Two days ago, I wrote a post that became more thought provoking than I had originally considered. It got me thinking about the "Consent of the Governed" and what that really means. Here are some thoughts from Thomas Jefferson (I posted these in the comments section of my previous post): "Government exists for the interests of the governed, .... There is an error into which most of the speculators on government have fallen, ... Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ... A court has no affections; but those of the people whom they govern ..." From a libertarian perspective, this has always been used to argue for limitations on government- since powerful governments are often oppresive governments. But what if the governed ACTUALLY want intervention, regulation, and control? What if the governed don't consider these things oppressive, but liberating? If consent is given to totalitarianism or facism, does the government have an directive to respond accordingly? Praise and Criticism for Rob McKenna 03/24/2010
As you may or may not know, Rob McKenna, Attorney General in Washington State is joining his friends in the GOP to file a lawsuit against the healthcare bill that was passed in the House this week. While I praise McKenna's bravery in standing up against the majority of the voters and politicians in Washington (for what he believes in), I must agree with Washington Democrats that using the state's money to do so is a misappropriation of taxpayer funds considering that he doesn't have legitimate consent of the public. Get that first McKenna, and then you can sue away if you want. Even when Terrorists Fail, They Succeed 12/27/2009
I was reading a book called "Super Freakonomics" by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner last week. There is a passage in the chapter called "Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance" where the authors come out and admit that one of the unfortunate things about terrorism is that they win even when they lose. So the other day, when some guy tried to blow up a plane- I was primed to be looking and thinking about what this guy's actions would cost the American People. What would the event mean for the rest of us? You see, terrorists are able to put us into a position of irrational fear. Irrational fear is the sort of thing that makes people willing to give up rights in order to secure freedom. Try to board a plane this holiday season and watch out- you'll be searched and frisked and scrutinized up and down all because some Nigerian man who claimed to be working on behalf of Al Qaeda FAILED to blow up the plane he was on. FAILED. Yes, we have to put up with a loss of freedom simply because he attempted the attack. Don't get me wrong, I want to be safe and I'm willing to give up some of my rights in order to ensure that people aren't blowing each other up. But I'm wondering if a better way to stick it to these hoodlum terrorists would be to bask in the glory of Freedom rather than allow even their failed attempts to transform us into a Police State where everyone is safe but no one is free. I'm a very strong advocate for limited government (as anyone reading this blog should know by now), but that doesn't mean that I'm not compassionate or that I care only about myself. In fact, I've been learning more and more about selflessness since having a baby and I'm fairly confident that I care about the needs of other people to the point where I'm willing to donate time/money to making sure other people are doing life well (whatever that means for them). As a Christian, I believe that we should look out for the poor, the needy, the downtrodden- but when I say "we" I don't mean the government. I mean you and I. Yes, whoever you are reading this right now, I mean that you and I have the responsibility to make a difference in other people's lives. The best healthcare reform I've ever experienced was when my friend Jamie put together a small task force of friends who held a garage sale and donated some of their own money in order to help us pay for some unexpected medical expenses. And likewise, it's when I've been the one who's served a meal to families staying at the Ronald McDonald House, or helped a friend move into a new apartment, or donated some shoes to kid in the Dominican Republic, or shucked corn for a church potluck, that a real difference has been made. Not only in the lives of those whom I've served, but in me, too. I'm better because of giving. Some friends of mine began a ministry called Home Sweet Homeless where they head downtown once or twice a month and share a meal or a movie with the homeless in Orlando. They don't just give them cash or food- they spend time with them and learn about their stories and give them a chance to feel like a cared for human being. These guys (and girls) aren't waiting to send in a government proxy that's going to lend a helping hand to their friends. They aren't just legislating compassion. They're out there BEING compassion. Whatever ends up happening with healthcare and Wall Street and banking and the Federal Reserve- I'd encourage you not to miss out on the personal, individual benefits of serving the community. Government programs don't have the personal touch that a friend coming along side us does. So rather than send in a proxy that will take care of social justice- take the initiative to make social justice happen right now. You don't need Barack Obama, Ron Paul, or Bono in order to do good for those around you. You can be the Change that you've been waiting for. You Have The Right To Remain Silent 09/09/2009
Yesterday, I ran across the following video regarding the 5th amendment. I think it's interesting that this right was originally bestowed in order to ensure that INNOCENT people were not forced into conviction by their own words. Most of the time, we'd assume that anyone who doesn't speak with the police or testify in their own defense must be GUILTY. After all, if they have nothing to hide, why wouldn't they want talk about it? Why would an innocent person hide behind silence? The video does a much better job explaining why, but if you don't have time to sit through all forty-eight minutes, I'll provide a brief summary below.
A friend of mine asked me the other day how it is that I can rationalize taking the New Homebuyer Tax Credit when I don’t believe in Federal subsidies, bailouts, and most welfare programs. Good question! He could have also asked me why it is that I took unemployment checks from the State of Washington if I don’t believe in government subsidies, bailouts, and most welfare programs. And he could have also asked why I cashed the stimulus check in the summer of 2008 if I don’t believe in government subsidies, bailouts, and most welfare programs. Here's the deal: I definitely filed for unemployment and I am definitely taking the New Homebuyer Tax Credit and I definitely cashed the stimulus check. All three are true and all three seem to be directly counterintuitive to this blog’s ideals on liberty and limited government. So the question becomes this: Am I a hypocrite for taking government money when I’m so adamantly against government spending programs? In the cases mentioned above, I’m going to say no. To prove this, I’m going to suggest that we tackle each of these apparent discrepancies in chronological order: First, the Stimulus Check, then the Unemployment Checks, and finally the New Homebuyer Tax Credit. The Stimulus Check: Back in the summer of 2008, we got a check in the mail from the Federal Government asking us to “Stimulate the Economy” by spending a few hundred dollars. Most Americans got one. I didn’t believe then that we’d be able to spend our way out of debt anymore than I believe it now, but I went ahead and cashed it anyhow. Why? Because this check proved to me that the government doesn't know what they're doing with the money we give them. Programs like these are rediculous. They tell us that if we just continue spending enough, eventually, everything is going to work out. President Bush told us after 911 that the Terrorists would WIN if we stopped spending our money and going on vacation. What? If one of my friends told me that their way out of debt would be to continue maxing out their credit cards until someone came along and offered them a job that would take care of the amazing stuff they just purchased- I'd laugh them off. And I'd definitely not feed their lunacy by giving them more money to waste. So, I decided that since I apparently know how to manage money better than the government- I'd keep the check and use it for something better than a "spend your way out of debt" campaign. Unemployment Checks: When I was laid off at the end of 2008, I filed for Unemployment Checks. And I received my unemployment checks for a few months until I got a new job here in Florida. They weren’t really enough to live on- so I’m really grateful for our savings account and my in-laws who were kind enough to help us out a little bit- but I still filed for unemployment and made it my “job” to search for a job (and I was pretty good at it, too). Why, if I don’t believe in Federal Welfare Programs, did I take Unemployment- doesn’t that violate my principles? There are really three reasons why I did it: First off, unemployment is usually the realm of the State government rather than the Federal government. While I don’t believe that government welfare programs are usually the most effective programs to ensure the welfare of the people, I’m actually OK with them on the local and state levels unless they violate the local or State constitutions. They usually don’t. What I am opposed to are Federal Welfare programs. This isn’t because Welfare programs are “evil” or anything. It’s merely because on the Federal level they are unconstitutional. No matter how helpful a program might be, we cannot continue to fund something that isn’t allowed within our US Constitution. Check this site for some interesting facts about how Welfare is in Direct Defiance of our Constitution. Anyhow, although I don’t believe that Federal Welfare Programs are the most effective means to bring about social justice and ease poverty- if our nation truly wants them, let’s vote to amend the Constitution rather than continuing to ignore it. Amendments aren’t easy to pass, but it’s better than allowing other things to slip by that undermine our freedom. So, to summarize- the first point is that welfare programs that are done on the State level aren’t unconstitutional and are OK, even if there are better ways to provide for people. Secondly, I paid into unemployment and so did my employer. We were taxed on it. Every week, we both had our own income taken out in order to fund the unemployed of our State. So after paying into it, I believe that it’s OK to take out of it, too. The same goes for Social Security- I don’t think it’s going to be around when I retire, and I think it was a bad program to begin with, but I’m not opposed to anyone taking Social Security checks- especially after paying into the program for their entire life. I hesitate to call it an entitlement because I hope that it’s gone one day… but for the time being, if it’s given to you- take it. Third, I couldn’t allow my principles to starve my wife and child. If I had been on my own, an idealist without anyone relying on me, I might have been more inclined to refuse help and go get a minimum wage job or live off of savings until I landed another position. But now that I have two other people depending on me (three other people by Thanksgiving) I couldn’t reasonably refuse unemployment on principle. My principle of taking care of those entrusted to me trumps any personal need to thwart the government. New Homebuyer Tax Credit: Tax Credits, we must understand, are different than welfare programs, stimulus programs, and bailouts, but since the definition is a very narrow one, I’ll need to explain it a bit more so that you’ll understand why it’s not hypocritical to take a tax credit- even when I’m against government spending programs. Stimulus programs, bailouts, and welfare programs all mean that the government is giving me something. I take money from the government. Tax Credits, on the other hand, mean that I owe less to the government in the first place. It may seem like a very arbitrary difference, but it’s very important to get this if we’re to understand property rights and such. Let me clear it up: I believe that I own 100% of my paycheck even though I am obligated to pay taxes. So every year, I pay the full amount of my taxes because I believe that we should obey the laws of the country that we live in. Those taxes are given to the government and they use them for whatever is in the Federal Budget that year (including a lot of things that I agree with and a lot that I don’t). If the government says, I owe $8,000 LESS this year because I just purchased a home, that doesn’t mean that they are GIVING me $8,000. That means that out of the taxes that I owe from the paycheck that I own, I am obligated to pay $8,000 less than normal. That’s my money that I no longer have to pay rather than a gift from the Federal Government. Do you see the difference? Please note: I am NOT an advocate of recreational drug use. I do not use illegal drugs and even if they were decriminalized I wouldn’t partake. This post is written with the intent of exposing some of the misconceptions that people have about Marijuana so that we can save some of our taxpayer money from being spent on rounding up pot smokers and putting them in jail. Once you’ve read what I’ve got here you’ll probably agree that there’s much better things that the government could do with our taxes. Also Note: I borrowed a lot of these myths (rewritten and documented by me, of course) from a site called DrugPolicy.org. You can read about a lot of other marijuana myths by clicking on their link. * * * Myth #1: Marijuana Overdoses Are Fatal This myth states that smoking too much marijuana will kill you. And as strange as it sounds, a lot of people actually believe it. They’ve heard the stories of drug overdoses and assume that any illegal substance will be fatal if it’s taken in excess. The Reality: There are actually no records in the extensive medical literature of the world describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality... Ever. Yes, you read this correctly, there aren’t any documented deaths that were attributed solely to consuming marijuana. Now, some marijuana users have consumed other drugs that have caused them to overdose. But there is absolutely no historical evidence that anyone has ever died from smoking too much marijuana. Alcohol, Caffeine and Tylenol are more dangerous than marijuana in this regard. Check out the chart in the following link for more stunning figures about deaths: Myth #2: Marijuana Causes Brain Damage If you grew up in the 80’s like I did, you probably saw the same drug awareness ad over and over again. The butter goes into the skillet. “This is your brain.” The egg drops over the butter and begins frying. “This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?” It was a clever little marketing campaign, really. It was quick and simple and it had a really clear message that stuck with you and a catch phrase that was hard to forget. Teachers and other educators lacked onto this phrase as well as the famous monkey experiment where these apes were given Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and lost brain activity. The combination effort lead us all to believe that marijuana was a brain cell killing machine that would make us idiots if we smoked it. The Reality: Other than the aforementioned monkey experiment, no other researcher has been able to substantiate any brain cell loss due to smoking marijuana or being exposed to THC. A recent film I watched called “The Union” documented that this famous monkey experiment was not actually what we think it was. The researchers placed gas masks of incredibly high concentrations of THC and low oxygen levels over each monkey’s mouth for an extended period of time. After analyzing their methods, most other scientists agree that the brain cell loss should be attributed to suffocation rather than THC. It was the depravation of oxygen in this experiment rather than the marijuana that caused brain damage. And in fact, in every other major research study that’s been done, marijuana usage has not effected brain cells. This is probably an example of the War on Drugs grabbing the test that proved their point rather than the actual statistics.
Well, one might say, even if marijuana doesn’t cause brain damage- smoking causes cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema. I don’t want anyone to get these diseases, first hand or through second hand smoke! So it should still be illegal. The Reality: It’s true that like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke does contain some carcinogens and irritants. All smoke does. A burning marshmallow, or toast, or eggs, or coffee, or anything else that’s on fire and turning into smoke will contain irritants of some sort of another. The real question is whether these irritants actually cause cancer. The truth is, marijuana hasn’t been linked with cancer, and the lack of obstructions within marijuana smoker’s lungs indicates that bronchitis and emphysema aren’t very likely either. In fact, a new research article that came out in July of this year has actually linked 10-20 years of continuous marijuana use with reduced instances of cancer. Hmmm?
This myth basically says that anyone who smokes pot is at risk for becoming crazed and violent when they are intoxicated. The Reality: Hopefully, most people don’t take this myth seriously. Marijuana, in fact, has a calming effect that’s more likely to make someone sleepy than angry. Not only that, but almost every single serious study done on marijuana usage has shown that it actually decreases aggression and violence. The real trick here is that since marijuana is illegal, anyone who uses marijuana is obviously someone who the ability to break or ignore the law. That said, there might possibly be a correlation between crime and marijuana usage since those with a propensity to break one area of the law may be more likely to break other areas of the law, too. But this doesn’t mean that marijuana causes crime. It means that people who break the law are potentially more likely to break or ignore other laws. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it’s important to understand if we’re truly going to understand the consequences of marijuana use.
This myth states that even if all the other things about marijuana are false, smoking pot is a slippery slope that will eventually land users in bed with “hard drugs” like crack and heroine and therefore should remain illegal. The Reality: Yes, in some regards Marijuana is a gateway drug. But it is BECAUSE it is illegal that it’s a gateway drug. If the only way to get a hold of marijuana is on the black market, then of course people who purchase it will be more likely to purchase other illegal substances. After all, they’re engaging in illegal activities and interacting with drug dealers who also have cocaine, speed, PCP, XTC, and Heroine on them. Since marijuana isn’t addictive, it’s not really as profitable for the black market and so you’d better believe that the intention of every drug dealer is to get their clients hooked on something “harder” that will keep them coming back day after day. Thus, cocaine and heroine and PCP and all sorts of other illegal drugs are “offered” along with the bag of marijuana. But when you walk into a 7-Eleven to buy a case of beer, the guy behind the counter isn’t trying to get you to smoke crack, too. He may offer a bag of chips or a Slurpee, but he’s not selling hard drugs. And when you pick up a Percocet prescription at the pharmacy, the woman behind the counter isn’t there trying to peddle Codeine to you as well. You get what you came for and you leave. The truth is, most researchers, economists, and average human beings realize that marijuana would be a lot safer and less likely to lead to harder drugs if it were legalized and regulated like tobacco and alcohol.
According to my “accurate” sources over at Wikipedia, there have been over eight million cannabis arrests in the United States since 1993 including 872,721 in 2007 alone. 88% of these arrests were apparently for possession alone. That means that over 7 million people have been arrested in the United States for having a plant on their person or in their home that is non-fatal, causes no brain damage, bronchitis, or emphysema, reduces cancer, isn’t correlated with other crimes, and is only linked with harder drugs because of its illegal nature rather than an inherent trait within the substance. Now, I’m not sure how much it costs to make 7 million arrests, but I’m guessing it’s at least a thousand dollars per incident (taking into consideration the salaries of police officers, detention officers, and anyone else involved in processing). That means that at the very lease we’ve spent 7 billion dollars arresting marijuana users. And these 7 billion dollars, of course, are paid by taxpayers like you and me. Call me crazy, but considering the growing deficit problem we’ve got in our government and the programs that keep getting added, I think it’s time to rethink our Federal policy on marijuana restrictions. Why are we spending all this taxpayer money and putting our police force in danger over a plant that’s illegal because of misinformation? A Man Brings a Gun to a Meeting 08/19/2009
If you don’t know what this post is referencing, here’s a quick summary: President Obama and a lot of Senators & Representatives are using the Legislative Recess to host town hall meetings across the country in order to present information about the Healthcare Reform Bill (and other agenda items). At some of these meetings, attendees have shown up with guns and rifles. The press took a hold of these stories and have blown the whole thing out of context, making these attendees seem like violent revolutionaries intent on perpetuating violence against the President. Facts:
* * * A Little History Suppose for a moment that you live in a society where the only people who are allowed to have weapons are government approved military and police forces. The government uses the military and police force to uphold the peace and create security for the people they govern. And as long as the intentions of the government remain good and honest, it’s true that the people will be protected and secure under this rule of law. Thomas Hobbes, in fact, was a proponent of the STRONG monarch who ruled with an iron fist and kept his subjects safe from anything that would threaten them- including themselves. But what happens if the government turns on its own people? What happens when Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots appear? What happens when selfish dictators arise who are only concerned with keeping power and use any force necessary to keep themselves and their advisors in control of the people they rule? When governments turn evil, the people have a right- and perhaps and obligation- to institute a new government. One that represents that people it governs in fairness and justice. To that end, the people require a means of bringing about such a government and this is where the right to bear arms comes in. The people need arms in order to combat the arms that the government has. It’s basically another check and balance to ensure that the people are well defended against their own government- in case their own government turns on them. Alexander Hamilton said it this way: “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” In other words, the people should have as much power as the military. They should have the right to defend themselves against their own military. This does not mean that individual revolutionaries had the right to overthrow their own government. It does not mean that people have the right to kill each other needlessly with weapons. It doesn’t even mean that individuals have the right to go hunting and shoot deer. Plain and simple, it means that the People should never be put in a place where their government is able to enslave them. Granted, these laws were put in place before Tanks, Heavy Artillery, Missiles, Nuclear Explosives, and other weapons of mass destruction were invented. The reality is, the people of this country are not in a position to resist our own government. It’s just not reasonable to give everyone a Tank or a Nuclear Missile Silo in order to maintain a balance of power between the people and the military. Why They Did It The principle of the People’s right to be defended against their own government still remains true- even if the reality is that we’d have a hard time actually overthrowing our own government if it actually came to that (which I’m not suggesting, by the way). By entering town hall meetings with guns, these attendees were proclaiming their right to be defended against their government. It wasn’t an attack. It wasn’t an assassination attempt. It was a symbol. It was a symbol that was meant to remind Congress and the President that they are not our Rulers. They are not dictators who are allowed to put any policy into place, merely because they want to. They are representatives of the people. They are responsible to the people they govern and they should not expect to be allowed to continue to thwart the will of the people. The people didn’t want the Bailout of Wall Street or the Bailout of the Auto Industry. They didn’t want a government takeover of AIG or these outrageous “stimulus plans” that aren’t working and never will. They didn’t want Homeland Security or the Patriot Act. And yet, Congress keeps pushing these bills through, regardless of The People's opinion about them! And, each time one of these bills passes, it makes the People more and more angry. So before we blame this on Healthcare- it’s not the fault of this Healthcare Bill in particular. It’s a culmination of mistrust that’s been building to the point where the People are sure that Washington is going to push through anything they want, regardless of the People they represent. And that’s where guns come in. Not as a weapon; these guns weren’t intended to be used to perpetuate violence- they weren’t even loaded half the time. No, these guns were being used to send a message. They’re symbolic. They carry the symbol that The People have a right to be represented fairly. They carry the symbol that The People have a right to remove those in power from their role as governors if they continue to represent their own agenda rather than the will of the people. * * * Now, it’s true that because of the massive military that we have there in the United States, The People will not literally be able to remove those in power through sheer force- that’s what elections are for. But you've gotta agree that bringing along a voter ballot isn’t really quite as effective in sending this message home, is it? A Preview of Coming Events 08/18/2009
I went to see District 9 last weekend and it got me thinking about aliens. And politics. And philosophy. And religion. That’s why I’m dedicating a week to exploring Aliens & Philosophy. This week, I’ve got a couple other thoughts to share about music & marijuana, but I wanted to give you a sneak preview of next week’s agenda… I’m really excited about it and I hope you’ll join in the discussion and conversation. Day One: Is There Anybody Out There? Day Two: Fear & Loathing in South Africa Day Three: Victims and Victimizers Day Four: The Man of Steel and Other Alien Christ Figures Day Five: Aliens & Philosophy- Additional Questions That Need Answers I hope you can join me!  State Rights Actually Protected People 08/10/2009
If it wasn't clear already through our discussions here, the founding fathers were really big on the rights of individuals and the rights of local and state governments, rather than the rights of a central federal government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was convinced that Federalization would be the end of the checks and balances that were framed in our Constitution. He wrote, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” Most of the time, we look back at History and view State Rights as an issue that lead to the Civil War and assume that States only used State Rights as a way to keep Slavery Legal and oppress their citizens. But that's not the reality. In fact, if you'll take a look at this article from the Tenth Amendment Center, you'll see that State Rights were often used to PROTECT their citizens and residents from intrusions from the Federal Government that weren't authorized under the Constitution- intrusions that would have put them in danger or taken their rights away. Read more about that here: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/03/04/the-states-rights-tradition-nobody-knows/ One brilliant example in this article is how State Rights were used to counteract Fugitive Slave Laws. These laws would extradite runaway slaves to their original owner without trial or jury. It gave the Federal Government the right to uphold Slavery and police escapees. States rebelled and resisted by claiming their own rights under the Constitution and were able to repeal and counteract some of the inhumane treatment of other people by our own government. What a radical variance from the traditional State Rights were only used to uphold the evils of slavery. Make sure you read the full article and get informed about local movements to restore the tenth amendment! |