Fort Hood, Gun Control Laws, and The Freedom Of Religion

Another tragic shooting with a large body count and the usual suspects come out of the woodwork from both sides of the gun-control issue with the same, tired arguments. Gun-control fanatics cite the incident as proof that people can't be trusted with guns because they might hurt somebody with them and so they should be barred from owning them, except for the servants of the state who need theirs to push the rest of us around (but aren't public servants "people," too?).

The gun-rights advocates point out that the body count in this shooting, just like others, was so high because the lone gunman was the only one armed (at least until the police arrived) and everyone else had been barred from possessing firearms on their person so that they couldn't fight back effectively enough to stop the killer. They insist that if anyone else had been allowed to be armed that person could have stopped this whole affair before it got too far and that is why the people have a right to keep and bear arms. This is a valid argument but what makes it old is it keeps having to be repeated again and again and nobody ever seems to have enough sense to implement it.

The point that has me slightly perturbed though is the large number of those who believe in their individual right to own a firearm that have called for, in one sense or another, the banning of people in this country who are of the same religious affiliation as the shooter. These folks will tell you to your face (even shouting sometimes) that they have have a Constitutional right to own a gun and in the same breath demand that people of a certain faith, in violation of the Constitutional protection of the freedom of religion, have to prove their loyalty to the US and its central government before that government should be allow them to continue to live here. See the comments to this article for an example of what I'm talking about.

What seems to escape these people is that they hold the same totalitarian mindset as those who are in favor of more gun-control laws. Somehow and somewhere they have been invested with the authority to judge others different from themselves and punish them pre-emptively before they have a chance to commit a real crime. Here is a summation of how the argument for banning firearms could be stated:

"A lot of people own guns. Some of those people use their guns to hurt others. We do not and can not know which people will use their guns to hurt others, therefore we must take away everyone's gun, except for the servants of the state, so that nobody will get hurt, except those punished by the servants of the state."

Change the words a little bit and we have:

"A lot of people are Muslim. Some Muslims, but not all, cause harm to others in the name of their religion. We do not and can not know which Muslims will cause harm in the name of their religion, therefore we must force all Muslims to prove their loyalty beyond a shadow of a doubt before we allow them to live among us."

The arguments are the same and if one is dedicated to true "liberty and justice for all," then one must be opposed to both and resist temptations to give into prejudice and bigotry. For the suspicious there can never be enough hoops for them to force others to hop through and eventually they will become the aggressors committing crimes of retaliation against innocent people. The Romans didn't trust the Christians so they shipped them off to the Coliseum and innocent people died. Hitler didn't trust the Jews so he shipped them off to "Concentration" camps and innocent people died. FDR didn't trust Japanese-Americans and he shipped them off to "Internment" camps and innocent people died.

After some time has passed and more information becomes available, I will discuss the psychological underpinnings of the shooter's motives but until that time let us keep our wits about us and resolve to punish the guilty and let the innocent live in peace. If you want people to respect your right to live free, then you must learn to respect their right to do the same...

You Wanna Bet?

I'm sure, particularly at this time of the year, just about everyone has placed a bet on their favorite sports team and, if you're like most people, you've lost some money already, but that's part of the spice that goes along with the joy of watching a good game (as long as no one does it to excess). Now imagine for a moment (here we go again) that all the star players on your team have come down with some inconvenient, though not fatal, communicable disease and are too ill to play in the next game. Their opponents are all healthy and ready to play but your team is depending on second- and even third-string players for this match-up. Some players are having to double-up by playing both offense and defense. You will probably not want to place a very high wager on this game or negotiate for a large spread in the final score so as to give you some resemblance of a fair chance of winning the bet. You might even choose to not place a bet at all.

The insurance industry is a lot like gambling. Your insurance company is placing a bet that they will receive more in premiums from you over the time they carry your policy than they will ever have to pay out to you. They also hope to invest that money you pay them so as to put it to work to earn more for them. By having as many policy holders as possible your insurance company tries to reduce the chances that any one customer suffering catastrophic losses will not drain all their reserves by having more paying into their system than that having to be paid out. You already know that you will pay more than you will ever get but because life and the future is unknowable and uncertain you have the assurance that if things go bad for you then that aspect of your life that you have insured is covered (that's why it's called "insurance").

Insurance companies like to hedge their bets with you just like anyone else. They write contracts specifically stating where, when, and how much they will pay out for what. If they consider a situation to be a bigger risk than normal, then they charge a higher premium so as to offset any potential extraordinary loss they may suffer. And if all the odds are set against them, then they may not even make a wager which means they will not enter into a contract with some parties.

There are folks in Congress who are preparing to mandate that the health care insurance industry, under penalty of law, have to accept all comers, regardless of the inevitable loss some customers will cause the companies forced to comply. This is like holding a gun to your head to force you to bet for your team when you already know that it is going to lose. It might even be like forcing you to bet that the sun will not rise tomorrow morning.

Some companies will play along and eventually go out of business as financial failures. Others will refuse to place bets on such guaranteed bad wagers and leave the industry all together. This will be just as some Progressives have designed it so that we either end up with a Free-market health care system where patients pay as they go (highly unlikely except for a black-market) or a Socialist system where the government becomes the single-payer mega-insurance carrier and begins to control that aspect of your life as to how much health care you get and for how long of your productive life you get to have some.

Of course, as I have already stated, the future is unknowable and uncertain and I could most certainly be wrong about the whole thing. You just have to ask yourself if you are willing to bet your life and your liberty on it. "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Revisiting Public Schools and Property Values

I have been asked to expound, or more correctly defend, my "proposition" that the higher tax rates needed to create the illusion of "good" government schools actually reduces real property values for average home and business owners instead of increasing them as is the usual rhetoric from those proposing to hike those taxes even higher. The opposing argument is that since people are selling their homes for prices higher than what they originally paid for them, can't some of that increase in apparent value not be attributed to improvements in the local public schools that the homeowner has been happily paying higher and higher taxes for all these years? The best way to approach this contradiction is to examine the value of the home more closely.

Let's say a young couple bought a home in 1970 for $50,000. They came into a little money from an inheritance and bought a little more home than they needed at the time but which they eventually filled with new family members. Now the children are all grown and have moved out and they want to sell and move into something smaller for just the two of them. They have kept the house up and modern but at the same time have made no actual improvements to it so it retains it's same intrinsic value as for what it was and what it is as a building. They sell it to another couple with young children who want to move into the neighborhood because these people have heard of the "good" government schools in the area. The agreed upon price is $250,000 or five times what the first couple paid for the home. Can't this $200,000 "profit" be attributed in some small way to the "good" schools?

At the time the house was bought gold was, by law till President Nixon released it, worth $35.00 an ounce. This means the home was originally sold for 1,428.6 ounces of gold. This year gold is reaching prices above $1,000 an ounce but let us round off at that price to make the arithmetic easier. That means the home should have sold for $1,428,600 to keep up with the price of gold. That $200,000 profit has become a $1,178,600 loss in the relation of the dollar to gold. By 1970 standards this couple sold their home for $8,750 (250 ounces of gold at $35 per ounce).

As one can see, it is not the schools or anything unattached to the home that has "increased" its value but instead the devaluation of the dollar that has created the illusion of that happening. And of course, the local benevolent government officials have been using this illusion to increase the tax liability of this couple over the years through the back door by assessing the "value" of their home higher and higher. One thief, the Federal government and the Federal Reserve, scratching the back of the other thief, the local tax assessor (and lifting his wallet at the same time).

Those who continue to try and sell the theory that the government can increase the "value" of one's property by forcing one to pay more in taxes on it remind me of the tailors in the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" who convinced the Emperor to "see" their magical new fabric from which they would make his new clothes. Wise is the person who follows the example of the young boy and just "call 'em as we sees 'em" without falling for the illusion.

Quote Of The Day

"The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."
Frederic Bastiat, French economist of the 19th Century

In The Interest Of Full Disclosure

In compliance with recent changes to anti-free speech regulations implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in regards to bloggers, such as yours truly, I must take a moment to explain about why, when, and even if I should ever recommend some products to you, my audience, for what purposes it may serve you now or later. If you're in a hurry, the short version is this: I don't make a darn penny off anything I do here at this blog and I don't expect to at any time in the future. If I recommend something, it's because I like it and have probably used it at some time in my life, and if I didn't like something, I'll let you know in no uncertain terms. If you're not in a hurry, please continue reading.

The first thing you might notice on my blog is a few banners to certain political organizations. I agree at least 95% with the positions of these organizations and therefore I have placed these banners for readers to "link" over to the websites of these organizations so the reader can learn more about them. I don't make any money if one should visit these sites, or for that matter, any website that I may link to for references or illustrative purposes. Those sites may have advertising on them and those sites may make money if one should purchase through those links to the retailer of the advertised commodity but I certainly do not.

I have recommended some books for my audience to read but that is for the purpose of learning the ideas that the author of those books are presenting to the world. I don't care if one buys, rents, or checks out the book from the local library as long as one gets around to reading the book. The author or the publisher does not compensate me in any way for my recommendation. I have also set up some links to Amazon.com as a suggested route for purchasing a book or two. My family uses Amazon regularly for books, DVD's, and other products and any problem we have ever encountered was quickly resolved to our satisfaction but I do not make anything if anyone should follow the link I provided.

I suffer from a very painful affliction that leaves me incapable of getting around as well as I would like to. One of the best ways I have ever found to deal with the pain instead of dulling my mind with large quantities of legally prescribed opiate-based narcotics is to distract myself from it and that is what this blog is all about. Its a form of mental and physical therapy that allows me to still make a contribution to the world at large. I like to watch a variety of sports but my favorite has to be the game of politics. Just about any competitive sport can be reduced to being understood as a form of less-than-lethal war and politics is no different except that the cheering crowd in the stands is as much a part of the game as the players on the field and has a lot more influence on the outcome of the match...

Suppertime In Texas

A large number of political pundits with a libertarian leaning have been talking a lot about Texas lately as being the last Free state in the union and recommending that if one doesn't like the oppressive atmosphere where one lives now then one should move to Texas. Now Texas can use as many liberty-minded "immigrants" as it can get because "The Republic" is not exactly Fascist-free, or even Fascist-lite.

We have our fill of dictators and petty tyrants infesting the Statehouse, County Commissioner Courts, and the Municipal Councils of every incorporated city and town across the State. True freedom can still be found in the countryside and those little unincorporated towns and villages that dot the map but even they have groups of residents that are chomping at the bit to incorporate and then lord it over their neighbors. Two articles from the Sunday edition of our local paper (you know, the paper I have trouble reading on a regular basis) will give everyone an idea of what we are putting up with down here in "The Republic."

Cast your ballot: Temple, selling spirits
by Fred Afflerbach | Business Writer
Published: October 18, 2009

Temple residents also have a local matter regarding alcohol sales to consider: "City of Temple Liquor Option" is posted last on the ballot, after Proposition 11.

Approving the option would allow off-premise sale of hard liquor and eliminate local restaurants and bars from having to register patrons as private club members before they are allowed to consume mixed drinks.

Read the rest here.

The first election is for people to get permission from a majority of local registered voters to do that which they already have a Natural Right to do. It is the very embodiment of oppression to prevent people from enjoying life as they see fit because of a moral code based on a religion that not everyone in the community is a follower of and what makes it worse is the number of followers of that religion who can't live by their own moral code. The most painful way to harm your neighbors is when you do it for their own good. One has to wonder that if everyone has to act the same as the followers of a religion through the force of government, then how do people tell the difference between those who choose to follow a certain religion, regardless of personal sacrifice, from those in the world who are just obeying the law?

Then we have:

Cast your ballot: Belton bond election
by Dan Fearson
Published: October 18, 2009

For the second time this year, voters will decide if the Belton school district will get another middle school.

This time around, after gathering feedback from residents, the district has come back with a redesigned plan for a middle school at a cost of $29 million.

Officials said the plan would cost residents about 5.4 cents per $100 valuation. Someone with a $100,000 home would pay an additional $54 per year. The district will utilize $1 million in an interest and sinking fund balance for construction.

Read the rest here.

The justification for this new election is that the current buildings are overcrowded beyond capacity. I've made suggestions in the past of how to improve the public school system but this situation seems to be easily solved without resorting to building more schools. Of all the hours in a regular calendar year, public school children are only in their classrooms about 15% of the available time. Except for special events, the buildings generally sit empty the other 85%. Homeschooling parents are able to adequately educate their children with only four hours of class time a day for students at the high school level and in even fewer hours for younger children at the lower levels.

If the public schools would split their day between two halves of the student body - for instance, one half from 8 AM to 12 Noon and the other from 1 PM to 5PM - then the same buildings could service twice as many students. With less time devoted to being imprisoned and indoctrinated these young people would have more time for getting out to know and understand the world we live in. As Mark Twain said, "Never let schooling get in the way of your education."

There will of course be those parents who will complain of the hardship placed on them by this new schedule since they now must secure daycare for those times when their children are not in the school (these are the same parents who complain now that the schools don't babysit their children 24/7 for them). But this is a personal problem and not a collective problem of the general population and if we are to have some form of government (why?) that actually works then this is where that entity must concentrate its efforts. The collective problem in this situation is that the taxpayers are being robbed from more and more every year and this must come to a halt before there is nothing left to steal.

Elections like these always remind me of the Russian fable of a pack of four wolves and a sheep. The sheep and the wolves were all engaged in a heated debate over what (or more specifically, who) they were going to eat for supper. In the end they decided to be democratic about the situation and take a vote. I'm sure that I don't have to tell anyone the results of that election. Though not in the original story, I'm sure that when the sheep started to raise a protest the wolves replied, "Why are you complaining? You got to express yourself. Now we are just carrying out the will of the people."

As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, democracy is tyranny by mob-rule. It's a little different than that exercised by a single dictator or an elitist supreme council (oligarchy) but it is tyranny all the same...

Who Knew?

First...

Fed: Economic activity has 'picked up'

Central bank leaves rates near zero. Says the economy is showing signs of improvement and inflation remains subdued.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve kept interest rates near zero on Wednesday and said the economy is improving. But the Fed also pointed out ongoing job losses could dampen a recovery...

Read the rest here.

Then...

Survey of top economists find most believe recession is over

• By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
• On 10:28 am EDT, Monday October 12, 2009

More than 80% of top economists believe that the recession that started almost two years ago is finally over. But most don't expect meaningful improvement in jobs, credit or housing for months to come.

That's according to a survey released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics (NABE). The group asked 43 top economists last month if they believe the battered U.S. economy has pulled out of the worst U.S. downturn since World War II. Those surveyed include economists from leading Wall Street firms and major corporations, as well as from highly respected universities and research firms...

Read the rest here.

So...

Who knew that Lucy would grow up to be an economist working at the Federal Reserve?