About Me
Monday, June 17, 2013
Is the Right to Life the "Right to Be?"
This letter appeared recently in the NJ Star-Ledger, under the heading "Bad Decisions":
I left the following comments:
RE: Bad Decisions
The Constitution, in guaranteeing all citizens “right to life,” assures we have the right to “be,” whether in the womb or outside. -- Carolyn Glodek, Colonia
The constitution guarantees no such thing. If the "right to life" meant simply the right to "be," then the rights of any political prisoner rotting in any dictator's dungeon are not being violated so long as he receives minimal food, water, and shelter. The same goes for any slave held for forced labor.
Rights can not be understood except in their total context. The Declaration of Independence, the philosophical blueprint for the constitution, recognizes the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without the liberty to act on one's own judgment, one cannot pursue his own happiness, thus stifling his life. Life and liberty are inextricably interlinked. Clearly, this context applies to actual, living, born individuals, not potential or developing humans beings inside of a woman's womb. The 14th Amendment clearly supports this view: It refers specifically to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."
The right to life applies to the woman and the woman only. There is no right to be, only the right to pursue one's own being; i.e., no right to life at the price of another person's life and liberty. If a fetus has a "right to life" at the expense of the woman's rights to life and liberty, then her rights are not unalienable, and the whole concept that Americanism rests upon evaporates. Here again, the 14th Amendment: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If the "rights" of the unborn supersede the actual rights of the born person, then that person--the woman--is being denied "equal protection" of her rights if she is forbidden from deciding for herself on reproductive issues. We either have rights "in the womb" or "outside" the womb, but not both.
The very idea that rights apply only inside the womb, then disappear at birth, is absurd on its face. If the woman doesn't have a right to her life, then on what basis do the unborn have rights?
The reference to slavery in Glodek's letter is indeed analogous: Compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is akin to slavery.
One final note: Glodek states that "Roe v. Wade [declared] that a baby growing inside its mother should not be considered 'human' but instead disposable." That's not what Rowe said. Of course, a fetus is human. The issue is rights.
Related Reading:
Abortion: It's When Rights, not Life, Begin
My 3-part Abortion Statement, listed in reverse order.
More than 150 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the Dred Scott decision that blacks should be “considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings.” Fortunately, the 14th Amendment overturned that decision.
Forty years ago, the Supreme Court declared in Roe v. Wade that a baby growing inside its mother should not be considered “human” but instead disposable.
The Constitution, in guaranteeing all citizens “right to life,” assures we have the right to “be,” whether in the womb or outside. The Supreme Court does not always decide wisely. It’s time to overturn a bad decision.
Carolyn Glodek, Colonia
I left the following comments:
RE: Bad Decisions
The Constitution, in guaranteeing all citizens “right to life,” assures we have the right to “be,” whether in the womb or outside. -- Carolyn Glodek, Colonia
The constitution guarantees no such thing. If the "right to life" meant simply the right to "be," then the rights of any political prisoner rotting in any dictator's dungeon are not being violated so long as he receives minimal food, water, and shelter. The same goes for any slave held for forced labor.
Rights can not be understood except in their total context. The Declaration of Independence, the philosophical blueprint for the constitution, recognizes the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without the liberty to act on one's own judgment, one cannot pursue his own happiness, thus stifling his life. Life and liberty are inextricably interlinked. Clearly, this context applies to actual, living, born individuals, not potential or developing humans beings inside of a woman's womb. The 14th Amendment clearly supports this view: It refers specifically to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."
The right to life applies to the woman and the woman only. There is no right to be, only the right to pursue one's own being; i.e., no right to life at the price of another person's life and liberty. If a fetus has a "right to life" at the expense of the woman's rights to life and liberty, then her rights are not unalienable, and the whole concept that Americanism rests upon evaporates. Here again, the 14th Amendment: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If the "rights" of the unborn supersede the actual rights of the born person, then that person--the woman--is being denied "equal protection" of her rights if she is forbidden from deciding for herself on reproductive issues. We either have rights "in the womb" or "outside" the womb, but not both.
The very idea that rights apply only inside the womb, then disappear at birth, is absurd on its face. If the woman doesn't have a right to her life, then on what basis do the unborn have rights?
The reference to slavery in Glodek's letter is indeed analogous: Compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is akin to slavery.
One final note: Glodek states that "Roe v. Wade [declared] that a baby growing inside its mother should not be considered 'human' but instead disposable." That's not what Rowe said. Of course, a fetus is human. The issue is rights.
Related Reading:
Abortion: It's When Rights, not Life, Begin
My 3-part Abortion Statement, listed in reverse order.
Labels: Abortion, Constitution and Law, Declaration of Independence, Individual Rights
Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Immigration is Both Moral and Practical
On Immigration Reform, the GOP Gangs Up on Blue-Collar Workers, NJ columnist Paul Mulshine challenges the GOP's immigration reform supporters who argue that we need more immigrants to fill an alleged "labor shortage."
Mulshine's retort: "There are no jobs Americans won’t do. There are only jobs Americans won’t pay to have done."
He goes on to say that these GOPers support for immigration "amounts to a double-cross of America’s blue-collar workers."
Mulshine highlights the futility of relying on the collectivist utilitarian argument in support of a rights-based immigration policy, and avoiding the fundamental moral issues involved in the immigration debate. The utilitarian argument opened the door to Mulshine's attack.
I left these comments:
Fundamentally, the immigration issue doesn't revolve around utilitarian arguments. The question is moral: What right does anyone have to stop any person who poses no health, criminal, or national security risk from working and living in America (or any country), and employers from voluntarily hiring them?
Citizenship is another matter, and that issue should be separated from any immigration bill. While morally upstanding people have an inalienable right to live and work where they choose, their is no right to naturalized citizenship. Immigration and citizenship are separate issues.
I view freedom of migration and freedom of trade as inextricably linked. Just as free trade is a moral right, so too is free migration. There is no justification for saying we should have open borders for the flow of goods, but not people.
Americans are not a collective that owns the continent any more than the Indians owned it. Just as others rightfully immigrated here in the past, so too may others do so today. In crafting our immigration policy, we should remember the exalted status of the individual codified in the Declaration of Independence, and the plaque inside the Statue of Liberty stating the Land of the Free's openness to liberty-seekers.
Others replied to my comments, to which I added the following:
The struggling jobs market has to do with the increasingly crushing regulatory welfare state, not immigration or free trade. In the 19th Century, America grew from an impoverished third-rate colony to the world's greatest industrial power. There was no welfare state to speak of and minimal government interference into the economy. Yet the economy grew dramatically (despite the drag of high tariffs), particularly between the Civil War and WW I. Real wages rose steadily, life expectancy grew, the standard of living soared, and the middle class was born. All of this happened, and jobs were plentiful, even as the country absorbed millions upon millions of mostly poor immigrants. Immigrants not only fill jobs, but start businesses and create them.
But again, the issue is moral, not utilitarian. And the moral is the practical, which is why a rational, just open immigration policy would be a boon to the economy. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Mr. Mulshine on this. We need to focus on reigning in statism within our borders, not people who want to live and work here.
Related Reading:
Time to Rethink Immigration
The Truth about Trade in History, CATO
Mulshine's retort: "There are no jobs Americans won’t do. There are only jobs Americans won’t pay to have done."
He goes on to say that these GOPers support for immigration "amounts to a double-cross of America’s blue-collar workers."
Mulshine highlights the futility of relying on the collectivist utilitarian argument in support of a rights-based immigration policy, and avoiding the fundamental moral issues involved in the immigration debate. The utilitarian argument opened the door to Mulshine's attack.
I left these comments:
Fundamentally, the immigration issue doesn't revolve around utilitarian arguments. The question is moral: What right does anyone have to stop any person who poses no health, criminal, or national security risk from working and living in America (or any country), and employers from voluntarily hiring them?
Citizenship is another matter, and that issue should be separated from any immigration bill. While morally upstanding people have an inalienable right to live and work where they choose, their is no right to naturalized citizenship. Immigration and citizenship are separate issues.
I view freedom of migration and freedom of trade as inextricably linked. Just as free trade is a moral right, so too is free migration. There is no justification for saying we should have open borders for the flow of goods, but not people.
Americans are not a collective that owns the continent any more than the Indians owned it. Just as others rightfully immigrated here in the past, so too may others do so today. In crafting our immigration policy, we should remember the exalted status of the individual codified in the Declaration of Independence, and the plaque inside the Statue of Liberty stating the Land of the Free's openness to liberty-seekers.
Others replied to my comments, to which I added the following:
The struggling jobs market has to do with the increasingly crushing regulatory welfare state, not immigration or free trade. In the 19th Century, America grew from an impoverished third-rate colony to the world's greatest industrial power. There was no welfare state to speak of and minimal government interference into the economy. Yet the economy grew dramatically (despite the drag of high tariffs), particularly between the Civil War and WW I. Real wages rose steadily, life expectancy grew, the standard of living soared, and the middle class was born. All of this happened, and jobs were plentiful, even as the country absorbed millions upon millions of mostly poor immigrants. Immigrants not only fill jobs, but start businesses and create them.
But again, the issue is moral, not utilitarian. And the moral is the practical, which is why a rational, just open immigration policy would be a boon to the economy. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Mr. Mulshine on this. We need to focus on reigning in statism within our borders, not people who want to live and work here.
Yes, Marylou, as people you can compare [past immigrants to today's]. The only difference is that many of today's immigrants are relegated to black market status by unfair immigration laws. (I realize that a growing percentage of immigrants come here to feed off of our welfare state. But, that's a welfare state problem, not fundamentally an immigration problem.)
No one should have to pay for food stamps, because no one is entitled to another person's wallet. Forced redistribution of wealth is immoral and corrupt in all of its forms, whether the recipient is from across the globe or across the street, legal or illegal.
Related Reading:
Time to Rethink Immigration
The Truth about Trade in History, CATO
Labels: Immigration, Individual Rights, Jobs
Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Big Government vs. Big Business; or, Political Power vs. Economic Power
This letter appeared in the NJ Star-Ledger on April 26, 2013:
RE: Tax Rates Don't Matter
"It is not big government that is the enemy. It is Big Business, Big Corporations and Big Banks that are bleeding the American taxpayer dry and destroying the middle class."
Barbara, how is it that companies legally keeping more of the money they earn by providing goods, services, and jobs is "bleeding the American taxpayer dry and destroying the middle class?" The money the government doesn't tax doesn't come out of other taxpayers pockets, and the middle class wouldn't exist if not for those goods, services, and jobs.
Your conclusion is morally inverted. It is those who want "Big Government" to seize more of these company's earnings who are looking to do the bleeding and destroying.
At the root of this letter is Wirkus's evasion of the difference between government and private entities; of force vs. non-force. She not only equivocates between the two; she inverts them. This is akin to pinning the badge of morality to the armed robber, and tagging his victim as the bad guy.
Related Reading:
Patriotism and the Welfare State
Obama, "the Lord's Work," and the Real Goliath
The Dollar and the Gun by Harry Binswanger
Tax rates don’t matter
One need go no further than Page 11 of the April 25 Star-Ledger ("Corporate tax-dodging is simply unpatriotic") to refute the finding of PolitiFact N.J. on Page 9 of the same edition.I left the following comments:
While it may be technically true that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, no corporation actually pays it. Factoring in creative accounting, subsidies, loopholes and offshore tax havens, corporations pay little or no tax.
A Feb. 7 Star-Ledger article states, "The amount of taxes that companies and wealthy individuals avoided paying in 2011 thanks to overseas tax havens would equal New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning’s reported salary for the next 185 years, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group found."
It is not big government that is the enemy. It is Big Business, Big Corporations and Big Banks that are bleeding the American taxpayer dry and destroying the middle class.
Barbara Wirkus, Kenilworth
RE: Tax Rates Don't Matter
"It is not big government that is the enemy. It is Big Business, Big Corporations and Big Banks that are bleeding the American taxpayer dry and destroying the middle class."
Barbara, how is it that companies legally keeping more of the money they earn by providing goods, services, and jobs is "bleeding the American taxpayer dry and destroying the middle class?" The money the government doesn't tax doesn't come out of other taxpayers pockets, and the middle class wouldn't exist if not for those goods, services, and jobs.
Your conclusion is morally inverted. It is those who want "Big Government" to seize more of these company's earnings who are looking to do the bleeding and destroying.
At the root of this letter is Wirkus's evasion of the difference between government and private entities; of force vs. non-force. She not only equivocates between the two; she inverts them. This is akin to pinning the badge of morality to the armed robber, and tagging his victim as the bad guy.
Related Reading:
Patriotism and the Welfare State
Obama, "the Lord's Work," and the Real Goliath
The Dollar and the Gun by Harry Binswanger
Labels: Economic vs. Political Power, Taxes
Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
The Glory Days of America's "Robber Barons"
In response to the article Corporate Tax Dodging is Simply Unpatriotic that I blogged on yesterday, a correspondent sarcastically replied to another's comments with:
One of the dopiest fantasies espoused by anti-business, anti-capitalist mentalities is that business success can be built on cheating the customers and trashing the employees. It's astounding how many people swallow this gunk, despite the fact that a few minutes of thought would expose the illogic of the idea.
I left this reply:
These three were productive geniuses who raised the general standard of living. Carnegie dramatically lowered the cost of steel, supercharging myriad steel-using industries from construction to autos to railroads to farm equipment and more. Rockefeller perfected and lowered the cost of oil products such as kerosene, bringing economical nighttime illumination to average folk for the first time (displacing expensive whale oil, which only the wealthy could afford) and, later, feeding the automobile industry with cheap gasoline. These two together created indespensible necessities of the advanced industrial civilization we enjoy today. Morgan sent surges of prosperity through the economy by providing vital capital to promising companies, technologies, and innovators such as Thomas Edison. The "working class" has rarely had such valuable benefactors. Their fortunes are a pittance compared to the value they added to the lives of untold millions.
Yes, by all means lets return to the days when the Carnegies, Rockefellers, and Morgans could once again flourish without the drag of soak-the-rich parasites.
As Andrew Bernstein notes in his article The Inventive Period, "To defend freedom against the distortions of the anti-capitalist historians it is important to reject the inaccurate and opprobrious title of 'the Gilded Age' for the late nineteenth century."
Related Reading:
The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton W. Folsom Jr.
Patriotism and the Welfare State
Capitalism in No Way Created Poverty, It Inherited It by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins
By all means let's return to the good old days of Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller because life was so much better for the working class. Andrew Carnegie would treat a drill bit better than the guy who used it.In fact, the first sentence is literally true, in large part because the second sentence is completely false. As Burton W. Folsom, Jr. explains in The Myth of the Robber Barons, Andrew Carnegie valued his employees, rewarding productiveness through a "a merit system":
Strong incentives were given employees who . . . excelled. Carnegie explained that success "flows from having interested exceptional men in our service; thus only can we develop ability and hold it in our service."
One of the dopiest fantasies espoused by anti-business, anti-capitalist mentalities is that business success can be built on cheating the customers and trashing the employees. It's astounding how many people swallow this gunk, despite the fact that a few minutes of thought would expose the illogic of the idea.
I left this reply:
These three were productive geniuses who raised the general standard of living. Carnegie dramatically lowered the cost of steel, supercharging myriad steel-using industries from construction to autos to railroads to farm equipment and more. Rockefeller perfected and lowered the cost of oil products such as kerosene, bringing economical nighttime illumination to average folk for the first time (displacing expensive whale oil, which only the wealthy could afford) and, later, feeding the automobile industry with cheap gasoline. These two together created indespensible necessities of the advanced industrial civilization we enjoy today. Morgan sent surges of prosperity through the economy by providing vital capital to promising companies, technologies, and innovators such as Thomas Edison. The "working class" has rarely had such valuable benefactors. Their fortunes are a pittance compared to the value they added to the lives of untold millions.
Yes, by all means lets return to the days when the Carnegies, Rockefellers, and Morgans could once again flourish without the drag of soak-the-rich parasites.
As Andrew Bernstein notes in his article The Inventive Period, "To defend freedom against the distortions of the anti-capitalist historians it is important to reject the inaccurate and opprobrious title of 'the Gilded Age' for the late nineteenth century."
Related Reading:
The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton W. Folsom Jr.
Patriotism and the Welfare State
Capitalism in No Way Created Poverty, It Inherited It by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins
Labels: Famous People, History
Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Patriotism and the Welfare State
Today I feature a businessman. In Corporate Tax Dodging is Simply Unpatriotic, Henry Passapera denigrates America's great companies:
Remember that Passapera is talking about companies acting legally. One wonders if Passapera himself takes advantage of any tax "loopholes" available to him. Presumably not. Considering his "patriotism," one would expect him to pay the full 35% corporate tax rate.
As to that hodgepodge of "investments" that fuel government spending on behalf of "we," it's probably too much to expect Passapera to question whether government has any right to confiscate our money to pay for them in the first place.
Passapera's conclusion is rather nauseating:
I left these comments:
So patriotism now means working for the "we"; the collective?
There was a time when patriotism meant upholding real American ideals--inalienable individual rights, and a government that protected those rights. America was Founded on the belief that each person could work and trade, earn property, take responsibility for his own life; that each person owned his own life, and should be free to act on his own judgement for his own betterment.
Now, patriotism means seizing more and more of the individual's earned money to feed wealth redistribution programs for people who didn't earn it, run by an increasingly omnipotent and imperial government?
There is nothing patriotic about demanding that government seize more from the earnings of one's fellow Americans. It would be patriotic to demand that every business's tax rate be cut to what Honeywell pays--1%; or, better yet, 0% or no corporate income tax. Kudos to the companies (and individuals) that use every legal means to keep more of what they earn. The productiveness that feeds their growth and profits is the true benefactor of America.
If you want to see why socialism is winning in America, this capitalist provides the answer. Today, capitalists are the last people you could rely on to fight for capitalism.
Related Reading:
Duty vs. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
America: A Nation of Sacrifice?
The Dangerous John McCain
As a small business owner, I’m proud to pay my fair share of taxes. Taxes pay for investments we make together to improve our economy, our quality of life, and our country — everything from roads and bridges that facilitate commerce for businesses such as mine, to economy-boosting investments in Social Security and Medicare that strengthen retirement security for seniors and fuel consumer demand on Main Street.So, I get angry when multinational corporations, at times our competitors, use offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share.
Remember that Passapera is talking about companies acting legally. One wonders if Passapera himself takes advantage of any tax "loopholes" available to him. Presumably not. Considering his "patriotism," one would expect him to pay the full 35% corporate tax rate.
As to that hodgepodge of "investments" that fuel government spending on behalf of "we," it's probably too much to expect Passapera to question whether government has any right to confiscate our money to pay for them in the first place.
Passapera's conclusion is rather nauseating:
For small business owners, this is not about partisanship or politics. It’s about fairness, responsibility and love for our country.Simply put, if you want to fly the American flag at your corporate headquarters, you ought to be paying your fair share of taxes.
I left these comments:
So patriotism now means working for the "we"; the collective?
There was a time when patriotism meant upholding real American ideals--inalienable individual rights, and a government that protected those rights. America was Founded on the belief that each person could work and trade, earn property, take responsibility for his own life; that each person owned his own life, and should be free to act on his own judgement for his own betterment.
Now, patriotism means seizing more and more of the individual's earned money to feed wealth redistribution programs for people who didn't earn it, run by an increasingly omnipotent and imperial government?
There is nothing patriotic about demanding that government seize more from the earnings of one's fellow Americans. It would be patriotic to demand that every business's tax rate be cut to what Honeywell pays--1%; or, better yet, 0% or no corporate income tax. Kudos to the companies (and individuals) that use every legal means to keep more of what they earn. The productiveness that feeds their growth and profits is the true benefactor of America.
If you want to see why socialism is winning in America, this capitalist provides the answer. Today, capitalists are the last people you could rely on to fight for capitalism.
Related Reading:
Duty vs. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
America: A Nation of Sacrifice?
The Dangerous John McCain
Labels: Individualism vs. Collectivism, Taxes
Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Blaming the "Gun Culture" for One Accidental Shooting is Unjust
Calling the tragic Kentucky case of a 5 year-old shooting of a 2 year-old with a child-sized gun "no 'crazy accident'," the NJ Star-Ledger said:
In a Forbes op-ed, Harry Binswanger explained how he grappled with the issue of "gun control":
It was with Binswanger's perspective in mind that I left these comments:
Guilt by association--blaming the innocent many for the wrong-doing of the few--is one of the greatest of injustices perpetrated by men over men. That's the collectivist mindset at work.
A "fringe gun culture" didn't put a loaded weapon in the hands of a child without adequate supervision. Neither did some mysterious "acceptance" of such a culture. Some specific adult did, and the circumstances of that specific situation, and how they relate to child endangerment laws, must be looked at before anyone can be judged.
The collectivist worldview is an amoral worldview, and the source of so much injustice.
Related Reading:
Banning Guns Punishes the Innocent and Violates Rights
With Gun Control, Cost-Benefit Analysis is Amoral by Harry Binswanger
We can argue about the need to limit the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We can have a reasonable debate about the effectiveness of background checks. Perhaps it’s time to broaden that discussion, and include the acceptance of a fringe gun culture that puts weapons and live ammunition in the hands of a preschooler, as if it were a toy.
In a Forbes op-ed, Harry Binswanger explained how he grappled with the issue of "gun control":
Both sides [in the gun control debate] are looking at cases that are real. The question is: how can we take all of them into account? What is the proper way to think about this issue?
The answer I’ve come to is radical: reject entirely the collectivist mindset. Don’t look at populations; don’t ask: among 300 million Americans, would law X result in more lives being saved than lost? That sort of cost-benefit analysis is amoral; lives are not balanceable one against the other. And, in practice, it leads to endlessly battling statistical studies. I realized I should not take a God’s eye perspective, looking down on the flock, seeking to preserve the herd. Mankind is not a herd.
It was with Binswanger's perspective in mind that I left these comments:
Guilt by association--blaming the innocent many for the wrong-doing of the few--is one of the greatest of injustices perpetrated by men over men. That's the collectivist mindset at work.
A "fringe gun culture" didn't put a loaded weapon in the hands of a child without adequate supervision. Neither did some mysterious "acceptance" of such a culture. Some specific adult did, and the circumstances of that specific situation, and how they relate to child endangerment laws, must be looked at before anyone can be judged.
The collectivist worldview is an amoral worldview, and the source of so much injustice.
Related Reading:
Banning Guns Punishes the Innocent and Violates Rights
With Gun Control, Cost-Benefit Analysis is Amoral by Harry Binswanger
Labels: Gun Control, Individualism vs. Collectivism
Posted by Michael A. LaFerrara on
Friday, June 7, 2013
Free Speech and "the intersection of tax policy, campaign finance regulation, and civil rights law."
Walter Hudson points out the threat to our First Amendment rights posed by the IRS--and it goes well beyond the current scandal. Here is an excerpt from Hudson's The Real IRS Scandal:
As philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand observed long ago:
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.
"Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property."
Once the government gains control over your property, whether by a complex, arbitrary form of taxation or regulation, it can coerce you in a thousand different ways.
Related Reading:
How Government Powers of Economic Control Threatens Free Speech
Occupational Licensure Threatens Free Speech in NC
As the IRS scandal continues to develop, it highlights a deeper and more fundamental injustice in our social order, an ongoing First Amendment crisis fostered by the intersection of tax policy, campaign finance regulation, and civil rights law. Any response to this most recent episode which does not address the root systematic injustice will be incomplete, inadequate, and morally inexcusable.
As philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand observed long ago:
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.
"Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property."
Once the government gains control over your property, whether by a complex, arbitrary form of taxation or regulation, it can coerce you in a thousand different ways.
Related Reading:
How Government Powers of Economic Control Threatens Free Speech
Occupational Licensure Threatens Free Speech in NC
Labels: First Amendment, Government Regulation, Taxes
