wish list:
1. No taxpayer money should go to pay for primaries. Also institute range voting for federal office, and no official political parties identified on the ballot (political parties are essentially private organizations). (this decreases the chances of any 1 or 2 parties from dominating the government and allows for a greater range of political representation at the federal level.)
2. Districting (straight line, by computer) based solely on population, not on political affiliation. (this prevents gerrymandering)
3. Close all government agencies which were not specifically created by the constitution, (i.e. dept of education, IRS, EPA, TVA. etc.), as these do not have a direct measurable effect on National defense (armed services), the postal service, and the justice system.
4. Limit the number of federal laws to 100 and limit the number of words in the text of each law to 500 words. Each law must also cite the specific article of the constitution which gives the federal government the authority to pass and enforce the law. Additionally, there may be no more than 5 laws citing "interstate commerce". The length requirement for an individual law may be waived so long as three conditions are met: ---1. It does not cite the "interstate commerce" clause. ---2. The full text is read aloud, in its entirety, on the floor of the voting entity, in front of a quorum of the voting members, and each member present signs an affidavit affirming that they have heard, or read the entire bill. ---3. The bill, if passed, enjoyed a 75% majority vote. (this will limit the federal government to constitutional powers, discourage "hiding" legislation within a huge bill, and allow for the passage of really needed legislation that is larger than the size limit.)
5. Specify that corporations are not citizens. Ban campaign contributions (including to PACs) by corporations and remove the cap on contributions by private citizens. Also ban the use of tax money to fund political campaigns (no more "matching funds"). Additionally, ban payment for lobbying activities. If you lobby, you must volunteer to do so, without payment or gifts as incentive. (this will prevent corporations with deep pockets from having more political influence than a citizen.)
6. A constitutional ban the taxation of salary and wages, and allow the taxpayer to specify where the money he pays can NOT be used (welfare, planned parenthood, etc.). Additionally, if a private charity duplicates (or nearly so) the goal of a government agency, all donations to that charity are considered to have been paid directly in taxes (not as a deductable, but actually paid). (This will allow people who earn their money through work to keep it, and encourage charitable donation to entities which have a vested interest in making sure that their money is used efficiently for the stated purpose.)
7. Immediate withdrawal from U.N. membership, stop all foreign aid, allow private citizens unlimited donations to ANY organization (domestic or foreign) Require any military action approved by congress to be renewed every six months, with the margin of majority rising to 75% after the first full year of approval. (this will remove any threat to american sovreignty, allow citizens to choose which countries they wish to aid, allow the people to review the wisdom of any particular military action, and make it difficult to wage war under false pretenses.)
8. Require that the federal budget be balanced, and ban the borrowing of money by government, except through the sale of bonds to private American citizens. Stipulate that the last item to be paid from the budget be the salaries and budgets of the individual members' offices. (this will curtail inflation by preventing the government from "borrowing money from future generations, or "printing" large amounts of money into existence.)
9. Repeal federal anti-drug laws, and abolish the DEA. Allow each state and even communities within the states to choose whether laws banning the sale of a substance is appropriate for that state or community. Harming "society" is not an excuse for an activity to be illegal, if you attack or steal from another individual, it is a crime. If you only directly harm yourself, it's not a crime, it is natural selection. Allow criminals the choice (once in prison) of "hard labor" to shorten their sentences. prisoners who choose not to work, should receive long sentences and minimum subsistance food and accomodations for the duration of their sentence (paid for by the work of their fellow prisoners). Abolish parole, and restore full citizenship rights to prisoners, once released.
10. Close the social security administration, or at least allow citizens to opt out of social security (no opting back in). Stop the "borrowing" of funds from the social security fund. all money paid into social security, goes for social security.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
on the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws:
I submit that anti-discrimination laws (on a personal level) violate an individual's freedom of association and sometimes their right to contract. I further submit that these laws do have a place in our society, but only up to the point where the rights of the "discriminator" are violated.
In the united States, individuals have the right to associate (or not) with whomever they wish, and the right to enter into contracts (or not) with whomever they wish, for any reason they feel justified. However, some anti-discrimination laws violate those rights by forcing contracts upon unwilling parties in the name of "fairness".
Here are two versions of a scenario with a very slight difference, which illustrates where I believe the line should be drawn, and the rationale behind that line.
Let us suppose that an individual owns an extra house, which he offers for rent. This "business is not incorporated, and the income from it is considered the personal income of the individual. His finances are not held separate from the house in the eyes of the law. He is a very religious person who believes that living together before marriage is sinful, and he refuses to support such activity on moral grounds. An unmarried couple seeks to rent the house, and he turns them away, citing these moral grounds in as inoffensive a manner as possible. He can then be sued for discrimination.
In this case, where is his right not to enter into conrtact with the couple, and therefore support a lifestyle to which he is opposed? His personal fortune is tied up in the house and he is unprotected financially from any disaster befalling the property (lawsuits included). I believe he has the right to discriminate in this instance, and for any other reason, because the "business" has no legal protection.
Now let us suppose the same scenario, with one change: The rental property is a regular incorporated business separate from the owner, and enjoys the protection offered by such an arrangement (limited liability, etc.) In this case, I believe that in exchange for the protection the business must not discriminate. This is partly because the owner has waived those rights in exchange for those protections where it relates to the business. I also believe that those protections came ,in part, from the individuals that the owner might seek to discriminate against. I see it as a voluntary contract, in that sense, so he cannot renig on his side of the contract.
Comments are welcome.
In the united States, individuals have the right to associate (or not) with whomever they wish, and the right to enter into contracts (or not) with whomever they wish, for any reason they feel justified. However, some anti-discrimination laws violate those rights by forcing contracts upon unwilling parties in the name of "fairness".
Here are two versions of a scenario with a very slight difference, which illustrates where I believe the line should be drawn, and the rationale behind that line.
Let us suppose that an individual owns an extra house, which he offers for rent. This "business is not incorporated, and the income from it is considered the personal income of the individual. His finances are not held separate from the house in the eyes of the law. He is a very religious person who believes that living together before marriage is sinful, and he refuses to support such activity on moral grounds. An unmarried couple seeks to rent the house, and he turns them away, citing these moral grounds in as inoffensive a manner as possible. He can then be sued for discrimination.
In this case, where is his right not to enter into conrtact with the couple, and therefore support a lifestyle to which he is opposed? His personal fortune is tied up in the house and he is unprotected financially from any disaster befalling the property (lawsuits included). I believe he has the right to discriminate in this instance, and for any other reason, because the "business" has no legal protection.
Now let us suppose the same scenario, with one change: The rental property is a regular incorporated business separate from the owner, and enjoys the protection offered by such an arrangement (limited liability, etc.) In this case, I believe that in exchange for the protection the business must not discriminate. This is partly because the owner has waived those rights in exchange for those protections where it relates to the business. I also believe that those protections came ,in part, from the individuals that the owner might seek to discriminate against. I see it as a voluntary contract, in that sense, so he cannot renig on his side of the contract.
Comments are welcome.
Friday, March 20, 2009
generic curriculum (a private project)
I'm trying to come up with a generic curriculum for k-12 and i would like your views on what should be included at what grade levels. Things like what level should 2nd languages be introduced how soon should government be taught and timelines for maths are welcome. Feel free to post links to free resources.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Whose money do you think they are spending?
The anecdote, David Crockett, Charity, and Congress by Edward S. Ellis, is a good explanation of why we should trust our government with as little money as possible.
Terror's War
Terror's War
Once upon a city fair
Planes struck two towers, leaving bare
The lot where they once stood; the people gone but not forgotten.
A blackened Pennsylvania field
And the Pentagon did more bodies yield.
A cry went out our swords to wield
And to terror bring the war.
To the hiding holes and the darkened caves of terror bring the war.
Nothing less, but nothing more.
King Dubya crusaded to Afghanistan
And with ultimatum, did demand
Bin Ladin from the Taliban or else they feel his sting.
Said they, "We will not take your word.
Your evidence it must be heard
'Ere we decree 'release this turd'"
This so enraged the King.
How dare they doubt his word and thus infuriate the King.
He then let slip the dogs of war.
Meanwhile, back home, he did decree
That safety trumps our liberty
And all the rights that make us free leave us open to be attacked.
And so took them with some legal rot
With the dubious name of PATRIOT
And with no thought of freedom bought
With blood, they did enact.
That freedom robbing piece of legal rot they did enact.
Thus terror starts to win the war.
And while with war, we were distracted
And prison-state laws, they were enacted
And our rights, like so much trash compacted, Bin Ladin got away.
Then Sir Colin with half-true tales
Of bio programs and weapon sales
Bade the U.N. "Fight before Iraq gets out of hand."
U.N. would not, a war, endorse,
But Dubya stayed his steady course
And from atop his highest horse
Cried, "He threatened my old man!"
"Saddam Hussein, he thumbed his nose and threatened my old man!"
And so again we went to war.
And by the RPG's red glare,
His righteous sword held in the air,
His battle cry:"Saddam beware! Iraq, it will be mine!"
He broke Saddam, and some time later
In reports, investigators
Said , "There are no weapons
Of mass destruction here to find.
Ne're Geiger tick nor germ of all those weapons here to find."
So why did we go to war?
"It does not matter if we lied,"
Said Dubya,"if through wrong or right
The war doth end on freedom's side it justifies the means."
And back at home, the same is said
With security in freedom's stead
And a shameful eagle hangs his head
While freedom slowly dies.
The masses are distracted while our freedom slowly dies.
How do we win in terror's war?
We'll not wrest freedom from terror's jaws,
But from the makers of our laws
In back-room deals and the capitol's halls, now that's where terror stands.
For when Bin Ladin's doing time
Or dead, another foe they'll find
To occupy our weary minds
With war and colored bands
With imperialistic war and measured threat with colored bands.
But this is how we win the war.
The essence of self-evident truth
Can't be imposed with claw and tooth
But whispered in the voting booth, lest liberty be killed.
And with each whisper, growing loud
Into the roar of madding crowd
To sweep away the blackened cloud
Of corruption on the hill.
The power-maddened spectre of corruption on the hill
That's how we'll win the war.
Else later , do yourself deride
When your children standing by your side
Ask "Where were you when freedom died and terror won the war?
When they took our rights for safety's sake and terror won the war?"
-Shane Maness
Please vote Libertarian! (www.lp.org)
Your children's freedom may depend upon it.
Once upon a city fair
Planes struck two towers, leaving bare
The lot where they once stood; the people gone but not forgotten.
A blackened Pennsylvania field
And the Pentagon did more bodies yield.
A cry went out our swords to wield
And to terror bring the war.
To the hiding holes and the darkened caves of terror bring the war.
Nothing less, but nothing more.
King Dubya crusaded to Afghanistan
And with ultimatum, did demand
Bin Ladin from the Taliban or else they feel his sting.
Said they, "We will not take your word.
Your evidence it must be heard
'Ere we decree 'release this turd'"
This so enraged the King.
How dare they doubt his word and thus infuriate the King.
He then let slip the dogs of war.
Meanwhile, back home, he did decree
That safety trumps our liberty
And all the rights that make us free leave us open to be attacked.
And so took them with some legal rot
With the dubious name of PATRIOT
And with no thought of freedom bought
With blood, they did enact.
That freedom robbing piece of legal rot they did enact.
Thus terror starts to win the war.
And while with war, we were distracted
And prison-state laws, they were enacted
And our rights, like so much trash compacted, Bin Ladin got away.
Then Sir Colin with half-true tales
Of bio programs and weapon sales
Bade the U.N. "Fight before Iraq gets out of hand."
U.N. would not, a war, endorse,
But Dubya stayed his steady course
And from atop his highest horse
Cried, "He threatened my old man!"
"Saddam Hussein, he thumbed his nose and threatened my old man!"
And so again we went to war.
And by the RPG's red glare,
His righteous sword held in the air,
His battle cry:"Saddam beware! Iraq, it will be mine!"
He broke Saddam, and some time later
In reports, investigators
Said , "There are no weapons
Of mass destruction here to find.
Ne're Geiger tick nor germ of all those weapons here to find."
So why did we go to war?
"It does not matter if we lied,"
Said Dubya,"if through wrong or right
The war doth end on freedom's side it justifies the means."
And back at home, the same is said
With security in freedom's stead
And a shameful eagle hangs his head
While freedom slowly dies.
The masses are distracted while our freedom slowly dies.
How do we win in terror's war?
We'll not wrest freedom from terror's jaws,
But from the makers of our laws
In back-room deals and the capitol's halls, now that's where terror stands.
For when Bin Ladin's doing time
Or dead, another foe they'll find
To occupy our weary minds
With war and colored bands
With imperialistic war and measured threat with colored bands.
But this is how we win the war.
The essence of self-evident truth
Can't be imposed with claw and tooth
But whispered in the voting booth, lest liberty be killed.
And with each whisper, growing loud
Into the roar of madding crowd
To sweep away the blackened cloud
Of corruption on the hill.
The power-maddened spectre of corruption on the hill
That's how we'll win the war.
Else later , do yourself deride
When your children standing by your side
Ask "Where were you when freedom died and terror won the war?
When they took our rights for safety's sake and terror won the war?"
-Shane Maness
Please vote Libertarian! (www.lp.org)
Your children's freedom may depend upon it.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Some good essays, and a really good read
Over at the Advocates for Self Government, their library has some good articles. I liked one, in particular.
They Pry Them from Our Cold Dead Fingers by Sharon Harris
They Pry Them from Our Cold Dead Fingers by Sharon Harris
Friday, March 13, 2009
on taxes, theft and the rights of "society":
Most people would agree that no individual has the authority to take another individual's property, without that person's permission, and that to do so would be theft.
How many individuals together does it take before the group has the authority to take an individual's property, without that person's permission? How many does it take before it isn't theft? 10? 100? 10,000? 10 million?
I submit that no group, no matter how large has that authority. I submit that the group (society) has no inherient rights, that the sum of the rights of the individuals in the group is no greater than the rights of any individual inside or outside the group. To butcher a phrase: The rights of the one outweigh the wants, or needs, of the many.
If you work, and earn money, you probably pay taxes. At what point did you give permission for your property (your money) to be taken?
I submit that unless you agree to the tax, it is theft. Think about it.
How many individuals together does it take before the group has the authority to take an individual's property, without that person's permission? How many does it take before it isn't theft? 10? 100? 10,000? 10 million?
I submit that no group, no matter how large has that authority. I submit that the group (society) has no inherient rights, that the sum of the rights of the individuals in the group is no greater than the rights of any individual inside or outside the group. To butcher a phrase: The rights of the one outweigh the wants, or needs, of the many.
If you work, and earn money, you probably pay taxes. At what point did you give permission for your property (your money) to be taken?
I submit that unless you agree to the tax, it is theft. Think about it.
on socialism and the graduated income tax:
a brief and simplistic description of economic systems:
The Socialist/Communist (there are differences, but mostly not) way:
Imagine you are in a group of 10 working people. You have no money at the start of the day. The owner of a warehouse announces that he is paying $1 for every concrete block moved within the warehouse in an 8 hour period. At the end of 8 hours, you have moved 300 blocks, 4 others have moved 150 blocks each (600 total), 2 others moved 50 apiece (100 total) and the last 3 guys slept all day in the corner. So at the end of the day, 1000 blocks were moved, and the owner pays each of the 10 workers $100.
(rationalle: the effort put forth by the workers belongs to "society" not to the individual worker, therefore the product of that effort must be divided equally among all the workers)
The Free Market way:
The same initial conditions apply and the same work (or not) is performed by the workers. At the end of the day, each worker is given $1 for each block he moved. So you end the day with $300. Those who did not work, got nothing.
(rationalle: each worker owns his own effort, and is entitled to compensation relative to the effort he provided)
"Free Market" With a graduated wage tax:
The same initial conditions apply and the same work (or not) is performed by the workers. at the end of 8 hours, you are paid $300, then the "tax man" comes and takes $75 from you, $20 from each of the 4 who moved 150 blocks and $5 from each of the 2 who moved 50. He then takes $15 for "administrative costs" and gives the 3 who slept all day $50 each, because they "are poor, and are unable to support themselves". You wind up with $225 for moving 300 blocks.
(rationalle: i can't really think of one, but it must be similar to the socialist model)
which of these systems is fair?
The Socialist/Communist (there are differences, but mostly not) way:
Imagine you are in a group of 10 working people. You have no money at the start of the day. The owner of a warehouse announces that he is paying $1 for every concrete block moved within the warehouse in an 8 hour period. At the end of 8 hours, you have moved 300 blocks, 4 others have moved 150 blocks each (600 total), 2 others moved 50 apiece (100 total) and the last 3 guys slept all day in the corner. So at the end of the day, 1000 blocks were moved, and the owner pays each of the 10 workers $100.
(rationalle: the effort put forth by the workers belongs to "society" not to the individual worker, therefore the product of that effort must be divided equally among all the workers)
The Free Market way:
The same initial conditions apply and the same work (or not) is performed by the workers. At the end of the day, each worker is given $1 for each block he moved. So you end the day with $300. Those who did not work, got nothing.
(rationalle: each worker owns his own effort, and is entitled to compensation relative to the effort he provided)
"Free Market" With a graduated wage tax:
The same initial conditions apply and the same work (or not) is performed by the workers. at the end of 8 hours, you are paid $300, then the "tax man" comes and takes $75 from you, $20 from each of the 4 who moved 150 blocks and $5 from each of the 2 who moved 50. He then takes $15 for "administrative costs" and gives the 3 who slept all day $50 each, because they "are poor, and are unable to support themselves". You wind up with $225 for moving 300 blocks.
(rationalle: i can't really think of one, but it must be similar to the socialist model)
which of these systems is fair?
on universal health care:
An argument against a government run health care system using medicare as an example:
Look at the increase in the price of health care since medicare (government run) came into being. If you could charge the government an artificially high price for a service (as long as you charged everyone else the same) you would. The quality drops, ( there is no pressure to give good care, just more care) because the one paying isn't the one recieving the service. If we got government out of health care entirely, that would force the industry to compete for customers (better care, lower prices).
Look at the increase in the price of health care since medicare (government run) came into being. If you could charge the government an artificially high price for a service (as long as you charged everyone else the same) you would. The quality drops, ( there is no pressure to give good care, just more care) because the one paying isn't the one recieving the service. If we got government out of health care entirely, that would force the industry to compete for customers (better care, lower prices).
If you want to contribute to a private charity that helps the poor pay their medical bills, that is up to you. And you should make sure that charity uses your money efficiently to get good care for people who need it. They will then become a shrewd medical customer, because it's their money. A government run health care system isn't using its money, it is using your money, so it doesn't really care about the service, or price. It can always get more money next tax time.
If I cannot pay my medical bills, do I have the authority to force you to help pay them? (no) If government derives its authority from the governed, and I (one of the governed) don't have the authority, I cannot give government that authority.
on taxes and morality:
Using universal health care as an example:
If the cause is so important to you, support (or start) a private organization whose mission it is to provide health care for those who cannot afford it. My responsibility to my fellow man is a moral one, and whether we have a moral responsibility to support those causes which benefit others (social security, welfare, universal health care) is moot, because it is not the responsibility of government, nor should it have the authority, to enforce morality. Once you give the government the the authority to support (through taxes) "good" causes you give it the ability to define what "good" is. whether it be feeding the poor, or protecting traditional marriage.
Whatever the cause, I, as an individual, do not have the authority to force you to donate your money to support it. By what authority does the government (through taxes) force you to donate your money to support it? The government derives its authority from the individuals who are governed. If I (one of the governed) have no authority to force you to give, I cannot give government that authority (I don't have it to give). Whether the cause is foreign aid, welfare, universal health care, or bailing out $multi-billion corporations, only those individuals who want to support a particular cause should do so.
Think about all the government programs that are out there. Think about one you strongly agree with. If there were a charity that did the same thing, would you support it? (probably) Now, think about one you strongly disagree with. If there were a charity that did the same thing, would you support it? (probably not) The government is now forcing you to support that cause (leaving less money to support those causes you agree with) by using your tax money to pay for it. Many of the causes that are being funded now would probably wither away, if only those who agreed with them supported them. If that happened, maybe it wasn't such a good cause?
If the cause is so important to you, support (or start) a private organization whose mission it is to provide health care for those who cannot afford it. My responsibility to my fellow man is a moral one, and whether we have a moral responsibility to support those causes which benefit others (social security, welfare, universal health care) is moot, because it is not the responsibility of government, nor should it have the authority, to enforce morality. Once you give the government the the authority to support (through taxes) "good" causes you give it the ability to define what "good" is. whether it be feeding the poor, or protecting traditional marriage.
Whatever the cause, I, as an individual, do not have the authority to force you to donate your money to support it. By what authority does the government (through taxes) force you to donate your money to support it? The government derives its authority from the individuals who are governed. If I (one of the governed) have no authority to force you to give, I cannot give government that authority (I don't have it to give). Whether the cause is foreign aid, welfare, universal health care, or bailing out $multi-billion corporations, only those individuals who want to support a particular cause should do so.
Think about all the government programs that are out there. Think about one you strongly agree with. If there were a charity that did the same thing, would you support it? (probably) Now, think about one you strongly disagree with. If there were a charity that did the same thing, would you support it? (probably not) The government is now forcing you to support that cause (leaving less money to support those causes you agree with) by using your tax money to pay for it. Many of the causes that are being funded now would probably wither away, if only those who agreed with them supported them. If that happened, maybe it wasn't such a good cause?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)