Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Liberty Pen: The Vision of Barry Goldwater

Source: Liberty Pen-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Barry Goldwater's 1964's presidential campaign was monumental for several reasons. He lost 40 states, lost 61% of the popular vote, Congressional Republicans took a beating both in the House and Senate. Down to 140 seats in the House and 32 in the Senate after the 1964 general election. Those are the negative aspects of the Goldwater Campaign. The positive aspects are that Senator Goldwater was perhaps our only Conservative-Libertarian major party presidential nominee ( unless you include Ronald Reagan ) ever in American politics. He also won five Southern states something Republicans just didn't do at all pre-1968 with the exceptions of Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower.

As bad as a defeat 1964 was for the Republican Party it also served as a roadmap for how the GOP can become a national party again. Which was to go Dixie and out West and win a lot of elections in both regions of the country. I believe 1964, 66, and 68, is why the Republican Party now has a Christian-Conservative theocratic wing and a Conservative-Libertarian wing. And still has a moderate to progressive wing in the North and parts of the Midwest.

The only reason why from 1959-67 the Democratic Party had such huge majorities in Congress especially in the Senate, was because they were a Southern Dixiecrat Confederate Protestant party, with a Northern Progressive and in some cases Socialist base in it. The Democratic Party was all over the map ideologically in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. That is the only reason why they were so huge. Not because America was overwhelmingly liberal, or progressive, and especially not socialist. The Democratic Party was basically 3-4 different parties as part of one huge national party.

Richard Nixon who I believe before Watergate at least was one of our greatest politicians as well as strategists when it came to winning elections, understood in 1965-66 that if were to run for President and then at some point be elected President., he was going to have to have a competitive Republican Party that was no longer just based in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest. That they had to break the ideological and political stranglehold that the Democrats had in America and beat Democrats in Democratic territory. That meant campaigning and winning in the South and West. Especially in Congress but at the state level as well and Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign provided the opening for the rebirth of the Republican Party that we see today. The modern GOP that we see today the start of the new party happened in 1966 and 68.

As far as Barry Goldwater politically and his campaign. Had more Goldwater Conservative-Libertarians came into the party and they managed to hold on to the Conservative-Libertarians who bolted for the Libertarian Party in the early 1970s and in some cases are Independents today, the GOP would be a Goldwater-Reagan conservative party today. Instead of the Christian-Conservative Tea Party Nationalist populist party that we see today. That views candidates positions on pornography, homosexuality, and their religious views, as more important to them, than where candidates stand on economic or foreign policy. Taxes, regulations, education, etc. And they would be a party that could compete for non-European Protestant American voters. Instead of being a party that is dominated by one ethnic group, one race, one religion, and one region of the country, that is predominantly male.
Liberty Pen: The Vision of The Republican Party

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Steve Davies- The Difference Between Classical Liberals & Libertarians

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

I'm cool with being labeled either a Classical Liberal or a Liberal. Just don't call me a Libertarian, if you what's good for you! ( Ha, ha ) I'm a Jack Kennedy/Tom Jefferson Liberal Democrat because I believe in the things that Dave Rubin and Steve Davies point out in this video, but I believe there is a a what I call decentralized limited government role in seeing that people who for whatever reasons especially adults who don't have the skills that allow for them to get a good job and be able to be self-sufficient economically, get an opportunity to get those skills so they can get themselves a good job and not need public assistance at all. As well as short-term financial relief while they're improving themselves economically.

As well as public education as long as it's run by the local government's so everyone is guaranteed at least a shot at getting themselves a good education. And not denied an education simply because private schools don't want to teach them. I believe people should be able to go the the best public that is available for them and if parents want to send their kids to a private school, that is their choice. Just as long as taxpayers don't have to pay for their choices. Instead of forcing kids to go to school simply because of where they live, instead of what's the best school for them.

I believe in national defense to protect the country from foreign invaders. I believe in public law enforcement to protect the public from predators, but not to protect people from themselves. I believe America should be working with our allies to keep our peace, but also to see that the world is as safe as possible for freedom and liberal democracy to survive.

And a regulatory state that is limited to only protecting consumers and workers from predators. Not to try to run private business and make private businesses semi-public utilities that are only privately run in name only.

I'm not anti-government, but anti-big government. I don't want government trying to run our personal and economic lives for us. Which is what the Far-Left and Far-Right have in common. They don't want people to be able to make their own decisions and don't trust and believe in individualism. The Far-Left Socialists and Communists, want big government to manage people's economic affairs for them. And in Communists case, they want big government to manage people's personal lives for them as well as their economic lives. The Christian-Right as well as Nationalists and in some cases as we're seeing in America as well as Europe as well now, Christian-Nationalists who want big government to manage people's personal lives. And don't want people who don't look like them and believe in the same things as they do to even be around and be allowed to live their own lives.

Where I separate from Libertarians is that I'm not an Anarchist. What you get from Libertarians today especially online is this believe that government in any sense is just corrupt, incompetent, unconstitutional, and that it's being existence in any form is enslaving the people. That taxation is theft even though being a citizen of a country is basically like being the member of a club. You pay for the services that you consume as condition of being a member of that club. And for whatever reasons Libertarians today don't seem to understand that.

I'm not anti-government or pro-small government. If I had it my way government would be a lot smaller than what Socialists in any form want and bigger than what so-called Libertarians want. I'm pro-limited government and limiting government to doing only what we need it to do. So in that sense I guess I would a moderate compared with Socialists and Libertarians, but to me that is just about being a Liberal. Taking positions based on the best available evidence at hand. Instead of taking all of my positions based on government either has all of the answers to solving problems or none of the answers to problem solving.
The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Steve Davies-

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Learn Liberty: The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin Interviewing Deirdre McCloskey: Marxism in Two Minutes

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

As I explained with communism last week and explaining what communism is, the basic definition of communism is that communism is the state owning the means of production in society. Someone who is a hard core Communist believes the state should own and manage the entire economy and that property rights and property ownership, are outlawed. In a true communist state people wouldn't even own their own homes or automobiles. No such thing as small businesses with people owning their own restaurants. All private property including businesses and personal property, would be owned by the national government. This is basically the basic definition of what is called Marxist/Communism.

According to Wikipedia, "Marxism has developed into many different branches and schools of thought, though now and there is no single definitive Marxist theory." Communism and Marxism, has developed into many aspects of a broader political philosophy and we don't know if Karl Marx himself ever went as far and developed his own political philosophy beyond his theories on economics.

When I think of Marxist/Communists today and going back to pre-Cold War is that people who do believe the state should own the means of production in society, but that there political philosophy goes beyond just economic policy. A Communist to me anyway and even so-called Democratic Socialists who perhaps aren't pure Communists and do have some democratic leanings with those leavings being more social democratic and collectivist, than liberal democratic and don't put much if any emphasis when it comes to individual rights and aren't fans of individualism at all, are people who see individualism and personal autonomy as dangerous and selfish. And therefor you need a big centralized national state to make most if not all the decisions for society. And to prevent people from being greedy and to think for themselves. As well as to develop opposition to the state.

My personal definition of a Communist or Marxist/Communist if you prefer, even though I don't believe we'll ever know what Karl Marx thought beyond economic policy, is someone who is anti-individual and pro-collectivist. Someone who is against individualism and pro-statism and collectivism. Sees personal autonomy and individualism as dangerous and believes once you give people the freedom to make their own decisions, they'll end up making bad decisions that the state will end up having to pay for. Or will make great decisions for themselves and end up doing much better than society as a whole which is what Communists view as selfish.

This definition of communism can be applied to more than just economic policy and property rights, but big government in general when it comes to the nanny state as well. But the political correctness movement on the Far-Left and Far-Right, that seeks to eliminate and censor free speech that they disagree with and find offensive. If you're asking me that would be my definition of a Communist. A and to a large extent Socialists in general. Even though Democratic Socialists to tend to be more democratic obviously and a believer in at least some individualism when it comes to private property and the right to privacy, and some personal autonomy.
Learn Liberty: The Rubin Report; Dave Rubin Interviewing Deirdre McCloskey: Marxism Explained in Two Minutes

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Libertarianism.Org: Jason Kuznicki & Anthony Comegna- The Liberal & Marxist Theories of History

Source: Libertarianism.Org-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

With this piece I'm going to separate liberalism where I am on the Center-Left of the American political spectrum, from not just Marxism/Communism, but what's called classical liberalism or what and most other people at least today call libertarianism.

Liberalism or liberal democracy, is about individual rights, equal rights, civil rights, equal justice, equal opportunity and yes limited government. Liberals aren't anti-government which is what a lot of modern Libertarians seem to be today. Liberals just don't want big government running people's lives for them and replace individualism with a big central government. And even using big government to try to tell people what they should think and how they can talk with other people. What language is acceptable and so-forth.

Liberalism is the ultimate color, race, ethnic, and gender-blind society. Because it believes in individualism and people should be treated exactly as that as individuals. And don't believe people should be rewarded or punished based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Unlike Socialists even Democratic Socialists and Communists today, who believe minorities should be rewarded over majorities, because of their race and ethnicity and they would simply argue because European-Americans especially men were rewarded because of their race, ethnicity, and gender in the past. And it's time for racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds should be reward based on those factors today.

Whether you want to call them Marxists, Socialists, or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists, Socialists today have very different views from Liberals and don't think liberalism and liberal democracy goes far enough in seeing that the needs of the society and public are met. And don't trust individualism and freedom, opportunity, and even education for the masses, enough to see that everyone's needs are met. And believe you need a big centralized government and perhaps just one government for the entire society, to be used to meet the needs of that masses. And believe that individual freedom and individualism, even the ability for people to think and speak for themselves, as dangerous. Because they see it as the freedom to make mistakes that society will have to pay for. And for the rich will just richer and everyone else will be left behind.

When you're talking about liberalism versus socialism and communism, you're talking about individualism versus collectivism and even statism. Liberals trust educated individuals to be able to self-govern themselves and meet their own needs and be able to take care of themselves. With a limited government to regulate how people interact with each other, but not how we govern ourselves. Socialists and Communists, put their faith in government especially the central state, to see that needs of the masses are taken care and no one is left behind and has to go without. When you're comparing liberalism with socialism, you're talking about individualism and freedom, versus statism.
Libertarianism.Org: Jason Kuznicki & Anthony Comegna- The Liberal & Marxist Theories of History

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer- What is Communism?

Source: Learn Liberty-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I believe Professor Howard Baetjer gave an accurate definition of communism as short and simple as it was. That communism is the common ownership of the means of production of society. But that can be interpreted in two ways.

One, that government owns the means of production of society. Which is generally how communism has been practiced. Look at North Korea today, look at Cuba up until ten years or so ago. Look at China up until about forty years ago. Look at the Soviet Union of Russia before they broke up. Look at the Eastern European Russian satellites during the Cold War.

Another way to look at common ownership of the means of production of society would be that the individuals themselves would own these things. The workers would own a piece of the company that they work for and you see that in what are called economic cooperatives where each worker literally owns a stake in the company that they work for. There are some economic cooperates ( or co-ops ) in America but this is not a common economic system in America or really anywhere else in the world.

But similar with democratic socialism ( the democratic wing of socialism ) communism is not just an economic idea or philosophy. And if you want to know what communism is and what Communists believe you have to look at Communists themselves and what they believe and look at communists government's in countries where communism is the governing philosophy.

My definition of communism is a belief that the state ( meaning the central government ) should be in charge of society and therefore run society on behalf of the people. That the only way society can be strong is if everyone is strong. Meaning that no one should and would have too much while others live without enough and of course no one should go without enough. That individual freedom and individualism, as well as private enterprise, are looked down upon. That people shouldn't be allowed to own things and create for themselves and instead everything should be shared for the common good of society. That the state should be in charge of everything and that there is no private ownership on behalf of the people to serve the people. And that there is no private dissent and competition that the state should have to deal with. No political opposition and private media.

There really aren't any countries left in the world other than North Korea that is purely a communist state. Even Fidel Castro's Cuba now has private enterprise in it. While the state still clamps down on personal freedom and political opposition. The same can be said about the People's Republic of China. Russia is still around but the Soviet Union is now gone. All the former Russian European satellites are now essentially democratic republics with private enterprise economies. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam now has private enterprise in their economy. And this is simply that communism doesn't work as an economic system and these countries were tired of trying to fund their centralized regimes with so many poor people in their countries and not producing enough revenue for their regimes.
Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer- What is Communism?

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Tom Woods: Christopher Snowden- Killjoys: A Critique of The Nanny State

Source: Tom Woods-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

There isn't really one form of a nanny state or one ideology that backs a nanny state. The nanny state comes from both the Left (and not Center-Left) and the Right. (And not Center-Right) People on the Far-Left who at the very least have communist leanings and see individualism and personal autonomy as dangerous and people who don't share their politics as stupid. And view people in general who at least don't share their cultural values and politics, as stupid. And people on the Far-Right who see certain forms of personal behavior as immoral and offensive to their religious and cultural values to the point that they believe those certain activities should be outlawed. And are also people who believe individualism and personal autonomy at least as it relates to personal behavior are dangerous.

I don't believe any intelligent American on the Left or Right is going to argue that there not only stupid people in America, but a lot of stupid people. People who make such bad decisions that it does affect the lives of others. Drunk driving, would be an example, obesity that drives up the health care costs of other Americans especially because of emergency care that people who eat and drink poorly and don't exercise, end up consuming a lot of emergency care because they can't afford to financially pay for the costs of their consequences from their own bad behavior. And therefor end up passing those expensive health care costs onto healthy Americans.

The question should always be what should be done about it. Do you really want to penalize and even make criminals out of people who only hurt themselves at least in the short-term. Or do you want to hold them personally and financially accountable for their own poor decision-making and not allow for them to pass their health care costs onto healthier intelligent Americans. And I'm not talking about denying people health care simply because they made bad decisions with their own diets. But instead having them pay for those costs either upfront through taxation, or through higher health insurance premiums.

The nanny state coming from the Christian-Right primarily in America, is not about stupid personal behavior at all. But really about certain activities that Christian-Conservatives find immoral and offensive to their religious and cultural values. Whether its gambling, pornography, adultery, adult language, adult music, adult movies, homosexuality, women working out of the home, etc. And unfortunately there are many more examples, but I've given you several. But activities that the Christian-Right would outlaw in America and would put people in jail for doing them if they were ever to come to power, simply because these activities offend their religious and cultural values.

Again, its not a question of whether there are stupid people in America and a lot of Americans who do things that are simply not in their personal interest. As well as activities that don't even come with much of a level of danger, but for whatever reasons aren't for everybody which is why not everybody does those things. The questions are who gets to make the decisions when it comes to their own personal lives and who has to deal with the consequences of their own personal decisions. And as a Liberal because I believe in liberty I come down on the side of the individual. As someone who believes in personal freedom and personal responsibility. Not someone who not only believes in big government, but government big enough to protect people from themselves.
Tom Woods: Christopher Snowden- Killjoys: Critiquing The Nanny State

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Reason Magazine: Andrew Heaton- 13 Non-Pedophile Reasons You Can Hate Roy Moore

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Just to be clear, I don't hate anyone that I don't personally know. Other than Adolph Hitler and murderous racist tyrants like that. And Roy Moore is obviously a bad guy and not particularly bright apparently and how he ever got a law degree I believe deserves an investigation into the school that he graduated from. I mean, here's a man who doesn't even believe in the U.S. Constitution and yet somehow becomes a judge in America. You would think even Alabama would want judges who believe in the U.S. Constitution.

Roy Moore is a man who claims to be a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian and yet he can't even accurately quote or interpret the Bible. Claiming that homosexuality is not only a sin, but that people who could be arrested if caught doing homosexuality activity. Saying that is what God would want. Even though Roy Moore as never even met, heard or read anything that this supposed God has ever said. Which would put him in club of roughly 320 million members and that is just in America alone. The American club for people who've never met, talked to, or has read anything that God has ever said is so full and not big enough for the entire world of people who've never met, talked to, or has read anything that God has ever said. And yet Roy Moore who puts his fundamentalist, made up frankly interpretation of the Bible, over the U.S. Constitution.

Can't label Roy Moore a so-called Constitutional Conservative either or big believer in rule of law. But only because he isn't and doesn't believe in rule of law. Not because I'm putting the man down or something, or at least anymore than he deserves. Because Moore only believes in enforcing laws that he believes in and agrees with. Which is a Christmas gift from Santa Clause to every Anarchist who has ever lived. Imagine if everyone else and not just Roy Moore only had to follow laws that they agree with. You don't think there would be some spike in crime do you? And and far as Constitutional Conservative. Roy Moore being quoted as believing in eliminating only half of our constitutional amendments going from 11-20. Including the amendment that eliminated slavery. Where's the constitutional conservatism there? That is not conserving, but eliminating.

How about church and state. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof. Well, its a good thing that Roy Moore won't be going to Congress now for lots of reasons, but a big one being that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. And perhaps would work as a senator to try to disobey the First Amendment, because again he doesn't agree with it, so he doesn't believe he should have to follow it. Roy Moore is the classic case of not ready for prime time and represents someone who simply doesn't have the judgment and knowledge to be serving in public office, at least not Federal office.

I realize its easy to put down and critique someone who just lost a huge Senate seat in the state of Alabama, who also just happens to be a Republican and being the first Republican to lose an Alabama Senate seat in a generation and this these are embarrassing enough for even a so-called Republican who doesn't even believe in the republic and yet he calls himself a Republican, which I guess is a different story. Roy Moore is a Christian-Theocrat ideologically which is different. But Roy Moore should be the lesson and example of what not to do and be if you're a Republican and even a Bible Belt Republican and a lesson for the Republican Party even in the Bible Belt. And if they learn this lesson they can avoid further embarrassments in the future.
Reason Magazine: Andrew Heaton- 13 Non-Pedophile Reasons You Can Hate Roy Moore