Food For Thought

"Labor unions would have us believe that they transfer income from rich capitalists to poor workers. In fact, they mostly transfer income from the large number of non-union workers to a small number of relatively well-off union workers." - Robert E. Anderson


Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Wouldn't It Be Nice if Everyone Was Nice?

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
- George Santayana

My first blog entry, here, was entitled "I Love My Country, But I Fear My Government". That sentiment could be just as aptly applied, here. I fear my government because it has abdicated its sole responsibility to secure the Rights of its citizens. Recent decisions and policies of our government not only seek to reduce the unalienable Right of Liberty, but are openly hostile to it. Bear with me, this is gonna be a long 'un, but I'll try to keep it on point.

In the last week, two policies are being pursued which directly undermine the Right of Liberty. First in the annoncement of a new Nuclear Posture Review.

First let me be totally clear: no sane person wants nuclear weapons to be used. However, much to the chagrin of the naysayers over the last 70 years, nuclear weapons can be and indeed have been an effective deterrent to major agression. Like it or not, MAD (mutually assurred destruction) works. It insured that no nuclear or WMD-capable power launched a war of aggression. These weapons did so by their very presence, not by their use. Contrary to the sentiments of General Sline in the movie Spies Like Us, it is not the case that "A weapon unused is a useless weapon."

Now, however, the administration and legislature have decided, unilaterally, that the United States will enter into a treaty with other nuclear powers in which we will not only further reduce our arsenal of democracy but we will pledge never to use these weapons against any signatory of this accord.

On the surface, this is laudable. And I don't disagree with part. After all, how many times over does one need to be able to obliterate the face of the earth before you consider it "overkill"? However, examining it deeper, it becomes evident that this is either a very myopically optimistic view of the world or a deliberate attempt to reduce the United States from its position as the sole superpower and insurer of Pax Americana.

You see, there are a couple of provisions and oversights that have been overlooked by the mainstream media. The major non-US signatories to this treaty can, without notice, reason or justification, exempt themselves at any time from the treaty and its provisions. That is, Russia, China, Pakistan, India or any other member of the "nuclear club" can decide that they don't need to abide by the provisions of the treaty. And yet, as signatories, we will have pledged never to use nuclear weapons against them no matter what. Yes, that's right: NO MATTER WHAT.

Also, this means that if a rogue state -- say North Korea or Iran -- receive weapons or technology from a signatory, we have no nuclear recourse against the signatory. Basically, it's a Get Out of Jail Free card for other countries: "So what, I didn't attack you, they did; I just sold them the technology."

The apologists and spinmeisters say that this doesn't matter. They tell us that if a signatory violates the conditions of the treaty, they are no longer subject to it. But this ignores several facts. It ignores the fact that the deliberately murky nuclear response policy of the United States in the past has prevented nuclear-capable countries from overtly (and even covertly) exporting their technology to these rogue states. It also ignores the fact that this says nothing for non-nuclear WMD technologies.

If someone, let's say a terrorist organization, with the assistance of a rogue state who is not a signatory of the treaty (because they have no nuclear weapons) unleashes a chemical or biological attack on the United States our only response under this treaty is to wage conventional war. That means "boots on the ground". And the rogue states know that it takes quite a while for us to work up to that and that the citizens have less stomach for that than keeping our troops out of harm's way by using standoff weapons. Therefore, they are free to make first strikes at will.

Oh, but wait, we're told -- we're all adults here. In effect, we're being sold a "if we play nice, everyone else will" view of the world that is hopelessly out of touch with reality and history. Let's look back over at how effective treaties have been with countries bent on conquest.

Famously, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Nazi Germany's Foreign Minister made so many treaties that were broken by Hitler that Hitler once had an ornate box made for Ribbentrop. Upon presenting it, he told Ribbentrop that it was filled with the treaties that had been made and was a symbol of Ribbentrop's service to the Reich. When Ribbentrop opened it to find it empty, Hitler joked that he couldn't find a single treaty that Ribbentrop had made that he (Hitler) hadn't broken.

Germany was not the only one. Russia itself showed its duplicity by negotiating treaties with China, Japan and Germany which it violated at the first opportunity. North Korea, Vietnam, Iran and Iraq have, in modern times, along with Eqypt (against Israel), Argentina (the Falklands conflict) continued this dubious tradition. We, ourselves have broken so many treaties with the Native American population that it became a standing joke.

It's clear to anyone who can read that treaties are worth less than the paper on which they're printed, to those determined to circumvent them. So either the administration and legislature have the completely unfounded belief that everyone would get along together "if only" or they are purposely weakening the ability of this government to protect its citizens. In either case, they no longer insure our Right to Liberty.

The second policy announcement is that the administration and legislature have finally found a way around the Second Amendment.

For the last four decades, gun control advocates have been attempting to repeal or restrict the Rights granted in that portion of the Constitution. They have been repeatedly and soundly defeated by a citizenry that understands that this would cede its plan of last resort for maintaining Liberty to a central government.

This week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found a way around the voice of We The People. Instead of going through a process by which they've been defeated repeatedly, the administration has announced that it will seek a foreign treaty that will make it illegal to sell arms to United States citizens.

Having failed to sway the public in the past to remove the "demand", they instead will in effect, remove the "supply".
Link
Why? Because they can. They can do an "end run", as they did with Health Care, around the will of the people and legislate through the judiciary or the executive branch (in contravention of the Constiution).

I'm not naturally paranoid, but having already shown that the United States is becomming, over decades, a fascist state I'm struck by the fact that, historically one of the first actions of such a state is to remove weapons from the control of the citizens. Fascist and socialist governments (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuela, the list goes on) have all made this a primary move. It's done for one very simple reason - an unarmed populace is a compliant and controllable populace.

You see, the Founding Fathers realized this. They realized that a government who has abdicated their responsibility to insure Liberty is fundamentally broken. They said that
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government and they provided the citizens a means of last resort to insure that no govenment of this people could slide into such a miserable place. They provided that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Founding Fathers knew what Lord Acton put into words: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They specifically said that when this occurs -- when a government abdicates its responsibility to secure its citizen's unalienable Rights, including Liberty, that those citizens should dissolve and reform the government.

We have the luxury of living in a time and under a system where this can be done without resort to arms. We can revolt, rebel and reform civilly against a legislature and administration that have for too many decades usurped the Rights of its citizens and has accelerated on that course.

We are on a slippery slope. I have learned from history - I fear my government. My government no longer secures my Right to Liberty. So I have a Right and Responsibility as given me by our Framers. For myself, I am committed to my Four Point Action Plan:
  1. I am going to purchase small American flags. Each week, from now until November second, I am going to pin one upside-down to a piece of paper and send one each to my Congressmen and Senator with the simple notation "11/2" as a prediction and warning.
  2. I am going to get involved, right now, with a candidate.
  3. Through the winnowing of the primary process, I am going to choose and throw my support not just to my canidate but whomever is the closest to my philosophies and opposes the incumbent, regardless of party. We have been betrayed by both parties and all incumbents must therefore be voted out.
  4. I am going to personally and directly ask two people to do these four steps and to ask those people to do them as well. In that way, there will be a groundswell, a snowball of We The People.
This is what I am doing. What are you doing?

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Today is election day. The first election day since I've arrived at my course of action. "What election?" I hear you asking. Local elections. That's right, there are local politics as well as state and national. And they are just as important, if not moreso, than those in the media spotlight.

See, here's the thing -- the same thing that prompted me to make my Plan of Action, to make my public annoucement, to create this blog -- change starts with me. The talking heads, the media, the pundits are all screaming at each other about national and state issues: about taxes, Rights, entitlement programs, etc. And while these are important issues, they start at right here at home.

We pay taxes at a local level, just like the state and national levels. And those taxes go to fund the programs, projects and works in our community. Sure, they may not have the media impact of Health Care, but they affect us just as much. Moreso, in fact, because the effects are much more immediate than things like the 2014 "kick-in" of Health Care.

The funny thing is, our polling places are expecting less than 20% of eligible voters will be showing up for this election. I say "funny" and I mean "strange". I look around, in my mind's eye, at the hundreds of people around me at the Town Hall meetings, the Tea Party rallys and other such events and I visualize only 20% of them showing up today. And yet nearly every one of the people in those hundreds seemed so passionate about change, so worked up about making a difference, so vehement about having their voices heard. Where will they be, today?

For me, this is part of the whole Rights and Responsibilities (not versus, and) thesis. Our Founding Fathers clearly gave us the Right to petition for redress of greivences; they clearly gave us the Right to make changes in our governance; they clearly gave us the Right to not just participate in, but control our politican and governing destiny. But the inseparable flip-side to those Rights are the Responsibilities to be a part of, to engage in, and to exercise the freedom of our political process. You just can't have one without the other.

And so, today, I am going to be at my polling place. I am going to vote my conscience. I am going to make my voice heard. I am going to not earn, but be worthy of the Rights given me by the constitutional documents of this great Republic.

I am going to put my money, my action, my principles where my mouth is. I am going to live up to the manifesto I've adopted. I am going to vote. What are you going to do?

Monday, April 5, 2010

Rights and Responsibilities

"I have a right to..."

How many times do we hear that on the news, from friends and neighbors, or even coming out of our own mouths? It's become as commonplace (and meaningless) as the word love ("I'd love some pizza", "That movie? I loved it!") The problem that plagues many is that there are two sides to every coin, two edges to the sword, two ends to the mule -- where there are rights, there must be, by definition, responsibilities.

In the movie "Oh, God! Book II", George Burns' God character says, "my problem was I could never figure out how to build anything with just one side to it" ... "there can't be good without bad, life without death, pleasure without pain." To put it in terms my science geek friends use, "There is no magnetic monopole."

Likewise, you can't have a Right without a Responsibility.

For example, consider the right (Note: I will use a lower-case "r" when talking about something not a legal or natural right) to own a pet. Sure, you can have a dog, cat, flying spaghetti monster or whatever, but if you don't take care of it -- feed, water, clean up, medicate -- then it will die. You have responsibilities. Or how about kids? How many times I've heard someone say they have a "right to have children". Sure you do (unfortunate, in too many cases -- the gene pool needs some chlorine, but that's another thesis) but if you don't feed, clothe, care for, educate, etc. your child then they will die or otherwise be taken from you.

Sidebar: What's a right and what's a privilege? A right is something that, once assigned, cannot be taken away. A privilege is something that can be removed, temporarily or permanently by the issuing authority. Driving, no matter what the people texting on their cellphones on Highway 41 this morning might believe, is a privilege, not a right.


So what about the Rights that are granted us by Government? Well, let's look at the ones most often cited -- increasingly during the Health Care debate -- by those in favour of bigger government: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Put aside, for a moment, the fact that it is the pursuit of happiness and not happiness itself that is a right and let's examine what it is that the Declaration of Independence (not, as some contend, the Constitution) actually says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Let's take this apart:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note that these Rights - Equality, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are not given by the Government. They are given by God, Allah, Nature, Cthulu, Randmon Fluctuations in the Space-Time Continuum, whatever you want to call it. And they are irrevocable (hey, that's why they're called Rights, imagine that). However, they come with Responsibilities. Very simply, those Responsibilities are that each individual's Rights end at the doorstep of the next individual. That is, your Right to Life doesn't trump anyone else's.

In real terms, that means that you can go ahead and smoke your pack a day, sir, that's your choice for your Life. However, you cannot expect me to pay for your health care when you're laying in the terminal ward with emphysema or cancer. You can decide that its fun (pursuit of happiness stuff) to get "stoned to the bejesus belt" but that doesn't mean you can get in your car and endanger my life. You can be free and unencumbered by insurance if you want. But don't expect, then, to have the taxpayers foot the bill if your house gets destroyed by a hurricane.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Ruh-Roh, Rorge! A couple of things jump right out, here. First is that Government does not give these Rights. It secures them. It insures, through law and enforcement of law, that these Rights are not taken away by anyone else. It makes sure that there's that very real and hard line at the individual's doorstep. It does this by enforcing Responsibility. That's all. That's the extent of it.

And (and here's the part that rankles those in favor of centralized government) it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. It gets its authority not from itself but by the continuous assent of those who band together to allow government to make these assurances. It is not a power unto itself, it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Finally, the part that will really blow your mind:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Think about that. Very simply, it is the Right of the People (that's right, us, the citizens) to remove and replace the government if it fails in its duty to insure (not provide, insure) these Rights. So, it is the Responsibility of the People to be vigilant. It is the Responsibility of the People to oversee and participate in their own governance. It is the Responsibility of the People to dissent and revolt when the People see our Rights in danger.

As I've proven in earlier posts, our Inalienable Rights are under attack. They are in danger. Therefore, it is our Responsibility to protect them, in the words of our very Founders, by rebellion.

You're given the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They can't be taken away by any power on earth. And its your Responsibility, when Government won't protect those Rights or is, in fact, the very threat to those Rights, that you act to remedy the situation. Not by words. Not by force of arms, but by becomming involved in the process of Government. By giving your consent, as the governed, to whatever replacement is necessary to once again insure those Rights.

President Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, said "
eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty." It's not enough to talk. We the People must act. It's mandated in our system of government. And so once again, I reiterate my Four Points for Action that I am following, each day:

  1. I am going to purchase small American flags. Each week, from now until November second, I am going to pin one upside-down to a piece of paper and send one each to my Congressmen and Senator with the simple notation "11/2" as a prediction and warning.
  2. I am going to get involved, right now, with a candidate.
  3. Through the winnowing of the primary process, I am going to choose and throw my support not just to my canidate but whomever is the closest to my philosophies and opposes the incumbent, regardless of party. We have been betrayed by both parties and all incumbents must therefore be voted out.
  4. I am going to personally and directly ask two people to do these four steps and to ask those people to do them as well. In that way, there will be a groundswell, a snowball of We The People.
This is what I am doing. This is my Right and my Responsibility. If you believe in your Rights, will you accept your Responsibility?

"Well done is better than well said."
- Benjamin Franklin