Should government be in the business of dictating morals?

The idea of personal liberty is a foreign concept for the majority of Americans on the left and right. The only difference between the two is the direction and the degree that their respective policies use coercion and "laws" to get the chosen agenda's across. The talk on the left of a forced national healthcare system (their calling it insurance now) is one example. Or, the rights "War on Drugs", started by Sean Hannity's messiah Ronald Reagan, is another.

The original intent of the Constitutional Republic,not a democracy (sorry high school civics teachers) in the United States was to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). Different people have vastly different ideas on what this right entails. They are different to the extent that each individual has their own opinion on what is moral. So long as this opinion does not interfere with anyone else's life, liberty, or property, no outsiders (politicians included) have a right to dictate whether that person is right or wrong, thru laws or any other means. Included in the right to property are private documents, something President's Bush and Obama forgot (or never knew). Bush had his "patriot act" and Obama now has the personal health records of every American, in a "secure" database of course. When will the "R's" and "D's" learn that the citizens are not to be taken advantage of, even if they claim its for the common good?

This is where a free society trumps any sort of coercive society, because in a free society each individual chooses what he/she views as proper for themselves. There is no need for a person in Washington D.C. to tell them what is good or bad. Decisions have consequences, and in a free society the individual has a right to learn from those consequences. Until American's realize the true nature of a free society we are doomed to repeat the cyclical republican/democrat view of how this nation should be i.e. imposing morality on others.

E-Schools Becoming A Thorn In The Teachers Union Side

It is no mystery to most American's that the school system in America has been steadily declining for decades. Year after year the polls are released showing America drop a few more spots on the world education rankings. These annual drops occur while school districts across America perpetually increase funding for schools. Falsely believing that more money equals better results.

A growing trend to address the faltering schools is the new online charter school concept. Similar to the current online degree programs used for higher education. Only catered toward younger students. Click on this posts title to read the recent Wall Street Journal article on the topic.

Currently the problems facing the U.S. education system derive from the lack of competition facing public schools. There is a private school alternative, but citizens are forced to pay for the public school through property taxes, regardless of if one sends their children to private school. In many areas the public school cost per student is actually higher than the private school cost per student. Why will politicians not allow parents to deduct the cost of private school, or at least offer a voucher program that pays the equivalent of the public per student cost to parents who choose the private school route?

The teacher's unions are another obstacle to true education reform. Why are public school teachers near impossible to fire if they consistently have a poor teaching record? Private schools can not afford to keep sub-par teachers on staff. They will lose customers. Yet, the public school system seems to think if they keep a sub-par teacher on staff long enough an epiphany will occur, turning that teacher into the Tiger Woods of teaching.

This is where the online charter schools come in. They are low cost, have a proven track record of better education, and unions have yet to infiltrate them. This competition is dynamic and efficient. The brick and mortar school can not reach the number of students an online school can. Add in the technological advances and one can see a new alternative to the faltering school system in America. The entrepreneur will find a way to fill any demand, regardless of the regulation and political maze that is put in his way.

Unintended Consequences of a New Government Policy

In the news today is an article about the possibility of Microsoft moving the bulk of its labor force over-seas as a result of President Obama's new initiative against corporate overseas tax havens (click post title to see the article). As the article points out, this is not surprising for those of us who understand how expensive it already is to run a business in the United States. Now President Obama is going to make it even harder for a company to be profitable in hopes of raising revenue to support his plethora of "political pet projects." 

The question a logical person would pose is how much longer this foolhardy idea of continuously raising taxes, without addressing any of the spending issues, will continue. The federal government is already in debt $11 trillion, mostly from printing new money to cover the spending habits of our benevolent politicians. Most Americans, myself included, can not even fathom how much money that really is. (As I recall Glenn Beck did a good job of showing the enormous amount of money the federal government spends.) Eventually there will be a point where the economy can no longer hold up the huge bureaucratic spending load our politicians insist on exponentially increasing. Atlas will shrug its just a question of when. 

One can already see the beginnings of a corporate exodus. Globalization is forcing companies to remain competitive in what prices they charge for products. With the regulations, mandates, tax rates, etc that the federal government forces on these companies there is no possible way for a company to be profitable without outsourcing some portion of the business overseas. Even Apple Inc. attempted to manufacture the iPod in America. Then reality stuck home. When will our benevolent bureaucrats realize they are the ones responsible for companies moving overseas? People like to blame to companies, but it is simply not true. Its cheaper to make the product overseas and ship it across the Pacific Ocean then it is to manufacture it here at home.

These tax hikes ultimately hurt the American people because as more manufacturing is outsourced the domestic manufacturing slowing diminishes. This is what happened to the steel industry, the car industry, the electronic industry, and the list goes on. America use to be a self sufficient country that exported the excess goods that it produced. Now the United States has become a debtor nation because it can no longer produce enough at a competitive level, so it must buy from abroad to fill the demand. Until the government allows companies to be profitable again, through deregulation, decreasing the taxes, cutting spending, and embracing the benefits of a free market, we will continue to see the once bountiful U.S. economy outsourced and moved off-shore.

Government Security of Private Data

 UPDATE: Here is the pdf of the leaked nuclear sites in America. (Thank you to lewrockwell.com for informing me of the leak and the pdf.)

With the current push by the Obama administration for the federal government to enter into the health insurance industry, the ability of the federal government to protect private records has become a topic of concern. Given the past track record of numerous government agencies losing veteran records, USDA records, and student records, among other leaks, the task of protecting health records will need to be addressed. 

 

What many citizens do not realize is the fact that Obama's "Bailout Bill" gives the federal government authority to create a computerized database of every citizens health records. Now some people would say that is not such a bad idea. Doctor's need the ability to efficiently transfer patients records from one office to the other. What better way than for the government to be the one to provide that service? There is one problem, there is not a way for citizens who value their privacy to opt out of the database. 

 

For a person who believes in freedom and liberty the issue here is not the fact that computerized databases are good or bad. The issue is whether, in a country that values individual freedom, the federal government should be forcing people into a national database of any sort, medical or otherwise. Is one really free when a government can force citizens to take part in activities against their will? A bigger question is whether this act by the Congress is even constitutional?

 

Many doctors have already taken the step and adopted an electronic database for their patients medical records. There is no doubt that such a database to much more customer friendly and efficient. So what is wrong with the government doing the same thing that the private medical industry has already adopted? The answer is choice. 

 

In a centralized database a patient has no redress of grievances for the accidental release of their medical records. They can sue all they want. The fact remains that their records, and other patient's who are now worried, are still in that database. Still with the organization that was previously careless as it pertains to private records. 

 

With a system where each doctor or group of doctors each have their own seperate database the redress of grievances is simple. The patient removes their records from the irresponsible doctor and moves them to another, more reputable, doctor. If there are any complications with the previous doctor refusing to delete any records, the legal system can take care of it through a lawsuit. 

 

A free people need choices in their lives. Not every individual has the same needs as others, so there is no one size fits all plan that will work for a country the size of the United States. With choices a person can go to the one that best suits their individual needs, as small or as large as they may be. With a centralized database one can only hope that government will change its security of private records. With past precedent to go by that is not likely to happen.

Hyperinflation in America? Naw, can't happen.

How could the U.S. government fall into the economic fallacy that a country can simply print its way out of any problem? In a traditional banking system there are borrowers and savers. The bank acts as the middle-man that facilitates transactions between the two. To attract new capital the bank offers a savings rate that is given to anyone who stores their excess money with that particular bank. In turn, the bank then lends out that saved capital to the borrowers, with a slightly higher interest rate to cover its own expenses and make a small profit.  Not exactly rocket science. Please note though, a traditional bank can only lend out as much money as it can attract from savers on the open and free market. The minute a bank starts acting irrational with other people’s money those individuals will withdraw their funds and move to a more reputable bank, or risk losing it. Now let’s throw in the Federal Reserve’s form of moral hazard.

Under the pretense of “stimulating economic growth” the Federal Reserve allows banks to legally practice what is known as fractional reserve banking. With this practice a bank is given a reserve ratio on which it can lend on. For example, let’s say a bank is allowed a reserve ratio of 10:1, and has $100 in reserve (saved). Legally that bank can then lend out $900 on the original $100.  This newly created $900 is then sent out into the world, where it can, in due time, also be saved and thus create even more new money. A legalized triangle scheme if you will. So one can see how inflationary this practice really is. This practice is very lucrative for the banks involved. Talk about a money tree, these banks are literally creating money out of thin air, and profiting from it legally. How does this practice affect the banks when they no longer have to attract savers through good banking practices? 

Then I read this article which reveals a trend that can only lead to economic suicide. Right now for every $1.00 in reserve the lending bank can then issue $202.00 of new money to borrowers. (Note: During the “Roaring Twenties” the reserve ratio was around 12:1 at its peek.) This new money is created because the Federal Reserve controls the reserve ratio allowed at each bank. Throw in the artificially low interest rates, which the Fed also manipulates, and this crisis, as well as previous recessions are understandable. 

Artificially low interest rates make money cheaper to borrow, so basic economics tells us that demand will subsequently increase. This only exacerbates the fractional reserve issue. This new money then trickles into every segment of the economy, from real estate, to small business; it even serves to artificially inflate the stock market i.e. what is occurring now with the help of the stimulus money. So until this new money, which has (or did until the bust occured) created an artificial supply of goods to match the increased artificial demand for goods, is liquidated and removed, we can expect to continue down the current path toward hyperinflation. 

But hyperinflation can not happen in America ... U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said so. I'm not holding my breath.

Paradox of Change

The mantra of change has swept this nation. Terrorist threats are imminent, we need change. People can not afford health-care and other necessities, we need change. The future of the US economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff, we need change. Houses are being foreclosed on, we need change. These, and other, calls for change are far from original. Our own U.S. Constitution has lived its more than 200 year existence with constant change, be it from the legislative, executive, or judicial branches.

 

Logically, any type of change has one of two consequences, a positive change, or a negative change. If there is no change is that a consequence? Anyway, this logic of change seems to slip past our elected officials in Washington D.C. How can an elected official voting for the good of the people ever be wrong? Especially given that the unwritten norm in congress is to do something, anything, regardless of the long term effects, to appear competent and up to the task. When was the last time you heard one admitt they made a mistake, other than for a sex scandal? They forget that individual liberties are trampled on, private businesses intruded upon, property rights thrown out the window, and the Constitution left in shreds on the Capitol steps.

 

It seems the vote itself is what matters, not the consequences resulting from that vote. These officials constantly take legislative steps further intruding into our personal lives under the pretense that only they know how we, the citizen, can best live our lives. Yet, not once do they stop to ponder that maybe they are wrong. Maybe all this change they are pushing is in the wrong direction. Perhaps the unrestrained belief that a small group of individuals in Washington know what is best for the fifty states and 300 million United States citizens is tragically flawed. What if the answer to discrimination and other social issues is not more regulation, rather more individual liberty? What if government intrusion into business operations, not capitalism itself, is what ails the American economy? What if property rights were actually protected and not altered at the whim of some bureaucrat? What if our elected officials actually believed in the U.S. Constitution every one of them swore an oath to uphold?

 

The problems we face today are a compilation of how the U.S. system of government has evolved through time. Changing or altering a system of government that worked for most of this nations history will not fix the problems we face. Rather, it is the fact that our "political others" felt the need to change the constitution to fit their agenda that has caused the problems. The usurpation of power from the states by the federal government has cut-off our federalist branches. The abuse of our Constitutional Republic has caused our once deep roots to wither. It is time for a new rain to fall, new leaves to grow, time to sow new fields. Cultivate America back to her former and original splendor through education of the next generation.