Category Archives: Liberty
Trump and Huckabee Out…Who's Next?
Good news! Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is out of consideration for the Republican nomination in 2012. Now, Donald Trump has decided not to run either.
Trump said:
“This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country,” Trump said. “I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election. I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”
Well, the only thing that would make this news sweeter is Newt Gingrich withdrawing from the race. In my eyes, Gingrich completely ruined himself after blasting Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisc.) Medicare plan as being “right-wing social engineering.” In the Wall Street Journal article, Gingrich mentioned that many in the Republican party are not comfortable by mandating health insurance and that it should be up to the state to mandate such coverage. There are also other decisions that could damage Gingrich in his bid towards the nomination.
I’ll let this voter echo my sentiment.
While I am glad that Trump and Huckabee are out of the running, I will be even more excited when Gingrich leaves the race and we get a strong principled candidate running in 2012.
Statement on Ken Cuccinelli regarding Virginia's Challenge to ObamaCare
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard Virginia’s challenge to the federal health care act today in Richmond. The three-judge panel, which was randomly selected, included two Obama appointees, James A. Wynn, Jr. and Andre M. Davis, and one Clinton appointee, Diana Gribbon Motz, could decide the fate of this appeal. Whether the appeal is sustained or overturned, this case will likely be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The audio from today’s hearings can be heard here.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made the following statement regarding today’s hearing:
Today we took Step Two in a three-step process. As Judge Motz noted, the legal questions raised today are questions that will be answered in another court in another time.
I am going to give you an overview of the case as a whole, then I will get to the specifics of today.
Virginia has argued that the mandate that every person must buy government-approved health insurance violates the Constitution. Using the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to force people to buy a product goes beyond Congress’s power. This is why I have said all along that this is about liberty, not health care.
The insurance mandate penalizes people for not engaging in commerce. In other words, you can get fined for doing nothing.
Virginia has also argued that the penalty the government wants to charge if you do not buy health insurance is not a tax. The government cannot start calling the penalty a tax to try to make it legal under Congress’s taxing authority. Congress and the president passed it as a penalty, not a tax; it works as a penalty, not as a tax.
The federal government argued in court today that it should have unlimited authority in your lives, including the authority to regulate – i.e. dictate – your decisions, not merely your actions. The questions from the panel today indicated the judges struggled with this unprecedented exercise of authority.
If we cross this constitutional line with health care now – where the government can force us to buy a private product and say it is for our own good – then we will have given the government the power to force us to buy other private products, such as cars, gym memberships, or even asparagus. The government’s power to intrude on our lives for our own good will be virtually unlimited.
Virginia is fighting for the system of limited government created by our Founding Fathers. The Constitution’s limitations on federal power mean something. Even the president and the Congress must act within the rules set forth in the Constitution. That separates the American experience from many other countries, and it is a principle worth fighting for. As attorney general of Virginia, I took an oath to protect the Constitution, and I’m keeping that oath.
You heard about standing today. The federal government thinks it can tell the states to disregard their own laws – like it is doing with Arizona, but then also says the states do not have the same right to challenge federal laws in court. That is not how our system of government is set up. The founders set it up so the states were a check on potentially overreaching federal authority.
Virginia has a law – passed on a strong bipartisan basis – to protect Virginians from an individual insurance mandate. We are in the Fourth Circuit today because the U.S. Supreme Court has said that every state may defend its code of laws. In addition to protecting the U.S. Constitution, today we are also fighting to protect Virginia’s Health Care Freedom Act.
I have said all along that this lawsuit is not about health care. It is about liberty. At the same time, I understand that people want more affordable health care, and I sympathize with people who honestly cannot afford it. As a state senator, that was a problem I tried to address by trying to pass a law to allow our citizens to buy better or cheaper plans in other states.
But as someone who has sworn to uphold the law, I cannot endorse taking away the rights of all so that government can provide health care to some.
Yes, parts of our health care system need to be fixed. Yes, expenses are out of control. Yes, not everyone’s needs are being met. But there are better solutions than giving up our freedom.
With this ongoing court battle, there is a great deal of uncertainty for states, individuals, and businesses as to whether this law will be around two years from now or not. We need this resolved as quickly as possible – for the good of our people and our economy. We want to know where Virginia and the nation stand as soon as possible and before billions are spent complying with a law that we clearly think is unconstitutional.
We hope to hear from the Fourth Circuit sometime this summer. Then, we hope to move on to the Supreme Court.
Kudos to Attorney General Cuccinelli for standing up for our constitutional liberties. The federal health care act is unconstitutional, as people should be allowed the right to choose whether or not they want or need health care coverage. This law also places immense strain on small business owners, who are often fledgling to make payroll, etc.
Federalist Paper 1- Self Interest and the Prisoners Dilemma
Hamilton might have been served well to argue that all voters regardless of vocation or lot should pursue their long-term interest during ratification. He could have made a strong Lockean argument to the majority of eligible American voters that the American Constitution is merely a written social contract. The social contract would serve and protect the voters from both physical and financial security threats. This could be done by policies such as centralizing some of the governmental duties like national security and paying off the national debt. Since the majority of American voters were not directly profiting from the Articles of Confederation through contracts or by holding positions, a mere minority of voters would be voting against ratification because of direct personal conflict with the American Constitution. Once the insistence to pursue personal interest is made to those conflicted, arguments can be made for the American Constitution little demagoguery.
Some may push this objectivist argument down a slippery slope and ask what would happen if the loyalist to the Articles of Confederation pursued a policy of governmental hiring. What if government officers who were employed under the Articles of Confederation had started contracting or hiring voters who were undecided about ratification. What if this hiring extended to a point where more voters were employed by the Articles of Confederation than could possibly be employed by the new American Constitution. Would the argument of voting for self- interest still hold?
An objectivist would say the argument still holds if the voters are pursuing long-term outcomes with their vote. One could quickly demonstrate this idea by using game theory. The objectivist would argue that undecided voters would be given four possible options in this scenario:
- Not accept non-essential contract or employment under the Articles of Confederation and vote against ratification of the American Constitution.
- Accept non-essential contract or employment under the Articles of Confederation and vote for ratification of the American Constitution.
- Vote for ratification of the American Constitution and accept non-essential contract or employment under the American Constitution.
- Vote for ratification of the American Constitution and not accept non-essential contract or employment under the American Constitution.
Each of these options would provide varying levels of assurance and benefit to a voter face with the conundrum of being offered a non-essential contract by either government documented and asked to vote on ratification. The objectivist would argue that the first option would appeal to a voter who truly believed in the strength and long term benefit of the Articles of Confederation but do not want to burden the government with excessive non –essential expenditures. The objectivist would argue option D would appeal to voters who truly believe in the strength and long-term benefit of the American Constitution but do want to burden the government with excessive non-essential expenditures. A caution would be brought up, however, for individuals who fit into option B and option C.
The objectivist would argue that any person who is willing to accept non-essential contract from these documented governments is betting that they can make a short term gain off of government revenue while hoping that the government can financially sustain itself during their career. These individuals are betting that only a small portion of people are willing to accept non-essential government contracts because they know if too many people take advantage of this short term benefit, the government will not be able to raise the needed revenue to fund all contracts. This type of argument would expose the individuals to the full long-term affects of their vote and ultimately force the people not to accept option B or C leaving option A and D to be the only acceptable votes. A full debate can then be made on the accolades of the Articles of Confederation versus the American Constitution.
Pessimist might question whether a society can posses enlighten voters who understand the full long-term affects of this type of decision? An objectivist would argue that rational decisions always win out in the long term.
Packing Your Child's Lunch…think again
Would you want a school principal to determine which lunch option is better for your child? Just think about it for a second. You are the parent, and you prepare food for your child on a daily basis, meals that are nutritious for the most part. You send your child to school with a packed lunch, only for a school administrator to make the child throw the lunch away for one that is made by the school.
This situation is one that many parents are facing in Chicago, Ill., as schools are forcing children to eat their lunches. These lunches are often unappealing, as the Chicago Tribune points out, but this is not the point I am trying to get to here. A school administrator actually thinks that she can determine what is better in terms of nutrition for children, not their parents. Many school lunches are loaded with preservatives and sodium, which does not bode well for nutritional quality. The other point that is often ignored is how much will the school cafeteria benefit from such a decision. In Chicago, the company that services school lunches will receive financial benefit from such a decision and create a monopoly of sorts.
While you may or may not disagree with the decision in Chicago, this should pose a question: How would you feel if you were told how to raise your child? It is not the responsibility of the government or the school system. It is the parent’s responsibility on how they raise and feed their child.
Cross posted at Bearing Drift
Sen. Rand Paul Smacks Down the Nanny State
It’s always refreshing to see another Paul…this time in the U.S. Senate, fighting for the people against nanny state regulations.
Frederic Bastiat’s The Law- Theory of Governmental Regression
The 1998 Foundation for Economic Education republication of Fredrick Bastiat’s classic, The Law, creates a powerful diagram of government duties and how quickly those duties can degenerate. Bastiat believes the only duty of the government is to protect liberty though means of justice. He believes that government’s duty is to “defend [individuals] person, his liberty and his property”. (p. 2) Fatal tendencies of mankind, however, lead the government to plunder property (redistribute property) for legal (p. 17) or philanthropic reasons (p. 27). Increased plundering leads to a degeneration of government from protectionism to communist (p. 23) and creates a governmental god complex where legislators believe they can micromanage society. This god complex allows politicians to rationalize plundering as creating more utility thus allowing politician to believe they know what is better for an individual than the individual. The continued growing of the god complex ultimately leads to a government that micromanages all parts of society and takes away all free will.
The most astute revelation Bastiat realizes in his book is the life cycle of government and the continued degeneration of any ruling entity. While he uses an Aristotelian format, he particular focuses on the degeneration of representative democracies. He believes that most government start with the inception of protectionist policies which ensure the freedom of individuals, but as redistributive policies increase, individuals lose their freedom because the individual loses the rights to the products of their labor. One might ask Bastiat what part of the life cycle contemporary United States is in right now and he would point to the language of our politicians.
Bastiat would cite the increased use of the term “worker” instead of “employee” in popular lexicon and compare this with a parallel regression of contextual free will by individuals in the United States. If one looks at the 1973 edition of The Random House’s College dictionary, one finds the stark difference in context of the two terms. Bastiat would cite the dictionary definition of “Employee” as “a person working for another person or a business firm for pay” (p. 434). In this connotation, the employee retains sovereignty from the employer and works in a contractual sense to receive payment. The employee can then use that payment to buy things he or she finds as important. Bastiat would then cite the term “worker” as “a person or thing that works” (p. 1517) The connotation of this word places people and lifeless objects on equal footing thus making the worker subservient to a greater power. This loss of free will as indicated by contemporary lexicon is a lagging indicator on how the legislators and media view the individual.
One might question Bastiat regarding contextual sense of language. How can the use of a word lead to the loss of individual free will? Bastiat would argue that language does not precipitate the loss of free will, but reinforces the loss of free will. If one follows Bastiat’s regression of government, one believes there will be a continual loss of liberty and thus free will after any government’s inception. Language is merely the popular acceptance of this reality. One might then ask how Bastiat would suggest increasing liberty to the individual. Bastiat would argue that the mere recognition of individuals as employees instead of workers would go a long way toward restoring individual freedom and free will.
The Must-See Movie of 2011
I can’t wait until April 15th. No, not because it’s Tax Day (a day I would rather see eliminated), but Atlas Shrugged will be out in theaters. I can’t wait to watch this movie, and if it is as good as the book, we are all in for a treat.
Ted Nugent on the 2nd Amendment
Ted Nugent rocks! Listen to his recent interview on the 2nd Amendment.
Congress to Open with Reading of the Constitution
The Washington Times reports that the 112th Congress will commence with a reading of the U.S. Constitution. This is great news, as it reminds Congress of the principles of limited government.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) proposed the reading:
“It stems from the debate that we’ve had for the last two years about things like the exercise of authority in a whole host of different areas by the EPA, we’ve had this debate in relation to the health care bill, the cap-and-trade legislation,” said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, who proposed the reading. “This Congress has been very aggressive in expanding the power of the federal government, and there’s been a big backlash to that.”
This is a good move on behalf of the new majority in Congress. Hopefully, they will not stray from these principles.
