Friday, July 26, 2013
Milton Friedman - Illegal Immigration only helps when its Illegal
The message here is simple, either get rid of the Welfare state, or close the borders (I'm in favor of abolishing the welfare state but that's not at all feasible). Amnesty only removes the incentives of aliens to continue working in the jobs that "American's don't want" and makes being a charge of the state more profitable, not at the fault of the alien, but in the self-interest of the politicians. The more people on the government dole, the more power they wield. After all, a check is more tangible and easier to sell than liberty. The common statist argument is that illegal aliens are not privy to government benefits. Assuming that no fraud exists, that doesn't exempt the fact that by distortion of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment, their children are eligible. (Wong Kim Ark 1898). This provides further incentive to not only give birth to a child on American soil, but the more children you have the more money you receive. This is no fault of the alien, they're merely doing what's best for their own self-interest within the construct of the law. A clear example of how people to react to law and incentives. Gone are the days when foreigners would emigrate to the U.S. for opportunity, but today rather, for outcome.
Non-assimilation in a literal and figurative sense, pays for the alien and the politician, as it does for other "sub-cultures' in America. It keeps the money rolling in the for the individual in the non-assimilated community, and the amount they receive directly correlates to the amount of power the politician wields. Who would vote against their own self-interest? That's not to mention the enormous benefits to the race hustlers that encourage balkanization and glorify multiculturalism, at the behest of their own self-interest.
The problem is thus, when a conglomerate of the body politic (be it a business, union or voting block) and governments self-interest are congruent, ensuring the survival of that specific group which would not survive in the marketplace-is only enabled and perpetuated by government-is a form of corporatism broadly defined (almost a perverted version of Director's law in this sense). A vote is exchanged for government largesse, these benefits continue to grow and soon the amount paid is greater than the amount earned/produced by entering the marketplace. This comes at the expense of taxpayer, who receive no actual benefit, but is forced to subsidize (be it bad business, unsustainable pay or dependency). This also comes at the expense of production, as it no longer pays to gain the skills necessary for advancement in the marketplace. This is anathema to the individual and antithetical to the Constitution, which maximizes individual liberty and restricts the power of government. A sub-culture would never be able to compete with that of the American culture, as we have seen in the world marketplace, if not for the subsidisation by taxpayers on the behalf of government self-interest/power.
Clearly, the goal is to not make balkanization and inferior cultures in opposition of the American ideal, profitable. As the the system is set-up, the sub-cultures are subsidized by government and discourage assimilation of the cultural values instilled in the successful American tradition. Their assimilation and individual productivity would come at the expense of the political power held by the state, a reason why this form of corporatism will go on in perpetuity. When in history has government not tried to increase its power or grow in size? This example can be juxtaposed by the open immigration policy prior to 1914, before the welfare state. Far more distant and diverse cultures were entering the country at an enormous rate, yet coalesced to the prevailing American ideals. The italians, slavs, jews, poles and irish didn't come here to remain as such, they came here to be American, a far better alternative to their motherland. It was their only choice, learn english, get a job and climb the economic ladder as high as they were not free to do in their former country.
Contrary to the opinion of race hustlers, culture has nothing to do with race. The American culture is made up of many different races that coalesced around American principles while still retaining their ethnic diversity (the "melting pot"). To deny that one culture can be superior to another is to deny an a posteriori understanding of cultural history.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Brief overview of judicial interpretations and judicial activism
Let's start with the basics, Strict constructionist and loose
constructionist are two of several methods of interpreting the Constitution, and the most commonly referred to. Strict constructionist is a sole adherence to the words used in the Constitution
and only to be interpreted as such. No other interpretation is needed other
than what is provided in the written text. I will get to the latter later on.
A clear
distinction has to be made between “strict constructionist” and “original intent". “Original intent” or "Originalism" is a method of interpretation that
considers the meaning of the words to the ratifying states at the time of the
constitutions ratification. In other words, how did the states interpret the
meanings of the text in order to secure their votes? After all, the only
reason we have the Constitution today is because those states saw fit to vote
for it and ratify it due to the meanings of the words at the time. In other words, original intent was the only jurisprudence of the founders and framers of United States and Constitution respectively (obviously, since they established it on those very meanings, the very reason for its existence today). Antonin
Scalia and Clarence Thomas are examples of judges who currently employ this judicial philosophy. “Original intent” is not
to presume that anyone knew what the framers were thinking about specifically
when they drafted the law, which would be an impossible task. Moreover, that
would most certainly imply a hidden meaning or an acknowledgement thereof, allowing manipulation and bias into the judicial process. The Framers could have been thinking about puppy dogs and ice cream when they wrote the first amendment or drafted Article I, but that is wholly irrelevant.
A
loose constructionist (the jurisprudence of judicial activism) would view the constitution as a “living, breathing
thing”, merely a guideline that can be interpreted by how an individual judge's
view the words in the constitution. This idea, with no coincidence, crept in along with the fabian socialist ideas of the progressive movement. Woodrow Wilson advocated for a more "political" court, he felt that the constitution should not be interpreted in its "strict letter" but rather in its "spirit". Wilson explains it as:
"That field they respectfully avoid, and confine themselves to the necessary conclusions drawn from written law. But it is true that their power is political; that if they had interpreted the Constitution in its strict letter, as some proposed, and not in its spirit, like the charter of a business corporation and not like the charter of a living government, the vehicle of a nation's life, it would have proved a strait-jacket, a means not of liberty and development, but of mere restriction and embarrassment."
What is a living government? Governments don't live, people do. Moreover, the Constitutions entire purpose was restriction of the federal government; this notion that natural law/liberty are conferred by government is insane. A once over of the Declaration of Independence is all a 2nd grader would need to understand that. The Court-as defined by the Constitution- is not at all to be political and was purposely made not to be subject to the whims of the political process. Hence, their lifetime appointments rather than elections and specific powers enumerated in the constitution. Checks and balances in government only work when each branch is "separate and distinct" (The words of James Madison, the "father" of the Constitution, federalist No. 48) Surely, this doesn't mean that 9 unelected lawyers should have the power to usurp legislative duties from Congress. The first notable judicial activists were appointed by FDR, no coincidence there either. He appointed justices favorable to his massive overreach of government (after both NRA and AAA were declared unconstitutional) and a court that eventually gave us Korematsu and Filburn (Filburn destroyed the original intent of the commerce clause and basically instituted central planning/socialism). Judicial activism is a viewpoint and process from which the federal
government can deviate from the pure meaning of the ratifiers and the text, on a case-by-case
interpretation, in other words, convey the ideological predilections of the Justices’.
This "living" and "breathing" form of jurisprudence implies that the Constitution can be
manipulated to present popular sentiment, relation to foreign law or subject to
one’s own ideology. The ease in which five lawyers (a majority of the
9 justices) can manipulate the law to reflect their own vision is stunning and basically instituted an oligarchy. As we
have seen with Roe, Korematsu, Plessy, kelo, Dread Scott, and more recently the DOMA and Obamacare rulings. The practice of Stare Decisis is a further impediment to overturning the unconstitutionality of most laws.
Judicial activism
is conferring a judge’s own ideology on the words of the constitution in order
to institute legislation without the consent or accountability of the body politic. This
is a method used to affect change in the law without the proper constitutional
amendment process (by-passing the people). Essentially, this was a way that the statist could circumvent the amendment process and impose their ideology on the individual. One cannot
discuss Judicial Activism without mentioning the singular activist Supreme
Court decision that led to all others, Marbury
V. Madison.
In Marbury the court usurped the power of
judicial review and constitutional authority away from the States and legislature, and created its own power not enumerated in the Constitution (Article III, Section 1 and 2). The Marbury court
ruling gave all power of judicial review solely to the federal government via
the Judiciary. Not only did the Federal Government make laws, they also were
the sole grantor of constitutional authority of those laws. It was the very
first breach of separation of powers, not only between the branches of the
Federal Government but the diffusion of the Federal Governments power amongst
the States, as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently summarizes, "The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a
mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape
into any form they please." This piecemeal approach to the judiciary by the fabian's led to the the soft tyranny we have today.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Clarence Thomas dissent in Kelo V New London. The Originalist take on property rights.
This Dissent in Kelo actually serves a dual purposes. On one hand it demonstrates the tyranny of the Supreme Court and the lop sided power they posses to change the Constitution based on their own predilections. The other: it beautifully delineates the founders vision of private property rights in our Constitution and more accurately explains the takings clause. In order to understand property rights this a must read. Justice Thomas could very well be the best Originalist Supreme Court Justice we have, and at a close second is Antonin Scalia. He also mentions one of the more undervalued and pivotal legal influences on the creation of the Constitution, William Blackstone, who had greatly influenced both James Madison and James Wilson.
Copy and paste link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-108P.ZD1
Rebuttal 2 (cont.)
- Hello Aaron and Mike,Thanks for your responses.Aaron,you say the Classical Liberal vision is not the “best” answer, however, you offer no alternative. I know that anything other throughout history has been a massive failure. The only system to help the individual from racism, penury and each other the most throughout human history has been when people were free, not only politically but economically. Sometimes you have one without the other, as seen in with Pinochet in Chile or the PRC in China (which is not as free as you think due to corporatism/socialism). But the thing we most definitely see most often is that when you have a free market, you see the people move more towards political freedom a al Chile. Yes, you are correct about the individual being more about family. Obviously who’s going to be more concerned about family, a mother, father, grandmother, grandfather or the state? But what the individual chooses is the individuals choice alone, without coercion.I am confused on how this can be an “evil” or the “least of evils”, least from other disperate systems that advocate massive centralized power and/or planning? we know what that has led to throughout history, from the Roman empire on through the USSR or National Socialism in Germany.When you say “radical individualism” are you referring to Adam Smith, or anarcho-capitalists such as Menger and Rothbard? If it is the latter I would most certainly agree, however I would have to establish your political baseline in order to fully comprehend the term as per your perspective. Certainly some in the Austrian school can be perceived that way and rightfully so. However, that is not the classical liberalism of Lord Acton, Bastiat, Friedman, Stigler or even Mises (considered more of a minarchist).Mike,you bring up 19th century Britain during the industrial revolution and I’m glad you did. You also use the word “exploitation” again, I would refer you to my explanation of the zero-sum fallacy again, as that argument lacks cogency. I will lay out again why this is so.If the conditions were so horrible and exploitative, why were so many workers moving from rural areas in order to enter the workforce? Many people on the left bring this example up without providing proper context or comparison from an earlier period. If life before was so non-exploitative and harmonious, why move to the industrial city to be “exploited”? Now, you’re not going to get an argument from me that conditions weren’t atrocious, but you must ask why those conditions improved. We know that industry was in it’s infancy, the only comparable difference in the workplace those people at the time had was between their occupations before the Industrial revolution.Now, why did conditions improve? We know as the industrial revolution continued on so did wealth creation, technological advances in safety and medicine that helped improve conditions and the lives of many of these workers. A direct result of the industrial revolution, of which we still reap the rewards today. It may not have happened fast enough, but it seems as though it was a better life than previously imagined, if great migrations from rural to urban areas count as evidence or “votes” in favor of industry.As for your premises on unions, I totally agree that people should have a right to assemble, willingly, But who protects the worker from the union? Coercion is always unjust, whether it originates from the state or a union. You neglected to mention that union membership is not voluntary, it comes at a cost, not only to union members but to other workers and to capital allocation. You call unions “labor”, yes they do in fact “work” but hardly represent “labor” in the general sense. Who mitigates the individual laborer or the non-union laborer from exploitation from the union? Is it possible that labor v. firms is not “good v. evil” respectively. As Thomas Sowell once said “unions are for unions like corporations are for corporations”. I would add to that and say that former is not voluntary why the latter is. Any time competition is restricted on either the input or output end it comes at a cost to society as it is our only true protection from firms and “labor”.Mike and Aaron,I appreciate your perspectives and knowledge, thanks to both of you. Mike, I know its been a long time, but I just recently delved into the blogging universe. It’s nice to see other people out with there with similar interests and knowledge.Will
Rebuttal 1 (cont.)
- While I generally agree with the free-market perspective, it’s not because I’m some kind of Randian proponent of (internally) unchecked greed/self-interest. There are no easy answers here. The work and social conditions which provoked Marx’s criticisms were–as Mike points out–very real. Russell Kirk wrote, correctly I believe, that “Industrialism was a harder knock to conservatism than the books of the French egalitarians.” (The Conservative Mind, 7th Edition, Regnery. P. 228) Of course, what one means by conservatism must be informed by a far deeper study than the past few decades–what we call “conservatism” today would be almost unrecognizeable to an Edmund Burke (see Hart, From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism
). And, as Koyzis argues in his Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies
, both the classical liberalism of a Mises or Hayek as well as the modern collectivist tendencies of today’s “liberals” are both sprung from the same root of individualism and egalitarian democracy (pp 42-71).
Abolishing private property is certainly no answer to the woes of industrialism. No system will yield a utopia (since utopia, by definition, doesn’t exist), so we are in a situation of choosing the least of all evils. While the radical individualism of the classical liberal school is also not the best answer (the fundamental unit of society being not the individual, but the family), it may offer that least of all evils we’re looking for. Bastiat had it right in his masterful little essay, The Law: the real questions we’re dealing with here are those of liberty vs. coercion, and even though there evils consequent with liberty, they’re far better than those involved with coercion and tyranny. I’ll take a Rockefeller, Vanderbuilt, or Carnegie over a Hitler or a Pol Pot every time.
- Will,I guess I never thought I’d hear more on this comment of 4 years ago, but I’m always game when it comes to politics, culture, and religion. First, it seems as though you skated past some of the qualifying statements made in my post. I simply agree with some of the Marxist critique of 19th century capitalism. Namely, that working conditions and low wages led to alienation and suffering. With that being said I would heartily affirm along with you the individual right to own property. I’ve grown more and more fond of John Locke and his theory of natural rights. Private property and individual liberty are inextricably connected.However, I would argue that exploitation was very real, despite the common refrain from certain quarters that labor agreements are always, “mutually beneficial.” Working conditions in Britain during the industrial revolution were hardly “beneficial” to the worker, who, if injured, was simply replaced without compensation. If you are interested in challenging your own assumptions you should look into the primary sources from the era.As a quick side-note. I agree with unions in principle because I believe in a individuals right to freedom of association. Labor has a right to organize and bargain. This mitigates against the self-interest of those who would seek to exploit. However, I believe unions work best when they are local and apolitical (if that is possible). National unions are almost entirely political because they try to collectively organize grievance in order to advance a policy agenda. In this way they betray the basic function of a union by politicizing issues better solved at a lower level.Ultimately, I agree with Aron that the real threat is the coercive power of the State. The line that has always stuck with me from Bastiat was this, “it is a mistake to confuse government with society.” When we conflate government with society the government views its responsibility as guiding society, rather than protecting the natural rights of its citizens. The only way government can “guide” society is through coercion because individuals and groups will always act in diverse ways due to conscience and self-interest. Government that protects natural rights and leaves society to other institutions (like the Church) will thrive and prosper.
My initial rebuttal to common statist sophistries (Econ)
December 1, 2009 at 11:17 am
In 2000 I took a course on Marxism and it’s history as a requirement for my Political Science degree. Though I’m not a Marxist (I did spend some time in the socialist camp) I have to say that this statement betrays one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of the Marxist ethos.
Yes, Marx wanted to abolish private property. But he only came to that conclusion (a misguided one) because of what the rich were doing, not because of who they were. Exploitation was real. People suffered. People suffered because they were denied wages that would have prevented alienation from their labor and themselves. They suffered because they were made to work in horrible and unsafe conditions in the name of profit.
But Marx also knew the golden rule, which is: he who has the gold makes the rules. It would be naive to think that the rich do nothing with their wealth but spend it or horde it. History has taught us that the wealthy use their wealth to exclude certain groups from the governmental process. Often to maintain the status quo. The exploitation of the working class (I’m thinking Industrial Revolution, Europe) deprived them not of money only, but of education, which is of much more importance in the democratic process.
Yes, there is a pathological demonization of the rich in some Marxist thought. But it is not the ideology of the lazy. Marx believed that work was an essential aspect of the whole person. It is easy for sloths to attach themselves like parasites to Marxist thought, using it to justify all sorts of class hatred. But many Capitalists earned the disdain of the people all on their own, without the green eye of jealousy or the inferiority complex of the simple.
- Mike,Economies are built on private property. Why work if you can’t keep what you worked for? What would anyone invest their money in and why? Class warfare is solely based on the greed of the collective “proletariat”. Without private capital the industrial revolution you mention would never have raised the standard of living for ALL people regardless of wealth from pre-civil war conditions. Also, study why those working conditions improved.. FREE MARKET COMPETITION. Unions were only concerned about unions, not labor or the individual. They tried to limit the workforce with racism, xenophobia and sexism to line their own pockets.You also state, “exploitation of the working class”, this is congruent to the common socialist “zero sum” fallacy. In an open and free market no one is forced to work for anyone else, on the contrary multiple firms compete for input. The arraignment is “Mutually beneficial” between two parties. By your logic, why pay them anything at all? I know its hard for ideologues to understand the idea of the free marketplace and the role of the individual in it. I just never understand why a third party, such as yourself can write about how someone else has been exploited. How do you know? also, you are far too presumptuous to assert in the very same statement that income classes remain static. Unskilled work is paid less obviously until they acquire certain skills that make them more valuable in the workplace (why minimum wage is a failure). Skilled labor is obviously afforded more. We know that skilled labor was not born with those skills that would duly compensate them more in a marketplace, rather they earned them through experience.“The rich”? Who are the rich and why are they so? Assets? Income? Do you mean the wealthy? Why is it assumed that anyone that owns a business or invests their capital is “rich”? Some people use their last pennies and mortgage their futures and lives on their businesses. These investments made by these individuals provide goods and services for the populace. They are by no means “rich” however they do wish to create more wealth in the private marketplace. Some of these people don’t make an income for years before they turn a profit, some don’t make it all. Are they rich?Who is the poor? The retired CEO that no longer makes an income? or the college graduate working as a bartender to pay for his internship at a lawfirm in order to gain experience (skills) in the marketplace. People shift between classes all the time in a free society. In a marxist society based on third party central planning, everyone remains in the same class, “the poor” as input and output is distorted by people who pay no price (political or economic) for being wrong.Your entire argument not only defies reason and logic, it refutes human history. 22 years ago after the fall of the USSR, which probably should have fallen sooner, your statements would have been more laughable than they are now. The 25 years after Reagan's 1980 election the west has seen the most prosperous quarter century in HUMAN HISTORY. (along of course with Thatcher).How quickly we forget. I suggest you read Hazlitt’s book, or Hayek’s or Bastiat’s or Friedman’s or Coolidge’s or Reagan’s. Coolidge’s autobiography is excellent, and the best Reagan Biography was written by Dinesh D’souza. By now you must know the fallacious misdeeds by the socialist intelligentsia four years after your initial post, unless of course you would like to deny those four years of history as well.their businesses. These investments made by these individuals provide goods and services for the populace. They are by no means “rich” however they do wish to create more wealth in the private marketplace. Some of these people don’t make an income for years before they turn a profit, some don’t make it all. Are they rich?Who is the poor? The retired CEO that no longer makes an income? or the college graduate working as a bartender to pay for his internship at a lawfirm in order to gain experience (skills) in the marketplace. People shift between classes all the time in a free society. In a marxist society based on third party central planning, everyone remains in the same class, “the poor” as input and output is distorted by people who pay no price (political or economic) for being wrong.Your entire argument not only defies reason and logic, it refutes human history. 22 years ago after the fall of the USSR, which probably should have fallen sooner, your statements would have been more laughable than they are now. The 25 years after Reagan's 1980 election the west has seen the most prosperous quarter century in HUMAN HISTORY. (along of course with Thatcher).How quickly we forget. I suggest you read Hazlitt’s book, or Hayek’s or Bastiat’s or Friedman’s or Coolidge’s or Reagan’s. Coolidge’s autobiography is excellent, and the best Reagan Biography was written by Dinesh D’souza. By now you must know the fallacious misdeeds by the socialist intelligentsia four years after your initial post, unless of course you would like to deny those four years of history as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Mike
Will