Category Archives: rights

Pick One

Posted on by
Reply

In an article regarding Europe’s censors’ efforts to govern and limit American speech, Nathan Harden, RealClearEducation Editor, warned about AI packages embedding invisible and supposedly unremovable watermarks in writing (and eventually in imagery and recordings of speech, also) so that those censors can identify and block speech of which they personally disapprove. In the course of that, the author wrote this about Anthropic AI-generated watermarks in particular.

The marking technology subtly biases words the model picks, in a pattern Anthropic controls via a secret key. The watermark survives ordinary copy and paste, and there is no way to opt out. Anthropic says the mark carries no information that could identify a user and won’t affect the overall meaning of the text.

It isn’t possible to subtly bias words in a text without the overall meaning of that text being so influenced. Surely Anthropic’s managers understand this.

Harden then asked the critical question:

Americans should be asking a more fundamental question: Why is European law dictating how an American company produces words for Americans?

The answer is because [Anthropic’s] managers are all too willing to surrender to Europe’s censors in order preserve their precious presence there and not willing enough, if at all, to spend that energy preserving the freedoms of the nation that nurtured them and provided them the environment in which they grew and now prosper.

How, then, can [Anthropic] or its products be trusted in America or anywhere else?

“Healthcare is a right”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the mantra of the Left and of their Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, most recently articulated by Democratic Socialist Angie Nixon in her successful campaign for the Progressive-Democratic Party nomination for Senator from Florida.

She, and they, are wrong on this, though.

What is the actual right intrinsic in all of us as human beings and in particular via our Declaration of Independence, us Americans, is our right to Life. Full stop.

Health care is merely a tool in protecting that right and preserving the object of that right, our Lives. If this tool is a right in itself in the meaning of the Nixons of our nation, then so are other tools critical—even merely useful—to our ability to protect our right to Life.

These other tools include seemingly peripheral things like our right to vote to choose who we will have represent us in our government, a right currently threatened by the Left’s moves to allow illegal aliens to vote and resistance by the Left to purge voter rolls even of those accidentally registered, all of which dilute the value and effectiveness of legitimate votes. That dilution diminishes our ability to choose our own representatives in government, and that puts the quality of our lives in jeopardy, and that degradation risks our Lives.

Other tools include more directly impacting matters like barring abortion, which denies a baby’s right to its Life.

That last raises another failure in the Left’s healthcare is a right mantra. Rights are universal; we don’t get to pick and choose who has the right, and who does not. The right to Life includes the right of all babies to their Lives, whether they’ve been born or they’re still gestating. Health care is an important tool for preserving the object of that right to Life, the Lives of those babies. Healthcare is only that, though, only a tool for effecting the babies’ rights, it is not a right in itself.

Rent Freezes

Posted on by
2

Are rent freezes unconstitutional? The question comes up in my pea brain by the moves of Democratic Socialist and Progressive-Democrat Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s move to freeze rents in New York City (though he’s merely expanding on prior city administrations’ rent freezes) and of Democratic Socialist and Progressive-Democrat candidate for Florida Senator Angie Nixon, whose campaign platform plank was a national rent freeze.

The Fifth Amendment says, in part, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A rent freeze plainly caps a landlord’s income, blocking him from increasing it at will or even consistently with market values or imperatives.

Nah—that won’t work. Government can’t take what doesn’t exist, and those increases are purely speculative.

But those rent freezes lead to reductions in value of the landlord’s property through denial of the revenue increases required, not merely useful or even needed, to maintain his rental properties in the face of rising costs of maintenance through aging degradation, misuse or abuse of the property by the tenants, and inflation which drives the prices plumbers, electricians, etc must charge.

Surely that freeze-driven devaluation of the property constitutes a taking within the meaning of the Amendment.

Probably not here, either. For one thing, the government wouldn’t be taking for public use, it would be just taking. That’s a technicality. One the merits, it likely isn’t a taking at all. All government regulations in one form or another impact the value of the businesses in the industries being regulated. In some cases, those regulations actually increase the value of the regulated industry participants. If regulatory caps are takings, then regulatory-prompted gains would seem to be taxable capital gains.

But those gains aren’t transfers by government to the regulatees anymore than the regulation-driven losses are takings.

Rent freezes are bad for business, bad for tenants in the long run, and bad for government revenue, but they aren’t unconstitutional. Just monumentally stupid.

The Answer is Perfectly Straightforward

Posted on by
Reply

New York City has sent letters to folks that city bureaucrats claim are pied-à-terre home owners that contain warnings of impending tax bills on those properties. Many of those homes are primary homes clearly held by their owners, and many others are primary homes that are held in trusts or by LLCs as entirely legitimate devices those homeowners use to mitigate estate taxes and to make things easier for heirs.

Worse, the city is trying to require the home owners to prove their homes are primary residences and not secondary. This throws into a cocked hat the American requirement that government must prove its case, not the one the government is charging or the one government is billing.

It’s true enough that trusts and LLCs can confuse, for some, the ownership of the residence in question. City bureaucrats and their boss, DSA/Progressive-Democrat Mayor Zohran Mamdani, are among the some who are confused, and they’re whining about it.

City officials have said they don’t always have the information they need about a home to know whether it is a primary residence. As a result, they have sent out more notices to homeowners than the tax will ultimately apply to.
“Part of the point of this outreach from the Department of Finance is to ascertain whether or not that reflects a primary residence or not,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani said at a news conference last month, referring to homes owned by trusts and LLCs. “One of the reasons that this is being done now is to ensure that New Yorkers have requisite time before the implementation of the surcharge.”

New Yorkers don’t need any time at all for the city to ascertain whether or not the residence in question is a primary residence or not.

The onus is on the city to prove it is not. If the city’s bureaucrats do not have the information they need about a home to know whether it is a primary residence, then they don’t know that the residence is a pied-à-terre, and if they don’t know, they cannot claim that it is. Thus, no pied-à-terre tax is owed.

The question is answered by a simple declaration by the owner, just as with Federal income taxes, with liabilities attached to lying about the matter, just as with Federal income taxes. And just as with Federal income taxes, city bureaucrats can, after the fact, ask for more information, but they cannot be allowed to assign ownership on their own claim and demand a priori the homeowner prove the contrary.

Of course, it may take a court case to enforce this requirement.

One More Thought on our Second Amendment

Posted on by
1

The thought coalesced, finally, on reading a post over at Grim’s Hall, a blog I strongly recommend on GPs.

A problem I’ve had with Bruen from the start, hanging its hat on historical tradition as it does, is that the opinion, thereby, accepts as constitutionally legitimate any weapon regulation, so long as it’s been historically long-standing.

The Second Amendment carries no such caveat or exception, though. Its bar on the government is universal and unequivocal: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The first attempt to regulate that right should have been ruled unconstitutional. It’s not too late today.

…7th Circuit recently upheld Illinois’ ban, noting that the ubiquitous firearm from 1791 through the mid-19th century was a single-shot muzzleloader. AR-15s with large-capacity magazines, the majority said, are “a far cry from these antecedents.”

This seems to me a patently erroneous argument by the Sages of the Seventh Circuit. The Founders, along with, especially, those members of the first Congress who wrote the Second Amendment, along with the People who ratified it, were no strangers to innovation and to technological advancement. Yet no one in any of the courts that I’ve seen have addressed the premise that with that broad awareness, and against the backdrop of so many of the Continental Army’s and Navy’s large weapons systems employed in the just-concluded Revolutionary War were privately owned, the Amendment was written to be technologically agnostic.

That backdrop, those large weapon systems being privately owned, strikes me as the only valid historical tradition.