UPDATED: The Individual? The Family? What About Property?

Elections, Family, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Private Property, Ron Paul

RICK SANTORUM said this during the CNN Western Republican Debate, last night: “I disagree in some respects with Congressman Paul, who says the country is founded on the individual. The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society.”

[SNIP]

What came first; the unit or its constituent parts? Is not a social unit like the family comprised of individuals? And did not the sovereign states precede the union? Although it all begins with the individual, the preeminence of the individual in no way negates the vitality of the family.

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL REPLIED: “Well, I would like to explain that rights don’t come in bunches. Rights come as individuals, they come from a God, and they come as each individual has a right to life and liberty.”

Someone please stand up for property, next time. The defense of private property rights is urgent as the Occupy Wall Street hooligans encroach.

UPDATE: Contemplationist below is right. With his “Live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as I observed, Jefferson has “bequeathed us a vagueness that has helped undermine the foundation of civilization: private property.”

UPDATED: ‘To Save One Life Is Like Saving the World’ (Republicans Disagree)

Individual Rights, Islam, Israel, Judaism & Jews, Liberty, Middle East, Palestinian Authority, Religion, Republicans

This may sound chauvinistic, but when nations are consumed with safekeeping their own, by default (and in self interest), they are more careful with the lives of their enemies.

Israel has demonstrated once again its commitment to that Talmudic verse, “To Save One Life Is Like Saving the World.” (The verse was ‘appropriated,” or ripped off, by Islam, and an exclusionary clause written into the equivalent Quranic ayah. Islam’s borrowed version, needless to say, is considerably less humanistic and universal.)

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir expressed bewilderment at the news that,

Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and hundreds of Palestinians crossed Israel’s borders in opposite directions on Tuesday as a thousand-for-one prisoner exchange brought joy to families but did little to ease decades of conflict. …In all, Israel is setting free 1,027 Palestinians in return for the liberty of Shalit. Some have spent 30 years behind bars for violent attacks against Israel and its occupation of land taken in the 1967 Middle East War.
Over 100 of the 477 prisoners released in the first phase of the exchange were taken to the West Bank. The rest were coming into Gaza, apart from 41 who were due to fly out from Cairo to exile in Turkey, Syria or Qatar.

Bashir, a neocon-cum-liberal, is in good company here in the US. The following is from a 2004, Antiwar.com column:

… the neoconservatives at National Review have grumbled about Israel’s “lopsided prisoner exchanges” over the years. One “sofa samurai,” Eric Leskly, [once noted] the startling disparity of exchanging 5,500 Egyptian soldiers, following the Sinai campaign of 1956, “for the lives of the four Israeli soldiers captured in the fighting,” and over 8,000 Egyptians, after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in exchange for 240 Israeli soldiers.
Its official policy notwithstanding, Israel has also negotiated with terrorists for the lives and bodies of its soldiers. As Dr. Boaz Ganor, executive director of the International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, told the Jerusalem Post: “Israeli governments are more prone to the influence of public opinion.”

I remember thinking just that when, years back, I watched demonstrators heckle Ariel Sharon after yet another suicide bombing. One man yelled, “If you don’t sort this mess out, I’ll personally pay you a visit.”

UPDATE II: Bar Ron Paul, the debaters at the CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate related not at all to the Israeli position—a consistent preference for doing what it takes to save a life, even if not always strategic.

UPDATED: Fiscal Deficit Attributable To Immigration (Ad Hominen Fallacy)

Debt, Economy, IMMIGRATION

According to Edwin Rubenstein, President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis, the average immigrant household generates a deficit of about $17,000 per immigrant household. This figure is a function of the difference between federal benefits received and federal taxes paid. Whereas it used to be “that native-born households generated a federal fiscal surplus—paying more taxes than they received in benefits,” this is no longer the case. “Today’s deficit,” Rubenstein acknowledges, “is too large to be ascribed to any narrowly defined group.” Everyone is in hock. “Food Stamp Nation,” as Pat Buchanan puts it in his latest, admirable book.

Nevertheless, as I’ve previously argued, “from the fact that taxpayer-funded welfare for nationals is morally wrong … it does not follow that extending it to millions of unviable non-nationals is economically and morally negligible. Or that such immigration remotely comports with the libertarian goal of curtailing government growth.” It’s like saying that because a bank has been robbed by one band of bandits (welfare-dependent nationals), repelling the next lot (welfare-dependent non-nationals) is unnecessary given that the damage has already been done.

Rubenstein:

There are about 13 million such households in the U.S. Well, when you do the math—13 million times $17,000—you get a federal “immigration deficit” of $220 billion.
That is the fiscal deficit attributable to immigration. It equals about 17% of the entire federal deficit.
That is a big chunk. It’s roughly equal the annual interest now paid on the national debt.

UPDATE (Oct. 20): To James below, I’m glad you wrote: Subscribe to my newsletter, James. In my next WND column, I give you the tools to counter the false argument your kids ought to have been taught at school not to make. Against your numbers, your kids have advanced the ad hominen fallacy. Read tonight’s WND column and join us here.

Regulated Scarcity

Free Markets, Healthcare, Law, Regulation, Socialism

When there is a shortage of a good, it is safe to say that it is a result of government incursion into the economy. And there are reported “shortages—“severe” shortages—in “drugs for chemotherapy, infections and other serious ailments.” The shortages, reports the Richmond Times-Dispatch, are “endangering patients and forcing hospitals to buy life-saving medications from secondary suppliers at huge markups because they can’t get them any other way.”

How would consumer demand have been heeded in an unhampered market?

The urgent demand for a drug would have been followed by a shortfall of supply. Large demand and short supply would initially send the price of the drugs rocketing. Profits in an unhampered pharmaceutical market would signal to the many drug makers that it’s pedal to the metal: time to enter into accelerated production of this scarce commodity.

Walter Olson of CATO provides more details about “the federal government’s widely publicized crackdown in recent years on pharmaceutical manufacturing and quality-control practices” to have played a role in current shortages.