Guest Commentary – Fantasy Candidate Part 4

Tonight we delve back into the fantasy candidate series from Jon Smith. For those who read Jon’s site as well as this one, he has already posted this article there. However, there are quite a few of you here that do not regularly frequent Jon’s site, so I wanted to make sure that this gets seen by all of you as well. Tonight we delve into the positions that Jon’s fantasy candidate would take on existing legislation that we should be working to repeal. I have tried to think about everything on the list and I don’t see any of these that would be bad to repeal. But I do absolutely agree with Jon that on many of them we would have to take a slow approach that allows the pain from elimination to be minimal. I think that this part of the series will perhaps be the one that has the most constructive discussion around it. I will be interested in seeing what areas you think he missed, or what areas that he hit that you disagree with. I know that some of them seem to be simply “anti-Democrat” positions, such as health care, but if you are against repealing it, please explain why. I will do my best to be involved in the discussion on this article over the next few days as well.

Fantasy Candidate Part 4 – Repeal It All!
by Jon Smith

Ok, maybe not all of it, we are not ready for that. The hardest part about this section will be prioritizing and limiting what needs repealing in order to not shock the system too severely. Again this is not being limited based on realism of some proposal actually getting passed, because almost none of this I have mentioned would pass unless it was perfectly marketed, and maybe not even then unless the “fantasy candidate” I am brainstorming about was, in fact, a fantasy team of about 30+ Senators and a couple hundred House members. In the current climate, of course, there is a slight possibility of that, but I digress. The point is to stick with common sense stuff that we can honestly support as moving in the right direction.

So on to the list. It is not small, but I will try to keep it limited to the most important pieces.

1) Health Care. This is sort of a no brainer to me. The financial impact of this, the impact on the quality of health care, and the very notion of forced purchase make this a must go.

2) No Child Left Behind. Which turned out to be more of a “no child educated properly” act. The limitations on schools, and even the basic concept of trying to federally run schools, when one of the problems with schools is already the cookie cutter approach to education, is absolutely ridiculous. That, and teaching to pass a test is not the same as educating a person.

3) The Patriot Act and anything like it. All of this security over freedom crap has to go. Privacy invasion, false sense of security, increased costs on the airline industry, and a host of other stuff in this act was way out of line. Even much of the stuff before it having to do with the FBI and CIA and other agencies was really pushing it.

4) Bush’s Prescription Drug program. This was one of those things that really bumped up the cost of government health care. It may not be as bad as Obamacare, but it should be rolled back none the less. We need to get the entitlements under control.

5) Regulatory powers of the EPA. The EPA has blocked a lot of good environmental action because they are idiots and want control, rather than an actual clean environment. If we need an EPA for studies and enforcement, fine, but they should not have the power to issue regulations.

6) The FDA, I actually like my fellow blogger Matthius’ proposal for this. In a recent debate here at SUFA, USWeapon presented a plan to get rid of the FDA. It was pretty good. A stepped version that Mathius presented was also pretty good, and while it removed power slower, it was a little less scary for people who actually think the FDA is a good thing. Basically, it involved a very basic level of FDA oversight with a labeling system that clearly stated whether or not something had FDA approval or not, and it allowed competing quality test companies to offer their stamp of approval as an alternate.

7) TARP. Need I say more on this? We need to stop it with all of this stuff, no more support of failing companies or propping up of bad debt on the backs of taxpayers.

8 ) The Wars we are currently fighting and the presidential powers associated with that. We need to end the wars we are in, what happens over there is not our business. If we were going to get a job done that we have not finished yet, then we should have done it for real instead of playing nation building games. Any handing over to the President the authority to engage in war that was done prior to Iraq, or heck even back to Vietnam needs to be stricken. Congress has sole authority to begin military conflict.

9) Regulatory power of the FCC. See #5. We do not want them controlling communications. At all.

10) The War on Drugs, at least as it pertains to non-manufactured (natural) drugs. If the states want to restrict drugs, fine, but we need to phase the feds out of it. Any naturally occurring narcotic or drug should not have federal restriction or enforcement, whether it is being imported or locally grown.

11) Restrictions on owning gold or other precious metals and commodities. That this was allowed to start with amazes me, and proves that this generation is not the first to allow major freedoms to be taken away with very little convincing.

12) Phase out business subsidies, put a freeze on farm subsidy levels. Any businesses currently being subsidized will have those subsidies phased out. Any currently “owned” will be sold on the open market, again over time to prevent a crash. Farms are a harder sell, but subsidy levels should be frozen, and restrictions on qualifications should be gradually increased. This must be carefully balanced to prevent a food crisis, but it must be done to, well, prevent a food crisis.

13) Remove restrictions on Energy production, including drilling and Nuclear limitations. We could be producing a LOT more energy a lot cheaper, and without depending on foreign oil if we were not blocked at every turn by restrictions and regulations and moratoriums.

14) Remove the Federal Minimum Wage, leave it to the states. Minimum wage hurts the lowest income bracket the most, even tho it is supposed to help them. Sort of like income tax helping the super rich the most, even tho it is suppose to hurt them. If the states want to hurt their poor, fine, but the Feds need to lay off.

15) Rescind the authorization to build a wall and the czar’s overreaching authority to get it done. Even if you support living in a walled country for some reason, look into the authorization granted by congress for a wall. The cost and authority is mind blowing.

16) Roll back tax levels on dividends and capital gains. We need to get the investment structure moving again. Making it easier to do loans is not the answer. Making investment more attractive is the answer. Besides, why focus all the help on the banks unless you are just trying to perpetuate the status quo power structure?

17) Repeal limits on the number of possible legal immigrants from any specific country. In the first step to opening immigration, lets stop discriminating on who can attempt the current naturalization process. We have illegals, not because they do not want to go through the trouble of being citizens, but because of the waiting lists that prevent them even being allowed to try. What is being asked of them is NOT reasonable.

18) Repeal subsidies and charity to other countries who are not our allies or support us within the UN. We are not well loved by the UN. I do not care about this. But I will be danged if I want to keep sending support to those who oppose us internationally. They don’t like us? Fine, they don’t get our cheese.

I am sure there are a LOT that I missed that should be on this list. This is why I throw this stuff out there. I like feedback. Some stuff is not on here because it is not a high enough priority. Some stuff that I missed might beat out some of the stuff I listed. Bring it on, I want to hear about all of it, all of the main concerns, and what parts can be taken away without major upsets. That’s the other thing. There are a lot of laws that we would hardly notice the removal of. Those are excellent candidates as well.

Cheers, and soon to come is the final and most important section of the series. Stay tuned.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. I can support #2, 3, 4, 6 (well, duh, it’s my proposal :)), 7 (Maybe we can just ban future such actions), 8, 10 (hell yea!), 11 (though this is the first I’m hearing about it..), 12, 13 (with some caveats), 15, 17 (hell yea!), 18 (mostly..)

    That leaves:

    1. (health care) I want to see how this shapes up before I judge it.

    5. (EPA) People have too little concern for externalities. Without the EPA, you’d have a lot more issues like the Love Canal, Buffalo Creek, or worse.

    9. (FCC) I think we should care this down a little (and get the Puritanism out) but I don’t think the whole thing has to go. Though, I suppose, a case could be made. I’m listening…

    14. (Federal Minimum Wage) Nope, sorry. There is a point below which a “wage” becomes “exploitation” and the Federal Minimum Wage, if not perfect, is at least better than nothing.

    16. Taxes and dividends and cap gains are not what’s locking up investment. This is something I know a little bit about.

    • Common Man says:

      Matt;

      1) HEALTH CARE is simple: Abolish state restrictions, remove government regulations and involvment and let the free market dictate price for service. Technology is the answer to a great many of the problems/issues facing health care. If the medical industry is allowed to pursue more advanced methods it will do so. History has proven that, despite government invovlement.

      5) EPA is a crock. The name itself implies MAN is a secondary concern. They have adopted the idea that MAN is the problem, we are too stupid to think for ourselves and a higher authority needs to mandate how we interact with other beings. Allowing any government agency to maintain the level of control this agency has is moronic.

      14) MINIMUM WAGE is a restriction on industry, individuals and employers which further diminishes company’s and this country’s ability to grow. Allowing company’s to pay appropriate wages for appropriate work increases individual motivation, skill diversity, competition, productivity and revenue. Minimum wage is demoralizing and a tool that furthers entitlement. Besides, why should the government be allowed to tell an employer what they will pay?

      16) And I do not have the experience or skill to even think about challenging you on the market. I stay out of it, because I see it as just slightly more profitable than Vegas.

      CM

  2. 1) See England. And that’s if you are looking for an optomistic example.

    5) We would also have seen vastly superior technologies be in the forfront, like emmissions and fuel consumption technology for diesel, and LED lighting, to name only a couple. And we would have had a vastly different picture of the gulf oil spill. Look at what the EPA did to the Dutch when they offered a superior solution. To assume that the EPA is our only defense against environmental destruction is naive and narrow minded. And entirely based on a belief system rather than reality.

    9) I see a little bit of need for management of frequencies, but the crap they are doing to various industries by just comandeering whole sections of bandwidth, often just to support one industry over another for purely financial reasons, is very suspect. Not to mention the whole idea of regulating the internet. Obama is pushing for our government to have the ability to do to the internet in America what the Chinese do there. You really want that kind of restriction on information?

    14) Then let the States do it and you will see which ones do better. Minimum wage makes it less valuable to have unskilled workers, killing entry level jobs across the board. Devastating to youth and lower income people and the job market as a whole. Unions are there to help with wage issues. IF you insist we have the Feds do it all, then you have to agree to abolish unions :). Actually, I would rather have unions, as long as they are not federal special interest groups.

    16) I know its not the only thing, or even the biggest thing. But it does encourage investment, and it would help retired persons enormously, and encourage retirement investment instead of overloading social security. What do you think needs to be changed to help investment? I am open to suggestions. 🙂

  3. Common Man says:

    Jon;

    First, some additional suggestions:

    1) Eliminate the Executive Order ability of the President. Givinig 1 individual the ability to mandate something is moronic and dangerous.
    2) Return Social Security to it’s original design, let individuals chose to self-fund their own retirement.
    3) Eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government does not need to be involved in the mortgage business
    4) Eliminate the Electorial College it is a facade
    5) 2 year limits on all federaly elected officails. The key here is have elections evey 2 years for the Congress, Senate and Executive office. This would limit the ability of elected officials to trainwreck the country. I would also suggest that every representative would be elected at the same time. There wouldn’t be any limitations on how long Congress and the Senate could maintain their seats, but they would need to be re-elected every 2 years. The President would be limited to a maximum of 6 years total.
    6) Eliminate Federally owned land, with the exception of the Military. Each state would assume responsibility and funds garnered for use would be a part of the states budget.
    7) Eliminate import and export tarriffs to countries that would reciprocate.

    Second:

    I am with you on all points except 17. I have a very basic fear of open borders simply because there is just too much evil out there that would use it to their advantage. Maybe if we bring the troops home and stop funding other countries wars, that evil would eventually diminish, but in the mean time we would need to monitor who we let into this country. Garnering citiizenship should be easier and less time consuming, but there should still be a process. I also think that natives of certain countries be streamlined. Countries like the UK, Ireland, Canada, etc are not usually a threat by volume.

    To a degree we should treat our country and citizens much like we treat our own home and family. We should always maintain a certain level of vigilance before inviting strangers through the threshold.

    CM

    • Not sure I can back number 5, but I like the rest. I want term limits, but I am not sure about 2 year terms, tho I am open to it. I definately do want staggered elections tho. The whole “never waste a crisis” thing could do a lot of damage. A group could get in on a fear issue and do unlimited damage. We do NOT want sudden changes in government, even good ones, they represent too much power.

      While I am a proponent of open borders personally, #17 is simply removing the numeric limits on citizenship applications, not a removal of process. All it would do is say that there is no longer a limit to how many people from a specific country can go through the naturalization process. Its not like saying “come in” its like saying “you are welcome to start the process to come in legally”. Currently we are saying “come in legally, but you have to wait 5 years to start the process because we already hit the limit in numbers of applications”. Its like telling someone they need a license to drive but we are only allowing a certain number of new drivers per year. “Too bad your birthday was in August, cause we hit the limit in July.”

    • 1. Agree
      2. HELL YEA!
      3. meh..
      4. Hell yea, but then we big states will railroad the rest of the country – I’m ok with this though since I live in NY.
      5. I’m not sure this wouldn’t backfire since it would force everyone to be in permanent campaign mode. You would never have anyone make a potentially unpopular but necessary vote since they’re currently running for reelection.
      6. Whatever.. probably a few other exceptions than military bases, such as federal buildings, certain historical sites, etc.. I don’t really care though
      7. what do you mean by this?

      • I think we should keep the electoral college-maybe some tweaking of the rules and regs. but in my mind it is important for the same reasons that state rights are important. I agree constant campaign mode would be crazy-just think of the money and the number of people who would be running all at once. I still think we need maximum term limits on the house and senate with strong conflict of interest laws being in place for a few years after leaving office. I realize that some good people may be forced out but the gain would, I think, outweigh the loss.

        • Common Man says:

          VH;

          The problam with the Electorial college is that 25 states mandate their electoriates vote according to the popular vote and 25 states do not require their electoriates to vote according to the popular vote. So, it does not always reflect the popular vote.

          I am one who believes that the president should be elected by popular vote and popular vote only.

          CM

      • Common Man says:

        Matt;

        Tariffs are not condusive to Free Trade and can financially prevent company’s and countries from selling goods overseas. I suggest that if we eliminate tariffs with countries that do the same we would improve free trade.

        CM

  4. (1) Health Care.
    Can’t be done. Their would be riots in the streets.

    2) No Child Left Behind.
    No government would repeal this. The purpose of education is to brainwash the children to support the State. The earlier this starts, the better for the State.

    3) The Patriot Act and anything like it.
    No government will repeal this. The purpose of government is to grow and extend its reach and impact, and this bill does that. To repeal this would be completely contradictory to the purpose of government.

    4) Bush’s Prescription Drug program.
    See #1

    5) Regulatory powers of the EPA.
    See #3

    6) The FDA,
    See #3

    7) TARP.
    See #3

    8 ) The Wars we are currently fighting and the presidential powers associated with that.
    See #3

    9) Regulatory power of the FCC.
    See #3

    10) The War on Drugs
    See #3

    11) Restrictions on owning gold
    None exists so nothing to repeal.

    12) Phase out business subsidies
    See #3

    13) Remove restrictions on Energy production
    See #3

    14) Remove the Federal Minimum Wage,
    See #1

    15) Rescind the authorization to build a wall and the czar’s overreaching authority to get it done.
    See #3

    16) Roll back tax levels on dividends and capital gains.
    See #3

    17) Repeal limits on the number of possible legal immigrants from any specific country.
    The People will never allow this – the contradiction of their immigration past yet preventing others never penetrates their thinking.

    18) Repeal subsidies and charity to other countries who are not our allies or support us within the UN
    See #3

    • To All, especially BF and Matt, I apologize for my error and stand corrected on the gold ownership issue. There was a confiscation in 1933, I would like to see something that would prevent this ever happening again. Currently there are no restrictions.

      • There really was no confiscation. There was an act allowing for it, and with the exception of a few isolated cases of individuals who were in trouble for other matters, no one had their gold confiscated. (I’m pretty confident in this answer – flag, care to rebut?)

        That said, yes, I can get behind something prohibiting this in the future.

        Oh, and Flag, I really wish you would stop beating around the bush and tell us what you really think about government.

  5. For you “Voters out there

    Robert Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers” —

    It is set in a global totalitarian police state, where only citizens are allowed to vote, and where military service bestows citizenship.

    A -a war vet- teacher is lecturing his students on why voting is entrusted only to citizens.

    He states, “When you vote, you are exercising political authority. You are using force, and force, my friends, is violence…the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.”

    Even coming from a fictional advocate of such a state, it was ironic to hear the act of voting boiled down to its essence so eloquently: “When you vote you are exercising political authority. You are using force, and force, my friends, is violence.”

    • That’s one of the very few books I’ve ever read that was better as a movie.

      Heinlein is masterful. May I, yet again, recommend The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?

    • Common Man says:

      Interestingly that movie was just on one of my cable stations a week ago. I thought it was interesting that the uniforms were very Nazi like, as were the “Federalist” flags and emblems…I wonder if Heinlein was saying something

      It was also interesting that such a futuristic military didn’t seem to have any armored vehicles, fighter jets, or any other mechanized support for the MI. And those poor bastards seemed to be stuck with the same small caliber weapons our guys are using today.

      The only other change I would have made to the movie would have been to include Denise Richards in the shower scene.

      CM

      • Common,

        wonder if Heinlein was saying something

        Loud and clear.

        He saw any government to be a violent force devoid of any reason other then the use of violence – and any one who acts to enforce that violence the mindless storm troopers that they must become.

        He also said:
        “Violence? Violence is an answer – in fact, it has answered more problems in human history than any other answer, and it will be the chosen answer for most human problems in the future.”

        • Common Man says:

          BF;

          Yeah and isn’t it interesting that the quickest way for a non-US citizen to become one is to enlist and serve at least a 2 year term?

          CM

    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

      Always interesting when the topic turns to RAH. All his life he ws searching for answers and refining his ideas. I have never been able to figure out how “Starship Troopers” syncs with “Stranger in a Strange Land” or “Time Enough for Love”. The latter in particular, when Lazarus Long states something to the effect thet when they issue the mandatory ID card to citizens, its time to go off planet.

      In “Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, Manny, one of the founders of the Lunar State, years after its founding, decides to leave and get some elbow room.

      I wonder if hiis vision was that those who pioneer, be they Boone, Crockett or Jefferson, soon find that they have no place in what they have founded since what resulted was not what they hoped for?

  6. Some of my ideas were, in part, inspired by Starship Troopers, tho I do not like Heinlein’s model per se. He was, in fact, correct, and it is interesting that he was up front about it, as you say.

    I like the idea of certain things only being handled by citizens, but non-citizens are not restricted from functioning in society. The difference is that non-citizens should also not be forced to pay for things they do not use or be at the whim of voted officials or voted decisions. They would only need to abide by matters of individual rights. In other words, natural rights would be protected within the nation’s borders by constitutional mandate, and all persons in the borders would be subject to natural law. Anything else would only apply to citizens, and citizenship would not be automatic or forced.

    • Heinlein was a staunch libertarian. He was presenting that model as a distopian future.

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        I don’t know about that. “Starship Troopers” was written as one of his “Boys Books”. He himself described it as an answer to what he saw as American weakness during the cold war and what he perceived as a the ascendance of Communism.

        First of all if you have seen the movie, you have to forget that you saw it. If you must, watch the Japanese anime four part version instead.

        The society he proposes is the solution to a degenerated society that seemed to make the French Revolution tame. What did he call them, the crazy years? When all else failed military veterans got together, the only people who seemed to know how to cooperate and restored order. Out of that came a society where all basic rights were protected and guaranteed. So, right off the bat we have the bill of rights. What we don’t have is universal sufferage. The right to vote, to hold office must be earned. Somewhere in there is the idea which must have conflicted the libertarian in Heinlein that one must be willing to sacrifice himself for the society as a whole.

        Military service is not mandated only service is. The catch I guess is that you don’t get to choose. Show up and volunteer and you might just wind up in the equivilent of Vista or the Peace Corps. On the other hand, there is the Mobile Infantry and Sgt. Zim. Nobody, not the deaf, the blind or the lame are refused entry and the right to try for the franchise. If you career, you don’t get the vote or the right to hold office until you retire, no active duty politicians there.

        All in all, I find it an interesting and workable society. I found it even more so when I read the last chapter of Stephen Ambrose’s, “Citizen Soldiers” wherein he defends the Eisenhower era and the “sterile” 1950’s by pointing out how the veterans of WW 2 became the organization men of the 1950’s by learning, in the service, how great things could be accomplished by working together. Greater things in fact than by individuals all pulling in different directions.

        Philosophically, these are tough ideas to reconcile especially in light of human nature. I think RAH knew that. He and Black Flag would agree on many things especially that any form of government degenerates from its first day and ultimately, as it says in the Declaration, becomes destructrive of the ends it was established for.

    • Jon,

      Why would any one become a citizen, if all that could happen is that they steal from themselves (other citizens who want to steal)?

      • I would want to (though serving in the military doesn’t appeal to me).

      • The answer to that, my friend, is the answer to why we have government at all. Not why we should, because idealy we would not, but why we do. I will explain when I have more time.

        • Jon,

          We have government because – in the heart of the People – they love evil too much to give it up.

          We run into old Uncle Joe – immune to reason and logic – stuck in his old stupid ignorant ways – and we just want to slap him silly

          That root – the frustration – is what the Great Evil lives on.

          We want to be able to slap Uncle Joe silly. So we give life to that – and *poof* it is not a slap…

          but a slaughter.

          • When humans grow up enough to say:

            “Uncle Joe can be stupid, it is his Right”

            …then, civilization and real peace will reign over Man.

          • Congratulations, you have properly ascertained 1/4th of the problem. 🙂

            • There are 4 types of people that cause our society to have government. Whether they cause us to “need” it is a separate question. Altho, of course, how you decide that question may define whether or not you are part of one of the 4 types.

              Type 1) People that want “something to be done”. These people have no problem with “those people” being controlled, even if they profess to believe in freedom. They do not want to deal with the consequences of real freedom. In many cases, they don’t even consider real freedom, because they want the things in life they don’t like to be “fixed”.

              Type 2) People who want to be in control. These are the people that will try to manipulate the system, not so that something can be fixed, but so that they can be in control. They can hide behind benevolence of wanting to take care of everyone or make the world better, but in the end they want to be in control, and in many cases, they will toss their ideals out the window if they can stay in control.

              Type 3) People who want to be controlled. There are a lot of people who not only do not want to be mature enough to handle a world of freedom, they do not even want to be grown-ups at all. They are too lazy to want to think or care for themselves. A lot of staunch socialist supporters are like this. They want a world where they are taken care of, and they will demand it. They are the ones that are as dangerous as those who want to be in control, because they will demand to be governed. They are the closest allies to those who want to be in control, because they will cry for government and fight for it as hard as the controllers are wanting to take over.

              Type 4) Simultaneously the greatest hope and the greatest reason for cynicism, the fourth type of people that support government are those who are either not thinking their positions through, or are not thinking outside of the status quo. They are the ones that, if they could only be woken up and taught to think, they would do ok in a free world. They are probably the biggest group, and they are the ones that, when their environment is not under heavy government (like the culture of the Old West in the US), they do just fine. They are followers mostly, but their default position is to resist having no government, because that is all they have ever known. It is hard for them to imagine any other way working.

              To have no government, humanity needs to remove more than just “evil”, specifically the willingness to control others. They also need to remove fear, laziness, and ignorance. It is still a worthy goal, but I do not know the path. Even if BF is right and doing nothing is the right move, I do not see the path after that ending where we want to be.

  7. I would strong want the legislative process locked down before abolishing anything in the list – for the simple reason of being able for Congress to reauthorize or reconstitute any abolish/repealed item. By locked down I mean single issue bills only, no amendments/riders allowed that do not deal with the main bill directly. I get tired of Congress sneaking through what they want by amendments to bills that “must” be passed.

    Also, if we find it acceptable to limit the term of the Presidency to eight years, why have we not done the same to Congress? Personally I’d rather see the situation reversed, let Congress have term limits and the President not have any. The President may lead, but it is Congress that has the ultimate power. They screw America a lot worse than one person sitting in the White House.

    Immigration is a shambles in America and needs to be fixed. I had some ideas on reform. It’s a bit long so you can read it here: http://plainlyspoken.wordpress.com/us-immigration-reform/

    The federal minimum wage law should be limited (if it has to exist) as a requirement that states mandate a minimum wage for their state – not actually set the wage rate.

    Most of the points Jon spelled out I can easily agree with.

    • Plainly,

      I would strong want the legislative process locked down before abolishing anything in the list

      Probably one of the most brilliant minds in all history pondered this, and failed. The USA today is that failure.

      The contradiction:
      The entity that creates law, creates law for itself.

      How does an entity that creates its own laws enforce those laws on itself?

      Do you think the government will jail the government for breaking its own law?

      • Common Man says:

        BF;

        I have over the last several months garnered a great deal from you’re ideals, however I am a wondering…

        Since a great deal of the things we discuss and suggest on this blog are quickly squashed by you as improbable, or impossible, I would like to know what you think we should do?

        I mean this in all sincerity. If voting (other than at the local level) is a waste of time, and we cannot expect our representatives to do anything that undermines their will, what do you suggest?

        Do we stop writing our elected officials? Do we stop organizing and voicing our thoughts? Do we withdraw and stock up on canned goods?

        I mean history shows that an individual can make a difference: Ghandi, King, Christ, etc, etc.

        Really want to hear your thoughts

        CM

      • BF, While that may be the case, people can only try to control the government and its excesses. As much as I’d like to believe societies can exist in complete peace and harmony without any government it’s not going to happen. That’s a utopia the human race will NEVER achieve. NEVER!

        You can argue from now to the second coming and that’s all it will be – a philosophical argument.

        Ergo there will always be some form of government and all humans can do is try to limit and control government to give the people the maximum amount of freedom.

        Now I know you’ll come up with some counter to this post. I imagine I’ll even enjoy reading your response. But it isn’t going to be anything that can realistically be implemented.

  8. I’m sure I’m going against the basics of freedom with this one but it is what I think non- the- less. The political parties have to much power to effect the country IMO, to be considered private organizations. What they can do to limit the people able to run in this country is crazy? In the last election, some rather strange stuff was going on during the primary in the Democrat party-Super delegates , caucases-which in my mind handed the primary vote to Obama, when I think, Hillary actually won.

    • Common Man says:

      VH;

      You don’t really believe that “the people” choose their party candidates do you? Hell, I don’t even believe “the people” choose their President; at least not since Clinton. It is all a power play driven by the most powerfully seated representatives, coupled with a calculated media blast to nationally promote the most powerful parties choice.

      Obama was and is no more qualified to be the POTUS than Woopi Goldberg. He just happened to be the one candidate that could stomp McCain. The democratic party, the power moguls behind it and the media saw to that.

      Yes, I know he apparently got the majority of public votes, but since 70% of the population at that time were mostly sheeple, and the media did their job promoting him, he was elected. Interestingly I have only spoken to 1 individual in the last 8 months that admitted he/she voted for him. I am sure there are a number in those that I have asked that lied, but that says a lot for how he is doing. BTW: The one fellow that admitted he did vote for obama also said it was one of the dumbest things he has ever done.

      Obama was choosen to be the Democratic candidate because he fit the mold, would make a great puppet, was charasmatic, and could easily beat McCain. I mean the Republicans didn’t pick Palin because she complimented McCain, they picked her because they hoped she could bolster the party’s ticket.

      What the country needs right now is a Harding/Coolidge like candidate, but that is a fat chance.

      CM

  9. Common Man says:

    This is not relevant to today’s conversation, but I wondered if USW and D13 new this individual, and/or served with him? Hope it links

    http://www.morningstartv.com/oak-initiative/marxism-america

    CM

    • CM… I did not serve with him at all. I was never Delta Force. I served in the 5th Special Forces under project Omega (now declassified) and several other projects (still classified). I am aware of who he is and have never seen that speech until you posted it. Makes ya think, huh.

      • Common Man says:

        D13/USW;

        I thought that anyone who is part of the Army and was or is Special Forces was/is in fact a Green Beret; is that not the case? And didn’t you have to be Green Beret to be part of Delta Force?

        CM

        • CM,

          If someone was in the army and part of Special Forces then, yes, they are a green beret. There are several Special Forces groups throughout the US, with command at Fort Bragg. Also, yes, you must be a Green Beret if you are in the army and part of Delta. Why do you ask?

          • Common Man says:

            USW;

            Just wanted to make sure I new the specific details, and the information came from experienced sources.

            Oh, and sorry it took so long to respond, was hunting this weekend: the rut has started.

            CM

    • As with D13, I know who he is, but I have never served with him. I also hadn’t seen the video you posted previously. Interesting stuff. I know that he is a pretty outspoken guy.

      USW

  10. http://www.sfwa.org/2010/10/star-trek-cited-by-texas-supreme-court/

    Never thought I’d say this, but hurray for Texas!

  11. HI Jon…on your topics:

    1) Health Care. Repeal all aspects of the law and start over. The health care bill has too many hidden aspects in it not related to health at all. I do not support a single payor system at all and prefer it left to the private market….but make it open to the entire market. All states and no jurisdictional lines.

    2) No Child Left Behind. I do not know who supports this at all. Sig other is a special education teacher for the blind…hates this program and hates the teachers unions. She is not a member.

    3) The Patriot Act and anything like it. One of the greatest invasions of individual privacy ever envisioned. Well intentioned but improperly administered. Throw it out.

    4) Bush’s Prescription Drug program. My parents are 92 and 90 and don’t even like it. There will be no riots. The answer is simple. Free markets for drug programs. If you wish to go get your products from Mexico…go do it. (that can be accomplished even now) Both parents get their prescriptions from Mexico.

    5) Regulatory powers of the EPA. Agreed to elimination the EPA. It is, however, a government agency that employs a lot of people but eliminate the power to regulate and only give it powers to research and study, if it has to be kept.

    6) The FDA. ANother government agency that gets in the way. Let the private market handle it. If someone produces something bad, they are out of business. Tell the FDA to go away……permanently.

    7) TARP. Kill it. Nothing is too big to fail. I dsagreed with the Chysler bailout and all bailouts since.

    8 ) The Wars we are currently fighting and the presidential powers associated with that. Agree with you on the wars we are currently fighting. Stop em, bring em home, protect our borders. However, I do not support one rule authority to start war. The President has the authority to initiate war…Congress likewise has the authority to sanction it or stop it. I think it works fine the way it is right now. The best course of action however, is not be the world’s policeman.

    9) Regulatory power of the FCC. Better known as the Communications Act of 1934. It had good intentions but like all government departments….allowed to operate unchecked. It needs to be scaled back to its original purpose.

    10) The War on Drugs. Touchy subject. I think that I defer to State authority. Feds go home. It a State wants to ban them and fight them…state issue. Feds go home.

    11) Restrictions on owning gold or other precious metals and commodities. You want it…buy it. If the market gets cornered there will be other commodities that will replace it.

    12) Phase out business subsidies, put a freeze on farm subsidy levels. This is near and dear. As you know, part of our family is in ranching. We are cattle ranchers and not farmers. We get a subsidy every year of 80K to NOT grow wheat. We are not farmers and have no desire to grow crops other than alfalfa to feed our cattle. We cannot give the money back as the government refuses to take it back. We cannot refuse it because it destroys the integrit of the subsidy, according to Federal officials. It is tax free. We are free to use the money how we see fit. How many of these are out there? All of our neighbors get subsidies as well and drive new cars and build swimming pools and the like. We give ours to various charities. I agree…..stop all subsidies.

    13) Remove restrictions on Energy production, including drilling and Nuclear limitations. DRILL BABY DRILL. Onshore, off shore…wherever it is. Build more nuke plants for energy.

    14) Remove the Federal Minimum Wage, leave it to the states. Agreed to this as well.

    15) Rescind the authorization to build a wall and the czar’s overreaching authority to get it done. Agreed to this and I am on the front lines here. Walls are not necessary. Leave it to the state. Feds go home. Save the money on the wall and use it to meaning ful immigration reform that does not include amnesty in any form. No open borders.

    16) Roll back tax levels on dividends and capital gains. Yeppers.

    17) Repeal limits on the number of possible legal immigrants from any specific country. On the fence on this one. I do not support an open door policy but I also support meaningful reform and streamlining. I would also want no entitlement program eligibility until a significant waiting time has passed, thorough back ground checks, and no criminal records whatever. THe great European social experiement of open doors is not working. English needs to be learned…a requirement.

    18) Repeal subsidies and charity to other countries who are not our allies or support us within the UN. Agreed and do away with the UN and funding.

    • “5) Regulatory powers of the EPA. Agreed to elimination the EPA. It is, however, a government agency that employs a lot of people but eliminate the power to regulate and only give it powers to research and study, if it has to be kept.”

      Yes, and we have to be careful of the “it employs a lot of people” thing. It will be used as an argument to block good reform.

      “8 ) The Wars we are currently fighting and the presidential powers associated with that. Agree with you on the wars we are currently fighting. Stop em, bring em home, protect our borders. However, I do not support one rule authority to start war. The President has the authority to initiate war…Congress likewise has the authority to sanction it or stop it. I think it works fine the way it is right now. The best course of action however, is not be the world’s policeman.”

      It works fine the way it is supposed to be right now. It is not being done that way. Afghanistan and Iraq were not handled according to proper procedure. Vietnam and Korea were not either. Notice the ones we do outside of the the process always go bad?

      “12) Phase out business subsidies, put a freeze on farm subsidy levels. This is near and dear. As you know, part of our family is in ranching. We are cattle ranchers and not farmers. We get a subsidy every year of 80K to NOT grow wheat. We are not farmers and have no desire to grow crops other than alfalfa to feed our cattle. We cannot give the money back as the government refuses to take it back. We cannot refuse it because it destroys the integrit of the subsidy, according to Federal officials. It is tax free. We are free to use the money how we see fit. How many of these are out there? All of our neighbors get subsidies as well and drive new cars and build swimming pools and the like. We give ours to various charities. I agree…..stop all subsidies.”

      That is insane that they wont even allow you to NOT take money!

      “17) Repeal limits on the number of possible legal immigrants from any specific country. On the fence on this one. I do not support an open door policy but I also support meaningful reform and streamlining. I would also want no entitlement program eligibility until a significant waiting time has passed, thorough back ground checks, and no criminal records whatever. THe great European social experiement of open doors is not working. English needs to be learned…a requirement.”

      I would say no entitlements at all for immigrants, and a waiting period for new citizens. Ideally, of course, we will phase them out entirely. But that is the key, the European experiment is failing because of entitlements, not the open door policy itself. Its one thing to invite everyone to your party, its another thing to feed them all and give em 10 bucks at the door. As for English, well, if we stop putting things in multiple languages, the market can handle the rest.

      • 12) Phase out business subsidies, put a freeze on farm subsidy levels. This is near and dear. As you know, part of our family is in ranching. We are cattle ranchers and not farmers. We get a subsidy every year of 80K to NOT grow wheat. We are not farmers and have no desire to grow crops other than alfalfa to feed our cattle. We cannot give the money back as the government refuses to take it back. We cannot refuse it because it destroys the integrit of the subsidy, according to Federal officials. It is tax free. We are free to use the money how we see fit. How many of these are out there? All of our neighbors get subsidies as well and drive new cars and build swimming pools and the like. We give ours to various charities. I agree…..stop all subsidies.”

        That is insane that they wont even allow you to NOT take money!

        My Uncle was a life-long farmer, a dairy farmer. He had his milk herd, raised poultry and hogs, grew his corn, hay, and a few other crops. He never took one dime in federal farm subsidies simply because he refused to be told by the government what he could/couldn’t grow. He had his lean years at times, but he never gave in. I remember him telling my dad that if he couldn’t get then land to produce on his own then the government couldn’t make it produce by tossing him money.

  12. CM

    Since a great deal of the things we discuss and suggest on this blog are quickly squashed by you as improbable, or impossible, I would like to know what you think we should do?

    I completely understand your frustration.

    So I’ll give my typical lengthy explanation 🙂

    I have walked this path for three decades, and have crossed these very fields you find yourself in right now.

    I asked myself one day:
    If a flat tax is so bluntly obvious to a 10 year to do, obvious to every politician who has ever been asked about, etc. then why is there no “flat tax”??? (Disregarding the obvious argument of all taxes are bad, flat tax is the least worse in rate of damage to society and the economy).

    This question was the same question over a large number of issues.

    The same problems seem to be the same topics every election – almost every election is a ‘deju vu’ – its the economy, jobs, security, public spending… they never seem to get solved.

    …and almost all of them have blunt-obvious solutions (or avoidance of negative cause/effect consequences).

    Yet they are never implemented

    I was astounded to count how many heads would nod “yes” to these blunt-obvious solutions – and easy super-majority – yet nothing is done or more likely it moves more the other way.

    I begin hypothesizing that it was not by accident that these things are never done (or continue to move in opposite direction).

    ..and applying that theory …. everything suddenly became explainable and understandable.

    Thus, it was clear (as just one example)
    Taxes are not there to raise revenue or to be easy to raise revenueit was there to control and manipulate the people.

    So there would be no way on God’s Earth that the tax system would ever become “easier”, less complicated, less intrusive with any idea like a “flat tax”.

    It would always move toward more complicated, more intrusive, more power – as the demand to manipulate the people increases.

    I re-discovered a Truth – the government is not there to make your life easier – it is there to dominate, manipulate, intrude and command your life.

    Thus, any attempt to reverse this will be resisted, attacked and …essentially futile.

    You would have to undermine and destroy government first before such government reform could happen.

    So, why create reforms for a government that would need to be destroyed before you implemented your reforms for it?

    Thus, such reform is MOOT and worse than a total waste of time.

    It is worse because it pulls the person away from doing something else more powerful – which also explains why the government does not stop pretending to listen to “reformers”. The government knows it will never implement reform.

    It consumes political energy from those that would otherwise work to undermine government in more powerful way

    So once you abandon trying to reform government you end up with different choices.

    You now understand that attacking government makes government grow

    You now understand that trying to reform government makes government grow.

    You achieve a totality of a position:
    Any energy for or against government makes government grow, leaving but one – single – choice.

    Do nothing with, for or against government, and it will die of starvation.

    And doing nothing will be the hardest thing you can ever imagine doing.

    Ghandi, King, Christ, etc, etc.

    And they are all fantastic examples to follow.

    None of them joined the government, worked in the government, used the government.

    Their focus was empowering the People to self-actualize their own spirit and freedom.

  13. Hey Jon, forgive me for a little rabbit trail here….I am trying to figure out how progressive liberals think. Clinton, a democratic past president, goes to Florida and asks Meek to quit so a former republican can get elected. Let me see if I have this straight…..

    A white guy, goes and asks an African American (black guy), to step down so a rich white guy can win…..now, I thought that this new progressive movement was to protect the poor black guy and get rid of rich white guys…..or do I have this wrong.

    • So I guess we should look for the Olbermann Rant telling us that Clinton is a racist?

    • Lol, yea I heard about that. The unholy alliance is blowing its cover. Whether because they are stupid or because they know that most americans are so they need not care remains to be seen…

  14. MountainHome says:

    No, none of the items on your list would be ‘bad to appeal’. The last thing we need are more laws to tie us down.

    We know we can’t trust the democrats & for sure the republicans so what choice do we have left?

    If you like good books to read then here is one cause it’s about each of us taking a stand. It’s a thriller but so real! I recommend it.

    http://www.booksbyoliver.com

    Normally, congress members are re-elected 98% of the time & this yr. it’s “ONLY” 90% based on the pundits so are we really going to see much change after Tuesday? The book is fantastic.

  15. Chuck trying to start a business

  16. 1) Health Care. Repeal. Then Congress should use it’s authority to pass uniform standards where health insurance can be purchased across state lines. Most especially, the uniform standards published as an advisory system that states could follow, like UL code.

    2) No Child Left Behind. Agree, but also, phase-out Dept of Ed except advisory role. Return power to the states, which hopefully will empower the local school systems.

    3) The Patriot Act and anything like it. Mostly yes, except monitoring foreign nationals. FBI and CIA, NSA, Homeland security…. To damn many agencies and the communication problems that creates. Three agencies, Homeland, then domestic and foreign that report to Homeland, allowing information to be shared.

    4) Bush’s Prescription Drug program. Swap 4 & 6. Get FDA out of the way, allow people who wish to play guinea pigs to do so.

    5) Regulatory powers of the EPA.If we need an EPA for studies and guidelines. No power to issue regulations or enforcement. Somebody else’s job, like the group or individual harmed.

    6) The FDA, A stepped version that Mathius presented. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOoo! We can’t agree with a liberal. Well OK, just this once. Would advocate the same approach with all federal agencies.

    7) TARP. Need I say more on this? Nope.

    8 ) The Wars we are currently fighting and the presidential powers associated with that. Must dis-agree.
    a) Flag will get all worked up and cause me to be amused.
    b) If border violence had been much worse, drug wars crossing over into our cities under the last congress, Pelosi would have flown to Mexico and spent a month their with Hillary apologizing for our offenses. Presidential authority to react to incursions is vital. Right or wrong, congress authorized the wars we have fought, so what you want is new wording on reasons we can authorize war?

    9) Regulatory power of the FCC. Reduce to standards and guidelines, no enforcement powers.

    10) The War on Drugs. OK, but first you have to address free medical treatment.
    As to non-manufactured (natural) drugs, how does this pertain to cocaine, opium, hash… If you just dry and grind a plant part, is that natural?( A lot I do not know on this subject)

    11) Restrictions on owning gold or other precious metals and commodities. Agree it should be addressed better, just what can the government take, and word it so in another two hundred years there can still be no doubt.

    12) Phase out business subsidies, put a freeze on farm subsidy levels.
    First, reduce the governments overwhelming control over the farm markets, make them free. No one gets paid to NOT grow or produce anything!

    13) Remove restrictions on Energy production, including drilling and Nuclear limitations. Add reprocessing!

    14) Remove the Federal Minimum Wage, leave it to the states. OK

    15) Rescind the authorization to build a wall and the czar’s overreaching authority to get it done. Split with you, if we need a wall to secure the border, we must be able to do so. Get rid of the czar’s!

    16) Roll back tax levels on dividends and capital gains. Agreed!

    17) Repeal limits on the number of possible legal immigrants from any specific country. No. Raise the standards. Do you speak English? Countries that have shown hostility to the US, such as Yemen, should be screened at a higher level, or not allowed in the US, period.

    18) Repeal subsidies and charity to other countries who are not our allies.
    Agree. Also think it likely with reduced government regulations, private companies would play a greater role in some foreign countries. Would they exploit Nigeria for it’s uranium and oil? Probably, but how does that differ from what is happening today?

    19) Getting entitlements under control! How many agencies give out entitlements? Dept of Ag is in charge of food stamps, which are now debit cards. They used to distribute food and those days are long gone. There should only be one entitlement agency, where the information is centralized. If you are on medicaid, drawing SS and welfare, it’s all in your master file, so fraud will be easier to track. And the COST of entitlements will be clear.

    • “1) Health Care. Repeal. Then Congress should use it’s authority to pass uniform standards where health insurance can be purchased across state lines. Most especially, the uniform standards published as an advisory system that states could follow, like UL code.”

      That works.

      “2) No Child Left Behind. Agree, but also, phase-out Dept of Ed except advisory role. Return power to the states, which hopefully will empower the local school systems.”

      Like that too.

      “3) The Patriot Act and anything like it. Mostly yes, except monitoring foreign nationals. FBI and CIA, NSA, Homeland security…. To damn many agencies and the communication problems that creates. Three agencies, Homeland, then domestic and foreign that report to Homeland, allowing information to be shared.”

      I like the hierarchy of that.

      “4) Bush’s Prescription Drug program. Swap 4 & 6. Get FDA out of the way, allow people who wish to play guinea pigs to do so.”

      Agreed.

      “5) Regulatory powers of the EPA.If we need an EPA for studies and guidelines. No power to issue regulations or enforcement. Somebody else’s job, like the group or individual harmed.”

      Yup.

      “6) The FDA, A stepped version that Mathius presented. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOoo! We can’t agree with a liberal. Well OK, just this once. Would advocate the same approach with all federal agencies.”

      It is a good approach, it could work with awful lot of federal and even state agencies. Furthermore, if states wanted to maintain different labeling standards, they could do so, but they would have to use their own money and state agencies to fill the role, not roll anything back on the Feds.

      “7) TARP. Need I say more on this? Nope.”

      Hear hear.

      “8 ) The Wars we are currently fighting and the presidential powers associated with that. Must dis-agree.
      a) Flag will get all worked up and cause me to be amused.
      b) If border violence had been much worse, drug wars crossing over into our cities under the last congress, Pelosi would have flown to Mexico and spent a month their with Hillary apologizing for our offenses. Presidential authority to react to incursions is vital. Right or wrong, congress authorized the wars we have fought, so what you want is new wording on reasons we can authorize war?”

      Way too shortsighted. The idea of “we need this, its essential, cause look who is in office right now” or “look what happened when we did not have this, or what could have happened, we need more power consolidation”, are what gets us in a mess every f’ing time. If Pelosi would have screwed up the response, then its essential that WE LET HER SCREW IT UP! That way people see what a screw up their elected officials are, and maybe they wake up. Giving more power is not the answer. Hell, I am not so sure the current President would not do the same thing. Its about replacing the representatives, not moving power around as it suits. Bush had the buck of responsibility passed to him by congress. That should not be permitted. And no, I am sorry, we do not need to be overseas at this point. At all. Even if Afghanistan needed to be sacked for 911, we don’t need to be nation building. The fact that we did not accomplish our goals there is a testament to how bad we botched the job, not to our inability to do the job. As such, I say we leave it and do it right next time.

      “9) Regulatory power of the FCC. Reduce to standards and guidelines, no enforcement powers.”

      Yup

      “10) The War on Drugs. OK, but first you have to address free medical treatment.
      As to non-manufactured (natural) drugs, how does this pertain to cocaine, opium, hash… If you just dry and grind a plant part, is that natural?( A lot I do not know on this subject)”

      If all it takes is drying and grinding then its natural. As far as I know that does not include cocaine, but I don’t care even if it did. No victimless crime, and when there are victims, the crime is not the drug use, but an action done by a drug influenced person. Such a person should be treated in the same manner as a sober person.

      “11) Restrictions on owning gold or other precious metals and commodities. Agree it should be addressed better, just what can the government take, and word it so in another two hundred years there can still be no doubt.”

      agreed

      “12) Phase out business subsidies, put a freeze on farm subsidy levels.
      First, reduce the governments overwhelming control over the farm markets, make them free. No one gets paid to NOT grow or produce anything!”

      Yea, the farm thing should indeed start with the being paid not to grow. Its still tricky tho, the government is so immersed in the food market that we have to pull them out gradually in order not to cause a short term catastrophe.

      “13) Remove restrictions on Energy production, including drilling and Nuclear limitations. Add reprocessing!”

      Yes!

      “14) Remove the Federal Minimum Wage, leave it to the states. OK”

      🙂

      “15) Rescind the authorization to build a wall and the czar’s overreaching authority to get it done. Split with you, if we need a wall to secure the border, we must be able to do so. Get rid of the czar’s!”

      Yes, all the czars should go. As for the wall, I highly disagree. We don’t need a wall. If we bring our troops home, we will have plenty of capability to secure our borders. I do NOT want a wall if the financial system in this country starts to collapse. I do not want the guns turned inward.

      “16) Roll back tax levels on dividends and capital gains. Agreed!”

      Investors all agree too!

      “17) Repeal limits on the number of possible legal immigrants from any specific country. No. Raise the standards. Do you speak English? Countries that have shown hostility to the US, such as Yemen, should be screened at a higher level, or not allowed in the US, period.”

      Ok MAYBE enemy countries we look at closer, but requiring English is BS. Immersion is the fastest way to learn a language. We need to stop having any taxpayer funded anything be put into other languages for immigrants, but the market can handle the rest. Besides, I am talking about letting people in, not making them citizens. I think green cards should be easy, citizenship not so much.

      Also, I am not talking about standards or any of that, I just want to remove the limit on the number per year that can come from a certain country. Its BS. The market will handle them. We just need to make sure there are no subsidies for unemployed immigrants, especially non-citizens. The problem is not the amount of immigration, it is the amount our government is spending to cater to them.

      “18) Repeal subsidies and charity to other countries who are not our allies.
      Agree. Also think it likely with reduced government regulations, private companies would play a greater role in some foreign countries. Would they exploit Nigeria for it’s uranium and oil? Probably, but how does that differ from what is happening today?”

      Agreed.

      “19) Getting entitlements under control! How many agencies give out entitlements? Dept of Ag is in charge of food stamps, which are now debit cards. They used to distribute food and those days are long gone. There should only be one entitlement agency, where the information is centralized. If you are on medicaid, drawing SS and welfare, it’s all in your master file, so fraud will be easier to track. And the COST of entitlements will be clear.”

      I could go for that too. 🙂

      • Jon,

        It seems I’m pretty close to D13 on #8, that we need a President that can act quickly, if we are attacked. Consider it a deterrent, even with our bowing, @ss kissing (where hostile foreigners are concerned) leader. And most of the wars we have fought would still have had the US in them under you reforms. Each one was authorized by both the President and Congress.

        Border fence, I don’t care if we build it, just that we secure our borders. I also do not want a federal law that prohibits a state or individual from building a wall if it strikes their fancy.

        My point on farm aid, is we need to get it moving back to a free market before we cut subsidies, maybe by two years or so..

        “I just want to remove the limit on the number per year that can come from a certain country. Its BS. The market will handle them.”

        Hold up a minute there, how many billion does China have? What if they or India decided a free boat ride for the least desirable 10%
        of their population was a good ideal? Total open borders is a nation killer. Every country that wants to save some money will flush their prisons just as Cuba did.

        • Response to an attack is not the same as declaring war. Afghanistan was not handled like a typical attack, and for good reason. Afghanistan did not attack us. Certain factions did. We moved anyway, but it was not the same as us under attack. Face it, Iraq and Afghanistan were a cluster-F@#$. Within the jurisdiction of Congress were certain things that they failed to do. Rather than call them on it, too many supported a move to pass that authority to the executive branch. That is our problem, we allow incompetence to control our decisions rather than us deciding to control the incompetence. Congress never authorized anything, they authorized a blank check to the President, that is NOT following the process.

          Agreed on farm subsidy, it will be a sticky process, and will take some time.

          Once again, removing the numeric limits has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO GETS IN! We still put people through the process. If they are criminals being offloaded (not including those imprisoned for speaking out against their oppressive governments), then we still turn them out. What we have right now is a limit on those who meet our requirements and regulations and are willing and able to go through the process. We are limiting people just based on arbitrary numbers, divided by country. That has nothing to do with either horror scenario you mentioned. Furthermore, you underestimate the market’s ability to absorb large increases in supply, so long as that market is free.

          What free nation, not burdened by entitlements that were shared with immigrants, has ever been crushed by too much immigration?

  17. Plainly

    believe societies can exist in complete peace and harmony without any government it’s not going to happen. That’s a utopia the human race will NEVER achieve. NEVER!

    The disconnected reasoning:

    Why do you believe government is a force of harmony and peace??? and why do you not believe there are other solutions to human problems that do not need to use violence on non-violent people?

    There appears to be an embedded belief that only government is capable of enforcing peace.

    You can argue from now to the second coming and that’s all it will be – a philosophical argument.

    Hardly. It is merely the only choice you have held in your thinking.

    When you believe there can be better thinking, then things will change.

    Ergo there will always be some form of government and all humans can do is try to limit and control government to give the people the maximum amount of freedom.

    Illogical conclusion – government is not the only solution to human problems, and therefore the conclusion that government will always exist cannot be true.

    But it isn’t going to be anything that can realistically be implemented.

    That which a person refuses to accept cannot be implemented.

    Thus, as JAC has always said:

    First comes the thinking, then comes the action

    • As I said i would probably enjoy reading your reply.

      You have the greatest of skill at spinning ones words back with your twists. Nicely, as usual, done – but still inapplicable to the issue.

      I did not have any disconnected reasoning since I did not – at all – call government a force of harmony and peace. See this is where you have so much fun, incorrectly twisting what was said. I spoke to the idea of societies existing without government of any kind being a Utopian idea.

      I can’t accept that it would work in general unless or until basic human nature changes and all (or almost all) humans remove the capacities within them that crave wealth, power, authority and control over others. Now we can expand this view of basic human nature and say that one of the results of these drives is government. Government craves wealth, power, authority and control. All humans can do is to limit the government as much as possible to have the ultimate of personal freedom that can be obtained under the human instincts that resulted in government.

      “First comes the thinking, then comes the action”

      Well it sounds nice and there is always talk, but the only problem is that it seems all that happens is the talk. Short of governmental collapse anytime soon, you’ll likely be dead and buried before your stated no-government-exists world comes into being, if it does at all.

      While I do my best to minimize government interaction, and flat out ignore government where I can, I have to acknowledge it exists and find ways to restrict it in our society.

      • Government does NOT crave anything nor does it do anything.

        Government is nothing but a name, one given to “authority”.

        But just like authority, government is absolutely meaningless without the presence of PEOPLE.

        People who grant the authority, and people who seek the authority.

        The trick is finding a way to take back authority once given and now abused, or authority taken without permission. And to do so without causing violence upon the innocent.

        Government provides the power that those who wish to rule seek. It does not rule by itself but it empowers people to do so. Thus it is the power that allows evil men to do evil things.

        So the choice becomes which to destroy. The ring of power that seeks evil men, or the evil men who seek the ring of power?

        I choose the ring because without it, evil men become nothing more than a gang of thugs. Criminals to be judged by society according to their actions.

        But how can we destroy the ring when evil men can simply forge a new one?

        The answer is quite simple. We can’t.

        Therefore we must also destroy the evil within men. For it is this evil that lurks within us that allows us to fall victim to the power of the ring. But is this even enough?

        I say no. For it is not just the evil within us that is the problem. It is our empathy for our fellow human beings. It is the desire to do good that blinds us to the evil we seek. It is the need to help, to make the world a better place, that clouds our minds to the harm we do to others while trying to create utopia.

        If we attack the ring it does nothing. If we attack evil men is does nothing. We must find a way to deal with both. To eliminate the evil, known and innocent, in man. To build a new ring fitting of the new man. All of this must be done for man to be free and prosper.

        That is why thinking before action is required.

        • You seem to be advocating that your (and BF’s) “world” can be achieved just as soon as you get the “evil” you speak of out of humans.

          I wonder just how you think that will EVER be accomplished?

          I would think that you (and BF I would wager) have given serious consideration on how to change humanity to remove the “evil” drives within them – so how much more talk is needed before you get to action?

          You make it sound so simple, yet I don’t see where there is a realistic chance of that change happening in humans anytime soon, if at all.

          And you can argue the semantics of what government is all you want to, government is still an outgrowth of the cravings of humans – enough humans to give strength to forcing government on societies.

          You are stuck existing within a government structure – albeit as limited as you personally can make it. I don’t know that you are, but the mistake you may be making is in refusing to try and exercise some control over that government and its intrusion on your life and your ideals of what society should be like.

          • Plainlyspoken

            It is not when I get the evil out of humans but when WE humans get the evil out.

            And in case you missed it, BF and I do not live in the same village. Mine has a government, but it is not like any we have now.

            How it will be accomplished is by education, education, education and then rational thinking, rational thinking, rational thinking………..until we discover a philosophical foundation from which to build a new paradigm. One assuming freedom, liberty and justice. The prime principles of our Founders but within a new framework they failed to construct.

            Thinking is required ALL THE TIME. Learning is a continuous process. As for taking action that is exactly what I am doing this very minute. It is what I have been doing for several years in general and over 1 1/2 years at SUFA. It is what BF does here as well, but he has a different “style” than I.

            I do not delude myself nor do so to others. This is going to be a very hard and long battle. It has already gone for over 200 years. So far we have been losing (those who cherish freedom). Whether that continues or if we turn the tide will depend on the actions of thousands of people in the next few years.

            As for semantics of what government is, I think I included your point that govt as we know it is a product of human desire for power over others. But I tried to show that it is not just the evil within men but their desire to do good that drives that thirst. Nor is it just an issue with power of govt alone. It is a challenge with two different creatures that exist in a symbiotic relationship.

            So the answer to your question about what is needed for BF or I or anyone who cherishes freedom to have “our” version of govt, or not govt, is that man must change. Enough men that is to establish a new paradigm. It is NOT a simple task. But it is the ONLY solution that I can see. It does not have to be created from scratch as those who came before us have provided many of the pieces. These concepts need to be resurrected. It will take hard work to construct and it will need some new, yet undiscovered, ideas.

            I am fully aware I am stuck within Govt and there is little I can do about it……………by myself. It will take millions of us in the end to make a change. If they do not wish for freedom then I will get by as best I can. But I will not take the beast head on. If you want to survive in Grizz country you don’t go around poking bears in the nose.

            I do not refuse to exercise control over govt. and do not know where you get such an idea. I will not, however, waste my time, or life, rushing headlong into battles I can not win. And I will certainly not lead others into a battle where defeat is certain. I cherish my fellow citizens far to much to pump them with speeches and rhetoric to “take our country back” just for the satisfaction of ego or the need to ACT upon anger and frustration.

            “May God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”

            • That is probably one of the most coherent comments anyone could ask for. Since being at SUFA and reading – avidly – the postings and comments here I came to the point several times in comments by you and/or BF to be more perplexed at the end of the comments than enlightened. Here I can say that I see where you’re coming from (or maybe I should say “going to”) and the road your driving down to get there. Thank you for that clarity.

              I will agree that there would need to be a large change of behavior in humans. I will agree it will take a very long time (possibly centuries). Until then…..it’s government now though that I am concerned over. I want government pushed back and more of our freedoms returned. I, like you, will not fight battles I see no chance of winning – yet if there is some good that can come from participating in the government I am currently forced to live under then I will do what I can under the circumstances to hopefully work on pushing back government.

              I said I didn’t know if you were refusing to exercise control over government, I just said IF you were it might be a mistake. I got to that thought from comments of yours and BF’s occasionally. It was an impression that has occurred and that’s why I said I didn’t know if you were or not.

              “May God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”

              Amen.

              • Plainlyspoken

                I do not think it will take centuries in the USA. We have the advantage of a cultural history that included values of freedom as a foundation. Even among those who want to control us. They strive for freedom but are operating with the incorrect definitions. They were TAUGHT to think wrongly. We must strive to make them aware, and give them the tools for their own enlightenment.

                I also believe that we have reached a “teachable moment”. One that can propel us forward if we capture the opportunity. My evidence is the crowds that gather in D.C. and around the country when called out by somebody. Both sides are craving something they know is missing. They need to discover that the something does not lie with another “leader” but within themselves.

                I think part of your confusion over my positions, and even BF’s to a large extent, is that we see building a sound philosophical foundation to support freedom and liberty as an absolute necessity. That must be done before we start building new concepts of govt. So, much of my commentary is directed at helping others see the contradictions in their own beliefs or ideas.

                As Black Flag loves to point out, contradictions in your core values are a source of evil. One can not cry for freedom and then impose upon others.

                Also if you remember, BF has urged everyone to get involved in their local government. He simply views changing the Federal system as a frustrating exercise in chasing the impossible. I on the other hand, think we need to create a holding action against the Federal where the opportunities arise.

                I am glad this has helped clear things up. I also look forward to your continued involvement here. You have offered some very good thoughts and discussions. And of course, we need more troops.

                Happy Sunday
                JAC

  18. Anita

    My condolences on Sparty’s tough day today. Season isn’t over though.

    Hope your new furniture fits nicely.

    • Dangit! Thanks for ruining an otherwise beautiful weekend JAC. Just settling in now and didn’t know this til just now. 37-6? I’m gonna go have to read em & weep! On top of that, the furniture wasn’t even for me. I continually tell you I CAN’T HAVE SHIT! 🙂 I can say one thing: Tennessee is beautiful!

  19. ” As for semantics of what government is, I think I included your point that govt as we know it is a product of human desire for power over others. But I tried to show that it is not just the evil within men but their desire to do good that drives that thirst. Nor is it just an issue with power of govt alone. It is a challenge with two different creatures that exist in a symbiotic relationship.”

    Ecellent statement, my friend, excellent.

%d bloggers like this: