It seems in the #metoo movement there is a problem with some of the recently reported claims. It is not that these claims should be viewed as invalid, I suspect many of them are true and have caused victims horrible suffering. However, in the Kavanaugh case it is turning into a he said she said because we are abandoning due process. This ideal goes back to the Magna Carta and has served successful and free nations well for centuries:
No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.1
In order to successfully prosecute the molesters, sexual harassers and rapists we need to have victims report the crime as soon as possible, while evidence is fresh and witness’ memories are clear. This enables law enforcement to aggressively investigate and gather evidence and testimony. Then if the grand jury supports the state’s claim of a crime, an indictment can follow and the state will prosecute the defendant with fervor enabling justice.
The system falls apart if long after the alleged offense, a victim comes forward in a politically charged environment without the benefit of a formal indictment. i.e. due process
Any claim will be difficult to resolve if witnesses are not crisp and clear in their validation of events. As of now, this is what we have in the Kavanaugh case. This lack of process will produce only more division among Americans and not provide justice to either Ms Ford or Judge Kavanaugh.
- “CRS Annotated Constitution: Due Process”. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved September 22, 2018.
Are Government Schools doing their jobs? One can examine the academic results fairly easily but what about teaching and reinforcing so called soft-skills? Reading the piece below and the previous post, I think not.
Is is time to examine our government schools’ approach to instilling basic 21st century economic survival skills within each of their students.
Another report showing the poor material our armed forces have to deal with. I wonder if these recruits were taught discipline and self-control in primary and high school would we have these same problems? (come to school, don’t be late, do your work, turn it in on time, read a book, etc..)
The new program of instruction is the result of surveys taken from thousands of leaders who have observed a trend of new soldiers fresh out of training displaying a lack of obedience and poor work ethic, as well as being careless with equipment, uniforms and appearance, according to Army Training and Doctrine Command officials.
The permissive, low-standards, single parent society has given us this:
“So, I think we’re all aware that, you know, in the nation, I mean, it’s a strategic issue that less than 30 percent of the young men and women of our nation are qualified just to join the military, either because of physical, mental or moral issues. So now we’re down to 30 percent and now we have to find those that have a propensity or are interested in doing this. And as there is some growth in the force, we’re all out there competing in the same — looking for the same type of young men or women.”
I suspect these same 70% would also have a difficult time finding and holding a job in our globalized economy. With the nation technically bankrupt, these people won’t be supported by the state much longer because at some point in time, the technical bankruptcy becomes a real bankruptcy and America will not be able to borrow money any longer.
This simple but very important statement can be broken down such that its meaning can be better understood and more importantly, defended against statists’ assaults on one of the most fundamental rights we as Americans hold; the protection of one’s private property against unauthorized taking.
Taxation is simply, “Taking the fruits of an individual’s labor without their sanction under the threat of state retribution”. Look at a paycheck and you see newly obtained personal property, earned from participation in a freely entered into transaction with an employer. Upon examination of this sample document, you will see the state has coerced/forced an independent business entity, in this example, Swim, Bike, Run Productions to withhold Michael Anderson’s personal property under the guise of Federal Income Tax, Social Security, Medicare and California state taxes. This is just the state stealing a portion of the wages paid for a mutually agreed to business transaction.
Image is from http://www.supermoney.com
Not complying with this theft can yield:
The tax code, 26 United States Code section 7201, provides:
Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.1
This seems pretty straight forward to me.
1. 26 U.S.C. § 7201. For an individual, the $100,000 fine prescribed in this statute can be increased to a maximum of $250,000. See subsection (b), paragraph (3) of 18 U.S.C. § 3571.
Very interesting insights on Charles Murray’s work on poverty and the underclass. (1) Seemingly a simple premise; intelligence is required for most high-paying occupations ergo the people with lower intelligence will likely suffer a greater incidence of poverty as they have less access to high-paying jobs. (2) Economic incentives have been proven time and time again to drive behavior and decisions. It then follows if you tax income you get less wealth generation and if you subsidize poverty with welfare payments, you encourage more.
The last point (3) regarding cultural differences between America’s economic classes could be more difficult to understand. However, one item Murray speaks of in his tomes but Mr. Caplan does not specifically point out is, raising children in single parent families has been shown to enable worse life outcomes when compared to a two parent household. Data has also highlighted there are more single parents in less affluent communities.
In examining the involvement of the state in national energy markets one can become easily overwhelmed and dismayed by the scope and complexity of the state’s reach into the energy industry. While the brute force power of the state influences much of the industry’s compliance (US Code) there is also the factor of the money, forcibly taken from tax payers, doled out to the energy sector — this is pure corporate welfare. At a minimum, this corporate welfare encourages corruption and market inefficiencies.
One could write in depth about energy, and state involvement within the energy sector but that would become pedantic. Instead, a section from a complex government report from the US Energy Information Administration (EAI) summarizes the labyrinth of programs and rules representing the state’s reach into the U.S. energy sector.
EIA identified over 70 federal domestic assistance programs, many of which have multiple subprograms, as part of direct or research and development expenditures displayed in this report. 1
It should be obvious this situation is unhealthy; over 70 government programs each being a fiefdom on to the selves is not a ideal way to deal with the intricacies of energy production and consumption. The complexity and waste of most government programs of this size is well understood – Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, etc..There are news stories almost daily of the waste and fraud within these programs but few documenting the costs of subsidized energy.
However, there is a fundamental flaw beyond the administrative bloat these programs induce, there contradicting interests being simultaneously subsided – renewable vs. fossil vs. nuclear. While most libertarians are aghast at the state picking winners and losers in the market, it is completely lacking congruence of investing in competing sources of energy and expecting increased development and innovation within the industry.
A table in the aforementioned report, Table ES2 highlights taxpayers are subsidizing fossil, nuclear, and renewable sources of energy on a yearly basis to the tune of roughly $30B. The older energy industry sees these investments as an incentive for the status quo and the newer burgeoning energy businesses use their subsides as a crutch and do not innovate as they would if they were competing for their company’s lives in the free market.
It is time to remove the state from energy production and let the free markets deliver the most economical and sustainable energy possible.
“Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2013.” EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration , Mar. 2015, https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf.