The British have a New Heir to the Throne and we in America say God Save the King

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2013

Week in Review

Before the Americans declared their independence from Great Britain they tried to reconcile their differences with Great Britain.  For many believed Great Britain had the greatest form of government in the world.  A constitutional monarchy.  The form of government that vaulted the British Empire into a superpower.  And gave her people more rights and liberties than any nation in the world.

The Americans, rather, the British Americans, were proud to be British.  And would have remained proud members of the British Crown had it not been for the immense cost of the Seven Years’ War.  That the Parliament tried to pay for by taxing the American colonists.  For all the British Crown did to protect the Americans from the French and their Indian allies.  Not asking for much, really.  But the British taxpayers in Great Britain had representation in Parliament.  And had a say in that taxation.  But the British living in North America were not given that British right.  Which was the source of all the friction between the British Americans and Great Britain.  And what brought them to war.

Some of the fighting in the American Revolutionary War was brutal.  But the worst of it was between Patriot and Loyalist.  American against American.  In the civil war that raged in the South.  Which is why the United States and Great Britain resumed relations following the war.  There had plenty of issues but the post-war relationship was far better than any other nation that fought a civil war.  Why?  Because there is a Special Relationship between the British and the Americans.  We come from the same stock.  We share the same values.  And traditions.  The countries around the world that were once part of the British Empire are some of the most advanced nations in the world.  And their people have some of the greatest rights and liberties in the world today.  All because of our British past.

We may never bow to British Royalty again.  Because of our history.  But we can embrace the Royal Family.  Just as the British do.  For it is their tradition.  And a deep part of their glorious history.  As it is ours.  So we welcome the future king into the world.  We wish the best for him and the Royal Family.  And the British people.  Joining them in spirit when they shout God Save the King (see America’s embrace of the Royal Family demonstrates the enduring strength of the Special Relationship by Nile Gardiner posted 7/23/2013 on The Telegraph).

Despite the lukewarm and often insulting approach of the Obama administration towards Britain over the past four and a half years, the Special Relationship between the United States and Great Britain remains extraordinarily strong in terms of defence, intelligence, cultural and trade ties, and is uniquely important to the American people. No other nation in the world holds a place in American hearts as special as Great Britain. And Americans hold an overwhelmingly positive view of the British Royal Family. The most recent poll conducted in the United States on the British Monarchy – a CBS/New York Times poll back in April 2011 – showed that 71 percent of Americans believe the Royal family “is a good thing” for the British people, with only 15 percent against. In the same poll, the Queen held a 61 percent approval rating, at the time about 15 points higher than that of the US president.

There are defeatists who argue that Britain hardly matters anymore to the world’s superpower, and that the UK can only maintain influence in Washington through the lens of the EU. The huge US interest today in events thousands of miles away in London, and the tremendous support for the Royal Family suggests that the Special Relationship is far from dead. With good reason Americans admire the British for their uncompromising defence of tradition, their warrior spirit, and their willingness to uphold national sovereignty.

Britain matters.  And if the Eurozone collapsed as well as the EU they will matter more. Thanks to Margaret Thatcher.  Who reversed their slide into Socialism.  Unlike other European nations.  And of late, the United States.  Sadly.

President Obama insults our greatest friend and ally because Britain bucks the socializing of Europe.  Britain is often the lone rational voice in the European Parliament.  Currently that voice belongs to Daniel Hannan.  Who knows the history of Britain.  The United States.  And our Special Relationship.  Which is conservative.  Not liberal.  Which is why the Special Relationship is anathema to a liberal like President Obama.

God save the future king.  The queen.  The United States of America.  And our Special Relationship.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS tells Doctors and Hospitals to get by on less while giving more Free Health Care to Foreigners

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2012

Week in Review

The NHS must cut about £5 billion a year to save £15 billion to £20 billion by 2014.  So the pressure is on the health service to pinch every penny.  Ration every service to those who only really need them.  And disapprove services that people don’t absolutely need.  Unless, of course, they’re foreigners who don’t pay any taxes to fund the NHS.  Who can get whatever they want free (see Open door for health tourism: NHS bosses say doctors must treat all foreigners to protect their human rights… but GPs can still turn away BRITONS living too far from surgeries by Sophie Borland posted 10/12/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Health tourists must be given free treatment by GPs because it is their human right, say NHS bosses.

New guidelines tell doctors across England they must register any foreign patient who asks for care otherwise it would be ‘discriminatory’.

These include asylum seekers, overseas students or tourists coming for a short holiday. Once registered, they will be entitled to the same NHS care as all other patients and can receive free blood tests, jabs and – in some cases – free prescription drugs.

In fact, the new rules will give overseas patients more rights than those living in the UK who can be turned away from surgeries if they live a few yards outside its catchment area.

There are also fears the ruling will make it even harder for local patients to get an appointment.

Already half of patients cannot get an appointment with their doctor within 48 hours, according to the Government’s own figures…

One GP, who wished to remain anonymous, said: ‘I am not sure the British taxpayer should be paying for the world’s health treatment for free.’

Mr Skidmore has obtained figures showing that health tourists currently owe the NHS £40million in unpaid medical bills.

Dr Vijayakar Abrol, a GP who practises in Edgbaston, Birmingham, said: ‘The guidance is not worth the paper it is written on. We do not have endless resources. Why should we give these patients – be they from India, Canada, the US or Eastern Europe – free treatment?

‘We cannot go to those countries and get free treatment ourselves.’

Because it’s their human right.  According to the NHS.  Even though technically speaking health care isn’t a right.  For true rights have no cost to others.  Such as the right to free speech.  The right to believe in any faith.  These things people can do without someone else having to pay their way.  Not the same with health care.  As other people are paying for other people.  In other words, this right (health care) compels others to act against their will.  Spending their hard-earned pay not on their families but on the families of others.

How about that?  Half of all people who pay for the NHS can’t get an appointment with their doctor within 48 hours.  But foreigners can get free health care whenever they want.  This was one of the arguments they used to pass Obamacare in the United States.  They said we’re already paying for people who don’t pay for their health insurance as they fill our emergency rooms.  While they deny those emergency room resources to those who do pay for their own health care costs.  So we might as well force everyone to buy health insurance (until we can nationalize health care completely).  But even nationalizing health care won’t remove the problem of people getting health care for free.  Because if it did the NHS wouldn’t be spending £40 million ($64.3 million) on free health care for foreigners.  While at the same time trying to cut NHS spending by £20 billion ($32.2 billion) by 2014.

Something to look forward to under Obamacare.  Giving everything to everyone.  Even if they don’t pay.  Which will, of course, lead to cost cutting, longer waits, rationing and denials of health care treatment.  As they are in the NHS.  Unless you’re a foreigner who doesn’t pay into the system.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu, Republican Government, Separation of Powers, Enumerated Powers, Federalists and anti-Federalists

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 26th, 2012

Politics 101

Funny thing about the Americans is that they just didn’t Like Paying Taxes

United we stood.  For awhile.  Until we defeated the British at Yorktown.  And negotiated the Treaty of Paris where Great Britain recognized our independence from the British Crown.  But people grew weary of the war.  On both sides of the Atlantic.  And those in the once united states (small ‘u’ and small ‘s’) were eager to retreat to their states.  And forget about the Continental Congress.  The Continental Army.  And everything to do with the confederation.  Threatening to undo everything they fought for.  Because of their sectional interests.

Shays Rebellion nearly pushed the country into anarchy.  It was the tipping point.  They had to do something.  Because if they weren’t united they would surely fall.  They owed Europe a fortune that they had no hope of repaying.  Funny thing about the Americans.  They just didn’t like paying taxes.  Making it difficult to repay their debts.  The Europeans gave them little respect.  France tried to sell them out during the peace talks to rebalance the balance of power in their favor.  Spain wanted to keep them east of the Mississippi River.  And off of the Mississippi.  Even refused them passage through the Port of New Orleans.  Britain didn’t evacuate their western forts.  The Barbary pirates were capturing American shipping in the Mediterranean and selling their crews into slavery.  And Catherine the Great of Russia wouldn’t even meet the American ambassador.  So the Americans were the Rodney Dangerfield of nations.  They got no respect.

In 1787 delegates gathered in Philadelphia.  To revise the Articles of Confederation to address these problems.  Some enthusiastically.  Some begrudgingly.  While one state refused to attend.  Rhode Island.  For they were quite happy with the way things were.  As the smallest sate in the union they had the power to kill almost any legislation that didn’t benefit Rhode Island.  For some legislation the vote had to be unanimous.  And they enjoyed charging other states tariffs for their goods unloaded in Rhode Island ports.  Things were so nice in Rhode Island that they didn’t need much taxation.  Because they had other states funding their needs.  Thanks to those tariffs.  Of course, this did little to benefit the union.  While imposing taxes on their neighbors in the union.  Sort of like taxation without representation.  Funny thing about Americans, though.  They didn’t like paying taxes.

Montesquieu said a Republican Government must Separate Power into Three Branches

Thomas Jefferson was in Europe in 1787.  John Adams, too.  But just about every other “demi-god” (as Jefferson called those at that gathering) was in Philadelphia in 1787.  America’s patriarch Benjamin Franklin.  The indispensable George Washington.  The financially savvy Alexander Hamilton.  The studious James Madison.  The Framers of the Constitution.  Highly principled men.  Well read men.  Prosperous men.  Who were familiar with world history.  And read the great enlightenment philosophers.  Like John Locke.  Who especially influenced the writing of the Declaration of Independence.  With his inalienable rights.  Consent of the governed.  And property rights.

As they gathered in Philadelphia to revise the Articles it became clear that they needed something more.  A new constitution.  A stronger federal government.  With the power to tax so they could raise money.  For without money the union could not solve any of its problems.  So they set upon writing a new constitution for a new government.  A republican government of republican states.  As they began to frame this constitution they drew on the work of a French philosopher.  Charles de Montesquieu.  Who championed republican government.  The ideal government.  A government of the people who ruled at the consent of the governed.  With built-in safeguards to protect the people’s inalienable rights.  The key requirement being the separation of powers.

Montesquieu said a republican government must separate power into three branches.  The legislature, the executive and the judiciary.  A nation of laws requires a legislature to write the laws.  Because the laws must respect the inalienable rights of the people the people must elect the legislature from the general population.  So the legislature’s interests are the people’s interest.  However, if the legislature was also the executive they could easily write laws that represented their interests instead of the people.  Elevating the legislature into a dictatorship.  If the legislature was also the judiciary they could interpret law to favor their interests instead of the people.  Elevating the legislature into a dictatorship.  Likewise if the executive could write and interpret law the executive could elevate into a dictatorship.  Ditto for the judiciary if they could write the law they were interpreting.  So the separation of powers is the greatest protection the people have against a government’s oppression.

If a Power wasn’t Delegated to the New Federal Government it Remained with the States

During the Constitutional Convention they debated long and they debated hard.  The Federalists were in favor of a stronger central government.  The anti-Federalists were not.  The Federalists included those who served in the Army and the Congress.  The anti-Federalists were those who didn’t serve ‘nationally’ and favored states’ rights.  In general.  So one side wanted to increase the power of the central government while the other side wanted no central government.  For their fear was that a new federal government would consolidate power and subordinate the states to its rule.  As if the last war never happened.  And the states would still bow to a distant central power.  Only this time to one on this side of the Atlantic.

So the balance they struck was a two-house (i.e., bicameral) legislature.  A House of Representatives.  And a Senate.  The people in each state elected a number of representatives proportional to their state’s population.  So a large state had a large representation in the House.  So that house represented the will of the people.  To prevent the tyranny of the minority.  So a small privileged class couldn’t rule as they pleased.  Whereas the Senate prevented the tyranny of the majority.  By giving each state two senators.  So small states had the same say as big states.  Together they represented both the majority and the minority.  Further, states’ legislatures chose their senators (changed later by Constitutional amendment).  Providing the states a check on federal legislation.

To round things out there was an executive they called the president.  And a judiciary.  Providing the separation of powers per Montesquieu.  They further limited the central government’s powers by enumerating their powers.  The new federal government could only do what the Constitution said it could do.  Treat with foreign powers.  Coin a national currency.  Declare war.  Etc.  If a power wasn’t delegated to the new federal government it remained with the states.  To give the new federal government some power.  Including the power to tax.  While leaving most powers with the states.  Striking a compromise between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT98: “The difference between a right and an entitlement is that other people don’t have to pay for a right.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 30th, 2011

Fundamental Truth

Our Rights are Free to Enjoy because no one must Suffer any Burden for us to Enjoy these Rights

The Roman Empire fell because of high taxes.  The Americans declared their independence from the British Empire because of high taxes.  The French Revolution erupted over high taxes.  Warren Harding won the 1920 presidential election because of high taxes.  Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidential election because of high taxes.  Both Harding and Reagan were tax cutters.  The moral of this story?  People don’t like paying taxes.  Never have.  And never will.

The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  Some of these rights include the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech (First Amendment).  The right to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment).  Protection from quartering troops in our homes (Third Amendment).  Protection from unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).  See a trend?

Our rights are free to enjoy.  That is, when we enjoy our rights it doesn’t cost anyone else.  When people speak their mind there isn’t an associated cost that goes with it that we must fund with taxes.  For people to be free to own a gun and keep it in their house there isn’t an associated tax to pay for that right.  There isn’t a line item in the federal budget to prevent soldiers from moving into my house during times of peace.  No.  These rights are free.  No one must suffer any burden for us to enjoy these rights.

A Right is not a License to Compel Others to do something Against their Will

Rights are God-given.  Meaning that no person may deny these rights to anyone.  We want these rights.  We enjoy these rights.  And the fact that they don’t cost anything to have and enjoy is especially nice.  Because as noted earlier people don’t like paying taxes.  They never have.  And never will.

But we do pay taxes.  For those things that are necessary and Constitutional.  Such as a strong military to protect and defend our country from enemies foreign and domestic.  We don’t enjoy paying these taxes.  But we do enjoy being safe and free from oppression.  So we can enjoy our Constitutional rights.

Now, when is a right not a right?  When it’s not guaranteed in our Constitution and/or there is a cost that others must bear.  For instance, I can’t go to an electronics store and take a large plasma TV and tell the clerk that it’s my right to have that TV.  Because it’s not a right.  (Or an entitlement.  Yet.)  Why?  For one it’s not in the Constitution.  And it’s not just because we didn’t invent them yet.  Even if they were around at the time of the framing of the Constitution the Founding Fathers would not have included them.  Because they have a cost.  For someone to have one as a right someone else must pay for it.  And if someone else must be compelled to provide something for you then it is not a right.  Because a right is not a license to compel others to do something against their will.  There’s another name for that.  Slavery.

Health Care, Pensions, Food, etc., are not Rights because they have Costs

So if you agree with me so far (and it would be hard not to if you’re being honest), then you must agree that housing, health care, pensions, food, etc., are not rights either.  Because they have costs.  And the only way for others to have these without paying for them is to compel others to pay for them against their will.  Which is, of course, slavery.  Something else that is forbidden by a Constitutional amendment.  The Thirteenth Amendment.

So providing these things to the poor is not and should not be required.  But it would be nice.  And it should be voluntary.  Like it was.  Once upon a time.  Before there were entitlements.  We called it charity.  And it worked.  Well.  Our ancestors, those beautiful rugged individualists, would laugh at us today for how we’ve made a mess of things.  Be disgusted to see how soft we’ve become.  And then probably spit on us with contempt.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,