After reading the Wikipedia article on the subject, which doesn’t really give a definition of what un-American should mean, I figured I might try to think about it myself.  What defines being American?  Since it only really concerns the government at the present time, it should be fairly easy to define.

American

We are free from enslavement by the government, and each other (well, unless we screw up, in which case the government can enslave us in prison).  We embrace free enterprise, and demonize central planning in business and industry.  We are free to speak and to own weapons (mostly – see Free Speech Zones and the soon-to-be-brought-back-permanently Assault Weapons Ban).  We have freedom of movement within our borders, and many other individual rights that I will not reiterate here.

Un-American

It would be un-American to allow people to enslave other people for any reason.  This includes creating any individual right to any service provided by another individual.  The only exception to this seems to be the right to a fair trial, which binds a judge and possibly a jury to try an individual, yet the right to have others dictate one’s fate isn’t a right that allows the individual to hold power over others, but rather the opposite.  This seems to be necessary for a free society.  It is un-American to prohibit free speech, free movement between territories of the United States, and thanks to Heller, ownership of weapons by law-abiding citizens.  It is un-American to legislate social norms, which prohibit freedom of expression, or to prohibit any free speech that does not direct to incite and is not likely to incite imminent lawless action, search or seize private property without a warrant based on probable cause, etc. etc. Bill of Rights verbatim.

Validity

Yet, is being un-American part of being American?  How paradoxical would that be?  Congress can amend the Constitution, and the proposition of such an action is not un-American.  Does the Declaration of Independence not give us all the right to dissent against a government destructive to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So, if this statement is “American,” the un-American equivalent would be to never question your government, no matter how destructive it becomes.  The interesting thing is that questioning the actions of the government (eg. war) seems to be one of the things that is popularly called un-American, or un-patriotic.

A patriot is someone who thinks, feels or voices expressions of patriotism, support for their country.

There is a difference between supporting your country and supporting your government.  Supporting your country has to do with creating the maximum opportunity and protection (including protection of individual rights) for your fellow American, whoever he/she happens to be.  Supporting your government is simply going along with whatever your leaders have chosen to do, even if that happens to be harming other Americans, which is called patriotism, but is more like fanatical nationalism.  Those who are truly un-patriotic express a desire for failure of other Americans, or the infringement of their rights.  Those who are truly un-American reject the existence of unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but may be pro-government and nationalist at the same time.  This all depends on the current policies of those in power.  Think about that next time you hear these pejoratives.

Uncategorized america, government, politics, un-american, usa

As much as I hate FOX News, and as much as I don’t enjoy Glen Beck’s personality, this video exposes a pretty sad situation in Illinois at the moment.

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful.

Kenneth Dunkin has proposed legislation that would force gun owners to pay a fee to exercise their natural rights.  If one applied the same proposition to any other right, there would be hell to pay.  This is a regressive tax that rewards the rich, who can afford to purchase the insurance, and makes the poor more vulnerable since they would have to forfeit their guns to save money.  Can you imagine if one had to buy insurance to exercise their freedom of expression?  What if you commit libel, or troll someone into suicide?  The really sad part is that Kenneth here wants your insurance to pay out if you use your gun in self-defense.

The full bill text is here.

Uncategorized america, constitution, fox, guns, law, news, rights, second amendment

John Lott’s post aggravated me today. They banned kissing in England’s rail stations. It’s a good thing this can’t happen in America, since we have guaranteed freedom of expression. Oh wait…

The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

The same legislation could be passed here! Something should be done to fix this obviously flawed interpretation. The government can legally force you to exercise your right only in the tundra of Alaska at midnight on Christmas. This is obviously not what the founders intended.

Uncategorized america, constitution, john lott, politics, rights, speech, uk

I have recently been reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, and in Chapter 11, Section 2, I found an interesting analysis of tariffs and how they actually hurt everyone except the special interest producer. In his hypothetical example, the consumers pay more for the products, there is less export of American currency to foreign countries, and therefore less export from America, and he even goes on in the following sections about wages decreasing as an effect of tariffs.

This has made me rethink “buying American,” which seems to be a big movement in today’s society. If it is more expensive for me to buy from an American company, and I do it anyway, along with tens of thousands of other consumers, what are the actual effects? That company doesn’t go out of business, yet some foreign company with cheaper equivalent products may, or at least it will lose profits, resulting in the increased unemployment in that country and a decrease in buying power of that country, affecting American exports. If the option to buy the alternative is lost, the cost of the product to consumers increases, hurting working families in America. The employees of the American company will keep their jobs instead of moving to other industries, which is seen as the motivation behind the choice to buy American. But, the unseen result is that there is less American money in the pockets of the foreigners, money that has no purpose other than to be spent in America. Therefore, by buying American, you are helping that single company at the expense of the minuscule loss to every American company that exports its products outside the country. In reality, it doesn’t really matter if you buy American or not, since that money will probably not spend long in foreign circulation before it is re-used to buy American out of necessity. The power of electronic circulation of currency these days is incredible.

Hypothetically, if I buy my Honda Civic instead of a Chevy Volt, what’s the difference? When I purchase the Honda new, I am putting a few thousand dollars in the pockets of a Japanese company. Dollars don’t work over there, so they need to change them into something else. They have a few options:

• They can convert it into Japanese Yen, whose exchange rate today is 1 yen per 0.009101 U.S. dollars by selling the currency to an American entity. This simply decreases the American holdings of the foreign currency, and injects the money right back into America.
• They can convert it into Japanese Yen by selling it to another foreign country on a currency exchange, or by selling it domestically to a currency trader. This probably happens to some extent, but it just represents one more extremely fast electronic hop through the global investing ether.
• They can convert it into holdings in a US company, bonds, commodities, homes, or other US-based securities. This helps our economy, allowing our companies to function, maintaining American employment directly.
• They can loan it back to US entities and collect interest in dollars, which have to go through this process again (yes, I realize that bonds fit here, but I feel they fit better in the previous bullet). Eventually, these all have to end up back in the pockets of Americans, and even lift the burden of risk from all American lenders. If these loans are defaulted upon, it was simply a bad investment by the foreign investor, whose product and money we have now!
• Finally, they can simply buy American. Our exporters will benefit greatly by the increased spending, and will buy products being produced in America for lower prices than they can be found in Japan, necessarily adding to the efficiency of operation of the world market (otherwise, the exporters would go out of business).

Note also that investing in foreign currency is a gamble. It is definitely possible that a foreigner may sell us a Honda Civic today for $10,000, and 6 months from now inflation of the money supply (the M3 that the Fed doesn’t publish anymore, not the CPI, which is open to interpretation) will drive the purchasing power of those dollars lower, meaning by buying that car, we actually cheated the manufacturer out of some amount of buying power. Therefore, if the car company wants to continue being profitable, it cannot keep its holdings in American currency for more than the short term, meaning it has to offload it, the most logical place being back to America, or to a Japanese currency trader, who will do the same.

All in all, I would almost encourage buying foreign to get rid of these worthless pieces of paper as quickly as possible. Let the foreigners deal with our ruined currency.

Uncategorized america, currency, economics, finance, money, politics, stocks

Here’s some nice bookmarks to remind you of the beliefs of the great Thomas Jefferson:

Update!

An interesting turn of events – it seems you really can’t trust quote sites!
See here

Originally, I had this quote:

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

This, apparently, is a false quote. I apologize. The new quote:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

was given by Matt Platte – thanks!

Pure democracy is a distribution of responsibility though, with none but a crowd (the largest crowd, in fact) holding the noose after a hanging. This is why we have representatives, because blaming the majority for wronging someone is dangerous in a democracy.

Uncategorized america, books, history, jefferson, quotes

This has to be one of the coolest works of art I’ve ever seen.

Find more information here. Find more art here.

Uncategorized america, art, image, wallpaper

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…

This is my new favorite statement from the founding fathers. It’s the first line of Article 11 of the US Treaty with Tripoli, written in 1796, and signed by John Adams, the second president of these united States of America.

So, the next time I hear someone spouting “this nation was founded on Christian values,” I’ll have this shoe of a citation to shove in their mouth.

Uncategorized america, life, religion

So far, I’ve seen very few presidential candidates. But today, Ron Paul announced his running for the presidency. He’s a libertarian who wants us out of Iraq ASAP. His reasoning is well-founded on history. When the vote comes up in about 8 months, I will have to consider him strongly. Also, as with any educated vote, I’ll have to check into his background some more. I also like his opposition of social security for illegal immigrants. So, for now, Go Ron!

Uncategorized america, life, voting