19 september 2010

But that is the big unanswered question of libertarianism. What happens to the countries ability to move forward with a lightweight government?

What historical precedent do we have to support this concept?


Many think the constitution to be a near sacred document. But reading the history of America from 1770-1826 (The year that Jefferson and Adams died) we see great disagreement.

Washington wanted no political parties. Jefferson idealized a state for the Yeoman Farmer, the Federalists readied themselves to compete with the worlds great powers.

And how can one say this path if repeated would lead to success? We no longer have a huge advantage in an unlimited frontier swarming with European immigrants. Really, once you got the stage set - it would have been extremely surprising if the United States had failed, with its innumerable natural advantages.

The U.S. at its founding could be seen like a startup full of competing groups, all in common purpose at the riches that await.


But when we look around, the two nations that are doing best in challenging circumstances are China and Germany neither of which has modeled their Government around a limited state.

Obama's second mistake:

Was to not mobilize his millions of hard core supporters. This indicated his organizing skills were not yet polished. He had used us, wanted us as a reserve army, but never activated us, and we rotted like spoiled produce.

The lesson to be learned is that there are 10's of millions of people on the right and left willing to sacrifice to get things moving in the right direction, and that the energy was not used. That if this great mass of national good will surfaces we must tap it, and give it its voice. Never was such a huge reservoir of good will so neglected that I have ever seen.

But I do not fault Obama. He has been dealt a very difficult hand. And he has tried not to appear as a threat to the system apparently. Allowing the various power interests to continue unabated, the Pentagons vast sea of expensive suppliers, Wall Street and its billion dollar bonuses, extracted from someone!


Libertarianism suits this "communitarian", as I hope to participate in a self sufficient community that does not want to be told what to do by the Federal Government.

So time goes by "vows have been broken, tears must be cried", we see the Clinton Economic team that were responsible fundamentally for the stripping of regulation that fueled the collapse in tearing down Glass-Steagal inserted. Jon Stewart suggests in the first few weeks o the campaign to give the bailout to the debtors, who could then pay their debts to the creditors. Gwen Eiffel was so clueless she clearly considered the plan uncredible.

In fact that is precisely what should have happened. Because on the whole, the money used to transfer to the Banks was the peoples money. Of course the banks will pay it back supposedly, and perhaps the 'people' wouldnt, although at 0.5% they certainly would.

It seemed obvious to me that we had very low trust of Government as it is currently constituted. He needed to demonstrate that we could entrust the Government with more of our money without wasting it. Instead for many his lack of addressing this issue made them assume he was wasting our money. And certainly there is plenty of waste.

That was Obama's first mistake.

20 september 2010: Random thoughts of the day:

Libertarianism, Modernity and the Jeffersonian Yeoman Farmer

There are only two places to start in improving our collectives lots in life: Reforming Government and or limiting it. In limiting it we must say to ourselves, what will education, medicine, and employment look like in a laissez faire economy?

I became aware that Barack Obama was not going to likely be able to fulfill our collective aspirations to move us forward when I saw no reform of Government waste at the onset of his term.

19 september 2010

Random Thought of the day:

As a former hard core leftist, watching the Tea Party makes me jealous.

Where are our rallies?

Also its bad timing because ive been reading a lot of revolutionary america period accounts.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich for President

Washington is broken. So we have now aligning two sets of clashing views, one is promoted by the status quo, the top 1 percent, and those who aspire to join their ranks. The corporations and Government. Each seeks to expand its head count and its revenues. The process is co-opted.

The other side are the discontented, who's ranks are swelling. Those who wish to be left alone and those who feel that the system is failing them or isn't what they want.

In a downturn the question of philosophy starts to get re-examined, as in a growing economy, that is more plentiful resources to the average person, people are not forced through necessity to question the assumptions underpinning it all.

What Ron and Dennis represent is the best in both sides from my point of view. Leadership driven by philosophy, and an integrity and willingness to think deeply. Those willing to think deeply about how to best move their communities, their country or our global civilization forward in the right direction(s).

I have often thought that it is not so much whether the Government provides health care or the private sector, (who we choose to get our services from), as it is important that it be done well. Where a hospital obtains its revenues is irrelevant. What is important is that it is competent, which usually means the people working in the industry have a high morale and dedication. Inefficient or heartless enterprises often elicit poor morale.

This leads to an opening on the left for mass defection to the right. As Government, run by the lobbyists not just for the corporations, but for any who can play, this is one area where the free market is left. If we could just get lobbying to be the real elections and we all elected lobbyists first and then worried about the no-change election less, we would perhaps be better off.