Pres. Obama's Rotten Apple

President Obama is comparing the glitchy rollout of the ObamaCare health insurance exchanges to that of Apple's iOS 7, saying, "Now, like every new law, every new product rollout, there are going to be some glitches in the sign-up process along the way that we will fix... Consider that just a couple of weeks ago, Apple rolled out a new mobile operating system, and within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it." 

But he has missed the point entirely. The government is not a business. Its role is not to rollout a health insurance exchange, glitches or no glitches, but to protect the rights of the people, i.e. protect them from the wielders of physical force. ObamaCare does the exact opposite—Apple does not force its consumers to purchase its products or insurance for its products under the threat of penalties like ObamaCare empowers the government to do (and thus turning government into a rights-violator), but engages with others in mutually beneficial voluntary trade; such is the nature of business. The nature of government, however, is force, and therefore must be properly limited to using that force objectively, i.e. as a retaliator in protecting the rights of those whose rights have been violated.

As such, ObamaCare is nothing but a rotten apple and for Obama to compare the two situations is intellectually dishonest and a sham perpetrated upon the American people.

Happy Atlas Shrugged Day!

"A white rectangle hung over the city, imparting the date to the men in the streets below. In the rusty light of this evening's sunset, the rectangle said: September 2." -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Sixty-seven years ago today, Ayn Rand sat down and began writing Atlas Shrugged, and subsequently sparking an intellectual revolution that, to this day, has spread like wildfire across the globe. If history is to be fair to Rand, as I believe it will be in due time, she will no doubt be known as the Great Revitalizer of the Enlightenment, and the Mother of the Future.

Happy Atlas Shrugged Day!!!

Is Pres. Obama Syri-ous?

After carelessly running his mouth just over a year ago by “drawing” red lines in the sand regarding use of chemical weapons on civilians by the rogue Syrian regime, and now the back-and-forth in regards to an American “response” (clearly there never was a strategy for if and when that line is ever crossed), I can’t help but wonder, is President Obama serious or does he think it’s amateur hour at the local comedy club?

The proper role of a government is to protect the rights of its own citizens, not those of another nation. President Obama, like the last 43 presidents before him, took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” His oath was not to protect the oppressed masses of the entire world. What is happening in Syria is a tragedy, to say the least, but, absent a legitimate threat to American life, liberty, and property, it is simply not our responsibility. The only proper measure for our president to take is to denounce the atrocity and give moral support to the people to overthrow their tyrannic leader and institute new government based on rational principles.

With that in mind, it’s apparent our President has put himself and this country between a rock and hard place. He has forced us into a corner with no good options--renege on a threat, and he and our country appear weak and our enemies become emboldened (in fact, since he has decided to put a pause on beating the war drums, Syria has already declared we are in “retreat.” I’m sure Al-Qaeda is happy to hear this)--act, and America is dragged into yet another war with more of our blood potentially spilled and our treasure sacrificed (this, however, also runs the risk of us appearing weak if we “respond” tepidly, as our President has seemingly and oddly promised). What to do now? No good options because our most inexperienced Narcissist-in-Chief had to open his mouth.

Of course, another consequence of all this is that we lose credibility with our allies, as well. After declaring our intent to act and then retracting, our allies would be right in wondering if we are to be trusted or relied upon in the future. Who wants to have a wavering unpredictable sidekick?

This is just the latest despicable example of America’s ongoing leadership crisis and I worry how such a projection of weakness will affect us all in the long-term. If history is any guide, we are in for some dark times ahead.

Surprise, Surprise—Hollywood Fails Capitalism 101

In deciding what movie to see this weekend, I decided to go with The Wolverine over Elysium (basically because all I’ve heard about this movie is that it’s a socialist propaganda film) and save myself a headache. But leave it to Hollywood to turn any movie into an anti-capitalist manifesto. Karl Marx would be so proud.

I’ll get right to my issue with this film: The villain of the movie, known as Viper, describes herself as “a chemist, a nihilist, a capitalist….” Now, aside from the fact that such an attack on capitalism is expected from Hollywood (how many movies have been produced within the last decade alone where the villain is not a businessman or some profiteer out for blood?), what really had my eyes rolling is the fact that nihilism is packaged in with capitalism. They could not be more opposite.

Nihilism is basically the rejection of truth and reality and the embrace of destruction for the sake of destruction. It’s a creed held by the envious who believe they cannot lift themselves up so they find solace in tearing people down. The nihilists seek to destroy value wherever it exists because they are incapable of producing value themselves, even when that value produced by others benefits them. Nihilism is lose-lose.

Capitalism is the socio-economic system that rewards those who create value and trade value for value via the marketplace for personal profit. Success and prosperity goes to the best producer of value for their customers. Capitalism is win-win.

Packaging such premises together is just plain ignorant and dumb and just goes to show how egregious Hollywood can be in pushing an anti-capitalist agenda (no wonder they are such ardent supporters of President Obama).

The Supreme Court Rules, President Obama Equivocates

Today, the Supreme Court ruled on two key cases involving same-sex marriage. The first case, United States v. Windsor, which involved the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton, was struck down as unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision, interestingly enough, with Republican President Ronald Reagan's appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing and reading the majority opinion. The other case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, which involved California's Proposition 8, was thrown out by the Court, also in a 5-4 decision, on merits that the Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.

Here are my thoughts on the cases:

I'm ecstatic DOMA was overturned, however, I figured the Justices would cite the 10th Amendment as justification for doing so. Instead, I had not realized they were looking at the law in context of our welfare state (I wasn't well read on the specifics of the case, but was somewhat familiar with DOMA), and so the Justices cited the 5th Amendment to strike it down, claiming federal benefits must also be given to same-sex couples in the interest of "equal protection" under the law. So, although I'm happy it was struck down and equality under the law embraced, the reasoning behind it is a sad reminder of how ingrained the entitlement system is in our society. I support the rights of gay couples to marry (for my reasons read: Republicans and Their Half-Baked Individualism), and so I hope they now stand with me in my fight for my right to keep 100% of the money I earn. The welfare state must be dismantled if true "fairness" and "equality" is to become a reality. No special treatment to individuals in a marriage versus those who choose to stay single. 

In regards to the Prop. 8 case, I figured they would throw out the case out, again based on the 10th Amendment. It was clear cut that the Court had no constitutional authority to rule on such a case. I'm very happy the Justices showed the proper respect to the Constitution this time around. What a difference a year makes (SCOTUS Affirms Fascism as Domestic Policy). But even though California's courts have affirmed Proposition 8 as unconstitutional (pertaining to California's state constitution), the proper next step is for the California legislature to sign marriage equality into law (this goes against the will of the Californian people, but there is no such right to vote away the rights of others. That is an illegitimate use of democracy and it has no place in a rights-respecting republic). De facto laws based on court rulings are improper, as the courts' role in government is not that of creating law. 

The President's Reaction: 

In response to all of this, President Obama's administration quickly released the following graphic of a quote (perhaps too quickly without much thought) on The Official White House Tumblr page that was truly bizarre to me. He offered the following false equivocation of equality and freedom: 

(TEXT: "When all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free." -President Obama) 

Oy vey. Grab this guy a dictionary. Equality certainly does not mean freedom, nor does it necessarily lead to it. If we are all equally enslaved, how exactly, Mr. President, are we all somehow made more free? Being "equal" and being "free" are two distinct concepts. Certainly I would love it if all humanity was equal in absolute freedom, but such does not change the meaning of the concepts of "equal" and "free." Now, admittedly, I'm nitpicking here (which is a lot of fun), but he's the leader of the semi-free world who marketed himself as the first intellectual president. It would be nice if he acted like it.

America Rallies: ABOLISH THE IRS!

As America struggles to regain its liberty, eroded through the decades of bad leadership, corruption, and downright evil (the thirst to control others can't be anything less), courageous citizens from around the country are rising to demand a course correction--the latest of which took place yesterday, June 19, 2013 on the Capitol's West Lawn as part of the "Audit the IRS" rally. I had the pleasure of being at the center of it all, and despite having some minor disagreements with some of the speakers, overall it left me feeling hopeful that America's brightest days are ahead of us.

 The purpose of the rally was twofold:

 

1.) To bring attention to overtly illegal and immoral targeting of groups by the IRS who were/are opposed to the President's leftist agenda.

2.) To rally support for an audit of the institution itself.

 

Now, for me, an audit doesn't quite go far enough. When it comes to the institution that so completely goes against the principles of this country and is so self-evidently immoral, I could not and would not accept anything less than abolishment. That's part of the reason I traveled more than 230 miles to be part of this gathering--to bring the message that the IRS MUST be abolished. To my satisfaction, as speaker after speaker rose to the podium, what became evident is that so many others agreed. Now, there was talk of a "fair tax" (a national sales tax) and such (see pictures below), but that still would be unjust coercion from the government. The government would still be forcibly getting in the middle of an otherwise voluntary transaction between the parties involved. The only appropriate means of funding the government would be through voluntary taxation. Give the power of funding the government to the people! Let them decide how much of their money the government deserves. No individual should be forced to fund a government that actively violates their rights in so many arenas--that's asking them to give a gun to a murderer. Effectively, this would amount to another check on government power. When the government goes down a path individuals disagree with (say arming savages in Syria), they could stop funding such behavior.

 Now to address those who believe most would simply not pay, I ask you to consider these points: The idea that most people wouldn't voluntarily fund their government is to suggest that most people are anarchists. If that were true, how to fund the government would be the least of our worries. If most people were anarchists, society itself would not exist as it does now. And what for the anarchists that do exist? Well, first, their freedom of conscience is protected. Secondly, the more rational members of such a society simply need to shun such people, ostracize them (in a noncoercive manner) from the community for their irrationality. In addition, it also stands to reason that most would certainly voluntarily fund their government (assuming it's a rights-respecting government) because their rights are crucial to living a fully human life. If you voluntarily buy food to nourish your body, voluntarily buy clothes to keep yourself warm, voluntarily buy housing for shelter from the elements, why the hell would you not ensure that the government is funded to protect such crucial and necessary assets as your rights?!

 

Moving on, what I learned on this journey is that the American Revolution never ended. The completion of such will be up to us, we the people. The fire has been sparked. We have an opportunity to base the rebirth of our nation solidly, consistently, and resolutely, on a foundation of freedom, liberty, and individual rights. There will be no excuses this time.

 

 

Memorial Day is About Honoring Integrity, Not Sacrifice

It's basically become a typical American cliché, especially on Memorial Day, to remember our fallen troops for their "sacrifice," but such a thing is not only utter nonsense, it is insulting to everyone in our armed forces.

As Ayn Rand noted, a sacrifice is "a surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a non-value."

A soldier signing up for military service does so not because he does not value his life and therefore does not care if he dies in battle, but because he values his life and freedom and that of his family and friends, he values a safe society, he values courage, honor, and valor. In fact, in the face of those who would do us harm, it would be a sacrifice to put down our weapons and not defend those values we hold dear. Especially when it's a matter of life and death, as it is in war, going into harm's way to defend what one values is not acting in a sacrificial manner, it is acting with the utmost integrity to one's values (which by definition, is a selfish act).

This Memorial Day, let's celebrate and remember all those who have fallen while defending the values that make life as we know it today possible.

The Problem with Republicans...

...Is that they sound an awful lot like Democrats.

 

Last night on Hannity, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin and liberal talk radio host Leslie Marshall discussed and debated the sickening MSNBC commercials featuring Melissa Harris-Perry that essentially propagandized communism with Harris-Perry declaring that your children belong to the "collective." What is interesting, however, is Malkin's response to Marshall:

 


Did you notice something strange about Malkin's response? It sounded a lot like Marshall's, only at a smaller scale.

 

When Marshall mentioned morality, that was the perfect opportunity for Malkin to bring out the proverbial guns. This IS about morality—it's a matter of individual rights. As Ayn Rand noted, "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." But not once did Malkin even think to mention the concept. And the reason is simple: conservatives and republicans lack the philosophical understanding of individual rights and so they are neutralized in their ability to defend against assaults of their rights. They are cornered  into simply offering a watered down version of statism. Essentially, they are guilted into buying into the idea that they must sacrifice their rights for the greater good. Marshall's argument can be summarized as 'we have to take care of the kids and the federal government is there to do just that by taxing us. Do you really want kids to starve?' What's Malkin's response? 'No, no, no, that's up to the state and local governments.' In her defense, she did properly identify that charity plays a role in helping others, but the fact that she argues it is also a role for the government, albeit at the state and local level, is as arbitrary a claim as Marshall's argument that it's the federal government's job and it's nothing less than a concession to statism. What difference does it make to someone who's rights are being violated whether it is done by the federal government or at the state and local levels? His rights are being violated and that is all that matters to him! The size of the mob is irrelevant. Put another way, that's like arguing that it was wrong for Hitler to exterminate Jewish people and that they should have left such carnage to the local townships. Let them decide which ovens to shove Jews into. Ludicrous!

 

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican party. If they do not embrace and defend the concept of individual rights wholeheartedly and with full consistency, and dedicate themselves to understanding the moral underpinnings of such, they risk nothing but defeat election after election. But there in lies the other problem: Republicans are no different than Democrats in their embrace of the false moral code of altruism. This is why they have such a difficult time with consistently defending individual rights. The two DO NOT go together and are, in fact, opposites. The principle of individual rights says that it is moral for you to pursue YOUR interests and YOUR happiness for YOUR OWN sake. Altruism states the opposite, that moral action is derived from sacrificing your interests to the interests of others. Altruism goes hand in hand with statism, not freedom. That of course allows the Democrats to come off as being more consistent in their embrace of big government statism than the Republicans do when it comes to their half baked embrace of individual rights. Consistency is the mother of credibility. Without credibility, how can they win votes?

In order for Republicans to properly defend individual rights, they must defend its moral foundation, the moral code of egoism. The reason Malkin is willing to let the state and local government violate people's rights is because she cannot properly defend selfishness. She is guilted into accepting altruism, accepting the idea that she and others must sacrifice their rights and property, which in this case is, "for the sake of the children." Although she's uncomfortable with such sacrifice at the federal level, she concedes that she's okay with it at the state and local levels. She buys into the idea that to not sacrifice is simply selfish and thus, immoral. As Marshall put it, "Are we talking about money or are we talking about morality?" But that's a strawman argument. There is nothing moral about sacrificing your rights, and in fact, human life does not require such a thing. Me caring about my money and having a right not to be coerced to hand it over to the government to dole out in the form of public education does not also mean I don't care about children or that I do not value education. And for that matter, why is it that people are uncaring for defending their rights but Marshall and her "liberal" cohorts are not uncaring for advocating the government use coercion against others? The logic isn't there.

But back to egoism, it is required to live a fully human life. Rights are selfish; that's a fact. I have a right to my life. I have a right to MY liberty. I have a right to the pursuit of MY happiness. Those rights belong to ME. They also happen to belong to YOU, too. They belong to every individual (and you can't spell individual without "I"). Our rights are virtually unlimited with the exception of one logical constraint: there is no such right to violate the rights of others. If my neighbor (or government for that matter) has a right to violate my rights, then they are not rights, they are merely privileges. So how do we know that we do have rights and not privileges?

Man, by his nature, is a thinking being, not an instinctual one. The requirements of his life do not come automatically to him. If he is to survive and thrive, he must think. In order for him to do just that, to use his mind, to use his judgment to figure out how to sustain himself, and thus live, he has to be FREE to think. The only way he is free to use his mind is if he is free from physical coercion. Physical coercion is the antithesis of reason. It is reason and reason alone that got man out of the cave and into the skyscraper. Reason alone allowed him to figure out how to grow and mass produce food. Reason alone allowed him to figure out how to make clothing. Reason alone allowed him to develop cures for diseases and medicine for sickness. Reason alone allowed him to figure out how to manufacture all the goods we rely on today to live a comfortable life. A man of great physical strength could not figure out how to discover, invent, and create any of those things his life requires without the use of his reasoning mind. Reason is part of man's nature, and thus, his rights are part of his nature, too. To advocate for the violation of his rights, in any capacity, is to strip humanity of the very thing that makes it human to begin with.

Once Republicans have the philosophy to properly ground their arguments in reality, they will have the confidence, the moral assurance, and the consistency to defend their convictions and build credibility with the American people to ensure victory come election day.

(Oh, and Ms. Marshall, when you asked if your support of government coerced taxation/ redistribution of other people's wealth "make[s] me a socialist?," yes, yes it does.)

The Iron Lady—A Testament to an Iron Will

I am truly saddened by the news of Margaret Thatcher's passing. What Maggie symbolized to me was a person of great uncompromising character, of unwavering conviction, of strength of mind.

 

When pressured by her own party to make a 'U-turn' and become more moderate in her mission of freeing up the British people and their economy, she resolutely responded "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning." Even the Soviets, ferverently trying to maintain their "Iron Curtain" grip on Eastern Europe, couldn't help but take notice of her ironclad backbone, dubbing her "The Iron Lady," a name she not only would embrace wholehartedly, but rightfully earned.

I can say with utter certitude that she was the last great leader this world has seen since and she serves as a model for future statesmen and states-ladies. If America, and the world for that matter, is to get out of this leadership crisis we are in, it would serve us well to take a few lessons from Maggie...

 

...And by lessons, I don't mean hijacking her legacy. Just a few short hours after her passing, President Obama, a man who has spoken quite openly about his contempt for freedom, released the following words that are quite telling (full statement can be found here):

"Michelle and I send our thoughts to the Thatcher family and all the British people as we carry on the work to which she dedicated her life—free peoples standing together, determined to write our own destiny."

 

Our Narcissist-in-Chief comparing himself to Maggie Thatcher is like Bernie Madoff comparing himself to John D. Rockefeller. In essence, no contest.

But Americans should not fret for there is something else to take away from Lady Thatcher's legacy—with good policy, a country can make a comeback. Our decline is not written in stone; it can be reversed. We just need to find the right people with the right ideas, and Maggie has proven it's possible.

RIP Iron Lady.

Sequester Fear Mongering: What are Bureaucrats Really Saying?

It’s been just under a full 24 hours since the sequester cuts have been signed into law, and armageddon has yet to take place.

Speaking of which, there are two major points to take away from all of the fear mongering that has gone on in Washington in recent days leading up to the sequester:

1.) So many bureaucrats have screamed that the sky will fall over these cuts, that millions will lose their jobs, that scientific research will come to a halt and medical advances will slow, that education will suffer, and that vital services for women, children, the needy, poor, and sick will be cut, leaving them with nowhere to turn. Recall during the 2012 presidential campaign when Mitt Romney infamously stated that “47%” (although I’d argue that was a gross underestimation) of the people are dependent upon government in some way, he received quite a backlash. So this leaves me to wonder, is all this ranting and raving about the millions of people being affected by these minuscule cuts finally an admission, at least implicitly, that America does indeed have a dependency problem? If such a small percentage of government spending affects so many people, then the problem isn’t the cutting, it’s the fact that government has intertwined itself into the lives of so many people in the first place! Ayn Rand once said in an interview that "In a proper society, a rational man doesn't have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them." But in an improper society, one like our current United States, government is in your home, in your pocket, in your food, in your face at nearly every minute of your life. That list of things above that will be affected by sequestration, it’s amazing these bureaucrats never stop and ask themselves why the government has to be in control of those things at all.

2.) Then there are those who are warning that our economy will be thrown back into recession over this approximate 2.4% cut in spending. If that is true, if our economy does slip back into recession over such a cut, only one thing can be concluded: the economy was never actually in a recovery to begin with and was being artificially propped up by government expansion. If a real recovery is to take place, not this stagnation nation we’ve become, government needs to begin reducing its entanglement and scope in the private lives of citizens who are of no physical harm to others or their property so that real economic growth can occur.

With that said, although the sequester isn’t the best plan set forth to curb spending and reign in our government, it seems this is the only way to actually do it, although truth be told, it actually isn’t even a reduction in spending, it’s a reduction in the growth of spending, a minor rollback of the clock by a few minutes or so. But hey, it’s a start.

Randsday and the Month of Love

Today is Ayn Rand’s birthday, her 108th to be exact, a day that has evolved into a holiday celebrated by the Objectivist community as Randsday. Randsday is a day to celebrate yourself —a day to indulge (rationally, of course) by buying yourself a gift. It is a day that exemplifies Rand’s ethics of rational selfishness, in essence, a day to recognize the love you have for your own life and to celebrate your self-worth.

It is quite appropriate that we shall celebrate Randsday in the same month we celebrate Valentine’s Day. You could say February is the month dedicated to the virtue of love; love of self and love of others. 

However, before you can love another, you must first love yourself, that is, to respect yourself and to value your own life. To love others in not an act of selflessness, as we are constantly told, but an act of selfish-ness, a response to your values. As Rand explained, “Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one’s own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut.”1

So to that I say Happy Birthday, Rand! And a Happy Randsday to all!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹"The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 35

Constitution Resolution

On December 30, 2012, in a New York Times article, Constitutional Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman, made the case for why we should “give up on the Constitution.” I’ll make the case why we ought to do the exact opposite.

 

Before I do so, however, let’s understand, fundamentally, what the purpose of the Constitution is. The Constitution is a document that LIMITS the power of the government over the individual. It’s a document that recognizes the individual rights of people (explicitly enshrined in the Bill of Rights) and lays out a framework of the finite capacity in which the federal government can act. Any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the document is left to be handled by the sovereign states or by the people.

 

Now, part of the reason Mr. Seidman gives for why we ought to junk the Constitution is the fact that past administrations, going back to the founding of our republic, have ignored provisions in the document--and he provides numerous examples. But the fact that previous administrations evaded parts of the Constitution does not mean we should throw it out altogether. A basic principle one learns in kindergarten is that two wrongs don’t make a right, and throwing out a document (certainly not without its flaws, which I’ll address shortly) recognizing the rights of the individual would certainly be wrong. The solution to the problem of elected officials ignoring the Constitution is not to throw out the Constitution, but to hold them accountable for doing so. When one commits murder, we don’t demand that laws against murder be thrown out. Such would be utter nonsense and a complete abrogation of justice itself.

 

Oddly enough, another of Mr. Seidman’s reasons for throwing out the Constitution is that we do in fact follow it (damned if we do, damned if we don’t, I guess). He writes “Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care?” I’ll tell you why everyone should care: this is how our system of law and order works. We are not in a state of anarchy nor do we leave such issues up to the whims of bureaucrats. These are the rules established to deal with issues regarding revenue. You don’t like it? Call up your representative and inform him of your support for a Constitutional amendment changing the way such business is done. Technicalities within our legal framework such as these could certainly be debated and changed in the interest of efficiency (what is non-negotiable in a moral sense, however, is the principle of individual rights).

 

Furthermore, Mr. Seidman makes another odd argument suggesting that we could get rid of the Constitution while preserving the rights of the people. He states “This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation… Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources.” What Mr. Seidman is suggesting is that our rights would be protected based on a common respect of one another as part of our cultural traditions. The problem I have with this is twofold: 1.) Nothing is preventing the culture from shifting towards a society that does not respect individual rights (and if you know anything about American history, America has indeed shifted away from the free country we once were). In fact, it could be argued that the reason we have not yet descended into outright tyranny is due in part to those provisions explicitly expressed in Constitution regarding our rights. 2.) Societies with no explicit protection of individual rights have a history of descending into tyranny (ex. USSR, Nazi Germany). That’s not to say I’m suggesting that a piece of parchment recognizing our rights protects our rights either (that requires a principled people electing principled leadership, of which our “education” system has literally obliterated any hope for in the near future), but how many times when the government encroaches on our liberty in some capacity do we hear people shriek and cite the specific amendment that is being infringed upon? It does in fact give the people, even those who don’t exactly know where their rights come from or why they have them, the empowerment to fight for them. The Constitution as such is a tangible safeguard, a first line of defense, if you will, against those who would scheme to strip away our rights. Take that away, and with enough time, you can be sure those rights will be phased out of the culture entirely.

 

Aside from that, let’s take a moment to imagine how our political process would work with no specific guidelines as to where budgets can begin, how many electors each state gets, how power is to be separated amongst the three branches (assuming there remains to be three branches), etc. I can envision total chaos with the country at the mercy of the whims of the political class. What if Congress voted itself more power, declaring it is the true voice of the American people (what’s to stop them from doing so?)? What if the Commander-in-Chief thought otherwise? What would be the function of the Supreme Court, which, from the time of its inception, has been to decide the Constitutionality of a given law? Would the basis of their judgments, now without a strict guideline, be based entirely on what they felt was right and wrong? So many questions arise, all of which would have different answers according to different people. If Mr. Seidman thinks the gridlock is bad now, he should carefully think through his proposal.

 

With that said, let me say a few words about and provide a few examples of the flaws (which I define as anything contradictory to the principle of individual rights) embedded in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 mentions apportioning representatives and taxes based on the number of free persons as well as “those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” This, at best, was an implicit endorsement of slavery and, as such, a grave contradiction to the point of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. This defect was eventually remedied by the 13th amendment outlawing slavery in 1865, after the country paid for this mistake severely with one of its bloodiest wars, the Civil War.

 

Another flaw is found, interestingly enough, in the last part of the 5th amendment, known as the “eminent domain” clause. It says “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation". This amendment actually empowers the government to take and use the property of others so long as the government feels it is in the public’s interest and so long as it provides what it judges as “just compensation.” This is a clear violation and contradiction of one’s right to own property. Sadly, this flaw has been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s “Kelo Decision” in 2005, allowing the government to take land from one private citizen and give it to another private citizen.

 

The last flaw I’ll address (although there are several others), is the so-called “Commerce Clause,” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which states that Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” This is a clear violation of the right of people to associate and trade freely with each other without interference from bureaucrats. Not only has this not been remedied, it has been worsened through the thousands upon thousands of regulations added throughout the decades. As a brief history lesson, this clause’s intentions were to empower Congress to tear down trade barriers (“regulate” as in to keep regular, that is, to ensure trade is freely flowing), not to erect trade barriers, as is the case in modern America. It was the answer to ameliorate the problems that had arisen with America’s first governing document, the Articles of Confederation, which resulted in the states implementing “protectionist” trade barriers against other states, which, in turn, resulted in a stagnant economy.

 

Now, the point of addressing these flaws is to point out that some of Mr. Seidman’s criticism of the Constitution is legitimate. But the solution, as I said before, is not to throw out an otherwise good document, but to work out its flaws. Just as it is true the entire human race is flawed in some capacity, it does not rationally follow that the entirety of the human race should commit suicide. The rational course of action is to identify the flaws and fix them if possible. Just as we amended the Constitution to abolish the abomination of slavery, so too should we abide by the same process to fix its other flaws. As a wise professor told me countless times, “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Instead, let the good be your hope and the perfect be your goal.

 

This new year, let’s make a resolution to uphold the fundamental principles of the Constitution in our daily lives, i.e. respect the individual rights of all people, and hold our elected officials accountable when they don’t.

 

To a prosperous 2013!