Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano discuss the corrupt U.S. Treasury in Tuesday's episode of Freedom Watch.
Judge Andrew Napolitano on the real purpose of the US Constitution.
A weekly column by Ron Paul
First of all is timing. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen. If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now – if the politicians have anything to say about it.
The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid. Fully 7/8 of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.
Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, voluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently saw in Haiti. By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing, or reducing foreign aid is not up for serious debate any time soon.The third caveat is what is included in the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.
I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country - I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference. That is what makes the economy work. Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people. If government would stick only to what it was authorized to do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems would resolve themselves.
As much as rap music disgusts me and other thinking people, I must share this video because it is so well made. It is a music video that pits Hayek against his arch rival, Keynes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
The ironic combination of wise words and mindlessly primal music is hilarious.
By Barry Kuzay
The next class to receive emancipation is the only one in America that remains indentured: children.
When the coercive activity of restricting action brings up the question of where to draw the line, do not draw it at all! If the question can be somewhat rationally debated, there must therefore be sound arguments on both sides. Just as courts in a civilized society operate on the principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, the rest of a civilized society's laws must operate on the same principle. To restrict a person's non-aggressive actions is to find them guilty of being incapable of performing those actions. Might it be reasonable to doubt the guilt of every single person of a certain age?
We have all heard about many grandiose class-action lawsuits against corporations. But have we ever heard of class-action lawsuits against a class' actions? This is civil war, with judges and legislators on the front line fighting against the youth. The lawmen cannot win the battle against America's youth without the support of America's elders, who have been bribed by the lawmen though the generous "granting" of superior rights. Remember when kings would grant noblemen land, title, and treasure in exchange for their support and cooperation? Times have not changed. Democracy has simply expanded the number of noblemen into a majority.
Every person cannot drive a car competently at the age of fifteen, cannot vote, have sex, purchase guns, or enter contracts competently at seventeen, cannot consume alcohol responsibly at twenty (or heroine at the age of one thousand years), and cannot drive a rental car competently at twenty-four. The government asserts this lunacy, and much more.
Bastiat's thoughts apply here: "The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it!"
A fairly reasonable individual will accept that there has existed, on this very planet, Homo sapiens under the age of eighteen that have the rational capacity to responsibly enter into voluntary contracts. In fact, a reasonable individual could extend this possibility to other activities, and other ages. Flash! Reasonable doubt has been proven for this class of young individuals, and any judge worth his position would never be able to convict anyone for crimes of "underagedness"!All seventeen year-olds have been found guilty of being too stupid to enter contracts. But why set the limit at eighteen years? Why not use months? Wouldn't that be more accurate? How can legislators look their citizens in the eye when they are carelessly toying with our lives? A more accurate measurement of when a child becomes an adult by government standards could very well be 211 months, which is 17.58 years. For convenience, let's just round up to eighteen years. Actually, the number eighteen is quite ugly. Maybe we should round up to a nice even twenty.
The unit of years is arbitrary. What is a year? One lap around the sun. How does completing an exact number of laps around the sun grant someone more rights? On planet Earth we experience these laps as cycling through the seasons, so perhaps living through these cycles many times is what grants us rights.
This thought is easily proven invalid, however, because not everyone experiences these cycles. What of Floridians who never see snow? What of obsessive-compulsive nomads who coordinate their travel north and south in in order to never experience any seasonal fluctuations? What of the Mysophobe family who never leaves their home and are oblivious to the weather outside? Do the lifestyles of these people disqualify them from earning rights?
Are the commonly used ceiling numbers of sixteen, eighteen, twenty-one, and twenty-five arbitrary? The PhD snobs will cite large-scale studies with fancy statistics related to probabilities and standard deviations, but unless they cite a 100% probability of failure, the restrictions are incompatible with civilized society, and are therefore arbitrary. Is it legitimate for the state to grant us rights so gradually? It is not within the state's authority to grant any rights at all. Rights cannot be granted, traded, or sold. We are born with the same rights we die with, whether we want them or not.
Americans gathered in colonies and created their own states. Then the states created the federal government, framed within the Constitution they authored. How could something of our own creation turn around and convincingly pretend to grant us something we already have? Besides, nothing new or additional has been created. A portion of society has simply been siphoned off and tossed into the government to provide the people with organized collective force with the purpose of maximizing liberty by punishing injustice.
Before technology allowed the government's tentacles to reach so deeply into our lives, adulthood arrived much faster. Practically all interactions in the household between parents and their children occurred in the absence of concern or knowledge of the law. Now it is only young children that enjoy that bliss. Many of us have heard our grandparents tell stories of driving trucks, holding a job, and keeping a farm all before reaching twelve years of age.
But now the wolves of democracy have a stranglehold in their civil war against America's youth. What is the solution?
Abolish government-declared childhood*! All government-sanctioned age qualifications need to be erased from big brother's books. All of these heinous laws must be declared null and void. They are incompatible with civilized society.
Before providing some examples of why this solution would work, the issue of parental control must be addressed because it affects every example. So, how could parents control another individual with equal rights?
Young children act with no regard or even awareness for the law. It is probably the troublesome teenage years that is of most concern for parents grasping for power. But what to make of this extremely rebellious period of growth?
The human species will advance by removing government enforcement of the master-slave relationship between parents and children. If a child runs away and cannot survive, the child will return to his family or perish. If a child runs away and finds increased prosperity, by finding another family or by supporting himself, then a good event has taken place. And no, kids would not be perishing left and right. Actually the opposite effect would happen.
Runaway teenagers would not be banished from beginning independent adult life earlier than the establishment would like. The problem of domestic violence against children would only improve, since the government would no longer recognize parents as legitimate tyrants over their offspring. More parents would be convicted in court, and more children would be able to flee their violent homes without being dragged back by lawmen.
"Children can't make rational decisions. They must be under parental control and protected from entering into contracts."The average adult's capacity for rational thinking leaves much to be desired, which is why we end up in situations like this, where the government enforces childhood in an extremely arbitrary and disgusting manner. But who determines what is rational anyway? A government employee? Ha!
"But still, children will screw up the voting process."
Not any more than adults already have. What would they have done, vote for McCain over Obama? Most adults do not vote anyway. How many children will actually vote? Most adults do not vote because they are busy at play. What will children be doing?
To be fair, let's instead dumbly assume that most children will vote. We are all fond of the phrase no taxation without representation. How about no law without representation? Under the true definition of law, that would be the natural condition. Law is not the attack of a large group against a smaller group. Law is organized collective force, defending individual liberty against its violators. The principle of the matter overrides any emotions we feel against allowing children equal rights.
"We at least need to protect them from entering into contracts. And by protect, we mean prohibit."
As long as a child is under the care of an adult, guess what the adult will do? Take care of them! What if the child decides to ignore the parental advice and buy the far overpriced car? First he needs to have money to buy it with, which means he is either responsible enough to earn his own, or his parents are irresponsible enough to provide it.
"What if the kid goes and buys a gun? We can't allow that!"
Once again, a child must first pass the parental blockade. That is all children need to pass currently in order to get their hands on their parents' weapons. After that, the second amendment is very clear. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringed! The Framers chose their words very carefully. They did not toss in the words "removed" or "abolished." They selected the word "infringed" specifically to prohibit any government encroachment whatsoever on gun rights. That means there can be no laws at any level of government restricting these rights on the basis of gender, race, age, or draft registration! Clearly, the most important word in the second amendment has been completely ignored.
"Well if they don't kill us with guns, they will kill us with cars!"
This is only a problem because roads are owned by the government. If roads were privatized in a truly free market, natural driving restrictions would emerge as companies weigh their extra revenue from younger drivers against the increased rate of damage caused by those drivers. It is possible that companies would set a minimum (and a maximum) driving age, but since companies are concerned with maximizing profits it is more likely that the emergent industry standard would be to require periodic aptitude tests instead. The result would be more drivers and fewer traffic accidents, since there would be more brilliant ten year-olds on the road and fewer irresponsible forty year-olds than the government allows.
When does adulthood really begin? It doesn't matter. There is no sudden instant when you become an adult, just as there was no specific instant when man evolved from its preceding species. One logical definition of adulthood that has been given is when a person moves out of their parents' home and into their own, beginning to live independently. It is a nice definition, but government intrusion through laws and propaganda distorts the natural timing of this event. Therefore, this definition cannot be used for legal purposes. The only solution is to abolish government-declared childhood*!
*Not to be confused with the natural period of human development, for only a socialist would attempt to abolish nature!
Barry Kuzay [send him mail] is a highway research engineer and editor of ConstitutionSociety.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Constitution Society on Facebook
