Ferris, thanks for commenting, man. You raise a bunch of good issues, and it is probably fair to say that I created a straw man while arguing against the use of straw men. I agree that a slow, unwitting march to a dystopian future is more likely than some nefarious back room cabal, but I don't see gun rights as a fundamental right, nor a cornerstone of our freedom. Let me just reiterate a few points and bring up a new one.
First, people have a right to protect themselves and a right to protect their homes. Similarly, people have a reasonable expectation that passerby on the street aren't packing heat. I see the two rights in a balance, a freedom to bear arms as well as a freedom from those bearing arms. Because these rights are in a balance, there must be regulations and laws to ensure that citizens know when and where to expect guns as well as in which situations they are legal. This is why I see it as absolutely essential that every gun owner pass a background check as well as a gun safety course. This ensures that the laws regarding firearm possession and use are known and reduces the chances that gun accidents will occur. When you wish to enter into a potentially dangerous activity, such as owning a gun, driving a car, or operating heavy machinery, you should have to register, undergo some sort of background check, and have some training.
Statistically speaking, it is more dangerous to own a gun than it is to not. Possessing firearms can escalate situations that may have ended less violently, and self-inflicted gunshot wounds are a common problem with gun ownership. Rather than thinking of government regulation as tyrannical overreach, gun owners should receive free gun safety classes from the government. The government has a responsibility to ensure public safety, and educating gun owners is a natural extension of that responsibility. By providing services to gun owners, instead of simply penalizing them, the conversation can shift from an antagonistic debate to one where all citizens are stakeholders. Everyone should be engaged in preventing gun violence, even those like you and me, who have no desire to possess or use firearms. Gun violence is someone else's issue until it affects someone in your life. Attacks like the Clackamas Town Center shooting remind us that heinous acts of violence can occur anytime, anywhere.
Second, I agree that the bill of rights has been snipped away at the corners for years. The problem is that gun rights have become, for some, emblematic of the entire bill of rights. For example, some of the same people who decry universal background checks as an assault upon the liberties of law-abiding citizens were the same who enacted the Patriot act, which legalized spying upon millions of law-abiding citizens. The Patriot act, which treats all Americans as potential terrorists and threats, is a direct violation of constitutional rights, whereas universal background checks can be defended as constitutionally valid under the commerce clause, or the "well-regulated militia" clause of the second amendment. You cannot cry wolf when the government asks to know the reason for purchasing a firearm if you stand idly by when they conduct warrant-less wiretapping, or other (il)legal forms of spying. The use of drones in America, whether for surveillance or otherwise, is a more disturbing overreach of government power than the restriction of firearm possession, yet it is sanctioned in the name of "national security." Isn't keeping the streets clear of guns also a job for national security?
If you want to talk about a dystopian future with a tyrannical government, I am much more concerned at the conduct of law enforcement officers surrounding the Occupy and similar protest movements of the last few years. Examples of police brutality and violations of civil rights were sanctioned in the name of keeping the order and allowing traffic to pass. The conduct of police officers in California universities, on the streets of New York, and in Oakland is deplorable. It is a much more direct assault upon civil liberties to restrict the right to protest and to violate the rights against search and seizure, arrest without a warrant, and to physically attack protesters. If an infringement upon the second amendment represents the eroding of American values, nothing should be more important than protecting the first, fourth, and fifth amendments.
Lastly, this isn't 1776, and the people's right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with protecting citizens from government armies. Even if you are armed to the teeth, you simply do not stand a chance against the US armed forces. As has been made abundantly clear by Holder and the justice department, the use of drones against American citizens is not illegal, so long as those citizens are deemed "enemy combatants." Go ahead and buy all the assault rifles you want, good luck taking on the guy sitting in a room in D.C. who is piloting a drone. My point is that quibbles over which types of guns are legal to purchase and use is a moot point. No matter what sort of firearms you own, technology has progressed to such a point that it is not a level playing field. An individual's right to bear arms is not protection against government tyranny. On the other hand, my interpretation of the second amendment, that it protects a collective right to arms, is an effective safeguard against governmental tyranny. Until the last few decades, that was the accepted reading of the second amendment: it protects the people's right to bear arm in a militia, not an individual's right to own firearms.
To sum up, restricting an individual's right to bear arms should be treated as a public health and safety concern. Research should be done into the causes of gun violence and possible means of protection. When lobbying organizations stand in the way of research into gun violence, as the NRA has done since the 90's, they are standing in the way of progress. If research into gun violence can prevent even a single gun murder, it is a good thing. If one more person will be left standing because of assault weapons or high capacity magazine bans, then they should be enacted. You may have the right to bear arms, but I have the right to life. The latter should be protected, even at the expense of the former.
And Go Pacers.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Education is an Investment
I've always dreamed of becoming a teacher, and I graduated last spring with that dream in mind. Since graduation, I've been presented with a number of conflicting opportunities, all of which are more profitable than teaching, but none of which particularly appeal to me beyond their salaries. The practical side of me says the smart thing is to jump straight into the workforce, make as much money as I can, then hopefully become a teacher in the next 5 years or so. The other, more personal side of me knows I wouldn't be happy as a business analyst, or in an office job. I need to be working with people, helping others, striving to make the world a better place. Those are the reasons that, although it is much more expensive and less profitable, I'm going to graduate school to become a teacher.
The sad thing about this country is that it is so difficult to become a teacher compared to other professions, when education is the foundation for one's future. I've received tons of offers to sell insurance, study economics or financial mathematics, or pursue some other graduate degree, each offer coming with significant financial incentive. When it comes to paying for an education degree, however, the offers are much less juicy. There are scholarships and grants available, but they are fiercely competitive and do not cover the price of tuition. Even in my best estimates, all of my financial aid can only defray the cost of tuition, not pay for it all.
Why is it that in a time of record profits for Wall Street, in a time when we have more millionaires and billionaires than ever before, in a time of drawbacks in two wars, that we cannot find the money to properly fund education? How is it that education is included in that umbrella category of "discretionary spending?" I cannot think of a single service that the federal government provides that is more integral to how society functions than public education. An educated populace is a more productive, happier, healthier, and better society. Education is not discretionary, it is necessary.
The most maddening thing about budget debates is that we know that cutting education spending does not do anything to alleviate the deficit or the long-term debt. Cutting education spending exacerbates the debt, by reducing the productivity of future generations. It also kills jobs in the present, slowing down economic activity and forcing thousands of public workers to work part-time or lose their jobs altogether. Since the recession hit, the private sector has consistently added jobs, while the public sector has shed jobs year after year. There is no economic difference between public and private sector jobs - both are real jobs, held by real people, and both allow individuals to participate in the economy.
There is no more effective stimulus than education spending. Every dollar spent on education pays for itself, several times over, in future productivity, teacher spending, and community engagement. Good schools make good communities, lessen crime, increase parent involvement. There is not a negative to public education spending, whether we consider head start programs or higher education funding. Here's a pretty quick read on what head start provides. Head start provides child care services to lower-income parents, allowing them to return to the workforce or seek employment. It is not just an opportunity for the children, it is a service for the parents, too.
Finally, it should not be such a difficult decision for college students to choose a career in education. Education should be the shining city on the hill - the destination that every bright graduate wishes to reach. There are programs that are working to make education careers more appealing: Teach For America, Blue Engine, and many other private/public partnerships. These programs are great, but they are extremely competitive and difficult to join, and can only serve parts of the country. It should be a national initiative to provide energetic, qualified, and passionate instructors to every single child across the country. The only way to do this is to change the national discourse around education. Educational dollars are not to be bandied about in budgetary discussions, and simply privatizing education is not a realistic solution to a nationwide problem. If the national debt is a danger to future generations, an educational deficit is much more frightening, and much more damaging. Stimulate education: it's good for the economy, good for the debt, and good for children. The last point is all that should matter.
The sad thing about this country is that it is so difficult to become a teacher compared to other professions, when education is the foundation for one's future. I've received tons of offers to sell insurance, study economics or financial mathematics, or pursue some other graduate degree, each offer coming with significant financial incentive. When it comes to paying for an education degree, however, the offers are much less juicy. There are scholarships and grants available, but they are fiercely competitive and do not cover the price of tuition. Even in my best estimates, all of my financial aid can only defray the cost of tuition, not pay for it all.
Why is it that in a time of record profits for Wall Street, in a time when we have more millionaires and billionaires than ever before, in a time of drawbacks in two wars, that we cannot find the money to properly fund education? How is it that education is included in that umbrella category of "discretionary spending?" I cannot think of a single service that the federal government provides that is more integral to how society functions than public education. An educated populace is a more productive, happier, healthier, and better society. Education is not discretionary, it is necessary.
The most maddening thing about budget debates is that we know that cutting education spending does not do anything to alleviate the deficit or the long-term debt. Cutting education spending exacerbates the debt, by reducing the productivity of future generations. It also kills jobs in the present, slowing down economic activity and forcing thousands of public workers to work part-time or lose their jobs altogether. Since the recession hit, the private sector has consistently added jobs, while the public sector has shed jobs year after year. There is no economic difference between public and private sector jobs - both are real jobs, held by real people, and both allow individuals to participate in the economy.
There is no more effective stimulus than education spending. Every dollar spent on education pays for itself, several times over, in future productivity, teacher spending, and community engagement. Good schools make good communities, lessen crime, increase parent involvement. There is not a negative to public education spending, whether we consider head start programs or higher education funding. Here's a pretty quick read on what head start provides. Head start provides child care services to lower-income parents, allowing them to return to the workforce or seek employment. It is not just an opportunity for the children, it is a service for the parents, too.
Finally, it should not be such a difficult decision for college students to choose a career in education. Education should be the shining city on the hill - the destination that every bright graduate wishes to reach. There are programs that are working to make education careers more appealing: Teach For America, Blue Engine, and many other private/public partnerships. These programs are great, but they are extremely competitive and difficult to join, and can only serve parts of the country. It should be a national initiative to provide energetic, qualified, and passionate instructors to every single child across the country. The only way to do this is to change the national discourse around education. Educational dollars are not to be bandied about in budgetary discussions, and simply privatizing education is not a realistic solution to a nationwide problem. If the national debt is a danger to future generations, an educational deficit is much more frightening, and much more damaging. Stimulate education: it's good for the economy, good for the debt, and good for children. The last point is all that should matter.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Slippery Slopes
The most tired and overused rhetorical argument is to create a straw man - in other words to distort your opponent's position to the point that no sane person would agree with him or her. The "slippery slope" argument is nothing more than a variation on this straw man argument, where it is frequently used in defense of present and real oppressions by playing on fears of dystopian futures. The argument goes something like this: "If we allow the passage of this law, then what is next? It is only one small step away from (insert dystopian vision here)." This sort of argument is diversionary; it shrugs the issues at hand and plays upon listeners' emotions. Lately, the slippery slope argument has been used in the gun control debate, thereby distorting the issue at hand.
I am tired of the argument that if the government restricts gun rights (something that governments do, and always have done) that suddenly America will turn into a dark socialist/fascist/communist wasteland. Gun rights are not sacred, nor inviolable, nor have they ever been. It is currently the case that individuals cannot own all types of firearms, and further restrictions upon gun ownership are not a new and unheard of infringement upon citizen's rights. New gun control measures are necessary as part of large-scale action to reduce gun violence, and are not the first step toward fascism or dictatorship.
Here is how the argument plays out. Gun control advocates propose legislation that is reasonable and fair: ban assault rifles that have no sporting use, require universal background checks on gun sales (something that I had assumed was already the case), limit high capacity magazines, etc. The NRA replies that if we ban assault rifles that it is only a hop, skip, and a jump away to tyranny and government take-over. Rather than arguing over the merits of the gun control proposal, the NRA diverts the discussion to a shouting fest. Essentially, they paint gun control advocates as proponents of tyranny and enemies of liberty, instead of as concerned citizens fighting for greater public safety.
What sacred right do these proposals violate? The second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, the letter and spirit of the law are explicit: within a regulatory framework, the right to bear arms for the express purpose of security is inviolable. The well-regulated militia clause permits the government to restrict the ownership, use, and sale of certain types of firearms. It is plainly ridiculous to argue otherwise: individuals cannot legally possess rocket launchers, grenade launchers, or a host of other weapons. It is only recently that regulatory frameworks have been discarded in the name of "freedom." In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment really didn't mean the "well regulated Militia" part of the clause and that individuals can own firearms for any purpose that can be justified as self defense. This seems a more frightening modification of the law than a high-capacity magazine or assault rifle ban.
In fact, the slippery slope has been slanted toward gun rights for decades. Government agencies used to be able to collect information on gun ownership for the purpose of research, treating gun violence as a public health and public safety issue. The NRA fought against this research for years and won their case. Assault weapons were banned previously, now they are not. Handguns were illegal in DC, now they are not - and the Supreme Court that overturned the handgun ban greatly increased the rights of gun owners. So tell me, which way is the slippery slope going? Are we headed toward a tyrannical society where no individual has the right to defend themselves, or are we headed toward a modern wild west society where no gun control is acceptable?
Gun violence is a serious problem across America - hundreds of people die from it every year, far more than many other issues to which we devote a lot of time and energy. Although a tragedy, the Benghazi attack claimed the lives of 4 individuals and congressional Republicans have played an obstructionist role ever since. If they would bring a proportionate amount of vigor and passion to curbing gun violence, hundreds of lives could be saved every year. Gun violence should be treated, like vehicular accidents are, as a public health issue. It should be approached holistically, and many different, complementary steps should be taken.
Obviously, legislation cannot stop all wrongdoing. For example, murder is illegal, but people still murder. Does this mean that governments should legalize murder, because it is not a perfect fix? The argument that no legislation is sufficient, therefore no legislation is necessary is a logical fallacy. It would be like referees in sports declaring that "players break the rules anyway, so I'm just going to throw away my whistle." Governments must legislate, to the best of their ability, and hope that this legislation can provide a partial solution to the problem.
Laws cannot do everything, and gun violence is a complex problem. Yes, mental health is a big issue. Thus, we should require universal background checks on the purchase and sale of guns, in order to keep them out of the hands of dangerous or unbalanced individuals. We should also better fund initiatives to help the mentally ill, and conduct research into the causes of gun violence and the effects of gun ownership. These arguments are not objections to legislation, but should be undertaken along with legislation to combat violence from all sides. Your right to a gun is not supreme to the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I am tired of the argument that if the government restricts gun rights (something that governments do, and always have done) that suddenly America will turn into a dark socialist/fascist/communist wasteland. Gun rights are not sacred, nor inviolable, nor have they ever been. It is currently the case that individuals cannot own all types of firearms, and further restrictions upon gun ownership are not a new and unheard of infringement upon citizen's rights. New gun control measures are necessary as part of large-scale action to reduce gun violence, and are not the first step toward fascism or dictatorship.
Here is how the argument plays out. Gun control advocates propose legislation that is reasonable and fair: ban assault rifles that have no sporting use, require universal background checks on gun sales (something that I had assumed was already the case), limit high capacity magazines, etc. The NRA replies that if we ban assault rifles that it is only a hop, skip, and a jump away to tyranny and government take-over. Rather than arguing over the merits of the gun control proposal, the NRA diverts the discussion to a shouting fest. Essentially, they paint gun control advocates as proponents of tyranny and enemies of liberty, instead of as concerned citizens fighting for greater public safety.
What sacred right do these proposals violate? The second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, the letter and spirit of the law are explicit: within a regulatory framework, the right to bear arms for the express purpose of security is inviolable. The well-regulated militia clause permits the government to restrict the ownership, use, and sale of certain types of firearms. It is plainly ridiculous to argue otherwise: individuals cannot legally possess rocket launchers, grenade launchers, or a host of other weapons. It is only recently that regulatory frameworks have been discarded in the name of "freedom." In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment really didn't mean the "well regulated Militia" part of the clause and that individuals can own firearms for any purpose that can be justified as self defense. This seems a more frightening modification of the law than a high-capacity magazine or assault rifle ban.
In fact, the slippery slope has been slanted toward gun rights for decades. Government agencies used to be able to collect information on gun ownership for the purpose of research, treating gun violence as a public health and public safety issue. The NRA fought against this research for years and won their case. Assault weapons were banned previously, now they are not. Handguns were illegal in DC, now they are not - and the Supreme Court that overturned the handgun ban greatly increased the rights of gun owners. So tell me, which way is the slippery slope going? Are we headed toward a tyrannical society where no individual has the right to defend themselves, or are we headed toward a modern wild west society where no gun control is acceptable?
Gun violence is a serious problem across America - hundreds of people die from it every year, far more than many other issues to which we devote a lot of time and energy. Although a tragedy, the Benghazi attack claimed the lives of 4 individuals and congressional Republicans have played an obstructionist role ever since. If they would bring a proportionate amount of vigor and passion to curbing gun violence, hundreds of lives could be saved every year. Gun violence should be treated, like vehicular accidents are, as a public health issue. It should be approached holistically, and many different, complementary steps should be taken.
Obviously, legislation cannot stop all wrongdoing. For example, murder is illegal, but people still murder. Does this mean that governments should legalize murder, because it is not a perfect fix? The argument that no legislation is sufficient, therefore no legislation is necessary is a logical fallacy. It would be like referees in sports declaring that "players break the rules anyway, so I'm just going to throw away my whistle." Governments must legislate, to the best of their ability, and hope that this legislation can provide a partial solution to the problem.
Laws cannot do everything, and gun violence is a complex problem. Yes, mental health is a big issue. Thus, we should require universal background checks on the purchase and sale of guns, in order to keep them out of the hands of dangerous or unbalanced individuals. We should also better fund initiatives to help the mentally ill, and conduct research into the causes of gun violence and the effects of gun ownership. These arguments are not objections to legislation, but should be undertaken along with legislation to combat violence from all sides. Your right to a gun is not supreme to the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Monday, January 21, 2013
Some Thoughts on MLK Day
Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a national holiday to honor one of our nation's greatest spiritual and moral leaders. Many remember MLK as a champion of civil rights, as a crusader against injustice, and as a paragon of virtue. Many remember his "I have a dream" speech, and remember his commitment to non-violent resistance. His crusade against injustice and oppression was not confined to issues of race, however, but extended to any iniquity that is perpetuated by man. Those who feel that America has lived up to MLK's dream have a shallow understanding of that dream and do not understand how deeply King understood oppression, whether overt or otherwise.
I will lead with a quote that is particularly apropos considering the present economic state of things: "One day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy... You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?'"
Economic inequality is a very real and present danger, and poverty is more rampant today than it was during King's time. Never before have so few owned so much, and so many gone without. Here's a simple pie chart summing up the issue. The bottom 80%, the vast majority of Americans, possess a mere 12.8% of the wealth in the country. If there is one economic law that everyone agrees on, it is that it takes money to make money. If the bottom 80% control only a third of what the top 1% possesses, is it really any wonder that income inequality continues to worsen?
King was by no means a socialist. He rejected it as a social philosophy because it made no mention of God or spirituality, which were central to King's code of ethics. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the critiques that socialism makes of the capitalistic-colonial system. While the solutions for which socialism advocates may not be the correct solutions, one cannot ignore its critique of the iniquities inherent to capitalism. Capitalism may be the most efficient socio-economic system in terms of producing wealth for some, but it is surely not the most democratic, nor the most egalitarian.
King's questions raise the specter of that American taboo: redistribution of wealth. Why is redistribution such an ugly word? No politician or civic leader dares to mention redistribution, for to do so is political suicide. Redistribution of wealth has come to be viewed as synonymous with outright theft and oppression. If the present distribution of wealth and power is oppressive, however, is this not the pot calling the kettle black?
Redistribution of wealth does not need to be absolute, it does not need to be theft, and it is not necessarily communistic. Sure, it is socialism, but it is socialism that expands the access to basic necessities to millions more people. Currently, there are very few people who are doing very well, and very many who cannot subsist on their own. Is it really so evil to propose redistribution of wealth to address the wrongs of generations of inequality? To put it another way, is the right to property supreme to the right to food? Or the right to water? Or shelter?
In my view, there are few truths that are universally accepted. One statement that is often bandied about in the Beltway is that everyone is entitled to certain basic rights, and "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Earlier drafts had the right to property included among these inalienable rights, but this clause was stricken in later revisions. The right to property is not enshrined in America's founding documents; the right to life is. But if the right to life is fundamental, inalienable, and universal, how can we continue to support a system of commerce and government that allows citizens to starve, freeze, and die on the streets? Are not food and shelter the preconditions necessary to sustain life? Then is it not morally incumbent upon the nation to provide for the poor, regardless of their work ethic or net worth?
King's quote questions the righteousness of ownership, especially of something so basic as water. Who is so arrogant as to proclaim himself the owner of a basic resource, something which the land offers up for free? Man needs water to survive; water is not free in America; therefore it is not free to live. For those who proclaim redistribution runs counter to economic freedom, I argue that the present distribution runs counter to the freedom to live. Which is more fundamental, the right to life, or the right to property? This is the question that King, and socialists in general, have posed again and again.
To those who argue that America is a nation of bootstrappers, I ask: how can a man pull himself up by his bootstraps if he cannot afford the leather itself?
I will lead with a quote that is particularly apropos considering the present economic state of things: "One day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy... You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?'"
Economic inequality is a very real and present danger, and poverty is more rampant today than it was during King's time. Never before have so few owned so much, and so many gone without. Here's a simple pie chart summing up the issue. The bottom 80%, the vast majority of Americans, possess a mere 12.8% of the wealth in the country. If there is one economic law that everyone agrees on, it is that it takes money to make money. If the bottom 80% control only a third of what the top 1% possesses, is it really any wonder that income inequality continues to worsen?
King was by no means a socialist. He rejected it as a social philosophy because it made no mention of God or spirituality, which were central to King's code of ethics. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the critiques that socialism makes of the capitalistic-colonial system. While the solutions for which socialism advocates may not be the correct solutions, one cannot ignore its critique of the iniquities inherent to capitalism. Capitalism may be the most efficient socio-economic system in terms of producing wealth for some, but it is surely not the most democratic, nor the most egalitarian.
King's questions raise the specter of that American taboo: redistribution of wealth. Why is redistribution such an ugly word? No politician or civic leader dares to mention redistribution, for to do so is political suicide. Redistribution of wealth has come to be viewed as synonymous with outright theft and oppression. If the present distribution of wealth and power is oppressive, however, is this not the pot calling the kettle black?
Redistribution of wealth does not need to be absolute, it does not need to be theft, and it is not necessarily communistic. Sure, it is socialism, but it is socialism that expands the access to basic necessities to millions more people. Currently, there are very few people who are doing very well, and very many who cannot subsist on their own. Is it really so evil to propose redistribution of wealth to address the wrongs of generations of inequality? To put it another way, is the right to property supreme to the right to food? Or the right to water? Or shelter?
In my view, there are few truths that are universally accepted. One statement that is often bandied about in the Beltway is that everyone is entitled to certain basic rights, and "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Earlier drafts had the right to property included among these inalienable rights, but this clause was stricken in later revisions. The right to property is not enshrined in America's founding documents; the right to life is. But if the right to life is fundamental, inalienable, and universal, how can we continue to support a system of commerce and government that allows citizens to starve, freeze, and die on the streets? Are not food and shelter the preconditions necessary to sustain life? Then is it not morally incumbent upon the nation to provide for the poor, regardless of their work ethic or net worth?
King's quote questions the righteousness of ownership, especially of something so basic as water. Who is so arrogant as to proclaim himself the owner of a basic resource, something which the land offers up for free? Man needs water to survive; water is not free in America; therefore it is not free to live. For those who proclaim redistribution runs counter to economic freedom, I argue that the present distribution runs counter to the freedom to live. Which is more fundamental, the right to life, or the right to property? This is the question that King, and socialists in general, have posed again and again.
To those who argue that America is a nation of bootstrappers, I ask: how can a man pull himself up by his bootstraps if he cannot afford the leather itself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)