The Grass is Greener in Red States

How smart were the Framers in the design of our system? Darn smart. Beyond studying government systems for decades, they collectively sequestered themselves for four months arguing daily on how to craft a proper design. Recent events allow us to measure their wisdom in one aspect of the design. They set up a system with thirteen (at the time) laboratories for political experimentation. How’s it working.

Twenty-seven states are run by Republican governors and twenty-three by Democrat governors, and there are no Republican mayors in the largest twenty cities. The relative approach to governance across America has become increasingly disparate.  The purpose of government is to keep us safe and improve our lives.  Factually, how are the two political parties doing?

 Covid19

Deaths in Blue States were 45 per 100,000, while deaths in Red States were 21 per 100,000. This means that a person was more than twice as likely to die from Covid19 in a state with a Democrat governor.

When the legislatures and tenure are examined, the results become even worse for Democrat leadership. The two Republican states in the top 10 are the traditionally Democrat states of Massachusetts and Maryland, where Democrats continue to control both houses of the legislature.  Throw into the mix the District of Columbia (78/100,000) and the picture becomes dismal.

Crime

All top ten cities are run by Democrats and nine have the worst crime record in the nation. Detroit has been the most dangerous city in the nation for four years running.  The average for these ten cities is 1,560 violent crimes per 100,000 people.  By contrast, the nation’s eighth largest city, San Diego, has only 370 victims per 100,000 and has been designated by the FBI as the safest city in America. San Diego, which was Republican recently elected a Democrat mayor. We’ll see if they can maintain their stellar reputation.

Violent protests have occurred primarily in the Democrat controlled cities of Minneapolis/St Paul, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, New York and D.C.  Insurance claims are estimated to be “catastrophic.”

Taxes

On average, income taxes are 30% higher in Blue States with California, New York, Minnesota, Oregon, New Jersey, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia leading the pack in high rates.  If you like paying taxes, the following Democrat cities have an additional city income tax: New York City; the District of Columbia; Louisville; Birmingham; Baltimore; Detroit; Kansas City and St. Louis, MO; Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo, OH; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, PA.

A Google search came up with no Republican mayor that imposed a city income tax.

Illegal immigrants

Nine of the top ten cities with an illegal population have Democrat mayors, with one progressive Independent.  Six of these cities self-designate as sanctuaries. Texas has a state law forbidding sanctuary cities or it would likely be eight out of ten.  Nearly a quarter of the nation’s illegal immigrants reside in California, where they constitute more than 6% of the population. (Other estimates are far higher.)

Homelessness

New York has the highest number (47) of homeless per 10,000 residence, followed by Hawaii (46), Oregon (35), California (33), Washington (30), Massachusetts (29), Nevada (25), with Colorado and Maine both at (19). All Blue States. In contrast, the large Red States of Florida (15), Arizona (14), and Texas (9) come in much lower.  The remaining Red States are all below 13 per 10,000.

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, an average of 568,000 individuals were homeless in 2019.  Over one third of those live in the three Blue States bordering the Pacific Ocean, the citadel of progressive Democrats.  Add in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, and you have well over half of the nation’s homeless in eight Democrat states.  Outside of Hawaii and Southern California, the weather does not attract the homeless to these states.

Income Disparity and Poverty

 When cost of living is taken into account, California has the highest poverty rate (18.1), putting almost seventeen percent of California residents below the poverty line.  California poverty is only exceeded by Washington D.C. (18.2).  Overall, Blue State poverty is 4.2% greater than in Red States, but the picture become bleaker when income disparity is examined.  Income disparity is 7% greater Blue States than in Red States, and only four Democrat states and D.C. are above the national average (.486) as measured by the Gini coefficient. D.C. (.542), New York (.523), Louisiana (.499), Connecticut (.495), and California (.490), substantially skew the average upward for the rest of the nation.  Ironically, these bastions of progressivism constantly harangue the rest of us about the evils of income disparity.

The results are crystal clear. Now, it’s only left to be seen whether we’re smart enough to use the Framers design to better our lives and the lives of our children.

Yet Another American Icon Pulled Down

 

Everything American seems under duress.  Our Constitution is dismissed as racist, our democratic processes are corrupted, our rights have been crushed by a virus, people have lost faith in government institutions, and every self-entitled busybody is telling us how to live, think, and speak.

My wife and I needed a break.

We met my son’s and daughter’s families for vacation in Orlando.  We had a great time, especially at our rented house.  Three families eating, celebrating birthdays, playing in the game room, watching movies, and splashing around in the pool.  The extended weekend was the highlight of our life since Covid19. We lived the “old normal” for four days and it was a wonderful reminder of living free.  That is, until we ventured into Orlando’s famed parks.

The parks were expensive, crowded, and autocratic.  Disney World took honors as the worst. Walking up to the entrance, we were greeted by people wearing masks and face shields holding disinfectant and temperature wands.  It felt like we were entering a pandemic center not the happiest place on earth.  Inside, signs and loudspeaker ordered you to never drop your mask on penalty of expulsion, and so-called Cast Members became downright snarly.  The hot and humid lines felt cruel, not happy.

This was the polar opposite of my childhood experience at Disneyland.

Walt Disney had a vision for America, and Disneyland was not an amusement park; it was the fulfillment of that vision.  It was clean, it worked flawlessly, and it was egalitarian.  Above all, it was a place that celebrated family. Walt delivered wonder and happiness.  It was all about the experience … and nothing was allowed to interfere in with that experience.  When Walt was alive admittance was calibrated to preclude outlandish wait times, a mix of food vendors could accommodate any budget, and the park added a dazzling new feature every year.  Walt even had service trucks troll the parking lots ready to provide gas or a jump start to cars that refused to start.  He explained that he didn’t want a family’s last memory of his park to be a disappointment.

Today?  All the Orlando Parks claim to be operating at one-third to half capacity.  If true, then at full capacity, they must use Japanese transit pushers to get the last patrons through the gate.  Interminable lines are also caused by Disney World’s strict caste system. Families with unlimited resources hire private guides that sidestep the riffraff.  Those in the middle buy FastPass tickets which allowed them to stand in shorter lines.  The rabble?  They spend a huge sum to stand in hour-plus lines in exhausting heat, struggling to breathe.

Everyone, including children over two, must wear a mask over their mouth and nose.  On the rides, in line, and outdoors.  Evidently, the Magic Kingdom Disney ignores science.  We were even ordered to keep our down syndrome grandson home because he refused to religiously wear a mask.  The Magic Kingdom now celebrates family by ignoring the Equal Opportunity for Individuals With Disabilities Act.  And don’t even think about waving your vaccination card.  The Magic Kingdom ignores your doctor provided certification.  The Magic Kingdom makes its own rules.

The rules are strict, and you’re reminded endlessly.  Mask police are omnipresent and harsh taskmasters.  Never let it drop below your nose, and no mask break without buying food or drink and remaining socially distanced and absolutely still.  Ride operators scold you if you try to pull a clean breath in the dark.  The mask police even patrol outside the park, so no breathing freely on your way to the car.  This is all after your temperature has been proved normal in a state that claims to be fully open.  It’s almost as if they want you to remain frightened and off-balanced.

This is not Walt’s vision for America.  It’s the bizarre vision of others.  Bunched us up in queues with no open space, omnipresent officials enforcing rules, loudspeakers barking orders, and some animals more equal than others.  All of this has been sold as safety measures for our loved ones and others.  Sacrifice for the common good.  Good people doing a good deed.

Isn’t it ironic that to exert authoritarian control, our betters artfully appeal to our innate goodness.

A Virus Attacks Our Constitution

This image changed my opinion about masks.  At first, I was ambivalent about their use in public but after viewing this picture, I found them abhorrent.  The photograph shows the Chinese National People’s Congress dressed in monolithic black suits accessorized with matching masks.  That unmasked dude strutting in front of his faceless lackies is Xi Jinping; General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and President of the People's Republic of China. 

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.  Animal Farm, by George Orwell.

We’ve already imported too much from Communist China.  I’m not talking about only products. The Cultural Revolution was the original Cancel Culture.  Leftists adopted Hong Kong White Shirt tactics to stake out a thuggish street presence.  Audited and censored social media took a cue from the Communist Chinese. Enough is enough. Americans chart their own course.

Suppression of constitutional rights, state control, and roughshod policing of lawful behavior has become more of a norm than an exception.  The Wuhan virus was the piece de resistance.  Emergency powers gave governors and mayors an opportunity to flaunt totalitarian instincts.  None of this has done us any good and we sure don’t need to import the Communist Chinese fetish for stripping people of their individuality.

Public safety does not require mandatory masks.  Even when used properly, surgical masks cannot fully protect against a virus. Unlike bacteria, viruses are submicroscopic and easily pass through most masks. Improperly used, masks become a petri dish that increases the risk of catching a bacterial illness.  Additionally, Mask wearing by the healthy can cause headaches, breathing difficulties, facial skin lesions, dermatitis, mask mouth, and worsen acne.

How about wearing masks to protect others?  As evidenced by shifting recommendations by health organizations, there is no settled science on this assertion.  First off, the sick should quarantine themselves and wear a mask if they absolutely must go out in public. This was the standard practice before everything got turned upside down by this virus. To counter this commonsense response, a narrative has been crafted that asymptomatic Covid19 carriers unwittingly spread the disease.  Recent studies could not confirm this supposition. Asymptomatic individuals might be false positives, or the absence of coughing and sneezing may curb contagion. After the World Health Organization stated that the pandemic spread by the asymptomatic is “very rare,” the organization got so much pressure from mask bigots that they revised their statement to basically say that there’s no evidence either way.  How WHO was supposed to prove a negative is beyond me. Here’s an idea, if you see someone in public without a mask, don’t get in their face.

Masks are scary, a health risk, dehumanizing, and uncomfortable.  We learn as babies how to read expressions. Many actors do their best work when they don’t have a single line of dialogue.  Comedians, voice actors, and politicians know that inflection is a big part of verbal communication. Just imagine going to a movie where every character wore a mask.  Criminals and Antifa use masks to remain incognito.  Much like the niqab, pandemic masks adherents aggressively browbeat others into donning this symbol of collectivist virtue.

Leftists pooh-pooh the idea that masks are some form of abasement.  But look at the type of people who inflexibly insists everyone must always wear a mask.  Look at the bullying tactics they use to forbid us from exposing anything but our eyes.  Look at those who demand that every American wear a mask in public at all times.  Why?  Science does not justify this oppressive level of control over our daily lives.  In America, we take pride in our liberty.  There should be no stigmatism attached to wearing a mask nor should there be any stigmatism for declining to wear a mask.

Here's the bottom line, once we are all obediently masked, we’ll discover which animals are more equal than the rest of us.

Governments don’t belong in religion, arts, or the sciences.

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, highest paid person in government

Governments don’t belong in religion, arts, or the sciences. The Constitution only gives the government a referee role with patents, outright orders the government to stay away from religion, and doesn’t even mention the arts. Unfortunately, politicians with an authoritarian bent can’t leave these realms alone because they compete for power and messaging. Typically, autocrats repress religion, co-opt art, and decree science. Sound familiar?

What’s the worst that can happen? Let’s look at how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) manages science. The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is a galactic-class arbiter of research, collaborations, and communication about all things scientific. CAS funds pure and applied scientific research throughout China … and the rest of the world. It comprises over one hundred institutions that directly employ over sixty thousand researchers. With royal benevolence, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has given CAS permission to build independent sources of income. CAS owns or holds shares in more than thirty enterprises. For example, CAS is the largest Lenovo shareholder, one of the three major personal computer companies in the world

Externally, CAS presents itself as wealthy enough to thumb its nose at CCP apparatchiks. Only the gullible believe this. No organization important to the Chinese state is allowed an iota of independence. Several members of the executive board are CCP members, and one even is a member of the Presidium. He carries the title, Head of the Discipline Inspection Team. (Wonder what that could be.) CAS muckamucks have twice been subjected to harsh re-education, so with watchdogs underfoot, the Academy dutifully adheres to CCP wishes.

Nature wrote a glowing editorial titled “The ChineseAcademy of Sciences at 70.”  More interesting, the journal published a letter-to-the-editor from Qingquan Zhang, the CAS Chief Public Information Officer.  He found several things in the article “quite misleading.”

CAS is not run independently of government, as you imply.  The establishment and development of CAS have been entirely based on the wisdom and support of the central government.

Contrary to your headline, CAS has never sought or achieved financial autonomy.  Over the past 40 years, half of its income has come directly from central-government investment; the rest has been from competitive funding or technology transfer.  CAS could not develop without the funding and support of the central government.

In carrying out its scientific and technical mission, CAS stands firmly with the central government and with the people.  We reject any such false allegations with disruptive intentions and are strongly opposed to biased judgments of China’s internal affairs, and to any unnatural linking of political or ideological positions with our mission.

Most Americans would consider the editorial a puff piece. However, Nature did state that during the Cultural Revolution:

Torture was commonplace and, according to CAS’s own records, 229 scientists were either killed or took their own lives in this time.

The Chinese Communist Party does not accept criticism, even when embedded in an otherwise positive portrayal. 

What does this portend for us? Is science in the United States unduly influenced by government?  We don’t bundle our scientific institutions under a single umbrella organization; however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is our best-known government funded medical institution.  It offers guidelines that other government agencies seem to treat as if they have the force of law. That makes the CDC a powerful and unchecked arbiter of American life.

Could CDC “science” be biased by politics? CDC communications have often shown more loyalty to the Democratic Party narrative than to the underlying science. This is especially obvious in report summaries which frequently promote a theme not found in the detail findings. Since 2015, all but 5 of 8,000 political donations made by CDC employees went to Democrats or left-leaning organizations. China could send home their political officers if they could achieve this level of groupthink.

Science is the opposite of politics. Science is rational, objective, orderly. Everything that politics is not.  In science you not only have to prove your hypothesis, but others must replicate your experiment and achieve the same results. In politics, not so much. Yet, politicians love to meddle in this space.

Make no mistake, politicians want to control science so they can use the discipline as a public relations tool.

Vilify our Founders? To what purpose?

Most of us watched aghast as hoodlums ripped down Confederate flags and statues. Democrats seamlessly progressed beyond heroes on horseback to our revolutionary Founders and Constitutional Framers. After a couple years, the absence of a statue will hardly be noticed, so these acts had little consequence. Wanton destruction may have seemed mindless, but there’s a bigger goal in mind.  Their end game is the obliteration of our Constitution.

Democrats have always hated the Constitution. Our system of government hinders ruling in a manner they deem appropriate. They’ve whittled at the edges for over two hundred years, but the Framers were so clever that even a stripped-down version remains a forceful restraint against them exercising their full ambitions. To a committed progressive, the Constitution must be brushed aside so real progress can be made.

Here’s their problem.  The Constitution has become so entrenched in our American culture that it’s more than words on parchment. The Constitution is as American as baseball and apple pie. To rid the nation of something that ingrained, the first task is to discredit the authors.

The Founders feared centralized power so they designed an instrument to thwart the ambitions of despots and crackpots. For perspective, let’s look at the intent of the Framers and some of the erosion of their vision.

Most Americans are familiar with the term checks and balances.  It is often spoken as if it were a single word, but in the eighteenth century, the phrase represented distinctly different concepts.  John Adams may have been the first to put the words together in his 1787 publication, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, but balances and checks is the phrase used in The Federalist, and that is the sequence James Madison would have thought appropriate.  First balance powers between the branches of government, then place checks on those powers so they may not be abused.

The Framers first line of defense was enumerated powers, later reaffirmed by the states and Congress with the 10th amendment.  Unfortunately, few in Washington consider the enumerated powers a present-day constraint.  Many find it amusing that someone might claim there are limits on national power.

Another bulwark erected by the Framers against concentrated power was a limited national taxing authority. Squeeze the purse, throttle the power. However, progressives under Woodrow Wilson passed the 16th Amendment, which allows the government to “collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.” That pretty much took care of any money restraint.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention intended the states to provide a potent check on the national government.  They included five provisions for this purpose: enumerated national powers, equal state representation in the Senate, senators elected by state legislatures, limited national taxing authority, and the Electoral College.  The 17^th Amendment, also passed under Wilson, provided for the popular election of senators, so three of the five provisions have been negated while the other two are under assault.

Despite these and other erosions the Constitution remains a potent restraining order against overly ambitious politicians. Healthy tension exists between the three branches and most of their respective powers remain intact. Something must be done. The rebellion has already progressed from flags and statues to condemnation of the Founders and Framers. In recent years, learned articles have periodically appeared that impugn our Constitution as too restrictive, woefully out of date, and written by white males who owned slaves. (The first is a feature, not a flaw; the second untrue; and the third partially true but irrelevant.) In the coming months, expect to see many more think-pieces along these lines.  On cue, criticism will expand to the popular culture. The topic will crest when late-night talk show hosts tell disparaging jokes about the Framers and our Constitution.

We cannot allow this to happen.  Fifty-five highly educated and talented men debated daily for four months to define a government that would work for the people while shielding them from the power crazed. Their work was ratified by the people who argued at home, at church, in taverns, and in print until every facet had been examined and reexamined. New states, wars, depressions, state succession, GDP growth, longevity, twenty-seven amendments, and the constant striving to live up to our founding principles proves that the Framers’ foresight remains invaluable.

Human frailties are no reason to throw away the Framers’ brilliance. 

Rapacious politicians are reason enough to heed their counsel. 

Socialism is for Losers

Why has socialism become trendy? Why would a presidential candidate laud a government system that carries a heartbreaking record of failure? Millions have died under socialism and its more virulent permutations. Hundreds of millions have suffer deprivation and bondage under this egregious form of authoritarianism. Venezuela is crumbing with people fleeing in every direction. Misery and despotism entrap North Koreans while their brethren to the south live in the eleventh richest nation on Earth. There are no boats of refugees risking life and limb to get to Cuba. Despite a mass inflow of Muslim immigrants into Sweden, the supposed Shangri la of socialism has a net emigration rate of 5.3 per thousand. Not a ringing endorsement for the Left’s utopia.

(Technically, Sweden is not socialist. They’re a welfare state adept at allowing enough free enterprise to bankroll government services. Sweden recognizes that only capitalism builds wealth. Despite slow growth and skattetrat, this model has previously worked relatively well because of a small population and homogeneous culture. This will be tested in coming years with the influx of cultures eager to seize the benefits of Swedish welfare.)

People who have lived under socialism certainly don’t like it. Eastern Europeans aren’t buying this crap. Cubans who escaped are ardent conservatives and Castro haters. Even people in Russia and Albania prefer a kleptocracy to communism. You don’t see India or China backing away from their shift to a market economy.  The truth is capitalism has lifted scores of millions out of poverty. 

So, again, who in the world likes socialism? To answer this question, we need to examine capitalism. Capitalism is competitive ... and competition is the engine that drives enormous growth in wealth and wellbeing. Businesses and entrepreneurs strive to invent or concoct stuff people will buy. To thrive, they need the public to willingly trade hard-earned money for their products and services. It's rough and messy and stressful. You could be on top this year and find yourself run over by some whippersnapper next year. If you’re an individual contributor, you need a marketable skill or talent. If you want more of the American Dream, you need to continuously hone your skill or talent. This constant tension to invent, innovate, and work drives wealth creation under capitalism. Sometimes the rug gets pulled out from under you, and although you may get a tad of help from safety nets, the ultimate onus is on you to pick yourself up. 

Capitalism is not a laid-back system. Some thrive under it, others not so much.

Capitalism also provides checks and balances as it disperses power between government, business, religions, and non-profits. When capitalism is mentioned, most people think of big corporations, but family businesses account for 64 percent of gross domestic product and 62 percent of employment. Family businesses grow faster, hire faster. New entries that knock Fortune 500 companies off the listing come from up-and-comers that previously resided below the last ranked firm. 

Turmoil and change is endemic to capitalism.

Under socialism, government owns most or all the means of production. (Under fascism, government and large corporations collude to the same result.) Socialism concentrates power and money in the government. Checks no longer exist because no balance exists. Power-crazed politicians hunger for socialism because it makes them and their friends all powerful. Government, enterprise, and doctrinal adherence are consolidated into a single entity. This is the way Europe was ruled during the Dark Ages. Nobility and the Vatican colluded to hold all power in the hands of a few aristocrats. The outcome was slow growth, lackluster societal advancement, and little social mobility. Everyone had a place ... and everyone knew their place. Enforcement of the system led to repression and extreme concentration of wealth.

So, who in the world likes socialism? 

Losers.

Calling someone a loser might sound like a pejorative, but the fact remains that there are losers under capitalism. Some can’t make it in the rough and tumble world of capitalism. Some of those take a government job or run for office. Despite turning their back on free enterprise, many still lust after the rewards of capitalism. They’re jealous of people in the private sector and resent their ability to accumulate wealth. They see it as a wrong. They want—no, need—to get their hands on the largess of a free market system. Socialism provides the answer for these losers. As government employees or officials they reap the rewards of others' industry. The total economy will be smaller, but their share is humongous compared to public servants under capitalism. Never mind the misery of the masses, they have the best food, nice clothes, and all the creature comforts imaginable.

There's a problem: how do they sell socialism to the general populous? They appeal to people without job skills, people without education or training, people with impairments, people with addictions, people with a criminal past, people with debts, people who made poor life choices, people with mental illnesses, people here illegally, and the marginalized who can’t get a fair shake. Are there enough of these people to overthrow the greatest wealth creation engine ever invented? Elections have proved no. So the power-crazed cheat in elections, manufacture more losers, and import the poor from other counties.

Capitalism broke us out of feudalism and brought a decent livelihood to the masses. Socialists want to create a new nobility and make everyone else serfs again. Being a slave to the state is no different than being a slave to a master. Your betters decide how you live, what work you do, and how much you are paid. To keep everyone in their place and maintain discipline, government bureaucrats control what you say and even what you may think. If you don’t believe me, seek out someone who has lived under socialism.

Politicians ought to forthrightly debate the human and financial cost of forcing equality among commoners. Unfortunately, socialism consumes wealth and eventually makes everyone equally impoverished. But that is not the primary reason to avoid socialism.

The real crime of socialism is that it sucks the heart out of a nation and its people.

The Constitution is a restraining order on government.

 

Government and Economics Made Dead Simple

There are only two types of governments. Two. That’s it. Those where the people control the government and those where the government controls the people. Likewise, there are only two types of economic systems. Economies where free markets control commerce and economies where bureaucrats control commerce.

It’s that simple.  Really.

The Two Types of Governments

Most governments control people. This has been the case throughout history. Proponents of Big Government used different nomenclatures to describe their ideal system, but they all have one overriding characteristic—power centralized in government.

Socialism, fascism, communism, feudalism, monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, police states, a unitary state, oligarchies, et. al. concentrate power in the state. The underlying political theology is irrelevant. In each and every case, the individual is subject to control by the state. It doesn’t matter who orders you about. It could be a king, emperor, dictator, a party general secretary, or an elected machine politician. The result is the same. You do as you’re told. You’re a serf, plain and simple.

Occasionally, people control government. This is rare. Those fortunate nations believe that people are born with natural rights and inherently possess the liberty to direct their own lives. The term democracy is bandied about, but nations based on sovereign individuals are never pure democracies. Democracies can take whatever they want from groups outside the majority voting bloc. Instead of being sovereign individuals, those outside the mainstream can be victims of the popular vote. As James Madison pointed out, slavery would be a perfect example of this concept.

Countries that respect an individual right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are representative republics or parliamentary systems with safeguards for minority interests.

The United States of America was founded on the principle of sovereign individuals—an idea that flipped the concept of “divine right of kings” on its head. Instead of rulers being ordained by God to rule, each and every person was “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  

Of course, nothing’s absolute in this world, but the greater the power of the state, the less power held by the people. Our Founders understood this and possessed a healthy fear of an overly powerful government.

Two Types of Economies

Commerce enables our lives. Few can self-provide all of life’s necessities, so the human species has always relied on trade to get some of what they need or want. 

In centrally managed systems, bureaucrats decide what gets produced, in what quantity, and how these goods are distributed. If you believed in the infallibility of man, you might think this is a nifty system. You’d be wrong. It’s been tried countless times and always failed to deliver the goods. State run economies generate shortages that never seem to go away. You see a line; you get in line. It doesn’t matter what they’re selling. You either need it or can trade it on the black market for what you do need. Oh yeah, state run economies always have black markets. The ruling class disparages black markets because the term really denotes the sector of the economy that remains market driven. To see something work without government direction is embarrassing to bureaucrats.

Centrally managed economies generate shortages. On the other hand, market driven economies produce abundance. Why? Because every time you buy something, you’re voting for what you want. Independent producers, with no guidance from above, tally these votes and make more of what you bought. They do this to make a profit.

Profit is the fee producers get for making desirable stuff available to the public.  If you don’t like it, they lose. If you like it a lot, they get rich.  If that’s not clear, ask Steve Jobs, Taylor Swift, or LeBron James. The dollar incentive to get the right stuff to market is what makes a market economy hum. At times profits get exorbitant, but other producers see this and rush to get in on the action. Unless … the current producers are in cahoots with the government. You see, governments can create barriers that other producers can’t overcome, thus ensuring that their chosen suppliers continue to make a killing. The chosen suppliers, of course, provide kickbacks to their political overlords. This is called crony capitalism, or in its extreme variant, fascism.

Which brings up a final point. Nothing in this world is black and white. It’s a gray scale. Different governments wield different levels of power. But once the centralization of power passes the tipping point, governments go totalitarian. All of them. No exceptions. Human beings are flawed creatures. Some have an inborn need to control everyone else. Control obsessed individuals are never satisfied and constantly strive to increase their control over every aspect of society.  They claim that they’ll take care of you, but it’s a bait and switch game. They really want you under their thumb.

Socialism does more than deny you material things, it sucks the soul out of a society. Socialist countries are sad, dreary places.

Final Take-Away

Excessive power in government is bad. Period! Socialism concentrates governmental and commercial power in the state. No checks, no balances. Raw power centralized in one place where the most ruthless can grab it to dominate other human beings. For most of the eight billion people on Earth, this is their way of life. Why would we want to join them?

Our freedom depends on We The People controlling our government … not the other way around. Freedom is a precious commodity.  So rare, few in history have experienced it.  As Ben Franklin put it so succinctly, the real question is can we keep it.

Constituting America's 90-Day Study – Our Lives, Our Fortunes & Our Sacred Honor – Exploring the Declaration of Independence

Guest Essayist: James D. Best, Author, Tempest at Dawn, a novel about the 1787 Constitutional Convention; and Principled Action, Lessons from the Origins of the American Republic

Right of the People To Alter or Abolish Government

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”

Read the essay here ...

Jennifer N. Fenwick has written an excellent blogpost titled Government of the People, by the People, for the people – What That Truly Means. In the process of deftly describing our heritage, she gives a nice shout-out to Tempest at Dawn. 

Many of the compromises, though hard for us, some two-hundred years on, to understand, were born from necessity. For a compelling inside look at that Summer in 1787, I encourage you to read Tempest at Dawn, by James D. Best. Based on the diaries of Madison and other delegates, along with correspondence and other written records of the day, Best’s book is like having a front-row seat to the Convention and the writing of our Constitution.

Fenwick is the author of several books including, In the Eye of the Storm: Stories of Survival and Hope from the Florida Panhandle.

Michael E. Newton Hamilton Books

The Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site in Albany, New York recently published a piece by Jesse Serfilippi titled “As Odious and Immoral A Thing: Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver.”

Was Alexander Hamilton an enslaver?

Two Hamilton historians, Philo Hamilton and Michael E. Newton, dispute the accusation.

A recent essay by Jessie Serfilippi published by the Schuyler claims to reveal, according to the work’s subtitle, “Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver.” The errors, omissions, assumptions, speculations, and misrepresentations in that essay called for a more complete and accurate evaluation of Hamilton’s history with slavery.

There is no evidence that Hamilton owned slaves or was an ‘enslaver.’ While there is evidence that he helped his in-laws with slave transactions, it appears that Hamilton in these transactions was acting merely as a banker. Regarding Hamilton himself, there are at least five pieces of evidence—two census records, a contemporary statement by Angelica Schuyler Church, a comment by John C. Hamilton in his biography of his father, and the lists of assets Hamilton drew up just prior to his death indicating that Alexander Hamilton did not own any slaves … Alexander Hamilton was on the right side of the slavery issue. In addition to not owning slaves, he actively sought to abolish the evil institution in his own state. Rather than being an “enslaver,” Hamilton opposed slavery, advocated for manumission and supported enslaved and freed blacks to the extent that his limited means allowed.

 

Breaking Down The Constitution: Preamble & Constitutional Convention (Jim Best)|Constitutional Chats

What exactly happened when delegates from all 13 states met to write the Constitution? In Part 7, the final installment of the “Breaking Down the Constitution” series, Janine Turner, Cathy Gillespie, and Student Ambassadors Tova Love Kaplan and Dakare Chatman interview author James D. Best on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, how the Preamble serves as the “elevator pitch” for the Constitution, and more!