Romney's Five Step Plan vs. the Constitution

So, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has put forth a 'Five-Step' plan to turn the economy around and create 12 million new jobs. It probably goes without saying that I have a problem with politicians who promise to fix the economy, because the only way they can actually do this is to get out of the way, which never seems to happen. However, I wanted to take a look at how Romney's five steps stack up against the Constitution and the ideals of limited government and individual liberty. Let's take a look at each of the five steps:

Step 1: Attain energy independence by exploiting domestic oil, natural gas, and renewables, and constructing nuclear plants. All of these are good ideas, and they should all be done to whatever extent the free market will support. Here's the problem: energy policy is not a power given to the general government. The states and private property owners in those states have the real claim on the resources held within. Step 1 of Romney's plan should simply read "follow the United States Constitution."

Step 2: School choice. Romney is kind of vague about this step; it's not clear if he is in favor of vouchers, charter schools, magnet schools, or something else. In principle, this is also a good idea; let schools compete for students, which will require them to provide better education in a more efficient manner. The problem with this step is the same as Step 1 - education is not within the general government's Constitutional powers. States and individuals should be making educational policy. Step 2 of Romney's plan should simply read "follow the United States Constitution."

Step 3: Creating new trade agreements. OK, halfway through, we have finally found something that the general government is empowered to do. Sounds good.

Step 4: Cut the deficit and get on the path to a balanced budget. Again, vague, but I agree in principle. Here's a suggestion: if the general government only did what the Constitution empowered it to do, deficits would vanish. Step 4 of Romney's plan should simply read "follow the United States Constitution."

Step 5: Lower corporate taxes, reduce regulations, and repeal Obamacare. Great. Here's a suggestion: eliminate all income taxes, and return to proper Constitutional roles, which would eliminate nearly all federal regulations and Obamacare. Again, Step 5 of Romney's plan should simply read "follow the United States Constitution."

There is nothing particularly bad about anything in the Romney plan. The problem is that it assumes the general government possesses powers that it simply does not. Rather than put forth a plan that allows the feds to manage things, Romney would get everything in his plan (and make his job a lot easier) by simply relinquishing to the states those things that they are granted under the Constitution. So, my question for Mr. Romney is simple: are you willing to sit back and allow liberty to make this nation great again, or are you only interested in turning the country around if you get to micro-manage it?

What Authority do the Feds Exercise Over Voting Laws?

A federal court today struck down a Texas voter ID law that required voters to present photo identification to election officials before casting a ballot. According to the court, the law imposed "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor."

Two questions arise from this: one, does requiring photo identification present a "strict, unforgiving burden on the poor," and two, does a federal court have the authority to rule on the legality of the voting laws of the State of Texas?

Let's look at the second question first. According to the United States Constitution, from which the national government derives its authority, federal courts have the following jurisdiction:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

According to Article III, the only possible challenge to the Texas law would be that the law is unconstitutional. There are two amendments which relate to voting rights, the 15th and 19th. According to the 15th Amendment, no citizen can be denied the right to vote based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." This amendment was passed in order to guarantee the voting rights of former slaves and their descendants. The 19th Amendment guarantees women the right to vote. Note that there is no reference to placing a burden on the poor. From a simple reading of the Constitution, it does not appear that the federal court has reached a Constitutional verdict.

Since the verdict itself has no Constitutional standing, it really doesn't matter if the requirement presents a "strict, unforgiving burden on the poor," but I figured it would be worth checking anyway. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, it costs $16 for a state-issued photo identification card, which must be renewed every 6 years. It should also be noted that the Texas Health and Human Services Commission requires proof of identity before welfare benefits can be provided. Sixteen dollars for a document that you must also possess in order to receive welfare hardly seems to present a "strict, unforgiving burden on the poor."

Unless a state government passes a law that forbids a particular racial, ethnic, or gender group from voting, federal courts have no jurisdiction. Furthermore, requiring the same kind of identification that is required for welfare benefits hardly seems the kind of financial burden that the court makes it out to be. There is only one reason for fighting these kinds of laws, and that is because they make voter fraud more difficult.

When Your Career is Solving Problems, You Have to Make Sure There Are Problems to Solve

From today's Washington Examiner:

More Americans rely on their families for assistance than the government, so federal officials have undertaken an effort to help people to apply for federal assistance.

“Given that only 15 percent of you turn to government assistance in tough times, we want to make sure you know about benefits that could help you,” USA.gov announced today. The ”government made easy’ website has created a “help for difficult financial times” page for people to learn more about the programs.

I've always found it a bit ridiculous that the government spends money advertising welfare. It's as though not only do we want to coddle the non-productive, but we want to make sure that they don't have to go to too much effort digging around to find out what giveaways they may be qualified for. In general, I reject the idea that the federal government should be involved in charity work at all (something that the private sector is much better and more efficient at), but if we insist on providing welfare benefits, they should be minimal, there should be hoops to jump through, and there should be a social stigma attached to them, not because I want to belittle someone who is going through a rough patch, but because I want that person to have an incentive to stand on their own two feet.

I also find it unnerving that the federal government is actively trying to replace family as the institution that people turn to when they are in need. There is something disturbingly Orwellian about a government that wants to be seen as your loving provider. Remember, "Big Brother" in 1984 didn't just represent government spying on the citizens of Oceania, it represented government as total provider.

While I do find it ridiculous and unnerving, one thing I do not find this story is surprising. Part of the problem with creating entire career fields around solving society's ills is that there is an incentive for people in those careers, be they social work, law enforcement, military, or medical, to make sure the ills are never completely solved. After all, if no one needed welfare, then the administrators of welfare would have to find another job. It's why Batman is so much better at fighting crime than the Gotham P.D: if Batman is successful, he gets to go back to being Bruce Wayne, billionaire playboy. If Commissioner Gordon is successful, he gets to find a different way to feed his family.

This happens in the private sector frequently; an industry becomes obsolete because a better solution is found (autos replaced horse-drawn carriages, for example), and the people who worked in the now-obsolete industry have to find something else to do.

Government, however, has something that the private sector lacks: the ability to confiscate wealth and a monopoly on the legal use of force. This means that government problems never have to be solved. Subsidizing poverty makes sure there are always poor people to serve, and the creation of a dependent class provides a pool of voters who will never vote against the hand that feeds them.

In order to return to a rational, productive, moral society, we must reject the notion that government exists to solve problems. We can talk about the absurdity of one program or another, but in order to really fix the problem, we must change our attitudes about the entire role of government in our lives.

Forcing a Monopoly on the Marketplace of Ideas

Much has been made of Romney's business experience as the CEO of Bain Capital, and many of his supporters point to his success in the private sector as reason to believe that his economic policies will be better for the nation than those of Barack Obama. At the heart of this is a general belief among Americans that capitalism and free-market economics are superior to socialism and central planning. Such a belief is certainly justified; the locations and periods of human history marked by economic freedom are also those marked by the greatest prosperity.

The reason for the success of free-market economics relies on a few key principles, one of which is competition. In a free market, competition forces suppliers of a good or service to do things more efficiently, cheaper, and/or better than others. The result is that the best business model is the most successful - in this case 'best' meaning the model that produces the things and/or services that people want, at a price that they are willing to pay.

It should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, businesses don't necessarily like the free market. Competition is a messy thing, and a failure to be the best results in less financial success, and potential failure. Governments also are typically opposed to free markets, because people who gravitate to government work generally do so because they like to be in charge, and the 'invisible hand' of the free market is an impediment to their desire to be in control.

As a result, business and government frequently make deals that are mutually beneficial. Large businesses agitate for subsidies, regulations, or tax loopholes that help them and/or hurt their competition. Government puts these into effect in exchange for campaign contributions that keep those who are in power in power. Unfortunately, the consumer loses in these exchanges, because the net result tends to be fewer consumer choices at higher prices. Such a system is not capitalism, it is corporatism, a forerunner to fascism.

Economic markets are not the only things that can be affected this way, however. Another, more important marketplace is the marketplace of ideas - the place where philosophies must compete. The marketplace of ideas is critical, because this is where the philosophies of governance are debated, and the winners are those who get to set economic policy, among other things.

Candidates for President must participate in this marketplace. And yet, in this campaign cycle, just like others before it, candidates and parties are trying to use government force, not the value of ideas, to win. In this press release from the Iowa Libertarian party, Republican Mitt Romney is admonished for trying to get Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson removed from the Iowa ballot this November. Alicia Dearn, Johnson campaign attorney, had the following to say: "Democracy suffers when voices are silenced."

Ms. Dearn has a good point - All the way through the 1800's, it was not uncommon to have electoral votes split between three, four, or even five candidates. The idea of having only two major party candidates is a 20th Century phenomenon, and one which has not served the nation well.

However, the Libertarian party is not without fault on this issue, either. Earlier this year, the Washington Libertarian party attempted to have Mitt Romney removed from the Washington ballot in a similar procedural dispute.

Attempts to silence opponents are the intellectual marketplace's equivalent of corporatism. Instead of using legal maneuvering  to force opponents onto the sidelines, we should demand that all of our candidates compete in the marketplace of ideas, and allow the best to rise to the top.

After all, if they insist on these dirty tricks during the campaign, why should we believe that they won't do the same thing in the economic marketplace, taking us all down the road to fascism?

RIP, Private Property

At Cold Fury, a story that demonstrates the death of private property rights in America:

In April, Fauquier County threatened Martha Boneta, owner of a small farm in Paris, VA, with thousands of dollars in fines for a series of alleged violations, including hosting “an event” on her farm without obtaining a special events permit.

The event? A small birthday party for the 10-year old daughter of a close friend, Robin Verity.

I don't care if it was a 10-year-old's birthday party or a snake-handler's tent revival meeting, if you have to obtain a 'special events' permit to do something on your own property, then there is no such thing as private property. The government owns it and you.

There is no justification for such petty tyranny, and no self-respecting people should acknowledge its authority.

Quick Saturday Evening Thought

Anyone who says it's time for a "national debate" on an issue (race, gun control, health care) doesn't really want a debate; they've made up their mind, and now they want to tell you how it should be.

Education Belongs at the State Level

Quick, what do teachers, firemen, and police officers all have in common? If your answer was "their occupations are the most cliched retort to calls for government fiscal restraint in the history of ever," you are close. If your answer was "their occupations are the most cliched retort to calls for government fiscal restraint in the history of ever, and as state and local employees, they are an illegitimate subject for a presidential candidate to use with regards to federal budgetary policy," then congratulations!

For the rest of you, try to follow along:

1. The Constitution does not give the central government authority over education or local emergency services.
2. The tenth amendment specifies that all powers not specifically granted to the central government are delegated to the states.
3. Therefore, education, firefighting, and policing are all state issues, period.

And yet, every election cycle, Democratic presidential candidates prostitute these same professions to justify reckless federal spending as though even the most meager budget cuts in Washington will result in teachers all across this nation lining up at the unemployment office. At a campaign speech in Las Vegas on Wednesday, Barack Obama did it yet again:

President Barack Obama appealed to the value of school teachers Wednesday during a speech in Las Vegas.

“My opponent in this election doesn’t seem to understand this. Gov. Romney says we’ve got enough teachers. We don’t need any more,” Obama said. “The way he talks about them, it seems he thinks these are a bunch of nameless government bureaucrats that we need to cut back on. Those are his words. And his economic plan certainly would do that. The plan Gov. Romney has put forward would cut America’s investment in education by nearly 20 percent.”

Here's the thing - federal "investment" in education should be cut 100%. Mitt Romney's statement that Obama is using to demonize him doesn't even go far enough. Here's what Romney had to say that Obama found so outrageous:

“The reach of the Department of Education into the states has to be pulled back. Education has to be managed at the state level, not at the federal level. Will there be any flow through of funds to the states? Yes. But the role I see that ought to remain in the president's agenda with regards to education is to push back against the federal teachers' unions.”

Back in the good old Reagan days, Republican presidents actually talked about getting rid of the bureaucratic cesspool that is the Department of Education. Now we're merely talking about reining it in a little bit, and acknowledging that of course we are going to provide federal "flow through of funds to the states."

Education is not a proper subject for presidential candidates, as education belongs, like so many other things, at the state and local level.

Didn't Give Your Tennant a Pamphlet? That's a $20,000 Fine

If you lease, rent, or sell a home, apartment, or condo built prior to 1978, and you fail to supply the renter or purchaser with an EPA-approved pamphlet detailing the dangers of lead-based paint, you could be out $20,000 - per violation:

“Thinking of renting or selling a home or apartment?” asks the Environmental Protection Agency. “Make sure you disclose its lead-based paint history. Mr. Wolfe Landau did not and it cost him a $20,000 fine.”

Landau is one of the many landlords and realtors fined by the EPA for failing to provide an “EPA-approved” pamphlet to tenants seeking to rent or buy a house built before 1978.

Here's a quote from an EPA complaint filed against Juan Hernandez, a landlord who owns several rental houses in Bridgeport, Connecticut:

“Failure to provide a purchases or lessee an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 745.1 07(a)(I) results in a high probability of impairing the lessee’s ability to properly assess information regarding the risks associated with exposure to lead-based paint and to weigh this information with regard to leasing the target housing in question,”

One of the helpful tips that the federally-mandated pamphlet gives to potential renters is (I shit you not) to not let your kids chew on the windowsills. Hernandez's fine for not providing tenants with this vital piece of federally-approved child-safety information? $127,150.

But don't worry, the EPA has instructions to make the fines painful, but not fatal:

In calculating the penalty, the EPA says it takes into account "the nature, circumstances, extent (whether children or pregnant women are affected) and gravity" of the violation -- as well as the violator's ability to pay and continue doing business. The rules for assessing the penalty run 12 pages.

And, if you are a good little subject and just "lie back and think of England" without making an ugly fuss over the whole thing, the EPA will demonstrate their benevolence:

Violations can often be settled with the EPA and result in lower fines. In fact, the EPA awards discounts of up to 30 percent for a cooperative “attitude” in cases that are settled prior to a hearing.

The EPA is one of the most tyrannical arms of our tyrannical central government, and operates without a constitutional mandate. Like almost everything that the central government does, environmental protection is a state issue, as implied by the constitutionally-enumerated powers of the national government, and confirmed by the tenth amendment. This is not a case of an otherwise good agency going too far, it is just one more example of an illegal and out of control agency acting in a way that should surprise no one.

Have I Got a Deal for You!

Just a reminder that my book, From Liberty to Tyranny: How Expansion, Warfare, Economic Crisis, and Entitlements Threaten Personal Liberty in the United States is available on Kindle, and is part of the KDP Select program, which means that if you are an Amazon Prime member, you can borrow it for free, and, more importantly, I still get paid for it! So, learn a little bit of the American history you probably weren't taught in school, and help your humble blog proprietor out. It's like win/win!

TSA Expanding Beyond the Airport

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - United States Constitution, Amendment IV

Compare the above to the following story:

TSA Rifles Through Bags, Conducts Pat Downs At Paul Ryan Event 

Government agents moving out of airports and into the streets

Steve Watson

Infowars.com

Aug 22, 2012 

For some time we have been warning that the TSA is systematically moving beyond the nation’s airports and conducting operations on the streets of America.

The latest example of this kind of activity occurred at an event organized by Mitt Romney’s GOP running mate Paul Ryan this past weekend in The Villages, Florida.

The Shark Tank blog reports that TSA officers showed up alongside Secret Service and the local Sumter County Sheriff’s Office, and proceeded to do what they do like no one else does.
“A big WTF is in order here.” the blog notes, adding “We heard that the TSA was going to expand its ummm, ‘reach,’ but to assist in political campaigns is quite the jump in broadening their ‘transportation security horizons.’”

One of the greatest threats to individual liberty is the practice of government unilaterally, and without probable cause, violating the property and person of the average citizen. The TSA is one of the worst offenders, as it exists solely to conduct warrantless searches, all in the name of "safety" and "national security." The approach is two-pronged: first, do it in the name of the victim's safety; second, convince people that "if you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem?" The problem, of course, is that the fundamental right not to be molested by government agents, and to move about freely, is being infringed upon.

Expect to see much, much more of this, because it's not about security, it's about turning a once-free people into compliant subjects.

The War that America Forgot

In case you've forgotten, the United States is still at war in Afghanistan. You could be forgiven for not remembering; after all, it's not in the news much, and neither of the major party presidential candidates seem interested in talking about it. And yet, as one intrepid reporter writes today, there are still servicemembers fighting and dying for something no one in America seems to care about:

It was once President Barack Obama's "war of necessity." Now, it's America's forgotten war.

The Afghan conflict generates barely a whisper on the U.S. presidential campaign trail. It's not a hot topic at the office water cooler or in the halls of Congress - even though more than 80,000 American troops are still fighting here and dying at a rate of one a day.

Americans show more interest in the economy and taxes than the latest suicide bombings in a different, distant land. They're more tuned in to the political ad war playing out on television than the deadly fight still raging against the Taliban. Earlier this month, protesters at the Iowa State Fair chanted "Stop the war!" They were referring to one purportedly being waged against the middle class.

As I've written about before, the conflict in Afghanistan does not seem to have any clear objective and I have seen no significant explanation for how it improves our national security to continue fighting. Since there is no clear justification for sending men into battle, such an action, by any standard of decency, is immoral. Yet I see no anti-war protests, no young, idealistic college students railing against the American empire. Nothing. Not a peep. Why?

To a certain degree, I think that it comes down to the current inhabitant of the White House. The anti-war movement of 2004-2008 was made up largely of people who didn't necessarily hate war, they just hated George Bush. With a leftist in the Oval Office, these same individuals (including many members of Congress) have gone strangely silent. It's unfortunate that the deaths of young Americans are used as political fodder, but just because it's unfortunate doesn't make it untrue.

Another real problem, however, is that for the average American, the war in Afghanistan has no day-to-day impact. It doesn't result in food or fuel shortages, there's no draft - it's a very convenient war. Over Memorial Day weekend, I wrote a piece about the dangers of a standing army, one of which is that it allows the average citizen to avoid the horrors of war, with the consequence being that most Americans simply don't have anything at stake when the battle rages. This isn't to imply that we should re-institute a draft, it's to state emphatically that for the good of the nation, we must scale back our military to the point where using it hurts. To do otherwise is to allow the power brokers in Washington to wage endless wars that the American public can simply forget about.

The Jobs Americans Won't Do

One of the arguments against immigration enforcement is that illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans won't. In response, proponents of enforcement argue that if illegals weren't around to drive down labor costs, then Americans would do those jobs, provided that they paid a wage more in line with what the U.S. labor market demands.

A story out of California today, however, seems to contradict that line of argument. Apparently, more effective border enforcement, coupled with economic problems in the U.S. have reduced the flow of migrant workers from Mexico, and now there is a severe labor shortage in California's farm industry:

There's a different sort of drought plaguing California, the nation's largest farm state. It's $38 billion agricultural sector is facing a scarcity of labor.

"This year is the worst it's been, ever," said Craig Underwood, who farms everything from strawberries to lemons to peppers, carrots, and turnips in Ventura County.

Some crops aren't get picked this season due to a lack of workers.

"We just left them in the field," he said.

Farmers are now offering unskilled labor jobs at up to $9.25/hr (or more, depending on productivity), and are still having problems getting crops harvested (for comparison, the CA minimum wage is $8.00/hr). For drivers and semi-skilled labor, wages can go as high as $12-$18/hour. Yet there are few takers for these positions, as well, even in a state with 10.9% unemployment. This would seem to indicate that the proponents of illegal labor are right, and that there are simply some jobs Americans won't do. Otherwise, how could a state have both double-digit unemployment and a labor shortage?

As it turns out, the way to reconcile this apparent paradox is to include one very important variable: welfare. California is by far the largest consumer of federal welfare programs in the nation: though it contains 10% of the nation's population, it has a full third of the nation's welfare recipients. And apparently these benefits provide more than the bare minimum to meet survival needs: a Los Angeles Times story from 2010 revealed that California welfare recipients withdrew $1.8 million from casino ATM's in the nine months from October 2009 through May 2010. Subsidized housing, food stamps, and money to blow on the slots - why would anyone want to pick strawberries for $9.25 an hour?

The more we hear about "social justice" and "helping the poor" through the confiscation of the fruits of the productive class' labor and redistribution to those who don't produce, the fewer members of the productive class there will be. California, a state with both 10% unemployment and a crippling labor shortage proves it.

Obama Campaign Deficit Mirrors His Presidential Budget Philosophy

The lack of fiscal responsibility that has plagued the Obama Administration is spilling over into his reelection campaign:

WASHINGTON – As Election Day approaches, President Obama is burning through campaign money faster than he can collect it — exceeding his spending pace at this stage of the 2008 contest as he expands his field operation and trades combative ads on the airwaves with Republican rival Mitt Romney.

Last month alone, Obama spent nearly $59 million through his main campaign account — $10 million more than he raised, financial reports filed late Monday afternoon show. The cost of his campaign so far: more than $325 million, not counting spending by the theDemocratic Party committees aiding his re-election.

Not much to say here, other than it's unsurprising that an administration who believes in trillion-dollar deficits can't keep the balance sheet balanced. The problem for him is, his campaign can't stick our children with the bill for this one.

Red Sox vs. Yankees

For political partisans, the talking points and political 'gotcha' moments have clearly overtaken the issues in terms of importance. Whenever one side takes a stance on an issue, the other will inevitably take the other side, regardless of the positions traditionally held by the party or the way that such positions fit in with the party's current or historical platform. How else do you explain, for example, this Twitter advertisement from the GOP presidential nominee?

If you'll recall, the Republican party is supposed to be the party of smaller government and fewer entitlements, but here Mitt Romney is promising to spend more on Medicare than his Democratic opponent. The only explanation for this is that Romney sees Medicare spending as a way to buy votes, small-government principles be damned.

In even more childish news, two of the trending hashtags today on Twitter were #thingsthatenragedemocrats and #thingsthatenragerepublicans. Take a look at two different tweets from the Democratic faithful:

Got that? Mitt Romney refusing to release tax returns = elitist swine. People asking to see Obama's birth certificate = racist. Or to put it another way, it's totally justified when we ask your candidate for paperwork, but when you do it to ours, it's not only unjustified, but it demonstrates that you suffer from some kind of deficiency of human decency. In psychology, this is sometimes referred to as 'ingroup bias' - the tendency to treat members of your group better than members of an opposing group. In the everyday world, however, it's just known as being an intellectually inconsistent jackass.

This is part of the problem with political parties: they tend to foster a herd mentality, similar to fans of a sports team. In the case of sports fans, referee calls are typically seen to be impartial and correct when they benefit 'your' team, but when the call goes the other way, the ref is either blind or on the take. Party politics is very similar, and the 'fans' are frequently just as susceptible to bias, but the stakes are unfortunately much, much higher, with the collective liberty and prosperity of over 300 million people on the line.

In order to combat this kind of thinking, we must move beyond the current two-party system. Americans need a viable 3rd (and possibly 4th) option at the polls. Doing so will help us move past the 'Red Sox vs. Yankees' mentality that poisons the American political process, and into a system where ideas actually have to compete.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

From the red-state corporate welfare files:

The Army National Guard is staying on as a sponsor of Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s No. 88 NASCAR Sprint Cup team.

Hendrick Motorsports said Friday it has extended its relationship with the National Guard through the 2013 season.

As reasonable people look at a staggering $16 trillion in national debt and begin to recognize that serious cuts, even to things Americans may want, will be necessary, our government continues to behave completely recklessly, refusing to make even modest cuts to out of control spending. In this case, we are talking about $72.3 million dollars that is spent by the Pentagon for sports sponsorships, which Reps. Jack Kingston (R-GA) and Betty McCollum (D-MN) proposed cutting. Unsurprisingly, the recipients of these government handouts were not pleased with the idea:

Sports leagues such as NASCAR, IndyCar, Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association sent a letter to Republican and Democratic leaders urging them to oppose the amendment.

Of course they did, because big business is the new welfare queen. Both the Pentagon and NASCAR defend these sponsorships, saying that they help to increase recruitment. While I find the claim that having the National Guard's logo on Jr's hood really sells the deal to potential recruits a bit questionable, let's for a moment assume that it's true. So what? Our current military is already over-sized, and as I pointed out in the paragraph above, we have no money. None. We are stealing from our children with every dollar we spend. With that in mind, I would like to hear a reasonable defense from someone as to why my daughter should be sold into debt slavery to put a logo on a race car, even (maybe especially) if it is being used to get more young people to sign up to fight wars halfway across the globe.

In any case, this isn't about recruitment, it's about corporate welfare, just like much of the Pentagon's budget. And it's all sold to the American public wrapped in the flag, so that people who question it can be vilified for not "standing with our troops" or some other two-dollar slogan. The fact is that defense spending represents approximately 50% 25% of federal expenditures; we cannot eliminate the deficit and begin paying down our debt without reducing military spending.

I'd say NASCAR sponsorships are as good a place as any to start.

UPDATE - I originally wrote that defense makes up 50% of federal spending. I meant non-entitlement federal spending, which makes it about 25% of total spending. I have corrected the error.

The Logical Outcome of the Entitlement Mentality

From the New Deal of the 1930's through the Great Society of the 1960's, the United States enacted a slew of national welfare and entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, food stamps, WIC, Section 8, and others that provide a so-called "safety net" for those in poverty. In reality, many of these programs have helped to create a permanent non-productive class of Americans who rely on government confiscation and redistribution of wealth in order to survive.

In addition to subsidizing this lifestyle, welfare programs have gone to great lengths to remove the stigma of the welfare recipient, including switching food stamp coupons out for EBT cards, which look and operate like a credit/debit card, so that you don't have to feel like you are being judged by the person in line behind you when you pay for your groceries. And, lest you think I am being too harsh, take a look at this dispatch written by "a middle-aged, college-educated Manhattan resident who has given the hell up and gone on welfare":

Despite all the waiting and the hassle of dealing with a bureaucracy, the one bright spot of Public Assistance is getting food stamps (also known as EBT). They're now given in credit card form. In the old days you used a coupon to pay for items, which could be a bit humiliating, since it made your poverty public. But now you swipe a card like a credit card. No muss, no fuss, and your ego stays intact.

The writer also makes a point to let the reader know that it is possible to use government benefits to shop at high-class stores such as Whole Foods, and that you can use the benefits on a wide variety of gourmet foods. A writer at another site, however, bemoans the fact that she can't use her EBT card to buy a hot rotisserie chicken:

Like I said, I find it horribly sad that because a rotisserie chicken is hot, it’s a no-go. If it is a cooked rotisserie chicken that has been refrigerated, then it is allowed. Because I guess poor people don’t deserve hot food? I can buy freshly prepared sushi, fancy Perrier water, or pork rinds, but not a hot chicken. It’s very strange.

But don't cry for her too hard; she is at least able to buy sushi and Perrier on your dime.

What these stories help to demonstrate is that the United States has, by allowing this behavior, fostered a culture where people believe that they are entitled, not only to the basics, but to a certain standard of living not enjoyed by most human beings on this planet. And while the welfare state can be criticized for wasteful, unnecessary spending, or an immoral confiscation of the fruits of one's labor for redistribution to others, I think it is the culture of entitlement itself that is the most damaging to our society, because this attitude logically leads to a rejection of the idea of private property and personal liberty, since both property and liberty are curtailed in order to subsidize another person.

The outcome of this attitude can be seen in this story, entitled "'Sharpie Parties' Fuel Rampage on Foreclosed US Homes." A 'Sharpie Party' is when a group of people get together to vandalize a foreclosed home, and they have become a serious problem in areas of the nation plagued by high foreclosure rates.

When you teach people that they are owed a living financed by others, you destroy the concepts of self-sufficiency, private property, and personal liberty. When you destroy the concept of private property, you get people who behave in this manner.

We must reform the welfare state, not only because it is fiscally irresponsible, but because it decays the very principles upon which this nation was founded.

Then Let Me Be the First to Suggest it, Mr. President

In an interview with Entertainment Tonight (Is this really how low the Presidency has sunk? Appearing on a tabloid celebrity gossip show?), President Obama claimed that he doesn't "think you or anybody who's been watching the campaign would say that in any way we have tried to divide the country."

Really? How about when, in reference to rural Pennsylvanians, he said that "it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations?"

Or when he told the business community that "[A]t a certain point you’ve made enough money?"

Or when, in discussions with Republicans over the budget, he told them "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you?"

Or when he stated that Cambridge, Mass. police acted "stupidly" when they arrested professor Henry Gates, who was attempting to break into his own home, after admitting he didn't know all of the facts? He later accused the law enforcement community of disproportionately targeting minorities.

Or when he referred to his maternal grandmother as a "typical white person?"

Perhaps Mr. Obama would be surprised to learn that, in a poll released by Gallup in February of this year, he was determined by those asked to be the most divisive president of the last 60 years. It seems that even if the President doesn't think he is divisive, a majority of his fellow citizens do.

The fact is, in addition to his atrocious political positions, our current president, and those in his inner circle, are a group of nasty, spiteful people who routinely belittle and marginalize those with whom they disagree. And why shouldn't they? After all, Obama and his lackeys come from Chicago, the home of nasty, spiteful politics. It's in their blood.

Tell you what, Mr. Obama, I've been watching the campaign, along with your entire failed presidency, so let me be the first to say it: you have, in every way, attempted at every turn, to divide this country.

Are Christianity and Objectivism Two Distinct Religions?

Every so often, an op/ed will come out reminding us that the worldviews of Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ are incompatible. In a post entitled "The Bible and Socialism" that I wrote last August, I tackled an editorial by Gregory Paul in which he not only brought up the incompatibility between Rand's Objectivist philosophy and biblical teaching, but made the argument that the gospels preached Marxism before Marx was born.

In a much more reasonable opinion piece on CNN.com today, Stephen Prothero brings up Republican VP pick Paul Ryan's on again/off again love of Atlas Shrugged, Rand's ode to Objectivism in novel form. He also brings up Ryan's Catholic faith, and attempts to show how the two are not compatible, and that Randism essentially is its own religion. To buttress this argument, Prothero brings up Rand's ardent atheism, her love of money, and belief in selfishness as the ultimate moral virtue, all of which are incompatible with a Christian worldview.

Here's the thing; a lot of what Prothero says is true. Having read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I can say without a doubt that as a Christian, Rand's version of personal morality repulses me. The dedication to selfish ambition, love of material wealth, and personal fulfillment as life's only worthwhile goal are anathema to Christianity, and I would imagine that a world inhabited by her heroes would be a miserable place to live.

That being said, what Rand gets right in Atlas Shrugged are the villains. Corrupt politicians in bed with crooked big-business types, both hell-bent on using the plight of the poor to get rich off of the backs of the productive - this is an evil far worse than the "heroes" she lauds, and I don't have to imagine a world populated with Rand's villains, because we are living in that world now, and it, too, is becoming a miserable place to live. And what is worse about the villains in Rand's world is that they are tyrants - the world of her heroes may be miserable because of what the protagonists don't do (no community, charity, altruism), but the world of her villains is miserable because of what they do to others, all in the name of "fairness" and "equality."

And this is where Prothero's piece falls flat: while he successfully points out that Objectivism and Christianity are not compatible, he jumps to the conclusion that this also means that Christianity embraces what Objectivism rejects: that government should function as a provider. As he puts it in the last line of his piece, with regards to Paul Ryan's budget proposals, "But as Jesus once said, “By your fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16), and I for one still see much more Rand than Jesus in Ryan’s Robin Hood budget."

Is it not possible that, though Christianity and Objectivism conflict with regards to good (personal charity vs. selfishness), they can certainly agree on evil (forced wealth confiscation and redistribution)? I certainly believe so, and while I agree with Prothero that a practicing Christian cannot also uphold Objectivist ideals as moral, I must disagree that they cannot agree on a common enemy. Christians are to be privately charitable; we are not required to lay our gifts at the altar of a corrupt government.

NHTSA To Require Black Boxes in Private Autos

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), is planning on introducing standards that would require all vehicles to be equipped with a 'black box' monitoring device (similar to those equipped on airliners) to be used during accident investigations.

You may think that I am about to discuss the fact that the central government has no Constitutional authority to regulate what is present on an automobile, and that the NHTSA is therefore unconstitutional and a waste of taxpayer money. You would be wrong.

You may think that I am about to decry the invasion of privacy, which has become so common with our federal overlords. You would be wrong.

No, while both of these are legitimate concerns, all that I want to do is highlight a single passage from the end of the article:

NHTSA has been considering the next step — a requirement that all cars are built with black boxes — since 2011. In anticipation of this requirement, some in Congress have proposed legislating the mandate ahead of time.

Consider this for just a moment: "some in Congress have proposed legislating the mandate ahead of time." That's right, folks; the "mandate" is going to come from the NHTSA, with or without legislative backing. Once again, we have an example of an executive agency making the law, which is the sole prerogative of the Legislative branch.

The concerns about constitutional enumeration and invasion of privacy are certainly valid, but our government can't even be bothered to stick to the constitution in terms of who makes the laws, and who enforces them. We don't have a Constitutional republic, we have an illegitimate crime syndicate running the show.

What We've Got Is So Good, We Should Get the Government Involved

Last night, a Twitter user asked U.S. Representative Justin Amash the following question:

Amash responded, giving probably the best answer that can be provided in 140 characters or less:

There are only a few arguments that I have heard for government sanctioning of marriage; the primary one being that marriages, as a general rule, produce the next generation, which is something that government has a vested interest in promoting and protecting. While I can understand this line of reasoning, I reject it for a couple of reasons. First, as an institution set up by God, marriage falls outside of government's legitimate realm of authority. Government has no more power to define or dictate marriage than they do the institutions of baptism or communion, which Amash highlights. To allow government to set up marriage rules, including the authority to grant licenses for marriages, is to give it power over an institution that it has no legitimate power over. This will necessarily lead to the kind of fight that we are currently involved in - by giving government authority to sanction marriage, we have indicated that government has the authority to define marriage. Once this conclusion is reached by the public at large, it is no surprise that there is a fight to redefine the institution based on current cultural mores.

Secondly, from a general conservative/libertarian standpoint, the greatest good is served when government's authority is limited. Taking the stance that government has no legitimate hand in marriage is to make a general point that there are areas of the individual's life in which government has no business. Therefore, like any other area where government isn't absolutely necessary, rejecting its presence in marriage makes good small-government sense.

The bottom line is that I do not see any significant reason for government to be in the marriage business at all. As a sacred matter, marriage should be left to religious institutions, just as baptism and communion are.

You can follow Rep. Justin Amash on Twitter here.

You can follow me on Twitter here.

Central Planning is Central Planning

So, now we have a Romney/Ryan ticket from the GOP. I've seen a lot of celebration over this choice from the Republican side of the web, due to Ryan's fame as a fiscal "conservative." The young, handsome Congressman from Wisconsin has rocketed to fame in the GOP over the last year or so, particularly for his budget proposal, which has been hailed as a solid, fiscally conservative plan.

In truth, the only real area in which Ryan has distinguished himself is in fiscal policy, and even that area isn't particularly stellar. Ryan's budget proposal was hailed by so-called conservatives, and decried by liberals, despite the fact that it results in another decade of deficit spending, at a minimum, adding another $3 trillion to the national debt. Therefore, while Ryan's budget may be seen as 'extreme' in today's political climate, it not only isn't extreme; it isn't even fiscally responsible. Furthermore, some of the iterations of the policy have included a European-style VAT, adding yet another method for the federal government to tax individuals. He also voted for TARP, the stimulus, and the auto-industry bailout. Hardly fiscally conservative.

In the area of individual liberties, Ryan's record is also questionable. He has voted to allow warrantless electronic surveillance, to make the PATRIOT Act permanent, and to create a national ID law. He has also voted consistently to expand the U.S. warfare state.

During the primaries, Newt Gingrich referred to the Ryan budget as "right-wing social engineering." Ryan's actual record shows that Gingrich is correct - Ryan is no true conservative; instead, like his Progressive brethren on the left, he is a social engineer and a central planner. He just believes that the GOP would be better at centrally planning things than the Democrats.

It's time to recognize that neither of the major parties truly support a true free market system or respect unfettered individual liberty. The fact that Ryan is being hailed as a conservative is proof of this.

Freedom as the Fundamental Right

Should a man be forced to socialize with those he does not wish to? Suppose that a family is having a barbecue in their backyard with friends. Would a government agent be justified in demanding that the family down the street be allowed to participate?

The commonsense answer is of course not. The reason for this is that most people understand that who they associate with and what is done on their private property is their own business. The freedoms of property and association are intuitive when applied to the individual case; the question then becomes: why do we so often abandon them in the case of an organization? Organizations are merely collections of individuals, after all.

It is in this respect that we should view the Boy Scouts' decision to limit its membership to heterosexuals. The Scouts is a private organization, with private citizens as its members, and as such, they are entitled to the basic freedom of association that all individuals are entitled to.

Likewise, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are free to criticize this policy as a matter of free speech. Like any other American citizen, they have the right to disagree with their fellow citizens, even publicly. What they do not have the right to do, however, is use their position as government agents to pressure the Scouts into changing their policy.

This dispute is not about homosexual rights, it is about the freedom to associate. Forcing private citizens to associate with people they do not wish to associate with does not expand freedom, it forces behavior at the end of the government's gun.

Abortion and the 2012 Election

In an August 9 piece for the Baptist Press entitled "The 2012 election: Why abortion trumps other issues," Scott Klusendorf makes the argument that as a human rights issue, abortion should hold a preeminent place in voter's minds during the 2012 presidential election. In making this argument, Klusendorf states that:

Of course abortion isn't the only issue -- any more than the treatment of slaves wasn't the only issue in the 1860s or the treatment of Jews the only issue in the 1940s. But both were the dominant issues of their day. Thoughtful Christians attribute different importance to different issues, and give greater weight to fundamental moral questions. For example, if a man running for president told us that men had a right to beat their wives, most people would see that as reason enough to reject him, despite his expertise on foreign policy or economic reforms. The foundational principle of our republic is that all humans are equal in their fundamental dignity. What issue could be more important than that? You might as well blame politicians like Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt for focusing too narrowly on defeating the Nazis, to the neglect of other issues. Given a choice, I'd rather pro-lifers focus on at least one great moral issue than waste their precious resources trying to fix all of them.

This is a reasonable argument; after all, for the pro-life proponent, abortion is literally a life or death issue, and the idea that the United States would allow what amounts to legalized infanticide (which is how well-reasoned pro-lifers view abortion), is seen as morally reprehensible. Therefore, it would make sense that the committed pro-life proponent would see more urgency in the abortion question than in, for example, tax policy, even if they view both as a moral question.

Klusendorf goes on to argue that it's not just the pragmatic outcome (eliminating abortion) that is important, but the philosophical underpinning (the unborn are human beings) that matters as well. In his words:

First and foremost, the abortion debate turns on the question of human equality. That is, in a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, do the unborn count as members of the human family?

I agree with this point also. In the end, this is what the abortion debate boils down to - the question of whether or not the unborn are human beings. If they aren't, then no justification for abortion is necessary. If they are, however, then there is no sufficient justification for abortion, since it is never acceptable to kill an innocent human being. This is not just a religious argument, either; Doris Gordon, Jewish atheist and founder of Libertarians for Life, uses this same argument against the morality of abortion.

The problem, however, is that at the presidential level, there is no intellectually-consistent, unequivocally pro-life candidate running. This year, there will be three candidates on ballots in all 50 states. Their positions on abortion are as follows:

• Barack Obama is unequivocally pro-abortion, a fact that is well-known. While I find his position morally reprehensible, at least it is consistent. And, given his commitment to Marxist principles, it's clear that he doesn't really find individual life of any type particularly valuable, so his views are completely consistent, and completely reprehensible.
• Republican challenger Mitt Romney has the weakest and most inconsistent views of all three candidates. As governor of Massachusetts, he was pro-abortion, but his vies "evolved" once he decided to become a Republican candidate on the national stage. More troublesome, however, is his view that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest. As I have written before, this position does not pass the philosophical test, because if one views the unborn as a human being, with the attendant rights inherent to that status, then the method by which the individual is conceived provides no justification for their murder. 
• Libertarian candidate (and former Republican governor of New Mexico) Gary Johnson has gone on record saying that abortion should be legal until the fetus reaches a stage of viability, after which abortion should be prohibited. This view is superior philosophically to Romney's, particularly because it at least acknowledges an individual right to life (at least once 'viability' is obtained) and does not rely on the cowardly "incest or rape" loophole.

As you can see, none of these candidates are completely pro-life, so it is not possible for a voter to make a pro-life choice in November. My vote is with Johnson, since I agree with his stands on individual liberty, and because his stand on abortion is at least partially pro-life and intellectually consistent.

Interestingly enough, Republicans (as the majority of pro-life voters Klusendorf is addressing certainly are) had the opportunity during the primaries to elect a born-again, unequivocally pro-life candidate in Ron Paul. Paul was soundly rejected by evangelicals, however, primarily because of his "kooky" foreign policy views, views which included greatly reducing foreign military operations (another pro-life stance). Sadly, while Klusendorf makes a good argument regarding how we should view life when going to the ballot box, many of the evangelicals he is talking to put military might (and all of the attendant death and human suffering) above the abortion issue (and the implications for individual life and liberty) when it comes time to vote.

UPDATE - A reader pointed out that Romney's position is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest. I had written 'legal' in my post. The error has been corrected.

Bernanke Correctly Describes Corporatism, Endorses Free Market

One of the best tricks that the enemies of capitalism have pulled over the past century is to regulate the economy in such a way that the economy tanks, and then blame capitalism for the failure, promoting central planning in its place. Corporatism, or the government practice of granting privilege to large corporations at the expense of small business, is one of the ways in which this scheme plays out. On Tuesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke correctly described the corporatist problem, identified it as an enemy of the free market, and placed the blame for our current economic woes at the feet of the government and corporations that created the whole mess:

Bernanke, speaking to a conference of financial and economics school teachers, said that too-big-to-fail banks were one example of the combination of government and market failures that can hurt the economy.

“Finally, I’d mention the too-big-to-fail problem, which is sort of a combination of government and market failure,” Bernanke said on Tuesday at the event in Washington, D.C. “Institutions which are so big and complex and interconnected that their failure would possibly bring down the financial system -- there is a strong presumption in the markets that the government will protect those institutions and that means that [the] market is not allowed to work, in a sense.”

Bernanke went on to pinpoint the cause of our current financial crisis: risky financial behavior propped up by government intervention:

“[P]eople who lend money to those institutions say, ‘Well, I don’t have to worry about whether they’re making good investments or taking too much risk because I believe that if they get into trouble the government will protect them,” he said.

Bernanke explained that because investors could count on government, they were more likely to engage in the type of risky behavior that could lead to another financial crisis.
“That obviously leads to very bad allocations [of capital], it leads to increased risk in the system,” he said.

And finally he gives an unapologetic defense of free-market economics:

“One of the most exciting moments in teaching economics is when kids understand the invisible hand idea, the idea that markets can achieve such complex economic outcomes without any kind of central planning,” he said..

“It’s pretty clear to everybody that, looking around the world, markets have played a tremendous role in creating the wealth that we see in rich countries and in emerging markets that are becoming rich,” he said. “So markets are an amazing thing and getting students to appreciate what markets can do is a very important part of teaching economics.”

Bernanke and I may differ greatly with regards to monetary policy, but he actually manages to make some sense here. The idea that a business is "too big to fail" and therefore is entitled to government protection violates every economic principle upon which the United States was founded. And, in the myopic interest of saving jobs in the short-term, such a philosophy inevitably results in reckless behavior and removal of capital from the segments of the economy that are performing well, with the long-term ramifications of poor economic performance.

As Bernanke correctly points out, it is the free market that creates wealth, and government meddling in order to give preferred status to corporations that cannot survive on their own only results in economic disaster.

Life Gets In The Way

Sorry for the light posting over the last few days. If you are a regular reader (or even if not), I would appreciate your patience over the next couple of days. As much as I would love to write for a living, it hasn't materialized yet, so I have a day job, which has been more demanding than usual over the last week or so. Additionally, my wife and I have been working on adopting through the foster care system, and we have a placement that will become permanent this weekend, meaning we have been spending a lot of time preparing our home for a new addition, along with getting to know a very special 10 year old young lady.

I plan on having posts up each day for the rest of the week (starting this evening), and hopefully things will return to normal shortly.

Morality and the Law

"There oughta be a law..." is a common expression, and one, I think, that is thrown out without much thought. People use it to mock the physically unattractive ("There oughta be a law against fat people wearing spandex"), the mentally deficient ("There oughta be a law against being so stupid"), the recklessly procreative ("There oughta be a law against having so many kids"), and on and on.

In my house, my wife and I have sworn off of this statement, in part because we have a kid in the house now, and we want our language to reflect the values that we want to impart to her. That means that we refrain from profanity, but more importantly, from phrases that don't represent how we view the world. As libertarians, we reject the idea that laws should govern individual behavior and morality, and don't want our child to get the idea, even through a throwaway phrase, that we support such a system.

But that brings up an interesting question: what exactly is the purpose of the law? Should we promote a legal system that enforces a particular morality? Conversely, should our moral code be informed by what is legal?

First, we must understand that all legal codes have an underlying moral basis. Anyone that argues against "legislating morality" either misunderstands this tenet, or is honestly advocating for anarchy. From the Libertarian, who believes that the law should only protect us from the direct actions of others, to the proponent of Sharia, who believes that the law should enforce Allah's extremely strict moral standard, everyone who promotes the existence of government believes that it should uphold a moral code, to one degree or another. And, in reality, proponents of anarchy are promoting a moral code as well - their moral code includes the belief that all government is evil and to be avoided, but the classification of government as evil is in itself a moral judgement.

Second, we must acknowledge that different people have different views of what is moral and what is not. As the recent dust-up with Chick-fil-A shows, there are people who apparently believe that any kind of sexual moral code is hateful bullying; conversely, there are those who find homosexual behavior not only personally distasteful, but objectively immoral. In addition to acknowledging that there are disparate views on varying topics, we must acknowledge that, in some cases, those disparate views are not only different, but mutually exclusive, and that therefore one of the views is correct, and the other is wrong, not only in some subjective sense, but objectively.

With these two things in mind, the question becomes "What moral behaviors are appropriate to legislate?" This, of course, is where the trouble begins, and where I think that the morally minimalistic structure of a libertarian political philosophy clearly shows superiority, even for those with a much stricter moral code.

For an illustration of why this system is best, let's take a look at the realm of sexual behavior. Many (perhaps most) people believe that prostitution is wrong. Appealing to the distastefulness of the profession, along with other nebulous societal ills that accompany it, a group uses the power of government to outlaw prostitution. But it doesn't stop there. In order to crack down on prostitution, vice squads are established, and both prostitutes and their customers are rounded up and jailed. Extra money is spent on jails and jailers, judges and public defenders. But it doesn't stop there: in order to discourage prostitution, laws begin to be passed outlawing behavior that may contribute indirectly to prostitution. As I wrote about in June, there are now laws in New York City that can result in a cab driver losing his license and his life savings merely for transporting a prostitute who is engaged in her illicit business even if the driver is unaware of her activity.

Such is the inevitable nature of government: give an inch, and a mile is demanded. As Ayn Rand put it:

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Whether it be prostitution, drugs, or any number of other laws, government has managed to turn regulating personal behavior into big business, spending billions of dollars and ruining countless lives (even those of innocent bystanders) in a quest to enforce a particular moral code.

Let's now take a look at the flip side, where a private citizen decides to express a moral viewpoint that conflicts with the current societal convention. When Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A expressed a viewpoint that marriage should be understood "traditionally" (ie; one man, one woman), he was met not only with push-back from other private citizens, but the mayors of both Boston and Chicago declared that he would not be allowed to build additional restaurants in their cities (both men have since backed down in the face of public outrage).

Thomas Jefferson is by far my favorite President. He and I differ greatly in matters of religion, but when it comes to the proper role of government, we see eye-to-eye. Jefferson once wrote that:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Jefferson, of course, had moral viewpoints that extended far beyond this minimalist attitude, but he feared government more than he feared the individual moral behaviors of his neighbors. In this, he and I agree. In short, government exists solely to protect the individual from harm done by others; it is society, by which I mean the informal community, within which we may exert pressure on behavior that we find to be objectionable. Not everything needs to be a matter for government intervention; quite often, even if we find it reprehensible, "there oughta be a law" just makes for bad policy.

Should Government Decide What You Need?

In a column Monday, CNN contributor Roland Martin made the statement that "Average Americans don't need assault weapons." He then makes the claim that gun deaths have reached "epidemic" levels, and combines the two to conclude that we need to have a Serious National Discussion on gun control. Of course, when someone says that, they don't really mean that they want to have a discussion - because they have already come to a conclusion. They just want you to fall in line.

But do Martin's two principle premises (you don't "need" an assault weapon and gun deaths are at "epidemic" levels) hold water? And do they justify his conclusion (assault weapons should be outlawed)? Let's take a look at the second premise first, because it is the easiest to dispense with. When Martin refers to gun violence reaching "epidemic" levels, the implication is that gun violence is increasing dramatically. This, however, is far from the case. As I wrote last week, all violent crime, including gun violence, has been on a steady decline for more than two decades. Just like Rep. Johnson referring to an "open season" regarding gun violence, Martin's claim may have emotional appeal, but it simply isn't true.

Now, on to the claim that the average American doesn't "need" an assault weapon as a justification for gun control. This one is a little bit trickier, because strictly speaking, it's true. Assault weapons really aren't necessary for most people: handguns are more practical for outside-the-home self-defense, and for self-defense at home, nothing beats a good 12-gauge. And, since self-defense is really the only reason a person "needs" a gun (sport shooting and hunting certainly aren't "needs," right?), then we can easily conclude that the average American doesn't need an assault weapon.

But does demonstrating that Americans don't need assault weapons justify government action to ban them? Hardly. To demonstrate how this argument comes up short, let's replace assault weapons with ski boats. Certainly the average American has no "need" for a ski boat. They may want one, because they enjoy watersports, or Saturday afternoons spent on the lake with friends. But need? Certainly not. How about that 2,500 square foot house you have? Certainly you don't need that much space. Or, (and this one is for any NYC readers) - how about a 32oz soda? Your fat ass certainly doesn't need that much Pepsi.

These examples, while they may sound ridiculous, nevertheless demonstrate a point. Most people recognize that just because something isn't needed doesn't give the government the right to outlaw it. Why then do we accept this silliness when it is guns that are in question? Assault weapons serve a recreational purpose, just like ski boats do. And just like firearms, ski boats can be deadly. There were 672 recreational boating fatalities in the United States in 2010, compared with 554 accidental deaths by firearms, meaning you are actually more likely to die in a boating accident than by accidental firearm discharge. And if you add in intentional homicide with a rifle (the classification that assault weapons fall into), the number jumps to a whopping 912, because rifles, even assault rifles, just aren't used frequently in violent crimes. Furthermore, considering that assault weapons make up a very small percentage of privately-owned firearms in the United States, the number of assault weapons-related deaths is truly minuscule.

So to wrap up: gun violence is not at "epidemic" levels, and "need" is not an acceptable qualification with which to justify government regulation. Roland Martin, like other gun control advocates, is using poor reasoning, baseless emotional appeals, and moral grandstanding in order to try and limit your personal liberty. So even if you don't own, use, or like guns, don't allow this kind of bad argumentation to gain a foothold, because you never know when it will be used to limit a freedom you do value.