Obama's Title of Nobelity

President Obama's recent acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize is an affront to the United States Constitution. Yes, I know that two prior sitting presidents have received the award. I don't excuse them either. But in this case, since the award is intended to influence our President's future actions, it constitutes direct foreign meddling on the office of the President. Roosevelt and Wilson were still free to place American interests above those of the Nobel committee because their awards were for specific past accomplishments.

The spirit of the Constitution's emolument clause is to prevent undue foreign influence:

Article I Section 9.8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

The Nobel Peace Prize is a title. The money is an emolument. And the Nobel committee, though not a foreign state, is a foreign entity. (Some argue that since the committee is elected by the Norwegian Parliament, it is an extension of a foreign state) . It is good that President Obama intends to donate the money to charity. But he is retaining the title and intends to let it guide his future actions. This clearly go against the principles of republican government.

Federalist Papers 2,3,4,5, and 22 all warn of the dangers of foreign influence. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. ...

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

I understand that the President has tried to make the best of a difficult situation. Part of me believes that he would have rather this never happened. But why didn't he consult the constitution before quickly accepting the prize? He was sworn to protect that document. Whether he is conscious of it or not, he now has another set of puppet strings.

P.S.
A movie was made in 2006 which also considers Nobel winners to be "nobility".
Here is another good writer on the subject.

Oaks on Religious Freedom

Elder Dallin Oaks speaks out on religious freedom.

Religious Freedom at Risk

Right to Health Care: When Freedom is Slavery by Another Name

Health Care a Right?
"Health care should be a right", says Representative John Dingle. I've heard this same impassioned comment from dozens of others. The language of rights is powerful in American history, so the assertion has a compelling feel to it. Isn't the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" our most sacred principle of freedom? Without good medicine your life and happiness are in great jeopardy. So obviously,the logic goes, health care should be guaranteed to all freedom loving citizens. In fact, we should also be free from want and...and from fear itself! But not so fast...

Let me show you the sleight of hand. It's quite simple. The triumvirate of rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) refers to what in Natural Law is known as inalienable rights. These are rights that, in the rawest state of nature (say if you were alone on a tropical island) you would be guaranteed to have. These are God-given innate qualities of the human condition. They exist without a social contract. We are designed to assert these rights even as Nature challenges them with hunger, disease, and the elements.

Then comes society. With society comes the ability to exchange rights with others. These are "vested" rights. Vested rights occur as the result of exercising inalienable rights. You can use your free will to voluntarily trade your right to property for a right to someone else's property. The key word is voluntary. Successful societies have learned how to create law which promotes the inalienable rights of everyone. Because everyone has different talents, true protections of inalienable rights will always lead to unequal outcomes.

The concept of a right to health care descends directly from the notion of "freedom from want". Franklin Roosevelt first articulated this progressive ideal in his "Four Freedom's Speech". This "freedom" refers to the guarantee of receiving goods and services. In the rawest state of nature, goods and services don't exist. They are created through the application of labor. Nature bestows no absolute right to the fruit of of someone else's labor except through brute force. It is one thing for you to say "I have a right to pick that apple" and quite another to say "I have the right to force you to pick that apple for me". Having the "freedom" to take the produce of another used to be called plunder and slavery.

Photo of Benkos Bioho by who is that with rachel

The guy who says that health care should be a right is saying "I have a right to force people to serve me". 16% of U.S. GDP is devoted to creating the good s and services of medical care. It represents millions of people working hard each day. Should we have a right to their labor (or the labor of the tax payers funding them) for little or no cost? The real kicker is this: that mentality is equivalent to the thinking of southern slave owners two hundred years ago. The slave had no rights to the fruit of his own labor. They belonged to somebody else. He was compelled to provide goods and services to somebody else at no cost. In addition, the slave could not live his life freely. His owners told him how to live his life (being healthy was definitely a requirement). Current health care proposals in Washington contain both these aspects of slavery.

Elements of coercion, to some extent are necessary evils of any society. We have had a military draft. We have had eminent domain seizures. We have had quarantines. But aren't these the exceptions to the rule? The principles of freedom require that we always try to minimize such coercion.

A note about taxes. Taxation is an example of a necessary evil. You can never get unanimous consent from all citizens about whether to be taxed and by how much and for what purpose. Since this subject deserved a full exploration, I wrote about it at length here: Freedom Based Taxation. In short, we can balance the freedom of collective action with that of individual action. The evils of taxation can be minimized by observing the locality principle and by ensuring that the benefits are shared equally by all.

Partial Slavery
I probably won't have many people argue with my view that outright human bondage is a bad idea. I think most would agree that we'd rather suffer a reduced quality of life than live directly on slave labor. Examine the condition of a slave. Would it make it better if we gave the slave Saturday off? On Saturday he can keep all his earnings and do as he pleases. Does that make it better? Okay, let's give him 3 days off. Now he's 42% free. Probably not good enough, so how about he only has to work for his master one day of the week and we'll let him pick which day. Now he's a fractional slave only 14% of the time. Lastly, let's let the slave be free to leave the plantation entirely but he must remit 14% off his earnings back to his master. Are we good now? I think it is obvious that nothing short of 100% free will do, don't you agree? But today, some taxpayers are fractional slaves to others. 4 in 10 tax filers pay no federal income tax at all and the top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. Clearly, an unduly large class of Americans receive benefits paid for by others without their consent.

"Freedom from want" entails large scale widespread coercion. No people in history has ever enjoyed freedom from want. It is part of Nature's Law. "Want" is what drives people to action. The current drive to nationalize health care is just one more attempt so solve social problems at the expense of individual freedom. It cannot but increase the level of fractional slavery we already have.

Take a look at some of the popular arguments for slavery and compare them to arguments for nationalized health care. In each case the speaker illustrates a supposed tangible benefit. Does material comfort trump principle?

Argument Type	Slavery	Nationalized Health Care
Because others do it	John Calhoun: "There has never yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not live on the labor of the other"	Paul Krugman: "...every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. "
Paternalism	Calhoun: "look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor house."	Barrack Obama: "I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need"
Stability	Calhoun: "I venture nothing in predicting that the experience of the next generation will fully test how vastly more favorable our condition of society is to that of other sections for free and stable institutions"	Obama: "Now, that's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan -- more security and more stability."
Economic	Chancellor Harper: "And what would be the effect of putting an end to the cultivation of these staples [cotton and rice], and thus annihilating, at a blow, two-thirds or three-fourths of our foreign commerce? Can any sane mind contemplate such a result without terror?"	Max Baucus: "We need to pass very strong, comprehensive healthcare reform this year...Otherwise American families are gonna pay half of their family income on health care premiums"

It is ironic that the practice of partial slavery is more advanced today in what are known as "the blue states". These states were once the liberators who sacrificed life and limb to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. Progressives in these states still see themselves as liberators. These political cartoons were published during the 2004 election in an attempt to link southern conservatives with slavery. Oh the irony:

(Click on image)

Also see this one

Freedom Based Taxation

Taxes are 100% constitutional and fully consistent with the principles of a freedom loving people. However, taxes become a form of slavery when they systematically and purposefully redistribute wealth. Wealth is simply the product of someone's labor. Whether the laborer is Bill Gates, or a cotton picker in the 1800's, when the fruit of the laborer is given to another without consent it is coerced servitude. The principle of freedom in taxation is that the benefits of the taxes must be general and fall evenly upon all citizens. This implies that taxes should be as local as possible. It also means that private alternatives should always take precedence over public programs. The fire department is a good example of the locality principle. Research at the National Institute of Health Sciences is a good example of the general utility principle as it produces knowledge that is available to everyone. I'd even say NASA is of general benefit even if you aren't a space buff. Federal highways are OK too.

However, here is where we depart from the principles of freedom in taxation: 1. overly progressive taxes, especially "negative" taxation, and 2. general fund expenditures on individuals and special interests. When the government reduces the level of tax to zero (or below zero) for a class of people, they are reaping the rewards paid for by another class of people. I'm not arguing for a capitation tax, nor even necessarily a flat tax. I'm just saying that the lowest income tax level should not be zero! And the highest should not be confiscatory! Today, because of so many tax deductions and credits, 4 in 10 Americans pay no federal income tax! How well does that bode for freedom when 40% of Americans have no incentive as voters to control federal spending?

Second, whenever the government writes a check to an individual so they can receive a benefit that is unique to them, unfair wealth redistribution occurs. Welfare payments out of the general fund to select groups of people based on things such as health status or income level are unequal expenditures which benefit a few at the expense of others.

In the U.S. we have at least tried to pay lip service to freedom principles in our welfare state. Social Security was envisioned as a separate fund dedicated to one purpose. It was to be self-funded and it would theoretically (except for the lucky first cohort) pay out about as much as you paid in. Thus, it wasn't supposed to be redistributive. It was a mandatory savings program. Medicare was to be the same. Of course they are both ponzi schemes and we all know it. Today, both of these programs simply represent a massive generational transfer of wealth. Current workers are slaves to current retirees and will not receive back what they paid in.

But what if taxpayers voluntarily vote to extend benefits to select groups? Well, up until the early 1900's, it was understood that payoffs to special interests, even if charitable were unconstitutional. See these examples. We are now flouting the constitution with programs like Medicaid and CHIP. But still, if taxpayers approve of it, isn't that their freedom based prerogative? No, inalienable rights* should not be voted away and the Supreme Court should not allow it. The fact that it has been allowed shows how far we've strayed from the principles of freedom. Additionally, you will never get unanimity among tax payers, so somebody is going to be forced to pay for something that they don't benefit from.

^{*The right to property is an inalienable right. Before Jefferson, the three liberties were "life, liberty, and property".}

I agree that there is a gray area. The welfare state proponent will no doubt say things like:

1. The benefit is general because program X reduces crime, for example, and lowers costs to you in other ways.
   
2. You might need government charity someday too. Consider it insurance of which you are a beneficiary.
3. What about that fire department you mentioned? Not everyone will have a fire. So it's like insurance. Why can't we have health insurance for all too?
   

These arguments have a valid point, but one that has a built-in answer in the American system of government. The answer is local rule. The smaller the unit of collective action, the more likely it is that the beneficiaries of the activity will be have the same needs and interests. Taxation will always be an imperfect vehicle for equitably representing the desires of the the tax payer. The best we can do is to ensure that the taxpayer's contributions travel the shortest distance away from her as possible so that she can see it's effects and have a greater say in remediation of any improprieties.

The fire department, again, is a great example. Different places in the country have different approaches to fire fighting. Some areas rely only on volunteers. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Ever since charity went Federal, we've noticed many more abuses of it. Who is a greater steward of charitable benefits, the man who receives a check from 2,000 miles away or the man who sees his benefactors as neighbors? Keep it local! And when possible, keep it private!

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. "
--James Madison

Taxation will always be messy and imperfect. But this does not give us license to view the "rich" as an ATM and for the "poor" not to contribute. And on the spending side, if there is a risk that a program will only benefit a select group, it needs to be rethought or pushed down to a more local group (state, county, or city) or to the private sector.