Budget director blames old computers for ineffective government
(via Instapundit)
It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
The government is ineffective because it's trying to do things beyond its few legitimate functions. Shiny new computers aren't going to help them spread the wealth around, or enable transformational change all that much.
In other words, government isn't working because its doing things it can't and shouldn't do.
It's not just my personal preference for limited government that's behind this. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the very specific enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The 9th and 10th Amendments confirm that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the States and People. Thanks to 200+ years of generous reinterpretation by the Supreme Court, the government operates under "constitutional law" rather than the Constitution. Today, even if actions by the federal government violate the very letter of the Constitution, as long as lawyers can point to some vaguely-worded SCOTUS opinion that seems to support their case, the leviathan marches on.
More here: Healthcare: Is "mandatory insurance" unconstitutional?
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
From Dodd to Dick
There's plenty of talk that CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will be the Democratic candidate for Dodd's seat. This is the same Blumenthal who...Dodd might be a corrupt slimeball, but that doesn't mean the power-hungry AG is a good pick for Senate. Exchanging crap for crap at the state and federal level...
Monday, January 4, 2010
Thoughts regarding imperfect candidates
The only person I completely agree with, 100% of the time, is myself. Heck, even my own opinions can change from time to time. I'm resigned to the fact that I'll never find a politician with whom I agree more than 80%. So I'm conflicted whenever I support any politician or candidate.
I'm often faced with this dilemma when evaluating Republican candidates who hold certain socially-conservative views that don't necessarily align with my own. In such a case, it is necessary to gauge the likelihood of that candidate infringing upon personal liberties by imposing their personal views if elected to office. This is hardly a foregone conclusion, as there are many liberty-minded folks who have some socially-conservative views.
Being fiscally-conservative and socially-conservative often (but certainly neither always nor necessarily) go hand-in-hand. Social conservatives sometimes seek to use state power to impose their beliefs (abortion), but social liberals use it regularly (insert endless list of liberal social programs here). I have some opinions regarding morality that others might consider "socially-conservative," but I don't seek to infringe the individual liberty of others by pushing my beliefs on them. If I were to publicly state that it is preferable for children to be raised in a home with both parents, would it be reasonable to assume that I would seek to criminalize or somehow penalize single parents if I held public office?
There is a difference between advocating a position and enforcing it. Statements of support are a far cry from (ab)using executive power to advance personal views. Social engineering is not a proper function of government, and I do not support candidates who seek to engage in it. If individual liberty is your primary political principle, then pushing economic reforms supporting property rights, low taxes, and limited regulation is entirely consistent with not imposing your personal religious beliefs on others.
One general purpose of my political activity is to prevent the imposition of others' personal views upon my freedoms by advocating for limited government and individual liberty. I suppose even that could be construed as imposing *my* views upon others, but I see it more as a form of self-defense. So the political calculus here leads me to support liberty-minded conservatives for the most part (as Libertarian Party candidates are hardly ever true contenders for election, and often have very flawed national security platforms). The risk of conservatives attempting to impose their social beliefs is more than balanced by the real, long-term damage being done to my economic freedoms by the current liberal cadre in power. The Democrats can be counted on as reliable opponents of overreaching by social conservatives. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not reliable opponents of [redistribution of wealth | Keynesian economics | big government statism | etc.], so for me, it's important to support those Republicans who assert such opposition.
I'm often faced with this dilemma when evaluating Republican candidates who hold certain socially-conservative views that don't necessarily align with my own. In such a case, it is necessary to gauge the likelihood of that candidate infringing upon personal liberties by imposing their personal views if elected to office. This is hardly a foregone conclusion, as there are many liberty-minded folks who have some socially-conservative views.
Being fiscally-conservative and socially-conservative often (but certainly neither always nor necessarily) go hand-in-hand. Social conservatives sometimes seek to use state power to impose their beliefs (abortion), but social liberals use it regularly (insert endless list of liberal social programs here). I have some opinions regarding morality that others might consider "socially-conservative," but I don't seek to infringe the individual liberty of others by pushing my beliefs on them. If I were to publicly state that it is preferable for children to be raised in a home with both parents, would it be reasonable to assume that I would seek to criminalize or somehow penalize single parents if I held public office?
There is a difference between advocating a position and enforcing it. Statements of support are a far cry from (ab)using executive power to advance personal views. Social engineering is not a proper function of government, and I do not support candidates who seek to engage in it. If individual liberty is your primary political principle, then pushing economic reforms supporting property rights, low taxes, and limited regulation is entirely consistent with not imposing your personal religious beliefs on others.
One general purpose of my political activity is to prevent the imposition of others' personal views upon my freedoms by advocating for limited government and individual liberty. I suppose even that could be construed as imposing *my* views upon others, but I see it more as a form of self-defense. So the political calculus here leads me to support liberty-minded conservatives for the most part (as Libertarian Party candidates are hardly ever true contenders for election, and often have very flawed national security platforms). The risk of conservatives attempting to impose their social beliefs is more than balanced by the real, long-term damage being done to my economic freedoms by the current liberal cadre in power. The Democrats can be counted on as reliable opponents of overreaching by social conservatives. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not reliable opponents of [redistribution of wealth | Keynesian economics | big government statism | etc.], so for me, it's important to support those Republicans who assert such opposition.
Narrowing the Second Amendment
Jeff Soyer points us to an opinion in Hamblen v. USA recently issued by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The opinion includes:
The court's opinion betrays a colossal misunderstanding about the relationship between We the People and our government. The People do not start from zero liberty to which is added only by special dispensation. The government does not start from unlimited power which is only restricted by its own writ. In fact, the opposite is true.
If the Second Amendment doesn't prevent States from banning firearms, then the States are not bound by the other Amendments either. I don't think the Framers intended the Bill of Rights to apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and federally-administered territories.
By their nature (whether created or evolved) human beings (like all other creatures) have an inherent and unalienable right to effective self-defense. It is not immoral for a man to defend his family, property, or life, just as a cheetah would defend her cubs or her life. The most effective form of self-defense for man is a firearm. So, to deny a man the right to keep and bear arms is to deny him the right to effective self-defense.
So why does the leftist/statist seek to deny man his natural right to self-defense? Perhaps it is combination of hoplophobia, victimhood culture, and the promotion of total dependency on the state. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
In ongoing cases such as NRA v. Chicago, the left wants SCOTUS to interpret the 1st Amendment (which explicitly mentions Congress) as also restricting the States, but to interpret the 2nd Amendment (which makes no such limitation) as only applying to Congress. Talk about not following the plain English of the Constitution's text...
It is truly a scary time in the United States when a Constitutionally-protected right (protected, but not granted, by the Constitution, that is) is only upheld by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision (see DC v. Heller).
Reason.com has a relevant article:
In any case, it's safe to say their experiment with gun control has failed.
The opinion includes:
"Whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use."Umm, excuse me, what? Where does the Constitution give the federal government the explicit authority over this? It doesn't. It does, however, recognize the individual right to bear arms.
The court's opinion betrays a colossal misunderstanding about the relationship between We the People and our government. The People do not start from zero liberty to which is added only by special dispensation. The government does not start from unlimited power which is only restricted by its own writ. In fact, the opposite is true.
If the Second Amendment doesn't prevent States from banning firearms, then the States are not bound by the other Amendments either. I don't think the Framers intended the Bill of Rights to apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and federally-administered territories.
By their nature (whether created or evolved) human beings (like all other creatures) have an inherent and unalienable right to effective self-defense. It is not immoral for a man to defend his family, property, or life, just as a cheetah would defend her cubs or her life. The most effective form of self-defense for man is a firearm. So, to deny a man the right to keep and bear arms is to deny him the right to effective self-defense.
So why does the leftist/statist seek to deny man his natural right to self-defense? Perhaps it is combination of hoplophobia, victimhood culture, and the promotion of total dependency on the state. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
In ongoing cases such as NRA v. Chicago, the left wants SCOTUS to interpret the 1st Amendment (which explicitly mentions Congress) as also restricting the States, but to interpret the 2nd Amendment (which makes no such limitation) as only applying to Congress. Talk about not following the plain English of the Constitution's text...
It is truly a scary time in the United States when a Constitutionally-protected right (protected, but not granted, by the Constitution, that is) is only upheld by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision (see DC v. Heller).
Reason.com has a relevant article:
Laboratories of RepressionIf they can "experiment" with the 2nd Amendment, they can experiment with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, 15th, and 24th Amendments as well. Is Chicago permitted to "experiment" with establishing a religion or reintroducing slavery?
We don’t let the states "experiment" on the First Amendment. Should the Second Amendment receive any less respect?
In any case, it's safe to say their experiment with gun control has failed.
Rolling in their graves...
If the Founding Fathers could only see what we have done to their Republic...
But maybe they saw it coming:
But maybe they saw it coming:
"Posterity ! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."
- John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 26 April 1777
"Constitutional Law" vs. the Constitution
My soon-to-be brother-in-law is in law school and just completed a class in "Constitutional Law." The entire course was spent exploring SCOTUS opinions regarding the 14th amendment. Absolutely nothing else. He tells me there are no other required courses that cover the Constitution at all.
I'm told this is a common experience among law students. If these students aren't taught the basic principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, what hope is there that the majority will actually understand them? If lawyers don't even understand the Constitution, what hope is there that the People will? If the People don't really understand the Constitution, what hope is there that they'll elect representatives who do? This is how we end up with rulers rather than representatives...
I'm told this is a common experience among law students. If these students aren't taught the basic principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, what hope is there that the majority will actually understand them? If lawyers don't even understand the Constitution, what hope is there that the People will? If the People don't really understand the Constitution, what hope is there that they'll elect representatives who do? This is how we end up with rulers rather than representatives...
The Nature of Insurance
There is one aspect of the “health insurance - auto insurance” analogy that is fitting: pre-existing conditions. No auto insurance provider could survive were it forced to cover damage pre-dating the inception of a policy. The fate for medical insurance providers would be the same (but perhaps this is the point).
Insurance does not protect your car or your health, nor is it a maintenance plan for either. Insurance is a financial instrument designed to hedge against the risk of financial loss. Insurance protects your finances against loss resulting from costs incurred by misfortunes befalling your assets (including your personal health).
If the people and their “representatives” are seemingly unable to grasp such a simple concept as the nature and purpose of insurance, why should we be surprised that they cannot understand the nature and purpose of the U.S. Constitution?
More: Publius-Huldah's Blog - Refuting The Bad “Health Insurance – Auto Insurance” Analogy: A Lesson In Federalism.
Insurance does not protect your car or your health, nor is it a maintenance plan for either. Insurance is a financial instrument designed to hedge against the risk of financial loss. Insurance protects your finances against loss resulting from costs incurred by misfortunes befalling your assets (including your personal health).
If the people and their “representatives” are seemingly unable to grasp such a simple concept as the nature and purpose of insurance, why should we be surprised that they cannot understand the nature and purpose of the U.S. Constitution?
More: Publius-Huldah's Blog - Refuting The Bad “Health Insurance – Auto Insurance” Analogy: A Lesson In Federalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)