Month: September 2011

We’re For State’s Rights, You Know, Except When We’re Not

It’s funny to watch the inconsistencies of the modern statist movement. On one hand they constantly cite the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution to justify using the federal government to force their agenda onto the individual states and people of the Union. When the coin turns however and the federal government’s force appears to be directed at upholding an amendment in the Constitution to protect the rights of the people the statists all of the sudden become in favor of states’ rights. I’m sorry to inform you statist bastards that you can’t have it both ways, you must be consistent with your message or it becomes meaningless.

Case in point the legislation presently on the table that would make carry permits in one state good in every state that recognizes some form of firearms carry. This case is one of those where the statist believe the individual states should maintain their rights:

Some bad ideas refuse to die. Include in that category an extreme proposal percolating in the House to strip states of their authority to decide who may carry a concealed loaded firearm. This gift to the gun lobby, the subject of a hearing last week by a House Judiciary subcommittee, is nearly identical to a provision the Senate defeated by a narrow margin two years ago.

Every state but Illinois makes some allowance for concealed weapons. The eligibility rules vary widely and each state decides whether to honor another state’s permits.

In other words the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution grant the federal government complete power over the individual states… except when they don’t. The Constitution of the United States of America has a pesky little amendment granting individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that right has been incorporated through a Supreme Court case. Incorporation of a right is a fancy way of saying an amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the federal and state governments.

Even though a Constitutional amendment and Supreme Court case state that the people have a right to keep and bear arms the statists suddenly oppose using the Constitution to force federal government will onto the individual states. You can’t have it both ways; either the Constitution is a document that is supposed to grant federal power over the individual states or the Constitution is supposed to protect states from federal power. Pick one message and stick with it instead of changing that message whenever it becomes inconvenient to your overall agenda.

Put Out or Pay Out

There have been some interesting precedences set by court cases throughout human history and this has to be one of the more interesting ones:

The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”.

[…]

But the 47-year-old ex-wife then took him back to court demanding 10,000 euros in compensation for “lack of sex over 21 years of marriage”.

The ex-husband claimed “tiredness and health problems” had prevented him from being more attentive between the sheets.

But a judge in the south of France’s highest court in Aix-en-Provence ruled: “A sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent.

So in France I guess the new ruling states both parties in a marriage will either put out or pay out. I’m guessing this precedence will be used quite extensive in France’s not too distant future.

I Must Have Missed the Shooting at the Football Game

Apparently I’m quite oblivious to the news because I must have missed a recent shooting at some football game. At least that’s my guess because unless such an event occurred I can’t see any reason for the National Football League (NFL) to demand that every fan receive a full pat down before being let into games:

The NFL wants all fans patted down from the ankles up this season to improve fan safety.

Under the new “enhanced” pat-down procedures, the NFL wants all 32 clubs to search fans from the ankles to the knees as well as the waist up. Previously, security guards only patted down fans from the waist up while looking for booze, weapons or other banned items.

I must confess that I’m not a real American as I’ve never attended a professional sports game. After reading this story I’m quite happy about this fact because I won’t submit to a pat down just to enter some entertainment event. Yes it’s the right of private establishments to make such a requirement before allowing entry but it’s my right as a free individuals to take my money elsewhere.

The NFL apparently think they’re the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) considering the advice they’re giving to fans:

The NFL recommended the new guidelines before the kickoff of the 2011 season which coincided with the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The league hopes fans will be “patient,” says spokesman Brian McCarthy, and arrive earlier to games to avoid long, punishing lines.

Hear that? If you don’t like the idea of longer lines due to pointless security theater then you’ll just have to arrive earlier. On a related note, does it sicken anybody else that authoritarian mandate such as this are how 9/11 is remembered and recognized? Roughly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks and instead of standing strong against authoritarian measures we’re implementing them. This is what admitting defeat looks like ladies and gentlemen and so long as we continue down this road to serfdom the terrorists are winning.

Fuck the NFL, if they had been receiving any of my money before they certainly wouldn’t be now. Then again I may not have a choice soon if the Vikings receive tax money to build their stupid stadium.

Everything Will Be a Felony

One of the arguments I make against prohibiting anybody with a felony from owning firearms is the fact that most felony crimes aren’t violent in nature. While an argument can be made to prohibit a murderer from owing a firearm as they have a history of violence there is no logical argument for preventing people charged with tax evasion from owning firearms. On top of that more crimes are being pushed up to felony level every day including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:

In order to step up the prosecution of hackers and scary cybercriminals, the feds are changing a law to make unauthorized access to a computer system a felony rather than just a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor. That means making a change to something called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The article mentions an amendment being proposed to exempt violations of websites’ terms of services from the law but that’s not the point of this particular post. The point is that the government is constantly increasing the severity of crimes and those increases may leave you barred from exercising your rights even though you’ve never done anything violent.

I’m a firm believer in making criminals pay proportional compensation to their victims. This means that punishments should fit and once that punishment is exacted no further punishment should be brought against you. Those who steal from somebody should be made to return the stolen property (or the property’s value if it’s no longer returnable) along with an amount equal to the value of the stolen property. Once that debt has been paid no further punishment should be brought against the criminal. There is nothing proportional about preventing somebody who evaded theft taxes or hacked a computer from owning firearms or voting.

A vast difference exists in violent and non-violent crimes. Many people who are willing to perform non-violent crimes such as speeding or fraud are not willing to perform violent crimes such as assault or murder. The idea that we should prohibit all felons from ever again owning firearms needs to go the way of the dodo. Too many crimes are listed as felonies to make any logical argument that all felons should have their rights removed. Under the current system the government could ban firearms simply by elevating more minor crimes such as speeding and jaywalking to felony status.

The Morality of Profits

The Firearm Blog has a very interesting piece trying to uncover who owns Kahr arms, which concludes that Kahr’s claim that the company is 100% American owned is likely true. Either way that’s not the part of the article that really stood out to me, it was a quote from Kahr’s current majority shareholder Justin Moon. The quote is pulled from an interview of Justin Moon by Massad Ayoob where Ayoob asked about the speculation people have in regards to Kahr’s ownership. Ayoob asked if Moon’s father or his church owned Kahr to which Moon replied:

I currently am the majority shareholder of Kahr and operate my business to provide high quality firearms to the public and to make a profit.

Emphasis mine. Why would such an small line in a large article stick out to me? Because of the simple fact that many people would consider Moon’s motivation somehow morally wrong. Many people claim that wanting to make a profit is somehow immoral and that we should all strive to rid ourselves of any desires of making money or becoming rich. That belief is utter bullshit though.

Profits are a market mechanism of ensuring scarce resources are put into the hands of those best able to distributed them in a manner that serves society’s wants and needs. Of course this is only true if the market isn’t burdened by government interference but this post is about the moral justification of profits, not the ills of government meddling.

The market is composed of producers and consumers. Producers attempt to anticipate the wants of consumers and do their best at fulfilling those wants while consumers seek out things that best alleviate their discomforts. If your discomfort is hunger you seek food, if your discomfort is having to manually do your bookwork you seek a computer, etc. When a produce manufactures widgets that best alleviate the discomforts of consumers those producers are rewarded through the traded goods they receive in exchange for their widgets. Usually this traded good is money but it can be anything the producer wants in trade for their widget.

If you have two producers of a discomfort alleviating widget the one consumers most demand will sell better. Consumer demand is multi-facetted and their decision includes the price/demand ratio. Should one producer be selling a widget that best alleviates the consumers’ discomfort but at an astronomical price it’s likely the competing producer will see higher profits in the end even though their widget isn’t the best as whatever function it performs. In the end the producer who manufactures a cheaper widget may see higher profits through the volume of sales.

Either way the profits received by the producer is the reward given by consumers for fulfilling their wants and needs. Profits shouldn’t be looked at as immoral because that is the means of which resources best land in the hands of those who have demonstrated an ability to properly distribute said resources. Those profits are then used by the producer to generate new widgets that server to alleviate other consumer discomforts. When you think about it the cycle is beautiful in its simplicity.

Those who claim profits are immoral need to come up with a better means of ensuring our scarce resources are best distributed to fulfill the wants and needs of society. Do know that I will completely ignore any proposal that isn’t voluntary in nature because the whole “might makes right” system only works for those with the most force to wield.

Kudos to Apple’s Support

I just want to throw out a kudos to Apple’s support. The other day the power on my iPhone gave up the ghost and I was able to get it replaced in under fifteen minutes. All I had to do was talk into the Apple store, setup an appointment (which I could have done before I came but I didn’t know it at the time, either way the first open appointment was 10 minutes from when I entered), and then show my problem to a tech.

The last time I had to deal with the replacement of an electronic device it was through Best Buy. Best Buy’s “support” was a nightmare and a half. I came in with a computer that obviously had a hardware problem as determined by the loud clicking sound made by the second harddrive. By the time the tech was done hemming and hawing around they finally stopped trying to blame me for installing something malicious and fixed the problem. I believe my overall time was something around an hour and a half. Meanwhile when I showed my power button failure to the Apple tech he went in back, tried to clean out any potential debris that may have gotten behind the power button, and failing that came back with a replacement phone. No hemming, no hawing, and no stupid questions asking whether or not I had tried reseting my phone to factor defaults.

I greatly appreciate a company that will stand behind their product. So kudos to Apple for having good support and not wasting my time when the problem I experienced was obviously a manufacturing fault.

We Should Really Get Obama a Crown

I’m a bit conflicted here because I realize getting Obama a crown could further perpetuate his delusions of grandeur I also believe it would better indicate to people his opinion about himself. It’s more apparent every day that Obama believe himself to be an emperor. He’s been making a lot of statements as of late about wanting to get around Congress including one expressing a desire to have a magic wand that would cast of spell of bypassing the legislature:

Facing growing opposition to his economic proposals and dimming prospects that Congress will pass other parts of his agenda, President Obama told a Hispanic group in Washington Wednesday that when it comes to the issue of immigration, “I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

“As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own,” Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

Basically he’s saying, “Congress are mean and won’t do exactly as I say! If they won’t do what I say then I’ll just ignore them!” The idea behind having the legislature and executive branch being separate entities was to prevent assholes with desires to rule from being able to accomplish their goals. This separation of power hasn’t work that well in this country because the Congress is made up of spineless cowards who refuse to enforce it. The first time a president used an executive order to create law members of Congress should have started impeachment hearings. Instead they let it slide and continued to let violations of presidential power slide because it’s a convenient way for Congress to avoid having to take responsibility.

Now we have a president who brazenly states that he’s going to find any way to bypass the Congress he can. The presidency is now a de facto dictatorship and each president realizes this a bit more than his predecessor. Even Bush went to Congress for their rubber stamp approval before sending our military off to blow up brown people; meanwhile Obama couldn’t be bothered to do even that.

Florida Judge Overrules Prohibition Against Doctors Asking Patients About Guns

As far as gun bloggers are concerned I feel I’ve been in the minority on the issue of barring doctors from asking patients about guns. I’m never a fan of legislation that tramples one right in the futile attempt of protecting another. Well it seems a Florida judge agrees with my belief that the law preventing doctors from asking patients about guns was a bad piece of legislation:

In August, the Florida chapters of three professional physicians’ organizations, along with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, sued on the grounds that the law — a “physician gag law,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called it — violated doctors’ freedom of speech. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Miami agreed and temporarily blocked the law. It seems likely that the decision will become permanent.

“Despite the State’s insistence that the right to ‘keep arms’ is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights,” wrote U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke. “A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect nor interfere with the patient’s right to continue to own, possess, or use firearms.”

In my opinion all rights should be absolute because every infraction against a right sets up a precedence for the government to perform more infractions down the road. It’s a case of giving an inch to somebody and seeing them take a mile. Although I sympathize with the supporters of this law I can’t support it. There is the possibility of doctors using your medical records as an underhanded gun registration system but making it illegal for your doctor to ask about guns is a direct violation of their right to free speech.

Ultimately the market can be used to solve this problem. You’re under no obligation to answer any inquires from your doctor so the easier solution to this potential problem is to not answer any questions your doctor asks about firearms. If your doctor continues to insist that you tell him whether or not you own firearms you can go to a different doctor. This is a system known as voting with your wallet and it works quite well (unless the government forces you to pay money to somebody of course).

Although the pro-gun side says this law is necessary to prevent a secret gun registry from being established and anti-gunners claim this law is dangerous because it bars doctors from asking about an actual medical issue I don’t see either argument as the core issue. The core issue here is that this law violates the freedom of speech to protect the right to keep and bear arms. The right being violated in this case is the one that allows us to have open discussion on issues such as the rights of gun owners. I’m not willing to sell one right down the river to protect another and thus am happy to see this ruling.

I’m Glad Other People are Are Doing the Real Work

Overall I have it pretty easy when it comes to blogging. Most of what I write are opinion pieces backed by the facts I used to form my opinion. I also write in length about topics that are philosophical in nature and require only reason to explain. For posts involving hard facts I can usually find the information I need quickly and cite it appropriately.

When I need a very well done graphic that explains the fact that more guns doesn’t correlate to more gun violence I simply have to link to Walls of the City and let Linoge do all the heavy lifting.

While people like him do all the real work I just sit back and collect a check… never mind, I just sit back. But speaking of checks if the Joyce Foundation wants to give me some money for writing this blog I’d be happy to take it. I won’t change my message or anything though, I’ll just take the money.