New National Motto

"Lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from ourselves."

I've written a little here on the topic of economics. Pity that it comes up as often as it does in this context: in 2008 in the United States of America, we've reached a point where people can't be responsible for their own irresponsibility, and it is the duty of "the government" to protect them from themselves and businesses alike. Today's hobgoblin isn't the mortgage "crisis", but the pay-day lenders.

Here's a typical story:

Janet Hudson, 40, ran into pay day loans when she and her fiance broke up, leaving her with a young son and a $1,000 monthly mortgage payment. Short on cash, she took out three small pay day loans online totaling $900 but fell behind with her payments. Soon her monthly interest and fees totaled $800.

"It almost equaled my mortgage and I wasn't even touching the principal of the loans," said Hudson, who works as an administrative assistant.

After falling behind on her mortgage, Hudson asked Rochester, New York-based nonprofit Empire Justice Center for help. A lawyer at Empire, Rebecca Case-Grammatico, advised her to stop paying off the pay day loans because the loans were unsecured debt.

"For months after that the pay day lenders left me voice mails threatening to have me thrown in jail, take everything I owned and destroy my credit rating," Hudson said. After several months, the pay day lenders offered to reach a settlement.

But Hudson was already so far behind on her mortgage that she had to sell her home April 2007 to avoid foreclosure.

"Thanks to the (New York state) ban on pay day loans we've been spared large scale problems, but Internet loans have still cost people their homes," Case-Grammatico said.

Emphasis most definitely mine. Here's the thing: don't take out the loan if you can't pay it back. She "ran into" the loans? Sounds like an accident, doesn't it? I know people are struggling; I'm not without a heart and it's unfortunate. But when we stop expecting adults to act like adults, we're doing people an enormous, and painfully unnecessary disservice.

Side note: you think that the lawyer working for the agency in question, she with the dual/hyphenated last name, might be a leftist?

What's my solution to these crises? It's called self-government, about the only government that should be involved in the regulation of mortgage lending and pay-day loans.

Short Animation on Liberty

I'm out of the office sick today so I might get a chance to catch up on a number of things I've been putting off.

A colleague sent me this link to a short animation on Liberty. It's interesting. While I agree with nearly the entire content of the video, I'm left with the same thoughts I usually have when encountering advocates for Liberty. That is, there's a fine line between Liberty and License, and generally people who advocate for Liberty do so without any conditions; which is really to say that they are advocating for license, or anarchy.

The moment you place conditions on how much Liberty people may have, you're really discussing the necessity of external government. Most discussions of Liberty are based in the abstract or theoretical, and once you deign to engage in such a conversation with respect to the practical, actual, and operative nature of man, you must naturally appear a tyrant. While this may tire us, we owe it to our Liberty-loving "faithful opposition", as Mr. Morris once coined the term, to keep reminding them of the truths of human nature.

Survey Results: People Don't Think

I laughed when I saw this article yesterday, both for it's patent absurdity and the "news worthiness" of it. Here's the link.

And here's my point: 44% of the people "surveyed" said they don't "need" marriage to validate their relationships. I say "surveyed" because this was an online AOL Personals/Zogby poll - voluntary, and probably appealing to people who come from that point of view.

Shockingly, half of the respondents between 20-29 said that marriage wasn't necessary. Is it possible that half of the people looking for a relationship at AOL Personals between those ages might be young men in our "deferred adulthood" culture?

Other breath-taking revelations include that 20-somethings are more likely to break up over infidelity than someone in their 60s (which is a little like reporting that a survey taken shows that people in their 20s are less likely to worry about life insurance than someone in their 60s). Do you think age - not to mention the actual time in the relationship - has something to do with that?

I have asserted before, and will do so again, that liberalism's attack on traditional values has wide-ranging implications, not the least of which is the creation of large groups of people who are self-centered and fail to contribute to the continuation of society. Marriage makes otherwise average people better: you learn compromise, sacrifice, and what it means to care for others in a way that single people never can. Parenthood takes that a step further: you learn what it means to love as God does. Before your child is ever born, before they've done anything to "deserve" it, you love them unconditionally and would do anything for them. That's how God loves us. These two milestones in life, these two cultural institutions (both of which are regularly under assault by the Left) make average people good and good people great. That's why marriage and traditional values are worth defending.

WSJ Op-Ed: Liberty Theology

The following op-ed was in the Wall Street Journal on 12/31/07. It's encouraging to see free market principles spreading and liberalism in retreat; the lesson is that we all need to be diligent in stamping it out where ever we find it. Robert Sirico is the President of the Acton Institute.

Liberty Theology
By ROBERT A. SIRICO
December 31, 2007; Page A12

Catholic Church bishops, priests and other Church leaders in Latin America were once a reliable ally of the left, owing to the influence of "liberation theology," which tries to link the Gospel to the socialist cause. Today the Church is coming to recognize the link between socialism and the loss of freedom, and a shift in thinking is taking place.

In a region that is more than 90% Catholic, this change might have enormous implications. A Church that emphasizes liberty could play a role in Latin America similar to that which it played in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, as a counterweight in defense of freedom during a time of rising despotism.

For proof of the change I refer to, consider a recent statement from the Catholic Bishops of Venezuela: It blasted the political agenda of President Hugo Chávez for its assault on liberty under the guise of helping the poor. It is morally unacceptable, the statement said, and will drive the country backward in terms of respect for human rights.

The Bishops' statement from Caracas was not the first challenge the Church issued to Mr. Chávez. The late Cardinal Rosalio Castillo once laid out the Church's view of Bolivarian socialism. The government, he explained, though elected democratically was morphing into dictatorship. He worried about the results of this process. "All powers are in the hands of one person who exercises them in an arbitrary and despotic way, not for the purposes of bringing about the greater common good of the nation, but rather for a twisted and archaic political project: that of implanting in Venezuela a disastrous regime like the one Fidel Castro has imposed on Cuba . . ."

In Mexico , the Church has also found itself at odds with the hard-line left. Last month a group of 150 people associated with the socialist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) rushed into the cathedral in the capital on a Sunday morning as Mass was beginning. The mob overturned pews, denounced priests and chanted anti-Church slogans. The PRD claimed that it was not directly responsible. But there was no mistaking the message: Anybody not lining up in favor of collectivist militancy is against it.

These are but two examples of the growing tension between the Catholic Church and the extreme left in Latin America . In Argentina and Cuba , the Church is also stepping into the role of opposition.

It is important to note that Church leaders who are challenging the likes of Mr. Chávez are not recommending Church involvement in politics. Their understanding, in line with the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, is that the relationship between the Church and the state in Latin America is complex and there should be a clean separation. But they also know the importance of preserving freedom and pluralism.

The cases of political entanglement that we have read about most often have involved collaboration with what are called "right-wing dictatorships." But in what sense they differ from the total state control of "left-wing dictatorships" is unclear. Liberation theology may appeal to socially conscious clergy, yet it also politicizes the Church's role by blessing another form of wholesale control.

Liberation theology arose some three decades ago. The Bible teaches concern for the poor, liberation theologists said, and then went a step further: Jesus was a symbol and advocate of class warfare to expropriate from the rich on behalf of the poor.

Today liberation theology remains fashionable, and, because of intellectual confusion in Latin America, many still believe that the socialism of Mr. Chávez, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil , and even Fidel Castro, offers hope to the poor. When Mr. Chávez announces that he will "democratize" property in order to smash the rich, he can count on cheers from many religious admirers.

Sincere Church leaders, who are rightly convinced of their special mission to assist the poor, are sometimes drawn to a false hope that higher taxes, land redistribution, nationalization of industry and ever more big government programs offer a way out. This is tragic because it threatens to entangle the Church in politics, staking its reputation and the message of the Gospel on a political agenda.

At least 100 years of evidence stands contrary to the claim that a more powerful state (and that is all liberation theology really offers) is the proper means to material advance. Nothing is to be gained for anyone but the state by smashing the rich. What society needs is not expropriation but ever widening opportunities for all classes to improve their living standards.

There is only one way toward liberation, and that is a genuine liberalization of economic and political life, one that separates the state, not only from the Church, but also from the culture and the commercial life of the nation.

In my travels in the region, I detect an honest reassessment taking place. Leaders and future leaders seem to be recognizing that if the middle class is to grow, there needs to be more vibrant understanding of how the market, where people make their livelihood, actually functions. There is also a need for a deeper understanding of the moral hazards and opportunities that the political economy presents.

The Church, despite terrible blows to its credibility in recent years, is in as good a position as any institution to provide leadership and assume a teaching role in this. Pope Benedict's own writings provide a solid basis. He warns of the dangers of power and its morally corrupting effects, as well as the materially corrosive effects of socialist policies.

The Church can provide independent leadership in society. Above all else, there should be an independence from politics. Let us expand that model of independence to all sectors of society. Latin America would thereby become less vulnerable to despots, develop a thriving middle class, and secure a future of liberty and prosperity. In the role of the opposition, the Catholic Church can find its true voice as a defender of human rights and freedom.

That Which Is Not Seen

Bush announced the other day a plan to "fix" (I use that word in the most unflattering of ways, such as: "there was no beating the house in Vegas because the games were fixed") the mortgage crisis in the United States.

A key part of the plan involves freezing interest rates on mortgages that were "teaser" rates to induce people to borrow (also called by their proper name, "adjustable rate mortgages").

(deep breath)

There's a lot being written about this. A rather favorable analysis can be read here, and a rather unfavorable one can be read here.

I can't help but wonder if there's a bigger issue, however. No surprise to anyone who reads this blog, but I immediately focused on the destructive way this plan affects self-government. If people aren't responsible for taking on enormous debt loads, what's to stop them from making other bad choices? If investment banks aren't responsible for trading in securities without accounting for the inherent risks in those securities, what's to stop them from making other bad investment decisions? And more importantly, is there any crisis that the government shouldn't bail people out of?

I have always remarked that one of the great things about the US economy is that we take our punishment. Unlike the Europeans or even the Japanese - who were mired in a decade-long recession - when we over-reach, we get beaten up and knocked down quickly. And hard. But we get back up. And we're stronger for it. But maybe not anymore. Maybe we're going the way of the Japanese or the Europeans. Time will tell, but I think this bail-out is a disaster on many levels, particularly those which are not readily seen.

Legislating By Redefinition

I have been thinking about the ways special interest groups are attempting to promote their agendas of late. I believe one of the most insidious of these methods is the attempt to legislate by redefinition. I know my fellow bloggers are aware of my opinion of those who would change the definition of a word to provide a legislative shortcut to groups or individuals to spare them the tedium of going through the legislative process.

For those who are not, I believe that to create legislative shortcuts by changing the definition of a commonly accepted word is the height of irresponsibility. (i.e. Instead of asking congress to make a new law, you simply change the definition of a term in an existing law so that it now includes/excludes the group, individual, company or government agency that is affected by that law.) This creates huge problems, not the least of which is the potential to completely redefine our government and society without so much as a "by-your-leave" on the part of the people.

If the definition of a word is changed in order to gain benefits from existing legislation, then doesn't that change the definition for all existing legislation containing that word? Even if the definition change is strictly worded to be appended to only one or two existing laws, how does that affect the process of writing legislation? How could a legislator possibly craft a bill in such a way that the meaning of the terms in it could never be changed to twist the intent of the legislation to something else entirely? If our words cannot be depended upon to mean only what they meant when written, then our Constitution and all it contains becomes just so much clay to be twisted and molded according to the whims of the day.

That said, how can such an insidious practice be stopped? I propose that we ask our legislators to craft legislation requiring that when the legal definition of a word is changed,(particularly when it is changed for the sole purpose of granting a legislative shortcut) all legislation that will be affected by that change, (Yes, in some cases, that would be every piece of legislation containing that word.), must be reviewed and have that word changed to a term or phrase that means the same as the original word but that does not include the changed definition. This would preserve the intent of the original law in a way that illuminates the flaws in the practice of legislation by redefinition. It would also discourage those who wish to gain legislative shortcuts in this manner while safeguarding our founding documents from such disastrous meddling.

This may seem cumbersome, but I cannot see any other way of protecting our current system from the havoc that legislating by redefinition will cause. If we allow one word to be redefined, where will it end? Shall we redefine "marriage"? What about "adult", "man", “woman" or "family? You know Rover there is a member of the family, it's a shame he can't get health insurance through Daddy's work too. Why stop there? Let's redefine "land", "building", and "vehicle". How much trouble could be made with that?

To allow this to become an acceptable practice would invalidate our government entirely. Our current system may take a long time to make the changes certain groups would like to have, but that is not a good enough reason to undermine it in this irresponsible fashion. If, on the other hand, this is merely another attempt to subvert the will of the people, then it is clearly our duty as citizens to make such shady dealings impossible.

What We're Told and What We Can Guess

I saw an article the other day that I filed away to do some more research on. This morning I saw another news item with more of the same, so I figured I'd take a shot at it.

This was the original story that caught my eye. The Reuters report from Tuesday closes somewhat ambiguously:

Piracy off Somalia dropped briefly last year during a six-month period in which most of the south was ruled by a hardline Islamist movement. Incidents rose again since the sharia courts movement was toppled in Mogadishu at New Year.

One might first conclude that the sharia courts fell, and, whatever had been restraining the criminal element gone, all hell broke loose. But isn't it equally possible that the Islamist element, now marginalized, is raising revenue however they can? Couldn't Islamists have been the source of piracy all along? Once in power, this might not have been an effective use of time and resources. But now?

Back in August, the BBC ran this story on piracy in the area, and while not suggesting that these organizations are terrorist organizations noted that (emphasis mine):

Somali pirates are trained fighters, and often use speedboats equipped with satellite phones and Global Positioning System technology.

Trained where, the mind wonders. By whom?

Today brought another story on the topic. I was most interested in where this is happening: places like Kenya, Somalia, Nigeria, Indonesia. And of course, the article's reference to the Barbary Pirates.

While there is no open acknowledgment by the media on the nature of these groups, is history - not to mention geography and experience - enough to help us draw some conclusions?

Accepting the Truth

There's something to be said for an occasional slice of humble pie.

I've said time and again how much I dislike Michael Medved. From his position on third parties (they're bad!) to his constant shilling for the GOP, he's one of the most consistently frustrating pundits I regularly listen to (and have called on a couple of occasions).

But, you've got to give credit where it's due. Medved's recent column is great; it's a topic I find fascinating. It's worth a read, and worth remembering that even sometimes people we aren't wild about can surprise us with wonderful insight.

The Same God?

We've discussed at length in this space and elsewhere the problems with Islam - you can see a number of posts under the label Islam and more under the label Jihad. That people fail to educate themselves on the principles of that faith remains a problem; that President Bush, by his comments in the link that follows, is guilty of either ignorance or political correctness is even worse. Here's a good article by Cal Thomas that echoes some of the things that have been said on this blog and others. The truth is often an uncomfortable thing, and requires courage to reach the light of day.

A Rational Strategy for Dealing with Islam

I'm going to claim any number of reasons for not having put together a coherent position on our problems with Islam up until today. For example, my report cards as a kid routinely were fine, but remarked that "Michael needs improvement in exhibiting self-control." See, I'm clearly suffering from ADD, which I guess would make me an "early adopter" - I was even into pseudo-disorders before they become popular (look, don't send me a bunch of hate mail just because I made a joke about ADD being a pseudo-disorder; I'm in a stream of consciousness mode right now and I was just having a little fun).

Or maybe, I've been so busy with work, that I only have a couple of hours a day with which to devote myself to study on topics that interest me; I simply haven't had time , you see, to develop a coherent position on the subject. Or, as the parent of a toddler and a preschooler, there's so much racket and activity up in this house that even when I have time to devote to studies, it's so darn hard to piece together more than a couple of sentences before getting interrupted and having to rush off to broker a peace agreement.

There's a great post called "If we can't democratize Islam, and we can't destroy it, then what?" over at View from the Right - see the link to that site along our left sidebar (hat tip: Terry).

Here's the scary thing - Auster had this figured out in January 2005. If I'm an early adopter for ADD, Auster didn't adopt - he invented the solution to dealing with Islam. Smart guy. Probably has a whole mess of kids too, blowing one of my excuses out of the water.

Folks, I can't say it any more emphatically than this: read that link above. It should be required reading for every American who values his/her culture and way of life.

Moderate Muslims

I have, in the past, scoffed at the notion of such a thing as moderate Muslims. My thinking on that has been formed by what appeared to be a complete lack of condemnation of the actions of extremists, by practitioners of that faith; if indeed there were moderates, my reasoning went, why were they silent on atrocities committed in the name of their faith?

I was listening to the Michael Medved show this week and he devoted a segment to encouraging moderate Muslims. It got me to thinking about the issue some more, and I've refined some of my thinking on the matter.

Before going further, I'd disclaim that I share a slightly different perspective than someone like Dennis Prager when discussing religions: Prager asserts that it is most appropriate to judge the practitioners of a particular religion, and not the religion itself. While Prager makes a point of not criticizing the particular doctrinal aspects of a religion, I think it is appropriate to begin to shift the conversation in that direction. My blogmate Terry pointed out a post at VFR wherein Auster discusses liberalism, and how it manifests itself even in conservatives; particularly notable to me is the self-censoring that conservatives engage in on a given topic, such as criticizing another faith. Inasmuch as I reject moral relativism, I'm inclined to say that we should begin to make informed (righteous) judgments, yes, even with respect to other faiths. More on that in a bit.

I blogged a while ago on the South Korean missionaries who were taken hostage by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Thankfully, the remaining hostages were all released just the other day, see here for details. At what price their freedom comes, the outside world will never know; let us hope that the deal was not a sell-out for immediate gain at the expense of long-term success against extremism.

Especially in light of the hostage crisis, I've been reflecting on the leadership of Hamid Karzai, and to a lesser degree, that of Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq. These leaders are, in fact, living, breathing, moderate Muslims. Karzai in particular was highly critical of the taking of the Korean hostages as being unjustified. He has also taken a leadership role in trying to settle tribal differences, knowing that it is local leadership that will bring Afghanistan out of the middle ages and thus improve life for all Afghanis.

Now here comes the dilemma. As I readily admit, I am not a Koranic scholar. I have read a few books on the religion and, along with anecdotal evidence, have enough data to conclude that there are fundamental problems with Islam. While this post isn't a critique of the tenets of that faith - and perhaps I may yet provide one someday - suffice it to say that if we begin with a fairly core belief, we're immediately at odds with reason.

Muslims contend that the angel Gabriel visited their prophet through which Allah revealed the Koran to Mohammad; they claim Allah is the same God of the Jews and Christians. The Koran - the supposed word of God - permits violence, slavery and the possession of concubines; and this is a short list of the contradictions between the Koran and the Holy Bible. God is a perfect being and cannot contradict Himself: he cannot be both God and the devil; He cannot be both the Truth and a lie; He cannot be inconsistent. So, of the three monotheistic faiths, two suggest that God is one thing and the third suggests He is something quite different.

An interesting discussion remains to be had - also not the point of this post - about the compatibility of reason with major world religions. Rodney Stark wrote a wonderful book called the Victory of Reason, which I wholeheartedly recommend.

At long last, here is where I have been headed with this post: while we're engaged in a battle for our existence with a large segment of Islam, it is worth noting that there are "moderates" in that faith - something I have not done, in a candid critique of my own rhetoric. While Islamic societies have been closed to outside influences for centuries, we should encourage and be encouraged that there are these people, many in leadership roles, throughout the Muslim world. And we should engage moderates where ever we meet them, in the hopes that the Divine gift of reason may enlighten a dark part of our world.

Bush's Far-Reaching Agenda

So Bush met with the Pope and they talked about Africa, the Middle East and what he wants to do with respect to interstellar K-12 education. OK, that last one was a reach, but with a Compassionate Conservative, you never can tell, can you?

Like most sane people, I was appalled the other day when Bush announced that he wanted to spend double what we're currently spending to combat AIDS. Compulsory charity is no charity at all, but theft. As my friend Mr. Hargis has been known to say: if I were to do what the government is doing, and take your money against your will and give it to another person, I'd be put in jail. That there's little difference between the activities of crooks and Congressmen makes me pause.

Yet, here's an argument that stumped Medved, who I generally consider a pretty good debater. A caller suggested that before deadly diseases make it to America and potentially kill Americans, that we're better off preemptively fighting disease "over there." This was a clever spin on Bush's doctrine of preemption and Medved didn't have much to say. Chalk it up to being taken off guard pretty effectively.

But here's the difference. Disease - be it AIDS, TB, avian flu, whatever - can be fought if it is contracted by Americans. Suppose a rogue terrorist organization infected themselves with some super flu and brought it to the United States to infect others. Not a whole lot, I suppose, that could be done to stop that, yet medical treatments remain that could fight such bugs. If terrorists decide to ram planes into buildings, shoot up malls, blow up airports, or just plain drive their SUVs into crowded streets, there's not a whole lot of opportunity to fight back; once the act is done, it's done, and we're talking about merely putting up yellow police tape and preventing the next attack. As that ambulance chaser showed us, biological terrorism - or merely the resurgence of third world disease - may pose a threat to Americans and national security. However, using that analogy that stumped Medved is a little intellectually dishonest.

But I digress.

Here's what we all have to keep in mind come primary season: there's conservatives, and then there's everyone else. As Bush has showed us, there's precious little difference between a big government "conservative" and a Scoop Jackson Democrat (See: Rudy Giuliani).

Great Gas Out, a closer look...

Ladies and Gentlemen, I asked someone familiar to us all to grace us with a reply to the recent email message I received entitled: "Don't Pump Gas on May 15th," the text of which you may have via a little interpolation, or, if you prefer, at your request. Mr. Hargis has indeed honored my request with his latest Guest Contribution to this forum. So I withhold from you no longer, and without further ado, Mr. Hargis:

There was an email fwd travelling around the internet exhorting Americans to stay away from the gas pumps on 15 May 2007 in an effort to stick it to Big Oil and the Middle Eastern oil industry. Some questionable numbers were used to show that such a boycott would rob those greedheads of a little over $2 billion. Seems like a good idea, right? Let's look at it a little closer, shall we?

If I see a house for sale and I don't buy it, have I taken anything from the owners? The correct answer is no. If I spend $100 per week on groceries at Save-A-Lot, that doesn't deplete Kroger's bank account at all. Millions of people don't buy Chevrolet Corvettes for all kinds of reasons. The effect is the same as if they'd boycotted them, yet Chevrolet still sells every 'Vette they make. See where I'm going? Not buying a thing isn't the same as taking something away from the seller.

I will be the first to admit that $2 billion is a big chunk of change...but not compared to $500 billion. I don't know what the total yearly revenues of the oil industry amount to, but I'm guessing it's closer to the latter than the former, and probably a lot higher. Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of that $2 billion goes to the oil companies, say 25 cents per gallon. It may even be less than that considering the millions of people involved in drilling, transporting, refining, etc., over which all that money is spread. $2 billion dollars divided by $3 per gallon equals about 670,000,000 gallons of gas. Multiply that by 25 cents and you get $167,500,000. A lot of money, but a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what is spent on the world's oil market. So if 73,000,000 Americans (the email's number) refused to buy gas for one day, the only people who would notice would be those 73,000,000 Americans. It isn't as though the gas won't get sold: Every gallon of gas you don't buy is a gallon freed up for someone else. By the way, if my figure of 25 cents doesn't seem right, feel free to use your own figure.

So, the point is that if you want to stay away from the gas pumps for a day as a symbolic gesture, fine. But don't fool yourself into thinking that your action is going to force some oil company executive to have to fire his maid and start cleaning his own swimming pool. The world oil market is simply too big for you, or even 73,000,000 of you to do that.

-Mike Hargis

On the Concept of Term Limits - No. II

To the Citizens of the United States of America:

We have begun to address the issue of term limits, and in our first installment committed to show that term limits conflict with Liberty; that they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; that they exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and that they create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. We will prove the above with an understanding of human nature and that most effective teacher, experience, and demonstrate that term-limits are incompatible with the concepts of Americanism and Federalism.

On Liberty
How does one endeavor to define Liberty? The most appropriate definition must include that freedom to both act and think as one wishes, unrestrained by an outside force; Liberty is that state of being that mankind reaches when free to physically act as one wants, but also to think and exercise one's will without restraint.

Yet there is a qualifier. Liberty becomes license when one acts in contravention to the laws of Nature or Nature's God. License is the abuse of freedom, the difference being that license speaks more toward permission, or leave to do whatever one pleases, even if contrary to law or accepted norms.

For such a complex object, our attention turns to the Father of American Education, Federalist Noah Webster. Says he:

"LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.

4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.

5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.

6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.
Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.

7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.

8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.

9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.

10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.

To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.

To set at liberty, to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.

To be at liberty, to be free from restraint.

Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals." (Italicized emphasis mine. Source: Webster's 1828 Dictionary at http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=liberty)

For our purposes, it is essential to focus in on Webster's third meaning of Liberty, and one particular phrase in specific: "A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression."

Term Limits Destroy Civil Liberty
Term-limits are in substance inherently opposed to Liberty. By definition, a term limit provides a statutory mechanism by which a candidate is prohibited from seeking office. The criteria for prohibition is that he or she has already served in such a capacity for a defined period of time.

The best example for refuting the foolish nature of term limits is one from our own history. Franklin Roosevelt was the last President to serve more than two terms, and largely the public returned President Roosevelt to office to maintain a consistent course in prosecuting the war against the Axis in the second World War. In grave matters such as war and national security, a citizenry would properly choose to reelect the executive who is best equipped to chart a course to peace; he or she that understands the conflict and can apply every God-granted ability and skill to the successful completion of hostilities.

It is pure conjecture to theorize on how differently WWII might have ended had the public not been able to return FDR to office four times. However, our current struggle against terrorism and Islamofascism may yet show us the error of our ways. The 2008 Presidential election may see a victor who applies an entirely different approach to the War on Terror. It remains to be seen - God Bless and keep America safe! - how such a change will affect our standing in the world and influence the fortunes of this Republic or Her enemies.

Necessary or Expedient for the Public?
This is the grave question we must ask ourselves with respect to restricting Liberty - and term limits are no exception. Upon examination, no reasonable person can answer in the affirmative with respect to the subject at hand. Some artful dissenters might offer as an example a long-tenured Senator or Representative; and yet, such an example fails to invalidate the rule. For the liberty to choose one's representatives in a republic goes both ways. Good representatives and bad may both be chosen, or not. Such circumstances, as they are, offer no valid evidence that term limits are either necessary or expedient for the public.

A system such as ours was designed without term limits because our Founders knew the value that a self-governing citizenry places on Liberty in choosing our governors.

On the Concept of Term Limits - No. I

To the Citizens of the United States of America:

It is evident upon no more than a cursory inspection, that the citizenry in general is supportive of the concept of term limits for Congress and the office of President of the United States. The former is a regular topic of conversation among people, on radio talk shows, and on political discussion boards of every persuasion; the latter, an accepted Amendment to our Constitution. In either case, such sentiment, however well-intentioned, is notable for its fallaciousness and is indicative of an incompletion of thought; furthermore, our tradition of Americanism and Federalism is directly opposed to the convention of term limits, a point we will prove in the course of the following essays. A brief history of term limits is warranted as a beginning.

Presidential Term Limits
Early Presidents adhered to a tradition of two terms until after the Civil War. According to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia: "Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in office after serving from 1869 to 1877, but his party failed to nominate him. Theodore Roosevelt, who served from 1901 to 1909, sought to be elected in 1912 (non-consecutively) for a second time—he had succeeded to the presidency on William McKinley's assassination and already been elected in 1904 to a full term himself—but he lost to Woodrow Wilson. In 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the first person to be elected President three times, with supporters citing the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, he won a fourth term, but died in office the following year." (1)

Presidential term limits were instituted with the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, proposed in Congress in 1947 and ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951. The rationale at the time appears to have been the concern that one person could assume the position of an almost "benevolent dictator", without Constitutional limits to Presidential terms.

Such sentiment, however, assumes that human nature itself changes, and there occurs a complete and abject failure on the part of the citizenry. Such a scenario - that a President would assume dictatorial powers - is predicated upon either a most evil conspiracy or minimally the implicit approval of the other branches of government, both the Legislative and Judiciary. As each guards with extreme jealousy its Constitutionally-mandated sphere of power (and indeed experience would show that each branch seeks where possible to extend its influence beyond such limits), human nature therefore, to say nothing of a desire to uphold the Constitution, provides a sufficient guarantee that no one man could rise to such a station in a federal representative republic. But, if one can conjure up such a scenario - despite how chimerical it may seem - one still fails to account for the citizenry, who vote for the office every four years and exercise our Second Amendment Rights. Such a people, enamored with Liberty as we are, as a general rule can sense a charlatan when one comes before us, and even if elected, would not last in office for long. The number of one-term Presidents is evidence of the discernment of the American people: again, as a general rule, when a poor administrator comes along, his tenure in office is not long. Any discerning mind can propose exceptions to the rule, yet acknowledge that the existence of exceptions fails to invalidate the accepted generalization.

If such was the reasoning at the time - that one man might become de facto President for life, and therefore term-limits are necessary - upon what basis is it acceptable today that an error, merely because it has been endured for an extended period of time, should not be rectified? It is said that a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right. We trust that with inspection, a wise and energetic citizenry will cast aside superficial appearances.

Congressional Term Limits
Term limits, with respect to Congress, are more and more commonly a topic for discussion among supposedly thinking persons. Such a sentiment, again though well-intentioned, is folly born of experience and frustration at an unchanging force: I speak again of human nature.

When such a discussion comes up, the proponent invariably says: “Look at the Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy. He is Senator for life! How can this be, that he returns to office every election, when his moral character is so poor and his ideas so remarkably socialistic in nature?”

Other supporters of term limits focus on the corruption of Congress – rather than that body's actual or perceived ignorance – as the effect of unlimited public service. This argument assigns guilt to the system for the sins of public servants. This most common theme of proponents of term limits is summarized thus: term-limited public servants will somehow create legislators who are more upright, moral, and not prone to corruption. They will be insulated from the influence of lobbyists and faithful to the concerns of their constituents.

A Comprehensive Response to Correct Inaccurate Thinking
We will endeavor to show that term-limits in every form are poor policy. Term-limits conflict with Liberty; they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; term-limits exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and term-limits create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. All of these reasons will be proven through a review of experience and an understanding of human nature, rendering term-limits incompatible with the tenets of Americanism and Federalism.

Footnotes: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Terms Limits a Well-Intentioned Nonsense

An idea that gets a lot of play is that of term limits for elected officials.

I hear it on talk radio a lot. You can see it on just about any discussion group or message board. When people really start quantifying the number of things wrong with our government, invariably someone will volunteer that maybe the solution is term-limits.

If you're in agreement with this idea, then I've hit my target audience perfectly, and I'll only require a little of your time. Sit back, relax, and let me share my views on the subject. You see, I think people who reflexively offer term limits as the solution aren't thinking.

Once you get beyond the rosy warm feeling you get when you think about Ted Kennedy working in the private sector, things don't hold up to any sort of deep examination. Term limits got their start thanks to none other than the Republican party. Allow me to go back, way back in time.

After General Washington served, there was a long-standing practice, really a precedent, that no President served longer than two terms. The founders considered the topic, but concluded that the specter - one man becoming like a king - was too chimerical to be taken seriously, and too insulting to the wisdom and energy of the American people.

And so it went until FDR. Unable to beat him, the GOP instituted Presidential term limits, and so we have the phenomenon of modern Presidencies. Presidents who serve two terms always have more productive and successful first terms. Returned to office for their stellar service, their second term becomes a battle as Congress generally asserts itself and becomes some degree of impediment to the President's agenda. Our current President has been impeded by Democrat enemies, the press, and leaky sources in his own administration, although this is not unique relative to other Presidents. Reagan had Iran-Contra in his second term, and low approval ratings. Clinton was impeached, although this was his own doing; I'm not sure that more needs to be said of Clinton. This creates an impression - a wrong one, I might add - that second terms are "lame duck" because that's just the way it is.

The dynamic between the Executive and the Legislative is the reason, not because second terms are inherently hamstrung. The unintended consequence of term limits is that the right and proper balance of power shifts - imperceptibly - creating this phenomenon. An energetic and active Executive is necessary for things as serious as the defense of the nation and as mundane as the proper functioning of the federal government.

Beyond the practical problem of term limits, there's a fundamental philosophical issue with it, namely: an infringement on the people's Liberty. Suppose there is a long and protracted war, much like the one we face against Islamic terror. Suppose again that the incumbent President was prosecuting this war with great success, such that our country didn't fear being attacked as much as right after the beginning of the conflict. Because of the term limit, that President will be asked to leave after his second term, thankyouverymuch, and on-the-job training begins for the new President. The People's right to elect whom they wish has been infringed.

Since Congress won't vote themselves term limits, there's an improper balance between the branches. Furthermore, experience has shown that congressional term limits are a bad idea too. I'll look into it further, but my recollection is that Nebraska has these in its Constitution (see: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-03282006-632564.html), and faces the unique challenge of a majority of freshmen legislators, given its unicameral legislature.

True to my pen-name, I think that Presidential term limits should be abolished; this should be a part of any good and proper Federalist platform. So as not to appear to be a Bush apologist, I'd even suggest waiting until after he leaves office, or excluding him from eligibility.

I'll close with a suggestion to anyone who still thinks term limits would be a good idea: term limits exist today. It's called voting for someone else. Senator Kennedy, after all, hasn't suspended elections and named himself "Senator for Life." That the people of Massachusetts keep electing him is their choice, or fault, depending on how you look at it.

Your obedient and faithful servant,
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist

Self-Government

What first must be acknowledged is that the form of government we have is indeed a republic. That it is not as pure a republic as when it was created is true, problematic, and a point for further discussion. However, I stress again that our nation is not a democracy, thank the Lord! Ancient Athens was a democracy, and the experience of democracies throughout history has been the inevitable rule by the mob. As a point of differentiation, in our Republic, we elect leaders who run on platforms that we agree with. In Athens, citizens voted on whether or not to build ships, invade Sicily, and so forth.

We are, then, properly defined, a federal representative republic. Here I will address the latent objection that we're no longer purely a republic, and have indeed adopted characteristics both of a democracy and of socialism. That we have adopted democratic tendencies (such as the direct election of Senators and our seemingly national obsession with opinion polls) is obvious. That we have also adopted socialistic tendencies is true (witness government control and interference in education, health care, and retirement savings, off the top of my head as examples); that this is a function of the type of citizens we have is the irrefutable cause, unfortunately.

Our system was built for a self-governing people, and somehow, we've become less and less self-governing over time. Theories abound, but the nature of government is to expand and consolidate power. If the people, and the States as well, are willing to turn over those things that are properly their domain, the federal government will be more than happy to assume responsibility for these things. Is the genie out of the proverbial bottle? Perhaps. However, there is a solution: a return to American Federalism.

Ever heard of the analogy of cooking a frog? If you boil the water and throw the frog into the pot, he'll jump right out, and you'll have a mess on your hands. But put that frog into a cool pot of water, and slowly heat it up, and before you know it, your frog has been cooked.

Change is like that. Make it too sudden, too abrupt, and it'll never take. But slowly, gradually, ease people into the concepts that we've somehow forgotten, and watch what happens.

Want an example? Take the Department of Education (please). If this bureaucratic nightmare was eliminated, and the states given the authority, formerly vested at the federal level, to educate their residents in the manner that they best saw fit, that's not a drastic change. It's merely a shifting of responsibility. Locally, nothing would really change, except where taxes were before federal, they would now be local, and where the educational dollars are spent would also have no federal control to it.

Taken a step further, states could decide if the Capitol best knew how to allocate resources for their residents, or would the counties be better equipped? As with many areas I generally refer to as domestic, the more local control gets, the less money gets spent on staffing large departments, and the more it ends up used by the beneficiary, in this case, the student.

Taken another step further, imagine states competing for human capital - taxpayers like you and me - by offering the most competitive products and services at the lowest cost (taxes) possible. Do you think that companies would want to relocate to a state that is run like a business or more like modern-day France?

Here's my theory on self-government, and as it is mine, forgive me if I think it to be quite good. There are some self-governing people out there today. A lot of them are small business owners, for example. Anyone who homeschools their kids is without a doubt self-governing. To these folks, an American Federalist approach to government is going to be met with a "where do I sign up?" attitude.

There's some other folks - most numerous of all the groups - who will have the aptitude and ability to be self-governing, but might need a little help seeing that. These folks might initially bristle at the idea that someone is re-arranging things like where educational dollars come from, but they're reasonable enough and when they see the beauty of the system as it was meant to be, they'll get on board.

A smaller group - and for argument's sake, let's call them liberals, shall we? - will resist this with their dying breath. Why? Because to a real liberal, a true leftist, the State is everything (except, with the exception of issues of morality; rightly defined as secularism). Assuming that people can take care of themselves and each other better than the government is just dangerous thinking to leftists.

And the last group are the folks who just have lost all instinct of self-preservation. This is the kind of person who wouldn't evacuate the hurricane path or heed tornado warnings because they wouldn't want to miss their government check when it arrives.

So, where am I going with this? Simply: self-government is a necessary component to the continued existence of a republic. If we lose that instinct, the form must change. If the form changes, Liberty herself is in danger. And lastly, through education and deliberate mechanisms, we can foster and develop the instinct of self-government in just about everyone. For those we can't, they can rely on the love and care of their fellow man, just as people have since the beginning of time.

A republic we are and a republic we must always remain; the fate of millions yet unborn, the Liberty of humankind, depends on it.

Natural Law

I made a passing reference to Natural Law the other day, and I wanted to come back to this for a discussion. Natural Law states that certain things are as they are, simply because that is how they are. In English and American tradition, Natural Law expresses that rights are inherent, and come from the Creator. This isn't a subject open for debate. Our Founders, who declared independence, created our Constitution, and formed this system of government, all drew on Natural Law philosophers in the early years of this Republic.

Aware of it or not, most Americans ascribe to the philosophy of Natural Law, and to prove it, here's a test. Q: Do most people think slavery is good or bad? Now, there are probably a few despotic regimes that would accept human slavery, but most of the human race acknowledges the evil of such an institution. But why? Most people would just say that it is wrong. But, again, why?

Natural Law supposes that people have a right to their person; and that this right comes from God. This right existed before there were governments, and that right expressed in a distinctly American way is found in our premier founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

Furthermore, if a person has a right to their person - and this right cannot be usurped - a person also has a right to the products of their person; in other words, the fruits of their labor. The fruits of one's labor are rightly called property, and this, too, cannot be taken from someone justly (property may be given, and this is called charity).

Life, liberty, property. These three things are sacrosanct. In our American tradition, we hold these truths to be self-evident - to require no explanation - that all men... well, let's just go to the text, shall we?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This is the beginning of understanding what we call American Federalism. That the government we have today bears less and less resemblance to the government we had is a result of a jaded and cynical citizenry, who have been mis-instructed in the principles of republican government and falsely convinced that the stewards they have elected are acting in the interest of the people within the bounds of the Constitution.

I am sublimely confident that as the national discussion becomes one of such things - Americanism, Federalism, Natural Law, the rights of man, and the proper role of self-government - we will witness a return to the principles upon which this Republic was founded.

Update: I'm also looking forward to inviting my fellow contributors to the blog, hopefully soon. I can't wait for them to begin their contributions to this space.

I remain, your obedient and faithful servant,
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

Will Ferrell said this in the 2001 comedy "Zoolander." For those of you not in the know, Will was playing a fashion mogul plotting against the PM of Malaysia (stay with me). Ben Stiller was this airheaded male model who had multiple "looks" - except they were the same pout every time. An exasperated Will finally loses it at the end, shouting at the people around him, did they not realize this? And that, yes, he felt like he was taking crazy pills.

Funny in Zoolander. Not so funny with regard to the flap over the price of gas, in the event you're feeling like I am, the last sane person in a world gone mad.

It seems that both Democrats and Republicans are both falling all over themselves to denounce something as American as... making a profit. Yes, imagine that! So the chorus in Washington (did I mention this is an election year?) is that Big Oil is bad, they're apparently somehow "gouging" people, and that Congress must do something about it. I would respectfully ask that if they must do something, it might be 1) take a long vacation, 2) consider spinal-implant surgery, or 3) take a class in economics.

Funny thing about the price of oil - it's awfully hard to manipulate it. Years ago OPEC nations decided to collude on the price of oil, in an attempt to maximize profits. To do so, they had to agree on production quotas - simply put, hold supply down, and even unchanged demand will cause prices to rise. Problem was, with increasing prices per barrel, producers cheated and produced more barrels (thinking they were the only ones doing that). With supply increasing, prices naturally came down, despite the cartel's best efforts.

Here's the deal. Gas prices are related to oil prices. Oil prices are determined by global supply and global demand. As global demand increases (think China and India), oil prices are going to go up. So will gas prices.

But so will production. Exxon made billions in profit last year, but also invested billions in exploration and R&D. They're in the business of finding, refining and selling oil products. That they're really good at it is no reason to get hysterical, and all of those spinally-challenged mouthpieces in Washington ought to be ashamed of themselves. That they think so little of the American people ought to be reason enough to throw the bums out.

That this is also coming from Republicans is another reason why I no longer identify myself as such. To anyone who might agree with what I'm saying, consider defining yourself thusly: I am a conservative. Say it with me. There, doesn't that feel better?