Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Two or three parties sir?

Actually, I take mine with none, thank you very much. I would like my government to be the same if I could.

Party systems only guarantee one thing.. that the person elected represents the interests of that party and not the best interests of the whole group.

Recently, Glenn Beck made a comment, likely insincere, that perhaps a third party was in order. of course, it drew out the party hacks from all over who cried that a third party would only split the vote and make it easier for the other party to win.

That's likely possible. However, with no parties, the candidates representing their own agendas and interested in doing the best job on behalf of all citizens would get all the votes he or she needed for a solid win.

Not only should there be no third party, there should be no parties at all, at least in this one citizen's opinion.

In that situation, instead of getting nothing but pointing fingers and arguing over who lies more than the other, political discussions discussions could focus on actual issues, at least ideally.

The time for politics as usual is way past it's freshness date. People want change in the form of leadership and intelligent collaboration.

Monday, February 8, 2010

On individuals and communities

I like to hear people argue about taxes and how money is spent.

It's good to have people paying attention to how much is being spent and what it's being spent on.

I listen to people complain about services and projects that are funded in their city, state, etc.. that don't do anything for them.

This country is a not just a country of individuals. It is a community. Let's not just look at the European immigrants who provided the Constitution that moved here, let's look at all the people who have lived in this land and how they did it.

Mobility was limited in those times in the absence of motor vehicles. Families typically stayed close to each other. People lived in the towns and villages their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins lived. If they did leave, they didn't usually go too far.

Was limited mobility the only reason people stayed together? I think not, especially in terms of tribal peoples, but also those who lived in towns and cities.

Community is a way of seeing oneself as part of a group. You are not just an individual, you are part of the group as well. People who take care of their needs and help each other when they have the ability and interest to do so.

Back then, the interest was usually familial, or necessity. People felt compelled to be helpful to each other so that their family members they cared about would be taken care of, as those same family members cared for them when they needed it.

Perhaps some one in the community wants to work but can't operate transportation for themselves. They want to keep contributing to the community but find it necessary to ask for help to do it.

Will you deny that one member the opportunity to work and contribute simply because you yourself might never use the assistance that is provided for the other? What if not now, but ten years from now, suddenly you need assistance? Will you suffer because no one wants to help you as you did not want to help others back then?

Of course, back then, technology made day to day life more physically difficult. People worked together and helped each other out because not only was it practical but because they valued everyone in the community. No one was left behind.

Technology has changed things. People are much more independent than before. Families live separated by thousands of miles and neighbors don't know who each other are anymore because technology makes it easy to live in a bubble. To talk to and directly interact primarily with only those we desire to interact with.

Those community values have taken a hit and once lost, it's hard to get them back into the minds of people who have become "me' oriented.

But, we still live together, we still share stores, and schools and common local resources. How will we decide in the future if our community allows some to be left behind?

After all, it's not me, is it?

Saturday, February 6, 2010

What police are and aren't

It's funny how city police departments, Chiefs and officers think that somehow, they are the only legitimate security citizens need to have.

It's also funny how people think that the police work for them or have the citizens best interests as their primary interests. It's not accurate.

City police departments are employees, usually, of the Mayor's office. Police Chiefs are hired by the Mayor, not elected as County Sheriffs are.

The job of the local police is to enforce local laws, first and foremost. They work for city government, not citizens.

Yes, the mayor is elected by the citizens, but the police are his (or her) security force to enforce the laws of the city. Look at your local city charter, it is spelled out there usually.

Police don't want every day citizens to carry guns, then people are not dependent on them. Hard to just if many of the extra costs for beefing up security if the people don't 'need' it.

Not only that, an armed citizen can defend him or herself from a police officer that is not behaving like a police officer should. Oh no, that never happens right?

If cities want to have their own police force, fine, let them have it, but do not assume that just because the city has their own security force that it is the same as each citizen having the right to bear arms and defend themselves.

I can have respect for individuals who want to take a job as a police officer because they are taking care of their family and doing a job that gets called for serving the cities interests, which sometimes happens to coincide with keeping the city safe as they can by intervening in criminal activities as they are reported.

Police are often called 'first responders, this is because police are just that, responders. They arrive after the fact of a criminal act being reported. They cannot protect each and every individual to prevent or immediately intervene if someone is confronted.

How dare they tell citizens to do nothing but give in to the perpetrators demands and wait till their 'authorities' arrive.

Constitutionally speaking, police have got no say in how I defend myself. The U.S Constitution says I have the right to defend myself, my family and my community. I do, as an individual.

Their police force does not remove or invalidate that right.

The law making and law enforcing agencies in our country need to understand, laws are not to be dictated to the people, but decided upon and shared by the people. Law enforcement is not to assume that everyone is a criminal first, but to respect each and every person who, according to the same Constitution, is innocent, did you hear me? I N N O C E N T UNTIL proven guilty.

That means drop your bad attitudes and conceit and start treating the citizens you are too afraid to get out of your cars and interact with some respect first.

I don't care how much like a fool a person or group of persons is acting like, until they have actually, broken a law and been found guilty, you can take them into custody but you had better keep a civil and respectful mind about you the whole time.

Things aren't always what they seem, as so many of these innocent people who are being released after years of shoddy and lazy police work made them something they are not.

Each individual citizen must not be afraid to stand up and not accept the false information that police departments espouse that they are the only legitimate defense for citizens.

They are not correct.