Tag: Liberties (page 4)

Gov. Rick Snyder has appointed Fred Walcott, of Allendale, to the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development.

The five-member board provides executive direction for Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development programs. No more than three members may be from the same political party.

"Fred brings years of experience to the commission, and I am confident he will do great work on behalf of the people of Michigan in this role," said Snyder.

A lifelong farmer, Walcott works for Valley View Pork LLC. The 4,000-acre family farm produces hogs, corn, wheat and soybeans, and houses a weather station which monitors crop conditions. Walcott, a Republican, replaces Velmar Green.

Walcott will serve a four-year term that expires Dec. 31, 2016, and his appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

Sounds benign enough, right?  And, it is until one finds out that Fred Walcott has lined his pockets with $934,078 of our tax dollars for his private profit.  It's just a got-damn shame that a guy trying to make a living without sponging off of taxpayers is greeted by State Police/DNR/Federal agent jackboots just to peacefully have his day in court while being stifled by the Attorney General's Office.

JPFO.org

Originally posted at Random Rants, but I thought I would bring it over here as well - as a general discussion of liberties.

That's right, you read it in the title. Gun control, by its very nature, is logically fallible. In fact, the subject in particular doesn't, and rather, shouldn't, require that statistics about "how many people killed themselves with a gun" or "how many times a firearm was used in self defense" be put in play.

The use of statistics, when done within the context of governmental regulation, does nothing but introduce the use of arbitrary metrics down the road. Indeed, decisions like these need to be made in the private sector, such as when a business needs to decide whether or not to take action y based on information x. But I digress - liberties, including those of firearms ownership, shouldn't be based off of these type of decisions.

For example, someone might claim that saving one life is worth the firearms restrictions placed on x number of other people is worth it. Is it though? Who is to make that call? What if those restrictions save even 10 lives, but as a result, cost the lives of 20 others because they couldn't defend themselves? Who is the government to make that kind of decision? Where do we draw the line? Those previous two questions are examples of exactly WHY statistics shouldn't factor into the debate.