Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens: In Defense Of Unpopular Speech

Democratic Socialist Defending Free Speech
Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens: In Defense Of Unpopular Speech

I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Progressive/Socialist. A bit left to me on economic policy, to put it mildly, but we do tend to agree on some of these key social issues, like civil liberties, War on Drugs and yes free speech. But Freedom of Speech is exactly that, the freedom to speak, to go along with our property rights, are the most important freedoms and constitutional rights that we have in America. The freedom to speak is exactly that, the right to speak whether its popular or not.

That since we are a liberal democracy, we've decided long ago, that we are good enough and intelligent enough as a nation, that we can have good intelligent tolerant thinkers. But that we can also have haters and ignorant people as well, because we are a good and intelligent enough as a people to figure out what's hate and what's not and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't be. That we don't need big government to make these decisions for us. What we should and be able to listen to and what we shouldn't listen to. This is something that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians figured out a long time ago, but that today's Progressives and Neoconservatives have never grasped. Who believe government needs to be strong enough to be able to protect its people, even at times from themselves.

The Islamic film, that was perceived very negatively a few weeks ago by Muslims and Progressives, but of course Neoconservatives view the film as free speech, because they like and agree with the film, but thats a different story, is a perfect example of what free speech is designed to protect. The right for people to be able to speak their mind, even as small as their minds and intelligence level may be. As long as they are not labeling people, threatening people, or inciting violence. What this movie essentially does, is layout what the creators of this movie feel. "Islam is bad and so-forth, that Muhammad was a bad person and so-forth." But it wasn't calling for Muslims to be killed and beat up and so-forth, it was a negative if not bigoted view of Islam, but not calling for violence on Muslims. And thats the difference between free speech and threatening speech. Something we don't put up with as a nation.

WBAL-TV: Video: Sunday Q&A With Peter Franchot

Financial disclosure is always a good thing, as long as its enforceable, so we know how our tax dollars are spent. And how our public officials and candidates raise their money and who finances their campaigns. Government disclosure is also a good thing which is what I believe Comptroller Peter Franchot was talking about in this interview. That he didn't like how the Maryland Assembly passed the gambling expansion in Maryland. 

But a good way to not have to tax and borrow so much money and run up debt, is through new economic development and job growth. Maryland casinos is a big part of that and marijuana legalization in Maryland which I believe will be in the near future after decriminalization which is also coming up, is a big part of that. And would allow for Maryland to pay down it's debt with new tax revenue from the new economic growth and development. 

Reason Magazine: Gene Epstein- Too Big To Regulate: Dodd-Frank

Source: Reason Magazine- Gene Epstein-
Source: Reason Magazine: Gene Epstein- Too Big To Regulate: Dodd-Frank

"Too big To regulate", is generally a phrase that so-called Progressives use to make their case that big banks and the health insurance industry are too big to make work well, in their minds. That we might as well just nationalize them and turn them into new Federal agencies, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To go along with Bank of America to use as an example. But what Gene Epstein seems to be arguing in this talk, that the Doddd-Frank bill of 2010, the Wall Street reform bill is, too big to regulate, that it's impossible to understand. I disagree with that, but I would argue that Fannie and Freddie are too big to regulate and that they need to be broken up, not nationalize. But broken up into like 200 companies each and regulated as non-profit lenders and insurers of mortgages and perhaps other loans. But the fact is they are both still "too big to fail". And can't remain that way, while they are receiving tax dollars and are such a large part of the economy.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

The Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand Interview From 1

Source: Phil Donahue Show- Ayn Rand-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal

This is a classic interview, because you had two very intelligent people with lots of followers, who both had a message to deliver. But came from very different sides of the political spectrum. Ayn Rand, being a Libertarian/Objectivist and Phil Donahue being a Progressive/Socialist even. Two people with very different beliefs on what the role of government is. Especially the role of the Federal Government. Ayn, whose see government’s role as basically doing nothing more, than to basically protecting our freedom and constitutional rights. And Phil Donahue, believing that government should be doing a lot for its people. That there’s only so much we can expect that the private enterprise can do for the people.

The Phil Donahue belief I guess, is when people have a lot of economic freedom, we see too much income inequality, that we should tolerate in a democracy. And that we need a strong Federal Government to provide the human services, that we shouldn’t trust private enterprise to do for the people. And if that means having high taxes to pay for these human services, so be it. If that means we get good public services from all of these taxes. So this was a discussion between two people, who have very different views in what the role of government is and what it should be doing for its people. But two people who are very intelligent and can make their case very well in how they look at the world ideologically.

The best thing that I could probably compare this interview with today, it would be like Ralph Nader interviewing Ron Paul, or vice-versa. Two men that are actually pretty similar when it comes to social freedom and civil liberties. But are very different in what they see the role for the Federal Government as it relates to the economy. Ron Paul basically believing that people should be able to keep and spend as much money as they make and be able to spend it as they see it, as long as they aren’t spending that money hurting people. Ordering hits and that sort of thing. And Ralph Nader, believing that a country is a community and to be a member of this community, we should all have to pay a price for it. To make this community as strong as it can be. Similar to Rand-Donahue.
Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand 1979 Interview

Friday, September 28, 2012

FRSFreeStateNow: Common Sense Capitalism: CNBC, Closing Bell: America's Lowest Earners Spend Twice Their Incomes: Why This Is

The reason why Low Income workers are able to spend twice as much as they take in, if they live in poverty. Is because the money they earn from working, is not their entire income, they also collect Public Assistance to help them get buy. Food Assistance, public and private, Public Housing, help to pay for clothes, Earn Income Tax Credit and so fourth, all of this income they take. In to go along with the money they make working, sometimes 2-3 jobs and this is the way it has to be, as long as we have people making such little income from working but what we need to do. Is to empower our Low Income people, whether they are working or not, to get themselves a good job, so they don't have to collect so much from Public Assistance and can make enough money to pay their. Bills, because they have a good enough job that allows them to live at least a fairly comfortable lifestyle, out of poverty and into the Working Middle Class, thats how you move people out. Of poverty, not by increasing their income from Public Assistance but by empowering them to increase their own income, by having a good job, where they can afford their own home, whether its a. House or an apartment but where they are able to pay for their own housing, own a car if they need it and so fourth.

We have experience from this from the 1990s in moving people out of poverty with a similar approach. We moved away from that in the last decade, as we saw millions of people who were once in the Middle Class, finding themselves out of work and collecting Public Assistance and the "Great Recession". Has only made things worse and what we should be doing as we get the economy going again, that leads to strong Economic and Job Growth, is be investing in things that move people. Out of poverty, education, Job Training and Job Placement into good jobs that moves them out of poverty, as they collect their Public Assistance in the short term, which is what we were doing in the 1990s.

Reuters TV: The Trail: Professor Robert Erikson: "Mitt Romney Has 15-20% Chance of Victory

I don't know if I buy this poll but its just more evidence that Mitt Romney is clearly behind in the Presidential Election

The Atlantic: Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama

Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama - The Atlantic

The case to vote against Barack Obama, even if you prefer him over Mitt Romney, is because he's not far enough. To the left for you politically for you and in my case on Social Issues and Civil Liberties and is something I've thought about myself as a Liberal, which is why I'm considering voting for Gary Johnson of the. Libertarian Party,  if it looks like President Obama is going to be clearly reelected, if you are more of a Progressive/Socialist, the case to vote against President Obama, is because he's not Progressive or Socialist enough. For you depending on how you define Progressive Politics but if this election is close, Leftists would be crazy not to vote for the President, because Mitt Romney and a Tea Party Congress would be far worst.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

FRSFreeStateNow: Talking Points Memo: Fox & Friends: "The Polls Are Rigged!": Are They Really This Dumb?

We now know, meaning anyone paying attention to the Right Winger media, whose not a Right Winger themselves. Thats right both of us know, how Right Wingers are going to react, assuming Mitt Romney loses to the President and at this point it looks like it might be overwhelmingly. The media did it, its the media's fault that Mitt Romney doesn't seem to know what he believes about the key issues. Which is why he gets caught in all of these gaffes, sometimes two a week or bad news about his campaign, the whole Clint Eastwood episode about a month ago at the RNC, its the media's. Fault that Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan to be his VP Nominee, someone whose never even run or been elected statewide, let alone run nationally, to be his VP Nominee. Really other then his Congressional Office, whose never even run anything in his life, the party of Personal Responsibility. Actually I guess I should the party that use to be the party of Personal Responsibility. Is now looking to blame anyone else other then their own Leadership for running such a lousy campaign. The problems that Mitt Romney is going through, never happened to George W. Bush, because whether you liked him or not, at least you knew what he believed and what he wanted to do.

At some point the Right Wing in America, including the Republican Party, is going to have to realize. That even though they were given a great hand going into 2012, weak economy, high deficit and debt, a President who wasn't very popular that they would get to run against, that they didn't play. Their hand, they essentially folded with the candidates they put up and compromised on a guy who can't win over both the Far Right and Independents and right now he's not doing well with either. It was either Mitt Romney, somewhere between Center Right and Center Left, depending on what day it is on the issues, against a bunch of other Far Right candidates, except for Tim Pawlenty who. Apparently decided that he didn't want to be President, after he decided to run for President and a Libertarian in Ron Paul, whose about thirty years past where the GOP use to be, who. Never had an ice cubes chance of surviving in hell of winning the GOP Presidential Nomination and thats now how you win elections.

Reuters TV: Rough Cuts: Is Capitalism a Dying System?

Capitalism isn't a dying Economic System but hopefully Crony Capitalism is and America will get back to Liberal Economics. Thats based on Private Enterprise but also Rule of Law, where we can weed out, as well as punish predators in the economy, who prey on innocent people and stop bailing out people. Who run companies into the ground.

Reason: 70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve

70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve

This is not surprising considering the state of the economy

NBC News: Mitt Romney: "Massachusetts Healthcare Law is Proof of Empathy"

Romney: Massachusetts health care law is proof of empathy

I passed Romneycare but now I want to repeal Obamacare, oh by the way both laws are basically the same

Lew Rockwell Blog: Laurence M. Vance: "Saving the Welfare/Warfare State by Laurence M. Vance"

Saving the Welfare/Warfare State by Laurence M. Vance

More like a Neoconservative dream, which is different, the right versus the far right, Conservatives versus Neoconservatives.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Libertarianism.Org: David Kelley on Ayn Rand and the Rebirth of Liberty From 1991: How We Lost and Have Gained Freedom

David Kelley-
In the last ten years or so, we've both lost and gained freedom in America. We lost some of our privacy rights during the Bush Administration. With the Patriot Act and indefinite detention, but have gained some of those rights back, as it relates to same-sex marriage, homosexuality in general, where anti-homosexual laws have lost steam and popularity in the country. Same-sex Marriage has become legal in some states. Even some Republicans now believe that employers shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people based on their sexuality. Sodomy laws have been struck down, the country is now split on marijuana and it may win legalization in some states in 2012.

Free Speech continues to be defended and upheld in the Supreme Court, as much as Neoconservatives and Progressives have tried to weaken it. So we've seen a mix bag when it comes to freedom in America the last ten years. But the last ten years or so the country has moved towards individual freedom and embracing it, as well as non discriminatory policies. And we are becoming even more of a nation at least as how Americans looks at politics, that wants government out of our homes and wallets.

Individual freedom, is something that has to continue to be spoken up for and defended. Or like anything else once its taken for granted, it will be taken away, from people on the right and left that believe that individual freedom is dangerous. And we need the state to lay down what's acceptable. Even when it comes to how Americans live their own lives, because once they have individual freedom, we may end up making what statists on the right and left see as mistakes that are bad for the country. "And that cannot be allowed to exist, so we need restrictions on how people live their lives, so government can protect people from themselves at their expense." Not my point of view, but a statist point of view.

Liberty Pen: PBS The Open Mind: Jeffrey Rosen: The Destruction Of Privacy, From 2000

Some of our Privacy Rights and perhaps even Property Rights eroding, can be blamed on the Information Age. That started in the early 1990s, with email and everything coming around, where people and organizations could get the access of individuals email address's. Without their permission but government also has a role here in the last ten years, as it relates to laws. Like the, Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention, as well as States trying to ban homosexuality and pornography.

Common Sense Capitalism: Friedrich Hayek: Private Property Made Wealth Creation Possible

Without Property Rights, we would all be dependent on the State for our well being, because they could. Literally just take away any wealth that we could create, we would also to Privacy Rights as well, because the State could literally come into our homes whenever they wanted to.

NBC News: Morning Joe: Right Wingers Warily Ponder Prospect of an ’Obama court’

Conservatives warily ponder prospect of an ’Obama court’

If President Obama is reelected, who probably get to appoint at least one more Liberal Justice

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Reason: Boob Over Bottle: Mike Bloomberg's Latest Nanny State Dictate: The Nanny Statist of The Week

I got an idea, lets ban freedom and choice all together, no really why do we need freedom, when we got. New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg here to protect us from ourselves, we could have an agency or department, called the US Department or Agency of Self Protection, designed to protect us from ourselves. We could have agents all over the place monitoring places that we eat at or where we may drive or ride a bike, buy alcohol or tobacco or junk food, there to stop us from making bad choices. And if we refuse, they arrest us for attempting to be unhealthy and if they catch doing unhealthy things, they'll arrest us and send us to jail where we would get to eat food thats even worse. For us and junk we probably end up vomiting, if we are not harden criminals use to eating that, lets say garbage before Mayor Bloomberg attempts to fine me for using foul language in public. If you are a Progressive or Neoconservative and you just read this, I know you are thinking, yeah! Damn straight who needs freedom when we can protect each other from making bad choices and live in a safe peaceful World, where mistakes aren't made and people can't stay awake because. Of the pure boredom in a society like this but I have news for you, I'm just kidding.

My advice for Mayor Bloomberg not that he would ever take it, I believe in Individual Freedom, he believes in State Protection. Is that before he tries to save people from themselves, why don't he first save himself by making sure he's living as safe and as dull of a life as possible. That he apparently wants the rest of the country to live or at least the 8M people living in NYC and then after he accomplishes all of that, get a life man, we live in a Liberal Democracy. Not an Authoritarian State, we are free to live our own lives and yes what comes from freedom also, comes mistakes, thats part of being human, something I'm not sure that Mayor Bloomberg. Has ever figured out but what also comes with freedom, is people making a lot of good choices as well, because all the info is out there for them to make those good choices, thats what living in Liberal Democracy is all about.

Reuters TV: Daily Trail: David Morgan: Poll Data Shows Mitt Romney Losing Ground With Seniors

Its called Paul Ryan and the Ryan plan, if Mitt Romney loses seniors, he has nowhere else to go. He's losing every other age group and that would turn a close election into a blowout victory for President Obama, not just electorally but in popularity as well.

New American: Mitt Romney Foreign Policy Shows Strong CFR, Neo-con Influence

Romney Foreign Policy Shows Strong CFR, Neo-con Influence

The difference between Mitt Romney and George W. Bush on Foreign Policy is what exactly, I don't see it. One thing that we've learned from this election so far, is that voters don't want four more years of George W. Bush as President, even Republicans have acknowledge that. By saying that President Bush is not running for President but Mitt Romney is, when Democrat try to make Mitt look like President Bush.

The Atlantic: Video: President Obama Stands Up for Free Speech at the UN

Video: Obama Stands Up for Free Speech at the UN - Global - The Atlantic Wire

Free Speech is exactly that and government shouldn't be trying to take it away from us, unless we are libeling. People without solid evidence or threatening people or calling for violence in public.

Patricius Ritter Von Krvancknik: President John F. Kennedy and His Generals

Source: Daily Mail- President JFK & The NSC-
Source: Patricius Ritter Von Krvanchnik: President John F. Kennedy and His Generals

It's pretty clear that President Kennedy’s generals didn’t respect him as Commander-in-Chief at least not at first. President Kennedy, was a liberal internationalist and Cold Warrior, but in the liberal sense. That you need to be strong at home, as well as abroad. That liberal democracy and liberty, are things worth fighting for. But that America, can’t do everything by ourselves and can’t police the world by ourselves. That there’s a limit to even what American power can do, even military power. And that we have to use all of our resources as a country. Military, economic, our people, our freedom, our media and show people who live in authoritarian states, what American freedom is like. And what they’re missing living under an iron curtain. Which is called diplomatic as well as political power. Which is what liberal internationalism, liberal foreign policy and liberal cold warriors were about.

President Kennedy’s generals, his Joint Chiefs, would probably be called Neoconservatives today. Even though they were working for a Liberal Democratic President, in a Liberal Democratic administration and a Liberal Democratic National Security Council. They believed, you judge strength, by how tough you talk, how much you spend on your military and what you say you’re going to do. They were always a military first and perhaps only group. Who believed diplomatic and economic power were signs of weakness. Does any of this sound like a previous administration? And I could also add shoot first and ask questions later. Does that sound like the Iraq War of 2003? And that was never Jack Kennedy, who hated communism and authoritarianism as much as anyone as a Liberal Democrat. But was much smarter and realistic about how he approached it.

President Jack Kennedy, against his generals in 1961 and 62, sounds to me like John Kerry, vs. Dick Cheney today. The liberal negotiator and freedom fighter, vs the tough talker. Who believes that authoritarianism in other countries should be wiped out, period. “Do that first and figure and then figure out what comes later, if you can. But it eliminating the authoritarian regime which is what is important.” And its a good thing that someone as cool and smart as Jack Kennedy, who also happened to be a Liberal Democrat, was President during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Because it was his approach which is what ended it. Had the Neoconservatives been in charge back then, maybe we end up going to war with Russia in the 1960s.

Monday, September 24, 2012

FRSFreeStateNow: CNN Piers Morgan: Jesse Ventura Full Episode, Sept 17, 2012: The Role of Jesse Ventura in American Politics

I don't see Jesse Ventura running for President as a Libertarian, now or in the future, Gary Johnson has. That role locked up for this election and perhaps in 2016 if he wants it, even though Jesse Ventura definitely has Libertarian leanings and the Libertarian Party has finally gotten to the. Point where they can produce qualified candidates and may have passed the seriously test, that these people don't look like clowns trying to get into prime time but people who should be taken seriously. As not only candidates but politicians as well and I'm not sure that Jesse Ventura passes that test, not that he's not a serious candidate with a serious message but that he also would. Bring a lot of other baggage from outside of his political career, that could bring him new problems, Jesse Ventura got elected Governor of Minnesota under the Reform Party back in 1998 and had. An opportunity to advance what I call an Independence movement, a party that could take on Democrats and Republicans, because they would be socially Liberal-Libertarian and Fiscally Responsible. People who believe in Limited Government but lets call him Governor Ventura, he blew that opportunity when he left politics back in 2003.

Whether its the Libertarian Party or an Independence Party, Americans need at least one other choice. To choose besides the Democratic Party and I'm a Democrat and proud of it but right now in a lot of cases, the choice between a Democrat and a Republican, is choosing between someone like. Senator Mark Warner a very sane Moderate Liberal to Centrist Democrat whose very sane and intelligent but someone who can also offend people on the right and left, choosing between someone. Like that and someone like Rick Santorum and Todd Akin from the Republican Party, someone who can only speak and get people on the far right to back him and thats just not much of. A choice for most Americans, they are going to go with the sane guy or not vote at all, when we use to have a good choice between real Liberals and real Conservatives, people who truly. Love America but have different approaches when it comes to politics.

What Jesse Ventura could do is have people recruit him across the country and get him on the ballot. And be able to raise enough money to get this message of good Limited Government and Individual Freedom out there for the country. And then use the attention that comes from this attention, that builds a real third party, that can either compete with Democrats or Republicans or. Replace the Republican Party in the long term.

New American: Raven Claybough- Gary Johnson Sues For Participation For in Presidential Debates

New American: Raven Claybough- Gary Johnson Sues For Participation in Presidential Debates

Go Gary! I'm with you on this one. It would be great for the debates and liberal democracy as a whole. And we would finally get to here another voice. Instead of Center-Left in President Barack Obama, against whoever Mitt Romney decides to be for the debate. At the very least we need to go to a main event and undercard debate system when it comes to the presidential debates. Where if the major third-party candidates and in this case the major third-parties are the Libertarian Party lead by Gary Johnson and the social democratic Green Party, led by Jill Stein, could debate each other in the undercard. As Governor Romney and President Obama debating each other in the main event. With network and cable news covering both events. If you don't have a system where all four candidates debates each other at the same time.

Reason: Sheldon Richman: Mitt Romney Is Out of Sync With the Small Government Movement

Mitt Romney Is Out of Sync With the Small Government Movement

Who likes Mitt Romney right now and I ask that because he's brought most of this negative criticism upon himself. By changing positions, changing campaign strategies constantly, it begs the question, who is this guy.

Lew Rockwell Blog: Murray N. Rothbard: "Myth and Truth About Libertarianism by Murray N. Rothbard"

Myth and Truth About Libertarianism by Murray N. Rothbard

I see Libertarianism different from Conservatism and I'm talking about real Conservatism, not Neoconservatism. Which is prevalent in todays Republican Party, Libertarianism and Conservatism are similar in that they both believe in Individual Freedom , Economic and Social Freedom and they are anti Statist. But are different when it comes to Foreign Policy, where the Conservatives believe the United States should be engaged with the World, not try to run it but a Leader when it comes to Democracy, both home. And abroad and Libertarians tend to be isolationist on Foreign Policy and more Conservative when it comes to Fiscal Policy but they are fairly similar.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Commonsense Capitalism: Friederich Hayek on Socialism: The Diversity of Socialism

Socialism it depends on who ask but what I know about it, is that its a very diverse Political Ideology. Amongst the Progressive Political Ideologies, to its classic form, it means the State Owns The Means and Production of Society, meaning the economy, that there is no Private Enterprise. Or Property Rights in the country, the ultimate of Statist Political Ideologies, countries that still have this Economic System, are very few in numbers, even the Communist Republic of Cuba. Now has certain amount of Private Enterprise, what would be called State Capitalism, thats modeled after what the Communist Republic of China but there's also a modern form of Socialism or Progressivism. Thats called Democratic Socialism, where the country is a Democratic Republic and there is a certain level of Private Enterprise but where the State has a large. Role in the economy, providing basic Human Services that it doesn't trust the Private Market to provide, things like healthcare, Health Insurance, education, perhaps even pensions, as well. As well as a generous Welfare State for people who aren't able to fend for themselves, this type of Economic System is very common in Europe, thats made up of several different Socialist Democracies.

But thats just the Economic Policy of what Socialism looks like, depending on what form it is. There's a Socialist Philosophy that relates to Social Issues, there Socialists who look like Liberal or Libertarians on Social Issues, that believe in a high level of Social Freedom. And then there are Socialists or Progressives who look more like Statists on Social Issues, who not only. Believe that the State has an obligation to provide a quality of life for its people financially but where the State also has role to play to make sure that people are as safe as possible. And not making bad decisions, making Social Freedom fairly limited and limiting what people can say to each other in public, what they can eat and drink, what they can do with their own. Lives where Social Freedom and privacy would actually be fairly limited, we've already seen this in New York with the soft drink bans, as well as crackdowns on marijuana and pornography.

And there's also a Socialist Foreign and National Security Policy, that looks dovish and can either be isolationist. Or internationalist, depending on the Socialist, so when you think of Socialists, don't automatically think of Fidel Castro, who believes the State's job is to protect. And look after it people so they don't make big mistakes with their own lives and freedom has to be limited as a result and remember Fidel is also a Communist. A Socialist can also believe in Private Enterprise but that the State also has a role to provide things that they. Don't believe the Private Sector can be trusted to provide.

Richmond Times: A New Problem for Tim Kaine, an Old One for George Allen

A new problem for Kaine, an old one for Allen

The party that wins Virginia in the Presidential Election, will win this Senate Election as well, thats how close it is.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

ESPN: Behind The Fights Documentary- Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson- February, 1990

Iron Mike vs Buster Douglas-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal

I saw the James Douglas-Mike Tyson World Heavyweight Championship fight as a fourteen year old in junior high on HBO in February, 1990. Actually I saw the replay of it, after I heard the shocking news that James Buster Douglas defeated Iron Mike Tyson for the World Heavyweight Championship. It was shocking, because Mike Tyson look unbeatable for about five years from 1985 until 1990. Holding the WHC for about four years. He just didn't look unbeatable, but he was destroying his opponents.

Beating former world champions, but not just beating them, but destroying them. Like Frank Bruno, Mike Spinks, Larry Holmes, Tony Tucker, James Smith and others. All guys who were world champions before and in Larry Holmes case one of the top 2-3 heavyweights and world champions of all- time. He's right there with Muhammad Ali and you could argue either way, but with Buster Douglas, you had a very talented fighter. Tall, big, strong, accurate, with excellent boxing skills, but wasn't very disciplined. He was the perfect fighter to beat someone like Mike Tyson, because of his awesome size. And the ability to use it, he was able to keep Tyson off of him, by hitting him hard enough to keep him off and go to work on him.

Going into this fight, of course James Douglas beating Mike Tyson is not only one of the biggest upsets of the 1990s, but of all-time. But looking back at it now, James Douglas was simply good enough to beat Tyson. He had the skills and size to do it, as well as the training. Most of Iron Mike's opponents went at Tyson by trying to tie him up, to prevent Mike from throwing Mike's bombs at you. But what Buster did was a different strategy. He figured out the best way to keep Iron Mike off of you was by hitting him hard with a big jab, going on offense forcing Mike to take punishment as well, which set up Buster's other punches.

Reuters TV: Hip Hop Hugo Chavez Tries to Show Youth Vote

President Chavez could impress the youth vote by giving them more freedom and stop governing like a dictator. Let them be individuals, instead of forcing them to live like Collectivists.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Wide World of Wisdom-The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Milton Friedman: Your Boss Doesn't Pay Your Social Security Tax

Source: Wide World of Wisdom- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: Wide World of Wisdom: Milton Friedman- Your Boss Doesn't Really Pay Your Social Security Tax

Milton Friedman is correct in this sense about Social Security, that employees pay the whole thing. Because employers calculate the costs of employees, to when they decide how much to charge their customers, they take it in account. They know they are going to have to pay for half of the payroll tax, as well as half of the Unemployment Insurance tax. So what they do is have their customers make up the difference for what they have to compensate their employees as far as Social Security and Unemployment. So in theory, when business is doing well and companies can afford it with their prices, they don't have to pay the payroll tax at all. At least not long-term, because they get back based on how much they sell and charge customers extra to cover their share of SS and UI to make up the difference. While employees get stuck paying for their share of SS and UI, as well as Medicare. But also have to pay for other employees as well, when they buy products. It's one example of why the payroll and UI taxes are regressive. But the problem with Professor Friedman's argument is that you could say that about anything that business's pay for. Everything they spend money on as a cost of doing business gets passed down to their customers. Including their employees compensation and benefits. 

Reuters TV: Sam Jacobs: President Obama Roars Back in Campaign Cash Race

President Obama looking like a winner right now

Reason: President Obama Leads Mitt Romney 52-45 In New Reason-Rupe Poll; In Three-Way Race

Obama Leads Romney 52-45 In New Reason-Rupe Poll; In Three-Way Race Obama Leads Romney 49-42, Johnson Gets 6 Percent

The magic number for Gary Johnson is 10% I believe, with that the Libertarian Party would get Tax Dollars. To be able to build up their party, money they could use on recruiting and getting Ballot Access, for 2014 and 2016, at 6% if this holds, 10% is not out of the ballpark.

The Atlantic: "Ann Romney Wants You to Stop Being So Mean to Her Husband"

Ann Romney Wants You to Stop Being So Mean to Her Husband - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

Get over it Ann, you should've thought of that before Mitt ran for President

WBAL-TV News: What it's like to live in poverty

What it's like to live in poverty | National News - WBAL Home

Way too many Americans live in poverty and neither the President or Mitt Romney are addressing it as far as. Offering solutions that would help lift these people out of poverty.

NBC News: Polls: President Obama Ahead in Colorado, Iowa and Wisconsin

Polls: Obama ahead in Colorado, Iowa and Wisconsin

Mitt Romney can't seem to turn off the waterfall of bad news lately

Lew Rockwell Blog: Charles Burris: The Real History of Third Parties

The Real History of Third Parties: A transcript of the Lew Rockwell Show episode 245 with Charles A. Burris

This sis omething that Libertarians and Reformers, as well as people who are registered Independents should look. At going forward, people who are unhappy with the Democratic and Republican Parties, people who see themselves as Fiscally Responsible, who believe in Limited Government but who are also at least. Tolerant-moderate on Social Issues, if not Liberal-Libertarian that don't want Big Government in their wallets or homes. And perhaps a party like that with this type of coalition, could come together and form the 21st Century of the Independence Party and either replace today's Republican Party or be big enough. To compete with Democrats and Republicans.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Self-Ownership: John Stossel Interviewing Gary Johnson- A Libertarian For President

If you poll or ask I bet the overwhelming majority of Americans, they'll tell you that they tend to believe in fiscal responsibility, at least with government. Perhaps not so much with their own finances and they believe in at least some level of tolerance when it comes to social issues. That people should be treated as such, not by what groups they are members of, as long as they are not criminals or something, but be treated as individuals not members of groups. And be able to be as successful in life, based on how hard they work and how productive that they are.

Americans tend to believe that people shouldn't be judged by who they know. Who their parents are or what groups they are members of and so-forth, on paper at least. An audience like this should play very well for someone like Gary Johnson. Americans like things like Social Security and Medicare and what you got from Libertarians in the past, was that these programs were unconstitutional and should be abolished. As such but that's not what you get from Gary Johnson, who says these programs have a purpose, but that the Federal Government shouldn't be running them. And that the states should have more authority to govern their own people.

But for whatever reasons and most of it has to do with our two-party system duopoly, Gary Johnson can't seem to do higher than 5% in the polls. And I bet the Johnson/Gray Campaign polls, assuming they have pollsters, are telling Gary Johnson and Jim Gray similar things. But it's not because of the message, but the fact that Democrats and Republicans with all the commissions and so-forth where they are only represented.

The Democrats and Republicans, have set up a system that only benefits them and is why this system should be blown up. So we can have more voices and more philosophies represented in it. And people like Gary Johnson would then do a lot better politically in it, because more Americans would hear the message and decide, this person kinda looks at politics they way I do and I should not only vote for them because we tend to agree, but now they even have a chance to win and not play spoiler.

Reuters: Robert Wolf: Paul Volcker Does the Federal Reserve Have Too Much Power?

To be honest I don't know a whole lot about the US Federal Reserve unfortunately to give a more detailed response. But from the outside it seems like they have a lot of power, if not too much compared with the rest of the Federal Government and country. And that it needs more accountability and to layout exactly what it does.

New American: Poll: 64 Percent Believe Americans Too Dependent on Government Aid

Poll: 64 Percent Believe Americans Too Dependent on Government Aid

I'm part of the 64%

Reason: "Mitt Romney is Proud to be the Godfather of ObamaCare, Which He Assures You He Wants to Kill"

Mitt Romney is Proud to be the Godfather of ObamaCare, Which He Assures You He Wants to Kill

Mitt Romney simply can't run from Romney/Obamacare, since he's the father of both bills

NBC News: Mitt Romney: ’This is a campaign about the 100 percent’

Romney: ’This is a campaign about the 100 percent’

Just the fact that Mitt Romney has to make a statement like this, says he's already lost this argument. To say that he's running for President for the 100%, rather then 53%, that he has to make that statement, says he hasn't made that clear enough.

Lew Rockwell Blog: Michael S. Rozeff: "It's the Psychology!"

It's the Psychology! by Michael S. Rozeff

If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain and if you don't like the incumbent or candidates. Get people you do like to run or run for office yourself but don't allow the same people that you don't like get elected. When you could've done something to stop it and then complain about the politicians that we have, that you didn't do your part to defeat. This is what Liberal Democracy is about, the right to choose for the people, rather then government making these decisions for us.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Liberty Pen: A Story Of Enterprise (1955)

Liberty Pen: A Story Of Enterprise (1955)

This is clearly a propaganda film from people who believe in American capitalism and private enterprise. But the message is correct that people themselves are better off working and producing things and seeing what they can do for themselves, based on hard work and production. And not relying on government to do it for them. The more people you have working and paying their own bills, the more tax revenue that you'll have for people who go through rough times and need public assistance that Progressives speak so highly of, to help them out.

But the fewer people you have working, or not making enough money to support themselves, the smaller the economy will be and the less revenue that you'll have for people who aren't physically and mentally able to at least work full-time and able to support themselves. Which is why you need the largest workforce possible with the largest middle class possible. So you have the fewest people possible who are either unemployed, or undereducated and not able to get themselves a good job that will allow for them to be self-sufficient. And then you'll have more money to help people who truly need it.

Private enterprise and capitalism are great things and I'm big fans of them. But they can only be as successful as their workforce will allow for them to be and be as good as their workforce. You need a good infrastructure system, good education, good workers and a good and efficient regulatory state, for your economy to be as strong as possible. To have the largest middle class possible. As many people as possible who are doing very well and even able to put money away and enjoy the luxuries in life. And for the people who fall through the cracks of system, an insurance system to help them out. But have that population be as small as possible.

FRSFreeStateNow: Talking Points Memo: WHPS Jay Carney: "Mitt Romney's Use Of Old Obama Tape Is Desperate": Why The Tape is Fair Game

If there isn't anything in this tape from 1998 with then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama talking. About redistribution of wealth is controversial, then President Obama should have nothing to worry about as far as it being released and can call it another desperate attempt by the Romney/Ryan Campaign. To make President Obama look like a Socialist but if the tape is legitimate in the sense that it backs up the Republican narrative as far as how they critique the President. Then what the President would get to do is explain what he meant about whatever he said in the tape and trust the voters to come to the right conclusion about what's on it. Which is exactly what Mitt Romney seems unable or unwilling to do, to say what he actually means and then stand by it. Based on the facts at hand, instead what he does is actually get caught being honest, makes a discovery that what he says has offended someone and then changes his mind or rephrases whatever he was trying to say.

Reuters: President Obama Not So Bad For Business After All

If you want to look at how President Obama has been for the economy, look at where Wall Street was when he became President. And where it is now, around 7,000 when he became President and almost twice that today.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Basic Economics: Milton Friedman- Tyranny of The Status Quo- Beneficiaries

Source: Basic Economics- A Very Young David Brooks-
Source: Basic Economics: Milton Friedman- Tyranny of The Status Quo- Beneficiaries

From the early 1930s with FDR and the New Deal till the mid or late 1970s, when high taxes became unpopular, perhaps starting in California with the tax revolt that started there in 1977-78, sort of like the 20th Century version of the Tea Party movement, big government progressivism  (as I call it) was considered popular in the United States. Not as popular as its in Canada or Europe, but probably the most popular in American history and high taxes were considered a necessary evil, or perhaps not even evil at all, to fund all of the Federal social insurances that became popular. And Americans expected to have all of these social insurances to benefit them and even take care of them. America was probably the closest to becoming a social democracy that's common in Europe then we'll probably ever be. But what happened, the economy tanked in the mid and late 1970s and millions of Americans were unemployed as a result that didn't want to be unemployed and found themselves collecting the programs that they didn't mind paying into and a different philosophy that had always been around gained prominence in America. That was about low taxes and more economic freedom for individuals. And people who were unemployed that were once middle class, found this message appealing.

In 1979-80 Ronald Reagan a Conservative Republican and who was actually the real thing, an actual Conservative Republican (unlike Rick Santorum) who ran for President and ran on telling Americans how bad the economy was and he had a message to turn the economy around. That was based on lower taxes, lower regulations and more economic freedom. That government's job wasn't to take care of people, but that the people should have the freedom to take care of themselves. And President Reagan was successful in a couple of fronts. He did cut taxes and regulations and the economy did take off in the 1980s, but government didn't become a smaller factor in Americans lives in this period. But if anything a larger factor, with the increases of the deficit, debt, the expansion of the War on Drugs and so-forth. It wasn't that the Federal Government wasn't spending less money, but that it was taxing less, which is a big difference. It's hard to change the status quo when the status quo is popular and the status quo has lobbyists and interest groups, that are in the business to protect the status quo. This is something that every reformer left or right that has become President of the United State,s has ran into. And why changing things in Washington is so difficult.

WBAL-TV News: Maryland's Unemployment Rate at 7%

The "Great Recession" has even affected the wealthiest States like Maryland but legalizing gambling in Maryland. Should help bring down unemployment.

New American: "When a Flat Tax Is Still a Progressive Tax"

When a Flat Tax Is Still a Progressive Tax

Sorry the Flat Tax is regressive because it raises taxes on Low Income people and the Middle Class, and cuts taxes for the wealthy. Not Class Warfare, its simply the truth.

NBC News: Democracy Declined Worldwide in 2011 with Arab Spring at Risk, Watchdog Says

Democracy declined worldwide in 2011 with Arab Spring at risk, watchdog says

And in some cases Democracy declined in America thanks to the Tea Party and things they are trying to outlaw