...Property (According to Thomas Jefferson)

Ah, what a wonderful rhetorical device -- ask a question that appears to be unanswerable, but only because it is based on a false premise. Another example would be, "So, if the sun revolves around the earth, how do you explain gravity?" You couldn't, of course, if you accepted the false premise. Correct the premise, and the quandary disappears.

Steve states that "there is no specific promulgation of an inalienable right to property in the Constitution" -- true, but completely irrelevant, because the purpose of the Constitution is not to enumerate all of our rights, but rather to specifically limit the rights of government. My right to own property is inferred by the fact that, nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the right to take my property at will and redistribute it as it sees fit. The Constitution does not specifically give me the right to smoke or Steve the right to breathe smoke-free air, though both of us would assert those rights (and hopefully come to a more reasonable accomodation than the petty dictators at Regions Hospital -- say, for example, that smoking within the hosiptal would be prohibited but that smoking in the parking lot, several hundred feet from the entrance, is okay). Put another way, the Constitution does not specifically grant me the right to refrigerated food, or Mark the right to his choice of corrective eyewear, or Steve the right to sport facial hair -- but none of us would therefore be silly enough to suppose that that grants the government the Constitutional right to take away my appliances, or Mark's glasses, or to force Steve to shave.

As regards the "right to privacy," that was made up out of whole cloth, but would not have been so objectionable had it not directly conflicted with a right that is clearly articulated in the First Amendment -- the right to life. The words "right to life" actually exist in the document, while the "right to privacy" which apparently trumps this is nowhere to be found. Roe v Wade is arguably the worst example of judicial fiat ever. (But let's stick to the question of property rights for now.)

Had I risen to the bait, I would have pointed that, as shown here, "In his original version of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson listed our inalienable rights as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property," echoing John Locke. But his Congressional colleagues quickly edited those rights to "life, liberty" and the innocuous "pursuit of happiness."" Property was assumed to be one potential component of the pursuit of happiness, although certainly not the exclusive path.

I might also have pointed out that a man who is not free to enjoy the fruits of his own labor is, in effect, a slave -- and therefore being denied the right to liberty specifically cited in the First Amendment. This argument is made, much more eloquently than I could ever make it, at this site.

Will that do it Steve or would like a polemic on the sheer impracticality of your socialist utopia as well? I'm always happy to oblige.
- posted by Tom Pick @ 11:00 AM

 
Smokin' Mad

With regard to the smoking ban at Regions Hospital -- I must confess that I don't know the precise ownership structure of that institution, but regardless: if they are quasi-governmental, this is another example of alarming government overreach (similar to Moose Lake). If they are private, it's certainly within their rights and I wouldn't deny them that, but it's still indefensible. I view banning smoking on one's entire premisis the same way I view marches by white separatists: legal but loathesome.

In fairness to Steve, I oppose all attempts at government overreach, whether by the left or right, and both sides are guilty of this at times (and the worst examples of overreach seem to occur when the two sides actually agree on a particular issue, such as a national drinking age).

As for the Reagan-bashing tripe CBS wisely abstained from airing on the network, the producers ADMIT they made a lot of it up! And numerous individuals, from both political parties, agree that whatever they thought of Reagan's policy or of the man, he didn't sprinkle his conversations with profanity or express homophobic views, as the movie portrays him.

Conservative publications on college campuses: the actions of 19-year olds aren't the issue here, but rather the actions of the administrations. Editors of conservative papers are harrassed and "investigated" for any commentary deemed offensive, while the more liberal school organs get away with journalistic murder. Students who vandalize the conservative publication's facilities or steal and destroy it's output are rarely punished. Kids will be kids, but the adults should be adults.

Allegations of liberal media bias are the farthest thing from "bull" - they are in fact extremely well documented. I can't name a popular left-wing radio talk show host, although several have tried (that says something in itself). Name one on TV? Katie Courac (one of dozens). A TV network known for its liberal bias? Where does one begin? CBS and CNN are the worst of the lot. Electronic media are the province of the right? On what planet? Liberals dominate Hollywood, television news (cable, network and local), most of the country's largest newspapers...the right has talk radio. We like that, and we'll take it, but talk radio isn't TV.

Selling stock is a lot easier than changing jobs -- I've done both.

And finally, with regard to libertarians respecting authority -- we respect authority used in the defense of indivual liberty and private property. Any other use is illegitimate.
- posted by Tom Pick @ 10:15 AM

 
The left doesn't try to squelch dissenting voices? Give me a break!

CBS dropped it's misguided Reagan movie due to commercial pressure -- a form of protest with an honorable pedigree in American politics (the Boston Tea Party, for example). A great many people, not all of them from the right side of the political spectrum by any means, protested the CBS movie because it was full of lies -- the network has chosen to simply invent events and words that Reagan didn't ever say and wouldn't ever have said.

Back in the Clinton era, a group produced a "documentary" claiming that Bill Clinton was complicit in several murders. That's preposterous of course, I'd even go so far as to call it beyond the pale. The makers of the film were exercising their First Amendment rights, but it was still slanderous. However -- did any network air this piece of trash? Can you imagine any network executive even considering such a move?

The public isn't well-served by disseminating blatant lies about any public figure. CBS had no more justification in portraying Reagan as a potty-mouthed homophobe than the makers of The Clinton Chronicles had in portraying the former president as a killer.

The left, however, is far more intolerant of dissenting speech than the right -- I'm astounded that you would even make such a charge. Liberal universities across the country have adopted "speech codes" which seek to squelch any speech that anyone might find "offensive." How many of these speech codes were developed and implemented by conservatives? Find one. Conservative speakers at universities are also far more likely to be shouted down -- not merely disagreed with in a civilized manner -- than those from the left. Conservative newspapers at colleges are far more likely to be stolen and destroyed than liberal ones.

In the media world, newsrooms clamor for more "diversity" -- by which they mean, of course, only diversity of skin color, not diversity of opinion. There are quotas, formal or informal, based on race or ethnic background, but no consideration whatsoever of seeking diversity based on ideology. In news stories, the terms "far right" or "extreme right" are used, by a large multiple, much more often "far left." This is a more subtle form of speech control; report the speech but discredit the speaker.

Not willing to stop at speech control, those on the left also want behavior control. Conservatives, particularly those of us with a libertarian bent, were quite satisified with the government merely reporting about health studies and pointing out that cigarette smoking is an unhealthy habit. Regions Hospital in St. Paul announced today that they are banning smoking on their entire campus. Now, banning smoking inside a hospital certainly seems to make some sense, but what possible case can be made for banning smoking even outside the building, hundreds of feet away from any entrance? That isn't protecting patients and staff, that is behavior control, and it is represensible. And it wasn't conservatives who pushed for this.

It's also the left that has pushed for ever-expanding definitions of sexual harrassment, poisoning workplace discourse. For an executive to demand sex as a condition for employment or advancement is unquestionably contemptable and should be punished. But for anyone to have to fear a lawsuit for merely commenting to a coworker that her hair looks nice or that a certain color looks good on her is absurd.

Those of us on the right generally content ourselves with pointing out bias and inaccurate slant, not squelching it. It's the "tolerant" left that has proven itself, time and again, intolerant of any politically speech or action that they deem politically incorrect.
- posted by Tom Pick @ 8:51 AM

 
Democrats Off-Base on Economic Game

Let's display some common sense regarding this "jobless recovery" the Democratic presidential contenders and liberal media pundits keep harping on. You'd think from listening to them that nothing like this has ever happened before. In fact, it's extremely predictable.

Since at least the end of WWII, we've had recessions and recoveries, predictably, about every nine years. Just in the last four decades, we've had recessions in 1964, 1973, 1982, 1991 and of course 2000. The pattern is pretty much the same every time, although the length and severity vary (Carter's economic policies prolonged the mid-70's recession, Reagan's shortened the `82 recession and set the stage for well above-average growth through the rest of that decade).

Ah yes, the pattern: the stock market generally serves as a leading, though imperfect, indicator; the market generally starts to tank 6-9 months ahead of the actual recession, and begins its rebound about 6-9 months ahead of the recovery. The actual start/end dates of the recession and recovery are generally measured by quarterly GDP growth figures. Employment is always a lagging indicator; it's not unusual for job growth to actually continue until well into a slowdown, and not resume until the recovery is well under way. The recovery from the 1991 recession was in full force when Clinton won his first presidential race, but the unemployment figures were still high.

As for the most recent recession, the stock market began to plunge in March of 2000. Economic growth started slowing in the early fall of that year, but employment was still fairly strong at that point. The market began to come back in March of this year; the third-quarter economic numbers show that robust GDP growth has finally kicked in. The job market should, true to form, begin a healthy bounce-back shortly.

U.S. presidents as a rule don't start or end recessions; it would take far more power than the constitution provides (or than would be advisable) for a leader of this country to be able to repeal the business cycle. George Bush (41) didn't cause the 1991 recession (although his tax increase certainly didn't help matters), and Bill Clinton didn't end it. By the same token, Clinton didn't cause the 2000 recession, and Bush 43 can't really take credit for ending it (although his tax cuts certainly help).

The bottom line is that the actions of any U.S. president of either party can't change the business cycle, but the right policies can help shorten the duration and lessen the severity of recessions, while the wrong ones can easily make things worse.
- posted by Tom Pick @ 9:36 AM