Posts Tagged ‘federal authority’

How much of my money doesn’t belong to me? How much of the money I earn with my own two hands should be used to fund someone else’s retirement? Or their health care? Or anything for anyone, without my approval?

Has anyone who advocates for any government welfare program ever considered that maybe, just maybe, people would be more charitable if they got to keep more of their money? I bring home $490 out of my check every week. I send $110 every week to the government under the agreement that that money will help pay for the defense of this country, my health care when I’m old, and my retirement.

Instead, that money is used for unconstitutional nation building, other people’s health care, and other people’s retirement. Social Security trust fund? Doesn’t exist. A doctor that accepts Medicare or Medicaid? Fewer every day. Defending the country? Sure, if you count wars against countries which have done nothing to us and assassinating American citizens without a trial defending our country.

The plain truth is that anyone, including the government, that claims a stake on my money without my having voluntarily given it, is claiming a stake on a piece of your life. That equates to slavery. 

Every man is free to pursue his own selfish ends so long as he doesn’t infringe on or impede the right of someone else to do the same.


I’m reading Leonard Peikoff’s (executor of Ayn Rand’s estate) introduction to We The Living, & I have to disagree with him on one point: he says America was the result of, among other things, the West’s ridicule of Christianity. To my knowledge, the colonies were a pretty religious lot, as were the founders. 

To treat religion as the enemy is the wrong approach. I am a Christian. I believe in helping others. I believe in being charitable. I don’t believe, however, that it should be up to the government to direct our dollars to charities at their discretion.

Randians & religious peoples of all flavors can find a common ground: my money is mine to do with as I see fit, not for you to forcibly take from me and do with as you see fit.

Government should go back to it’s beginnings and do what it was meant to do: keep us safe, while the courts do what they were meant to do & protect the law from government.

When did it become wrong to believe in individual people and right to believe in collectivist governments?

I know many people don’t like Ayn Rand or her philosophy (which was partly too difficult for even her to live by), but she had the right idea: keep governments out of private business. That’s the way the country was run for a long time.

Cut to today. Now we have big corporations (not all, but some), lobbyists, & special interests that have politicians in their back pockets. Case in point: the NRA. They recently pledged support for a campaign finance reform bill after being awarded exemption from the new rules through a provision they authored (see my previous post: Special Interest & The Government).

Google & Verizon recently published what they believe should be the guidelines for regulating the internet…rules that would hinder their competitors. Even the FCC, which is in favor of internet regulation, came out against these guidelines, as did a huge swath of the internet community.

This may seem like a rant against business, but it’s not. It’s a rant against government & businesses getting too cozy. When the government picks the winners, the populace loses. Look at the current “Summer of Recovery”: 9.5% unemployment, 131,000 net jobs lost last month (though the private sector has decreasingly added jobs every month this year), GDP growth that gets revised downward more often than not, etc. And this is after the trillions of taxpayer dollars that were pumped into certain companies, banks, and government departments to stop the downward economic spiral.

So where’s the recovery? Most major downturns are followed by quick recoveries. Look at the depression of 1920-1921: tax cuts, spending cuts, and some other noninterventionist policies paved the way for the roaring 20s. By contrast, the Great Depression lasted over a decade despite (because of) government interference, and unemployment didn’t see a sharp decline until America got into WWII & the draft was instituted.

Empirical evidence shows the less government interferes, the faster & more sustainable the recovery. Governments picking winners & losers means everybody loses.

Got off on a tangent there. You’ll see that happens a lot. Anyway, my point is that anybody that believes in giving power to the individual to do what he wants, with the caveat that he harms no one other than himself, is now considered an extremist.

Belief that we are free to live our lives our way, again- harming no one other than ourselves, instead of the government proclaiming how we should live is a crackpot. Not giving us control over our own bodies, what goes in our bodies, what happens in our bedroom, who we take to our bedroom (consensually and both being of legal age), how we spend our money, what we buy…these are a few examples of how government interferes with our lives. And we’re crazy because we want to take responsibility for our own lives & not have that responsibility taken away by government?

Then call me crazy.

The feds finally filed a lawsuit to block AZ’s ‘tough’ immigration law, not on grounds that it unjustly discriminates against immigrants (as many have argued), both legal & illegal, but on the grounds that it usurps federal authority.

But answer me this: since there are federal laws setting minimum wage, why hasn’t the federal government sued the 5 states (AR, CO, GA, MI, & WY) with minimum wages lower than what the feds say it should be? (According to the Department of Labor, the higher of the 2 is the effective minimum wage, eg. since CA’s minimum wage ($8/hr) is higher than the fed’s ($7.25/hr), CA’s effective minimum wage is $8/hr)

Federal laws, when expressly granted the power by the US Constitution, trump state laws. There is no constitutional provision granting them authority over pay rates in the different states.

They are granted authority over immigration, however. But since the ‘controversial’ AZ law says basically the same thing as federal law, and the feds aren’t enforcing said law, what’s the problem? In my opinion, the AZ legislature only did what they felt they needed to.

But in order to truly curb illegal immigration, federal law needs to be changed. 1st, a temporary guest worker program that is truly temporary, should be instituted. And for those who have overstayed their visas, if they’re in the process of becoming a US citizen, they should be given amnesty. Not becoming a citizen? Well, you’re going back home. (Same should go for those on student visas, also).

2nd. End birthright citizenship. Yes, it’s guaranteed under the 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1865 to give slaves & their children citizenship, which means we would need a constitutional convention to overturn this part of the amendment.

3rd. You come here, you pay taxes, period. No grace period. (I would also do away with the progressive tax system & institute an across the board flat tax, but that’s different legislation)

4th. Encourage skilled workers that we need to come here, workers that the US needs & can’t find within its borders. (Also lower the corporate tax rate & eliminate the capital gains tax to encourage businesses to stay here or move here from other countries, but that, too, is separate legislation)

5th, and perhaps most important: End the drug war here & encourage Mexico to do the same. >23,000 Mexican people, some involved with the drug trade & some not, have been killed because of this failed policy since 2006. That’s almost 380% higher than how many US servicemen & women have been killed in Iraq & Afghanistan since 2001. Wouldn’t you leave if you could? No matter what?

And contrary to popular belief, the crime rate, even violent crimes, has declined over the last ten years in AZ, even though the immigration rate has risen.

My conclusion? Both the AZ immigration law and the federal suit to stop it are purely political. Neither are designed to cure the disease, & only one is designed to treat a symptom (for lack of a better analogy. I don’t think of immigrants as a disease.)

By the way, if you read my previous post(s) on immigration, you’ll see I’ve changed my view quite drastically. This is because I’ve done more of my own researching & less listening to talking heads.