Category: policy

“There ought to be a Law”. Think before you suggest.

The Constitution is a living document, which must be interpreted in accordance with the times to remain relevant. This is the continual drone of Washington’s political elite. This phrase is championed by Democratic Party nominated activist judges as well as those activist judges are nominated by RHINOS.  Lest anyone doubt, the constitution has a method for updating its language, built in.  It is the amendment process. It is difficult to accomplish since it requires super majorities. This was done precisely so that the latest fad can’t change the balance of power  and remove natural right.

It is a shame the judiciary has been permitted to distort the federal system.  Stare Decisis has been used to make permanent this judicial activism.  Courts bypass the enumerated powers limitation by citing the public welfare clause or misusing the interstate commerce clause sometimes for a good cause., but bad law even when well intended leads to future unintended consequences.  One need only read some of the cases applying the Civil Rights Act to private clubs to see the intellectual jujitsus employed by the Court  to reach a desired result. Ketchup moving through interstate commerce as a basis for utilizing the Interstate Commerce Clause, Really?  What’s next penumbra’s of amendments? Oh, that’s been done too. See Roe vs Wade.

The next time you hear “there ought to be a law, you should ask; is the proposed law a legitimate exercise of the power of the federal government or of any government?

Does any proposed law, fall under an enumerated federal power?  Does it violate any guaranteed personal freedoms. If it is a safety or educational issue, is it better addressed by a government closer to the people?

Yes, government is a use of force and as such must be used sparingly. If you use it continually, then you risk mob rule or tyranny of the majority. Tyranny isn’t limited to single dictators!

States joined together to form our union.  Our Founders believed the states that formed the federal government were closer to the people and should wield governmental authority unless it is given to the national government by a listed power.

Federal power is limited. Witness the 10th amendment. If federal power is interpreted too broadly, the tenth amendment is meaningless and the Constitutional intent is defeated.  If you want a more powerful federal government, secure enough support to amend the document.  It has been done.

So the moral of the story is; think before you say, “ there ought to be a law”.

If you are a liberal, a conservative; how will you feel, when your adversary controls government and wields that same power in a manner you believe damages you or limits your individual freedoms? Before you bellow “ there ought to be a law “, ask critical questions.

If you feel there is no power enumerated for your law and is there enough consensus, then do the right thing, amend the constitution?  If there is not enough popular clamor to amend, enjoy your God given, natural rights or use your liberty to be the change in your area, you want. Persuasion and private action may better serve your cause rather than the use of government force.

Tolerance versus Celebration

Freedom of speech is not free in our society or any other society. Writing words, which are not in line with the latest public opinion is not done without risk. What about the first amendment guarantees, you ask? These are assurances that government won’t stop you from speaking. An individual who dares to write words, which are contrary to the popular public narrative, risks ridicule and sometimes worse, depending on whose ox is gored.

I promise this will be a shorter post than usual. What prompts my rant? TV viewing and friendship.

I happened to remark that lately I cannot turn on a popular network TV show without being assaulted by overt public displays of affection by fictional LGBTQ characters. I did not request this content, nor do I hear an outcry for it, yet it is now not only overt but ubiquitous. When I ask my liberal friend, if that person noticed, I was shown a sign, which stated I support love or something similar.

Let me end this quickly. I don’t care, who you love.  The LGBTQ population appears on the fringe of any population demographic data set. It is estimated that the entire grouping is 4.5% of the population. So why are LGBTQ sexual subplots ubiquitous in network programming?

First understand it is part of the LGBTQ groups’  attempt to mainstream their behavior. Many especially the bi coastal liberal elites and their allies in the Democratic Party, have decided tolerance (allowing the behavior to exist without societal sanction) is insufficient. You must join their crusade,accept and celebrate (proclaim as normal and push for societal acceptance) As such the allies have set out to characterize the fight of this group as a civil rights cause.

This crusade is different from the civil rights fights of yesteryear. This fight is about conduct which occurs behind closed doors and is well outside the societal norm. African Americans, Asians and other groups were discriminated against not because of their publicly displayed conduct, but based upon their ethnicity. An African American or Asian frequently could not disguise and should not have been asked or required to hide their ethnic features. Judgments about  individuals in these group were formed without any knowledge of their character and were solely based upon the observed physical, ethnic characteristics.

Do you inquire of  anyone before you hire: with whom are you having  sex? If you are selling them a product with few exceptions, do you even care? The answer in most instances is you don’t care and would never know.

What is being done here is social manipulation/engineering. Our society is being manipulated. What conduct is next to be assimilated? Multiple partner marirage or sex with children? How about sex with pets?  Sex within family?Can there no longer be any societal norms? Must every pronouncement of sexual expression now be accepted because it is about who you love?

The union between a man and woman is special because in many instances it leads to progeny, which regardless of the ravings of the Malthusians remains valuable to society. Both Europe and the US would be wise to take notice of the value of maintaining their populations.

While I am confident this post will be misrepresented as bigoted Homophobic, Xenophobic and small minded, I stand behind my premise  I will not discriminate against any individual, but don’t telI me I must accept any individual or group’s conduct that I find morally repugnant. I can have friends and business associates,, who practice conduct I don’t agree with, just don’t ask me to accept and promote their behavioral choices and don’t bombard me day after day with overt public story lines simulating their practices in public program content or I will discontinue consuming the offending content and I will encourage others to do the same!I will not accept that which I find to be morally objectionable.

So in closing allow me to say I do not fear the label of Bigot, Homophobe or whatever other degrading label the left may seek to place upon me,  I harbor no ill will toward anyone, but I will not accept, promote or watch conduct I find unnatural and morally repugnant.

Sometimes a reality check is required

Republicans, if you are going to encourage unicorn ranching, then you owe it to the public to explain that ranchers need to find a breeding pair before they start their ranch.

While money is non affectionately said to be the mother’s milk of politics and it is, denial is a very close runner up!  So there is never a statement made by the left that is ever denied by a Republican, lest the opponent be skewered, first by the left and its media allies, then later and even more effectively by ” moderate Republicans” (moderate is a synonym for those, who go along to maintain their seat at the table)  Every Republican leaning voter knows, who they are.  If you don’t, watch CNN and if the guest is labeled as a Republican albeit strategist, officeholder or campaign surrogate and he is not immediately berated after he speaks, then chances are  he or she is a “Moderate Republican”.

Generally Republicans never challenge what is said unless the thought has been in held in ill repute by the public for a good number of years.  e.g. socialism has been generally held in low regard since at least the 1950’s, so any Republican and even a few brave “Blue Dog Democrats” are inclined to speak out against it.  It should be noted, however that while speaking out against the idea of socialism any Republican officeholder will always acknowledge that the proponent of socialism or any new government solution raises a true issue that they will attempt to help resolve.

What is problematic about this?  It is simply this.  No one dares say how wide spread the problem is, versus how drastically the solution will change the status quo for the many.  While it is a cliche’, I am required to repeat it here.  When you promise to everything for everyone, you will do little or nothing for anyone!

Why is this so.  The answer is simple.  It’s because People are and should be free!  Free to choose their own courses of action.   Sometimes the course chosen appears ill advised to us and sometimes it may even appear contrary to the individual’s expressed interest , but it is their choice to make.  What those in opposition to choices or proposed fixes, can do is at least say they find the choice/fix unwise.

Instead they fall upon the sword of political correctness and as they gurgle and seem to lose control of their consciousness.  The opponents lie impaled upon that imaginary sword of political correctness, then the opposition fails to deny the underlying premise of the proposed government solution.   They do so in a vain attempt to demonstrate their continued relevance or the importance of their government position.  Hence,the first paragraph of this Post

Republicans, if you are going to encourage unicorn ranching, then you owe it to the public to explain that ranchers need to find a breeding pair before they start their ranch.

I posit here that we no longer have a two party system.   When every  utterance by those, who only propose government solutions, is met with acceptance of the underlying premise. e.g (Obamacare preexisting condition coverage crisis. This great existential healthcare crisis effected roughly 8% of the population. It predominantly effected those purchasing coverage in the individual healthcare marketplace.  Groups have been governed by HIPPA of 1997, which required coverage of these conditions after a maximum of 18 months delay and even that could be mitigated, if the individual was continuously insured prior to the group coverage change.  Click on the word change link for a more in depth explanation at How Stuff Works.com.).

Amazingly preexisting conditions were seldom discussed in depth with respect to Obamacare law, yet most under 65 get their coverage through employment groups.)  No Republican thought this was important enough to discuss and if they did it was seen as too in the weeds to share!  No Republican discussed how Obamacare inconvenienced the remaining 80+% and changed the coverages available for all.  It also mandated coverages in the belief not certainty that the changes would result in future healthcare savings.

So now we enter the 2020 campaign  and  major Democratic candidates are now discussing free education for all through college.  What that will do, is devalue many advanced educational degrees for those, who have them because when everyone has a degree  available without the need for sacrifice to achieve it,then advanced education will no longer be a sign that an individual possesses the persistence to achieve a difficult goal.  Additionally, since there is no cost.  Educational resources will be misallocated even further.  We will have more degrees that do not match needed skills.  The result will be more unemployment, while jobs go begging because the educational system is turning out the wrong skill sets.  We already have enough educational dysfunction with the grade inflation situation and the plethora of majors, which offer no professional path forward.

We are also told by some Democratic candidates that many services provided by people are now human rights.  This is a talking point  with only emotional appeal.  It is proposed that these services should be offered by the government to all with no mention of payment.  I guess we truly have not learned the lessons of history.  We outlawed one form of slavery and now introduce a new form.  Servitude to the State for the Public good.  Yet all Republicans only talk about socialism like a caveman.  “They utter Socialism bad, Capitalism good!”

I am sorry, but life is both a journey and is still a struggle.  No candidate’s wishes can change that fact. In a world of 1 million or 7 billion scarcity still exists. Resources must be allocated according to needs to insure the availability of goods to feed the masses and create sufficient wealth.

Individuals must work to create wealth and nations and society advance as a result of their efforts.  Capitalism is a self regulation mechanism for the elements that create wealth.  Capitalism allows the individual the freedom to choose, which occupation they pursue and rations scarce resources by offering rewards for skills in short supply and disincentives for oversupplied skills. No government or politician has a handle on the multiple data points needed to properly allocate resources. Capital might be in the form of human,monetary or even a commodity.

Individuals choose a course and are rewarded based upon the value of their contribution.  No one has the right to the services of another.  Those services can be paid for or they maybe volunteered at no cost.(charity)  Yes, there is a place for altruism in modern society!  Altruism however is not government mandated.  Mandated unagreed upon labor is still slavery!

Bottom line:

Demand all proposals identify the problem and the extent of that problem.

Ask, Ask, Ask how the solution fits in with the existing system.  Do this whether you like the existing system or despise it.  (Different is not always better and can be much worse!)

What is the role of rationality, when all media and politicians use the emotional hook to push issues?

I have been arguing for a long time that far too much of our political discussions are emotionally based.  Harold Laswell said “politics is about who gets what, when, how.”  This was the standard definition of politics, which I learned forty five years ago as a Political Science major.  This means politics is involved with every aspect of our everyday lives.  We are far too quick to limit the meaning or understand the consequences of politics.

The United States has a Constitutionally limited federal government which results in a free market capitalist system of economics, however the limited nature of our federal government has been steadily eroded.  This has been accomplished by both our legislators, who are unwilling to make the difficult budgetary decisions their offices demand of them and the Courts, who insist on legislating from the bench and increasing the scope and size of government in a vain attempt to avert every citizen’s problem.

What has the use of the emotional hook meant to the everyday life of the US citizen.?   It has meant that decisions are more and more made at the whim of a group of elite politicians whipped into a frenzy by an over dramatized media.  The ultimate result is that personal decisions concerning allocation of your income and resources have been removed from your control and are now less based on rational personal benefit and an individual’s return on investment and more based upon a legislator of judge’s feelings about an issue.

Federal legislators decide issues based upon a snapshot of public opinion.   Federal Judges seem to believe they must act as super legislators and right all the wrongs of the country rather than apply existing law and so  they create new law.  What this means is there will continue to be more government involvement in your everyday life and ultimately this  “feeling centered decision making” may lead to the end to even of the semblance of free speech.

Dissent will be drowned out by the din created in a 24 hour media cycle. Rational individuals may well be dissuaded from voicing their views because they fear immediate economic or reputational damage should they voice disagreement with the current emotionalism of the moment.

Proponents of feeling based decision making believe it will create a more nurturing democratic government and will lead to a more humane society.   Democratic party politicians believe this nurturing view of government is popular among young unmarried bicoastal female voters, a group they consider to be in their tribe.   I contend this type of decision making is bad for all voters and will result in misallocation of both human and financial capital and ultimately a lowered standard of living for all in this country and throughout the world as well as a society where individuals  are afraid to express their opinions.

I have been reading a series of books about rational decision making.  Most recently I have been reading the book, “Factfulness” by Hans Rosling .   There is value in the authors data driven analysis and the rationale approach he uses to generate his world survey questions and answers.   I worry that this author’s analysis is far too dependent on UN sources of data, because these data sources readily  available and he states are the  most comprehensive in scope. I do not share his confidence about how this data is collected and compiled.  Finally, I find some of the author’s concerns  to be as equally unsupported by causal data as he claims many current popular public opinions to be,eg. ( views on global warming and universal healthcare) (He readily admits that weather is subject to a great may variables and can’t be forecasted accurately, yet is ever so concerned about climate change.)I find many of his concerns to be personally intrusive,repugnant and left leaning.

The fact that I  favor a more  free and individually driven , yet rational allocation of economic resources doesn’t however mean I am a heartless and I am certainly not a populist.    I am a Constitutionalist.   Constitutionalist are frequently accused of lacking compassion for the downtrodden in our society or being bigoted because we don’t favor big government welfare programs and unlimited immigration.  I favor, as does our federal constitution a system, where individuals make their own decisions and believe that there are certain God given rights that belong solely to them.  The federal government should interfere in its citizens lives only in very limited and strictly defined areas enumerated by the Constitution. Other areas are reserved to the citizens until more authority is granted by the super majority required to adopt a constitutional amendment and even that authority should be restricted.  Some rights really are truly inalienable and non delegatable.

Factual information must be available to the public in order to allow each individual and organization to make rational personal economic and value choices.  I agree that decisions must be fact based, but values must also be incorporated into any decision making process.  This is the province of the individual.  It is the small decisions made by the many in their individual daily interests, that should shape our public policy.  Our Constitution allows for a limited federal government and leaves most authority with the States.  This allows for a variety of best practices and failures without universal consequences.

What seems like economic chaos or the lack of a comprehensive economic or governmental plan is actually a constantly adjusting web of individual decision making. This guarantees maximum benefit and freedom for all citizens. It is truly economic organization from what seems like unplanned chaos.  Unfettered emotionalism can cause rash decisions to be made by elitist representatives based upon the latest media whipped over dramatization.  The decisions feel good at the time, but lack checks and balances provided by the free market.  This type of decision making leads to unintended consequences, which could be avoided by utilizing a more limited and best practices and evaluation model.

 

If you don’t want your personal data used in a way you don’t like, then do not post it on any site. If you don’t like a social media site’s privacy policies,then don’t use that site or better yet,band with others and create your own site. Don’t invite the government to regulate! Do not surrender any more of your choices for a false sense of security!

Control your social media information yourself. Don’t be lazy and invite the federal government to limit your choices

 

Watching any cable or network news broadcast is like entering an echo chamber! There are no serious opposition views presented. All views expressed merely echo a given channel’s right or left leaning establishment view.

This means you hear on right leaning broadcasts, lip service given to limited government and capitalism.  Eventually though, all commentary suggests the need for the federal government to save us from ourselves. They say there is a need for a national plan.(this sounds more like a cold war Soviet idea. ie a 5 year plan rather than a chaos driven capitalist economic model) Left leaning channels are more straight forward in their criticisms. The government is the citizen’s only hope! Nineteen Eighty Four is not just a novel on left leading broadcasts, it is a mantra, intended to be a way of life, which is repeated ad nauseum.

Conservative or right leaning consumers of news are busy and use their busy life schedules, as a reason to surrender their choices to an all consuming government.

Remember democracy is a form of government that can be tyrannical the same as a dictatorship. Just because a majority of individuals decide something by a popular vote does not mean you should always be required to abide by their collective will. This is why we have a limited federal government and a bill of rights.  It is to insure individual liberty.

Our Founding Fathers rebelled against a king, but recognized any government could act as a despot and threaten the individual. We have a bill of rights and a federal government of limited authority.  (Gee. the Revolutionary War was fought by armed colonists, maybe the second amendment is intended as a deterrent to run away rule of any kind including majority collective rule.) This should not be seen as threat of violence, but a statement of historic fact.  Power to rule is given to government by the people, but it is limited by God given rights, which no government can confiscate and no majority vote can negate.

We now are on the verge of surrendering our most basic rights because we are too busy or because we need to be nurtured and protected from a brutal reality. Reality remains brutal, whether you seek to hide in a false perception of safety under the protection of a  what you believe to be a benign government.  There are regardless many across the world willing to hurt or kill to possess just a small portion of what Americans take for granted.

There are many “good people” and their are many “bad people” in the world, but most are people just busy working and living boring everyday existences. Choice including economic choice is a freedom. It separates us from those forced by a collective mentality to live in a group or despot defined way.

Can you imagine a society where you are told what job to do.  Many say this would be great! Everyone working- No more unemployment- Guaranteed income! A more sensitive environment! What is the cost? Loss of personal choice? Loss of Religious freedom and free speech? Limited new economic and personal initiatives?

Please remember, there is always an expert that can tell you how to live your life better.  When their predictions are checked against the actual reality, most are miserable prognosticators.  We live in a connected and competitive world.  We must continue to grow our economy to stay ahead or risk losing our world position and high standard of living.

Why not have the most popular current view direct (compel/force)you to live in the best known way. Doesn’t sound quite so friendly when presented as a command does it?  Remember government is the use of force. Doubt me? Try not paying your taxes or violate an EPA property regulation or run a business and forget a required federal filing. Try to serve in a government job or a closed private sector shop without union membership.

Government rules by force, whether you agree with the rules or not, you must understand this fact.

This is why government must be limited!

So when you hear “we need the government to protect us from adds, on social media,or to protect our posted private data or protect us from “fake news”, remember you are moving closer to life as portrayed in the novel”1984″.  You also may limit economic and personal growth. ie wealth and job growth (Witness the limitations placed on television and radio by the FCC. The result: you have television and radio channels that still must include announcements  that limit the format of their programming even though technology has rendered these announcements obsolete.)

Congress passes bills then moves on seldom or sometimes never reviewing any law’s effectiveness.  When laws are reviewed, the review is conducted as througha prism that prioritizes maintaining the existing economic hierarchy and existing players and not based upon how well the laws assist in the growth of our wealth.

So I contend in any environment “Less is more and Less government is better government”

Federal power was limited to protect the individual and insure choice. Democracies are not immune to the use of excessive force on its citizens.  Beware the next time you hear

“There ought to be a law!”

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨