If Obama kept his mouth shut, I probably would've voted for him. However, the more I hear about his policies and ideas the more it scares the daylights out of me. His ideas reflect the notion that the Government knows better on how to manage your affairs than you yourself do. Who exactly is the Government? An elite few who's job it is - is to apportion your tax dollars in new and ever expanding ways? Their job is to spend your money for you. And they do this on a full time basis.
At a time when the nation's economy is at a standstill, I hear that Obama wants to tax the rich and $250,000/yr is apparently the dividing line. At a time when businesses are struggling to make ends meet, the Government is essentially saying "give me more." Have you ever heard of a plan that fixes the scarcity of an item by taking more of it? So imagine you are a small business owner, a productive member of society creating jobs for others - namely the middle class, and suddenly this omnipotent force says "OK, last year I took 26% of your profits, this year I want 40%" - end of discussion. Whenever any entity takes money forcibily from individuals regardless of economic status or background, its called stealing.
At a time when the nation's energy prices are sky high, I hear far out solutions on how to fix the problem. As an energy consultant, I know what's real and what isn't. There is no short term solution, but we can't deliver efficiency overnight either. Americans simply need access to lower cost fuel if we are going to maintain our standard of living and economic prosperity. What Obama said this weekend regarding his plan was alarming - he's against nuclear power, he's against off shore drilling, and he's for subsidizing these boutique renewable energy technologies in the hopes it decreases consumption. I am firmly against subisidizing any industry. It distorts and destabilizes the free market. High fuel prices should be providing enough incentive for these firms to research and sell their technology without the govenrment getting involved. However, every time the government indicates that they may provide them with a windfall of taxpayer money - they are incentivized to delay their product entry and "research" until such time they receive this appopriation of OUR money. I am against the McCain $300 Million prize for a battery - and I'm against the Obama plan to shower "clean green" renewable energy firms with money while the American people continue to suffer through these high oil prices.
We need to start drilling for Oil. We need to do so now. Yes, it may take 5 or so years, but in 5 or so years if we don't start we'll be saying the same thing! Nuclear power is also no longer an option, its an absolute must. In countries such as France, 75% of their electricity is generated by Nukes - a clean technology that has no emissions. Building more nuclear plants is a good way to offset Oil consumption, the technology is here and its ready now, and we need to get as many online as possible. Obama, siding with the yahoos, is against this.
McCain's foreign policy will not help oil prices either. McCain's caustic "don't talk to nobody" cowboy diplomacy will only lead to further political instability and cause showdowns with countries such as Iran. McCain has also indicated his distaste for Russia - and he called Putin an evil man on many occassions, which may ignite a new cold war era and a new competition for world resources. With Russia's economy booming, and the influx of oil revenues, opening a new war front will only further threaten our economy, peace, and prosperity. Obama's foreign policy may help calm market jitters, but his other policies do nothing to add to the supply side of the equation.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
My Plan to Return to the Moon, and I will be the first to go
I think its time we make our way back to the moon. Its shameful that Mankind has achieved this feat prior to my coming into this world, and hasn't been able to repeat it in my lifetime.
It doesn't need to cost billions of dollars to do so. We can do it - we have the technology.
My Plan to Return to the Moon:
1. The vehicle which will be used to transport humans to and fro the Moon shall be a single reusable vehicle based in part on the current space shuttle design.
2. The vehicle will initially be attached to a large hydrogen dirigible which will raise it to over 100K Feet*
3. The vehicle will be released upon which 2 expendable and detachable rocket boosters attached on pylons under the aircraft’s wings will propel the aircraft initially forward and then up to achieve escape velocity*
4. The vehicle will orbit the earth several times to achieve speed prior to the main rocket engine firing to escape earth orbit. The main rocket engine is located in the aft rear of the vehicle.**
5. The vehicle will make its way to the moon. For space control, the vehicle will sport standard control thrusters.
6. Upon approaching the moon, the vehicle will be captured by the moon’s gravity entering lunar orbit.
7. The vehicle will fire retro rockets for the descent to landing. The vehicle will make an aircraft style landing on the moon’s surface at minimum forward velocity at a flat location on the lunar surface.
8. The vehicle will have compartments to release astronauts to the lunar surface and return aboard the vehicle.
9. When the time comes for earth return, the vehicle will have an engine on the underside of the vehicle to propel it away from the lunar surface.
10. The main rocket engine will fire to propel the vehicle around and out of the lunar orbit towards earth.
11. The vehicle will return to earth in a similar fashion to that of the shuttle – it will reenter the earth’s atmosphere and glide to a landing.
*If this dirigible idea turns out to be unfeasible, the vehicle may be launched into orbit utilizing conventional means. Steps 2 and 3 are replaced with this method.
**If vehicle payload capacity is an issue, where upon the requisite fuel necessary to send humans to the moon and back cannot be carried aboard the vehicle, and in lieu of carrying the service module, a separate payload launched from Russia via traditional means may provide such service. The module will be docked with the shuttle vehicle and provide the vehicle with the rocket power necessary to make its way to the moon. The payload will orbit the moon after the vehicle undocks for landing. The module will remain in orbit until such time the vehicle wishes to return to earth. Whereupon a docking with the module will be accomplished and the module will propel the vehicle towards earth.
Another crazy, low cost plan to go to the moon using existing space technology:
We already have a space shuttle. All we need to do is carry within its payload a lunar lander, and to propel it towards the moon after it achieves earth orbit. A secondary launch may transport another main fuel tank to reattach to the space shuttle for the purposes of providing enough fuel to it's on board rocket motors to take it to the moon.
After this insane post, I think I may return back to the ideas of government policy.
It doesn't need to cost billions of dollars to do so. We can do it - we have the technology.
My Plan to Return to the Moon:
1. The vehicle which will be used to transport humans to and fro the Moon shall be a single reusable vehicle based in part on the current space shuttle design.
2. The vehicle will initially be attached to a large hydrogen dirigible which will raise it to over 100K Feet*
3. The vehicle will be released upon which 2 expendable and detachable rocket boosters attached on pylons under the aircraft’s wings will propel the aircraft initially forward and then up to achieve escape velocity*
4. The vehicle will orbit the earth several times to achieve speed prior to the main rocket engine firing to escape earth orbit. The main rocket engine is located in the aft rear of the vehicle.**
5. The vehicle will make its way to the moon. For space control, the vehicle will sport standard control thrusters.
6. Upon approaching the moon, the vehicle will be captured by the moon’s gravity entering lunar orbit.
7. The vehicle will fire retro rockets for the descent to landing. The vehicle will make an aircraft style landing on the moon’s surface at minimum forward velocity at a flat location on the lunar surface.
8. The vehicle will have compartments to release astronauts to the lunar surface and return aboard the vehicle.
9. When the time comes for earth return, the vehicle will have an engine on the underside of the vehicle to propel it away from the lunar surface.
10. The main rocket engine will fire to propel the vehicle around and out of the lunar orbit towards earth.
11. The vehicle will return to earth in a similar fashion to that of the shuttle – it will reenter the earth’s atmosphere and glide to a landing.
*If this dirigible idea turns out to be unfeasible, the vehicle may be launched into orbit utilizing conventional means. Steps 2 and 3 are replaced with this method.
**If vehicle payload capacity is an issue, where upon the requisite fuel necessary to send humans to the moon and back cannot be carried aboard the vehicle, and in lieu of carrying the service module, a separate payload launched from Russia via traditional means may provide such service. The module will be docked with the shuttle vehicle and provide the vehicle with the rocket power necessary to make its way to the moon. The payload will orbit the moon after the vehicle undocks for landing. The module will remain in orbit until such time the vehicle wishes to return to earth. Whereupon a docking with the module will be accomplished and the module will propel the vehicle towards earth.
Another crazy, low cost plan to go to the moon using existing space technology:
We already have a space shuttle. All we need to do is carry within its payload a lunar lander, and to propel it towards the moon after it achieves earth orbit. A secondary launch may transport another main fuel tank to reattach to the space shuttle for the purposes of providing enough fuel to it's on board rocket motors to take it to the moon.
After this insane post, I think I may return back to the ideas of government policy.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Role of Government - Part III
Based upon my last post, I'd like to announce the budgetary line items I would cut back on to shore up the Federal Budget:
I'm not going to touch the "Mandatory Spending" category of the Federal Budget, although I'm strongly against the Government managing our retirement plan and forcing us to opt in. I believe that individuals such as myself, who already contribute the maximum amount to their respective 401k plans, could better plan for our own individual retirements than the government - I believe that the government should allow us to opt out of their plan and allow ourselves to divert those monies to a retirement plan of our choosing, if any at all. The money that the Government collects to plan for your retirement actually may end up making your latter years less comfortable - you may be able to afford to buy a house now if you had access to such monies which would help alleviate the financial difficulties encountered in your latter years of life. The bottom line is, Government should have never established such a disastrous monstrosity of a program which occupies 30% of the federal budget.
Department of Defense - http://www.defenselink.mil/ - it's no secret that this line item contains a lot of "Pork." The DoD is buying and researching various weapons that are not defensive in nature. Approximately 50% of this budget could be trimmed.
Global War on Terror - the stated purpose of the "Global War on Terror" is to somehow convince "evildoers" and terrorist groups around the world to end their aggression through our own violent military action. I would immediately withdraw forces and reduce all expenditures associated with this budgetary item.
Health and Human Services - www.hhs.gov - The HHS is "United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves." I don't want to come off as a Scrooge here, but here in lies a lot of pork. First off, it doesn't provide any value to individuals such as myself. However, I don't mind helping the poor - even though in this case it's is forced charity through our tax dollars a la Robin Hood. One particular department which would face my cross hairs would be the FDA. This useless organizations recklessly delays the entry of life saving drugs by subjecting pharmaceutical companies to go through an expensive period of trial and testing that smaller drug companies can seldom afford. This organization actually plays into the hands of larger drug companies that can afford to undertake such testing, and they usually are able to pass through drugs quickly while smaller companies face an uphill battle. The FDA needlessly curtails a Doctor's ability to prescribe medication that could be life saving.
Department of Education - www.ed.gov - I would immediately shutter this useless department. The DoE provides little if any value to Americans. The State provides us with all the access to education that we need and currently use, the Federal Government doesn't have to get involved. I'd rather spend my tax dollars towards State based programs where I can immediately benefit from.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development - www.hud.gov - I can't even figure out what these guys do, but it's clearly useless. We don't need a government agency managing housing and loans to Americans. The free market should handle loans, and the state, if necessary, should handle their own housing initiatives.
Energy - www.doe.gov - we don't need an obscure government agency trying to ensure America’s energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy." I wonder what a day in the life of an employee in this Government agency looks like?
Department of Agriculture - www.usda.gov - There's a lot of uselessness in this department. Even though I'd argue for the complete shuttering of the agency, I'd lose the argument on some of the food inspection functions they fulfill. But as far as some of the other departments that fall under this banner go, they can be completely eliminated. "Agricultural Marketing Service, Center for Nutrition and Policy, Rural Development" can get the boot.
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
There would be no "Discretionary Spending" if I was in charge, period. Just the name of these two budgetary line items indicates its laden with lard, and can completely be trimmed. Various ridiculous government funding is funneled through this line item, including the following:
$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
More examples are available here: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008
The bottom line is, people know better than government how to spend their money. Congress is spending money that's not theirs to spend. People need to understand that the nation's tax revenue system isn't some kind of free money slush fund that can be freely spent, it's your money - they shoudl treat it as such.
I'm not going to touch the "Mandatory Spending" category of the Federal Budget, although I'm strongly against the Government managing our retirement plan and forcing us to opt in. I believe that individuals such as myself, who already contribute the maximum amount to their respective 401k plans, could better plan for our own individual retirements than the government - I believe that the government should allow us to opt out of their plan and allow ourselves to divert those monies to a retirement plan of our choosing, if any at all. The money that the Government collects to plan for your retirement actually may end up making your latter years less comfortable - you may be able to afford to buy a house now if you had access to such monies which would help alleviate the financial difficulties encountered in your latter years of life. The bottom line is, Government should have never established such a disastrous monstrosity of a program which occupies 30% of the federal budget.
Department of Defense - http://www.defenselink.mil/ - it's no secret that this line item contains a lot of "Pork." The DoD is buying and researching various weapons that are not defensive in nature. Approximately 50% of this budget could be trimmed.
Global War on Terror - the stated purpose of the "Global War on Terror" is to somehow convince "evildoers" and terrorist groups around the world to end their aggression through our own violent military action. I would immediately withdraw forces and reduce all expenditures associated with this budgetary item.
Health and Human Services - www.hhs.gov - The HHS is "United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves." I don't want to come off as a Scrooge here, but here in lies a lot of pork. First off, it doesn't provide any value to individuals such as myself. However, I don't mind helping the poor - even though in this case it's is forced charity through our tax dollars a la Robin Hood. One particular department which would face my cross hairs would be the FDA. This useless organizations recklessly delays the entry of life saving drugs by subjecting pharmaceutical companies to go through an expensive period of trial and testing that smaller drug companies can seldom afford. This organization actually plays into the hands of larger drug companies that can afford to undertake such testing, and they usually are able to pass through drugs quickly while smaller companies face an uphill battle. The FDA needlessly curtails a Doctor's ability to prescribe medication that could be life saving.
Department of Education - www.ed.gov - I would immediately shutter this useless department. The DoE provides little if any value to Americans. The State provides us with all the access to education that we need and currently use, the Federal Government doesn't have to get involved. I'd rather spend my tax dollars towards State based programs where I can immediately benefit from.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development - www.hud.gov - I can't even figure out what these guys do, but it's clearly useless. We don't need a government agency managing housing and loans to Americans. The free market should handle loans, and the state, if necessary, should handle their own housing initiatives.
Energy - www.doe.gov - we don't need an obscure government agency trying to ensure America’s energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy." I wonder what a day in the life of an employee in this Government agency looks like?
Department of Agriculture - www.usda.gov - There's a lot of uselessness in this department. Even though I'd argue for the complete shuttering of the agency, I'd lose the argument on some of the food inspection functions they fulfill. But as far as some of the other departments that fall under this banner go, they can be completely eliminated. "Agricultural Marketing Service, Center for Nutrition and Policy, Rural Development" can get the boot.
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
There would be no "Discretionary Spending" if I was in charge, period. Just the name of these two budgetary line items indicates its laden with lard, and can completely be trimmed. Various ridiculous government funding is funneled through this line item, including the following:
$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
More examples are available here: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008
The bottom line is, people know better than government how to spend their money. Congress is spending money that's not theirs to spend. People need to understand that the nation's tax revenue system isn't some kind of free money slush fund that can be freely spent, it's your money - they shoudl treat it as such.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Role of Government - Part II
Now that we know how to role of government was outlined in the Constitution, we turn our attention to the role that Government is fulfiling today. It appears that the role of Government has metamorphosized into a larger command structure who's goal it is apparently to manage, and provide for an increasing number of services and responsibilities on behalf of the people.
The Federal Government, as envisioned by the framers of the constitution, was intended to be weak. There was no intent for it to enter into the realm of civil law nor service. States were responsible for providing for their constituents in most respects, and the government was to ensure mutual cooperation and free commerce between member states. The State currently provides for most of the services we benefit from - including education, roadways, santiation, security (police), and in some cases utilities (water and electricity). As individuals, we usually receive very little direct value from the Federal government - other than assurances that we are being kept "safe" as a result of federal action. A question arises as to why is it that most of our tax dollars we shell out goes to this federal government? What exactly are we paying for? My NYS Tax rate is around 6% while my federal tax rate is 22%. And yet, I receive everything I could possibly need from New York. What value is the federal government providing me? What am I paying for? An analysis of the Federal Budget gives the individual a glimpse of what the Role of Government has become:
2008 United States Federal Budget
Mandatory spending: $1.788 trillion (+4.2%)*
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion (+3.1%)
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
$39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy
$20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Department of Justice
$20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture
$17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation
$12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury
$10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior
$10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
*Percentages in parenthesis indicate budget growth over previous year.
The Federal Government, as envisioned by the framers of the constitution, was intended to be weak. There was no intent for it to enter into the realm of civil law nor service. States were responsible for providing for their constituents in most respects, and the government was to ensure mutual cooperation and free commerce between member states. The State currently provides for most of the services we benefit from - including education, roadways, santiation, security (police), and in some cases utilities (water and electricity). As individuals, we usually receive very little direct value from the Federal government - other than assurances that we are being kept "safe" as a result of federal action. A question arises as to why is it that most of our tax dollars we shell out goes to this federal government? What exactly are we paying for? My NYS Tax rate is around 6% while my federal tax rate is 22%. And yet, I receive everything I could possibly need from New York. What value is the federal government providing me? What am I paying for? An analysis of the Federal Budget gives the individual a glimpse of what the Role of Government has become:
2008 United States Federal Budget
Mandatory spending: $1.788 trillion (+4.2%)*
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion (+3.1%)
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
$39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy
$20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Department of Justice
$20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture
$17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation
$12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury
$10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior
$10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
*Percentages in parenthesis indicate budget growth over previous year.
Monday, June 9, 2008
The Role of Government - Part I
The question of the role of government always bothers me. What is the role of government? What is its functional purpose? The framers of the U.S. Constitution saw it quite simply and clearly laid out what role the Government ought to fulfill. It's clearly laid out in the Preamble:
To form a More Perfect Union
The goal of forming a more perfect union arises from the need to collect the various independent states that form present day America to better serve our common interests. The idea is to recognize that individual states have their certain rights in legislating domestic law, and the role of the central government is to serve as an overseer of intra-state relations and not as a micro-management mechanism.
Establish Justice
Any modern nation needs a justice system that will recognize the private property rights of individuals, and to protect them from harm that others may cause. Regardless of the nature of the people, inequities occur where a court will need to step in to balance and make even any claim that a party has upon the other. It is for the purpose that no person may retain more rights than others in trade and commerce that this judicial system was established to level the playing field for all participants.
Ensure Domestic Tranquility
One of the more controversial parts of the constitution is that which empowers the government to ensure domestic tranquility - which includes addressing rebellions and other forms of unrest that a federal government may deem a threat. The general idea is to respond to any issue which may affect the general welfare of the people.
Provide for the common defence
No state alone could have withstood attack from overseas by foreign navies and invading forces. Therefore, the collective interests of states are pooled to form a national army to address foreign threats - for defensive purposes only.
Promote the general Welfare
The culmination of all the precedent purposes of government is for the sole purpose of serving the people, their general welfare.
[to] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
The central idea of this new American government, as the framers see it, is to allow the people to be free and pursue their interests as the deem fit, and not to have any central authority having dominion over your personal affairs.
However, what we have instead... is a government which seeks to administer our daily lives through never ending complex legislation which regulate all aspects of our life and commerce, further expanding both its stranglehold and power with every bill it signs into law. Every week, as new laws are passed, liberties are robbed from the people. These laws on the surface appear to limit a form of malpractice that the elite few have deemed in their view must be ceased. With every new law, comes the increased cost of administration of such law. The administration of which comes from the fruit of the labor of the people. Therefore, the government today lays claim on both our liberty and labor with every passage of law.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
To form a More Perfect Union
The goal of forming a more perfect union arises from the need to collect the various independent states that form present day America to better serve our common interests. The idea is to recognize that individual states have their certain rights in legislating domestic law, and the role of the central government is to serve as an overseer of intra-state relations and not as a micro-management mechanism.
Establish Justice
Any modern nation needs a justice system that will recognize the private property rights of individuals, and to protect them from harm that others may cause. Regardless of the nature of the people, inequities occur where a court will need to step in to balance and make even any claim that a party has upon the other. It is for the purpose that no person may retain more rights than others in trade and commerce that this judicial system was established to level the playing field for all participants.
Ensure Domestic Tranquility
One of the more controversial parts of the constitution is that which empowers the government to ensure domestic tranquility - which includes addressing rebellions and other forms of unrest that a federal government may deem a threat. The general idea is to respond to any issue which may affect the general welfare of the people.
Provide for the common defence
No state alone could have withstood attack from overseas by foreign navies and invading forces. Therefore, the collective interests of states are pooled to form a national army to address foreign threats - for defensive purposes only.
Promote the general Welfare
The culmination of all the precedent purposes of government is for the sole purpose of serving the people, their general welfare.
[to] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
The central idea of this new American government, as the framers see it, is to allow the people to be free and pursue their interests as the deem fit, and not to have any central authority having dominion over your personal affairs.
However, what we have instead... is a government which seeks to administer our daily lives through never ending complex legislation which regulate all aspects of our life and commerce, further expanding both its stranglehold and power with every bill it signs into law. Every week, as new laws are passed, liberties are robbed from the people. These laws on the surface appear to limit a form of malpractice that the elite few have deemed in their view must be ceased. With every new law, comes the increased cost of administration of such law. The administration of which comes from the fruit of the labor of the people. Therefore, the government today lays claim on both our liberty and labor with every passage of law.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Extle.com Note from the Editor
I'd like to apologize for the last two blog posts. They have been deleted and stricken from the record. They represented a abberation from the true goal of Extle.com - a focus on policy and not people. From now forward, we will attempt to avoid the weeds of politics and discuss whatever's right, rational and represents the ideas in which this country was founded - freedom and liberty.
Therefore, Extle.com will now focus it's efforts solely on the discussion of Libertarian ideals and how they would shape governmental policy.
Thank you.
Therefore, Extle.com will now focus it's efforts solely on the discussion of Libertarian ideals and how they would shape governmental policy.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
