Author Archives: johndewey

by | April 17, 2019 · 10:39 pm

Freedom of Inquiry Through Regulation of Fake News

There was a time when the foremost thinkers of our country declared that freedom of speech was to be an unalienable right that could not be mitigated or silenced no matter the circumstances. These men lived in a time when speech consisted of careful public deliberation between well educated people who took careful consideration to thoroughly understand all aspects of each nuanced issue and argued either in person, in a well rehearsed and/or careful speech, or through painstaking writing that was carefully crafted on parchment with pen and ink and sent on a slow and winding journey to hopefully be delivered to its intended recipient. However, we now stand at a time when words and ideas can be passed instantly from one person to the next, reaching previously unreachable audiences, influencing previously uninterested people, and not always allowing the proper time, location, or means to create meaningful solutions to the problems at hand. Industrialization has brought us a new reality and set of circumstances, and we must alter our mode of thinking to fit our new environment. The new age of social media we are living in has created a new environment with previously unforeseen circumstances, therefore, necessitating a reevaluation of the value that total, unmitigated free social inquiry provides when contrasted with its consequences.

Recently, the country has seen an onslaught of fake news on social media sites. It seems as though every Facebook friend’s mother is constantly sharing a news story so blatantly false, one cannot believe any person was ever incompetent enough to fall for its lies. The spread of these news stories proves that that fake news can be an effective means for changing people’s minds, influencing political trends, and creating social movements. People are easily swayed by the eye catching aesthetics of fake news media that play to the ignorance of the general citizenry and threaten our democracy.

There exists an enduring idea that if each individual is given the power to contribute his ideas and people deliberate about those ideas, the best ideas, the ideas that will serve the most people in the greatest way, will surface, and we will be better for it. Unfortunately, this is not true. No longer can individuals achieve omnicompetence as they maybe once could as there is not enough time in the day to full comprehend all of the multifaceted and quickly changing issues facing our world every day. For this reason, we must work together as a society to combine our knowledge and education in hopes of achieving a communal omnicompetence. We must carefully and deliberately choose the best ideas to consider and use the most educated minds to help us to determine the solution that most aptly fits within our society in its present state.

We are living in a new world of instant messaging, constant communication, and the high-speed transmission of news, yet we are continuing to live as if public discussion is conducted through oratory in a public square. As the times change, we must adapt our means of communication in order to best serve our democracy. In order to effectively plan for our greatest democracy, we cannot allow this spread of fake news to continue. The expulsion of fake news must be deliberately planned in order to stop its deleterious effects. While fake news arguably serves individual liberty, as it allows each person to do exactly as he wishes, it deprives people of the opportunity for development of individual capacity and free intellectual inquiry because it halts individuals on their quest for knowledge and journey towards self-improvement by being constantly bombarded with false information which he is forced to discern. Social media can be a place for free social inquiry, but it must be regulated to serve the public interest rather than the private interest.

Comments Off on Freedom of Inquiry Through Regulation of Fake News

Filed under Dewey

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | December 13, 2017 · 2:50 pm

Locke’s argument for open carry defies his own logic, and my own

In John Locke’s post “Of Open Carry Rights,” he argues that, while ownership of guns is a private issue and therefore outside the realm of public discourse, the display of dangerous weapons out in the open automatically makes them a point of public interest, and thus arguable in the public sphere. From this point, Locke makes clear that open carry should be restricted because it violates others’ right to life by impeding upon their sense of security. While certainly he’s right that open carry should be restricted because exposure of weapons is an unnecessary incitement to violence, the rhetoric Locke uses to reach this conclusion is faulty because his initial argument lends itself to slippery slope. I refute the argument Locke makes in place of another one that rests on more solid ground.

Locke’s his argument begins with an explanation that the right to own guns, as secured in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is an extension of man’s god-given right to life. As he states in “Liberalism,” people must keep “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.” In essence: because the government sometimes fails to do its job sufficiently, we must be able to overthrow it—in order to do this, we must be able to arm ourselves. This logic may have been acceptable in a time when man was scattered across the country, when society lacked a practical and reliable infrastructure to ensure the safety of its citizens. However, it is no longer acceptable because we have a steady system of law enforcement in addition to a number of checks upon government (through its multiple branches and through the press). In the modern age, improved communication and delegations of resources has taken the place of much of the need for strong individuals. Due to the interconnectedness of men, I argue that private ownership of guns is no longer a private issue.

As demonstrated in the past few years in the case of the Aurora, Colorado shooting, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, and more recently the concert shooting in Las Vegas, current gun laws are not sufficiently protecting the rights to life of public. It’s evident that the ideology of protecting individual rights as a solution to protect the rights of all is not working. When it comes at the small sacrifice of unregulated gun ownership, protecting these rights are certainly tantamount to individual liberties. To go about ensuring these collective freedoms, I believe that any private ownership of guns should be thoroughly regulated by the government (and perhaps restricted) because the country’s lax stance on guns has obviously not been sufficient to prevent the deaths of over one thousand people due to mass shootings alone.

If we’re to accept the idea that gun ownership is an extension of the right to life in the first place, we’re placing an unfeasible level of accountability at the level of each individual. Even if this necessitates restrictions of the ‘natural’ right to life on the individual level, the collective freedom of the public will be increased, and consequently society will be all the free. This pragmatism may involve some sacrifices, but they’re certainly fewer than those necessitated by Locke’s unwillingness to put his arguments into context. In fact, Locke defies his own logic by conceding that open is false, while still championing the right of gun ownership. The simple fact of the matter is that guns cannot be an extension of the right to life because impede on others’ life to right in the first place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

Comments Off on Locke’s argument for open carry defies his own logic, and my own

Filed under Uncategorized

by | December 12, 2017 · 4:37 am

The Consequences of Unregulated Weaponry

Ayn Rand believes that American citizens should have the right to carry arms whenever, wherever, and whatever type they see fit. In the article Gun Control Regulations Are Pointless, she makes the argument that “if someone wants to own a gun because it makes them feel safe, or because they enjoy the sport of hunting, then the government does not have the right to keep them from doing so.” She defends this individualistic position by stating that “man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” However, there have been a number of incidents that have made someone’s ability to own a gun less of a priority since it is indirectly harming the public due to mass gun violence.

With the concept of open carry, people assume that having a firearm in their possession means that they will be able to defend themselves against an attacker. Under the idea of individualist pursuit, Rand believes it is lawful to be able to access your own belongings at any time so that someone can achieve personal happiness “because they have a right to self-defense.” However, people are not considering the dangerous indirect consequences of the open carry policy. People are not considering that by carrying a gun, they are automatically making themselves an initial target to skillfully planned killers. Also, there is the possibility that the shooter has more experience with guns than the owner of the gun and the shooter may be capable of taking the gun away from them. This is risking the gun owner’s life by possessing an object that might actually harm them because they are not fully equip to handle a given situation.

Furthermore, we must continue to consider the dangers associated with lax gun control laws. There should be more gun regulations so that people do not harm themselves or their loved ones. More people have been committing mass shootings because they have easy access to large quantities of ammunition. A lot of the mass shooters were diagnosed as mentally unstable, questioning whether or not it was safe for these individuals to even have access to a gun, let alone additional heavy machinery. There was also a period of time when children were accidentally shooting people because they would manage to get ahold of their parents’ gun, not knowing the repercussions of the object. These instances could have been avoided if we had stronger laws that regulated how easy it is for someone to take hold of a gun and where a gun is allowed to be kept.

In contrast with Rand, I state in my book, The Public and Its Problems that “the perception of consequences which are projected in important ways beyond the persons and associations directly concerned in them is the source of a public.” (61) The fact the hundreds of innocent people are being killed each year due to violence is a public concern. Yes, implementing stronger laws that restrict gun owners to having a certain amount of guns in certain places, does infringe on an individual’s pursuit of happiness. However, taking away the rights of individuals is necessary if we are trying to stop the indirect consequences of death taking place. Rand even states that “someone with a clean record is not immune to psychotic breaks, so even someone who passes a background check with flying colors could still use their gun in destructive ways.”  Therefore, if it is possible that someone unsuspecting could begin using weaponry to harm the public, there should be laws that restrict the presence of guns in public areas to avoid potentially fatal consequences.

With, a society as large as ours, it is no longer reasonable to think in individualistic terms. Rand argues that “if a person is wanting to purchase a gun with the intent of using it in criminal ways, they will find a gun one way or another.” However, this is exactly why we need to enforce stronger gun laws, so that people who should not have guns, won’t have access to them. We must consider the potential consequences that arise from not imposing laws that benefit the safety of the entire society.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

by | · 3:40 am

UK’s Digital Economy Act Is a Fight for Liberty

In Ayn Rand’s piece on the UK’s Digital Economy Act, Rand argues in favor of a free market economy, stating that the new law wrongly inhibits private companies and gives people data that arguably does not belong to them. Honestly, I believe Rand is sadly mistaken. To think that a free market economy is what is necessary to excel is just outdated and untrue. What Rand and other liberalists in the past have failed to understand is that “social control of economic forces is equally necessary if anything approaching economic equality and liberty is to be realized.” For this reason, I believe that this law is vital and important to protect the public’s liberty and to secure economic equality for a collectively intelligent society. 

While Rand foolishly believes that a free market economy can cater to our current digital age, I believe that we must create a cooperative institutional order that handle the social and economical implications of today’s technology. With mobile transportation apps like Uber where the corporations and its customers are interacting mostly digitally, there must be acts put in place that protect consumers. In fact, according to Rand’s report, Uber’s access to data that revealed the battery life of customers’s phones is what ultimately caused the UK to establish the Digital Economy Act. In her article, Rand explains that although the company admitted knowledge of this information, they claimed that they hadn’t utilized this information to increase pricing. Still, the accusations stirred discussion that tech companies had formed “a monopoly on data” and people expressed their grievances, stating that this “data belongs to the people.” Rand, however, claimed that people had given their permission for their data to be used when they signed up for various services. I, however, think that it is unfair for customers to remain in the dark about how their data is being used. All issues that concern the public, including how one’s data is being utilized, must be made known. This new act secures that corporations must reveal how they use their consumers data so unlike Rand, I fully support it and its goals.

Furthermore, Rand doesn’t acknowledge how detrimental it is to society to have monopolies in our economy. We need to stop allowing the majority of decisions and wealth of information to be owned by the minority aka private businesses. We must, instead, enact laws like the UK’s Digital Economy Act to protect the wealth and liberty of the greater public. These laws keep businesses in check and prevent them from using technological advances to further their business without public knowledge. To deny consumers the right to know how their data is being utilized is to deny them the liberty to apply reason and emotional intelligence to their choice to use one business over another.

Unfortunately, a free market economy with monopolies is a fast track to disparity. Ayn Rand’s desire for such an organization is not ideal for our current political sphere and the digital age. In today’s digital age, it’s easy for capitalism to help corporations find loopholes that benefit them at the cost of consumer’s liberty. Laws like the UK’s Digital Economy Act are important to secure the liberty of knowledge and equality that the public deserves. There’s a difference between “playing it fair” and fostering an economical environment where corporations thrive at the expense of the public. The public deserves to know the implications of using a digital app like Uber, and I fully support governmental intervention to secure such knowledge for the greater good of the public.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey, Rand

by | December 11, 2017 · 6:44 pm

Slaves to the Disparity

In “Slaves to the Unproductive,” Ayn Rand argues against taxing the rich to provide aid to the homeless. She states that taxes levied for any purpose which exceeds the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness is an overreach by the government, and its discussion should be framed not as rich vs. poor, but as the industrious vs. the unproductive. Rand states that there is no society, but rather individuals pursuing individual interests. She says that taxes inhibit productivity and promote “false altruism,” which functions to enslave the people and provide a select few with power.

Ayn Rand is correct in her assertion that the government should ensure life, liberty, and property. Her assertion, however, is short-sighted as she assumes that the nation in which individuals live automatically provides these human rights to all of its citizens. Rand’s idealization of society’s opportunities fails to account for those who are not given opportunity to allow for success. In order to cultivate people, and allow them to achieve their highest capabilities, the government needs to provide homeless people with the resources to attain property, a job, etc., thus allowing them their rights. Taxing the wealthy would allow homeless people to attain the same basic right of property, as most other people in society, without putting an undue burden on those with less resources. Homeless people have the potential to contribute to Rand’s concept of productivity, but first, the socioeconomic playing field needs to be leveled.

Rand’s emphasis on productivity has its faults, however, as society’s insecurities about under-producing leads to greed and a false sense of want. Wealthy individuals would feel the negative effects of a tax less than a homeless person would feel its positive effects. Yet, Rand’s obsession with achievement encourages individuals to amass a disproportionate amount of resources for a single person, and give little back to individuals deprived of these resources. Rand believes there should not be a greater tax on the wealthy, as it would “enslave” those who wish to collect superfluous amounts of wealth. Conversely, in a society which does not account for the homeless, everyone besides those with wealth are enslaved to a system which fails to provide equal opportunity for success.

Rand’s belief in an individualist society as “a collection of individuals pursuing their own interests” is outdated and impractical in an industrial and urbanized society. In a rural and isolated setting, individuals could afford to account for only themselves, but now that society has integrated, it has no choice but to organize. Society has not given homeless people the right circumstances to pull themselves out of their lower socioeconomic class on their own. For example, orphaned individuals growing up in foster care that are kicked out at the age of 18 may not have opportunities or resources to acquire a job at this a young age. Many of these individuals become homeless. Whereas individuals born in the middle class, for example, would have more opportunity to obtain a job or afford college, because they are born with resources to allow them to do so.

Rand’s concerns of “false altruism” in a collectivist society rest with the individuals who threaten to take advantage of the government power and resources, rather than the government itself. If a certain system encourages this, however, we must change the way of doing things to find a system that works for its intended purpose of ensuring resources and opportunity to the homeless. In an ideal society, like the one Rand describes, we would not have the socioeconomic disparity to equalize, and everyone could pursue their own interests. However, Rand fails to account for the inequality within the society upon which her assumptions rest.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey

by | December 10, 2017 · 4:16 am

In Response to the Opioid Crisis

President Trump has officially acknowledged the opioid addiction as a national problem over the past few weeks. He went so far as to declare it a 90-day public health emergency. President Trump, however, has not issued a specific plan to address the issue and it does not seem like he will do so in the near future. Many suggest that there should be an expansion in the treatment of insurance coverage for Americans who struggle with opioids. Yet I urge you, the reader, to think about it twice. You might be suspicious of my intention and well, do I approve of the prohibition of drugs? No, I don’t. I think drugs should be sold openly because it is the individual’s right to do with them as they please. We must not forget our individual rights, our freedom and our pursuit of happiness.

President Trump should reconsider his past statement. This is not a crisis. If the individual wants to consume drugs and the result is a fatal overdose, then the decision of the individual must be respected. If drugs were to be sold legally, it would put the whole underworld out of business. Also, all the drug traffickers would be put out of business because they wouldn’t have to commit crimes to buy and sell overpriced illegal drugs. We as a society need to pressure the system to become a country free of government intervention, free of the regulation and the controls of an oppressive system. I must clarify that this does not mean that I am in favor of any type of handouts or free medical services that would come with it. It is simply a matter of economic policies. Allow me to explain, no one in a free market can become a monopolist and it is only under government regulation that you can keep competitors out of the field. Free health services are not free if there is a monopoly in every overpriced and restricted drug.

Governor Charlie Baker’s plans to increase the requirements necessary to buy opioids oversteps the true intentions of government. A true government should respect the liberties of the people and their decisions, regardless of the outcome if it does not cause harm to others. Although we do not live in a free market we must do our best to live our lives to the best our ability, guided by our own moral values.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

by | November 15, 2017 · 5:59 am

Private education disrupts democratic education system

President Donald Trump’s most recent administrative budget was largely focused on the reallocation of public school funding towards private education. Betsy DeVos, the Trump administration’s’ Secretary of Education promotes the reallocation of funding for core curriculum like science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) towards private education. This decision to cut down on public school funding to boost private education factions will result in a dismantlement of democratic educational standards.

Public education is the driving force guiding individuals of the state to fulfill their personal potentials. The state is to set non-biased standards that allow for the equal education of individuals regardless of religion, race and economic standing. Specialization in the form of privatized education will, for the elite who exempt themselves from public education using DeVos’ proposition, result in deviation from a democratic way of thinking. Private education standards are set differently and specialized with certain goals and ways of thinking in mind. DeVos’ encouragement of parents who choose to put their children in religious schools violates the student’s opportunity to be submerged in various perspectives, cultures, and religions. The use of government funding for religious private schools is also a violation of the separation of church and state. Students are denied an inherently democratic education system in private schools. The state set education system, while separate from other parts of the country, is a broader reflection of the cultural and physical aspects of the given society that each individual who graduates from public schools must assimilate into. The state set education is also based on a standard set by the region, making it more democratic than a private education.

To privatize education for certain individuals in specialized sectors would result in elitist thinking practices that may instill individualistic mindsets in students which will hinder their contribution to society as a whole beyond this education. For example, if they graduate and decide to join the public workforce.

In contemporary society the financial strains that public schools face are great. Many public schools are already subject to state cutbacks and lack of funding. According to DeVos’ privatization proposal, $1.4 billion of money allocated for education will be spent towards funding in the form of “private school vouchers” for “school choice”/privatization, aside from the $9 billion budget cuts already being made.

Those who choose to participate in private education might do so with the intent to separate themselves from public education however, they are still impacting the public education system by taking a large portion of this funding. The decrease in funding towards public education will take a toll on those who participate in public education.Therefore, those who choose to take part in private education systems are not isolated and are in fact impacting a larger segment of their community by choosing private education.

The removal of much-needed funding towards public education to further establish private institutions is a clear example of elite individualization negatively impacting a community or larger society.

The Trump administration should shift their focus towards reforming the education to a democratic and collective environment rather than shifting towards individualistic privatized institutions. Thus allowing the majority of the population reach their individual freedom through social interaction.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey

by | · 5:04 am

Standardized Testing in an Unstandardized Society

The institution of education’s method of grade school standardized testing stifles the freedom of the individual by focusing students’ learning on a narrow curriculum.

Confining society to a certain set of standardized testing subjects does not foster an environment which encourages free intellectual inquiry. Rather, teachers emphasize subjects that may not fit each students’ field of specialization. Standardized testing materials often take priority over subjects not valued in standardized testing. These programs assume that genius is already present in the student. However, students who specialize in subjects such as art are not deemed geniuses if they do not excel in subjects such as math or science. We need a method of inquiry similar to the process used by scientists to judge the greater needs of students’ education. Students who learn in environments that nurture their individual abilities will succeed and our education system will foster intelligence at a greater level.

Furthermore, standardized testing does not account for lower-income students in environments that do not encourage intelligence. Government programs encouraging standardized testing do not benefit society as they create environments which harm underfunded schools in underprivileged communities. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act sanctioned schools who did not show adequate improvement. Obama’s Race to the Top Program promised incentives to schools who did improve. These programs assume that genius is universally inherent in children, no matter their socioeconomic situation. However, genius results from environments which facilitate intelligence, and not every child affected by these programs have facilitative environments.

Programs which compare schools across all socioeconomic backgrounds additionally create competition which stifles creativity. It is unrealistic to think that schools in underprivileged communities can match the test scores of those in privileged communities with only the help of these programs. However, schools of all socioeconomic levels nevertheless remain in competition. Underprivileged schools often focus the majority of their time on “teaching the test” rather than teaching valuable information—beyond standardized subjects. As a result, geniuses in lower-income communities (that could benefit society) often fail to thrive because their time is spent in competition for higher test scores. Education works better not when schools and students are in environments of competition, but when individual strengths are encouraged for the betterment of the community.

An educational system without standardized testing, but a new system with an emphasis on inquiry, would encourage the freedom of the individual and allow people to fulfill their highest potential through the pursuit of knowledge.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey

by | · 5:04 am

Opioid Crisis

The opioid crisis in America is one of the biggest challenges that we as a country face, President Trump acknowledged this issue many times during his campaign but so far has not taken any significant action aimed at fixing it. While he recently took a step in the right direction it is not enough, Trump recently declared a 90-day public health emergency with regard to the epidemic, but would not commit to anything more permanent, such as an expansion in treatment of insurance coverage for Americans who struggle with opioids. Trump and Congress must do more than call for a temporary health emergency to resolve this issue.

For the individualistic liberal a decision first must be made on whether or not this is a public or private issue, and while Dewey is quoted as saying “the great enemy of individual liberty was thought to be government because of its tendency to encroach upon the innate liberties of individuals” (5). After looking over the national geographic article below, it can be seen that the opioid epidemic is clearly a public issue. “In 2012 nearly 22,000 babies were born drug dependent, one every 25 minutes”, “In 2012 the neonatal intensive care unit became so overwhelmed by drug-dependent babies that it had to turn away newborns with other medical needs” when an issue, such as the opioid problem is causing sick infants to have to be turned down by the institutions created to save them, we must acknowledge that it has become a public issue and people’s opioid issues are harming other families. Now that we have determined the crisis to be a public issue, the next step is to find the right balance in legislation between protecting individual liberty while also taking into account the new world of industrialism and the social planning that is now necessary in our society.

Governor Charlie Baker is on the right track, without overstepping and proposing something like the removal of these painkillers from the market, he has found a balance in a proposal that would increase the requirements necessary for the sale of opioids. He also suggests a switch to more secure electronic prescriptions to combat fraudulent slips and higher penalties for prescribers who break the law. Finally, he argues in favor of the creation of educational and intervention programs that help help identify students who may be at risk, these programs “builds on the state’s existing framework by identifying populations at-risk of developing a substance use disorder, particularly children and young adults, and empowers schools with the tools they need to integrate education about these harmful drugs into their everyday curriculum.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-opioids-20171026-story.html

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/science-of-addiction-babies-opioids/

http://www.wcvb.com/article/baker-administration-proposes-new-legislation-to-fight-opioid-epidemic/13619407

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey

by | · 5:00 am

The Richest Starving Nation

Child hunger persists in a country that wastes an estimated 30-40% of the food supply. America produces so much, yet fails to adequately utilize the new forces of productivity in the interest of the individuals who constitute the society. For children to grow, both literally and figuratively, the government must create programs that ensure children can receive nutritious meals three times a day, every day of the year. By instituting this measure, no child would be shamed for their parents’ inability to pay for lunch, nor would they receive a cheese sandwich to merely quell their hunger. A child who is fed little to nothing while at school has little chance to succeed.

The dated belief that people are born with innate capabilities is inherently false -inequality of fortune and economic status is not a “natural law.” Children who are perpetually hungry face a serious impediment to achieving their full potential and developing into productive, intelligent members of society. Perpetually hungry children face a myriad of issues that their well-fed peers don’t, including anxiety, depression, behavioral problems and chronic health conditions. Allowing children to suffer from these issues when it is within our government’s ability to end child hunger is shameful. Some may believe that one is born with the natural ability to create something as complex as the microchip, those people would be wrong, for a person to discover and create they must be nurtured. Not nurturing a child infringes on their liberty.

The 13 million children that went to school hungry this morning are affectively having their liberty taken away before they even have a true opportunity to exercise it. They have an increased likelihood of dropping out of school and developing emotional and physical ailments, which will hinder their ability to exercise liberty as adults. If the government exists to protect our rights it cannot ignore the fact that what happens to a child today shapes the adult they become. Of course, the individualist liberal will contend that forcing them to pay taxes for children that they have no responsibility for infringes on their liberty, but in our connected society child hunger impacts all of us.

The numerous impacts childhood hunger has on society make it a clear public issue. The behavioral problems stemming from childhood hunger may cause them to be a danger to the other members of society or the lack of quality education will make them either unemployable or in such great poverty that they become dependent on the state. In a connected society what seems to only affect one of us may actually impact all of us.

The government needs to develop a social plan to adequately distribute the benefits of modern production. Charities have developed several programs to help children in need, such as providing them weekend meals when they leave school on Friday or summer meals when school is not in session, but they don’t have the resources of the United States government. If the government learned from the charities and instituted these types of programs nationwide and allocated funding to ensure its success childhood hunger could be eradicated. We cannot tell a child to pull themselves up by their Velcro straps, in some instances the government must intervene to ensure their protection, even if that is perceived as infringing on someone else’s property rights.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey