Monday, June 29, 2009
Billet the First
Human nature can never be completely eradicated from a human being. If the nobler attributes are stifled and their development debarred, the base inclinations will distend and be thrust to the surface. Hence, only the most vile tendencies will be left to pervade the soul, and thereby all society.
Has the Constitution Fulfilled Its Promise?
During the school year Mr. D., my US Government teacher, began a discussion about the Constitution. After asking what the purpose of the Constitution was, as stated in the preamble, he fielded the question: "Has it lived up to its promise?"
Had I not been there he likely would've proceeded to point out all the ways the Constitution has failed to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, etc. etc. However, there were a few points that he (perhaps intentionally) left out of his lesson plan.
The main problem with his assumptions is that the Constitution never promised a life free of problems, nor was it expected -- or even intended -- to establish a permanent condition, but rather a point of reversion. Another issue is that the Constitution hasn't exactly been followed to a T in every instance.
The republican, capitalistic system that was instituted in 1788, in divergence with certain "failed" systems of the world -- to borrow a word from our immaculate president, -- does not claim or endeavor to manufacture a life completely void of discomfort, challenges, or temporary setbacks. Expectations of this magnitude will never be met. As Chief Justice Warren Burger explained, "The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill," which means that some problems are meant to be solved by private organizations, groups, and -- dare I say it -- even the individuals themselves. It's important to remember that there is a time and a place for government, but that it isn't the lifeblood of the nation.
What the Constitution does promise is a society which enables the highest degree of personal freedom possible, while restraining those who would do us harm or keep us from enjoying this freedom. It strives to ensure that our leaders remain the servants, not the rulers of the people. It does away with the threat of words like monarchy and despotism by protecting against a long train of government abuses. The Constitution seeks to place government in a small enclosure, impeding seizures of unreasonable power and laying out the mechanism for their arrest and reversal. It is the means to what was written about in its prequel, the Declaration of Independence: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Each of the Constitution’s divinely inspired articles takes into consideration the inescapable reality of man's weakness. Their authors did not flatter themselves into thinking they possessed sufficient wisdom to reverse human nature, but recognized that government officials would only refuse prodigious power for so long. They had greater faith in the principles of the Constitution. So much so that they provided a way for it to be restored in its purity once the collective conscience of the American People called for action against the eventual attrition of their rights.
Thomas Jefferson documented this design in a letter to an American diplomat to London. "The tree of liberty,” wrote he "must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This incidentally is why our right to keep and bear arms was listed in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, we can see that the Constitution was not, upon one installation, intended to withstand an eternity of abrasion by overambitious politicians. It would need to be reinstated from time to time. In fact, Thomas Jefferson believed the condition of the government would merit a rebellion about every 20 years!
When someone suggests that something is ineffectual because it begins to experience a few problems after lasting 11 times -- 201 years -- longer than it was supposed to last, it is so laughably illogical that it can only be seen as pathetic. Well within its first century of existence our Constitution was proven to be superior to any collection of laws or political doctrines to have been written before or since. How can we point to a few unemployed or homeless people, a few medically uninsured individuals, or a few foreclosures and decide to throw out this miracle of achievement? How can full centuries of unsurpassed prosperity be ignored, and at the height of existence, be counted as naught over the petty misfortunes of a decade or two?
Would I argue that significant injury can not occur at the hand of a government professing heritage from the Constitution? No I wouldn't. But before we blame God for the crime of a Christian, let's discover how closely the Constitution is actually being followed.
The third article of our supreme law discloses the form and function of the Judicial Branch. It spells out clearly the jurisdiction of the court, yet it contains no mention of the phrase "Judicial Review," nor any semblance of what has become its definition. Thomas Jefferson opposed the notion of nine men deciding what is and isn't constitutional, calling it "a very dangerous doctrine indeed." Throughout the course of its existence the Supreme Court has seen hundreds of cases, and almost every one has ended in judicial review. The majority of rulings has enabled the growth of government and has sanctioned most controversial measures. If you don't know by now, future posts will enlighten you that this secures only one thing, and it isn't general welfare or the blessings of liberty.
The Constitution has also been violated in other ways. For example, Article II of the Constitution lays out the powers of the presidential administration. The second section states that the president, "shall nominate... and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and... all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments... shall be established by Law." Meaning that "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers," and that the president can only then nominate an appointee. In direct defiance to this provision, presidents have been and are creating new officers called Czars, and doing so on their own accord. The Senate is in no way involved with their appointment and any appropriations made by Congress can be redirected to areas of the Czars' discretion. Roosevelt's steel and agriculture foremen took control of the industries and subsequently drove the country deeper into the depression. Currently, President Obama employs a small army of Czars. What untold dangers await us now?
There have been other, smaller breaches as well. The federal branches have gradually stepped out of their bounds, to begin interfering in the spheres of the others. Every state’s role has been diminished and states' rights have been nationalized. Congress has failed to account for much of their funds in the constitutionally required Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures. Each of these departures do cause feasible problems, but we can't hold the Constitution responsible because it's what was departed from.
Good old Mr. D. was doubtless trying to disparage the Constitution while appearing to look objective. It was his purpose to plant a seed just below the surface of his students' consciousness; one that would undermine in our minds the legitimacy of what has always defined and distinguished America. I'm happy to say that I did my best to throw his aim and that he missed his mark.
I did it by bringing to everyone's attention that the Constitution was proven overly successful. It exceeded all expectations of effectiveness by enduring two centuries without a single government led coup and with only one major rebellion. I clarified that this document kept its promises by giving us a free and equal environment, and that if we want to succeed in our pursuit of happiness, it's up to us to meet it halfway. As for the few valid problems which are neither the result of personal judgment nor simply unavoidable facts of life, I can say this. These circumstances cannot be used to condemn the Constitution because they are not effected by the Constitution, but by instances of failure to adhere to it. They do not implicate, as my teacher so subtly insinuated, that America's founding text is inadequate and warrants replacement or fundamental alteration. To the contrary, if anything is to be done, it is not to discard the Constitution, but to align ourselves more closely with it; to reconcile our incongruence to this eternally relevant pearl of wisdom and freedom.
Has the Constitution fulfilled its promise you ask? Yes, and wonders more besides.
Had I not been there he likely would've proceeded to point out all the ways the Constitution has failed to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, etc. etc. However, there were a few points that he (perhaps intentionally) left out of his lesson plan.
The main problem with his assumptions is that the Constitution never promised a life free of problems, nor was it expected -- or even intended -- to establish a permanent condition, but rather a point of reversion. Another issue is that the Constitution hasn't exactly been followed to a T in every instance.
The republican, capitalistic system that was instituted in 1788, in divergence with certain "failed" systems of the world -- to borrow a word from our immaculate president, -- does not claim or endeavor to manufacture a life completely void of discomfort, challenges, or temporary setbacks. Expectations of this magnitude will never be met. As Chief Justice Warren Burger explained, "The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill," which means that some problems are meant to be solved by private organizations, groups, and -- dare I say it -- even the individuals themselves. It's important to remember that there is a time and a place for government, but that it isn't the lifeblood of the nation.
What the Constitution does promise is a society which enables the highest degree of personal freedom possible, while restraining those who would do us harm or keep us from enjoying this freedom. It strives to ensure that our leaders remain the servants, not the rulers of the people. It does away with the threat of words like monarchy and despotism by protecting against a long train of government abuses. The Constitution seeks to place government in a small enclosure, impeding seizures of unreasonable power and laying out the mechanism for their arrest and reversal. It is the means to what was written about in its prequel, the Declaration of Independence: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Each of the Constitution’s divinely inspired articles takes into consideration the inescapable reality of man's weakness. Their authors did not flatter themselves into thinking they possessed sufficient wisdom to reverse human nature, but recognized that government officials would only refuse prodigious power for so long. They had greater faith in the principles of the Constitution. So much so that they provided a way for it to be restored in its purity once the collective conscience of the American People called for action against the eventual attrition of their rights.
Thomas Jefferson documented this design in a letter to an American diplomat to London. "The tree of liberty,” wrote he "must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This incidentally is why our right to keep and bear arms was listed in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, we can see that the Constitution was not, upon one installation, intended to withstand an eternity of abrasion by overambitious politicians. It would need to be reinstated from time to time. In fact, Thomas Jefferson believed the condition of the government would merit a rebellion about every 20 years!
When someone suggests that something is ineffectual because it begins to experience a few problems after lasting 11 times -- 201 years -- longer than it was supposed to last, it is so laughably illogical that it can only be seen as pathetic. Well within its first century of existence our Constitution was proven to be superior to any collection of laws or political doctrines to have been written before or since. How can we point to a few unemployed or homeless people, a few medically uninsured individuals, or a few foreclosures and decide to throw out this miracle of achievement? How can full centuries of unsurpassed prosperity be ignored, and at the height of existence, be counted as naught over the petty misfortunes of a decade or two?
Would I argue that significant injury can not occur at the hand of a government professing heritage from the Constitution? No I wouldn't. But before we blame God for the crime of a Christian, let's discover how closely the Constitution is actually being followed.
The third article of our supreme law discloses the form and function of the Judicial Branch. It spells out clearly the jurisdiction of the court, yet it contains no mention of the phrase "Judicial Review," nor any semblance of what has become its definition. Thomas Jefferson opposed the notion of nine men deciding what is and isn't constitutional, calling it "a very dangerous doctrine indeed." Throughout the course of its existence the Supreme Court has seen hundreds of cases, and almost every one has ended in judicial review. The majority of rulings has enabled the growth of government and has sanctioned most controversial measures. If you don't know by now, future posts will enlighten you that this secures only one thing, and it isn't general welfare or the blessings of liberty.
The Constitution has also been violated in other ways. For example, Article II of the Constitution lays out the powers of the presidential administration. The second section states that the president, "shall nominate... and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and... all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments... shall be established by Law." Meaning that "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers," and that the president can only then nominate an appointee. In direct defiance to this provision, presidents have been and are creating new officers called Czars, and doing so on their own accord. The Senate is in no way involved with their appointment and any appropriations made by Congress can be redirected to areas of the Czars' discretion. Roosevelt's steel and agriculture foremen took control of the industries and subsequently drove the country deeper into the depression. Currently, President Obama employs a small army of Czars. What untold dangers await us now?
There have been other, smaller breaches as well. The federal branches have gradually stepped out of their bounds, to begin interfering in the spheres of the others. Every state’s role has been diminished and states' rights have been nationalized. Congress has failed to account for much of their funds in the constitutionally required Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures. Each of these departures do cause feasible problems, but we can't hold the Constitution responsible because it's what was departed from.
Good old Mr. D. was doubtless trying to disparage the Constitution while appearing to look objective. It was his purpose to plant a seed just below the surface of his students' consciousness; one that would undermine in our minds the legitimacy of what has always defined and distinguished America. I'm happy to say that I did my best to throw his aim and that he missed his mark.
I did it by bringing to everyone's attention that the Constitution was proven overly successful. It exceeded all expectations of effectiveness by enduring two centuries without a single government led coup and with only one major rebellion. I clarified that this document kept its promises by giving us a free and equal environment, and that if we want to succeed in our pursuit of happiness, it's up to us to meet it halfway. As for the few valid problems which are neither the result of personal judgment nor simply unavoidable facts of life, I can say this. These circumstances cannot be used to condemn the Constitution because they are not effected by the Constitution, but by instances of failure to adhere to it. They do not implicate, as my teacher so subtly insinuated, that America's founding text is inadequate and warrants replacement or fundamental alteration. To the contrary, if anything is to be done, it is not to discard the Constitution, but to align ourselves more closely with it; to reconcile our incongruence to this eternally relevant pearl of wisdom and freedom.
Has the Constitution fulfilled its promise you ask? Yes, and wonders more besides.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Flat Tax or Progressive Taxation?
What is more fair, redistribution of wealth or a flat tax? A liberal would say redistribution of wealth is more equitable because it means that everyone has the same or closer to the same amount of money. It would mean the end of material inequality, which sounds a lot like justice -- on the surface.
But where does this difference in wealth originate? Why wouldn't one person have as much money as another person? Usually the richer guy just receives more income, which means he either works for a more successful company, has a different occupation, or works harder doing the same thing. If he has a different, higher paying job it must be more valuable to his employer because it's harder to find someone to fill the position, or the position requires more work. If few people are willing to select such a lucrative career it has to involve something unpleasant (commonly being an extensive education).
In the case that the more well-to-do person simply happens to work for a more affluent market competitor, the situation might again appear to be slightly unfair. However, let me ask another question. What made the company settle on the man they did? Well, if you made the decision you would want to choose the better, more qualified worker, am I right? So everyone else would be eliminated and you would hire the man who displayed the best credentials and the sharpest work ethic. Each credential was earned somewhere, no one is born with them, and work ethic can vouch for itself. Let's even say that the worker of more humble means is equally or slightly more qualified and can work just as hard if not harder, but he didn't actually get to compete with the other applicant. If this is in fact the case, the other man has still earned his position through experience on the job.
The last two paragraphs prove that every cent of difference in income is justified by the effort of its owner. Every man is completely entitled to any wealth he might hold by right of the hard work he invested in its creation. There is no way to cheat life. Therefore, how can redistribution of wealth be thought fair, considering how much was put forth by its original possessor? How can we merit equal income when no two people exert an equal amount of industry?
Now, a flat tax would be the very definition of a fair system. Everyone involved would pay the exact same percentage of their income. The poor would not be burdened any more than the rich, and hard workers who pull in upwards of six figures would not have to sacrifice 40 to 90 percent of what they spent their life earning.
But where does this difference in wealth originate? Why wouldn't one person have as much money as another person? Usually the richer guy just receives more income, which means he either works for a more successful company, has a different occupation, or works harder doing the same thing. If he has a different, higher paying job it must be more valuable to his employer because it's harder to find someone to fill the position, or the position requires more work. If few people are willing to select such a lucrative career it has to involve something unpleasant (commonly being an extensive education).
In the case that the more well-to-do person simply happens to work for a more affluent market competitor, the situation might again appear to be slightly unfair. However, let me ask another question. What made the company settle on the man they did? Well, if you made the decision you would want to choose the better, more qualified worker, am I right? So everyone else would be eliminated and you would hire the man who displayed the best credentials and the sharpest work ethic. Each credential was earned somewhere, no one is born with them, and work ethic can vouch for itself. Let's even say that the worker of more humble means is equally or slightly more qualified and can work just as hard if not harder, but he didn't actually get to compete with the other applicant. If this is in fact the case, the other man has still earned his position through experience on the job.
The last two paragraphs prove that every cent of difference in income is justified by the effort of its owner. Every man is completely entitled to any wealth he might hold by right of the hard work he invested in its creation. There is no way to cheat life. Therefore, how can redistribution of wealth be thought fair, considering how much was put forth by its original possessor? How can we merit equal income when no two people exert an equal amount of industry?
Now, a flat tax would be the very definition of a fair system. Everyone involved would pay the exact same percentage of their income. The poor would not be burdened any more than the rich, and hard workers who pull in upwards of six figures would not have to sacrifice 40 to 90 percent of what they spent their life earning.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
A New Generation Steps to the Plate
On June 21, 1788 a nation was created that finally allowed a man to live the way God intended him to live. It was established with the ratification of a sacred document. The first words on the page were "we the people," and it preached how to become the most admirable people the world had ever known. It taught that we could not be kept from worshiping freely, and that we are free to speak, print, and amplify all our feelings and ideas. It taught that our property could not be stolen or used without our consent, and that we could not be punished without a chance to speak in our own defense. We were taught that no one's rights denied others theirs, and that we each have a right to defend ourselves against injury, theft, and encroachment. We learned that limited power should be split between nation and state, but that the best government is self-government. Our ancestors, now found they could direct their own fate and trust their own judgment. They discovered that if they took a firm, energetic hold on their lives, that they would be the beneficiaries of their own sacrifice, persistence, and hard work. They learned of the joy and satisfaction that came from such a life, and they passed these lessons to their children.
Within 150 short years we surpassed the world, and the United States of America became the greatest country on earth. It was during a time of enormous prosperity that an alternate ideology arose. It started to quietly contend that all that had been taught was not entirely true. It said not everything we earn is ours to keep, particularly if we are blessed with more. It said that most of us lack the ability to decide for ourselves what is right, and that we often fail to correct our mistakes properly. Many adhered to this belief and they began to compromise the lessons they had learned. It became acceptable to abridge the freedom to speak as long as the unpleasant no longer had to be heard. Religion was slightly taboo and they agreed not to worship in some places. They allowed government to make more and more of their personal decisions, as long as the experts they employed could assure them of stability. They would let someone take from their property if they no longer had to work as hard. As long as they were promised aid and support, it was fine for the state to sell its autonomy to the central government. Freedoms were sacrificed, and the past lessons were forgotten.
From the beginning of our lives, as we were raised, and as we experienced our first taste of life, our generation was presented with teachings about the world around us, and we will continue to learn them as we develop in the years immediately ahead. The truth that we can become whatever we choose, was distorted, and some grew up learning that we deserve to have and to do certain things, even if we don't earn the privilege. The idea that we have a right to enjoy the success we work for was often changed to say "you should never have to fail." Excellence was redefined in so many situations that some believe that to excel is not always the result of hard work. We have been taught that we are all winners because we cannot lose, and that if we want or need something, it's not our responsibility to work for it, it's someone else's responsibility to take it and hand it to us. Our generation has sometimes been led to believe that protection from the effects of bad decisions is morally equivalent of women's suffrage and civil rights. If we accept this ideology we will become weak minded, weak bodied, vulnerable, and indecisive. We will not be able to overcome hard times, or even prosper during a climate of stability. Such men can be controlled like sheep. They are supported for their usefulness, and abandoned when they become a liability. If you trap yourself by accepting sustenance from your rulers, you will be easily manipulated to act and live in a certain way.
Some of those who were set up by the previous generation, many who stand as our current leaders and role models believe they can lead you easily in any direction they wish. They believe they have you interpreted and that they have calculated the path before you. But this is not the case if we won't allow it to be.
Break free of the nonsense you have been offered and that you will encounter regularly in academia. Become America's next Greatest Generation. Take your life into your own hands. Resurrect the lessons of our sacred foundation and relearn to trust your own judgment. Teach yourself to work, learn to sacrifice. Don't seek to hide from failure, and don't be afraid to start over again. Conduct yourself with confidence and integrity. Treat every task with equal importance and honor all your commitments. When you help those around you, help them to continue on their own. Expect little from others, expect much from yourself. Do not accept anything that makes you dependent on an outside force. (Except the Lord). Take up the liberties left to us by God and enshrined in the Constitution. Repeal any stifling alterations that have since grown them over, and leave your way unbarred and clear. Decide the direction your life will take and render all your faculties toward it's pursuit. Do these things and nothing shall stand in your way of success or impose lasting defeat upon you.
Thomas Jefferson spoke of these principles, calling them "the bright constellation" that guides us through "age[s] of revolution and reformation." They could not exist save "the wisdom of our sages and [the] blood of our heroes" was spent in their attainment. Their voices echo through the columns of history asking: "How will you prosper the charge we have left you." Come, fellow graduates, let us carry their banner and fight a good fight. So that when our lives and efforts are over, we will have produced an answer worthy of their sacrifice.
Within 150 short years we surpassed the world, and the United States of America became the greatest country on earth. It was during a time of enormous prosperity that an alternate ideology arose. It started to quietly contend that all that had been taught was not entirely true. It said not everything we earn is ours to keep, particularly if we are blessed with more. It said that most of us lack the ability to decide for ourselves what is right, and that we often fail to correct our mistakes properly. Many adhered to this belief and they began to compromise the lessons they had learned. It became acceptable to abridge the freedom to speak as long as the unpleasant no longer had to be heard. Religion was slightly taboo and they agreed not to worship in some places. They allowed government to make more and more of their personal decisions, as long as the experts they employed could assure them of stability. They would let someone take from their property if they no longer had to work as hard. As long as they were promised aid and support, it was fine for the state to sell its autonomy to the central government. Freedoms were sacrificed, and the past lessons were forgotten.
From the beginning of our lives, as we were raised, and as we experienced our first taste of life, our generation was presented with teachings about the world around us, and we will continue to learn them as we develop in the years immediately ahead. The truth that we can become whatever we choose, was distorted, and some grew up learning that we deserve to have and to do certain things, even if we don't earn the privilege. The idea that we have a right to enjoy the success we work for was often changed to say "you should never have to fail." Excellence was redefined in so many situations that some believe that to excel is not always the result of hard work. We have been taught that we are all winners because we cannot lose, and that if we want or need something, it's not our responsibility to work for it, it's someone else's responsibility to take it and hand it to us. Our generation has sometimes been led to believe that protection from the effects of bad decisions is morally equivalent of women's suffrage and civil rights. If we accept this ideology we will become weak minded, weak bodied, vulnerable, and indecisive. We will not be able to overcome hard times, or even prosper during a climate of stability. Such men can be controlled like sheep. They are supported for their usefulness, and abandoned when they become a liability. If you trap yourself by accepting sustenance from your rulers, you will be easily manipulated to act and live in a certain way.
Some of those who were set up by the previous generation, many who stand as our current leaders and role models believe they can lead you easily in any direction they wish. They believe they have you interpreted and that they have calculated the path before you. But this is not the case if we won't allow it to be.
Break free of the nonsense you have been offered and that you will encounter regularly in academia. Become America's next Greatest Generation. Take your life into your own hands. Resurrect the lessons of our sacred foundation and relearn to trust your own judgment. Teach yourself to work, learn to sacrifice. Don't seek to hide from failure, and don't be afraid to start over again. Conduct yourself with confidence and integrity. Treat every task with equal importance and honor all your commitments. When you help those around you, help them to continue on their own. Expect little from others, expect much from yourself. Do not accept anything that makes you dependent on an outside force. (Except the Lord). Take up the liberties left to us by God and enshrined in the Constitution. Repeal any stifling alterations that have since grown them over, and leave your way unbarred and clear. Decide the direction your life will take and render all your faculties toward it's pursuit. Do these things and nothing shall stand in your way of success or impose lasting defeat upon you.
Thomas Jefferson spoke of these principles, calling them "the bright constellation" that guides us through "age[s] of revolution and reformation." They could not exist save "the wisdom of our sages and [the] blood of our heroes" was spent in their attainment. Their voices echo through the columns of history asking: "How will you prosper the charge we have left you." Come, fellow graduates, let us carry their banner and fight a good fight. So that when our lives and efforts are over, we will have produced an answer worthy of their sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)