Since the time of FDR and the 'Great Society', the welfare state has been instrumental in the destruction of the American family. Financial incentives to have children out of wedlock and to divorce have contributed significantly to this breakdown. The liberal statists moving out of 'compassion', have foisted this malarky on the American people. Now we are seeing the results of this ill-conceived policy.
The breakdown of the family have led to children doing worse in school and quite often being unsupervised at home. Is there any doubt that the average teenage boy is more of a delinquent today? The deviancy has been defined down to such a point where it can't go much lower, fortunately the pendulum has hit its apex.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan defined it in his paper 'Defining Deviancy Down' in which he explained how as baser activity becomes more common, it becomes the norm, leading to even worse activity, which then becomes the new norm, and so forth, in a downward spiral. Forty years ago, boys did not slash tires, nor would girls even think of sexting, yet this is the culture we have today.
Is it any wonder that people who have completely lost any sense of self in our celebrity culture, want to claim their 15 minutes of fame using whatever means they need to accomplish it. Hollywood has for years told us that we should do what is best for us without regard to the greater good of others or the society. An unattended consequence of this is female teachers having affairs with their students. But what has really happened is that the seemingly idyllic life portrayed in the media is unattainable, and one feels lost.
The teachers unions, another product of the left, have been teaching self esteem rather than the three R's. Our children are no longer able to express themselves in an intelligent manner (except those who are being home-schooled in the classics). The unions have turned into Socialist propagadists, losing all pretension of being educators.
Gun control is only a ruse by the left to disarm Americans. They are responsible for the corrupt behaviour that permeates our society and creates the problem. Young people, unable to express themselves any other way, turn to violence for their few seconds of fame. An uneducated culture of deviancy has created this environment, any other blame is misguided at best, but criminally negligent at worst. Time to put the blame where it belongs.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
The Libertarian Case for Open Borders
The free market case would compel me to argue for open borders, as I believe in the free movement of goods, labor, and capital. Freedom means being able to employ capital where and how you choose, working when and where you choose, and being free to employ other resources in a manner you think best for your personal satisfaction. This means being able to cross borders to do so. Except that having open borders for labor does not work when the people coming here have the intention of killing me and others in our society. This may be beneficial for their satisfaction but will certainly infringe on mine. Libertarianism is freedom, each individual is
free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in whatever fashion they desire, but
they are not free to impinge on the freedom of others who are attempting to do
the same. All this simply means is that free movement of people is still okay as long as they are screened to make sure they are not terrorists.
The great supporter of liberty, Milton Friedman, argued that having open borders is a good thing, except that you cannot have open borders and a welfare society. Promising people welfare benefits when they arrive lowers the standard of living for everyone, new immigrants can receive several types of social benefits without having paid anything into the system, receiving the benefit without any of the cost. The Obama administration is actually advertising our social benefits in other countries trying to encourage people to move here.
With the large number of baby boomers now retiring, and workers being asked to support ever increasing numbers of retirees thru Social Security, bringing in new skilled labor from outside the country makes good sense, increase productivity, GDP, and be able to pay social security. The statists are not encouraging highly skilled immigrants though, they are encouraging low skilled immigrants from south of the border in the belief that all of these people will then vote for them.
The progressive’s case for allowing immigrants into this country without going through the proper legal process, is ill founded as is the recent political case by some Republicans to do the same. Their claim is one of compassion, letting people come for better opportunity, to prevent breaking up families, etc. In reality they are trying to influence the election with fraudulent votes from undocumented workers. Not to mention pandering to the large Hispanic voter group.
In most states, illegal immigrants (or even legal immigrants, who have not yet paid anything into the system) and their children, can receive scholarships for tuition, healthcare (significantly greater healthcare benefits under Obamacare), and other forms of assistance, without paying any taxes or other payments into the system. A significant portion of their monetary transactions are by cash – which is not a problem in itself, but a large amount generally flows out of the country to help relatives who have remained behind. While the rest of us are paying taxes of all sorts to help pay for these payments, a large portion of them are not. So once again, even after arriving, these immigrants can be receiving benefits they are not helping to pay for. Dismantle the welfare state and screen for terrorists, and open immigration makes economic sense.
The great supporter of liberty, Milton Friedman, argued that having open borders is a good thing, except that you cannot have open borders and a welfare society. Promising people welfare benefits when they arrive lowers the standard of living for everyone, new immigrants can receive several types of social benefits without having paid anything into the system, receiving the benefit without any of the cost. The Obama administration is actually advertising our social benefits in other countries trying to encourage people to move here.
With the large number of baby boomers now retiring, and workers being asked to support ever increasing numbers of retirees thru Social Security, bringing in new skilled labor from outside the country makes good sense, increase productivity, GDP, and be able to pay social security. The statists are not encouraging highly skilled immigrants though, they are encouraging low skilled immigrants from south of the border in the belief that all of these people will then vote for them.
The progressive’s case for allowing immigrants into this country without going through the proper legal process, is ill founded as is the recent political case by some Republicans to do the same. Their claim is one of compassion, letting people come for better opportunity, to prevent breaking up families, etc. In reality they are trying to influence the election with fraudulent votes from undocumented workers. Not to mention pandering to the large Hispanic voter group.
In most states, illegal immigrants (or even legal immigrants, who have not yet paid anything into the system) and their children, can receive scholarships for tuition, healthcare (significantly greater healthcare benefits under Obamacare), and other forms of assistance, without paying any taxes or other payments into the system. A significant portion of their monetary transactions are by cash – which is not a problem in itself, but a large amount generally flows out of the country to help relatives who have remained behind. While the rest of us are paying taxes of all sorts to help pay for these payments, a large portion of them are not. So once again, even after arriving, these immigrants can be receiving benefits they are not helping to pay for. Dismantle the welfare state and screen for terrorists, and open immigration makes economic sense.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Surviving Obama, First in a Series
The day after the election, while many conservatives were bemoaning the results, I was thinking of how best to prepare my family for the coming tide. This is what I came up with. Obama and his statist administration are sure to reak havoc on this county, and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are ill prepared to deal with it.
- The White House will be waging a war on fossil fuels; coal as a source of energy in this country will become used less and less as regulations mount; oil and natural gas will see price increases as new drilling is shut down in this country and moved overseas. All this means a dramatic increase during the next four years in energy and transportation costs. Buying a more economical auto and installing a new air conditioner now will help us lower these costs.
- Higher taxes and a weakening economy will mean that investments need to change. The stock market will not do well and investments in foreign countries is unlikely to do well either as the EU, China, and Japan will also show lower growth. It is time to reposition investments, buy some gold and prepare for the increase in capital gains taxes. Taxes will begin to rise under Obamacare and will continue if the fiscal cliff is not cleverly negotiated. Obama also will attempt to initiate a 'cap and trade plan' and many other types of taxes. All this is not good for business or the pocketbook, cut expenses now to make it through. It also means the cost of any imported goods will increase, so now would be the time to buy that new Honda or Toyota.
- As the US debt mounts, with increased taxes and a weakened economy, the country's tax revenues will be decreasing while massive expenditures ensue. This will mean that the Fed will have strong incentive to keep printing money and monetize the debt. The dollar will weaken in relation to other currencies and we will have massive inflation. If possible move some investments move overseas and buy more gold.
- Government intrusion will continue to invade our private lives. The goverment spurred on by the UN will have strong incentive to invade the internet and spy on ordinary citizens. The White House will of course use this in some political manner. Start paying cash for purchases that may show you have bad habits (smokers, for example will face larger health insurance premiums and the government will use this as an excuse to peruse ATM purchases). Also use techniques to keep spies out of your internet and computer.
- If Obama manages to get rid of the deductions for charitable contributions, good organizations of all kinds will be impacted; the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and Habitat for Humanity will all see donations dry up. Less help will be coming to individuals in need who will have to rely more on the goverment for their subsistence. More people will become dependent on the government and less on private charity, the country will start getting used to living with less.
- This will also seriously impact, along with a serious loss of religious freedom. The persecution of Christians will continue and intensify. Religious broadcasters will no long be able to stay on the air and churches will be forced to close.
- The administrations bumbling foreign policy will mean that terrorists will have a greater impetus to attack us internally and energize rogue regimes. It could mean that a newly empowered nuclear regime like North Korea or Iran will feel the need to throw a nuclear bomb our way or a terrorist organization could launch a major offensive. Obama has already shown weakness and will probably not respond. Preppers may seem like oddballs but everyone should be prepare for a significant disaster.
- As Obamacare advances, and it will despite the best efforts of conservatives and libertarians, since no social program ever gets cut, it only grows. Medical care will prove harder to receive. This is expecially significant with the rising tide of baby boomers who will require more care as we age. If you need a minor or elective surgery and have been holding off, better do it now.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
On Abortion
Libertarianism is freedom, each individual is free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in whatever fashion they desire, but they are not free to impinge on the freedom of others who are attempting to do the same.
Applying this same logic in all cases, we have to take the view that as a human life (or even potential human life) no one has the right to impinge on that individuals right of existence and quest for happiness. Abortion of course would end that quest for happiness.
The Libertarian Party has adopted the statist position that a fetus is not yet a life and therefore the happiness of the pregnant woman outweighs the rights of the unborn. This is a philosophical cop out by libertarians and submission to the statist view, making the case that the statist's have won the argument, if not the philosophical position, then certainly the public relations case. For a good example of this philosophical dichotomy we can substitute another word for 'abortion' in this classic explanation, say 'cannabalism', which proves the argument does not make sense.
It is interesting to note that the Libertarian Party takes a firm stand in their philosophical position, except in some cases like abortion and environmentalism, where they are willing to accept the argument lost. After all, membership is more important than adhering to your philosophy.
The Libertarian Party platform states 'Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.' Contemporary libertarian philosophers even write of the fetus as a parasite that the host has a right to remove. This view is incredibly callous and presupposes that again the statist position is correct, the fetus becomes life when we want it to, for convenience sake.
Applying this same logic in all cases, we have to take the view that as a human life (or even potential human life) no one has the right to impinge on that individuals right of existence and quest for happiness. Abortion of course would end that quest for happiness.
The Libertarian Party has adopted the statist position that a fetus is not yet a life and therefore the happiness of the pregnant woman outweighs the rights of the unborn. This is a philosophical cop out by libertarians and submission to the statist view, making the case that the statist's have won the argument, if not the philosophical position, then certainly the public relations case. For a good example of this philosophical dichotomy we can substitute another word for 'abortion' in this classic explanation, say 'cannabalism', which proves the argument does not make sense.
It is interesting to note that the Libertarian Party takes a firm stand in their philosophical position, except in some cases like abortion and environmentalism, where they are willing to accept the argument lost. After all, membership is more important than adhering to your philosophy.
The Libertarian Party platform states 'Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.' Contemporary libertarian philosophers even write of the fetus as a parasite that the host has a right to remove. This view is incredibly callous and presupposes that again the statist position is correct, the fetus becomes life when we want it to, for convenience sake.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Why I Understand Ron Paul’s Position on Foreign Policy But Don’t Agree With It
Published on the blog of the Libertarian Defense Caucus, May 12, 2012. http://defendliberty.net/
Ron Paul defends the libertarian position of individual freedom from an individual as well as a national perspective. Individual freedom makes sense as long as a society of people are living under the same set of laws and those laws protect individual liberty equally for all citizens. But what if the law protected the liberty of some individuals and not others? Surely this can be compared to America before civil rights legislation. Slaves had no rights at all and after emancipation, blacks in the south had few rights. In this sense it is clear that the individual liberty of white individuals was protected while that of blacks was not. This same argument can be carried out to members of our society who feel themselves subjugated even today, users of marijuana for example. These members of the society organize with like-minded citizens within the society to attempt to equalize their liberty with the rest of society.
For a society to possess individual liberty it is clear that all members of that society must also possess the same rights of individual liberty as all the other citizens. For any citizens who may be subjugated, not possessing the same amount of liberty as other members of the society, it becomes their mission to obtain the same amount of liberty as everyone else, whether this be by force, legislation or some other means. So as civil rights has attempted to equalize the liberty of black citizens, also members of the society who use marijuana also make their attempt at liberty. Some would still hold that things are still not equal due to wealth, political favor, being members of powerful lobby groups (unions).
In making the supposition that a nation, which is a citizen among other nation citizens of the world is either naïve or intellectually lazy. If a nation possesses some amount of liberty due to the laws of that nation, it does not hold that any nation as citizen of the world holds the same amount of liberty as any other nation and that we can get along with those nations simply by applying that assumption on a worldwide basis.
Nations hold certain amount of strengths as citizens of the world due to economic, military, alliances, and many other conditions. Some nations, in this respect are subjugated citizens of other nation citizens simply due to these factors. It is unlikely that all nations will hold the same beliefs at any point in time regarding the individual liberty of other nations. In fact, we have many examples of nations throughout history attempting to subjugate other citizen nations.
The Romans, the British, the Nazis, and lately the Islamic nations believe that they are superior and rightfully subjugated other nations. I am not attempting to say that the Nazis and British subjugated other nations for the same reasons, but they were able to exert their military, economic and other advantages over other citizen nations of the world, subjugating those nations and the liberty of those nations as equal citizens of the world.
Just as a subjugated group within a nation takes matters into their own hands to equalize their liberty with other members of that society, nations who are citizens of the world must make the assumption that they are or will be subjugated at any time due to these same reasons and take the necessary steps to ensure that they have the liberties that they expect. If China for example were to exert their economic muscle and subjugate the liberty of other nation citizens are we to sit by and be subjugated? We probably would, like oppressed minorities within our own nation, take a stand to equalize our nation within the citizens of nations and again maximize the liberty of our nation compared to others.
For these reasons, it remains important to be ready, even though we may be a leader among nations at the moment and enjoying the amount of liberty that we allow ourselves. Other nations are trying to not just equalize the situation but subjugate us and lessen our liberty. Our own President also seems to believe that we have to much liberty in relation to other nations and is trying to lessen our liberty to equalize things. So from forces both internal and external to our nation citizen are trying not only to equalize our liberty but to subjugate to other citizen nations. Not to prepare for this eventuality is naïve.
Ron Paul defends the libertarian position of individual freedom from an individual as well as a national perspective. Individual freedom makes sense as long as a society of people are living under the same set of laws and those laws protect individual liberty equally for all citizens. But what if the law protected the liberty of some individuals and not others? Surely this can be compared to America before civil rights legislation. Slaves had no rights at all and after emancipation, blacks in the south had few rights. In this sense it is clear that the individual liberty of white individuals was protected while that of blacks was not. This same argument can be carried out to members of our society who feel themselves subjugated even today, users of marijuana for example. These members of the society organize with like-minded citizens within the society to attempt to equalize their liberty with the rest of society.
For a society to possess individual liberty it is clear that all members of that society must also possess the same rights of individual liberty as all the other citizens. For any citizens who may be subjugated, not possessing the same amount of liberty as other members of the society, it becomes their mission to obtain the same amount of liberty as everyone else, whether this be by force, legislation or some other means. So as civil rights has attempted to equalize the liberty of black citizens, also members of the society who use marijuana also make their attempt at liberty. Some would still hold that things are still not equal due to wealth, political favor, being members of powerful lobby groups (unions).
In making the supposition that a nation, which is a citizen among other nation citizens of the world is either naïve or intellectually lazy. If a nation possesses some amount of liberty due to the laws of that nation, it does not hold that any nation as citizen of the world holds the same amount of liberty as any other nation and that we can get along with those nations simply by applying that assumption on a worldwide basis.
Nations hold certain amount of strengths as citizens of the world due to economic, military, alliances, and many other conditions. Some nations, in this respect are subjugated citizens of other nation citizens simply due to these factors. It is unlikely that all nations will hold the same beliefs at any point in time regarding the individual liberty of other nations. In fact, we have many examples of nations throughout history attempting to subjugate other citizen nations.
The Romans, the British, the Nazis, and lately the Islamic nations believe that they are superior and rightfully subjugated other nations. I am not attempting to say that the Nazis and British subjugated other nations for the same reasons, but they were able to exert their military, economic and other advantages over other citizen nations of the world, subjugating those nations and the liberty of those nations as equal citizens of the world.
Just as a subjugated group within a nation takes matters into their own hands to equalize their liberty with other members of that society, nations who are citizens of the world must make the assumption that they are or will be subjugated at any time due to these same reasons and take the necessary steps to ensure that they have the liberties that they expect. If China for example were to exert their economic muscle and subjugate the liberty of other nation citizens are we to sit by and be subjugated? We probably would, like oppressed minorities within our own nation, take a stand to equalize our nation within the citizens of nations and again maximize the liberty of our nation compared to others.
For these reasons, it remains important to be ready, even though we may be a leader among nations at the moment and enjoying the amount of liberty that we allow ourselves. Other nations are trying to not just equalize the situation but subjugate us and lessen our liberty. Our own President also seems to believe that we have to much liberty in relation to other nations and is trying to lessen our liberty to equalize things. So from forces both internal and external to our nation citizen are trying not only to equalize our liberty but to subjugate to other citizen nations. Not to prepare for this eventuality is naïve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
