5 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

265 weeks ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Thomas J. DiLorenzo ::... · 0 replies · +2 points

"Ten years after the publication of Primeaux's book, at least one state-California-is transforming its electric utility industry "from a monopoly controlled by a handful of publicly held utilities to an open market."

Any chance this article could be revised and updated to address the California transformation to an "open market"?

425 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - What is a Right? · 0 replies · +1 points

You seem to think that recognizing the accomplishment of the creation of the Constitution, and the liberty it creates, means that we all want to go back to that time and live. Nonsense.

We respect the US founders for their huge leap in the concept of government. For the first time, government was seen as being a necessary evil and the Constitution was a document which, instead of listing all the things people had to do, or could not do, it explicitly stated the powers of the government and (more importantly) the restrictions on its power.

This limitation of power and the freedom it gave to the people created the environment in which the progress beyond "wooden teeth, candle-light, leeches and slavery" was made.

We "rugged individualists" don't want a free ride where we don't have to pay for anything. We understand and expect to have to pay for the things that we get. However, we also want government to stay out of our way and stop taking the fruits of our labor for their pet projects.

It's not the "yellowed copy of the Constitution" that we regard so highly. It's the liberty it enshrines. And that liberty is as important, if not more so, today as it was in 1790.

425 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - What is a Right? · 0 replies · +1 points

No, the contradiction you see is in your premise: "and not subject to government oversight." The US government and the Constitution WAS setup to oversee (i.e. protect) people's rights from infringement by others. However, what Napolitano is pointing out is that our government was setup on the premise that these rights are not GIVEN by government. This was made explicit by the founders because they wanted these rights to transcend government, to therefore be unassailable by government.

As far as the jury, it was setup to be the determiner of unlawful action so that people couldn't be judged by representatives of the government itself.

425 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - What is a Right? · 0 replies · +1 points

I'll disagree and say that being "well-connected" does not remove your right to petition the government or advocate for particular policies. However, the primary method to "restore a Constitutional framework" is to begin to eliminate the Federal government of its power and, as intended, place that authority on the states. By removing the option for the Federal government to give such power and money to some people or the threat of regulations and restrictions on others, there would be little need for well-connected people or corporations to lobby Washington politicians for their favor.

I've said for a long time, making more regulations about lobbying won't do reduce the practice. Only by eliminating the power to grant the favors that those lobbyists are seeking will get rid of them.

To me, the first baby steps in that direction is to increase the transparency of government. Passing bills that make Congress:

- vote on one topic at a time
- read the bills they vote to enact (signed affidavit)
- write all criminally punishable laws (no more incriminating regulations by FCC, FDA, FAA, FTC, SEC, etc, etc)
- post the final version of the bills longer (28 days for non-emergencies, 7 days for emergencies)
- name the clause in the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to do whatever they are trying to pass

I believe that by pushing these simple transparency policies, we can begin to reassert the authority of the Constitution and reclaim the federalism of the Federal government.

425 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - What is a Right? · 0 replies · +1 points

Anything which requires effort on someone else's part to produce cannot be considered a natural right. Thus, food, clothing, shelter, health care, cannot be rights unless the government decides to simply decree it.