This article suggests that the substandard Canadian medical system, which is more socialized than the American system, may have contributed to the death of a woman, who is apparently an employee of American movie studios. (I’m not sure why this particular skiing accident made national news, while numerous others don’t -surely these reporters believe that all human lives are equally important.) The evidence is piling up: socialized medicine will kill people.
Category: Politics
DC Gun Freedom Amendment
According to this article, the Senate has added an amendment to a law to give the people of DC representation in Congress. (Whether the main bill is a good idea, or Constitutional, is another issue that I am uncertain on.) This amendment would make Washington DC one of the easiest places in the nation to own a gun. About the only local DC law that would not be repealed by it is the law prohibiting the carrying of arms outside of one’s home.
The reason I mention this article is because the DC gun freedom amendment got a lot of support from Senate Democrats, as well as Republicans. (“It passed 62 to 36, winning one more vote than the D.C. vote bill…”) Some of my “conservative” and Republican friends have expressed concern that with the Democrats in power, there would be a plethora of new restrictions on the right to keep and carry arms. I was concerned about this too, when I voted straight Democratic ticket, but there were other freedoms that I had to think of in this election, such as religious liberty and a woman’s right to an abortion, so I had to take a chance on Obama. So far my gamble is paying off. Ruth Bader Ginsburg managed to hold on until Obama was elected, which means that when she retires, she will be replaced by a like-minded Justice, maintaining the ideological balance on the court. Furthermore, not only have there been no new restrictions on gun freedom, but there is a debate in Congress on whether to give the people of DC more gun freedom.
American Housing and Credit Market Are Not Laissez-Faire
The notion that the current “housing crises” is in any way a result of laissez-faire capitalism is utterly ridiculous. Laissez-faire capitalism has never existed, and since the late 19th Century, when America came the closest to laissez-faire capitalism, what has existed in America is a growing welfare and regulatory state, similar to the fascist variety of socialism. This article makes it clear that the current economic problems were caused by the Federal Reserve, which is a government institution, and essentially represents a nationalized, socialist monetary system.
Under laissez-faire capitalism, gold or some other real value would serve as the basis of the money supply, and there would be a competition in money. This competition of money supplies would take the following form: banks and other businesses would issue paper money with a distinct look and color, which would probably be trade-marked, so that no other person or business could rightfully issue currency with a similar look. Their private currency would have to be backed by some “real value”, such as gold, silver, an index fund in the stock market, etc, otherwise nobody would be willing to hold it. Then, if any particular business’ money supply were over-inflated by it, people would sell that money in favor of other private money that was a more stable store of value and medium of exchange. This would be true laissez-faire capitalism in banking and money.
Bad Cops
When I first heard about these arrests on Channel 8, here in Dallas, and saw the police video, I was so angry I could hardly see straight. It’s precisely this sort of police activity that gives cops a bad name. The fact that these cops can be clearly heard saying that they are looking for a “pretext stop”, i.e., stopping people for minor traffic infractions that cops only enforce when they want to pull someone over, is utterly disgusting. Watch the video that shows one of the female cops grinning and laughing about the situation, like it’s just a big game to them. That can only be described as the arrogance of power.
I suggest that the legislature act immediately on this problem, and prohibit the police from arresting anyone for a violation that could not carry jail time as a penalty. (In essence, this means prohibiting police arrest for any violation of law, other than a Class B misdemeanor or higher.) I also suggest that the legislature make it illegal for police to engage in so-called “pretext stops”, where the intent of the officer is to use a minor traffic violation as justification for a traffic stop, so that he can fish for more serious crimes (usually some sort of drug possession).
Texas “Open Carry” Petition
Anybody who has ever spent much time immersed in the gun culture will quickly discover that there are certain debate topics that come up again and again. One of these is the “open carry versus concealed carry” debate. (Do a Google search for online forums if you are interested in learning the pros and cons of “open carry”.) Since “open carry” isn’t generally a legal option in Texas, I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on it. But, that may change if the creators of this online petition have anything to say about it. I intend to sign it for the simple reason that it increases liberty -which I am always in favor of. Also, here is the Dallas Morning News article where I learned about this.
Going Postal: No Gun Required
Two stories in the news interest me today. First, a man here in the US went on an, er, “beating-spree”, bludgeoning at least eight people to death in Illinois. (Chicago Illinois is well-known for its strict gun control laws.) Meanwhile, in Israel, a man went on an, er, “bulldozing spree”, and killed 3 people with a bulldozer before someone in civilian clothing jumped aboard and shot him in the head. A lot of Israelis exercise their right to keep and bear arms, so it would be no surprise if a civilian had a gun with him. This is why restrictions on gun ownership are a waste of time, and can actually cause more damage when people decide to “go Postal”.
A Good Example of Why You Never Consent To A Police Search
I have a blanket policy when it comes to the police: I don’t consent to any search. If stopped by a cop, I don’t say anything, other than “Am I free to go?”, if not, I ask for my lawyer and stop talking. It doesn’t matter how innocent I think I am. How do I know for certain that somebody hasn’t planted or accidentally dropped contraband in my car or house? How do I know that the cop won’t try to plant contraband? Yes, it does happen -remember the fake drugs scandal in Dallas? Anybody who thinks cops are more ethical or moral than the general population is a fool.
This article presents another facet of why you shouldn’t voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement. In this case, a man was fired from his job and faced prosecution for possession of child pornography, all because his laptop had a virus on it that caused it to download child pornography off the Internet. If you consent to a search of your computer, you may end up in prison and branded as a sexual predator for life, when you are, in fact, 100% innocent.
Tolling Mockingbird Lane
Ideally, city services that do not involve police protection or the courts would be completely privatized. Under such a system, tolling city roads would make perfect sense, especially since the technology now exists to do this without toll booths. That is why I like the idea of tolling Mockingbird Lane in Dallas, but I suspect that so long as the road is ultimately owned by the State of Texas, this idea to toll Mockingbird Lane for nonresidents of the city may not be Constitutional due to something known as the “dormant commerce clause”, and/or the “privileges and immunities clause”. This Wikipedia article says that there is a “market participant” exception to the dormant commerce clause, but I don’t know if the courts would say that it applies in this situation. There would still be an issue of the right to travel, which is recognized by Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The only way to avoid all of this would be to toll everyone who uses Mockingbird Lane, regardless of residency.
Does A Culture Have Rights?
A previously unknown tribe of aboriginal people has been spotted by plane in South America. The photos in the article about this discovery show people wearing loin cloths and shooting bows and arrows at the overflying plane that is photographing them. The article quotes Jose Carlos Meirelles, a member of some, presumably, multiculturalist group, who suggests that unless “something” is done these primitive cultures will soon be extinct. He obviously doesn’t mean that these primitive people are going to be murdered, since that is illegal, even in Brazil. In fact, he doesn’t mean that these people are going to have their rights to life, liberty, or property violated, since they presumably have equal rights under Brazilian law, just like any other individual. (If they do not have equal and full individual rights under Brazilian law, or whatever nation they are in, then I do not dispute that they should have such equal rights.) Just because these primitive people should have equal, individual rights under the law does not mean that they have a “right to a primitive way of life”, when that would violate the individual rights of others. For instance, these primitive people do not have a “right” to murder or enslave people who happen onto their “territory” just because it is part of their “culture” and “way of life”.
This applies to primitive people living here in the United States as well, such as the group in West Texas known as the “Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints”. The issues in this case are not entirely clear to me, and I am not certain that the State handled this situation entirely properly. Obviously, consenting adults should be free to marry whomever they want, in whatever numbers, but I am uncertain what the age of consent should be, and when or if it should be disregarded by a court in particular circumstances. I am also uncertain what the minimum age to marry should be, and whether it should matter if the girl’s parents consent to the marriage. But, I think that sex with a 12 year old girl, which is alleged to have occurred in this case, is probably always rape, regardless of any alleged consent by her or her parents. Just like the primitive people living in the jungles of Brazil, the mere fact that these people may make the multiculturalist argument that this is their “way of life” does not give them the right to violate individual rights, and it is fairly clear to me that such violations did occur.
Cultures don’t have rights. Individuals have rights, and people from a culture that institutionalizes the violation of individual rights have no right to put those ideas into practice.
King Gets Fired
This is an interesting article about the abolition of the monarchy in the country of Nepal. I put this in the category of “I’m not sure what to think of this.” On the one hand, abolishing a monarchy in favor of a Republic is good, but the government is now in the hands of people claiming to be communists. I’d rather live under a limited constitutional monarchy rather than a communist state. A limited constitutional monarchy like 19th century England respects individual rights far more than any 20th century communist state did. But, I don’t get the impression that these “Maoists” are really committed communists anymore. (Aside from university professors, are there any real communists even left in the world?) Since I don’t know much about that area of the world, I guess I will take a wait and see attitude on this bit of history.