Social Justice

 'Social justice' is also called 'distributive justice' by those who don't mind the word association problem. At least they are intellectually more honest than those who hide behind the word 'social'. The Washington University Law Review is one of the honest, posing the question, "What should be redistributed?"

The National Association of Social Workers proudly says: "Peace is not possible where there are gross inequalities of money and power, whether between workers and managers, nations and nations or men and women." I would say peace between them and sovereign individuals is not possible when they must use the force of their political power to 'distribute' money and power.

"Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you – and why?"  Walter Williams 

Amen. Just tell me how much of what I have is yours to 'distribute', for the purpose of your 'justice'--a justice which is unnatural by the laws of nature which oblige everyone who consults reason to the proposition that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, property, or health. (See John Locke)

A 'socially just' website, Buzzle.com, clearly states that "In a socially just society, there is equal distribution of wealth and property." By whom, and through the use of what force of power, is this to be achieved; and who gave the right to those who will effect the distribution?

The progressive position does not believe in individual sovereignty (IS). IS is not a road to total anarchy; the progressives don't like anarchy either because it leaves them with no power at all. But IS is Locke's idea of the individual being the source from which all governmental power is derived. I as an individual do not have the power to tax my neighbor for the 'general welfare' of paving the street so that we don't all get stuck in the mud. But government must have the power of building infrastructure.

When in a complete state of nature, I have the right to seek retribution upon anyone who does harm to my life, liberty, property (which metaphysically only is also my family members) or my health. But individuals are often cruel, literally taking an eye for an eye when that is not the right solution. Governments are formed to deal with this also.

Governments are not formed to take part of my wages or part of my home, as was demonstrated in Soviet Russia and depicted in the movie 'Dr. Zhivago'. That solution to homelessness is the logical extreme of progressive socialism--but so is the health care act. That is what Americans said about it when they rejected it in its first form--Hillary care. The dialectics of President Obama's speech patterns and the use of taqiyya to get what he wants led us to where we now stand, in all roads political and economic.

'Justice' cannot be separated by economics, because the distribution of economic elements from one individual or class to another class (never to another individual) is totally foreign to a Constitution that was written to protect the smallest minority, the individual.

See my local newspaper opinion on this subject.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

The Extension and Intension of the Constitution

We must begin this discussion with the definition of the words in the title:
"The intension of a concept consists of the qualities or properties which go to make up the concept. The extension of a concept consists of the things which fall under the concept; or, according to another definition, the extension of a concept consists of the concepts which are subsumed under it (determine subclasses)" source 

The intension of the Constitution is, therefore, the qualities or properties which go to make up the concept. What is the concept? It is supremely simple, and in two parts: the first quality is that of a government more able to deal with national problems than the Articles of Confederation allowed for; and the second property was to make a government less able to violate the rights of minorities. The second quality was the biggest intensional concern of James Madison, Patrick Henry and others, and it is the one that has seen its extensions go awry, since the era of the New Deal.

The extensional parts are the subclasses of the intensions; they are the things which 'fall under' the concept(s). Article 1, Section 2 explaining the composition of the Congress, is therefore an extension of Section 1, explaining that there shall be a Senate and a House.

"The Constitution does not give you rights," explains the Constitutionality Crisis. "The founders considered your rights to be 'God-given' or 'natural rights' — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

• Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
• Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights." [emphasis in original]

The Constitution, in turn, is an extension of John Locke's famous intensional statement about the state of nature specifically, that it "has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. [John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, §6] [emphasis in original]

But more than that, our coveted Bill of Rights are the extensions of the entire concept for the limitation of the powers of government, and the empowerment of the individual. "The whole of the Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of." –Albert Gallatin, 1789, New York Historical Society

The original statements of the Founders give us their intent for ratifying the words they used. Why did they say this, and say it that way instead of the other way or another way? But epistemological intension is like a definition of a genus, whereas extension is like the definition of a species. The genus of the Constitution is that of a document never seen before then, one that had two part, the way 'man' is defined as 'rational animal'. The two parts are to be an enabler of individualism, and a limiter of government.

Madison warned us of wrongful extensions of the limited powers given to government, and named many that we see today. Congress might, he said, "establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union, they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress [ ] and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."

These things are so commonplace that we do not even think about some of them as being usurpations by the nation upon the powers of the States; or worse, usurpations on your individual sovereignty, which was a commonly held extension of the purpose of the limitation on government.

Next Friday I will examine some others in detail.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Obama and Charity

"What is going to become of our charities if almost 33% of it dries up simply because of Washington's policies?"
 
Doesn't the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution mean that the Federal government is empowered to dole out charity? James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, said that the welfare clause is "qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." [emphasis added]

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill

There are dozens of direct references to charity and other welfare by the Founders. And it is clear from the hundreds of other references they made about the meaning of this or that word or clause of the Constitution exactly what was intended when they wrote it. But one thing is undeniably clear about Americans: they are willing to see the 'spirit of the law' in the letter of the law, and usually it is not a 'spirit' put there, nor accepted, by the people who gave it to us.

"Until the New Deal era [charity] was known not to be an enumerated power nor one reasonably implied by the 'necessary and proper' clause and therefore considered unconstitutional. Yet around the time of the New Deal, government began overlooking this clear unconstitutionality" Is Welfare Unconstitutional?

 "The fiscal year 2013 White House budget specifies that the federal tax deduction for charitable contributions be reduced to a maximum of 28% for married couples with income over $250,000, and single individuals with incomes over $200,000." source

 But that White House policy is harmful. In 2009, 89% percent of American households gave an average of $1,620 to charity annually; it was $308 billion in 2008, accounting for 2.2 percent of our GNP), higher than any other country in the world. "This clearly shows America does not have a charity problem--and shows that Americans are fully capable of giving away their own money to good causes." source

Now compare that to the FY2013 Budget, in which we clearly see that Mr. Obama would prefer the Federal government be the major contributor to the health and welfare of Americans:

"This budget would reduce the value of the charitable deduction for certain individuals, effectively subjecting them to pay taxes on money that they give to charity instead of using it to benefit themselves. [G]iving by households with $200,000 or more in income would have decreased by $820 million in 2009 and by $2.43 billion in 2010 had the administration’s proposal been in effect." source [emphasis added]

"Before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which led to nearly $3 billion in donations for victims' families, donations because of large-scale disasters were measured in millions--not billions....an unprecedented $7.37 billion in donations to disaster relief groups in 2005." source What is going to become of our charities if almost 33% of it dries up by 2015 simply because of Washington's policies?
  
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Obama's Economic Collective

President Obama's recent remarks about how people didn't do things on their own is not the first time he has slammed individualism, and raised the specter of a collectivist-thinking mind. "If you’ve got a business," he said, "you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen," he said, in his now famous remarks on interdependency.

In December of 2011, at a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, Obama said that a free market "speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government." But he followed that by saying, "It doesn’t work. It has never worked."

He went on with other remarks: 

• "We simply cannot return to this brand of 'you’re on your own' economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country." 
• 'It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future."
• " I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own."
• "Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper."

These remarks are the message of 'social justice' that the President has worked for his entire political life. But if you're not "on your own", where are you? Are you in a work environment made impossible for management by government regulations?

How does an economy "invest in its people"? I worked in a profit-sharing company where the idea was that we were greater together. But the slackers always lowered my shares and sometimes left me with nothing. If I had owned my own shop and my own welder I would have made more money, so how was standing in that factory part of being something "greater"?

And the only reason for a factory to go where wages are cheaper, is because something is preventing them from paying lower wages here, thereby keeping the jobs here. You can't have that fact both ways. It's either-or.

The President wants an America in which everyone plays by the same rules, as he said in his 2012 State of the Union Address, which was--over and over again--about 'economic fairness'. Yet, he injects tax-payer's money into companies he likes, in order to change the competition in the supply-and-demand market.

Like all good progressives Mr. Obama wants to see the playing field change. So is must be asked, what does he think is happening when an upstart company makes big inroads into someone else's industry? The only true 'economic justice' to be had is when the distribution of capital moves from what the buyers wanted to what they want now. That is not something that can be forced by government. E-85 was mandated by the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988, 24 years ago. Yet in most parts of the nation, you have to go online to look for stations that sell it.

What if government could force a market to rise from little—or from nothing? "We are all painfully aware of the Soviet style mandate that requires 10% of petroleum to be comprised of ethanol.  This unconstitutional mandate has killed jobs, driven up the cost of fuel and food, lowered gas mileage, and damaged car engines," said RS RedState.

Power Industry News wrote that "The Environmental Protection Agency has slapped a $6.8 million penalty on oil refiners for not blending cellulosic ethanol into gasoline, jet fuel and other products. [C]ellulosic ethanol does not exist. It remains a fantasy fuel. EPA might as well mandate that Exxon hire leprechauns. So far this year, just as in 2011, the supply of cellulosic bio fuel in gallons totals zero." [Emphasis added]

Is it fair for a President--or anyone who controls the tax purse--to determine what should be forced on the unconsuming public? Do you not think that $6.8M penalty doesn't mean jobs are lost? What about a safe pipeline not allowed from Canada, and wells not drilled in the Gulf, and ore mines not mined in Alaska? Why are those concepts of 'economic justice' the very sort this President destroys?

If the rules of the market do not "speak" to rugged individualism, why destroy individualism? Why not destroy the rules that prevent individualism in the market? Why not create rules that allow competition?

© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Obama's Practice of Taqiyya-style Lying

Islamicdictionary.com defines 'taqiyya' as "Dissimulation - to conceal, partially conceal or disguise one's true feelings, beliefs or information when there is threat of death or serious harm and when there is a threat of great evil." 

"In practical terms," says Islam Watch, "it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims"

From a description provided by a website about deception, lying is something practiced by many people in all cultures. "A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused - it is done to get one's way)."

The myth raised in 2007 that Obama was schooled in a radical madrassa does not change the fact that he did, in fact, go to an Islamic school. "[In] January 1968," said WorldNetWeekly, "Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta’s Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro...After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled – also as a Muslim, according to documents – in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta..." And according to Obama's own autobiography, "the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies."

This is not an effort to dismiss Islam. It is to make a connection, that Obama was in contact with other Muslims who must regularly practice 'taqiyya' as part of their culture, and he would have at least learned what it was, and as a boy might naturally have tried it.

But why would the American President need or want to resort to this form of false-hood? He would do it for the purpose of fending off and neutralizing any criticism of what he--and we--know to be the most progressive policies ever advocated.

Do not for one minute deny, if you are on the left, if you are a liberal or progressive, or a democrat, that Obama's are not the most progressive ideas in American history to be implemented. You are doing him a disservice if you deny it. Give him credit for doing what you have always wanted in American politics.

But Mr. Obama knows of what he speaks, and because he knows, he must use the tactics of dissimulation that he must have heard over and over again living in Indonesia. His two Islamic fathers may have used the tactic in his presence.

So let's name one, specifically that pledge he made over and over again, that if the health care bill passed you would be able to keep your health care and your doctors. Given the ideas contained within the bill, many right wing and independent critics said it could not happen, that many people would lose their plans or their doctors or both.

In January of 2010--2010, mind you, the President said, "I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge." [emphasis added] Aside from the fact that nothing was snuck past us, but rather Speaker Pelosi said we had to pass it "to see what is in it," there were people who wrote things that made the President's pledge false, and the White House had to know it. The website Scared Monkeys asked, why the President was not more upset about it. "Wouldn’t one think the reaction would be outrage and that he would get to the bottom of this reprehensible action perpetrated on We the People?"

No, he would not be more upset, because making the pledge in the first place was a dissimulation tactic intended to make those who sat on the fence feel a little softer about having their health care messed with. If you were one of those who had no health care, you wouldn't necessarily care if others could keep their plans and doctors, so long as you got a plan and a doctor. 

What Mr. Obama sees as truly reprehensible is an axiom of progressive politics--that 'positive rights' (as opposed to negative rights) are natural human rights--has been allowed to go unfulfilled in the area of health care. Don't forget that Hillary Clinton also describes herself as progressive, and that President Bill Clinton's 1997 health care plan was dubbed 'Hillary care' because it was she who did all the behind-the-scenes work to put it together.

In 2010, Medicare said healthcare costs would nearly double to $4.5 trillion by 2019, accounting for 19.3 percent--almost a fifth--of our GDP. But by June, 2011, health care spending reached an all-time high of 18.2 percent. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this percentage will double again over the next 25 years to 31% of GDP.

If you were a 'goal-oriented' President trying to endow government-sponsored 'rights' upon a nation, wouldn't you use a lot of deflecting, foiling or pre-emptive-blocking-taqiyya in your speeches?

And why wouldn't anyone try to demonstrate before nearly 4 years had passed, that you constantly used the art of dissimulation?

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

A Proposed Amendment to the Constitution

 

Limited Powers Amendment to

The Constitution of 

the United States of America

"The government of the United States nor the governments of the several States have, nor shall be allowed, power not enumerated to them or power denied to them by the Constitution or by any of its Amendments."

Discussion: Does this proposed Amendment adequately treat of the problem of encroachment by the Federal government on the right of the States; and does it adequately treat of the problem of encroachment on the rights of individuals by the States?

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

Political Animals

 "Political Animals" is a new TV show described by its network as a "polished facade of a former first-family as they navigate the complex world of political and personal ambition." Its network, USA, would like us to think "Political Animals" is going to be the hottest summer replacement series of the year. But who is going to be watching it?

The problem isn't who it stars. Sigourney Weaver, no Meryl Streep, is still an engaging actress, nonetheless. James Wolk is a hot young leading-man type. Ciaran Hinds is always interesting. No, it isn't the actors that will cause this mini-series to fail in the ratings; it's the story line.

There are few left-progressive radio stations, and the major networks like Air America are gone, though they are prolific on the internet. But the fact is, the left, the liberals, the progressives do not pay much attention to their own programming, not compared to the right wing. 53 million people in the U.S.listen to Talk Radio. (source: Arbitron Radio Today, 2009) while 91% of talk radio programs are conservative. (source: Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio, Center for American progress and Free Press, 2007) 


More recently according to Joanne Ostrow in the denverpost.com in January of this year, "Conservative talk radio rules 90 percent of the political airwaves today."

Are the Tea Party patriots and the conservatives going to watch Sigourney portray a fictional version of Hillary  Clinton, whose  TV  husband portrays a lecher, and whose TV son portrays the first openly gay First Son in the White House? 

Do you think the left is going to watch? Why bother? They already have the real things, but they won't watch it on TV anymore than they will listen to it on the radio.

USA's producers must be strange political animals themselves, to think this is going to go over with any segment of the viewers large enough to make them do it again. It's just political theater they are engaging in, and I find left wing theatrics to be lacking in anything that would engage my mind, anyway.




© Curtis Edward Clark 2012