With the Republican Party in the process of choking to death on its own imperialistic big government vomit, I’m reminded of a true Ron Paul classic demonstrating yet again his penchant for delivering a blunt required message rather than the usual party line candy-coated message we get from his lawmaking peers. Ron Paul is an economic and political rainmaker.
When he rises to deliver a speech in the House of Representatives he knows his words will be delivered to an echo chamber, but he does it anyway. He does it for the cause of human liberty and we love him for it.
If there is anyone out there who can make the following happen, please do so:
Gather all Republican lawmakers and governors together.
Strap them in theater seats.
Play Ron Paul’s “We’ve Been Neo-Conned” speech from 2003 on the screen.
When the speech ends, start it over again.
Repeat number 4 until they all reject their evil ways and embrace the Constitution.
Lady Liberty is wielding her paddle and the GOP have been very bad children. With each THWACK the only response should be, “Thank you, may I have another.”
Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong – and I believe they are – we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.
Quote of the Day: “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
– James Bovard, Source: Lost Rights. The Destruction of American Liberty (St. Martin’s Press: New York, 1994), p. 333
Free market advocates must speak in favor of business regulation. This may sound strange, but that’s only because the politicians have conditioned us to think about things in the wrong way.
The politicians are busy blaming DE-regulation for the current financial crisis. This is partly self-serving, but it’s also due to a defect in the way politicians think.
The politicians think government regulations are the ONLY regulations that exist. Therefore, in their mind, to repeal a government regulation is to DE-regulate.
They are very wrong.
Often, the repeal of a government regulation will result in the restoration of free market regulations that are far stronger.
Free market regulation comes in several forms. One involves customers taking their business elsewhere when a company fails to provide a good product at a good price. Businesses are regulated by their customers.
Please notice that the government operates under different rules . . .
The beauty of a free market (oh, how I wish we had one!) is that companies that act responsibly and perform well (create quality products or services, create jobs, etc.) will thrive and the ones that act irresponsibly (create subpar products or services, take on risky debt, etc) will fail. It’s Darwinism as its finest. If governments intervene and “prop up” failing businesses, they’re doing nothing more than condoning and legitimizing the poor business practices that caused the businesses to fail in the first place.
In my opinion, GM and Ford have long been really poor companies. I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of their balance sheet, but their products are shoddy at best. If a company puts out junk for a product, why would we want to subsidize it? Today’s article at the Ludwig von Mises Institute comments on the impending bailout of GM:
General Motors has once again approached the federal government with its hand out. It should not be forgotten that in September of 2008, Congress gave the “big three” automakers a loan totaling $25 billion. Now they are back. This time they say that with a mere $50 billion they can turn things around and become profitable in the future. The management of GM and Ford as well as the UAW have been meeting with Nancy Pelosi to arrange a deal. GM claims that if the government does not give them the money they demand it will spell doom for the company and thus the entire US economy.
Let’s consider the impact of GM ceasing to exist — highly unlikely even if they declare bankruptcy. Hypothetically, GM would close its doors and all 266,000 workers would be unemployed, never to find work again, or so GM would have the public believe. GM maintains that it is really in the best interest of the country and economy to continue to support their failing business model. After all, in what kind of a world would the government allow a company that employs 266,000 workers to fail?
The selection of McBama was a moot question. What will the G8 Financial Crisis Summit hold in store for everyone? Have the “Gods of Copybook Headings” returned?
by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution Originally published November 6, 2008 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5414.html
NEW YORK, NY – On November 15, the leaders of the G8, or Group of Eight, will gather in New York City to decide how to “stabilize the financial markets” as George W. Bush puts it. The G8 consists of the leaders of the USA, Russia, France, Great Britain, Italy, Canada, Japan, and Germany, and was originally intended as a forum for the world’s mightiest industrialized democracies. From this Bloomberg article, it does appear that China and India will be extended invitations as well.
The President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy stated, “Since the crisis started in New York, maybe we can find the solution in New York… We must reform capitalism so that the most efficient system ever created doesn’t destroy its own foundations.”
It is my humble opinion that they are then meeting in the wrong place and are not publicly recognizing the real problem. A more fitting locale would be Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. Or even Versailles, or lovely Paris, which is not too far from Sarkozy’s home.
In the course of political discussions with friends and family (most of whom are firmly in the grasp of the inanity of the two-party system), the subject of education and “public schools” arises. I make the case that so-called public schooling (i.e. schools provided by government) is really bad idea for a variety of reasons, mainly because government has failed in its efforts. In a recent article at The Future of Freedom Foundation, Jacob G. Hornberger accurately portrays government schools for what they are: an example of socialism.
While the nation is on the subject of socialism, we really ought to talk about public schooling. With the possible exception of the military, it’s the best example of a socialist institution one could ever find. It’s not a coincidence that public schooling is one of Fidel Castro’s favorite government programs.
Actually, “public schooling” is a misnomer. It would be more accurate to call it “government schooling” because it’s a government operation from start to finish. That’s different from, say, public movie theaters or public restaurants. Those are private businesses that are open to the public.
Like the military, public schooling operates in a top-down, command-and-control manner. It’s a perfect model of socialistic central planning, a system in which government officials plan and direct the activities of the citizenry rather than simply leaving the citizenry free to plan and direct their own affairs.
Whether the control comes from the state government, through the state department of education, or the local government, through a school board, the principle is the same — a group of appointed or elected government officials is directing the educational decisions of multitudes of students. That’s different from the private sector, where consumers, through their spending decisions, determine the direction of entrepreneurial and business activity.
Government officials decide the textbooks and the curricula in government schools. Thus, they decide the substance of what is to be taught to the students. In socialist countries like Cuba, we usually call that process indoctrination.
Here is Bob Barr on CNN talking about his efforts for providing voters for a real choice in the election today. Barr is a choice for limited government and maximum liberty. He also is one of the few who actually mention the Constitution. Bob Barr has my vote today. He should have yours as well.
reason: But you’d enjoyed the Paul movement (or moment)?
Jillette: I was just thrilled! I love it when people are seeing a point of view that they’ve never seen before. I had people coming to me and explaining RP’s positions in a way that I couldn’t explain them. I loved that! I love listening to somebody talk about liberty so much better than I ever had. I am such a believer in marketplace of ideas. What troubles me most about politics is this feeling that you shouldn’t waste time with anyone but the frontrunners. The fact that we had this little glitch in the system, that people might listen to somebody else who wasn’t at the top of the polls, it just fills me with such incredible joy to think about it. There were people who considered me a nut for not going with one of the two major party candidates who were, all of a sudden, supporting Ron Paul.
The thing is, I don’t think any of libertarian ideas are very far out of actual spirit of our culture. The reason I use the word “nut” positively is that I think a lot of people really do believe in libertarianism, and small government, and they just need to be told that it’s OK. Paul found ways to say talk about it. I don’t think winning or even running a good race was that important. I don’t even think the million-dollar fundraising days were important. What was important was people being able to say in their own words stuff I agree with about individual rights. I think we need somebody that has charisma and clarity to make people think that’s ok. I have always, like the singers and songwriters of country western music, identified with the losers. A lot of people are not like that. A lot of people watch the Olympics to see people pick up medals.
If you’ve never seen Penn and Teller’s Showtime series called “Bullshit!” I can’t recommend it enough. Below is a fine example of their work on flag burning and the Bill of Rights.
If Barack Obama should happen to lose today in some kind of “Do You Believe in Miracles?” moment, will there be rioting in the streets of cities and towns across the U.S.A.? I’m not sure, but it isn’t out of the realm of possibility. Heck, there may even be riots of celebration if Obama wins. In either case, the losers will be those of us who fancy America as a place our Founders would still be proud to call home.
Those of us paying attention know that our Founding Fathers — upon witnessing the America of 2008 — would be running around yelling their era’s equivalent of “WTF?” to anyone within earshot. So what do liberty lovers do after the battle between Barry O’Messiah and John McChameleon reveals a winner this evening?
“If the court grants our request … then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back.” - U.S. Attorney Thomas O’Brien
“The government can’t ban confederate flags, swastikas, or klan robes, and it sure as hell can’t ban the display of the Mongols’ logo.” - Marc J. Randazza
“What if the government had decided that, because of the Watergate scandal, nobody could use the word Republican again? - Zeichner Ellman
From The Advocates for Self-Government’s Liberator Online, James W. Harris brings up the ACLU’s coined term “Constitution Free Zone” and the fact that more than two-thirds of Americans live along the coastlines, where border searches and seizures are commonplace:
Are you living in the “Constitution-Free Zone?”
Probably so.
“Constitution-Free Zone” is a term the ACLU has created to dramatize yet another massive new federal assault on your Bill of Rights freedoms.
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
The border, however, has always been an exception to this. The Supreme Court has long upheld the government’s right to conduct a “routine search” of people entering and exiting the country, without a warrant or probable cause. This is known as the “border search exception” of the Fourth Amendment.
But what is “the border”? Ah, there’s the problem.
You’re probably thinking it’s a small strip of land where the U.S. coast meets the ocean, or where U.S. territory bumps up against Mexico or Canada.
Wrong.
The federal government defines the “border” as a 100-mile wide strip that circles the United States.
Nearly two-thirds of the entire U.S. population — almost 200 million people — live within this strip.
Indeed whole states fall within this area: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. As do nine of the ten largest metropolitan areas in America.
Liberty Maven
The President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy stated, “Since the crisis started in New York, maybe we can find the solution in New York… We must reform capitalism so that the most efficient system ever created doesn’t destroy its own foundations.”
” moment, will there be rioting in the streets of cities and towns across the U.S.A.? I’m not sure, but it isn’t out of the realm of possibility. Heck, there may even be riots of celebration if Obama wins. In either case, the losers will be those of us who fancy America as a place our Founders would still be proud to call home.
