Category: Politics

The Minnesota Marriage Amendment

Last year SF 1308 was passed. What this bill did was put up to voter consideration whether or not gay marriage should be allowed within the state of Minnesota. The text is as follows:

Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article XIII, to read:
Sec. 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.

Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.
(a) The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2012 general election. The question submitted must be:”Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?

Yes
…..
No
….. ”

(b) The title required under Minnesota Statutes, section 204D.15, subdivision 1, for the question submitted to the people under paragraph (a) shall be “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.”

So far I’ve made no real comment regarding this bill as I’ve been busy analyzing and discussing the numerous other horrible pieces of legislation moving their way through both Minnesota’s and the federal legislature. The arguments regarding this seem to fall on either the supporter, who believe this amendment is necessary because of their religious beliefs, and the opposition, who believe marriage is about love and separation of church and state should prevent this amendment. Obviously both sides have numerous ancillary arguments that demonstrate this amendment as necessary or unjust but few seem to be brining up the real issue: voluntary association.

Marriage, as recognized in our society, has two components: religious and contractual. The state shouldn’t be meddling in the affairs of religion as it is a private institution. If the Catholic Church doesn’t want to recognize a marriage between two men or two women that’s their business. The aspect of marriage I wish to focus on is the contractual side, the side the state truly meddle in.

When one marries another they make numerous agreements including joint ownership of property and power over life and death matters when one of the two is incapacitated (for instance one spouse can legally decide whether or not to pull the plug on life support for their comatose spouse). As the state maintains a monopoly on the courts they also get to say what is and isn’t recognized as a contractual agreement, a situation that is flat out disgusting in my eyes.

I’m a voluntaryist and therefore believe in voluntary association. If two men wish to make a contractual agreement to share ownership or property or grant each power of attorney over the other that’s their business. It is nobody’s business who you choose to association with nor how you choose to associate with that person so long as both parties are associating voluntarily. I’ve presented this fact to my friends who oppose the marriage amendment only to hear statements like, “You’re probably right but that’s just not practical because of taxes and stuff.” My statement regarding legal matters using legal arguments is impractical so they’re basicing their argument around an arbitrary idea like love… and that is why they face a real chance of losing this debate.

Of course I’m not going to simply pretent the tax angle doesn’t exist, it does and it’s a huge problem. Why? Because not only is taxation theft but it’s also a form of social engineering. The state wishes to promote marriage so they grant tax benefits to those who are married. Likewise the state wishes to stop people from smoking cigarettes so they place a high tax on tobacco. You can guess what agents of the state want you to do based on how they tax that activity; if they add a tax they don’t want you to do it and if they allow you to deduct the activity on your taxes they want you to do it. This becomes messy when the state’s attempt as social engineering collide with unforeseen circumstances. At this point more state agents with new agendas move in with new legislation to deal with the new circumstances that are making things difficult (often they’ll call the existence of the circumstance a loophole as a way to justify more legislation to correct the problem in a way they find favorable).

The general social acceptance of homosexuality has created on of those circumstances. When state agents first punched up the tax codes giving those who are married breaks they did so to promote state recognized marriages but never took homosexual marriage into account because, at the time, homosexuality was severely ostracized (just ask Alan Turing). Now that the social stigma is gone the state agents who use their religious beliefs to dictate legislation are scurrying to make another form of voluntary association illegal.

Unfortunately what many people don’t see is the real statement being made by those supporting this legislation, which is that they’re willing to use the state’s capacity for violence to interfere with the free and voluntary association of individuals. By making same sex marriage illegal the state is also refusing to recognize the contractual aspect, an important matter as the state also has a monopoly on the courts. It’s not just the tax breaks but other issues like joint property ownership and power of attorney. By trying to prohibit any form of marriage between those able to make contractual agreements the state is attempting to interfere with the right of individuals to associate with who and how they want. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the real issue, not any debate regarding arbitrary (as far as the law is concerned) concepts like morality or love.

Some are also apt to bring up that this is being done the “right” way as a constitutional amendment. These people often believe that amending something to a constitution makes it clear and legal, a belief I do not share. Constitutionalists generally believe that returning to a society that is regulated strictly by the Constitution will made all good again. I fully admit that returning to a society that adheres to the Constitution would be a great start, I don’t believe it would be the best possible society. As a libertarian I believe in the inalienable right to self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. Whether a constitution grants the state authority to initiate violence against the populace or not is irrelevant to me. Nothing can justify the initiation of violence (which any act, outside of non-violent persuasion, that attempts to prohibition voluntary association is) in my book. Were the Minnesota or federal Constitution amended to make the act of beating a homosexuals legal I wouldn’t care, I would still find the act entirely illegal and would work to ensure homosexuals had a means of defending themselves against those acting upon the new amendment.

It’s probably obvious that I oppose the marriage amendment, and I do so based on the fact that it interferes with voluntary association. Whether that interference be authorized by the state constitution, federal constitution, or any other document isn’t relevant in my opinion.

The State Isn’t Happy Until Everything is Taxed into the Ground

In the fight about income tax, payroll tax, and corporate gains tax people often fail to recognize all the other taxes an individual is faced with. Everything from food (in some states) to gasoline is taxed. Some localities have their own special taxes like Minneapolis and its additional taxes on lodging and entertainment [PDF]. Obviously our tax burden isn’t enough so Obama is trying to raise the tax on dividends received by those holding stocks that actually pay dividends:

President Obama’s 2013 budget is the gift that keeps on giving—to government. One buried surprise is his proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends, which believe it or not is higher than in his previous budgets.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%—nearly three times today’s 15% rate.

What laughable is the fact that dividends are taxed differently from income yet most logical people would agree that receiving dividends is a form of income. Another interesting quirk with dividend taxes is that it’s a tax on something that’s already been taxed:

Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.

The state isn’t happy until it has a big chunk of every dollar that trades hands. You would think entities that have this many different ways of stealing money from people could manage to run profitably instead of at a deficit so staggering that no private entity could ever hope to mirror it.

A Presidential Ticket I can Support

I must say if Ron Paul actually chooses Judge Napolitano as his running mate it would be the first presidential ticket in history that I could get entirely behind. From Paul’s statement it sounds as though Napolitano is a possibility:

“One time somebody asked me who I would consider and the name Judge Napolitano jumps right out at me,” Paul said to raucous cheers of approval.

All I can say is, yes please.

Support the Troops, Vote Ron Paul

Most people express a desire to support the military personell of the United States. Driving down any busy highway will likely lead to seeing at least one bumper sticker that reads, “I Support Our Troops.” If you really want to support our troops then you should stand behind the presidential candidate they stand behind:

The number of civilians walking behind the veterans and active duty marching to show that “Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops” was reported to be over 1,000 family members and supporters. The official march by the troops and veterans themselves is believed to have been an additional 900 people. It is unclear at this time, how many members of the public may have been in the crowd to observe this historic public statement by our veterans in support of Ron Paul for President of the United States.

I will also point out the fact that members of the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force are Paul’s biggest financial contributors.

Support the troops and vote for the candidate who will bring them home. When it comes to sending supplies to the troops most Americans are all for it but when it comes to preserving those troops’ lives from being needlessly wasted most people seem unwilling to do what is necessary and work to get Paul into office.

The Gas Price Spike Act of 2012

Periodically I like to cruise sites like GovTrack, OpenCongress, and the Library of Congress THOMAS looking for interesting pieces of legislation. I found a true gem with HR 3784, the Gas Price Spike Act of 2012. What does this bill do? It places a tax on any profits made by oil companies that are beyond “reasonable.” That isn’t the best part though, what defines “reasonable” is whatever the newly established Reasonable Profits Board decides:

`(a) In General- In addition to any other tax imposed under this title, there is hereby imposed an excise tax on the sale in the United States of any crude oil, natural gas, or other taxable product a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the windfall profit on such sale.

`(b) Definitions- For purposes of this section–

`(1) TAXABLE PRODUCT- The term `taxable product’ means any fuel which is a product of crude oil or natural gas.

`(2) WINDFALL PROFIT- The term `windfall profit’ means, with respect to any sale, so much of the profit on such sale as exceeds a reasonable profit.

`(3) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE- The term `applicable percentage’ means–

`(A) 50 percent to the extent that the profit on the sale exceeds 100 percent of the reasonable profit on the sale but does not exceed 102 percent of the reasonable profit on the sale,

`(B) 75 percent to the extent that the profit on the sale exceeds 102 percent of the reasonable profit on the sale but does not exceed 105 percent of the reasonable profit on the sale, and

`(C) 100 percent to the extent that the profit on the sale exceeds 105 percent of the reasonable profit on the sale.

`(4) REASONABLE PROFIT- The term `reasonable profit’ means the amount determined by the Reasonable Profits Board to be a reasonable profit on the sale.

Emphasis mine. Whatever this Reasonable Profits Board decides becomes the amount that is taxable meaning if they decided profits of $1,000 was “unreasonable” they could begin taxing oil companies that made profits exceeding $1,000. Glorious huh? They get to define any amount of profit as “reasonable” and tax accordingly. If this bill passes I would expect it to take no more than one year before this idea gets applied to other industries.

Peace Sells but Who’s Buying

Apparently not Dave Mustaine:

Speaking of news, you were a correspondent for MTV during the 1992 presidential election. What’s your take on US politics in 2012?

“I’m just hoping that whatever is in the White House next year is a Republican. I can’t bear to watch what’s happened to our great country. Everybody’s got their head in the sand. Everybody in the industry is like, ‘Oh, Obama’s doing such a great job…’ I don’t think so. Not from what I see.

“Looking at the Republican candidates, I’ve got to tell you, I was floored the other day to see that Mitt Romney’s five boys have a $100 million trust fund. Where does a guy make that much money? So there’s some questions there. And watching Newt Gingrich, I was pretty excited for a while, but now he’s just gone back to being that person that everybody said he was – that angry little man. I still like him, but I don’t think I’d vote for him.

“Ron Paul… you know, I heard somebody say he was like insecticide – 98 percent of it’s inert gases, but it’s the two percent that’s left that will kill you. What that means is that he’ll make total sense for a while, and then he’ll say something so way out that it negates everything else. I like the guy because he knows how to excite the youth of America and fill them in on some things. But when he says that we’re like the Taliban… I’m sorry, Congressman Paul, but I’m nothing like the Taliban.

“Earlier in the election, I was completely oblivious as to who Rick Santorum was, but when the dude went home to be with his daughter when she was sick, that was very commendable. Also, just watching how he hasn’t gotten into doing these horrible, horrible attack ads like Mitt Romney’s done against Newt Gingrich, and then the volume at which Newt has gone back at Romney… You know, I think Santorum has some presidential qualities, and I’m hoping that if it does come down to it, we’ll see a Republican in the White House… and that it’s Rick Santorum.”

While Dave has become loonier by the year his endorsement of Santorum slightly surprised me. Being a born again Christian has lead to lots of idiotic decisions including his refuse to play many old Megadeth songs because they’re “satanic” in nature and playing shows with “satanic” bands. Either way with his absolute fear of a new world order I can’t believe he thought supporting a tyrannical bastard like Santorum was a good idea.

My respect for Mustaine has been dwindling for ages now but it’s almost entirely gone. The man fronts a band that was once great and is responsible for writing much of the Metallica material I really enjoy but his loony ranting is difficult to separate from his music.

Nullification Alive and Well in Virginia

I’ve talked about jury nullification several times on this blog but I don’t believe I’m talked about the ability of states of nullify federal laws. Through state legislation federal laws can be rendered unenforceable, or nullified. This has been done numerous times throughout American history with my favorite example of Wisconsin’s nullification of the Fugitive Slaves Act. Various states also nullified the REAL ID Act by passing legislation prohibiting the act from being implemented in those states.

The passed of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was not a happy moment in American history as it granted the United States government the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. While Ron Paul introduced legislation to repeal the erroneous provision Virginia has decided to simply nullify the provision:

On Tuesday, February 14th, the Virginia House of Delegates voted in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160). The final vote was 96-4.

The legislative goal of HB1160 is to codify in Virginia law noncompliance with what many are referring to as the “kidnapping provisions” of section 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). The official summary of 1160:

“A BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

I hope other states will follow Virginia’s fine example.

Klobuchar Brings More Legislation that Ignores True Problems

Amy Klobuchar, one of the two idiot clowns elected to be senators in Minnesota, is presenting an amendment to a transportation bill that will supposedly address the shortage of medicinal drugs in the United States:

The recent shortage of a critical medicine for childhood cancer has prompted Senator Amy Klobuchar to attach her bill on drug shortages to transportation legislation under discussion in the Senate, the lawmaker said on Tuesday.

Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, along with Robert Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, introduced a bill that would force drug companies to tell the Food and Drug Administration about looming shortages. The FDA said early notification helped it to prevent 99 shortages in 2011.

This legislation fails to address the actual problem. An interesting fact I came across in a previous, but related, post was the fact that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) put quotes on the amount of drugs pharmaceutical companies can produce. I did some looking around and came across a Department of Justice (DoJ) report [PDF] that flat out stated this fact:

DEA limits the quantity of Schedule I and II controlled substances which may be produced in the United States in any given calendar year. By utilizing available data on sales and inventories of these controlled substances, and taking into account estimates of drug usage provided by the FDA, the DEA establishes annual aggregate production quotas for Schedule I and II controlled substances. The aggregate production quota is allocated among the various manufacturers who are registered to manufacture the specific drug. DEA also allocates the amount of bulk drug which may be procured by those companies which prepare the drug into dosage units.

Klobuchar is forcing pharmaceutical companies to report shortages to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) who will, I guess, report the shortage to the DEA who will raise it’s production limit. A simpler solution that would take care of this entire mess in one fell swoop would be to remove the DEA’s quotes on drug production. Instead of attacking the actual problem, the DEA’s power to create artificial shortages, Klobuchar has decided to put more burden on manufacturers.

The war on drugs has far wider implications than illegal drugs. Along with trying to control verboten drugs the DEA also attempts to control legal drugs and part of their scheme involves restricting the quantities that can be produced by pharmaceutical companies. These restrictions are responsible for shortages of other medical drugs yet the government refuses to attack the actual problem, instead they pile more bureaucracy on top of the already thickly layer bureaucracy. It’s not turtles all the way down, it’s bureaucracy all the way down.

Of course Klobuchar is going to be cheered on as a proponent of the people for this amendment because the average American doesn’t understand or care about the actual causes of problems.

I’ve Detected a False Dichotomy

In a way you almost have to admire statists. Regardless of how often they are proven wrong they always managed to find some way to make ultimatums that make their opposition look like really bad people. Case in point, the current debate over Internet surveillance laws that is taking place in Canada right now. Opponents of Internet surveillance laws say they will violate the privacy of Canadian citizens while the supporters have said anybody who opposes said laws support child pornography:

But when Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia attacked the Conservatives for “preparing to read Canadians’ emails and track their movements through cellphone signals” – which does appear to be a severe distortion of the bill’s powers – Mr. Toews’s counterattack was fierce.

“As technology evolves, many criminal activities, such as the distribution of child pornography, become much easier,” he told the House. “We are proposing to bring measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide police with the lawful tools that they need.

“He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

“Child pornography” is the new say for statists to say, “Shut up slave!” without actually using the word slave (as that word has some negative connotations). Anytime they want to shove a new law down our throats they either claim it’s for the children or to fight terrorism. In this sense you have to give the statists credit for being consistant. While anti-statists find an almost uncountable number of reasons statism is bad the statists only need one; fear. When anti-statists say Internet surveillance is a violation of laws protecting people from unwarranted search and seizure the statist only needs to reply with one of two boogeymen; child pornographers or terrorists (or, theoretically, terrorist child pornographers).

I doubt it needs pointing out but the choice between an Internet free of government snooping and child pornography is a false dichotomy. The Internet is remarkably good at policing itself. When a highly undesirable thing appears on the Internet groups like Anonymous move to attack it.

Politics, The Reality Television Show for Suckers

This week on Politics: The Reality Television Show for Suckers, Obama puts forth a new tax plan that he claims will increase government revenue by $1.5 trillion:

US President Barack Obama has proposed to raise taxes on the wealthy in his 2013 budget, prompting an election year spending showdown with Republicans.

The proposal includes $1.5 trillion (£950bn) in new taxes, much from allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire.

Who will win this entirely pointless debate that completely misses the point that the government is simply spending too much money? Could Obama and the Democrats pull off a tax increase that will fail to raise enough money to effect the deficit in any notable way or will the Republicans shut down the attempted tax increase that is ultimately without consequence? Join us all week on Days of Our Lives Politics as the debate rages on!

While we don’t know who will claim victory, we do know nothing of value will be accomplished!