High court strikes down gun ban

from the bang-bang dept.

This is a great story to wake up to.  Too bad it wasn't a unanimous decision.  The idea that four judges can be this misinformed about the constitutionality of gun ownership is baffling.

That is not to say only those four judges are misinformed.  From the article, '67 percent of Americans polled said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns.'  Except that the US Constitution doesn't give or grant rights to individuals at all.  The Bill of Rights is there to remind government what our rights are.  The ninth and tenth amendments remind government that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list.

So as usual, Americans (and the news polls) are misinformed about the fundamentals of the US Constitution.  God grants rights.  The Constitution recognizes them and issues a constraint on government to uphold them.

By the way, I believe the Constitution protects the individual's rights to own guns.  If a pollster called me up and asked me if the Constitution grants rights to groups of people or the individual, I'd have a problem answering the poll.  I know the point of the poll was to determine the "individual vs. militia" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  But I'd get hung up on the wrong thing and possibly end up being disqualified from the poll all together (which is probably a good thing).

Dow Jones US Oil and Gas Index

from the higher-and-higher dept.

I woke up this morning to find Yahoo!'s Dow Jones US Oil and Gas Index went off the chart:

Response to Tom's Ten Questions

from the involuntary-servitude dept.

This article is in response to this week's episode of The Sitter Downers, "Torri Doesn't Smoke Doobs...".  Specifically, I'd like to boil some of Tom's Ten Questions down into one simple question.  My simplified question would be:

"Should products and services be provided under threat of violence?"

This question came to my attention while watching FreeMindsTV last week.  It was originally asked by Ian Bernard from FreeTalkLive during this year's Freedom Fest in New Hampshire.  Although I know my application of it ignores some of the specific points of Tom's Ten, I think the question can loosely apply to almost all.

I call it the "no forced services" principle.  The government requires us to accept their products and services at the point of a gun.  If you refuse to pay for the resources they provide, even if you also refuse to use them, eventually you will have to deal with an armed conflict.

But first, some terms for the purpose of understanding how government extracts funds from people:

• direct tax - a tax property "by reason of its ownership" as well as a capitation (per person).
• indirect tax - a tax based on an event (death tax, gift tax, your-cat-farts-too-much tax, etc.).
• apportionment - division based on equal distribution or a function of the population.
• unapportionment - division based on unequal distribution or on something other than a function of the population.

A tax can be direct or indirect, apportioned or unapportioned.  But the Constitution mandates that direct taxes be apportioned (Article I, Section 9).  So if Congress suddenly decides they want to spend $6 Billion on corporate bailouts, everyone pays $20 regardless of their income.  So if Warren Buffet pays $20, his secretary pays $20 too.  Does that mean Warren Buffet paid less as a percentage of his personal income?  Yes, but that's Constitutional.  Like it or lump it.  To do otherwise is repugnant to the Constitution.

The income tax is a direct, unapportioned tax based on the level of income (also known as a "graduated income tax").  This is unconstitutional (see plank 2 of 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto).  Yet there is confusion on this point because the 16th Amendment states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Believe it or not, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax, according to the Supreme Court ruling entitled "Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.," 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916).  From the ruling:

"...the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..."

This binding-yet-completely-ignored interpretation means that although Congress can collect a tax from the States based on the average income of each person in that State, it still cannot collect this kind of tax directly from an individual.  Direct taxes must be apportioned.  The income tax would be an exception if the 16th Amendment authorized direct unapportionment, and there are no provisions for exceptions.  To do otherwise is repugnant to the Constitution.

The other way Congress can get money from the people is to get down on their knees and beg like they're supposed to.  This is known as a "voluntary" tax.

So with the above in mind, here are Tom's questions and my responses (to save you time, I pretty much answered them all "No" with a "But" or if you'd like to spend a lot of time and thought, you can decode many of my "No's" to "Yes's" if you also switch the order of my "But" and "If" clauses (you must strike the "but" after switching them (hey, I'm sort of an amateur grammar geek, ok?))):

1. Are you in favor of a government enforced speed limit?  No.  But local speed limits can be required if the locals who enforce them are not paid under threat of violence.  If we can't voluntarily pay for a police force to enforce the speed limit in a particular locality and instead we force people to pay for this service under threat of violence I'm against it.  [To decode: Yes, if the locals who enforce them are not paid under threat of violence, but local speed limits can be required.]
2. Should the government take taxes from you to pay for the armed forces?  No.  But armed forces can be paid for if a direct and apportioned or voluntary tax (i.e. a constitutional tax) is applied.
3. Should the government take taxes from you to pay for disaster relief?  No.  Again, same principle, it should be direct and apportioned or voluntary.  In fact, even when people are forced to pay like they are today, people still opt to give to a charity in addition, which is by far better managed than the government.  Imagine if the government had to get in line with all the other charities in order to compete for funds.  But a government fund for disaster relief would be fine if it were funded constitutionally. 
4. Should the government take taxes from you to pay for Social Security?  No.  I think it's rather funny that on this one, Adam and Torri agree with me without need for discussion.  It's funny because it's so clearly a fraudulent idea, even when obfuscation is used to collect this tax, people can see through it.  This scheme is more fraudulent than ## 2 and 3 because it's clearly a ponzi scheme.  Had we used a direct and apportioned or voluntary system from the beginning, the fraud and unsustainability would have stood out much sooner.
5. Are you in favor of the government enforcing an alcohol age limit?  No.  But again, it's ok as long as paying for the enforcement isn't itself at the point of a gun.  Only if it were funded constitutionally.
6. Are you in favor of the government enforcing marijuana laws?  No.  Something like one half of one percent of every American is behind bars because of the drug laws.  Yet 25% of all Americans have done what it takes to get thrown behind bars for marijuana violations alone, only they were never caught.  The War on Drugs is a massive boondoggle.  Besides, do you really think 1 in 4 Americans should be in prison?  1 in 4?!  How would we pay for that?  Paying for it can only be accomplished by threat of force.  But a sensible drug policy would probably be too weak to do anything terribly authoritarian, if it's funded constitutionally.
7. Are you in favor of the government enforcing seat belt laws?  No.  But I don't see how enforcement could ever be expensive for this one, if we were following the "no forced services" rule for this and everything else.  [Let me decode this one for you: Yes, I'm in favor of government enforced seat belt laws if we were following the "no forced services" rule for this and everything else, but I don't see how enforcement could ever be expensive].
8. Is it ok that the White House is off limits to you?  No.  Actually, this is unrelated to the "no forced services" principle.  Instead, here is a summary on what I apply to my principle about White House security.
9. Are you in favor of the government enforcing public nudity laws?  No.  But that's silly and I don't see how enforcement could ever be expensive for this one, assuming we were following the "no forced services" rule for everything else.  If it turns out that certain localities can't enforce this law because it breaks their budget, they should just rename their town to "Nudetropolis, USA."
10. Are you in favor of the government enforcing building/safety laws?  No.  But again, I don't see a problem on the "no forced services" principle, if a locality wants to have special laws that can be upheld without compulsory payment for enforcement.

The problem is, central government doesn't follow the "no forced services" principle.  They take money from people in Montana, for example, to give to cities in California, for example, to pay for almost all of the above in some way, even when not every city in California needs all of the above in the same way.

The only way to get the central government to enforce all of these ideas evenly across the whole nation is to make everyone to pay for enforcement regardless of the particular, local needs.  This always results in either fascism or socialism, collectively called statism.

For example, if a particular locality has a lot of enforcement problems (speed limit, drinking age, drugs, etc.), and the people in neighboring localities don't like it because it goes in and out of their locality, they should voluntarily kick funds in to help with enforcement or move away.  Otherwise, from an economic and social standpoint, it's statist and authoritarian to force people all over the country to kick in for country-wide enforcement.

Furthermore, avoiding the "no forced services" principle creates something called "moral hazard."  But we can discuss that another time.

Federal Reserve To Grab Broad Financial Oversight

from the socialism-economics dept.

Tim Ryan, president and CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, called Paulson's proposals today "a thoughtful and sweeping plan."

Sweeping indeed.

"Our present regulatory framework was born of Depression-era events and is not well suited for today's environment where billions of dollars race across the globe with the click of a mouse," he said. "That fact, teamed with the current market conditions, results in a universal agreement that it is time to modernize and revitalize the current system."

Not universal agreement.  Bi-partison, yes.  And the financial conglomerates probably like the idea if it pans out like Bear Stearns might.  But really, this is poison.

"Government has a responsibility to make sure our financial system is regulated effectively," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said. "And in this area, we can do a better job."

Where do they come up with these statements?  The government does not have any such responsibility.  This is pure socialism (a system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community).  Show me where this responsibility is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

The closest one could ever derive such an idea is in the phrase, "regulate the value thereof" in Article I, Section 8.  But this is a mandate to Congress, not quasi-government organizations like the Federal Reserve.  Only Congress can borrow on the credit of the U.S.

Besides, Congress can only regulate government-issued money.  If we were on the right track economically, we wouldn't have to rely solely on government money.  There would be private stuff out there competing with the government stuff.  But I digress.

The proposal they're talking about is the introduction of broad financial oversight by the Federal Reserve outside the banking industry.  Congress wants to expand the role of the Fed into other sectors.

Before, the Federal Reserve's charter only pertains to corporate banking institutions.  But that line has already been crossed when the Federal Reserve stepped in to hand JP Morgan $30 Billion in assistance to buy out Bear Stearns.  It did so with no regard for the consequences.

Bear Stearns is not a corporate bank, neither is JP Morgan.  They are investment banks, so this move by the Fed is unusual because it's a central bank who's mandate is defined as "a lender of last resort" for corporate banks.  Typically, when a bank fails, they can't get any loans from the Fed because it's too late, so the FDIC gets involved to cover account balances.  They don't just hand all the account holders money to cover their up to $100,000 balances, though.  Instead, the FDIC fires the big-wigs and starts bankruptcy proceedings against the bank.  Then they arrange for stable banks to take over the balance of account holders.

Even though what the FDIC does is pure socialism, they at least apply very drastic consequences to the bank that fails.  No one feels sorry for the banks that fail, except those same big-wigs and investors.  So these consequences are accepted as the cost of doing business.  The FDIC is still a poor idea in my opinion, but their execution is more logical than what the Federal Reserve has done recently (and apparently will continue to do) with the investment banks.

The Federal Reserve has given no indication of applying any consequences to Bear Stearns.  So far, the only ramifications to date is the stock price, and even that has been reversed somewhat.

When JP Morgan first made a bid to buy out Bear Stearns' stock, they offered $2 a share.  After bitching and moaning from the shareholders, JP Morgan raised the bid to $10, which the Federal Reserve wasn't happy about.  Why?  Because I watched my 50 shares double (I bought at $5.71 between the $2 and $10 bids, and for the moment it's over $10), and that was not the original intent of the bail-out.

I had never heard of Bear Stearns before.  And that's what the Federal Reserve isn't happy about.  There are people that are able to dip in and pull out this money in a somewhat unregulated manner, some tax free with a ROTH IRA in my case.  To me, buying Bear Stearns at the time seemed logical.  The Federal Reserve is offering public tax dollars to JP Morgan in what can only be called corporate welfare assistance, a very offensive idea.  So I'm just trying to rescue some of my tax dollars right out of the troff just before the pigs take it all.

Managed Health Care

from the spend-and-bloat dept.

Federal government got involved in health care in the 1970's.  I think it's fine to call it "managed care" because the government is involved.  The government involvement is like the "Midas Touch" effect, only instead of making it turn to gold with one touch, it's rather the opposite effect.  Prices always get jacked up when the government meddles in the free market.

"I don't think government can improve the economy. If government intervention can improve economic performance and get us out of recession, is it not stupid to wait for recession in order to capture the benefits of government economic policies? But then, if government intervention can improve economic performance and increase the rate of growth, how come socialist/welfare states consistently perform worse than free-market economies?"

- Steve Pejovich

If governments can't improve an economy, why do we think they could improve a sector of an economy like the health industry?  Yet meddling usually starts in order to help.  There's no doubt in my mind that the initial health care involvement was for altruistic reasons.  But instead, the doctor-patient relationship has been destroyed and costs are going up as a result.  Big business saw an opportunity to expand pricing because when the government is willing to aid people, the business is compelled to charge more.

In the 1950's, a dental crown would cost $40.  If we convert 1950's dollars to 2007, the dental crown should cost around $340 if all we do is account for the change in price relative to inflation.  So inflation does not cover the increase because today crowns are between $1,100 and $2,750.  But the practice and technology has improved, so the relative price should have gone down instead. 

It went up because of managed care.  Now democrats are talking about moving to total socialized medicine.  They're talking about a "single payment system" which is just a form of socialism. 

Mind you, I do not blame the caregivers.  Try asking your dentist for a discount because you want to pay cash, therefore eliminating paper work and reimbursement time.  Likely, you'll be told that your dentist’s agreement with the insurance company does not allow him or her to reduce the billing rate for cash payments. 

Who has a right to health-care?  Nobody.  It is nobody's right to take property from a person, even if the end goal is to give the property to a person in need.  The poor should be taken care of in a progression, like as follows: 

1. The first line of defense is for a poor person to take care of his or her own situation.  Low taxes and low inflation would go a long way towards accomplishing this.  But it is not always possible for a poor person to take care of his or her own situation, even if taxes and inflation are in check.
2. The second line of defense against poverty is family and friends, again not always possible.
3. Then faith-based organizations and charities should step in.
4. Then local/municipal governments.

Beyond that, we're talking about socialism.  It doesn't make sense for someone in the state of California to be forced by government strong-arm thugs to feed someone in Florida.  If people in one state feel compelled to send aid to another state, let them do so under their own volition.  But extracting it against their will isn't the answer.

It is universally known that Americans are very generous.  Even when some of us are taxed at high percentages of our income, many of us still find a way to give more to charitable causes.  Imagine how generous we could be if we weren't taxed so much.

In my family, the government takes between 30% and 50%, depending on how you calculate it (if you count income tax + sales tax + licensing fees + unfunded mandates + etc).  This makes it difficult for us when unforeseen issues come up.  For example, my family needs to buy certain medical supplies on an ongoing basis.  The government has stepped in and covered these supplies because they are a qualified financial burden.  I would much rather buy them myself, but they are available and my tax dollars certainly pay for them whether I use them or not.

Yet who would argue against the idea that it is ultimately cheaper for me to keep my money and buy the supplies myself?  Of course it would be cheaper.  There's overhead associated with these supplies that we should not need to contend with.  They are delivered by UPS, for example.  There is also government bloat associated with these supplies.  Not only that, but the manufacturer probably doesn't give the government a special deal.  It's probably quite the opposite.  The manufacturer probably gets top dollar because the government is their client.  I could be wrong about that, but it's entirely possible. 

Here's an example.  Would you accept a managed system for soft drink consumption?  Let's imagine that the federal government did a study and found that on average, people pay about $40 each month on soft drinks.  So they impose a new tax to get the $40 from everyone on a monthly basis.  They then buy all of the soft drinks from the manufacturers and distribute them to everyone.

With the above scenario, would everyone get what they want?  No, there are lots of people who don't want any soft drinks.  Would there be much choice?  Perhaps at first, but the choice would not be as diverse as time progresses because new soft drinks would find it difficult to enter the new regulated market.

The most important thing to ask about this scenario is, would the manufacturers be able to set their own prices?  Unlikely.  Competativeness becomes less of a concern when there's only one customer.  And if the customer is a bloated burocracy, Department of Soft Drinks and Milkshakes (DSM) ... need I continue?