Let’s Analyze Neil Gorsuch, the current Supreme Court Pick.
Recently, there has been commentary on supreme court pick Neil Gorsuch about voluntary euthanasia. However, one must not jump to conclusions simply because he is strongly against allowing it. Perhaps that is one bad trait in a legion of bad traits aside a legion of good traits. Frankly, there is no better time than this particular week to debate and discuss the nominee. Whenever I review something or in this case someone, my order is talk bad traits first, then good traits, then final verdict. I am going to use this page and others to prove his views and I am going to use other pages to justify my opposition to some and support of others. I will add a 1 to his score for positives, a 0 for unknowns and a 0 for negatives.
The Unknown Traits
This nominee’s immigration opinion is not well known outside of his brain. But, what I do know is we need Ellis Island model border control and no other border controls.
We so far know absolutely nothing about his foreign policy and national defense views. Maybe this may not be all that relevant?
The Bad Traits
He does not seem to recognize a line at Viability outside the womb. Instead he appears to aspire to sign his opinion on abortion legality into law.
Gorsuch has not been clear about the moral necessity of Marriage Privatization. Instead he claims to be no fan of ‘litigation’, whatever he means by that.
The Good Traits
He Opposes tax dollar funding of Planned Parenthood. My hope is that by this he means he wants to totally privatize it, but I suspect to be wrong.
Gorsuch desires a textualist application of Amendment 2. Now he needs to pledge to the same for Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26.
He favors legalizing medical weed, but only so far as he wants the medical weed issue decided state by state.
Gorsuch is strongly in favor of term limits for Congress, and for all politicians as well. Meaning to me he favors ending corruption and maybe wants to end corporatism.
From what can be seen here, the nominee also opposes economic regulation and social criminalization alike. This is lovely news for libertarians of all 10 kinds!
Gorsuch is also extremely against setting limits to Due Process and to the Presumption of Innocence.
On gay rights and gender equality, Gorsuch seems to support these from within the 14th amendment, i.e. equal treatment under the law.
I impose, onto nominee Gorsuch, a grade of 64%, which in my way of reviewing means I am generally Mixed about the guy. My grading style is based on the Metacritic grading line.
Snowflake think (like an SJW) in most libertarians? Call it Non-Interventionism.
Snowflake. This is not a normal article for a solidly libertarian journalism hub! But this topic about snowflake think is something I wanted to get out there on this hub of mine as soon as can be. Frankly, I am doing this piece in reply to this case against Trump’s not needed travel ban. However, I must do a brief, actually no, colorful disclaimer before I dig into this snowflake issue.
I am still a ‘card carrying’ Libertarian the same sense that Dave Rubin, who I greatly respect, is still a ‘card carrying’ liberal. Please, allow me to give examples.
Proudly, I support free markets, free trade, and rules of supply and demand under free enterprise.
Happily, I support the US constitution, the rule of law, and the concept of indirect democracy.
Gleefully, I support freedom of choice in food, in clothing, and all-around in lifestyle
Boastfully, I support privatizing marriage, charity, and social security
Lovingly, I support both gay rights and gun rights, while opposing both political correctness and patriotic correctness.
Equally, I support both free banking and the gold standard.
Radically, I back ideas like replacing all taxation with Non-tax Revenue. And also replacing all regulation with the golden rule.
Okay, now I am going to assume all the Non-interventionist snowflake pacifists and America-haters are gone. And give a number of reasons for my opinion on the Principle of Non-intervention. This is a principle that…
1. Openly hates every US soldier.
Grossly, the ‘principle’ of Non-intervention trains my party of individualists to do a kind of collectivism. Namely, an angry, emotional snowflake brand of group think that is about blanket hate to all US troops. Thankfully, fellow LP voter and comedian Doug Stanhope avoids this group think. Basically, Doug acts a true libertarian by judging US soldiers on an individual basis. And as an American who votes Libertarian, I judge US soldiers on an individual basis too! Sadly, though, most libertarians engage in this blanket hate of all US troops. Snowflake virtue who agrees with VenomLeaks aka WikiLeaks on everything.
2. Treats the American people as the giant evil of Earth.
Of course, Non-intervention tends to invoke an SJW snowflake element. Take Blowback toxin as I call it and its fetish for victim blaming on innocent Americans. In short, the bold and bare faced lie that Islamic Totalitarians attacked We The People because we voted for cultural imperialist rulers. Blowback is a cancer on the libertarian movement and Libertarian Party. Frankly, that’s because it trains us to think anyone who disagrees with cultural relativism is an evil person. However, truth is that cultural relativism is trashy and can be debunked by numbers, even numbers from CatoInstitute.
3. Erodes a free society’s right of self-defense.
Frankly, a free society is nothing like a Dictatorship mentally. Dictatorships are cesspits that openlyattack libertarian values and therefore have no rights. Yet, here comes Non-intervention to get libertarians thinking a tyranny has ‘rights’ to sovereignty. On top of this, Non-intervention claims that a free society should cooperate with a tyranny and be friends with it. True libertarians will see this as the most immoral standard of diplomacy ever. Lastly, Non-intervention demands a free society to avoid defending innocent life and to instead obsess over only defending one’s property.
4. Obsesses over soft crimes by free societies. While censoring facts about hard crimes by tyrannies.
Largely, there is a legion of examples of Non-intervention loving to teach hatred of free societies. And also loving to teach sympathy for blatant tyrannies. The very first one I am eager to name is the venom that Non-intervention spews into libertarian minds about Israel vs Arab League. Because frankly, how do you sympathize with a proxy army? That’s all Palestinians are is a proxy army, there’s no such thing as “they’re hurting Palestinian civilians”! As in a proxy army that Saudi Arabia owns half of with Iran as master of the other half of. Then there is Saddam Hussein. While censoring facts about his liberty abuses because Non-intervention told them to, ‘libertarians’ fetishize some drastically less hurtful abuses by some corrupt US military individuals that were harshly punished. Also because Non-intervention told them to.
Look, I can go on forever against Non-intervention and how it is snowflake think but there are much gander things for me to comment on!
Revenue cannot be raised by taxation, at least not anymore.
After getting out of my work load of today, I browsed around for some news reports to reply to. Luckily, I was able to find this one about 3 different ways a poor dude like me can reduce one’s own taxes. Yeah, I have a dose of reality for Forbes about to occur. Raising revenue by taxation is to raise it by theft, which is a property crime. However, there are legit arguments to make about taxation being extortion instead of theft. Unless you factor in the IRS and how sometimes they arrest folks for ‘tax evasion’, then taxation is extortion. If we look at private markets, then we note that they’re only allowed to raise revenue by voluntary payments. Time to explain 12 ways to build government finances in a neolibertarian society.
Before We Begin; what’s a ‘neolibertarian’?
In essence, a neolibertarian like me is a fiscal libertarian who supports a strong military capability. But it also means I support using that military to passionately defend and promote laissez faire capitalism. It is quite a contrast to mainstream libertarian opinion. Frankly, that’s because (I’d say) about 3/5 of the Libertarian Party & movement are what I call Anti-Defense. Plus the reasons they give appear to be all about denying painful realities. Therefore, neolibertarianism is what drove me to start this analysis hub.
Gamblers! Ever wonder what those lotteries you always go to are, almost entirely? Yeah, those are basically non-tax revenue tools of Connecticut and other State level regimes. Please, allow me to use my own state’s lottery as an example. Connecticut, as my state, uses the ‘CT Lottery’ to fund services I see right in my town. These include Cheshire Public Library, Cheshire Public Schools, other Cheshire public services and other CT towns’ equivalents too!
You know how sometimes you’ll drive around in the summer and you’ll see people offering car wash service? And how most of the time it is to raise money for a certain humane cause? Lovably, that makes fundraisers the best way ever to attract voluntary donations! Meaning… gleefully paid tributary dollars to the government.
3. User Fees
Question! Are you, reader(s), planning on traveling interstate for any reason? If so, then get ready to pay toll booths as those are user fees. Basically, user fees are also prices charged by the government for things like airports.
4. Permit Fees
Ethically, charging money for passports and for work visas makes far more sense then laying and collecting taxes. This is moral revenue as it stems from people wanting to do all it takes to travel into foreign lands. Not to mention, there is a consistent reliability with Work Visas as they need to be renewed every so often.
5. Criminal Fines
On one hand, the only crimes that do, or should, count as crimes are ones that constitute fraud, force or theft. However, that does not mean government shouldn’t fine perps very expensively for such crimes. Instead fining perps callously high prices for fraud, force or theft is actually a human rights-enforcing way to raise revenue!
6. Royalty Deals
I’m an aspiring novelist, with Medieval-like Dark Fantasy being my chosen genre. Therefore I’d love to make a deal with the US military where I agree to give them 12% royalties from my mythology’s revenue if they agree to have their employers, the feds, not tax me! And that’s a personalized example of how government can do good off of royalties.
7. Concession Deals
PEOPLE! Ever wonder what kind of revenue water supply is for government? Specifically, it is a type of a ‘concession’ deal. Therefore it is a deal wherein the government grants assets or other property to one or more specific individuals. However, the granting of concessions does not happen all that often outside of the European Union, as far as this neolibertarian (me) can tell.
8. Rental Deals
Honestly I am aspiring to begin college by the first day of 2017’s Autumn season. Which is why I do not believe in using taxation to pay for public education. Rather, I see public education as something to be funded by rental deals. However, there is the question of who the government ought to make rental deals with. If it were up to me, I’d say they have to make rental deals with the parents, and at college level with the students.
9. Asset Sales
But wait! What is an asset in economics? Okay, an asset is basically a resource that can be sold for revenue and in this case a government can raise it by selling various assets. However, I do need to give an example of an asset! Let’s say civil servants were selling raw lumber, of all assets. Likely, they’d be selling plenty of legit supply of a raw material to make plenty of valid revenue.
Basically endowments are donations of any property, monetary or otherwise, to a nonprofit to sustain it. For example, if I had flawless emeralds I wanted to donate to the US military for free, they’d be able to sell it to someone who’s into emeralds to raise revenue!
11. State Owned Enterprises
Okay, if the private sector has to play by the rules of supply and demand paired with the golden rule, government should have to as well. Which is why my advise for Connecticut’s next governor is this. Open a state owned enterprise to fund CT state universities and such instead of taxing anything! I say the same to the feds and the other 49 states, too.
12. War Reparations
Perhaps the most relevant way to a military to fund that military, and fund vets, without taxation. In this sense, war reparations are compensation funds paid by a defeated tyranny to a neolibertarian society. Basically, these funds are to pay for damages done by the tyranny to the neolibertarian society. Both monetary and human damages, that is.
Attorney General fired over a question relevant to the US Constitution.
So Donald Trump has recently fired the Attorney General for asking a question of whether his refugee ban is constitutional. However, this attorney general’s side of the story are not without error. Frankly, it’s because she acted on a question without bothering to search the constitution for an answer. This article first gives the answer to the unanswered. Then I’ll dig into whether or not executive orders can ever be justified. And then I will allow you to think over this news analysis in your own line of thinking.
Constitutionality of Executive Orders.
So far as I am concerned, you are free to download a PDF of the Constitution here. Knowing I use a MacBook pro, I actually did ‘Command + F’ and typed ‘executive order’. The results I got looked like this.
What does that even mean? Honestly, it means that executive orders are always crimes as in they’re power abuses. Does this mean Obama and previous presidents have done crimes too, by this reckon? Yes.
There is an easily useful table graph on Forbes about how abusive various Industrial and Digital Age presidents have been. Barack Obama has issued 37 executive orders in 8 years, Bush Jr. issued roughly as many at 36. The biggest constitution abuser in US history was Harry Truman, of all presidents! Truman issued over 113 executive orders in his 8 years.
Can Executive Orders be justified?
Well, allow me to ask you this. If James Madison, author of our constitution, were here today, would he support executive orders? No, he would not.
Instead the only justifiable refugee control policy is, at least on a migration level, is to let Congress make one. Legally, congress is allowed to make one by debating first and then voting Yes or No from their individual points of view. Then they send the idea that gets the most Yes votes to Trump. Next, Trump is supposed to either sign or veto the refugee policy.
The question of ethical and moral migrant policy
Which, if turned to me, my answer would be one with a historic case to make for it. Luckily, this case is well within US history, making it easier to argue for than, say, free banking. Personally, as an atheist, I assure you my Irish Catholic migrant ancestors came here through Ellis Island. And they has to pass the toughest criminal and medical background checks in US history, and when they did they were free to formally apply for citizenship but were not granted amnesty. And they were most thankfully not kept out by a stupidly expensive thing like a wall. In fact, some time ago, I called on a fellow Libertarian Partier (I recently joined my CT state level party) Andrew Napolitano to rule this Ellis Island policy as the only moral, legal, & constitutional border control.
Amazingly, Donald Trump has been doing exactly what he pledged to do, for this time he has reduced regulation to 25% of its former self! Initially, the Donald has decided he wants to remove two old regulations for every new one added. So what exactly makes this decision by President Trump one of his good decisions? And has he pulled off this heroic outcome by rule of law based means? Or should he have done it differently? Time to dig in!
What Makes This Action Heroic?
Basically, there has been study after study done on this topic. Reason Magazine finds that larger regulatory burden means less prosperity for all. Shockingly, small business suffer worse than big corporations do, which is why Trump is singling out small business for loss of regulations. Nearly $11,000 per worker is paid by small business for annual compliance cost. Bombastically this is in contrast to the $8,000 per worker paid by big corporations in annual compliance cost. As for the ordinary workers like myself, regulation costs the average dude or chick 23% of one’s income. For me, this means I have to fork over $2415 annually, no wonder my net pay is smaller than I often predict it will be week by week!
Should Trump have addressed regulation differently?
According to the US Constitution, he absolutely should have cut regulation differently than he did. Specifically, Article 1 Section 7 declares an official legislative process for the president to follow. Easily, one can summarize the constitutional way to address regulation like this.
Senator or Houseman proposes bill to amend the constitution to make the rules of supply and demand the only regulations of economy
Majority of Senators and of Housemen vote Yes on such a 28th Amendment bill
Unconditional Economic Freedom amendment bill goes to White House
President Trump signs the voted-for bill to amend the constitution to ban economic regulation
Merchants and workers like me proser better than ever before in US history
Bill Gates gave a speech indicating he might be… a Green capitalist?
The multi billionaire behind Microsoft, Xbox 360 and Windows 7; Bill Gates; has recently discussed climate change at a college. The deeply charitable human has made remarks against climate change denial that sound a little, at least to me, like Green Capitalism. But what exactly is green capitalism? Frankly, it is a point of view whose official name is Eco-Capitalism, but what does it say? Okay, Eco-Capitalism is a free market claim that profit depends ecological stability to exist. Also, this claim asserts that the only regime tools that can help the environment are market tools.
Giving Examples of such Market Tools
Easily the best example to give of these tools is Cap and Trade. Basically cap and trade is a policy of imposing a carbon emissions allowance that includes a right to do ’emissions trading’. The whole intention is to provide incentives to voluntarily move on to green energies. Bill Gates though notes that computer science and biology these days could lead to “profound innovation”, despite making no mention of government involvement.
What do I make of all of this?
Honestly, I agree with Gates on this issue of acting market based pushes to cleaning the atmosphere. But on the other hand, I do not know if he is exactly a ‘green capitalist’ per se. Not to mention, my proposal about sensible energy policy differs from green capitalism itself.
Something I would rather our nearly perfect nation do is a sort of multi step process. For starters, I’d rather we get rid of all subsidies and create a total Separation of Economy and State. Next, I’d like to see the Environmental Protection Agency made so small that all they can ever do is class pollution and littering as property crimes. Why am I such a minimalist on desirable government power? Because, in total honesty, the only categories that behaviors worth punishing fall into is Fraud, Forceful Crime & Property Crime.
New York State judge upholds the need for Ellis Island immigrant law against Exec orders!
American District Court Judge Ann Donnelly has taken action to block Donald Trump’s orders, defending freedom of movement! So the president is not allowed to bar foreigners within our borders from becoming Americans. Also, only Congress can make border laws, and even then only with naturalization as goal. Which is why from 1890’s to 1950’s Ellis Island had the best border law America’s ever had. Back then, newcomers needed a disease check and a security check and then were free to formally apply for citizenship themselves. Plus amnesty was never granted back then and border walls were never built, and neither of these are needed now. So then, should Andrew Napolitano lead our path to recycling Ellis Island border law? However, who is Andrew Napolitano anyway?
For those not knowing who he is…
Please let me explain; Judge Andrew Napolitano is a senior Judicial Analyst for Reason Magazine. But also, he was a former judicial branch ruler on the federal level. Mentally, he is a Libertarian like my good self. However, unlike most libertarians, he tends to be on the Pro-Defense side of US military debates. Plus, this is a judge who makes solid cases, in this topic, for an easy path to citizenship that excludes amnesty.
Okay, this part’s for Judge Nap himself!
Dear Judge Andrew Napolitano;
I wish to show you the historic success of Ellis Island law on immigration. According to this neat video, Ellis Island had 6 decades of safely processing newcomers to America! And it was not just European migrants like my own ethnically Irish fellow Perkins people of the time. Take World War One times for example. Armenians, Greeks, Syrians and even Turks were fleeing from Islamic Statist tyranny and genocide. Specifically, The Ottoman Caliphate’s Sunni Islamic Statism, was incentivizing a genocide.
But there were those failing security tests and those were banned from our nation. Therefore, it is easy to see that Ellis Island policy is not naive about security issues. Actually, I am calling upon you, Judge Napolitano, to use the first chance you get to rule about this Ellis Island border law. Please, use that chance to rule the Ellis Island immigration policy from 1890s to 1950s as the only constitutional immigration policy.
And yes, the above notes on Ellis Island migrant policy is my message to all of America as well.
The 20% Tariff Trump wants will slay American economic freedom!
Well! It actually happened, the Donald has actually come up with the fiscally worst idea ever for building his much Unneeded border wall. Specifically, he wants to force a 20% tariff on trade with Mexico. On part of him and all of his fan base there is a giant lack of knowledge of trade. Also, there is a giant lack of knowledge of economics in general. In order to analyze this news objectively, I need to break down a few things. Firstly the trade between us and Mexico, and secondly the ease of starting business here versus there. Next, I will have to carefully explain how tariffs inherently do nothing but destroy job creating potential. Finally, I will have to propose a proper trade policy for America to preach and practice.
Monetary Benefit of Trade
Amazingly, the Census bureau, of all clubs, records data on US trade overseas, including with Mexico. And every time we import from them, they create jobs for Mexicans. Meanwhile, every time they import from us, we create jobs for Americans.
For example, just last year, we earned $212 billion exporting to them while they earned $271 exporting from us.
Ease of Creating Jobs here vs there
In the United States, starting a business means 6 procedures that take 4 days and in total cost $750. However, in Mexico, starting a business means 8 procedures that take 8.5 days and once finished cost $1855.
Going back to the Census data above, this means trade with Mexico opened potential for nearly 283 million American businesses. Ah, but this also opened potential last year for 146 million Mexican businesses! Who benefitted more from Mexican-American trade and why? We did because more economic liberty! And if a business starts off with 15 people normally, that means 4.25 billion American jobs. But, it also means 2 billion Mexican jobs.
How tariff is a synonym for cancer
Just as income tax reduces incentive to be locally useful, so too does the tariff reduce incentive to be globally useful. Simply, I will use Trump’s 20% tariff idea as my example in these equations.
If this 20% tariff toxin passes then in 2017 we will have much fewer new jobs than in 2016. America for one will have 750 million fewer new jobs than in 2017. Meanwhile, Mexico will have 400 million fewer new jobs than last year. So who will suffer more monetarily from this tariff idea: the US or the US?
What is healthy US trade policy?
A grand intellectual influence of mine, Yaron Brook, summed it up masterfully on Twitter one time. He said ‘free trade is not making deals. Free trade is unilaterally lowering foreign governments’ tariffs, regulations and migration limits to absolute zero’. Even though these are in no way his exact words, I cannot possibly disagree with Brook on this!
And that is what I want to see be the first pillar of four in US foreign policy, and in a better world Austin Petersen would be POTUS and he’d be making that Pillar #1 of an aptly named “Petersen Doctrine”.
Donald Trump thinks a month of review is needed to slam Islamic Totalitarianism. What?
Just when a good many people, myself included, thought we were living under someone who vowed to take a Nothing Less Than Victory approach to crushing Jihad. Trump has decided that doing his job right begins with doing something Ayn Rand Institute has been doing for 15 years. That is, to review how to defeat Islamic Totalitarianism, the ideology behind ISIS. However, I must prop up something to say before I go into this topic. Just because I am about to carefully explain why this is not a needed step to victory? No, that does not make me a shill for Hillary. Rather, that means I backed three different people against the Donald, my fave of them being Austin Petersen.
There’s been another review of strategy roughly every week.
The smart people of Ayn Rand Institute are not the only people who’ve pressed about strategy. However, they have pressed for the smartest military strategy in academia. They very carefully highlight what military strategies have worked for the United States against past enemies. And of course here I am doing my own review of this latest in military news.
Answers to questions in military strategy
“What is the ideology of ISIS?” As I will keep on saying again and again, the ideology of ISIS is one called Islamic Statism. However, official terms for their ideology are terms like Islamic Nationalism and Islamic Totalitarianism. And this is one of wanting to force all humans to live under global theocracy. “Does ISIS have any State Sponsors of them?” Predictably, yes it does! Almost all State Sponsoring of ISIS comes from Saudi Arabia, quite naturally. Sadly, we have been ignoring this fact for quite the longest time. Good news is we have not been ignoring other state sponsors of Islamic Statism. We have turned no such blind eye to Al-Qaeda sponsoring by Afghanistan in 2001. Nor have we ignored Saddam Hussein’s sponsoring of Islamic Statist militias in 2003.
Review has already been done.
And so it is time to move past review and put together a plan for totally ad utterly stamping ISIS into nothing. So as to close, I will not give any specifics, but I will advise the US military the following. They need to totally destroy all Legit Military Targets under ISIS control while including any and all government service workers, buildings and items as LMTs. How to go about that and the fine details should remain a secret kept between US troops.
Donald Trump’s executive order to ban Syrian refugees will create second thoughts in them.
Sadly, we are only a few days into Trump’s rule and already he is using tactics that may lead to defeat. What happened is he signed an executive order banning Syrian refugees from entering our country. The Donald is barring refugees because he thinks doing so will lead us to victory. However, this misses quite a few points about crushing a dire threat like ISIS in short order.
Who is ISIS?
The very first step to defeating an enemy is learning all one can about the enemy. Frankly, there is plenty to learn about ISIS and their motives. Basically, ISIS is a militia that is posing as a nation state. They are one of many groups who are in a theocratic wave, which I call Islamic Statism. Islamic Statists are muslims who wish to force all humans to abide by Sharia, and to kill anyone who rejects it. Elan Journo was asked on a podcast one time about how to know the Islamic Statist mindset. Generally, this means that most of the muslim refugees want to flee Islamic Statism. And so do all of the non-muslim refugees who are fleeing from Syria.
Why are the refugees fleeing to us?
Normally, foreign people flee to the United States to start better lives and to heal the wounds done to them by one Statism or another. Broadly speaking this is where the title ‘Land of Opportunity‘ dawns from. However, there is a big minority, maybe 20%, of refugees who come to force their kind of Statism onto us. Which is why we need to readopt the Ellis Island border law of the 1890’s to 1910’s, and apply it to all United States borders. Historically, this Ellis Island law was pass both a tough medical test and a tough criminal test then one’s a citizen. This Ellis Island law has been the best border control policy in US history. This is due to it being the most helpful to America concerning foreign refugees.
What’s the title about?
Many of the refugees escaping Islamic Statism I am sure would love to be able to get rid of it. Yes, even the muslim Syrian refugees, and especially the Non-religious refugees. Recruiting escapees from a tyranny to the cause of destroying that tyranny worked for us before. This was in the American Civil War, when many called to grow the pool of military volunteers to include blacks. Back then, putting black refugees in the US military was to tear down the Statism blacks were escaping from. And having blacks in the US military back then gave them an outlet to avenge their loved ones. The result of this and other factors was they got to take part in trashing the very same Statism they were once fleeing from. So what reality based incentive is there to forbid Syrian escapees from destroying that Islamic Statism they want nothing to do with?