Liberal Democracy

Milton Friedman – The Escape From Collectivism – YouTube.

I’ve been blogging a lot about individual-freedom that combines both economic and personal-freedom but that also goes with individual-responsibility. And what’s ironic about this is that I’ve been debating with right-wingers who are supposed to be Conservatives. Who are supposed to believe in these things and yet when I talk about things like taxing junk food and soft drinks to pay for. Uncompensated healthcare for irresponsible people who do not take care of themselves and pass their healthcare costs onto people with health-insurance. Because they do not have the health-insurance to cover their healthcare-costs and of course can’t pay for it out-of-pocket. I find these so-called Conservatives instead of arguing for individual-freedom and responsibility taking the. Collectivist view that we are all members of the same society and when someone messes up we should all have to pay for that. Which is why political-labels do not mean a hell of a lot when you do not know what it means to subscribe to Conservatism or Liberalism to use as examples.

But what I believe in is still the same thing that all individuals should have the individual-freedom both personal and economic. To live their own lives as long as they are infringing on other people’s freedom to live their own lives. But then have the individual-responsibility to live and deal with the consequences of their own decisions. So people who do not take care of themselves wouldn’t be allowed to pass those costs onto others. That the job of government is not to run our own lives and tell us how to lives and force others to pay for our own mistakes. But to provide and environment where we can all obtain the information and education that we need to be successful in. Life and what we do with our own lives is up to us. You had the information or it was in front of you and you still messed up or you made the best of it and are doing well. But at least we would all be in control of our own lives.

That would be my escape from Collectivism it would be a Liberal-Democracy where we all have the freedom to live our own lives. Again as long as we aren’t infringing on others to live their own lives with all the information and skills that they need to be successful in life. But then being held personally responsible for the decisions that they make in life for good and bad. Not being forced to share their wealth or be able to have others bail them out.

Occupy American-Capitalism

Let Freedom Reign

Milton Friedman Tries to Help a Future Wall Street Occupier – YouTube.

I’m not sure Michael Moore could give Milton Friedman a good debate at any point in his life. Let alone in his mid twenties like he was in 1978 but this debate between a classical-Libertarian like. Milton Friedman and an Occupy Wall Streeter let’s say in Michael Moore who also happens to be part. Of the one percent because he went to school got himself a good education, got himself a good job. Has been very successful now has his own production company and also happens to come from a blue-collar family from Flint, Michigan. Mike Moore is obviously not a Roosevelt or a Rockefeller or a Kennedy he’s a man whose earned every dime he’s made in life. Which is a big part of American-Capitalism and yet he seems to feel the need to bash an economic-system that’s made him so. Successful versus an economic-professor a classical-Libertarian whether you agree with him or not. At least you always knew where he was on the issues and he always made a good case for what he believed in.

It’s one thing to come from a blue-collar family where your father makes cars for a living or is a construction-worker. With a very good job with pay, benefits and so forth with a good future in that company if he stays on course. Or be that person yourself and perhaps follow your father’s footsteps and suddenly see that job and future disappear. For Mexico and China where they can pay workers slave wages and treat them like the dirt they walk on. And then say this is what you get from American-Capitalism companies going where they can pay their employees the least. Even though that same economic-system empowered you to be successful before you lost your job. But it’s another thing to bash a system that’s worked so well for you where you’ve taken advantage of every. Opportunity in front to you or at least most of them and now say even though this works for me and I now will. Have enough money where I’ll never have to worry about money again because I also have. This job that I’m very good at that will allow me to make a lot more money. And say even though it works for me we should end it and now allow others to benefit from it.

Just the fact that Milton Friedman would give these lectures and take questions from people. Who perhaps didn’t listen to a thing he said and based their questions on what they’ve read from him. Before is a good thing because it gave these students an opportunity to hear another viewpoint. Instead of being stuck in their own ideological world. Where there’s never anyone contradicting them which is what political-speech is about the opportunity to make your own case. Hear the other side and see where you stand afterwords.

Classical Libertarian

Milton Friedman – Redistribution of Wealth! – YouTube.

Redistribution of wealth is something that we’ve had going back to the entire history of the United States. And is something that perhaps only Anarcho-Libertarians are against but the fact is it’s always been with us and it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. When right-wingers talk about redistribution of wealth they tend to talk in terms of taking from the successful to take care of. Poor or the unsuccessful in America through welfare-programs and so forth. That we punish the successful to take care of the unsuccessful as if that’s all that wealth-redistribution of wealth. Is about and Progressives actually tend to do the same thing but use different terms then punish the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful. And say things like why should the wealthy be allowed to have so much money why we have so many people who can’t feed their families and so forth. But the fact is the safety-net that we all pay into is only part of wealth-redistribution and. Wealth-redistribution really covers the whole economy in every developed country.

The fact is anytime an American is taxed and that money is then later spent to build a road or a bridge. Or pay for law-enforcement, the military, the justice-system and so forth. Government is redistributing wealth in America and the overwhelming majority of the country is in favor of that. Form of wealth-redistribution because we are all protected by police, the military, we all use roads. Hospitals at some point most likely will be in court for one reason or another. And all of these public-services that Americans use all have to be paid for, as Milton Friedman said there’s. No such thing as a free-lunch the money has to come from somewhere to pay for everything that government does for us. And unless you are an Anarchist or an Anarcho-Libertarian, you want government providing these services. And you know they have to be funded and chances are you are willing to pay your share for if even if that means taking money from you that you earned.

So if the young person in this video who I’m guessing was in his early twenties if that at this point. Was more experienced or more knowledgable about wealth-redistribution he would’ve laid out the whole history and existence of wealth-redistribution and made that as part of his argument. With Milton but Milton would’ve still disagreed with him because he knew exactly what wealth-redistribution was. And made some case that we should do something else instead but this young guy would’ve had a very good case to make.

Price to Pay For a Civilized Society

The Myth of a Fair Tax | Joseph T. Salerno – YouTube.

For anyone who believes that taxes are theft or illegal or unconstitutional. First of all you should look up the definitions of those terms because you are simply wrong because one of our. Constitutional-amendments allows for the Federal Government to tax individuals and organizations. And taxes are passed by law that are constitutional under the United States Constitution. My other point would be that for everyone who doesn’t believe in taxes at any level from any government. I suggest you move to a country that doesn’t have taxes and see how that works out for you and good. Luck finding a developed country that doesn’t have any tax at any level or perhaps you can build that country for yourself. Good luck doing any of these things because your best shot is trying to eliminate the taxing-power in the United States Constitution. Try to get that out of Congress with both the House and Senate approving it with 2/3 majorities and then find 34-50 states to approve. Of that as well and again good luck with these things because you are going to need that to say the least.

The real question in this debate in America among the 85-90% of the country who are not let’s say Anarcho-Libertarians. And I even know Libertarians who are in favor of at least some level of taxation people who I call Liberal-Libertarians. People like Gary Johnson who also happen to be the Libertarians Party 2012 Presidential-nominee. Believe in a certain level of taxation but that we should tax people based on what they take or consume from society not what they produce for. Society that we tax people based on what they consume but let them keep everything that make except for what they consume. So in theory someone could escape paying any taxes at least at the Federal-level if they do not consume anything on their own. That they consume things that weren’t given to them but as we all know even the cheapest bastards in the world spend at least some of their money. So then the question is what we should all be taxed based on what we consume if your idea of. Tax-reform is the consumption-tax to replace the income-tax.

My idea of tax-reform is what I call the Progressive Consumption Tax. That we create an economy where everyone is as successful and independent as they possibly can and allow them to keep. Almost all of the fruits of their labor and let them enjoy all of it. And only tax them when they consume from society consume things that they didn’t create that were created by someone else that they. Paid for and tax them base on that and tax basic-necessities at low rates and let’s say luxury-items at higher levels. And allow people to make as much money as they can but tax them when they consume things produced by others. To pay for the things that we need a limited constitutional government to do for us.

Con

Pro

YouTube.

The problem with affirmative-action in a country that’s suppose to be a Liberal-Democracy like America. That claims to be color-blind and that all people are created equally under law. Is that affirmative-action simply contradicts those beautiful values that I share because under law it. Denies people things based on race and color while it’s benefiting other people things based on the same characteristics. So what we are doing is saying that we believe in things like color-blindness which is really race-blindness. But we do not believe in it enough to actually practice it. And what we are doing instead is because certain groups. Of Americans have been denied their constitutional-rights in America over the years simply because of their race. And even at times have been denied those things by their own government. Is what we are going to do now is let them benefit based on their race and discriminate against a certain group of people. Not groups but one groups of people even by government because of their race.

Give Me Liberty or Death

Economic and Personal Freedom

The GOP Civil War Over Libertarianism: Matt Welch at Reason Weekend 2013 – YouTube.

This is exactly where the Republican Party is at and why Republicans are examining where they are now and where they are headed in the future. Is the Republican going to continue down the road of being a religious theocratic party that believes they know best how Americans should live their. Lives the Rick Santorum wing of the party that’s now mixed in Neoconservatism into their foreign and national-security policy as well. With the War on Terror from the Bush Administration and so forth. Or are they going to go back to being what they use to when Libertarians were Republicans before the religious and Neo-Right took over the party. Are they going to go back to being a limited-government government closest to the home is the best government. A party that believes in both economic and personal-freedom and a true Conservative-Federalist party that’s not interested. In expanding entitlements unlike the President Bush and those Republican Congress’s. And now even wants Uncle Sam involved in marriage, pornography, divorce and adultery and of course marijuana. Or are they going to embrace the Rand Paul Conservatives and bring in the Ron Paul Libertarians.

This might sound strange but the future of the Republican Party as a major successful party that once again can be a governing party. Is not Marco Rubio the Senator from Florida, Senator Rubio is part of the establishment of the Republican Party. And will be one of those establishment Republicans who’ll try to please all of the factions in the Republican Party both the Neo-Right. And the center-Right and perhaps even Libertarians trying to convince all of these factions that he’s one of them. But what will happen is that he’ll end up offending all of those groups because they’ll see him as trying to please everyone in the GOP. They are too diverse politically, you can appeal to the Conservatives and Libertarians successfully something that Senator Rand Paul will. Try to do because they are similar on social-issues and economic-policy but the. Neoconservatives are very different from the Libertarians and Conservatives. And are much more of a Statist political-faction.

In a lot of ways the future of the Republican Party if they are to remain a major political party in America. And not break off into a far-Right third-party is still in Congress. With Senators like Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jeff Flake and in the House with Representative Justin Amash. These are the real Conservatives in the Republican Party who are against big government the real. Fiscal-Conservatives even as it relates to defense and national-security. Who are not in favor of big government as it relates to social-issues who tend to take more of a Federalist approach to those. Issues as well who can appeal to young-voters and Independents because they do not push the social-issues. And this is why the Republican Party needs a civil-war because this current coalition will not survive. The Republican Party either has to be a limited-government Federalist party that’s not trying to run people’s lives. From an economic or personal perspective or there’s really not much reason for them to exist at all.

The Republican Party needs a civil-war because what they’ve been doing at the national-level is not working. And if you look at the U.S. Senate they are not doing very well win Federal-elections statewide right now that most of their power. Is at the state level with governorships, with Congressional Republicans only controlling the House the lower chamber in Congress. And can’t even force Presidential-vetos and as the country is getting younger and more minority. We are becoming more Liberal and Libertarian and the GOP. Is going to have to successfully adjust in order to survive.

Porky Pig

Spending: A Bipartisan Love Story – Reason.com.

If you are familiar with the terms bringing home the bacon or pork barrel spending or big spenders. Then you are familiar with the United States Congress because generally that’s all. Representatives and Senators can agree on in the House and Senate and with each other and in both parties. I got an election coming up, I haven’t done a whole lot in the last year or so or five years depending on. If they serve in the House or Senate, I know how I’ll get elected I’ll bring some money home from Washington. So Earl has the money he needs to repair his barn or get a new tractor or whatever the pork is.

For most people pork is food but in Washington pork is money that’s sent home from the Federal Government to members of Congress district or state. So they can show their constituents that they are getting their share of the national pot of tax dollars. The other thing with Washington pork is that it tends to be wasteful money that’s used from Washington to pay for things. That benefit a very few like a road that only five people use or a bridge to nowhere. Money to some museum that very few people have ever heard of. And these types of things and of course it benefits the Representative or Senator whose name is on the pork the person who sponsored the amendment to some. Bill where the amendment has nothing to do with the a bill. Like a corn subsidy attached to a defense appropriations bill. That benefits very few people who the country as a whole has to pick up the tab for and in the Senate. A Senator will hold up a defense appropriations bill that means jobs. So he or she can get their agriculture subsidy that benefits very few people.

This is not about Republican or Democrat but about politicians who tend to be career-politicians. People who can’t imagine life without holding an elected office and wearing their blue suits to work everyday. With the title of Representative or Senator or Governor if they ever leave Washington without getting fired. Who aren’t very good legislatures as far as passing legislation and taking tough votes and then being able to justify those votes. But they do know how to bring the bacon home and use that to get reelected.

The Hole

Tamms Is Torture: The Campaign to Close an Illinois Supermax Prison.

I’m not against solitary-confinement but itself because there are inmates who represent a serious threat to. Staff as well as other inmates and at times to themselves and because of this must be isolated until they not longer represent that threat to the prison. Prisons can’t function at all when there are inmates who are simply looking to hurt other inmates or have scores to settle and. So forth and inmates simply can’t rehabilitate themselves under those conditions especially if they have out of control tempers. But isolation by itself even 20-24 hours a day does not rehabilitate inmates so they can function in general-population. Especially if you make it torture for them with nothing to do all day but to look at walls and build up anger and frustration about being in there. Without enough food to eat and so forth without even having any reading material or being able to write letters. Just them, their toilet, basic supplies like toothpaste and that sorta thing but nothing constructive for them to do with their time. An environment in a bare cell like that is torture.

Solitary-confinement should be just like any other unit in prison. A place where inmates go for rehabilitation and to get better not be tortured and to get worst. And you do that through not isolating anger-management issue inmates let’s say in 23-24 hour a day bare cells but you put them. In a cell where they can have constructive things that they can do to keep themselves busy. Like reading and writing materials, music, visits even so their families can see the condition of their. Relatives in prison and most importantly professional help doctors that can help them get their behavioral issues under control. So they can leave isolation and not be stuck there for years or decades like for some inmates and where isolation. Is a place like a penalty-box to use a hockey analogy where inmates go when they commit a penalty but then they come back. And if all of these things to do not work for inmates, then maybe the inmate has some type of mental-condition. And prison is not the right place for them.

Isolation-units by themselves are not a bad idea, I’m not one of these Neo-Leftists that emerged from the 1960s and 70s. Whose anti-authority I’m a Liberal who lives in the real world and understands that responsible authority is a necessary thing for everyone to be able to live in. Freedom but when isolation-cells become torture, then you are just making the situation worst for the inmate. The staff and the prison which is something that needs to be fixed.

Affirmative Action

Thomas Sowell vs Academic Socialist on Affirmative Action – YouTube.

Affirmative-action was created for all of the best of reasons and I believe even Conservatives and Libertarians would admit that. The idea behind affirmative-action was to try to make up for the all of the racial-injustices that had occurred to African-Americans. Since they’ve been American-citizens and have been in North America. The key words are tried to make up for three hundred plus years of racism that Africans in North America were put through starting with slavery. But of course nothing could ever make up for that but the problem is and why I’m against people benefiting from. Their race or being denied things based on their race even if it’s just for one consideration. Is that people are benefiting or being denied access to things because of their race even if that’s. Just one factor which makes it discriminatory to put it mildly but racist to be more accurate. If that was my only problem with affirmative-action that would be bad enough. But my other issue is for another racial one that it assumes that racial-minorities must need quotas in order to succeed in. America because employers who tend to be Caucasian are racist and won’t hire people of other races.

Murderous-Dictator

Israeli airstrikes leave Assad with few choices – YouTube.

Because of the chemical-weapons that are now involved in the Syrian Civil-War now. This will be how the West Israel included since they are an ally of the West and perhaps even NATO. Will justify outside military involvement in the Syrian Civil-War to either forcefully remove Bashar Assad out. Of power in Syria or to get him to step down from office so the Syrian-opposition can take over and start to rebuild the country. Because of the lack of information that the West has about the Syrian-rebels they’ve been hesitant to get involved in this conflict. Unlike what happened in Libya in 2011 when Libya actually using their chemical-weapons against the Libyan-rebels then. But the West will not standby and let a murderous dictator wipeout his own people just to stay in power and simply. Wipeout people who are fighting back against this Authoritarian-regime and are simply fighting for their freedom. So we may see Israel take down the Assad-regime on its own through the air or the West arming the Syrian-rebels or perhaps a no fly zone from NATO over Syria. But the Assad-regime’s days look numbered.