Archive for the ‘Debate’ Category
I often write articles predicting the end of the United States of America. I realize that, taken in the wrong context, this sounds a bit extreme. Therefore this attempt to give the intended context.
First, if asked whether the physical entity the United States of America is going to disappear from our maps in the foreseeable future, my response would be no. Then, you may well ask, why all the predictions of doom and gloom? This requires a far more detailed explanation.
Read the rest of this entry »
As I have made clear in several past articles, I have no doubt whatever that we are headed directly into a socialist dictatorship. Sadly, a majority of those of us who bother to vote do not seem very bothered by the prospect. In fact, many, including academia and the mainstream media seem to welcome it. As to how allegedly intelligent people could welcome such a thing, I haven’t a sure answer. My guess is that they suppose that THEY will be among the chosen elite who are allowed to make decisions for the rest of us. I further guess that the less intelligent see dictatorship as some manner of extended childhood where they are forever relieved from taking responsibility for anything other than the pursuit of pleasure.
I have also opined in those past articles that the declaration of martial law will be our signal that the dictatorship in firmly in place.
Lately, as a result of numerous conversations, articles and books read, etc., it occurs to me that many people think that the declaration of martial law will signal the beginning of the implementation of dictatorship rather than signaling its completion. Therefore, that the declaration of martial law will be their signal to start defensive actions.
My friends, I wish there were adequate words to express to you have tragic a mistake such thinking is. The signal to start defensive actions has long since come. Indeed, at this point in the process, it may well be far too late to do anything effective to prevent total dictatorship.
Read the rest of this entry »
…for Re-founding the Original American Republic
Incumbrepublocrats: n. The sham duopoly of incumbent ruling elites, tricking complaisant sheeple into believing they need frequent sheering for the welfare of the herd, and have a choice of shepherds promising, yet never quite providing, eternally green pastures in wolf-free zones. See: Incumbrepublocrats
Those of us who are political junkies, and/or passionate about an issue or ideology, tend to lament so-called voter apathy and how uninterested so many of our neighbors seem to be, about political matters we regard as critically important to the future of our country. These sheeple are content to blithely follow any glib demagoging bellwether, and foolishly trust their shepherds to keep them in clover. While we spend an inordinate amount of time and effort attempting to awaken them from their indifference, they cavort blissfully through much simpler lives, oblivious to any good reason to allow political squabbling to complicate them.
Perhaps we should be noticing what so many of them do, which enables them to tune out obsessive political debate. It seems to matter not how actively engaged we become; our prodigious efforts rarely make much difference in the end. The inexorable slide into the pits of tyranny is continuously advanced by ambitious oligarchs, in both wings of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. For the most part, after a busy year of selecting, campaigning hard for, and even electing worthy candidates promising reform, little actually changes in Sodom by the Potomac. Alas, power corrupts… rather quickly, and nearly always.
Whomever we might vote for, the entrenched bureaucracy effectively wins every election. Perhaps we should rethink the Civil Service system, which was supposed to be an improvement over the ‘Spoils System,’ of patronage jobs for government servants. At least before, we could throw ALL the rascals out with a change election. Now, this unelected, under-worked, and grossly overpaid cabal of bureaucratic busybodies merrily carries on, growing their budget and micromanaging our daily lives. Once again, they bemusedly watch our freshly elected reformers being schooled by the old Pro’s, in the art of maintaining incumbency – job one for a career-minded Incumbrepublocrat.
I am very comfortable with my libertarian philosophy, which propounds individual sovereignty and Liberty for freemen and women, with the natural right to live their lives as they choose to live them, as long as they do not forcefully interfere with or violate the natural rights of others. I have carefully worked out in my head, how such free individuals can live at peace with their neighbors, meeting in the commons for commerce and fraternity, as free traders giving no more than they take, in entirely voluntary value for value exchanges, which enrich each other's lives.
Thus, I regard one's home as his castle, and his real estate as his sovereign domain, where he gets to make the rules, which visitors are bound to abide. When he steps off his private property, however, he must abide by the standards, social customs, and rules of the community. If there were no social compact and universally accepted basic rules, to insure that any vehicle coming around the next bend would be on the other side of the road, it would be chaos. I am fine with that, and wouldn't have it any other way.
Where my philosophy falls completely apart, however, is when it comes to the welfare of children. Having discussed this issue with folks of all political persuasions, I can assure all that empathy for an innocent child is a sincerely held universal human trait, The question becomes, what are parental rights and responsibilities vs. any sort of societal rights and responsibilities vs. children's rights.
…and the sweet sound of silence!
Do you ever get sick and tired of those who denigrate our country and accuse us of exploiting weaker nations? Does having the Marxist fool in our White House running around the world, apologizing for our arrogance and bowing to petty tyrants tighten your jaws? Do you happen to disagree with him, and embrace American exceptionalism? There is an art to making that argument, and never time to set up the teleprompters when an opportunity presents itself. Here is a collection of the fine art of subtle argumentation rewarded by embarrassed silence, which has been assembled by an unknown author:
Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 1960s when Charles de Gaulle decided to pull out of NATO. de Gaulle said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible. Rusk responded, “Does that include those who are buried here?”
De Gaulle did not respond. You could have heard a pin drop.
When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of ‘empire building’ by George Bush.
He answered by saying, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”
You could have heard a pin drop.
I too had a lengthy comment that got lost in Troy’s post below, which is worth starting a new post to discuss:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” -Tenth Amendment
I would submit that at least 90% of what the Federal government does is a flagrant violation of the Tenth Amendment. To give an obvious indisputable example, the entire Department of Education, and everything that it does, is a direct violation of it. The words education or school are not mentioned anywhere in it; and nowhere is it empowered to meddle in the affairs of citizens, in choosing how to educate their children. It is important to understand whence came the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution is essentially a free trade agreement (think EU – Common Market) and mutual defense pact (think NATO) between 13 sovereign nations. Our Founders were the representatives of those nations, hammering out the compact agreement in lengthy, competitive, tough, negotiations. I.e. it was a compromise.
They were not at all engaged in an exercise of designing an idyllic society and government, such as Troy and I are currently amusing ourselves with in the A Possible Solution comment section. They already had a weak confederacy of 13 small nation states, with well-defined social structures. They were about the task of federating them into a more powerful and competitive entity, for engaging in world commerce as an equal among empires. Jealous of their autonomy and sovereignty, and having just several years before fought for their independence from an oppressive tyrannical empire, they were not at all interested in creating another one.
Thus, the Constitution they wrought, very specifically limited the powers of the federation to just a few essential functions, which they carefully enumerated. They meant it to have no other. To further preclude the amassing of tyrannical power, in a horizontal separation of powers, they divided it into three coequal branches. Then, to make sure their States would be equally represented and somewhat in control, they created a bicameral legislature, with the upper house consisting of two Senators appointed by each of the individual State legislatures, and serving at their pleasure. (The Seventeenth Amendment, purportedly ratified in 1913, was a tragedy that radically changed the nature of our republic.)
Read the rest of this entry »
A seemingly bright young fellow named Greg, has recently taken an interest in some of my essays and our blog entries hereabouts. He has an inquisitive mind, which delights in asking probing questions. He apparently moderates a political discussion group, which he is migrating off of FaceBook to the blogosphere, and has invited me to join them in cross-posting debate, over preselected political subjects. Although his political orientation appears significantly to the Left of mine, he is uncommonly polite, appreciative of new ideas, and seems quite open to having his mind changed with a cogent argument.
Thus, suspecting I might be of some assistance in saving a worthy mind from his Marxist professors, I agreed to give it a go. One such subject he recently threw out for discussion, he entitled, “Could Socialism Work in the Education System?” It begins:
There is a solution that I have been thinking about for the past few months about solving the solution to the poor funding of certain schools. The limitations placed on these schools are great: limited technology for teaching, limited access to teachers. The limitations in these degrees have placed an unfair burden on the children there.
The solution I have for this has not actually been looked into whether this would work or not, and that’s where you, the reader, come in. It is in my opinion that socialism could work in the education system in one way: revenue sharing.
[•sigh•]… This project may be more difficult than I thought…