Monday, March 28, 2005

Not Yours to Give

I was asked if I really believe that no public money can go to charity. I do believe that and I offer here a few quotes to convince you. No matter how noble the cause it is wrong to spend tax dollars on charity.

Colonel Crockett tells a great story. This is how it begins.

"One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him. "

You can read it in full here

Here is the best line from the story
"The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'"

Frederic Bastiat says the same in his pamphlet, The Law, published in 1850 to counter the rise of socialism.
Are we not obligated to pay for our brothers home destroyed by disasters around the country? (only by charity, not by law) Here is his answer is terms of fraternity

Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot

In other words - You cannot force me to pay and then call it charity.
Bastiat continues

The Law and Charity

You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.

Law and Charity Are Not the Same
The law is justice — simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this. If you exceed this proper limit — if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic — you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?

And finally a quote from James Madison questioning the wisdom of proposed public roads and public schools.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Ten Reasons to NOT Change Social Security

James Bowden tries to come up with 10 reasons to keep our socialist system

Quality of Life

I received a column from Bill Federer that I really liked. He wrote about The Court-Ordered Death of Terri Schiavo in 2003. He explains that the "quality of life" argument is seriously flawed. The only moral position is that life is sacred. Any argument about the quality of life is wrong.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Social Security Reform

The last post was too long but I have another thought. What if we wanted to reform the system rather than get rid of it? I am in favor of making all socialism illegal. No public money can be given in charity. Not for any reason. That must be clear

But if you want to save the system I would suggest 2 things.
1) You must immediately raise the retirement age to about 77 years old.
2) And you must require recipients to prove a need for assisstance. Only poverty level folks get money and make sure everyone knows there is no guarantee of benefits.

If you run out of money then you raise the retirement age or reduce benefits or reduce the number of people who are allowed to collect benefits.

no debt for charity

It is not your money

With all the talk of Social Security reform I have been glad to hear that people are willing to get rid of the system. I think there are many that recognize that it is a scam and black hole for funds. Ditching the system most commonly comes with a condition, "Pay me back my money"

If you could get your money back would you be willing to get rid of Social Security? I found that the answer depends on your age. (Or perhaps more accurately it depends on current wealth and future earning potential. )

Younger people want out. They can see what a waste it is and know the system will provide them nothing. It won't be around in 40 years when they can take advantage of it. I don't think this insight comes from great wisdom but rather from pessemism of any future that far out.

Older people want to be taken care of. They need the system and are relying on it. Any talk of changing it understandably creates fear. They have been told for decades that when they got older there would be benefits. Increasingly people have relied on the system as a means of retirement.

So somewhere in the middle is the interesting people in this debate. Where do you fit? These are the people that have time to rescue their retirement if the system went away, as long as they get their money back. They have been paying into the system for years and complaining about it. They weren't happy about it but justified it as a good thing that helped the elderly live a better and would be there as a safety net. There are other scenarios. But to all these people I must respectfully say, "It is not your money." You are not getting any money back. You do not get paid retirement money for what you paid in. There is no account or trust fund. You are paying money for those people currently on the system. If you collect money now or in 20 years you will be taking money from working people, not from some savings account.

When you pay Social Security taxes it is no longer your money. The government spends it. Don't forget they are required by law to spend every dollar in their yearly budget or surrender it. There are some accounting games they play but that is just more deception. Social Security money is not yours. You can't get anything of yours back. You can only take others people's money from them.

If you don't believe in taking money from other people then you should help get rid of the system. That is more noble then creating a false safety net. If you demand your own money back as a condition then you are lost. We must humbly admit that we all got suckered and walk away in shame. No one is going to get anything back that they put in. We can only end the plunder sooner rather than later.

Monday, March 07, 2005

North Korea is Starving

People in North Korea are starving to death.

The population is 22.7 million people. Estimates are that 3.5 million died from starvation between 1995 and 1999. (BBC report) It has only got worse since then. No one is allowed in to help because communists are afraid they will report how bad it is. No food available this year because none was planted. Some among 300,000 who escaped to China (can you imagine calling that escape?) report cannibalism.
All starvation is political, not an environmental failure. (The goal of communism is death so the plan is working.)

Why do I write this? Conversation came up at work that US is discussing new missile designs. They asked what we need a new missile for. Someone answered, "To kill Koreans". I answered that they are dying fast enough already. Only one other person in the room had heard that North Koreans have been starving for years. They asked me for a source since they didn't know about it. I was a little perplexed so I did some research. I was amazed to find that no news agencies report starvation. Blogs and "right-wing" sites are full of details. Nothing anywhere else. Do a search and you will find nothing current. There are a few old stories from 1995 and 1998 about trouble with a small harvest, labor management and such. There are a few warnings that Koreans may face some troubles in winter due to poor harvest. A couple stories that North Koreans face same struggles again this year.

Same struggles? Another million people starved to death? Another year where no one was allowed to own a farm and eat the food they grow? Amazing. Year after year. Now I know why no one in the room had heard of it. It isn't reported on TV news or their online shadows. The estimates are that nearly 1 in 10 have died. If there is ever an accounting of how bad this I bet it will be more like 1 out 4

Remember people laughing when President Bush gave the axis of evil speech and said that North Korea must change? It wasn't just about North Korea making nukes from the power plants we built for them.

I don't want to ruin anyone's day - this stuff is misery. I don't know how to fix the problem but I think it is evil to ignore it completely. Awareness helps.
People in North Korea are starving to death.

Gilbert Mayor

Election is tomorrow, March 8th. Don't forget to vote.

When I mentioned the upcoming vote to some friends one immediately said, yes vote for Dunham. To which I responded, sorry I am voting for Berman.

The response was, "Well Cynthia is very nice."
Interesting... is that a qualification for mayor? I am sure she is nice. I would like her for a neighbor. But she is more of a socialist than Berman so I won't vote for her.
I realized that this is the problem with political and religious discussions. I have always enjoyed them so I wondered why they are taboo in certain situations. The problem is that in this game no one can agree on the rules or the goal. Those kind of games always end in argument. Contests require rules. Without some agreement of goals or a scoring system then it is just a fight.

Are there any objective rules in politics and religion? Apparently not. I was called a heretic this week for my beliefs and was told to vote for a lady because she was nice.

I only went to one debate but here are some of my notes.
In this election Dunham has tried to create an atmosphere of fear over crime and security. Mayor Berman isn't going to fire the police and let criminals take over. Its not an issue.
Dunham wants government supervision of backyard pools. Berman says parents must take responsibility. (That is a good thing)
Dunham claims fire and police support. Berman points out this support is from unions, not people.
Dunham would hire a Diversity Director if there were resources available. Berman says diversity is not a problem.
Both are chumps that want federal money.
Berman is against creating "affordable housing" (That is a good thing)
When asked about favorite part of the Constitution excluding Amendments, Dunham answered First Amendment.

Very dull and uninspiring campaigns