Why not politics?

I believe I have used before the words of Daniel Webster: 

There are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters.

This (almost) sums up why I have often said I will not go into politics. I have been asked many times and by many people, some of whom I did not even know, whether I would become a politician. I have been told I should try to fix the errors I perceive in government. I have been told that my education (political science and law) should be put to good use. That platitude "be the change you wish to see in the worlds" has been thrown at me countless times.

I decline to do so.

Webster had it right, in many ways. However, I do not entirely agree with the quote. I firmly believe that most politicians go into politics because they hold a set of ideals, a goal, a belief that they can do some good for our country by being elected. They run, not to restructure or destroy our country, but because they have a vision to make our country a better place. Obviously, many politicians and people have different ideas about what makes our country "a better place." But the fact remains that I believe they generally have the same goal and generic reasons for becoming politically active.

I would be no different. I have my idea of what is good political theory. I have my idea of what makes for good policy. I have my idea of in which arenas the government should mettle and which arenas should be sacrosanct. Most importantly, I am arrogant enough to believe that I might be good at it.

When President Jefferson was first inaugurated, he said, "Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" This is the real reason I decline to work in politics. I do not trust myself to ignore the pull of power. This is why I believe so many of our politicians are so disliked. The exercise of power is enthralling. 

Perhaps politicians need to remember that not every problem can be solved by the government. Perhaps politicians need to remember that not every problem should be solved by the government. Perhaps politicians need to remember that electing not to use power may be the best use of the trust that voters have placed in them. Perhaps we need politicians who do not wish to use the power they have been given. Perhaps I should be a politician after all.

I've Said It Before...

... and I'm sure I'll say it again. Anti-corporate personhood movements show a supreme lack of understanding of the underpinnings of corporate law. Also, they show a lack of understanding of the reasoning behind Constitutional protections for the individual.

I ran across this today. I know it isn't new. I know it isn't news. It is, however, noteworthy.

Why? Let's see if I can break down the problems with this proposal. Right off the bat, I have problems with the drafting of the proposal. The first section is designed to strip Constitutional protections from corporate entities. Just take a moment to consider what Constitutional protections companies currently enjoy. We have the controversial right to free speech-political or advertising, both have some significant restrictions. We have the famous freedom of the press (almost exclusively corporations, up until the advent of the blogosphere). We have the protections of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. We have the protections of the 5th Amendment, though only the takings clause really applies to companies.

Certainly, one could argue that corporate owners could protest things such as governmental seizures without just compensation. But the arguments to get there if the assets are in the corporate name get murky quickly. Absolutely, one could say that Freedom of the Press should apply when the corporation is a publishing company. The words are not its own, but rather those of the authors it publishes. But, it could just as easily be argued the other way. It could easily go the other way in the 4th Amendment context, given that amendment specifically says "person." Therefore, no company could complain if the police rifled through corporate documents without giving even enough reason to get a warrant. Oh, but don't worry, the information in corporate documents wouldn't violate private rights. Go ahead and look through the corporately held documents of that bank, or Facebook.

Furthermore, some problems would arise from this. First, federal judicial power is restricted to citizens. Currently, calling a corporation a fictional person also makes the corporation a citizen of a state. Strip that fictional status, you leave the corporation the ability to claim the federal judiciary has no jurisdiction over the corporation. It is, admittedly, a stretch to argue. However, get the right judge (perhaps one who disagrees with the amendment) and you can get the case tossed.

Lastly, a goodly portion of the Constitution is directed toward disallowing the various States from imposing laws that restrict or impair trade between the States. I'll end by asking: what do you think disparate corporate legal protection-especially given the words of the full faith and credit clause-would do to trade across state borders?

WE NEED TO REGULATE CARS THE WAY WE REGULATE GUNS

I found this through a friend today and thought I should share. ~ P

I keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars.  They don't really mean that, of course.  What they mean is they want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to keep and bear arms.

I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns.  Let's start:

To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old.  Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory.  This means the adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.

To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21.  A "Sports car" will be defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos. 

For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless driving.  Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

New cars will only be purchased from Federal Automobile Licensees who must provide fingerprints, proof of character, secure storage for all vehicles, and who must call the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles to verify your information before purchase.  They may approve or decline or delay the sale.  If they decline, you may appeal the decision in writing to a review board.  If they delay, it becomes an approval automatically after 10 days. However, the dealer may decline to complete such a sale in case of later problems.  

Additionally, the purchase of more than two cars in a given year will require signing an understanding that buying cars in order to resell them without a license is a crime.  There is an 11% federal excise tax on all new vehicles, plus any state or local tax.

Federal Automobile Licensees must agree to submit to 24/7/365, unannounced, unscheduled searches of their entire homes, businesses and any relates properties and personal effects to be named later.

Then you will be eligible to take your drivers' license test to determine your eligibility to operate on the street.  Rules will vary by state, with some states requiring proof of need to own a vehicle for business purposes, and up to 40 hours of professional education.  Also, not all states will accept all licenses.  You will need to keep track of this information. Additionally, speed limits will not be posted.  It is your responsibility to research the driving laws in each area you wish to travel through.  Some communities may not allow out of state vehicles, sports cars, or even any vehicles at all.  Violation of these laws will result in confiscation and destruction of your vehicle by crushing.

To have a turbocharger, supercharger (External Engine Compression Devices) or a muffler will require an application to the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles.  A $2000 tax stamp will be required for these High Performance Vehicles.  Your request must also be signed by the local chief law enforcement officer, and you must provide fingerprints.  If approved in 10-16 weeks, you will be responsible for keeping your High Performance Vehicle in secure storage, and request permission in writing to take it out of state.  You will need to carry this documentation with you.  There are 13 states that do not allow possession of High Performance Vehicles.  Be sure you are aware of those laws before planning your trips. (But really, what do you need such a vehicle for anyway? Who really needs to drive that fast? You must willingly accept and adhere to the socially accepted idea that you are inherently evil for merely possessing such a fast, high powered automobile.)

Additionally, superchargers and turbochargers must be manufactured before June 1, 1986. They may be sold and refitted by a FAL who also has a Special Occupational Tax license authorizing him to work on these.  New superchargers, however, are a violation of federal law, except for use by the police or military, or specific government contractors. Expect to pay $15-$30,000 each for these items.  Mufflers will only cost from $250-$1000, plus the $2000 stamp.  However, once the muffler is damaged, it must be disposed of by cutting it into three pieces. Failure to do this may result in your family going through the next decade only knowing you in a prison jumpsuit and all your bank accounts seized and never replenished.

Imported sports cars will be prohibited. You may purchase other items from foreign manufacturers, but your automobile is in a special class of prohibition due to its inherently evil and sinister nature. The frames may be imported, cut into three pieces, and reassembled with US made engines and suspensions, as long as 60% of the parts are American.  Shortly, though, the Transmission Loophole will be closed.  The purpose of allowing imports is for spare parts, not to build more destructive "race vehicles.”  Transmissions will have to be US made.

Repairs may only be conducted by a licensed FAL, who will send a truck to retrieve your vehicle.  It must be a flatbed type truck, winch/dolly trucks are not allowed, under 10/$10,000 penalty.  You may work on your own vehicle, but any repair that exceeds emission or performance standards will be subject to federal criminal charges. And violation of this reasonable regulation could result in not only your imprisonment and the confiscation of your assets but imprisonment of any employee or family member who was insane enough to repair your “race car” for you.

Be aware that an existing HPV may have multiple HP Features.  A new HPV will require a license for each feature you wish to add to it—one each for muffler or external engine compression device. And you must request and receive, in writing, permission from the federal, state and local governing authorities prior to making such modifications.

Converting a standard car to a sports car will require payment of a $2000 tax, even if no HP features are added.  However, if an FAL/SOT does the conversion on a new frame before the vehicle leaves their premises, it will only be a $50 tax.   You will need to carry this documentation in the glove box at all times, the mere failure of which alone can result in an arrest and possible conviction.

There is discussion of closing the Car Dealer Loophole, through which private individuals sell cars to friends without going through an FAL.  It is important we have these background checks.  Surveys show criminals prefer to buy unlicensed to get around their legal liabilities so they can commit crimes in stolen vehicles, which evidence has proven for many years to be true.

Some vehicle law convictions will result in loss of your driving privileges forever.  This includes reckless operation, drunk driving, an incorrect bumper height or attachment, or the wrong type of exhaust.  Collisions may also result in permanent loss of driving, if injury occurs and negligence is proven.  In addition, any felony conviction of any kind--even tax evasion--will mean permanent loss of your driving privileges.  In these cases, it will even be illegal to ride or sit in a friend's car.

There is also discussion of prohibiting brightly colored vehicles. Vehicles are transportation, not toys, and should not be marketed in a way that suggests they are intended for casual use. It is important that everyone be aware of the dangerous nature of cars.

In the future, we may have to consider large displacement engines (anything over 2.5 liters) and transmissions with more than three speeds as being High Performance Items to be added to the federal registry.  There will be a window during which you can register your items for $2000 each, provided you meet the background check.  Otherwise, you will have to immediately surrender them to an FAL/SOT to dispose of on your behalf.  Operating an unlicensed HPV after this date will result in confiscation and destruction of the vehicle, and the 10/$10,000 punishment.

These laws and regulations are due to drunk drivers, reckless drivers and other criminals.  The automobile community should be glad it is allowed to exist at all, given all the deaths and environmental damage caused by these vehicles.

The president said today that he strongly supports your right to own and drive basic, standard vehicles for farm use and carpooling. But he and many other people have made it clear that eventually – maybe this month – we need to cease all manufacturing of such high powered automobiles for the civilian market.

Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona fide professional need.  There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people.  This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your right to travel.

©2013 by Michael Z. Williamson www.MichaelZWilliamson.com
Permission to share granted for non profit purposes as long as this notice is included.

Fallacies

Alright, folks, it is getting into the home stretch of election time. That means I get angry at every political advertisement I see.

There is a very simple reason for this problem. Almost every political campaign (and the arguments of the candidates' supporters) relies on heavy use of persuasive language. These efforts at persuasion invariably rely on logical fallacies. Why? Because the audience usually does not know enough, does not pay close enough attention, or is too emotionally embroiled to notice. Once those argument slip into the debate, emotions run higher and tend to leave the combatants even more emotionally strung out and even less able to form logical arguments. Am I guilty of using such tactics? Absolutely. If I can raise some one else's blood pressure enough that they aren't thinking well, I'll do it. It makes them more likely to be flustered and not notice the weaknesses in my arguments.

But, as a public service, I want to run down some of the most common fallacies I see in politics.

1. The ad hominem-the personal attack. If you don't want to argue the point, just smear the opponent... I'm sure no one will notice you refused to actually answer the question.

2. The appeal to authority-ummm, I'm not really sure, but that guy with a bunch of degrees says this is so. He must be right.

3. The appeal to emotion-to prove myself right, I will make you feel sorry for my side of the argument.

4. Begging the Question-Have you stopped beating your wife? Simply, the question assumes a premise.

5. Confusing Cause and Effect-gun ownership and food poisoning are both rising, therefore, food poisoning causes gun ownership. Or do I have that backwards....

6. The Straw Man-by not supporting gun control, my opponent is putting guns into the hands of criminals...

Those are just a few that stand out, even though the examples are out of my imagination.

For more reading on the subject look here, here, here, or just Google "logical fallacies." Or, if you want Wikipedia, go here and here.

Affordable Care Act

As I'm sure most of you know, this morning, the Supreme Court upheld the healthcare bill (ACA). From a political philosophy perspective-and this may surprise some of you who know me-I do think the sovereign has the right regulate, even mandate, healthcare coverage. However, that gets very complicated in a dual sovereign system such as the one in the United States. So, you begin to see why I can say the sovereign has the power and right to do this, yet still say the federal government should not. The Constitution was designed to limit the federal power, and leave the rest to the states. (Yes, later the states were limited by the Amendments, etc.) In my opinion, if one of the sovereign States' peoples voted to institute a healthcare system for that State, and could fund it, then more power to them.

All that said, what do I think of the ACA? I (like most of Congress) have not read it. So what the actual changes will be, I can only speculate. But I will predict that it will not have a huge impact on the majority of Americans. I think it is safe to say that most citizens have very little knowledge of what laws are in place that keep things running in the manner we expect, or prevent things from running as well as they could. People just are too oblivious to notice. It will probably be the same with this.

There is one exception: I can expect to make some money off of it. A new bureaucracy will lead to more business for lawyers willing to take on administrative law cases.

Emailed Lobbying

So, I was asked to comment on one of those chain email things about politics. The bold print is part of the legal changes proposed in the email. Everything else is my knee-jerk reaction fired off within a few minutes. Any errors in reasoning are mine and due to not thinking before I type.

1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. 

Ok, this is doable, I actually like this one. But, no tenure? Stop voting for them.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

So, this is doable as well. But, it will conflict with some of the later proposals.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

Umm, they already do, they just wrote the plan. So, this wouldn't actually change anything.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.

Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

I would want to see what the annual rates have actually been. The arguement may just be a red herring if Congress doesn't always vote themselves a pay raise, or if the rates are already lower than this proposal has. Besides, Congressional pay raises already do not take effect for the Congress voting on it. The raise is delayed until the next session, so those voting on it may never benefit from it.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

This presupposes a national health care system, so supporting this either supports Obamacare (or something similar) or supports employees participating in employer sponsored healthcare plans. Umm... Congress then gets to decide what health care plan to offer itself, and this rule does nothing. Nothing except placate people who don't actually know what they are asking for.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

They do, as far as I know. With the obvious exception of the Constitutional ban on arresting Congressmen while Congress is in session.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.


If we want Congressmen to be treated just like everyone else, why give them a massive loophole out of contract law?

Finally, if we don't want career Congressmen, vote them out of office. Isn't that the definition of democracy?

Food for Thought

For any of you with e-readers of some kind (insert unsolicited plug for B&N's Nook here), you should go peruse the archives at Project Gutenberg. It has all sorts of wonderful works that have made their way into the public domain of copyright. Works such as St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The White Company. It also has, to my delight, a number of works by G.K. Chesterton. This gives me the opportunity to read Orthodoxy and Eugenics and Other Evils. The latter piece starts with the following paragraph:

The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.

That opening paragraph illustrates, far better than I could, why arguments consisting of what may be characterized as "scare tactics" have some merit. It is a statement that is at the core of my reasons for arguing for limitations of government, and why I typically am not in favor of extensions of government power.

I know that I have friends who simply cannot understand my willingness to "prevent people from receiving adequate medical care because they can't afford it" and other such stances to curb social welfare projects. I believe those friends have the best of intentions. Nor am I unsympathetic to the needs of the, for lack of a better word, needy. I simply think that our government is one of strictly confined powers and those bounds should not be exceeded, no matter how good the intentions. (Good Intentions: sponsored by Hell Paving & Asphalt Co.)

Perhaps I could have more fully formed this post before writing, but if I tried to do that, I never would get anything done. That said, as I read more of Eugenics, I will pass on more political/ethical thoughts from the Chesterton/Cramer distillation project. (Ha, evidence of the supreme arrogance of a law student to make that comparison.)