Government Controls the Past, Government Controls the Future

There is always some danger in handing control over to government; for once control of anything is handed to the government, it can and probably will be used for other purposes other than the originally intended goal. I want to touch of the problem of handing control of the education to government and using schools for government agendas.

Yesterday, I blamed my lack of knowledge about the tenth Amendment on the public school system. I believe that schools not emphasizing the importance of pitting the thirst for power between the states and the federal government to balance power might be a result of historical editing. I’m assuming the idea behind this omission was to avoid another Civil War; by leaving out the issue of states having self governance, the Civil War became only about slavery.

Schools have been used to promote political agendas by all sides in politics. These two videos, one from the left and one from the right, make a strong argument for taking control away from government and privatizing schools. As long as the power to decide which textbook to teach from, or what goes into a textbook, rests with those with political interests, textbooks will be used to promote political ideology. (continues after videos)

FoxNews on Biased Textbooks

The Young Turks on Biased Textbooks

From George Orwell’s 1984: If all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.

To put it another way: when government controls the past, the government controls the future.

Unless you are well-off, you have to move to a school district where the majority views match those you want for your children. Why not just allow private competition between schools or school vouchers? If there was competition among schools, you could just move your kids to another school rather than having to move everything you own.

10th Amendment: Might Does Not Make Right

Virginia And 34 Other States To Block HealthCare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUYY4RB3YA4

The three cases mentioned in the video from Wikipedia: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a “gun-free zone” on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it.
In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) Obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.
In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

What I’ve gathered from this is:

When the federal government passes a law, they can’t force states to enforce their laws.
The federal government can punish states that refuse to enforce federal laws by withholding federal funds.
The federal government can act directly and enforce the law themselves if the state refuses, as in Gonzales v. Raich.

Gonzales v. Raich(2005). In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one’s own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn’t grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.

In my public education, I was never taught about the tenth Amendment. The education I received left me with the impression that Federal law always supersedes state law. I guess they didn’t see the need to teach about something that has, for the most part, been ignored.

I do remember something about the Civil War starting out over some similar issues. The Civil War settled the issues of slavery and which was the most powerful–federal or state government. It left me with the false impression that because the federal government always wins, they must always be right.

In the video, Robert Marshall said “this is a forced contract.” In any other aspect of your life, were someone to force you to sign a contract or go to jail, it would be easy to distinguish that might does not make it right. The forced aspect of the healthcare bill has made it clear to me the federal government is not always in the right, and that’s why there is a tenth amendment.

10th Amendment: Might Does Not Make Right

Virginia And 34 Other States To Block HealthCare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUYY4RB3YA4

The three cases mentioned in the video from Wikipedia: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a “gun-free zone” on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it.
In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) Obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.
In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

What I’ve gathered from this is:

When the federal government passes a law, they can’t force states to enforce their laws.
The federal government can punish states that refuse to enforce federal laws by withholding federal funds.
The federal government can act directly and enforce the law themselves if the state refuses, as in Gonzales v. Raich.

Gonzales v. Raich(2005). In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one’s own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn’t grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.

HealthCare Reform: Going into Details, People Would Support Slavery

Jake Tapper of This Week interview David Axelrod about the healthcare bill.

This bill is important to the American people, Jake, and when you get underneath the numbers and you ask people, do you support giving people more leverage against insurance companies so that they — if they have preexisting conditions, they can get coverage, so if they get sick, they don’t get thrown off, so they don’t have these huge premium increases of the sort we’ve just seen announced in states around the country, they say yes.

But again, when you go underneath, they support the elements of the plan. When you ask them, does the health care system need reform, three quarters of them say yes. When you ask them, do you want Congress to move forward and deal with this issue, three quarters of them say yes. So we’re not going to walk away from this issue.

David Axelrod’s arguement is most people are in favor of the details in the bill, therefore it is a good idea. One detail Axelrod left out–the majority of people are opposed to making health insurance mandatory. Leaving out the “mandatory” part is no small detail to be ignored, and here is why:

If polled most Americans would probably answer yes to all these question.

Would you like the cost of food and clothing to go down?
Would you like the cost of your housing to never go up?
Do you want to prevent people from ever going homeless?
Would you like not having to struggle to make ends meet?
Would you like to live in a country that was more organized?
Do you want congress to take action to make your life simpler?
Are you in favor of the federal government regulating work place rules?

Using the same rational as David Axelrod: If you leave out the detail of losing your freedom, we can conclude most people are really in favor of slavery.

Four Beheaded in the War on Drugs

(Reuters) -Thirteen killed in crime wave at Mexico’s Acapulco

Thirteen people were killed in and around the Mexican beach resort of Acapulco early on Saturday in apparent drug-related violence, with four victims found beheaded, security officials said. WORLD Five of those killed were police officers whose night-time patrol was attacked by gunmen on the outskirts of Acapulco, a Pacific Ocean resort popular with tourists, the security officials said in a statement. The bullet-riddled bodies of eight other men were discovered in different areas around Acapulco, and four of them had been beheaded, the officials added.

One of the reasons alcohol prohibition was repealed in the US was the public became fed up with stories just like this. How many more innocent people must die before we learn the same lesson: that drug prohibition does not decrease addiction or crime? The reason for drug prohibition was to protect innocent lives, and yet here again drug prohibition results in the murder of innocent people.

Just as banning pizza would not cause the nation to loose weight because there would still be plenty of other ways to get fat, ending drug prohibition will not lead to an increase in addicts. It will just give those with addiction problems more ways to destroy their lives. Those seeking to escape from reality will always find something that isn’t in their best interest to fulfill their desire. There has been, and always will be, a certain percent of the population that has a propensity to become addicted to something.

There are people who do not touch alcohol even though its legal, because they see it as a harm to their lives. These same people won’t be rushing out to buy illicit drugs once they become legal. If drug prohibition were ended, there are those that would prefer one addictive drug to another. They would switch from alcohol to a drug, but the number of addicts would basically stay the same.

How many more murders does it take to see the cure is worse than the disease?

Better HeathCare Analogies: Coal Miners and Salt

In the health care debate one of the most common analogies has been to compare mandatory health insurance with auto insurance. I want to throw in a couple more analogies to mandatory health care debate as food for thought. Coal miners forced to purchase from company stores and French citizens forced to buy salt.

Where the health insurance to auto insurance analogy matches up:

Its insurance.
Its mandatory.

Where mandatory auto and health insurance analogy do not match:

Not everyone is required to have auto insurance.
States mandate auto insurance, not the federal government.
Auto insurance is there to protect harm done to individuals.
Mandatory health insurance protects profits of the health care industry.

Another analogy to mandatory health insurance can be found in the early days of coal mining, where miners were forced to purchase from the company store.

Coal Miners analogy matches the health care proposal in:

Mandatory purchasing from selected stores and products.
Mandatory purchasing increases corporate profits.

Where Coal Miners analogy doesn’t match:

Everything miners needed to sustain themselves–food, medicine, clothing and shelter–was a mandatory purchase from the company, with the exception of health insurance.
The miners had the option of leaving the company town and seeking employment elsewhere.

A better analogy can be made between mandatory health insurance and Gabelle: the French Salt Tax. Prior to the French Revolution, the government mandated everyone above the age of eight years to purchase a weekly minimum amount of salt at a fixed price.

From The History News Network: Will a 2nd American Revolution be French?

There were a slew of other taxes as well, some of them quite creative. For example, there was a salt monopoly tax by which everyone over the age of 7 (as I remember) was required to purchase several lbs of highly-inferior government salt each and every year. The law also proscribed how the salt could be used and imposed heavy fines for misuse, such as in preservation of meat.

French Salt Tax matches mandatory healthcare:

Everyone required to purchase.
Mandatory amount to purchase.
Doesn’t matter if you can afford to buy either.
Protects profits of the industry.

Where the Salt Tax analogy doesn’t match mandatory healthcare insurance:

It’s salt!

Utopianism: There is no Panacea for all of Life’s Imperfections

Political debate today seems to be centered around discussions of utopianism.

The ideals or principles of a utopian; idealistic and impractical social theory.

Just about any issue of the day turns into a complete debate about political or economic systems. The debates usually run along the lines of “that is a theory straight from political system X, it won’t solve problem Y, but political system Z can fix this problem.” The rebuttal runs along the lines of “we all know political system Z has been a complete failure, and has been rejected by every thinking person.”

The part consistently left out in the utopia debate is all political systems have trade offs. Each person in the debate has done their own cost-benefit analysis of political systems and has chosen one. There are a host of factors that play into the deciding which political or economic system a person believes will work best.

It’s a delusion that there is a political or economic panacea for all of life’s imperfections. Unfortunately, the popular belief “if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything” is not true. You have to believe a goal is possible in order to achieve a goal; but the reverse is not true–believing something is possible doesn’t make it possible.

Pardon the sarcasm to further the point–if I put my mind to it, I will wipe out poverty this morning, end all all wars this afternoon and if I still have enough energy left, I’ll fix stupid before going to bed. If you put your mind to it you can accomplish solvable problems, but believing every problem can be solved in your lifetime is a bit grandiose.

Putting utopianism arguments aside, I’m in favor of limited government and as much freedom as possible, but I don’t believe it will solve all of life’s problems. It’s not reasonable to expect freedom will solve all problems. However, the cost-benefit analysis I’ve done is tells me the perils of living as free as possible scare me less than any alternative. Someone else put it much better:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. – Thomas Jefferson

I know its not perfect, but I’d rather try my hand at my own flawed micro-utopia rather than trusting others to create a utopia for me.

Peter Schiff: “Irresponsible not to be Irresponsible”

Peter Schiff on State Bailouts and the National Debt

Peter Schiff explains the dangers of the federal government bailing out individual states.

If the federal government starts bailing out states, a state would be irresponsible not to be irresponsible. After all, why would you? Just cut taxes and increase spending, because you’re going to get the money from congress, from upstate. And if you’re the one state thats being fiscally responsible, then you’re going be to footing the bill for all the states that aren’t.

The states probably will be bailed out by the federal government. I fear we are entering the decade of irresponsible not to be irresponsible. As we’ve seen in the banking and auto industry and Wall St. bailouts, being irresponsible pays fairly well.

Years ago there was a musical called How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. An updated remake could be titled “How to Succeed in Business by Royally Screwing Up.” The story of a window cleaner who purposely hurts himself on the job to get a desk job, and ends up becoming the president of the company. Once president, the former window cleaner could apply the same skills that got him to the top of the company by acquiring huge amounts of debt to eventually get a governmental bailout.

I’ll get started writing the new musical as soon as I can find a government grant for writers. The plan is to never finish writing the musical, because that would defeat the whole purpose by completing the work. It would be irresponsible not to be irresponsible.

Manners Should not be an Issue of Law

Supreme Court Considers Westboro Baptist Church Protest Of Military Funerals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDAyhA4qc4E

Some people try to make a distinction between free speech and hurtful speech. It’s still a matter of popular speech vs. unpopular speech, because the majority are the ones deciding if speech is hateful or not. This is clearly what happened in states where the Westboro Baptist Church was banned from protesting at funerals, while the majority was free to say hurtful things about the Westboro Church.

Unpopular speech is what the first amendment is there to protect, because popular speech is self-protecting. Imagine if DC ever tried to ban something as popular as the Bible, there would be a heavily armed group of millions on their steps the next day.

The less popular a view is, the more likely it is someone will try (and succeed) in having it banned. The core moral value of free speech protection is in protecting speech the majority finds repugnant. For free speech to have any real value, it has to include unpopular speech.

If you take their money, you have to take their crap

There is a rule all of us know, but aren’t always consciously aware of: if you take their money, you have to take their crap. This is just how society works; it’s not written into law, but most us live by the principal every day without giving it much thought.

If you’ve ever asked a friend or relative for money, then you probably already know the rule. You may get the money, but with strings. “OK, here is the money, but I’ll expect to see you at the family gathering you usually avoid.” Or maybe even worse, “Here is the money, but I’d really appreciate it if you would return the favor and rub my foot corns.”

Sometimes the money comes with much larger strings attached. Taking money from someone else can lead to the person giving the money running your life. “Here is the money, but I’ll expect you to – stop smoking, go back to school, lose the facial piercings, start going to church, etc.”

Working for a living means you’ll take crap from your employer because they pay you. If you work the cash register or take payments at your job, you take crap from the customer. Even if you are self-employed, whoever you take money from has the unspoken authority to give you crap about your product or service.

Those who know the crap rule were not surprised to see the government complain about bonuses paid in the banks and auto industry. If you take money from the government, then it’s safe bet you’ll have to take some crap from them. The reverse of this is also true: politicians can expect to take crap from those who donate large amounts to their campaigns.

The rule works both ways most of the time – If you hand money to someone else, they have to take your crap. If you are at a restaurant and don’t like the service or food, you can freely complain or refuse to give a tip. If the service is lousy, you can threaten to take your business elsewhere.

There are some people who take your money and instead give you crap. Doctors, mechanics, and PC technicians have been known to take your money for service and turn around and give you crap about poor maintenance. People who ignore the unspoken crap rule do so at their own peril, because you can go and find someone else to take your money who will not give you grief.

In all the above examples, the person taking the money does a cost-benefit analysis. Is the crap I have to take for the money worth it? We all have our own crap-to-money calculations. As long we have some say in deciding how much crap we are willing to put up with, we usually play along. The crap rule is far from perfect, but at least it gives each person involved some limited control of the transaction.

The one area where the crap rule does not apply at all is between an individual and government. The rule here is that the government takes your money and gives you crap and you have no control. Government doesn’t have to play by the crap rule, because they have the power to take money from you without your consent.

Government takes money from you and then turns around and tells you you’re are too fat, greedy, lazy, stupid, ignorant, addicted, selfish, impatient, pampered, intolerant, unhealthy, unloving, fiscally irresponsible and to top it off, you complain too much. All these may be true; the point is, it’s a violation of the crap rule for the one who takes the money to give you crap!

When looking at government through the crap lens, it should come as no surprise that people are angry and fed up with governments in general. The little control we have in our daily lives is nonexistent when dealing with government. The natural rule of refusing to pay or seek service elsewhere just doesn’t apply when it comes to government, and that really is a load of crap.