FederalRepublic.net

It’s a cartoon, but it speaks the truth:

While on the blogosphere, I read an interesting piece over at CharterCities.org explaining how first-world nations could contract with developing third-world countries in an effort to bring about the rule of law and propel economic development via privatized “charter cities.” It’s a very interesting idea that I think is worth a look, especially since taxpayer-supported foreign aid is often wasted or simply doesn’t teach the third-world to fish on its own. An excerpt:

A fanciful example helps illustrate how a charter city might develop. An existing treaty between the United States and Cuba currently gives the United States administrative control over a piece of sovereign Cuban territory straddling Guantanamo Bay that is twice the size of Manhattan.

Imagine that the United States and Cuba agree to disengage by closing the military base and transferring local administrative control to Canada. Canada works with Cuba to draft a charter for this special zone and promises to enforce its terms. Under this charter, a new city blossoms. It does for Cuba what Hong Kong, administered by the British, did for China; it connects Cuba to the global economy.

To help the city flourish, the Canadians encourage immigration. It is a place with Canadian judges and Mounties that happily accepts millions of immigrants. Some of the new residents could be Cuban émigrés who return from North America. Others might be Haitians who come work in garment factories that firms no longer feel safe bringing into Haiti. The new city gives the Haitians their only chance to choose to live under a system of law that offers safety and opportunity.

Initially, the government of Cuba lets some of its citizens participate by migrating to the new city. Over time, it encourages citizens to move instead to a new city that it creates in a special economic zone located right outside the charter city, just as the Mainland Chinese let its citizens move into Shenzhen next to Hong Kong.

With clear rules spelled out in the charter and enforced by the Canadian judicial system, all the infrastructure for the new city is financed by private investment. The Canadians pay for the government services they provide (the legal, judicial, and regulatory systems, education, basic health care) out of the gains in the value of the land in the administrative zone. This, of course, creates the right incentives to invest in education and health. Growth in human capital makes income grow very rapidly, which makes the land in the zone even more valuable.

While this may not work (obviously) with nations not on the best of terms (US/Cuba), it could work in for example, friendly African nations that may have a hard time modernizing their economic and judicial systems. Not only could this concept improve international relations between nation-states, but could provide a viable model in helping to rid the third-world of poverty. Classic liberalism at its finest.

When it comes to economics, liberals consistently remind us that we need a “safety net” to keep people on their toes in bad economic times. While I agree that a safety net is preferred to nothing at all, I believe the safety net should come from private organizations or individuals, NOT from a tyrannous government. Unfortunately, liberals believe government needs to be running everything and coming to everyone’s aid, even though America is the most generous nation in the world. In recent months, I’ve come to the conclusion this safety net mindset has gone a bit too far with modern day liberals in charge. Why do I think that? Because of their out-of-date, “utopian” economic model:

Tax the rich + subsidize the poor = equal middle class for all (i.e. equal mediocrity in tyranny)

Conservatives and libertarians know economics doesn’t work that way. To understand how economics works is to understand how personal incentive and the will to meet your own needs moves the hidden hand of the economy. Where there is less incentive, there is less growth. Where there is more taken from you, there is less incentive to be productive. On the other hand, the liberal mindset is exactly what Karl Marx came up with in 1875:

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Is it really any surprise that Communists love this Obama guy?

All the buzz these last two months has been health care. It’s a scary situation thinking that a Democratic president is willing to force a great “safety net” upon the population, stifling liberty and choice in the process. It’s interesting that we’re often forced to buy products we seldom use in this country - products like car insurance, life insurance, immunizations, etc. All these for the “common good.” And now, we may possibly be forced to get health care, either through a current provider or a government-run plan. For a country we tout as the most free in the world, it sure feels like we’re slowly becoming economic slaves to both state and federal government.

Even with all the talk about health care plastered on our television screens on a daily basis, I’d like to share a few thoughts about how the United States Congress could work to bring about reduced costs as it relates to health care. As a sidenote, few of these have even been considered by the mainstream media or the GOP in general.

1. Tort reform: A huge portion of health care costs derive from the costs of malpractice insurance. By limiting or creating criteria for limiting monetary malpractice lawsuits, we can instantly slow the growth of health care costs. I’d also recommend a “loser pays” system.

2. Expand truth in billing and policy ownership: I think this could be a large part of the reason why health care costs continue to climb. When was the last time you checked how much it cost to go to the doctor? How much was that flu shot you had or that crown you had put in at the dentist? Most people don’t ask these things unless they pay for their own health care. We figure the insurance company will take care of the bill as long as I pay my $20 co-pay. The truth is, everything has an economic cost and we just can’t assume insurance companies or medical providers will automatically let us know how much is charged for any given medical service. Basically, I would propose that we slowly eliminate employer-based healthcare, expand HSAs, and deregulate the market. This would transform health care services to a competition-based model, treating health insurance like car or life insurance is today. That means competitive rates and quality products from any number of insurance providers.

3. Portability: Art. IV, Section 1 of the Constitution reads “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

Using this clause as the basis for health insurance portability, Congress may ensure that health insurance purchased in one state may be honored in another without penalty or reduction of benefits. This is also a deregulation of the market in itself, which would instantly allow consumers to carry health care coverage wherever they go.

Feel free to add your ideas to the comment section.

…by the Anti-Federalist Brutus on 18 October 1787:

This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared “that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof.”…The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world. So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please…And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.

Pretty timely, don’t you think?

More…

Where are the conservatives we need in Congress? Unfortunately, many are on the sidelines preaching truth about the true nature of our Federal Constitution. It’s funny - those in Congress take an oath to support the Constitution, yet they throw it in the trash can on a daily basis. Check out the vid…

H/T HotAir

When politicians talk education, I usually get up off my rear and go find a snack. To put it bluntly, I hate education talk. I find it disturbing when conservative pundit after conservative pundit proclaim the “liberal” education system indoctrinates young people into becoming voting, card-toting, members of the socialist movement (especially since many conservative “experts” were educated in the same system they rail against). Contradictions of the talking-head punditry aside, I increasingly find myself realizing that “indoctrination” talk is simply the wrong way to look at university education in this country.

What conservatives call “indoctrination” is what I call questioning the status quo. Educational institutions constantly ask questions and challenge the existing system for the sake of exploring its foundation and finding out why it ticks. Institutions that are conservative or traditional in nature are bound to be questioned because of their long-lasting, slow-changing nature. There is nothing wrong about exploring possibilities, even if those possibilities have long been disproven (socialism, eugenics, etc.). There is nothing incorrect about considering hypotheticals or asking why things work they way they do. Further, it is no less positive to research how the current system can be improved. Where would society be had not universities questioned the status quo in everything from social science and law to astronomy, engineering, and medicine?

The main point I’m trying to make is that university education is inherently liberal; it is of a questioning and ever-changing nature. The culture of education is such that the existing system is challenged, explored, picked apart, and assessed. And maybe even put back together, improved from its previous condition. Unfortunately, most conservatives do not often recognize this nature. In my mind, conservatives fail to recognize that blind acceptance of traditional norms or the existing system threatens society to accept the roots of tyranny de facto.

Do not get me wrong, there are some dumb professors out there who wish they could change the world with their liberal, “everyone can change” dogma, who in fact, bash traditional institutions. My advice to a student who finds it annoying: drop the class and find a different prof. or get some earmuffs. If you’re dumb enough to accept truth from anyone, you’re stupid enough to be a slave to everyone (i.e. government).

For regular readers of this blog, I haven’t written for some time. Yes, moving from Colorado to Virginia probably played a large part of why I haven’t really blogged lately. But another part is that I’ve simply gotten tired of politics in the type of environment America finds itself in today. I could rant about Obama, but I won’t. I could make the case for how wrong the GOP is, but I won’t. I could rail even more about the Democratic socialists in Congress and how they could care less about taking my money; I won’t.

The truth of the matter is this: my freedom is dying. Your freedom is dying. Our children’s freedom, quite possibly, is already dead. Perpetual debt, fiat money, central management of a $14 trillion economy, millions upon millions of pages of regulation, and ultimately, the usurpation of our Constitution, is killing this Republic and the liberty it once protected. For those on left, government and collectivism are the great arbiters in solving humanity’s problems; for those on the right, civic virtue trumps reason and individual rights. No longer are rights and immunities guaranteed to you as a member of the human race, but are given to you by government instead. Complacency brought about by pretended prosperity and an ill-educated populace have transformed the middle and upper classes into slaves of government and the poor. This is our modern America, a far cry from what the founders intended and the good-natured Republic built to perfect our Union.

What I am flabbergasted about are many things, but not so many as this: this Republic will always be a debter nation and will endure the pain and agony of being a slave to the rest of the world. As perpetual debt and unfunded liabilities continue to skyrocket, government will be forced to take drastic measures to pay for what it has already consumed. These measures most obviously, include higher taxes, more “management” of the economy, and a trampling of individual rights. The left call themselves progressives - what is progressive about taking away the fruits of my labor? What is progressive about stomping on my economic freedoms? What is progressive about casting my children’s future into the den of government slavery? The right call themselves conservatives - what is conservative about trampling the Constitution for the sake of security? What is conservative about usurping states’ sovereignty and favoring civic virtue over property and contract rights?

The ramblings of this discontent are of course, normative. They look to the ideal and wish to conform reality to the ideal. I know that is not entirely possible. Nor is it possible to tame human nature, to curb the excesses of those who would wish to control the masses. But perhaps it is quite possible to make small strides to return to the American ideal and what this Union could have been…a more perfect one. Freedom lost is not easily gained, and sometimes it takes a revolution to return it. This is not out of the realm of possibility. Intellect and reason, coupled with constitutional resistance to unconstitutional action can help reverse some of the damage past generations have brought upon this one.

Many states have already enacted resolutions declaring sovereignty under the 10th Amendment; it is now time to take the next step - to nullify unconstitutional federal laws, to reject federal monies, to reassert the power of the state and locality. Central planning and massive debt must be rejected by lawmakers as a means to increase freedom and prosperity. They (and we) must remember this Union did not create the states; the states created this Union. And if necessary, the states may act as sovereign and independent political entities in order to dissolve it.

It is a bittersweet feeling to know the sovereignty of the United States rests with its people. Whether or not the people will act to bring themselves out of slavery is another story. Even the Isrealites wished to go back to Egypt when Moses delivered them out. Time will tell whether the American people have the testicular fortitude to rise to the occasion and accept that exceptionalism that America could portray again.

Interesting video, take a look. Be advised, strong language used.

For those who have no clue about judicial philosophy or the different ways to interpret the U.S. Constitution, this video is great. Take a look and leave comments if you’d like.

For my conservative and libertarian friends, most of you would probably be originalists, while the other side would choose the always changing “living constitution.”