The Daily Switch

Posts Tagged ‘Liberty’

Bring on 2010

Posted by maker on January 7, 2010

Thank God for Bill Whittle and others like him. Enjoy…

Advertisements

Posted in Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Environment, Liberalism, Liberty, Politics, Socialism, The Daily Switch, War on Business | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

New Era of Obama = Same Old Politics

Posted by maker on December 18, 2009

As much as this characterizes our government, it is also becoming a universal sentiment of an entitled society.

Last week, President Obama lashed out at the financial institutions on Wall Street, again.

When the President of the United States flippantly refers to private citizens and their businesses as ‘fat cat bankers on Wall Street’ there is a problem with the president. When the public sees nothing wrong with this, there is a larger problem with the public itself.

The irony of this particular instance of class warfare populism exhibited by Barack Obama, is that as he delivers these remarks, we learn that government employees are much better paid than private workers. This may seem unrelated at first glance, however, the president petulantly proclaimed these so called ‘fat-cats’ the architects of our current recession, seemingly excusing the federal government of any and all responsibility in the matter. I won’t get into all the intricacies and arguments here, but suffice it to say this is a more than generous revision on the president’s part. So the age old question ‘cui bono?’ does not reflect well on those ‘fat cats’ in D.C. if we understand their role in the unraveling of our economy compared to their ever increasing compensation.

The cycle is a vicious yet convenient one: Support and push policies that loudly proclaim help for the helpless while quietly destroying the free market, which action directly creates more ‘helpless’ to promise more for while also creating the circumstances in which people will more likely cede power to ‘the only people’ who can fix things. Oh, and they need to be better compensated for all the extra work of saving us.

In fact, USA Today reported the following:

  • On average, federal employees earned $71,206 per year, compared to $40,331 in the private sector.
  • From December 2007 through June 2009, average federal employee salaries increased by 6.6 percent, while average private-sector salaries increased by 3.9 percent. Federal employees at the top of the pay scale received pay increases of 8.6 percent during that period.
  • Federal employment is getting top-heavy. Federal employees making more than $100,000 increased from 14 percent to 19 percent of total government employment. In fact, the number of federal employees making more than $100,000 has more than doubled in less than two years. There are now more federal employees making more than $100,000 per year than $40,000 per year.

How could anyone say no to this face?

In light of these facts, how can any government employee begrudge any private citizen their salary? The fact is that these ‘fat cats’ on Wall Street are creating something. They are creating jobs and wealth for millions. The ‘fat cats’ in Washington are best known for creating hurdles for those that would create jobs and wealth.

Worse still, Obama warns that the ‘fat cats’ had better stop opposing government control of their pay and strict oversight of their day-to-day operations because, basically, they owe him for the bailout, which coincidentally many of them have paid back and others have been deterred from paying back.

Obama’s ignorance seems only matched and perhaps exceeded by his unmitigated arrogance. These comments were made just before the president was to meet with said ‘fat cats’ to persuade them to comply with his wishes.

Who says this guy isn’t smooth?

Posted in Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Liberalism, Liberty, Obama, Politics, The Daily Switch, War on Business | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Quick Links

Posted by maker on November 12, 2009

Some useful reading… Unintended consequences are fine as long as our intentions were good, right?

 

 

  • Stephen Spruiell on the SEIU

 

 and viewing…

 

 

Health-care…

 

 plus

 equals an

 that will prove

 

 

Posted in Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Health care, Liberty, Obama, Politics, The Daily Switch, War on Business | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Health-Care as Marriage

Posted by maker on November 9, 2009

Health-care is to marriage as...

Can either marriage or health-care reasonably be labeled a right?

I’ve recently been involved in a few debates over at a liberal blog called meoutsidethebox . The irony of the name is made clear by hopelessly captive thinking which permeates each leftist-talking-point-turned-article on the site. Regardless of the slant, the editor doesn’t shrink from a good debate, no matter how much he may avoid answering a direct question.

The latest article on the site poses the question ‘Is health insurance a right?’ . The obvious answer is, ‘no’ with the reason being, ‘because it’s not.’ But for people who might need a little more hand holding let’s explore it a bit further.

First, let’s clarify that there is a difference between health care and health insurance, the latter simply being one of many means of providing the former. I think that the title of the article is a bit misleading because what is subsequently discussed is care, not insurance. So let’s focus on the care.

 In the resulting arguments surrounding this issue, a constant analogy seems to be that the Constitution does not directly grant the right to marriage, but that over time we have confirmed marriage to be a right and recognize it as such. Thus, we should follow the same track for health care. Despite the analogy’s gaping holes I am fine with it. Let’s agree that healthcare should be treated as a right just as marriage is.
 
 
Is anyone proposing that the government should pay the financial, not to mention the emotional, costs of marriage? Should the government pay for the wedding? Or even the engagement ring? Should the government be tasked with finding someone willing to marry you, despite any baggage you might have? And if unwilling should the government impose regulations forcing a spouse to accept a marriage despite any and all baggage? Should this right be forced on everyone so that the singles of our society must pay a penalty for not acquiring the right of marriage? Should any man be made to marry Nancy Pelosi?
 

‘That’s ridiculous’ you might say, to which I’ll respond, ‘we are finally beginning to agree’. Let’s call it a right if that makes for a more amiable starting point. Now that we agree on the labels we still have the solution to flesh out.

Good news for America's divorce rate, bad news for growing old together.

Government run health-care means 'til death do us part may not seem so long.

Calling health-care a right does not mean we suspend our knowledge of history or our tendency toward logic. The idea that determining health-care a right automatically translates to support for this ruinous and ignorant proposal is embarrassingly short-sighted. As some people are painstakingly thorough to claim, ‘we are all in this together’, so let’s figure out what works so we don’t screw things up for everyone. Does history tell us anything about socialized medicine? Do economics tell us anything about incentives, or competition? Where quality is paramount, can we afford to eliminate these considerations?

Perhaps, as with marriage, government should more appropriately leave well enough alone so as to allow the American people to pursue their rights, and the ensuing costs, as they see fit.

Posted in Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Health care, Liberty, Politics, Socialism, The Daily Switch, War on Business | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments »

It’s been a while…

Posted by maker on November 6, 2009

Enraged Eloquence

In response to our current government or The Daily Switch for their long absence?

Things have been crazy and we’ve been away for far too long. The Daily Switch has an official stance on the matter: We apologize. This does not mean that we will be able to keep up the near heroic pace our readers had previously become accustomed to. We will, however, do better.

Let’s kick things off with some essential reading…

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110309.php3

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110409.php3

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110509.php3

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110609.php3

If you don’t know Sowell, you’ve got no soul, or so the saying goes now that I’ve said it.

Also, our friends over at TruPolitics have been going strong and even experienced a political victory in a local election. Congratulations Matt!

http://trupolitics.net/2009/10/16/freedom-bureaucracy-and-healthcare/

Guest author Edward Mahee has added a great tone to TruPolitics.

A nice summation of Obama’s actual successes…

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzYzZTY2ZmM1MjFmNGU3MjhmZmIxZjJmOTNiYjU0ZDg=

Victor Davis Hanson has become for me as essential a read as anything out there. He doesn’t mince words nor seemingly miss a thing.

Anyway, that should keep you busy for a few minutes. Thanks for your patience and continued interest. ‘Til next time…

Posted in Conservatism, Economics, Health care, Liberty, Obama, Politics, The Daily Switch | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Whither the Constitution?

Posted by maker on May 1, 2009

With the recent revelation that Justice David Souter will be retiring from the Supreme Court, we are given an opportunity for debate on a matter of great importance. Is the Constitution of the United States of America relevant or even worth consulting? Surely, foundational respect and reverence for the Constitution is an apolitical issue, no? If only it were that simple.

Justice Souter

There are two sides to the debate over the Constitution and its legitamacy. On the one hand, there are those that believe that it is a ‘living, breathing’ document that changes over time as cultural or societal norms shift or decay. On the other are those who say the Constitution means what it says and says what it means, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, this is another issue that is pretty clearly divided along ideological lines. Liberals, or more accurately, Statists tend to believe that as times change the Constitution must adapt and change as well. Conservatives trend towards acknowledging that the values and morals implicit in the Constitution are timeless and just as applicable today as they were at their writing. It seems that in valuing the Constitution we are faced with an ‘all or nothing’ decision. As Mark Levin writes in his new book Liberty and Tyranny ,

“If the Constitution’s meaning can be erased or rewritten, and the Framers’ intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it.”

Is the Constitution a binding contract prescribing the standards for governing? Or, can the laws be changed based on trends or feelings indicative of different social ‘values’? Levin goes on to say,

“To say the Constitution is a ‘living and breathing document’ is to give license to arbitrary and lawless activism. It is a mantra that gained purchase in the early twentieth century and is paraded around by the Statist as if to legitimate that which is illegitimate.”

Article V of the Constitution addresses the ways that changes can be made to the Constitution. There are but two, and only one has ever been used. The built-in difficulty of changing the Constitution speaks to the critical nature of its reliability. A constitution is made powerful by its permanence. If it is something easily altered or ‘reinterpreted ‘ it is a sand-like foundation at best.

The Constitution

The Constitution

 

 We can mostly agree that the founding of our country was a net good. And, judging by the 200 plus years since, it has birthed the greatest nation in history, both in might and benefit to the rest of the world. This success is owed entirely to the Constitution that has liberated, prospered and strengthened generations of people united under its protections, and to the principles and faith upon which it was founded.

 The question I submit for your consideration is this: If the Constitution is a malleable thing, upon what foundation is our country now built?

Posted in Conservatism, Culture, Liberalism, Liberty, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

From the Field

Posted by maker on April 15, 2009

Can you feel it?

Can you feel it?

Today I was driving through western Tennessee for work.  One of the real benefits of my job is the privilege to get to know this country a little better, first hand. I was struck by the beauty of the land even on a cool and overcast day. The rolling hills and quaint little towns seem so far away and insulated from the rest of the country which is reportedly rife with turmoil and despair. I also noticed that more than any other area I’ve travelled, northwest Tennessee and southwest Kentucky seemed packed with birds of prey. Nearly every mile I travelled brought with it the sight of an owl, hawk or bald eagle. At the risk of  inordinate sappiness, I’ll tell you that every time I see a bald eagle I find myself overcome with a sense of nostalgia and patriotism. I try to imagine what the founders must have intended with the choice of this majestic bird as a national symbol and I am proud. 

As I passed by small town after small town I listened to a long line of callers reporting in to conservative talk radio shows about their experiences of the Tax Day Tea Parties they attended. I was struck by the unique nature of today’s events. When do we as conservatives ever do something as a group? When do we clearly articulate a feeling, belief or sentiment in a way so attractive to so many?  These thoughts caused me to regret being away from home and unable to participate.  I even looked up locations in Tennessee just in case I might have time to stop on the way to the airport. Unfortunately, the event in Nashville was scheduled to end before I would arrive. I resigned myself to live vicariously through the callers speaking of their ‘electrifying’, ’empowering’ and ‘encouraging’ experiences.

Original Tea Party Tea

Original Tea Party Tea

As I navigated my way through the town square of Springfield, TN (pop. approximately 16,000) on my way to Franklin, KY, I noticed a large crowd forming in front of the courthouse.  I checked the clock and was thrilled that I had an hour and a half  to spare before my next appointment about 30 minutes down the road. I turned around, parked and walked towards the courthouse to find that the crowd I had seen just moments before had already grown and was continuing to do so.  I approached the outskirts of the crowd and was struck by the diversity of the assembled throng. Business men and women in various levels of formal work attire mixed with obvious farmers who rubbed shoulders with young mothers pressed up against men in full revolutionary war garb. It seemed as though everyone in the crowd, regardless of dress, held something in their hands, whether it be a sign, child, camera, placard or breifcase (no pitchforks or torches. Sorry, acorn).

As I pressed in a little closer I noted the countenance of the people around me. Despite the reported rage that was fueling these ‘radical’ protests, I was met with bright eyes and ready smiles, doubly surprising if you knew what I look like. This was not an angry mob. This was a peaceful gathering of good-willed citizens exercising their constitutional right to assembly, many for the first time.

I caught the attention of a nearby participant to ask what time things were scheduled to start. He informed me that they were running behind because of a court proceeding that was running long that they didn’t want to interrupt. Twenty minutes, two renditions of This Land is Your Land, God Bless America, countless chants of U.S.A! and one Pledge of Allegiance later, a local pastor named Bob Carroll stepped up to a podium to deliver his speech. The speech was well written, well delivered and well received. It was met with loud applause at times, shouts of encouragement and agreement at others. It was stirring and surprisingly non-partisan. The greatest strength of the speech, however, was its seamless inclusion of direct quotes from the constitution.

Sadly, at this point I had to hit the road again. Nonetheless satisfied, I proudly returned to my work comforted by the knowledge that even in what some would label a “backward’ southern area these tea parties were being conducted in a respectful, peaceful and effective manner.

My sincere hope for this country is that these Tea Parties might stir something up within the citizenry. I pray that we would consult history to learn from what our leaders are so eager to repeat. I pray we would each set aside our prejudice and party affiliation and embrace common sense and respect for the constitution upon which this great country is founded.

Posted in Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Liberty, Politics, The Daily Switch | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

It’s for your own good, don’t ya know?

Posted by Ender on April 10, 2009

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.  C.S. Lewis

Tyranny does not always start with goose stepping soldiers storming your house to take away unauthorized items.  Sometimes it starts with the government taking small things that you actually agree with.

For instance in NYC, Mayor Bloomberg banned smoking in the early 00s.  I am sure that many out there appreciate this ban because they don’t have to worry about stinking for the rest of the day after going out to eat.  However, think about your liberty and the liberty of all the restaurant owners in the state of NY.  Aside from the fact that the ban was based on junk science and bad statistics we need to remember that the government should not have the power to force businesses and individuals to ban a legal activity.

Mayor Bloomberg

Mayor Bloomberg

Bloomberg’s basis for the policy was to prevent “thousands” from dying each year.  The problem is that the individuals involved (waitresses, bar tenders, customers, owners) chose to work in these restaurants.  They could have chosen to go to different restaurants, have different jobs or own different businesses.  Beware of policy that tells us to do something for our own good.  I am much better qualified to decide what is  for my own than the government.

In 2006, NY moved to ban trans fats from restaurants. Again, I am left to wonder on what basis is the government allowed to do this?  Can’t I decide whether or not I want to risk the slight increase in risk of heart disease by eating trans fats?  If consumers truly wanted a ban on trans fat they would stop eating at places that cooked with it.  This in turn would lead those businesses to stop using it in order to keep their customers.  No law necessary.  But, who’s going to argue when it’s for your own good.

Perhaps there are some out there reading this who say “Well, I see your point but smoking in public and trans fats are really bad so I don’t mind the government taking those things.”  My question to you would be: where does it stop?  What would they have to take away?  What about Twix bars or table salt?  That would be ridiculous, no?

If you had to guess which mayor in the US was attempting to ban table salt; who would be your first guess?

Bloomberg?  You’d be correct. Bloomberg announced “that the city is starting a “nationwide initiative” to pressure the food industry and restaurant chains to cut salt intake by half over the next decade.”  Don’t bother him or others with the fact that it is based on junk science.  (Read the article for details)  Just remember that this is for your own good.

C.S. Lewis had it right when he said “those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”  Who would have thought that the smoking ban would have led NYC down this slippery slope?  People need to realize that they are responsible for their own health, not the government.  The government needs to realize that it cannot legislate a healthy society.

You’ll have to excuse me for a moment while I convert my flask to be able to handle covert salt transportation because eating a steak without salt is just plain unacceptable to me…….

Posted in Conservatism, Culture, Health care, Liberty, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

The Perils of Multiculturalism

Posted by Ender on March 28, 2009

Since we seem to be on a video kick here at The Daily Switch, I figured I’d talk about a video that I found last year and have watched several times since then.

In the video Mark Steyn says, “Multiculturalism is the slipperiest ‘ism’ because it doesn’t invite an argument.  It says there’s no point to having an argument.”  This philosophy is based on a “cult of ignorance.”  It is a belief system that ignores or disregards fact.  Steyn talks about the British Empire in the video, he says that it was a multicultural country in that it knew tons and tons about every culture.  It learned how to speak obscure languages that no one would ever hear outside of the small tribe where it originated.  The difference between that kind of multiculturalism and the one we see today is that it “objectively [knew which culture was] superior to the other.”  It had the ability to distinguish which culture was better and why.

Today, we are told that every culture is of equal value.  There is a reason America is the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  There is a reason that Britain spawned the world’s regional super powers.  The reason is that its culture, its core beliefs are in fact better than other cultures.  There is no question that a free economy brings prosperity to all in any country it is found.  There is no question that totalitarian governments enslave their “citizens.”  And yet, we are told we must give these backwards cultures equal footing when discussing values and beliefs.  For a more concrete example think about how the media and elites excuse the atrocities occurring in the Middle East.  We are talking about cultures that treat women like dogs, hunt down homosexuals and force everyone to follow the same religion.  Any objective observer can see that these cultures are not equal.  Steyn calls it a denial of reality, which it is.

The multiculturalist does not stop and cannot stop at this point.  Earlier this week Maker posted a video of Evan Sayet entitled “How Modern Liberals Think.”  In the speech, Sayet asks how the Modern Liberal ends up on the wrong side of every issue.   The reason this happens is because of moral relativism and its descendant multiculturalism.  In order to validate their view that every culture is equal, they must show that what thinking people view as wrong is actually the same as, or on the same level as, what is right.  Or they must take what is right and make it wrong.

The UN’s Human Rights Council is a perfect example.  In its first meeting in June of 2006, it chose not to condemn any of the following:“Darfur, there are three quarters of a million people beyond humanitarian reach, 2.5 million people displaced by the violence, 385,000 people in immediate risk of starvation, and over two million dead in 22 years of violence and deprivation. But it wasn’t genocide in Sudan that interested the Human Rights Council. Nor was it a billion Chinese without civil and political rights. Not 13 million women in Saudi Arabia whose lives depend on hiding from sight in public places and never being caught behind the wheel of an automobile. Not the dire human-rights conditions of 23 million people in North Korea. Not Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s incitement to genocide or his country’s legal system, which includes crucifixion, stoning and amputation.” (Bayefsky)

It chose to condemn Israel.  Israel, the only country in the region where a citizen can actually choose to be a Christian, Muslim or Jew.  Insane, right?  This is the sickness of multiculturalism.  In order to remain relevant; it must degrade what is good and promote what is wrong. Which in effect smears the black and white of truth into a gray sea of moral ambiguity.

Posted in Britain, Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Liberalism, Liberty, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Private Property: RIP???

Posted by Ender on March 19, 2009

Private Property?

Private Property?

Prosperity cannot exist without the Free Market. The Free Market cannot exist without Private Property. Private Property cannot exist without the Rule of Law. When you attack the law, you attack Private Property, the Free Market and Prosperity.

Last week I linked to an article that stated Obama had started a War on Business. With each passing minute I agree with the theory more and more. One of his latest attacks has been on the Rule of Law. In particular, he is attacking contract law.

When the AIG bonus story broke Obama and Dodd among others were left with egg on their faces. They knew the bonuses were in the package and yet Dodd passed it and Obama signed it. Now, after the fact they are both “outraged” and want to change history. These bonuses are contractual obligations. It doesn’t matter that you don’t like it, it doesn’t matter that it stinks, what matters is the Rule of Law. That’s the funny thing about Law; you don’t get to pick and choose when you follow it. The Law exists to protect our rights, our prosperity. If the Government can decide to subvert the law because it was too ignorant/dumb/oblivious/stupid to realize what it was doing then what is to stop them from doing whatever they want to its citizens? Think about that. If the Government can pass a bill, sign a contract (in effect) and then back out after the fact, what can’t they do?

Now, Congress is trying to pass a special tax, which will tax the AIG bonuses by 90%. The actions of Obama and Congress show they have no respect for the Rule of Law. They are so worried that they will be held accountable for their actions they are trying to change the law to save their hides.

The Law is what protects us from each other and the Government. When people disregard the law, they start murdering, stealing and create bedlam. When Governments disregard the law it creates tyranny.

Posted in Capitalism, Liberty, Obama, Politics, War on Business | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »