The Constitution and what it means

In today's society, interest in the constitution has risen dramatically due to recent events involving the Iraq War and with Obama's health care bill. Before that, the Constitution was largely ignored by people who pretended to not see it but acknowledged it's existence. In this time frame, such things as the FCC Act and other unconstitutional laws and bills have been passed by congress that have restricted our freedom, the freedom promised to us in the Constitution. There once was a time in which the constitution had meaning to people, people who remembered what it was like to be ruled by a centralized government that largely ignored them and was too far away to run efficiently. In the 20th century the US has slowly found itself back in this situation it once faught so hard to escape from. The only difference is, before the despotic opressor was the British Empire, today it's Washington DC.

Many myths about the constitution have arisen over the last few years. One of the biggest examples of one of these myths that have arisen is the unfounded myth of the Constitution being a living document. It is in fact not a living document, and is not up for debate. Primary documents from the era in which the Constitution was framed and documented, including, but not limited to, court decisions, pamphlets, and addresses given by the presidents shows clearly that the framers did not have the "living document" idea in mind, nor the idea of it being up for interpritation so broadly. On the matter, Thomas Jefferson said, "Let us not make it a blank paper by construction," meaning that he didn't intend for it to be so broadly opened to interpritation that anyone could make any claim about it that they wished, just to fit a political agenda.

While some people, mostly neo-conservatives, treat the constitution as a "living document," others, such as liberals, tend to view it as a Wikipedia entry. They pick at the constitution and take things to mean what they want it to mean as apposed to the actual meaning behind it. In affect, they're interpreting such laws to read like, "Don't murder," into, "Don't murder if you can help it." This is a bit of an exaggeration, however it's not too far from the truth. The idea that the Constitution need be read differently today because it's a different world than when it was written is the absolute most foolish thing a person can say. The fact is that the wisdom found in the actual meaning behind the Constitution could be applied to this day.

The Constitution has been used as of late by both major parties as a way to justify their horrible deeds and opression on the US people. The idea that the government knows what's best for us and has to save us from ourselves by a series of laws that make things that harm no one illegal is not what the founders had in mind. They also did not have "social justice" in mind, and is an ignorant thing to believe that they wanted it. The term "social justice" implies that it's illegal to be successful and to make money, which is wrong and limits the economic freedom of the individual. A document such as the Constitution that was written to expand the freedom of the individual is in no way supportive of so called "social justice." In no way, shape, or form is "social justice" supported by the Constitution, nor is it moral by any respects.

The role of the government is laid out clearly in the Constitution as well. The government may have to deal with foreign affairs, take active role in how to collect and apropriate taxes, and to make legal decisions, however it is not allowed to tell states how to run their government. As stated in Amendment X, Article 1:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, the federal government is not allowed to force a law that requires a state to act in accordance to it's will. This is a simple, and obvious, way of thinking. The central government, is far too large to govern by a central power. It must be divided and have states that are allowed to govern themselves respectably. It is effecient and is cost effective, and it allows for greater freedom.

Socialism and Capitalism Compared

The world is evolving, and whether a person believes in biological evolution or not is irrelevant, the fact cannot be denied. In an evolving world, a system of economics is required that is compatible with the changing world. Capitalism is the only suitable style of economics that can possibly suit the world to change to it's own accord. Capitalism works, and it works well to support an ever growing society. The almost complete opposite of capitalism is socialism, which is a system of money controlled by the state and not the individual. In other words, there are two paths for a nation to choose















To properly understand why capitalism is the more logical approach than socialism, several things must be remembered in order to keep it striving:

*Money is instrumental, which people often forget. It's not a necessity in itself, it's what provides us with our necessities.

* Money is only aggravating in a developed society when people lose touch with why they need it and only think about what they want from it.

* Through properly handling and financing one's money, almost anything is affordable in time with the right investments.

The thing that makes socialism different is the fact people don't have to worry so much about these things, because it provides this for people. Like with a dog, a master provides the dog with a house, food, water, and any other necessity that the dog needs and then some if the master deems it so. Socialism is like this in that the people under the government are the dogs and the people running the government are the masters, comparatively speaking of course. The thought that people can't take care of themselves and are helpless not only defies logic, but ignores the truth.

The difference between a dog and a human is that a human is capable of logical decision making, where as a dog bases it's thoughts on commands and evolutionary traits only. The similarity is, that without it's master the dog can still survive on it's own, as can a human. The dog believes that only it's master can provide for it and do no wrong, but this isn't the case. Some masters feed their dog too much and it becomes obese and energetic, others too little and it becomes malnourished. Likewise a government has the same capability over a person. It sounds good on the surface, but it defeats all logic and is counterproductive.

In socialism, everyone get's a share. Not an equal share, but a share. The government decides who get's how much due to their ability, as apposed to capitalism where how much a person makes is determined to how successful they are and their ability. The most important distinction here is that free will is missing from the equation, despite them being similar.(A good thing to note here is, that President Obama, if socialist at heart or not, is installing social programs, which is different than socialism. However, this too is wrong because it takes away from people outside of their free will.)

In socialism, progress is much slower due to the fact that people will have less thought into developing new products, while capitalism is all about developing and evolving to match society. Capitalism itself isn't missing the so called "good will" of socialism, however it isn't without it's own share of goodwill, especially through people who give into good will and charity, but also small scale social programs are not a bad thing and can help people stay safe. It's like a river when someone's boat is missing, and a bridge is used to provide a means of travel until a person crosses a river. Likewise socialism isn't a stopping point to development, however mismanagement of the money can lead to economic collapse and make a country a backwater.

The body is developed for the physical world and humans are meant to compete, it's in our nature. If the world ever does develop to support socialism than so be it, however now is not the time. Let the markets be free and leave room to develop. It's for these reasons that socialism in is wrong, and capitalism is the market system for the future.

Parralels Between Natural Selection and Capitalism

Throughout the history of the world, economic systems have ruled the lives of the citizens of a civilization in one way or another. None has been more of a reflection of natural selection than capitalism. In nature, the strong survive until the earth changes and they are displaced by strong creatures that are able to survive in the new environment. So to with companies in capitalism. The strong companies survive until the time and culture around them changes, and either they adapt or die and are displaced by a new company that can survive in the new environment. Through this process, as within nature, progress is made in the world for humans because they have selections to fit their needs in the present.

On the opposite side of capitalism lies socialism. Socialism, unlike capitalism, is an economical ideology that decides who gets what based on the governments judgment. This is the opposite of progress because it leaves the government to play god. If a person seen a rat in a pond that was drowning, and seen that it couldn't breathe, it would be foolish for that person to tell a fish to give the rat it's gills because it needed it more than it did, this would be considered extremely foolish. It is up to the natural world to decide who gets what from displacement and natural selection, not the person. If however, said rat was drowning but survived, and over the course of time it's offspring had evolved to adapt to aquatic conditions, this wouldn't be considered foolish because it was an act of nature that decided the rat should have it. Likewise, it is foolish for the government to see a drowning business and take away from a more successful business in order for it to survive. If however, this business survived and adapted to the evolving needs of the public, this also would not be wrong because it had developed it through the needs of the people.

One may argue that capitalism is nothing more than the abuse and exploit the people under the rich for the gain of the rich. As cruel as this sounds, it's a statement with no ground, for in capitalism it is the rich that are supplying those under them with money through work, moreover the rich work just as well as the poor. Like in nature, capitalism also allows the weaker and poorer to rise above their class and become something greater. This is unlike socialism, in which it's much harder for one to grow and evolve without governmental consent. Mammals are the dominant creature on the earth today, though millions of years ago they were at the thumb of dinosaurs as the earths top creature. Since then, dinosaurs are extinct and mammals are the dominant species. As too in capitalism, people may be born into poverty and rise above those they see as stronger than them and displace them as the apex member of society.

Functioning a proper Republic

Contrary to popular belief, the US is not a democracy, the US is a republican democracy. Being a republican democracy, the populous votes on a person who represents their voice an opinion. If the US was a democracy, considering it's size, the nation would have fallen long ago. A democracy, that is to say a direct democracy, would have too many conflicts of interest in a society with many different people with different modes of thinking. Population influx in such a society would also damage the process and make a direct democracy function. While a direct democracy sounds fair, it's only stable in small communities. The solution to this, and to allow the common people to get their voices heard, is through a republican democracy. In such a system, the people still have a democratic process that isn't hindered by conflicts of interest in the population. A republican democracy may be the perfect form of government, but even it is doomed to fail if it is run improperly.

All people are capable of running for a political position in the republic. However, not all people should run for position in a republic, that is to say unless they're well versed on the constitution of the state and the union. Understanding which laws violate the rights of the constitution and which ones benefit is necessary to passing proper laws. Perverting the constitution of state and union to fit the idea of a bill or law is immoral and unjustifiable and should not be done. A great amount of respect to the constitutions should be shown for it provides the best liberties given, and not false liberties as said by some people. Protection of rights is not a false liberty, and should not be addressed as such.

Knowing the constitution alone is not the only way in which a member should base his candidacy on. A person who is interested in running should also be knowledgeable in ethical and social issues as well, and should be open minded and examine them from all angles. From there the republican should determine which side of the position that should taken on said issue which benefits the constituents of their district. If the position is not popular the candidate should try passively try explaining why that side of the issue is the one they decided to take. If the candidate can not convince their constituents that the issue is relevant, they should vote against it provided the case isn't the majority taking away the rights of a minority.

Ethical issues and political philosophy go hand in hand. A person running for office should also be knowledged in political philosophy. Studying philosophy helps sharpen one's knowledge and rhetoric skills, and is an important part of politics. Understanding the wisdom of the ancestors of the US' political system and other political systems also shows one how to develop their own thinking skills. The wisdom passed on from philosophers should be taken and developed on to advance the future. If the words of the dead die out, then surely society will die with them.

The final mention of importance in running a healthy republic is to keep the executive branch out of the system. Over recent years, presidents and governors have interfered with the lawmaking process in state capitals and Washington D.C. and have only hurt the process. The role of the executive is not to draw up or make laws, it's to simply address the union and give speeches. The president should also address foreign affairs and play the, not an, active role in diplomacy. The role of the governor varies from state to state, but in Illinois the role of the governor is to appoint administrators, propose budgets to the General Assembly once a year, and to grant pardons and call for special elections. The role of both is to also act as commander in chief of the militaries. Acting in the role of law making for these becomes a distraction, and all such powers should be left directly to the legislative branches. This is how to keep up a healthy republic, and such words should be taken seriously.

Immorality of Abortion

Abortion, something referred to by Pope John Paul II as “the Unspeakable Crime,” has been a controversial issue for the last half of the last century and today. Some that all creatures have a right to life, even the unborn fetus. Others argue that it is the right to a woman’s body and her choice as to what she wants done with it. It’s the latter that needs to be examined in this case, for what is the choice in question? If a woman has a right to her body, then shouldn’t it be up to her to make the right decisions for it? If two consenting adults have unprotected sex, than the obvious consequence is pregnancy. If two people are willing to do such a thing knowing the outcome, is the woman not choosing to commit the act that gets her pregnant? And what of the rights of the unborn fetus? It can’t speak for itself, so is it truly right for an irresponsible person to make that decision for them?

It’s true that all creatures big and small have a right to life. It’s been proven by modern science that a fetus is a life of its own. As a life of its own, the creature should have a right to have a chance in this world. If a woman is in a position where she knows she is going to have sex and isn’t willing to get pregnant, then she should make sure she is prepared to engage in the act using protection. If she’s not willing to commit to that then she should get a form of birth control before the conception happens to avoid the pregnancy. If the woman is not willing to do any of these, then she should not take it out on a creature that is not at fault for her unwillingness to control what she does.

One may argue that a fetus, while living, is not yet a homo sapiens, at least in the biological sense, it is still irrelevant. Depriving any creature of its right to living is immoral. Not giving a fetus the right to live is no different than running over a dog with ones car. As frustrated as some people will get with this argument, it only shows how arrogant humans can be to think that they are above all other animals in nature because the creature homo sapiens is the only one that can discuss such a matter. Human beings are in the natural line in the animal kingdom and are not above any other creature in the hierarchy. Human technology may make people believe that humans are above other creatures, but humans are in fact not. That being said a fetus is no less of a living creature than a full fledged homo sapiens that live and dwell in a community.

While aborting a fetus may be immoral, there are two instances in which a woman should have the option to have an abortion. One is being if having a child will result in complications that could kill her, the child, or both. Risking one’s life to save another isn’t completely necessary, and while a fetus may have a right to life, it’s the woman that has had time to develop a personality of her own and knows what it’s like to live in the world and should be able to continue to do so. The other instance is if a woman was the victim of a rape the caused her to get pregnant. In this case the woman is not at fault and did nothing that showed a lack of constraint and shouldn’t live with the painful memory of such a traumatic event. If neither one of these circumstances is the case, than the woman should not be given the option to have an abortion. People should take more personal responsibility and monitor their actions better. Nothing is more gratifying than living a healthy and responsible life.

Altruism

The gift of sharing and helping one’s fellow human is something that has existed as long as humans have, and some argue even longer. These unselfish acts are known as “altruism” and are a trait evolved into many creatures, including homo sapiens. Altruism is thought to have been evolved as a form of looking out for the greater good of a community or group. An example being a fowl making a loud noise when it spots a predator. Even though this fowl puts itself in more danger, it still alerts the other fowls in the process to help them avoid danger. The reason for this is as simple as the fowl does this because it’s been bred and evolved to alert it’s brethren in hopes of having the favor return. The comparison to this and humans and goodwill should be drawn here, for even though the example given has little to do with a post gatherer-hunter society, it still is an example of good will expressed for the sake of the greater good. It is a great quality evolved into creatures because it helps insure survival for a length of time.

It’s in every human’s best interest to share and give as much as they can on behalf of the community. While this shouldn’t be forced onto humans through a series of taxes encouraged by greed and envy, it should be encouraged for one person to go out of their way to help another. The reason is simple, if person a lends his or her shirt to person b, hopefully person b would do the same for person a when person a is in the same predicament person b was in prior to this. It’s in everyone’s best interest to give as much as one can out of his or her own volition, it also can’t be stressed enough to give to one who can’t give back due to their lack of resources. The reason for this is just as simple, for just as person a gives their shirt to person b in hopes of getting something in return if they were in the same situation, so should person a give just as willingly to person c in the chance that person b sees it and is willing to do the same for person a in case he or she found themselves in said situation.

Though people should give and to an extent expect back in one way or another, it should not be taken too far. One should not give simply to use it as an excuse to get back later. Not all people are capable of giving, so it’s not in the best interest of anyone to expect someone in this situation to give or to force them to give through a series of taxes, i.e. state sales taxes or city sales taxes, in order to fund a false greater good. It is for the reason of altruism that people should pay less taxes, as to free them up to help them manage their supplies better and to give the less fortunate who pay taxes a break. There will always be people who take advantage of the altruistic will of humans, but these people should not be punished or mocked, though they should be led by example. It’s not in the place of anyone to force another to pay for their own misfortune no matter the circumstance.

Without self restraint, altruism will fail. While people should be entitled to buy things of luxury as much as their income allows, they shouldn’t go so far as to solely spend their income on luxuries and their own necessities while ignoring the greater good. Many people in a socialist society do such a thing, as they do in a society bogged down with many socialist programs. Without the feel or need for self discipline with one’s finances, a person would be more interested in looking out for themselves instead of participating in the act of goodwill and humanity. With too many taxes for people to pay, this is expected because a person is going to be more inclined to lookout for themselves above the community because they usually don’t see anything outside the realm of themselves and taxes. Likewise, this same person is likely to complain about paying the taxes and use it as an excuse for not participating in altruism. For this reason all people need to be free to do as they please with their income and pay less taxes, to encourage and learn what good will is and learn better self restraint and responsibility. For it’s only in a society that learns from mistakes as opposed to the society that gets bailed out will it succeed. Through self restraint, self discipline, and learning can a society prosper and develop into a better tomorrow.

What liberty is

Personal liberty, something that everyone is born with. It's an inalienable right that is more important than any other. The freedom to say what you will without fear of persecution, to practice any or no religion, and to live a lifestyle according to your wants and needs. As simple of an idea as it sounds, liberty is much harder for people to accept than most people realize. Any time something comes along that is deemed "strange" or "immoral" by society is stopped by a series of laws used to try to stamp out the behavior of the "odd individual." While most people aren't bothered by the actions of others, some people are. Enough are to crush the liberties of the individual they are opposed to. The United States had a principle base in the idea that all men are created equal, and that freedom of expression is key in a healthy and developed society. This idea is being slowly eroded by Congress as a way to either distract people from real issues or stamp out what is deemed as "weird," though often enough these laws usually never make it past the house or senate floor, and some get reversed.

The immoral act of trying to deprive people of their identity touches on many levels. Homosexuality is one of these issues. In the United States, a person can't join the military if he or she is an open homosexual, this is wrong regardless of whether you agree with homosexuality or not. A persons lifestyle, whether they were born that way or it was a choice, is none of the business of people who aren't physically or emotionally harmed by these actions. A person who is homosexual isn't the concern of another individual, and no one should be bothered by the lifestyle of another person. Some people say, "Homosexuality is a choice, therefore it is wrong," or, "it's unnatural and god doesn't like it." Whether or not there is any truth to these statements is irrelevant, the important part is that even if it was a choice it doesn't affect anyone other than the person who lives that life and the people who live that life with the person. The United States was built on the idea that all people should be able to live their lives with the choices they make anyways, so it's no concern of another individual.

In certain states there are also laws that try to ban certain sexual practices that people do. Until 2003, for example, there was a law in Texas prohibiting sodomy. In several states, including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C., it is illegal to perform oral sex on another individual. There are several other similar laws on the books in several other states, though most of them are never really put into practice, it shows how far some people are willing to go to interfere with the lives of others. Simply put, what happens in the bedroom of consenting adults isn't the business of anyone else. Unless the sex acts are used to intentionally harm another individual or to have sex with a minor, they shouldn't be illegal.

Most importantly, liberty is being able to say what you want and practice any religion you want. If a business such as Target wants to say "Merry Christmas" as opposed to "Happy Holidays," then it's solely the business of Target, it's employees, the people that shop there, and no other. If a person has that big of an issue with something like that, they always have the choice to go somewhere else that doesn't. People should be free to practice any faith openly, even if it is the majority religion, provided it doesn't tread on the rights of another human being.

Being able to say what you want without fear is equally important. There are words in the US that aren't allowed on television either. There's an unfounded outcry that children hearing these words will somehow corrupt them and harm them, despite the fact that these so called "awful" words only truly have as much power as humans give them. The US constitution strictly prohibits any laws being passed by congress that limit free speech, yet there is an FCC that tells people what they can and can not say. Not only did congress pass a law limiting free speech, but the unconstitutional law is also funded by the tax payer, meaning the US citizen has to pay in the literal sense to have our personal liberties limited. In order for a healthy and happy society to truly develop and prosper, the people need to be as free as possible to express themselves however they see fit.