The Law according to Andy

So, I went through and blandified a bit of my blog. I caught myself writing the way I do in my journal. I don't think that's a bad thing, but some things aren't for public consumption and would probably cause some discomfort among the general public.

I've been thinking a lot about Fairtax. It's a pretty cool idea, and you should learn more about it if you hate income tax. I still have a ton of questions, but they're more and more to understand the Fairtax and less to test it. And who really wants the IRS? Well, I guess a lot of accountants and IRS workers. I wonder if there's something we can do about that.

Speaking of which.... Isn't it interesting that even with the technology we have, people still have to work to get basic necessities? Why? Working for cars, for mansions, for ice cream, for cigarettes, for mascara I can understand. But why, for the love of Grace, do we have to struggle to purchase food produced by machines and the Earth (and minimal labor, when compared to yield)?

The cool thing about Fairtax as I know it is that products are not taxed, only retail. This could feasibly increase local family farm income, as their product wouldn't be taxed until it was being sold by a grocery store. I don't know if this actually is the case, but I have a feeling I've got it right. Someone correct me if not. The prebate is ingenious, by the way. Props, Fairtax. A prebate sent at the beginning of the year will make up for the taxes paid on the bare necessities of life. Baloo would be proud.

This leaves one thing to be desired, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think a single person should have to work for basic necessities (food, clothing, basic housing). A healthy life is the right of every human being, whether they're complete slobs or Mother Teresa. Anything beyond poverty, however, must be earned (in my eyes).

This brings me to another problem, though. Capital punishment. Slobs are fine, but should a murderer (a person who has violated another person's right to live) retain the right to life? Should a rapist (a person who has violated another person's right to health) retain that right? The more I think about it, the more strongly I feel the answer is no. No, no, flat out no.

What about those innocent people who are charged with murder? This is perhaps the ugliest answer I've ever heard, but they are casualties--language suggested to me by a close friend. The war is between those who would violate another's right to life and those who would support another's right to life. In the fight to save lives of innocent people, there is a chance of good people being caught in the crossfire. I believe we should do everything in our power to support the concept of "innocent until proved guilty" (UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11; emphasis added), but recognise that errors are made in the system in which we reside, and will certainly be lessened when every murderer or rapist understands that werf can go through with the crime, but can plan on being charged, convicted, and punished in kind (murder=death penalty).

Let me know the problems with this argument. I hate it, but I support it. Not for justice, but for the lives and innocence of those who will be assaulted or killed due to our fear of misjudgement (Matthew 23:24).