National Deficit

Obama has unveiled his 2011 budget. It will cost 3.8 trillion dollars even after the supposed deficit cutting. On top of this, it will spike the tax rate for the rich. Let's once again go back to the founders. The founders knew that government and taxes were a "necessary evil". Although they are necessary, the founders also wanted freedom for Americans. To balance this out, they make taxes as low as possible, and only put taxes on things like tobacco, alcohol, and overseas trade. As a result, the people were happy, and free. Obviously, there were still poor people, but a lot fewer of them. Today tobacco, alcohol, and overseas trade make up 3% of our taxes. This means that 97% of the taxes that we have today were not originally intended by our founders. This includes income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. etc... The founders started a revolution against England, partly because their taxes were at rates that were extremely low compared to today. Frankly they revolted because England had become what our country is currently becoming. The king had taken away all of their "unalienable rights" that were "endowed by our creator". They had destroyed to liberties of the people, and that is what our leaders are doing today. They forget that the money is ours, not the governments. They forget that what we do on our own property is our business even if it hurts us or is unethical, and they forget most of all that we have rights that they cannot simply take away on a whim.
So now that I've ranted and annoyed all of you who read this... I will once again offer my solution. My solution is simply this: Instead of taking away the liberty of the people, let's take away the liberty of the government. To do that we must throw away all dependence on the government. This includes all of the government programs that we have our money stolen from us to fund. This includes health care, and medicaid, and, the government printing our money for their own purposes, and unions, and any other program that could be run by a private business more efficiently, which is almost every one of them. We need to repeal thousands of laws that tie down our freedom, and instead "tie down the government with the constitution". Our laws have already been created and cannot be changed. Our laws don't include Not being able to choose between health insurance companies, or not being able to own a gun, or even not being able to take drugs. We are given the right of liberty, but our government has replaced it with "freedom" which they own, and can change whenever they see fit.


"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, and The State of the Union

Dear readers,

In this post I will compare the Juris Naturalis viewpoint to the most common viewpoints in America and also discuss some of the current events around the world and how they relate with Juris Naturalism.

Most people view the parties as being like this:

I would like to propose this view instead:

Now I will explain all of these world-views which will show why I arranged them like this. First I will talk about the differences between conservatives and liberals. Generally speaking, conservatives believe in freedom of the fiscal or monetary side for people, but believe that it is necessary to restrict people from doing socially, or morally incorrect things. Liberals, generally believe that people have a right to do whatever they want when it comes to social and moral issues, but believe that they cannot ruin the economy by using their money unwisely. Keep in mind that you will very rarely ever find someone who believes that there should be complete freedom in one area and total restriction in the other, but this is just a general idea of the parties. I would also like to state another part of my bias, which is that in my personal life, I am very conservative, but I believe that the government should not be conservative for reasons which I will explain throughout my posts.

The next topic of discussion is the middle ground. By my diagram of the parties, you can see that there are really two middle grounds. How is this possible? Well like I said, conservatives and liberals both restrict one side of liberty and support the other. So moderates take the route that there should be some restrictions on both sides, while Juris Naturalists believe that there should be liberty on both sides. Just consider the red in the diagram liberty, and the blue restriction. A libertarian can be a Juris Naturalist, but most libertarians are not, so I have separated them.

Now that we have a basic understanding of Juris Naturalism, you can clearly see that Juris Naturalists are for the smallest government possible which I wrote about in my last post. Now that we know this, I can talk about current events in the world, and what a Juris Naturalist would say about them.

The most current thing that has happened is the president's state of the union address. Unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the entire speech, but I saw a large portion of it. I have to say that comparing this speech, and every other state of the union address in this country's recent history to the founder's beliefs was absolutely appalling. Every single point that was made was either about increasing government, or spending money. The only thing in the speech that I could agree with, was that our country's debt is not entirely Obama's fault. While he has certainly contributed to the debt, and raised the budget by hundreds of billions of dollars in the name of saving money, all of the presidents before him for the last hundred years have done basically the same thing. Yes conservatives; this even includes Ronald Reagan. Reagan raised the budget during his term just like so many presidents before him. Now during the Clinton years, you often hear that we balanced the budget and had a surplus. This is true if you consider a surplus as being trillions of dollars in debt. You see, when they say that the country had a surplus, they mean that they spent less that what their budget called for. They truly had no money what soever. In fact they owed trillions of dollars, but it was still considered a major feat, and then the next few years, they went on raising the budget again.

The word that I probably heard the most in the state of the union last night was afford. From our government's current position, this word means nothing. President Obama said that people question if we can afford certain programs and then went on to try to explain why we could. What does afford mean to our government. We can't afford anything. We have no money and owe trillions of dollars. Think of an individual person with hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card debt. He may still be able to spend money, but eventually he will have to pay it off or declare bankruptcy. Now think of that same situation times one billion dollars. That's the trouble that our government is in, but instead of trying to find a way to pay this debt off like any individual would have to do, they continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The reason we spend so much money is that we have so many programs that are supposed to help the American people, but you would never want to get rid of those right? Well I will explain why I believe we should get rid of the vast majority of government programs and how it would still help the people who benefit from those programs in my next post.