This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Thursday, May 31, 2012

"A Libertarian View of Welfare": What Welfare Insurance Should be for

If Libertarians were in charged, we most likely wouldn't have any Safety Net in America, especially if they were in charge from day one. The only exception of that, would be if Gary Johnson were President, who's the 2012 Libertarian Presidential Nominee, has proposed to decentralize the Safety Net. Which is under his plan, Governor Johnson would transfer the Safety Net over to the States, for them to run. So we would still have Public Assistance in America, just not longer run by the Federal Government. Which is what I would do as well, as well as privatizing the Social Insurance Programs, not to convert them into For Profit Corporations but turn them into Community Services. To expand the Non Profit Sector in America to help and empower people for whatever reasons, who can't take care of themselves. This is one reason why I don't consider Gary Johnson a Libertarian but more of a Liberal Democrat but thats a different subject. In doing this, we would increase Private Charity in America, that would also get Public Funding, as well as be designed to help people who fall through the cracks, be able to help themselves.

But if Libertarians are in charge, they wouldn't even except that, you have Libertarians on one side, saying government should do practically nothing. And can't really point to any evidence of why this approach has worked and Progressives on another side saying, that government should be doing practically everything for people. But at least they can point to another place where a similar approach has worked, just not in this country but across the pond over in Europe. And Liberals such as myself and even Gary Johnson, is you want to call him a Liberal, as well as some Conservatives. Saying that government does have a role to play here, just not as a micromanager but more as a regulator and financier, to help people who are willing and can help themselves. That not getting a good education or not getting an enough of an education, is not an excuse for not working, that you have to be willing to do those things.

Its not a question of whether government should do nothing or everything when it comes to helping the poor. Government will always play some role here, as much as Libertarians may hate that, the question is what role should government be playing in helping people who fall through the cracks of the system. And if you are actually interested in reducing poverty in America, then you have to be willing to help people get themselves out of poverty. Not just sustain them while they continue to live in poverty.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Ashton B. Carter: "Pivoting U.S. Defense to Future Challenges and Opportunities": The United States Role in The World

As countries around the World are taking a look at Freedom, including in our own backyard in Venezuela. As well as in Arabia and the Slavic States as well, the United States needs to step up and play a role hear. And tell people who are fighting for their Freedom, that we are behind you and will support you as well. Not just after to take down whatever Authoritarian Regime that may be in power or us give nice words and speeches but with actions as well. Stand up for Freedom Fighters and actually give them the help that they need, to stand up for themselves. Not just tell Authoritarian Regimes that holding down you're people in unacceptable but showing them what the consequences of holding down the people and murdering them just for protesting. Not threaten them with words but respond to them with actions, when they are doing things to their own people, that are Undemocratic, as well as murdering their own people. America can't direct people to seek their own Freedom, which is what we tried to impose in Iraq, a country at the time before we invaded. Wasn't fighting for their own Freedom and wasn't even prepared to take on the Hussein Regime, we imposed that on them.

America can't make people want Democracy, we can't make people want anything but we can do assist those that have decided. That they've lived under Authoritarians long enough and "are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore" and we can assist them in achieving their own goals. In the case of Egypt they had a military that essentially refused to carry out the orders of a dictator, that wanted to see the Egyptian Opposition, essentially taken down. And the Mubarak Regime was essentially thrown out of power fairly peacefully, with help from the West with sanctions. Similar situation in Tunisia, but in Libya a different story where the military was prepared to defend the Kadaffi Regime and even murder their own people. Where the United States and European Union, as well as with some help from the Arab League. Stepped up and said that was unacceptable and protected the Libyan Rebels. Similar situation in Syria but where there's an unwillingness to help out the Syrian Rebels.

We can't do everything ourselves and aren't going to try to, at least with the Obama Administration. But we are still the Leader of the Free World, as much as President Obama may not want that title and as this Leader, we still have a major role to defend Freedom. When people who have been held down by their own government, want it bad enough, that they are even willing to die for it.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Religious Leader: "President Obama's Gay Marriage Support a Slap in The Face of Religious Freedom": The Inconsistencies of Right Wingers on Limited Government and Republicanism

For the last few years we've been hearing the Right Wing complain about Big Government, that it gets in the way of Americans trying to live their own lives. Raise their kids etc, that Big Government is the problem and not the solution, yet when President Obama comes out in favor of Limited Government, that marriage is an issue for the States and not the Federal Government. They bash him over the head about it and call him Un American and Anti Religious Freedom and so fourth, because he believes the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Shouldn't decide who can get married and who can't and so fourth, the States have always regulated marriage, this has always been seen a States Right, until Neoconservatives got involved and saw that States were doing things that they disapprove of. Now all the sudden they are standing up for Big Government, coming out of favor of Uncle Sam, to get involved in an area that the Federal Government hasn't traditionally been involved in. Right Wingers are also suppose to be slow to change, keep things as is, don't rock the boat, Status Quo and I promise I'm out of cluchet
, for now. But not on marriage because they see some States doing what they disapprove of.

Right Wingers have also been arguing for years, that America is a Republic and not a Democracy, that we don't decide everything based on Majority Rule, they are right about the last part. But when it comes to Same Sex Marriage, they say that a majority of people have voted against Same Sex Marriage, so overturning these votes, would be going against the will of the people. What happened to that we are a Republic and that we don't decide everything by Majority Rule, what if a majority decided, that minorities, women and homosexuals can't vote. How would they feel about that, we are a Republic and we have certain Constitutional Rights that can't simply be overturned by a simple majority. Actually we protect our Constitutional Rights so strongly, that we made it almost impossible to eliminate them. Thats what happens when you are a Constitutional Republic in a form of a Liberal Democracy.

If you believe in things like Limited Government, Individual Freedom all things that Americans tend to love and a big reason why so many immigrants have come to America. And continue to come to America, then you can't just speak in favor of them, when they benefit you politically. And you can't just speak in favor of them to support you're side of the isle and still have credibility on these issues. That you have to support them, even when you disagree with how people you disagree with, are executing their Constitutional Rights as well.

Friday, May 25, 2012

New Regulations on Way for Halfway Houses: How to Transition from Life in Prison to Life on The Outside

Halfway Houses are generally for Non Violent Offenders, people who are Drug Offenders, shoplifters, White Collar criminals, that sort of thing. As they should be as far as Offenders who have committed crimes, where we wouldn't have to send them to jail or prison, because they could be rehabilitated in a Halfway House. Or they could be for Offenders who were convicted of crimes, where they don't represent a big enough threat to have to serve time in jail or prison. And we could save valuable space in prison or jail, for Offenders who have to be in prison or jail, because the threat they represent in society. The crimes they've committed mean they have to be in prison or jail, their crimes warrant that and they deserve to be locked up and their behavior needs to be corrected. Before they be in a Halfway House or back on the street. Halfway House are also for Offenders who have just been released from jail or prison and need an Adjustment Period. Before they are left to fend for themselves, they need help with additional counseling, they have to serve Community Service and need help finding a job as well and other things.

So Halfway Houses are a way to help transition Non Violent Offenders who don't need to be in jail or prison. People who jacked cars to use as an example, as well as for Offenders who were convicted of violent or non violent crimes and help them get themselves back on their feet. Help getting a job, as well as doing a job while they stay in a Halfway House to help pay their dues. But also help finding a job they could work at, for when they leave the Halfway House, as well as help finding housing for once they leave the Hallway House but also for things like setting up a Bank Account. Learning the skills that people need to have to be able to function on the outside and not have to return to committing crimes. And this is a Community Service that should be handled by Non Profits in the Private Sector but of course regulated by the Private Sector to prevent and punish abuses.

Halfway Houses are an investment upfront, to keep Offenders from having to go back to a life of crime. And help transition Offenders from Life in Incarceration, to life on the outside and as far as I'm concern. Is a Community Service that needs to handled by Non Profits in the Private Sector, not by government and is a Community Service, that could even be financed by the Offenders who stay there. By the work they do at the Halfway House and a job they get, working on the outside but while they are still staying at the Halfway House.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

"Does Free Enterprise Hurt the Poor?": Empower People in Poverty to Take Care of Themselves

Arthur Brooks a Conservative I guess Economist with the American Enterprise Institute, who what I've heard from him, sounds pretty intelligent. But he knows better then to talk about Free Enterprise, a system that doesn't exist, what he's talking about is Private Enterprise. If it was Free Enterprise, it wouldn't be subjected to Taxation and Regulation, which all Private Enterprise is. But thats for a another blog and yes Private Enterprise is good for people in poverty, just like its good for anyone else but Private Enterprise alone, by itself doesn't help people in poverty. Or anyone else, you can have the best economy in the World, where America basically was just 10-15 years ago and if you have people who simply don't have the skills needed to get a good job. They are out of luck and will be stuck working dead end Minimum Wage jobs, with little if any benefits or living off of Public Assistance from people who do have the skills to take care of themselves. Of course Private Enterprise is part of the solution in helping people in poverty but if they still don't have the skills to get themselves good job. Then it doesn't do them much good.

Private Enterprise looks good for people with good skills but it aint going to do damn thing for someone who dropped out of High School or didn't finish college. So what we need to do is have an Economic System that empowers students from all economic backgrounds, no matter where they live. To be able to get themselves a good education, before they become adults, so they can move on and go to a good college or Vocational School or perhaps a Public Service Academy. As well as empower people who didn't finish High School or college, who are currently working dead end Minimum Wage jobs or unemployed and living off of Public Assistance. The ability to go back to school, finish High School, go onto college and get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. And not have to live off of Public Assistance, because now they have the skills to be able to take care of themselves.

Private Enterprise is a great and I'm definitely a big fan of it and is something we need and continue to have. But its not worth a whole lot to Low Shilled workers or Low Skilled people who are unemployed, because they don't have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. So what we need to do is empower these people to do exactly that, get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job. And let the Private Enterprise System work.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Noam Chomsky: Government in the Future From 1970: What's the best Political Philosophy

Professor Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist, thats how he describes his own politics. What he does with his own Political Ideology, is take Democratic Socialism, thats common in Europe. When it comes to his economics and combines that with American Libertarianism when it comes to Social Issues. Noam Chomsky is not a Liberal, except on some Social Issues, he's not a Socialist, except when it comes to economics and he's not a Libertarian, except when it comes to Social Issues. He combines all of those Political Ideologies into his own and is something thats fairly common with a lot of American Progressives. Who believe in Big Government Economics but want people to be free to live their own lives, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else with what they are doing. This is the type of Progressivism I respect, even though I don't share that philosophy myself, I'm a Liberal across the board, Classical Liberal but I prefer to be called a Liberal, not a Modern Liberal, which is a Progressive but just Liberal. But I respect Progressives who are Liberal on Social Issues and not Statist both economically and socially.

Me personally I want to see America as a Liberal Democracy, which we still are but we've gotten away from that in the last eleven years or so. Thanks to President George W. Bush, I would've liked to see us build off of what President Bill Clinton accomplished as President, in his eight years. Build off of what he was talking about when ran for President in 1992, in wanting to create and Opportunity Society, where all Americans would be free to live their own lives and not be dependent on Public Assistance. Where we would all be free both socially and economically and build off of what President Clinton accomplished with Welfare to Work and apply that to our other Social Insurance Programs. As well as expanding our freedoms socially, where we could all live our own lives, as we see fit, as long as we aren't hurting anyone with what we are doing. And that we wouldn't have Big Government, because government would be there to regulate how we interact with each other, not how we live our own lives.

Again Libertarian Socialism is something I can respect, even I disagree with the economics of it. Because Liberals and Libertarian Socialists share things in common when it comes to Social Issues, its Progressives that not only believe in Big Government when it comes to economics. But also have Statists views when it comes to Social Issues and feel the need to protect people from themselves, that I have serious issues with.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Invest Bliguru: Milton Friedman's Free to Choose-Cradle to Grave-Public Assistance

Source: Invest Bliguru- Robert Lampman-
Source: Invest Bliguru: Milton Friedman's Free To Choose- From Cradle To Grave

From Cradle to Grave, is referring to how people who were born onto public assistance, raised on public assistance, have kids before they are ready to raise them and live off of public assistance as adults as well, that we literally have had generations of families who’ve lived off of public assistance. Because they have never gotten the skills that they need, to be able to leave public assistance. Meaning they would have the skills that they need to get a good job and not have to live off of public assistance, because they have the means to be able to take care of themselves and their kids.

A lot of this is a result of the safety net that was created in America, in the 1930s with the New Deal and the 1960s with the Great Society. Where you had all the social insurance programs that were designed to help sustain people while they are in poverty, but not do anything to help these people to get themselves off of public assistance and out of poverty once and for all. This is what public assistance was in America, pre-1996. The TANF Law, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, better known as Welfare to Work, changed all that.

It’s not a question in my mind and I believe many other Americans minds, of whether we should help people, who for whatever reasons can’t fend for themselves. The question is how to we do that. Do we just give them a few hundred bucks each month and expect nothing from them. Other than using that money to pay their basic needs, but continue to allow them to make the same mistakes, that they’ve made and while they are on public assistance. Having kids when they aren’t ready to take care of them, having more kids, when they can’t take care of the ones they already have. Using their public assistance checks to buy alcohol and other drugs, or do we instead help them help themselves, so they no longer have to live on public assistance.

Do we empower people to now have the skills to take care of themselves instead of what we’ve done in that past. The first question is what we were doing pre-1996. The 2nd question is what we’ve done ever since. This is what Libertarian Professor Milton Friedman was focusing on in his movie Free to Choose. And interviewed people who hate the current public assistance system and want to see it ended. People who were happy with the current system and people who were speaking in favor of the reforms that happened in 1996, that Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis ran on for President in 1988.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Calvin King: "Ronald Reagan Warned Us About Barack Obama": Really?

If you are ignorant and just downright so dishonest, that you'll say anything, to advance your cause and hurt people you see as opponents, or even enemies, you'll say whatever you can come up with and not let the facts get in the way of a good partisan attack. And perhaps you'll say so much that isn't true, that you'll start to believe your own nonsense. I use to believe that people who thought Barack Obama was a Socialist, or an African Atheist Muslim, how someone can both be an Atheist and a Muslim, someone needs to explain that to me, who was born in Kenya and is an Illegal Immigrant, who's President of the United States, I use to think these people were purely escaped mental patients. Who volunteered for the Michelle Bachmann presidential campaign.

I use to believe that people who said these things, were just straight up making this garbage up. Because they knew their followers, were ignorant enough to believe them. I mean you want to know why the American education system is in bad shape right now, all the evidence you need to see to believe that. Is with the people who actually believe this nonsense, I use to believe that the people who made these claims were simply fools, who don't know any better.

I'm sure there are plenty of those people making these charges, but they aren't the only ones. We simply still have a lot of ignorant people in this country. Who simply don't know any better, which is why they are ignorant, who make up these charges and believe them as well. And yes they are a fringe in America, but the fact is they all vote and all have loud voices in American politics. And powerful enough to get other ignorant Americans behind them.

But lets put some facts on the table just for the hell of it and maybe some ignorant people will learn something. Barack Obama born in Hawaii in August 1961, has a Hawaii birth certificate to show that. He's a practicing Christian who attends church on a regular basis. If he was a Socialist, he wouldn't of bailed out the banking and auto industries, he would've nationalized them. At least until they were ready to be independent again. And he wouldn't of cut taxes by over two-hundred-billion-dollars, but would've raised them by at least two-hundred-billion.

Americans can believe basically whatever the hell that they want to and don't have to pass an IQ test in order to do that. Which is a good thing for a lot of people who believe all of this garbage about Barack Obama and they can also say practically whatever they want to. As long as they aren't threatening to hurt people or incite violence and libeling people falsely. But again facts are facts and you can't argue with them, because once you do that, you are arguing against reality, trying to convince people of things that are simply false. Which is what a lot of the Far-Right is doing against Barack Obama in America.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

CATO Institute: Video: George Will Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner

CATO Institute: Video: George Will Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner

George Will said in an interview with Charlie Rose in October, 2008, a future blog about that coming up, that, "there's a Libertarian Wing and a Social Conservative Wing in the GOP." And that the "Libertarian Wing, is getting larger in the GOP." Thanks to Ron Paul, CATO Institute and others ,. He's mostly correct and I agree with most of that. I would just phrase that a little differently . And would put it this way, that there's a Conservative Wing and I mean Conservative across the board not Statist in any sense and there's a Statist Wing in the Republican Party. People who are Neoconservatives, who now make up the Christian Right, Tea Party and people who don't identify themselves with either of those groups.

Thats the State of GOP today. Made up of people who believe in economic freedom, except for the right for workers to organize. Religious Freedom for Christians, they want Big Government out of our wallets, so they can get in our bedrooms and living rooms. To tell us how we can live our lives, who we can sleep with, who we can marry, what we can watch on TV and what we can listen to. What bars and clubs we can go to etc. To a certain extent even what we can do with our own money. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Neoconservative Wing of the Republican Party is winning in the GOP. Which is bad for them and anyone who believes in liberal democracy and doesn't want America to become a one-party State, which is most of us.

Because as we move along as a country, we are getting younger, more tolerant, more liberal and Libertarian. We are becoming a country that wants Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Generation X and Y are perfect examples of that. But as the changes are happening, we have Neoconservatives who are still stuck in the 1950s. Haven't figured out that color TV is common and that people like to have a good time and don't want to be told how to live their lives. That not all Americans don't fit in with the establishment, that we are all individuals and don't fit into the neoconservative box of what Americans are supposed to be. And that if you don't fit in that box, which is only the size of a lunch box. That somehow you are Un-American, or Socialist.

George Will, is right about the GOP in the sense of the two wings that make up today's GOP. What he would call a Libertarian Wing, that he fits in, that I would call Conservative which is different. And a Social Conservative Wing, that I would call Statist. That are Neoconservative Republicans and are unfortunately for the GOP, the Statists are not only coming, but are winning in the GOP and are on course to put the Republican Party out of business.

Friday, May 18, 2012

Neoconservatives War on Freedom: What the Far Right doesn't like about America

I saw a couple blogs this week called the "Conservative War on Freedom", which is a borderline Oxymoron, which I'll get to later. In the Progressive Magazines Salon and the AlterNet, who have their own issues with Freedom, which is the subject of a different blog. What these bloggers don't understand, is well Conservatism, which is why they wrote blogs. Where the title of their blogs is a borderline Oxymoron. You can't be a Political Conservative and be Anti Freedom, that would like being a Violent Pacifist or a vegetarian who loves to eat meat. And eats it on a regular basis, I mean it doesn't work. Who are you trying to fool, if you are a Political Conservative, you believe in conserving Freedom, not subtracting it or limiting it. Where the War on Freedom comes from the Right Wing, it comes from Neoconservatives, people who still believe its the 1950s and haven't gotten past that decade. And can't believe how much America has changed and how different we are as a country and that we've become too free as a country. Minorities treated equally under law, women working on a regular basis, homosexuals out of the closet and getting married. We are more diverse racially and ethnically, Free Speech running rampant as they would see it, we are becoming more Liberal-Libertarian etc.

Neoconservatives are stuck in a decade that was over fifty years ago and believe that we are too free as a country. And with all of this Freedom, they've become threats to our National Security and National Morality and even things like US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Has become obstructions to our National Security and National Morality and that if we have to violate these things. To protect our National Security and Morality or we have to amend the US Constitution, to put new restrictions on our Freedom so be it. Which is why he now have the Patriot Act, which violates the Fourth Amendment, because it allows for the Federal Government. To essentially snoop Americans without Search Warrants. As well as things like Indefinite Detention, that allows for the Federal Government to hold Americans in Detention, indefinitely, without putting them under arrest or giving them a trial.

Its not Conservatives that have a problem with Freedom, its people farther to the right of them, Neoconservatives. Who believe Americans are too free and when they have too much Freedom, it threatens our National Security and Morality. And Americans might do something as horrible as watching Adult Entertainment in their own home. And that we have to clamp down on this Immoral Behavior, outlaw it even, for the good of the country

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Arthur Brooks: "The Occupy Movement is Right!": Where I Agree with Arthur Brooks

Here's where Arthur Brooks and I agree when it comes to Occupy Wall Street. We agree that Corporate America has too much influence on government and that they can use that influence for their benefit and their stockholders benefit. At the expense of everyone else including their employees, for example without their employees. These companies aren't in business, why in case its not obvious enough, because there wouldn't be anyone to do the work. You might still have Management to lay out the policies and what needs to get done but without employees, you have no one to do the work. And they can set policies so where even though their employees are doing a good job and being productive, they can't afford to purchase the products they produce. Because Management and the stockholders are collecting most of the benefits and then thanks to their connections with government. They can write off a lot of the expenses that it takes to run their company, even though they are pocketing most of their companies profits and are running profitable companies.

I also agree with Arthur Brooks that even though OWS is right in what they are protesting against. That they are wrong in what they would want to do instead, to use as an example, allowing all of the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, including for the Middle Class. And seeing a Middle Class Tax Hike when they can least afford it and when they are wondering if they are about to lose their job. And how they are going to make their next Mortgage Payment, how are they going to put Joe or Marry through college etc. OWS seems to believe that American Capitalism doesn't work and that we have too much Private Enterprise and that we need the Federal Government. To take a much larger role in providing Public Services that they don't trust the Private Sector or the people to provide for themselves, funded through new taxes.

Arthur Brooks and a majority of the country agrees with OWS and what they are against, which is Crony Capitalism, which isn't Capitalism. But we tend to disagree with OWS in what they would do instead, what would be their alternative to Crony Capitalism. Americans tend to like American Capitalism, its Crony Capitalism that we don't like.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Arthur Brooks: True Fairness: You Accomplish That with and an Opportunity Society

A lot of Right Wingers and I guess Arthur Brooks would be one of them, who's a Conservative I actually respect. Because he's the real thing, not someone pretending to be a Conservative but who's too Statist to qualify as a Conservative. Like Rick Santorum, they have this idea that Barack Obama has this grand scheme, to transform the United States into the European Union. To make us the Socialist States of America or something but what they don't understand or won't acknowledge if they do understand is. That the reason that Progressive Democrats have fallen out of love with President Obama, is because he doesn't want to do that or doesn't believe in that at all. What personal differences that Barack Obama has with Bill Clinton and I don't know what exactly what they are. I believe they have a working relationship at best, politically they are very similar, neither man is interested in bringing back the New Deal or expanding it. Both Presidents believe in things like Welfare to Work and Unemployment to Work, that we don't expect people to stay unemployed indefinitely. That we expect then to prepare themselves to go back to work and not live off of Public Assistance indefinitely.

What Barack Obama and other Liberal Democrats want to do in America, is create what Bill Clinton ran for President on in 1992. And what Progressive Democrats seem to have no interest in because it would move us past the New Deal and Great Society. Create what's called an Opportunity Society, a term that Conservatives like to use today but its a concept. That Bill Clinton came up with in 1992, that we would empower all able body and mentally able Americans and this would start when they are kids. And would continue through college, an Education System, that would empower all Americans to get themselves the skills that they need. To have a good opportunity, as well as good opportunities, to be successful in life. To get a good job, earn a good living, own a nice home, put money away, plan their own retirement, take care of their own families etc. And not have to be dependent on Public Assistance.

Liberal Democrats want to create and Opportunity Society, where all Americans would have Equal Access to Equality of Opportunity. Not Equality of Result, where you put all of the National Resources into one pot, collected by the Federal Government. For them to give us back what they believe we need to survive, that Progressives tend to be in favor of. When Liberals talk about Economic Fairness, we are talking about an Opportunity Society. Which is a major Liberal Value, something that Right Wingers don't tend to understand.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Invest Bliguru: Milton Friedman's Free to Choose- From Cradle to Grave

Source: Invest Bliguru- Helen Bohen O'Bannon-
Source: Invest Bliguru: Milton Friedman's Free To Choose- From Cradle To Grave

When Libertarian professor Milton Friedman made his Free to Choose movie in 1980, he spent one of his chapters on the public assistance system. How we treat people who can't take care of themselves. Keep in mind, Professor Friedman is a Libertarian and went into this film with pre-conceive ideas about our public assistance system. But he not only interviewed Libertarians, but Progressives as well as professionals who work in social welfare.

And they talked about the people who collect public assistance and what their lives are like on public assistance. And what's expected from them as they are collecting public assistance. The history of our public assistance system, from when it was created in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. And where we were as far the effects that the War on Poverty that President Johnson created in the 1960s. And the status of where we were as a country as of 1980 when this film was made.

They were talking about what happens when we take people who don't have the skills to be able to take care of themselves. Lack the education to get a good enough job that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Especially low-income low-skilled people who have kids, but lack the ability to make enough money to be able to take care of themselves. As well as the state of our education system, not producing enough people in the country that have the skills to be able to move on to college and more skills and learn a trade. So they will be self-sufficient and not end up on public assistance in the future.

Especially people with kids that they have to obviously look after, but which makes it more difficult to them to go to school. And get the skills that they need, so they can get themselves a good job and to be able to take care of themselves. And their families and not have to return back to public assistance in the future. Professor Friedman's, main point when it comes to public assistance, that I agree with, is that is you give people money, who can't take care of themselves and you expect nothing from the in the future other than spending what little money you give them to be able to take care of themselves, that they'll remain poor.

If you give people more money, to pay for their food and rent, then you are essentially rewarding them for not getting the skills that they need to be successful in life. But if you reward them to go out and get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves and even demand that they do, then they'll do that in return.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Smoked Video: Dick Cavett interview of William F. Buckley in 1995

Father Conservative?
Forget about today’s Republican Party, when you are thinking or talking about Conservatives or conservatism today. Because the Republican Party is no longer a Conservative Party and hasn’t been a Conservative Party in at least fifteen years. Even though there are still come Conservatives left in the Republican Party, but those numbers keep getting smaller. As Far-Right candidates continue to defeat Conservative Republicans in Republican primaries. Today’s Republican Party, might not even a, Republican Party, only a Republican Party in name only. As they continue to move farther to the right and try to combine religion into politics. What their version of what Christianity is and that’s your first clue into what today’s Republican Party is. And an example of why I could never be a Republican.

Today’s Republican Party, is a Religious and Neoconservative Party. They’ve become a statist and nationalist party to the point that the Republican alternative to frontrunner Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, is in favor of constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage and pornography. To empower the Federal Government over the American people and States, to make these decisions for us. Something Bill Buckley would never support, who once described his politics as libertarian. Classical conservatism or conservative-libertarianism, which is exactly what conservatism is in a political sense, is about conserving individual freedom. Not subtracting from it, not passing constitutional amendments to weaken the U.S. Constitution. To give the Federal Government more power over its people, or to make America look like a theocracy. Or turn America into a theocracy. Conservatism is not stuck in the 1950s. Religious and Neoconservatives are stuck in that decade of the 1950s.

Neoconservatives, want to America back to the 1950s when it looked a lot different. The so-called Golden Age of the United States. When women weren’t expected to work, where the constitutional rights of minorities weren’t protected, etc. It’s progressivism that dominated American politics from the 1930’s to the 1970s. But that began to change, with Conservatives like Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan and Bill Buckley came along. But Bill Buckley is really the father of classical conservatism in America. The person responsible for putting the movement on the map in American politics. Without the power of religious and Neoconservatives in the Republican Party today, Mitt Romney looks like a great presidential nominee for them. Because he’s a Conservative Republican, at least on paper. “Get Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms.” As much as he tries to convince Big Government Republicans he’s one of them on some of the social issues, it’s the Bill Buckley’s of the world that put conservatism on the map. And religious and Neoconservatives, who are taking conservatism off the map in American politics. And Bill Buckley would probably be considered a Liberal by them today.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman's Free to Choose- What's Wrong With Our Schools

Source: Commonsense Capitalism-
Source: Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman's Free To Choose- What's Wrong With Our Public Schools

Libertarian economist Milton Friedman made a documentary about the country. The society, covering the economy and several different aspects in the economy. Which education is definitely part of it, he made this film 1979-1980. When America still had a pretty good education system, up until twenty years ago. We still had a decent education system. Now we are ranked 39th in the world according to the United Nations and World Bank. International organizations that Progressives tend to trust now and then.

The level of education that students get, a lot of times is based on the economic level of their parents. and where they live. If you live in a wealthy area, or a middle class area, chances are you're going to get a pretty good education. The suburbs in the Washington area, are an excellent example of this. There are excellent schools in Washington as well, which is one of the wealthiest cities and areas in the country. A big wealthy city, but a city that also have some bad schools with a lot of low-performing students and educators. And the students who live there, get stuck going to bad schools. Just because of where they live.

So the two main things we need in education reform, is choice and accountability. Allow all parents no matter their economic level, or where they live, send their kids to the best school thats for their kids. Instead of having to send them to a school, whether its a good school, or not. And this would force all schools to do a good job and perform the best service possible for their students. Or risk losing their students to other schools. And the other thing which is just important as choice, is accountability.

Judging students and educators based on the jobs that they do. Pay and reward educators for their quality of service, not time of service. Which is different and only promote students to the next grade that are ready to go to the next grade. Don't promote them, because you are worried about hurting their feelings if you hold them back. I don't support a voucher system for schools, at least not from the Federal level. Whatever the Federal Government spends on schools and I believe it should be pretty limited, should be targeted to our public schools. In order to make them as good as possible. But we do need choice in our public schools. Instead of parents being forced to send their kids to the public school, just because of where they live.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman's Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?

Source: Commonsense Capitalism- Thomas Sowell-
Source: Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman's Free To Choose- Create Equal

As much as Progressives may claim there is, there’s no such thing as a Socialist Utopia in the world, there people living in poverty all over the world. Just as there are people living in abundance all over the world as well. The term that all men are created equal, goes to all races and ethnicities. That everyone should be treated equally under law, that no one should be treated better or worse based on their race, or ethnicity, under law. But that doesn’t mean that we get equal amounts of the resources that are produced in the world. What we get out of life, is what we put into it, in most cases. America, is a perfect example of this. That if we have good skills, we get a good education and then we apply what we learn and our skills, that we are going to be very successful in life. And that the people who don’t have these skills, or don’t apply their skills, they underachieve, then they aren’t going to get much out of life. And end up living in poverty or end up in the criminal justice system.

So what we need to do as a society, is create or go back to an economic system that empowers all Americans, to have a good opportunity to be successful in life. Have a system of equality of opportunity, or an opportunity society where we all have a good shot of being successful in life. Which is different from equality of result. Where the state collects all the resources and then divides them up based on what they feel the people need to survive. That would be a socialist system, with a heavy welfare state. Where the people would be dependent on the state for their survival. Even if they have the skills and are productive to take care of themselves.

We can do much better than creating a collective state, or a superstate and allow everyone the opportunity to be successful in life on their own and not be dependent on the state. And we can even have a system that empowers people who fall through the cracks to be able to get up and take care of themselves. We are not all equal as far as what we produce and create for society and ourselves. Some people are just more productive than others for whatever reasons. And should be rewarded for that. But we do need a system that empowers everyone to be productive. So we can have less income inequality, but we’ll never eliminate it, as long as we have Americans who are more productive than others.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Jonah Goldberg: The Idea of Social Cohesion: The Idea of National Community

The idea of a National Community is a sound one depending, on what's meant by that. In a Liberal Democracy like America, we essentially have the freedom to live our own lives. Unless we are incarcerated, then we are essentially subjects of the State. You don't want to be that, so never break the law if you can avoid it. But for the rest of us, we have the freedom to live our own lives. As much as some Neoconservatives and Progressives, may hate this. As long as we are not hurting anyone with what we are doing. Another words we have the freedom to be individuals, one of the things that the Hippie Movement was about. Which is Individualism but even though we are Individuals and not subjects of the State. Unless again we are currently incarcerated, we tend to share certain values. That make us a National Community, another words a Nation. Most Americans believe in Individual Freedom, we believe in Civil Rights. Treating people as we would want to be treated, fairness, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights etc.

This is what I hope President Obama means when he's talking about National Community. If we weren't a National Community, we would just be fifty Individual States. Sorta like Europe and perhaps not even that, with no need of an American Currency. Or and American Military, Law Enforcement etc. Because we would all be citizens of Maryland, Florida, Illinois, Texas etc. Or perhaps these States wouldn't be Nations either. If when President Obama is talking about National Community, he's talking about more of a Collectivist or Communitarian. Country, where no one has more or less them someone else. Because all of our resources would go into on National Pot. That of course the State would collect, that we would essentially become a Socialist State. Then no I don't believe in that, because we are not all equal as far as what we produce and contribute to society. So we shouldn't all get equal shares.

I believe when President Obama is talking about National Community. He's talking about one Nation, where we all share a certain set of values. Where we would all have a good shot at making it in life and being as productive as well apply ourselves. And also be rewarded for what we contribute to society. Not a society where the State collects all of the resources. And then dishes them out, based on what they believe we need to survive.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Glen Beck with David Horowitz: Discuss Right Wingers using Saul Alinsky Tatics: Progressives in America

Representative Allen West made a statement about a month ago labeling the Congressional Progressive Caucus and its followers. "Communists", Right Wing author David Horowitz, who I agree with as often as I fly to Mars. Compared Progressives with people who want to run our lives. Essentially people who believe in the Nanny State, that its governments job to tell people how to live. He has a point there but I wouldn't call them Communists, there are Progressives. Who are pretty Statist, not just on Economic Policy. But are big believers in Political Correctness, thinks Hate Speech should be illegal, throw out the 2nd Amendment. Believe in things like mandatory Bike Helmet Laws, even for adults, as well as mandatory Seatbelt Laws. Even for adults and things like the "Fairness Doctrine, because they don't believe the people can tell the difference fact, fiction and commentary. And that gambling and even pornography should be illegal as well. And that pornography is sexist towards women and should be illegal. They believe in the Protective Class, that certain groups of Americans need to be protected by government. Not free to live their own lives.

The problem with David Horowitz's theory, is that he overgeneralizes. Not all Progressives are Statists or even Communists. There a some Progressive Statists and there are Progressive Libertarians and no thats not an Oxymoron. I know some Progressives that are against the War on Drugs, support the 2nd Amendment. Believe Hate Speech should be protected, gambling and pornography should be legal and even believe in Property Rights. Even believe in Capitalism but they would like to reform it. And they also believe in Universal Healthcare and Health Insurance provided by the Federal Government. As well as Universal Higher Education provided by the Federal Government and would like to double the size of the Federal Government. While cutting the military in half and have a Welfare State in America. Progressivism is part of Democratic Socialism, is a wide ranging and diverse Political Ideology.

The other thing that Mr. Horowitz got right about Progressives, is when he said they aren't Liberals. And as a Liberal I'm glad to hear that from a Right Winger. They usually lump us together. But Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists not Communists, even Progressive Statists. Believe in a certain level of Individual Liberty and Limited Government. But they do care about women, minorities, the poor, the country. Perhaps too much at times and put too much faith in the Federal Government to solve problems. Thats another thing that Horowitz gets wrong about Progressives.

Monday, May 7, 2012

"Corruption of the Republican Party": How They Select Presidential Nominees

If your somewhat ignorant about American Politics, you might believe that. The Republican Party selects its Presidential Nominees, by the Presidential Candidate. Who wins the most Delegates, not votes but Delegates which is different. Well thats how its suppose to be but generally they like to go with the Candidate with the hot hand so to speak. The guy always at least to this point, who had the 2nd best showing the last time around. When the GOP has lost the last Presidential Election, which is what happened in 2008. This is how Mitt Romney will be nominated this year, how John McCain was nominated in 2008. How Bob Dole was nominated in 1996, how Ron Reagan was nominated in 1980. Another way they select Presidential Candidates, is they go with the next guy in line. If the are the Ruling Party, meaning they control the Executive. If the President is up for reelection, they automatically go with him generally. So does the Democratic Party, if the President is finishing his 2nd term. They generally select the Vice President, which is what they did in 1988 with George H.W. Bush and 1960 with Richard Nixon. This year it would be Mitt Romney, as the next guy in line.

The Democratic Party works a little differently, the Establishment picks one Candidate. Like in 2008 with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Base picks another Candidate. In 2008 it was Barack Obama and these two people generally fight it out. Unless they have the Presidency and if the President is in good shape, like in 1996 with Bill Clinton. They don't challenge the Leader but if the President is in bad shape for reelection. They challenge him like in 1980 when Ted Kennedy representing the Democratic Base. Took on President Carter, politics might be about leading at least on paper. But political parties see it as job one to get elected, even if that means nominating someone who wouldn't be their first choice. But someone they believe has the best shot at winning. And sometimes political parties get lucky. And nominate someone who they prefer and has the best shot at winning. Like in 1980 with Ron Reagan for the Republicans and 1992 with Bill Clinton for the Democrats.

Ideologically both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the closest Presidential Candidates. That the GOP has to Ron Reagan but the difference being that Paul. Doesn't kiss up to the Far Right in the GOP just to get their votes. Where Romney feels he needs the votes of everyone in the GOP. And for everyone to be happy, even if that means taking positions. He normally wouldn't take which is why he'll be the GOP Presidential Nominee.

Friday, May 4, 2012

"Who Should Control Medicare? 15 Washington Bureaucrats or 50M Feds": How about the People Instead

I actually agree with Rep. Paul Ryan on one thing, Bureaucrats shouldn't be controlling Medicare. But here is where the Representative and I may disagree. I don't want Public Bureaucrats or Private Bureaucrats controlling Medicare. I don't want Uncle Sam controlling Medicare or some HMO from a Private Insurance Company controlling Medicare. The people on Medicare, should be controlling their Medical Insurance, not some Bureaucrat. Looking to cut costs even at the patients expense and if anything. Is given incentive to cut financial costs in the Health Insurance. This is a big way how the Health Insurance Industry makes its money. These aren't the people you want controlling Medicare. Let the people control Medicare if they decide to take Medicare. But give them the option to decide for themselves, whether they are going to take Medicare or not. And let non Senior Citizens pay into Medicare and take it as their Health Insurance, if they decide to do so.

The future of Healthcare Reform in America, for Medicare and otherwise. Is through competition, let the people decide for themselves. Where they get their Health Insurance or let them decide to get a Health Savings Account. Or pay for their Healthcare out of pocket, as long as they pay for their share of their Healthcare Costs. And then whoever provides the best and most affordable service. Will be the ones who win out in this competition but the current Health Payment System does not work. Not enough people can afford to pay for their Healthcare. Too many people are getting "Free Healthcare" and we are not doing a very good job as a country. Taking care of ourselves, which just makes our Healthcare more expensive. So lets get Bureaucrats out of the way, both in the Public and Private Sectors.

Rep. Ryan makes some good points about Medicare but his solutions to both fixing. Both Medicare and our Health Payment System, just makes the problem worst. That would essentially put the Private Health Insurance Insurance Industry. In charge of our Health Payment System, even if people who are currently on Medicare. Want to continue to stay on Medicare. And thats not the direction we should be taking in Healthcare Reform.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Uncommon Knowledge Classic: The Sixties with Chris Hitchens and Bill Buckley: A Decade that Changed America

This might sound warped or insane or something but I'm going to argue. That two of the most divisive decades America has ever had. The 1960s and 1980s had more in common, then they were different. The 1960s a decade that Liberals generally speak in positive terms and I'm one of them. And the 1980s a decade that Conservatives tend to speak in positive terms. I'm a Liberal but I generally look at the 1980s in positive terms, except for the music. I say this because both decades were about Freedom but to a certain extent. In different forms, the 1960s was about Freedom, thats what Hippies and the Civil Rights Movement were fighting for. And this was also one of the reasons why so many Americans were killed as a result. In a big way because of what they were fighting for, Freedom. Jack Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin King, Bobby Kennedy and others. Were killed because of they stood for, which was Freedom. The 1980s was also a decade about Freedom, Economic Freedom but also Social Freedom. With the Reagan Revolution as well as the ending of the Cold War with Russia.

The Hippie Generation was an anti Establishment Generation, people who were bored by the 1950s. And how Conservative the country was and didn't want to live that type of life themselves. And wanted to be themselves, not be part of the Establishment. Even if the Establishment saw them as weird, freakish or even Un American all charges that were thrown at them. In the mid and late 1970s, we had a Tax Revolt in America, especially in California. People who were tired of Big Government and high taxes, people who believed that for what they were being taxed. They weren't getting much in return. The strange thing is that even though there was this movement going on against Big Government. There was another movement going on that started about the same time. That pushing for another form of Big Government, this is where Religious Right came to prominence and power in America.

Democrats tend to love the 1960s and dislike the 1980s just as much politically. Whereas Republicans tend to hate the 1960s and love the 1980s. But what both sides tend not to be aware of, is that both decades both had one big thing in common. They were both about Freedom, not just for some people but the entire country. They just went about trying to accomplish these things in different ways.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Reagan Foundation: A Reagan Forum With Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager, a right-wing radio talk show host, is right about one thing. The right-wing and the Republican Party has forgotten about Ronald Reagan and what Reagan conservatism actually is and what it means. President Reagan left the White House in January, 1989 just twenty-two years ago. And today probably wouldn't recognize the Republican Party today. I'm not a mind-reader, but I'm just basing that on where he was politically when he left the White House. And where the GOP is today, remember what Ron Reagan said.

"Government isn't the solution, but the problem." But yet you had two Republican presidential candidates in 2011 come out in favor of constitutional amendments to ban pornography and same-sex marriage. Actually looking to expand Federal Governmental power in Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum, saying "why do we need fifty marriage laws? We should just have one standard." Which is the argument that today's Progressives make when they are talking about more Federal power in education. "Education is a national Issue, we don't need fifty different standards when it comes to education."

I'm a Liberal Democrat, so obviously I don't agree with President Reagan on everything. And I'm not an expert on President Reagan either. But his message was pretty clear and simple. "Big government is the problem and we don't have enough individual liberty." His message wasn't just about economic freedom or religious freedom or political freedom. But his message was about individual freedom. That people should be free to live their own lives. Religious and Neoconservatives today, who call President Reagan a Liberal, except on economic and foreign policy, take a different approach to politics.

"That individual freedom is a threat to national security." Or as Michelle Bachmann said, "same-sex marriage is the number one threat to our national security". If people have a lot of individual freedom, they may do things that people don't like and wouldn't do. And would become threats to our national security, according to today's Neoconservatives. Or as Rick Santorum put it, "our national morality." The Reagan Foundation and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, is what Republicans and people who claim be Conservatives today should be looking at and studying. Ron Reagan considered himself a Libertarian as late of 1975. He was elected President in 1980. Libertarians people that Religious and Neoconservatives consider to be immoral or Un-American. Because they believe in freedom and are individualist, not collectivist.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Paul Ryan: America's Enduring Promise: The Issues that the Country Faces

As a Liberal Democrat I actually like Rep. Paul Ryan, Chairman of the Budget Committee. Not his politics clearly but him as a person, even though as much as talks about our fiscal issues. He actually doesn't have a serious plan to deal with them. His budget plans, have targeted only around 15% of the Federal Budget. Not doing much if anything on entitlements except for Medicare. Where he would transform the program into a Voucher System. Nothing on Social Security, nothing on Defense Spending. As far as Tax Reform, he's not the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. So I'll give him a pass on not writing a Tax Reform plan. And I'll give him credit for being in favor of a flatter Tax System, where we would eliminate Tax Loopholes and lower Tax Rates. I like him personally and I like his intellect and like President Jimmy Carter. He seems to know the issues that the country faces but also like President Carter. Doesn't seem to know what to do about them and doesn't have a plan to address the issues we face. His own budget predicts that we'll have a Budget Deficit ten years from now.

To be frank neither party has a serious plan to deal with our Budget Deficit. Not Congressional Republicans, not Congressional Democrats, not President Obama. Senate Democrats haven't passed its own budget in three years. Didn't mark up a budget plan this year. And are more interested in holding on to its slim majority in the elections. At least House Republicans have passed a plan with the intention to reduce the deficit and debt. But again we are looking at Budget Deficit, for at least another decade under the House Republican plan. Rep. Ryan talks a great game about the issues we face and our challenges. But seems to be more interested in scoring Partisan Points against the President. For Republicans to use on the Campaign Trail. Which works great in the GOP but nowhere else.

Rep. Ryan criticizes President Obama for being in "Campaign Mode" in this speech. But he must like that, because thats exactly what he's doing. His approach to problem solving, is take it or leave it. Democrats have already left it and his counteroffer, is to well I guess we'll have to wait until the next Congress. When hopefully we'll have a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Not working with Democrats to pass something now.