Not everything is a 'right'

So this was the photo on Drudge Report this morning:


Now, I have no idea about the context of the photo since it wasn't in the posted article about youth unemployment at record levels, but it struck me nonetheless as being so ... wrong.

I don't have a 'right' to a job. Rights are not something granted by someone else - whether it is a house, a job or health care. Rights are not 'given' by other entities, though they can be respected by others. Rights are inherent - unalienable, as our Constitution says.

A job is something that someone else must give to you. An individual or business must decide that they have a need you can fill and you must agree that you are willing to fill that need for the price being offered. It's more of a contract or agreement that benefits both parties.

A house is a similar situation. If someone owns a property and I want to live there, I can't just demand access to it in order to fill my own needs.

Health care is the same thing. In order to receive any type of medical treatment, I must be willing to pay someone else for their skills, knowledge, etc.

I do not have the ability to confiscate another's property (pay for work performed, house or other shelter, or intellectual knowledge which they have gained often at great cost) simply because I have a need.

Now, if we are all abiding by our moral and/or religious teachings, we know that we - individually - have an obligation to 'help' others by offering some of these items, either through our talents or our assets (money or property).

Somewhere along the way, the idea that such charity was a governmental function has become accepted. Even some churches are supporting the government takeover of the personal obligation, which is clearly a distortion of the teachings.

And with government assuming the individual obligation, those within the government have perpetuated the false notion that simply because someone has a 'need,' they also have a 'right' to force others to provide for that need.

We saw some of this type of thinking with the Housing Trust Fund this week in Toledo as members of the Fund openly stated that government has a "moral" obligation to help people in need. Of course, no one asked the members of Toledo City Council how much they've contributed personally to this 'need' before taking taxpayers' money and spending it on a non-governmental function that benefits only a few.

What it boils down to is this: 'needs' are not 'rights.' Just because you have a need, it does not mean that you can take from others to satisfy that need. And the sooner that individuals recognize and support this concept, the sooner the government will as well.

In Case You Missed It

"In Case You Missed It" is a new category I'm adding to the blog. It will consist of interesting things I've come across that I think you should read and/or know. I'll do this periodically and hope you'll enjoy the the highlights and take the time to read the entire articles linked.

Presidential Property - Tim Higgins at Just Blowing Smoke takes a look at the concept of personal property and the interference of the government when it comes to contracts and salary. He makes a really good argument for why government has no authority in the matter, not that anyone in D.C. is listening...

Not News: 4Q09 Treasury Collections Down 11% from Previous Year - Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog, known for paying attention to fiscal matters, details how revenue projections from the Congressional Budget Office are off and won't likely be met. This is critical! Congress spends based upon their projections, but it looks like the CBO is taking lessons from Toledo budget predictions - creating estimates of income that clearly are not based in reality, nor reflective of the collections so far.

Employee Compensation in State and Local Governments - Cato Institute takes a look at the costs of employee compensation in state and local governments and how those costs are not really going down, despite reduced revenues. Many continue to assert that government workers have better benefits to compensate for a lower wages than what they could earn in the private sector. But the figures from Cato proves this to be a myth.

The average Average Compensation for 2009 (in Dollars per Hour Worked) is $26.01 for state and local employees but only $19.39 for the private sector. Even when you break down the nation by regions to account for significantly varying wages across the states, you find that government employment often pays around 26% more than private employment does.

I hope you'll take the time to read the entire bulletin.

The Patriot Post:

"The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Sunday round-up

* Do you blame companies for making decisions based upon politics? Or do you blame the politicians?

This column by Thomas J. Borelli, PhD., the editor of FreeEnterpriser.com, takes a look at two companies, Whole Foods and GE, that are, indeed, making politics a core component of their business decisions - with drastic results. The fact that such considerations are contemplated is part of the problem. If government and various elected officials didn't write laws to benefit or harm particular industries/groups, there'd be no need for political considerations in the first place.

I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of this...

* Patrick Henry is known by most people for his 'Give me liberty or give me death' rallying cry. But do you know what got him so angry as to make such a statement? Samantha Hagan, Director of the Patrick Henry Legacy Program at the Patrick Henry Center, has the background in this column, "Liberty and Gunpowder."

You see, Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, seized a town's community supply of gunpowder and ordered the disabling of weapons stored in the public magazine. He did so following his disbanding of what today we'd call a house of representatives and the rallying of the public to Henry as a result of his impassioned speech.

"Patrick Henry demanded the return of the gunpowder, or failing that, he called for compensation to replace the colony’s fleeced supply. Lord Dunmore feared Henry and his men, and from the security of the palace he threatened to destroy the town should any hostilities begin.

For days the standoff continued until a deal was finally brokered in which a sum that both sides agreed upon was paid from the royal account to replace the stolen gunpowder."

Property rights, a core basis of our free nation, were also at the heart of the Revolution.

* From CNSNews.com:

"A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) study says that all levels of government – federal, state, and local – will have to come up with a total of $16.6 billion in additional revenue to purchase carbon allowances, if cap-and-trade – to allegedly combat global warming -- is enacted into law. Experts say this could prompt increases in taxes.

This is the second government report to estimate that the proposed climate-change legislation, formally known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will eventually cost consumers more.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study published on June 19 revealed that the House cap-and-trade bill, passed by a 219 to 212 vote on June 26, would cost an estimated $175 per household every year."

How much are you willing to pay in additional taxes to *potentially* lower the temperature by a fraction of a degree???

* Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, has this scary perspective on Eric Holder's Hidden Agenda. For a long time, I have been concerned about actions by those in the federal government and the courts that seem to indicate a willingness to subject our sovereign nation to the whims of others. While we have a global economy, we do not (yet) have a global government - and that's a good thing. For the same reason I support states rights, I support the ability of nations to govern themselves. If people in positions of authority in our nation's government are not willing to support our nation's laws over all others, they don't deserve their places in that government. You cannot uphold our Constitution if you're willing to place it below the rules and laws of others.

Again I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think. Would the word 'treason' enter their minds?

* This is sick! Melissa Lafsky, at The Huffington Post, speculates on what Mary Jo Kopechne might think about the life of Sen. Edward Kennedy. She writes:

"Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it."

I think there's something wrong with any individual who would make such a comment. Perhaps I've misunderstood the post, but I find it hard to believe that the Kopechne family would agree - and I'm sure they knew Mary Jo much better than Lafsky.

Property: the foundation of all rights

The Cato Institute is a non-profit public policy research foundation whose mission is "to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace."

They produce numerous publications, including a Handbook for Policymakers that focuses on issues with recommendations. I thought this portion dealing with Property Rights was very informative and am sharing it with you. I hope you'll read the entire chapter.

34. Property Rights and the Constitution

America’s Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution they protected property rights—the rights of people to freely acquire, use, and dispose of property. With the growth of modern government, however, those rights have been seriously compromised. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has yet to develop a principled, much less comprehensive, theory for remedying those violations. That failure has led to the birth of the property rights movement in state after state. It is time now for Congress to step in—to correct its own violations and to set out a standard that courts might notice as they adjudicate complaints about state violations. In the Property Rights and the Constitution chapter of the Cato Handbook for Policymakers, Roger Pilon explains why Congress should:

- Enact legislation, to guide federal agencies and to provide notice by the courts, that outlines the constitutional rights of property owners under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause,

- Follow the traditional common law in defining "private property," "public use," and "just compensation,"

- Treat property taken through regulation the same as property taken through physical seizure, and

- Provide a single forum in which property owners may seek injunctive relief and just compensation promptly.

Read more...

Democracy or tyranny?

"The government of the absolute majority is but the government of the strongest interests; and when not effectively checked, is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised... [To read the Constitution is to realize that] no free system was ever farther removed from he principle that the absolute majority, without check or limitation, ought to govern." ~ John C. Calhoun

Lately I've been hearing all kinds of arguments about majority votes being the 'will of the people' and, therefore, justification for all types of actions that appear contrary to what our founders intended.

Primarily, these discussions are over such issues as tax levies or other taxation for which the public gets a vote. The concept being that if a majority vote to take away part of your income for something, then it must be okay because a vote was held and the majority ruled.

However, such discussions fail to ask a fundamental question, which is whether or not a vote should even be held.

You've heard the adage that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? A republic is when the sheep has a gun... The fear of our founders was that a majority can impose its will on the minority, leading to tyranny by those in power/control.

Over time, the idea of majority rule has turned into tyranny - especially when the majority can decide that your property (money earned) gets to be taken forcibly from you in order to fund things that the majority want. This is especially true when it comes to certain property taxes for items like zoos or science museums.

These issues get on the ballot and then the majority gets to decide if everyone is going to pay for them - whether or not they're ever used. This is especially onerous when most people who pay for these items through their taxes are not able to take advantage of the limited 'free admission' times and end up paying a second time whenever they want to visit these publicly-funded institutions.

One of the reasons given for supporting such items is because they enhance the community. That may be true, to some people. Others will be of the opinion that they enhance the community so long as they are self-supporting. But then comes the argument that if the 'public' doesn't support them, they won't be able to provide access at reduced rates for people who are too poor to afford them on their own.

This is where the Marxist perspective comes into play: from each according to their means to each according to their needs. If the 'poor' cannot afford these things on their own, then those with money must have their money taken away from them to subsidize these ventures so that the poor can benefit from them as well. This is certainly not what our founders intended.

But, Maggie, don't we have an obligation to help the poor? Didn't our Christian-influenced founders support the idea that we need to help those less fortunate than us?

Of course - but that requirement of the Christian faith (and many others) is a personal one. It is incumbent upon each of us as individuals to do this - not the government. In fact, many teach that it's an abdication of your responsibility if you turn over your obligation to the government. And certainly, no religion teaches that you must force others to abide by your beliefs - or that charity that is mandated through laws or other means is really 'charity.'

But somehow, it has become accepted thinking that a majority gets to decide the confiscation of private property for a purported 'public' means and that those who object to such confiscation are morally bad because they don't want to 'help' those who will benefit from such confiscation.

In my ideal world, such funding votes would have different rules than they do now. If an item was on the ballot for funding, people voting 'yes' would be agreeing to split the needed amount of funding among themselves, while those voting 'no' would not be charged. This way, the vote is not to forcibly confiscate funds from everyone, but only to determine who is agreeing to let the government facilitate their 'donations' to a particular entity.

Of course, under such a rule, I doubt that we'd see so many levies and tax issues appear on the ballot because such a system is just a different method of fundraising - and if the entity was successful at fundraising (either through donations or fees charged) they wouldn't have a need for a levy or tax. Additionally, entities wouldn't be able to rely upon a very small number to support their confiscation of funds from everyone, especially when you consider that they only need a majority of people who actually come out to vote, which rarely reaches 50% eligible voters these days.

Sadly, I don't see the system changing any time soon - if ever. It's too easy to convince a minority that they can benefit at the expense of others, and make them feel okay about doing so by calling it 'democracy.'

Third anniversary of Kelo

"Today marks the third anniversary of one of the most outrageous decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. In Kelo v. City of New London, five black-robed despots ruled that New London, Connecticut, could seize the homes of Suzette Kelo and her neighbors and hand them over to big developers. The decision was a triumph for collectivism, government tyranny, and the capacity of the rich and well-connected to trample the rights of middle-American families."

More of this post from Leslie Carbone