Posted tagged ‘First Amendment’

Must Read “Leftovers”

September 22, 2015

Bernie Sanders’ War On Chinese Bobbleheads, at reason.com. Protectionist trade policies like the ones socialists like Bernie Sanders pushes, sound similar to many of the things Donald Trump says about trade with China. These policies sound plausible at first glance, which is why many people fall for these ideas. If people would look below the surface at the economic reality of these policies they wouldn’t be fooled by slick or ignorant politicians. This short video should help.

This is just my subjective value judgement; I think economics is much more riveting when explained by an attractive woman with an Australian accent.

On Third World Sweatshops, at economicpolicyjournal.com. Many sanctimonious do gooders want wages payed to these workers increased, even though they freely chose to work in these “sweatshops”. These do gooders want to export minimum wage (floors) laws to these third world countries. Do they understand that Minimum Wage Laws Create Unemployment? How can we expect them to understand what the results will be in other countries when  they are ignorantly pushing the same policies in our country. Berkeley To Consider Raising Minimum Wage To $19:00 Per Hour, at economicpolicyjournal.com.

“Nope” & Change, at zerohedge.com. No comment necessary.

Now You Can Find Out If The NSA Is Spying On You, by Kim Settler, at wired.com. In case you’re interested, you can find out if you’ve been spied on.

High School Football Team Defies Atheist Bullies By Doing THIS, at thefederalistpapers.com. The Bell County Bobcats say their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion allows the students to lead a pre-game prayer. First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…....  I don’t see how this can be construed to mean anything else.

Hillary Clinton Says Female Sexual Assault Accusers ‘Have A Right to Be Believed‘, at dailymail.co.uk. Don’t listen to what Hillary Clinton says. Look at her past actions when she had opportunities to believe female sexual assault accusers. “What you do speaks so loudly, that what you say I can’t hear.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Observations From The Margin

September 3, 2015

Observation Tower

Observation  (Photo credit: mooglet)

-There are two groups of people I automatically dislike, politicians and people in the media. It’s about the profession not necessarily the person. If I think the person is honorable and fair I will tolerate them, and if I think the person is arrogant and biased my dislike turns to loathing. Part of the reason Donald Trump is doing so well is he doesn’t give members of these groups the respect these megalomaniacs think should be lavished upon them. Whether it’s Jorge Ramos or Megyn Kelly, I don’t mind how Trump treats them. Watch the video of his press conference (click here) and see him dismiss Jorge Ramos and then answer a question about Megyn Kelly.

-Journalists wrap themselves in their first amendment rights using it as an inoculation against accusations of being bullies. They do have a first amendment right to ask questions, just as each of us has a first amendment right to ask questions. They don’t seem to understand that the person who is asked the question has a right to not answer the question.

-We live in a society that obeys basic rules of conduct that aren’t legislated by government. One of these rules of conduct is we wait our turn in line. When a person tries to cut line, someone usually calls them out by saying, “the end of the line is back there”. The video of Jorge Ramos is an example of someone cutting line. He was not called on and he butted in. When he was told the ‘end of the line is back there’ he kept talking. Most people who aren’t Jorge Ramos followers or Trump haters think Ramos is the anal orifice in this exchange.

-Our country was founded on the rule of law and not of men. When the laws that apply to us don’t apply to the ruling elite, it starts the process of the break down of the rule of law. When we see nothing happen to a politician like Hillary who flat-out broke the law by having her own server, and we get pulled over for ‘following too close’, it pisses us off. Not only do we have less respect for the law and the law givers, we start to push back.

-Journalists in the main stream media have a bias for bigger government. They know their influence increases when big government splits us into groups and pits us against each other. If each of us thought of ourselves as an individual instead of being a member of group, we would be able to see through media bias toward big government.

-For Decades the media has been driving the get-away car for politicians who have been robbing our individual freedom. Mr. Trump has taken out his knife, punctured all four tires and poured sand in the gas tank of the get-away car. They can’t figure out what to do. Trump talks around the media and straight to the people. He understands that many of us think the media is the enemy and he treats them as such. This is a big part of his success.

-Everyone who the media is biased against, yes even some politicians, should look at the Trump template, grow a pair, and treat the media accordingly.

Related ArticleObservations From The Margin, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleObservations From The Margin, at austrianaddict.com.

 

Individual Liberty Is The Least Contentious Way Of Settling Differences.

April 2, 2015

Is there a perfect system in which human beings interact with no conflict? Since nothing human is perfect the answer is obviously no. But politicians and demagogues have for decades held up the standard of perfection as the straw man to compare any perceived flaw produced by our free market capitalist economic system and our constitutional republic. When results created by individuals voluntarily cooperating don’t meet what our betters deem acceptable, they want to pass laws correcting this perceived injustice, or “fundamentally change” the system.

They are never asked: 1) Why is what they value, better than what results from decisions made by individuals cooperating voluntarily? 2) Does the decision-making process they desire (usually some form central planning) produce more satisfaction for more people than the process of voluntary cooperation by individuals under the rule of law? 3) Who decides what is the better outcome?

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY vs. GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING

It is not possible to come up with a single decision that satisfies everyone. It is sometimes difficult for me to decide what flavor of ice cream I want. Many times I am not happy with my decision the second I take the first bite. If picking just one flavor for myself is difficult, how much more difficult would it be for two people to choose one flavor? As more people become involved in deciding one flavor, it becomes exponentially more difficult for people to be pleased with the choice. How many people would be satisfied if one person was chosen to pick a flavor for everybody? What would be the difference if everybody voted, and people had to eat the flavor receiving that most votes?

One person choosing between many flavors for himself is voluntary cooperation in a market between him and the person producing the ice cream. If no one produced the flavor he liked, he could produce it for himself if he thought it was worth his time.

One individual choosing a flavor that everyone is forced to eat is a dictatorship. Even if this person is democratically elected by a majority.

Every person voting on a single flavor, and the flavor receiving the majority of the votes has to be eaten is democracy in action.

Are any of these systems perfect? No. But that’s not the question that should be asked. The question should be: which system would produce the most satisfied individuals, and which system would produce the most contention among individuals? It is obvious that the system that produces the most satisfaction is voluntary cooperation under the rule of law. Unfortunately over the last century we have elected leaders, in both parties, who are taking incremental decisions away from individuals, and making categorical decisions for all of us. They are acting like tyrants, but unfortunately they just reflect the tyrannical attitudes of the people who vote them into power.

We lose more freedom as more laws get passed. When people say “there should be a law for…” they are really saying I want to force what I value on people who don’t agree. Even a law against murder forces a particular value on certain individuals who don’t share that value. Fortunately most people agree that murder is not acceptable behaviour. But what happens when there isn’t an overwhelming majority of people who agree. How do you reconcile each persons values?

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE

Our system was founded on property rights and voluntary exchange (contract). Each person owns himself and what he produces, and no one is allowed to take another persons life, take what he produces, or take what he receives in exchange for what he has produced. If he doesn’t want to make an exchange with another person, that person doesn’t have a right to force him into making the exchange.

This all seems very simple, and it is, until petty tyrants in the form of politicians, bureaucrats, thieves, do gooders, thought police, political correctness advocates, or the average citizen try to steal from, or force their values on, other individuals. The more laws that are passed, the more contention there is between people who would otherwise have no reason to be contentious.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT

The recent conflict in Indiana between a State version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, and gay rights activists who say this is legalizing discrimination, is an example of what happens when people won’t follow the simple rules of property rights and voluntary exchange.

Under our simple rules, if a gay couple went to a bakery and ask the baker to bake a cake for their gay wedding, and the baker said no, the couple would go to another bakery. Just as a gay person could go to a bakery and ask the baker if he was a christian, and if the baker said yes, he could walk out without purchasing anything. These are simply different sides of the same transaction. In the first the baker refuses to exchange what he produces (his property), with the other person. In the second case the gay person refuses to exchange money (which represents what he produces, aka his property) with the baker. Does it really matter why each person refused the exchange? It only matters when force, especially the monopoly of Government force, is introduced into the equation.

The first amendment of our constitution protects an individual’s freedom of religion, and the supreme court has previously ruled that, racial discrimination in the operation of public accommodations, such as restaurants and lodgings, affects interstate commerce by impeding interstate travel and is prohibited….”  at thefreedictionary.com.

How do you reconcile these competing rules, rights, or laws. The problem with having growing numbers of rules and laws, is that each person, or group, tries to use the force of government to impose their values on other people. It’s a never-ending battle of court cases that creates competing factions that continue to fight because nothing really gets solved. This was the result of the Roe vs. Wade decision. Instead of allowing each State to have its own abortion law, no matter how restrictive or permissive it was, five justices on the court imposed their view of abortion on the whole country. Actually the pro abortion activists brought the Roe case to court because they wanted to impose their view of abortion on the rest of the country. That decision has made the abortion issue more contentious over the years, not less.

If decisions are allowed to be made at the point of decision-making, there is less contention and conflict. Most laws take the decision away from the point where the decision should actually be made. Petty tyrants in or out of government, want to use government force to impose their values on others. Gay activists have come a long way from just wanting people and government out of their bedrooms, or was that just a straw man to get government to force people to accept their values. I don’t care what a person does, as long as they don’t “pick my pocket, break my arm“, or have government do it for them.

CONCLUSION

In a free society you have a right to associate with whom ever you want. When you choose your friends, you are discriminating against those who aren’t your friends. When you choose a wife, you are discriminating against other woman. When you make any choice, you are discriminating.

Since every decision is discriminatory, should government be more involved in individual decision making? Many people think it should. Why are individuals and groups seemingly in constant conflict with each other? Because over the last fifty years, government has taken over many of the decisions that individuals used to be free to make. I hope we are at the point where most of us can agree that Government encroachment into every aspect of our lives has to be rolled back, if our civil society is to survive.

If you want to know my thoughts on gay marriage read, Marriage Laws Don’t Expand Rights They Limit Rights.

Related ArticleMeet 10 Americans Helped By Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana’s, by Mollie Hemingway, at the federalist.com.

Related ArticleGay Marriage Isn’t About Justice, It’s About Selma Envy, by Hans Fiene, at the federalist.com.

 

 

 

Must Reads For The Week 6/01/13.

June 1, 2013
The pen is mightier than the sword...

The pen is mightier than the sword… (Photo credit: mbshane)

The Bullying Pulpit, by Thomas Sowell, at jewishworldreview.com. Government bureaucrats and politicians try to bully and intimidate citizens who challenge the central planning orthodoxy.

Durbin Not Sure If Bloggers Deserve Constitutional Protection, by Warner Todd Huston, at breaibart.com. Even if  Dick Durbin doesn’t think a blogger is a journalist, I would hope he thinks that a blogger still has a constitutional right to free speech.

Real Health Reform: Doctor Stops Accepting Insurance, Able To Cut Prices By Fifty Percent, at economicpolicyjournal.com. Allowing  the buyer and seller to exchange without a third-party involved in the decision-making, creates the optimum result for everybody, except the third-party planner.

High School Teacher Faces Discipline For Informing Students About Their Rights, by Jacob Sullum, at reason.com. Should the lawyer who advised Lois Lerner to plead the fifth  face disciplinary action?

What The Syrian Civil War Is Really All About,by Peter Nealen, at sofrep.com. The guys at sofrep always give you the unvarnished truth. Excerpt from the article, The war isn’t between Assad and a bunch of democracy-loving rebels. It’s between…those who espouse a strict militant form of Shi’a Islam…and those who desire a strict militant form of Sunni Islam….

Senate Banking Committee Staff Monitoring Bitcoin, at economicpolicyjournal.com. Government and bureaucracies will always try to stop anyone or any idea that threatens their power. The IRS bullying tactics reveals the standard operating  procedure by the anointed. I guess bullying is only cool when they do it.

David Stockman: “The Error Of Central Banking Has Become Universal” , at zerohedge.com. Stockman interviewed by Rick Santelli, here is a quote, “…today the market is entirely rigged…it’s not honest…” Stockman doesn’t pull any punches.