Luke, I Am Your Founding Father (Liberty and Healthcare)

The founding fathers of the United States were an amazing group of people. Many of them were wealthy, yet were willing to lay all on the line to extricate themselves from the tyranny of the British crown. (In many ways they are like Luke, Han, Leia, and others trying to rid themselves of the empire.) As they said in the Declaration of Independence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

These men had a love of liberty and a deep distrust of government. This distrust came about from personal experience. But they still understood that some level of government was necessary in order to insure freedom. Without a proper level of government oversight, society would descend into chaos and anarchy. They believed there had to be an ultimate authority to protect the country as a whole, create law, try and punish criminals, and act as a final arbiter for settling disputes.

The founders did three major things in an attempt to prevent government from growing too powerful. First, they set in place the idea that the country ultimately belonged to all citizens and that the government only operated at their behest. They backed up this idea by creating a Constitution starting with the words "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Articles following these words describe and delimit the powers of the Federal Government.

Second, still being distrustful, they created the Bill of Rights to further define the rights of individuals that could not be taken away by government. The Bill of Rights preamble says, "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." And to put a stop to the notion that somehow all of the rights of man had been thought of and included in the Bill of Rights, they said this in the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Third, they left it for the states and the people themselves to handle any issues that the Federal Government was not authorized to handle. This was stated clearly in the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

All of these safeguards took foresight. But, after all, it was Thomas Jefferson himself that said in 1788, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground." Yet, the Constitution served the citizens well for many years. But somewhere along the line the politicians came to understand the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." In other words, until the day Congress discovers that it can take money away from its citizens by force and then buy their votes by offering some of that money back to them in the form of giveaways and programs.

Today, de Tocqueville's words line the walls of Congress. Not as a reminder of the impending loss of our Republic, but as a reminder of how to get reelected. For many years now, Congress has violated its trust with the public by taking the public's money via taxes, levies, fees, or whatever, and giving it back to certain people in order to assure their votes. This is what I call the politicization of America. But this has happened with the approval of the White House, the Supreme Court, and the citizens themselves in direct opposition to the Constitution. Why? Because we citizens as a whole have bought into the politicians' bribes.

Today, the elephant in the room is national healthcare. It is presently being implemented in the form of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). This is better know as ObamaCare. Bear in mind that PPACA is not a government run healthcare system. It is rather a mandated healthcare system. Private insurers still sell the insurance, but with certain mandates associated with it. Yet, it is still a government controlled healthcare system. So, why be concerned? Two reasons. One is philosophical, the other practical.

Philosophically, we should be concerned with the government controlling anything that is not permitted under the Constitution because that means we the citizens did not authorize it. But didn't the Supreme Court rule that PPACA was Constitutional? Indeed they did. But, I believe they did so using tortured logic, just as they have done with many other government programs over the years. There is no clause in the Constitution or its Amendments that authorizes the Federal Government to be involved in healthcare in any way. The only way you can get that out of it is to greatly stretch the meaning of other clauses. Three commonly stretched clauses are the "general welfare", "regulate commerce", and "lay and collect taxes" clauses. But it seems clear to me that if those clauses can be stretched as far as they have, then there is essentially no need for the Constitution. Just let Congress do what they want. But, as you may have observed, politicians still like having that ole Constitution around. They like to use it to hammer opponents wanting something opposed to it and conveniently ignore it when they want something opposed to it.

Practically, I am skeptical of the long term success of the PPACA. Why? Because of how other government controlled systems have fared over the years. Look at Social Security and Medicare. Both are on the brink of failure. Why? Because, as usual, politicians have overpromised, expanding these programs in order to get elected. In other words, the programs have become politicized. Social Security was put into place at a time when most people didn't even live to see any money out of the system. Yet, even as lifespans increased and the number of children being born decreased, more benefits were added to the Social Security program. Medicare suffers from something similar. As people live longer and new technology keeps adding more medical costs to an aging person's life, fewer children are coming along to pay for it.

So, unless some radical changes are made to SS and Medicare, they will become unsustainable in a few years. Yet, the politicians keep talking about how successful these programs have been. Well, yes, perhaps for a while. But the politicians' meddling and unwillingness to change these systems in crisis will ultimately lead to their failure. What makes us think that the government will handle national healthcare any differently, whether it be government run or just government controlled?

On the other hand, perhaps there is no reason for concern. If we can just jury rig all these government programs so they last until after we die, who cares? We can benefit from these programs during our life and let our children worry about the fallout. Yeah, that's the ticket. Stick it to the younger generation! Well, that's tempting, but I don't roll that way. I believe that each generation should live within its own means and pass on a country that is better than the one it inherited. Call me old fashioned, but that's me.

So, based on the wisdom of the founding fathers and my knowledge of history and how governments operate, I believe that, over the long haul, liberty and charity work much better than all inclusive government programs.

The Fundamental Question: Who Owns You?

When it comes to how people should interact with each other and with their government, there is a wide array of opinions. Some are liberal, some conservative, some libertarian. Some are statists and some individualists. Some are socialists; others capitalists. On listening to all these different viewpoints, it can get extremely confusing. There are good points to be made all around. I know that I personally find myself wavering as I hear the arguments coming from the various camps. Yet, through all that confusion, I keep coming back to one fundamental question that is foundational in choosing one's political persuasion.

WHO OWNS YOU?

Have you ever thought about this question? If so, have you ever settled on a definitive answer? I have asked this question of a number of people. Some of the religious folk answer, "God." Okay, that's fine, but I'm actually talking about ownership as it relates only to humans. With this criterion, most people would probably answer, "Me, of course." Yes, indeed. You own you, and I own me. It seems quite obvious to most people. Yet, most people do not fully understand the deep meaning of this answer and how it should play into their understanding of their place in the world and their relationship with others.

Throughout all of history, even into the present day, there have been places on this Earth where slavery existed. Yet, I believe that most people today would readily admit that slavery is wrong, even immoral. Why? Because we tend to believe that each man is an individual worthy of living his own life. I too believe this. Yet, in so many ways, people fail to understand how this belief should play out when living in a civil society.

Let us suppose that after the civil war Section 1 of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution was written to say:

"Slavery and involuntary servitude within the United States shall not exceed 40% of a person's productive life."

rather than:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

In other words, a person could own up to 40% of another person, but no more. The remaining 60% of a person's life would be his own. How does this settle with you? Nonsense, you say? Yes, well, I agree. No one should be allowed to own even a small percentage of another person. One's life is his own. If he wants to choose to work for another man, that's his prerogative. But no man should be able to force another to work for him even a short time, let alone 40% or 100% of his time.

Of course, even though slavery ended in 1865, many laws remained on the book for 100 years that allowed whites to treat blacks as second class citizens, thus, at least in part, permitting whites to have partial ownership of blacks. Yet, even this level was considered heinous and unworthy of an enlightened nation. It took a civil rights movement to get things changed.

Another egregious form of slavery that remained in effect after the civil war was conscription. After all, how is forcing someone to serve in the military not involuntary servitude? Yet, mandatory drafts were used as "needed" until they were abolished in 1973. It was then that the US went to a voluntary military. I know that there are differing opinions about mandatory drafts across the entire spectrum of American life. Many people argue that a mandatory draft is absolutely necessary when our country is under attack and we are in need of protecting our freedom. But, how does one justify taking away some citizen's freedom by involuntarily conscripting them into the armed forces in the name of protecting freedom?

But there is a more subtle form of slavery that occurs in our society that many people simply ignore: taxation. Yes, taxation. How is this slavery? Well, think about it. If the 13th amendment had read, as I stated above, that citizens could be enslaved up to 40% of their time, we would consider this immoral. Yet, isn't having 40% of the fruits of your labor taken from you essentially the same as enslaving you 40% of your productive time?

Okay, some of you are probably saying, "But that's different. Slavery entails one person owning another. Taxation comes from a government elected by the people." Fair enough. So, how many people have to come together to enslave you such that it will be okay? The people on your block? The whole neighborhood? Your entire city? The state? The whole nation? At what point along this continuum does enslaving you go from being immoral to moral? Let's suppose the 13th amendment had been written this way:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except at the behest of the duly elected officials of the federal government or as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Is this wording satisfying to you? Would you be okay with the government being able to enslave you, even partially, as long as no individuals could? I kind of don't think you would. But taking your hard earned wages, in essence, is the same thing. To this you might counter, "But I am willing to pay a part of my income to the government to provide essential services and to help others less fortunate than me." Well, there would be nothing to prevent you from sending that money in voluntarily just like young men and women voluntarily join the military.

The founding fathers of the United States of America understood well the power that government could wield over its citizens and were understandably dubious of having one. Many of them, or their ancestors, came to the colonies to rid themselves of the tyranny of government in other parts of the world. Yes, unfortunately, slavery was encoded into the original Constitution, but that was mostly a compromise position in order to get the country started. It took an extremely bloody war to correct this problem. Yet, the founding fathers also understood that some level of government was essential to a nation's preservation since there needed to be an ultimate authority to settle disputes, provide law and order and justice, and to protect citizens from foreign invaders.

So, the founders decided that since a central authority was absolutely needed, they would create one. But a VERY limited one. A constitution was written clearly delineating the powers this government would be allowed to have. In other words, the government operates at the behest of the country's citizens rather than the citizens working at the behest of government. The number of people making up that central government was very small and could be supported by only a very small amount of taxes. Interestingly, the income tax didn't even exist.

However, as the founders feared, government began to grow. Slowly at first, but speeding ever faster as the present day arrived. Congress, with the help of the Supreme Court and the President, now have hundreds of thousands of pages of federal law that gives the federal government FAR more power than we citizens have permitted them to have via the Constitution. And as it grows, funding has to be continually increased to pay for it. Citizens gave the government the right to tax their income at a very low rate with a Constitutional amendment in 1913. Since then the rate has increased dramatically. Other taxes not approved by the Constitution have been authorized by our elected officials as well. Now, the amount of money needed by the government has grown to a point that even those taxes are not sufficient to fund it. Knowing the negative effect of increasing taxes even further, both electorally and economically, our nation now borrows about a TRILLION dollars each year. We are now almost 17 TRILLION dollars in the red.

The system as it exists is unsustainable. We citizens need to help our nation by once again asking ourselves that fundamental question, "Who Owns You?" Once we truly understand the ramifications of the answer, "I own me," and begin to enact it in the real world, we can begin to veer our country off its current path to destruction and hopefully make it once again the land of the free, the home of the brave, and a nation of prosperity.

Thoughts About 2016

Last night I went to see the new movie by Dinesh D'Souza entitled 2016: Obama's America. The movie is based on two books D'Souza has written: Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream and The Roots of Obama’s Rage. In the movie, D'Souza attempts to explain why President Obama thinks and makes decisions the way he does. In other words, he tries to define the motivating force behind this world leader. D'Souza presents some very compelling evidence based on Obama's own words, as well as those of his relatives and friends, that the driving principle behind Obama's decisions is anticolonialism. Obama's father was born and raised in colonial Kenya and became a strong anticolonialist. Several of Obama's mentors were anticolonialists also. To better understand the anticolonialist mentality, one must understand what it is like to be a part of a colony.

Throughout history, mighty empires have arisen that felt it was their destiny to conquer other peoples and extract the resources of their land. Some of the better known ancient empires were the Assyrian, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. In more recent times, the best known and most powerful empire of all time was the British Empire. It was once said that the sun never set on the British Empire because it reached around the world. Part of the makeup of this empire was other countries that had been conquered and made colonies. The British would set up some form of government in these colonies and then go about extracting resources to take back home. As you might expect, many of the indigenous people of these colonized nations were not happy with this arrangement. They wanted independence and self-autonomy. They wanted the resources of their land to be used to enrich their own people rather than the country of their overlords.

Kenya was a colony of the British Empire from about 1890 until 1963. So, President Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr, who was born in 1934, grew up in a colonized Kenya. Had I been in his shoes, I would most likely have been anticolonialist also. In fact, I am very much an anticolonialist now, even though I was fortunate enough to have been raised in an independent country. So, if President Obama and I both share an ideology of anticolonialism, why do I disagree with many of his decisions about the direction of our country? That has to do with what one believes should replace the oppression of colonialism once the oppressors leave and the autonomy of a nation is re-established.

Some anticolonialists viewed the people of the British Empire as being capitalists. So, it was natural for them, once they became independent, to want to move as far away from capitalism as possible. Typically, people who reject capitalism, embrace some form of socialism. This is what many Kenyans did. This seems to be the mentality of President Obama as well. But the problem is this: colonialism is anything but capitalism. Perhaps once the resources were extracted from the colonies and made into products, the Brits dealt with other nations on a capitalist basis. But the way they dealt with the colonies was not capitalist by any stretch of the imagination.

The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defined socialism as “A) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property” and “B) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.”

The definition of capitalism is “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

So, based on these definitions, you can see that colonialism is more akin to socialism than capitalism in that you have a government expropriating the wealth of some people for the benefit of other people. Had the British dealt with Kenya in a capitalist manner, they would have come in and negotiated a contract whereby they paid an agreed upon price for the resources they wanted. That’s how free markets work. Yet, for the colonies that viewed their overlords as capitalists, socialism became the alternative of choice upon becoming independent. They basically jumped from the frying pan into the fire. As George Obama, President Obama's half-brother, said in the movie, Kenya would be better off today if the “whites” had stayed longer.

Fortunately, socialism is not the true alternative to colonialism; freedom and capitalism are. This is the path the forefathers of the United States of America took. Remember that the USA was originally colonies of Great Britain. The Revolutionary War was the result of an anticolonialist movement. Yet, upon gaining independence, the movement led to liberty and capitalism. This smart move led to the creation of what would become the most prosperous nation on the face of the Earth. All because this country embraced the idea that a man's labor was his own and thus the fruits of that labor were his own also. This produced a great incentive for individuals to work hard because they were working for themselves rather than others.

Yet, somehow President Obama has come down on the side of viewing capitalism as the system that oppressed nations and socialism being the cure. D'Souza believes it is due to the influence of his father, mentors, and friends. Perhaps. But whatever the reason, Obama is unfortunately wrong in his assessment. Freedom, liberty, and capitalism are the cure for colonialism. Socialism is but a form of internal colonialism in which government takes the wealth of people by force and passes it on to others, just as the Brits took the wealth of other nations for the benefit of themselves.

I believe our country needs Change and Hope just like President Obama does. However, Obama's cure for our ills is akin to a doctor attempting to cure cancer by injecting the patient with poison. It only makes things worse. What we need is a leader that has a real cure for our nation's problems. Perhaps it is Mitt Romney. Perhaps it is Gary Johnson. I have personally grown skeptical of most politicians. Yet, I do know one thing. I agree with President Obama when he says we shouldn’t return to the failed policies of the past. History shows clearly that liberty works far better than oppression. So, let’s go back to that.

The Arrow of Freedom

As you have probably heard, the Supreme Court has been hearing the case brought against the individual mandate portion of Obamacare. At issue is whether or not the Commerce Clause of the Constitution combined with the power of the federal government to tax it citizens are sufficient to give the federal government the right to dictate to its citizens the mandatory purchase of health insurance. The thing that confounds me most about this case is that it had to be brought in the first place. The individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. It is quite obvious that the intent of the Constitution was to put restraints on the federal government so they could not get to the point of being oppressive like the governments the colonists had once been under. If indeed the Commerce Clause grants our national leaders the power to mandate private purchases, then in essence they have unlimited power. What will come next? Preventing people from purchasing fatty and sugary foods? Mandating that businesses must hire people until unemployment is zero? Preventing people from pooling their money in an attempt to oust an incumbent politician? Our country now stands at a very important juncture. If the Supreme Court rules that the individual mandate is Constitutional, then basically our Constitution will have been ruled to be of no consequence. Congress and the President will be handed the keys to the nation. They will be able to open any door without resistance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, if indeed we want to remain a free people.

Historically, the courts in the United States have held that any contract that was signed under duress was invalid because the essence of a valid contract was that it was entered into on all sides voluntarily. If a person was coerced in any way, he could go to court, present his case, and have the contract invalidated. Now we have our very own government saying that that aspect of contract law is wrong. They are attempting to hold that they have the power to force a person to enter into a contract that he does not wish to enter. And the contract would be valid, regardless of the duress. What other contracts will our government force us into should this one be validated by the Supreme Court?

When this nation was founded, liberty was a great idea that was only enjoyed primarily by white males. Over time, as people became more enlightened, freedom began to expand. It took a civil war, rallies, writing, discourse, civil disobedience, and protests (sometimes violent), but over the years the arrow of freedom continued to move in the right direction. Blacks gained their freedom and eventually were able to overturn discriminatory laws. Women became full citizens with the right to vote and become leaders in industry and politics. More recently we see gay citizens standing up for their rights and gaining them little by little. We have seen a lot of progress in our country as its citizens of all stripes stand up for themselves and gain independence. Are we really willing to let our desire for safety reverse this progress? For if we give the federal government the power to run our lives in the marketplace, it won’t just be select groups of people who will see their freedom slip away. It will be everyone who calls himself a citizen.