States Check the Federal Coinage Power

It seems that there are two sections in the constitution split between the federal and state governments – the power over currency. The federal government has the power to coin money and regulate the value of which seems to give it wide latitude over what it says a dollar is worth.

Under this power, it can say a dollar is worth so many barrels of oil, ounces of silver, pounds of cabbage, or nothing at all (fiat money). This begs the question: why would the writers of the constitution allow so much leeway over the nation’s currency when they themselves valued hard money?

The writers of the constitution decided to use the sovereign power of the states to keep the federal government in check by only allowing gold or silver currency to be used within their own borders.


May the Tenth Amendment be With You

“I hate the empire but there is nothing I can do about it”, said young Luke Skywalker as he felt the pessimism of realizing that one person can’t possibly defeat something as large and powerful as the evil galactic empire. I suppose that is how we all feel at times when dealing with our own empire known as the federal government. The villains of our story has spent years building up an indestructible bureaucracy that no one person can defeat. This was what Luke Skywalker realized and was content to live under the empire’s rule and it is probably what a lot of us seem to think at times especially with the passage of the health care bill.

Life imitates art because it embodies our hopes and dreams which is why the most popular artistic creations always allows people to express what they are thinking. This must explain why Star Wars has been one of the most popular movies of all time because it is a story about people oppressed by a powerful government. This piece of art must have tapped into a feeling that we have which is that there is some kind of evil empire trying to take over our lives.


State Nullification of the Federal Budget

The word nullify has been used for every act of congress that is objectionable on the grounds that it is unconstitutional but yet we dare not to use this word for the federal budget. Why? Budgets are nothing more than laws–laws that direct how federal money is to be spent and this law can be nullified much more easily than any other act of congress.

The reason for this is that every dollar spent is spent in a sovereign state to purchase property for the use of the federal agencies. When that property is used for a unconstitutional purpose or if that expenditure creates a unbalanced budged then the state can use its power of eminent domain to confiscate it which effectively nullifies that expenditure (and the law that property is to help enforce) in that state’s jurisdiction.


Good Morning American Citizen…

“Good Morning Dave…” This was the cold voice of a machine that went insane and killed everyone in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It terrified the audience because the audience knew that the computer was now in control of the ship and they were at its mercy. The crew lost control because the machine was no longer bound by the crew’s own programming. The machine started to write its own program as it wanted and ignored the crew’s own instructions.

The classical liberal view of the law is that it was like a computer program and the government is like the computer that runs the program. This allowed the people to remain in control of the machinary of the state as long as the government executed the law precisely as the people instructed it to.


Government Haters versus Government Lovers

Everytime I hear someone on the left speak its always ‘they hate government’ as if loving government was a virtue that makes us humane people and not loving it makes it seem like a psychological character flaw. It seems that loving government is mandatory for the left. The reason for this is that the left sees government as a caretaker of society much like a benevolent parent takes care of their children and only ungrateful children would treat it with disrespect.

This is the relationship the left has with government in that it has to care about them in the same way a child demands the parent takes care of them. Children are very demanding and they will hand over whatever power they have to the parent in order for its needs to be taken care of simply because the child has no choice. It’s not until the child gets older and has the ability to take care of themselves that it begins to rebel against the authority of its parents. This is why the leftist keep telling us that we can’t survive without government because that dependence maintains the infantile state in which we surrender our freedom to it. Perpetual childhood is where the authoritarians want to keep us in because children don’t have the power to disobey.


I Think Therefore I am Free to Choose for Myself

Descartes was the French philosopher who thought of the saying “I think, therefore I am”. This simple slogan by a Frenchmen has been ridiculed in our modern age but not everything the French did was bad (yes I am being serious). It actually began the age of reason from which ideas of human individualism emerged.

He was one of the first people to tell people that if you do not understand an idea of another person then you have no right to believe it. He wasn’t saying don’t think but rather to rely on your own internal comprehension as the only comprehension because your thinking is the only thinking that defines your conscious existence. I THINK, THEREFORE I AM


The Power to Purchase Happy Meals, Guns, and Drugs

There has been a growing list of things that you can not sell in each of the fifty states. In California you can not sell light bulbs or the American favorite happy meals. Every time they limit what can be sold we seem to lose a little bit more freedom in the choices we can make because limiting what can be sold limits what can be owned. We can not sell guns therefore we can not own them. Its only logical because in order to own something it has to be given to you by someone else thus limiting what can be sold limits what can be owned.

We can not own guns, illicit substances of any variety, happy meals, light bulbs, and the result is a loss of freedom. Our free will to live our lives the way we want is hindered because much of our life revolves around economics. Our desire to use a gun can only be fulfilled when we own a gun which can only be possible when someone can sell it to us. It seems that our freedom to do something is only possible when we have the freedom to dispose of our property the way we wish.

It’s definitely not a coincidence that people who wish to control our lives do so by controlling what we buy and sell to one another.


Can the Tenth Amendment Unite Libertarians and Conservatives?

As I watch the blog wars between libertarians and conservatives I wonder if the tenth amendment can be the great unifier between these two political siblings. I say that these groups are political siblings because both belong on the same family tree. They both believe in limited government, property rights, and many other classical liberal ideas. This makes them related to each other much more than with modern liberals but the differences between the groups seems to have the power to break them up. Those differences are usually over social values.

Libertarians tend to believe a person’s social and moral values are an individual choice (this is my personal view as well) while conservatives believe they are a collective choice. Modern conservatives (as well as progressives) have taken away the moral choice over someone’s lives away from the individual and into the collective where each person sacrifices their own individual decision making power to the collective. This view is an affront to individual liberty but its going to be difficult to undo the feeling of wanting to purify the world from them.


Left Wing Nationalism

Historicism, as this humble author understands it, is the belief that nations advance along a pre-selected historical timeline towards there eventual end. It assumes that each nation is locked into its path to its endpoint and that there is nothing anyone can do about it which is why we are constantly told by the far left that no person can have any idea outside a society’s own unique culture. Any thought an individual had simply did not originate from their own minds but from society’s own collective thought pool and the particular period in which we are suppose to be deriving those thoughts from are always the tiny segment on the historical timeline in which we happen to exist on in the present. It establishes that we are powerless to think anything other than what the historical moment dictates.

The natural result is that our thinking naturally evolves to a more perfect state as history moves forward. The eventual end was what that society was always advancing towards which was its own perfection but since each society has its own historicist timeline then each nation is advancing towards its version of perfection. This establishes an almost religious way of thinking within that society in that it establishes that there is a perfection that exists within that society and that good and evil is always defined as how close a person is to that end. This is why conservatism is linked to all of our nation’s evils while progressivism (liberals) is linked with those undoing those evils. They see themselves as undoing the old which is always evil and ushering in the new which is always the good since it brings our nation closer to its eventual end in which our society will reach perfection.