Book review: Andrew Jackson by Robert V. Remini
Andrew Jackson by Robert V. Remini is exactly what I wanted to read as a biography of the seventh President of the United States. While the author has written numerous works about Andrew Jackson, this book is a concise 225 page biography published in 1966 but contains everything you’d want to know about the subject. It covers Andrew Jackson’s childhood and his early days as a Tennessee lawyer and congressman. Jackson’s rise to fame as the hero of the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 as well as his campaigns against the Seminole Indians in Florida are included, as is his presidency.
What sparked my interest to read a biography of a President whose term of office ended 170 years ago? The answer is in “the bank war.” As President, Andrew Jackson took on and defeated the Second Bank of the United States, the nation’s central bank at the time and a precursor to today’s Federal Reserve. According to the book, Jackson “regarded the Bank as dangerous to the liberty of the American people because it represented a fantastic centralization of economic and political power under private control. It was a ‘monopoly’ with special privileges, and yet it was not subject to presidential, congressional, or popular regulation. Only the financial interest of the B.U.S. (Bank of the United States) constituted any real control of this ‘monster,’ and to Jackson that was no control at all.”
In vetoing the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States (previous U.S. central banks were granted only 20 year charters by Congress), Jackson “did what he believed was his sworn duty as chief executive: to terminate the ability of the Bank to ‘control’ the American people and their government.”
Jackson’s views about central banks are just as relevant today as they were in 1832.
Smart Car
Yesterday I had the chance to rent a Smart Car to use for bringing home the groceries. The car is perfect for getting around Manhattan and I was able to fit five grocery bags in it with no problem. I can honestly say that if I didn’t consciously think about the fact that there were no parts of the car in front or behind me beyond the glass enclosing me, I wouldn’t have known the car was so small. For the most part when driving on the West Side Highway, I didn’t know that I was in a car that was so small and felt as if I could have been driving a Ford Escort. I didn’t even need to test out how tight of a parking space I could squeeze the little thing into because I found a spot on the street that could fit a “regular” car which would have fit two Smart Cars.
Book review: Debt Virus by Jacques S. Jaikaran
Debt Virus was published in 1992 but is very relevant in today’s economic environment. The book presents a good explanation of how money is created through debt. But when money is created through debt, only the principal amount gets created, not the interest (see my previous posts for more details about the concept of the debt virus). The author suggests that to “cure” the debt virus, governments should not delegate control of the money supply to a central bank. Governments should instead spend debt-free money into the economy the way that the government of Guersney does.
This book was a rather quick read. I was already familiar with the concept of the debt virus before I read it. I read Debt Virus immediately after reading The Creature from Jekyll Island, and Debt Virus simply cannot compare to the other book in terms of impact it made on me. Debt Virus is still a good book that is worth reading, it is just that The Creature from Jekyll Island makes a much more compelling case for its arguments than Debt Virus does.
Rating: 8 out of 10.
Douce dame jolie by Guillaume de Machaut
A great example of an Early Music Gem, the song “Douce dame jolie” by Guillaume de Machaut is one of my favorites. Technically, the form of the song is a virelai. This is one of those works where the performance of it is what makes it special. The a cappella version of this song on the CD “The Mirror of Narcissus – Songs by Machaut” recorded by Christopher Page conducting Gothic Voices is what separates this song from other versions that sound like medieval “noodling.” The plain and straightforward singing by Margaret Philpot suits this song perfectly and really lets the beauty of the melody shine through without the need for accompaniment.
Baroque and Early Music Gems
One aspect of music which I enjoy is the thrill of discovering a truly great piece of music that exceeds the expectations of what I thought my enjoyment of that music would be. Sometimes I just stumble upon such music out of happenstance, other times I may be exposed to it by someone else, and other times I may buy a CD for a couple of songs then find that other songs on the CD are actually better than the ones that originally motivated me to buy the CD. It is the equivalent of mining for silver and discovering gold.
Music written before the year 1750 is filled with these types of “gems” (the term I refer to them as). Through the course of listening to the music of the Baroque, Renaissance, and Middle Ages, I have discovered a number of truly special works of music that are not usually considered among the great works of all time (or even their own time) and you generally won’t find them on any “best of” lists and probably not on any consensus “what to listen to” lists of music from these periods. But each really stands out in my mind as music I am thrilled to have discovered.
Sometimes it is difficult to separate the performance from the composition as to what makes these works special, and in some cases I know a specific performance is what separates the music as standing out because I may have heard other performances and was not as impressed. Others works stand out no matter who performs them.
I plan on presenting over the course of several blog posts my list of, and thoughts about, works that I consider to be Baroque and Early Music gems. I don’t intend to present a detailed analysis of any of the works mentioned, but rather just a brief overview of my thoughts about the work. To start off, here is one of my favorite works for any keyboard instrument:
Sonata in D major K 491 by Domenico Scarlatti
This sonata is the piece of music that sparked my love of the harpsichord. The plucked strings of the instrument play the melody beautifully and the contrast of the outburst of some rather harsh chords make for a truly special piece of music. I’ve heard this sonata played on the piano and it’s brilliance still shines through, but the strength of the piece is in showcasing the beauty of the harpsichord. Trevor Pinnock performs my favorite version of this sonata.
Rights and the Ninth Amendment
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (part of the Bill of Rights) is as follows:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That’s it. That one sentence contains a fascinating concept. What does it mean? First, the word “enumeration” simply means “list” so another way to phrase the sentence is: the list of rights defined in the Constitution does not mean that those are the only rights that people have. So if the Second Amendment says that people have the right to bear Arms and other parts of the Constitution say that people have other rights, it does not mean that those rights mentioned in the Constitution are the only rights that people have.
Notice how Thomas Jefferson phrased the wording regarding inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence:
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
The key word from the above phrase is “among.” Jefferson deliberately did not wish to list our inalienable rights, but rather chose to mention three of the most notable.
The Ninth Amendment takes the assumption of inalienable rights one step further and implies that our rights are limitless so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others. Randy Barnett in Implementing the Ninth Amendment states it this way:
The framers believed it was dangerous to enumerate any rights because the rights of the people are boundless.
Rights are unenumerable because rights define a private domain within which persons have a right to do as they wish, provided their conduct does not encroach upon the rightful domains of others. …Because people have a right to do whatever they please within the boundaries defined by natural rights, this means that the rights retained by the people are limited only by their imagination and could never be completely specified or enumerated.
The concept contained in the Ninth Amendment ties in to my previous post regarding our Founding Father’s ideas about the inalienable rights of people with the limited role of government and further illustrates the fascinating thoughts and brilliant ideas that went into the founding of this nation.
Inalienable Rights
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Too often I have taken for granted the words written in those sentences from the Declaration of Independence without truly realizing two key points made by Thomas Jefferson. The first is the concept of inalienable (which means the same as unalienable) rights.
Inalienable right rights are innate, we are born with them. They are those which cannot be given or taken away. The implication of all people having rights which cannot be given or taken away means that governments do not grant us these rights, nor can governments deny us these rights.
If governments do not grant or deny rights, then what are governments needed for? The answer lies in the second sentence quoted above from the Declaration of Independence: to secure these (inalienable) rights. This is the second key point which bears repeating: the role of government is not to grant and deny rights, but rather to secure those rights which we already have. Governments are instituted among men to secure our inalienable rights.
The choice of words of the first amendment to the Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) further illustrates this distinction:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice that the first amendment does not say that people have the right to free speech or religion, but rather it says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging these rights. The assumption by the Founding Fathers was that these rights are inalienable. The first amendment does not grant us these rights but rather prevents Congress from infringing upon those rights. Governments do not grant these rights, but instead is instituted to protect them.
The further implication of the differentiation between governments granting rights and governments securing rights is that if governments only exist to secure rights, then governments do not have the power to do anything that individuals do not have the right to do. I have the right to protect my life, my freedom, and my property. Government has been granted the power to ensure that I continue to have these rights. Government powers need to be granted by consent of the people, and that power is limited to securing the rights of individuals. I have the right to voluntarily contribute my labor, wealth, or property to others. I do not have the right to coerce others to do the same. Likewise, governments do not have the right to force their citizens to contribute their labor, wealth, or property to any cause other than to protect the rights of each and every individual. Governments do not have the right to do anything that individuals do not have the right to do.
