Sunday, January 17, 2010

A Natural Law Take on "Avatar"

James Cameron recently released his multi-million dollar blockbuster Avatar. I went to see the film (with my dad in tow) despite sub-zero-freezing-cold weather. Although we risked our health by going out in the crummy weather, Avatar was well worth the price of admission as we both gave each other that "wow" while exiting the theater. Rarely, have I had a reaction to film as I did with Avatar. My reaction, however, was not directly attributed to the amazing 3-D technology. Rather, the film illustrated three simple self-evident principles we as a nation have lost sight of in this country: property, liberty, and the right to be self-sufficient.

To give you a little background, the film takes place on the planet, "Pandora", where a human coalition (multi-national corporation with paid military contractors) undertakes a mission to harvest a precious and rare mineral called Unobtanium. The coalition's contractors appear to be paid mercenaries who were former Marines, such as the main character, Jake Sully. The apparent reason for ex-military personnel is to protect the miners from the natives on the planet, known as the Na'vi. The Na'vi are categorized as "hostile" and threaten the basic logistics of the mining operation. The coalition also hires engineers and scientists who have developed Na'vi-like bodies, ("Avatars"), grown from human DNA and alien-Na'vi DNA. Each Avatar is specific to the originating DNA of the human that can drive said Avatar. The purpose of the Avatars is to be pseudo-Ambassadors to establish some type of treaty or exchanges of goods or services for the mineral rights where the main Na'vi tribe's habitat ("Home Tree") rests.

Right To Property

One of the founding principles of our country is the theory of natural law or the law of nature. Natural law follows the belief that our rights do not come from governments or from other men/women; rather, our rights come naturally from our humanity through our birthright. Many great thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas to John Locke have written compelling treatises on the theory of natural law. Locke's belief in natural rights exists in the text within the Declaration of Independence which states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." While "the pursuit of Happiness" exists now, the original phrase in this epic line was actually "property", but was removed since the founders did not want it to be mistaken as a mandate for perpetual slavery (considered property at the time). So, we can equally assume the right to property as being just as "self evident" as any other natural right.

Why is this important? Well, on the planet of Pandora, the Na'vi seem consummately aware of natural law (or the law of nature). They know they possess these rights I've discussed, including the right to property. The Na'vi are fully sentient of their ownership of "Home Tree" as their unequivocal property as understood by the homestead principle. While many other places on the planet might arguably be considered public land or fair game for other parties (foreign or domestic) to explore and lay claim, "Home Tree" is not one of them. 



For this reason, any attempt to violate the rights of the Na'vi's property is immoral, unlawful, and the equivalent of outright theft. Absolutely no justification exists to think any other party has rights to someone else property, such as "Home Tree" in this case. We know this to be true since the Na'vi are clearly able to reason and use logic and determine good from evil. Thus, the natural law and natural rights we as humans understand is no different than how the Na'vi practice and live their lives.

Right To Liberty

John Stewart Mill in his work, On Liberty identified the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion. Clearly, the Na'vi understand these concepts and embody the very essence of liberty. If we recognize the Na'vi have the right to their property and liberty, we can also conclude that they have the right to defend these values from those who wish to steal or plunder. 



One of the most understood Amendments in the Bill of Rights is the the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms. Ironically, the Second Amendment (I argue) is absolutely required for preserving and protecting all of the other rights bestowed to us by our Creator. The Second Amendment is derives from the basics of self defense which a free and sovereign individual possesses in order to prevent others from infringing on their right to their life. The Na'vi, like Americans, also have this right for all of the reasons I've listed. The Na'vi take to arms not because they are terrorists or brutal barbarians motivated by a lust for carnage. They are motivated because they are sovereign and free people who have the right to live their lives and protect what is rightfully their own.

Self-Sufficiency

The Na'vi have been blessed by an abundance of plants, life, and unlimited natural ecology that allows their tribe to be totally self sustaining and self-sufficient. They are able to use their natural abilities to harvest the necessary resources around them to live the life they want to live. They are true stewards of their natural surroundings and are even able to manifest special powers over horse-like creatures as well as giant-flying-lizards.

Now, despite the offers from human coalition to provide several types of "public goods" (roads, schools, etc) in exchange for the necessary mineral rights of the Na'vi, the Na'vi decline. While it may be inexplicable to the humans in the film why the Na'vi would turn down these items as an equitable barter items, the Na'vi are 100% self-sufficient and have all of the resources they need to sustain their chosen way of life. Certainly, the Na'vi civilization and economy is rather primitive, simple and agrarian, yet no one is forcing or coercing them to retain this standard of living. It is a personal choice based on traditions the tribe believe in, which is the essence of individual liberty.

Self-Defensive Non-Intervention vs. Aggression

In closing, Avatar is a very diverse film that made me think outside of the box. Naturally, some critics of the film are obsessed with the allegorical military references which critics subsequently present as evidence James Cameron "hates the troops." Honestly, I think the topic is a red herring and a distraction from the other more important concepts in the film I've already discussed. This natural reaction of negativity towards a film or director seems common place these days whenever the plot or sub-plot of the film involves the use of force by our military or casts our troops in a bad light.

While James Cameron may or may not "hate the troops", I personally do not care and do not think it matters. So many Americans (even James Cameron perhaps) have forgotten the true purpose WHY the national defense was established in the first place after the Second Continental Congress. The Constitutional calls for the establishment of a "National Defense" to defend the sovereignty, liberty, and property rights of our country. Whether its composition is made up of national guard units, local militia, a navy, marine corps, or any other military division, the purpose remains the same, and that is for self defense. The national defense was NOT intended to be a blank check to apply aggression or police the world as a internationalist arbiter of justice. This is why in Article I Section 8, the Congress has the power to declare war and not the Executive branch. This power was instituted after the founding fathers saw repeated times in history where kings and monarchs would stir up trouble by engaging in wars all over the world at the expense of the citizens who would be conscripted into service and levied with taxes to fund the war effort. The result always yielded terrible consequences to the economies and impoverished the people in the name of safety and security. As Randolph Bourne (a progressive statist) once said, "War is the health of the state" for a reason.

If anything, Avatar IS patriotic and very pro-national defense. The film is a lesson of how a just war should be declared as shown by the Na'vi taking to arms and unifying their people for the sake of moral self defense. Maybe we can learn something from this film from a national defense standpoint by examining the constructs of what just war really means. I love our military brothers in arms who serve and risk their lives. My father is a Veteran and he is my personal hero. I have many friends who serve in the military and they possess all the respect and admiration I can offer. When we ask them to sacrifice their lives, honor, and time away from their families, I would hope it would be only when Congress uses its powers under Article I Section 8 to unleash the fires of hell after declaring war as a matter of self defense. To do otherwise would be wasting our precious blood and treasure as an act of aggression which would never be in the best interest of our proud country.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Constitutional Solutions to Defeating Al-Qaeda

The Constitution was drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788 after New Hampshire became the 9th state sign off on our founding document. The Constitution is an amazing artifact created by some of the most well respected and wise statesmen our country has ever known. After the first 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) were approved in 1791, the Constitution has only been amended 17 times.

The document, which is the foundation of our Republic, is NOT a "living and breathing" document which should adapt and change with the passing of time like many academic-progressive-intellectuals claim that it to be. The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land.", as identified in Article VI. If there are changes that must be made to it, a process exists for amending it (see Article V). The founders knew that Constitution was not perfect and would need changes from time to time. But, it in order to do so would require super majorities so as to protect the majority as well as the silent minority. This sacred document was to be our guide for keeping the federal government small constrained with very specific chains, constraints, checks and balances to safeguard liberty and freedom of the American people. James Madison wrote in Federalist Papers 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

As previously mentioned, the Constitution with unwavering clarity the Federal Government had few and enumerated powers. Having studied and even experienced history of fact that centralized and national governments always lust for growing bigger and attaining more power, the principles described and explicitly called out in the Constitution were essential for maximizing liberty and freedom for American citizens. With these ideas in mind, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is so important to conceptualize, understand, and have our elected officials follow without exception. Every power that Congress "can" perform is in Article I Section 8. Anything NOT in Article I Section 8, is NOT permitted and must reside to the individual state legislatures or left to the people to decide for themselves.

One of the few and enumerated powers found in Article I Section 8 is: "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." Yes, the Congress has the power to declare war and not the President of the United States. We have not officially declared war since WWII, yet we have been in numerous military conflicts since then. Many people do not realize that we never declared war on Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Based on this information, the facts are clear our nation has continuously violated the enumerated powers of Section 8. This fact poses a significant issue to millions of Americans who would like us to return Congress's few and enumerated powers of our elected leaders that we have abandoned for too long.

For those who believe that the war powers of Congress are too far constrained or outdated to deal with radical elements of terrorism that we face today, the enumerated power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal" has rarely been used or even mentioned as a tool that Congress can or should use. Why is that? This tool has been cited by law scholar, Jules Lobel, that the founding fathers had the express intuition the tools were needed for fighting unconventional warfare with external foreign entities without leveraging the full force of the U.S. Treasury and military might of its armed forces, since doing so by the Executive branch would be illegal without the consent of Congress [1]. Thus, the power to issue marques was left to the Legislative branch, in addition for only Congress to declare war.

By issuing letters of marque and reprisal, the Congress could issue an official warrant, bounty, or commission from a foreign government to individual private citizens (Americans) the ability to seize, search, or destroy property or assets held by perpetrators of a certain foreign party which had committed certain acts against the United States or any private entity therein (citizens, corporations, etc). In affect, the letters would grant private individual the ability to be bounty hunters at the behest of the Congress. To me, the letters of marque would be an innovative, efficient, and swift method for empowering private citizens to seek out and find those who would do us harm under explicit and well defined rules to seek out Al-Qaeda cells and terrorists around the world. Since we are not at war with a single nation, conventional warfare will not preserve our freedom and liberty of this country.

Our military has been completely stretched thin over the past decade and has completely overstepped the purpose of what national defense was intended to be in complete contrast to the philosophy of founding fathers Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. We cannot afford (fiscally) deploying hundreds of thousands of troops throughout the world to police the globe. We now have troops stationed in close to 130 countries. It is time for us to have a fresh approach to looking out for our national defense while at the same time not bankrupting our precious and fragile economy. When we must use our precious blood and treasure, it should be employed Constitutionally and with finite goals in mind set forth by the Congress and led by the Commander in Chief in which capacity the Executive branch must lead. While calling on the national defense is a justifiable and enumerated power of the Legislative branch (under the power to declare war), we must not treat the Constitution as a "worthless piece of paper", like George Bush declared back in December 2005 according Doug Thompson. The Constitution is anything but worthless. Rather, it is actually priceless.

References:
1. Jules Lobel, “‘Little Wars’ and the Constitution,” in “War and Responsibility: A Symposium on Congress, The President, and the Authority to Initiate Hostilities,” 50 U. of Miami Law Rev. 61, 66 (October 1995).

Monday, January 4, 2010

"Helicopter Ben" Is An Asset Bubble That Should Be Popped

My old pal, Benjamin. This entry, as they say, is a great "teachable moment". Now, please let me share a disclaimer that my title does not mean any physical harm whatsoever on the distinguished Federal Reserve Chairman. To say the least, the man should most definitely be replaced by someone who is not a Keynesian/Monetarist sycophant. Rather, if anyone should be re-elected to this post (if we must have one), the role should reside with someone who actually knows how business, capital, production, profit, and savings coexist in the private sector. Oh, and another requirement for employment would be that he/she was not born in a think tank.

Ben Bernanke today played the "it wasn't me, it was the lack of regulations" excuse in a purely political and distasteful speech. His reluctance for taking any type of personal responsibility for not monitoring, overseeing, and recognizing the obvious housing (asset) bubble that formed throughout both Bernanke and Greenspan's tenure is just simply astounding. One could even call this act cowardly. The Fed's easy money actions despite numerous forms of empirical evidence that an obvious "carry trade" was taking place is the epitome of dishonesty.

I have numerous problems with Bernanke's policies, economic reasoning, and monetary theory; but this notion that the fault lies with not enough regulations really infuriates me to the bone. Can someone as intelligent (from an IQ standpoint) as Bernanke honestly say with a straight face that ultra low interest rates will not generate cheap capital into sectors of the market that would not otherwise be possible? That dog just won't hunt. When you throw cheap money out of the air from your helicopter, Ben, the money is going to find somewhere to land and collect and it usually goes into places that it should not.

That is the equivalent of saying a bartender (Bernanke) offering an unlimited amount free beer and liquor all night to patrons of his watering hole could NOT have known or even foreseen how people would get wasted or even cause bodily harm to themselves or others when they walk out of the bar and drive home in their car. Any person with an ounce of sanity knows that this would cause (at minimum) some sort of binge drinking reaction and at worst some folks getting really sauced and going on a drunk driving rampage. I guess Bernanke's solution to avoid and prevent this scenario would be to keep the beer/liquor flowing, but to just install a bouncer or two to check the patron's id's to make sure they are of the right drinking age. We all know it's a moral hazard of bad things that are going to happen no matter how many bouncers you hire and what age limit you set for those who can drink. As Senator Bunning mentioned a month or so back: "You, Ben, are the moral hazard."


Easy money is by definition a recipe for creating an asset bubble somewhere. The only question is when and where and how will the bubbles form. As with the current housing bubble, the GSE's Fannie and Freddie were the primary buyers of mortgages (both prime and sub-prime) on the other end that led to the bubbles growing larger and larger. If we were to compare it to the bartender article... the Fannie and Freddie institutions are comparable to the tavern itself providing "get out of jail free cards" after everyone leaves so as to exonerate any of the actions from the drunk patrons who may get into mischief. Then, all of the patrons are basically risk adverse to any harm that may become of them. This is the role we see with Fannie and Freddie. But, there are only so many cards and there is only so many free drinks available. The party has to stop sometime. This is when the party crashes and proverbial bubble bursts.

This boom/bust cycle of creating and then popping bubbles is the very essence of how harmful the Federal Reserve can be to the economy dating back to 1913. This is not to say that without the Fed we would never have asset bubbles. But, the very institution of the Fed and it's modus operandi of central planning monetary policy by artificially setting interest rates, the money supply, and supply of credit to all banking institutions is a detriment to our nation and the free market.

We can already see now the effects of new carry trade plays with the cheap dollar in gold, bonds, equities, and other commodities. The most obvious carry trade going on today seems almost intentional by the Federal Reserve. The Fed has set the Federal Funds Rate/Discount Window price to between 0 & 25 basis points (0% to 0.25%) and the 10 year Treasury increasing to as high as 3.8%. So, at virtually no risk, the banks can borrow money from the Fed at 0% and turn around to lend that money to the Treasury at 2% (5-year bond), you have a carry trade asset bubble in bonds.



If Bernanke wants to really understand how to avoid asset bubbles in the future, re-regulation or more restrictive central planning of key economic sectors is the exact opposite way of averting disaster. His flawed ideas of interventionist monetary policy "pump priming", monetizing debt, and dumping billions of dollars from his helicopter could very well plunge our country into another a very dangerous stagflationary situation the likes of which the world has never seen. I hope that we can avert this and bring back sound economic and monetary sanity before it is too late.