Everybody’s a Legislator

Making laws is no longer one man’s job. Not since we rebelled against the king. So why can presidents make executive orders? There is no provision in the Constitution for executive orders. There are no rules to limit executive orders.

Originally, the Constitution gave the powers of law making only to Congress. This way, laws are made only by elected representatives. The founders did this to limit government power. The executive and judicial branches could not make law, but served important roles nonetheless.

Now, the president can make executive orders and the judiciary can review laws and hold them up or strike them down. Everyone wants to be a legislator.

This makes our laws subject to the whims of the unelected. Which means the people are no longer the final authority in deciding which laws should be made.

“Government by the people” is what the constitution says. Our government is no longer constitutional because it is no longer the people’s representatives alone who make laws.

Posted in capitalism, communism, Economics, election, Life, Literature, marx, marxism, Politics, socialism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Oxonian

 

from rjosephhoffmann.com

by admin Posted on December 1, 2011

When I wrote Atheism’s Little Idea I said atheists were small. But (and this is embarrassing to confess) I had no idea how clever.

There’s a species of ant in Papua New Guinea that is so small you need a magnifying glass to see that they’re insects and not swirling grains of sand.  But drop a crumb of cheese on the ground and an army of ten zillion will appear out of nowhere, through the floor cracks where they live invisibly, and devour the cheese before you can retrieve and pop it subtly into your mouth.  They are truly amazing little creatures.  I think they are called siboyeki.  I’m not sure there is a singular, and there doesn’t need to be, because they are never alone.  They don’t believe in God either.  I assume they have short memories because…

View original post 2,342 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Word On Personal Responsibility

Letting someone take responsibility for themselves is the art of letting go. Let go of the idea that you are their answer. Let go of the idea that they won’t be able to survive. Let go of the fear that you’ll be responsible.

Of course, when they give you the impression that you are their only hope when they ask you to do more stuff for them or give them more money, it’s easy to think that you need to keep covering their butt.

That’s pretty much what happens when a person’s growth is stunted by dependence. They don’t know anything but dependence, and they won’t tell you to stop helping them. That’s when you have to do the right thing and make the decision for them. Teach the bird to fly on its own.

This is precisely where the government gets it wrong, nearly every time. When you have a lot of power (given by the people) and society (people) is telling you it is your job to give them lots of money (taxed from the people), that’s a lot of social pressure. However, you might still be willing to play the role of the responsible parent and use the word “no” a lot when dealing with your kids (people). You may even feel good about it until your colleagues start telling you that you aren’t being compassionate enough. Now, by instinct, you know that being responsible with taxpayer’s money is compassionate of itself because it teaches people personal responsibility and it helps you avoid bankrupting the country. This all seems fine and dandy until the media gets involved and they start telling stories on TV about how you hate poor people. That’s when you may start wanting to give in to that social pressure because now your job is on the line. Suddenly, you start worrying a little less about the right thing, and start worrying a little more about the next election cycle.

It’s at this point that people are thankful we have a way of ousting politicians who trade their integrity for self-congratulating, media induced compassion.

Posted in capitalism, communism, Economics, election, marx, marxism, Philosophy, Politics, socialism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If you’ve ever argued on the internet, you’ve most likely run into to this problem. It’s almost a 1:1 ratio.

The New Oxonian

The Death of the Gentleman Scholar
by ADMIN posted on OCTOBER 22, 2011
“Wisdom crieth aloud in the street; she uttereth her voice in the highways” Proverbs 1,22

Recent events have made me remember that one of the reasons I dropped out of law school was that lawyers seemed just like businessmen to me. They told the same jokes, drank the same beer and ogled the same girls while they sat smoking the same cigarettes (when you could smoke cigarettes on a university campus, a hundred years ago) between classes. I had chosen “the law” (notice the phrase) because I’d seen A Man for All Seasons twenty times and thought if it ever came to it I would willingly die for justice, which had become in my head a worthy substitute for God. I’d left him behind at the end of my freshman year and there was an intellectual and…

View original post 1,721 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Way People Argue II

Sideways of the main question are where most people defend their positions. If you get your opponent stuck on a side issue you may win without beating your opponents logic. When on the sideways, you are appealing to emotion; particularly because the opponent knows that your points are sideways, but he/she feels forced to deal with it before getting on with the main issue. It is emotional because it is frustrating; especially when you are attacking a derivative of their main argument but not the argument itself.

If you are the one being thrown for a sideways loop by an opponent who refuses to focus, be firm. They may wish to argue all over the place, but don’t follow them. Keep asking them the same question and every time they finish a point without answering it, expose the fact that they still have not refuted your main point. It may feel as if you get no where with this method, but you must realize that they probably never intended to let you get anywhere to begin with. At least at the end of the debate you may still express in truth that they refuse to address directly the main argument.

Unfortunately, in today’s world, we have a problem with people researching what they believe just enough to deny any counterpoints with rhetoric. Does it then do any good to point out that their points are, on the whole, rhetorical? Most likely, no. If a person has expressed an interest in truth no matter where it leads, and cares for real learning, then their research would have gone beyond just getting a rhetorical understand of the philosophical arguments that defend their position, in the first place. Of course, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt to suggest that they have even gone just that far in their research. Most likely, they did all their research on Google or TV.

Posted in atheism, atheist, Economics, Life, marx, marxism, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, science, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Protection

When government increases oversight and regulation, how does this protect anybody? Promoters of increased regulation assert that corporations and businesses won’t be able to get by with corruption if we impose oversight on them.

The rationale, when regulation is discussed, is that since regulation will decrease corruption, a little more regulation will decrease it even more. The problem with this thinking lies herein: as long as people run things, we will have some corruption. You can add regulation upon regulation and make the economy ever the more sluggish and after all is said and done corruption will still be around.

The other side to this, that is never discussed, is that we already have protection against corruption. We call them laws. We’ve had them for a long time and they have worked. They worked against Enron. They worked against Bernie Madoff. It was the law that oversaw those situations. We didn’t need more regulation to oversee those cases and enforce those laws.

Now, it could be argued that the idea behind more regulations is to stop corruption before the damage is done. Two things, however, are likely to occur as regulation rises. 1) Corruption will still be with us. As long as people are in charge, corrupt people may be in charge. 2) The government is run by people. As long as people are in charge in government, corrupt people may be in charge in government. This includes the people in charge of regulatory entities.

This brings us to the next point. As much as markets are thought to need regulation, regulatory entities need to be regulated. This is just as much a problem as any other regulation problem. Just as corrupt people may run business, they may also run the entities that regulate those businesses. Meanwhile, there is no check and balance involved. The regulatory entities may impose checks and balances on businesses, but it doesn’t happen the other way around. All that happens then, is that power is siphoned from the market, slowing down the economy and diminishing American economic robustness. Meanwhile, that power is not simply deleted like a file on a computer. That power is drawn away from citizens who enter the market and toward government entities who would make the market a “fall guy” for their political schemes.

My last point here is stated thus. Politicians are the key here. These regulatory entities were created by politicians, and they are either maintained, grown, or scaled back by politicians. That is not a conspiracy theory, as some of our publicly educated readers might be tempted to think because in school they were taught that government is the “good guy.”

Posted in capitalism, communism, Economics, marxism, Politics, socialism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Legalized” Discrimination

“Critical Legal Studies Reading Group (CLS Group) is an organization comprised of students and faculty, that is comprised on reading about and discussing issues of sexuality, gender, race, class and postmodernism in the law, as well as Critical Race Theory, Feminist Jurisprudence, and other related areas of critical thought and analysis.”

Apparently this is what students at Hamline University School of Law consider “critical” reading in legal studies.

These studies are fundamentally liberal. This is what the law is becoming. No wonder Judge Sotomayor judged it proper to deny some men passage of a firefighters exam simply because they stood out above a group of African-American men, who on the majority did not pass the test.

These are important issues but they are issues that are already dealt with, within the law. They should be taught as part of a course on citizen rights under the law, not as separate pieces of a whole. This does more to ideologically divide racial groups in culture than any isolated incident. This puts people into categories of special privilege. Agree or disagree with me on the impropriety of teaching this. Either way, it is a matter of special privilege.

This is the same problem you run into when making a distinction between “hate” crimes and other crimes.

If it be discovered that this group makes the points I am making here, then I withdraw my objection. But I seriously doubt it.

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment