“Give good people the power to do good and that power eventually will be in the hands of bad people to do bad.”Details
Back in March, the town of Sedgwick, Maine courageously voted to nullify certain unconstituional federal regulations dealing with local food production. The ordinance was passed in response to S.510, the odious Food Safety and Modernization Act, written by agricorps like Monsanto to put their smaller competitors out of business, and passed by Congress under the cover…Details
In an earlier article for this website I’ve written about the non-coercion principle and how it is connected to individual liberty and morality itself. I laid out the reasons why moral rules that we hold dear are really products of individual liberty by using the imagery from Lord of the Rings. It was a little fun but I was not attempting to belittle the reader’s intelligence but to illustrate that the cause of all evil is the violation of the non-coercion principle which really is an assumption of power over other people.
Think of the worst act a human being can do to another which is rape. This is a crime in every culture but the difference between rape and sex is the non-coercion principle. Sex is a voluntary act between two willing people but rape is an involuntary act. The physical act does not change itself since it is intercourse as defined by medicine but the difference is free-will. Two people who engage in sex have free-will and each other’s consent to do it but rape is an absence of consent of one person. What made it a moral crime against another person was not the act itself since the act is essentially the same in both situations but more an absence of free-will. The absence of free-will made it an act of evil since there was none.
Not only does this rule apply to that situation but it also applies in all other situations where human beings interact with each other. The act of theft is no different than the act of trade since it involves the movement of one person’s property to another. The only difference is the absence of free-will. A person who exchanges their property with another does so freely of their own free-will. They may do this for charitable reasons or to get something that someone else has but whatever the reason is it is always done in accordance with their free-will.Details
In the field of Economics there is a term commonly used to express the sheer hopelessness of our current predicament, it’s “Keynesian Endpoint.” Supposedly, this is the point where our society is so deeply in debt that any amount of further borrowing to “stimulate” only causes counter-stimulative effects. That is, borrowing 50 billion more to…Details
These are the first words that a two year old tells their parents and is the beginning of that person asserting their authority over themselves. The parent then stunts that first ideas of free-will that child might have by saying something akin to ‘don’t talk back to me’. This naturally stops the child from asking any questions over the parent’s decisions and authority over the child. The child then continues to obey until they reach a much older age of the teenage years and the question of ‘why not’ begins to be heard more loudly than before and eventually the child gains equal authority with their parents when they reach adulthood.
What if that child never asked ‘why not’? That child would then grow up to be obedient to there parent’s will and to the will of anyone else since they never ask ‘why not’ to anyone. The right to question others is not only beneficial to obtaining truth but also in establishing equality between two people because the decision someone makes for someone else must pass mustard which can only happen people ask why.Details
I’m sure most people remember how free they felt the day the left home and lived on their own. At first it might have seemed a bit scary because you had to pay bills and survive independently of your parents but after a while you felt a new sense of freedom in your own life. You may not have realized this but what you did is that you have freed yourself from the paternal power of your parents.
The paternal power that your parents had was well established since you were born because they had to take care of you. While they were taking care of you you were dependent on them and this gave your parents a sense of power over your being. This is why your parents believe they have a right to control what you do with your life while they are taking care of you and the expression ‘under my house…blah…blah…blah’ exist.
The one thing that many political philosophers such as John Locke were dealing with at the time was the paternal power of the state. Monarchs were not magistrates who executed the law but seen as parents who assumed they had control over you in the same way a parent does over a child. The king was responsible for your welfare and survival which turned each citizen into a personal ward of the king. This established the same relationship you had with your parents when you lived with them between the king and society.Details
Words mean things.
And context illuminates meaning.
Context not only includes other words within a given work, but also past and future writings of the authors, and the social and philosophical framework within which the work was produced.
The articles and sections of the Constitution mean things.
And context illuminates meaning.
Progressives view the Constitution as a living, breathing document. Barak Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope:
“Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”
In other words, the Constitution means – whatever you want it to mean.Details
The commerce clause is being used to by the federal government to regulate the economic aspect of our lives. It claims it has the right to establish laws that regulate how businesses conduct themselves. This is not correct because the commerce clause was always meant to break down trade barriers that states may attempt to impose onto each other.
Now lets assume, for the sake of argument, that the federal government’s interpretation is correct and look at one particular enumerated power which is the power to tax.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This gives congress two powers which are the power to lay taxes and the power to collect taxes. The power to lay taxes is the power to establish laws that demand citizens pay taxes while the power to collect taxes is the power to establish laws that actually do collect taxes. Without the power to collect taxes the federal government wouldn’t have the ability to collect them and under the tenth amendment that power would fall to the states.Details
Writes Bruce Fein: …If confirmed by the United States Senate, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will crown President Obama with “imperial” constitutional powers. Congress and Federal Courts will wither as checks against his presidential usurpations or abuses whenever war or other national security claims are bugled over Iran, North Korea, Yemen, international terrorism, economic adversity,…Details