Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: July 2010

It has come to me while I have been thinking about various blogs that and things that were coming up and I came to the conclusion before I did my next blog I needed to do this one.

I have been pondering about Government, about the role of Government, and what role that they play. But mainly about the disconnect.

There is a big disconnect between Liberals and Conservatives, Socialists and Libertarians, yadda yadda versus oh my gosh.

The disconnect seems to be over precisely what the definition of Tyranny is.

Liberals and Progressives, those more on the left, are of the political opinion that the Government can do things for you. Can be there for you, can provide things for you and stuff and provide you with a living and to be there in case you should fail, or to actually benefit you.

Libertarians generally think that Government cannot do this for you, or at least should not.

It all comes down to a definition of tyranny and just what we think is a big intrusive Government.

Most people think of Tyranny in terms of red hatted, black booted pistol wielding tyrants.

They think of tyranny in terms of people being thrown into gas chambers, held without trial, or have dogs and fire hoses being turned on them. They think of tyranny in mass graves and firing squads directed because you are a political prisoner, or a different religion, sex, creed, or orientation.

But what it comes down to the Libertarian, and many Conservatives is what political philosophers have said from our founders all the way up to the modern-day.

From Ronald Regan:

“When Government Expands, Liberty Contracts.”

“The Nine Most Dangerous words in the English Language are I am from the Government and I am here to help.”

To Thomas Jefferson:

‎”I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. “

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government. “

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

To Ben Franklin:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

To John Adams:

“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

And I am sure I can find many thousands of others.

That is the essence of tyranny. That is the essence of a radical Government. That is the essence of slavery.

It has occurred to me over and over again something about Government.

Imagine if Jesus, or Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or God, or John Sheridan ;), was in charge of our Government.

Someone who knows exactly how much everyone needs, that can fairly ‘give’ one persons things to another so it is all fair and balances.

Someone who is Godlike, who is so angelic that they can do anything correctly.

But they are human. They will decay, and in our Government systems force people out eventually.

The quote by Jefferson is the key. The key to all of this.

You see what will happen if someone else gets all that power? A Hitler a Mao or a Stalin? A Government that is big enough to do anything for you, can do anything to you.

I mean the difference is between someone like Jesus, and someone like Hitler. If Jesus did it, it would not be tyranny, Hitler, can use it for any purpose that he wants to put it to.

People see the obvious signs and pictures of Tyranny. The dogs and the gas chambers.

But they do not see the hidden things. The encroachments of our rights on page 432 of a bill. After all we are getting free education! Free health care!

We are being provided for.

In that situation you cannot provide for yourself. You have traded your freedom for your own personal security.

This week, well last week, or a while ago…whenever this blog was posted this is in the past, financial reform passed in the United States Congress. So called financial reform.

In this bill there are provisions for minorities. That the Government and those financial institution doing business with the Government must have a certain number of people who are women or minorities. And I have heard that similar provisions are in this bill that got us into this mess, that the Government is forcing banks to do business with certain number of Minorities and women.

I have tracked down actual references to the first one (read the story here) but I am having trouble finding a specific example to the latter. If anyone can help or give evidence one way or another this would be helpful.

Now over the last little while I have been debating a wide variety of topics on Facebook, mainly Gay Marriage. (Man am I doing this a lot, both debating Gay Marriage and blogging about debates on Facebook, I feel like every time I do this somewhere in the world someone is kicking a puppy.)

In most of these debates the usual comes up, oh Government should regulate this, regulate that, stick it to the evil churches and make Marriage evil. Well that is basic.

For my opinion on this, read it here:

And I stick by it.

If there is one area that Government should not be anywhere near is the regulation of human relationships.

Business, moral, friendship, clubs, marriages, people talking on the street, people gathering for rallies.

Unless of course that relationship involves one person hating another person and wanting to kill them, then yes the Government can and should get involved.

But yes. The only things that these quotas do, these affirmative action is highlight race, in the other direction. You have to have or be or be with a certain number of Hispanics, African-Americans, or women, or you should let them into your business.

Under most normal circumstances you should, I do not want to exclude anyone from my circle or from my business or personal relationships.

But at the same time I should not have to associate with someone based on their skin color or their sex or creed or orientation.

I mean in friendship, you do not have to have X number of Jews or Blacks or women? The Government does not enforce this.

Or better yet since its marriage that has sort of inspired with the blog (along with the help of another Big Government foolishness) imagine if you had to, by order of the Government marry two or three people and one of them had to be Hispanic and the other one had to be a man.

That is ridiculous.

But yet that is what the Government is doing when it comes to business, not clubs, and in marriage. They are telling organizations that it is a right to marriage so don’t you dare deny someone the right to marry.

Furthermore they are deeply involved in the marrying process and it is sick. Through taxes, tax breaks, through encouraging it, and through licenses.

Now in one of the Facebook debates I mentioned that the Government does not and should not be involved in the marriage process.

I was quite literally called a bastard and was asked ‘questions’ on the status of my mom’s and dad’s relationship when they had me.

Now I was aware of the concept of marriage licenses before, that you had to go to the Government in some form to get married. I get it.

But this is just another step of Government into our private relationships.

Now I do not know if there are any limitations, I do not know a case by case basis for if the Government cannot deny your marriage for one reason or another. I do not even know if all fifty states have marriage licenses.

But marriage is special you see.

It has occurred to me that you do not need a license to get a divorce, sure to many people to separate you need Government (the courts) to divide up the property and the spoils and who gets the kids and visitation rights.

Sure in many cases that is need to be done, but not in all cases…but apparently humans aren’t compliant enough and we need the Government to help us….but we do not need a license to get a divorce. You can just do it, decide to do it, get going, and then if you need the courts then you need the courts.

So you need the Government once you decide to get married to seek some sort of permission, again not sure what, but unless I am wrong you do not need a license to divorce.

What message are we sending? What message are we sending with ridiculous racial quotas for companies and financial institutions…and even Government to make?

What message are we sending when a local town has never had a Hispanic on the board of trustees, has never had minorities, suddenly the justice department comes swooping in and demands them to change the way they are doing their elections because they are violating a piece of Civil Rights legislation?

Their solution? Each person gets six votes.

What message are we sending to future generation that it is not about the Content of our Character, oh no, but it is about the color of our skin?

Well another one of those blogs that has been a long time coming….

There are two concepts that Glenn Beck often talks about on his shows and when he is on tour. I feel that these two concepts are two of the most important concepts in order to study what is going on with the world, to understand economics and the importance of various concepts.

The wave theory states that there are certain economic trends that are natural. Based on the seasons. That you go from spring, a time when things are looking good, to Summer, which is joyous, to fall where things are looking bad, to winter. Its purely a natural cycle of economics.

Stalin had Kondratieff executed for this economic theory.

It has occurred to me that this theory explains a lot about why bailouts, and Government intervention, does not work. In one form or another.

It is the specific theory, the name, the process, that explains how the economy cleans itself out every so often. We reach the summer, have opulent spending, and an over the top lifestyles, get too corrupt, too over the top.

And then it reaches a breaking point, the market breaks and collapses and then it cleans out the system through winter as all the bad rot dies.

And thus the process begins again, constantly renewing, constantly renovating, constantly evolving. Constantly moving.

But if the Government stops this process it will only prolong the winter season. Will only prolong the suffering because the goal of the Government spending is in the end stabilization.

So we get stuck, we get more in debt and we suffer as a result.

The second of the big concepts is known as the Overton Window.

The Overton Window was a political theory established by Joe Overton that states that in a society you have a range of possibilities ranging from an extreme Government to a very limited or non existence Government. And in this scale there is the Overton Window that is a window that is the publicly acceptable options on that line, and what the politicians can do on the cycle.

It is a way of determining what the public will accept and not accept in terms of policy. It is meant for generalities and societies as a whole.

And if the politicians violate what public is ready for, then that is called Overton’s revenge.

It has occurred to me that the Overton Window is just as impressive and important in the individual context. It can be used on an individual basis.

We all have slightly different beliefs, slight variations on themes and our own philosophies when it comes to politics, philosophy, proper roles of Government, religion, and religion in Government.

And with some people the difference is vast.

So our own Overton Windows is all over the map. What sounds insane to one person is actually quite reasonable to another.

Oh I want Government to run my health care and give me a car and a house and wireless internet.

For me personally I have a very big Overton Window. At least in terms of understanding.

I understand almost everyone’s position and can see their point. I just do not, and do not have to, agree with that point.

But it’s just the very extremes, radical Government in charge of everything, or simply a non-existent Government, or anyone who would use violence to advance their own political ends.

That is dangerous and radical and is beyond my personal Overton Window.

I have learned, last week, that MGM is facing financial difficulties, and have put the next James Bond movie on more or less permanent hold.  Effectively shelving the project.

This is tragic and gut rending for me since I am a big fan of James Bond and was curious to see what direction the movie series was going in.  And am also a big fan of Daniel Craig in the role.

Coincidentally though this might mean that Harry Potter will become the highest grossing movie franchise in history.  Something to be happy about.

But with MGMs accounts being four billion dollars in the hole it makes a lot of sense, though if the logic is twisted because of the popularity of the franchise.

It is good business practice.

But with our Government 130 Trillion dollars in debt (at the least) we are adding on massive debt through two wars, massively growing Government, and Government run Health Care.

James Bond is like, at least from the Government perspective, James Bond.  It is the icing on the cake, it is the high-octane sexed up action adventure frill frill multibillion piece at the top of the big Government food list.

But, at the least we cannot afford it.  And a lot of other things.  I mean let us just forget the moral pitfalls with the Government telling us how to run our lives for a second.

This is just pure not business sense.  This is silly and wrong.

But of course the Government is not a business, and is being run less and less like a business with each and every day.  They can just confiscate more and more of our wealth.  They can just trade money with foreign Governments, or Print more money.

But nevertheless this puts more and more strain in our society for a Government that can think, and it has anything that they want to get.  Anything with the frills on it.

And we suffer, in more days than one.

We do not get James Bond, but get an every growing Governmental apparatus.

Wonderful

I would like to start this Blog off with a note.  I disagree with Glenn Beck.

As with many things it’s a matter of personal taste, I see his basic point on the disagreement.  That there is a new Anarchy versus a new Big Government scale with the Anarchists and the Big Government being in the same basic boat.

I agree with the basic point but in a political climate and a left right spectrum that is so muddied, there is little reason to make it more complicated.

Instead it is one of big Government vs and aligned with the Revolutionaries.  Forces of chaos that still believe their ideology is the best.

Which gives an interesting segue to the actual subject of this blog.

It occurred to me that this debate, one between Agents of Chaos and Agents of Order, should be one that is familiar to any fan of the show Babylon 5.

The Vorlons and the Shadows were two races in that show.  They were assigned to watch over and help guide the younger races.  But they had two diametrically opposed ideologies.  One believed that Chaos was the way to go, through evolution and war was the way to go and the best way to help the universe.  The Vorlons believed in an ordered universe and obedience was the best way to go.

However they both only wanted to see their ideologies prevail in the younger races.

Just like with us right now.

The difference between the Big Government Progressive politicians, and the Revolutionaries is one of style and of how to get there.

One through patience and nudging, and the other through societal shifts, and sometimes violence.  That we need to be dragged to it.

They are both the same, the ends are the same, the goals are the same but in the end their means that they will use are ideologically different.

And as we have seen throughout history sometimes vehemently opposed to one another.

But they all want power, they all want security, they all want to see their way prevail.  And will get there through any means that they will feel will be acceptable.

Meanwhile anyone else who gets in the way, is different, or is a ‘reactionary’ will be pushed to the side and told to get in line and obey.

Even if that means each other.

A little while ago I made this blog.

It was a blog about what, I felt, was the five most Libertarian figures in pop culture, some what recent pop culture.  Then in another blog that I read somewhere else (Sorry blogster I forgot about where I found your article *blush*) made a similar claim.

Well it got me thinking, and I think I can expand and add my own unique insight.

The pure simple fact of the matter is that the Doctor is a hero, a lonely lone hero.

But it’s how he goes about doing his heroic deeds that may point to him being a Libertarian in nature.

He is constantly going against Governments, bureaucracies, committees, and groups.  He was often in defiance of his entire people, and he was a loner.  Nor does he wait for any of the above to help him out, or make his decisions for him.  He does it by himself, helping out.

And then encouraging others to be better than they are, often succeeding, often causing them to do great things with their lives.

He is battling taxes, battling Government conspiracies and conspiracies of group, and often being critical of anyone who is out there.  Anyone who he feels needs it.

But he is a constant crusader for the rights of people, for the rights, the dignity, and the respect of life.

He is not trying to take permanent power for himself.  He is not trying to be a ruler or a God-King or a nanny.

He comes in, in a specific situation, offers a helping hand.  And then leaves.  Lets the populace clean up after themselves, let them grow and learn on their own.

And then he is often not there to hand hold, often nudging and setting up a situation and a circumstance, and then he watches the human, or the group as they try to make better lives for themselves and solve the problem at hand.  But always being there in the end, if he is needed.

And then he has a respect for all life, sometimes rising up out of his biases, and some of his perceptions and then doing his best to help there.  He does not care who you are, or what you have done, he always tries and gives you a second chance.

Being an individual, no Government, sometimes judgmental, sometimes a pain in the ass, but he does not ask for praise or power, and he never stays.

This may not make him a Libertarian, or a Libertarian role model, but he is a hell of a role model.

Over the last two weeks there have been three news items/ items of interest that have led to this blog and I think are important to bring up in the context of fundamental principles.

One is a story on Global Warming and Climate Gate, two is the JD Hayworth scandal (JD Gate?) And three is the USSC Gun decision.

The first instance came from Facebook.  (If anyone can track down more info on this story I would appreciate it).   Where I was debating, well reading through a poll and apparently the News Paper that was at the fore front of the Climate Gate scandal has issued a retraction.

What followed was the usual, oh this is such delightful news, oh you are so awesome for sharing this and creating this poll, oh I bet Conservatives will still call it stupid, Conservatives are too ignorant to see the truth and blah blah blah.

But at the end of it was the rather typical response ‘now I bet they will be willing to do something about our Carbon footprint.’

Pray tell what?  I mean does anyone truly want to destroy the planet?

You see this is a perfect case if your fundamental principle, if your being, is about small limited Government, and as much freedom as you can muster.

You see, whether this story is a lie, whether climate gate is a lie, if Global Warming is real or if it is fake (you should know where I stand) is in the end superfluous to the actual debate.

Think about it.  Do the facts, no matter what they are, change the fundamental principal?

We all want a safe clean planet and climate but how to go about doing it.  If you’re only solution is big Government control and Big Government slavery and solutions to this problem then I just cannot see eye to eye.

In the end if Global Warming is real, if we are causing it, and if we are going to kill the world then the solution is not about Big Government, it can be about freedom.

Then there was the JD Hayworth infomercial, the one where the Conservative went on the air and extolled the positives of a Big Government program.

OK that is bad.  But what is really bad is his reaction, saying it was a simple ‘mistake’.

Well duh.

It was very bad for you to make that add and casts doubt on your whole campaign.

But in essence I do not care about you saying it was a mistake…we all know it was a mistake.  What I care is have you learned anything, what have you learned?

See in this system of Big Government zealotry and massive encroachment we need to know what you and your fundamental principles are.  Condemn yourself and lay out specifically how you have grown, we are electing you to be our representative, and we need small Govt.  Not another McCain clone.

As we all know the Supreme Court has made a decision that has (at least in part) over turned certain local gun bans and extended Second Amendment rights to all Americans…which should be a no brainer.

But again Liberal Brethren seem to think that this is a bad thing.  Oh there will be mass murder in the streets by a bunch of untrained yahoos, oh people will shoot each other over a disagreement over baked beans.  And they like to point to the Militia part, saying that is obsolete now because of the Military, the Guard, the Police, and thus the whole Second Amendment is off its rocker.

They will tell you again that the statistics bear out, since people are immoral idiots who are irresponsible, that they will kill each other and guns are one of the easiest ways to do that.

But again the fundamental principle, and indeed the ‘stats’ bare out that the freest people is a well armed people.

And that not everyone is a bunch of gun-toting maniacs, though if you had more people well-trained and in legal fire arm use then you might see a lot more personal defense and you would need less of a police force.

Just saying.

Over the last few weeks I have been doing a lot of….well too much…want to go back to the friendly confines of Gateworld…debating on Facebook.

Over the course of these debates I have observed a curious phenomenon.  Liberals, Progressives, Left Wingers, and Big Government types all saying that they have been being confronted by Conservatives and Righties who have had the audacity, the spine, and the immorality to suggest that they leave the country if they do not like it.  And then I have saw Conservatives suggest it.

First of all, before I continue I want to say I do not think that is the best approach to go, and not how I want to handle things.  I think this Country truly can embrace and have all types in it, living and working together for a better tomorrow.  Except for those that want to take over the Government, collapse the country, and hate the opposition.

But the various positions got me thinking.

This is a position that gives one freedom, and thus is not too unreasonable too me, beyond the norm.  While I do not like it, it is a reasonable position to take.

That you have the right to say, if I do not like what is going on in this country I can leave.  That if you do not like it you have the option to go elsewhere with a Government more in line with what you want and a society who has morals you support.

That as Ronald Regan said, you can vote with your feet.  And that is one of the many, and principal ways of protest and to show your disdain.

But apparently that is not good enough for a lot of people.

But meanwhile you have people, some of them the same person so up in arms when you suggest them exercise their rights to freedom of movement, who tell people that they should shut up about Obama:  That they are too dumb, stupid, hateful, racist, etc. and hypocritical for not coming out against similar policies during the Bush years.

So on the one hand you have that Freedom of Movement is unacceptable and evil when someone dares to suggest it, but on the other hand you have name calling at the least and at the worst muzzling of free speech just because it took you awhile to see that our Government has been going out of control.

While this is an interesting phenomenon I am hardly surprised.  And it seems to me that in this specific case it is the only way that the Lefties in question can point to and say, ‘see the righties are evil, they are trying to Muzzle us!’ when in the end it is nothing of the kind, and is in fact, one way to look at it, encouragement for freedom.

But in the end it is a distraction.  A curious and interesting distraction that bares thinking about, and when I did thought the answer interesting enough to blog about.

Lately I have been on Facebook engaging in political conversations.  One of the people I have been posting with and debating, not liking much at all really but debating, posted an article about the rise of Neo Nazism on the border and the rise of a group that is a ‘Super Minuteman’.

A group that has wanted to work with the police to help patrol the border, has apparently fired on smugglers, and has no ties to Neo Nazi groups, nor are self identified as being as such, the article just tells us so.

Now they may be racist, they may be a lot of the article claims them to be, I do not know them and this was the first that I have heard of them.  That is not the point.

The point is that you cannot paint everyone on the right as Nazi’s or Neo Nazi’s, that is bad.

Nor is it good to paint all of your opposition as racist and then link that to Nazism.

Racism was only one part, though tragic, of the Nazi and other similar big Government regimes.

Specifically institutionalized  racism as supported by the Government and carried out by Governmental decree.  That is what is at the heart of Nazi racism.

This is not to limit the threat of the Modern Nazi’s, they are out there and some of them might even be in this country.

But wanting a stronger border, wanting to help, and wanting to defend yourself from an invader is not inherently an out of control Government, nor racism.  Illegals are not a race they are a legal status.

If they are out there I will stand with you and I have made my opinions, the good and the bad, of this law extremely clear in the past.

But we need to come together and let common sense prevail on this issue.

Last year around this time I saw the first clips, on YouTube, of the HBO special John Adams.  One of the clips was of the reading of the Declaration of Independence to a group of people outside a square in Philadelphia.

I teared up.  Sad scene given what is going on.

Fast forward one year and on the Tea Party Patriots Facebook group…must be a Facebook time of the year…going through a faze…I will stop I promise….but on the Tea Party Patriots page the suggestion was made by the admin that maybe we should hold off celebration since our liberty is so under attack.

I responded…well that is stupid.

The Fourth of July is the perfect time to celebrate, celebrate the birth of the greatest country that has ever been on the planet, and to reflect on the ideals and the principles of our birth.

To remember our history as a people and where we came from, to figure out where we are going.

History is hard, it is not easy, there is so much information out there, almost as much as in politics with all of our silly labels.  And all the different political theories.

But it is never more important, the History of who we are, of where we have come from.  History is the most important subject in the world.

So celebrate, remember, reflect, and honor the sacrifice of our founders and what they gave us.

And then promise to be better in the service and the defense of our liberty then we were in the past.