jump to navigation

Liberty Tyranny and the Rule of Law October 17, 2013

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.
Tags: , , , , ,
1 comment so far

A foundational difference between a country that enjoys the benefits of limited government, individual liberty, personal freedom and economic opportunity, and one that suffers under the yoke of tyranny is that the former observes the rule of law and the latter witnesses the rule of whim.

John Locke the intellectual font from which our founders drank long and deep said, “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”

Many people who see themselves as defenders of the common man give their support to people and programs that restrict liberty and relegate most citizens to the role of pawns in the puzzle factory of central planning.  These low information voters and starry eyed fellow-travelers either wake up for elections voting for the party their parents did or they believe the demagogues who sell them some version of Utopia.  The former are just taking a commercial break between reality shows while the latter honestly believe that one more program will actually usher in heaven on earth and there will be a computer on every desk, a cell phone in very hand and all will be right with the world, Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah.

The problem with the low information voters is that they really don’t care enough to find out what is happening and they believe whatever the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media tell them.  You can’t do much in the face of militant apathy.  The inertia outweighs the momentum.   All we can do is wait for reality to shout loud enough to wake them up.

The starry eyed fellow-travelers however might be reachable with a reasonable discussion.  They are after all seeking after a better world.  However, they have swallowed everything the progressive educational system has been swilling out for the last few generations.  Less is more: man-made global warming, it takes a village; America is to blame for the troubles of the world, capitalism, bad socialism, good, etc.

In this essay I wish to address these fellow citizens and hope to convince them that when they sign on to the various progressive plans for central-planning whether it is for health care or of the whole economy it inevitably leads to violation of the rule of law, a breakdown of the social contract and the loss of liberty.

When attempting to plan an entire economy or even of a large part, as the 1/6 that represents health care, it is impossible for any piece of legislation to specify every detail for every circumstance.  Therefore the laws when passed though they may be thousands of pages long will be large guidelines empowering agencies and bureaucrats to write the specifics with the force of law.  Thus the representatives of the people actually delegate their power to unelected individuals who can make law with the wave of a pen.  The form of a representative government operating according to democratic principles is maintained while in reality we have rule by decree and an autocratic regime.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and our fourth president told us, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

In these attempts to control and plan entire economies or of large segments of economies those who direct those economies must choose between outcomes.  One outcome advances the plan and one does not.  Obviously since the plan is the plan whatever obstructs its accomplishment is less desirable than what moves it towards its goal.  Therefore the planners must encourage one thing and discourage another.  This all comes down to limiting choices and picking winners and losers.

Coal is bad because it slows the progress towards a zero carbon footprint and according to the pet pseudo-science of the day contributes to the global warming that in reality is cyclical and ended more than a decade ago.  Therefore coal production and use must be discouraged.

Solar power is good because it is renewable and once you are past the production of the solar panels it causes no pollution.  Therefore solar panel production must be encouraged even when it is an inefficient power source. Even after billions of dollars have been poured into boondoggles which profited no one except campaign contributors and other progressive stake-holders good money must follow bad for the plan must go on.

This choosing of winners and losers according to a predetermined plan by unelected members of the nomenclature restricts the liberty of people to work and prosper as they will while rewarding others who make poor investments and some who even go bankrupt leaving the tax payers to clean up the mess.

This is the opposite of the rule of law.  Laws to be fair have to apply to everyone.  When a nation lives under the rule of law the government does not deny individuals of opportunities or rights.  Whenever a government launches out on the road to Utopia it is necessary that it micromanage the economy making specific decisions relating to the actual needs of people with regard to the plan.  They must slow some down and speed some up if they want everyone to arrive at the desired location at the desired time.

When law ceases to be generally applied and instead arbitrarily chooses between what one can do and what another may not do, and these choices are different, then the law is no longer creating a level playing field it is building a maze.

Aristotle taught us that, “The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.”  That great Roman Cicero said, “We are in bondage to the law so that we might be free.”

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

Give Them an Inch October 11, 2013

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

Let’s see the government had three years and the entire resources of the federal government and they can’t build a website that works.  Now we have a website that won’t let you leave, is open to hackers, presents people with insurance they can’t afford and we are going to fine, excuse me, tax anyone without insurance who doesn’t use it.  These people are making the DMV look efficient.

Many of their own supporters and allies tried to warn them the website was not ready.  The administration which estimated the cost spent to be 93 million for development of the website and ended up paying $634,320,919, which is more than it cost to develop Facebook, Twitter, or Linkedin, released it knowing it wasn’t ready.  Those who have ventured to apply or to investigate report that on average 1 in 10 are able to navigate through the maze to the find the cheese of higher rates.

Maybe that’s because a website tasked with servicing millions was designed to accommodate 50,000?  Maybe it’s because it appears as if no one bothered to test it before launch?  Maybe it’s because instead of using the most up-to-date technology and the latest computer code the government bought some extremely high priced outdated, costly and buggy technology?

Or perhaps it all merely proves the truth of what Ronald Reagan told us many years ago, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

The Democrats and their media allies tell us daily that Obamacare is the law of the land and we have no choice but to fund it, obey it, and carry it on our backs till the end of time.  They say that Congress passed it, the president signed it, the last election ratified it, the Supreme Court upheld it, and that is that.

Congress did pass it without one Republican vote.  This is the first and only entitlement that was passed without even a fig leaf of bipartisan support.

Of course the president signed this Holy Grail the Progressives have been seeking for more than a century, because they know that taking control of the healthcare system, 1/6 of the economy, and taking control of everyone’s health will give them easy access to total control.  Or as Lenin said, “Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.”

The last election did return President Obama to the White House for a second term; however, it also returned a Republican majority to the House of Representatives.  The Constitution designed the House as the branch of government closest to the people, and this House is listening to the people.

And yes, the Supreme Court did uphold it.  How?  By calling what the Congress that passed the bill adamantly said was not a tax is a tax.  This was an example of philosophical gymnastics that found the argument originally used to pass the bill unconstitutional but found the law constitutional as long as it is what they told us it wasn’t.

All of which brings us to the question, “How can Obamacare be settled law when the president can change it anytime in any way he wants?”  There was no provision in the law as passed for all the waivers and exceptions our imperial president makes with the wave of his pen.  If it is settled law, how and why can the president change it without Congressional approval?

Is it now illegal or immoral to work to change “settled” law?  Does this mean that it is wrong for people who believe abortion is murder to work to change the law.  Oh wait a moment the law still says abortion is murder it is only a Supreme Court ruling that holds the laws of the states in check.  Does this mean it is now wrong to protest the never ending wars that are impoverishing our nation without contributing to our security?

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”  The vote to withhold funding for an unpopular law is not only proper and not only voicing the will of the people, but it is also constitutional.

How can it be constitutional for a president to change a law whenever he wants to do so?  Should we just add this to the list of unconstitutional acts the present administration has perpetrated since gaining power?  How long can a nation stand idly by while a rogue administration grabs power and control?  How long will a timid and overawed opposition refrain from raising the cry, “Impeachment!” when faced with the illegal actions of a naked Progressive coup?

Just because something is legal does not mean it is right.  Hitler gained power legally.  He assumed totalitarian power legally.  He built concentration camps legally.  He waged war and killed millions legally.  So did Stalin. Just because something is legal does not mean it is right.  How long America?  How long?  Have we been giving these Progressive camels inches for so long we don’t even notice they have already taken the whole mile?

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 453 other followers

%d bloggers like this: