The Law Against Laws

Everyday in papers around the world there are rumors of new laws, proposed or enacted. Some dictate when not to talk on a phone, where and what not to smoke, what not to cook with, and for the citizen’s own good, when to wear a helmet or seatbelt. Recently there was an article discussing what some call the criminalization of America. Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, mentions the 12-year-old girl arrested for eating French fries in a Washington, D.C. metro station and the grandmother whose crime was letting her “shrubbery” grow to scandalous heights (21A). The Knights who say Ni better mind their hedges. Professor Turley also points to a State Senator in Louisiana who wants to criminalize wearing pants too low (21A). These laws probably came from some concerned, scandalize citizens saying, “There ought to be a law”.

Over 200 years ago a group of men, who had just rid themselves of over burdensome laws, decided there ought to be a law about “there ought to be a law”. Their solution was the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, better know as the Bill of Rights. Most people have a misconception of what it is; a majority thinks it gives them their rights. In actuality those rights were already theirs. The Constitution, unlike all other laws does not prohibit, curtail, or manage a citizen’s acts, but rather it prohibits prohibiting, curtails curtailing, and manages managing that the lawmakers would otherwise do. The Constitution is in fact a law that is not a law.

In the Constitution’s First Amendment it says, “Congress shall make no laws” about five things, one of which is restricting the citizens’ right to peaceably assemble. The populace may come together to protest or applaud anything they feel is wrong or right with the country. According to the Constitution the government can not curtail this right, though at times it tries. This is the one instance where groups of citizens emulate the founders the most, by a mass act of civil disobedience, ignoring the authority's attempt to suppress them. As the saying goes, “If citizens ask for the government’s permission to protest, they deserve to be told no.”

In another area, the Constitution forbids authorities from entering or taking property without due process of the law. Specifically the Fourth Amendment which says a citizen can tell the authorities that he or she does not consent to having his or her property searched; along with Fifth Amendment which says the authorities can not hold a citizen without just cause or deprive him or her of his or her life, liberty or property without due process. These two corner stones curtail the abuse of search and seizure. Most laws dealing with property try to give the authorities the power over it, such as the search and seizure laws outlined in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. These laws give police the ability to take property, not only, when an actual crime has been committed, but also when there is only a suspicion of one. James Madison in “Property” said, that where “excess of power prevails” an individual’s property whether body, thought, or physical would not be secure (1). This is why the Founders tried to make it virtually impossible for government to enter a citizen’s home or other property and seize anything without proof. These two Constitutional Amendments limit the authority’s ability to take property away.

Then there are the laws forbidding the verbal or written expression of particular ideas. The reasoning in most cases is to protect the populace against hate, prejudices or lesser untruths. The Constitution, again the First Amendment, forbids the limiting of individuals’ expression of ideas, whether truth or not. Ironically, the laws aimed at protecting the truth actually weaken it, and allow untruths to go unchallenged; the very opposite of its intentions. A nineteenth century philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill, suggested as much; when a perceived idea that is commonly considered true, is shown through reasoning to be false, all of mankind benefits from “exchanging error for truth”. On the other hand, when an individual’s belief is exposed as being false through the open exchange of that same reasoning, he gains truth (14). The restrictive law’s aim is to protect but fails to do that, yet the Constitution disregarding the perceived need, not only protects freedom of speech but strengthens that which the law failed too.

Another way the Constitution can be summed up is by what Professor William Warner, Chair of the University of California’s Santa Barbara English Department wrote, “this ‘right’ is not won through laws…but through a law against laws” (3). Although Professor Warner is speaking specifically about freedom of speech, the same can be said of the whole Bill of Rights. Each amendment is a “law against laws”. This concept is the complete opposite of the purpose of laws Rather than forbidding or dictating conduct it is inviting the free expression of it.

Though the U.S. Constitution is a law or more specifically, the supreme law of the land, it is the facilitator of freedom. Unlike other laws that are the oppressors of individual thought and expression it is their champion. The law says nobody can say that, nobody can do that, and nobody may see, taste, or touch that. Whereas the Constitution says, “Go ahead, it’s a free country.” Then again, Professor Turley might just be wondering when the last time anyone actually heard that phrase was.
...There just ought to be a law...

Works Cited
Madison, James. “Property” National Gazette 29 March 1792
Duke University. 2 Apr. 2007

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. 2002
Originally published, London: J.W. Parker 1859

Turley, Jonathan. “Justice? What a Joke.” USA Today 27 Mar. 2007: 21A

Warner, William B. “Print on the Market and the Ideal of Public Culture” 9Aug99. University of
California Santa Barbara English Department. 28 Mar. 2007:

An Observation from Curious George

Recently I had a class assignment to find a specific edition of a nameless business weekly. Unknown to me, it hadn’t hit the stand yet, needless to say after several stores, Tops, Wegmans, Walmart, Target, and a few others I gave up. At the last store though, frustration building and mumbling to myself, I noticed a pattern; there were only a few business and finance magazines on the shelf, compared to any other topic.

I started looking at the bulk of the magazines by topic. I didn’t do any real count but there were more fashion, and high end luxury magazines then any others, will accept maybe the numerous auto mags, though most of the cars on the covers were luxuries. There were women magazines with articles like, “How to make your man beg” or “Secrets your lover wants you to know”, ironic that these magazines started because of and during the women’s liberation movement. Most had one thing in common; the items were beyond the reach of the average joe, including the ways to “make your man beg”.

What came to me, not in a midsummer nights dream, was that the one topic that creates the possibility of acquiring these luxuries is business and wealth, yet those are the two types of magazines in the shortest supply on the racks. Now the stores only sell what the consumer wants, that in it’s self is telling, but I’m curious to the ratio in “rich” areas. I’d be willing to wager that there are almost as many business/wealth magazines as the other kinds.

I’m not saying there is any thing wrong with this, I just found it interesting, in a “curious” kind of way. Maybe it’s just a consequence of being named George.

You don't get what you paid for all the time

I've heard and in the past said, "Government should be run like a business." Problem is business offers their product to individuals on a voluntary basis. If you don't want or don't think the product is worth the cost you can refuse to purchase it. With the government they force you to purchase it, through taxes, then if you don't like it to bad, "Don't use it", no refunds though.

When government makes a product it is, in most cases, inferior to the same product made by a private enterprise; case in point John Deer verses USSR tractors. The picture below tells the story. Can you guess if it was a private venture or government job?



Now do you REALLY want the organization responsible for this quality work messing with your health care more then they already are?

Gun Control, I see the Light Now!

Gun Control: Now that I’ve abandoned my barbaric notions of individualism and have seen the greater good that collective authoritarian statism will usher in, I see no problem with it. Actually, I'm looking forward to all guns being banned. Even though I'll be much safer in my house, my family and I might still fall victim to a knife or sword. And once again we can look to the guiding wisdom of the State for protection.

So I was pleased when I saw the following at a British Police News release:

A number of home-made weapons have been surrendered during the national knife amnesty.

Nails soldered onto a metal bar, specifically cut, highly sharpened blades and knuckledusters were among the weapons handed in.

“These weapons were only made for the purpose of fear and intimidation with the potential of inflicting serious injury, even death - there would be no other reason for their use.” said Sgt Jim Mills at the force’s crime reduction unit.

“We are pleased that the owners’ have been responsible and handed them in. We would urge anyone who has home-made weapons to take the same route and surrender them at one of the designated police stations.”

Tackling knife culture is paramount to the safety of our communities. People who carry bladed weapons run the risk of that weapon being used on them, or inflicting serious injury on others. It also carries a jail sentence of up to four years.

Once the English Police accomplish this just crusade maybe this will be prevented.

I find it upsetting that there are indivuals that still insist in thinking they have a right to weapons. Those who say they have them for their own protection are obviously not thinking rationally. After all, that is what the police are for. One simple call to 911 and within an hour a police officer will show up at your door.(Almost as fast as a dominoes pizza)

We in America have a long way to go before we are as enlightened and civilized as the British. One can only hope that after we have completed the first stage of criminalizing guns, we can move on to the next stage of abolishing the Knife culture also.

I hear the British Police have issued an instruction on how to survive an attack until they arrive. "Lie down and assume the fetal position, so we know who to arrest."

Funny, I thought it be easier. The bloody corps or the man standing over it?

When We Dont Like the Picture Connecting the Dots Make

I really think the Buffalo News could use a weekly opinion column like this:

What's the European response to its self-made economic malaise? They don't repeal the laws that make for a poor investment climate. Instead, through the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), they attack low-tax jurisdictions. Why? To support its welfare state, European nations must have high taxes, but if Europeans, as private citizens and businessmen, relocate, invest and save in other jurisdictions, it means less money is available to be taxed.

I think the reason we don't see a colunm like Dr Williams' in WNY is, We just don't like the picture these dots make when connected.

The Founders as "The Time Traveler"

In the Time Machine when the "Time Traveler" saw the future he must have felt repulsed at what humanity had become. Allowing themselves to become hosts for a group of parasites a food supply. Worse yet they accepted it, not even putting up a fight. Could their acceptance have come from a reasoned thought that one's chances of surviving were greater if one or two "others" were taken then if they refused and fought? The ultimate "The wants of the many out weigh the needs of the few", or in modern American "Common Good".

What reminded me of H.G. Wells book was Walter Williams' latest Minority View "WHY WE LOVE GOVERNMENT"

……..Thomas Paine observed, "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. . . . It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."……….

…………With sentiments like these, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison became presidents. Could a person with similar sentiments win the presidency today? My guess is no. Today's Americans hold such liberty-oriented values in contempt, and any presidential aspirant holding them would have a zero chance of winning office.

Today's Americans hold a different vision of government. It's one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.

How repulsed would the Founders be if they were to be transported to present day America? Unlike the "Traveler" would they just turn their backs and say "Your not worthy of our help again".

Milton Friedman; right AGIAN!!!!

Excerpt from Capitalism and Freedom, By Milton Friedman:

In order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living. This already raises a problem in a socialist society, since all jobs are under the direct control of political authorities. It would take an act of self-denial whose difficulty is underlined by experience in the United States after World War II with the problem of "security" among Federal employees, for a socialist government to permit its employees to advocate policies directly contrary to official doctrine.

The following is an excerpt from Economist.com on the Venezuela's election:

The opposition's biggest fear concerns the use of fingerprint machines in conjunction with electronic voting. Rightly or wrongly, many Venezuelans believe that because of the machines the vote will not be secret. The government has already made public a list of the several million people who signed the petition calling for the recall referendum, using it to deny jobs and government services to “counter-revolutionaries”. In these circumstances, any belief that the vote might not be secret seems likely to hurt Mr. Rosales.

This brings up several issues:

a. Socialist will crush, by any means, descent yet will demand their right to it.

b. Milton Friedman was right.

c. With our country slowly crawling to a Socialist State, do we really want computers tracking the vote?

d. Milton Friedman was right.

e. Though Ayn Rand's "We the Living" was fictional, she,herself, said if any book was about her life that would be it. The similarities between what she wrote about political descent in early Soviet Union mirrors Venezuela. Now ask yourself: Why is it that socialist leaning Americans are the ones who want the government to have all the guns, and to take them away from the slaves serfs subjects citizens? Why is it that throughout history it is the "welfare of the people" that enslaves those very people?

f. Milton Friedman was right.