Thanksgiving is here once again, and with it come visions of children's plays with Indians and Pilgrims, complete with little Pilgrim hats made of construction paper. The story told in these plays and learned by public school students at every grade level is a simple one.
The Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock late in 1620. The first winter was harsh, but the colonists worked hard and applied themselves industriously to their own survival. They had help from the local Indian tribes, who helped them learn how to survive. The result was a plentiful harvest in fall 1621, not to mention the first celebration of Thanksgiving.
It's a wonderful story. There's only one problem with it: It isn't true. Oh, it does contain elements of truth. For example, the first winter was harsh, and the local Indian tribes did help the colonists learn how to survive, what to plant and how to prepare the food. But the 1621 harvest was not bountiful. In fact, famine haunted the fledgling colony.
When the colonists first landed, they signed something called the Mayflower Compact. Most of us have heard this document praised as an early social contract helping different people to live together. What most of us never learned was that it was also an experiment in socialism.
The Mayflower Compact required that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing or any other means" were placed in the common stock of the colony. Further, it required that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of this common stock." People were required to put into the common stock everything they could, and take out only what they needed.
William Bradford, governor of the colony at the time, wrote the "History of Plymouth Plantation." In it, he wrote that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Since "the strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak," the strong men simply refused to work, and the amount of food produced was never adequate.
In fact, the colony went hungry for years as strong men refused to work hard, and theft of crops still in the ground ran rampant. Bradford wrote that the colony was riddled with "corruption and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."
The harvests of 1621 and 1622 were adequate enough so that "all had their hungry bellies filled," but that did not last. Deaths from malnutrition continued into the next year.
But in 1623, something changed. Bradford reported, "Instead of famine now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." By 1624, the colony was producing so much food that it began exporting corn.
What caused this change?
After the poor harvest of 1622, the colony brainstormed for a way to raise more corn and obtain a better crop. The solution, like the Thanksgiving story told today, was simple. In 1623, Bradford "gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit."
The socialistic experiment that had failed them was abandoned and replaced with capitalism. That turned the colonists away from failure and forward into success and growth. And this move away from socialism, along with the resulting prosperity, is what we truly celebrate today. It is easy to see why I call Thanksgiving the first Libertarian holiday.
Thanksgiving, far from being the simple and uninspiring story of a group of people learning how to farm, is actually a celebration of what has made America itself great. It is the story of people working together by working for themselves first, and in so doing, improving the standard of living for everyone. These are the American ideas we hold dear.
As you sit down to your table laden with turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie, remember the true story of Thanksgiving, and what it means to all.
Read the rest...
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Overturning ObamaCare Essential To Maintain Freedom
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear one of the challenges to Obama’s signature legislative achievement, ObamaCare. The Court will decide four questions. They are:
My opinion on this SCOTUS review is quite simple: It is absolutely essential that SCOTUS overturn at least the individual mandate as unconstitutional, because the implications of it apply far beyond the ObamaCare law. If Congress can, in fact, require individuals to purchase a product from a private vendor, then there are no practical limitations to Federal power… and our Federal government was intentionally designed as a limited one with few and defined powers.
Finding in favor of the individual mandate would mean that the Federal Government has no limits to its powers, that Congress can do just about anything they take it into their minds to do. It would be the death-knell for freedom and individual rights. How can individual rights exist if Congress can force us to live our lives and spend our money in ways THEY find appropriate?
Overturning the individual mandate is absolutely essential if we are to remain a free nation. Period. I would LIKE to see them overturn the entire ObamaCare law, and not just because I don’t like the law. I think the individual mandate is NOT severable from the rest of the law, and for the following reasons. First, there was a severability clause in earlier drafts of the law, but it was intentionally removed by Congress. Second, it is obvious that the rest of the provisions are so cost-prohibitive to insurers that a mandate to buy insurance was necessary so that insurers wouldn’t go out of business trying to abide by the law. Third, Obama’s lawyers have argued in more than one court that the individual mandate is the heart and soul of the law, absolutely critical if the law is to function as intended. Since the administration has argued that in court, I see no reason why SCOTUS should decide they are wrong.
As to the argument that it is too soon to challenge the law, I don’t think it’s relevant. You see, this point relies on a hundred-year-old law that says people can’t challenge a tax until somebody has already paid it. The problem is, the individual mandate isn’t a tax. The administration has argued both ways at various times, depending on which position would get them what they wanted at that time. But the mandate isn’t a tax, because the money I pay for insurance goes to a private-sector insurance company, not to the government. And if I fail to purchase insurance, that isn’t a tax, it’s a penalty. So I don’t think the law in question applies here, simply because it isn’t a tax.
The Medicaid question is intriguing, and I’m looking at the issue closely now. Essentially, ObamaCare expanded Medicaid requirements so that states would have to offer Medicaid to anybody earning up to 133% of the Federal poverty level. Any state that refused would be denied Medicaid money entirely, thus forcing them to shoulder the entire financial burden of Medicaid alone. SCOTUS has previously ruled that Congress CAN set conditions on money supplied to states, but not so many that those conditions become coercive. Have the new requirements stepped across that line? I don’t know, but this is one of the points SCOTUS will consider.
This is probably the most important case that SCOTUS will decide since they ruled that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. At stake is the fundamental nature of our government. If they decide that the federal government can force us to spend our money as they see fit to dictate, then freedom is dead in this country. Future Congresses will jump on the bandwagon to force us to buy things “for our own good,” and we will be inundated and overrun by an all-powerful Federal government.
Read the rest...
- Can the challenge even be heard right now, or do challenges have to wait until somebody pays the fine for not having insurance?
- Can Congress require individuals to buy insurance?
- If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, to what extent is it severable from the remainder of the law?
- Do the new Medicaid requirements on states, without providing any new funding for them, rise to the point of coercion and therefore exceed Congress’ power?
My opinion on this SCOTUS review is quite simple: It is absolutely essential that SCOTUS overturn at least the individual mandate as unconstitutional, because the implications of it apply far beyond the ObamaCare law. If Congress can, in fact, require individuals to purchase a product from a private vendor, then there are no practical limitations to Federal power… and our Federal government was intentionally designed as a limited one with few and defined powers.
Finding in favor of the individual mandate would mean that the Federal Government has no limits to its powers, that Congress can do just about anything they take it into their minds to do. It would be the death-knell for freedom and individual rights. How can individual rights exist if Congress can force us to live our lives and spend our money in ways THEY find appropriate?
Overturning the individual mandate is absolutely essential if we are to remain a free nation. Period. I would LIKE to see them overturn the entire ObamaCare law, and not just because I don’t like the law. I think the individual mandate is NOT severable from the rest of the law, and for the following reasons. First, there was a severability clause in earlier drafts of the law, but it was intentionally removed by Congress. Second, it is obvious that the rest of the provisions are so cost-prohibitive to insurers that a mandate to buy insurance was necessary so that insurers wouldn’t go out of business trying to abide by the law. Third, Obama’s lawyers have argued in more than one court that the individual mandate is the heart and soul of the law, absolutely critical if the law is to function as intended. Since the administration has argued that in court, I see no reason why SCOTUS should decide they are wrong.
As to the argument that it is too soon to challenge the law, I don’t think it’s relevant. You see, this point relies on a hundred-year-old law that says people can’t challenge a tax until somebody has already paid it. The problem is, the individual mandate isn’t a tax. The administration has argued both ways at various times, depending on which position would get them what they wanted at that time. But the mandate isn’t a tax, because the money I pay for insurance goes to a private-sector insurance company, not to the government. And if I fail to purchase insurance, that isn’t a tax, it’s a penalty. So I don’t think the law in question applies here, simply because it isn’t a tax.
The Medicaid question is intriguing, and I’m looking at the issue closely now. Essentially, ObamaCare expanded Medicaid requirements so that states would have to offer Medicaid to anybody earning up to 133% of the Federal poverty level. Any state that refused would be denied Medicaid money entirely, thus forcing them to shoulder the entire financial burden of Medicaid alone. SCOTUS has previously ruled that Congress CAN set conditions on money supplied to states, but not so many that those conditions become coercive. Have the new requirements stepped across that line? I don’t know, but this is one of the points SCOTUS will consider.
This is probably the most important case that SCOTUS will decide since they ruled that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. At stake is the fundamental nature of our government. If they decide that the federal government can force us to spend our money as they see fit to dictate, then freedom is dead in this country. Future Congresses will jump on the bandwagon to force us to buy things “for our own good,” and we will be inundated and overrun by an all-powerful Federal government.
Read the rest...
Thursday, November 17, 2011
FAIL: OWS And First Amendment Rights
The “Occupy” movement is now two months old, and since I haven’t commented on it yet, I think now would be a good time.
If you ask a supporter of the movement, they’ll tell you that they are exercising their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and air their grievances. After considering this very carefully, I disagree.
The “Occupy” movement isn’t just gathering to speak, they’re turning publicly and privately owned property into tent-cities where they are living for extended periods of time. In most cases they don’t have permits, whether that’s because they didn’t ask or because the city government in question waved the permit fees. Crime is running rampant in these Occupy camps, and the people who chant “police are the army of the rich” don’t seem incredibly willing to report these crimes and help catch the criminals.
Zuccotti park in NY city, the birthplace of the movement, is a privately owned park that the protestors took over and essentially trashed over a period of time. Where do their “First Amendment rights” end and the property rights of the park owners begin?
When the Tea Parties put together their rallies, they obtained the necessary permits and, in many cases, parade insurance in case things got out of hand. Some cities required up to $1 million in insurance coverage… and the organizers got the required permits and insurance. The rallies were usually held on publicly-owned (i.e. government-owned) property… such as on the steps in front of the State House here in Montgomery.
That is exercising free speech. The thing to remember is that, though you DO have a right to speak your mind, nobody has an obligation to listen. Nor do they have an obligation to provide you a platform to make your speech. Those protestors who occupied the privately owned Zuccotti Park, for example, are demanding that the owners let them use their private property so that they can “speak.” What do you call it when a horde of people descend on private property, set up residence, and refuse to leave when the owners ask? I call that attempted grand theft, myself… the word “trespassing” doesn’t even begin to describe it. Either way, it’s a crime… that nobody is being prosecuted for.
I fail to see why it takes camping out in a park for a few months to make a political point. And I fail to see why expecting people to obey the laws is somehow denying them their First Amendment right to free speech.
My advice to them is to go home, take a few hundred showers, and write a letter to the editor. Start a blog. Air a few podcasts. Heck, organize a protest rally on the steps of city hall if you like… just get the required permits and stay a reasonable time. Don’t expect them to let you live there for as long as you want to.
In other words, if you want your rights respected, you’d better start by respecting the rights of others.
Read the rest...
If you ask a supporter of the movement, they’ll tell you that they are exercising their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and air their grievances. After considering this very carefully, I disagree.
The “Occupy” movement isn’t just gathering to speak, they’re turning publicly and privately owned property into tent-cities where they are living for extended periods of time. In most cases they don’t have permits, whether that’s because they didn’t ask or because the city government in question waved the permit fees. Crime is running rampant in these Occupy camps, and the people who chant “police are the army of the rich” don’t seem incredibly willing to report these crimes and help catch the criminals.
Zuccotti park in NY city, the birthplace of the movement, is a privately owned park that the protestors took over and essentially trashed over a period of time. Where do their “First Amendment rights” end and the property rights of the park owners begin?
When the Tea Parties put together their rallies, they obtained the necessary permits and, in many cases, parade insurance in case things got out of hand. Some cities required up to $1 million in insurance coverage… and the organizers got the required permits and insurance. The rallies were usually held on publicly-owned (i.e. government-owned) property… such as on the steps in front of the State House here in Montgomery.
That is exercising free speech. The thing to remember is that, though you DO have a right to speak your mind, nobody has an obligation to listen. Nor do they have an obligation to provide you a platform to make your speech. Those protestors who occupied the privately owned Zuccotti Park, for example, are demanding that the owners let them use their private property so that they can “speak.” What do you call it when a horde of people descend on private property, set up residence, and refuse to leave when the owners ask? I call that attempted grand theft, myself… the word “trespassing” doesn’t even begin to describe it. Either way, it’s a crime… that nobody is being prosecuted for.
I fail to see why it takes camping out in a park for a few months to make a political point. And I fail to see why expecting people to obey the laws is somehow denying them their First Amendment right to free speech.
My advice to them is to go home, take a few hundred showers, and write a letter to the editor. Start a blog. Air a few podcasts. Heck, organize a protest rally on the steps of city hall if you like… just get the required permits and stay a reasonable time. Don’t expect them to let you live there for as long as you want to.
In other words, if you want your rights respected, you’d better start by respecting the rights of others.
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)