On Health Care Reform...

While I firmly believe that every individual should have access to some sort of health care, I certainly do not (nor will I ever) vest my faith in the governmental prescription of such.


On a fundamental level, there is an inherent contradiction in passing a federal health care bill. There exists no provision of the Constitution calling for the required coverage of its citizenry. Therefore, the passage of the Health Care Reform Bill violates the very document those "yes-voters" vowed to uphold.

Many of those in favor of this bill lay their political priorities on a moral basis. Morality certainly has a place in society, but unfortunately, federal legislature is not one. And furthermore, isn't the forced imposition of morality, by nature, immoral? Maybe it is our duty as human beings to provide care for those unable to provide care for themselves; however, coercing charity is certainly comparable to ignoring the needy all together.

On another level, many believe passing health care reform represents that government now cares. Let me be clear: government officials do not care about anything beyond being re-elected. To support health care is one thing. Of course everyone should be guaranteed access to health care. Health insurance is an entirely different discussion.

Insurance, by definition, measures risk. It is a bet that both party and insurer contractually enter, each understanding that a loss for one equals a gain for another. An insurance company bets that, for example, you will remain healthy, while you bet that you will fall ill. If you fall ill, you win and the insurance company loses. Your bet has paid off, and by preempting your illness, you have successfully measured the risk against becoming sick.

Lets look at this from another angle: life insurance. When purchasing life insurance, you bet that you will die before your premiums have paid for the face amount. The insurance company, on the other hand, looks at your medical records and enters the contract based on the bet that you will live longer (and therefore pay more) than your policy's face value. The principles of all insurance contracts are the same; in any arena, purchasing insurance is a choice, both on part of the insurer and the insured.

Say, then, that the House was voting on the passage of life insurance reforms. Would they have reached the same conclusion - that life insurance is a right, and not a privilege? Doubtful, especially considering that life insurance cannot be confused with something as precious as health care.

The health insurance industry is now being held sway to the federal government. Those in Washington can now interfere in the private sector, dictating that health insurance companies must provide care to all - regardless of preexisting conditions and changes in occupation.

If government cared about its citizens, it would instead focus on actual health care reform.

And finally, even if you disagree with what I above argued, you cannot contest the fact that government simply cannot pay for this bill. With already soaring (and constantly increasing) deficit spending, another trillion dollar bill is simply irresponsible. To anyone in favor of such reforms, remember that it is our pockets that will be suffering in the end.

If there is any bright side to the passage of the reform bill, then I only look to the words of my father when he so poignantly stated that spending a trillion dollars on (attempting) to help people is better than spending a trillion dollars on killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fair enough, but if you ask me, eliminating both sources of such spending is the best solution to maintaining freedom in America.

Censorship, By Any Other Name...

Lady Gaga's newest music video for her most recent #1 single, "Telephone" has brought an interesting array of attention to the issue surrounding what many believe to be the fine line between art and the Constitutionally obscene.

While the video is certainly intended for mature audiences only, it still baffles me that people believe they would do society a service by banning the video all together. Take a look at this interview from Fox News:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kud17cXaajo

Sandy Rios, of the Culture Campaign, goes as far as to say that this type of provocative entertainment is "poison for the minds of our kids."

First, it is necessary to point out that the video had multiple warnings against the "violent" nature of the short, even forcing it to air in the late night TV slot. This was an obvious effort by the E! network to avoid backlash as demonstrated by harsh words of Sandy Rios.

Second, regardless of whether or not people want their children to be exposed to the messages inherent in the video, banning it altogether would violate the First Amendment provision of the U.S. Constitution allowing for the freedom of speech. Lady Gaga, as an artist, has every right to express herself, no matter how gory or provocative her ideas may be.

Third, the idea of access is an important concept to consider. When early jurisprudence on obscenity began emerging, the Court determined that there were three tiers as defined under the Miller Test to evaluate whether or not a work held Constitutional protection:

1. "Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;
2. "Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;
3. "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (413 U.S. 15, 1973).

The music video violates none of these provisions - it is not pornography, by any means, and so there is no Constitutional basis for any of Rios's claims. And to this end, the video is not forced unto anyone's TV or computer screens; it must be sought out, so viewing it is a personal choice and not in the face of the American populace.

I find it a travesty in American politics when people like Sandy Rios appear on national television advocating for the censorship of the artistic expression of a pop-icon. While she may personally find Lady Gaga's style and method of expression offensive, she is certainly out of line when implying (through her call to outlaw the video) that her personal opinion should be valued above anyone else's. Perhaps instead of worrying about her children's exposure to the harsh realities of freedom of expression, she could devote that energy to a worthwhile cause, like fighting hunger in Africa.

CPAC Controversy

Yesterday at the Conservative Political Action Committee, controversy ensued after a series of speeches over the issue of civil rights. Students for Liberty's Alexander McCobin took a stand against the traditional conservative opinion that gay couples are outside the bounds of the law. This year, CPAC invited GOProud, a pro-gay rights organization, to speak and offer their perspective on the place of gay rights in the conservative movement.

Student's for Liberty is a nonprofit organization aimed at promoting the fundamental qualities of libertarianism. They endorse limited government, free and open markets, and individual liberties. Alexander McCobin took the podium by first praising CPAC for inviting GOProud to the event. He began by pronouncing that those who believe in freedom believe it freedom unconditionally and in the full context of the word. Many attendees booed him initially, but cheers accompanied soon after.

Next to the stand was Ryan Sorba, from California Young Americans for Freedom. He angrily responded to GOProud's presence at the event, even shouting at the booing audience that "the lesbians at Smith College riot better than you!"

Take a look at these videos for yourself:

http://studentsforliberty.org/news/sfl-controversy-video/


Classic liberals alike need to come together, not disband even further. McCobin has it precisely right when he says that freedom is a collective concept - you cannot pick and choose which freedoms to support or endorse. The sentiment of returning to the conservative values of the old Republican party encompasses not only economic freedoms, but also personal freedoms - and these absolutely must include the ability to marry whosoever you desire.

A strong effort by the likes of CPAC, unfortunately interrupted by the backwards thinking prescribers of neoconservatism.

On Capitalism...

I recently stumbled upon a read by Steve Forbes called How Capitalism Will Save Us. It is an incredible book looking at the problems of our current social and economic condition with eloquent and demonstrative explanations on just how the free market and "real world" sense will save us from an ultimate and untimely demise.



The book takes a stand against the common "raps" on the notorious perils of capitalism, combating our major political and economic dilemmas with what he terms "real world" examples on how capitalism is the best solution in any situation.



For example, Forbes retorts against the rap that "capitalism is a dog-eat-dog system founded on greed and survival of the fittest" with the fact that "capitalism is the world's most humane economic system, promoting the democratic values of a free and open society: hard work, cooperation, generosity, charity, and devotion to the rule of law." He supports this claim with the classic example of the baker and the buyer. A bread maker provides a service for the client - making bread. Bread is demanded by the consumer, to which he is provided so long as just compensation is provided as due. The bread maker sells the client bread in exchange for money. Yes, the bread maker is probably only concerned with turning a profit and benefiting from the transaction, most likely self-interested in gaining from the transaction. But the consumer needs to eat; therefore, if the terms of the agreement are fair (i.e., the bread is a fair price) then the transaction occurs.



This simple demonstration exemplifies that instead of greed, this transaction is based on trust. The shopper is willing to pay, so long as he receives a benefit that fulfills his needs. Without trust, money will not be exchanged for a good or service.



And this further demonstrates the beauty of a free market. If, for example, the bread was drastically overpriced, or by some other means not up to par, the consumer has the option of bringing his business elsewhere. Trust is the essential component: without trust, a transaction will not occur - not greed which only serves self-interest through individual pursuit.



Forbes goes on to discuss why capitalism has remained so prevalent in the first place, and why it is essential to innovation. An entrepreneur will succeed by correctly fulfilling a need. Where there is need, there is a market. Take for instance, the ipod. Forbes describes an "ipod" economy which classically illustrates how innovation has revolutionized the industry yet again. People perceived a need to consolidate and make their music transportable; Steve Jobs took on the job to eventually produce one of the most recognizable and trusted MP3 players in the world. This type of innovation does not come out of the US for no apparent reason. Our free-market and pro-modernization economic climate has proved unsurpassed by any other nation of the world.

In terms of equality, capitalism seeks to promote the interests of the individual by allowing economic freedom, or the ability to spend personal funds as is desired. Other systems that define equality in economic terms posit that equality only comes from government imposing strict conditions wherein each citizen is promised a mean level of income - a guarantee into the middle class, with no prospect of extreme poverty or extreme wealth.

Capitalism rewards innovation and hard work by allowing those born into unfavorable conditions the chance to climb into the middle or upper class. Forbes asks, then, which system is more moral?

I have long been asking myself this very question, and I concur with Forbes when he deems capitalism morally superior to any other economic system. It is about freedom. As Milton Friedman described, political freedom comes only after economic freedom is first established. When people have the ability to vote with their money and choose when to spend and when to save, then people change their overarching views on freedom in general. I believe in freedom, and that crosses every aspect of my life - from how I spend my money, to what stocks I buy, to what technology I choose to consume. All these choices demonstrate not only my economic freedoms, but also my political freedoms in that no authoritarian regime can control what I do and what I believe.

Another topic I found interesting in this book is big business. As a business mogul, Steve Forbes knows well the bounties of wealth to be created through hard work and innovation. But many people perceive such an empire as greedy and only benefiting those at the top. I ask, then, how do you account for the oftentimes thousands of workers employed? Forbes says that savvy business people create opportunity for not only employees, but also consumers by building corporations satisfying a need (or many needs) of the citizenry.

Look at Steve Jobs and the Apple revolution that has swept not only the U.S., but also the entire world. Jobs took an idea and expanded on it, ultimately creating some of the most reliable and recognizable pieces of technology in the world. And it is without a doubt that Steve Jobs is not the only one benefiting in this empire - Apple now employs 40,000 people! The free market in combination with innovation and hard work creates jobs and therefore wealth - government does not.

It is no wonder that goods like ipods, personal computers, and cars all came out of the United States. Our entrepreneurial citizen base is what boomed our economy to the top in the first place. Less government restriction, less red tape and corporate regulation, and more privatization are the best answers to creating jobs, wealth, and innovation. I am proud to live under such a system, which is why I cringe at the prospect of government takeover and intervention of private industry. If a company fails, it is merely an opportunity for restructure or for other private entities to buy out and takeover corporations. Government has no place in private industry, and to think that our only solution is regulation and government takeover seriously undermines the creative thinking and innovation that occurs here so much more often than anywhere else in the world.

My Reaction to the SoTU Address

Nothing irks me more than when inherent contradiction is accompanied by arrogance. Yes, Obama can put on a strong show, speaking with the eloquence we would expect from a Harvard trained law school graduate. But is there any logic to his many talking points? Let's take a look at some of the highlights of the night:


"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted - immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed" (Obama).




OK, fair enough. Indeed, Obama entered office under an extremely dire economic situation, not to mention his acquisition of two wars unfairly waged and poorly regulated. But his next assertion implies that the efforts employed to offset a "second depression" were by some means embraced universally. Well, I recall a petition drawn up by the CATO Institute describing just the opposite:


http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

For some reason unbeknownst to me, people still believe Keynesian economics to be the only solution to economic hardship. That by some stretch of the imagination, economic busts can be offset by government pumping money into the system. Maybe this system would work, if government had the money; but what many people oversee is the fact that the money employed in the stimulus package was literally printed off. So, President Obama herein states that "one year later, the worst of the storm has passed." Maybe - at least until the effects of the massive inflation (from the "created" money pumped into the economy in the stimulus package) start to really take its toll.

He proceeds to say that "one in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder" (Obama).

And all this is understood under the premise that "the worst of the storm has passed." Not only is this completely contradictory to his previous statement, but also, it seriously undermines just how bad things are. I would estimate unemployment at a rate much higher than 10% - once those who are underemployed and forced to retire at an early age are taken into account. And, once the true effects of the inflation brought by the stimulus package have been realized, these facts will only be compounded.

President Obama's next point is an attempt to unite us all under the notion that the bank bailout was "necessary." He says "we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular. I would do what was necessary" (Obama).

I would argue that a root canal is much more popular, and while painful at first, at least a root canal permanently fixes the problem. The bank bailout was not necessary, and it is a pompously fallacious argument to claim that the only solution to our serious economic troubles was to save the corporations at the very root of the problem (no pun intended).

It is important to remember how capitalism functions. Periods of growth are interrupted by periods of economic retraction - and this is healthy. The bailouts may have seemed necessary because of the economic reach of the banks and their investments; that if the banks failed, they would have brought down our entire economy. My only question is, why save failing companies? These banks make poor choices and bad investments, and a system of capitalism allows for mismanaged companies to fail, letting others foster and grow.

One of the most baffling conclusions realized in the aftermath of the economic meltdown is that people blame capitalism. People believe that the greedy CEOs and executives on Wall Street took advantage of those on Main Street. Maybe this is the reality of capitalism - that people easily take advantage of the system. But then why save these people - why exacerbate the already dire effects of impending failure of these companies? Because a failing company will inevitably go down - it is just a matter of time.

Capitalism was never given a chance. We pride ourselves as a nation of freedom and the free-market economy - until a natural recession occurs. Then, to save ourselves from having to limit spending, we employ government interventionism. Capitalism cannot be blamed, simply because capitalism is never allowed to function as such.

Next, the President reiterates his hopes for the growth of small businesses. Nothing new here - except he somehow claims that the stimulus package single-handedly saved countless small businesses from closing. Somehow, I doubt that those "saved" small businesses will still be in existence in the next five years, once inflation kicks in and drives the cost of labor and resources through the roof.

As far as health care goes, Obama wards off the opposition by asking for a better solution to his plan, which I can gladly offer. Actually, I have two "better" options:

• If the true issue at hand is that too many Americans are left unprotected by medical insurance, then an alternative to governmentally prescribed medicine might be tax deductions. Make all medical expenses tax deductible. At least then, innovation and the incentive to be a strong doctor is left uncompromised.
  
• Burn the health care plan. This entire plan is an outrage to American politics in general. Nowhere in the Constitution is it declared that the federal government must (or even has the right to) provide health care to the American citizens. Either first pass a Constitutional amendment providing the federal credentials for a universal health care plan as prescribed by the central government, or encourage the states to come up with their own plan (as permitted by the Tenth Amendment).

One final topic that stood out to me was nuclear weapons. He states that "at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists" (Obama).

It always baffles me that our leaders could be so pretentious as to think that we should be in control of who can and who cannot have nuclear arms. No one designated us as the police of nuclear arms in a world of sovereign nations. How pompous to think that we are the only nation capable of the rationality to determine when and how to use nuclear weapons - even as a deterrent. This is Western supremacy at its best. If I am not mistaken, in the history of nuclear weapons, no state has ever gone after another in possession of such. Is this not evidence of the deterrence of nuclear arms? How can we sit back and say that Iran cannot be allowed the opportunity to develop a program of nuclear energy for fear of retaliation against us, when they feel just as threatened right now as we would had the tables been turned, and Iran was the one in possession of nuclear arms? Furthermore, how can we begin to deter a sovereign nation from developing whatever program they so desire? This is not our right, nor is it the right of any other nation. It is ostentatious, and it is the type of reasoning that pits people against the arrogance of the West.

All in all, the speech was well delivered and pretty well received, as they all seem to be. But a deeper look into some of the President's major remarks makes me wonder if any leader will ever stick to their original platforms. Obama promised change, and all we have seen is an extreme exacerbation of Bush policies. For a professor of Constitutional Law at the premier school of economics in the country, I am astonished at how little Obama understands the Constitution. We were promised change under the pretext of hope, and as far as I can tell, all we have received is the perpetuation of the status quo.

Simplicity Applies (And What a Beautiful Thing It Is!)

I refuse to believe that simplicity is a term rendered obsolete in our increasingly complex and interconnected political atmosphere. And I say this not because I chose to see the world in black and white, or because I have a "supremacist" attitude toward individual circumstance - I say this because I understand the difference between idealism and fundamentalism.


Take, for instance, the recent decision reached in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission: that "[there is] no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers" (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 25 2010).


After reading the opinion of the Court, I have discerned a few main points to keep in mind:


1.) Corporations are privy to the same protection of free speech under the First Amendment as any individual citizen.


2.) It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of the law.


3.) Limiting speech under any circumstance is censorship.


4.) "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people" (Citizens United vs FEC 558 U.S. 23).


5.) "Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints... The government may not ... deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each" (Citizens United vs FEC 558 U.S. 24).



Going back to my introduction, we must first differentiate between idealism and fundamentalism, and establish an arena for each.

Idealists perceive the world under vastly hopeful premises. They believe that there is an ultimate good, and that we must work to achieve this good. In terms of the Citizens United case, idealists see the decision reached by the Court as backwards and ultimately threatening to achieving said greater good (i.e. equality).

N.B.: I am not at all convinced that equality can be achieved by governmental prescription. Ultimately, there are two opposing views on what equality truly means:

• Leftists have argued for years that equality boils down to economic terms - that diminishing the gap between the classes will by some means ensure equality, and that forcefully inducting each citizen into programs of universal health care, welfare, and social security will guarantee a "level playing-field" for all.


• Classic liberals hold that equality entails the freedom of choice first established through economic liberty, ultimately ending in personal liberty. They posit that equality is the condition of free will whereby each individual can choose for him/herself what to do, where to go, how much to spend etc.

Now, fundamentalists always base reasoning on some established charter, using values, rules, and norms set forth to determine validity. In the Citizens United case, the validity of the argument is based on the fundamental values set forth in the Constitution.

And here is where simplicity applies.

The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitutionality of the law. There is no room for personal translation of what the founding fathers could have possibly meant 200 years in the future. The Constitution is an eloquent demonstration in the beauty that comes from pure simplicity. It is vague enough to allow for change in the political climate, while simultaneously specific enough to answer any question relating to American governance.

The Supreme Court recognized (in this decision) that the issue at hand could not possibly be answered on a case by case premise. This would be highly complex. Instead, they determined that the First Amendment both sufficiently and poignantly resolves the fundamental question involved: Is money spending a provision of free speech and as such, can government limit corporate spending under Constitutional terms?

The Supreme Court ruling says yes to the former and no to the latter. Yes, corporations as private entities are to be protected under the First Amendment; yes, the monetary decisions of such private corporations should be left to the companies themselves; and no, government does not have the right to limit (or cap) how much money is spent, certainly in political campaigning, where free speech is to be protected especially.

And finally, in preparation for the GRE's, I leave you with this question:

Are shareholders:corporations :: citizens:government?

My answer is yes - and just as private companies are the conglomerate sum of their shareholders, so too is government the aggregate of its citizens. Think about this next time you hear that corporations have no rights...

Welcome to my blog...

Allow me to preface this project with the concept of freedom.... I believe in freedom. Always. You have the freedom to (or not to) read this blog. If it offends, degrades, or discomforts you in any way, you may leave.

Ok, now that that is established, let me explain what I hope to accomplish in keeping this diary of my thoughts, beliefs, and rants:

1.) That when something worth the time and effort of my day bothers me to the point of immortalizing it on the internet, I will write.

2.) That I can establish some of my philosophical and fundamental perspectives in a non-abrasive or condescending environment - when something attention-grabbing occurs in the political world, I will write.

3.) That I can incorporate the most important document to have ever existed for the American people (i.e. the United States Constitution) back into political discussion. When it is abused, contradicted, or neglected, I will write.

4.) And finally, when anything that I deem awesome or otherwise significantly inspiring crosses my path, I will write. Or post.

I hope you enjoy this page - I know I will, especially now that I have my own sphere to release some of the rage building in my system, ultimately lowering my exponentially rising blood pressure and thereby increasing my overall health and well-being.