Grammar Police

For the liberal or socialist leaning people who might read this, I wanted to address a common failure in our grammar. No, I don’t want to talk about:
your, you’re
or two, too, to
or then, than
or even they’re, their, and there

Although those do tend to be pet peeves of mine, I try not to be a grammar police. Although the confusion of these words can change meanings, we usually understand what was meant despite the almost harmless mistake.

The grammar mistake I’m concerned about has much more impact in our daily lives. I’m talking about give and take. I know, I know, it’s not even a homonym. And yet, so many seem to confuse the two. I’m sure that if I asked for definitions, we’d all do just fine. Where we seem to have a problem with this, is in our application of the terms, especially with respect to our ideas of political policy.

You see, there is a common straw man heard by those on the right. When we make any statement to express why taxation for social programs is wrong, we are accused of every level of greed imaginable. We hear:
You want the poor to have no food, no medicine and no chance
You want the elderly to have no food, no medicine and no chance
You hate the poor
You want people to die
You want the rich to keep taking advantage of us

I’m sorry, but there is no logical connection there. Saying the government should not take my money to give it to someone else does NOT equal any of the above.

Let me be clear. My truck has tires that are about to blow out because they are so bald and I can’t afford to replace them. My dryer just died and I have no way to replace or repair it. I have not had a television in four years because I just don’t have the money for one. I have never had cable in my entire life. I owe money to family from them helping me through some recent hard times and I can’t pay it back. I have student loans that have not seen a payment in a year and I don’t have the money to make one. I have no money left to put into a retirement. My retirement fund is sitting at exactly zero, because despite paying into it my whole life, I’m doubtful that social security will be solvent when I can claim it. I don’t live poor. The house I lease is in a good neighborhood, but it is very old and therefore cheap. My vehicle is a 2009 model. I haven't eaten ramen noodles in at least seven months. I am not one of the “rich”. Not even on paper. I also recognize that I am far from living on minimum wage. I have a degree in I/T as well as certifications and years of experience and my job is barely covering monthly expenses and not covering any of my debt. I feel like I need to start living poor because living lower middle class is taking all of my paycheck. Is this really where a college degree and professional certifications gets you? I don’t make these comments from the perspective of being in the well to do who is just greedy.

Still, I get taxed at about a 30% rate on my federal income. I get taxed also for state income. I am also taxed through sales taxes, vehicle tags, gasoline, tobacco, toll roads, and I’m sure there’s some I’m forgetting. I don’t have any special tax havens, loopholes, deductions, rebates, exemptions, etc and I pay everything they ask of me. I am part of what holds these social systems up. The argument from the left always seems to be something like:
Someone has to help those people
It’s not fair to them
It’s not their fault
Throw in some lines about a social contract

Nope. Sorry, I don’t remember signing that. You see, I’m as generous as the next guy. Bought two homeless guys lunch just the other day, in fact. Those kinds of acts? They should be acts of giving. Instead, our government TAKES our money, because they can spend it more wisely than we can. Well, forgive me, but I don’t have that much trust in our government, especially in matters of money. If I had ⅔ of what I spent on taxes back, then I might actually have money to pay down my debt. If I had my debt paid down, I might actually have money to save for a retirement. I might have money to give to the less fortunate.

I can already see two responses that are heading in the wrong direction.
1. See, you should want government help. You deserve it.
2. You are not the one who should be doing more. It’s the rich who can afford it that we want to pay.

Both of those are wrong. Let’s take a look.

You deserve it.

No. I’m sorry, but the government does not exist for that. As much as I would LOVE some kind of break, that doesn’t mean I should expect one from anyone. Despite everything, I have never received government assistance outside of student loans. I really don’t think those should exist either, but since they do and I have to pay it back, I went for it. I have never claimed unemployment, never filed for bankruptcy, never filed for HUD or food stamps. You see, once upon a time, people were ashamed of that kind of thing. Once upon a time, living with that kind of assistance was hard. Bread lines like this were what you could expect. You would feel the desire to rise above that. You felt a certain amount of pride for not falling that far. You would get assistance from your family, your church, where ever you could before having to do that. And those people had more of their money so that they could help you. Now, people who might be willing to help may not have the money, after taxes, to do that any more. You see, you are trying to solve a social problem with government. That has never worked out well anywhere it has been tried. Our federal government was designed to do three things. Provide for the common defense, settle disputes between the states on matters of commerce and protect our constitutional rights. It was designed to be limited to only those powers because they forsaw the problems that can (and are) occurring when the central government has the power to do more than that. Sometimes we need handouts despite our best intentions or efforts. The government, even at the state or local level should probably not be doing that. The federal government should definitely never be the one giving it. You see, it's like chopping your salad with the garbage disposal. It will probably get the job done, but I doubt it can ever do it in a clean, efficient way without unintended consequences.

It's the rich who should pay

No. I'm sorry, but that is also wrong. You see, the principle doesn't change based on your income. If the government should not be taking it from me, they should not be taking it from anyone else either. Generosity and human decency are great things. When they are compulsory, they are no longer generous or decent. It's not giving if it was taken from you. They can afford it. The decent thing to do would be to give it. That doesn't give anyone the right to take it.

We need to start taking responsibility for ourselves. We need to learn how to fix this problem.

If we fix this problem, there will be fewer people who need help. By empowering the lower 90%, there will also be more people able to help. We cannot ask the government to do this for us. Giving them the power to regulate commerce is what has made them the golden goose for big business and banking in the first place. We do that by demanding what we are worth as workers. We do that by learning to say no if we are being taken advantage of. We do that by having a truly free market. We do that by deciding how we spend our time and money and not having others tell us how. If the government is going to regulate those things for us, learn to continue to expect that regulation to favor those who can pay the most.

The role of our government

I spoke of freedom in my first post. I talked about actually giving critical thought to what it really means to be free or have freedom. Let’s then talk about the role of government in that same context. In these topics, I will refer to the Federalist Papers quite a bit. Why? That was the purpose of the Federalist Papers. Several of the authors of the Constitution wrote these to better explain the structure of the Constitution to the people so that it could be ratified. If there is a question about the intent, interpretation or context of the founders, this is a great place to look. I highly recommend people become as familiar with these as they are with the Constitution itself. Both are things I am still working on for my own improved understanding. Here is a nice source for these:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

I see a lot of arguments with many levels of complexity about the government and how it should or shouldn’t be involved in our lives. I’m sorry, but it’s just not that complex. All you have to do is go back to the logic used by the founders. Remember, they justified everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights on logic, not emotion. They had just observed how a government can obtain the power to oppress its citizens. Those logical arguments can be boiled down to a simple sentence: The government may not do anything to you that I cannot do myself.

What does that mean? How does that hold up? It’s really simple but does deserve a fair amount of consideration. Can I take away your property as just another person? No? Then the government may not either. Can I take your money and give it to someone else? No? Then the government may not either. Can I tell you how you have to prepare your food for health or any reason? No? Then the government may not either. Can I tell you who you are allowed to marry? No? You see the pattern?

Think about any situation you want, this holds up. Just as I stated in my first post, my freedom does have very select limits. My freedom ends where it imposes on someone else’s freedom. I may not be able to tell you that you cannot have a gun or shoot that gun. I do have the right to expect that you are not allowed to cause harm to me or my property. The issue of gun ownership or usage then is entirely reliant on the idea of you abusing your right. When you or I abuse our right to freedom, we forfeit that right. The exact lines and penalties are the subject of law in most cases.

So if there are limits to my freedom, where does the balance fall between my individual rights and those of the government? What is the actual purpose of the government if it can do none of those things? This is where it is imperative that you understand the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. A democracy is exactly what our founding fathers did not want.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

A constitutional republic has an entirely different foundation. The constitution is the ultimate basis of the government. That constitution defines those things which the governed hold to be above the government. The US Constitution goes so far as to give us the 10th Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This is clearly saying that the federal government derives its power from the people and the states. Therefore, in any dispute between the federal government and the people or the states, the federal government is NOT the authoritative entity.

Federalist Paper No. 45. "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state government, are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in the times of war and danger; those of the state governments in times of peace and security."

Here, it should be clear, the federal government should not have the authority to do things that generally affect your daily life. They may have some indirect influence. If your business deals in interstate trade, then yes, the federal government will affect your daily life, but that is due to your special circumstances. The average citizen should not feel this kind of influence from the federal government. Likewise, a natural consequence of that, which is explicitly pointed out in the continuation of the statement, is that the federal government powers of taxation are mostly needed to provide the common defense. This does not mesh with our current government that taxes heavily for building political influence in foreign nations under the guise of “common defense” nor does it explain our current taxation for socialist redistribution of wealth programs such as social security, medicare, obamacare, and the list goes on.

That is not to say that those things cannot be provided by government. That is to say that the FEDERAL government should NEVER have that power. Those powers are denied to the federal by design. They did leave the possibility open for the state governments to be able to administer this kind of program. I think most of their writings speak to those being a bad idea even for the state. However, if the people of a state wanted to allow their state to do so, then they have left that option open. The founding fathers realized the risk in giving the federal government that kind of broad authority, however, and restricted it.

The consequence of that, is that the federal government should not conflict with your personal rights and freedoms. The federal government is merely there for common defense and to be the arbitrator for disputes between the states. Your state government has much more say in how you live and the limits of your freedoms. There are those freedoms that the Constitution declares “natural rights” that even the states are exempt from governing. Outside of that, it is the prerogative of the people of the state to decide what they want that state to be like. This leaves a lot of room for the states to be dramatically different from each other in how the government affects your life. You have the freedom to live in the state that best represents your views on that balance.

In this way, you have “natural rights” that no level of government may take away from you. You have a system where your government can represent your needs for daily life that are specific to you locally within the state. You have 50 states that deal with the federal government as to how they will interact with each other. No level of government should truly be able to dictate to you how to live your life as a result. This is FAR different from 51% of the people dictating to the other 49% how to live in every state. And that is exactly why the founding fathers decided on a constitutional republic rather than a democracy.

Law should be handled at the state level for all those reasons. Our representative form of government works best at the state level. We as a people have much more control and oversight into the process. It is easier for us to watch for corruption at that level and to have our voice matter. Federal law should be held to similar standards as a Constitutional amendment. The federal government should not be making a law unless it is ratified by at least 38 states. The Supreme Court should be primarily focused on where states attempt to violate the Constitution. Business has a much harder time buying influence if they have to buy it in 50 individual states.

I think that for my first experimental foray into blogging, I would like to discuss something that is at the core of many of my beliefs. Freedom. Specifically, what does freedom mean? Not just the definition, but also what are the ramifications of that? I think that a lot of people throw the word around a lot without ever thinking about the whole picture. Let's start by defining freedom to establish the base. From Merriam-Webster:

So we can see, definitions d, e, f, g, and h are more usage definitions that derived more from the way we use the word than the core definition. They come from phrases that entered common usage and became their own entry in a dictionary. Therefore, in the context of a "free people" we are looking at a few things that represent being free:

1. Having choice without coercion, constraint or necessity
2. Not being subject to the power of others
3. Not subject to onerous requirements or demands
4. A political right

That becomes a pretty nice list. That sounds pretty "free". I think most people would agree to these concepts. As a matter of the design of the US government, as laid out in the Constitution, there are limits to freedom, however. My freedom is limited in that it ends where it would affect your freedom. As was famously said:

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." 
- attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

So when the Constitution was written, a man was free to carry his gun. He was free to shoot his gun. That freedom ended when he caused damage to another person or their property. At that point, he has crossed the line and has exceeded his rights. That is why we have laws. He has now committed a crime. Now, he will have to pay the penalties of that law. It is critical to note, however, that it is the criminal act that caused this man to be subject to penalty. It is NOT the potential to break the law that makes him guilty.

I want to restate that point. It is NEVER the potential to break the law that makes anyone a criminal. What does that mean? That means, that if we are to be a free people, we WILL have the ability to harm others. We will have the means to commit crime. We will have to choose between right and wrong. Remember the first part of our definition of freedom: having a choice without coercion, constraint, or necessity. You have to take the good with the bad. Conditional freedom is not free and never will be. The freedom to make your own fortune and be who you want to be comes with the freedom to make the wrong choice and be a criminal. They are inextricably linked. You cannot have one without the other. That is the purpose of laws. To define when freedom has been exceeded and exact penalties for that behavior. You have that freedom until you actually DO something to lose that right.

The overall ramifications of this are widespread and I'm sure that I'll miss many points that I want to make. I guess there is always tomorrow for those. The main point that I want to communicate, however, is that we, as a people, need to realize that many of the current hot topics in news and political discussion center around giving away our FREEDOM because we are scared someone might break a law. If anyone cares to look at unbiased numbers, this is frequently happening based on events that are extremely unlikely to happen. It is also often a freedom that has little to no bearing on the ability to actually break said law.

The specifics are pretty extensive and probably need to be the topics for future posts. I guess I'll leave off my rant for the moment. Don't want to expend all my energy on my first attempt here. Hope you enjoyed and let me know what you think. Thanks.