Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Libertarianism.Org: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Milton Friedman on The Maintenance of a Free Society



Source: Libertarianism.Org: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Milton Friedman on The Maintenance of a Free Society

What a free society or what I prefer to call a liberal democracy is, it's a country where the people are free to live their own lives. Not free to hurt innocent people, but free to live their own lives. Which are  two different things that Progressives and Neoconservatives don't seem to understand. That we recognize that there are dangers in the country and there are consequences that come from making decisions in life. And that we accept that there isn't a perfect system, that there isn't a perfect society, but that there are liberal societies where people live in freedom. Authoritarian societies where people are subjects of the state and less freer societies where people live in freedom, but not as much as in a liberal society. Where government does have a role in protecting people from themselves at least to some degree, so then it's just a matter of which of these societies that people decide to live in. How much freedom do they want ,if any and what would they do with any freedom that they may have. Then we would be better off in deciding what type of country that we are and where we want to go in the future. That it's not about building a perfect society, but creating the best society that we can.

And again when I talk about free society, I'm talking about a liberal democracy where Americans would have the Freedom to live their own lives. To be self-sufficient and not have to depend on government to take care of them. That the role of government is to protect individual freedom. And to protect the innocent from predators, but not try to protect people from themselves. That individuals are free to live their own lives, as long as we not hurting innocent people with what we are doing. That we accept that there are dangers in life and people will do things that are not in their best interest. Like drink, smoke, do drugs, sleep with people they don't know, to use as examples. But trying to prevent these things from happening, doesn't mean they'll go away or locking people up for doing these things, won't make them go away. They'll just be done underground. That if government wants to protect the people, then don't try to punish them when they do something that might be in their best interest.

But make sure we have all the relevant and credible information that they we might need and then be able to make the best decisions for ourselves known what we need to know. And then have to deal with the consequences of our own decisions for better and for worst. To state the obvious, there really isn't a truly free society in any civilized country. Otherwise that would be anarchy where people could do whatever the hell that they want to, including hurting innocent people. And the only consequences that would come to them, would be how others retaliate against them when they hurt them. But what we can have is a liberal democracy where people are free to live their own lives but not hurt innocent people. Liberal democracy isn't just about voting. But it's also about individual rights and that inside constitutional rights where we can't lose our freedom simply because one more person than not believes that freedom isn't worth having and that freedom gets voted away. And that is what a free society in a liberal democratic society is. 

Monday, July 30, 2012

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Free Trade Vs Protectionism

Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Free Trade Vs Protectionism

As huge as the United States is a country of roughly 320M people that basically the size of a continent, that stretches from one ocean to another, we still represent around 5% of the entire world. With two countries that have at least four times as many people as we do. And for our economy to do as well as possible, we need to be able to produce as many products as we can as possible, so we can sell them to as many people as possible. Not just in America, but the rest of North America, Latin America, Europe, Arabia, Asia, etc. To as many people as possible that can afford to buy our products and in exchange other countries that allow us to sell our products in their countries. They get to sell their products in this country, with roughly the largest middle class in the world and with the largest upper class in the world. And we get to see what the rest of the world is producing and what they do better than us and not as well as us and develop competition out of it. That's why it's called free trade, an exchange of products and ideas between these countries. That gives us and them and idea what they are up against, what they do well and what they need to do a better job of.

I don't know what's good about protectionism. But world trade as I prefer to call it, because its not free trade, has it's plus's and minus's depending on how each trade deal is worked out and they should all be designed from the American side to get more American products sold in foreign countries, where trade tariffs are as low as possible. And in exchange the countries we are trading with get the same benefits in this country. So where our tariffs on their products is low and where the tariffs that are put on our products in their countries are equally low. Where we don't negotiate trade deals where foreign companies can sell as many of their products that Americans are willing and can buy, but where we are very limited in what we can sell over there. Otherwise it would be unfair trade instead of free trade. Trade deals need to work well for both countries, or there isn't much point in having them.

One thing that comes from world trade is that jobs get cut and moved oversees and as a result well qualified Americans are left unemployed. Because their jobs no longer exist, or have been moved to another country, which is why we need to finance retraining for these workers. So at the very least they can find new jobs in other fields that they would be qualified to do, to make world trade as effective as possible. Foreign trade like any deal is give and take and comes with pluses and minuses. The trick is to run up the pluses and make the deals as good as possible for yourself and limit the minuses. Limit the damage of the minuses and when it comes to trade, you know jobs will be lost, because now your companies will be free to do business in other countries. Which is why you need trade assistance for employees that lose their jobs as a result of trade. That includes something in the effect of a severance package, retraining and help if needed finding another job. 

Friday, July 27, 2012

Greg Lukianoff: How Colleges Fight Free Speech: The Dangers of Political Correctness in a Liberal Democracy



One of the things I don't like about some college campus's is that they are loaded with people who I could call Progressive Elitists. People who claim to know everything and know better then anyone else about everything and if you disagree with them, there's something wrong with you, you are some type of bigot or you are ignorant. And they get students to buy into what they are preaching, that is how the World works and this is what's right and wrong and this is the message we should be spreading. And anyone who disagrees with us, is ignorant and not worth our time and doesn't even deserve to be heard, that those people shouldn't even be allowed on our campus's and when they are here. We need to try to shut them up, Ann Coulter is a perfect example of that when she's invited to colleges to give, lectures. She's doesn't lecture people in the sense that she teaching anyone about anything important, other then that she doesn't know what she's talking about. But even the most ignorant and hateful people in the country deserve to be heard, as much as the most educated and decent people in the country. Thats an advantage of living in a Liberal Democracy, Freedom of Speech, the right to be heard, even if you are in a tiny minority.

A perfect example of this is back in the 1990s, especially in the mid 1990s, when Republicans had just taken back Congress. In the fall of 1995 Affirmative Action became a hot topic again, when House Republicans were trying to end Affirmative Action. A California University professor whose name I unfortunately have forgotten, whose against Affirmative Action gave lectures and speeches at his school. On why he's against Affirmative Action, this professor is also African American as well as against Affirmative Action, the students at his speeches wouldn't allow the professor to speak because he's against Affirmative Action. They do this to Ann Coulter all the time and have thrown food at her, again she and I probably agree on nothing or even less then that. If that were possible but she has as much write to speak as lets says Jeff Rosen a Liberal writer at the New Republic, someone who I tend to agree with on most things and someone I have a lot of respect for.

The job of colleges and this coming from someone who didn't graduate college who barely attended one. Is to teach people how to think, not what to think, to show them how to learn things, how to research, to put the facts on the table, not just half truths. And see if their students can remember what they were taught, did they learn the subject matter that was put in front of them. Which is pro Freedom of Speech and anti Political Correctness.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Reason: Matt Welch Interviewing Yaron Brook- Ayn Rand vs. Big Government



Yaron Brook-
Even though Ayn Rand didn't describe her own politics as libertarian, Libertarians love her because she was always talking about the importance and need for individual freedom. And we as individuals should be free to live our own lives and worry about ourselves. As well as the dangers of coercion, especially from government. That government shouldn't be forcing people to do things. Just punish people when they hurt innocent people. As a Liberal I love the idea of individual freedom, as long as someone is not using that freedom to hurt innocent people.

That government shouldn't be in the business of protecting free adults from living their own lives, as long as they don't get in the way of other free adults in living their own lives. And they aren't hurting innocent people along the way either. But as a society that we also have a responsibility not to take care of each other, but to help people who can't take care of themselves. Empower those people to be able to have the freedom to take care of themselves and live their own lives. This is a big difference between me and Libertarians as well as Ayn Rand. Who would simply just say this is not the business of government, that private charity should be handling this themselves.

Freedom works best when as many people as possible have it and where we aren't hurting innocent people with our freedom. And when we are empowering people who don't have that freedom, because they don't have the skills to take care of themselves, get those skills so they can take care of themselves. Freedom doesn't work very well when we have a high concentrated population of poor people, compared with the rest of the country.

Take parts of Mexico to use as an example. Where some people there have so little freedom in their own country, that they feel the need to leave their homeland to live in a country where they can get freedom. Emigrating to America to use as an example, or in this country where our poverty hasn't gotten that bad yet. But where some Americans become so desperate, that they do things that they wouldn't otherwise do, just in order to survive. Because they don't have enough money, or food to use as examples and end up going to jail.

So what we should be doing is building a liberal democracy where people have the individual freedom to live their own lives. As long as they aren't hurting any innocent people with their freedom. Where government isn't trying to protect people from themselves. But where everyone has the opportunity to freedom, because they can get themselves to not only live in a free country, but have the skills to be free in a free country.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

"What We Saw at the Drug Enforcement Administration Museum": The History of The War on Drugs



Here's some things that you may not see if you go to the US Drug Enforcement Administration's Museum, that if I had to take a wild guess. That Tax Payers are paying for, the hundreds of thousands of people including narcotics addicts that are currently in prison right now. That serve relatively short sentences, don't get any help for their addiction in prison and leave prison the way they entered it. Addicted to narcotics, including perhaps some legal narcotics as well, end up back on the streets, getting themselves involved in the things that landed them in prison. End up back in prison and the revolving door in the War on Drugs gets pushed and moved around again. Because Drug Warriors feel they need to protect people from themselves for their own good, even if that means locking them up in jail or prison and making their lives even worse. Because you gotta know that a lot of people who are victims of the War on Drugs, aren't narcotics dealers. But people who buy those narcotics from the narcotics dealers, as well as people who don't get arrested for using, lets say cocaine but they are in simple possession of cocaine. And simple possession can get someone landed in prison for years.

Another thing you probably won't see at the DEA Museum, is the 1T$ in taxes that Americans have paid to fight the War on Drugs. And the fact that more people have used narcotics and are in prison for narcotics today, then when this War started in 1971 and when USDEA was created by President Nixon. You want to talk about Big Government supporters, President Nixon is a perfect example of that, the Author of the War on Drugs the man who created it by putting it into Federal Law. President Nixon did some good things but at least as far as I'm concern, the War on Drugs is his biggest failure. Because of all the money that we've spent on it and the fact that we now have more drug addicts then we did forty one years ago and the marijuana. Is one of the most commonly used drugs in America, if not the most commonly used drug in this country. People prefer it over alcohol and tobacco because the side effects aren't as bad.

I've never been to the DEA Museum and is something I would probably like to see and would find interesting. But I'm guessing what they show there is a lot of pictures of cocaine and heroin being seized, drug dealers being captured and locked up in prison what they would describe. As the positive aspects of the War on Drugs, instead of all the money thats been spent on it and victims of it.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Charter Schools & Teachers Unions

Source: Liberty Pen-
Source: Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Charter Schools & Teachers Unions

Education is one of the most important part of any economy. Without a good education system, we can't produce the workers we need to have a strong economy. The workers to fill the high-skilled jobs that we need to have a strong economy and good society- teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc. And without educated workers, we won't have the market that we need that will be able to purchase the products that we need to purchase the products that we produce and we would end up importing a lot more than we already do. This is something that education unions don't understand, or haven't acknowledged. Because it's in their interest of survival to just have public schools and no competition, because then they won't have any competition and their members will always have a job in education. Whether they deserve to have that job or not. This is why our education system has dropped as far as it has in the last twenty years.

This is one of the reasons why we are now importing workers to fill jobs that we don't have enough Americans qualified to fill. If we are producing more well-educated workers, we would be able to create not just more jobs in America, but good high-skilled jobs. With good pay and benefits, to pay the taxes that so-called Progressives want them to, to support all of those programs they like. This is why choice in education is so important whether it's charter schools or public school choice, something I also support. Where parents could send their kids to the best school for them, instead of being forced by the school district to send their kids to a school, based on where they live. Because it would force all public schools to either do a good job, actually teach their students to the point that they are actually learning and can remember what they learned. Otherwise face the possibility of losing those students to a better school, where they can get the education that they aren't getting.

What school choice does is gives the parents the option of sending their kids to another school. Because now they will have other options other than to send their kids to a school, where the kids aren't learning and perhaps be able to send their kids to a school, where they wouldn't have to worry about public safety and focus on getting a good education. This would also be good for so-called Progressives (Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists in actuality) because we would have a better skilled workforce to pay the taxes to fund the social programs that they want. 

Monday, July 23, 2012

Freedomworks' Matt Kibbe on the Hostile Takeover of The GOP: How The Tea Party is Taking Down the GOP



If the Tea Party message was truly about the Federal Government is too big and the bigger it gets, the less freedom Americans have. Type of movement a truly Conservative Republican Movement that Barry Goldwater and others brought to the national scene in the 1960s. Then I would have respect for it, because that would tell me that Republicans now actually believe again that Big Government is too big and has moved back to Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism. But thats not where the Tea Party has been the last year or so and its not just the Michelle Bachmann's of the World either. The last year or so the Tea Party's message has been, that the Federal Government spends too much money. And that Americans have too much Social Freedom, so we have to past laws, Constitutional Amendments even to limit how Americans can live their own lives and force Americans to live like us. If the Tea Party was truly an anti Big Government, instead Limited Government movement, then they would've endorsed. Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or Jon Huntsman or Buddy Roemer for President, instead of first endorsing Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and later Rick Santorum for President. The last three all having serious ties to Big Government Republicans.

This spokesman for Freedom Works a Tea Party Political Advocacy Group, run by former House Leader Dick Army. Is right that Establishment Republicans are still running the Republican Party when it comes to Fiscal Policy, that House Republican might want to spend less money then Democrats. But want to spend more money then Democrats in other areas, that House Republicans talk like Fiscal Conservatives but that talk of course is cheap as the old saying goes. But they don't govern like Fiscal Conservatives, no cuts in the Defense Budget even in areas where we can afford to spend less money. No serious Entitlement Reform that actually solves those problems and no Tax Reform, that House Republicans idea of Fiscal Conservatism, is to concentrate on around on. 15% of the Federal Budget, where they aren't going to get much push back except from Progressives, on some fairly small Social Programs compared with the rest of the Federal Budget.

In 2009-10 the Tea Party was about the Federal Government is too big, takes too much of our freedom from us and we need to downsize it. To now that we don't have enough Jesus in our lives as a country and that homosexuality is a threat to National Security, according to Michelle Bachmann. And we need to limit the freedom of Americans to have a truly secure and moral society, two different messages coming from the Tea Party.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Econ Free: Antony Davies: If Government Ordered Your Lunch

Econ Free: Antony Davies: If Government Ordered Your Lunch

This idea that a group of people centralized in one big city, even a city that I love, can direct the lives of a country of 320M people, that’s a continental nation that’s between two large oceans, is crazy. People who I call Statists or political nannies, (whether they are female or male) have this idea that a certain lifestyle that they live, must be able to work for everyone, no matter how large the country, or how diverse it is. Because this lifestyle works for them and if you don’t conform with it, there’s something wrong with you. You are ignorant in some way, sort of how the establishment treated Hippies in the 1960s and 70s. But this type of thing is still going on today, from the Left and Right. To be blunt about it, the Far-Left and Far Right. People who have this idea of what it means to be an American. From the right because this is how it use to be. And from the Left this is how its done in other countries, it seems to work there, so this is how we should be living as a country.

Thats not the role of government to direct how its people live. But what they can do with agencies like FDA is inform Americans on the dangers and benefits of doing this, or that. Put out all the credible info available, but not try to force people to live that way. Because they know that they can’t. The War on Drugs, or organized gambling, are excellent examples of this. And then to make suggestions on what activities are healthy and what aren’t and what are the benefits and minus’ of doing such activities. Suggesting that people eat balance diets and exercise everyday, knowing that they can’t force people to do those things.

And this is what alcohol, tobacco and I would add marijuana can do to you, instead of trying to outlaw those things and trying to protect people from themselves. The United States is simply to large and vast of a country for an elite group in Washington, or anywhere else to try to control a country that is this large. But what it can do, is inform people on what activities are healthy and unhealthy in life and make suggestions. About certain things in what Americans should do with their lives based on credible research not ideology.


Saturday, July 21, 2012

Talley-TV: ABC's 20/20: John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide

Source: Talley-TV- John & Cindy McCain-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal

John Stossel, is someone I respect, not someone who I agree with very often, but someone who’s very honest with what he thinks and who is very provocative. And political correctness is one area where we agree on. To me, political correctness should never be a substitute for telling the truth. That the fear to offend someone or some people, shouldn’t be an excuse for not speaking the ruth. It’s not the truth that’s the enemy of civil society, but the lack of truth, or ignorance that can be.

Once you put all the facts on the table and do it in a timely way, you give yourself an opportunity, whether the truth is good news, or bad news to respond to the truth in an appropriate way. Political correctness, goes against that because it says, “you know what we can’t say that. Because some people, especially people we care about, may be offended by it.” Political correctness, is also a problem with our education system. Students every year get promoted to the next grade, because educators fear that holding that student back, or sending them to summer school, for fear you may hurt the students self-esteem.

It’s all part of the so-called self-esteem movement, making people feel as well as possible. Whether they deserve to feel that well, or not. Self-esteem, is not the answer to having a civil society nor are politicians from any party. We get out of life what we put into it, no one politician can save our country and they especially can’t. Save us from ourselves as much as they’ve tried and over hyping politicians is just an invitation for being disappointed.

President Obama, is a perfect example of that who was built as the savior of America that was going to save our country. As so-called Progressives built him as. Now forty-two months later or so, he’s now seen as a disappointment to so-called Progressives and Independents. Because we are still dealing with the same problems as a country that we were dealing with when he became President. Not recognizing that the challenges that he faced were so huge and complicated and that they weren’t going to be solved in just four years.

And no Barack Obama is not a God and he’s also made some mistakes in his first term as well. Truth is never the enemy of civil society and politicians are never the saviors of society, at least by themselves. Its how we respond to all the facts on the table and how we learn them and when we learn them, that will best determine how we function as a country. Rather than holding back certain information for fear it may hurt the feelings of others. But what we should do is report all the facts and then respond to them as best we can.
Talley-TV: John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide To Politics



Friday, July 20, 2012

Reason: Matt Welch Interviewing Judge Andrew Napolitano- Gary Johnson and The 2012 Presidential Election

I'm sure that Gary Johnson has figured out by now that he's not going to be elected president in 2012. That even finishing a solid third where he's at least in double figures, would be a big victory for him. He's currently running at 5% nationally and that's according to his own campaign. He's running just 13% in his home State of New Mexico, where he was governor for eight years, where he's clearly a name there. Unless this entire State of two-million people were in a coma or vacationing in Pakistan or somewhere outside of New Mexico that entire time. So I'm sure that New Mexicans have gotten the message that their former governor from 1995-03 is currently running for president in 2012.

But that's not the point or the goal of the Johnson Campaign. The goal of the Johnson Campaign should be divide and conquer, but in the most positive sense. Not in the Karl Rove sense where you win elections by destroying the other side. 'We know you don't like us, but you should dislike the other side even more. And vote for us by default.' The way Governor Johnson should divide and c conquer, is by pulling Liberal Democrats such as myself and the few Conservative and Libertarian Republicans that are left in the Republican Party, to vote for him.

And of course the Johnson Campaign, should be courting with every single Libertarian that's alive and breathing and eligible to vote in the United States. To get up to 10-15% in the national polls and get Federal financing for the 2016 elections. And get into the presidential debates and put the Libertarian Party on the map in American politics to make it a major third-party that can compete with Democrats and Republicans across the country. Not just in the West where libertarianism is strong.



Thursday, July 19, 2012

John Stossel & David Boaz: The Future Of Liberty: How to Make Liberty Work for Everybody



I'm a get Big Government out of my wallet and bedroom and any other aspect of my life where I'm not hurting anyone else Liberal. These people are called Classical Liberals and sometimes Libertarians but this this is actually what Liberalism is about but to have Liberty that benefits the country. It has to benefit everyone, so when people who are successful in life and have that Freedom, because they got themselves the skills that they need to be free and successful in life. Don't have to indefinitely subsidize the people who don't, because the people who haven't freed themselves in life. Have the opportunity and have been empowered to go out and get themselves the skills that they need to be free and successful in life, which is one thing that separates Liberalism from Libertarianism. Liberals understand that Liberal Democracy and Capitalism is the best system in the World but of course it isn't perfect and we need some type of Safety Net. It doesn't have to be run by the Federal Government but some type of system to catch the people who fall through the cracks of the economy. So they can survive in the meantime and have an opportunity to get themselves on their feet.

One of the reasons why I'm a Liberal and not a Libertarian, is that Libertarians today sound more like Anarchists, something that I could never be, then Libertarians. If you are an actual Libertarian, you believe that we need government at all three levels but that it should only do. What the people can't do for themselves and that it should be very limited, Cost Effective and that the power should be with the people in how we live our own lives, as long as we are. Not hurting innocent people with what we are doing, thats basically what Libertarianism is about. But what you hear from today's Libertarians, is that government is basically incompetent in basically everything that it does, so why should we even have one. Let the Private Sector figure that out instead, Anarchists don't believe in government otherwise, they wouldn't be Anarchists.

If Libertarians just stuck with the message of Individual Liberty and Responsibility, based on Limited Government that only does what we need it to do. Not what we want it to do, which is different and since that its limited that it doesn't need to tax us much and that it should stay out of our wallets and bedrooms. Not try to control how we live our own lives, then Libertarianism would've advanced a lot more in America, then it has in the last forty years.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Nat Hentoff: Journalistic Integrity & The Minority View: Liberal Democracy vs Majoritarianism



The term Minority Rights gets thrown out a lot especially in the US Senate but it basically gets down to. All views and opinions have a right to be heard that we all have the opportunity to give our side and our points of view, whether we are swimming with the tide or swimming against the tide. Thats just one difference between a Liberal Democracy like in the United States and a Majoritarian Democracy in lets say Europe, where a lot of things are done by Majority Rule. They don't like the current government so they throw it out, whereas in America, elections have consequence. To paraphrase Chief Justice John Roberts its not the job of government to save the people from decisions they made at the ballot box. Which basically means if you don't like the Representative or Senator or Governor or President you voted for, vote them out the next time they are up for reelection. Whereas in Europe they basically have do overs, look we made a mistake, we shouldn't of voted for those people, we want new elections. Actually California is also sort of a Majoritarian Democracy, they decide they a lot of things through referendum and it generally involves someone in California wanting the State Government to spend more money. But of course they don't come up with the funds for the new spending.

If America was a Majoritarian Democracy, we wouldn't be a Constitutional Republic, even if we had a Constitution. It wouldn't mean much because anytime 50.1% of the country decided they wanted something or viewed something in the Constitution as outdated, then they could throw it out by referendum or through Congress. By Majority Rule in the House and Senate, the United States simply doesn't operate that way, as much as Progressives may hate that. In America racists, homophobes and other bigots have just as much right to voice their views as tolerant people. The War on Terror is a perfect example of why its a good thing that we aren't a Majoritarian Democracy but a Liberal Democracy, because when Americans have their rights abused by the Federal Government. They have recourse to appeal that abuse, the Civil Rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 60s is another great example of why its a good thing that we are a Liberal Democracy. When the Southern Racists were still in the majority.

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said that Democracy is the worst form of government in the World, except for all of the rest. I would argue that Constitutional Republics in the form of a Liberal Democracy, which is what the United States is. Is the worst form of government in the World except for all the rest. Because it protects all of our Constitutional Rights, even when they are not popular.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Sen. Tom Coburn: How Both Parties Bankrupted America: How to Return to Limited Government



To put it simple the United States now has a 16T$ National Debt, up from 4T$ in 2001 and now a 2T$ Budget Deficit. Because we've spent way too much money on things we've shouldn't be spending money on and to make it worse we've borrowed trillions of dollars to pay for it. And of course the "Great Recession" by itself has added trillions of dollars to the debt, because of the lost revenue to the Federal Government. And Uncle Sam because of the "Great Recession" not cutting the budget or raising taxes to make up for the lost revenue. So to get our debt and deficit under control, we need to first stop the bleeding, stop borrowing and stop spending money on things the Federal Government doesn't need. Or shouldn't be spending money on things, like 500B$ for Medicare Advantage back in 2003 and borrowed 500B$ to pay for that. Or borrow over a trillion dollar for the War in Iraq in 2003 and have fought that War based on false evidence. Since 1950 the Federal Government has averaged 18-21% of our GDP, we are now at 24-25% and we've borrowed most of that new Federal Spending. So we have to stop doing that, we need a more efficient and Cost Effective Federal Government and we can get our debt and deficit under control.

So to get our debt and deficit under control as far as making cuts and reforms, I would start with entitlements and the Defense Budget. We spend roughly 200B$ a year on defending Developed Nations around the World that can afford to defend themselves, lets stop doing that and turn their defense over to them. Lets get out of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, lets get Medicaid under control so the States can afford to pay for it. Lets make it Self Financed and turn it over to the States and the same thing with Medicare, Juvenile Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance and Social Security. All of these programs should be Self Financed paid for by the people who use them and our Anti Poverty Programs, again should be Self Financed and should be designed to empower the people who need them. So they no longer need them and they can can take care of themselves, make them Self Financed and turn them over to the States.

As far as new revenue, that should be about Tax Reform get all of the wasteful Tax Loopholes out of the Tax Code. And have a more Capitalist Economic System where the wealth people have in life is based on what they produce in society, instead of what Tax Credit they can get from Uncle Sam. And we can get our debt and deficit under control and get back to 18-21% of GDP and even spend less then that and more money for the people who need it.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Governor Gary Johnson: End The War on Drugs


The United States is now sixteen-trillion-dollars in debt thanks to both Republicans and Democrats. But in the last ten years or so, the edge has to go to Republicans when it comes to borrow and spending. They are the fathers of supply side/borrow and spend economics. And two ways to get out of the fiscal black hole, that shopaholics couldn't even dream up in their wildest fantasy pipe dream of running up,iIs to get the Federal Government to do less. Get them out of our own lives as far as trying to run them. Stop punishing people for what they do to themselves.

And instead focus on how people abuse other people, as well as through economic growth. Less prohibition and instead lets start taxing and regulating how people live their own lives. Instead of trying to protect people from themselves, which is exactly what the War on Drugs is about. We meaning Uncle Sam, and perhaps Sam's wife, nieces and nephews, meaning the Federal Government, knows best how a country of 310M people, even though they haven't met 99% of them, how they should live their own lives. Better than the people themselves. That's exactly what the War on Drugs is about, protecting adults from themselves.

The War on Drugs is actually why Libertarian Party presidential nominee, as well as the Patriot Act and indefinite detention, are reasons why Gary has a shot at picking off some Liberal Democrats. Especially young voters. Liberals that are tired of the the Obama Administration's big government policies as it relates to these areas and see President Obama as not much different if at all from President Bush in these areas. We could be taxing and regulating marijuana and sending some of that money to the Federal Government to pay for things like public infrastructure and to help pay down the Federal debt.

As well as the savings that would generate from not prohibiting marijuana for adults, as well as releasing drug offenders who are in prison for simple drug possession or usage, who have clean prison records. As well as just decriminalizing cocaine and heroin, have people pay fines for simple possession, instead of locking them up. The way to handle addiction in America when it comes to marijuana, cocaine or heroin, is how we handle addiction for alcohol and tobacco. Is through drug rehab at the addicts expense. Instead of locking them up and hoping, more like praying they learn their lesson. Even though they'll have access to the drugs of their choice in jail or prison, something they wouldn't have in drug rehab.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

The Politics of Poker: Why It's Time To Legalize Online Gaming: Economics over Nanny Statists



Imagine having money and deciding to spend it in a way that you want to do with it, not exactly a fantasy right we all do that with our own money everyday. Now imagine wanting to spend that money in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, maybe not even yourself. You are not paying for a hit on someone or paying someone to beat someone up, you are not paying for a robbery, you are not paying for anything that can hurt someone else. Your are not buying slaves to use as another example, you made that money and decided that this is how you want to spend it. We do these things every single day and now imagine government or Uncle Sam saying you can't spend the money you made from the work you do. And again you are not spending that money in a way that can hurt anyone but some Nanny Statist, who probably has his or her own foot stuck up their ass, pardon the expression. So up tight or so board with their own lives, that they've decided that they are going to mind someone else's business. Because their business is so boring and live such a Conservative life. That they've now taken it upon themselves to protect people from themselves, thats what Illegal Gaming is about and why its Illegal. Because government is worried that people may lose their own money.

Again like marijuana and prostitution, gambling is something thats always been with us and will always be with use. Whether its illegal or not and what's the worst that can happen, people make bad bets and lose their own money . What's the worst thing that can happen from driving, people can die in car crashes but we've decided as a country thats a risk worth taking and we can make driving safer through regulation. What's the worst thing that can happen from alcohol, people can die from all sorts of relates diseases from it and the same thing with tobacco. But again we've decided as a country that we can live with alcohol and tobacco, as long as we regulate them. Nobody dies from gambling, except perhaps victims of criminals but people can kill themselves with alcohol and tobacco, with all of the preventable diseases that come from them. As well as people can get killed by others over alcohol and tobacco.

Gambling is something thats always been with us as a country, whether it organized or not, we all take risks every single day. Hopefully for most of us, most of our risks pay off but we all make calculated risks, we don't flip coins to decide what we are going to do each day but we put thought into it. Thats what gambling is they are calculated risks and when they pay off we win and when they don't we lose and the more responsible amongst us. Win more bets then we lose and thats what gambling is about and making it illegal doesn't make it go away. It just means its done underground.

Friday, July 13, 2012

Peter Schiff: Why the Government Should Not Be in the Student Loan Business: What Could be Done Instead



One problem with the Affordable Care Act was that the Federal Government essentially socialize the Student Loan Industry. Which means when people can't afford to pay back their Student Loans, for example they can't find a job that meets their level of education. So they take jobs that doesn't put them in position to pay back their Student Loans and it isn't the Federal Government. That gets stuck with the bill of people not being able to pay back their Student Loans, its the people who fund government that get hooked for it. At no fault of their own meaning the Tax Payers but when you have banks and the Private Sector in the business of Student Loans and you regulate them properly. People now have choices in where they can go to get their Student Loans and these business's, have to compete with each other for customers, which brings their prices down. Because their customers know they have competition, you let government run the show, now they are in charge of everything and set their own prices. Because they know the people have nowhere else to go.

I'm not with Libertarian Economist Peter Schiff on what I would do instead, just that I agree with him that the Federal Government shouldn't have a complete monopoly. Over the Student Loan Business and the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in this as far as running it. But just serve as a regulator of the Student Loan Industry and perhaps a financier of for people who want to run Student Loan Services. And turn what they are currently doing over to he States to run their own Student Loan Services if they decide to do so as well as Non Profits in the Private Sector. Which would help to lower the costs of the Interest Rates in the students loans, because you would eliminate For Profits running up their rates, just because they believe their is a market to pay them. Making Students Loans unaffordable for a lot of people who actually need them.

The fact is the Federal Government doesn't have all the answers and is certainly not the most efficient organization around. Which means they should really only be in the business of running things that only they can do well and only they should be doing. And Student Loans is not one of those fields, there are much better ways to have college more affordable, then the Federal Government simply running everything.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Randy Barnett: "Losing Obamacare While Preserving the Constitution": How Libertarians Won with the Commerce Clause



The Affordable Care Act was ruled Constitutional based on the Taxing Power of the Federal Government, not through the Commerce Clause. Which means Congress can tax people based on when they believe Americans are doing something thats unhealthy or bad for the country as a whole. For example people who can afford to pay for their Healthcare but have chosen not to and get their Healthcare at the expense of people who pay for their Healthcare. Which is a victory for Liberals who don't want to deny people the ability to do things that are unhealthy to themselves. They just don't want people to be able to pass the costs of others unhealthy activity onto people who make better decisions. And a lost for Libertarians because now the Federal Government can penalize people for things that they've decided to do on their own but its a victory for Libertarians, Conservatives and why would argue for Liberals. As well as a Liberal myself as it relates to the Commerce Clause because the Supreme Court decision limits the Federal Government in what it can do under the Commerce Clause. Which is a lost for Progressives who constantly argue for the Federal Government to be able to act in the economy in the interest of the country.

As much as Progressives may hate this and one reason why they arguing for amending the US Constitution. The Federal Government is limited in what it can do under the US Constitution, which is one reason why our Federal Government spends on average 20% of our GDP post World War II. And its just in the last three years where the Federal Government has spend roughly 25% of the GDP, compared with Europe that generally spends around 50% of its GDP on their Federal Government. Because there aren't the same restrictions on the Federal Governments in Europe Constitutionality as there are in America. And Europe settles a lot of things that their people may want to do on Popular Vote and if the people don't like what the Ruling Party is doing, new Federal Elections get called. Where in America we settle a lot of what our Federal Government can do through our Federal Courts.

My opinion of the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is similar to Chief Justice Roberts. That its very hard if not impossible to make the case that its Constitutional based on the Commerce Clause, that the Federal Government can force people to purchase something in the Private Market. But that it can penalize people when they do things that are not only bad for them but bad for the rest of the people who have to pay the price of these bad decisions.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

"Killing California's Costly Death Penalty": California Looking to Save Money on its Corrections System



I'm pro Death Penalty for certain types of murderers, that are one definitely guilty, enjoy murdering people and aren't sorry for what they did. Which would make them a threat to murder again, even other inmates in prison, which is one reason why Life Without Parole, wouldn't be adequate for offenders like this. Ted Bundy comes to mind, even in prison Jeffrey Dahmer had the wanting to murder again but was in Wisconsin a State without the Death Penalty. Had Jeff Dahmer committed his murders in Illinois, he would've received the Death Penalty. But in California's case a State where their Death Penalty System is so screwed up where inmates have served up to thirty years on Death Row. Because they are very efficient in getting through their Appeals Process, releasing inmates that are found innocent or getting through bogus appeals of inmates that are clearly guilty. I mean once you've already spent ten years on Death Row, the State has basically decided that they aren't ready to execute you and if you are even guilty or not. And have basically passed at that point, so they and Tax Payers would probably be better off amending the sentence to Life Without Parole.

California leaves too many inmates on Death Row and for too long and with the situation that their economy is in right now and with their debt and deficit. They really need to examine the costs that their State Government puts on its Tax Payers and where they can cut costs and make reforms for the future. Death Row would be an example of that, instead of housing inmates in isolation for thirty years, look into giving Convicted Murderers that could be held for a long Appeals Process, complicated case and all of that. Life Without Parole and give them a Prison Classification based on their crimes and what threat they represent to the prison and other inmates. Instead of housing them on Death Row for decades rotting away at Tax Payers expense, when perhaps the prison and State would be better off if that inmate was working in prison and contributing to their cost of living.

Thats what Californians will get a chance to consider in November, another opportunity to cut the costs of their government doing business at their expense. A chance to cut some of its costs in its Corrections System and perhaps a more affordable way to house Convicted Murderers in the future. With their economy, debt and deficit are right now, they should take a long look at this proposal.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder Calls Voter ID Laws 'Poll Taxes': The Problems with these Voter ID Laws



All these Voter ID Laws that Republican Governors and others around the country are solutions, bad solutions if that, in search of a problem. Even though Republicans say that Voter Fraud is a huge problem around this country, notice they only make these claims when Democrats win. They can't actually point to examples of Voter Fraud, its like say that the kitchen is empty or low on food and that automatically means. Someone is stealing the food and lets say three or more people live in this home and not realizing or even considering you may be low on food, because one of you or all three of you have been pretty hungry lately. Maybe there was a big storm that kept you all at home, maybe you threw a party, this is what these Voter ID Laws are, bad solutions in search of problems. And they'll probably end up getting thrown out because they are Unconstitutional because they target Democrats and people who tend to vote Democrat, who don't always carry more then one form of id on them. Young people who tend to be Democrats and in a lot of cases only carry their Student ID on them and Republicans knowing this people who understand American Politics and what Republicans need to win elections.

I don't like to question other peoples motives, especially people on the other side of the isle and Political Spectrum. But these Voter ID Laws have politics written all over them and I'm just going to throw out a theory in why Republicans are attempting to pass these laws now. Not saying this is why they are doing this, just putting a theory out there. Two Right Wing writers in the last few months have said they don't believe young adults should be allowed to vote. Both Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg have said this and here's why or why I believe they've believe this and it also goes to the possible motivation of these Voter ID Laws. Republicans and Democrats both understand the changing demographics in this country, that we are becoming more minority, more younger and more Liberal-Libertarian as a country. Which is good news for Democrats that tend to score well with these groups and bad news for Republicans.

The easiest way to win an election is for the other side not to vote, if you don't have any competition or enough competition, you win. And Republicans understand this and know the changing demographics don't look good for them, especially as they move farther to the right politically. And have become a Neoconservative party, so their best bet to winning in the future in their small minds, is to prevent the other side from voting, thats what these Voter ID Laws are about, or thats at least my theory.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Public-Private Partnerships in Puerto Rico: What a National Infrastructure Bank would look like



What they are talking about here is where a National Infrastructure Bank could come in and help to makeup the lack of funding. For Infrastructure Investment around the country, to make up the differences that Congress leaves behind each year to now around 1T$. According to the Core of Engineers, thats the amount of funding they say we need in Public Infrastructure in America. To rebuild this country and to help avoid the aftermaths of devastating Natural Disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes, tornados etc. But also to help avoid man made disasters from happening in the future as well, like bridges collapsing when the weather is good, which is what happened in Minnesota just five years ago. That killed innocent people and an NIB would also put millions of people to work, not creating new Public Sector jobs but in the Private Sector, especially in the Construction and Manufacturing Industries. Because it would create a lot of jobs that would need to be done and give a lot of companies new contracts to do these jobs. Then they would end up having to do more work then normal and then have to hire new employees to do these new jobs from these new contracts.

What a National Infrastructure Bank is, is a company that would prioritize Infrastructure Projects around the country. Bring in investors from the Private Sector to pay for this new work, that they would get back in return from money made off of using these new roads or buildings. From the people they would attract and then the NIB would award contracts to companies to either repair current Public Infrastructure. As well as build new Infrastructure around the country and they would be there to make up the shortfall left by Congress that either doesn't want to spend more money or raise new taxes. Or has other priorities that they would prefer to fund but it wouldn't leave Congress out of the picture either, because they would still have the Gas Tax. That would be there to fund the Infrastructure Projects that the NIB decided not to fund, so we would have two organizations that would be working on this.

I personally like the idea of Public Private Partnerships, its a hell of a lot better then from what we hear from Progressives and Libertarians. That either want the Federal Government to solve all of our problems for us as a country or in Libertarians case, wants the Federal Government to do basically nothing. And is something that we should also be looking at when it comes to Social Insurance as well.

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Reason: Bikini Banners and Freakin Cops Cracking Down on Curse Words! The Nanny of The Month For June 2012

This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal

Here’s more evidence that we overpay our politicians and don’t give them enough work to do. That they would actually take time, taxpayers time that is to look for new ways to restrict how the people who pay their salaries in how they live their own lives. That they would look for new ways to protect people from themselves. That individual freedom is too risky and some people might not know what to do with it and since they can’t take all of our freedom way from us and turn America into an authoritarian state, they look for new ways.

That nanny statists have to be clever and look for new ways to do this, without officially at least taking all of our freedom from us. Even risk violating the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution to do so. Which is what they are doing in Massachusetts by putting new limits on what people can say in public, the target of course of this being curse words. New Jersey trying to install crackdowns on what women can wear in public, meaning certain bikinis at their beaches. All they are doing there is just giving more men reason not to vacation in New Jersey. But they would be welcomed along with their women to come down to nearby Delaware and Maryland, where they wouldn’t have those restrictions.

These are just examples of what a nanny state looks like. Where the state takes it upon themselves to protect people from themselves. It ranges from speech, to what people can wear and say in public, to what they can eat, drink and smoke, to what they watch on TV, or listen to on the radio. All in an effort of course to protect people from themselves and to prevent us the people from doing things that they either don’t like, like cursing and certain forms of entertainment, which of course Neoconservatives of course hate and see these things as a threat to our national morality and even national security.

When I hear those arguments, I think they must be high on something they believe should be illegal for everyone else. Or hate speech that today’s so-called Progressives hate, because they are worried that it may offend people they care about who are too sensitive to deal with it by themselves in an adult way and need the State to protect them. But my Nanny of the Month for June, 2012 is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is now the Mayor of the Nanny City. Thanks to his efforts to protect New Yorker’s from themselves, as it relates to junk food, soft drinks, marijuana and even pornography. And represents why the term nanny is even involved in American politics and why we have the term nanny state. Government’s that want to protect their people from themselves.


Friday, July 6, 2012

Tammy Duckworth: Rep. Joe Walsh Trying To 'Muzzle' Veterans: The Political Fiasco of The Week



It use to be back in the day that only Democrats would get accused of being Soft on Defense, Unpatriotic, not honoring our Military Veterans and so fourth. The Vietnam War had a lot to do with that but one of the legacies of the 2003 Iraq War, it changed that for Democrats and you could even see that as early as 2004. When the Democratic Party nominated a Vietnam Veteran from the Boomer Generation for President in John Kerry, who was a hero in that War and was rewarded for it. And wouldn't brag about his Military Service but was proud of it, which is different. And you started hearing Democrats talking about Patriotism and that they were proud to be Americans, didn't like George W. Bush as President. But they still loved America anyway and how important our Military Veterans are and everything and that we as a country, have to honor their service. Which 15-20 years earlier you wouldn't of heard that from Democrats for the most part. And that Republicans were suppose to be Freedom loving, American Patriots and that they were the party that honored Military Service and our Military Veterans. That changed 6-7 years ago and what Representative Joe Walsh did this week, just illustrates that.

Yesterday Rep. Joe Walsh who of course is up for reelection in November and is a Freshmen Tea Party Representative. Said that Democrat Tammy Duckworth who will be his most likely opponent in November, I'm paraphrasing here but that Tammy Duckworth a Iraq War Veteran. Talks too much about her Military Service, notice how different that is from just 15-20 years ago. When if anything Democrats would accuse Republicans of talking too much about their Military Service. Especially the more to the left they are and generally don't see the American Military playing a positive role in the World. Now that coin has flipped, a lot of Democrats have not only Military Service but recent Military Service, especially if they are in my generation or younger. And don't look down at Military Service, at least not in the same way that Baby Boomers might, especially with their experiences with the Vietnam War. And these Iraq Veterans are coming home and looking for new ways to contribute to the country.

Representative Joe Walsh a Republican, someone whose suppose to be a Defender of Freedom, an American Patriot. Who honors Military Service, Apple Pie and all the rest, at least if you believe everything you read about Republicans. Actually getting on a Iraq War Veteran for talking too much about her Military Service, which even ten years ago would be considered Unpatriotic. Especially if it was done by a Democrat, just lends more evidence that Republicans no longer own Military Service and Patriotism.