Archive for the ‘political philosophy’ Tag

Jefferson on the Federal Government   2 comments

This is Part 2 of a 2-part series.

Turning his mind from the Constitution and form of government, Jefferson hoped to explain the checks and balances of the federal system and also asked if perhaps the country should not be so attached to any one system

Jefferson knew that most foreigners did not understand how the United States worked and he attempted to explain the interaction to Major Cartwright.

With respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think their relations correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole.

Jefferson rightly surmised that most foreigners though the states were under the authority of the federal government (which is how a national government works), but he was quick to correct this misunderstanding. Were he to suddenly be resurrected in the 21st century, he would quickly and probably forcefully remind us that our government was never supposed to involve the states kowtowing to the federal government. They were meant to be equal partners.

To the State governments are reserved all legislation and administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only, and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners, or the citizens of other States; these functions alone being made federal. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government; neither having control over the other, but within its own department.

Jefferson understood that the states were to focus on their own domestic matters while the federal government was only to function in matters with other countries or when states could not agree. He rightly states that the federal government is the foreign branch of the same government. Neither was supposed to have control over the other. I think this would be one of those times when Jefferson would want to amend the Constitution, if he could see how bloated and tyrannical the federal government has become.

There are one or two exceptions only to this partition of power. But, you may ask, if the two departments should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground: but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called, to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best.

Jefferson foresaw conflicts and saw two solutions to them. One would be where the two parties just ignore when one oversteps on unimportant issues. That has not worked well fo us in the 200 years since Jefferson wrote the letter. His second option for dealing with overreach has never been used. We’ve never called a convention of the States to discuss whether doubtful power should be ascribed to the states or the federal government. Instead, the federal government has continually assimilated powers to itself and told the states to sit down and shut up. Jefferson, were he alive today, would be organizing committees of correspondence and militias in Virginia and urging Alaska and all the other states to do the same.

You will perceive by these details, that we have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable. But still, in their present state, we consider them not otherwise changeable than by the authority of the people, on a special election of representatives for that purpose expressly: they are until then the lex legum.

Jefferson explained that the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the states were not set in concrete, but could only be changed by a special committee, elected by the people for the purpose of making changes. Until such a convention had been organized and met, the constitutions were considered the “law of laws.”

But can they be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. The particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

Jefferson touches on something that we can go around and around on. Should constitutions be unchangeable? Should one generation bind the next to what was important to that earlier generation? That earlier generation is dead and dead things should not dictate to the living, Jefferson said.

But it should be noted that Jefferson considered rights and the powers that issue from them to be the same from generation to generation. So while subsequent generations can change the structure of government set out in the constitution, the inherent and unalienable rights of men remain the same.

You see, that’s where folks like me disagree with those who would be our rulers today. They’re fine with the current structure of government, but want our rights to be changeable based on what they think is best. Rights, to them, flow from the government. Jefferson and our founders saw rights as being inherent in the individual. I live, therefore, I have a right to an opinion and to state it, a right to practice my faith as I see fit, a right to bear arms, a right to security in my person, property and papers, a right to a fair trial, and a right to be unmolested in my efforts to support myself and my family (in so long as those efforts do not harm anyone else). I don’t live in that world anymore. I live in one where my rights can be taken away whenever the government decides they are inconvenient to the government or some group the government favors.

I object.

I Did Not Consent

Jefferson’s Lament   3 comments

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Major John Cartwright in 1824, when both were elderly men. The purpose of the letter was to praise Major Cartwright’s book on the history of Anglo-Saxon rights, but Jefferson also attempted to explain the American experiment to Cartwright. Although I might enjoy reading Cartwright’s book as much as Mr. Jefferson did, as an American, I am much more interested in what Jefferson had to say about the country he lived in.

After remarking on what he found interesting and hopeful in Anglo-Saxon history, Jefferson turned to America.

Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts.

The American Revolution was based on Lockean notions of natural law, which Jefferson insisted issued from human nature. The Anglo-Saxons had an ancient history of exercising those rights, lost in the Norman invasion, but reconstituted when kings were put in their place as limited monarchs once more. For them to move toward liberty had required an exploration of and a negotiation with their past. The Americans had mostly a blank slate on which to draw.

Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established however some, although not all its important principles.

“We were,” Jefferson seems to say, “Like kids in a candystore, complete novices at this self-government notion.” Americans didn’t really know what they were doing, so they established some of the guiding principles of self-government, but they also missed some. It’s important to remember that Jefferson was in France at the time of the Constitutional Convention. John Adams was in Holland. Ben Franklin was old. The old guard of the Revolution was not well represented in Philadelphia that hot summer of 1787. Had they been there, the Constitution might have been a better document. At least, Jefferson thought so.

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

Jefferson found little fault with the state constitutions. For the most part, they stated:

  • All power is inherent in the people and is theirs to exercise in direct democracy and/or by selecting representatives
  • They have a right to be armed at all times
  • They have freedom of person
  • They have freedom of religion
  • They have freedom of property
  • They have freedom of the press

I wonder what Jefferson would think of our current state of affairs, where we have the largest prison population in the world, major presidential candidates who want to disarm the entire country, survelliance programs that potentially are tracking each and every one of us on a daily basis, government telling people they must violate their faith to obey the government, eminent domain, and press corps that lick the boots of the White House.

In the structure of our legislatures, we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; but in constituting these, natural right has been mistaken, some making one of these bodies, and some both, the representatives of property instead of persons; whereas the double deliberation might be as well obtained without any violation of true principle, either by requiring a greater age in one of the bodies, or by electing a proper number of representatives of persons, dividing them by lots into two chambers, and renewing the division at frequent intervals, in order to break up all cabals.

Jefferson here praises the separation of powers and encourages the frequent flushing of the legislature. What would he think of us today?

Virginia, of which I am myself a native and resident, was not only the first of the States, but, I believe I may say, the first of the nations of the earth, which assembled its wise men peaceably together to form a fundamental constitution, to commit it to writing, and place it among their archives, where every one should be free to appeal to its text. But this act was very imperfect. The other States, as they proceeded successively to the same work, made successive improvements; and several of them, still further corrected by experience, have, by conventions, still further amended their first forms. My own State has gone on so far with its premiere ebauche; but it is now proposing to call a convention for amendment.

All right, first, I have to thank Jefferson for teaching me a new word “ebauche” which is the preliminary sketch of a canvas prior to painting. I didn’t know it had a specific term.

Jefferson was very proud of Virginia and its exercise in self-government. Virginia may, he said, have been the first nation (note that he calls it a NATION, not a state) to write a constitution and put it on permanent record for everyone to appeal to. Yet, he admitted, it was an imperfect document and wanted amendment. Other States had discovered improvements, areas of liberty that required acknowledgment. It was time for Virginia to amend its constitution as well.

Among other improvements, I hope they will adopt the subdivision of our counties into wards. The former may be estimated at an average of twenty-four miles square; the latter should be about six miles square each, and would answer to the hundreds of your Saxon Alfred. In each of these might be, 1. An elementary school. 2. A company of militia, with its officers. 3. A justice of the peace and constable. 4. Each ward should take care of their own poor. 5. Their own roads. 6. Their own police. 7. Elect within themselves one or more jurors to attend the courts of justice. And 8. Give in at their Folk-house, their votes for all functionaries reserved to their election. Each ward would thus be a small republic within itself, and every man in the State would thus become an acting member of the common government, transacting in person a great portion of its rights and duties, subordinate indeed, yet important, and entirely within his competence. The wit of man cannot devise a more solid basis for a free, durable and well administered republic.

Jefferson then laid-out what he hoped a republic might look like. He wanted small wards to divide larger counties. Each of those wards should:

  1. educate its children
  2. provide for its defense
  3. assure peace within its borders
  4. take care of its own poor
  5. build its own roads
  6. hire its own police
  7. elect jurors
  8. vote for representatives

Jefferson envisioned each ward being a republic unto itself, where every man would have a voice, exercising their rights and duties. He saw this as the foundation of republican self-government.

I have to say that if our communities were organized in this way now, we might have less frustration with our government. In the borough that I live in, we have a geographic divide between conservatives — mostly working-class (although some are college-educated) and former military who live on the east end of the borough (sort of like a county) and liberals – mostly university professors and government employees who live on the west side of the borough. These two broad groups are in a tug-of-war with one another, each trying to coerce the other into doing things their way. Would it not be better if we had smaller units where folks with similar ideas could work together to achieve their goals and pretty much ignore adjacent neighborhoods that have divergent goals?

Jefferson himself admitted that this letter was long and rambling (he was 84 years old, after all), so I’m going to make this a two part series.

Jefferson on the Federal Government

What Business is It of Ours?   4 comments

Long-time readers of my blog know that I am a registered non-partisan with conservative leanings who does not consider the Republic Party to be representative of conservative values.

This year’s election is pretty much cinching my belief that political parties in general are not representative of my values and I’m starting to see why my anarchist friends don’t vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/politics/georgia-delegate-donald-trump-ted-cruz/

So, over on the Republican side, Donald Trump keeps winning the popular vote (WHY? Oh, why, oh, WHY?), but Ted Cruz is starting to pick up delegates because the Republican party regulars understand what a Trump candidacy would do to the Republic Party. All across the media and in half the web sites I visit, people are lamenting that the Republican Party is ignoring the will of the people.

So?

The GOP and the Democratic parties are both private entities that you must be a member to influence. I chose to be a member for one day this year as I did in 2012, as I might not bother in 2020. I expressed my will. But the fact is, I don’t really have to live with the decision the people make. Ultimately, if the GOP disintegrates, it’s no skin off my back. I don’t have ownership in that private entity.

And, neither do most of the Trump voters. From what I can see, he is turning out a lot of brand-new GOP voters. Maybe they were never-voters before or maybe they’re Democrats who crossed over to skew the primaries … I don’t know. What I do know is that these are people who joined the GOP for a specific candidate, not to uphold the values of the Republican Party. Neither Trump nor the GOP reflect my values, but neither does Trump reflect the values of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party is in a civil war right now because after years of being a big-tent coalition, the various factions are trying to become the face of the party. That’s not a bad thing. I’d like to see all political parties cease to exist tomorrow, but I’d settle for them all splintering into tiny fractions so as the dilute their power.

But for now, let’s watch the show. At the moment, the private entity known as the Republican Party sees itself being taken over by a loud and obnoxious movement that would destroy everything the GOP has worked for over the last 100 years, so the party regulars (the people who have ownership in the party) are moving to keep that from happening.

Good for them. They have a right to build and maintain an organization that reflects their values. Their decision to fight this invasion may end the GOP … or it may transform it into something far better. Maybe I can vote GOP in the future with a clear conscience … or maybe not. But it’s not really for me to decide because I am not a Republican … and since many of Trump’s supporters are brand-new to the party, it isn’t really for them to decide either.

While the show is going on, why don’t we take a moment and ask ourselves — and this can be a question for anyone of any political party, but particularly if you normally vote either GOP or Democrat …

Why are we allowing two private organizations to control who we elect as president? Or Congress? Governors? Legislators?

You see, a large part of what is happening is that folks have begun to realize that these private organizations do not have an obligation to do what people on the outskirts of the party want them to do.
I’m seriously thinking of not voting for a party member in November. I could randomly write in someone. I suspect just about anyone could do a better job than Barack Obama has done and it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to outperform Hillary Clinton, so ….

Lela Markham is a pen name, so don’t write me in. Maybe write in your own name. Can you imagine the message that would send? 100 million people vote and they each and every one vote for themselves.

Now that’s putting individual liberty back in the driver’s seat!

 

Posted April 18, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Political Philosophy

Tagged with , ,

Slavery and the Framers   1 comment

Attacking Our Nation’s Founders

Source: Slavery and the Framers

Posted April 18, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in History

Tagged with , ,

The End Is Not Near   Leave a comment

I thoroughly agree with this. In my book Life as We Knew It, it takes a nuclear attack to bring us to crisis, but in reality, the weight of our own empire is going to eventually tear us apart … and that’s not a bad thing in the long run. Alaska would certainly be better off if it wasn’t a pretend state of the United States. We’re told we’re not a colony, but we’re not allowed to grow an economy, we have to ask permission of the mother country to sell our resources and we aren’t allowed to pursue our own interests. I’m sure other states feel the same way. Lela

 

The End is Not Near, It has Begun
By Jack Perry
April 15, 2016

I’ve gotten some emails from folks asking my opinion on “How’s it all going to end?” As in, what major crisis is going to finally cause the American Giant to fall down and go boom? Guess what? There won’t be a major crisis that does it. It’s going to be a slow cascade reaction of crisis and disasters. What’s more, it has already begun. We’ve already seen several of these disasters. More are on the way. The end has begun and is upon us.

Source: The End Is Not Near

Trouble for the Empire   Leave a comment

America’s Imperial Overstretch

This week, SU-24 fighter-bombers buzzed a U.S. destroyer in the Baltic Sea. The Russian planes carried no missiles or bombs.

Message: What are you Americans doing here?

In the South China Sea, U.S. planes overfly, and U.S. warships sail inside, the territorial limits of islets claimed by Beijing.

In South Korea, U.S. forces conduct annual military exercises as warnings to a North Korea that is testing nuclear warheads and long-range missiles that can reach the United States.

U.S. warships based in Bahrain confront Iranian subs and missile boats in the Gulf. In January, a U.S. Navy skiff ran aground on an Iranian island. Iran let the 10 U.S. sailors go within 24 hours.

But bellicose demands for U.S. retaliation had already begun.

 

Source: Trouble for the Empire

Hated by Merkel, Soros, and Obama   2 comments

Brad and I have been wondering about Hungary because BBC News and DW keep mentioning them, so I finally went in search of something about them. Generally whenever state-owned media call another country “fascist”, I’m skeptical and I found out why. I don’t know enough to say that I believe this article 100%, but my daughter and I both experienced Germany’s idea of “freedom” and came away from the experience appreciating America more, though also more sensitive to the tyranny that seems to be growing here as well.

Source: Hated by Merkel, Soros, and Obama

Why I Like the Foreign Press   Leave a comment

Here is a perfect example of why I like the foreign press.

 

“If you kill Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you,” Republican senator Lindsey Graham said in remarks skewering his party’s presidential field at the Washington press club foundation dinner on Thursday night.

The Texas senator, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, is extremely unpopular among his congressional colleagues.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/lindsey-graham-killing-ted-cruz-roasts-republican-candidates-rubio-trump

 

I didn’t even bother to analyze Linsey Graham in my rundown of Republican candidates because he actually ranks below Donald Trump in my mind. If I was going to vote for a Democrat, I would vote for Graham. He’s about as far from a conservative as Trump is — which is to say, progressive, liberal. That he endorsed dynasty (Bush for the uninformed) after he dropped out of the race just confirms to me that he is part of the Washington elite that really doesn’t get that the people are starting to wake up to the concept of “We the people” once more. We don’t want or need his tutulage.

Which is not to say that the entire country – right and left — has not become bat-shit crazy.

Really! Donald Trump is winning all the GOP primaries. What is up with that?

A friend suggests that Trump and Sanders are evidence that the United States has become France circa 1780s, a largely oppressed nation filled with entertained and unthoughtful people who whiff the concept of liberty and have no idea what it should look like or how they should conduct themselves in pursuit of it. The French revolutionaries followed some pretty bizarre people, promising some pretty bizarre things. It ended with a blood bath, followed by a dictatorship.

If he’s right, we’re in a lot of trouble, America. We have this great history, but our education system has so dumb-downed our kids (and our own generation, but we’ve had more time to read the classics on our own) that most of us have no idea of our responsibilities in a (classical) liberal society. We see that clearly in those who would vote Democrat. They buy the promises without ever talking about the current annual deficit that 100% of the rich’s income could not close and asking “where will you get the money.” Buy a clue — after the rich cannot close the gap, the government is coming for more of your pay check!

Democrats don’t seem to understand that (all they ever hear of the concept is when Tom Rogan can squeeze a word in edgewise on the MacLaughlin Group, but I’m not sure if Republicans get it either.

Ultimately, I’m a non-partisan conservative, so I’m speaking to conservatives right now.

  • If you really think that Trump is the answer to what is wrong with this country …
  • If you really believe he is different from Hillary …
  • If you think personality is more important than issues …

You are part of the problem. You’ve drank too much neo-conservative BS and you have completely lost any good sense you ever had. So wake up and smell the coffee! If Trump wins Super Tuesday, he’s the Republican nominee. I’m voting Libertarian, so I don’t care — except that it assures that either bat-shit-crazy and incompetent elitist Hillary Clinton or ivory-tower Bernie Sanders will be the next president of the United States.

Heck, what am I saying? It would be highly entertaining to watch Trump against Sanders and I place even money on who might win. Maybe we should just go for it and take the country over a cliff right now so then we can turn back to rebuilding it.

Of course, that leaves the question remaining — who will the first dictator be?

Issues Voting   Leave a comment

I don’t think progressives are evil. I believe they mean well, but I also think they are foolish, possibly misinformed, and apt to vote emotionally rather than rationally. I don’t think they fully think through the inevitable results of their policies and when those results become visible, they refuse to admit that they were wrong.

This is a fault of progressives in both parties. A corporate crony Republican is no more likely to admit that corporations are raping the country and overwhelming the rest of the economy than a liberal Democrat likely to admit that you can’t give everyone everything for free without driving the “rich” to leave the country, leaving the middle class to foot the bill, which will eventually lead to economic ruin.

Neither stance is healthy for a nation. To the extent that I still believe that the United States can be saved — if it is even worth being saved — I will vote in the 2016 Presidential elections. I don’t expect my vote to make a difference and, for the most part, I don’t care.

In the posts linked below, I’ve analyzed many of the candidates in the race and considered why I would vote for them or not.

Hillary Clinton is disqualified in my analysis because she wants to be queen. She thinks her relationship with former-President Bill Clinton entitles her to the Oval office now. What she is attempting to do is what our founders got rid of in the 1770s. We should learn from them. But then there’s her actions while as Secretary of State. Benghazi appears to have been a black flag operation that got away from the State Department. Of greater concern was her disregard for the email security measures that were standard at the State Department. Her private server was hacked. We ordinarily hold lesser members of the government responsible for that sort of breech of security. It shows us exactly what sort of monarch she would be. Ultimately, though, she could have great policies that I fully agree with and I would reject her because of the nepotism. We do not need dynastic rule in the US.

Jeb Bush is also disqualified in my analysis because he wants to be king. He thinks his relationship with former-Presidents Bush 1 & 2 entitles him to the Oval office now. What he is attempting to do is what our founders got rid of in the 1770s. We should learn from them. Moreover, though I didn’t deal with it, he’s a progressive business-class elite who is way too cozy with corporations. Ultimately, though, he could have great policies that I fully agree with and I would reject him because of the nepotism. We do not need dynastic rule in the US.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist who believes we can give everyone everything for free, soak the rich to pay for it, and life will be wonderful. That theory has been disproven by history on multiple occasions. He’s anti-corporations, which is commendable, but there are other candidates in the race who meet that standard and could pass a classical economics exam, which Sanders cannot. Just because he would allow people to vote to take away the civil rights and economic freedoms of the totality of society does not mean he isn’t a tyrant.

I then looked at the current field of the GOP. Trump is a misogynist egotist who thinks the Presidency is a popularity contest. I suspect he’s working for the Democrats. I did not seriously consider his policies because I cannot seriously consider the man. His support of single-payer health insurance puts him with Sanders in the loony-socialists-who-cannot-pass-an-economics-exam camp. He’s more of a fascist socialist, but they basically end up in the same place — a loss of freedom for the people in order to fulfill a government agenda.

I went through some of the GOP candidates and showed where I agreed with them and where I didn’t and why I might vote for them or might not. Some got higher marks than others, but ultimately, I rejected most of them on foreign policy aggression. I’m not dove. I believe in a strong defense and in a strong counter-strike capability, but I believe we should be pulling back our military empire to focus on protecting our own country. Yeah, that’s sort of isolationism … if one were to define isolationism by today’s insane standards. Ten years ago, I thought bases around the world were necessary for our defense. I have since thought on the subject and studied it and I have adjusted my thinking. We should have diplomatic relationships with all countries, be a porcupine defensively and not much more. We can’t afford it anymore and it ultimately makes Americans less safe worldwide and at home. I looked at Carly Fiorino, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz — I found things to like about all of them and ultimately said I probably wouldn’t vote for any of them.

I’m voting for Rand Paul in the primary because I mostly agree with him on the issues. No, he’s not sexy or flashy, but he’s for liberty, entitlement reform, a reduction in taxes and a pulling back of some of our foreign empire. He probably won’t win the nomination, and I’m okay with that.

So, in November, that means I have a choice — vote for whomever the GOP nominee is, vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is, or vote for someone else. I’m not a Libertarian. I hold libertarian (small “l” deliberate) principles. But I will likely be voting for the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in November. I have issues with his platform, but I have issues with almost every candidate.

The very fact that a super-voter (I have voted in every election since I was 18 years old) is going to vote for someone most of the nation’s voters have never heard of should be a red flag for folks.

The ballot box has failed. I will continue to exercise the soap box and the jury box (as I have opportunity), but I suspect those will fail as well until after the progressives have tried to exercise the bullet box and forced a confrontation. Then I hope people will turn to my efforts on the soap box to find some guidance as to how to fix the mess they’ve made.

I Like Bernie Sanders   6 comments

No, seriously. I believe he’s sincere. I think he wants to make the United States a better place to live. Moreover, I admire the man’s willingness to stand up to Hillary Clinton. There’s evidence that some who have done that in the past have paid some pretty heavy costs for their bravado, so to get up there time and time again and call the shovel a spade is admirable.

He’s right. She cannot stand up to Wall Street because she is bought and paid for by Wall Street hedge fund managers. She also gets a lot of money from George Soros, several media outlets, labor unions and several health insurance and health care corporations.

I also admire his principle in sticking to small donations. It’s hard to be owned by any one (or a couple of dozen) donor when you take very small donations from a wide group of people.

I also agree with many of his criticisms of Republicans — the wars, the corporate welfare. I suspect, were I to sit down with him, we would find a lot of areas of agreement between us.

If Alaska’s Democratic primary were not a closed caucus, I might even vote for Bernie in the March caucus, not because I think he’d be a good president but because I’d like to see Queen Hillary’s head explode if she doesn’t get the nomination. Alas, you have to be a Democratic Party member to “vote” in the Democratic caucus in March and it is against my principles to join a political party, so I’ll have to leave it up to actual Democrats to coalesce around denying Queen Hillary her crown.

So, back to Bernie. I admire the man. I won’t be voting for him. It’s not personal. I’m a principles voter and admiring the man does not mean I agree with his principles. What he believes is good for the United States would be an economic disaster. No one who has taken an actual economics course believes you can give everyone everything for free and not raise taxes except on corporations and rich people. Tuition-free college, single-payer health insurance, expanded Social Security benefits, and all these other giveaways that he proposes all cost money, which must be paid for by taxing people.

Remember — I think taxation is thievery. It may be necessary thievery under the current system we live under, but it is still thievery. I want to reduce the thievery as much as possible by reducing the size and scope of government, which is the exact opposite of what Bernie is proposing.

I also recognize a reality that apparently has never occurred to Bernie. No poor person who ever given me or anyone I know a job. The more you tax “the rich” the more you reduce employment in this country, thereby creating more poor people. The fastest way out of poverty is to get a rich person to give you a real job doing something real, as opposed to having government create jobs that exist for the sole purpose of providing jobs, that must be funded by stealing tax dollars from productive members of society. That is an endless cycle of using other people’s money to prop up a system that is unsustainable. Sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money and you have to start taxing the very people you were trying to help in the first place. This has happened in every country that has tried socialism. We’ve seen the outcome in the Soviet Union and China. We see the increasing wobble in Europe. Do we really want to go there as a nation?

Then there’s his health coverage plan. Bernie proposes we all go under Medicaid. Have you ever had anything to do with Medicaid? No? Well, I have. I worked in social services for 15 years, so I am intimately familiar. It is an awful system that, by and large, does not allow for preventative care and delays treatment of conditions until they are fatal. It is characterized by many bureaucratic hoops between the doctor and the patient and by very long waiting lists. Only medications that are cheap and old are covered, so better medications are not available. In most states, Medicaid is the single largest expenditure in the state budget and it is a huge cost to the federal government. It also pays doctors at about 60% of the prevailing current rates, disincentivizing the creation of new doctors to replace the ones trapped in this new Sanders Medicaid system.

But, hey, it would make everyone equal … and, by and large, sick and untreated as well as unable to afford to purchase better health care even if it were available. It would also make us a nation enslaved to the tax man. England, Norway, many other single-payer health insurance countries tax pretty much everyone who is not on the government dole at better than 50% of their income to pay for their version of Medicaid. There are no entrepreneurs in Europe. Europeans of that mind set mostly immigrate to the United States because they can’t afford to be entrepreneurs in their home countries. Again, do we really want to go there as a nation?

Remember what I said about my principles remaining the same no matter who is espousing them? Well, admiring Bernie Sanders for being true to his convictions does not translate into thinking his convictions are a good idea. Enslaving your fellow Americans to pay for your health care … retirement … job … college … is a bad idea in every time and in every place. Doing it when you have no way to pay for it just doubles down on bad ideas. I believe he means well, but his goals are not going to work out to his pleasure.

So I won’t be voting for Bernie Sanders if he makes it to the general election. He seems like a nice guy, but I don’t think he understands how the real world works …

Which is mostly true of all socialists, by the way. Glorious pie-in-the-sky intentions backed by magical thinking that has never worked out anywhere in the past.

Writer vs the World

In search of beauty, inspired by literature.

Inside My Mind

Words from my brain

Happiness Between Tails by da-AL

Tales of Writing + Books + Compassion + Culture + Wagging Tails

Fairfax and Glew

Vigilante Justice

The Wolf's Den

Overthink Everything

SaltandNovels

Sprinkling wonder into writing

Remmington Reads

A book enthusiast bringing you all things bookish

MiddleMe

Becoming Unstuck

Magical BookLush

A New Dimension to Explore!! A reason to Love and A promise to fight the wrong is hidden in Books. Come, Let's Explore it!!!

Jacquie Biggar-USA Today Best-selling author

Read. Write. Love. 💕💕💕

Not Very Deep Thoughts

Short Fiction and Other Things

Ediciones Promonet

Libros e eBooks educativos y de ficción

%d bloggers like this: