Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
It may seem like public transit costs less, but that is because you aren't feeling the direct costs. In all honesty, passenger rail and the major investment that goes in it is more expensive than driving. You just don't feel the costs. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of mass transit. I hate driving and I hate the way city planning happens around the automobile, especially in Arizona. However, it is possible to privately fund mass transit, and I'd bet that privately funded mass transit would get finished faster and run more smoothly.Mar 25, 2011
Yes, Dale, you are correct in thinking that rights come with inherent responsibilities. In fact, that is the very problem with taking away rights, it shifts responsibility. When you live in a state of entitlements and limited liabilities, people make bad decisions because they know that in the end, it is not their responsibility to deal with the consequences of their actions. Now, in a minarchist or anarchist state, everyone is responsible for themselves and they are forced to be more cautious. A lot less people would spend beyond their means, take debt they couldn't pay back, or invest in risky things. If everyone knew that they would have to pay for their own healthcare when they are older, they may take better care of themselves when they are younger. A population that is held responsible for their actions is a population that thinks things through, a logical population. I don't know about you, but that seems more like an improvement.
"Governments have rights to limit the activities of its inhabitants, both those who are citizens and those who are not. And those who inhabit a country have rights, rights endowed by a Creator (or innately) depending upon the constitution and laws unique to that land."
This is completely backwards. Our rights do not come from the constitution. If you take the time to read the Constitution, it is not about granting rights to citizens. It is about limiting the power of the government. In fact, many of the founding fathers disagreed with including the bill of rights, because of the illusion it gave of the government granting rights to the people, rather than the government deriving its power from the consent of the governed. My natural rights cannot be limited by a government. The only reason they are is because the government enforces all of their rules and regulations at the point of a gun.
I am free no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them. If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.Mar 25, 2011
Also, Ronaldo, Thomas Jefferson mentioned separation of church and state in his 1802 Danbury Baptist Letter:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
So, I really doubt he would consider the FFRF as "scoundrels and liars of the worst degree."Mar 17, 2011
The Bill of Rights applies to citizens, not to governments. The government does not have the right to free speech. I fully support FFRF and Marc Victor.Mar 17, 2011
You are right. Why should the get citizenship just because they are born here? Why should anyone get citizenship just because they are born here?
Social contract theory dictates that anyone born within the limits of a territory are subject to the laws of that territory. Somehow, governments consider being born in a place giving your consent to be governed. Roderick Long best described the inherent flaws in this logic when he wrote: "I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they're trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I've got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don't know, but here I am in my property and they don't own it – at least they haven't given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it"
Furthermore, restricting the movement of people hurts markets. Period. Immigrants are good for the economy. There is no reason that we should be restricting a willing work force from coming in. History has proven that open immigration increases economic activity. People who argue for protectionists policies should look at the case study of North Korea versus South Korea. North Korea does not allow for immigration and has strict policies. South Korea is the opposite. Which one is fast becoming a global economic power?
Lastly, in response to Leon, the fact that Congressman Flake actually realizes the economic benefits of immigration and how unrealistic immigration laws are show that he is a REAL FISCAL CONSERVATIVE. A R.I.N.O. is someone who claims to be conservative but then spends billions of dollars on stupid policies that don't work because they want to appeal to their "Conservative" (Read: Xenophobic) voter base.
Mar 11, 2011
Where could minors buy e-cigarettes in the first place? This is just another one of those pointless "save the kids" bills that get old people are riled up and primed for another bill. My guess is that they will try to ban e-cigarettes indoors, even though there is absolutely no second hand smoke. Mar 8, 2011
You are all missing the point. She is not making an argument for or against environmental regulations. Instead, she is saying that it would be better if we, the citizens of Arizona, had a say. We have no control over who writes EPA regulations. We have no control or say in who gets to be in the EPA. If we kicked the EPA out and made our environmental regulations through the legislature, then the people of Arizona could elect people who wanted similar regulations. And if you want to complain that legislators are bad, well that's your fault! You elected them!
Mar 7, 2011
I would really like to know what the "facts" are that Mr. Patterson ignored. He had a lot of quantifiable points, whereas you called a series of rhetorical questions, "facts."
But, to answer you "facts," questions... whatever the hell they are:
What is the alternative without unions, pensions and entitlement?
Without public unions and the pressure of collective bargaining, teachers, police officers, and other government employees would be compensated fairly. Good teachers can be paid more. Bad police officers could be fired more easily. Plus, there would be no public worker bullies rallying support for politicians who promise them the most goodies. Without pensions, the public sector would have to do what nearly the entirety of the public sector does: save. Pensions are near extinct in the private sector, why should the public sector be any different? The alternative to entitlement is a population of people who are responsible for their own well-being, and health care costs that aren't artificially inflated.
Where would we be today?
We would be climbing out of recession much faster.
Where will you be tomorrow?
On the same path towards a bright and successful future, albeit with more money in the bank from lower taxes.
I saw the alternative in 1935 when the National Guard took over steel mills, people were living in boxes and hungry, the elderly warehoused in the County Home.
Yes. Obviously, that was about the National Guard and steel mills, not the fact that it was THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
It is time to question those who wish to change this country. Could it be they want more profit?
Who would profit from getting rid of public unions? I'll tell you. YOU will and I will. And in the end, public workers who do a good job will.Mar 7, 2011