I have had a lot of frustration lately around the topic of walls and borders. In the Libertarian spaces I poke around, there is this general idea that having a wall and enforcing borders is against NAP (Non Aggression Policy). It took me a while to formulate why this is a load of shit, so now I'm going to try to explain.
Let us start by evaluating what is meant by aggression. In the context of NAP, it refers to the initiation or threat of force against an individual or their property. This would be like threatening to jail someone if they do not give up money or taking land from someone, forcing a sale, anything where resistance to the act would result in some form of harm or repercussion. Sounds reasonable so far.
The problem arises around property rights. Assume I own a plot of land. I have more land than I currently use. Someone rolls on up and starts setting up a home on the unused land. Since it is my property, I have the right to remove them from the land I own. Of course I have an option to sell or rent the land, but that does not mean I should or have to. I as an individual doing this would be fine. Even if I threaten them, it is fine because they have already violated my rights by trying to take my land without permission.
So now let us assume we have a community of people. This community of people all own various plots in a region of land. They decide they do not want certain people coming into their region without vetting them to their standards. They even go so far as to deny passage through the region without some form of vetting to ensure their own safety. This is the concept of a country having borders. If someone attempts entry or passage by attempting to circumvent these rules the owners of the land put in place, that is a violation of property rights. The only difference right now is it is private citizens doing this rather than elected officials.
Continuing on with the same idea, the people now create a militia to patrol the land and make sure people everyone has agreed need to be vetted before entry are actually either vetted or not within the region. Are we still good? After all, it is people protecting their private property. I still say yes, this is perfectly fine. People have a right to protect their property, even as a group.
So now the militia finds someone their that should not be. They own no property, which means they are on someone else's property. They refuse to leave, so the militia forces them off private property. We still good? If you think we have gone too far, just remember we are assuming everyone is under a unanimous decision and rather than functioning as an individual they are instead just a group with the same idea helping each other out. If an individual can do it, so can a group all working towards the same goal.
Now imagine that someone in the middle with no bordering land decides that they want to let everyone and anyone in. As a result, an individual decides to trespass to get to their destination. This still violates rights of the other landowners who did not consent to that travel across their land. Is it okay to use force to stop their travel? Sure. It is still a violation of rights and people protecting their own rights. What happens if they make it to the individual within who said it was okay? Well, this is the whole sanctuary city conundrum. If the militia goes onto that person's land to extract the violator and throw him out, are they not in turn violating now two people's rights? Well, the trespasser already violated the rights of others. To allow a person that commits a crime to go free so long as where they stay is okay with it is the same as endorsing the crimes themselves. Upon violating the rights of another person, in my opinion you already forfeited your own rights. In the same turn, to violate the rights of someone else who did not do anything wrong in action does not seem right. We could end up with a group imposing their will over the individual. Some may consider trespassing to not be a big deal, so why pursue it. That sets a precedence of there being a certain condition that could be added to make it okay. Perhaps they murder or rape someone along the way. This creates reactionary laws and conditions that messed up a lot of our judiciary system in the first place. Simple black and white, the person committed a crime and those who were wronged have a right to have it made right to them. So my conclusion is it is still okay to extract the person who trespassed.
After all that, the bordering people and majority of internal supported in the region decide, let's build a wall. If we wall off the region, it will be harder for people trying to trespass to actually trespass. Sounds good, right? Since it is their land, they can build whatever they want. Walls, fences, moats, or a billboard that says "Go away, <derogatory term>!" It is their property, so it is their choice.
The US is similar to this. The difference is the border land and points of entry are government owned, so every citizen in a sense owns it. Right now we have people saying open up all the borders, people saying shut it down, and the majority of people saying we need to reform the entry criteria and evaluate border security. As the majority of the country is not for open borders, it makes sense the borders are not open. To impose the will that they need to be open would be to violate all the stakeholders that disagree and under current contract with how the governments work. True, we never actually agreed to it, but there is a little caveat in law people seem to disregard even though it is pretty much common law as well.
Implied Consent is the idea that you clearly see the requirements for something and by continuing or proceeding, you consent. This is why a place like Disney does not need you to sign an agreement to search you before entering their parks, they have police out front and searching equipment while at the same time you are under no obligation to enter. Implied consent is used quite frequently, like when you are in an area with a sign that says there are security cameras, you are consenting to being recorded. Living in a country falls under pretty much the same idea. As you continue to live here and proceed with life, you are implying consent to the laws of the land. While there may be the case made that it is because there is no where else to go for what you want, that would be like complaining you cannot buy land because all the land is already owned. Touch luck.
This does not mean I think everything is fine and dandy or that we should not fight back against the things we disagree with. This is purely the reason that I think right now the best option is to be diplomatic about things. As it stands now, it seems like the majority at least leans in my direction of enforcing borders to protect private property to some degree. When it rolls in the opposite direction, I will fight it. I just would not claim someone to not be libertarian just because they don't want to check people entering the land or if they want more screening.
My point is, whether I protect my property as an individual or a group, it is still a protection of private property.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
January 21, 2020
December 27, 2019
Is a President Impeached if it Does Not Go to The Senate
I have seen a few things arguing back and forth about if Trump is impeached or not. Most of them contain legal terms, metaphors, or references to the British laws around all the house of lords stuff that we got the impeachment stuff from. I notice this more and more, but the real problem in my opinion, stems from language changes. People now do not speak like people from them. Writing is also different than how we speak, and that has changed as well. I am no legal expert or language expert, but I am an IT person who hinges everything on logic. So let us look at things from a logical computer perspective because why not.
The argument seems to stem over whether impeachment is a process or a declaration by vote. It is being compared to the term indicted, but by logic different words are used for a reason. Let's check out the etymology first.
formerly also empeach, late 14c., empechen, "to impede, hinder, prevent;" early 15c., "cause to be stuck, run (a ship) aground," also "prevent (from doing something)," from Anglo-French empecher, Old French empeechier "to hinder, stop, impede; capture, trap, ensnare" (12c., Modern French empêcher), from Late Latin impedicare "to fetter, catch, entangle," from assimilated form of in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + Latin pedica "a shackle, fetter," from pes (genitive pedis) "foot" (from PIE root *ped- "foot"). In law, at first in a broad sense, "to accuse, bring charges against" from late 14c.; more specifically, of the king or the House of Commons, "to bring formal accusation of treason or other high crime against (someone)" from mid-15c. The sense of "accuse a public officer of misconduct" had emerged from this by 1560s. The sense shift is perhaps via Medieval Latin confusion of impedicare with Latin impetere "attack, accuse" (see impetus), which is from the Latin verb petere "aim for, rush at" (from PIE root *pet- "to rush, to fly"). The Middle English verb apechen, probably from an Anglo-French variant of the source of impeach, was used from early 14c. in the sense "to accuse (someone), to charge (someone with an offense)."
So what does all that mean? Well it says to accuse, bring charges against when talking about law. Specifically, formal charges. This is where the little logic loop is coming from. The president is accused, but since the Senate does not have the stuff, the charges have not been brought. This still is not a definitive answer, as this is the word generically which to me seems like it could be interpreted both ways right now. He is accused, but there are no charges being brought up yet.
In one of the videos I watched, the key piece being brought to say he is impeached is where it states the House of Representatives has the "sole power of impeachment." This is where language is going to get annoying. The law also says that the Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment. So let's put these side by side and compare with logic.
"SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT" and "SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS"
To try an impeachment would, to me, indicate that it is being used in the form of an accusation. This falls in line with the result if the charges go through, that being the point a president would actually be removed from office. If that works well, let's apply it backwards. Sole power of accusation (impeachment). This to me means that the main separation for the "sole power of impeachment" means they are the only ones who can start the ball rolling.
So back to the question, is he impeached after a vote if it has not reached the Senate yet? If I were programming something to give an answer on that, legally, sure? I can see an argument for either direction, but the bigger argument I see is that unless it goes to the senate and has a trial and results in actually going through, it's purely a moot point. The impeachment in a legal sense is nothing more than a formal accusation.
I think another problem we are having is people in our system are doing things that make no sense to drag out the dog and pony show that just frustrates everyone. I blame career politicians.
The argument seems to stem over whether impeachment is a process or a declaration by vote. It is being compared to the term indicted, but by logic different words are used for a reason. Let's check out the etymology first.
formerly also empeach, late 14c., empechen, "to impede, hinder, prevent;" early 15c., "cause to be stuck, run (a ship) aground," also "prevent (from doing something)," from Anglo-French empecher, Old French empeechier "to hinder, stop, impede; capture, trap, ensnare" (12c., Modern French empêcher), from Late Latin impedicare "to fetter, catch, entangle," from assimilated form of in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + Latin pedica "a shackle, fetter," from pes (genitive pedis) "foot" (from PIE root *ped- "foot"). In law, at first in a broad sense, "to accuse, bring charges against" from late 14c.; more specifically, of the king or the House of Commons, "to bring formal accusation of treason or other high crime against (someone)" from mid-15c. The sense of "accuse a public officer of misconduct" had emerged from this by 1560s. The sense shift is perhaps via Medieval Latin confusion of impedicare with Latin impetere "attack, accuse" (see impetus), which is from the Latin verb petere "aim for, rush at" (from PIE root *pet- "to rush, to fly"). The Middle English verb apechen, probably from an Anglo-French variant of the source of impeach, was used from early 14c. in the sense "to accuse (someone), to charge (someone with an offense)."
So what does all that mean? Well it says to accuse, bring charges against when talking about law. Specifically, formal charges. This is where the little logic loop is coming from. The president is accused, but since the Senate does not have the stuff, the charges have not been brought. This still is not a definitive answer, as this is the word generically which to me seems like it could be interpreted both ways right now. He is accused, but there are no charges being brought up yet.
In one of the videos I watched, the key piece being brought to say he is impeached is where it states the House of Representatives has the "sole power of impeachment." This is where language is going to get annoying. The law also says that the Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment. So let's put these side by side and compare with logic.
"SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT" and "SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS"
To try an impeachment would, to me, indicate that it is being used in the form of an accusation. This falls in line with the result if the charges go through, that being the point a president would actually be removed from office. If that works well, let's apply it backwards. Sole power of accusation (impeachment). This to me means that the main separation for the "sole power of impeachment" means they are the only ones who can start the ball rolling.
So back to the question, is he impeached after a vote if it has not reached the Senate yet? If I were programming something to give an answer on that, legally, sure? I can see an argument for either direction, but the bigger argument I see is that unless it goes to the senate and has a trial and results in actually going through, it's purely a moot point. The impeachment in a legal sense is nothing more than a formal accusation.
I think another problem we are having is people in our system are doing things that make no sense to drag out the dog and pony show that just frustrates everyone. I blame career politicians.
December 18, 2019
Thoughts on Impeachment Vote
My main shock is that things have gone this far. Watching through statements being made, I find absolutely nothing shocking. Those supporting impeachment are really good at parroting talking points, but it seems like they bring up a lot of different talking points. Despite the Russia investigation finding nothing supporting it, it seems to be mentioned like that is the original point they are using for the impeachment. The Republicans talking points re-iterate a lack of evidence.
So is there really evidence of anything? Depends on what you would consider credible and from my point of view it is all a load of bull. The evidence is not evidence and the Republicans pointing this out rather than arguing against it being a problem makes me lean towards the Republicans in this matter. I think with the election, Russians interfered on their own accord to cause disruptions and chaos and it worked. I do not think Trump thought ahead about using Ukraine to get dirt on Biden because I think Trump is too arrogant to think he would even need help beating Biden. I would bet that the Democrats give Trump way too much credit like he actually might be some sort of evil genius.
With the vote now in we can see a clear divide along party lines, as expected. In the final vote tally, there were 2 defectors on the Democrats' side, but none on the Republican side. Now the process moves on to the Senate where it will most likely be tossed in a shredder and things can start moving again. This whole thing is nothing more than a big symbolic dog and pony show, anyway. If half the career politician representatives actually cared about all they said they did, impeachment would be a lot more common and even removal of a good deal of Congress members.
I think the ones that should be most applauded are the two that decided to vote against party lines. Those willing to actually represent the will of their constituents even when it may go against their party is commendable, even if it may just be to get re-elected.
If I were to bet on the events to unfold, I think the odds are in favor of no conviction and a second term for Trump. If I had my way, we'd more likely be gearing up for the impending big igloo. I really don't see how people aren't just fed up with all the display that has no real backing substance. Even outside of all of this, everything already seems predetermined and they just love to waste time with all this show like anything they say actually changes anything. Regardless, at least it's almost over.
So is there really evidence of anything? Depends on what you would consider credible and from my point of view it is all a load of bull. The evidence is not evidence and the Republicans pointing this out rather than arguing against it being a problem makes me lean towards the Republicans in this matter. I think with the election, Russians interfered on their own accord to cause disruptions and chaos and it worked. I do not think Trump thought ahead about using Ukraine to get dirt on Biden because I think Trump is too arrogant to think he would even need help beating Biden. I would bet that the Democrats give Trump way too much credit like he actually might be some sort of evil genius.
With the vote now in we can see a clear divide along party lines, as expected. In the final vote tally, there were 2 defectors on the Democrats' side, but none on the Republican side. Now the process moves on to the Senate where it will most likely be tossed in a shredder and things can start moving again. This whole thing is nothing more than a big symbolic dog and pony show, anyway. If half the career politician representatives actually cared about all they said they did, impeachment would be a lot more common and even removal of a good deal of Congress members.
I think the ones that should be most applauded are the two that decided to vote against party lines. Those willing to actually represent the will of their constituents even when it may go against their party is commendable, even if it may just be to get re-elected.
If I were to bet on the events to unfold, I think the odds are in favor of no conviction and a second term for Trump. If I had my way, we'd more likely be gearing up for the impending big igloo. I really don't see how people aren't just fed up with all the display that has no real backing substance. Even outside of all of this, everything already seems predetermined and they just love to waste time with all this show like anything they say actually changes anything. Regardless, at least it's almost over.
December 16, 2019
The Current State of Virginia
I have only been following from afar the news in Virginia about the proposed gun laws and Second Amendment sanctuary cities. Personally, I do not know much about Virginia or its current or past political dealings. From what I understand is that it is primarily Democrat run and now there are a few proposed legislation gearing up for 2020 that would severely damage gun rights. When I say damage gun rights, we are talking about possible waves of confiscation and registration for what are perfectly common use firearms. There have also been threats of the National Guard being called in, sheriffs being removed, and the obvious talk of the Big Igloo aka boogaloo aka a real recreation of events of 1776.
From my understanding, the Democrats want to not only restrict the guns, but also parts, and even militia groups. This is astounding to me, we are a country that was formed and fought for by militia, I should clarify the term militia even back then was used to refer to a civilian formed military group. If you aren't aware, there are still many active militias across the US, and if you want to join one you can just look online for militias in your state or even form your own. Some may wonder why they form, and they all have different reasons. They're not usually all crazy and gearing up for war, but can even be as simple as people maintaining readiness to act in an emergency or disaster. A militia exercises our rights to not only the second amendment, but the right to assembly (peaceful, anyway) in the first amendment. As long as the group is not violent, a militia is covered by the first and second amendments of the US Constitution. So from my understanding, the Virginia government is stepping on both of those rights.
The alarm is real and I don't think people fully understand the gravity of the situation and what it presents. While people focus on the second amendment violations, of which have occurred and people seem to accept some infringement there for whatever reason, they are also stepping on the toes of the first amendment. To then threaten the involvement of the National Guard is elevating a state issue to a federal issue, which shouldn't occur unless there is a federal reason, such as violation of the constitution, in which case the National Guard should be going against the state and not the people. Then you have the state trying to step on the rights of the cities and counties by threatening to remove their elected officials.
What we are witnessing in Virginia is more than the reason for the second amendment. It's the reason we set up so many layers of checks and balances and distribution of power. This was going to happen sooner or later. I do not know if it is better this is happening on a state level as opposed to a federal level. The reason is that I believe this is the kick in the stomach people needed to see exactly what kind of a road they decided to venture down. I just don't know if it is enough to bring that realization to the whole country. This is because people said it was okay to have some restrictions. The Constitution had the line drawn and it got blurred. Now we are heading further and further down a dangerous path.
This isn't about gun rights. This is about all rights. This is about the rights of the individuals, their rights to assemble, their rights to protect themselves, their rights to their property. I hope this is the start of people waking up. I hope this all turns out for the best. I fear it may only be the tip of the iceberg.
From my understanding, the Democrats want to not only restrict the guns, but also parts, and even militia groups. This is astounding to me, we are a country that was formed and fought for by militia, I should clarify the term militia even back then was used to refer to a civilian formed military group. If you aren't aware, there are still many active militias across the US, and if you want to join one you can just look online for militias in your state or even form your own. Some may wonder why they form, and they all have different reasons. They're not usually all crazy and gearing up for war, but can even be as simple as people maintaining readiness to act in an emergency or disaster. A militia exercises our rights to not only the second amendment, but the right to assembly (peaceful, anyway) in the first amendment. As long as the group is not violent, a militia is covered by the first and second amendments of the US Constitution. So from my understanding, the Virginia government is stepping on both of those rights.
The alarm is real and I don't think people fully understand the gravity of the situation and what it presents. While people focus on the second amendment violations, of which have occurred and people seem to accept some infringement there for whatever reason, they are also stepping on the toes of the first amendment. To then threaten the involvement of the National Guard is elevating a state issue to a federal issue, which shouldn't occur unless there is a federal reason, such as violation of the constitution, in which case the National Guard should be going against the state and not the people. Then you have the state trying to step on the rights of the cities and counties by threatening to remove their elected officials.
What we are witnessing in Virginia is more than the reason for the second amendment. It's the reason we set up so many layers of checks and balances and distribution of power. This was going to happen sooner or later. I do not know if it is better this is happening on a state level as opposed to a federal level. The reason is that I believe this is the kick in the stomach people needed to see exactly what kind of a road they decided to venture down. I just don't know if it is enough to bring that realization to the whole country. This is because people said it was okay to have some restrictions. The Constitution had the line drawn and it got blurred. Now we are heading further and further down a dangerous path.
This isn't about gun rights. This is about all rights. This is about the rights of the individuals, their rights to assemble, their rights to protect themselves, their rights to their property. I hope this is the start of people waking up. I hope this all turns out for the best. I fear it may only be the tip of the iceberg.
December 15, 2019
Gun Rights or No
The topic of gun rights should very easily be headed off at the very beginning when the question of do we have a right to private property gets answered. We have a right to private property, guns are property, therefore why would we not have a right to it?
The arguments over restrictions are based around the idea of inherent dangers posed with said property. Examples of this are all over the place like buying a car, heavy machinery, explosives, chemicals, and anything else people see as dangerous. Despite this, some items do not have the same scrutiny. I can harm or kill someone with a baseball bat or a hammer, yet I do not need a background check or an age check to purchase such things. These are glaring inconsistencies that the numbers and stats around should show we should be doing the exact opposite. This is because there are a combination perceived dangers set by information or lack of, and another thing people often overlook that we in the IT world, and people in the business world, know as "risk appetite."
Risk appetite is the amount of risk or inherent danger/uncertainty that is considered acceptable to leave to risk. It is a term I had to become very familiar with in exploring IT security. When considering risk, the potential dangers are presented. We determine which ones are acceptable risks to take with our risk appetite. We can see examples of this in everyday life. Simply driving a car where we know the statistic chances we could be injured, have problems, or even die yet we accept the risk to drive because the benefits of it exceed the risk. When driving we may choose to speed because of our risk appetite, putting aside the dangers or potential ticket as an acceptable risk. Usually once the consequences hit, there is obvious regret because the decision of acceptable risk was made without the apparent glaring consequences we thought we could either ignore or avoid.
In life as individuals we constantly make choice after choice, weighing risks or choosing to ignore them. As a result there are plenty of examples of what can go wrong reported on despite most of the times things turning out okay. People more conscious of things going wrong will see more risk than those exposed to things going just fine without many, if any, consequences. People can live to a ripe old age smoking every day of there life and others may have smoked only a few times and ended up with cancer. With all the potential outcomes, very few things could be considered for certain.
So why would we take the risk if there's even a chance of something going wrong? Because there are also consequences to not doing something. Choosing not to drive a car could cause you to lose out on all the potential. Even more so, simply walking around could cause you to be hit by a car where the person inside the car with all the safety features walks away unscathed. There are many sides to every arguments and every possible decision.
So now the real core of the matter, guns. Personally, I feel no need to make a justification for any type of private property I own. I own a handful of different guns and I have never viewed it as a problem. I have also never had a problem with someone who chooses not to own a gun and if they want to stay away from them I support that and feel everyone who is uncomfortable around a gun should not own one until they can feel comfortable and safe with it. I also have no problem with others owning guns, concealed carrying, or open carrying. My problem never arises with the guns, but the actions people do when they have a gun.
When a person owns a gun, the risk varies depending on the individual. For example, if a person has children they run the risk of accidental discharge or misuse by the child without proper precautions. If a person is reckless, they may cause an accident with the firearm. Risks to people surrounding them are also apparent. Much like walking along a road, the safety of those around the road depend on the drivers as much as those around a gun owner depend on the safety and responsibility of the carriers. Considering how far we have come as a society and how little actually goes wrong compared to how many people are on the planet, I do not see that as problematic. Most areas with a lot of guns are perfectly safe.
So what if we do not have any gun ownership among private citizens, then what? Realistically most places maintain the same safety as before and the government does whatever regardless of potential threats or lack there of to them. There still is plenty fo fear mongering that goes on with both sides of the argument. There are potentials of mass shooters, there are potentials of government taking too much power, we see it happen. The potential on both sides is real and realized around the globe almost every day. So why should we pick a side?
Here's what the real truth is. In our individual lives we will face many individual things that may justify needing a gun or never at all. It is our choice what property we own. Letting the government tell the ultimate authority, the people, what they can and cannot privately own is the danger. It is the slippery slope we are sliding down now. I own a gun because I want to protect myself, my family, and my property from any external threat, people or government. I have a right to own a gun not because I'm over 18, not because I am responsible, but because I can acquire it. Take the sale of guns away, the people will make their own or find a way to get them. By regulating it, the only thing that is done is more criminals are made. We should all accept the risk of freedom and never sacrifice freedom for safety.
The arguments over restrictions are based around the idea of inherent dangers posed with said property. Examples of this are all over the place like buying a car, heavy machinery, explosives, chemicals, and anything else people see as dangerous. Despite this, some items do not have the same scrutiny. I can harm or kill someone with a baseball bat or a hammer, yet I do not need a background check or an age check to purchase such things. These are glaring inconsistencies that the numbers and stats around should show we should be doing the exact opposite. This is because there are a combination perceived dangers set by information or lack of, and another thing people often overlook that we in the IT world, and people in the business world, know as "risk appetite."
Risk appetite is the amount of risk or inherent danger/uncertainty that is considered acceptable to leave to risk. It is a term I had to become very familiar with in exploring IT security. When considering risk, the potential dangers are presented. We determine which ones are acceptable risks to take with our risk appetite. We can see examples of this in everyday life. Simply driving a car where we know the statistic chances we could be injured, have problems, or even die yet we accept the risk to drive because the benefits of it exceed the risk. When driving we may choose to speed because of our risk appetite, putting aside the dangers or potential ticket as an acceptable risk. Usually once the consequences hit, there is obvious regret because the decision of acceptable risk was made without the apparent glaring consequences we thought we could either ignore or avoid.
In life as individuals we constantly make choice after choice, weighing risks or choosing to ignore them. As a result there are plenty of examples of what can go wrong reported on despite most of the times things turning out okay. People more conscious of things going wrong will see more risk than those exposed to things going just fine without many, if any, consequences. People can live to a ripe old age smoking every day of there life and others may have smoked only a few times and ended up with cancer. With all the potential outcomes, very few things could be considered for certain.
So why would we take the risk if there's even a chance of something going wrong? Because there are also consequences to not doing something. Choosing not to drive a car could cause you to lose out on all the potential. Even more so, simply walking around could cause you to be hit by a car where the person inside the car with all the safety features walks away unscathed. There are many sides to every arguments and every possible decision.
So now the real core of the matter, guns. Personally, I feel no need to make a justification for any type of private property I own. I own a handful of different guns and I have never viewed it as a problem. I have also never had a problem with someone who chooses not to own a gun and if they want to stay away from them I support that and feel everyone who is uncomfortable around a gun should not own one until they can feel comfortable and safe with it. I also have no problem with others owning guns, concealed carrying, or open carrying. My problem never arises with the guns, but the actions people do when they have a gun.
When a person owns a gun, the risk varies depending on the individual. For example, if a person has children they run the risk of accidental discharge or misuse by the child without proper precautions. If a person is reckless, they may cause an accident with the firearm. Risks to people surrounding them are also apparent. Much like walking along a road, the safety of those around the road depend on the drivers as much as those around a gun owner depend on the safety and responsibility of the carriers. Considering how far we have come as a society and how little actually goes wrong compared to how many people are on the planet, I do not see that as problematic. Most areas with a lot of guns are perfectly safe.
So what if we do not have any gun ownership among private citizens, then what? Realistically most places maintain the same safety as before and the government does whatever regardless of potential threats or lack there of to them. There still is plenty fo fear mongering that goes on with both sides of the argument. There are potentials of mass shooters, there are potentials of government taking too much power, we see it happen. The potential on both sides is real and realized around the globe almost every day. So why should we pick a side?
Here's what the real truth is. In our individual lives we will face many individual things that may justify needing a gun or never at all. It is our choice what property we own. Letting the government tell the ultimate authority, the people, what they can and cannot privately own is the danger. It is the slippery slope we are sliding down now. I own a gun because I want to protect myself, my family, and my property from any external threat, people or government. I have a right to own a gun not because I'm over 18, not because I am responsible, but because I can acquire it. Take the sale of guns away, the people will make their own or find a way to get them. By regulating it, the only thing that is done is more criminals are made. We should all accept the risk of freedom and never sacrifice freedom for safety.
December 14, 2019
Paying Your Fair Share
Something that often gets mentioned when talking about taxes is the idea of paying your "fair share." This idea to me always seemed childish. As I grow older I have to acknowledge more and more that life is not fair. Very few things could be considered fair. Yet people bring up the need for things to be "fair" or the idea of something being "deserved." I want to focus on the idea of "fair share" and why this is all just childish garbage.
Almost everything today gets taxed. You make money, pay a tax. You inherited money that was already taxed, pay a tax. Spend money, pay a tax. Own property, pay a tax. I could go on for quite a while, the point is there is a tax for everything. In most cases we all pay the same amount per dollar. Sounds reasonable, right? Despite this, if you have a larger income then you have to pay more per dollar than other people. That's not right, how is that fair? Well, it's not. So a fair share would be to pay the same amount, right? No, the people talking about paying your fair share means that if you make more money you should be paying even more. How is that a fair share in anyone's mind?
So the way it works is currently is (2019) we have a few "tax brackets" for different income levels. Currently it goes like this for a single person:
The first $9,700 is taxed 10%
From $9,701 to $39,475 is taxed 12%
From $39,476 to $84,200 is taxed 22%
From $84,201 to $160,725 is taxed 24%
From $160,726 to $204,100 is taxed 32%
From $204,101 to $510,300 is taxed 35%
And from $510,301 and up is taxed 37%
The first thing you may notice is that there are some big jumps, one being a 10% difference. So how much is it numerically for each at the top of the bracket. We start with $970, then $3,573, then $9,839, then $18,366, then $13,880, then $107,170 roughly when rounded to the nearest dollar. Added up that is $153,798. This averages to 30% of your income as taxes. this excludes marriage, dependents, and other things that you can deduct. We could go and average each bracket, but the bottom line is it's taking more per dollar from people that make more money. Even though they will pay more per dollar than anyone, people still think it isn't enough to be fair. we haven't even taken into account state income tax and all the other extras that are paid out on top of all of this.
From what I can find, in 2018, 44.4% of Americans actually did not pay any federal income tax, but they still pay out for Social Security and Medicare. That means that we burden 55.6% of wage earning Americans to float a huge portion of our federal budget. Despite this, people say it isn't fair and the rich need to pay more.
Often times to show the numbers, people try to show off the net worth of individuals as though they can take a huge chunk of it. What people fail to realize is that a lot of time it is not money on hand or income, but investments. I can have a million dollars worth of investments without a cent on me and make no income whatsoever. See the thing is, there are things that aren't taxed until you sell them. These fall under capital gains tax. This can be stocks, bonds, precious metals, real estate, and property. As long as the investment is held, it is not getting taxed. These are taxed differently than your income tax, but they are added together to find the percentage to be taxed.
Regardless, if someone is paying more per dollar, they are paying more than their fair share. The only fair tax would be a flat tax with no deductions, then everyone would be paying their fair share of income tax. In my honest opinion, we should be working towards eliminating income tax entirely.
You see, income tax was a concept for a way to fund a war effort. In 1799 Great Britain implemented income tax to fund fighting the French, led by Napoleon. It was viewed as temporary. The US considered income tax to fund the War of 1812, but the war ended before it happened. Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which had income tax to help fund efforts in the Civil War. Due to problems with the details of income tax law, taxes were not collected until the revision in the Tax Act of 1862. It was amended multiple times until being repealed in 1872. The government was making most of its revenue through taxing imports, exports, and sales. The problem they found was it mostly effected the rich. They came up with a graduated income tax in 1894 and tried to enact it across the country. It was found unconstitutional in 1895 by the supreme court because all federal taxes had to be based on state population. To finally get a permanent income tax, they ratified the 16th amendment to eliminate the need that federal taxes be based on state population.
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
In the same year, the federal government ratified the first permanent income tax law.
It starts as a temporary idea to help pay for a war. It then becomes an idea to make the average American pay their fair share. Now the rich are being told they aren't paying their fair share. There is a lot of history surrounding income tax, and taxes in general. Going through most of it, it is hard to imagine people are not rioting in the streets to repeal all the taxes. The bottom line for me is I think paying any income tax at all is more than your fair share.
Almost everything today gets taxed. You make money, pay a tax. You inherited money that was already taxed, pay a tax. Spend money, pay a tax. Own property, pay a tax. I could go on for quite a while, the point is there is a tax for everything. In most cases we all pay the same amount per dollar. Sounds reasonable, right? Despite this, if you have a larger income then you have to pay more per dollar than other people. That's not right, how is that fair? Well, it's not. So a fair share would be to pay the same amount, right? No, the people talking about paying your fair share means that if you make more money you should be paying even more. How is that a fair share in anyone's mind?
So the way it works is currently is (2019) we have a few "tax brackets" for different income levels. Currently it goes like this for a single person:
The first $9,700 is taxed 10%
From $9,701 to $39,475 is taxed 12%
From $39,476 to $84,200 is taxed 22%
From $84,201 to $160,725 is taxed 24%
From $160,726 to $204,100 is taxed 32%
From $204,101 to $510,300 is taxed 35%
And from $510,301 and up is taxed 37%
The first thing you may notice is that there are some big jumps, one being a 10% difference. So how much is it numerically for each at the top of the bracket. We start with $970, then $3,573, then $9,839, then $18,366, then $13,880, then $107,170 roughly when rounded to the nearest dollar. Added up that is $153,798. This averages to 30% of your income as taxes. this excludes marriage, dependents, and other things that you can deduct. We could go and average each bracket, but the bottom line is it's taking more per dollar from people that make more money. Even though they will pay more per dollar than anyone, people still think it isn't enough to be fair. we haven't even taken into account state income tax and all the other extras that are paid out on top of all of this.
From what I can find, in 2018, 44.4% of Americans actually did not pay any federal income tax, but they still pay out for Social Security and Medicare. That means that we burden 55.6% of wage earning Americans to float a huge portion of our federal budget. Despite this, people say it isn't fair and the rich need to pay more.
Often times to show the numbers, people try to show off the net worth of individuals as though they can take a huge chunk of it. What people fail to realize is that a lot of time it is not money on hand or income, but investments. I can have a million dollars worth of investments without a cent on me and make no income whatsoever. See the thing is, there are things that aren't taxed until you sell them. These fall under capital gains tax. This can be stocks, bonds, precious metals, real estate, and property. As long as the investment is held, it is not getting taxed. These are taxed differently than your income tax, but they are added together to find the percentage to be taxed.
Regardless, if someone is paying more per dollar, they are paying more than their fair share. The only fair tax would be a flat tax with no deductions, then everyone would be paying their fair share of income tax. In my honest opinion, we should be working towards eliminating income tax entirely.
You see, income tax was a concept for a way to fund a war effort. In 1799 Great Britain implemented income tax to fund fighting the French, led by Napoleon. It was viewed as temporary. The US considered income tax to fund the War of 1812, but the war ended before it happened. Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which had income tax to help fund efforts in the Civil War. Due to problems with the details of income tax law, taxes were not collected until the revision in the Tax Act of 1862. It was amended multiple times until being repealed in 1872. The government was making most of its revenue through taxing imports, exports, and sales. The problem they found was it mostly effected the rich. They came up with a graduated income tax in 1894 and tried to enact it across the country. It was found unconstitutional in 1895 by the supreme court because all federal taxes had to be based on state population. To finally get a permanent income tax, they ratified the 16th amendment to eliminate the need that federal taxes be based on state population.
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
In the same year, the federal government ratified the first permanent income tax law.
It starts as a temporary idea to help pay for a war. It then becomes an idea to make the average American pay their fair share. Now the rich are being told they aren't paying their fair share. There is a lot of history surrounding income tax, and taxes in general. Going through most of it, it is hard to imagine people are not rioting in the streets to repeal all the taxes. The bottom line for me is I think paying any income tax at all is more than your fair share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)