Share your answers with us in a comment to this blog post. It's OK to remain anonymous too. We want to get a good measure, so please only respond with answers once.
First, tell us about yourself:
I) Are you a: (select all that apply please)
1) Student at Metro State
2) Student at University of Colorado, Denver
3) Student at Community College of Denver
4) Student at another school
5) Not a student
6) Subscriber to this paper / blog
II) How do you identify politically? (circle one that best defines you please)
1) Republican
2) Democrat
3) Libertarian
4) Socialist / Communist
5) Independent
6) Other
III) Do your views tend to be more: (circle one that best defines you please)
1) Conservative
2) Liberal
3) Moderate
4) Libertarian
IV) How well do you think President Obama is doing? (circle one that best fits please)
1) Terrible
2) Not so well
3) Not too shabby
4) Decent
5) Doing good
6) Doing great
7) Awesome
V) How well did President Bush do as President? (circle one that best fits please)
1) Terrible
2) Not so well
3) Not too shabby
4) Decent
5) Doing good
6) Doing great
7) Awesome
VI) Who did you vote for in the last election?
1) Barack Obama
2) John McCain
3) Other
4) Did not vote
Now, on to the issues:
VII) National Health Care (circle one that best fits please)
1) The U.S. needs a government provided health care option
2) The U.S. needs a single payer option
3) The U.S. needs health care reform, but not the kind being proposed
4) The U.S. health care system is fine as is
5) Write in: _______________________________________________
VIII) Bailouts for All- are bailouts necessary? (circle one that best fits please)
1) Yes
2) No
3) Depends on the situation
4) Sometimes necessary to save the national economy
5) Write in: _______________________________________________
IX) Is global warming a real and an impending threat? (circle one that best fits please)
1) Yes
2) No
3) It may be real and we should be cautious
X) Who is most capable of fixing any "global warming" threat? (circle one that best fits please)
1) The U.S. government, by itself
2) A coalition of governments from developed and developing nations
3) The free market, when left alone can fix all problems
4) Not an issue- global warming does not exist
5) Write-in: _______________________________________________
XI) Which war is most important? (circle one that best fits please)
1) Iraq
2) Afghanistan
3) Pakistan, Iran, and beyond
4) Bring the troops home
5) War on Drugs
6) War on Poverty
7) War on Terror
XII) What is your favorite Auraria Campus newspaper?
1) The Constitutional Reporter
2) The Metropolitan
3) The Advocate
4) The CCD Campus Connection
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
So this is what "Astro-Turf" looks like...
The left and the right have been engaged lately in a battle of policies and ideas and...name-calling? Each side has been eager to prove that the other is engaged in "Astro-Turfing," a clever name used to imply fake grassroots.
The Left accuses the anti-public option crowd of being bought and paid for by Big Pharma, while the Tea Party crowds are obviously contrived by Big Oil (according to the Left). Meanwhile, the Right has pointed to the organizational structure, efforts, and approach of political groups such as Progress Now, MoveOn.org, and Acorn. The evidence submitted is the nice, printed signs held by pro-public option supporters, the emails sent out by these and similar organizations, as well as buses bearing those proud political organizations names and supporters to Obama's town hall meeting.
So who is right and who is wrong when it comes to labeling the other side as 'astro-turf?' Or is this really just a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?"
Well, the Constitutional Reporter looked into this and dug up some good seeds. Sow these and tell us what you think:
The Right
Yes, the Right is talking about ObamaCare. So are the Libertarians and Independents. And they're legitimately afraid. This has made them active. The politically active Republicans are encouraging people to oppose ObamaCare. You can see their activity in the blogosphere. But there is no money trail. Nowhere have we been able to find any money being paid out here. And what's even more interesting, the vast majority of people who attend the protests have been, to our surprise, not connected to any GOP leaders. Having attended several Lincoln Day dinners, GOP breakfast clubs, etc., this year, our staff was surprised to see so many new faces at the protests who probably didn't even know that there are local breakfast clubs held weekly to talk about how bad ObamaCare and Democrat proposals are going to be!!
The Left
Here's where it gets interesting... The Constitutional Reporter sat in at an important activism meeting held by some Democrat organizers. They were looking to hire some field reps to go out and spread the word about Cap and Trade. Here is their game plan:
Environmental Defense Fund has hired a national political consulting firm called Field Works. They want to lobby the 'blue dog' Democratic US Senators to convince them to vote 'yes' on Cap and Trade.
Field Works is hiring 12 people at $90/day. Each person will then go out and for 40 hours a week, their job is to talk to people about supporting Cap and Trade to protect the environment. Each of these 12 people will be responsible for finding 12 other people, per day, to make a phone call directly to Senator Michael Bennet's office to urge him to support Cap and Trade. Additionally, each of those 12 field reps will be working to get 28 people, every day, to fill out a post card to be sent to Senator Bennet. (Field Works is providing the cell phones and post cards as well as postage)
This process will be continued, week in and week out, until October 2nd, and will also be conducted in six other states.
Now, if this isn't "Astro-Turf" then what is it- fertilizer?
Folks on the Right better be prepared for the well-oiled machine of the Left. This piece just gives a small taste of what happens when this well-funded machine is put to work. If there was ever a time to call Senator Bennet and tell him to oppose Cap and Trade, then you better do it before October 2nd. Ask Senator Bennet to grow some productive, free market solutions, instead of growing our taxes.
The Left accuses the anti-public option crowd of being bought and paid for by Big Pharma, while the Tea Party crowds are obviously contrived by Big Oil (according to the Left). Meanwhile, the Right has pointed to the organizational structure, efforts, and approach of political groups such as Progress Now, MoveOn.org, and Acorn. The evidence submitted is the nice, printed signs held by pro-public option supporters, the emails sent out by these and similar organizations, as well as buses bearing those proud political organizations names and supporters to Obama's town hall meeting.
So who is right and who is wrong when it comes to labeling the other side as 'astro-turf?' Or is this really just a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?"
Well, the Constitutional Reporter looked into this and dug up some good seeds. Sow these and tell us what you think:
The Right
Yes, the Right is talking about ObamaCare. So are the Libertarians and Independents. And they're legitimately afraid. This has made them active. The politically active Republicans are encouraging people to oppose ObamaCare. You can see their activity in the blogosphere. But there is no money trail. Nowhere have we been able to find any money being paid out here. And what's even more interesting, the vast majority of people who attend the protests have been, to our surprise, not connected to any GOP leaders. Having attended several Lincoln Day dinners, GOP breakfast clubs, etc., this year, our staff was surprised to see so many new faces at the protests who probably didn't even know that there are local breakfast clubs held weekly to talk about how bad ObamaCare and Democrat proposals are going to be!!
The Left
Here's where it gets interesting... The Constitutional Reporter sat in at an important activism meeting held by some Democrat organizers. They were looking to hire some field reps to go out and spread the word about Cap and Trade. Here is their game plan:
Environmental Defense Fund has hired a national political consulting firm called Field Works. They want to lobby the 'blue dog' Democratic US Senators to convince them to vote 'yes' on Cap and Trade.
Field Works is hiring 12 people at $90/day. Each person will then go out and for 40 hours a week, their job is to talk to people about supporting Cap and Trade to protect the environment. Each of these 12 people will be responsible for finding 12 other people, per day, to make a phone call directly to Senator Michael Bennet's office to urge him to support Cap and Trade. Additionally, each of those 12 field reps will be working to get 28 people, every day, to fill out a post card to be sent to Senator Bennet. (Field Works is providing the cell phones and post cards as well as postage)
This process will be continued, week in and week out, until October 2nd, and will also be conducted in six other states.
Now, if this isn't "Astro-Turf" then what is it- fertilizer?
Folks on the Right better be prepared for the well-oiled machine of the Left. This piece just gives a small taste of what happens when this well-funded machine is put to work. If there was ever a time to call Senator Bennet and tell him to oppose Cap and Trade, then you better do it before October 2nd. Ask Senator Bennet to grow some productive, free market solutions, instead of growing our taxes.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Economic Lessons of SouthPark
by Sean Doherty, publisher
www.TheConstitutionalReporter.com
I hope President Obama wasn't watching SouthPark the other night, because if he had seen this episode, he may have picked up on some rather poorly drawn economic lessons.
The episode to which I'm referring involves an extraterrestrial visit to the small town of SouthPark, Colorado. One of the main characters, Stan, and his father, are charged with being the human liaisons between the spacemen and earth. The aliens “leave behind” an entire ship-full of 'space dollars' and the people of earth split this money up between several countries. Mexico immediately spends the space dollar money and builds something like thirty-two new hospitals and a few recreational water parks.
The economic lesson drawn here is that by simply expanding the supply of money, or by adding in a new supply of a different fiat currency -space dollars- the wealth of nations would effectively increase as well. As interesting as this premise is, and as funny as the SouthPark is, the premise is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Economist Murray Rothbard dealt with a similar example of the expansion of money supply, though he called his model the 'Angel Gabriel' model. Having listened to Rothbard lectures before, I was intrigued to see the 'Angel Gabriel' example illustrated through Southpark.
To sum up the economic errors of this episode, simply having more money does not increase the standards of living and wealth of a country. Nor does the addition of new money create more prosperity for the world. If that were the case, then the central banks around the world need only kick their printing presses into overdrive and everyone would live comfortably. But simply adding additional paper dollars into an economy does not account for limited resources. Because resources are limited, additional money means that the various available resources, materials, finished goods, and yes, even labor, are bid up to account for the extra money. Inflation. Price levels rise. Inflation happens as a result of more, new money injected in an economy to chase after the same amount of goods. If the money supply was doubled, then everyone would not be twice as rich and able to buy twice as much; instead, prices would double along with the money supply.
But the great economist Murray Rothbard went one step further and pointed out what many mainstream economists fail to recongize: the doubling of the money supply, even if it were to happen overnight, would not affect everyone equally with a corresponding doubling of prices. If it did, then there would be no point to it- everything would remain in equal proportion though at a higher price to match the larger money supply. What Rothbard clearly emphasized was that even if the money supply were to double overnight in equal portions to all participants, the smartest chaps would rush out right away and spend the money before prices adjusted.
Meanwhile, some of the more prudent folk would save the extra money thinking it better to hold on to. When they finally became ready to purchase, prices would have already roughly doubled, meaning that the early spenders were made wealthier while other spenders realized too late that prices adjusted and their new money could only keep up with inflation. The late spenders find themselves in the exact position that they were before, and it was only the 'early adopters' who seized the opportunity to gain from an increase in the money supply. And those in the middle, those who saved ½ of their new money and spent the other ½, would find prices adjusting upward and each dollar being able to buy less and less.
In the SouthPark example, Mexico is the early adopter and early spender. Since Mexico went on an immediate spending spree to build hospitals and some fancy water theme parks, their country would, on the surface, be made wealthier from taking advantage of the extra cash. And yet for most of the people in Mexico, they will be no better off or stand to be substantially worse off. But their many construction projects would quickly bid up the price limited resources like steel, concrete, chlorine, labor, timber, etc.
As a result, the remaining countries would face higher prices in those areas and would realize less benefit from their new moneys. And if each country began to spend that money at different times, then the countries to go last would notice that prices had jumped to nearly match money supply, meaning that any new wealth they had hoped to realize from the extra paper space dollars had evaporated. Those countries would be left with the same purchasing power as they had before, and Mexico would laugh all the way to the bank.
But wait- don't be fooled. Mexico does not, by any substantial means, come out ahead of the other countries. While their quick spending and project construction did allow Mexico to bid away limited resources before anyone else could, the people of Mexico will still be no better for it. The money spent will go to directly benefit the friends of the Mexican government, undoubtedly those in the health care industry, and to those employed by the new projects. But the nice things that the new 'space dollars' can buy will not be felt by everyone in Mexico—just those involved and working in the 32 new hospitals and few water parks. For everyone else, they will be left with the bill in a very real sense. Prices will adjust upwards and the people of Mexico will be faced with those higher prices, but they will only be armed with their incomes from the pre-'space dollar' price levels.
This means that the money people earn for their work will now buy less and less as a result of the increase in prices to match and keep up with an increase in the money supply! As necessary and as important as hospitals are, what good are they if your paycheck that fed four mouths every day can now only feed two?!?
At the end of the episode, the aliens depart from the SouthPark residents with some “progressive” words of wisdom, saying that “the space dollars only had as much value as you gave to them.”
But I find the words of Murray Rothbard to provide more clarity in this situation:
“It is clear that while everyone would be euphoric from their seeming doubling of monetary wealth, society would in no way be better off: for there would be no increase in capital or productivity or supply of goods.”
Simply having more paper dollars does not, in any way, change the economic reality of limited resources, nor will those additional paper dollars change the productivity of any economy. At the end of the day, those dollars are, well, just pieces of paper.
The real lesson to be drawn from this SouthPark lesson should have been that we cannot print or borrow our way out of a recession.
www.TheConstitutionalReporter.com
I hope President Obama wasn't watching SouthPark the other night, because if he had seen this episode, he may have picked up on some rather poorly drawn economic lessons.
The episode to which I'm referring involves an extraterrestrial visit to the small town of SouthPark, Colorado. One of the main characters, Stan, and his father, are charged with being the human liaisons between the spacemen and earth. The aliens “leave behind” an entire ship-full of 'space dollars' and the people of earth split this money up between several countries. Mexico immediately spends the space dollar money and builds something like thirty-two new hospitals and a few recreational water parks.
The economic lesson drawn here is that by simply expanding the supply of money, or by adding in a new supply of a different fiat currency -space dollars- the wealth of nations would effectively increase as well. As interesting as this premise is, and as funny as the SouthPark is, the premise is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Economist Murray Rothbard dealt with a similar example of the expansion of money supply, though he called his model the 'Angel Gabriel' model. Having listened to Rothbard lectures before, I was intrigued to see the 'Angel Gabriel' example illustrated through Southpark.
To sum up the economic errors of this episode, simply having more money does not increase the standards of living and wealth of a country. Nor does the addition of new money create more prosperity for the world. If that were the case, then the central banks around the world need only kick their printing presses into overdrive and everyone would live comfortably. But simply adding additional paper dollars into an economy does not account for limited resources. Because resources are limited, additional money means that the various available resources, materials, finished goods, and yes, even labor, are bid up to account for the extra money. Inflation. Price levels rise. Inflation happens as a result of more, new money injected in an economy to chase after the same amount of goods. If the money supply was doubled, then everyone would not be twice as rich and able to buy twice as much; instead, prices would double along with the money supply.
But the great economist Murray Rothbard went one step further and pointed out what many mainstream economists fail to recongize: the doubling of the money supply, even if it were to happen overnight, would not affect everyone equally with a corresponding doubling of prices. If it did, then there would be no point to it- everything would remain in equal proportion though at a higher price to match the larger money supply. What Rothbard clearly emphasized was that even if the money supply were to double overnight in equal portions to all participants, the smartest chaps would rush out right away and spend the money before prices adjusted.
Meanwhile, some of the more prudent folk would save the extra money thinking it better to hold on to. When they finally became ready to purchase, prices would have already roughly doubled, meaning that the early spenders were made wealthier while other spenders realized too late that prices adjusted and their new money could only keep up with inflation. The late spenders find themselves in the exact position that they were before, and it was only the 'early adopters' who seized the opportunity to gain from an increase in the money supply. And those in the middle, those who saved ½ of their new money and spent the other ½, would find prices adjusting upward and each dollar being able to buy less and less.
In the SouthPark example, Mexico is the early adopter and early spender. Since Mexico went on an immediate spending spree to build hospitals and some fancy water theme parks, their country would, on the surface, be made wealthier from taking advantage of the extra cash. And yet for most of the people in Mexico, they will be no better off or stand to be substantially worse off. But their many construction projects would quickly bid up the price limited resources like steel, concrete, chlorine, labor, timber, etc.
As a result, the remaining countries would face higher prices in those areas and would realize less benefit from their new moneys. And if each country began to spend that money at different times, then the countries to go last would notice that prices had jumped to nearly match money supply, meaning that any new wealth they had hoped to realize from the extra paper space dollars had evaporated. Those countries would be left with the same purchasing power as they had before, and Mexico would laugh all the way to the bank.
But wait- don't be fooled. Mexico does not, by any substantial means, come out ahead of the other countries. While their quick spending and project construction did allow Mexico to bid away limited resources before anyone else could, the people of Mexico will still be no better for it. The money spent will go to directly benefit the friends of the Mexican government, undoubtedly those in the health care industry, and to those employed by the new projects. But the nice things that the new 'space dollars' can buy will not be felt by everyone in Mexico—just those involved and working in the 32 new hospitals and few water parks. For everyone else, they will be left with the bill in a very real sense. Prices will adjust upwards and the people of Mexico will be faced with those higher prices, but they will only be armed with their incomes from the pre-'space dollar' price levels.
This means that the money people earn for their work will now buy less and less as a result of the increase in prices to match and keep up with an increase in the money supply! As necessary and as important as hospitals are, what good are they if your paycheck that fed four mouths every day can now only feed two?!?
At the end of the episode, the aliens depart from the SouthPark residents with some “progressive” words of wisdom, saying that “the space dollars only had as much value as you gave to them.”
But I find the words of Murray Rothbard to provide more clarity in this situation:
“It is clear that while everyone would be euphoric from their seeming doubling of monetary wealth, society would in no way be better off: for there would be no increase in capital or productivity or supply of goods.”
Simply having more paper dollars does not, in any way, change the economic reality of limited resources, nor will those additional paper dollars change the productivity of any economy. At the end of the day, those dollars are, well, just pieces of paper.
The real lesson to be drawn from this SouthPark lesson should have been that we cannot print or borrow our way out of a recession.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Why are Students becoming Philosophy Majors?
Why are Students becoming Philosophy Majors? - Philosophical Ponderings
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer for The Constitutional Reporter
I was given an article from the New York Times that referred to a large growth in the number of students becoming philosophy majors. I was then asked the question why young ‘practical’ minded people are getting more interested in philosophy.
It is possible that young college students are becoming more enamored with philosophy simply because they are not satisfied with the abhorrent answers they normally get in the 'real world.' Some of these answers come from parents, teachers, bosses and even friends. The idea that everything is nothing may not bode well with some younger people who understand - on some level at least - that their life is something. They hear things like they are just a mass of protoplasm with no meaning. Young people are very impressionable, however, and I believe they do realize that their life is important to them: their future means something, and they wish to understand what is going on around them.
They see the giants of their world crumbling around them. They see the power of the presidency taken over by a man they helped put in to office, and do nothing but more of the same. They see pirates (yes PIRATES) hindering our trade as if we have returned to more primitive times. They understand that the majority of the country is against a war that is killing their friends, brothers, sisters, cousins; and yet their government heeds not their words. They remember hearing in history class and social studies that the government was set up as a system 'of the people by the people and for the people,' that there was supposed to be some semblance of morality, of reason, logic and so on. They see the rule of law being deteriorated around them, by such acts as imposing 'empathy' upon the judgments of judges. They see the erosion of property rights and wonder what is the 'principle' that backs property rights. They see the businessmen around them being punished, and wonder why. They don't understand why capitalism could have failed; they question, and hope philosophy will lead them towards the road of discovery. They wish to seek the best within themselves; they do not wish to allow the people of the world to condemn them for attempting greatness.
They possibly question things like socialized medicine. Why, they may ask, is it my duty to help others?
Some young men and women wish to bring back what they remember reading in their history books. 'Where are the great men who built this country?' They ask.
There are some who wish to have something to look forward to. They do not wish to be infringed upon, they have a sinking guilt in the bottom of their stomachs at seeing Neanderthals gyrating their bodies to the beat of a primitive drum claiming that 'we must leave nature alone!' spitting their fury at anyone who attempts the evil of living their life to the best of their ability.
And then there are those who wish to use philosophy to destroy the men and women I just described. They wish to use their greatest weapon against them, reason. They will twist reason to suit whatever needs they wish. And these young impressionable people can seek one defense; philosophy. If they do not understand the basics that philosophy teaches, such as, where we are, how we know it and what we should do once we know it, they will inevitably succumb to the gross ideology that is overtaking their world.
It is unfortunate that most of the people who are joining philosophy en masse are individuals who wish to destroy the best within others. They do not wish to be held to the responsibility of their own greatness, and seek to destroy what others wish to achieve. They use filthy language to impose guilt upon the aforementioned young people of the mind by saying 'they are greedy, they are selfish, and they have no empathy.'
These young people who wish to understand why they see people condemning the great men and women of industrial power and still they don't go to their defense because they feel guilty; they are the ones who need to be taught; not Plato, or Nietzsche, or Kant but Aristotle. They are the ones who should understand that values are something achievable, that we live in a world of concretes and they can either abide and prosper, or evade and perish.
It is also unfortunate that these young people may never have the courage to question; they may not have the ability to admire, nor to take pride in their own actions. They can, if they discover the proper philosophy. They must learn not that reason can be some 'sublime' fantasy, but it is their reality. They all have the ability to change; as long as we are human we have volition.
It is volition which eventually led mankind to throw off the shackles of, God, King, and now we must throw off the shackles of 'society.'
I can only hope that it will be the people of the mind who will give sanction to the best within themselves. We already seem to be going down a road quite opposite to this idea, and it is each of us who are paying the price.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer for The Constitutional Reporter
I was given an article from the New York Times that referred to a large growth in the number of students becoming philosophy majors. I was then asked the question why young ‘practical’ minded people are getting more interested in philosophy.
It is possible that young college students are becoming more enamored with philosophy simply because they are not satisfied with the abhorrent answers they normally get in the 'real world.' Some of these answers come from parents, teachers, bosses and even friends. The idea that everything is nothing may not bode well with some younger people who understand - on some level at least - that their life is something. They hear things like they are just a mass of protoplasm with no meaning. Young people are very impressionable, however, and I believe they do realize that their life is important to them: their future means something, and they wish to understand what is going on around them.
They see the giants of their world crumbling around them. They see the power of the presidency taken over by a man they helped put in to office, and do nothing but more of the same. They see pirates (yes PIRATES) hindering our trade as if we have returned to more primitive times. They understand that the majority of the country is against a war that is killing their friends, brothers, sisters, cousins; and yet their government heeds not their words. They remember hearing in history class and social studies that the government was set up as a system 'of the people by the people and for the people,' that there was supposed to be some semblance of morality, of reason, logic and so on. They see the rule of law being deteriorated around them, by such acts as imposing 'empathy' upon the judgments of judges. They see the erosion of property rights and wonder what is the 'principle' that backs property rights. They see the businessmen around them being punished, and wonder why. They don't understand why capitalism could have failed; they question, and hope philosophy will lead them towards the road of discovery. They wish to seek the best within themselves; they do not wish to allow the people of the world to condemn them for attempting greatness.
They possibly question things like socialized medicine. Why, they may ask, is it my duty to help others?
Some young men and women wish to bring back what they remember reading in their history books. 'Where are the great men who built this country?' They ask.
There are some who wish to have something to look forward to. They do not wish to be infringed upon, they have a sinking guilt in the bottom of their stomachs at seeing Neanderthals gyrating their bodies to the beat of a primitive drum claiming that 'we must leave nature alone!' spitting their fury at anyone who attempts the evil of living their life to the best of their ability.
And then there are those who wish to use philosophy to destroy the men and women I just described. They wish to use their greatest weapon against them, reason. They will twist reason to suit whatever needs they wish. And these young impressionable people can seek one defense; philosophy. If they do not understand the basics that philosophy teaches, such as, where we are, how we know it and what we should do once we know it, they will inevitably succumb to the gross ideology that is overtaking their world.
It is unfortunate that most of the people who are joining philosophy en masse are individuals who wish to destroy the best within others. They do not wish to be held to the responsibility of their own greatness, and seek to destroy what others wish to achieve. They use filthy language to impose guilt upon the aforementioned young people of the mind by saying 'they are greedy, they are selfish, and they have no empathy.'
These young people who wish to understand why they see people condemning the great men and women of industrial power and still they don't go to their defense because they feel guilty; they are the ones who need to be taught; not Plato, or Nietzsche, or Kant but Aristotle. They are the ones who should understand that values are something achievable, that we live in a world of concretes and they can either abide and prosper, or evade and perish.
It is also unfortunate that these young people may never have the courage to question; they may not have the ability to admire, nor to take pride in their own actions. They can, if they discover the proper philosophy. They must learn not that reason can be some 'sublime' fantasy, but it is their reality. They all have the ability to change; as long as we are human we have volition.
It is volition which eventually led mankind to throw off the shackles of, God, King, and now we must throw off the shackles of 'society.'
I can only hope that it will be the people of the mind who will give sanction to the best within themselves. We already seem to be going down a road quite opposite to this idea, and it is each of us who are paying the price.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
Monday, June 22, 2009
Socrates and the State
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer for The Constitutional Reporter
On Socrates’ reasoning
First of all, I must commend Socrates for his effective use of logic. Socrates has succinctly used and or created logical discussion. He first defends himself from Crito by using Argumentum ad Numerum or even Argumentum ad Populum. The first 'Numerum' is the fallacy perpetrated by an individual who claims something is more right the more people hold it as true. As Crito seems to be doing when he says, “but do you see Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.” This is also similar to 'Populum' which is appealing to the people; this fallacy is usually characterized by emotive language which Crito obviously uses. These defenses by Socrates demonstrate his ability to be steadfast to reason under any incoming fire. Based upon the antiquated reasoning of the time Socrates does seem to be holding true to his integrity. So, if we define integrity as an unfaltering holding to ones values, whether there are other's watching or not, then Socrates is most assuredly a man of integrity.
However, I believe Socrates makes a few fundamental and costly mistakes in his assessments of the state. For one, to assume the state owns him simply because of some arbitrary 'social contract' is ludicrous. It is true that Socrates agreed to live under Athenian law, but when these laws are set in place for the mere ability of allowing the polis to create criminals at its discretion, the polis and not Socrates has betrayed any 'social contract.' Socrates fails to understand what the state is. As Murray Rothbard explicates in Anatomy of the State:
“The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."
Furthermore, Socrates makes the preeminent mistake most individuals make, which is equating each individual person as 'a part' of the state. In other words saying 'we’ are the state.' In essence, 'we,' as the individuals who make up the state, are made equivalent to some unknown controller of violence. We are made to believe that as citizens of such and such society 'we' are all one, and 'we' must obey the laws and dictums handed down from on high. The fundamental error here is that we are individuals. Rothbard shows that if we are the state, than anything the state forces upon us is done voluntarily. "Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part."
Also, simply because we are all participating in our societies does not implicate us to their every action. As Williamson M. Evers from the department of political science at Stanford elucidates, "Mere participation is not enough for obligation. If a burglar lets you argue with him while he is relieving you of your valuables, it does not place you under an obligation to him."
Socrates also uses the argument that he has accepted the ‘gifts’ from society i.e. schooling. This is once again a fundamental error in reasoning. He uses the analogy of parents giving a gift to their child as equivalent to the ‘gifts’ from society. The problem lies in the conditions in which the gifts are given in the two scenarios. When a parent gives something to their child, such as room and board, there is only an obligation to the parents for as long as the child accepts the gifts. When the child moves away from home and stops accepting gifts from their parents, they subsequently disallow all ‘rules’ or edicts handed down from their parents. The difference with the state is that one can not merely ‘shrug’ off their allotted ‘gifts.’ These so-called gifts are imposed rather than something that is attached as a condition to a gift.
Socrates, while defending his position, accepts many irrelevant and counter-intuitive ideals that unfortunately lead to his early demise. While it is admirable that Socrates had the integrity to stand up for what he believed was right, his failure to come to more correct and logical conclusions deprived him of years of life.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
On Socrates’ reasoning
First of all, I must commend Socrates for his effective use of logic. Socrates has succinctly used and or created logical discussion. He first defends himself from Crito by using Argumentum ad Numerum or even Argumentum ad Populum. The first 'Numerum' is the fallacy perpetrated by an individual who claims something is more right the more people hold it as true. As Crito seems to be doing when he says, “but do you see Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.” This is also similar to 'Populum' which is appealing to the people; this fallacy is usually characterized by emotive language which Crito obviously uses. These defenses by Socrates demonstrate his ability to be steadfast to reason under any incoming fire. Based upon the antiquated reasoning of the time Socrates does seem to be holding true to his integrity. So, if we define integrity as an unfaltering holding to ones values, whether there are other's watching or not, then Socrates is most assuredly a man of integrity.
However, I believe Socrates makes a few fundamental and costly mistakes in his assessments of the state. For one, to assume the state owns him simply because of some arbitrary 'social contract' is ludicrous. It is true that Socrates agreed to live under Athenian law, but when these laws are set in place for the mere ability of allowing the polis to create criminals at its discretion, the polis and not Socrates has betrayed any 'social contract.' Socrates fails to understand what the state is. As Murray Rothbard explicates in Anatomy of the State:
“The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."
Furthermore, Socrates makes the preeminent mistake most individuals make, which is equating each individual person as 'a part' of the state. In other words saying 'we’ are the state.' In essence, 'we,' as the individuals who make up the state, are made equivalent to some unknown controller of violence. We are made to believe that as citizens of such and such society 'we' are all one, and 'we' must obey the laws and dictums handed down from on high. The fundamental error here is that we are individuals. Rothbard shows that if we are the state, than anything the state forces upon us is done voluntarily. "Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part."
Also, simply because we are all participating in our societies does not implicate us to their every action. As Williamson M. Evers from the department of political science at Stanford elucidates, "Mere participation is not enough for obligation. If a burglar lets you argue with him while he is relieving you of your valuables, it does not place you under an obligation to him."
Socrates also uses the argument that he has accepted the ‘gifts’ from society i.e. schooling. This is once again a fundamental error in reasoning. He uses the analogy of parents giving a gift to their child as equivalent to the ‘gifts’ from society. The problem lies in the conditions in which the gifts are given in the two scenarios. When a parent gives something to their child, such as room and board, there is only an obligation to the parents for as long as the child accepts the gifts. When the child moves away from home and stops accepting gifts from their parents, they subsequently disallow all ‘rules’ or edicts handed down from their parents. The difference with the state is that one can not merely ‘shrug’ off their allotted ‘gifts.’ These so-called gifts are imposed rather than something that is attached as a condition to a gift.
Socrates, while defending his position, accepts many irrelevant and counter-intuitive ideals that unfortunately lead to his early demise. While it is admirable that Socrates had the integrity to stand up for what he believed was right, his failure to come to more correct and logical conclusions deprived him of years of life.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Real Hollywood Ten
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer for The Constitutional Reporter
The Hollywood Ten were humanitarian heroes. They were ten individuals, who were fired for holding certain beliefs, beliefs which just happened to be communist. These individuals were fired from top paying jobs that carried a great amount of respect. They were fired for the heroic deed of defying congress and their employers. This belief is common today in a world heavily influenced by leftist Hollywood, and it is also a load of baloney. The public is content with believing the farce put forth by Hollywood and other ‘intellectuals’ that these people were innocent victims accused merely of thinking. Whenever one mentions communists and a threat of losing a job there is an enormous uproar. ‘Witch-hunts’ they say. No one should be forced to say what their ideological viewpoints are to keep a job. Nonsense, of course they can.
When a businessperson opens up shop, puts their blood, sweat, tears, money, and more into their business; they have every right to decide who can and cannot work in their place of business. This is a fact many intellectuals of our time – and times past – wish to skew. To them, everyone has a ‘right’ to a job, even at the expense of the business owner. After all, it is the workers who are doing all of the ‘work.’
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is this. When a business is opened up, the capital put forth; what is the first thing a businesswoman must do? Spend money. They must spend money on construction, or renting an office building, telephones, faxes, internet and more. They must also hire workers, and pay for advertisement. This is done before the proprietor sees one cent of profit. Many times an entrepreneur must take a loss for up to 5 years or more before seeing any returns. Yet the people still continuing to be paid are the workers, the companies that provide telephone service, internet service, cleaning service, and so on. Each of those companies receives money from the businessperson and is able to pay their workers. If a business does not pay its workers, it will inevitably lose those workers and go bankrupt.
To assume that workers in Hollywood should be any different is just the elitist attitude that is the major problem. The Hollywood Ten and any other worker is accepted and hired to work at a particular place of business on the basis of the business’s requirements. Businesses do not grow in nature. Men and women must start them and make them work. Since the entrepreneur is putting up all the risk, it is their right to hire whom they wish. If the owner chooses it is not in the best interests of their company to hire a person for any reason that is their choice. As the business owner, they will have to live by their choices. If the executives in charge of Hollywood during the 40s decided that having communists in their employ was detrimental to their success, they have every right, and obligation, to terminate their contracts.
A book entitled Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: Communism and Anti-communism in 1940’s Hollywood by Robert Mayhew, attempts to put the record straight as to the farce of intellectual deterrents put up over the last fifty plus years. Song of Russia is a movie produced in 1943 with such obvious propaganda as to show every Russian as a happy little peasant enjoying life in Stalinist Russia, and to show such things as these peasants enjoying a bountiful harvest. This at a time when even the
Russian government admitted to an enormous famine which killed – according to their government – an estimated ten million people (many accounts say much more than this). It shows the two heroes of the movie dancing in a luxurious club, while in the real world millions were killed by maniacal dictatorship. It claimed the peasant farmers ‘owned’ their tractor, even though they lived in a place where no one owned anything. It presented the female lead, a peasant girl named Nadya, traveling from a small town into Moscow. While excluding the GPU agents and other massive obstacles to her progress of attaining a pass to enter Moscow.
In the book Mayhew succinctly covers the massive changes the script undertook, at the behest of many very dubious characters; as well as Ayn Rand’s testimony to the House Un-American Activities (HUAC) congressional board in 1947. The author introduces his book with a sentence told to Ayn Rand which motivated her throughout the rest of her days.
“At a bon voyage party for Ayn Rand in January 1926, before she left Russia for the United States, a gentlemen approached her and said: ‘When you get there, tell them that Russia is a huge cemetery and that we are all dying.’ This is what Ayn Rand spent her life attempting to proliferate to the world.”
Today there are many claims presented as the atrocities the Hollywood Ten - and others who were supposedly prosecuted by congress during the three periods of the investigations towards Hollywood in 1947, 1951-52, 1953-55 - underwent. The claims touted are always the same; these ‘Ten’ and their comrades were heroes who were standing up for the Bill of Rights, for freedom of speech and more.
What these supposed advocates of freedom fail to acknowledge – or refuse to acknowledge – is the differentiation between the ideological and the physical. This is what is meant by the Bill of Rights. The idea of civil liberties i.e. free speech, free assembly etc applies and belongs only in the realm of ideas. Once those ideas cross into physical violence, they become null and void. What the HUAC (House Un-American Activities) was investigating was not merely what their ideological viewpoints were, but whether or not those under question were a card carrying member of the Communist Party. Indeed they carried cards. Being a member of the Communist Party meant much more than simply believing in what the communists believed, it meant adhering to their creed and law. It meant taking orders. It meant belonging to an organization of murder, violence, sabotage, and spying. This moves the individuals being investigated from the realm of ideas into criminal law. Moreover, those who were card carrying members also received their orders from a foreign government, which puts them in the realm of treason and military law. The Congressional hearings were correct in their condemnation.
To further elucidate this point I refer to Ayn Rand’s commentary on her HUAC testimony regarding communist membership.
“Membership in the Communist Party is a formal act of joining a formal organization whose aims, by its own admission, include acts of criminal violence. Congress has no right to inquire into ideas or opinions, but has every right to inquire into criminal activities. Belonging to a secret organization that advocates criminal actions comes into the sphere of the criminal, not the ideological…”
As she further states, allowing members of the Communist Party is like saying it is ok for a certain religious sect to practice religious sacrifices. The members of that religious sect would be persecuted for murder. Their ideological backing would have no merit on the trial. The same logic applies to the HUAC hearings, although Congress seemed to pursue these villains with a half-hearted vigor.
The fact that the Hollywood Ten claimed they did not want to reveal their connection to the Party because they would lose their jobs, only indicates their perpetration of a fraud. It attests to the fact that they wished to conceal information from their employers, co-workers, customers and the general public. That people would not deal with them if they knew the truth only shows the gravity of their wrongs. By condemning Congress for not allowing the Hollywood Ten to commit their crimes is a mockery to the idea of individual rights and the Rule of Law. This is equivalent to a con artist saying to congress that if they force them to reveal their con then the jig is up for them and they will lose their livelihood.
The false idea being pushed around the intellectual forum today that these supposed heroes were fighting for their freedom of speech is ridiculous. Again, free speech wasn’t an issue. The issue was whether or not these people were in fact members of a party which would kill any of their own people to keep them quiet. Ironically enough, as these Ten were portraying their viewpoints of Stalinist Russia in American movies, an atrocity rarely heard of was being carried out by that evil dictator; the extermination of the Lubyanka Thousand. The Lubyanka was a Moscow headquarters of the Soviet secret police. Many innocent people were imprisoned, tortures, and killed there. The Lubyanka Thousand were the over one thousand writers murdered there.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
The Hollywood Ten were humanitarian heroes. They were ten individuals, who were fired for holding certain beliefs, beliefs which just happened to be communist. These individuals were fired from top paying jobs that carried a great amount of respect. They were fired for the heroic deed of defying congress and their employers. This belief is common today in a world heavily influenced by leftist Hollywood, and it is also a load of baloney. The public is content with believing the farce put forth by Hollywood and other ‘intellectuals’ that these people were innocent victims accused merely of thinking. Whenever one mentions communists and a threat of losing a job there is an enormous uproar. ‘Witch-hunts’ they say. No one should be forced to say what their ideological viewpoints are to keep a job. Nonsense, of course they can.
When a businessperson opens up shop, puts their blood, sweat, tears, money, and more into their business; they have every right to decide who can and cannot work in their place of business. This is a fact many intellectuals of our time – and times past – wish to skew. To them, everyone has a ‘right’ to a job, even at the expense of the business owner. After all, it is the workers who are doing all of the ‘work.’
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is this. When a business is opened up, the capital put forth; what is the first thing a businesswoman must do? Spend money. They must spend money on construction, or renting an office building, telephones, faxes, internet and more. They must also hire workers, and pay for advertisement. This is done before the proprietor sees one cent of profit. Many times an entrepreneur must take a loss for up to 5 years or more before seeing any returns. Yet the people still continuing to be paid are the workers, the companies that provide telephone service, internet service, cleaning service, and so on. Each of those companies receives money from the businessperson and is able to pay their workers. If a business does not pay its workers, it will inevitably lose those workers and go bankrupt.
To assume that workers in Hollywood should be any different is just the elitist attitude that is the major problem. The Hollywood Ten and any other worker is accepted and hired to work at a particular place of business on the basis of the business’s requirements. Businesses do not grow in nature. Men and women must start them and make them work. Since the entrepreneur is putting up all the risk, it is their right to hire whom they wish. If the owner chooses it is not in the best interests of their company to hire a person for any reason that is their choice. As the business owner, they will have to live by their choices. If the executives in charge of Hollywood during the 40s decided that having communists in their employ was detrimental to their success, they have every right, and obligation, to terminate their contracts.
A book entitled Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: Communism and Anti-communism in 1940’s Hollywood by Robert Mayhew, attempts to put the record straight as to the farce of intellectual deterrents put up over the last fifty plus years. Song of Russia is a movie produced in 1943 with such obvious propaganda as to show every Russian as a happy little peasant enjoying life in Stalinist Russia, and to show such things as these peasants enjoying a bountiful harvest. This at a time when even the
Russian government admitted to an enormous famine which killed – according to their government – an estimated ten million people (many accounts say much more than this). It shows the two heroes of the movie dancing in a luxurious club, while in the real world millions were killed by maniacal dictatorship. It claimed the peasant farmers ‘owned’ their tractor, even though they lived in a place where no one owned anything. It presented the female lead, a peasant girl named Nadya, traveling from a small town into Moscow. While excluding the GPU agents and other massive obstacles to her progress of attaining a pass to enter Moscow.
In the book Mayhew succinctly covers the massive changes the script undertook, at the behest of many very dubious characters; as well as Ayn Rand’s testimony to the House Un-American Activities (HUAC) congressional board in 1947. The author introduces his book with a sentence told to Ayn Rand which motivated her throughout the rest of her days.
“At a bon voyage party for Ayn Rand in January 1926, before she left Russia for the United States, a gentlemen approached her and said: ‘When you get there, tell them that Russia is a huge cemetery and that we are all dying.’ This is what Ayn Rand spent her life attempting to proliferate to the world.”
Today there are many claims presented as the atrocities the Hollywood Ten - and others who were supposedly prosecuted by congress during the three periods of the investigations towards Hollywood in 1947, 1951-52, 1953-55 - underwent. The claims touted are always the same; these ‘Ten’ and their comrades were heroes who were standing up for the Bill of Rights, for freedom of speech and more.
What these supposed advocates of freedom fail to acknowledge – or refuse to acknowledge – is the differentiation between the ideological and the physical. This is what is meant by the Bill of Rights. The idea of civil liberties i.e. free speech, free assembly etc applies and belongs only in the realm of ideas. Once those ideas cross into physical violence, they become null and void. What the HUAC (House Un-American Activities) was investigating was not merely what their ideological viewpoints were, but whether or not those under question were a card carrying member of the Communist Party. Indeed they carried cards. Being a member of the Communist Party meant much more than simply believing in what the communists believed, it meant adhering to their creed and law. It meant taking orders. It meant belonging to an organization of murder, violence, sabotage, and spying. This moves the individuals being investigated from the realm of ideas into criminal law. Moreover, those who were card carrying members also received their orders from a foreign government, which puts them in the realm of treason and military law. The Congressional hearings were correct in their condemnation.
To further elucidate this point I refer to Ayn Rand’s commentary on her HUAC testimony regarding communist membership.
“Membership in the Communist Party is a formal act of joining a formal organization whose aims, by its own admission, include acts of criminal violence. Congress has no right to inquire into ideas or opinions, but has every right to inquire into criminal activities. Belonging to a secret organization that advocates criminal actions comes into the sphere of the criminal, not the ideological…”
As she further states, allowing members of the Communist Party is like saying it is ok for a certain religious sect to practice religious sacrifices. The members of that religious sect would be persecuted for murder. Their ideological backing would have no merit on the trial. The same logic applies to the HUAC hearings, although Congress seemed to pursue these villains with a half-hearted vigor.
The fact that the Hollywood Ten claimed they did not want to reveal their connection to the Party because they would lose their jobs, only indicates their perpetration of a fraud. It attests to the fact that they wished to conceal information from their employers, co-workers, customers and the general public. That people would not deal with them if they knew the truth only shows the gravity of their wrongs. By condemning Congress for not allowing the Hollywood Ten to commit their crimes is a mockery to the idea of individual rights and the Rule of Law. This is equivalent to a con artist saying to congress that if they force them to reveal their con then the jig is up for them and they will lose their livelihood.
The false idea being pushed around the intellectual forum today that these supposed heroes were fighting for their freedom of speech is ridiculous. Again, free speech wasn’t an issue. The issue was whether or not these people were in fact members of a party which would kill any of their own people to keep them quiet. Ironically enough, as these Ten were portraying their viewpoints of Stalinist Russia in American movies, an atrocity rarely heard of was being carried out by that evil dictator; the extermination of the Lubyanka Thousand. The Lubyanka was a Moscow headquarters of the Soviet secret police. Many innocent people were imprisoned, tortures, and killed there. The Lubyanka Thousand were the over one thousand writers murdered there.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Obama's Supreme Court pick
A Supreme Let Down
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer
As many American’s are aware, Supreme Court Judge David Souter is now retiring after 19 years. This gives President Barrack Obama the opportunity to exercise one of his most important executive powers; to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. Obama has made it very clear his major requirements for the next Supreme Court choice. As he has said on a few occasions “We need someone who’s got the heart to recognize – the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges” This bold statement completely refutes the intent of our constitution.
Our framers specifically and painstakingly designed a state that is a ‘constitutionally restricted republic.’ Today, people believe our country is merely a democracy, yet they forget democracy is only one check on the overall state.
A problem with the way America’s state was designed begins to occur when we look at what a state really is.
Murray Rothbard succinctly covered many aspects of the state in his essay The Anatomy of the State. First, understanding the state is not us. This is a common misconception today, that ‘we are the government.’ This sad and ideological term ‘we’ has prevented citizens of a particular state to be unaware of the reality of political life. As Rothbard States: “If ‘we are the government.’ Then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also ‘voluntary’ on the part of the individual concerned.” As he further explains, “under this reasoning any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have ‘committed suicide,’ since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part.” This reasoning seems ludicrous, but yet, it is completely in line with the common thinking of our time. It must be emphatically stated that we are not the government, and understand what the government is and its general purpose. A state is an organization that has a ubiquitous monopoly on force over a given geographical area. Moreover, it is the only organization which does not attain its monies by voluntary measures; its only means to attaining revenue is force.
There are only two ways a human may attain wealth; voluntary trade, or compulsion. Open hand, or the gun. The state only has one option available to it.
This then leads into the development of our own constitutionally restricted republic. Our founding fathers knew one thing, and that is, if a state is left unchecked it will trample individual rights, as per the states nature. Our founders began with the understanding that individual rights are not granted from god, society, king or any other means – but that individual rights are inalienable. Some may cite the Declaration of Independence’s statement: “That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” This seems to say that our founders believed our rights derived from god, or something outside of ourselves, yet this is not congruent with what our framers tried to convey. Merely a line before that ‘Creator’ line it states: “…assume the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” It is clear through the writings of our framers what they hoped future generations would retain, and that is our conception of our individual rights. Rights are a moral concept which serves as a transition from the principles which guide each and every one of us individually to the principles guiding our relationship with others. As Ayn Rand wrote, “the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Also in Atlas Shrugged the character John Galt explains, “the source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law but the law of identity. A is A and man is man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.”
There is a disconnect, from what our founders intended, and what they in fact implemented in our constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has the ultimate and last say in the interpretation of our constitution, and it is a part of the government. The masses may believe that the judicial branch of the government is separate from the other two, yet the members are chosen from the executive and legislative branches. This allows the federal government to pick the individuals who will be enforcing the rules they will create, which is like a professional basketball team picking the referee who will ref their games. The basketball team (and the politicians) will obviously pick those people who are most likely to call the game in their favor. So comes to fruition, once again, the battle between state power and social power.
In our system, the best check on this blatant flaw is our president picking the best person for our country. When we select a president to run for 4 years it should be known by the public that when the president chooses a Supreme Court Judge, it is a lifetime position. Justice John Paul Stevens all but wiped away the constitutions restrictions on the government’s ability to confiscate private property in “Kelo v. New London” – 30 years after President Ford appointed him.
When Obama speaks of choosing Judges based off of their ‘empathy’ he neglects the purpose of the judges. Obama, a former law professor, completely ignores the reasoning behind our lady justice being blindfolded. The reason Justice is blind, is that it matters not what a person’s skin tone is, what their social status, wealth, fame, handicap, political preferences, sexual preferences and more are. Only justice matters.
It is unfortunate but when Barack Obama chooses a judge it will be in complete accordance with his world views, which he has elucidated very clearly to the American people and we are still buying into what he is selling. The only factor that Obama cannot forestall (yet) is time. It takes a lot of time for judges to retire, or die. If our country can sound the alarms now, it just might be enough time to alter the course of the way our constitution is upheld for the next 30 years.
Regrettably, our current media is on the side of destroying our constitution. In the Sunday Denver Post an article written by Michael Riley outlines the grievous errors in all of our judgments. Governor Bill Ritter and two freshman senators asked Obama to “Seriously Consider” appointing Secretary Ken Salazar to the U.S. Supreme Court. What did they and the article cite were Salazar’s qualifications? That he is a “Westerner who from hard-scrabble beginnings has risen to become one of the country’s most successful Latino politicians.” The people pushing Salazar mainly are explaining his heritage, his skin color and his ability to rise from nothing to political bureaucrat. The article also points out that politicians and interest groups have been weighing in on their judgeship pick since Souter announced his retirement. Here is how they wish to ‘weigh in’ on who should be picked, “an African-American, a Latino, a woman, a liberal, to balance the court’s conservatives or a moderate who would sway from the middle.” This erases the most important qualification, which is whether the new judge will uphold our constitution. The article does point out that Salazar has never served as a judge but that doesn’t matter because Obama will consider real world experience when he is making his big choice.
The question our politicians should be asking our judges is not whether they will have empathy for the people they judge over, but whether or not they will uphold the constitution which protects all of our individual rights. The biggest danger for our country is not merely how a judge will vote on this or that issue, but whether they will undermine the very concept of the rule of law. Our country was founded on this idea. The idea that ‘laws not men’ govern. Once we erode this concept, our very ability to live as free people is wiped away.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer
As many American’s are aware, Supreme Court Judge David Souter is now retiring after 19 years. This gives President Barrack Obama the opportunity to exercise one of his most important executive powers; to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. Obama has made it very clear his major requirements for the next Supreme Court choice. As he has said on a few occasions “We need someone who’s got the heart to recognize – the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges” This bold statement completely refutes the intent of our constitution.
Our framers specifically and painstakingly designed a state that is a ‘constitutionally restricted republic.’ Today, people believe our country is merely a democracy, yet they forget democracy is only one check on the overall state.
A problem with the way America’s state was designed begins to occur when we look at what a state really is.
Murray Rothbard succinctly covered many aspects of the state in his essay The Anatomy of the State. First, understanding the state is not us. This is a common misconception today, that ‘we are the government.’ This sad and ideological term ‘we’ has prevented citizens of a particular state to be unaware of the reality of political life. As Rothbard States: “If ‘we are the government.’ Then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also ‘voluntary’ on the part of the individual concerned.” As he further explains, “under this reasoning any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have ‘committed suicide,’ since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part.” This reasoning seems ludicrous, but yet, it is completely in line with the common thinking of our time. It must be emphatically stated that we are not the government, and understand what the government is and its general purpose. A state is an organization that has a ubiquitous monopoly on force over a given geographical area. Moreover, it is the only organization which does not attain its monies by voluntary measures; its only means to attaining revenue is force.
There are only two ways a human may attain wealth; voluntary trade, or compulsion. Open hand, or the gun. The state only has one option available to it.
This then leads into the development of our own constitutionally restricted republic. Our founding fathers knew one thing, and that is, if a state is left unchecked it will trample individual rights, as per the states nature. Our founders began with the understanding that individual rights are not granted from god, society, king or any other means – but that individual rights are inalienable. Some may cite the Declaration of Independence’s statement: “That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” This seems to say that our founders believed our rights derived from god, or something outside of ourselves, yet this is not congruent with what our framers tried to convey. Merely a line before that ‘Creator’ line it states: “…assume the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” It is clear through the writings of our framers what they hoped future generations would retain, and that is our conception of our individual rights. Rights are a moral concept which serves as a transition from the principles which guide each and every one of us individually to the principles guiding our relationship with others. As Ayn Rand wrote, “the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Also in Atlas Shrugged the character John Galt explains, “the source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law but the law of identity. A is A and man is man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.”
There is a disconnect, from what our founders intended, and what they in fact implemented in our constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has the ultimate and last say in the interpretation of our constitution, and it is a part of the government. The masses may believe that the judicial branch of the government is separate from the other two, yet the members are chosen from the executive and legislative branches. This allows the federal government to pick the individuals who will be enforcing the rules they will create, which is like a professional basketball team picking the referee who will ref their games. The basketball team (and the politicians) will obviously pick those people who are most likely to call the game in their favor. So comes to fruition, once again, the battle between state power and social power.
In our system, the best check on this blatant flaw is our president picking the best person for our country. When we select a president to run for 4 years it should be known by the public that when the president chooses a Supreme Court Judge, it is a lifetime position. Justice John Paul Stevens all but wiped away the constitutions restrictions on the government’s ability to confiscate private property in “Kelo v. New London” – 30 years after President Ford appointed him.
When Obama speaks of choosing Judges based off of their ‘empathy’ he neglects the purpose of the judges. Obama, a former law professor, completely ignores the reasoning behind our lady justice being blindfolded. The reason Justice is blind, is that it matters not what a person’s skin tone is, what their social status, wealth, fame, handicap, political preferences, sexual preferences and more are. Only justice matters.
It is unfortunate but when Barack Obama chooses a judge it will be in complete accordance with his world views, which he has elucidated very clearly to the American people and we are still buying into what he is selling. The only factor that Obama cannot forestall (yet) is time. It takes a lot of time for judges to retire, or die. If our country can sound the alarms now, it just might be enough time to alter the course of the way our constitution is upheld for the next 30 years.
Regrettably, our current media is on the side of destroying our constitution. In the Sunday Denver Post an article written by Michael Riley outlines the grievous errors in all of our judgments. Governor Bill Ritter and two freshman senators asked Obama to “Seriously Consider” appointing Secretary Ken Salazar to the U.S. Supreme Court. What did they and the article cite were Salazar’s qualifications? That he is a “Westerner who from hard-scrabble beginnings has risen to become one of the country’s most successful Latino politicians.” The people pushing Salazar mainly are explaining his heritage, his skin color and his ability to rise from nothing to political bureaucrat. The article also points out that politicians and interest groups have been weighing in on their judgeship pick since Souter announced his retirement. Here is how they wish to ‘weigh in’ on who should be picked, “an African-American, a Latino, a woman, a liberal, to balance the court’s conservatives or a moderate who would sway from the middle.” This erases the most important qualification, which is whether the new judge will uphold our constitution. The article does point out that Salazar has never served as a judge but that doesn’t matter because Obama will consider real world experience when he is making his big choice.
The question our politicians should be asking our judges is not whether they will have empathy for the people they judge over, but whether or not they will uphold the constitution which protects all of our individual rights. The biggest danger for our country is not merely how a judge will vote on this or that issue, but whether they will undermine the very concept of the rule of law. Our country was founded on this idea. The idea that ‘laws not men’ govern. Once we erode this concept, our very ability to live as free people is wiped away.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
