What's up with depopulation?

I have been hearing a lot about depopulation in recent years... from influential supporters to the last DVD of my Discovery Earth DVD set. Yeah, I couldn't watch the last one. The rest were great, but the last one was all about agenda, and part of that agenda was depopulation.

I am always surprised at the support for this sort of idea.

The "No!!! Not you too!!" List...

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”

- Jacques Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier

“I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today” [and] “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”

- Dave Foreman, Sierra Club, co founder of Earth First!

“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

- Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood/ abortionist)

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind”

- Theodore Roosevelt

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”

- Ted Turner, founder of CNN.

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

- Margaret Sanger

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”

- Margaret Sanger

“Eugenics is… the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

- Margaret Sanger

“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding”

- Theodore Roosevelt

Surprising consequences of Minimum Wage

It is tempting to think that the minimum wage is a wonderful thing. It increases the size of our paychecks and helps alleviate poverty, right?! But, just because we say it is so, does it make it so? Proponents of the minimum wage often acknowledge the power of the market when it comes to price determination of products, but many fail to realize that the market powers are just as real when it comes to the price of labor... and when you artificially manipulate markets, there are always unintended consequences.

Many economic planners think they can solve a problem by legislating it away. People's paychecks too small? Minimum wage! Lack of health insurance? Make it illegal to be uninsured! Now Timothy Geithner has a problem with our huge trade deficit, and he is planning to go to the G-20 and legislate it away! All of this legislation is implemented with a fundamental misunderstanding of why the problems exist in the first place!

Tim Giethner seeks to set world 'guidelines' to achieve more 'balanced global growth'. He is worried about our 'unsustainable' trade deficit. To think that you can just declare what a nation's trade deficit is going to be through new magic guidelines is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, and is protectionism at its worst. A trade deficit is a result of transactions and marketplace decisions. It is a symptom, not a cause. If you want to effect trade deficits, you do not mandate trade deficits. You looks at the policies that cause those trade deficits.... minimum wage rate anyone?!

Nations do not trade, people trade. The deficit or surplus is a snapshot of the aggregate of those transactions. If you want to lower our trade deficit and allow us to be more globally competitive, lower our minimum wage!! Reduce our subsidies, tariffs, welfare, unemployment... All of these are effecting our international trade. Now, before you call me absolutely heartless, hear me out!

As a result of global competition, businesses now have access to cheaper labor worldwide. As a result, the market value of the wage rate worldwide is reduced. Due to our minimum wage rate laws, our market is not able to adjust to these changes. When our wage markets cannot adjust to the market rates due to legislation, businesses move the jobs overseas, where the wages are less.

Do not worry... global competition does not mean that wages will fall forever, just until they reach a market equilibrium. The perks of free trade and globalization is that the prices of goods also fall. In America, we readily accept the lower priced goods, but resist the fall in wages. We have been fortunate to have created many higher wage jobs, mostly in the service sector that need local employees. We may have hit a wall in this direction as more people cut back on the luxuries of the service sector. You can only avoid reality for so long.

Our current minimum wage rate law is moving our jobs overseas, and therefore moving our production overseas. Since everything is produced overseas, the manufacturing industry here is dying. When industry moves over seas, everything is produced overseas. Because of this we have to import all our goods, resulting in a huge trade deficit. It is really that simple.

As long as we have people willing to work in these jobs, at the lower wages, which is debatable, the manufacturing in America would thrive. But our markets have not been given a chance. It may be the case that the jobs and industry would have left anyways, due to the American labor market not willing to supply their labor at lower market rates, but we will never know. This opportunity has been made illegal due to minimum wage legislation.

Two of the government market manipulations that create an unwillingness to work in these lower wage positions are unemployment benefits and welfare. These policies create an effective minimum wage, without actually having to create one. As long as people can receive a paycheck without working, it will be an option that will enter into their cost-benefit analysis before accepting a job. Example, if I know that I could make $200 a week on welfare or unemployment benefits, that would be a strong incentive not to take the job that would pay me $250 a week to make Levi's jean. I may be willing to give up that extra $50 for 40 hours of my time.

Another area effecting trade, which is much more obvious, are tariffs and national trade policy. Protectionist policies are very tempting in a recession, and I fear that this is where Geithner is tempted to go.

---------------------------------------

Article

Geithner's Goal: Rebalanced World Economy

Mr. Geithner said the world sorely needs to agree on guidelines for exchange-rate policy. "Right now, there is no established sense of what's fair," he said.

He also said the U.S. is pressing the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations to adopt numerical gauges to judge whether individual trade surpluses or deficits are "sustainable," a way to measure progress towards the goal of more balanced global growth.

From my email

I just found your pro/con minimum wage arguments... love it!

I have one more for the pro side:

Trade deficit reduction- minimum wage laws cause jobs to move over seas seeking cheaper labor and causing the death of the manufacturing industry in the USA. Result: We do not produce anything in the states anymore and we must import most of our goods, resulting in a steep trade deficit. Global competition is driving down the dollar value of manufacturing jobs and the minimum wage laws are limiting how our employment market can respond to these changes.
[Article: The U.S. Trade deficit: are we trading away our future?]

A good book

I just finished a really good book. It is about a four year old little boy with a bum appendix. He had to undergo surgery and almost (did?) died. While he was in surgery he saw some amazing things. In the months and years following his hospital visit, he reveals to his family (in bits and pieces) that he had seen heaven. It is so charming and strange to read of the testimonies of this little child and realize the reality of heaven, and that it is a real place with real people we will see some day.

One of the sweetest things was little Colton (the four year old boy) meeting his sister in heaven he did not know he had. (His family had a miscarriage before he was born)

Oh, and he has become a bit of a critic of Jesus artworks. There is not a picture or painting of Jesus that has satisfied him, until he saw the painting by Akaine Kramarik, another little child who says she has been given visions of heaven. When he saw this painting, his parents asked him, "Ok Colton.. what's wrong with this one?" Colton replied, "Dad, that one's right."

Detroit

Has money corrupted science?

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' (link to letter)

(excerpt)...Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst...

Exemptions vs. Equality under the law

As in most legislation, there are intended consequences. When you manipulate the marketplace, it is hard to predict what the ripples will effect, but the ripples that the new health care bill has created are already staring to reveal themselves, and were not a surprise to many detractors that were sounding the alarms during the debates.

McDonald's announced in late September that it was going to drop health coverage for it's workers due to increased costs created by the new health care regulations. Since then, they have received an exemption from the law, as well as 29 other businesses and teacher unions.

Instead of acknowledging the failures of a policy, legislators provide exemptions to the law. A law is very rarely repealed when it does not work as planned, instead of repeal, the legislators choose to create new legislation to address each of the unintended consequences, resulting in a very complicated and viscous cycle of legislation.

Our Governor, Jennifer Granholm does the same in Michigan when she is forced to face the reality of the unintended consequences of her policies. She never repeals those policies, instead she provides exemptions.

Exemptions fly in the face of equal justice and create an environment in which each individual is subject to different laws. She acknowledges that businesses are drawn to Michigan when their taxes are lowered, but has a huge spending habit and a distaste for across the board tax cuts. Instead of lowering taxes, she approaches each individual company and offers them each their own tax bribe. This results in a few businesses choosing Michigan, only after she incurs a huge monetary cost and time investment to seduce these companies into our state.

Why create the need for individual deals, exemptions and negotiations rather than repealing the cause of our economic illness? Why does our government insist on treating the symptom rather than cure the disease? I argue it is pure pride and human nature... People do not like to admit failure!! Instead they seek to make it illegal and immoral to react to the marketplace incentives they create, or they carve out personal exemptions.

Jennifer Granholm also views each of these tax credits, ironically, as lost revenue, when in reality, each dollar she receives is greater than the zero amount she would get if they were not here at all, which would be the reality if the bribes were not offered or accepted. Instead of gratitude and appreciation, the reward these businesses receive for creating jobs in Michigan is constant threat from our state government that their negotiated tax 'deals' will be taken away.

If she were to create an environment that was equally attractive for all business, then businesses would flood into the state without the time and money she needs to travel and set up meeting with each business's board of directors, etc. They would "magically" appear all on their own.

------------------------

Businesses are often demonized for completely legal responses to market incentives, one of the most common is moving jobs overseas. Jobs moving overseas are just a symptom of market incentives created by legislation. So, who is the bad guy? Who needs correcting? The businesses or the laws, or both? This concept will be further discussed in a post regarding the unintended consequences of the minimum wage.

-------------------------
Also, here is an article that is completely off-topic

Demystifying Deflation

Before you hail the Fed and Uncle Sam as our economic saviors, there are two things you should understand about the wrenching deflation we face: 1) The conditions which make us ripe for a severe deflation were caused by the very institutions that now propose to save us from it, and 2) it is the lesser of two evils.

Reason Magazine: October 2010

Articles

Austerity Agonistes

Why left-wing economists’ warnings against austerity programs are wrong

...surveying the data of 44 large fiscal adjustments across the globe since 1975, concluded in a 2010 report that cutting annual spending by 1 percent triggers a net 0.6 percent in economic growth. As we will see below, this is a good deal compared to the $1.10 reduction in GDP we get for each $1 spent by the government to stimulate the economy.

...in the best-case scenario, a dollar of government spending produces much less than a dollar in economic growth—between 40 and 70 cents.

...for every $1 in tax-financed spending, the economy actually shrinks by $1.10. In other words, greater spending financed by tax increases damages the economy.

...the total number of jobs the government attributed to stimulus spending as of April was 682,000. Factoring in stimulus dollars spent up to that point, the average cost of these jobs was $282,000. That’s a lot of money. Worse, four-fifths of these jobs were in the public sector. This outcome is far afield from the administration’s original promise that the stimulus would create 3.5 million jobs over two years, 90 percent of them in the private sector.

...on average, the creation of 100 public jobs eliminated about 150 private-sector jobs, decreased by a slight margin overall labor market participation, and increased by about 33 the number of unemployed workers. Their explanation was that public employment crowds out private employment and increases overall unemployment by offering comparatively attractive working conditions. Basically, public jobs, especially ones that also exist in the private sector in fields such as transportation and education, offer higher wages and benefits, require low effort, and therefore crowd out many private jobs. When these new employees are paid with taxes it negatively impacts the economy.

-------------------------------------------------

Got an Environmental Catastrophe?

Blame the government.

The first question you should ask when you see environmental misbehavior is: What is the government doing that encourages people to act that way?

Quantitative Easing?!.... don't call it inflation!!

This morning I woke up to NPR morning edition talking about quantitative easing. So, what is quantitative easing? Long definition short, printing money.

As NPR pointed out, this has not really been tried much before and no one knows if it works, but this is the only option the government has left to try. Stimulus was very lack luster, the interest rates are already at zero percent, and that's not working. So the only thing left to do is print money! Monetize the debt! Buy treasuries from banks and pay for them with money printed out of thin air (...and, of course, a little paper and linen... and a lot of pixie dust). To NPR's credit, they laid out two options, they either try quantitative easing, or do nothing (praying..."please do nothing, please do nothing!!) This is the only thing government can do (actually the Fed) without consulting the congress or the public. We or our representatives have absolutely no say in this! (That's not shady at all!)

Does this result in a back door bailout for banks? Yes!! The banks get a ton of debt taken off of their records.

Does this result in lower national debt? No, the debt is just transferred to the fed!

Does this increase the money supply? Absolutely!! It is a fancy term for INFLATION!!! This is the one term I was waiting for in NPR's reporting, but they never said it. This is the dirty word of the day that the Feds do not want you to say! Inflation, inflation, inflation!!!

There is no proof that increasing the money supply increases wealth, what it does is devalue the currency! The only thing this helps is debt burden. Sure, your cost of living will go up. Inflationary policy rewards those with massive debt burdens lighten the burden of their debt, but punishes savings by devaluing each dollar saved. In short, if you are financially responsible you are screwed.. this rewards the irresponsible big spenders. The biggest and most irresponsible being our government (and financial sector).

Our government is under serious pressure to decrease our debt burden. The world market is threatening to abandon the dollar as the world currency due to our irresponsible national debt. What would happen if they abandon the dollar? Well, basic supply-demand tells us that it would result in inflation! It would result in a plummet of demand, dollars flooding the market as everyone unloads their currency, and a glut in supply. The value of the dollar plummets and inflation in prices soar.... (this might be a good time to trade in your US currency for some Canadian dollars. Later you can cash them in after the storm.)

So how do we ward off the world abandoning the dollar and inflation at home? Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending!!! There is some truth that this would result in further pain, but it is short term pain for long term gain. This would result in deflation. This is true. But deflation would be healthy at this point, and there are thing you can do to shorten the pain of deflation and kick start the economy. Our government is telling us they are out of options, but the real solutions lie in the options they are not willing to try!

To lessen the effects of deflation (which is the direction the markets want to go and is why government intervention is not working, they are fighting against the market) you can cut regulation, release the chains, cut government spending, and cut taxes when and where we can... but tax cuts may not be possible, as we have a large debt hole to dig ourselves out of. These methods are all very popular among the public right now, but getting government to listen is a whole other story. Government, just as individual citizens, do not like to give up money or power once they have had a taste of it, and this would put more money and power back into the hands of the citizens!!

------------------------
Articles

QE Won’t Work; Markets Won’t Care

“The bank sector remains weak,” he goes on, “and unable to increase lending to companies. There are dangers that further QE could lead to major new problems rather than leading to economic recovery.”

Then there are the curmudgeons at Capital Economics. They’re resolutely refusing to touch the QE Kool-Aid too.

“Quantitative easing provides commercial banks with an opportunity to lend more money. But it does not guarantee that they will. Banks may lack capital or be worried about the financial health of prospective borrowers. Or nobody may want to borrow money, even when interest rates are close to zero.”

Private vs. Federal Government Saving

Quantitative easing: The uncomfortable truths

Nearly 30 years ago, Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volker had to raise U.S. interest rates to 20% to combat inflation of 13.5%, following the stagflation of the 1970s.

What do we do with all those "Climate Deniers"?

Article

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO‘s ’should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate reportdetailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.

Indonesia goes "John Galt"

Tired of the fiat national rupiah always losing value through inflation, some Indonesians are going "John Galt"! They are unhitching from the system and creating their own free market money. They have created the Gold Dinar and the Silver Dirham, and they seem pretty happy about it!



The dangers of disconnecting financial capitalism from the marketplace of reality.

When the dollar and the financial marketplace was based on the gold standard, it was backed by actual wealth and amount of gold in existence. Now that we have disconnected from the backing of gold, we can and have invented an unlimited source of currency, material and electronic, that is not backed by reality. We do not have a healthy version of financial capitalism, and the structure of the marketplace that our government has created has removed the natural checks that the marketplace usually uses to keep itself in a healthy balance.

Pick Your Poison...

"Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other." -John Adams

"The less restraint shown from within the more must imposed from without." -Edmund Burke

I have long wondered... what the heck is fascism? I always pictured it pretty much like communism with a frowny face and wearing a military uniform.

(Post still in progress... busy reading about fascism)

Ok, I read a bit about fascism and apparently I am not the only one that has a problem placing it on the political spectrum. Rather than a particular world-view, the main similarity of fascist governments are their methods- creating national unity rallied behind a common enemy in response to a perceived threat to society, such as moral degradation by whatever means necessary, and totalitarian control... The ends justify the means! And the ends seems to be whatever the particular dictator thinks is the perfect society. For arguments sake, let's just consider it a right wing phenomenon, since that is usually where it is placed.

Anyway, the reason I was looking this up was not just some freak curiosity, but rather to help explain left -right politics a little bit and the dangers of big government on either side.

In our political parties today, we often see two big-government proponents arguing amongst themselves. Usually they spend most of their time ripping each other to shreds, and often these are the only times that they are telling the truth... One thing both the Nazis and Communists had right back in the 30's is that the other one sucked!!

There are extreme dangers of big government, whether left or right- civil liberties lost on the right, economic liberties lost on the left. Both our current administration and the previous one have taken away a little bit of both! They do not really seem to care which side of the political spectrum they grow on, as long as the direction is up!! (using the triangle graph above.)

Bush is infamous for the Patriot act and the wire taps, but also Medicare Part D and rampant spending and regulations!! Obama is infamous for Health care reform, big regulation, but also making the Patriot act permanent, continuing the wire taps and also passing the financial regulation bill will allow government access to your bank accounts.

Just as fascism, I have a hard time placing either of these political leaders on the left-right political spectrum.

I know Bush has always been characterized as extreme right, but I have a hard time placing him there based on the evidence. The only thing that could possibly place him on the right is his war-prone tendencies. Defense is about the only thing he was right-wing on at all, well... that and tax cuts. He was pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants, created medicare part D, and his daughter came out recently in support of the new health care bill and his wife is pro-gay marriage and abortion rights! He was a centrist big-government guy.

Now Obama, his friends seem to be leftist, but his policies just seem big all over the place. Big secrecy, big social programs, big business subsidies!

There are significant dangers of big government on either side of the political spectrum. The pressures we need to apply to our elected representatives these days is down, smaller is better. Whether left or right, we are far to close to the top of the triangle for comfort. We need to bring it back down, but the only way for our government to be able to scale down is for our society to become more self-sufficient.

---------------------
Articles

Religious Freedom and the First Amendment

... I, as an individual, choose to live by the teachings of Christianity and submit myself to the authority of God as the recognized Higher Authority... Now, if we, as a family, live in a community in which every individual and family has done as we have done, then a civil governance structure exists in which each chooses to live by the same moral and religious creed, respecting the rights of self and all others.

Under such a structure in which I choose to live by a moral and religious creed acceptable to the community, a limited form of government is all that is required as I, as an individual, and every other individual in the community, as well, have chosen to accept the responsibility of governing self according to a universally accepted moral and religious creed.

Now continue to build that structure from the community to the highest form of government and you have a nation of people, all living by the same moral and religious creed, establishing self-governance at every level, requiring a limited form of government to secure order, justice and liberty.

This is what John Adams referred to when he stated: "Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."

Green peace?!

Now, as you are very likely well aware of, there is a huge debate going on over climate change/ Global warming/ Global climate disruption...etc. Not everyone is convinced of the scientific proof behind these theories or the severity of their predictions.

In fact, many scientists who acknowledge the theory that man can effect climate change strongly disagree on the alarmist predictions and destructiveness of that change. But, alarmist predictions get a lot more attention and a stronger reaction from the public. Some are even led to believe that the world as they know it will end if they do not seek immediate action, and it is leading to lots of anger. When people think that their life is at stake and they are not winning the debate for legislative action, how will they react? How far are they willing to go when they feel that their life in on the line? Apparently all the way...


Do not watch with kids!! Hint: they blow the "deniers" up!!

Top video created by the 10.10.10 movement, and the bottom created by Greenpeace.


Diversity of skin good, diversity of minds bad. Got it!

Libertarians like to repeatedly inform others that laws are always enforced at the point of a gun. If you refuse to follow the law, eventually the law must be enforced at the point of a gun. They like to say this to make you realize that when you make silly laws like "Do not sleep in your bathtub" (Detroit) you are advocating the arrest of anyone who falls asleep in their bathtub. Apparently the green movement is completely fine with this. They realize that laws are enforced at gunpoint, and they are not deterred by this fact.

As far as the global warming debate goes, silencing facts and arguments is not the way to go! There are too many questions and data-corruption behind this theory to ignore. The debate is going on, whether climate alarmist like it or not, and they are losing the debate. They are becoming defensive. They think their planet is at stake and some are becoming dangerously defensive!

Why do so many leftist movements end in death when the masses refuse to be "educated"? I thought they were proponents of "peace"!!

Freedom from Responsibility

In FDR's 1944 State of the Union Address, he laid out a Second Bill of Rights. It was essentially a bill of rights to free you from your responsibilities. Sounds good, right?!...

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education."

Each one of these "rights" requires another to provide you your "right" through his or her labor. This redefines rights as something another MUST provide for you! What about the doctor? Teacher? Job provider? Not to mention the market forces that determine your wage rate and ability to provide you your paycheck. This was also called an "Economic Bill of Rights", but in this list, your rights are another mans chains! This this is so economically nonsensical, yet it's proponents have not gone away.

We have heard that "Health care is a Right" in the last health care bill debates, but this ignores the fact that one man's health care is another man's labor! Do you have the "right" to force another to work for you?! Is he subject to whatever you are willing or able to pay him? Do we still have the right to withhold our labor unless we agree to the monetary compensation we feel we are worth? ...Employment is just another free-market transaction, as long as we are economically free. It is a trade of products, labor for money.

If we decide that we need a car, do we have the "right" to a car or do we have the responsibility to obtain the finances to purchase that car? There are some who say we do have the right to that car, because cars are so central to our lifestyles. But think of the economic slavery this entails.

Many would be willing to trade the burden of their responsibilities for the economic security of slavery. Sometimes our responsibilities can be a large burden to bare, but we must think of the alternative. And doesn't it come down to the golden rule?.. "Treat others as you would want to be treated." Would you like to be told what you are going to be paid and be forced to accept, or what customers you must serve and who you cannot? If so, maybe economic slavery is the way to go!

Glenn Beck actually had a pretty good segment on this topic....



But remember, as in actual historical examples of slavery, you may not have to worry whether you will eat or where you will sleep, but neither will you have much choice in the matter. ("Beggars can't be choosers!") And as always, slaves are subject to the kindness of their captors... And when your captor (and provider) is the government, who are you going to sue?

If you do not like my terminology, you may couch them in better language if you like... maybe instead of "economic slavery", you would rather call them "economic rights". It sounds much better!

--------------------------------------
Speaking of the Bill of Rights...

Did you know that the Tenth Amendment is extreme?!..Oy

Ironically, the crowd that thinks we need a second bill of rights, seemingly to give us more rights, do not want us to exercise the rights given to us by the first one!