At first glance, the United States seems to have a lot of problems. And it does. But while looking at the rest of the world, it's probably the best form of government there could possibly be. The Constitution is nothing short of an art form. The Founders wove it so intricately well that no branch of government can (legally) become more powerful than the others for longer than four years. It's simply improbable. The basic factor of time and society will eventually bring the more powerful branch down and begin shifting again.
Take a look at other governments:
Spain for instance. Spain is a sprawling Constitutional Monarchy with an extremely progressive form of Republicanism inherent in its government since Francisco Franco died in the 1970s. The ruling King of Spain, Juan Carlos I, actually put down an attempted coup (bloodlessly, which is a rarity in European history) during Spain's constitutional convention, and encouraged a Republic to grow.
The strange thing is, that even though Spain is, by definition, a prosperous democracy, Spaniards are literally at the whim of the King. Basically, the King of Spain has every power of the President of the United States:
-Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
-To call the Cortes Generales (the equivalent of Congress) to a special session
-To appoint/dismiss members of Government
-Grant reprieves and pardons
-Legal immunity
And then some:
-To dissolve the Cortes Generales
-To sanction laws
-To make war and declare peace.
The last three are of course, powers of the US Congress in America. Juan Carlos I happens to be a very liberal, very relaxed King of Spain. Imagine if a King (or Queen) was brought to power with a few dictatorial tendencies?
There goes the Cortes Generales. All laws and their enforcement would be placed at the helm of the King/Queen.
Still, back to the United States. Despite how awesome our system works at preventing tyranny, there's still the problem of the government overstepping its bounds. The Preamble of the Constitution states, "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Hear that? "Secure the Blessings of Liberty." Sounds pretty good considering what denizens of Earth had been facing thoughout history. Just consider the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects), the Thirty Year's War, the Crusades, Witch Hunts in Europe and North America, violent revolutions in both England and France, as well as countless claims of divine right by corrupt men in the monarchies of the Old World.
Yet, what exactly accounts for the "Blessings of Liberty" if we can't really define what "Liberty" is?
To put it simply, "Liberty" is the ability to choose whether or not you are going to do something. The more liberty you have, the more choices you can make, the more powerful you are. The purpose of democracy is to empower the people. And though no where in the Constitution does it state the term "democracy," it also doesn't state "slavery," yet both are inherent in the writing of the Constitution.
Think for a moment with me:
Who is the government to tell you what you should do to your own body?
Who is the government to tell you what you can and cannot own?
Who is the government to take any percentage of your income for their own doings?
Who is the government to say those things? They are the representatives that you've elected to Congress. The problem with this is that once they're in, it's hard to get them out. I've always wondered that. It's like a jar of olives, the first one's the hardest, but the next elections just flow like water.
Ever wonder where they get the money to fund their reelections? The incumbents?
Yeah. Exactly.
Let's address the first question: Who is the government to tell you what you should do to your own body?
Laws were made to be broken. If the Government is going to declare certain drugs illegal, it's only going to increase drug usage. Not only that, it's going to ensure that illicit drugs will have a higher percentage of being laced with crap like rat poison and baby powder. This only puts a heavier strain on the already collapsing medical industry.
What happened when the Government passed the 18th Amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol. As we all know, that only encouraged big cahoons like Joseph Kennedy and Al Capone to begin their own bootleg operations for illegal alcohol. The Government realized their mistake in 1933 and passed the 21st Amendment, effectively repealing the 18th. Crime went down. Alcohol was regulated. And now the Government could sell its own alcohol to start making money to combat the Great Depression.
Maybe the Goverment could legalize marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, start selling their own brand and fix the Panic of 2008? Now, I'm not saying we should all use drugs. I'm actually totally abase to sticking a needle for a good high. But if that's your choice, then who am I to say otherwise? I'd recommend not doing it. But I don't think the Government should have that ability. It's just one more foot in the door for them.
Second Question: Who is the government to tell you what you can and cannot own?
This is very specific: gun control. I'm in full support of near-deregulation of guns. Why? Because if everyone has a gun, and everyone carries them out in the open, how many people do you honestly think are going to even TRY and commit a crime? Double gun deregulation with my Anti-Stupidity Clause and you have a working Anarchy!
Seriously, think about this. The Federal Government can issue gun licenses still, however, the gun license is absolute. You can own any type of projectile (non-explosive) firearm, automatic or otherwise. In Switzerland, this is the norm. The US has 5.28 Handgun murders per 100,000 people. Switzerland has 1.42.
Burglar walks into a store, points a glock at a store clerk, "Gimme all your money." The clerk reaches for his Uzi. The burglar shoots and kills the clerk. A shopper, holding her tampax in one hand, and her AK-47 in the other points the gun at the back of the criminals head. Another shopper phones the police, drawing his own weapon.
Justice is served.
Third and most important question: Who is the government to take any percentage of your income for their own doings?
The Income tax is a form of slavery. The Income tax is a form of slavery. The Income tax is a form of slavery. I cannot say this enough.
If you were sent to a 9-5 job five days a week, only to receive a paycheck every two weeks and had 100% of your pay sent to the Federal government, what would you call that? Slavery. You're getting 0% return for 100% of the work.
Why should 10% or 35% of your income be any different? Because then you (most likely) have to pay the state income tax, along with your 401K, Medical insurance, etc. etc. Don't forget your mortgage, car payments, overdue electric bills...
It's simply appalling that slavery was abolished in 1868 only to be reinstated in 1916. Oh sure, there will be people saying, "But you can't have a government without taxes!"
Right. How many MORE taxes are there? Taxes on small businesses. Taxes on corporations. Taxes on sales purchases. Taxes on imports. Taxes on virtually everything. How can we make up for the elimination of the Income Tax? Simple: property and inheritence taxes can take a small hike. And bump sales taxes up 1 cent in each state. It's such a small hike that no individual will feel it, but on a national level, it'll bring in more money than any of us can imagine.
I hope you've enjoyed my rant. The lesson is, the government has no right or reason to tell you, as a human being with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, what you can and cannot do...
... UNTIL you violate the rights of other citizens. But that's another story altogether.
12/20/08
