Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Friday, December 28, 2012

The Atlantic: Daoud Kattab: Are the Palestinians Ready to Share a State With Jordan?

Are the Palestinians Ready to Share a State With Jordan? - The Atlantic

This would give the Palestinian people in both Palestine and Jordan a larger country and perhaps a better future. Especially if this new country were to be some type of Democracy with economic and social freedom. That would have a large access to water as well. Business Insider: Henry Blodget: "Taxes Need to Be Raised": Why We Have a Debt and Deficit Problem Business Insider: Taxes Need to Be Raised: Business Insider , co-founder, CEO and Editor-In Chief, Henry Blodget loves government so much that he wants to take more of your money and ...

If you look at where we were financially as far as our Federal Government, goes we were spending at around. 20% of our GDP or gross domestic product on the Federal Government and our tax revenue was at around 20%. As well and because of that both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office. Could make predictions that we would have budget surplus's for ten years down the line, those trillions of dollars. In projected budget surplus's were gone by late 2001, because what happen we had a short recession of 2001-02. 9/11 hits and the stock market and economy take a big hit as a result, the War in Afghanistan thats never been paid for. At least the Obama Administration put the War in Afghanistan on budget so it no longer goes to the national debt anymore. We have two 1T$ tax cuts from President Bush and the Republican Congress's in 2001 and 2003 that were unpaid for. The War in Iraq that started in 2003 unpaid for and another 1T$, Medicare Advantage of 2003 now 700B$ unpaid for. Again on the national debt, the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 and all of the money that was spent in. 2009 and 2010 to address the Great Recession all of the expenses put on the national debt card.

Go from 2000 to 2012 where we are of course now and we are no longer taxing and spending at around 20%. But we are spending now 20% more as far as GDP and we are collecting 20% less in taxes and thats how you. Go from budget surplus's projected in the trillions of dollars where you are actually paying down debt to a situation. Where you are looking at budget deficits in the trillions of dollars, which means we need to reserve that, we have. To get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and get back to 2000 spending levels in defense at least in the short term. But I would go further then that, Medicare Advantage has to at least be paid for if not reformed, which is what. Happened in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, we have to reform entitlements and the broader safety net. And have more people working in this country and less people collecting from public assistance but paying into it. Instead so it becomes a real social insurance system rather then a way of life where Americans use it to survive. And pay their bills indefinitely but just collect for short periods of time but then going back to work.

But that fixes half of the problem we also need to close the hole in our revenue as we are cutting our costs. In government and require that people who can afford to pay more in taxes right now, which is a very tiny. Percentage of the country actually pay more, we don't have to start at 250K$ and could go up to 500K$. With tax reform as part of that package as well but we need to spend about 20% less then we are now and increase. Our revenue by around 20% which would go towards deficit reduction if we are going to get our debt and deficit under control. We've simply over promised as a government the amount of services that we can afford to provide for our people. And the people simply are demanding more in public services then they are willing to pay for and we have to close that gap.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

WBAL-TV: Video: Maryland Casino Begins 24-Hour Operation

WBAL-TV: News: Vote Allows Maryland Casinos to Stay Open 24-Hours  

Legalize gambling is here in the Free State of Maryland and will be a big economic benefit, if its regulated and taxed properly. Because of the jobs it will create and we are talking about good jobs that will allow for people to more than pay for their cost of living in Maryland which is a high cost of living state for several reasons. And most of them good, but also because of the new tax revenue that it will generate and bring people into the State of Maryland. 

All of this new economic and tax revenue is money that Maryland won't have to try to generate in new taxes. Especially on middle class hard working Marylanders who don't need to pay more in taxes. And Maryland won't have to raise new taxes on Maryland business's and those business's will be able to stay in Maryland and keep those jobs in Maryland and Maryland won't lose jobs as a result.  

Economic Policy Journal: Robert Wenzel- How to Fight the Neocons

Source: Economic Policy Journal- Robert Wenzel-
Source: Economic Policy Journal: Robert Wenzel- How to Fight The Neocons:

"I receive a surprising number of emails asking me about specific "libertarian" organizations and whether it makes sense to donate to them...."

There's sort of this growing debate in the libertarian movement of how they should move forward and who they should get behind. Should they try to grow the Libertarian Party so in the future they can become a major party that can compete with Republicans and Democrats or should they attempt a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. And take on the Neoconservatives and Theocrats and turn the GOP into a real conservative libertarian party to confront the left. But that can also be successful and powerful enough across the country that can actually govern America and at least as far as I see it as someone who describes his own politics as liberal democratic.  But perhaps for more people to be able to understand it as Liberal-Libertarian.

American Libertarians are at a fork in the road. And have a big choice to make and they can either fund the LP big time and that means recruiting Libertarian-Republicans out of the GOP and into the LP or they can takeover the GOP and only fund Libertarians and take on Neoconservative Republicans in primaries, that sort of thing. And then general elections and increase their numbers in Congress and at state and local governments and win governorships and so-forth.

There are actual Conservative-Libertarians in Congress both in the House and Senate. Senator Rand Paul comes to mind, but you also have Senator Mike Lee from Utah and Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin. And you go over in the House you have Representative Justin Amash and others over there. This is the future of the Republican Party and the conservative-libertarian movement if they just take it, all the GOP has to do is get behind it because this is where the country is going politically.

Where you have Liberals on the center-left such as myself and. You have Conservative-Libertarians on the center-right. but where the statists on the left, the Social-Democrats and even Communists. And statists on the right the Neoconservatives are both losing ground and won't be major factors in American politics in the future because America is moving towards becoming as what Barry Goldwater said that he wants big government out of his wallet and bedroom. And believes Americans should be free to live their own lives. That is where the country is going.

American libertarianism is at a fork in the road and they have a choice. They can takeover the GOP and perhaps be running that party within 4-8 years or they can build up the Libertarian Party and build it up to the point that it could replace the Republican Party as the major conservative party in America. Which would be a long-term project. But Libertarians can't do both, otherwise they won't have enough resources to build the LP or takeover the GOP. But they need to decide where they are going if they want to be a major factor in American politics.
Robert Wenzel: U.S. Representative Ron Paul- Don't Give The Neocons an Inch

WBAL-TV: Maryland News: Maryland-Live Opens 24 Hours

More freedom of choice as far as what Marylanders can do with their own money in Maryland is coming to the Free State of Maryland.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

ReutersTV: Update: U.S. Day Ahead: It's Back to Scaling The Cliff

The most likely scenario I've seen so far is that Democrats and Republicans come together and reach agreement. On two things, the taxes where they would be extended for most of the country but where all of the Democrats. Would vote for it and a handful of non Tea Party Republicans would vote for it so the bill can pass. In both the House and Senate and then they reach an agreement on the spending cuts, where most of the Republicans. Would vote for it and only enough Democrats vote for it so it passes in the House and Senate and President Obama signs both bills.

Tuesday, December 25, 2012 Robert Wenzel: The Conservative Case For The Welfare State?: How Conservatives Have Adapted to The Safety Net The Conservative Case for the Welfare State?: It is really hard to believe that Bruce Bartlett once worked for Ron Paul. And friends tell me he was a pretty solid libertarian. Things hav...

Its hard to compare American Conservatives with Canadian Conservatives or European Conservatives because. American Conservatives are simply different, in Canada and Europe Social Democrats or even Socialists. Are seen as center-left and people who are called the Conservatives over there are Conservative. Compared with the Socialists but not Conservative in an American sense, Conservatives in Europe in Canada. Look more Liberal then they do Conservative in America and would be considered center-left in America. Where Social Democrats or Socialists are considered far-left in America and you would have a hard time fining. Any American Conservative who supports the idea of a public safety net especially in the 1930s, 40s and 60s. When social insurance spending by the Federal Government took off and you'll have a hard time today even. Of finding a real Conservative not a Neoconservative or a Theocrat but a real Big Government is the problem. And enemy Conservative whether it interfering with my money or personal life who believes in the safety net.

Had Conservative Republicans been in charge in the 1930s and 40s, the New Deal never gets created I think. Thats obvious and had Conservative Republicans been in charge in the 1960s, the Great Society never gets created. And I think thats obvious as well but even with this being the case Conservatives in this country have come to. The conclusion that the safety net is here to stay because there's at least one major political party that supports it. And the fact that Americans by in large believe in some form of a government safety net, Medicare and Social Security. Are by far the most popular things that government does in this country, so Republicans have made the political. Calculation that the safety net is here to stay and instead of trying to eliminate it or gut it to the point where. It would no longer be effective and popular, they've decided to make the best of it and perhaps. Decentralize it as much as possible.

To give you an example when Richard Nixon back when he became President in 1969 was seen as a mainstream. Conservative Republican and he's the President that brought the idea of Federalism back to the Federal Government. That government closest to home is the most effective and so fourth so instead of trying to eliminate the. New Deal and Great Society what he and his administration did was establish a Federalist policy in how these programs. Would be operated and give the states and localities more authority, responsibility and resources to run some of these programs.

Monday, December 24, 2012

LibertyPen: PBS: Firing Line 1977: F A Hayek: Arbitrary Wealth Redistribution

In danger of sounding repetitive because I know I've made this point before but its not a question. Of whether government redistributes wealth or not, its just a matter if government should be redistributing wealth or not. Or should government redistributing more or less wealth or about the same as it is now thats the question. To give you an example government taxing Joe or Marry in Pittsburgh to build a road for Bob and Sally in St. Louis. Is an example of redistributing wealth or taxing people in Boston to build a military base. In Denver would be an example of redistributing wealth, anytime government taxes people to create new or fund. Current services its redistributing wealth, because its taxing people yes at their benefit well thats. The idea anyway to provide a service for other people, wealth redistribution is not just about the rich or middle class. To take care of the less fortunate but its about taxing x to help out y or z or whoever that I'm afraid. Of a lot of people don't seem to understand so when I hear people say they are against wealth redistribution. I wonder if they are against government funding of roads and military bases and so fourth.

Since its not a question of whether government redistributes wealth or not but a question of whether. Government should be redistributing wealth or not, or to what degree it should be if at all redistributing wealth. Then thats the debate we should be having and I come down on the side when it comes to social insurance. Until we set up a system where everyone in need to not only be able to pay their current bills and be able. To survive in the short term but be able to get themselves the skills to be able to take care of themselves. In the long term, until we have a system in the private sector that can provide these services which. We don't have right now, then we need government to play a role here, a smaller but more effective role. And it doesn't have to be the Federal Government doing that, as Libertarian Presidential nominee. Gary Johnson proposed this year we could block grant the safety net down to state and local. Government for them to run with the resources to run themselves.

So its not a question of whether government in America redistributes wealth or not, government at all. Levels in this country does that but we do a lot less of it then other countries and Progressives. In this country would like us to redistribute a lot more wealth, Libertarians practically none. If any at all and Liberals such as myself would redistribute it differently not to take care of people. But to empower them and Conservatives would just redistribute a lot less wealth in this country.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

ReasonTV: James Payne on Six Political Illusions of Government

This is the exact debate about what the role of government should be in America, what's the role of government. Because its not a debate about government should do everything for the people to doing almost nothing. For the people even though we have those factions in this country from Socialists to Libertarians. But I believe most of the debate on this issue is between the center left where I guess I am as a Liberal. To the center right where actual Conservatives tend to be not Neoconservatives who are far right in America. And what's interesting is the Liberals and Conservatives have more in common in this debate then. People tend to think, we both believe that government should be limited, only doing for us what we. Can't do for ourselves or can't do as well, for example we don't believe in privatizing law enforcement. Or privatizing the military to use as examples and that government shouldn't be intrusive, that it. Should be there to protect us from people who would intentionally do us harm but that it shouldn't be. There to protect us from ourselves.

The debate about the role of government is really between the forty yard lines or the 35s rather then. The end zones where there's a Libertarian faction that wants government to do practically nothing for us. To a more Socialist faction that wants government to do practically everything for us, to a Neoconservative faction. That believes that social freedom should be limited to protect us from ourselves and protect our. So called moral code and character but most Americans aren't looking to eliminate most of government. But to limit it to make it work better.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Lew Rockwell Blog: Gary North: "Why the Gun Control Movement Is Doomed": Why America Will Never Outlaw The Second Amendment

Why the Gun Control Movement Is Doomed by Gary North

I'll give Progressive-Social Democrats in America the political faction thats goal is turning America into some. Type of Socialist Republic or Social Democracy like in Europe, I'll give them credit for one thing as it relates. To the latest shooting tragedy in Connecticut last week that they haven't jumped the gun and called for repealing. The second amendment to the US Constitution the right to own and posses guns in America because even though. I'm sure there's a faction in the Progressive movement that would like to outlaw guns in America but there's. Also a faction in it that has enough political sense and understands American politics enough to know. That will probably never happen, America is becoming more Liberal-Libertarian as a country more individualist. Individual freedom is becoming more popular in this country everyday and less Socialist and collectivist. And I believe Progressives understand this and understand that for them to accomplish what they want, they need. To be more practical and talk about gun control rather then repealing the second amendment and outlawing guns.

So what Progressives have been doing is sounding more moderate as it relates to guns and comparing gun regulations. Of other countries compared with America and saying they don't outlaw guns over there but regulate more then. They do here and here are the results in Britain to use as an example compared with America and thats why. We should consider doing what they are doing rather then saying guns should be outlawed in America because. Innocent people die as a result, well I have news for them innocent Americans would die from gun use. Anyway even if we did outlaw guns because criminals operate above the law by nature or otherwise they wouldn't. Be criminals and violent offenders would find access to guns like dealers and users of illegal narcotics would. Have access to illegal narcotics in this country in the War on Drugs, if people want something bad enough. They'll find a way to get it and people say where strict gun regulation works in other countries but I'll tell. Them that they are talking about completely different cultures compared with Americans.

When Progressives see something they don't like that they consider to be dangerous in the country, they automatically. Move to outlaw it as we saw with alcohol prohibition in the 1930s and 40s and as we saw back in June in New York City. Where Mayor Mike Bloomberg is trying to out law soft drinks but what they don't seem to understand but perhaps. Now are finally getting the idea is that if Americans want something bad enough they'll find a way to get it. Whether its legal or not.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Lew Rockwell Blog: Gary North: Don't End The Charitable Deduction Tax Credit: How to Empower Non Profits to Move People out of Poverty

Are the Billionaire Koch Brothers Economic Imbeciles? The Cato Institute Proposes a Test by Gary North

How about instead of having a War on Poverty in America which is more like a War in Poverty helping people. Who live in poverty rather then actually helping people get out of poverty, that we end this failed war along. With the War on Drugs but thats for another blog and almost act as if we never created the War on Poverty and replace. It with a strategy against poverty or a campaign thats against poverty with the sole purpose and goals of actually. Moving people out of poverty with of course temporary financial assistance for people who can't afford to take. Care of themselves but again with policies that actually move people out of poverty and the Charitable Tax Deduction. A tax deduction that people can get by donating money to charities is a way to accomplish this. We of course need tax reform in America and hopefully we'll get that in the next Congress for both our economic. And fiscal health but ending the Charitable Tax Deduction will cause new problems even though it might help. To solve one problem and this is not a don't tax me tax the other guy argument but the CTD is a very effective tool in fighting poverty in America.

We should if anything be encouraging people to donate more to charity and to even work for charity especially. As volunteers and I would go even further and allow volunteers to deduct the amount of time they volunteer. For charities from their taxes up to lets say 10-20 hours a week to encourage more people to volunteer for charities. And we should be empowering charities and our broader non profit sector especially the groups that. Work at finding affordable housing for the poor and homeless, who work in job training for our low skilled workers. Who work at finding jobs for the low skilled and unemployed, who provide free healthcare for people who. Can't afford it, who work at soup kitchens and so fourth, we could develop a private non profit anti poverty system. In this country that would never have to worry about having enough financing and empower these groups. To actually move people out of poverty in the areas of basic needs, education, job training and education.

Just because you believe in limited government whether you are on the right or in my case on the left, that. Doesn't mean you necessarily believe in doing nothing for the poor and less fortunate but since you do believe. That government doesn't have all of the answers and can't fix all of the problems on their own, that are other more effective ways. To helping the less fortunate in society thats actually centered around moving people out of poverty by empowering them to make that move.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Lew Rockwell Blog: Paul Green: "Social Conservative Pharisees": The Difference Between Religious and Social Conservatism

Social Conservative Pharisees by Paul Green

When I think of Conservatism social Conservatism even I think of a philosophy thats about conserving freedom including. Social freedom not subtracting from Americans freedom or calling them immoral and Un American because. Their cultural and religious values are different from yours, so people who are on the religious right lets say. Which again for me at least would be different from the political right wouldn't be people that I would at least. Define as social Conservatives and perhaps not Conservatives at all at least in the political sense because they all. Tend to believe in top down economics that if we empower corporations and other business's even. At the expense of the rest of the country, that somehow this power would move down to the rest of the country. So things like regulating business's and the right to organize for labor would be outlawed if these so called. Conservatives were in power, this isn't Conservative because Conservatives by definition believe in the power. Of individual freedom and that business's should be empowered to be able to be successful just not at the expense of the individual.

These so called social Conservatives also tend to claim they believe in fiscal responsibility except of course when. It comes to the defense budget which also happens to be the largest budget in the Federal Government. Listening to these so called Conservatives you would get the idea if you didn't know any better that there's. Never a time to find waste and savings in the defense budget because the DOD never wastes money or spends too much of it. Even though they are responsible for the national security of developed nations that can afford to protect themselves. To use as an example of defense waste so to hear these people talk about fiscal Conservatism and Conservatism. More broadly its a little hard to take seriously because if they were real fiscal Conservatives they would be. For cutting waste and finding saving wherever possible whether its defense, agriculture, social insurance. They would support going and cutting waste and making savings where the waste is and wherever savings can be made.

I don't see the welfare state and Democratic Socialism as a form of economic Liberalism as I see religious and cultural bigotry. As a form of Conservatism, Progressive-Social Democrats and Liberal Democrats are both on the left. But both have different philosophies at least as it relates to economics but in a lot of cases those differences are in social issues like when it comes. To hate speech and the second amendment to use as examples where Progressives tend to believe in more state control. And I don't see religious Conservatism as a form of Conservatism at least politically, Conservatives believe in. Individual freedom and even social freedom where these so called religious Conservatives tend to be more Statist.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Reason: Opinion- John Stossel- It's the Spending, Stupid!

Source: Liberty Pen-
Source: Reason: Opinion- John Stossel- It's the Spending, Stupid!

California is known for passing referendums demanding that the State Government pay for new things and provide for new public services and spend more money on current public services without giving their policy makers the resources to pay for them. So it's no wonder why California has the debt and deficit and why their economy is as weak as it is today. I wish that the spending problem amongst Americans only existed in California.

But the fact is it goes all across the country in what Americans expect from their Federal Government and what they expect Congress and the Administration to provide for them. We have all of these public services and a lot of them popular that Americans expect from their Federal Government, but when the bill comes to pay for them and the money is short and the Feds tell them for government to continue to provide the current services under law, we either need more money from the people being the tax payers, or we are going to have cut these services or cut other services. And Americans continue to say that we need a balance approach of revenue and savings, just as long as it doesn't come from them.

My basic point that Americans themselves could go a long way in solving the debt and deficit problem of now. And solve the revenue/spending problem in Washington themselves by telling their leaders that they know there's only so much revenue in the economy and government at all levels is actually limited on what it can do for the people based on tax revenue available in the economy. But also what Americans are willing to pay for the services provided for them by government. So instead of threatening to fire their leaders for telling them the truth when it comes to revenue and spending, Americans could instead tell them this is the amount of money they're Willing to give government, these are the services I expect government to provide for and now it's up to government to figure out what they can do for us based on the money taxpayers are giving government. And these decisions would be a lot easier to make for lawmakers making government more effective because it would be more realistic and limited because it would have priorities.

Limited government is very simple to me as a Liberal.

This is what we need government to do for us and this. Is the revenue that we have to finance it and no more. And if government had more of this approach, we would avoid these fiscal crisis's in the future, because instead of having public services for us based on what's popular, they would be based on what we need government to do with individuals being empowered to handle the rest for themselves.
Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Matt Welch: Who Wants To Cut Spending?

Roll Call: Meredith Shiner and Daniel Newhauser: Rank and File Show Flexibility on Fiscal Cliff

Rank and File Show Flexibility on Fiscal Cliff : Roll Call News

Looks like Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate are ready to compromise and put the fiscal cliff past them.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The Atlantic: Politics: Elspeth Reeve: Making Sense of Speaker Boehner's Plan B: Why President Obama Shouldn't Make The Perfect The Enemy of The Good

Making Sense of Boehner's New Plan B - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

Speaker Boehner has put a millionaires tax on the table, President Obama should take that right now for what. Its worth and credit the Speaker of the House as putting a serious proposal on the table and also credit him. For how hard that is especially considering how linked House Republicans are to the no tax pledge, come up from 250K$. And take the millionaires tax and go from there, we get a trillion dollars from that in deficit reduction, perhaps put. New tax reform on the table on President Obama's part like with reforming the home mortgage interest deduction. President Obama won a mandate to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for deficit reduction, which is something. That Speaker Boehner is finally acknowledging and something that Senate Republicans have already acknowledge. As well as some House Republicans like Representative Tom Cole, so the President should take the offer on tax hikes. And then move to things where they aren't in complete agreement on yet, like on entitlement reform and tax reform. As well as using the money that goes to pay for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to pay for deficit reduction. Instead of putting that money back in the defense budget, which is what Neoconservatives have been calling for.

If the President doesn't take the Speaker's offer on the millionaires tax and Senate Democrats refuse to hold a vote. On it that would give the Speaker an opportunity to use it against Democrats and he would be smart to hold a vote on it in the House. And actually put pressure on House Democrats to vote against their party Leader and vote against raising taxes. On millionaires, the Speaker could pull a reverse on Democrats and accuse Democrats of protecting millionaires. A position that Democrats don't want to be in and it would be great Republican politics if they were to pull it off. Meaning if a millionaires tax were to pass the House and see how many Democrats would vote against it and if. Senate Democrats would even take it up or not, this is how divided government works and even though Republicans. Only control one half of Congress and are also the opposition party, they still have enough power to stop Democrats. And Democrats can stop them in more ways but they can still stop each other enough to stop them.

Again this is how divided government works, the Speaker put a real proposal on the table as it relates to tax hikes. I'm not just saying this as a Democrat who would prefer the millionaires taxes over an upper middle class tax hike would be. Which is a category that most Americans who make 250K$ a year would be in but also because this is what. A real compromise looks like, since the President wants 250K$ and just a couple weeks ago House Republicans. Were saying no to any tax hikes on anyone.

Monday, December 17, 2012

Reason: Shikha Dalmia: "Right-to-Work Laws Are, Indeed, Libertarian": Why Right to Organize is Liberal-Libertarian

Right-to-Work Laws Are, Indeed, Libertarian

These so called "Right to Work" laws which is a bogus term because they aren't "Right to Work" laws they are a right. Or law for non unionize employees to not be forced to pay union dues which is something I'm in favor of. As long as non union members don't get the services of unions for free, the fact is there's no such thing as a. Right to Work in the US Constitution what we do have is the right not to be discriminated against based. On our race, ethnicity or gender and religion but these so called "Right to Work" laws are an example of why Libertarians. Get accused of being pro business and employer over pro individual freedom because some Libertarians would like. To see the right to organize vanish and organize labor outlawed all together as well as some Conservatives. And put the power in the market, meaning the employer to decided how workers should be compensated in America. But if you are a Liberal like me and if you are a real Libertarian, then you believe in the right to organize. For individuals as long as its their choice and its not forced on them but something they should be able to decide for themselves.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Commonsense Capitalism: Why Milton Friedman is Not a Hollywood Liberal

Source: Commonsense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: Commonsense Capitalism: Why Milton Friedman is Not a Hollywood Progressive

To call Milton Friedman a "Hollywood Liberal" someone who would fit in well with the so-called Liberals in Hollywood and to me what I've seen from Hollywood is that they tend to be more socialistic or social-democratic sense than liberal and there are probably more Hollywood Libertarians than there are Hollywood Liberals, Clint Eastwood comes to mind who leans conservative-libertarian, but Professor Friedman does fit the Hollywood Liberal mindset when it comes to probably most of the social issues. On things like free speech, but Professor Friedman was a classical Libertarian more than anything. So to me he wouldn't fit into the liberal, or certainly not progressive box, but the libertarian box that does exist in Hollywood. Ron Paul did get some support out there and does have a following there as well. I wish as a Liberal there were more real Hollywood Liberals. Which is what Frank Sinatra was at least one point before he got behind Ron Reagan for President in 1976 or 1980. But that doesn't exist for the most part anymore in Hollywood.

But to talk about Professor Friedman's speech here, I believe he was dead right that one of the reasons why government is bigger than a lot of Libertarians and Liberals would prefer me being one of them, is because of the influence that government has on the economy and how it interacts with it, with all of the subsidies and so-forth. With big business to use as an example of that. If we were to break that connection the Federal Government wouldn't be nearly as big as it is today. You want big government out of people's lives, then you have to get big business out of government. You have to eliminate corporate welfare and reform how lobbying is done in America. To bring all of that out in the open including contributions. But this never happens without American voters doing their part. Know exactly who they're voting for before they cast their votes. Instead of getting fooled by people who talk one way, but vote and govern another way. Until that happens we'll always have a growing government and a more powerful government, because it benefits big business. 

Saturday, December 15, 2012

ReasonTV: Nick Gillespie: A Great Year For Pot, Freedom, and Ending the Drug War

A great year as it relates to individual freedom at least as it relates to marijuana and the War on Drugs. Where I believe a majority of Americans are now finally coming around to the idea of how much the the War on Drugs. Has failed and how stupid it is and if you listen to the Marijuana Policy Project, you'll know why. The referendum in Colorado worked especially, because medical marijuana is already legal there so Coloradans. Are already familiar with marijuana and also because of how the pro marijuana legalization supporters. Pushed this referendum that marijuana would be treated and subjected to the same taxes and regulations. As alcohol not that marijuana would be legal but with no strings to go along with it, where it would be. Available to kids which was very smart on their part and gave the opponents less ammunition to use against them. Making supporters of marijuana legalization look exactly like the way they are , which is sane and sober. At least most of the time.

LibertyPen: Murray Rothbard: What Is The State?

The state as it relates to the country is the Federal Government and the country is the people that live. In the country, including the people who work for the state on our behalf or at least thats what they are. Suppose to be doing and are subjected to the rules imposed on them by the state and because of this. Its good to have a state thats as limited as possible and works within the US Constitution and what's. Consistent with Liberal Democracy, meaning that the people and freedom are paramount and its not. The job of the state to weaken our freedom just punish those would hurt innocent people, not there. To protect the people from themselves and I'm talking about limited government and only having the state. Do for us what we can't do for ourselves and do as well, thats again consistent with the US Constitution and limited government. Which is something that I believe we've moved away from for the last ten years or so and is something. That we've struggled to get back to.

Friday, December 14, 2012

The Atlantic: Derek Thompson: "A Giant Statistical Round-Up of Income Inequality": Why Some People Make So Much More Money Then Others

A Giant Statistical Round-Up of the Income Inequality Crisis in 16 Charts - The Atlantic

I read a column in the Progressive magazine Salon on Wednesday that was about McDonalds executives making. So much more money then their employees who work service industry jobs and arguing that somehow this was unfair. But if you look at the skills and education levels of the white collar workers and compare them with service industry workers. You'll see that the income difference between the two is not surprising, the amount of money that workers make in America. Is tied to their education levels and their qualifications, its real simple the more you know and more you are able. To do as a worker in this country, the better you'll be able to do in life, the more and better job opportunities you'll have in life. And the more money you'll be able to make and its a difference also in being able to have one good job and having. To work at least two jobs probably both minimum wage or just over that, in order to pay your bills, plus the. Public assistance you'll be collecting as well as a low income workers just to make ends meat.

Income inequality if you want to call it that, I'm not sure thats the proper term because wealthy people and upper. Middle class people simply tend to be have better skills and education then low income workers, so maybe we need a new term. Like income differential but whatever you call this, its a problem in the sense that we simply have to many low income. Workers and people living in poverty in America for a developed country that have the largest economy in the World. Its a problem because we simply have so many people living in poverty who are forced to live off of tax payers. Just to get by and its a problem because their kids most likely end up having to deal with the same issues in life. Not finishing school, not being able to go to a good school and perhaps ending up in the. Criminal justice system in some shape or form with their kids perhaps looking at the same future as well.

I've said this several times before and I've said this on this blog that this large income differential simply doesn't. Have to exist that we don't have to have so many people living in poverty in this country and working in poverty as well. But it gets back to education, what you know and how much you know that will determine how well you'll. Do in life in America and the more people we have who have a good education, the less poor people we'll have. So if we want to fix this problem, which I certainly do we simply need a better public education system. Where the income level of your parents doesn't determine what level of education you'll get in life and how good. Of an education you'll get in life as well but the level of education and the quality of education you receive in life. Is really up to the students and parents themselves, what they do with the opportunity to have a good education. And give themselves a good quality of life.

As a Liberal Democrat I believe in what President Bill Clinton calls the opportunity society, where all Americans. Would have an opportunity to chart their own course in life, the freedom to live their own lives, not where success. Would be guaranteed but where the opportunity to have their own economic freedom would be there for them. And what they do with that opportunity is completely up to them which is a society we simply don't have right now.

NBC News: US to Send Missiles, Troops to Turkey in Bid to Deter Syria

US to send missiles, troops to Turkey in bid to deter Syria

The end of the Assad Regime in Syria is now in close sight

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Reason: Jacob Sullum: What President Obama Can Do Right Now to End Outrageous Prison Sentences

What Obama Can Do Right Now to End Outrageous Prison Sentences

Here's another example of how stupid the War on Drugs is in America, which is really an example of a war on. Individual freedom, punishing people for what they do to themselves, rather then what they do to innocent people. In this case its what are called mandatory sentences, where people who are convicted of drug offenses, can be sentenced. To prison based on how much in narcotics they possessed and if they were convicted of prior drug offenses. They can be sent to prison for what they have been just convicted of, plus additional time because of their past convictions. So we end up with a system where people are sentenced to 25-life in prison, because they were convicted of possessing. Lets say a hundred grams of cocaine to use as an example, plus for whatever they were convicted of in the past. As it relates to illegal narcotics, not even convicted of dealing illegal narcotics but simple possession of narcotics. They might not even be convicted of intent to sell illegal narcotics but just for simple possession.

What we should be doing instead in this country, is sentencing convicted offenders based on the threat they represent. To the country, not based on the amount of illegal narcotics they possess and getting drug addicts into mandatory rehab. Which could be handled by the private sector at the addicts expense and do things like legalizing but taxing an regulating marijuana. As well as decriminalizing other illegal narcotics, fining people for selling and using other illegal narcotics. And getting drug addicts into rehab again in the private sector at their own expense.

NBC News: Maggie Fox: Health insurance: US Paying More For Less, Report Finds

Health insurance: US paying more for less, report finds

One of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act is that it had a patients bill of rights in it, which limited the ability. Of private insurers to dump people especially when they actually need their health insurance, instead of just. Paying for something they never use.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

NBC News: Egypt is Rapidly Approaching its Own ’Cliff’

Egypt is rapidly approaching its own ’cliff’

Egypt has some serious economic issues that they are going to have to address, no later then after they deal with. Their new Constitution, like how they develop the country and create long term positive economic growth.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Reason: Sheldon Richman: Romanticizing Taxation

Romanticizing Taxation

I'm one of the last people to ever speak in favor of taxation, I purely see taxes an one of those necessary evils. That we all have to pay as a price for living in a civilize society but to only provide the services for us at our expense. Since we the people are consuming these necessary services that we need to live in a civilize society, so that we are protected. From criminals, terrorists, foreign invaders to use as examples, that we all have access to education but that government. Should only be taxing us to the point, thats consistent with a strong economy and fiscal responsibility. And only providing is with the services that people can't do for themselves or do as well, this is what taxes are to me as a Liberal. Conservatives tend to have similar views of taxes, that individual freedom should be vast and that government should be. Limited so it doesn't get in the way of individual freedom and only provide us with the services that the people. Need the government to provide for us.

Progressives and Libertarians have much different views on taxes. But for opposite reasons, Progressives see taxes as an opportunity for government to insure that we have. What they call Social Justice, a term I borderline hate but thats for a different blog, meaning Progressives see. Taxes as an opportunity to provide for the people who don't have enough, at the expense of the people that they. See as having too much and to provide for the people basic human services that they don't trust the private sector to provide for them. And to also protect people from themselves, to keep them from drinking and smoking to use as examples and that people are living what they would call a quality life. Libertarians tend to see taxes as theft, only people would be described as Liberal-Libertarians, the Gary Johnson's of the World. See taxes as necessary evils but that they should be low and rare and should take out of us what we take. From society rather then taxing us based on what we produce for society.

As long as you believe in limited government which again is government thats only in the business to do for. Us what we can't do for ourselves or do as well, then you can also believe in taxes and be consistent with the belief. That a Liberal Democracy should have a Liberal amount of individual freedom, meaning a lot of it and the best way to achieve this. Is through a limited government in a Liberal Democracy, once you go much further then that and have this Utopian. View of what America can be if Americans just gave government the resources to build this for them. Then you become dangerous with the peoples money and start trying to things for the people with other peoples money. And as we know people tend to spend their own money better then they spend other peoples money.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Reason: Brian Doherty: US Representative Justin Amash: "GOP Leaders Are Willing to Take Really Bad Deals to Avoid any Defense Cuts"

Justin Amash: GOP Leaders "Are Willing to Take Really Bad Deals to Avoid any Defense Cuts"

Its looks like according to Representative Justin Amash Republican from Michigan, who serves on the Budget Committee. At least in this Congress, believes that Republicans Leaders in the House, are now considering tax hikes, to avoid cutting the defense budget. That this now thirty year GOP opposition to tax hikes, is now losing steam to this ten year or so opposition to defense cuts. That there's no room in the 700B$ defense budget to make cuts and cut waste, if you are familiar with the US defense budget. You know thats nonsense, especially when we, tax payers are responsible for the national defense of Europe. Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, all developed nations at our expense, that even pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And using those savings to help pay down the deficit, in not an area where we can find savings in the defense budget. That instead that money should go back into the defense budget.

Its already hard for me as a Democrat to take Republicans seriously when it comes to deficit reduction, at least. Republicans who were around in Congress when the Republicans gave us the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Medicare Advantage. Roughly 3T$ in new Federal Government spending all of course put on the National Debt Card but this idea that there's. Simply no room to cut in a defense budget of over 700B$, again when we are already responsible for the national defense. Of developed nations around the World, again at our expense, just makes it harder to take Republicans seriously on fiscal policy.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

ReutersTV: Fast Forward: US Representative Tom Cole: To GOP, Embrace President Obama's Middle-Class Tax Plan

It looks like House Republicans have already conceded to tax hikes on the wealthy and are just trying. To get the best deal they can at this point and get real spending cuts in return.

New American: Jack Kenny: U.S. Ships, Troops Off Syria's Coast Amid Warnings Over Chemical Weapons

U.S. Ships, Troops Off Syria's Coast Amid Warnings Over Chemical Weapons

I see a Nato sponsored no fly zone in Syria's future

FRSFreeStateNow: Reason: Mike Riggs: America's Prison Population Is Finally Shrinking and Here's Why

America's Prison Population Is Finally Shrinking. Here's Why.

There are some actual good things that come with tight government budgets and revenue, especially if you are. A real Liberal such as myself, a real Conservative like a Barry Goldwater or a Libertarian, who believes in limited government. And why do I say that, because it forces governments, the Feds, states and locals to rethink how they finance their operations. And forces them to be more creative  in how they pay for their operations and our corrections system. That combines Federal and state all across the country is a perfect example of that, because we have 2M people in prison or jail. In this country that is a Liberal Democracy and a lot our inmates are in prison because of our failed War on Drugs. Or other non violent crimes, offenders that could be dealt with in either county jail or at some type of halfway house. Or something, rather then sending them to state or Federal prison, so in tough budget times like that, it forces. Policy makers to reexamine how we fund our governments and where we can cut cost.

Instead of sending drug offenders to prison, we could be sending them to drug rehab and thats if we are going. To continue to prosecute the War on Drugs, me personally I believe the marijuana should be legal at the Federal level. Allowing the states to make that decision for themselves but that the Feds wouldn't get in the way and we should be. Decriminalizing other illegal narcotics, meaning we would no longer be sending people to prison for simple use of. Heroin or cocaine to use as examples and people who are caught high on those narcotics or caught committing other crimes. While on those narcotics, we would fine them for the amount of illegal narcotics that they posses, rather then sending them to prison. And for addicts, we would send them to drug rehab at their expense, rather then prison or rehab at our expense. Again for other non violent offenders who don't represent a serious threat to society but do need some type of. Official supervision, there other ways not including prison that we could use to deal with them.

Things like halfway houses again at the residents expense and work release, community service to go along with their jobs. Would be the way to supervise these non violent offenders, that governments could actually make money off. Rather then losing money from prisons, doing things like this would also contribute to bringing down our overall corrections costs. Because we wouldn't need to house so many people in prison.

NBC News: President Obama Sees Signs GOP Might Relent on Tax Hikes For Wealthy

Obama sees signs GOP might relent on tax hikes for wealthy

Republican opposition to tax hikes on the wealthy seems to be softening

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Reason: Jacob Sullum: "Why Progressives Support Welfare for the Rich": Why Progressives Don't Like Savings To Entitlements

Why Progressives Support Welfare for the Rich

Social Democrats are oppose to means testing and other savings to entitlements for a couple of reasons at least as I see it. One they believe in the welfare state and put most of their ideological faith in it, that government is in the business to provide for peoples basic needs. Education, healthcare, health insurance, childcare even, I've been in a debate on Facebook with someone, who believes America. Should have a national pension system run by the Federal Government, that would replace private pension plans. And I doubt this person is the only Social Democrat in America who believes in that, they put so much faith in the. Welfare state and see it as so perfect and exactly what any moral and just economic system should be based on. That questioning anything about it that suggests that it may need reforms, so the people who depend on the safety net. Will have it when they need it, is not only Conservative but also immoral and mean spirited.

When it comes to means testing, Progressives see it that as once we go down that road, Americans who don't. Need the safety net, will start refusing to pay into it since they don't get any benefit out of it and will stop voting for politicians. That support some type of a safety net, which doesn't make sense because America tends to be very a compassionate country. We just don't tend to like help people who don't do everything they can to help themselves but the people who do need help. We are more then willing to lend a helping hand, I use to believe myself that means testing was the way to go to protect Medicare. And Social Security, now I believe its not necessary and perhaps not even a good idea, because should be able. To collect from things they've paid into, especially when they are forced to pay into them and with Medicare. It would be better off if we had wealthy people on it, because they tend to be healthier, because they have access. To all the healthcare they need and can afford to take care of themselves very well.

What we need to do however, is tax wealthy people who pay into and collect from Social Security and Medicare. To save those programs and you would think that people who believe in the safety net so much, especially Progressives would be willing to. Do whatever it took to make those programs solvent and around for anyone who needs them, it would be in their interest as well as the country's. But Progressives tend to think more about their ideology then anything else and have such strong beliefs. That anything that contradicts that, needs to be shut down as soon as possible.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

FRSFreeStateNow: LearnLiberty: Social Justice and Its Critics: How to Help The Less Fortunate

The term Social Justice has been used to describe this feeling that society is unjust, because some people. Have a lot of money and are very successful in life and really only need government to look after their physical well being. And that they aren't being screwed by business's and even their employers, even if they've earned all of their money. Because they've been very productive in life and have created a lot of products and jobs that people need. That somehow its unjust that these people have so much more money and are so much more successful in life. Then poor or low income people, even if the less fortunate in life are low income because of bad choices they've. Made in life, not finishing school, having kids too early, getting involved in crime and drugs and so. Fourth that its somehow unjust that the people who have been successful in life have so much more then people who have been unsuccessful in life. And if anything live off of the production of the successful people through public assistance.

I believe Social Justice is a bad term to describe how we as a country private or public should be helping. People who haven't made it in life and its borderline insulting and suggests that society is somehow unjust. That we live in a country where if you get a good education, work hard, play by the rules, are intelligent and are productive in life. And as a result make a lot of money, that its somehow unjust for you to be able to keep all of this wealth. That you've created over the people who haven't been very successful and productive in life, who didn't finish school. And so fourth and that perhaps Social Justice is not the right term for people who believe in what. I would call Robin H
ood economics, take from the rich to give to government to take care of the. Poor that maybe what we should call this is instead of Social Justice, is perhaps Social Dependence.

Since we have so many poor people and we have a much smaller population in life that are very successful. That instead of empowering the low income people to be successful and even wealthy in life, since we have this. Big pot of money created by the wealthy and take that money and give it to government to take care of the poor. Which would create the opposite of what we want, because of having more successful people in life, who've work hard. And have been very productive, you would have less of that, because we would be incentivizing people not to be. Because if they are, they'll just lose a lot of that money to the poor through government. True Social Justice would be a society, a Liberal Democracy where everyone would have an. Opportunity in life to be as productive and as successful as what the put into life and a society like. That is going to have very successful people as well as poor people.

Its not a question if should we help poor people or not, its just a matter of how, should we empower. Them to be successful in life, through education, job training and job placement into good jobs once they get a good education. And now have the skills to work those jobs, or should we just let them live off the people who've made it in life. By getting education and being productive and since its always better to have more successful people then unsuccessful people. So we all benefit in society, I'm in favor of empowering anyone who needs it to be able to take care of themselves.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Reason: Sheldon Richman: Rachel Maddow's Blind Deference to Government Power: A Difference Between Liberals and Progressives/Social Democrats

Rachel Maddow's Blind Deference to Government Power

I wrote a couple of blogs last week about the differences between Liberalism the ideology I follow as a Liberal. And Libertarianism, which is close to Liberalism perhaps a lot closer then people realize or are willing to admit to. Now I'm going to explain a difference between Liberalism and Progressivism/Democratic Socialism. Progressivism and Democratic Socialism essentially being the same thing and just one difference would be the role of government. More specifically the role of limited government and what government can to do improve the lives of individuals. Because as a Liberal I'm constantly hearing about how Liberals put so much faith in the state and that the state. Can do so much for the people with their own money and how we put so much faith into the state, meaning the Federal Government. To solve the problems of individuals.

What I'm thinking when I hear this and I'm hearing about the people who are suppose to be these Liberals. Who love government so much, one thing as a  Liberal don't believe in that, we don't value government more then individuals. Themselves and these people who are suppose to be the Liberals, who are suppose to have so much faith into the state, are simply not Liberals. At least not in economic and fiscal policy and at times aren't even Liberal when it comes to social issues or foreign policy as well. The MSNBC audience and their talk show lineup, are no more Liberal then the Mike Huckabees over at FNC and the. Religious right are Conservative, sure religious Conservatives but not Conservative at least in a political sense. They put their faith in their religious beliefs and thats really their governing ideology and they value that over. The US Constitution and individuals to make their own decisions with their own lives.

The Rachel Maddow's, Chris Hays and the MSNBC audience and crowd are what's called and known as Social Democrats. Democratic Socialists even which is how they would be defined in Canada and in Europe, a lot of times people over there in those Social Democracies. Are simply called Socialists, people we call in America Progressives and they do put their faith in the state, meaning the. Federal Government  to solve the country's problems and tend to look at society and government as part of. The same thing, that we should build a society that has equality with no poor people and people without. Healthcare and so fourth but what they are really talking about is building a government in the European Social Democratic. Mode to make all of these things happen for the people at our expense, Liberals believe in individual freedom. And the people and that we should all be empowered to make our own decisions.

Liberals vs Progressives/Social Democrats, its really the people vs government, who has the power in the country. I believe Social Democrats would like to create a society where again we would all be the same and basically have the same. Outlook on life and live our lives the same way basically and this debate is really about the role of government. Liberals believe there's a limit to what government can do for the people to benefit them, Progressives tend to believe. That government can do anything for the people to make their lives better, they simply just need the peoples money to do it for them.

CNN: Video: NewsRoom: A Look at Rikers Island Jail

Rikers Island prison or jail is probably the size of a lot of prisons in big states. And part of that has to do with the fact that New York City is a city of 7.5-8M people, a size of a big state in America. Not a place any good and free person would want to go to, meaning Rikers Island, which is why we should never put ourself in a position that would land us in a jail/prison like that. 

But what Rikers is in the business to do, is to house defendants. Who are awaiting trial as well as inmates who are doing short sentences. Rikers does a very good job of. The inmates who behave themselves and have good records, are able to work and go to school as well as work on their own cases. And they can go to religious services if they choose to, as well as other rehabilitation services. 

Self-improvement services including drug treatment, which is a big reason why we have so many people in prison in this country. This is not just a jail where people are simply warehoused. But a place where they can make good use of the time that they do there, which should be purpose of jails and prisons.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Power of The Market: Welfare Insurance

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Power of The Market: Welfare Insurance

The safety net at its best, is a system that helps people when they are in need. Like when they are out of work and haven't been able to find new work, don't have the savings to take care of them while they are unemployed. Or lack the skills to get them a good enough job that will allow them to pay their bills and allow them to live self-sufficiently. That's what the safety net is there for, to help people while they are in need, until they are able to take care of themselves. That's what the safety net is suppose to be. That's what the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s and then the Johnson Administration should've tried to establish in the 1960s. But why do I say they should've created that system instead of saying that's what the system that they created, because that's not what President Roosevelt and President Johnson created when they established the New Deal in the 1930s and the Great Society in the 1960s. What they created was essentially a Welfare Insurance system, that people could collect from indefinitely. When they are out-of-work or lack skills, paid for by people who work for a living.

I think I just gave you an example of what Welfare at it's worse looks like. This idea that people who lack the skills to be self-sufficient in life, who are physically and mentally able, but just lack the education to get a good job that would allow them to be able to take care of themselves and their families. What was created instead for these people was s system that subsidize people who don't work for a living and haven't gotten themselves the education to be able to take care of themselves and allowed them to live that way indefinitely without anything being expected from them in life along the lines that they would get themselves an education and then go to work. And not live off of public assistance for the rest of their lives. What was created in the 1930s and 1960s was a system that would subsidize people who don't work for a living off of the backs of people who do work for a living. And not talking about the disabled, just people who lack a good education and job skills.

What we should've done instead in the 1930s and 60s, was created a real safety net that would've been run by the states for people who lack a good education and job skills, that would give them temporary financial assistance. So they can pay their bills, but what they would be doing for themselves and society in return, is preparing themselves to go to work or go back to work and be able to get themselves off of public assistance all together. I like at what public assistance should be as an investment in human capital. Not charity and the difference being that we're not simply giving people money so they can survive. But instead investing in people so they can become self-sufficient and live in economic freedom and then invest those new skills in the economy and create lots of jobs even for people who use to be on public assistance as they were. Which would be much better for our economy and financial situation outlook. Because we would have fewer people in society who simply aren't prepared to take care of themselves in the real world. And not have to spend so much money t take care of people. 

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Reason: Video: Nick Gillespie Interview Bruce Majors on Washington, DC's One-Party System

Washington, DC is a one party city as I would call it, because the city of Washington is exactly that. Not a state at all the, but the United States Capital the Federal City and they are essentially a one-party city. Like Chicago or Boston and other big cities in the country, where the Republican party let alone third-parties tend to struggle. It doesn't necessarily have to be because there are Washingtonians who tend to believe in economic freedom and like economic conservatism. 

But Republicans haven't figured that out yet and haven't run Republicans like Rudy Giulani there. Who tend to be economically and fiscally conservative, but moderate-liberal on social issues. And the GOP isn't really much of a party at all to begin with in Washington. So Washingtonians tend to register Democratic so they can have a vote in the Democratic primaries. And a say in whose going to serve as the Mayor and serve on the City Council. 

Friday, November 30, 2012

Ron Paul 2008: Brook Siliva-Braga Interviewing Ron Paul- "Democrats and Republicans Are Dinosaurs"

Source: Ron Paul 2008-
Source: Ron Paul 2008: Brook Silva-Braga Interviewing Ron Paul- "Democrats and Republicans Are Dinosaurs"

I at least borderline hate the two-party system and this is coming from a hard core Liberal Democrat. Who'll be a Democrat as long as the Social Democrats/Socialists who aren't Liberals, aren't running the party. And so far so good considering, we've nominated Barack Obama who at best is a true Progressive as far as the political spectrum is concern. That Democrats aren't ready to go to the Far- Left and bring back the Greens and people who call themselves Democratic Socialists. But I believe even Social Democrats deserve a voice in American politics. And I don't see them representing a threat to Democrats, except for maybe the Progressive Caucus. Because the country is becoming more liberal-libertarian, not socialist as a country. And even if I did see Social Democrats as a threat to the Democratic party as far as winning elections, I would still believe that they deserve a voice in American politics as an American. To the point that they should have their own party. What they have now is a small voice in the Democratic party, but not much of a leadership role.

This might also sound strange but I believe that Republican Party needs some competition on the right. If you consider libertarianism to be on the right, to me I see them further left of Liberals on social issues, but obviously not socialist, but putting that aside for a moment, the Republican party as it's currently constructed is going to expire. They rely too much on voters that are even dying off or are becoming a small minority in the country. Who won't adjust to the changing America and still believed in so called traditional values and people who don't fit into this box, they view as Un-American. The Religious-Right, Tea Party Nationalists, are dying off and won't be a factor in American politics as far as leading Republicans to victory probably within eight years. Closer to four years and since the country is becoming more liberal-libertarian and these people aren't being replaced and are dying off, the GOP will have to adapt and bring in new voters, or they will no longer be a major party.

What could happen is that either the Republican party adapts and brings back Conservative Libertarians into the GOP, as well as economically conservative Latino-Americans, as well as Asian- Americans and perhaps even African-Americans. But people who are at least moderate on social issues. Either these people come back to the GOP, or the GOP will either go out-of-business. Or the GOP will once again become a conservative party in the mold of Barry Goldwater, or Ron Paul and no longer a authoritarian religious party that they are now, or the GOP will go out-of-business as a major party. And be replaced by the Libertarian Party, or something like an Independence Party, or a combination of both with what's left of the Goldwater/Reagan coalition merging into this new conservative party. Because we won't survive very long as a liberal democracy with one-party rule.

We currently have a two-party duopoly in America, thats obvious. But with the situation that the GOP is in today and where they are headed demographically and the feeling by a majority of Americans that we need a third-party, here's the opening that Libertarians and Socialists have to get into the game and build up their political movements. And force these new third-parties onto ballots and into debates and give Democrats and Republicans real competition on the right and left in America.

NBC News: Christians, Liberals Left Out as Islamists Back Egypt’s Draft Constitution

Christians, liberals left out as Islamists back Egypt’s draft constitution

Doesn't look like a Liberal Democratic document

Thursday, November 29, 2012

ReasonTV: 1000 Wrongfully Convicted and Counting: New Registry Checks Justice System

I do believe in being tough on crime but being tough on criminals, the people who actually committed the crimes. And being tough on the people who committed crimes and represent a threat to society, murderers, rapists, terrorists, gang bangers. To use as examples, people who get high and use illegal narcotics, don't fit this category and people who were wrongly convicted. Don't fit that category either, which is why being tough on crime is not good enough we also have to be. Smart on crime as well, because yes innocent people who were convicted can get off eventually, so some may. Say thats good enough but it isn't because once you enter the Criminal Justice System, your life changes. You forever, especially depending on how long you are in prison, once you enter the CJS, you are now surrendered. By real criminals, people who are exactly where they should be and now your life, physical health, as well as independence. Are now at risk, you may up having to do things in prison you normally wouldn't do, to prevent future harm from coming your way. Which can also get you into trouble with the prison itself if you are breaking prison rules.

So yes for felons and criminals who represent a threat to society, we need to be tough on them and make. Sure they are behind bars until they serve their debt to society but those are the people we need to be tough on. Not people we think did the crime or they had the best opportunity to commit the crime but we don't know for sure. Because we didn't do all of our homework and didn't do a complete investigation.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Philosophy Club: Professor Anderson: On Liberalism vs. Libertarianism: How They Are Similar But Different

This is a great debate to have, not just for me as a Liberal Democrat but for anyone whose interested. In political philosophy, because Liberalism and Libertarianism are similar, they both are based off and come from the same word. Which is liberty and are both around to protect individual liberal and Liberals and Libertarians look very similar on social issues. And even as it relates to economic policy, that we are both suspicious of Big Government, especially. Centralize government, we are just different in the areas of what should be cut from the Federal Government. And how it would be decentralize, Liberals tend to want to block grant the safety net, whereas Libertarians would simply eliminate the safety net. Gary Johnson again who I consider to a classical Liberal Democrat, meaning not that he's a Libertarian but a classical Liberal. Someone whose not anti government but whose pro limited government, produced a very Liberal plan when. It came to the safety net in 2012 and know he didn't propose to expand it but to decentralize it. And send it to the states to run, Ron Paul would try to eliminate the safety net all together.

Again Liberals and Libertarians are very similar if not identical on social issues, both very strong on individual freedom. And civil liberties, both against the War on Drugs, both would end the War on Drugs, just do it differently. Libertarians would legalize all narcotics that are currently illegal, Liberals would legalize pot and decriminalize other narcotics. And get drug addicts in drug rehab, rather then sending them to jail or prison. Liberals and Libertarians both believe in low taxes, but Liberals like Gary Johnson wouldn't eliminate all taxes, just the. Income tax and move to a consumption tax, we are very similar on social issues just differ on economic and foreign policy. Where Libertarians tend to be isolationist and Liberals tend to be Liberal Internationalists. But we both look like Liberals on social issues and civil liberties and at times its hard to tell the difference.

Someone reading this may say, aren't Liberals those people who are always trying to increase my taxes. And government spending, except in the areas of national security and law enforcement and are big believers in the welfare state. And very government centric and constantly bashing business and trying to tell people what they can eat and drink. And how we can talk to each other and sometimes even sound like they don't like America and so fourth. No these people aren't Liberals, even though some of them tend to be Liberal at least on some social issues and civil. Liberties but these people are Progressives, Social Democrats or even Democratic Socialists but they aren't Liberals.