Interesting post by Clara just below this one.
But what I find most distressing (I find a number of things distressing, but this is #1) about the income tax has nothing to do with the distribution; rather, I find the government's intrusion into personal lives that is necessitated by such a tax system to be loathsome.
Now, you have to tell the government (under penalty of fines or imprisonment if you don't; in short, the guys with the big guns show up at your house, so when push comes to shove it quite literally is a form of coercion):
-Who you work for (implicit in that is whether you were hired or fired at any time)
-How much they pay you
-How your money is invested, any shares you hold, and how much you gained or lost in your investments. This includes retirement investments
-Your marital status (implicit in that is whether you are gay or straight, forcing you in many instances to disclose your sexual orientation to the government)
-With whom you cohabitate (although this is already known through the census), but more troublingly who is financially dependent on whom in that household
If you wish to take advantage of any of the generous deductions or tax deferments (sarcasm?) you must also declare:
-What church you go to (i.e. to what religious denomination, if any, you belong), and how much money you gave them
-Any charitable organizations or causes which you support
Also (although this is for slightly different reasons) the government knows what political parties and candidates you support.
Of course you could simply neglect to deduct anything, and potentially pay hundreds or thousands more in taxes than you're "supposed" to, or you could take "standard deductions" (but if you get audited you'll have to disclose all the above anyway). You could also file zero single, in which case you do not have to disclose marital status (to my knowledge) or dependents, but you're going to pay MUCH, MUCH (extortionately so, if that's a word) more than if you did disclose.
(In fact, if you have sizable deductions or multiple dependents which you do not disclose, your tax burden could end up becoming larger than your take-home disposable income. This will land you in a situation somewhat analogous to that of Joe Louis, who donated his prizefight winnings to military support groups during WWII, and was later billed by the IRS for his tax responsibilities, despite the fact that the money had already been donated in its entirety to the war effort. Joe Louis ended up having to fight well past his prime simply to pay his debts, and take up menial jobs until the day he died; some of his later expenses and in fact his funeral were paid for by one of Louis' opponents, a German who represented the Nazi regime and whose loss to Louis was seen as a great moral victory for the American cause.)
Speaking of audits, isn't this also a potential tool that government agents can use to abuse political dissidents and other people they don't like?
And lots of other things as well.
I find this absolutely reprehensible, that we are forced to open our lives to the government's inspection and approbation.
It befuddles me why there isn't more outrage over this from civil libertarians and other members of the Left. If the J. Edgar Hoovers of the world are looking to keep little dossiers on all of us (particularly those of us they for whatever reason don't like), doesn't this just play right into their totalitarian fantasies?
Perhaps it's just because the system's been like this for so long that, like a fish swimming in the water around it, we are simply unaware.
The American people keep saying they want "Change." How about we start by changing this?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
Paul Krugman Has a Rich Fantasy Life
Paul Krugman, New York Times, 1/7/2008:
Meanwhile, Greg Mankiw reproduces an image from the Wall St. Journal on his blog, indicating that the richest 5% of U.S. taxpayers in 2005 paid 60% of all income taxes.
You see, for 30 years American politics has been dominated by a political movement practicing Robin-Hood-in-reverse, giving unto those that hath while taking from those who don’t.
Meanwhile, Greg Mankiw reproduces an image from the Wall St. Journal on his blog, indicating that the richest 5% of U.S. taxpayers in 2005 paid 60% of all income taxes.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Yet another botched raid
Link above, and blogged by Radley Balko of Reason here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124240.html
This time it's in Lima, Ohio, resulting in the death of a mother of six, and injuring one of the children. They were looking for the mother's boyfriend, who was being investigated for - you guessed it - selling drugs (as opposed to violent crimes like murder, rape or armed robbery), and had reason to believe there were children in the house, but that didn't stop them from shooting the place up.
On the bright side, they did catch the bad guy. The charge - you guessed it again - possession of narcotics.
This was considered a "high risk" warrant, and that makes the use of military-style entry and rules of engagement de rigeur for law enforcement.
Long gone are the days of "Just the facts ma'am" and "Why don't you come down to the station to answer some questions." Nowadays it's more likely to be a guy with a machine gun and a ski mask threatening to blow your fucking head off if you move an inch, or shoot all your fucking kids' heads off if they move an inch, or some other use of four-letter words and the threat of lethal force, that's serving a warrant on you.
This is, after all, the "post-9/11 world," which generally used as an excuse for anything. Sorry to disappoint you Clara, even more so than global warming.
As Balko points out, what's troubling is that the police aren't specifying what happened. Normally, if the suspect or someone else in the home shoots first, presents with a weapon or attacks an officer, and they have to fire in self-defense, they'll immediately say that. The fact that they have instead gone down the "No Comment" road speaks volumes: It's quite likely that the police fired first, and were not doing so to defend against an imminent threat. It's too early to draw conclusions, but this should be enough to give you pause.
I hate to be overly cynical, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they try to cover this up or falsify documents to support their position, like APD did with the Kathryn Johnston case (which I posted on this blog a while back).
You see, this is what happens when the job of policing is transmogrified into a first-person-shoot-em-up game like Quake. Dressing up in paramilitary gear is fun, and those automatic weapons just kick so much ass, don't they? Especially when we disregard the Second Amendment so most civilians (especially those of the law-abiding persuasion) are disarmed. Collateral damage (a euphemism for "killing innocent people") sucks, but hey, it's part of the job.
Now, please don't confuse me for Al Sharpton. I'm as big a supporter of law enforcement as anybody, and appreciate the dangerous, heroic and thankless jobs that our police officers perform every single day. I myself work in EMS, and have worked side by side with police officers, and when I need their assistance on a call, boy am I glad when they show up.
But let's inject some sanity here.
What ever happened to the good old days where, if you were looking for a suspect, particularly if you believed there were children in the house, you'd stake out the residence, and when the guy came outside, you'd nab him as he's getting into his car?
Or, send the "Prize Patrol" to tell him he's won a brand new plasma HDTV, and to show up at _____ to claim his prize. When he does so, make the collar.
The officers in this case were thrust into this by their superiors and were following their orders, and their orders were to conduct a military-style raid.
Well, in military encounters mistakes are made. That is simply the nature of the beast.
Shots are fired by accident. And when one shot is fired, often many more follow in the confused aftermath. Who just shot at who? Is someone shooting at me? Did one of my partners get hit by that shot?
Split-second decisions need to be made. Sometimes those life-or-death snap decisions don't stand up to the cold calculating light of day or the aseptic courtroom analysis of a prosecutor or defense attorney. But that is the nature of split-second decisions.
Sometimes body language, particularly in the heat of combat, is confusing and an act of surrender is interpreted as an act of aggression.
Maybe the occupants don't know that the masked men in head-to-toe black pointing machine guns at them and saying they're going to "blow off your fucking head" are actually police, and act to defend themselves against what they believe to be an imminent threat by armed criminal intruders.
This is why it is key that such military-style encounters be used rarely, if at all, in favor of less aggressive methods that are less likely to turn into bloodbaths, particularly for innocent victims (like the examples I gave above).
And we must wait for the results of the investigation before we place blame on any individual officers. They may have simply had to make the best of a bad situation, one that they were thrust into for reasons beyond their control. Maybe they did have a legitimate reason to shoot the woman.
But excessive use of these methods is, however, is demonstrably a most impeachable strategy.
This time it's in Lima, Ohio, resulting in the death of a mother of six, and injuring one of the children. They were looking for the mother's boyfriend, who was being investigated for - you guessed it - selling drugs (as opposed to violent crimes like murder, rape or armed robbery), and had reason to believe there were children in the house, but that didn't stop them from shooting the place up.
On the bright side, they did catch the bad guy. The charge - you guessed it again - possession of narcotics.
This was considered a "high risk" warrant, and that makes the use of military-style entry and rules of engagement de rigeur for law enforcement.
Long gone are the days of "Just the facts ma'am" and "Why don't you come down to the station to answer some questions." Nowadays it's more likely to be a guy with a machine gun and a ski mask threatening to blow your fucking head off if you move an inch, or shoot all your fucking kids' heads off if they move an inch, or some other use of four-letter words and the threat of lethal force, that's serving a warrant on you.
This is, after all, the "post-9/11 world," which generally used as an excuse for anything. Sorry to disappoint you Clara, even more so than global warming.
As Balko points out, what's troubling is that the police aren't specifying what happened. Normally, if the suspect or someone else in the home shoots first, presents with a weapon or attacks an officer, and they have to fire in self-defense, they'll immediately say that. The fact that they have instead gone down the "No Comment" road speaks volumes: It's quite likely that the police fired first, and were not doing so to defend against an imminent threat. It's too early to draw conclusions, but this should be enough to give you pause.
I hate to be overly cynical, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they try to cover this up or falsify documents to support their position, like APD did with the Kathryn Johnston case (which I posted on this blog a while back).
You see, this is what happens when the job of policing is transmogrified into a first-person-shoot-em-up game like Quake. Dressing up in paramilitary gear is fun, and those automatic weapons just kick so much ass, don't they? Especially when we disregard the Second Amendment so most civilians (especially those of the law-abiding persuasion) are disarmed. Collateral damage (a euphemism for "killing innocent people") sucks, but hey, it's part of the job.
Now, please don't confuse me for Al Sharpton. I'm as big a supporter of law enforcement as anybody, and appreciate the dangerous, heroic and thankless jobs that our police officers perform every single day. I myself work in EMS, and have worked side by side with police officers, and when I need their assistance on a call, boy am I glad when they show up.
But let's inject some sanity here.
What ever happened to the good old days where, if you were looking for a suspect, particularly if you believed there were children in the house, you'd stake out the residence, and when the guy came outside, you'd nab him as he's getting into his car?
Or, send the "Prize Patrol" to tell him he's won a brand new plasma HDTV, and to show up at _____ to claim his prize. When he does so, make the collar.
The officers in this case were thrust into this by their superiors and were following their orders, and their orders were to conduct a military-style raid.
Well, in military encounters mistakes are made. That is simply the nature of the beast.
Shots are fired by accident. And when one shot is fired, often many more follow in the confused aftermath. Who just shot at who? Is someone shooting at me? Did one of my partners get hit by that shot?
Split-second decisions need to be made. Sometimes those life-or-death snap decisions don't stand up to the cold calculating light of day or the aseptic courtroom analysis of a prosecutor or defense attorney. But that is the nature of split-second decisions.
Sometimes body language, particularly in the heat of combat, is confusing and an act of surrender is interpreted as an act of aggression.
Maybe the occupants don't know that the masked men in head-to-toe black pointing machine guns at them and saying they're going to "blow off your fucking head" are actually police, and act to defend themselves against what they believe to be an imminent threat by armed criminal intruders.
This is why it is key that such military-style encounters be used rarely, if at all, in favor of less aggressive methods that are less likely to turn into bloodbaths, particularly for innocent victims (like the examples I gave above).
And we must wait for the results of the investigation before we place blame on any individual officers. They may have simply had to make the best of a bad situation, one that they were thrust into for reasons beyond their control. Maybe they did have a legitimate reason to shoot the woman.
But excessive use of these methods is, however, is demonstrably a most impeachable strategy.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Environmentalists' Motives Revealed!
What if greenhouse gas emissions from a particular sector were lower than predicted? Lower even than the government-implemented cap on such emissions?
Would the Greens greet this news with relief and rejoicing, because Mother Earth is safer and global warming won't murder us as speedily in our sleep?
You'd think so--but no. How do I know? Because Northeast power plants came in under cap in the past couple of years, and environmentalist interest groups were bummed about it.
Or is it? Cue scary music.
Linked from James Taranto.
Would the Greens greet this news with relief and rejoicing, because Mother Earth is safer and global warming won't murder us as speedily in our sleep?
You'd think so--but no. How do I know? Because Northeast power plants came in under cap in the past couple of years, and environmentalist interest groups were bummed about it.
"If the cap is above what power plants are emitting, we won't see any change in their behavior," said Derek K. Murrow, director of policy analysis for Environment Northeast, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. "They just continue business as usual."
. . .
"If we are under the cap, what is the problem?" said Robert Rio, senior vice president of Associated Industries. "The goal of the program is to reduce greenhouse gases."
Or is it? Cue scary music.
Linked from James Taranto.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
More NHS success stories
This time, it's do-it-yourself dentistry.
Here's the primary problem, as I understand it.
In any health care coverage system, only certain things are covered since, if everyone else is being forced to pay for your medical care, there had better be a good reason why you need that care.
As an example, a necessary appendectomy, chemotherapy or other life-saving treatment would obviously be covered, whereas cosmetic surgery such as penis enlargement, breast enhancement, or other elective procedures would not. In that sense, only "necessary," and not "elective," treatments would be covered
The difficulty arises in so-called "elective" treatments. We'd all agree that penis enlargement is an elective surgery, but what about arthroscopic knee surgery, or hip replacement surgery? Clearly, one could live without having either of those, albeit at a dramatically reduced quality of life and increased levels of pain.
Who exactly decides when a knee replacement, or a rhinoplasty to correct breathing problems caused by a deviated septum, or a breast reduction to alleviate back pain, cross the border from "elective" to "necessary?" (One should also take into account the fact that the treatment's costs, while significant, may be offset by the increased future productivity of the patient if the treatment is successful in alleviating their symptoms.)
It seems to me that disagreements between the patient (and his or her doctor) and the government minder who decides what's covered and what's not, are the source of trouble here. (It certainly is with private insurance companies, so why should it be any different for a government-run system?)
What I don't know is how much of an issue this is. I hear horror stories about cases like the above, but really, how frequently does this happen? Perhaps someone from across the pond can fill me in, since all I have is media coverage, which of course tremendously skews in the man-bites-dog direction. Are these just extraordinarily rare cases that draw disproportionate attention, or a frequently encountered fact of life in a nationalized health care system?
Also, I hear horror stories of tremendously long waiting lists. Is there any particular reason why this is?
Another troubling issue is necessary treatments for conditions caused by lifestyle choices. Foremost would be life-saving treatments for lung cancer, the vast, vast majority (though not all) of cases of which are due to smoking. One could also (with a similarly strong causal chain) target treatments for cardiovascular disease and diabetes which are largely caused by obesity, poor diet and lack of exercise.
As for myself, I exercise regularly, try to maintain a reasonable weight, and while my diet is not stellar, I do what I can to eat right. I think that people who fail to do these things are stupid. Why should I be forced to pay for the stupidity and negligence of others?
Is there any way to single out these cases? A smoker's tax? And how would one enforce such a tax - cameras inside peoples' homes to make sure they're not smoking?
(Which brings up the ancillary issue... if knowledge that the things you're doing to yourself are known to cause a dramatically reduced life expectancy - you are quite literally killing yourself - is insufficient to convince you to change your ways, why are obesity taxes, or tickets for smoking in certain places, so feared? If knowingly causing your own early death isn't a sufficient demotivator, why is a $25 ticket so effective?)
Here's the primary problem, as I understand it.
In any health care coverage system, only certain things are covered since, if everyone else is being forced to pay for your medical care, there had better be a good reason why you need that care.
As an example, a necessary appendectomy, chemotherapy or other life-saving treatment would obviously be covered, whereas cosmetic surgery such as penis enlargement, breast enhancement, or other elective procedures would not. In that sense, only "necessary," and not "elective," treatments would be covered
The difficulty arises in so-called "elective" treatments. We'd all agree that penis enlargement is an elective surgery, but what about arthroscopic knee surgery, or hip replacement surgery? Clearly, one could live without having either of those, albeit at a dramatically reduced quality of life and increased levels of pain.
Who exactly decides when a knee replacement, or a rhinoplasty to correct breathing problems caused by a deviated septum, or a breast reduction to alleviate back pain, cross the border from "elective" to "necessary?" (One should also take into account the fact that the treatment's costs, while significant, may be offset by the increased future productivity of the patient if the treatment is successful in alleviating their symptoms.)
It seems to me that disagreements between the patient (and his or her doctor) and the government minder who decides what's covered and what's not, are the source of trouble here. (It certainly is with private insurance companies, so why should it be any different for a government-run system?)
What I don't know is how much of an issue this is. I hear horror stories about cases like the above, but really, how frequently does this happen? Perhaps someone from across the pond can fill me in, since all I have is media coverage, which of course tremendously skews in the man-bites-dog direction. Are these just extraordinarily rare cases that draw disproportionate attention, or a frequently encountered fact of life in a nationalized health care system?
Also, I hear horror stories of tremendously long waiting lists. Is there any particular reason why this is?
Another troubling issue is necessary treatments for conditions caused by lifestyle choices. Foremost would be life-saving treatments for lung cancer, the vast, vast majority (though not all) of cases of which are due to smoking. One could also (with a similarly strong causal chain) target treatments for cardiovascular disease and diabetes which are largely caused by obesity, poor diet and lack of exercise.
As for myself, I exercise regularly, try to maintain a reasonable weight, and while my diet is not stellar, I do what I can to eat right. I think that people who fail to do these things are stupid. Why should I be forced to pay for the stupidity and negligence of others?
Is there any way to single out these cases? A smoker's tax? And how would one enforce such a tax - cameras inside peoples' homes to make sure they're not smoking?
(Which brings up the ancillary issue... if knowledge that the things you're doing to yourself are known to cause a dramatically reduced life expectancy - you are quite literally killing yourself - is insufficient to convince you to change your ways, why are obesity taxes, or tickets for smoking in certain places, so feared? If knowingly causing your own early death isn't a sufficient demotivator, why is a $25 ticket so effective?)
Friday, December 28, 2007
Governmentium
From the article (link above):
Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton like particles called peons.
Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton like particles called peons.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Perverse Incentives
This op-ed warns the U.S. not to follow European economies into a mesh of entitlements.
Linked from Cafe Hayek.
Swedes are the healthiest people in the world – and yet the country has the world's highest rate of disability. Assar Lindbeck, one of Sweden's best-known economists, notes that the social programs have made it acceptable to live off others and not to work.
Linked from Cafe Hayek.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Huckabee and the Cross
What's the big deal with this so-called cross? Truth be told, I wouldn't have noticed it unless someone pointed it out to me.
Sort of like all those people with no lives who claim to see images of penises looking frame-by-frame at Disney animations, or claim that if you play a Metallica record backwards it contains Satanic incantations.
Human beings are notoriously adept at pattern recognition, and seeing symbolism where there is none.
Consider the "cross" found at the WTC site. Two huge buildings, and how are they constructed? Vertical studs with crossbeams going across, fastened where they cross. Gee, do you think if the buildings fell down there's some slight chance that two pieces could be sheared off but still stuck together like so? Now, if the building fell and the steel beams mangled themselves into a perfect Star of David, or a Hammer and Sickle, that would be newsworthy.
Besides, the controversy only draws more attention to the ad and those who are inclined to support Huckabee will only be drawn to him in greater numbers. The guy's a rabid social conservative; I know this from the things he says, not from some fake "cross" in one of his commercials.
In Defense of Federalism
Link above.
I often take a lot of flak (or flack, depending on your position on the McCain/Obama divide) for defending federalism and states' rights because, of course, the hallmark federalist issues are slavery and civil rights, in which the federal government overrode the discriminatory policies of the southern states.
However, there's no reason a priori to think the federal government will always be right and the states always wrong. It's merely a historical accident that federalism has become a bastard issue - if you're for states' rights, then you support segregated schools drinking fountains and Jim Crow laws and slavery and poll taxes and grandfather clauses and all that.
But one need only examine the recent spate of medical marijuana cases and assisted suicide statutes put forth by any number of states, and the ways that the federal government is trying to override them. Here are states doing the right thing, and the feds overriding them.
The linked article gives yet another example of a state (California) trying to do the right thing, an (at least in principle) and the feds using their dramatically expanded powers (since the signing of the Constitution) to put the kibosh on it.
To paraphrase the tenth amendment, Power to the People, or to the States, respectively!
I often take a lot of flak (or flack, depending on your position on the McCain/Obama divide) for defending federalism and states' rights because, of course, the hallmark federalist issues are slavery and civil rights, in which the federal government overrode the discriminatory policies of the southern states.
However, there's no reason a priori to think the federal government will always be right and the states always wrong. It's merely a historical accident that federalism has become a bastard issue - if you're for states' rights, then you support segregated schools drinking fountains and Jim Crow laws and slavery and poll taxes and grandfather clauses and all that.
But one need only examine the recent spate of medical marijuana cases and assisted suicide statutes put forth by any number of states, and the ways that the federal government is trying to override them. Here are states doing the right thing, and the feds overriding them.
The linked article gives yet another example of a state (California) trying to do the right thing, an (at least in principle) and the feds using their dramatically expanded powers (since the signing of the Constitution) to put the kibosh on it.
To paraphrase the tenth amendment, Power to the People, or to the States, respectively!
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
On the Second Amendment as an Individual Right
Recently a lot of attention has been focused on the Second Amendment, in light of the fact that the Supreme Court will next year be considering an appeal of the DC Court of Appeals' ruling against the overarching Washington, DC gun ban. This will be the first time in about seven decades that SCOTUS has considered a Second Amendment case.
The Second Amendment reads,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Historically, there have been two schools of thought regarding the 2nd Amendment. One, the "individual rights" school, holds that the Amendment recognizes a right held by all individuals. The other, the "collective rights" school, holds that the Amendment only guarantees a "collective right" held only by specific groups of people; specifically, the National Guard is usually mentioned as an example of a "militia" as stated in the first clause.
(Of course, there is a third school of thought which doesn't care what the Constitution says. These people will be ignored for the remainder of this argument.)
What I will argue is that the collective rights interpretation is nonsense when one considers the original intent of the Founders, which was explicitly to hold the Second Amendment as a right held by all individuals.
To do this we need to look at some history.
The Constitution was written and ratified in 1787. In the next few years after the ratification, Republican (aka Anti-Federalist) leaders, notably Jefferson, insisted that there be an addendum to the Constitution listing specific rights retained by the people, and explicit limitations on the power of the national government.
What was eventually ratified in 1791 came to be known as the Bill of Rights, consisting of a preamble and ten articles. The preamble explicitly states what I said above:
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added[.]"
Now let us consider the first eight articles (setting aside the Second for now). Each of these seven articles, and more pointedly, every clause contained in each of these seven articles, falls into one of two categories:
(a) lists a specific right held by the people which cannot be violated by the national government
(b) states an explicit limitation on the powers of the national government.
One may examine the entire Bill of Rights here; what follows are some excerpts:
"Congress shall make no law..."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
"...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime..."
"...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."
And so on.
In every one of these cases, jurisprudence has perennially held that "the people" as referred to in the above clauses in every case refers to individual human beings like you or I. In fact, we would live in a rather scary country if, for example, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, or the right to due process of law, were denied to individuals but guaranteed only in some nebulous, collective sense. (Though I should note that this is essentially what the Bush Administration is trying to do, although they don't even bother to couch it in Constitutional terms, preferring instead to use fear to rally support for their policies.)
What about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, you ask?
Well, one of the chief arguments against the Bill of Rights went along the following lines... "If we sit down and list a bunch of the rights retained by individuals, what about the rights we don't enumerate? Will people just assume they don't exist and pass laws against them?" Hence the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The counterpart to the above argument is, of course, "If we sit down and list explicit limitations of the national government, will the lack of other things we don't explicitly forbid be taken as implicit approbation?" The response to that argument was the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are just two more cases of the above, but instead of explicitly enumerating rights held by the people or limitations of the national government's power, they recognize the existence of unenumerated rights held by the people, and preclude the existence of unenumerated powers held by the national government. (So anyone who refers to "unenumerated powers" held by the Federal government is, quite frankly, blowing hot air.)
Now, let's return to the Second Amendment. From the above discussion, it should be clear that this Amendment must be recognizing either (a) a right held by individual people ("the people" meaning individual, ordinary human beings), or (b) an explicit limitation on the powers of the Federal government, or perhaps both (a) and (b).
Let's take the "collective rights" stance and say that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to the National Guard.
Well, what is the National Guard, you may ask. Since it is fundamentally organized at State level, one may be tempted to argue that it is the modern equivalent of the colonial Militias and thus the rightful owner of the right to keep and bear arms.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. The National Guard depends extensively on funding from the federal government and uses federally owned equipment and bases. More ominously, the National Guard can be nationalized and called to service by the President (as is happening right now with Iraq). More to the point, if the President and your State's governor issue conflicting orders, the Presidential commands supersede the gubernatorial orders (as demonstrated most graphically in 1954 when President Eisenhower ordered the National Guard to assist in desegregation of Southern schools, over the objections of Governors Wallace of Alabama and Faubus of Arkansas).
The National Guard, when push comes to shove, is fundamentally an organ of the national government. Any power delegated specifically to the National Guard is thus, at the most fundamental level, a power delegated expressly to the Federal Government.
However, this would conflict with the entire theme of the Bill of Rights. This "collective rights" interpretation with the National Guard as the "collective" entrusted with this right, cannot, then, be the interpretation supported by the Founders.
Well, what was the "militia" of colonial times? In short, an unofficial volunteer force, often with Members providing their own arms and equipment, organized at State (or Colony, or local) level, with no requisite allegiance to, nor dependence upon, the central government. In fact, it was largely the Militias (and other unofficial forces such as Ethan Allan's Green Mountain Boys) which initiated the revolt against centralized English rule in the 1770's and gave birth to the democratic Republic that is now the United States.
Who were members of these "militias?" In short, anyone who wanted to be.
That is what the militias were all about. Individual people doing what they needed to do to assure that power stayed in the hands of the people, rather than a central government; the militia did not fight for a central government, it fought for the people (who may be for or against any particular central government).
While it is hard to say exactly what the modern-day militia is, it should be clear that it is not the National Guard, or any other organized branch of the armed services (all of which bear fundamental allegiance to some central government power rather than to the individual people).
The most logical interpretation is that the militia is all of us. We are the people. We hold the power. It's up to use to secure our liberties, and ultimately it falls to us to both defend ourselves against outside aggressors and to hold our own government accountable.
This is why the Second Amendment recognizes a fundamental, natural right (some would argue the most important right) held by each and every one of us.
The Second Amendment reads,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Historically, there have been two schools of thought regarding the 2nd Amendment. One, the "individual rights" school, holds that the Amendment recognizes a right held by all individuals. The other, the "collective rights" school, holds that the Amendment only guarantees a "collective right" held only by specific groups of people; specifically, the National Guard is usually mentioned as an example of a "militia" as stated in the first clause.
(Of course, there is a third school of thought which doesn't care what the Constitution says. These people will be ignored for the remainder of this argument.)
What I will argue is that the collective rights interpretation is nonsense when one considers the original intent of the Founders, which was explicitly to hold the Second Amendment as a right held by all individuals.
To do this we need to look at some history.
The Constitution was written and ratified in 1787. In the next few years after the ratification, Republican (aka Anti-Federalist) leaders, notably Jefferson, insisted that there be an addendum to the Constitution listing specific rights retained by the people, and explicit limitations on the power of the national government.
What was eventually ratified in 1791 came to be known as the Bill of Rights, consisting of a preamble and ten articles. The preamble explicitly states what I said above:
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added[.]"
Now let us consider the first eight articles (setting aside the Second for now). Each of these seven articles, and more pointedly, every clause contained in each of these seven articles, falls into one of two categories:
(a) lists a specific right held by the people which cannot be violated by the national government
(b) states an explicit limitation on the powers of the national government.
One may examine the entire Bill of Rights here; what follows are some excerpts:
"Congress shall make no law..."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
"...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime..."
"...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."
And so on.
In every one of these cases, jurisprudence has perennially held that "the people" as referred to in the above clauses in every case refers to individual human beings like you or I. In fact, we would live in a rather scary country if, for example, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, or the right to due process of law, were denied to individuals but guaranteed only in some nebulous, collective sense. (Though I should note that this is essentially what the Bush Administration is trying to do, although they don't even bother to couch it in Constitutional terms, preferring instead to use fear to rally support for their policies.)
What about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, you ask?
Well, one of the chief arguments against the Bill of Rights went along the following lines... "If we sit down and list a bunch of the rights retained by individuals, what about the rights we don't enumerate? Will people just assume they don't exist and pass laws against them?" Hence the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The counterpart to the above argument is, of course, "If we sit down and list explicit limitations of the national government, will the lack of other things we don't explicitly forbid be taken as implicit approbation?" The response to that argument was the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are just two more cases of the above, but instead of explicitly enumerating rights held by the people or limitations of the national government's power, they recognize the existence of unenumerated rights held by the people, and preclude the existence of unenumerated powers held by the national government. (So anyone who refers to "unenumerated powers" held by the Federal government is, quite frankly, blowing hot air.)
Now, let's return to the Second Amendment. From the above discussion, it should be clear that this Amendment must be recognizing either (a) a right held by individual people ("the people" meaning individual, ordinary human beings), or (b) an explicit limitation on the powers of the Federal government, or perhaps both (a) and (b).
Let's take the "collective rights" stance and say that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to the National Guard.
Well, what is the National Guard, you may ask. Since it is fundamentally organized at State level, one may be tempted to argue that it is the modern equivalent of the colonial Militias and thus the rightful owner of the right to keep and bear arms.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. The National Guard depends extensively on funding from the federal government and uses federally owned equipment and bases. More ominously, the National Guard can be nationalized and called to service by the President (as is happening right now with Iraq). More to the point, if the President and your State's governor issue conflicting orders, the Presidential commands supersede the gubernatorial orders (as demonstrated most graphically in 1954 when President Eisenhower ordered the National Guard to assist in desegregation of Southern schools, over the objections of Governors Wallace of Alabama and Faubus of Arkansas).
The National Guard, when push comes to shove, is fundamentally an organ of the national government. Any power delegated specifically to the National Guard is thus, at the most fundamental level, a power delegated expressly to the Federal Government.
However, this would conflict with the entire theme of the Bill of Rights. This "collective rights" interpretation with the National Guard as the "collective" entrusted with this right, cannot, then, be the interpretation supported by the Founders.
Well, what was the "militia" of colonial times? In short, an unofficial volunteer force, often with Members providing their own arms and equipment, organized at State (or Colony, or local) level, with no requisite allegiance to, nor dependence upon, the central government. In fact, it was largely the Militias (and other unofficial forces such as Ethan Allan's Green Mountain Boys) which initiated the revolt against centralized English rule in the 1770's and gave birth to the democratic Republic that is now the United States.
Who were members of these "militias?" In short, anyone who wanted to be.
That is what the militias were all about. Individual people doing what they needed to do to assure that power stayed in the hands of the people, rather than a central government; the militia did not fight for a central government, it fought for the people (who may be for or against any particular central government).
While it is hard to say exactly what the modern-day militia is, it should be clear that it is not the National Guard, or any other organized branch of the armed services (all of which bear fundamental allegiance to some central government power rather than to the individual people).
The most logical interpretation is that the militia is all of us. We are the people. We hold the power. It's up to use to secure our liberties, and ultimately it falls to us to both defend ourselves against outside aggressors and to hold our own government accountable.
This is why the Second Amendment recognizes a fundamental, natural right (some would argue the most important right) held by each and every one of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)