous and complex problems they raise, the central characteristic of the market technique of achieving co-ordination is fully displayed in the simple exchange economy that contains neither enterprises nor money. As in that simple model, so in the complex enterprise and money-exchange economy, co-operation is strictly individual and voluntary provided: (a) that enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting parties are individuals and (b) that individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary.
It is far easier to state these provisos in general terms than to spell them out in detail, or to specify precisely the institutional arrangements most conducive to their maintenance. Indeed, much of technical economic literature is concerned with precisely these questions. The basic requisite is the maintenance of law and order to prevent physical coercion of one individual by another and to enforce contracts voluntarily entered into, thus giving substance to "private". Aside from this, perhaps the most difficult problems arise from monopoly - which inhibits effective freedom by denying individuals alternatives to the particular exchange -- and from "neighborhood effects" -- effects on third parties for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them. These problems will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter.
So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by the seller because of the presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer because of other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this impersonally and without centralized authority.
Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color-the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit.
It is this feature of the market that we refer to when we say that the market provides economic freedom. But this characteristic also has implications that go far beyond the narrowly economic. Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated - a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.
Economic power can be widely dispersed. There is no law of conservation which forces the growth of new centers of economic strength to be at the expense of existing centers. Political power, on the other hand, is more difficult to decentralize. There can be numerous small independent governments. But it is far more difficult to maintain numerous equipotent small centers of political power in a single large government than it is to have numerous centers of economic strength in a single large economy. There can be many millionaires in one large economy. But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his countrymen are centered? If the central government gains power, it is likely to be at the expense of local governments. there seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed. Consequently, if economic power is joined to political power, concentration seems almost inevitable. On the other hand, if economic power is kept in separate hands from political power, it can serve as a check and a counter to political power.
The force of this abstract argument can perhaps best be demonstrated by example. Let us consider first, a hypothetical example that may help to bring out the principles involved, and then some actual examples from recent experience that illustrate the way in which the market works to preserve political freedom.
One feature of a free society is surely the freedom of individuals to advocate and propagandize openly for a radical change in the structure of the society -- so long as the advocacy is restricted to persuasion and does not include force or other forms of coercion. It is a mark of the political freedom of a capitalist society that men can openly advocate and work for socialism. Equally, political freedom in a socialist society would require that men be free to advocate the introduction of capitalism. How could the freedom to advocate capitalism be preserved and protected in a socialist society?
In order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living. This already raises a problem in a socialist society, since all jobs are under the direct control of political authorities. It would take an act of self-denial whose difficulty is underlined by experience in the United States after World War II with the problem of "security" among Federal employees, for a socialist government to permit its employees to advocate policies directly contrary to official doctrine.
But let us suppose this act of self-denial to be achieved. For advocacy of capitalism to mean anything, the proponents must be able to finance their cause - to hold public meetings, publish pamphlets, buy radio time, issue newspapers and magazines, and so on. How could they raise the funds? There might and probably would be men in the socialist society with large incomes, perhaps even large capital sums in the form of government bonds and the like, but these would of necessity be high public officials. It is possible to conceive of a minor socialist official retaining his job although openly advocating capitalism. It strains credulity to imagine the socialist top brass financing such "subversive" activities.
The only recourse for funds would be to raise small amounts from a large number of minor officials. But this is no real answer. To tap these sources, many people would already have to be persuaded, and our whole problem is how to initiate and finance a campaign to do so. Radical movements in capitalist societies have never been financed this way. They have typically been supported by a few wealthy individuals who have become persuaded - by a Frederick Vanderbilt Field, or an Anita McCormick Blaine, or a Corliss Lamont, to mention a few names recently prominent, or by a Friedrich Engels, to go farther back. This is a role of inequality of wealth in preserving political freedom that is seldom noted -- the role of the patron.
In a capitalist society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support. And, indeed, it is not even necessary to persuade people or financial institutions with available funds of the soundness of the ideas to be propagated. It is only necessary to persuade them that the propagation can be financially successful; that the newspaper or magazine or book or other venture will be profitable. The competitive publisher, for example, cannot afford to publish only writing with which he personally agrees; his touchstone must be the likelihood that the market will be large enough to yield a satisfactory return on his investment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, January 10, 2011
Hysterics
We definitely want to continue to pray for the victims of the senseless shooting in Tuscon last weekend. There is never a reason to spray a defenseless crowd with bullets.I remember the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. My first instinct was to blame Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. It had all the hallmarks of this brand of attack. Of course the actual attack came from another direction. A former soldier named Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building for very different reasons.
The left wing had its knee jerk reaction this Saturday when Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head and a federal judge killed. It shouted "Tea Party" and, as if there were talking points already in place, they all bemoaned the uncivil dialogue.
Interesting how they return to this theme once in power. In the 1960s, they called it "civil disobedience" even when they went well beyond Martin Luther King Jr.'s guidelines. Who was responsible for the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention riots? Who was responsible for Weather Underground terrorism? This same political grouping now asks for a return to civility. Oh wait, did they treat Bush with civility? Civil is when tens of thousands gather in one place and peacefully sing, pray, and honor their country. That was the example of the Tea Party last summer.
Aggressive rhetoric and discourse does not cause killing. In fact, the action of letting off steam through harsh words more likely prevents a lot more outbreaks of violence. They don't want civil dialogue. They just want us to shut up.
The shooter was a strange case. He apparently loved the two halves of the extreme left coin, both Lenin and Hitler. He also talked about hating the government. We may have to just settle for the fact that this was a deranged and confused young man. He was too crazy for college, apparently. Friends describe him as left wing in his politics. However, that does not mean that we would blame all left wing dialogue. We'd blame the individual. He did it. It is his responsibility alone.
We are not a sick society. We are actually remarkably healthy, considering the recent stresses. We do have sick individuals. In a free society, the sick and the malicious can work without detection. The cost of a free society is the occasional tragedy. We accept that cost, or we sacrifice more freedom to achieve a perfect security that is impossible to achieve.
The left went into hysterics, thinking that a Tea Partier, or Sarah Palin follower, shot a congresswoman who wanted to cut the debt and protect gun ownership. I can forgive teh knee jerk reaction since I once did it myself. But now they owe us a mea culpa. Constitution supporters did not shoot this woman. A crazy guy did.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The Constitution Is Not Propaganda: A Note By Orrin Hatch
From National Review Online
The Constitution Is Not ‘Propaganda’
January 6, 2011 12:23 P.M.
By Orrin G. Hatch
More than 90 percent of Americans say that the Constitution is very important to them and two-thirds say that a “detailed knowledge” of our charter is “absolutely necessary.” Federal and state officials, whether elected or appointed, must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It is, in its own words, the “supreme law of the land.”Liberty requires limits on government, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall explained it this way in Marbury v. Madison: “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Needless to say, a written document matters only if it is read.If mistaking or forgetting the Constitution’s limits on Congress threatens our liberty, then those who love liberty should read our Constitution often. Those who must abide by its limits, those who swear to support and defend it, should read our Constitution often.So who would have thought that simply reading the Constitution out loud on the House floor — by the very House members who the day before took an oath to support and defend it — would be met with such cynicism. Many belittled it as “symbolism,” as if that were a bad thing. One Democratic congressman dismissed reading the Constitution as nothing but “propaganda.” He is — seriously — the previous chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on, yes, the Constitution.I think this just confirms why America’s founders wrote the Constitution down in the first place. It appears that some in Congress would be just fine with the American people mistaking or forgetting the limits that the Constitution places on federal power.Only a quarter of the people who say a detailed knowledge of the Constitution is necessary say that they have such knowledge. Reading it is the least we can do.
— Orrin G. Hatch is a U.S. senator from Utah.
The Constitution Is Not ‘Propaganda’
January 6, 2011 12:23 P.M.
By Orrin G. Hatch
More than 90 percent of Americans say that the Constitution is very important to them and two-thirds say that a “detailed knowledge” of our charter is “absolutely necessary.” Federal and state officials, whether elected or appointed, must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It is, in its own words, the “supreme law of the land.”Liberty requires limits on government, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall explained it this way in Marbury v. Madison: “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Needless to say, a written document matters only if it is read.If mistaking or forgetting the Constitution’s limits on Congress threatens our liberty, then those who love liberty should read our Constitution often. Those who must abide by its limits, those who swear to support and defend it, should read our Constitution often.So who would have thought that simply reading the Constitution out loud on the House floor — by the very House members who the day before took an oath to support and defend it — would be met with such cynicism. Many belittled it as “symbolism,” as if that were a bad thing. One Democratic congressman dismissed reading the Constitution as nothing but “propaganda.” He is — seriously — the previous chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on, yes, the Constitution.I think this just confirms why America’s founders wrote the Constitution down in the first place. It appears that some in Congress would be just fine with the American people mistaking or forgetting the limits that the Constitution places on federal power.Only a quarter of the people who say a detailed knowledge of the Constitution is necessary say that they have such knowledge. Reading it is the least we can do.
— Orrin G. Hatch is a U.S. senator from Utah.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The Speaker of the House Throws Down the Gauntlet
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid informed the House of Representatives that it need not waste its time repealing Obamacare.
Speaker John Boehner's reply was simple and to the point. Hat tip to RedState:
Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:
Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.
The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.
Harry Reid wants to pretend that the House has no power here, but it does. It is the source of all money bills and can defund the whole project. They can use this threat as leverage to completely redo health care and turn it from deform into real reform. Or chuck the whole thing because health care here was much betterthan most places to begin with.
Either way, Speaker Boehner gets it. Thank goodness!
Speaker John Boehner's reply was simple and to the point. Hat tip to RedState:
Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:
Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.
The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.
Harry Reid wants to pretend that the House has no power here, but it does. It is the source of all money bills and can defund the whole project. They can use this threat as leverage to completely redo health care and turn it from deform into real reform. Or chuck the whole thing because health care here was much betterthan most places to begin with.
Either way, Speaker Boehner gets it. Thank goodness!
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Rich Rodriguez Fired
Three years ago, both Rich Rodriguez and West Virginia University seemed to be on top of the world. Rodriguez escaped the scrutiny of West Virginia's athletic department for the big money and national attention of Michigan. West Virginia did not get a coveted national title shot, but did demolish perennial power Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Now both have hit a crossroads. West Virginia chose to try and regain its position as an elite program by hiring Dana Holgerson. It has certainly slipped, but not nearly so much as Rodriguez.
Is this a case of bad things happening to bad people? Not really. Bill Stewart was a nice guy, but could not maintain West Virginia's stature in the college football world. His landing spot is a little softer, though.
Rodriguez's problem was always stubbornness. It was always his way or no way. This is not always a bad thing. It's good to have a vision and stick to it, but you have to know when to adapt. You have to know when the game changed. Rodriguez was always good at forcing an issue, but not at adapting when people began to figure him out.
His reactions to adversity were as predictable as his playcalling became. Rodriguez would trot his family out, cry, and ask for understanding. It was a stark contrast to the tough guy persona he usually took to practice.
Michigan will now look for a new coach. ESPN denies that Michigan is a national program any longer. That's debatable. However, Rodriguez is no longer a hot national commodity. His spread looks like a Model T compared to Holgerson's Oklahoma State Mustang. Pitt refused to consider him. UConn could look at him because they are more desperate for a "name." However, that would be like the former leading man doing a B movie.
Rodriguez is not necessarily down and out forever. He could claw his way back by being successful at a mid major, changing his system to meet the transformations taking place in college football, and being a little more diplomatic from time to time.
Is there a lesson here? Gracious behavior and adaptability will go far.
Is this a case of bad things happening to bad people? Not really. Bill Stewart was a nice guy, but could not maintain West Virginia's stature in the college football world. His landing spot is a little softer, though.
Rodriguez's problem was always stubbornness. It was always his way or no way. This is not always a bad thing. It's good to have a vision and stick to it, but you have to know when to adapt. You have to know when the game changed. Rodriguez was always good at forcing an issue, but not at adapting when people began to figure him out.
His reactions to adversity were as predictable as his playcalling became. Rodriguez would trot his family out, cry, and ask for understanding. It was a stark contrast to the tough guy persona he usually took to practice.
Michigan will now look for a new coach. ESPN denies that Michigan is a national program any longer. That's debatable. However, Rodriguez is no longer a hot national commodity. His spread looks like a Model T compared to Holgerson's Oklahoma State Mustang. Pitt refused to consider him. UConn could look at him because they are more desperate for a "name." However, that would be like the former leading man doing a B movie.
Rodriguez is not necessarily down and out forever. He could claw his way back by being successful at a mid major, changing his system to meet the transformations taking place in college football, and being a little more diplomatic from time to time.
Is there a lesson here? Gracious behavior and adaptability will go far.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Yard Sales Could Be Fined $15 Million By the Federal Government
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/09/18/new-government-policy-imposes-strict-standards-garage-sales-nationwide/
According to the above Fox News story, yard sales, Goodwills, and charity give aways could be affected by severe fines and the threat of lawsuits. Again, the culprit is a poorly written and draconian law made "to protect the children."
When is the last time that a child died of a notebook or a toy bought at a yard sale?
If a big business markets a product made in China, for example, and they did not test that product first, they should pay. However, yard sales and charity drives are organized by people with very little money. They rarely import items directly from China. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, home of the concept of killer lawn darts, occasionally goes over the line.
This is one of those times.
According to the above Fox News story, yard sales, Goodwills, and charity give aways could be affected by severe fines and the threat of lawsuits. Again, the culprit is a poorly written and draconian law made "to protect the children."
When is the last time that a child died of a notebook or a toy bought at a yard sale?
If a big business markets a product made in China, for example, and they did not test that product first, they should pay. However, yard sales and charity drives are organized by people with very little money. They rarely import items directly from China. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, home of the concept of killer lawn darts, occasionally goes over the line.
This is one of those times.
Monday, January 3, 2011
New Years' Resolution
My New Years' resolution this year, one of them at least, is to handle money better.In the past, I've had some problems. I once shelled out millions of dollars to study how cow farts change the composition of the atmosphere. I own a lot of real estate all over the world and usually insist on building the most expensive buildings possible in those places. I also have to always have the best and newest. And I never fail to travel in style.
Problem is that my job doesn't pay as much as I spend. So I got credit cards. Unofortunately, those are now maxed out. I hear the National Bank of China has one with an adjustable APR . . .
My biggest problem is that I am, so generous. Some of my children work jobs and some of them don't. I hate to see my kids without money, any of them. Therefore I take some from the kids that work and give it to the ones that don't. You see, that is what is called being fair.
But I still have money problems. I think I'll take some hundred dollar bills and run them off on the copier to see if I can spend them without getting in trouble.
Or I could listen to some new friends. They are my financial advisors, Mr. Gop and Mr. T. Mr. Gop says I need to cut back on my spending and stop taking money from my working children. Mr. T says that he pities the fool that doesn't follow such sound advice. Both of them told me that I am heading for disaster, but I usually try to not believe them. They have given me two years to do better, or they will take the power of the purse from me and dole out the money as they see fit. And they promise to cut so much that it hurts the standard of living that I love so much.
Friday, December 31, 2010
The Constitution Confuses Him Because "It Was Written Over a Hundred Years Ago."
This isn't a high school student. It's Washington Post staffer and blogger Ezra Klein. He said that the Constiution should have no binding power and that it is confusing because it was written over a hundred years ago.
Other things that might confuse Mr. Klein are:
And most confusing of all, a link to that mysterious and unknowable document, the Constitution. It's filled with such confusing phrases as "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That is the one that the almighty Obama himself seems to have a lot of trouble comprehending. I think the word "herein" is where Klein is having trouble.
In any event, the Constitution lives so long as we uneducated heathen know it, live it, and defend it when necessary. I think it is amazing that a Keyser High School political science class is poised to win a state title based on their knowledge of not only the Constitution, but also important influences like John Locke and the Magna Carta. Maybe Ezra Klein should take AP Government at Keyser High and learn a little something.
Other things that might confuse Mr. Klein are:
A Christmas Carol, published in December 1843
A certain document that starts "When in the course of human events . . ." written in the summer of 1776
Any European based fairy tales, like "Jack and the Beanstalk." They had their origins in the Middle Ages, so they must be, like, waaaayy confusing.
Proverbs 22
This one might be well over Mr. Klein's head, being a liberal and all. Also, Cicero said it over 2,000 years ago. "Cannot people realize how large an income is thrift?"
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Thomas Jefferson said this over two hundred years ago, so it must be twice as confusing to Mr. Klein. Does he know that Mr. Jefferson founded the Democratic Party? The background of that is probably too much for Klein to comprehend, it happened in the 1790s.
“You can educate a fool, but you cannot make him think” This comes from the Talmud, a collection of Jewish legal thinking from over 1500 years ago. That makes it fifteen times more confusing than the Constitution. It also sums up left wingers to a T.And most confusing of all, a link to that mysterious and unknowable document, the Constitution. It's filled with such confusing phrases as "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That is the one that the almighty Obama himself seems to have a lot of trouble comprehending. I think the word "herein" is where Klein is having trouble.
In any event, the Constitution lives so long as we uneducated heathen know it, live it, and defend it when necessary. I think it is amazing that a Keyser High School political science class is poised to win a state title based on their knowledge of not only the Constitution, but also important influences like John Locke and the Magna Carta. Maybe Ezra Klein should take AP Government at Keyser High and learn a little something.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Medieval England Wanted Their People Armed, Why Not Modern Liberals and Leftists?
Assize of Arms
1181
1. Let every holder of a knight's fee have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. And let every knight have as many hauberks, helmets, shields and lances, as he has knight's fees in his demise.
2. Also, let every free layman, who holds chattals or rent to the value of 16 marks, have hauberk, a helmet, a shield, and a lance. Also, let every free layman who holds chattals or rent worth 10 marks have an aubergel and a headpiece of iron and a lance....
4. Moreover, let each and every one of them swear before the feast of St. Hilary he will possess these arms and will bear allegiance to the lord king, Henry, namely the son of empress Maud, and that he will bear these arms in his service according to his order and in allegiance to the lord king and his realm..."
From Webster's Online Dictionary, since the Assize of Arms of 1252 is nowhere to be found online:
"citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" should be armed. The poorest of them were expected to at least have a bow. This made it easier for the King to raise an army, but also meant that the bow was a commonly used weapon by rebels during the Peasants' Revolt. From the time that the yeoman class of England became proficient with the longbow, the nobility in England had to be careful not to push them into open rebellion. This was a check on the power of the nobility of England which did not exist on the European continent.
Medieval England understood the benefits of an armed population. The nation could be defended and the people would be more protected from tyranny.
1181
1. Let every holder of a knight's fee have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. And let every knight have as many hauberks, helmets, shields and lances, as he has knight's fees in his demise.
2. Also, let every free layman, who holds chattals or rent to the value of 16 marks, have hauberk, a helmet, a shield, and a lance. Also, let every free layman who holds chattals or rent worth 10 marks have an aubergel and a headpiece of iron and a lance....
4. Moreover, let each and every one of them swear before the feast of St. Hilary he will possess these arms and will bear allegiance to the lord king, Henry, namely the son of empress Maud, and that he will bear these arms in his service according to his order and in allegiance to the lord king and his realm..."
From Webster's Online Dictionary, since the Assize of Arms of 1252 is nowhere to be found online:
"citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" should be armed. The poorest of them were expected to at least have a bow. This made it easier for the King to raise an army, but also meant that the bow was a commonly used weapon by rebels during the Peasants' Revolt. From the time that the yeoman class of England became proficient with the longbow, the nobility in England had to be careful not to push them into open rebellion. This was a check on the power of the nobility of England which did not exist on the European continent.
Medieval England understood the benefits of an armed population. The nation could be defended and the people would be more protected from tyranny.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Time to Eliminate Mike Huckabee From Presidential Consideratin
Former arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, in my mind, eliminated himself from serious discussion of a presidential nomination. He did so by backing Michelle Obama's nanny statist crusade against obesity. She is trying to attack freedom of choice and freedom of speech. She left us with the chilling line that the issue "just can't be left up to the parents."
Huckabee, a formerly obese man, backed her 100% and criticized Sarah Palin for objecting to Big Government making our food choices for us. He should know as well as anyone that weight is a lifestyle issue. It boils down to how much you eat and how much you exercise. Leftists don't believe in individual choice or responsibility, so they would like to use any other excuse to impose their will upon a nation.
MAD TV once ran a skit parodying those late night infomercials. The ad "offered" a can't fail diet plan of "Eat less, move more." The overweight woman kept asking if it was a trick. Would it cost money? The narrator said that if you eat less and move more, it actually saves you money. Michelle Obama convinced Congress to pass a $4.5 billion law that will target obesity. That costs all of us money in a time when our nation does not have it. Government needs to leave obesity alone. It is not their concern.
Huckabee, a formerly obese man, backed her 100% and criticized Sarah Palin for objecting to Big Government making our food choices for us. He should know as well as anyone that weight is a lifestyle issue. It boils down to how much you eat and how much you exercise. Leftists don't believe in individual choice or responsibility, so they would like to use any other excuse to impose their will upon a nation.
MAD TV once ran a skit parodying those late night infomercials. The ad "offered" a can't fail diet plan of "Eat less, move more." The overweight woman kept asking if it was a trick. Would it cost money? The narrator said that if you eat less and move more, it actually saves you money. Michelle Obama convinced Congress to pass a $4.5 billion law that will target obesity. That costs all of us money in a time when our nation does not have it. Government needs to leave obesity alone. It is not their concern.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Tidbits . . .
Is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resigning? Guess she is getting tired of being sent to town hall meetings in the Congo while Obama sends his secret friends to do the real work. She may also know something that we don't about this administration's horrible foreign policy.
Meanwhile, Obama once again makes a statement when he does not have to. Why would he just blurt out his support of Michael Vick and the Philadelphia Eagles? Politically speaking, it's a bad move. Why anger dog lovers that much more?
The Intrastate Coal and Use Act proposal should get a lot more scrutiny here and across the nation now that the EPA is ratcheting up its anti-global warming campaign. They want to start taxing emissions and hitting power plants with new regulations. States and Congress need to end this unconstitutional seizure of authority. Article 1 Section 1 prevents the EPA from doing anything along these lines without Congressional authority.
Jeff Kessler may have the votes to have himself named Acting Senate President, leaving Earl Ray Tomblin as Acting Governor only. This should remove the constitutional problem of having one man holding both a legislative and an executive branch post. Hope that these guys are "acting" in the public interest.
Meanwhile, Obama once again makes a statement when he does not have to. Why would he just blurt out his support of Michael Vick and the Philadelphia Eagles? Politically speaking, it's a bad move. Why anger dog lovers that much more?
The Intrastate Coal and Use Act proposal should get a lot more scrutiny here and across the nation now that the EPA is ratcheting up its anti-global warming campaign. They want to start taxing emissions and hitting power plants with new regulations. States and Congress need to end this unconstitutional seizure of authority. Article 1 Section 1 prevents the EPA from doing anything along these lines without Congressional authority.
Jeff Kessler may have the votes to have himself named Acting Senate President, leaving Earl Ray Tomblin as Acting Governor only. This should remove the constitutional problem of having one man holding both a legislative and an executive branch post. Hope that these guys are "acting" in the public interest.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
It's Not A Cultural Issue, It Is Domestic Violence
There is a famous and rich young woman in Great Britain who is frightened for her life.
She is 22 year old Afshan Azad. Azad played Padma Patil in the "Harry Potter" movie series. Azad is not frightened of maniac fans, but of her own family. Azad dates a man of Hindu faith. Her father and brother would rather that she marry someone of their choosing. Her refusal earned her a beating and threats of death. Azad's fear of the radical Moslem community of Great Britain is so pervasive that she does not even want to risk appearing in court. She had to escape through a bedroom window and now risks death by "honor killing."
America law enforcement and judges must be prepared for cases such as these. Cultural arguments must be ignored because lawyers will try to use them to get reduced sentences or exoneration. Domestic violence is domestic violence, regardless of culture, nationality, or religion. If they do not like our laws and how we enforce them, they should not come here in the first place.
Britain has tried to be accomodating, multicultural, and embracing of diversity. That is fine to an extent. However, one cannot undermine the basic principles of justice to accomodate, or even appear to accomodate, barbarous practices from other lands. Azad does not believe that the British justice system will zealously protect her.
We can take steps to reaffirm our basic principles. These include the positive rejection of any form of Sharia law. Any personal practice of this law must conform with American justice and law. Period.
She is 22 year old Afshan Azad. Azad played Padma Patil in the "Harry Potter" movie series. Azad is not frightened of maniac fans, but of her own family. Azad dates a man of Hindu faith. Her father and brother would rather that she marry someone of their choosing. Her refusal earned her a beating and threats of death. Azad's fear of the radical Moslem community of Great Britain is so pervasive that she does not even want to risk appearing in court. She had to escape through a bedroom window and now risks death by "honor killing."
America law enforcement and judges must be prepared for cases such as these. Cultural arguments must be ignored because lawyers will try to use them to get reduced sentences or exoneration. Domestic violence is domestic violence, regardless of culture, nationality, or religion. If they do not like our laws and how we enforce them, they should not come here in the first place.
Britain has tried to be accomodating, multicultural, and embracing of diversity. That is fine to an extent. However, one cannot undermine the basic principles of justice to accomodate, or even appear to accomodate, barbarous practices from other lands. Azad does not believe that the British justice system will zealously protect her.
We can take steps to reaffirm our basic principles. These include the positive rejection of any form of Sharia law. Any personal practice of this law must conform with American justice and law. Period.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus
Eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of New York's Sun, and the quick response was printed as an unsigned editorial Sept. 21, 1897. The work of veteran newsman Francis Pharcellus Church has since become history's most reprinted newspaper editorial, appearing in part or whole in dozens of languages in books, movies, and other editorials, and on posters and stamps.
"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?
"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."
VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?
"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."
VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Statement of Acting Governor/Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin
From West Virginia Metro News. This statement reaffirms AG/SP Tomblin's position that he does not see his holding of both of his offices as a violation of the State Constitution. The 1872 Constitution clearly mandates a separation of powers between the three branches and that no one can hold offices in two or three at once. The acting governor ought to step aside from his legislative position. Then the state legislature needs to pass legislation to more strictly define the succession.
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin released the following statement Wednesday regarding the rules of the State Senate:
“With the passing of Senator Byrd, our State has had a shifting of governmental power not recently realized. With Governor Manchin becoming Senator Manchin, another transition has occurred as the duties of acting as Governor have fallen on me as Senate President.
“As you know, the Senate membership has been deeply divided regarding the changing of Senate Rules as it relates to the role of the Senate President while acting as Governor. This has resulted in an emotionally charged environment.
“During our caucus, I opposed the specific rule change that was proposed, which could be read to have prohibited my return to the Senate at all times and for any matters while I act as Governor. I did not believe that such a drastic rule change was necessary to preserve the appropriate separation of powers in our government.
“I am extremely mindful of separation of powers concerns. Indeed, I have taken steps which demonstrate that my main focus will be on running the executive branch only. Current Senate Rules provide that, while I am away from the Senate, the Senate Pro Tempore acts as President. Moreover, I have continually expressed to the members of the democratic caucus that I would listen to their wishes in determining who would be Senate Pro Tempore, i.e., act as President in my absence. Again, I have repeatedly indicated my willingness to abide by the wishes of the caucus in who presides over the Senate while I act as Governor.
“At this critical juncture in our State’s history, we cannot allow political disagreement to get in the way of improving West Virginia and moving her forward. We do not need to create chaos and instability at a time when the people of our State need reassurance that their government is functioning and that the business of vital services they expect continues without interruption.
“I take great pride in the role I have played as one of 34 Senators who have regularly placed the interests of our State first – ahead of personal interests and ahead of politics.
“My colleagues and I have been working feverishly to reach some conclusion where the Senate can come together without fractious differences that prevent the work of the State from being completed. The Senate is so terribly divided at this time that my main concern is getting all sides to begin the process of reconciliation in a manner that will permit the Senate to organize. If we do not work together to resolve our differences, we all lose, regardless of the particular set Rules we adopt.
“I am confident that, as we move toward the Legislative Session in January, the Senate will come together and do what is right for West Virginia. I am committed to continuing that dialogue and working with my colleagues toward a resolution.”
- Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin released the following statement Wednesday regarding the rules of the State Senate:
“With the passing of Senator Byrd, our State has had a shifting of governmental power not recently realized. With Governor Manchin becoming Senator Manchin, another transition has occurred as the duties of acting as Governor have fallen on me as Senate President.
“As you know, the Senate membership has been deeply divided regarding the changing of Senate Rules as it relates to the role of the Senate President while acting as Governor. This has resulted in an emotionally charged environment.
“During our caucus, I opposed the specific rule change that was proposed, which could be read to have prohibited my return to the Senate at all times and for any matters while I act as Governor. I did not believe that such a drastic rule change was necessary to preserve the appropriate separation of powers in our government.
“I am extremely mindful of separation of powers concerns. Indeed, I have taken steps which demonstrate that my main focus will be on running the executive branch only. Current Senate Rules provide that, while I am away from the Senate, the Senate Pro Tempore acts as President. Moreover, I have continually expressed to the members of the democratic caucus that I would listen to their wishes in determining who would be Senate Pro Tempore, i.e., act as President in my absence. Again, I have repeatedly indicated my willingness to abide by the wishes of the caucus in who presides over the Senate while I act as Governor.
“At this critical juncture in our State’s history, we cannot allow political disagreement to get in the way of improving West Virginia and moving her forward. We do not need to create chaos and instability at a time when the people of our State need reassurance that their government is functioning and that the business of vital services they expect continues without interruption.
“I take great pride in the role I have played as one of 34 Senators who have regularly placed the interests of our State first – ahead of personal interests and ahead of politics.
“My colleagues and I have been working feverishly to reach some conclusion where the Senate can come together without fractious differences that prevent the work of the State from being completed. The Senate is so terribly divided at this time that my main concern is getting all sides to begin the process of reconciliation in a manner that will permit the Senate to organize. If we do not work together to resolve our differences, we all lose, regardless of the particular set Rules we adopt.
“I am confident that, as we move toward the Legislative Session in January, the Senate will come together and do what is right for West Virginia. I am committed to continuing that dialogue and working with my colleagues toward a resolution.”
- Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Michael Vick As NFL MVP?
It's a looming issue for the National Football League. Tom Brady is having a typically wonderful year and his New England Patriots seem to have returned to their machine like precision, mauling every team in their path.
The NFL would love to have Brady win the Most Valuable Player award this year. But that may not happen.
Enter Michael Vick.
His very return to football after serving prison time on severe dog abuse charges was in debate. Most figured that the out of shape former Atlanta Falcon would sit the bench for a good team or start for a bad team. After all, he was a potentially exciting, yet mediocre quarterback in his first stint. What would be the difference this time?
He signed with the Philadelphia Eagles and made promises of commitment to coach Andy Reid. Vick's new approach to work and preparation has given a picture of what could have been a Hall of Fame career had he not wandered off the legitimate path and engaged in dog fighting. He now does the right things, says the right things, and makes you want to believe.
But there's still the heinous nature of his crimes. Vick didn't just get into a bar fight or end up at the wrong place at the wrong time. He caused dogs to suffer purposefully.
This begs the question, can the NFL honor a man with such a heinous crime in his past? Or is complete redemption possible?
The NFL would love to have Brady win the Most Valuable Player award this year. But that may not happen.
Enter Michael Vick.
His very return to football after serving prison time on severe dog abuse charges was in debate. Most figured that the out of shape former Atlanta Falcon would sit the bench for a good team or start for a bad team. After all, he was a potentially exciting, yet mediocre quarterback in his first stint. What would be the difference this time?
He signed with the Philadelphia Eagles and made promises of commitment to coach Andy Reid. Vick's new approach to work and preparation has given a picture of what could have been a Hall of Fame career had he not wandered off the legitimate path and engaged in dog fighting. He now does the right things, says the right things, and makes you want to believe.
But there's still the heinous nature of his crimes. Vick didn't just get into a bar fight or end up at the wrong place at the wrong time. He caused dogs to suffer purposefully.
This begs the question, can the NFL honor a man with such a heinous crime in his past? Or is complete redemption possible?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
West Virginia Population grows by 2.5% between 2000 and 2010
The U. S. Census Bureau reported that West Virginia's population grew by 2.5% between 2000 and 2010. This was enough to help the state retain its three representatives while Ohio and Pennsylvania each lost one.
West Virginia will see changes in the next year as the state legislature opens the redistricting process. This will undoubtedly reflect the increasing population growth in the Eastern Panhandle and continued diminishing counts south of Charleston. It will also reflect the political priorities of the Democrat controlled legislature. They will try to limit the potential damage done by gains in GOP dominated areas while trying to redraw districts to reflect the new population patterns.
It is difficult to predict what this means for the House and Senate districts locally. However, Mineral County should brace for changes at not only the state legislative, but perhaps also the congressional level as well. It sits on the eastern edge of both the 14th senatorial and 1st congressional districts.
The Potomac Highlands voters need to take an active part in the discussions of where they will end up.
West Virginia will see changes in the next year as the state legislature opens the redistricting process. This will undoubtedly reflect the increasing population growth in the Eastern Panhandle and continued diminishing counts south of Charleston. It will also reflect the political priorities of the Democrat controlled legislature. They will try to limit the potential damage done by gains in GOP dominated areas while trying to redraw districts to reflect the new population patterns.
It is difficult to predict what this means for the House and Senate districts locally. However, Mineral County should brace for changes at not only the state legislative, but perhaps also the congressional level as well. It sits on the eastern edge of both the 14th senatorial and 1st congressional districts.
The Potomac Highlands voters need to take an active part in the discussions of where they will end up.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Commentary By Mac Warner From Monongalia County GOP Site
I am not sure where I stand myself on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I lean towards repeal, personally. However, I agree 100% with Mac's description of Manchin as "gutless" in skipping out on such an important issue. Either vote your conscience, one way or the other, or resign.
Monongalia County GOPManchin: Gutless and AWOL in Don't Ask, Don't TellGutless. Absolutely gutless. At a time of war when so many West Virginia soldiers are deployed, risking their lives in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism, we deserve a Senator who will represent West Virginia values -- not run and hide to protect his own political career.Yet, where was our new Senator, Joe Manchin, on Saturday when it was time to represent West Virginia values on repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy? He was purposely avoiding the controversy, hiding at “a pre-planned Christmas party.” Yes, Senator Manchin, the career politician who has been angling for this job the last decade and quit being governor two years early to get this position, now chooses to sit it out when the votes aren’t easy. Less than one month on the job, he thought it better to let others decide whether DADT is right or wrong for our fighting forces.In a case resembling Senator Kerry's "I voted for it before I was against it" fiasco, Joe Manchin voted for the policy before he apologized to fellow Democrats, saying he'd probably be against it in time. You see, Joe Manchin knows West Virginians are largely a conservative, family-value type of people. Joe had hoped DADT would go away after his first vote (a parliamentary issue) with the new Congress being seated in January. He even hoped the President would act unilaterally, saving Joe from having to make a decision. He was trying to pull in DC what he's gotten away with for so many years here in West Virginia, having it both ways. But, when Senator Lieberman continued to push for repeal of DADT in the lame-duck session, Joe Manchin felt very lonely. He had been the only Democrat to vote against lifting the ban. So, when push came to shove, Joe ran. Joe ran out of town, and hid from his place of duty in DC. In less than one month, Joe's Achilles heel was revealed: no principal, no morals, no solid ground on which to stand.You see, his job is to represent us, the people of West Virginia. The people of West Virginia know that open homosexuality will not enhance the US military. That should have been Senator Manchin's vote. Or, he could have stood on principal -- again, open homosexuality is not a family value, and it should not be foisted upon our troops as a social experiment. But, Manchin's political career has taught him to avoid principal, to not make morals the basis for action, and to ride the tide of polls and the political sentiment of the day. When the tide of his own Democrat Party no longer provided him safe harbor, he chose the path of least resistance. Joe ran. The reasons why the policy should not have been lifted are many-fold, but in the interest of time, I briefly mention three. First, the survey used as the basis for this action was flawed. The questions were framed so as to skew and predetermine the outcome. The survey did not ask soldiers if they thought gays should be allowed to serve openly, but rather phrased the question so that if the soldier answered negatively, it made the soldier appear bigoted or insecure. Second, sexual attraction goes to the heart of human nature. Unlike skin color, religion, gender and other benign bases for civil-rights advancements, action based on sexual attraction must be regulated to maintain good order and discipline in our Armed Forces. That is why adultery, fraternization, bestiality, and certain other sex-based actions are prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Third, take this to its logical conclusion. What logical basis is there now for not housing men with women? Upon what basis should the military provide separate showers or latrines? What about bisexuals, transgender individuals, bigamists, polygamists, pedophiles, and people with sexual desires/fixations on objects other than the opposite sex?Don't get me wrong. Our military faces much larger threats than repeal of DADT. Our soldiers are resilient, mature, and intelligent. They'll make this work. But, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you ought to do it. DADT worked because it was a compromise -- it kept both a lid on open homosexuality in a conservative, mission-oriented environment, and yet it provided for a reality that has existed in armies since the beginning of time. Gay people serve, fight and die just as straight people do. Until it could be shown that repealing the policy would actually help mission accomplishment (not just be tolerated or used to celebrate a social agenda), the policy should have remained in effect. Senator Joe Manchin wants the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. He wanted to be able to claim victory either way. You watch -- he'll have his spin, put on the Mo-Joe, and tell us how great our Armed Forces are. But, we need to remember that when the battle lines were drawn, and the engagement commenced, Joe Manchin was AWOL. West Virginia deserves better. We deserve leadership, not gutless avoidance. Remember Joe's failed response to DADT in November 2012.Mac Warner3110 North Greystone DriveMorgantown, WV 26508(304) 826-0998
Monongalia County GOPManchin: Gutless and AWOL in Don't Ask, Don't TellGutless. Absolutely gutless. At a time of war when so many West Virginia soldiers are deployed, risking their lives in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism, we deserve a Senator who will represent West Virginia values -- not run and hide to protect his own political career.Yet, where was our new Senator, Joe Manchin, on Saturday when it was time to represent West Virginia values on repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy? He was purposely avoiding the controversy, hiding at “a pre-planned Christmas party.” Yes, Senator Manchin, the career politician who has been angling for this job the last decade and quit being governor two years early to get this position, now chooses to sit it out when the votes aren’t easy. Less than one month on the job, he thought it better to let others decide whether DADT is right or wrong for our fighting forces.In a case resembling Senator Kerry's "I voted for it before I was against it" fiasco, Joe Manchin voted for the policy before he apologized to fellow Democrats, saying he'd probably be against it in time. You see, Joe Manchin knows West Virginians are largely a conservative, family-value type of people. Joe had hoped DADT would go away after his first vote (a parliamentary issue) with the new Congress being seated in January. He even hoped the President would act unilaterally, saving Joe from having to make a decision. He was trying to pull in DC what he's gotten away with for so many years here in West Virginia, having it both ways. But, when Senator Lieberman continued to push for repeal of DADT in the lame-duck session, Joe Manchin felt very lonely. He had been the only Democrat to vote against lifting the ban. So, when push came to shove, Joe ran. Joe ran out of town, and hid from his place of duty in DC. In less than one month, Joe's Achilles heel was revealed: no principal, no morals, no solid ground on which to stand.You see, his job is to represent us, the people of West Virginia. The people of West Virginia know that open homosexuality will not enhance the US military. That should have been Senator Manchin's vote. Or, he could have stood on principal -- again, open homosexuality is not a family value, and it should not be foisted upon our troops as a social experiment. But, Manchin's political career has taught him to avoid principal, to not make morals the basis for action, and to ride the tide of polls and the political sentiment of the day. When the tide of his own Democrat Party no longer provided him safe harbor, he chose the path of least resistance. Joe ran. The reasons why the policy should not have been lifted are many-fold, but in the interest of time, I briefly mention three. First, the survey used as the basis for this action was flawed. The questions were framed so as to skew and predetermine the outcome. The survey did not ask soldiers if they thought gays should be allowed to serve openly, but rather phrased the question so that if the soldier answered negatively, it made the soldier appear bigoted or insecure. Second, sexual attraction goes to the heart of human nature. Unlike skin color, religion, gender and other benign bases for civil-rights advancements, action based on sexual attraction must be regulated to maintain good order and discipline in our Armed Forces. That is why adultery, fraternization, bestiality, and certain other sex-based actions are prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Third, take this to its logical conclusion. What logical basis is there now for not housing men with women? Upon what basis should the military provide separate showers or latrines? What about bisexuals, transgender individuals, bigamists, polygamists, pedophiles, and people with sexual desires/fixations on objects other than the opposite sex?Don't get me wrong. Our military faces much larger threats than repeal of DADT. Our soldiers are resilient, mature, and intelligent. They'll make this work. But, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you ought to do it. DADT worked because it was a compromise -- it kept both a lid on open homosexuality in a conservative, mission-oriented environment, and yet it provided for a reality that has existed in armies since the beginning of time. Gay people serve, fight and die just as straight people do. Until it could be shown that repealing the policy would actually help mission accomplishment (not just be tolerated or used to celebrate a social agenda), the policy should have remained in effect. Senator Joe Manchin wants the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. He wanted to be able to claim victory either way. You watch -- he'll have his spin, put on the Mo-Joe, and tell us how great our Armed Forces are. But, we need to remember that when the battle lines were drawn, and the engagement commenced, Joe Manchin was AWOL. West Virginia deserves better. We deserve leadership, not gutless avoidance. Remember Joe's failed response to DADT in November 2012.Mac Warner3110 North Greystone DriveMorgantown, WV 26508(304) 826-0998
Friday, December 17, 2010
Obamas: $4 billion to End National Security Threat of Fat Kids, $135 million For National Guard on the Border
Michelle Obama got her pet project through. It will cost us over $4 billion and put the president in charge of what snacks go into each school's vending machine. Unconstitutional, but when has that ever mattered to him.Meanwhile, the funding for the paltry National Guard presence at the border $135 million, has run out. Troops will be withdrawn in February rather than July as planned.
Michelle Obama says that fat kids are a threat to national security. Obviously the Obamas think overweight children are more threatening than drug cartel assassins, threats to local law enforcement, gang infiltration of the Southwest, etc.
The Washington Examiner story is here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/world/2010/11/obama-administration-plans-pull-back-national-guard-much-border
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)