While visiting peoples blogs, sites and listening to opinions, I am often faced with people who blame capitalism for todays problems. And why wouldn't they? They've always been told we had a capitalistic market.
But is that really the case? Do we really have capitalism in America? Do we have a free market? In some places, yes we do. The best example would be the internet. Where pretty much everyone is given free reign to do business as they please. Obviously, there are still laws that must be obey'd, such as theft, but is free of government regulations. But that isn't the case for the heavier markets. Those markets are heavily regulated.
Why are these regulations bad? Well for starters, regulations are introduced because they feel someone is doing something bad, or that the possibility for someone to do something bad exists. On the outside, it would appear these regulations help the American people and businesses. However, in reality these regulations punish everyone. Even those companies who would never do anything bad to begin with. And not only that, but most likely the act that would cause the regulation in the first place is probably already illegal. In instances where companies must prove they are obeying the regulations, this assumes that everyone is guilty and they must prove otherwise. This is completely against the ideals this country was founded on. Yet, companies are forced to deal with these all the time.
And now that the government is involved in these industries, in come the lobbyist. Big corporations with alot of money are able to persuade politicians into passing laws and regulations that help their business. These are added as little pieces to bills, and by adding them congress is able to get votes on bills and makes changes that otherwise would never fly. Of course, the smaller companies of the industry are rarely represented. A recent well known case of this is the internet gambling law. Clearly not a law the American people wanted.
But that happens with just regulation, what happens when government is really involved with an industry? Such as healthcare, education, etc. Now you have companies who will use lobbyists to get government contracts. Because getting those contracts guarantees you business, funding and customers. And these companies waste money like crazy, and charge the full amount they can for everything. Haliburton was a good example of a company who has been abusing the American taxpayer. Meanwhile, other companies who could perhaps do the job on smaller levels or who don't have good ties are never given a chance. This is passed off as a "free market" or capitalism.
That however just isn't the truth, and goes completely against the definition of a free market and capitalism. When corporations are using money and influence to pass laws, regulate the markets as they see fit and other things, that is corporatism. Some people call it fascism, but I personally believe corporatism is better way to describe it.
So for anyone who says we have a free market and that it doesn't work is wrong. When we had a free market, our economy was thriving. You are right when you say the current system isn't working, but it's corporatism, not capitalism which has lead to the problems and corruption of today.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
What limits the 2nd amendment?
So a popular discussion is the 2nd amendment, and what defines the limits. It's original purpose was to defend yourself, and I still believe in that today. But where do we draw the line on what is suitable and what is just a bit overboard? After all, citizens running around with nukes isn't a good thing no matter how you want to spin it.
For most, they seem to think it's just what the majority of people deem is ok, even if that means none at all. That is a total violation of the 2nd amendment. So what defines that is property and individual rights. You can't have a nuke, because you could never set it off without infringing on the property rights of millions of people. It goes way beyond the realm of self defense, hunting or anything other than straight warfare. This would apply to many explosive weapons, they would all infringe on other peoples properties, even with just sound waves alone.
But do rifles and such do this? The answer is no. They do not automatically infringe on property rights of other people. And yes, they are for self protection. The immediate comment is, how can you let people run around with these? My answer is, have you looked around, if they are a criminal, they aren't paying attention to the laws. We've all heard it before, it only takes them out of law abiding citizens, the ones who have legitimate reasons to have them in the first place. Which is worse, 30 citizens with automatic weapons, and 1 criminal with one, or 30 unarmed citizens with 1 criminal armed with even just a couple of pistols? Who are you really helping here? Unfortunately, that has been answered too many times in slaughters in our schools. I'm certainly not saying kids need to bring weapons to schools, just that it is an example of what could happen anywhere if all law abiding citizens give up their weapons.
So does that mean people will be walking the streets with these things? I highly doubt it. What is to stop them? You. Private businesses who own their property, also have every right not to allow them on their property. Pretty much every business is not going to allow it. And if they do, you can let them know you will not give them business as long as they allow it.
Statistics keep showing over time that areas that have the strictest gun laws carry the highest amount of gun related crimes. Because the victim is less likely to be able to defend themselves. In places that allow concealed weapons, the crime rate is much lower. Because there is a much higher chance the victim is able to defend themselves.
If we could rid the world of guns tomorrow I'd be in favor of it. But that just isn't realistic. They are here to stay, the only thing we can reduce is their effectiveness, and the less people who have them, the more effective they are.
For most, they seem to think it's just what the majority of people deem is ok, even if that means none at all. That is a total violation of the 2nd amendment. So what defines that is property and individual rights. You can't have a nuke, because you could never set it off without infringing on the property rights of millions of people. It goes way beyond the realm of self defense, hunting or anything other than straight warfare. This would apply to many explosive weapons, they would all infringe on other peoples properties, even with just sound waves alone.
But do rifles and such do this? The answer is no. They do not automatically infringe on property rights of other people. And yes, they are for self protection. The immediate comment is, how can you let people run around with these? My answer is, have you looked around, if they are a criminal, they aren't paying attention to the laws. We've all heard it before, it only takes them out of law abiding citizens, the ones who have legitimate reasons to have them in the first place. Which is worse, 30 citizens with automatic weapons, and 1 criminal with one, or 30 unarmed citizens with 1 criminal armed with even just a couple of pistols? Who are you really helping here? Unfortunately, that has been answered too many times in slaughters in our schools. I'm certainly not saying kids need to bring weapons to schools, just that it is an example of what could happen anywhere if all law abiding citizens give up their weapons.
So does that mean people will be walking the streets with these things? I highly doubt it. What is to stop them? You. Private businesses who own their property, also have every right not to allow them on their property. Pretty much every business is not going to allow it. And if they do, you can let them know you will not give them business as long as they allow it.
Statistics keep showing over time that areas that have the strictest gun laws carry the highest amount of gun related crimes. Because the victim is less likely to be able to defend themselves. In places that allow concealed weapons, the crime rate is much lower. Because there is a much higher chance the victim is able to defend themselves.
If we could rid the world of guns tomorrow I'd be in favor of it. But that just isn't realistic. They are here to stay, the only thing we can reduce is their effectiveness, and the less people who have them, the more effective they are.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Adding social programs the constitutional way - amendments
So previously I explained how the abuse of the general welfare clause was bad for all Americans. I also explained why those who say the current social programs are unconstitutional are right. So now, this is where republicans start to hate me. Because I'm going to tell you how to do them constitutionally.
So, now we know that the general welfare clause is actually what gives power for congress to protect our rights. So in a limited government, in order to add to that power, you need an amendment! Once you add an amendment, then congress has the authority to do things, under the general welfare clause. But it gets better, aside from just being constitutional, it will actually better fit your goals.
Because if you add it as an amendment, then it is added as a RIGHT for all citizens, not just citizens represented by special interests groups, not citizens who will vote for them because they receive them. Because it will go to EVERYONE EQUALLY. And, in doing so, you've only given congress to do the 1 thing you actually wanted to do, not a broad open door to do whatever they want to do. Immediately, our governments role in our lives and in our pockets will be reduced to only the things we exactly want, nothing more.
Passing an amendment is much harder. It requires 2/3's majority in the senate. This is where it takes out partisan politics. As instead of issues being decided on near 50/50 issues, where the American people are basically yo-yo'd around depending no what swing state voted in who, it will require an overwhelming amount of majority to pass things. And once passed, it is then a right for all people, and all people will be treated equally. And that is the main goal of most people who are in favor of socialized programs.
And candidate or politician who isn't trying to pass amendments on social issues, is just looking out for special interest groups and lobbyists. Because they clearly have a better way, and yet they just ignore it, and continue to serve special interest groups and lobbyists.
I personally think these social programs are a bad idea on a federal level, and that they could be handled on the state level much better. IMO, 50 states doing their own programs allows for more creativity, and leaves the other states to adopt their practices when it works, and not be punished by bad ideas another state drops. With the federal government, we are reduced to 1 program, which is only adjusted every 4-8 years and everyone is made to pay for mistakes, while new ideas can't be tried as easily. But at least if amendments were passed, everyone would be treated equally, and we wouldn't have to accept the extra stuff nobody really wants.
I think if this were to happen, education would have a pretty high chance of having an amendment. The big change with this would be that rather than funding being done by the community, all schools would be funded equally. I am personally against this for the above reason, but I think it would have the highest chance of being passed since even some republicans like it. I think how well it did would have an affect on things such as healthcares chances, which would only be around 50% support right now.
So that is how our government is supposed to work, and will hopefully work 1 day again. You'll see that you have more control over the government this way, and it is forced to treat people equally. I think this is something both republicans and democrats can understand, and hopefully we can work together to return to this in the future. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has shown he will get both the republican party, and the democrat parties on the right track.
So, now we know that the general welfare clause is actually what gives power for congress to protect our rights. So in a limited government, in order to add to that power, you need an amendment! Once you add an amendment, then congress has the authority to do things, under the general welfare clause. But it gets better, aside from just being constitutional, it will actually better fit your goals.
Because if you add it as an amendment, then it is added as a RIGHT for all citizens, not just citizens represented by special interests groups, not citizens who will vote for them because they receive them. Because it will go to EVERYONE EQUALLY. And, in doing so, you've only given congress to do the 1 thing you actually wanted to do, not a broad open door to do whatever they want to do. Immediately, our governments role in our lives and in our pockets will be reduced to only the things we exactly want, nothing more.
Passing an amendment is much harder. It requires 2/3's majority in the senate. This is where it takes out partisan politics. As instead of issues being decided on near 50/50 issues, where the American people are basically yo-yo'd around depending no what swing state voted in who, it will require an overwhelming amount of majority to pass things. And once passed, it is then a right for all people, and all people will be treated equally. And that is the main goal of most people who are in favor of socialized programs.
And candidate or politician who isn't trying to pass amendments on social issues, is just looking out for special interest groups and lobbyists. Because they clearly have a better way, and yet they just ignore it, and continue to serve special interest groups and lobbyists.
I personally think these social programs are a bad idea on a federal level, and that they could be handled on the state level much better. IMO, 50 states doing their own programs allows for more creativity, and leaves the other states to adopt their practices when it works, and not be punished by bad ideas another state drops. With the federal government, we are reduced to 1 program, which is only adjusted every 4-8 years and everyone is made to pay for mistakes, while new ideas can't be tried as easily. But at least if amendments were passed, everyone would be treated equally, and we wouldn't have to accept the extra stuff nobody really wants.
I think if this were to happen, education would have a pretty high chance of having an amendment. The big change with this would be that rather than funding being done by the community, all schools would be funded equally. I am personally against this for the above reason, but I think it would have the highest chance of being passed since even some republicans like it. I think how well it did would have an affect on things such as healthcares chances, which would only be around 50% support right now.
So that is how our government is supposed to work, and will hopefully work 1 day again. You'll see that you have more control over the government this way, and it is forced to treat people equally. I think this is something both republicans and democrats can understand, and hopefully we can work together to return to this in the future. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has shown he will get both the republican party, and the democrat parties on the right track.
A government of limited rights, or a limited government?
As I mentioned in my previous post, the abuse of the general welfare clause is a direct violation of our 10th amendment. So why is that bad, you still have free speech right?
Well, it is the 10th amendment which limits the powers of the government. This is a right most people don't even really know exists, and why would they since it isn't given.
As long as this amendment is ignored, and the general welfare clause is allowed to be abused, then we will continue to live under a government of limited rights, rather than a limited government. Because any issue than can be spun for the good of the people, can be construed as the "general welfare".
A fast food tax, which charges people extra money for fast food can be spun to be in the best interest of the people. As it influences them with money to eat better. But is that something Americans really want? Are the many other programs and departments created what they really want? In most cases, no it isn't.
Most republicans and independents who aren't in favor of the social programs automatically subscribe to likely the constitution, because they can see that the social programs are unconstitutional, and they currently are. Most democrats who are in favor of social programs will often site the general welfare clause as what makes it constitutional, without realizing that at the same time, their own broad general use of the term just allows for many things they don't like, and allows for other special interest groups to abuse the term for things they want. This is the major contributer of corruption in our government.
So how do you add those few social programs some americans do like, without abusing the general welfare clause that allows all those other bad things? By using the part of the constitution we are allowed to edit or amend - the amendments!
Well, it is the 10th amendment which limits the powers of the government. This is a right most people don't even really know exists, and why would they since it isn't given.
As long as this amendment is ignored, and the general welfare clause is allowed to be abused, then we will continue to live under a government of limited rights, rather than a limited government. Because any issue than can be spun for the good of the people, can be construed as the "general welfare".
A fast food tax, which charges people extra money for fast food can be spun to be in the best interest of the people. As it influences them with money to eat better. But is that something Americans really want? Are the many other programs and departments created what they really want? In most cases, no it isn't.
Most republicans and independents who aren't in favor of the social programs automatically subscribe to likely the constitution, because they can see that the social programs are unconstitutional, and they currently are. Most democrats who are in favor of social programs will often site the general welfare clause as what makes it constitutional, without realizing that at the same time, their own broad general use of the term just allows for many things they don't like, and allows for other special interest groups to abuse the term for things they want. This is the major contributer of corruption in our government.
So how do you add those few social programs some americans do like, without abusing the general welfare clause that allows all those other bad things? By using the part of the constitution we are allowed to edit or amend - the amendments!
Abusing the general welfare clause.
So exactly what is the general welfare clause? The general welfare clause, is a clause in the articles of the constitution, that is manipulated to create all the social problems we have today.
The general welfare clause is located in Article 1, Section 8.
You'll notice it says to provide for the general welfare. That is the general welfare clause. So, exactly what were the founding fathers referring to? Today, it is a broad term used for just about anything the politician can spin as being good for the people. From welfare, healthcare, education to numerous growing list of government departments. But did the founding fathers really leave such a big broad general word for us? It seems it goes against the theory of limited government as they can, and do, just about anything. Doesn't sound like limited government to me, does it to you?
However, if you look across the constitution, you'll find that term 1 other place. That place is in the preamble. The preamble of the constitution is the start of it, and describes the general purpose of the constitution.
So, right here it says that the purpose of atleast part of the constitution was to promote the general welfare. So, what part is it referring to? The part where it says it is to provide the general welfare, where it is today used as undefined? Hardly. The part of the constitution which defines the general welfare are the amendments themselves. And the general welfare clause of the articles, is defined, and it is where congress is given the power to ensure our defined rights are not trampled on.
So, what part of the constitution limits the federal governments ability to expand the general welfare clause beyond the amendments? This is right guaranteed by the 10th amendment, part of our Bill of Rights.
The general welfare clause is located in Article 1, Section 8.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
You'll notice it says to provide for the general welfare. That is the general welfare clause. So, exactly what were the founding fathers referring to? Today, it is a broad term used for just about anything the politician can spin as being good for the people. From welfare, healthcare, education to numerous growing list of government departments. But did the founding fathers really leave such a big broad general word for us? It seems it goes against the theory of limited government as they can, and do, just about anything. Doesn't sound like limited government to me, does it to you?
However, if you look across the constitution, you'll find that term 1 other place. That place is in the preamble. The preamble of the constitution is the start of it, and describes the general purpose of the constitution.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So, right here it says that the purpose of atleast part of the constitution was to promote the general welfare. So, what part is it referring to? The part where it says it is to provide the general welfare, where it is today used as undefined? Hardly. The part of the constitution which defines the general welfare are the amendments themselves. And the general welfare clause of the articles, is defined, and it is where congress is given the power to ensure our defined rights are not trampled on.
So, what part of the constitution limits the federal governments ability to expand the general welfare clause beyond the amendments? This is right guaranteed by the 10th amendment, part of our Bill of Rights.
It is a direct violation of every citizens bill of rights - republican, democrat, and independent for congress to abuse the general welfare clause to remove the limits put on them. It is the violation of our 10th amendment right that has lead to our problems today. Reinstating the 10th amendment is the 1st step to returning our country to it's greatness. In future posts, I will explain how social programs can still exist.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
My first blog
So, this is my first blog post ever. The purpose of this blog, is to show that the current abuse of the general welfare clause in our constitution is the main reason for our current social problems. And that both democrats and republicans can achieve their goals constitutionally, and it will even achieve those goals better than the current way.
I will be up front and honest. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I was a Ron Paul supporter before I even know who he was, because I am a supporter of the constitution, and I have studied how it was designed. I am in not in favor of socialized programs such as health care, welfare, education, and I can explain why I think they are not the best solution. However, I will still show you how those things can be applied using the constitution, and how using the constitution properly will end things such as partisanship, special interests groups, and lobbyists and treat all citizens equally.
It is for these reasons, that I think Ron Paul will make the best president, for both democrats and republicans. Because no matter what you think governments role should be, there are procedures and rules laid out on how they should be done, and it is the abuse of the general welfare clause that has allowed these things to happen.
I will be up front and honest. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I was a Ron Paul supporter before I even know who he was, because I am a supporter of the constitution, and I have studied how it was designed. I am in not in favor of socialized programs such as health care, welfare, education, and I can explain why I think they are not the best solution. However, I will still show you how those things can be applied using the constitution, and how using the constitution properly will end things such as partisanship, special interests groups, and lobbyists and treat all citizens equally.
It is for these reasons, that I think Ron Paul will make the best president, for both democrats and republicans. Because no matter what you think governments role should be, there are procedures and rules laid out on how they should be done, and it is the abuse of the general welfare clause that has allowed these things to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)