4) The Property Right of the Individual
The insanity continued “Suppose one of these children owns a piece of property that is slated for economic development because the government of a community believes that the social welfare of the community in terms of economic development outweighs the rights of the individual to own the property. The court has already adjudicated in Eminent Domain cases that the social welfare of the economic development outweighs the rights of the individual property owner.”
The ridiculousness went on “This erosion of property rights is further enhanced by the application of civil forfeiture laws against citizens for minor crimes. The intent of the law was that the illegal drug lords would not be allowed to profit handsomely from their criminal economic enterprise. The fact of the matter is that the law is being used to seize goods to support the economic venture of the local governments and police departments regardless of the type of criminal activity committed. A $20,000 vehicle can be seized for a crime of one hundred dollars. The intent of the law is ignored if the argument fits the economic enhancement of those who enforce the law.”
“It’s like the pineapple or the cow versus, say, the Asian Carp invasion. The pineapple and the cow are not indigenous to America and they certainly have changed the landscape of the country but few complain enough to argue that both species should be eradicated from the USA. Yet the Asian Carp? Why, the argument is that the Asian Carp will destroy the eco system it is introduced to because the species is not indigenous to America. The Asian Carp is demonized because the argument doesn’t suit the belief system of those who are making the argument. So what do the anti-Asian Carp argument makers do? In some cases they poison lakes to kill off every species living in the lake to stop the one specie that has invaded. The needs of the human social welfare outweigh the needs of the animals living in the lake. It is better to slaughter many to stop one instead of seeing how nature reacts on its own over time.
The interesting dual humorous sidebar of the Anti-Asian Carp argument makers is the argument that the Asian Carp has no natural predators in the USA. Of course the species doesn’t have any natural predators! It has been introduced and nature has yet to react! But the species obviously has an unnatural predator…the human species.
The point is this: The introduction of species to another environment is what nature does. This is part of evolution.
The pineapple and the cow are legal to exist in the USA and to be cultivated because these species bring a proper economic social welfare to those who see a benefit to the non-indigenous pineapple and the non-indigenous cow existing in the USA but if another species that a special interest group has determined to have, in the eyes of the special interest group, detrimental economic social welfare invades the USA then, well, that is a thing of horror to be stopped. The belief is that mankind is above the laws of nature. Evolution must be stopped…if a human special interest group states that it must be stopped.
This stopping of evolution argument is the same argument put forth by those purportedly seeking to control global warming. The argument is that evolution must be stopped. Ceding control of personal and property rights to those who know how to stop global warming is what the argument is. The truth is that the evolution of nature cannot be stopped. The argument is all about control of human civilization by those above the global argument…as witnessed by the continuing stories of excessive carbon emissions by the proponents of the global warming argument. It is another do as I say not as I Do argument!
There is an interesting parallel between those who manage the waterways and the battle with the Asian Carp. Those who manage the waterways fight all they can to stop the Asian Carp invasion for there is a fear of the change to the eco-system. The waterway managers are similar to the Native Americans who fought against the Europeans who invaded their land. The first few Europeans were killed off but the Europeans kept coming back in bigger numbers. The globalized species kept coming back to modify the environment. To the Native Americans the Europeans were Asian Carp; the Europeans viewed themselves as cows and pineapple.
The interesting thing about nature is that nature always tends to find a balance. There is an evolution continuously underway to bring nature into balance. The Asian Carp will come and act as a predator, and over time nature will react and restore balance.
Contrast the way nature acts to the schism found in US Political thought today. The country is polarized with no seeming new political philosophy to restore some balance among the populace. The two political parties quit evolving, and that goes against the laws of nature. The way of nature is that a new political thought will evolve from the current political thoughts.
The current dominant predator in the political realm is the social economic predator. This predator has a study created that goes to a government body that basically states the following case: If the government uses Eminent Domain on property owned by someone else then the parties the study represents will make the property more valuable thereby enhancing the value of the community and the community chest. The Court has already ruled in favor of the social economic predator. The Court has ruled that the social economic predator via the conceit of Government has greater property rights than the owner of the property.
The point is, to tie all the obtuseness of the argument together: A decision in favor of the personal mandate requiring the purchase of Health Insurance would be the latest in an evolutionary process of adjudications made by the Supreme Court of the United States of America deteriorating the property rights of the individual. The way that the Court has been adjudicating is that either the perceived social welfare of legislation or the perceived social economic welfare of legislation outweighs either the individual or property rights of the citizen. A decision continuing this thought process is fated to have consequences of nature. The citizenry is deciding that too many individual rights have been trampled and since the three branches of government seem incapable of addressing the issue there will be both public chaos and Constitutional Amendments to restore the balance of the rights of the individual versus the perceived social welfare.
Let’s take these children, for example. Right now they are equal. Do they have equal opportunity in the USA? Let’s assume that one child is born in a house and the other child is born in a hospital. Does that mean that one child has more opportunity than the other? It is certain that both children have more opportunity than an aborted child but if the court is to determine legislation in the context of equal opportunity should not both children or the potential adults that they will turn into be treated equally?
Let’s phrase it another way. If child A owns a piece of property and child B states that they can make more money via the property that Child A owns then how does the court determine which child should be treated fairly. Is it not punitive to Child A to force the sale of the property to either the Government and then to Child B or else directly to Child B?
This is the issue facing many citizens in America. The Court has ruled time and again that those who have friends in Governmental Administration have a greater right to the body and property of the individual. If the individual does not comply with this form of Governmental Administration then the individual is punitively dealt with by the Governmental Administration at the behest of those with friends in the Administration. The argument is always couched in terms of economic benefit meaning that the right of the individual is subjugated to the perceived financial impact of the legislation.
Despite reports to the contrary there is an educational system in the United States that does educate citizens. Some educated citizens who are subjected to the punitive action of perceived economic benefit legislation believe that this application of perceived economic benefit game is a fallacy. The legislation that rules that the use of public tax dollars…which is what the individual mandate is ultimately about…based upon the perceived financial impact is ultimately benefitting a few parties with a large portion of tax dollars while imposing punitive measures upon the masses. Some educated masses have seen enough Bernie Madoff style Ponzi schemes to believe they recognize a Ponzi scheme when they see one.
Some educated masses also recognize that the legislation is being sold as achieving certain goals to benefit America but that even the politicians selling the legislation admit that the legislation is flawed and won’t achieve the end goal. The politicians state that no piece of legislation is perfect but it is the best that can be done now so therefore the legislation MUST be passed. Just because politicians make this argument does not mean that the argument is valid. The software engineers have built the viruses into the code of the software.”
5) The Pursuit of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
“The Declaration of independence is not named the Declaration of the Collective. The Declaration of independence is not named the Declaration of Dependence. It is the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence states three unalienable rights. These stated rights are: Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration reads that these rights are among rights that are endowed by The Creator. The Declaration further states That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.
If a country wants peace and support from the citizens of the country then the country must accede to allowing people the right to live their own life as they choose without punitive government interference. The way for the three branches of government to achieve both peace and support from the citizenship is by defining the rights of the individual in terms of personal and property rights. The way for the three branches of Government to achieve social discontent among the citizenship is to continue to divide the populace through social economic predator legislation that is punitive to the non social economic predator citizenship.
If the polling data referenced earlier is correct then upwards of 150,000,000 citizens view the individual mandate to purchase Health Insurance as punitive in nature. It is a matter of opinion as to whether between 50,000,000 and 150,000,000 unhappy citizens are considered social discontent. However, if the opinion held is that upwards of 150,000,000 unhappy citizens is not a measure of social discontent then it makes one wonder how many upset citizens are required to be upset to be considered a measure of social discontent.
The court has been ruling for years now that the personal and the property rights of the citizen are subjugated to a theoretical economic and environmental social collective legal theory pushed by power hungry political parties. The court needs to start redefining the personal and property rights of the citizen in terms of If the citizens own it they own it. The court also has to define the citizen’s right to operate their own individual and personal property without punitive coercion to force a form of social behavior. If the court does not do this a possible future is that the socially discontented will come together to get Constitutional Amendments passed that will define the rights of the citizens with respect to their personal and property rights.
The court is asked the following question: Can the Supreme Court of the United States define any personal and property rights that belong to citizen that aren’t subjugated to a political group’s perceived social good? The right of subjugation is understandable in times of…say…the conflict of war. But even the existence of a time of war does not give the Federal Government to claim all rights of the citizens’ property. The continuing subjugation of the citizens’ right of determination of personal and property through punitive measures is fated to eventually escalate to physical conflict.
Think about the following social evolutions that have occurred. In 1900 there were virtually no automobiles, televisions, radios, computers, frozen food, air conditioners and other products. These products grew and became commonplace because the marketplace worked. Products were created and the public decided to purchase these products. The purchase of these products was not punitively forced up the masses of society.
The USA also once led the world in housing ownership and education. Then the Federal Government became involved with many various programs passed out of Washington, DC. These programs all “guaranteed” more home ownership and better education for all. By all accounts, home ownership and the education system are worse off for all the Federal programs and all the money that has been lost on these programs. If the Supreme Court of the United States supports the Individual Mandate as legal under the Commerce Clause imagine where the Health Care System in the USA will be forty years from now.”
The machete blade chopped another slice of pineapple. “To look at a pineapple one would see a simplistic looking fruit. But the pineapple is a complex fruit. It has many layers and a thorny outside covering that pricks many who try to get at the tasty fruit. However, the design of the pineapple by nature looks simple.” The mouthpiece took a bite of pineapple. A motion was made with the hand towards the dolls. “Now, with respect to the pineapple and these symbols of children and the other adults in the United States, how is it determined that anyone of them get to have a piece of this pineapple? I mean, each child here must know how to get to the heart of the pineapple to be able to eat some of the fruit. Heck, each child must know how to get to the pineapple first to be able to open the outer cover to be able to get to the fruit inside. Nature designed a simple fruit to be enjoyed. The US political system has instead created a Byzantine Pineapple to be doled out at the whim of the political system.”
“It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse for failing to abide by the law. Yet, for example, in 2010 something like 30,000 new laws were passed throughout the United States. Bills are also passed without specified laws but rather a legalistic framework that establishes committees that can perpetually change laws without a need for Congressional approval. These rules in effect increase the volume of laws to be followed.
TARP is a piece of legislation in theory designed to purchase of assets of Troubled Assets but the application of the legislation is another set of laws regarding redistribution of government receipts that binds the citizens of the USA. TARP was designed to purchase specific Assets but what TARP ultimately ended up doing was to create a series of Asset purchases separate from what the politicians’ stated intended purpose of TARP was.
Borders Books recently filed for bankruptcy. The current Administration did not seek funding to enhance the bankruptcy organization of Border Books as the Administration did with General Motors and Chrysler. Why did the Administration treat one bankruptcy different than the other? Because the Administration views the GM and Chrysler babies as not being created equal with respect to the Borders Books baby.
Looking at the dolls, the two infants here, the law defines whether either one of these two children will or will not receive a benefit from TARP. But how can this be? If all citizens are created equal and the passage of laws and the adjudication of the passage of laws are supposed to be about the rights of the individual as well as governance to provide equal opportunity then how can a law that benefits one child be constitutional if the law does not equally benefit the other child?
Let’s go back to the 30,000 laws passed in the last year on top of all the other laws that have been passed in prior years. Just how is it that all citizens are supposed to be able to know the code of law? In fact, how is it that the whole legal system including the courts and the prosecuting and law enforcement officials are supposed to know all the various laws? The fact of the matter is this: It is not possible for any citizen to know all the various laws…nor is it possible for all the various agencies tasked with enforcement of the laws to know all the laws. So the country has a government system such as it has now: a byzantine empire where the laws that the administration in power wants to be enforced are enforced against those that the administration chooses to dislike.
The enforcement of the legal code is based upon political contribution instead of a matter of individual rights. The result is a splintering of the citizenship to curry favor to achieve power. This is the exact opposite of the statements in the Declaration of Independence that government is to be established to secure the unalienable rights of the citizen!
This body politic is endemic to both political parties in the United States, and is supported by Supreme Court adjudications. These two children and in fact all children are raised in a political environment that stresses the fracturing and fractionizing of the body politic of the country so that there is a breeding of mind thought that only certain thought waves are acceptable and will be rewarded with slices of pineapple. The problem is that the governmentally enforced acceptable ways of thought have little to do with securing the rights to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The acceptable ways of thought have everything to do with getting political friends a bigger slice of pineapple.
The Welfare System, TARP, the stimulus package, the Health Care Bill, the mandating of sub-prime loans, the takeover of Fannie and Freddie: these are a few examples of legislation designed to benefit a few special interests with government guarantees at the expense of other individuals who have not come to Congress as a voting bloc. The benefit one receives is directly proportional to the access that an individual has to government…rather than an adjudicated philosophy respecting the personal and property rights of the individual as well as for providing equal opportunity for all. The Byzantium Empire now exists.
The Byzantine Empire did not grow overnight. It grew over the years due to the failures of the two primary Economic Theories in political force right now: Capitalism and Social Welfare Legislation.
7) The Failure of Pure Capitalism
Pure capitalism fails on an economic front due to the adherence to greed at any cost. On a Microeconomic basis this inevitably leads to fraud because unless one creates something they own that is profitable or one “hits” some form of lottery one of the fastest way to make large amounts of money for most people is through crime. Pure capitalism lends itself to fraud. Some form of Governmental regulation is necessary to try and prevent fraud.
Of course, one person’s capitalistic fraud is another person’s capitalistic opportunity. Fraud is the direct use of false statements and also actions to derive a profit. If program trading drops the price of a stock from $30\share to a penny a share then where is the fraud? Fortunes may change hands in an instant but that is capitalism in the market place and it must be allowed to occur. Regulation to deny citizens profits from wagers they make in the marketplace does not meet a Blind Baby test for this regulation is choosing the winner and the loser in the transaction and that is not Government securing the rights of the individual.
Pure capitalism fails on a macroeconomic front because the capitalistic view of the citizen is that the citizen is beholden to permanent employment. This employment is always assumed to be stable and mutually beneficial.
The fact is that a measure of 100% employment is unachievable, and even if it were achieved it would mean both that the measuring method has not covered all citizens and also that the measuring method will not stay at 100% employment forever.
Another failure is that the capitalist model assumption is that all employees and employers relationships are mutually beneficial. The relationships are not always structured in this manner. Some employees take advantage of some employers and some employers take advantage of some employees.
Similarly, not are all employees and employers are competent nor do they always make what turns out to be the best decisions in the long run. Nor do all citizens want to work every day all day long to build a career to enjoy life.
The same is true for wealth. There are those that have wealth and there are those that do not. Some people will increase their wealth and some will lose their wealth.
The lawyer grabbed the Travelers Insurance Harvard business school case. “The Travelers Insurance case taught in some educational systems in the USA is a great example of the success and failure of capitalism all in one. Here is how the case works:
i) Travelers Insurance has some “underperforming” bonds. “Underperforming” Bonds means that Travelers isn’t making as much money as they would like or think that they should.
ii) Travelers Insurance creates a wholly owned but completely separate legal corporate entity. This entity, sub-Travelers, insulates Travelers from lawsuits regarding actions by sub-Travelers. This company, Sub-Travelers, gets the bonds from Travelers.
iii) Sub-Travelers procure cash from the public and issues new bonds. These new bonds come in 4 classes. Two classes are given to Travelers Insurance and two classes are given to the investing public.
This is capitalism at its best and worst in one format. The market works. The public can invest in the bonds and get paid back for their investment according to the terms of the bonds. Travelers Insurance now has better performing bonds in their portfolio.
The failure is that the Travelers deal has to be a structured scam. Other than to get cash from the public Travelers has, in essence, done nothing. Travelers has to have structured the deal in a way so that whoever invests cash in the new bonds is getting less money than if they had held the cash in another investment or just bought the bonds from Travelers that are “underperforming” outright. Logically this the way that this has to be structured or else why would Travelers make the deal?
This is capitalism at its worst. The greedy public will buy the bonds…and lose on the bonds…because someone has sold the public that the bonds are a better “deal” than the public can gets elsewhere. The greedy Travelers gets more money for…in essence…doing nothing. And if someone loses out there are courts set up to adjudicate right and wrong. This is Buyer Beware exemplified.
Of course, there are no market condition guarantees and even though the structure of the deal is solely to benefit Travelers Insurance some other factor may influence the end result of the deal. This is Capitalism at its finest. There are deals and then there are deals.
This is human and corporate nature exemplified. There are winners and losers in the deals. When there are losers then there is a percent of the population is in transition. Human evolution is a part of nature and all humans are always evolving in some manner.
There will always be a portion of the population in transition in a capitalistic society. Time has proven out that, for peace and stability in society, some form of social welfare system is beneficial to society for the promotion of peace and stability.