Archive for the ‘Government and Politics’ category

Walter E. Williams: “Liberty Is Not For Wimps”

March 22, 2017
Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams states in this article, Liberty Is Not For Wimps (read here): “Most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, do not show much understanding or respect for the principles of personal liberty. We criticize our political leaders, but we must recognize that their behavior simply reflects the values of people who elected them to office. That means we are all to blame for greater governmental control over our lives and a decline in personal liberty.”

Our founders told us that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Since WWII we have not been vigilant at all. We vote and go back to living our lives. Being informed and active is the most important part of eternal vigilance. Voting is something that happens on one day every two years.

Why have not seen the growth in the power of Government over our lives? Because it has been an incremental increase.

When you see yourself in the mirror everyday you don’t realize how much you have changed over the course of 20 years. When you see a picture of yourself from 20 years ago you ask; “Who is that person?”.

This is what has happened to the growth of Government and the loss of our individual liberty. Unfortunately the majority of the people haven’t been shown a ‘picture’ of what individual liberty originally looked like. Their only picture from their past is a picture of Government solutions to every problem.

These people have not been taught about individual liberty in our schools and universities. In fact they have been indoctrinated into thinking Government is the end all and be all. They have to be educated about individual liberty before they can make informed decisions.

LIBERTY DEFINED

Excerpt from the article: “My initial premise is that each of us owns himself. I am my private property, and you are yours. If we accept the notion of self-ownership, then certain acts can be deemed moral or immoral. Murder, rape and theft are immoral because those acts violate private property.

“Most Americans accept that murder and rape are immoral, but we are ambivalent about theft. Theft can be defined as taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another, to whom it does not belong. It is also theft to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another.”

“At least two-thirds of federal spending can be described as Congress’ Taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another American, to whom it does not belong. So-called mandatory spending totaled $2.45 trillion in 2015. This, two-thirds of the federal budget goes toward Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, food assistance, unemployment and other programs and benefits that fall into the category of taking from some and giving to others. To condemn legalized theft is not an argument against taxes to finance the constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government; we are all obligated to pay or share of those.

RIGHTS DEFINED

Excerpt from the article: “Many say that government spending guarantees one right or another. That’s nonsense. True rights exist simultaneously among people. That means that exercise of a right by one person does not impose an obligation on another. In other words, my rights to speech and travel impose no obligations on another except those of noninterference. For Congress to guarantee a right to healthcare, food assistance or any other good or service whether a person can afford it or not does diminish someone else’s rights – namely, their right to their earnings. Congress has no resources of its own. If Congress gives one person something that he did not earn, it necessarily requires Congress drive somebody else of something that he did earn.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

Excerpt fro the article: “A very difficult liberty pill for many Americans to swallow is freedom of association. As with free speech, the true test for one’s commitment to freedom of association does not come when one permits people of voluntarily associate in ways that he deems acceptable.”

“The true test is when he permits people to associate in ways he deems offensive. If a golf club, fraternity of restaurant were not to admit me because I’m a black person, I would find it offensive, but it’s every organization’s right to associate freely.”

“On the other hand, a public library, public utility or public university does not have a right to refuse me service, because I am a taxpayer.”

CONCLUSION

Excerpt from the article: “The bottom line is that it takes a bold person to be for personal liberty, because you have to be able to cope with people saying things and engaging in voluntary acts that you deem offensive. LIBERTY IS NOT FOR WIMPS.

It is our job to make the case for individual liberty. As I said earlier, people are not being taught about individual liberty in our schools and universities. If people are not curious enough to educate themselves, it is up to us to educate them.

Walter E. Williams has been ringing the bell for individual liberty his whole life. You don’t have to try to save the whole world. You just have to influence the people in your little part of the world. People are starting to be curious about what is going on. The election of Trump proves that people know there is something wrong with the status quo. These people represent fertile ground on which to plant the seeds of liberty.

 

Related Article: Walter E. Williams: The State Against Liberty, at austrianaddict.com.

Related Article: Walter E. Williams: Voluntary vs. Involuntary Exchange, or Seduction vs. Rape, at austrianaddict.com.

Related Article: Walter E. Williams Speaks About The Economics Of Liberty, at austrianaddict.com.

Related Article: Walter E. Williams: Are We Moving Toward More Personal Liberty of More Government Control Over Our Lives, at austrianaddict.com.

Related Article: Walter E. Williams Talks About Individual Liberty, at austrianaddict.com.

Economic Ignorance Has Caused Our Political Chaos.

March 8, 2017

Microeconomics or Micro Economics as a Concept

What do Jeffery Sachs (economics professor at Columbia), Bill Gates, the Pope, Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have in common?….. Economic ignorance!

Why are  pronouncements by people with authority rarely challenged?….. Economic ignorance!

I found some recent articles on economicpolicyjournl.com which have a similar theme: People with authority demonstrating their ignorance about basic economic principles.

Here are the articles.

Harvard Educated Economist Clueless About The Fundamentals Of Economics.

I Never Realized The Economic Ignoramus Bill Gates Is….Until Now.

The Pope’s Problem With Basic Economics.

Trump In Melbourne Spilling His Economic Plans And How Non-Free Market Are They.

House Republican Border Adjustment Tax Plan Gains Support In White House: Prepare For Higher Prices And Less Product.

Jeffery Sachs, Bill Gates and the Pope don’t have the power of Government behind anything they say. Their authority exists in the minds of the people who believe they have authority. They can’t force their economic ignorance on us

The President and Congress have the power of Government behind their policies. Politicians and bureaucrats can force their economic ignorance on us.

OUR ECONOMIC IGNORANCE

The increasing political chaos existing in the U.S is rooted in the economic ignorance of a vast majority of people. Both the masses, and people with “authority”, bear responsibility for our present political and economic situation.

People with “authority” being economically ignorant creates a problem because we the masses accept what they say as truth. This leads to the passage of Governmental policies which can’t produce the outcomes predicted by the people with authority.

We have the power to be a check on these people with authority. But we reinforce their authority on the one hand, and increase the economic ignorance of the masses on the other, when we don’t challenge the economic validity of what they say.

People with authority always want more power. Their power can’t be increased unless we allow it. Authority not backed by the force of Government isn’t real authority. We voluntarily give people their position of authority.

With politicians and bureaucrats it’s different. Their authority is backed by the force of Government. Our first non-violent voluntary recourse to their power is to vote the economically ignorant out of office, or not to vote them into office in the first place. Our second is putting political pressure on politicians. But this only works if a overwhelming majority of people put political pressure on them.

The ability of politicians and bureaucrats to grow their power, rests on the economic ignorance of the electorate. If the economic consequences of the policies passed by these politicians were known by the voters, they wouldn’t have been passed. Understanding basic economic principles allows us to look over the horizon and see the consequences of these policies.

EXAMPLES OF FAILED POLICIES

The Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare sounds great. But the laws of economics will not allow the ACA to lower the cost of healthcare. The costs can be shifted, but not lowered by government decree. The result of passing the ACA is chaos in the healthcare market, or what is left of a healthcare market.

Increasing the minimum wage for low skilled workers sounds great. But the laws of economics won’t allow increasing the minimum wage, above what that labor produces. The result of passing this law is fewer low skilled workers will be employed.

FORSEEABLE CONSEQUENCES

If, we the people, understood some basic principles of economics we wouldn’t allow these interventionist ideas to be planted, let alone take root.

Some of these basic principles are: 1) Scarcity, 2) Subjective Value, 3) Supply and Demand 4) Production Precedes Consumption.

Lets look at the Affordable Care Act and mandated minimum wage increases through the binoculars of scarcity, and supply and demand.

Scarcity is the first rule of economics. Scarcity simply means, “what everybody wants adds up to more than there is”. Put differently. Their are limited means available to satisfy the unlimited ends we seek. These limited means have to be allocated toward producing the ends we seek. There are two ways to allocate these means. One way is voluntary cooperation, through prices in a free market. The other way is force, through the edicts of politicians and bureaucrats using government power.

Supply and Demand is easy to understand. Put simply; More is demanded and less is supplied at a low price, and more is supplied and less is demanded at a high price. Prices reflect and drive supply and demand. If their is a sudden drop in the supply of a product, the price rises. This increase in price rations the existing supply, and sends a signal that more needs to be produced. On the flip side of the coin, if their is a sudden increase in the supply of a product, the price will go down. This decrease in price sells off the existing glut, and sends a signal less needs to be produced.

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND MINIMUM WAGE LAWS

The Affordable Care Act forced “30 million” uninsured people to enter the healthcare market. This meant the demand for healthcare was going to increased. Even though the supply of healthcare couldn’t be increased as quickly. (Example) It takes years for people to become doctors and nurses. Increasing the supply takes more time than the almost instant increase in demand brought about by the stroke of pen. If we apply the economic principles of scarcity, and supply and demand to the Affordable Care Act, what was going to happen to the price of healthcare? And this is not even calculating the cost of the regulations and new bureaucracy created by the 2500 page bill.

Raising the minimum wage increases the price of labor. According to the law of supply and demand, less is demanded at the high price. Voting for laws which increase the wages of people who we think are not being paid enough doesn’t help these people. Fewer people will be employed at the higher price. Many times these low skilled workers jobs will disappear all together because they can be replaced by automation. The price of labor was artificially increased to the point where it was economical to automate (read here). If we apply the law of supply and demand to the rhetoric of increasing the minimum wage, people wouldn’t have been fooled into thinking they were helping the people the law was actually hurting..

OUR CHOICES

Economic principles are always in play. Government edicts can’t negate economic reality. The political chaos we have today is the result of ignoring the reality of basic economics. We can’t wish these realities away because we don’t like the fact they limit what we demand.

I’m going to quote a person with authority at this point. So don’t take this quote as authoritative. Figure it out yourself.

F. A. Hayek a Nobel Prize winning economist, (how is that for status), said: “Planning, or central direction of economic activity, presupposes the existence of common ideals and common values; and the degree to which planning can be carried is limited to the extent to which agreement on such a common scale of values can be obtained or enforced.

Let’s get educated in basic economics. Life is easier to understand when you understand how the world works. Here is another quote.

F. A. Hayek: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little the really know, about what he imagines he can design.”

We have two choices. Scarce resources can be rationed through prices voluntarily in the free market. Or Scarce resources can be rationed forcibly by politicians and bureaucrats through the power of Government. Which direction are we moving?

CONCLUSION

Political insiders of both parties have shaped the battle field into a choice between the R’s and the D’s. In reality the real battle is between the insiders in both parties who want to grow the power of Government, and people who stand for free markets and want to cut the power of government. Neither group is a majority. The majority of people are the economically ignorant. These people have been fooled into fighting the battle through the R and D paradigm.

Our job is to educate the economically ignorant. When this majority understands basic economic principles, they will they stop fighting on the fake R and D battlefield and start fighting on the real battlefield: central planning vs. voluntary cooperation.

 

Related ArticleMinimum Wage Laws Create Unemployment, at austrianaddict.com

Related ArticleIncome Inequality Part II: Increase The Minimum Wage, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThe Reality Of Obamacare, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThe Economics of Healthcare vs. The Right To Healthcare, at austrianaddict.com.

 

You Decide: Did Jeff Sessions Commit Perjury?

March 3, 2017

Video of Al Franken’s Question To Jeff Sessions In Context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7FtrqD1JzE

DEFINITION OF PERJURY: The willful giving of false testimony under oath of affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

Here is the transcript of the whole segment (Click Here)

FRANKEN: CNN has just published a story and I’m telling you this about a news story that’s just been published. I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, “Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say quote, “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.

Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

FRANKEN: Very well. Without divulging sensitive information, do you know about this or know what compromising personal and financial information the Russians claim to have?

SESSIONS : Senator Franken, allegations get made about candidates all the time and they’ve been made about president-elect Trump a lot sometimes. Most of them, virtually all of them have been proven to be exaggerated and untrue. I would just say to you that I have no information about this matter. I have not been in on the classified briefings and I’m not a member of the intelligence committee, and I’m just not able to give you any comment on it at this time.

FRANKEN: OK. Totally fair.

 

WAS SESSIONS RESPONDING TO THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS IN THE ABOVE TEXT?

DID HE COMMIT PERJURY? YOU CAN MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

 

Related ArticleI Hate Politics! at aistrianaddict.com.

I Hate Politics

February 10, 2017

Puzzle pieces with word Politics

Politics has nothing to do with “public service”. Politics is about using verbal sleight of hand to gain political power. The idea that being a “public servant” some how makes politicians and bureaucrats place the people’s interests ahead of their political self interest is laughable.

The fact that the constitution is now being embraced by the progressive Democrats, when they used it for toilet paper during the Obama administration is evidence that politics is about power.

The Republicans aren’t much better. How can a republican support Trumps idea of tariffs regarding trade? Trumps executive orders that get rid of Obama’s executive orders are fine. But have Republicans questioned any of the other executive orders made by Trump?

The progressive left main stream media is fact checking everything Trump says, after not fact checking anything Obama said for 8 years. (“If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”, “The Benghazi attack started because of an internet video.”)  There is no progressive left agenda in the media, is there?

EXAMPLES OF POLITICAL BS

-Chuck Schumer talks about Refugees in 2015 and again in 2017. What a difference two years makes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ULkINCDiIA

Do you think Schumer’s tears are real or fake????

 

-In 2006 Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted for (click here to see vote), The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (click here to read bill). Now they are against any border wall, fence or other structure.

-Bill Clinton wanted to build a wall to keep illegal immigrants way back in the 90’s when he was President.

Listen to this and tell me if this doesn’t sound like Trump 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wxMTh_UzHM

 

Liz ‘Fauxcahontas’ Warren Accuses Trump Nominees of ‘Lying’ During Job Applications,. Elizabeth Warren lied about being part Indian when she applied for a professorship at Harvard. She knew how to use the system for personal gain before she became a politician.

-Last year the Republicans passed a bill to repeal Obamacare and sent it to Obama knowing he would veto it. Why don’t they have a bill repealing Obamacare on Trumps desk right now? Maybe they know he will sign it. Establishment Republicans really don’t want Obamacare repealed do they?

CONCLUSION

The grass roots in both parties should agree that the Federal Government has too much power. The Republicans complained about the Federal Gov. having too much power during the 8 years of Obama. The Democrats are complaining that the Federal Government has too much power in the first month of Trumps Presidency. Their both right about the Federal Government having too much power.

The Federal Government has too much power over the States and the people. It just seems more tolerable to the people whose party is in power. Can’t both sides unite to put the chains of the constitution back on the real enemy of individual freedom, the Federal Government?

Unfortunately each side wants to use the position of power when they get voted in. It is only fair they do this  since the other party used the position of power for the previous 8 years to get what they wanted. It is like the Hatfields and McCoys. Neither side knows who started the escalation of power. And neither side wants to be the one who rolls back Federal power. Until grass roots members in each party agree to roll back Federal power, nothing will get done. Because we know politicians want to expand and wield the power of Government.

 

Related ArticleIndividual Liberty Is The Least Contentious Way Of Settling Differences, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleWalter E. Williams: The Free Market Is Not Allowed To Work, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleWalter E. Williams Talks About Individual Liberty, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleAbuses Of Poser By Individuals In Government, at austrianaddict.com.

Fake Headlines

February 3, 2017

https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/175957/227201005/stock-vector-vector-newspapers-eps-transparency-used-cmyk-global-colors-gradients-used-227201005.jpg

The headline of a news story is supposed to summarize what the news story is about. It is also supposed to make the reader curious to read the rest of the story. Unfortunately fake headlines have a different purpose. Fake headlines try to portray an ideological message, without the reader reading the rest of the article.

Headlines can and are used as propaganda.

Two days ago, Milo Yiannopoulous went to UC Berkeley to give a speech. Protesters forced him to cancel. Here are a few headlines from media outlets about the incident.

Protesters Force UC Berkeley To Cancel Far-Right Speaker’s Speech, at reuters.com.

Speech by Right-Wing Commentator Milo Yiannopoulous At Berkeley Canceled After Protest, at fox5sandiego.com.

Violent Protesters Block Berkeley Talk By Breitbart Editor, abcnews.go.com

Berkeley Cancels Milo Yiannopoulous Speech, And Donald Trump Tweets Outrage, nytimes.com.

The Real Headline.

First Amendment Rioters Bully Gay Conservative Commentator To Cancel His Speech At UC Berkeley.

Does this headline portray a different story?

The protesters wanted to exercise their free speech rights. The protest turned into a riot. The commentator was bullied into canceling the speech out of fear for his safety. The speaker was a Gay man. He was also an ideological conservative/libertarian.

I Have Some Questions

Was the original protest, which I have no problem with as long as it was peaceful, infiltrated by paid for professional rioters?

Were these rioters dressed in the black hooded sweatshirts part of the original protest?

Why weren’t the protesters confined to the place on campus that is designated as a free speech zone?

Do they have a free speech zone at Berkeley like other universities have?

Why didn’t any of the stories mention that Milo was gay?

Doesn’t being gay mean you are part of an identity group and can never be criticized?

Or does being a conservative and not politically correct trump your status as a gay person?

 

This is all very confusing. Will the left please write down the order of importance of the identity groups they’ve made up. I’m having a hard time knowing which group is more equal.

I know one thing for sure. If you don’t have a progressive left ideology, you are not considered a member of one of their identity groups. It is all about ideology, nothing else.

 

Related ArticleAre You A Democrat, a Republican, or a Libertarian, at austrianaddict.com.

Blue State California Actually Agrees With Red State Texas: The Federal Gov. Has Too Much Power!

February 2, 2017

Election or referendum in United States of America. Calexit - California is secede From USA. California republic Independence Campaign. Vector illustration. Hashtag Calexit on USA flag.

Is California going all Texas on us? Texas is known for its independence. It’s not fond of the Federal government mandating what it has to do. Remember the Texit movement? Does the recent Calexit movement mean that California is seeing the light that the Federal government has too much power?

The only difference between the Texit and the Calexit is the media and the elites think it is cool when California talks secession, but not so much when Texas talks secession. Read this article, “Can Texas Legally Secede From The United States?” from June of this year. It paints a bleak picture for the Texit movement.

In this article titled, Calexit: Record Number Of Californians Support Secession, New Poll Finds, one in three California residents are in favor of a “peaceful withdrawal” from the Union. Why the sudden move toward states rights? If you guessed because they don’t like Trump’s potential executive orders you guessed correctly. The only reason they would be afraid of the Presidential over reach is if the position of the Presidency had the power to be lord over the States.

In this article, California is Threatening To Cut Off Funds to Washington, California is looking for ways to suspend financial payments to Washington. I have always thought this is a great idea. If you don’t send the Federal Government money, it has nothing to use for extortion.

Image result for texit labels

The power of our chief executive increased under George W. Bush. It grew exponentially with Obama’s executive orders that were never seriously challenged by the opposition party. Now that the President is not a progressive central planning democrat, the left thinks the position has too much power. I agree with them. The Federal government in general and the Presidency in particular have usurped powers that the Constitution never gave them.

10th AMENDMENT

Even though California is tardy, welcome to the 10th amendment party. The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means that the Federal Government only has the powers enumerated in Articles 1 through 6 of the Constitution. Any powers not listed, are reserved to the States or the people.

CAN WE AGREE?

We should all agree that the Federal Government has too much power. Can we all work together to roll back the powers that the Federal Government has usurped from us? We should not wait until the other party wins before we talk about how big the Government has grown. If both sides of the aisle work together to roll back Government power we will be able to do it through the political and legal process.

If we wait any longer the only choice is for states to actually attempt secession. The cost of this has proven to be very high, look at the Civil War. The only thing keeping states from seceding is the power we have allowed the Federal Government to usurp.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who I have a great deal of respect for, said: “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” I respectfully disagree with Justice Scalia.

The Declaration of Independence (click here) is a founding document that states the reasons why we wanted to secede from the British Empire. Here is what it says:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for on people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”…………

“…….Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…….”

Our country seceded from what our founders saw as a despotic British Empire. If secession, was used by our foundering fathers, isn’t it our birth right as sons of these founders to use the same process to, “dissolve the political bands which have connected us“, when Government becomes tyrannical?

Fortunately we don’t have to reach the point of secession if both Red and Blue States can agree that the Federal Government has too much power. We can not just believe this when the opposition party has the power in Washington. We have to do something about it when our own party is in power or this will end badly.

 

Related ArticleWalter E. Williams: The State Against Liberty, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleWalter E. Williams: The Constitution, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleA Lesson From Atlas Shrugged, at austrianaddict.com.

Related Article – “I’m From The Government And I’m Here To Help.“, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleWhy Do People Think The Government Is The Economy?, at austrianaddict.com.

Let’s Fight Tyranny – Walter E. Williams

December 6, 2016

In a world of subjective value, there is a high cost of agreement. Our founders understood that voluntarily cooperate under general rules produced the highest amount of satisfaction for the most individuals. When people are forced into cooperating using Government power, the vast majority of people aren’t satisfied.

Our constitutional government put shackles on government power and made the individual sovereign. Politicians and government bureaucrats don’t want us to understand that the individual is the ultimate threat to state power. We need to wake up and claim it.

Walter E. Williams talks about the high cost in this article titled Let’s Fight Tyranny (click here). Here are some excerpts from the article.

For more than a half-century, it has become abundantly clear that our nation faces increasing irreconcilable differences. At the root is the fact that there is one group of Americans who mostly want to be left alone and live according to the rule of law and the dictates of the U.S. constitution while another group of Americans wants to control the lives of others and ignore both the rule of law and constitutional restraints on the federal government. Should those Americans who favor the rule of law and constitutional government fight against or yield to those Americans who have contempt for the rule of law and constitutional government?

Some Americans  prefer to manage their own health care needs. Others wish to have the federal government dictate their health care. Some Americans want their earnings to be taxed only for the constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government, which are outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of   the Constitution. Others think American earnings should be taxed for anything on which Congress can muster a majority vote……The list of irreconcilable differences among the American people is nearly without end. These differences survive because of the timidity of those offended and the brute power of the federal government.”

“I think reconciliation is impossible; therefore, separation is the only long-term peaceful solution. Separation and independence do not require that liberty-loving Americans overthrow the federal government.

“You say, “All those government acts that you say violate the rule of law and the Constitution have been ruled constitutional by the courts!” That’s true. The courts have twisted the Constitution, but Thomas Jefferson warned, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

State governors and legislators ought to summon up the courage our Founding Fathers had in their response to the fifth Congress’ Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Written by Jefferson and James Madison, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 stated that those states’ legislatures considered the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional……the several States…….are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government….and ….whensoever the general government assumes delegated powers, its acts are authoritative, void, and of no force.” The 10th amendment holds, “The powers not delegated to the U.S. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

“The federal government should not be permitted to determine the scope of its own powers. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 28, said, “The State government will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.
Former slave Frederick Douglass advised: “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. …. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” We Americans appear to have very limited endurance in the face of tyrannical oppression.
RELATED ARTICLE FROM MISES.ORG
Here is another great article from mises.org titled Secede And Decentralize: An Open Letter To Clinton Supporters.
Here is an excerpt from the article:”What your feeling (Clinton supporters), this hopelessness, this feeling that you’re no longer represented, this feeling that people other than you are now able to dictate your way of life, this is all a result of the massive expansion of the Federal government. Elections have long ceased being voting for someone you think represents the lifestyle you want to live and are, in practice, an exercise on determining whether or not you get to impose you preferred lifestyle on someone else.”
A weak federal government would produce little divisiveness because there is little to be divided over. A strong Federal government would produce significant divisiveness since there is much to be divided over. It also goes to say that an absolute government would create absolute division while the absence of government would not produce a division because there isn’t any risk of having your life dictated by distant populations.”

The Election Is Over! What Happens Now?

November 17, 2016

United States of America elections 2016 word cloud

Now that the dust has settled, or is settling, after the presidential election, lets look into the crystal ball and see what the future brings.

FOUR THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN

1) We will see a true opposition party to the party in power. The democrat party will use every parliamentary tool available to them, in the House and Senate, to stop everything the majority party, lead by Trump, wants to pass. They will also use every political and rhetorical trick (lying) for the same purpose. There is nothing wrong with this. The  minority party is supposed to be a check on the power of the majority party.

The Republicans should take notes on what the Democrats will do, because they certainly didn’t use their power and political rhetoric to thwart the agenda of Obama and the Democrats the last eight years.

2) The leaders in the Democrat party will do everything politically and rhetorically to chip away at the Trump Presidency. Even though they may talk about the parties coming together, they don’t mean it. How can a party lead by people who want to centrally plan every aspect of peoples lives, agree with people who want to cut the size and power of government? Government gives central planners their power. These planners don’t want that power taken away. Of course I’m assuming that the Republicans want to cut the size and scope and government. We all know that there many big government Republicans. Many of Trumps stated policies will expand government power and the debt. In fact some of these policies will not work because they disregard the laws of economics. But more on this some other time.

3) Being anti-war will be back in vogue. Where has code pink been for the last eight years? Obama has intervened in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. He has ordered 10 times more drone strikes than Bush. We are still in Afghanistan. Gitmo remains open. Where have the protesters been? Or are these groups purely political?

4) Investigative journalism will make a come back. After taking an eight year break, the main stream media will again start doing their job of being a check on government power and corruption. They will do this because their vision of the world doesn’t coincide with the party in power, not because of some new found fidelity to their job. I wish the MSM would treat every President, Senator, Congressman, and bureaucrat like they treat Republican Presidents. If you thought they hammered Trump during the election, you haven’t seen anything yet.

WILL IT WORK?

One of the most important things that has happened because of this election is the MSM has cut it’s own throat. This election has pulled back the curtain on the MSM. People have finally witnessed what they thought was true all these years. The MSM has discredited itself in the minds of enough people, that no one trusts them. The propaganda they use to advance their world view doesn’t have the effect that it used to, because they don’t have a monopoly on information anymore. The marginal straw has finally broken the camels back when it comes people trusting the MSM. And that’s a good thing.

Keeping government power in check is the job of the opposition party, the press, and the people. Unfortunately this doesn’t happen when the Democrats are in power. Why? Because the MSM is biased toward the world view of the Democratic party, people are too busy with the daily grind to stay informed, and the Republicans are too afraid of the media and the Democrats to mount any real opposition. Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen of both parties should be treated like the MSM treats Republicans. People not trusting people in positions of power is a good thing for individual liberty.

 OBAMA HAS CREATED MORE REPUBLICANS THAN THE GOP HAS CREATED

At the start of the Obama presidency the Democrat party had 57 Senators plus two Independent Senators caucusing with Democrats. The Republicans had 41. Democrats had 255 congressmen. The Republicans had 179. Democrats had a lock on all three branches of government. Democrats also had 29 Governors. The Republicans had 21. Democrats had control of 27 State legislatures. Republicans had control of 14, with 8 split.

As Obama tried to push through the Affordable Care Act (what an oxymoron), tea party and liberty groups started to organize politically. After the last 4 election cycles, 2010, 2012. 2014, and 2016, we are seeing the fruits of their labor. Here is how the score card reads now. The Republican party now controls the Presidency, 52 Senate seats, 239 house seats, and 34 Governorships. The Republicans control both the senate and house in 32 states, 3 states are split (read here).

Candidates who want smaller government have been beating establishment Republicans in primary elections since 2010. The Republican party is slowly turning more libertarian in its thinking. What’s left of the old establishment Republicans will eventually loose in a primary or retire. Their replacement will be a more liberty minded candidate. Purging the Republican party of leaders who think solutions come from big government takes time.

The Democrats can blame their losses on Obama and themselves. Obama pushed his big government central planning agenda (namely the Affordable Care Act) and the Democrats helped get it passed. They are now reaping their just rewards.

CONCLUSION

We know the Democrats and the main stream media will oppose Trump and the Republican majority in congress. It is our job as followers of Austrian economics to oppose Trump and the Republicans when they try to pass legislation that expands the size and power of Government. We don’t want Republicans to “get something done” if that “something” goes against the laws of economics, takes away individual liberty, and increases the power of Government.

Victor Davis Hanson: American Empire, Immigration Policy, The 2016 Election

November 1, 2016

Here is a video you should watch before next Tuesday’s election. Victor Davis Hanson talks with Peter Robinson in this segment on Uncommon Knowledge from the Hoover Institute.

Is America an imperialist nation? Is there danger if American influence declines on the world stage? What about China, Iran, Russia? Is an open border immigration policy beneficial as compared to what American immigration policy was in the early 1900’s? What are our choices in the 2016 election? Victor Davis Hanson gives great insight in the answers to these questions.

Excerpts from the video:

On American Empire: “We are a funny sort of empire. By every calculus we should be empirical. That’s what people do. They try to aggrandize their land, their territory, their natural resources…….We don’t take people’s land. We have an empirical order, but it’s a post WWII order in which we set the rules and the terms of commerce and trade. We’ve allow Japan or Germany or China with much less military power than us to beat us economically…….Americans are endowed with an exceptional moral sense. We are a generous people, whose checkered imperial interventions in the past rarely proved profitable or exploitive.

“75 years after WWII is an aberration in world history. Peace is a parenthesis….and war is the natural order of things and in a vacuum of American power were going to see that very quickly.”

On Immigration: (starts at 21:21) “Historically there’s three elements to immigration that adjudicates whether it failed or was successful. 1) Is it diverse? Do people come from all over or do they just come from a specific area? 2) Is it measured? Does an immigrant come in and meet ten natives? do they learn to assimilate and integrate and intermarry, or do they come in mass and create enclaves? 3) Do they come under some legal auspices? Is it meritocratic? Do they learn the language?”

“If the conditions are met as it has been mostly in Americas history, than it works wonderfully. It enriches the body politic. The people are invigorated by these new people who want to be American more than they do.”

“It has to be diverse so one particular group is not used by domestic political parties for their own electoral calculations as happened in the 19th century.”

On Obama The Divider: (starts at 27:05) “President Obama has systematically adopted a rhetoric and an agenda that is predicated on dividing up the country according to tribal grievances, in hopes of recalibrating various factions into a majority grievance culture. He has succeeded politically. but in doing so he has nearly torn the country apart.”

“When the President came into office he did things that I hadn’t seen in my lifetime. I’ve never heard a presidential candidate say “typical white person”….Woodrow Wilson was the last president to identify that strongly with race...”

On Hillary And Trump: (starts at 30:18) “….The Clinton’s have offered something that no ex-president had ever offered….He had a spouse who he said would be back in here. He said she’s a viable presidential candidate in a way that no other first ladies ever were, and I’m going to be back here with her as defacto President, and therefore you better invest in her as Secretary of State through this foundation and we’re going to remember. That’s the font of all their ethical problems. They had a premise that was predicated on selling influence for money.”

The elites can’t stand Trump and he should be down by 20 points. But he’s not. He represents an anger at a much over used word elites. Elites are people who, not just by money, basically have a utopian vision that they feel does not apply to themselves. And they have the money culture and influence to navigate around the ramifications of their own ideology. What do I mean by that? Mark Zuckerberg lectures all of us about how a wall is bad and then builds a wall or tries to build a Maginot line around his own home. Or were told how terrible charter schools are, and Obama puts his kids in Sidwell Friends……Trump is Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare, he’s a vampire’s mirror for the Republican establishment.”

 

Related ArticleWho Are Those Darn Elites, at victorhanson.com.

Related ArticleFrom Greek Tragedy To American Therapy, at victorhanson.com.

Antonin Scalia: Understanding The Constitution

October 25, 2016

The constitution of the United States of American with a vintage flag

The ideological and political battle for Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court can be summed up in this statement.

“What should the broad concepts in the Constitution mean today? vs. What did these concepts mean when they were adopted?”

The first allows the power of government to grow with it’s only constraint being what leaders can get away with politically.

The second constrains the growth of government to its powers listed in the Constitution.

Here are some videos that capture Justice Scalia wisdom concerning this topic.

Justice Scalia’s Opening Remarks At A 2011 Senate Judiciary Hearing.

Excerpt: “I ask students: what do you think is the reason that America is such a free country? What is it in our constitution that makes us what we are? They answer, freedom of speech, freedom of the press…….those marvelous provisions in the bill of rights. I tell them if you think a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you’re crazy.”

“Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights…..the bill of rights of the former Soviet Union was better than ours…..These are what our founders would call a parchment guarantee. And the reason is because the real Constitution of the Soviet Union…..the real structure….didn’t prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. When that (centralization) happens, the game is over. The bill of rights is just what our framers would call a parchment guarantee.”

“The real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our government……People today say there is a dysfunction of government because there’s disagreement and gridlock. The framers would have said, “yes, that’s exactly the way we set it up. We wanted this to be power contradicting power”. Americans should learn to love the separation of power, the gridlock. Which the framers believed would be the main protection of minorities.

Justice Scalia Comments About “Diversity” On The Supreme Court.

Excerpt: “….I agree that (on the Supreme Court) you should have different people who reach different results. But one would think that after 200 years there would be some consensus on what we think we’re doing when we interpret the constitution. These are wildly divergent views.”

“Are we taking these broad concepts such as equal protection and due process and asking, “what should these concepts mean today?” That’s one view. On the other hand are we saying “what did these concepts mean when they were adopted”…..The difficulty in figuring that out, the historical problem of doing that, isn’t perfect, that it’s going to solve every problem, but it solves an awful lot of problems. Especially the most controversial ones.”

“It’s not my burden to prove that the historical approach is perfect. It is just my burden to prove that it’s better than anything else and the  anything else is the other approach, that it’s up to the judges to say what these things mean today. This is an immense amount of power in judges hands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMKLarRRBfw

Piers Morgan Interviews Justice Scalia In 2013.

Piers Morgan always tries to be an intellectual bully to everyone he interviews, especially those he disagrees with. There is no doubt he disagrees with Scalia’s world view, but he knows he can’t “intellectually” bully him. He tries to hit Scalia with verbal jabs but they are skillfully parried away by Justice Scalia.

This is the best interview Piers Morgan has ever done.

Part I

 

Part II

 

Related ArticleWalter E. Williams: The Constitution, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleHow Big Should Government Be?  at austrianaddict.com.