LadyOfLiberty

Truth and ideas

2008-12-23T14:02:00.000-05:00

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Random Thoughts

An e-mail from a reader whose job requires him to take urine tests, to make sure he is drug-free, wonders why he is taxed to provide money to people on welfare who are also on drugs. He thinks they should have to take urine tests too, before they get his money.

I really like Thomas Sowell. He comes up with so many ideas that I wish I had thought of first (in addition to the ones I already had <g>).

And another scary truth:

It is fascinating to see that politicians whose interventions in
mortgage lending have created a disaster in financial institutions are
now moving on to intervene in the automobile industry.

Is there a line?

2008-12-08T13:24:00.001-05:00

A bunch of people were against the Bear Sterns bailout - worried that doing it once might encourage other similar bailout. The same people and a few more were against the Fannie/Freddy bailout - worried that we might be setting a precedent. We hoped that maybe a line was finally being drawn when we let Lehman go under ... That hope lasted less than a week. Then 700 billion more and 80 billion more and 35 billion more and more and more.

Where do we draw the line? On what basis? Which straw will be the last one? Which industry will be the new essential industry after we bail out the domestic auto industry? I challenge anyone who is for these bailouts/loans/guarantees to tell us exactly where and for whom their line is drawn. I challenge any one griping about salaried worker compensation to say exactly how much is too much to pay someone. I want specifics, not just "well that's too much" or "they're too big".

Constitution vs Private behavior

2008-11-22T13:25:00.001-05:00

Those of you who have followed my writings in the past should know that I'm not a religious person at all. Sometimes the un or anti - religious crowd loses sight of the law, in particular the Constitution.

It's Time for a War on War on the "War on Christmas"
Mitchell Bard Mitchell Bard – Fri Nov 21, 7:40 pm ET

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You will notice in the very first words of the Bill of Rights that the founders made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that there was to be no one religion "established" for the country. The First Amendment makes clear that everyone should be allowed to practice his/her religious faiths ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), but that no one faith was to be elevated above the others by the government. Being Christian does not make one more American.

The first five words of the amendment quoted take it out of the context of everything else in the article. The government passing laws or supporting one religion or group of religions over others does NOT correspond to the action of purely private businesses, NGOs, or any other person or organization not supported or financed by the government. In other words, a manger scene or giant lighted menorah on the courthouse lawn is out, one in a store's window is up to them. The Constitution ONLY applies to actions of government or those supported by government monies.

What's really interesting is that on most other topics, this thought pattern is common to many if not most of the groups lobbying for laws or handouts from the government.

Let me make it clear: What the government is not allowed to do with the powers granted to it by the people via the Constitution does not and never has been, the same as placing those prohibitions on private actions, even if those private actions are taken by a person or group who interacts with the public.

Let me make it obnoxiously clear: If you open a restaurant and don't allow (fill in the group) to eat there, that is your choice. You may not make as much money, you may have protestors outisde, you may have irate letters to the editor written about you but nothing in the law -should- prevent you from doing so. Your property, your business, your beliefs, your choice. The government, on the other hand, cannot legally discriminate between any persons or groups, on any basis, for or against, on any grounds but actions and abilities.

'nuff said

President elect Obama

2008-11-05T02:15:00.001-05:00

For all that you couldn't pay me enough to vote for Obama, or McCain for that matter, there's still a quiet little voice that, for tonight at least, says "Way to go." I am proud that our nation has come far enough that race didn't come anywhere near derailing this election. So until tomorrow, when politics as usual rears its ugly head, congratulations and well done.

Government mandated "voluntary" contributions

2008-07-10T14:01:00.001-04:00

Political Radar: McCain Rips Obama's 'Pay or Play' Health Plan

Altman said requiring employers to make a contribution toward their
workers’ health-care costs is always "controversial" with those who
don’t currently "pay for it and don’t want to pay for it."

Isn't
"contribution" defined as voluntary? I'm really tired of being told
that our taxes are "contributions," that the half of your money taken
out for Social InSecurity and Medicare that wage earned never sees to
begin with is an employer's "contribution." That money all comes out of
our own pockets, since an employer has to look at the total cost of
hiring someone, regardless of how much of that cost the employee
actually sees.

If an employer does the math and comes up with being able to afford
$10/hr to hire a new employee, it doesn't matter to the bottom line as
to how much of that total $10/hr actually shows up in the paycheck you
receive and how much of it they are forced to pay to government, health
insurance, unemployment insurance, etc. It really does all come out of
our pockets - Oh, and the money to cover new costs has to come out of
cut expenses or increased revenue (i.e. job cuts and higher prices).

Vote - But Not for the Lesser of Two (or more) Evils

2008-04-23T00:28:00.000-04:00

A Call to Action

It seems that most people I talk to often base their vote not for a candidate they actually want, but against the one they fear most. Unfortunately, the winner gets to claim those votes as votes FOR him or her, calling them a mandate for whatever programs or beliefs they're want to act on. Other people don't vote at all because they don't like anyone enough to go to the polls for and there aren't any personal hot button issues for them on the ballot. It's generally looked at as voter apathy - too many people just don't care enough to bother deciding which crook (for so the candidates often seem) to vote against or seeing what other issues are on the ballot. When a candidate gets voted for by only a minority of a minority of the eligible voters it can get rather scary.

What I propose is as follows:
EVERYONE who CAN vote should go and do so. If none of the candidates in a given race are ones you could vote FOR, then don't vote for anyone for that position. Nothing says you have to vote on every position or issue on the ballot. Even if there's only one issue that you know and care about at all, GO AND VOTE FOR THAT ISSUE ONLY!!! When results of 1,000 people casting ballots at a given precinct while the winner of any particular race only gets 150 votes that sends a message loud and clear. NOTA (None Of The Above) doesn't have to be formally on the ballot to be the de facto winner.

If you're asked in an exit poll how you voted in a race you didn't vote in, tell it straight out just that way. There wasn't anyone in that race I wanted to vote for so no one got my vote.

Off to see the Wizard

2008-04-08T14:37:00.004-04:00

We're off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of ... politics? Too often politicians seem to be living in their own little Oz where all they have to do is want something badly enough or find the right person to run it or the right words to say it in and everything will suddenly become beautiful and peaceful and an eternal utopia will take the place of this world of strife and effort and, sometimes, failure that mankind has spent his entire existence in.

There was a Bugs Bunny cartoon that I remember quite well which had Bugs walking off a cliff and standing in thin air. Then he raised his sign which said "I never studied law." That can happen in cartoons, but not in real life. No matter how hard you try, the law of gravity is still going to bring you down. So is every other natural law. Are there laws we haven't found yet that will allow us to do things we don't think we can now? Very possibly. It's still us who have to conform to nature, though, not the other way around.

You would not expect a lion to act like a bird so why do they think you can make a man act like a fish? Yes, we have a lot more free will than a lion but we can still operate only within the nature of man. At least half of our personality is set by genetics, not how or where or who by or by what beliefs you were raised. Another chunk is set by the general culture which is engraved into your personality by a very young age and is very hard to change later, even if you are aware of what part of you it is (and most people aren't).

Any proposal, no matter how well intentioned, which doesn't take this into account right off the top is doomed to failure. Often it not only fails but makes things worse. I suppose it does benefit the proposers though. Those who make the proposals get their warm fuzzies for caring so much and maybe even pick up a little (or a lot) of control over those poor people they're trying to "help."

So ask yourself, the next time you hear that someone wants to make things better for us, does it take into account that people want to get the most return for the least effort? Does it still feel comfortable if the worst person you can think of has this new power? Sooner or later the person in place won't have anywhere near the "good intentions" that the position was planned for. Is there a plan for what to do if the unintended consequences turn out to be a lot worse than the intended ones?

Listen to all the promises and plans of the candidates and ask yourself if they measure up to these standards or is it just more feel good window dressing? Even worse, is it something that could easily backfire and bring us even further down than we are now?

Think, then vote.

The pyramid scam called Social Security

2008-03-30T10:44:00.002-04:00

A pyramid scheme is one in which payouts to today's "investors" is paid for by the new people joining in. Everyone thinks it's great until it reaches its tipping point where they can't get enough money in to make the payments due and it all falls down like a house of cards. That's why these schemes are illegal ... unless the perpetrator is the government of the United States of America and the victims are its working citizens.

There is no trust fund. All that is in it is IOUs from the government to itself. Say you use a cookie jar to put your retirement savings in, but over the years you want to buy a car or a new home and instead of actually putting cash in the jar you simply write yourself an IOU for the amount and put it in instead. What's going to happen come retirement time? Who is going to honor your IOU when you go to the grocery store? NO ONE!!!

Every dollar that is collected as your social security "contribution" is spent today for today's payout as then for general fund spending. The government then buy special government bonds from itself and puts those bonds in the kitty. When it has to start redeeming those bonds the money has to come from higher tax revenues, whether it's billed as income taxes, higher social security taxes (excuse me, "contributions," except I always thought that contributions were voluntary), fees or whatever. We're only a few years away from having to start redeeming those bonds. Medicare, by the way, is only 2 or 3 years away from hitting that point and there's nothing in that kitty either.

You wonder why the deficit is so high now? Just wait until they can't cover some of the shortfall with SS "surpluses" and have to show the TRUE amount of spending above the "regular" taxes. Oh, and by the way, what is "owed" to the "trust fund" isn't even added in when they calculate the total debt. You can tack on TRILLIONS of dollars to the figures they now use for the total debt of the United States. For that matter you can also tack on the future benefits for federal workers, the Railroad trust fund and a few other retirement programs the government has taken over. NONE of those obligations are included in the national debt totals.

You're not even entitled to a payout from SS. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue. For all they call it "insurance" there is NO legal obligation to pay out one penny to anyone. It may be political suicide to cut it or axe it all together but it would be legal. Maybe it will be as one congressman said in the 80's before the last major hike in taxes with inflation still running rampant - "The American people will get every penny owed to them. It may not be worth anything, but they'll get it."

Geneva Convention

2008-03-18T19:48:00.000-04:00

The ends don't justify the means. Treating someone in a way that makes them think they're going to be killed or put under such intense and/or long term physical stress that they would say anything to stop it is not something consistent with our national character. The worst suspected serial killer or rapist still has the same rights as anyone else until and unless he is convicted and, even then, has the right to appeal.

The Declaration of Independence (I know it's been thrown out at the supreme court level as a legal document - but it still says a lot about what we thought we were even back then) states that the basic rights of man are inherent, not granted.

Does someone lose their essential humanity by being accused of a crime simply because we REALLY don't like the crime they're accused of? Murder is murder and even conspiring to commit murder is a felony.

The "War on Terror," just like the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs," is a political slogan used to create emotions of fear or anger sufficient to justify assumption of powers that otherwise would never be freely granted under full disclosure of the means and ends. These so-called "wars" are ones that, by their very nature, can never be won and therefore the powers taken can be just be the jump off point for the next power grab.

Where does it end?

Reverse of attack ads

2008-03-18T19:43:00.000-04:00

I've been finding it hilarious that when I see the negative ads that one politician puts up agaisnt the other, that what they think is negative is usually what I like MOST that that candidate stands for. It's in both directions - the most "liberal" stands of the democrats: mainly letting people do what they want as long as it isn't hurting someone else - the most "conservative" stands of the republicans: mainly letting people go about making their livings as they think best for themselves and not wasting government money (or at least not wasting as much) as the democrats are known for doing.

Ah well....I want the government out of my billfold, out of my bedroom and off of my back. I'm both a civil libertarian and an economic libertarian. If I am not physically hurting someone else (not just hurting their feelings or offending their sensibilities) and not trying to defraud them or putting them in harm's way without their knowledge and consent (wanton endangerment) and not trying to steal from them then the government's got no business telling me or anyone else what to do.

The bottom line of the government telling anyone anything is simply that, in the end, you will do what they say or they will use guns to take your money, your property or even your physical freedom away. That's the bottom line on everything from jaywalking to murder.

Think about that the next time you say the government ought to do something about whatever your pet peeve is.