Logic And Reason

Budget Perspective

2009-05-11T22:33:00.002-05:00

Last week the Obama administration touted they were cutting $17 billion in wasteful spending. This is an odd celebration considering the same administration just pushed a $3.55 TRILLION budget through Congress earlier in the year. Since the general media does not seem capable of putting the massive spending cuts in perspective, it is important to state a few facts:

$17 billion is a lot of money, as the administration claims. However, it is only 0.49% of the $3.6 trillion spending budget. Long story short, this barely puts a dent in starting to spend the U.S. taxpayer's money wisely.
Cutting "earmarks" and other smaller programs here and there will not balance the budget or make us a fiscally responsible nation. Compared to the spending enormous sums of money on social programs and the military, the cuts the Obama administration is taking credit for will do relatively nothing.

When on the campaign trail, President Obama promised change. Sadly it seems like more of the same coming from Washington D.C.

Real Oil Solutions

2008-06-30T18:00:00.002-05:00

Recently, the "oil crisis" is constantly in the news. Nearly every broadcast (especially financial channels such as CNBC) contains at least one story related to our out of control oil prices. Of course, the recent turn of events has prompted politicians to respond with their usual barrage of short-sighted solutions to the problem of the century. In the past week, we have seen proposals suggesting the regulation of wall street to curtail "speculators," electric cars, and of course, federal subsidies and laws to make sure it all happens. Unfortunately, none of the proposals alone (conservation or production) will solve the problem. In order to reduce the impact of oil prices on American consumers and producers, we must avoid detrimental short term solutions, and rather focus our efforts upon currency stabilization and a return to private property.

Current Proposal Flaws

As mentioned above, there are many proposals related to solving America's energy woes. While we will not dive into an enormous amount of detail in this article, the list below summarizes the problems with current proposals.

Windfall Profits Taxes and Distribution - Recently touted by Senator Obama, this plan has one serious flaw: A plan built upon the premise of taxing oil companies for subsequent distribution to the "middle class" will discourage the production and refinement of oil for gasoline. Of course, a discouragement of production will only lessen the supply of gasoline (raising the price) and increase our dependence upon foreign oil.
Ethanol and other Government Subsidies - While ethanol sounds promising to many people, it is a classic example of why the Federal Government should not be subsidizing energy producers. Aside from the basic philosophical issues, Government subsidies are not likely to result in the best set of choices of alternative energy.
Alternative Transportation - Electric cars and trains certainly hold promise. However, they are not ready for prime time in this country. Furthermore, many of the solutions surrounding alternative transportation involve government subsidies and mandates. While appealing to some, history has shown government subsidies do not typically result in efficient transportation.
Stimulus Packages - While supported upon philosophical grounds, federal gas tax holidays (proposed by Senator McCain) will do little to solve the problem in the long run. An alternative stimulus of $1,000 per taxpayer (probably means tested) proposed by Senator Obama is even more troubling, as it is ultimately tied to windfall profit tax increases (see above).

There are certainly other proposals and ideas floating around which are less than ideal. The purpose of this post, however, is to offer a realistic solution rather than pick apart existing ideas. The next two sections address the demand side (Currency Stabilization) and supply side (Private Property).

Currency Stabilization

Certainly efforts to conserve energy hold some merit. People should strive to reuse items rather than throwing them away (reuse automatically results in a reduction of consumption). The good news is a more realistic solution is available. Strengthening the U.S. dollar by backing it with a precious metal such as gold would press prices downward because the dollar would increase in value against foreign currencies.

As the dollar increases against foreign currencies, it becomes less expensive to import products such as oil because our dollar is capable of purchasing more of an imported product. While the supply side of the equation (see below) is important, the ability to import oil with less of a national financial impact decreases our need to drill and refine oil locally. For those concerned about the environmental impact of drilling for more oil, a stronger dollar should be recognized as an essential solution.

In addition to increasing America's purchasing power of foreign goods, a strong dollar also promotes more stable economic growth. If currency is backed by metal (such as gold), politicians and central banks are not as empowered to stimulate false prosperity. More stable economic growth will result in a more responsible use of energy than what we have seen in recent economic booms (both in the U.S. and China).

Private Property

While addressing the demand side of the oil price problems is essential, it is also extremely important to consider solutions related to increasing the supply of refined oil to reduce gas prices. Simply put, the primary cause of the supply side of the oil problem is a lack of private property rights, and a privatization of property will solve the problem.

Currently, several large oil companies have an enormous amount of control over the available oil supply in the United States. They are capable of maintaining pricing power since only a few key players possess significant drilling lease rights granted by the Federal government. Rather than maintain the status-quo, Congress should sell off public lands to individual stakeholders, and should not just allow a privileged few to drill for and refine oil.

If all land were sold to private citizens, many different types of people would rush to purchase the oil. Some would seek to extract and refine as much oil as possible, while others would scurry to buy land to prevent subsequent development. Additionally, some people would build refineries that would be essential in refining the new found oil.

Many people would object to said policy assuming it is not environmentally friendly. They tend to believe government is necessary to protect public lands. Fortunately, private property with strictly interpreted rights is the best friend the environment ever had. If person A were irresponsible with the oil he or she found, person B could file suit if his or her property were damaged. Furthermore, those who own the land would have an incentive to care for it, which is contrary to what those who lease property from government.

Understandably, many people within the United States are frustrated with the current price of oil. If we truly seek to change the current landscape, our nation must adopt more sensible policies that encourage responsible free enterprise rather than scapegoating oil companies. If we fail, our country will have no one to blame but itself.

Oil Crisis and Politics

2008-06-10T18:13:00.002-05:00

Today's news headlines reported that there was a proposal to create windfall taxes on major oil company profits. The end receiver of the proceeds would be the tapped out American consumer. This proposal amounts to no more than political grandstanding and can in no way be considered a moral proposition.

Windfall Taxes Are Theft

When one considers windfall taxes on oil companies, the first major blockade to rationalizing this proposal should be encountered when one realizes that this is theft. There are thousands of stockholders and employees who have made considerable monetary and time investments into making the profits. Why punish these people who have made correct bets on a low supply / high demand situation on an inelastic product? Anyone has the opportunity to invest in these companies.

Windfall Taxes Interfere With Reality

It is also interesting to note that some industries will actually gain from high oil prices. As consumers use less product due to high price, they will turn to other sources for energy needs, be it wind, solar, coal, hydro. (It is also astonishing that many of those promoting the "need" for more oil are the same who receive much support from the environmental lobby). Oil is so important because when it comes to it's transportability and energy content, it is the most versatile fuel for its cost. As it becomes more expensive, the shift to alternatives will occur.

Rewarding Bad Choices and Punishing Good Ones

As mentioned earlier, many investors made wise decisions to invest in an industry with a decreasing supply, increasing demand, and a fairly inelastic consumer (in the short term). However, many people also made poor choices such as purchasing two Hummers and commuting 30 miles each way to work. Should one punish the wise investor and give to the Hummer driver through a windfall profits tax?

At Whose Cost

What industry is next? What is wrong with profit? Why do some people think that cheap fuel is a right or an entitlement? Who pays the price for this?

History vs. Radical Environmentalism

2008-02-18T10:11:00.004-06:00

Recently I have begun reading Europe by Norman Davies. Within the first chapter entitled "Environment and Prehistory," several main points regarding the frequency of natural climate change struck me as proof the climate of the earth is more likely to change without the influence of mankind.

Portions of the Roman world which once supported a flourishing population are now barren deserts
Viking graves have been found in Iceland and Greenload, proving the world has warmed enough for early settlement. However, the extermination of Viking settlements on the same plots of land proves the climate became unbearably cold to survive
In the 17th century, annual festivals were held on the frozen Thames in London
During the same century, armies marched accross the frozen Baltic

These are just a few examples showing the Earth's climate changes without the intervention of man. Note each of the above occurred prior to the industrial revolution or any other massive output of "greenhouse gasses."

While it is certainly possible mankind is changing the climate, history proves it is far more likely other natural events such as volcanic eruptions, slight changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, and solar flares ultimately cause changes in temperature.

For more information regarding global warming, see our archives from May of 2007, or just click here.

Global Warming Linked to Hot Air Spewing from Environmentalists

2008-02-13T05:55:00.000-06:00

This just in.... We have detected a statistical correlation between the occurrence of speeches by Al Gore and global temperature increases.... What can YOU do to reduce Al Gore emissions?

For the real story on global warming, click here.

35 Years of What Experience?

2008-02-01T06:20:00.000-06:00

Last night I heard a commercial for Hillary Clinton claiming she has 35 years of experience. What exactly does that mean? She has been a U.S. Senator since January 2001, which would be 7 years.

Did she hold office prior to being the First Lady, or is this just more Clinton B.S.

Stimulus Package Not Very Stimulating

2008-01-29T21:20:00.000-06:00

Recently the U.S. House of Representatives passed a "stimulus" package backed by President Bush. While pending approval in the Senate, many are touting the bill as a necessary component of recession prevention. Assuming the prevention of a recession is a good thing, there are unfortunately several reasons why the stimulus package will not work.

For those paying attention to the recent financial crisis, it is fairly obvious the root cause of the recent turmoil is an abundance of debt not being paid by over extended consumers. This naturally causes strain upon creditors such as Countrywide Home Loads and JP Morgan Chase. While the "stimulus" package may put more money in the hands of the American public, nothing dictates whether or not they should use the money to pay off debt (which would begin to solve the underlying problem).

Unfortunately, regardless of what American consumers do, the problem does not disappear as our courageous leaders in Washington D.C. wish.....

If the over-extended consumer chooses to use the "stimulus" package to pay down debt (a good move), the package has no stimulative effect on the economy. In fact, this activity ultimately reduces the supply of money as old, bad debt is paid off.

On the other hand, if the consumer chooses to spend more, which stimulates the economy, the underlying problem of too much credit is not taken care of, and we essentially delay the recession (possibly a depression) for another day.

When will politicians in D.C. actually do something productive?

Conservation Should Be Voluntary

2007-09-13T22:30:00.000-05:00

Conservation Should Be Voluntary

Numerous politicians frequently advocate the usage of tax breaks and credits to individuals or businesses who exhibit "eco-friendly" behavior. These tax breaks amount to theft from the average taxpayer, as conservation should be a goal that is undertaken in one's self interest.

No One Pollutes For The Sake Of Polluting

Numerous complaints are made against companies who pollute, saying that companies do not care for the environment and are only out to make a profit. While the company's goal is to make a profit, one must also realize that the people who work in a factory, refinery, or store that may be causing pollution most likely live in a nearby area. The manager of a factory does have some self interest in limiting the amount of pollution that is released because of the effect on himself and his workers.

Conservation Benefits Oneself

Consider also the typical nuclear family in a typical house in suburban America. Their best interest is to conserve power and fuel whenever possible because the household bills will be higher if they do not conserve. Setting the thermostat lower in winter to reduce furnace use and higher in the summer will reduce air conditioner use will lower the homeowner's bills. He does not need to be told to save energy. A rational individual will do so anyways. Likewise, a rational commuter will not commute 100 miles to work each way because of the staggering costs of fuel that will be realized.

People Want The Planet To Be Healthy

People want to live in a clean environment and enjoy their surroundings. However, differences exist in how this goal should be accomplished. While some want to use power to mandate the behavior of others to promote their own goals of environmental stewardship, most people will quietly take care of their property and reduce their energy usage in their own self interest.

Bailout of Lenders / Homeowners Encourages Malinvestment

2007-08-23T21:35:00.000-05:00

A Novel Approach To Solving The Housing Market Crises...Let It Be

Free market thinkers tend to view the marketplace as one where prices tend to reach equilibrium and malinvestment is purged during times of recession. The recent activity in the housing market in relation to falling prices / sales levels and the major declines in the profitibility of mortgage lending businesses have sparked discussions about what should be done about the situation.

Any time the possibility of recession and financial institution failure rises, discussion about how to solve the problem revolves around bailing out the institution or the investors who would be affected by the crises. Recent bailouts such as the Long Term Capital Management mess in 1998 and the liquidity injection in the fall of 2001 to curb investor jitters have shown that when crises is on the horizon, there is nothing to fear because money will be added to the financial system to help prop asset prices.

Recent news stories tell horrors of homeowners failing to make payments and lenders closing the doors and windows. While this obviously doesn't make for a pleasant economic situation, bailing out homeowners and lenders with money that is created violates free market principles. Proposed government solutions to the housing crisis by either providing tax breaks for people who defaulted on mortgages or creating new financing options for people who shouldn't otherwise have these options because of their risk level amounts to nothing more than subsidizing malinvestment.

A Note on Advertisements

2007-08-21T06:22:00.000-05:00

For those of you visiting our site, please note many of the advertisements are from google adsense, and we have little control over their content. Also note we support freedom of speech on this forum, but please be advised any advertisement contrary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is contrary to the views of logicandreasonweb.com.

This Law Blows!

2007-08-08T15:10:00.000-05:00

On July 23rd, 2007, Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) of Illinois signed a law banning smoking in "public" places. While Illinois is not the only state to pass such a ban, it is the most recent. The new law is heralded as pro-health, and many are rejoicing at its passage. Unfortunately, the passage of this law is but another violation of private property rights, as those who own property such as bars and restaurants are forced to succumb to the will of others. The law, which mistakenly defines private property as public, is disguised as an attempt to enhance worker health, but the true motive seems to be control.

Public vs. Private

Voluntary restaurant smoking bans rarely cause any controversy. Most people accept the fact a restaurant is its own private entity, and it has a right to ban smoking if it believes it is proper and profitable to do so. Unfortunately, in the case of the Illinois law, a state government is banning smoking in a private place. When reading the text of the law, one should notice the continuous reference of bars and restaurants as public places. This is quite inappropriate because the restaurants are owned by private entrepreneurs, who have taken the risk to start and maintain a business. There is nothing public about a bar, except they typically allow (and encourage) all from the public to enter.

Health or Control?

In addition to mistakenly defining private bars and restaurants as public places, the Illinois smoking ban claims its entire purpose is to protect worker health. Several EPA and other studies are cited, which link second hand smoke to cancer. Therefore, the reader of the new law can conclude the advocates of the new law are not selling it as a protection of the individual (an attempt to avoid the nanny state argument), but rather the non smoking customer and worker from second hand smoke.

Perhaps the studies mentioned within the law are true, although we typically remain skeptical because "studies" can be used to prove almost anything today. However, if the studies are true, where does government stop? Should construction be banned because a job is dangerous depending upon the circumstances? Should we ban alcohol because some bartenders drink on the job and might endanger the lives of others? The bottom line is government should not be in the business of making sure everything at your job or place of leisure is "safe." If a worker or customer visits an establishment, and views it to be unsafe, he or she should immediately leave if safety is his or her primary concern. Failure to leave constitutes an acceptance of the consequences.

Considering states could make laws banning many economic activities for safety concerns, and have not, one can logically state this new law is more about control than it is about safety. People are capabale of deciding whether or not they should work in a smoky bar, so just let them make the decision on their own. Similarly, individuals are capable of deciding whether or not they want to spend their leisure time in a smoky restaurant, so why not give them the choice? While these are fairly obivious questions regarding the new law, always remember, governments make laws to control you rather than help you, and this new law in Illinois is no exeption.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it (as long as you don't do it in Illinois)....

Better Political Commentary

2007-08-03T05:26:00.000-05:00

Recently, we have submitted our blog feed to feedburner, so our feed and blog are obviously getting more attention. As you review the feeds, remember you get the true experience by coming to the website (www.logicandreasonweb.com).

While we are growing and changing quickly, remember we are your source for logical interpretations of political events, both present and past. If there is a particular issue you would like us to write about, go here, and enter comments indicating what you would like to hear more about.

Don't Forget the Archives!

2007-08-02T06:56:00.000-05:00

For those of you who are new to logicandreasonweb, don't forget to check out our blog archive. Just scroll down on the right hand side of the page to view previous blog posts on the following topics:

May
Global Warming - May 15th, 2007
Taxation - May 20th, 2007
Gasoline Prices - May 30th, 2007

June
Federal Minimum Wage Increase - June 9th, 2007
Deflation - June 24th, 2007
Immigration - June 25th, 2007

Ron Paul and Abortion

2007-07-29T07:42:00.000-05:00

On July 15th, my colleague posted an entry advocating Ron Paul for president. John mentioned Congressman Paul's dedication to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well as Ron Paul's proven record of working to prevent the growth of more government programs. While agreeing with everything John said, it is also important to note Ron Paul is the most honest candidate regarding his stance on abortion. Listening to Ron Paul speak, it is fairly easy to determine he is pro life, and that his stance is formed by logic and reason. Rather than focus on silly arguments such as privacy and Supreme Court precedence, Dr. Paul lobbies against abortion by working to define life and to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Define Life

Before entering into any debate regarding abortion, it is essential to define the actual debate. Frankly, discussion should not be had until the definition of life is established. Ron Paul has attempted to frame this debate by introducing HR 1094, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception.

Our preference is to create such definitions within each of the 50 states. However, logicandreasonweb understands the relevance of defining life at the federal level when the current state of abortion law is based upon an oppressive and reprehensible U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Roe v. Wade).

Overturn Roe v. Wade

While we are not completely clear regarding whether or not Dr. Paul believes the federal government has the authority to create laws regarding abortion, it is obvious he opposes Roe v. Wade, and understands the court decision is a poor one. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Paul's 2008 campaign website:

"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. "

The words above as well as Dr. Paul's actions in Congress show he clearly understands the Supreme Court interpretation of the 4th and 9th amendments in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is poor. While it is certainly doubtful the Supreme Court will deem such a law constitutional, it is refreshing to see at least one of the too many to count presidential candidates is focusing on what really matters regarding abortion.

If you are interested in viewing Ron Paul's official stance on abortion, please feel free to take a look at his official position. We also strongly suggest taking a look at his site in general, and guarantee you will learn something about our country and liberty.

Illinois Smoking Ban to Reduce State Revenue

2007-07-28T17:58:00.000-05:00

On a Positive Note...

By clicking on this link one can see the bill status of the recent Illinois law prohibiting smoking in public places. Upon viewing the bill status one should observe the following fiscal note from the Illinois Department of Revenue:

"The Department of Revenue estimates that SB 500 would reduce tax revenues collected under the Cigarette Tax Act and the Cigarette Use Tax Act by approximately $24 million to $60 million per year and would reduce Retailers' Occupation Tax and Use Tax Revenues by approximately $3.5 million to $8.5 million per year. "

While the bill is an egregious invasion of the privacy of private property owners (post coming soon), at least it will reduce the amount of money going into Illinois state coffers. At logicandreasonweb.com, we are sure this will result in a subsequent reduction in spending (sarcasm implied).

Have a great weekend. If you are a smoker in a bar within the Land of Lincoln, start planning your future weekends in a less repressive neighboring state.

The 2nd Amendment - Interpretation

2007-07-23T19:00:00.000-05:00

Guns are frequently cursed in American culture. We can pick up a daily paper and read horror stories about a gunman killing multiple people during a public shooting. These terrible instances tend to precede calls from politicians and regular citizens for stricter gun control laws, particularly at the Federal level. While sometimes well-intentioned, any call for Federal gun control laws of any type should be considered unconstitutional. One can quite easily come to this conclusion by paying attention to the second amendment of the United States Constitution as well as Section 13 of the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights.

U.S. Constitution - 2nd Amendment

"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 verbatim text from the Bill of Rights shown above is fairly clear. Basically, this amendment emphasizes a well regulated militia (not a massive army) is necessary for the defence of a free state. Therefore, it is essential people who could potentially participate (the public) in the militia have and know how to use armaments such as guns.

One could argue government is capable of teaching people how to use guns, therefore making the right to bear arms unnecessary. While technically possible, such a system would violate the spirit of the Bill of Rights. When reading the Bill of Rights, one should understand the authors of the Bill of Rights were quite concerned with the powers of government, and strongly desired to keep guns in the hands of citizens. Although not a Bill of Rights author, Thomas Jefferson once said, "People should not fear their government. It is government which should fear the people." Without armaments in the hands of civilians, government has nothing to fear. Hence, the second amendment exists.

While the above is fairly easy for many people to comprehend, some members of our society choose to interpret the second amendment as granting the Federal government the ability to regulate arms. Gun control advocates typically use the "A well regulated Militia" portion of the amendment as justification for gun control laws. This logic is utter nonsense. By reading the entire amendment, people should be able to see the author of the amendment is stating in order to have a well regulated militia, individual people must have the right to bear arms. If the authors of the Bill of Rights wished to allow the regulation of armaments by the Federal government, they would have left the second amendment out of the document.

1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights - Section 13

"That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

One may wonder why the Virginia Declaration of Rights matters in this discussion. It is certainly not part of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore has no legal authority. While true, it is important to read Section 13 to have an understanding of the intent of the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution (for more information regarding why the Virginia Declaration of Rights is relevant in interpreting the Bill of Rights, please visit our previous post regarding how the Bill of Rights should be interpreted).

Keeping the influence of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights in mind, how can people question the right to bear arms? The Virginia Declaration of Rights goes several steps further by stating a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty. However, the point regarding the necessity of a well armed citizenry is rather obvious.

While a book could be written regarding the subject of gun control, this brief blog post has illustrated why the Bill of Rights protects every citizen's right to keep and bear arms. It has also referenced a document (Virginia Declaration of Rights) which has greatly influenced the Bill of Rights, stating the necessity of a well armed public. The most valuable takeaway for we the people is to remember your liberty is documented in paper, but protected by the threat of revolt. Without an armed citizenry, there is no threat of revolt.

On The Presidential Election

2007-07-15T07:25:00.001-05:00

On The Presidential Election

Regarding the 2008 presidential election, few candidates stand out as being for individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One candidate does stand out, Ron Paul from Texas, as holding these values of highest importance.

Mr. Paul's record does not include proposals for massive federalized health care programs, nor does he support other large government initiatives of nation building abroad. His views are very aligned with the constitution of the United States. If the government is doing something that is not specifically outlined in the constitution, he is opposed to it.

Mr. Paul's chances of winning the 2008 election are slim at this stage in the race, but that doesn't mean he isn't the best candidate. While the other candidates propose new pet programs which will only increase the size and intrusiveness of the government, Mr. Paul will continue to argue for what is right.

The 1st Amendment - Interpretation

2007-07-11T21:52:00.000-05:00

The first amendment is one of the most frequently debated and discussed amendments of the U.S. Constitution. People and politicians use it to defend their right to pray, to not hear prayers, and to say whatever they want whenever they want. Companies use it to make any claim they wish in an advertisement. While the multiple opinions within the United States are valued, when listening to all of the noise, one must take a step back and consider the actual text of the amendment:

"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."

Notice the amendment specifically calls out Congress, and mentions nothing regarding the rights or abilities of state or local governments. When one considers the actual text of the amendment, and how the Bill of Rights should be interpreted, how can he or she seriously say we have the right to say or hear whatever we want whenever we want.

Certainly, it is unwise and imprudent to regulate speech. However, we are misleading ourselves when we pretend the U.S. Supreme Court has a right to forbid prayer in public schools or force a public school newspaper to tolerate any opinion. In these circumstances the state constitution should trump the federal constitution as there is no power in the federal constitution to regulate said activities.

If people take home one message regarding the first amendment, they should understand the first amendment was created to restrict the ability of the federal government to restrict speech, and not state or local governments.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

2007-07-09T05:44:00.000-05:00

This post is a follow up to our post yesterday regarding the interpretation of the Bill of Rights. For those of you seeking further evidence the Bill of Rights are meant to restrict federal power, please take a look at the preamble. The words in blue say it all.

Bill of Rights Preamble

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Interpreting the Bill of Rights

2007-07-08T09:00:00.000-05:00

The United States Bill of Rights came into effect on December 15, 1791 upon ratification by 3/4 of the states in the new union. The Bill of Rights is a series of 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and is largely based upon the 1776 Virginia Rights of Man written by George Mason. Today, we revere the Bill of Rights with our words, and honor James Madison (the credited author) for his perseverance in ensuring the amendments passage. Unfortunately, however, numerous Supreme Court rulings have transformed our view of the Bill of Rights, as they are typically used to expand the power of the federal government over state governments. While many articles regarding the interpretation of the amendments within the Bill of Rights could be written, this post shall focus on briefly explaining some of the reasons for the amendments, as well as provide advice regarding how our country should interpret them.

Reasons for Amendment and Historical Context

Prior to recommending how the bill of rights should be interpreted, it is imperative to have at least a minor understanding of why the amendments were made to the U.S. Constitution. As mentioned above, James Madison was instrumental in securing the passage of the Bill of Rights, but George Mason deserves most of the credit in the ideal of a Bill of Rights. For those who have read the Anti-Federalist papers, the statement above is already common knowledge. It is a documented fact George Mason wrote the Virginia Rights of Man in 1776, and that he was a staunch advocate of the concept of natural rights. For readers new to the concept of natural rights, they essentially state people have the right to be free, and the state should be assumed to have no power unless specifically documented.

While George Mason participated in the Philadelphia constitutional convention, he refused to sign the document, and lobbied vehemently against it upon returning to his home state of Virginia. He and other anti-federalists believed the new constitution seized and centralized too much power including the ability to establish a new military, and to create laws and taxes without checks from state governments. In reading the Virginia Rights of Man, and considering the political philosophy of those who pioneered the concept of a bill of rights, it is rather obvious the intent was to reduce rather than increase the power of the centralized federal government.

How Should We Interpret the Bill of Rights?

Considering the history of the Bill of Rights, many people may wonder how we should interpret the Bill of Rights today. We will be taking a closer look at the specific amendments in future blog posts, but essentially, the following statements summarize how the Bill of Rights should be interpreted:

View the amendments as an official change to the federal constitution, trumping vague statements such as interstate commerce and general welfare. Keep in mind the advocates of the Bill of Rights favored smaller government, especially at the federal level. They were highly concerned about the increased centralized power and desired to change the Constitution.
View the amendments as a restriction of federal, not state power. Today the United States uses the Bill of Rights to trump state laws. This is highly inappropriate, as the the original advocates of the Bill of Rights were not in favor of large central governments.
View the 9th and 10th amendments as further evidence of restriction of federal power. By reading the 9th and 10th amendments, one can quickly see they essentially state unless the power is specifically granted, it does not exist at the federal level.

As mentioned above, we will be creating many posts regarding the Bill of Rights and their interpretation. Stay tuned for more, and in the meantime read the Anti-federalist papers for more historical context surrounding the birth of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Happy 4th of July!

2007-07-04T08:06:00.000-05:00

Good day everyone, and Happy 4th of July! As we are enjoying our BBQ and parties, let us take a step back and contemplate whether or not our nation is meeting the objectives of the founding fathers. Take a moment and answer the questions below, perhaps in a comment post. We would love to see what you think!

What does freedom mean to you?
Are we still a free country?
Has our government become larger and more powerful than the government we declared independence from in 1776?
What are the biggest threats to our liberty?
Are taxes a threat to our liberty?
Is war a friend or foe of liberty?
Are we willing to trade liberty for perceived safety?
If we are no longer a free country, how do we become one again?

Thanks, and have a great 4th of July! While you are here, please feel free to check out some of our previous blog posts by using the archive on the right hand side of the site.

Republican = Democrat

2007-07-02T05:55:00.000-05:00

Many people are loyal political party members. Whether Republican or Democrat, they believe their party is right, and will follow its guidance even when they disagree with the party's stance on a particular political issue. Simply put, people think they are fighting for the greater good when joining a political party. Unfortunately, mainstream political parties (such as the Democrats and Republicans) are nothing but corrupt political machines who are very similar in ideology when viewed from a philosophy of liberty.

Each Party is Statist

Regardless of whether or not people are Republicans or Democrats, they are statists. Both parties claim to be for liberty and smaller government on certain issues. However, each party is equally as guilty of massive deficit spending, and mass theft through taxation. Each party has guided our nation into senseless wars, costing many lives. Anyone can watch a politician from the Republican or Democratic party on a talk show, and in a few minutes can easily see the politician lobby for larger government in some fashion. Some argue for a troop surge, and others advocate "free" health care for all. Either way, the size of the state increases.

Each Party is Corrupt

Democrats and Republicans frequently criticise the other party for becoming corrupt. Unfortunately, neither party can claim innocence. The 20th and now 21st centuries are filled with examples of selling out the public to benefit corporations and governments. Members of both of the major political parties have silenced critics through threats and bribes. With these facts in mind, how can one listen to a Democrat or Republican criticize others for corruption?

What Next?

Considering the common yet adverse practices of both major political parties, one should follow one simple piece of advice: Think for yourself. The American people should view each issue with an objective eye, continuously looking for deceit from a politician. If we fail to do so, we deserve the fate handed to us by less than admirable politicians and political parties.

Topic Suggestions

2007-07-01T17:45:00.000-05:00

Topic Suggestions

Have a topic you'd like to see on the Logic and Reason blog? Let us know by posting a comment related to this blog post.

The Mexicans are Coming! The Mexicans are Coming!

2007-06-25T06:40:00.000-05:00

Talk radio and news shows are filled with discussions regarding immigration, and particularly illegal immigration. Politicians are lobbying for amnesty, jail time, deportation, border patrol, fences, and other solutions to the "problem" of illegal immigration. Unfortunately, this exercise is yet another waste of the federal government's time, as it is spending huge amounts of money in an effort to stop illegal immigration. Regardless of whether or not there is truly an immigration problem, the federal government should focus its energies on removing the improper incentives for illegal immigration rather than building fences and walls. While lengthy articles could be written regarding the virtues or vices of immigration, this blog post will focus on some of the solutions to the "problem" and offer a suggestion for more effective change.

What is the problem?

When creating a solution, typically it is wise to form one which solves a real problem. Unfortunately, proponents of solutions designed to keep people out of the country such as walls and border patrol are jumping to solutions to problems which essentially are non-existent. Their reasons for increased border patrols tend to focus on several main areas including jobs and security.

Unions and other populist types insist our labor markets are being destroyed by cheap, illegal labor coming from Mexico. While the cheap labor comes from other countries as well, the current focus is mostly applied to Hispanic immigrants. One cannot listen to Lou Dobbs without a diatribe regarding immigrants and off shoring "stealing" our jobs. These arguments are rather asinine since we do not really own our jobs. We are given a job when we come to agreeable terms with an employer, and as a laborer can leave at any time, so too can an employer terminate an agreement with a laborer (excluding breaches of contract of course). Rather than being fearful of immigrants who are stealing our jobs, we should welcome those who come to this country in search of the American dream.

While labor issues are certainly important to anti-immigration forces, people within this camp also tend to label illegal immigration as a security issue. Of course an anti-American can get into the country via an insecure border, but building walls and devising other means of keeping people out will not solve this problem. The bottom line is if a terrorist wishes to get into this country, he or she will find a way to do so. Our country would be much better off focusing its energies towards thwarting a known attempt rather than worrying about who is entering the country.

The Wall and Border Patrol

While we at logicandreasonweb.com do not believe there is a major illegal immigration problem, some anti-immigration forces are proposing solutions such as building border walls and border patrols. Unfortunately, this effort will prove to be another federal government boondoggle, wasting an unknown amount of taxpayer money. It is difficult to know how much the wall and border patrol will truly cost, as government programs and efforts tend to cost much more than the original estimate.

The border patrol and fence will no doubt be added to the list of government failures. For starters, the fence will not cover the whole border. One must ask what is the point of building a fence with gaping holes in it? Surely an illegal immigrant is intelligent enough to simply migrate over the border where there is no fence. Secondly, if the federal government eventually succeeds in building a fence across the entire border, it will ultimately be a colossal failure, as the fence can be climbed or dug under (depending on how deep the fence rests in the ground). Essentially, unless every mile is patrolled, there is no way a fence is going to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.

While manual, perhaps armed, labor could be used to patrol America's "great wall", one must question whether or not it is a good idea. Needless to say, having a border patrol will cost a large amount of money, and establish more government jobs (the last thing an already stressed federal budget needs). Unfortunately, this expensive use of our labor resources will produce nothing but a false sense of security. At least illegal immigrants come here to produce something when they work.

The Real Solution

While immigration (legal or not) is not really an issue for those of us at logicandreasonweb.com, we do believe there are some changes necessary to the current system which would cause a decrease in freeloaders entering the country. Please note there is no fundamental problem with those who wish to enter the country and work for a living, and the below suggestions apply to U.S. citizens as well.

One true problem with immigration (which is commonly overlooked) is the amount of money spent on free health care. Many of the states most loudly complaining about illegal immigration are those who provide state funded health care to all people including illegal immigrants. While it is poor economic policy to fund health care for citizens, it is even more preposterous to do so for immigrants, and especially illegal immigrants. Restraint in giving away health care and other state funded goodies such as education will result in a decrease in undesirable illegal immigrants. The immigrants who come here to work will continue to do so, and those who are interested in free-loading will not.

In addition to exercising restraint in spending, states should also refrain from printing all signs and government materials in English and Spanish. If a person truly wishes to be a productive person in the United States, he or she should learn English and assimilate to American culture where necessary. If one wishes to vote, apply for a drivers license, etc., it is fair to expect him or her to learn the common language as a matter of efficiency. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for printing everything in multiple languages because a newcomer to the country does not wish to learn English.

When one watches a politician discussing all of the problems associated with immigration, it is important to question whether there really is a problem. It is also essential to focus on the real solution to the supposed problem. We are obligated as Americans to be able to see through xenophobic and populist propaganda, and keep our politicians accountable. In closing, the reader is implored to consider the fact he or she probably has ancestors who came to this country (perhaps illegally), and to therefore question whether or not walls and border patrols are really necessary. After all, your ancestors probably came here in search of the American dream, which is something that should never be denied to anyone as long as he or she is willing to work hard and live an honest life.

Deflationary Pricing

2007-06-24T10:48:00.000-05:00

Price Deflation Is Not A Bad Thing

Numerous people cite the deflationary conditions of the Great Depression as one of the major sources of pain for the people who lived through this time. The viewpoint that is even preferred by the Federal Reserve, the controller of the money supply, is that inflation should be held at a constant level of approximately 2%. The reasoning is that this is a measure of a steady pricing system for consumers.

Inflation Is Not Ideal

Price inflation in goods, be it houses, cars, food, clothing, or Star Wars action figures is not something that benefits a consumer. Ultimately, it does not benefit a business owner either even though a higher price can be charged for a good because the business owner must either spend his sale proceeds on something, be it a personal luxury or another investment in the business, which costs more and more each day, or hold on to his money and watch the value of his currency deteriorate.

Inflation Benefits Some More Than Others

Ultimately price inflation punishes lenders and benefits debtors because the debtor can pay back the debt in less valuable currency. When a lender agrees to loan out money at 5%, and the loan is payed back with money that is 2% less valuable, the lender's profits are affected. In the case that the currency has deteriorated faster than the rate of interest that the lender charges, the lender would have been better off not making the loan at all and instead buying a good or service with the money.

Deflation Is Not Ideal

If it can be shown that price inflation is not good, then can it be shown that price deflation is not bad? When prices fall, a consumer might be more tempted to buy. Every store that holds a sale is effectively deflating the prices that they are charging for a good or service. No consumer would complain about paying a lower price. However, when it comes to the stock market or home prices, a deflating price is seen as a bad thing. Obviously, for the owner, it is not good to see prices fall, but if all prices are falling it will not matter because sale proceeds can be invested in similarly falling assets.

The only person punished in a period of falling prices is the debtor. The debtor will have to pay the lender in more valuable currency. This can be a negative situation too, as a debtor may not have the means to make the same income as previously earned in a deflationary environment. If the debtor cannot earn this money, the loan will default.

Stable Money Is Best

Ultimately, a currency which purchases the same amount of goods tomorrow as it does today should be the goal of monetary policy. Faith in the value of money encourages people to grow the economy by making loans and taking out loans. If there is no trust in the value of money, people will be less likely to assume the risks of holding financial assets which are dependent upon the value of a currency.