Issue 632 It's Your Property July 13, 2015

We now know from last Friday's issue that property is a right and that government owning it is a bad thing.  But what does it mean to have property rights?  

What you can do with your Property:

1) Sell it:  You can sell your property to anyone you want. Additionally you can rent it out as well.  As such, you can make a profit on your own property.

2) Buy it: Since you can sell it, you can also acquire more property.  There is no limit to the amount of property that you can own.  And this is not just houses, but items, businesses and your own inventions as well.

3) Improve it/Change it: If you have a house, and add a new addition, then you have changed the value of the land and made it (hopefully) more livable.  Or you can cut away at it and build something new on your property.  So you can alter your property as you see fit.

4) Mortgage it:  You can put up your property as collateral for money.  As such, your house, car, or anything you own with value can be used as collateral to acquire a loan.  

Conclusion:  These are the basics of what you can do with your property.  If you want to build a house out of beer cans, then you can.  Your property is yours and thus you can and should be able to treat it in any way you see fit.  If you want it as a dumping ground for trash, then that is your prerogative.  Some localities however block the ability to do anything you want and even tax you if the value of the land improves, which in turn violates your rights.  As such, there is pushback on who can do what with their property, but ultimately, so long as we keep government in check and respect each other’s own rights and privileges, then our property is ours to do with as we please.

Issue 631 Property rights under big government July 10, 2015

In the United States people are allowed to own their own property (for now at least).  But what would it look like if the government owned the land?  Read on to find out.

Big government control:  To understand what would happen we only need to look to the past.  In Europe under Kings and Queens, or even in communist societies, the government owned all the land and its resources.  Kings and Queens would give the land away to those that curried their favor, but if they displeased the king and queen, the land could be taken back at any time.  Under communist rule, land was equally distributed to an extent with those who played the system being able to get more land than the common person.

Today it would be the same thing.  Government would own the land and then distribute it in a way they saw fit.  However, if you fell out of favor with the government or you were just in the way, they could and would take the land back to accomplish whatever their goals are.  Understand that government is not benevolent, and that everything comes with a cost.  In this case, you cannot speak out against the government, or act against their interests or else they will make you homeless. Basically they can suppress your rights by threatening to take all your property away.

Conclusion:  Property is a right that is given to us under the Constitution under the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment.  The U.S. Constitution even makes it so that Congress can punish certain crimes like piracy which is typically a crime against property.  So the U.S. is unique.  But, people with respect to ideas and good intentions gone bad are not.  Slowly but surely we are reinterpreting our constitution which results in things like Kilo Vs. New London where people's property was taken and given to someone else because government thought the new property owner would improve the land (which they did not do).   As such, be cautious and remember the abuses that can result if the government should gain full control over property.

Issue 630 Does the Constitution Protect Us?! July 9, 2015

Well the obvious answer is yes, but there is conditions that makes sure that it does.  Do you know these conditions?  Well, you will now.

The Conditions:

1)  Know it:  This means that you actually have to read the Constitution.  If you do not know what it says then how do you know when and where you are protected.  This is an essential first step.

2) Understand it:  This means you got to know what it is your reading.  As such, when there are exceptions if any.  The history behind each clause and how it is still applicable today.  By doing so you can make sure that you are secure from illegal harm by the government.  For example, the U.S. Constitution says in the 4th Amendment:

 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It means that your cellphone texts and emails are also protected as that is part of the papers and effects protections.  As such they cannot look at them without either your permission or a warrant.

3) Accept its Consequences:  Our Constitution makes no distinctions on what rights are protected.  As such, hate speech, and stupid speech are both protected by the 1st Amendment.  Likewise, churches that we disagree with like the Westboro Baptist Church are protected despite them preaching hate.  These are the consequences that burden us, but must be accepted for if we can silence one person by law, then all can be silenced.

4) Enforce it:  Enforcement means living life through its lens.  So if you know the government is doing something that is illegal constitutionally, then you must speak out or else the government may get away with it.

Conclusion:  If these steps are followed, then we will be protected by a simple paper document.  For you see, words on paper means nothing without the knowledge, and the wisdom to know, understand, accept and enforce them.

Issue 629 Approach History With an Open Mind July 8, 2015

History is something we share.  It does not belong to any single one person as much as we like to think so.  But we try to twist history at times because of ego, or our desire to control it.  What do I mean?  Read on to find out.

Dividing history:  History is a human connection that we all share.  However, we sometimes try to improve it, or change it.  As such we have things like Black American History, Jewish American History and so on and so forth.  But the truth remains, in each of those histories, American is in them.  That is the connection with respect to our American history.  This is not to say you should not study from different perspectives, but do not change history to suit one's needs, such as the types of slavery, who enslaved who, do not hide the hard, but sad truths involved. If we do change history to suit an agenda, then the history that we share will fail to unite us.  For example, I am white, but two of my biggest American heroes are Fredrick Douglas, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.   They are black, but they are American before being a skin color.  As such, if we keep in mind that we share our history and our identity as Americans, or even as people of Earth, then we can begin making those connections that we are all cut from the same cloth.  That we are all fundamentally one people who must and will learn from each other.

Conclusion:  History can either unite or divide us.  But if we can keep an open mind and see that we all share it as we learn from it, then and only then can we progress forward as a people and surpass our former selves generation by generation.  It is our human connection, and we must always be willing to learn from our past.

Issue 628 Living Wills and Health Proxy's July 7, 2015

A Living Will is a form of Will for a person who is still alive but unable to speak on behalf of themselves.  In this case, a proxy is appointed for the individual to carry out said Will.  But what are the implications of this?  Let us discuss.

Living Will and its implication:  Typically a Living Will is associated with healthcare, such as a do not resuscitate clause if the person dies on the table.  As such, if a person writes a Living Will they could in effect be signing over their right to life to someone else.  Living Wills may apply in any area where the person is alive but incapable of thinking for themselves (let alone responding) to carry out their own decisions.  So if a person is in a vegetative state which they may or may not come out of, if your living will decides that you request assisted suicide while in such a condition, then they will carry it out despite you possibly being trapped in your own body.  As such, even if you may be able to live normally again, or function in general, you are morally choosing to die.  Likewise we have the opposite.  If your body is so broken, that you will never live a normal life again, but your Living Will says save me, then they will and thus you must now live with a destroyed body and all the challenges that come with it.  Morally speaking you are either deciding to commit suicide or to warp the lives of your loved ones by living and making them share in a burden they may not be prepared for.  

Those who carry out the Will:  Now we add in the added issues of the people who carry out the Wills.  The Proxy has to make a moral decision to let a person they care about die.  Also, this means the doctors or other medical professionals who are trained to try and save people must now stand by and watch the person die.  In the case of an assisted suicide, they must in effect become a murderer to kill a person.  This is made even more burdensome by the very notion that if the person is in a vegetative State, or similar, in which the person could wake up and live normally, then they are killing a person by their own will who may get "better" with time.  Let us also not forget that the family can look upon the proxy as a villain at this point for letting their family member die.  All this takes a mental toll on individuals, both family and otherwise which a person must be willing to grapple with when placing this burden on them.  

Conclusion:  Living Wills have their purpose, but they come with moral and even ethical implications attached for all involved.  This is something to remember when giving the authority of your own life over to someone else.

Issue 627 Police order of Battle July 6, 2015

Here we talk about how police may look like if it followed a more traditional, more conservative line up.  Let us discuss.

Local PD:  Local Police would consist of two groups.  The first group is a community watch group that looks out for signs of trouble and reports in any suspicious activities to the authorities.  The second group is the professionals who investigate and do the arrests.  Simple right.  Also, all involved must take an exam that demonstrates they know the Constitution with an emphasis on the laws regarding property and free speech rights and knowledge of civil law like theft, and similar crimes indicative to their area they will serve. The second group would obviously have formal training to investigate and perform arrests as well.   Also, in both cases the members of these two groups must have at least 50% membership from the town or community they live in, and another 25% may be allowed from up to two towns away. 

 Members will be responsible to the community itself, thus once training is complete, the community will decide if the person is good enough to become a police officer with their pay done in a similar manner to schools or fire departments.  So the community will put in a specified amount of money per year and maybe donate goods and vehicles toward the police so that they can maintain themselves and their lives.  A board of citizens (elected by the community) that are not members of the police/watch and have no family relations to them will govern the donations and aid in procuring equipment.  This same board will also deal with all criminal law with respect to introducing laws to the community that are proposed by the police and watch groups, with the community holding referendums to enact those laws or amend already existing laws. Thus, murder, assault, sexual assault, theft, traffic, reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter and property law, will be dealt with at the community level exclusively and in a community court house (all other laws and oversight will be governed at higher levels of government).  In order to maintain harmony with neighboring towns, the community boards will gather together to look to harmonize laws as much as possible.

 For both these groups it will also be encouraged that they interact with the people of the community as much as possible.  So if there is a football game, the cops may be allowed to participate if they so choose while on patrol.  As such it will require the use of more foot patrols. A reconnection with the community is key to maintain relations and ensure that people recognize that the police are members of the community too.

SWAT:  This category is the specialists.  They are recruited from the professionals in the second group to do specialist jobs and serve entire geographic areas, with their equipment and training specialized to match.  These jobs including police divers, dog handlers, professional instructors, and the like.  A special group within this one will handle hostage rescue, and dealing with criminals whose weapons and lethality exceed that of the regular police. So aside from these special roles, they will have no further function. (Note: in case of riots, police and watch members, under the direction of SWAT leadership will gather from multiple communities to handle the situation if the situation calls for it).

Conclusion:  This is a hypothetical organization if we were to redo our police departments.  In fact, in the past, the same community watch members would also serve as fire fighters or other unique roles in the community.  So this is, to say the least, not out of the realm of possibility.  So before we talk about nationalizing police, or other reforms, let us talk about bringing the police and community back together and remove the government's involvement as much as possible so that police no longer have politicians breathing down their backs and forcing them to do things that they are constitutionally not allowed to do (like militarizing).  

Issue 626 The police I know July 3, 2015

I just want to write this to let everyone know that it is not the cops that are the problem.  It is the system that is the problem.  As such I have a few things to say.

The two key problems hurting police:  The first problem is that when the police are not taught the actual Constitution in the United States, but are instead taught case law.  This means that even if a law or action is unconstitutional, the police will not know it for they have never read the actual Constitution as part of their training.  If they did, then they could refuse that order or not enforce a law as it could be considered unlawful. 

As to the other key problem.  Police used to be able to interact with the community more.  They could stop in the middle of their patrols on foot and then play a game of football with the kids in the community.  In short they were more a part of the community as opposed to now where many are not allowed to interact in this manner anymore or it is discouraged in favor of patrol cars.  Thankfully in my community, off duty police try and do participate in community activities which does help, but my community seems to be the exception and not the rule if we are to believe the media.

Who are the police:  The police are people like everyone else who have taken a special job within the community to protect us from elements that would seek to do people harm.  Police make every attempt to be a part of the community and are generally good people.  Sure we get a few arrogant people in this fraternity, but they deserve our respect regardless.  So please remember, they really don't want to bother anyone, or have to arrest anyone, as they would prefer everyone respecting each other and getting along.

Conclusion:  So there you have it.  Two key areas I believe are hurting police and who I see the police as.  Believe me or not, that is up to you.  However, I will always say God Bless the police.