This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
If You Really Think It Matters Which Party Controls the Senate, Answer These Questions
Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,
Please don't claim anything changes if one party or the other is in the majority. Anyone clinging to that fantasy is delusional.
If you really think it matters which political party controls the U.S. Senate, please answer these questions. Don't worry, they're not that difficult:
1. Will U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast change from being an incoherent pastiche of endless war and Imperial meddling? Please answer with a straight face. We all know the answer is that it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.
2. Will basic civil liberties be returned to the citizenry? You know, like the cops are no longer allowed to steal your cash when they stop you for a broken tail light and claim the cash was going to be used for a drug deal.
Or some limits on domestic spying by Central State agencies. You know, basic civil liberties as defined by the Bill of Rights and the U.S. constitution.
Don't make me laugh--you know darned well that it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.
3. Will the predatory, parasitic policies of the Federal Reserve that virtually everyone from the Wall Street Journal to what little remains of the authentic Left understands has greatly increased income and wealth inequality be reined in? Please don't claim either party has any will or interest in limiting the Fed's rapacious financialization. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim--it is pure wishful thinking.
4. Will the steaming pile of profiteering, corruption, waste, fraud and ineptitude that is Sickcare in the U.S. be truly reformed so its costs drop by 50% to match what every other developed democracy spends per person on universal healthcare? It doesn't matter if ObamaCare is repealed or not; that monstrosity was simply another layer of bureaucratic waste on an already hopelessly dysfunctional system.
If you answer "yes," please run a body scan on yourself to detect the biochips that were implanted while you voted Demopublican.
5. Will the influence of Big Money be well and truly banned from politics? If you answer yes, please pick up your tin-foil hat at the door.
6. Will the incentives in the Status Quo be reset to punish rapacious financialization and gaming the system and reward productive investment and labor? Before you answer, check out who's buttering the Senators' bread. Hint: Wall Street does not qualify as productive unless we're talking about the production of life-draining parasites. Virtually none of the vast armies of skimmers and scammers, from those pursuing bogus disability claims to lobbyist leeches, will suffer any consequence.
Moral hazard is the Status Quo's Prime Directive.
7. Will anything be done to dismantle the Neofeudal Debt-Serfdom known as student loans? You are delusional if you think either party has any interest in limiting the predation of an academic Upper Caste that came to do good and stayed to do well.
8. Will any prudent assessment be made of unaffordable weapons systems like the F-35 Lightning--$1.5 trillion and counting for aircraft that will soon be matched by drones that cost a fraction of the F-35's $200 million a piece price tag? No way--parts of those insanely costly jets are made in dozens of states, so the pork is well-distributed. Never mind the plane is lemon, built to fight the wars of the past. It's jobs, Baby--that's all that counts. Never mind the $1.5 trillion--we can always borrow another couple trillion--the Fed promised us.
Do you really think the Senate controlled by either party will ask why the F-35's price tag dropped to $120 million from $200 million? That's easy--the revised estimate left out the engine and avionics. They'll be added back in after the Senate approves open-ended funding.
If none of these key dynamics will change, you got nothing. Please don't claim anything changes if one party or the other is in the majority. Anyone clinging to that fantasy is delusional.
If you doubt this, please take the above quiz again.
»
- 47642 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Charles, you had me at "pastiche".
When it comes to politics you only have to ask yourself why each side has the name "party" after its name.
That is correct, they are both having a party at your expense.
All successful societies have moved inexorably from more conservative to more liberal. And from more just to more corrupt. None have ever gone the other way short of revolution or collapse.
If I get a vote in this, I'd take revolution over collapse.
The only thing that changes is which gang of criminals gets first dibs to grab double handfuls of the loot they extract from this country.
Notice I said they extract it from the country, not the taxpayers. The taxpayers haven't covered the price of the extraction for many years now.
They never will. But a day of reckoning is coming. When it gets here the Chinese, the multinational corporations, the hedge funds and everybody else who has claims against the US will be lined up to get their share.
All that federal land? It'll be sold off to satisfy debts. So will the water systems, the highways, the government buildings, all of it will go on the auction block.
That's what these people are doing. They're selling off claims to every asset in this county.
When it all comes crashing down and it's time for the IMF to come in and bail the US out. We're following the same script as ARGENTINA, and the result will be the same.
When Argentina went down the middle class was destroyed and the poverty rate rose to 57%. That's where we're headed, and the Republicans don't give a damn anymore than the Democrats did.
The Jackels are going to reek Havok when everything is said & done.
Glad to see someone is using the Argentina reference instead of the Weimar or Zimbabwe ones.
+1 for Jackals
Juist meant the tribe resorts to blackmail more and bribes less. Same results.
As to #7;
http://rollingjubilee.org/
The Internet Reformation continues.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/midterms-prediction-billi...
Pretty much predicts every US election for the forseeable future.
With just one week to go until the midterm elections, a new poll indicates that billionaires are likely to retain control of the United States government.
The poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, shows that the proxy candidates of billionaires are likely to win ninety-eight per cent of next Tuesday’s races, with the remaining two per cent leaning billionaire.
Although the poll indicates that some races are still “too close to call,” the fact that billionaires funded candidates on both sides puts the races safely in their column.
People don't realize that Congress faces tough issues. If legislation is proposed that benefits the middle class, expands freedom, or makes life better for the majority it is too controversial to pass. If proposed legislation benfits the super-wealthy at the expense of everyone else then it is a no-brainer and sails through without comment.
Name one tough issue congress faces. At this point in the enormous mess they have created, there is only one issue to focus on. That is "making government smaller ... much smaller". That wouldn't be a tough issue for me. Why should it be a tough issue for congress?
A better way to understand the significant party philosphies is by the following historical questions for the author and most of the myopic commentators:
Name the president and party under which the following programs were established:
1)Creation of the FED and the income tax
2)Creation of the modern wlefare state via social security etc.
3)Creation of the great sociiety programs, (medicare, medicaid, foodstamps)
4)Established unconstitutional depaprtments of education and energy etc.
5)Passed the unconstituatonal gun control "brady bill".
5)Obamacare
See the pattern? By the way, the answer to 1) explains all the subsequent growth of government and wars-all major ones started by a certain party-the party of debt, taxation and the FED. Debt allows you to live beyond your means, avoiding personal responsibility. The nanny, mommy knows best party. The party of "it takes a villiage"
In a Welfare state "democracy" only those paying taxes should be allowed to vote.
Name the Party and the Presidents whom failed to repeal 1 through 5.
Nothing changes.
Thats 1.5 million $millions cost for F35 development.
2%+ of world GDP devoted to a lemon fighter jet. We could give 4 billion poorest people on earth ~$375 each. Effectively feed the entire planet for a year. Considering $375 is a lot of money for earth's 4 billion 'poorest', USSA could effectively buy the support and votes of the entire planet.
Looks like we are close to the end game.
You forgot the odious Dodd / Frank bill. Then then they both hightailed it out of town.
5) the lies of 9/11
6) Patriot Acts
7)Dept of Homeland Security
8)TSA
9)"War on Terror"
10)Bailouts to Banks and Corps(the beginnings)
[funny that John_Coltrane mentioned none of these...]
and as Tall Tom asked, name the party and President who failed to repeal or challenge 5-10.
John Coltrane: Debt allows you to live beyond your means, avoiding personal responsibility.
The purpose of debt, just like the purpose of money, is to allow simple barter to work over time and space.
People go into debt (i.e. create money by having their trading promise certified) to buy their homes so they can live in them while they complete their trading promise over 30 years.
In doing this, they pay the "full" amount of the house in principal. They pay the "full" amount of the house in interest. And they pay the "full" amount of the house in insurance premiums (removing all lender risk).
While doing this the "price" of their house doubles due to inflation (i.e. mismanagement of the medium of exchange). When they sell it they pay income taxes on that "profit", yet they can't take their proceeds and immediately obtain the same house ... those proceeds are insufficient to do that due to the taxes and transaction costs. Where's the profit it that?
Living beyond their means by paying for a house 3 times? Paying tax on a so-called gain caused by inflation that adds no value? Avoiding personal responsibility? I think not.
And you are a fool to think it has anything to do with the parties. Both feather their nests. Both lie to get and stay elected. Both increase the size of government. Both work for the same puppet master. Both feather their puppet master's nest.
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
@ Pool Shark,
See my other post below. You'll love it.
If it has more 'reek Havok', then I know I'm gonna love it.
And if anyone doesn't already know what a dirty, treasonous, scumbag Mitch McConnell is then they oughta know he ruv the Chinese a rot; and he gets well paid by the millions for his treason:
Mitch McConnell’s Freighted Ties to a Shadowy Shipping CompanyAfter drugs were found aboard the Ping May, a vessel owned by his wife’s family’s company, Colombian authorities are investigating.
http://www.thenation.com/article/186689/mitch-mcconnells-freighted-ties-shadowy-shipping-company
McConnell has benefitted in many ways from his relationship with his in-laws.
The Republican Senate minority leader’s personal wealth grew seven-fold over the last ten years thanks in large part to a gift given to him and his wife in 2008 from James Chao worth between $5 million and $25 million (Senate ethics forms require personal finance disclosures in ranges of amounts, rather than specific figures). The gift helped the McConnells after their stock portfolio dipped in the wake of the financial crisis that year, and ensured they could pay off more than $100,000 in mortgage debt on their Washington home.
The generous gift made McConnell one of the wealthiest members of the Senate, with a net worth averaging around $22.8 million, according to The Washington Post’s review of his financial disclosures.
Following the gift, McConnell sent a letter of congratulations to an auditorium of Chinese officials in Shanghai who were gathered for an event honoring James Chao’s wife (McConnell’s mother-in-law, Ruth Mulan Chu Chao, who passed away in 2007). The Shanghai Mulan Education Foundation, created in her honor, regularly hosts students from the University of Louisville, where McConnell has a leadership academy bearing his name that sends students on trips to China.
The ties between McConnell and his in-laws have come under scrutiny before. In 2001, they were probed in depth by The New Republic in an article that charged that McConnell led an effort to soften his party’s criticism of China. Through James Chao, who was a classmate of Jiang Zemin, the president of China in the ’90s, McConnell and his wife met with Jiang several times, both in Beijing and in Washington. McConnell subsequently tempered his criticism of Chinese human rights abuses, and broke with hawks like Senator Jesse Helms to support Most Favored Nation trading status with China.
Dems took a Big Loss because of the … weather.
I don't think the next Senate Majority leader is dirty either. He appears quite well dressed and coiffed actually.
Will he be able to fight for his State and its interests is an interesting question...
American voters took a bigger loss by electing any one of these crooks
....and one of the first things he said yesterday in his press conference, near the top of the list, is that the Senate could work with the Adminstration to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership bill that the Dummycrats had been blocking. Obammy has been ready to sign it for his Wall St & multi-national cronies, but could not get enough Dem support.
Bend over workers and and small business men of America. This shaft will be much bigger than NAFTA.....NAFTA on steriods. Free Trade!! Whopee!! Lining the pockets of Bankers and Multinationals all over the world and strip-mining America.
After seeing his Oriental Wife next to him at the victory speech I understood the boat/cocaine/father-in-law story.
Asian ass & Chinese cash = the new success in the New Rome.
with 2 down-votes to my post so far it's obvious that o-fucktard and Mc-commie are both ZH readers.
Well let me just welcome them both to ZH...
FUCK YOU MCCONNELL AND FUCK YOU obola!!!
I posted below but this is a better place to post my comment:
This is a main reason we will see little relief from the new Congress. Repeal of Glass-Steagall opened up the crime of the century allowing banks to steal the wealth of people. The heist was pulled off by Reptiles and Dodocrats under the Clinton Administration.
McConnell has long been legislatively allied with Wall Street. He voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall separation between traditional lending and risky securities trading in 1999. He voted to bail out the banks in 2008 and to release an additional round of bailout funds in 2009. The next year, he voted against Dodd-Frank. For the 2014 elections, he raised $6.4 million from the financial sector, more than double what he brought in from any other industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Six of his 10 biggest donors for this election cycle were political action committees tied to large financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.
The best book I have read on Argentina was by Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre, the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse. Honest and practical portrayal and good advice to the average person. Much of what I have done to prepare has been based on his recommendations. And, no, barrel making skills a la Little House on the Prairie are not useful.
Miffed
+1 on that book. Excellent read.
At this point, I would consider a party which openly identified itself as part of an organized crime organization. They couldn't possibly be anymore corrupt, and we would be cutting out the middleman of politicians, who just pay organized crime anyway.
Think of the cost savings! And how much faster things would get done!
/not sarc
Ha! Reminds me of the anarcho-capitalist world of Snow Crash.
That depends on how long and drawn out the collapse is. A few month ordeal with sporadic, but avaliable supplies during that time period? No coopers needed. Collapse ala the Roman Empire? You're probably best not only having somebody who knows how to make barrels, but having a few barrels stocked when it gets here.
"When it all comes crashing down and it's time for the IMF to come in and bail the US out"
OK, I guess you realize the mistake you made there.
I think you get it no Debt. The IMF is the United States. It's another tool for the US to meddle in other nation's affairs. One which we can no longer afford.
From historical evidence the IMF & those who run/own the rest of the western central banks are the ones who are controlling the US. Using the US military as a tool for empire building by way of forcing debt on nations in exchange for their natural resources which are exploited by companies owned by the same families of central bankers. Ruling from the shadows & making more money than god in order to pass on their legacy of world domination to their heirs, ensuring a perpetual state of serfdom & slavery.
If there was ever a doubt...
The 93 out of 100 who voted in favor of the NDAA put it to rest.
Literally.
A lien filed by the Treasury, Internal Revenue putting all citizens and land as collateral against the debt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYEcj9wO1Ks&list=UUgpRSB3l55urNGNFYda53F...
So doesn't the fed own everything if we don't pay?
Why, always, the damned loud rock and roll?
Great post, but don't you think a major war & pestilence also will play a role here? I do, and I don't know how that changes my view of your prediction. I think the problem with peering into the crystal ball at this time is that there are so many nasty factors converging at once.
The whores and sons of whores known as the Arizona Legislature sold the State Capitol Building and now lease it back. Apologies to real whores, who have treated me 100x better than the politicians of Arizona and DC. At least I got SOMETHING for my investment.
I'd bet that one leads to the other. Hedge accordingly.
Wow, you aren't a student of modern history, are you? lolz
Unless the feds go full Stasi on us there will be no revolution. After a collapse the practical approach and adherence to the Constitution will be the successful model for survival and recovery. The Socialists will starve or die trying to take over the successful. If it comes to it, remember who has the guns and know how to use them. The effete left has no prayer unless they get a clue.
Personally, I don't think "full Stasi" would provoke a revolution in this country. This is not a nation of fighters or revolutionaries.
Please explain what you mean by "adherence to Constitution". Are you implying the government is doing things YOU think are unconstitutional?
The collective of States was doomed when the Articles of Confederation were scrapped for the beloved Constitution. Wake up, Constitution lovers. That document you cling to is the source of, not solution to, our problems.
Sadly, the US sheeple are beyond the point of any meaningful revolution IMHO.
Their idea of revolution is kicking out the Dems and putting in the Repubs.What a sick joke that is - hello AIPAC, TPP, and NDAA...
The US Anti-war movement was the last gasp of any meaningful activism in the US (however misdirected and manipulated by the left). Americans have become really, really lazy - they think that because they have a closet full of firearms that they could change things if they really wanted to, hence they never bother to go out and really march against the Government infringement on their liberties.The right to bear arms is itself a sick joke - the militarization of the Police have seen to that.
What actually works are demonstrations and marches that force themselves into consciousness of the public - bypassing the controlled media.
Other countries are much, much better at keeping their government in check in this regard - the US has been hijacked by AIPAC and the corporations and is just one giant medicated sheep, or perhaps a better analogy, a cow to be milked and used to further the NWO dreams of TPTB.
The US needs the equivalent of an 'Intifada' in order to have any hope of any meaningful change...
Depends on the revolution. Violence only delays the collapse, by the amount of time it takes to complete the totalitarian bloodbath by those who executed the violent coup on the previous masters.
Just ask the French, and the Bolsheviks.
This is a wierd article.
There were no real questions. Plus even if someone really wanted to answer the question, the answer was provided as part of the question....
This is a main reason we will see little relief from the new Congress. Repeal of Glass-Steagall opened up the crime of the century allowing banks to steal the wealth of people. The heist was pulled off by Reptiles and Dodocrats under the Clinton Administration.
McConnell has long been legislatively allied with Wall Street. He voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall separation between traditional lending and risky securities trading in 1999. He voted to bail out the banks in 2008 and to release an additional round of bailout funds in 2009. The next year, he voted against Dodd-Frank. For the 2014 elections, he raised $6.4 million from the financial sector, more than double what he brought in from any other industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Six of his 10 biggest donors for this election cycle were political action committees tied to large financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.
"I love the smell of pastiche in the morning. It smells like victory... over anorexia."
Real men don't smell pastiche.
In fascist America pastiche smells YOU!
If America would be fascist gay marriages would not be allowed.
If America would be fascist the banks would not rule the state, but the state would rule the banks.
If America would be fascist the youth would be educated for respect and virtues.
If America would be fascist drugs would not be legalized but the Mafia destroyed.
If America would be fascist not the criminals would be protected but the victims.
If America would be fascist not anti-art would be promoted but classical European art.
If America would be fascist traditional values would be protected, not destroyed.
If America would be fascist the traditional family would be supported.
If America would be fascist minorites and outsiders would not rule over the normal average and heterosexual majority.
If America would be fascist boys would be teached to become men and fathers and girls becoming women and mothers, instead of feminizing boys and turning girls into whores.
If America would be fascist pornography and the sexualization of the masses would be forbidden.
If America would be fascist not an alien tribe would own and control its media.
If America would be fascist it's foreign policy would not serve Israel but the USA.
You did a nice job highlighting the cultural differences between fascism and communism. Not sure why you got the down votes.
A big part of fascism's appeal is that it uses conservative values as a way to dupe inherently conservative people into supporting a socialist system. When you understand this, and compare it to our current values, you immediately sense the absurdity of calling our current regime "fascist".
People assume that because corporations have so thoroughly penetrated and captured the Federal apparatus, that we must be fascist. What people fail to realize is that today's giant international publicly- traded corporations actually are communist organs, not fascist ones-- they are run by a tiny corporate elite at the expense of both workers and shareholders. Substitute "party elite" and "proletariat" in the appropriate places and you can see we are really a communist society. This is especially obvious of course when you consider how thoroughly our culture has been degraded to align with communist cultural norms.
Corporatocracy is a more current "label".
Fascism and communism are archaic 20th Century terms.
perhaps they are archaic, but if so, then Europe - if not the whole world - is archaic, too. We prefer here the term "classical", though
there are three classical political directions: socialism, conservativism and liberalism. all three can become somewhat up to full totalitarian
and so you get communism, fascism and corporatocracy, a form of plutocracy based on financialization and megacorps
+1
classical is a much better adjective than archaic
btw, if you do use the classical terminology, the US Republicans would be a liberal conservative party and the US Democrats would be a social liberal party, if you look at the used ideology
the "what would fascists do in the US" list above is very... theoretical. then, seen from the outside, the majority of the US is first liberal, and then either conservative or socialist
it is a cultural attitude that flows into the political attitude, which then is squeezed into an electoral system that allows only two parties to dominate, thanks to many details including a preference for "elected" versus "expert/technocrat". (Example: Americans prefer to elect their own judges, most europeans find such a practice... very dangerous)
I'm fairly certain he got the down votes because he appears to be trying to make a case for fascism. I wouldn't want to live in his country.
Perhaps I've misunderstood, and it's really sarcasm; but if so it's far too subtle for Fight Club.
your definition of fascist is 1939 nazi germany. that's too narrow of a definition.
I disagree. fascism in the european experience was similar in Portugal, Spain, Vichy France, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Austria and a few countries more. most of his list was applied similarly in all of them
It's a very slippery term, not helped by the fact that it tends to be used simply as an insult. The best definition I've seen is in Umberto Eco's classic 1995 essay, Ur-Fascism, in the New York Review of Books. (Still have the paper copy somewhere; I couldn't bear to throw it out.)
It's well worth the few minutes it takes to read it. Eco grew up in Italy in the 1940s, under the real thing, so he knows firsthand whereof he speaks.
(Oh, I can't resist: His latest, The Prague Cemetery, should also be required reading here on ZH. I think a number of the posters here should recognize themselves.)
You have swallowed TPTB's definition of fascism to the point of not seeing what is in front of your nose.
By setting up a litany of markers drilled into you by Hollywood, the publishing industry and the media as what "fascism" is, you don't see that it has morphed into:
Total control of the media.
Total control of the economy.
Total control over the culture.
Total control over how you structure your life and how you think about things.
Welcome to what you should really be affraid of. Your attention has been very, very carefully been diverted to the rear view mirror, setting up a straw boogieman to fear, while the real boogieman has stolen your country.
You deserve every single down vote and more...
The middle east policy is not near as capricious and random as suggested. Serving the interests of kissing cousins saudi arabia and israel is the policy. Which it will continue to be.
Fanning the flames of radical islam which are a threa to neither is the call of the day.
#2 troubles me a bit. The term "civil rights" is a non sequitur.
"But is all that voting good for liberty? Are “civil rights” in general compatible with freedom?
I say they aren’t.
Let me be clear: I’m speaking of the political philosophy of civil rights. And it is an actual philosophy, not just a slogan hippies and Marxists spouted during the 1960s. As such, “civil rights” is diametrically opposed to liberty.
“Civil rights” teaches what its name implies: that our rights descend from the State. (“Civil” comes from the Latin civis, meaning “citizen” and therefore under the government’s control.)”
If we conclude that our rights comes from government then they aren't unalienable (non-transferable) are they? Read more here.
I want your baby, rubicon!
The D of I speaks of "unalienable rights"; ie, rights which predate the state. To authoritarian Progressives (and Progressives perhaps masquerading as Libertarians, as this author might be), to paraphrase Descartes, the state says: "I, the State exists; therefore, you are".
The difference is profound. I bet 99% of US citizens couldn't articulate this difference.
I disagree. The very term "rights" is based on practice, not on "nature". It implies that you get "your rights" in front of a court. If you do define liberty as something outside of a legal system, then yes, "liberty" becomes incompatible with "civil rights"
but then you are conflating "liberty" with "sovereign", something I've noted happens often here. to highlight the difference, a sovereign can flout any court and ask "who and who's army?". then the hallmark of a sovereign is... it's army, primarily (and recognition by other sovereigns, secondarily). the sovereign can exert his prerogative to go to... war. the ultimate violent alternative to courts or agreements
civil rights are the hallmark of the citizen, which refrains and refrains others from reducing conflict to violence and - when in disagreement - goes to... court, instead. and so violence becomes a monopoly, which becomes... civilization
courts are the hallmark of civilization, and courts imply police and a legal system, which then imply a system to choose judges and a system to choose common laws. how this is organized has a name: the state, wich is primarily a jurisdiction, i.e. where and on what this system applies
without an army, no police. without police, no judges. without judges, no courts. without courts, no law can be applied. without law, no monopoly on violence. without monopoly on violence, what you have is technically... anarchy
and so what you are conflating is "liberty" with "anarchy", or saying that order and liberty are not compatible
meanwhile anarchy as a positive, livable environment for humans has always failed, up to now, because of it's lack of an organized army. which leaves any territory adopting such a system open to invasion by someone's elses army. and if you do have enough order for an organized army... well, then you have a "state", again. perhaps only one with martial law or warlords, yet nevertheless... "a" state, which means... order
You write poorly. I value sparse, clear language. imo, Abstruse, unclear language implies murky, obscure thought.
However, from your bio, it appears English may not be your native language, so you get a semi-pass.
You seem to prefer the esoteric (ie, scholarly, pedantic, academic). I don't. There exists a huge difference between theorizing about a subject, and actualizing it.
Take Progressivism. As a theory, Progressivism is so very, very, very, oh so very wonderful. In practice, it's shit.
Sorry, but I do not accept your formulation or your framework here. But, first, some wonderful digressions.
From The Tempest of Living: Liberty, Choice, Rationality, and Human Nature:
Thus, those things which unduly strip men of their natural and moral ability to choose between alternatives are inimical to the existence of liberty. The ability of men to, within a wide but limited sphere, choose their own path and to have it mesh with the choices of other men is one of the wonders of constitutional government and the free market ... This is why a limited constitutional government can create an atmosphere within which liberty thrives. It is why free market principles, which coordinate activity but permit choices by market participants, are a bellwether of free society ... In the human action of the marketplace we see freedom at work. One of the deepest things we know from free market economics is that order emerges from human action rather than from human design. Moreover when we try to design order, we often fail. Rather, it is in the tempestuous chaos of living, in which no one person is in charge but everyone acts in freedom together, that order emerges. In short, the tempest of living means as Hayek wrote a “decentralized planning by many separate persons.” Rather, it is liberty and freedom that best coordinates diverse human actions in to market order.
From your post, I garner (discern, guess) you're arguing that we need a state-created order, without which there is no liberty. The above cite disagrees.
Then, there's Liberty, Equality, Solidarity: Toward a Dialectical Anarchism"
I claim that minarchists cannot consistently offer the kind of theory that they need to offer, because no possible theory can connect sovereign authority to legitimacy, without breaking the connection between legal right and individual liberty.
The government is not so much making new laws that impose obligations, but (at best!) making declarations that recognize preexisting obligations—which could be objectively specified by anyone, with or without official approval from anyone
Liberty cannot coexist with government sovereignty, however “limited.” The claim of sovereignty must be backed up by coercion at some point, given up or reduced to a vacuous arrangement of words, whether sovereignty is claimed over the enforcement of rights, the definition of rights, or the application of rights. Any way you slice it, government sovereignty means an invasion of individual freedom, and individual freedom means, ultimately, freedom from the State.
Again from your post, I presume you dismiss natural rights in favor of legal or civil rights, which flow from a sovereign state creating sufficient order such that the legal system can then guarantee us our civil rights.
No. Natural rights exists even in the absence of a state. Furthermore, when a state is created, said state must safeguard those natural rights, and any legal or civil rights which the State creates must be subservient to those natural rights.
Then, too, I believe the liberty/state sovereignty interplay is a zero sum game: The bigger the state, the less our liberty. Civil rights are no substitute for individual liberty, absolutely no substitute. As we have seen with Progressive Democrats in charge, autocrats do their Orwellian dance about civil rights, and hope they disguise it enough for us not to recognize that the strengthening of civil rights results in a corresponding decrease in individual liberty.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "conflate 'liberty' with 'sovereign'". The 20 or so Google hits I perused on a search of your words shed no light on the subject.
Although I am probably more libertarian than conservative in my own POV on individual liberty, I reject the libertarian insistence that the state be as small as possible. Specifically, I fully support our military and the Pax Americana, and the hundreds of billions spent on our military. I supported and still support our invasion of Iraq. Saddam had to go. Therefore, I'm not an anarchist.
Academics suck. They are the bane of society. They know jack shit about the real world. They are almost all radical Progressives. As such, they can suck Ebola-infected cock. So, please excuse me for the overly academic post above.
Ben Carson doesn’t fit the normal political mold.
He’s not a politician, and that’s what so many of us find refreshing about him.
But I’d like you to learn a bit more about who he is.
On November 8 and 9, a documentary called Ben Carson: A Breath of Fresh Air will be on television stations across the country. It delves into Dr. Carson’s career, his personal story, and features interviews with him, his family, and friends of many years.
http://usafirstpac.nationbuilder.com/
What a party pooper. You're chillin mah buzz, man; wid all dis reality stuffs.
Their all now Republicrats. The strings are all conected to all the same lyin' goblins.
I voted for Jack Johnson. Anyone who voted for John Jackson is scum.
http://i.imgur.com/zzbuCSC.jpg
Yep, liberals control both political parties. Ron Paul stated as much yesterday.
>> liberals control
Obviously your own personal, made up, definition of liberal because usuing commonly accepted definition of liberal there isn't one in government. But that's ok, you need a boogy man to make you understand what's going on, have at it.
No, you obviously can't distinguish what conservative values are versus liberal values. Democrats of the 50's were conservative. Republicans even more so in the extreme. Today the republicans are liberal and the democrats in the extreme. I get it it. You're intellectually immature so you lash out. It;'s a common reaction. Go back to watching Dancing With the HasBeens. It was made for people of your intellectual capacity.
liberal comes from the same root word as liberty.
Conservative values - care to outline those?
Oh, so now the origin of the word defines a political party, so you believe that liberals are indeed progressive. Wonderful. I bet you teach Common Core math too, don't you?
JFK would be labeled a right wing conservative extremist in today's society. But I doubt you have the capacity to grasp that
How about Ron Paul highlighting the change...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54WFoV-veCM
Real conservative values are liberty. Hence that small government thing. Today's Republicans are not conservative.
"Liberal" is just a savvy way to hide communism.
Get it now?
Of course he doesn't. He's as dumb as a bag of hammers. Stop giving away all the answers. He keeps showing us how dumb he is with every post. Don't give him the spoilers.
Jfc, go look up the definition of liberal. That people changed its meaning is not the word's fault. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. And I'm sure you voted a straight republican ticket because you can't think clearly.
Jfc, go look up the definition of liberal. That people changed its meaning is not the word's fault. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. And I'm sure you voted a straight republican ticket because you can't think clearly.
many deluded posters today, the change you were promised (left or right by pols)..never happens, because they do not control .gov they are puppets (knowing or unknowingly) and run by faceless .gov depts ..when a pol thinks they are the power tries to make a fundamental change they get shot ..jfk, regan, or blackmailed into silence. reptiles strike from ambush and from darkness..the .gov bureaucrats see to it evidence disapears as in 911 pentagon airliner images, or basic evidence control as in JFK or Flight 800 shoot down..wake up
Liberal - derived from a word meaning 'of or befitting the free'
Conservative - Derived from a word meaning to preserve the current condition or status quo.
One of the biggest tells of someone trying to feed you a line of bull shit is the misuse of words or the use of words in a confusing and contradictory way. A group of people can call themselves whatever they like, but that doesn't change the definition of a word. Ne government in the world today can be considered liberal in a literal sense, as anything of or befitting the free directly opposes centralized unnatural authority.
As for american politics, both political parties are more accurately compared to whores than any other philosopical idea they claim to uphold.
Whores dont take money and let someone else get fucked. Pimps well ok.
Want to lay a wager on that?
Whores are happy to take anybody's money regardless of whom gets fucked. They will dry hustle all day long.
They are happy to take the EBT. Most are on welfare and addicts.
Warch the whore work that mark in Idiocracy. Reality is not that much different.
it's good to get people thinking about how they define the words they use, and asking others for the definitions of those words they choose to use.
doublespeak as practiced by "govt" or anyone who aspires to "govern" is ubiquitous these days.
before you argue, get the definitions CLEAR. often you'll find the "argument" dissipates, the artificial sides disappear. . . or the "argument" cannot be made, and name-calling is the default.
That people changed its meaning is not the word's fault.
Yes, the words gay, progressive and liberal now mean miserable, backward and intolerant.
Gay,liberal and progressives are all cool with me. Its the koolaid pimps in each of those groups that piss me off.
Thanks for the Newspeak definition.
Black is white.
Up is down.
Conservative is liberal.
No, actually I don't get it.
How's liberty been doing under liberal rule the last few years?
You don't know?
Cool, you don't know what a rhetorical question is either.
I was just making fun of you.
That's not nice, so I'll stop.
We have not been under liberal rule in the classical sense.
Slave -- If your focus is on "today's" Republicans, and your primary issue is "that small government thing," can you name the last Republican who shrunk government?
I'm still waiting for an outline of conservative values.
I mean, liberty was identified, so maybe that's all.
Ergo, conservatives=anarchists?
Nope.
Ergo, voting doesn't matter.
Yep.
the big identity crisis with being conservative is the reality that this country has mutated from a republic into an empire after WWII. the falcacy of wanting small govenment is dwarfed by the desire to have a massive military industial complex/banking control control over as many countries around the world as possible.
Don't kid yourselves. We are an empire now. To even think of small government is a glaring declaration of how naieve someone is about what their government has become. Talk of small government and fiscal responsibility is pillow talk to the consituency.
Its kind of like , Obama is Darth Vader and Putin is Luke Skywalker.
Yellen is Yoda's wife. A bitchy money grubbing troll of a wife.
Pre-WWII, pre-Fed, non-empire America is exactly what I would like to go back to. Hopefully after this shit reaches its inevitable conclusion that's what happens, and not the NWO.
Hi Lola, remember when some Repubs were trying to block the raising of the debt ceiling, they were being called "al Qaeda terroists."
they weren't doing shit but billowing and huffing around. Bluh bluh bluh. Play'n the part is all they were doing. Some sembelance of fiscal responsibility to the bond holders. Theyre in on it.
Come on now...
Didn't they vote to increase the size of Government...WHEN THE REPIBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTED TO FUND OBAMACARE?
ALL SPENDING BILLS ORIGINATE FROM THE HOUSE.
You are sooooooooooooo mistaken. They did do something after all.
Rand: Newt and Bill.
That is not entirely true. Gingrich and Clinton only slowed the growth rate but did not shrink it.
But at least it was in the correct direction...
Note that this comment is later than my response to a later post of yours.
The only real metric is fed'l gov't spending as % of GDP. Google "federal government expenditures as percent of GDP" and click on the 2nd hit, the charts. Note the 3rd chart on the first line. It shows the actuality: 1999 was the lowest percentage since 1969 on.
Gov't data used to be reliable and trustworthy. Maybe they've even fatally compromised this metric.
And there are MANY Conservatives who are neither Republicans any more, OR Libertarians.
Here, let me move some furniture, to make room for the downvotes for that ZH-unfashionable comment.
I think it was very ZH-fashionable.
The Democrats are just hanging out in this thread.
damn! someone let loose a nasty progressive fart---oh wait----yep, the spastic runt.
Grimaldus
and a hero.
don't forget that all "boogy men" need a "hero" - that's how this game works.
protection racket.
choose yer sides. . .
Russian actor and Putin critic found dead in Moscow - Telegraph
Suicide by nailgun, again???!?
Did he moonlight at a well known investment bank?
Another Useful Tool of the "See Eye A" got terminated with prejudice.
No stirring of the Color Revolution Pot for him!
Keep watching for when certain banksters start committing suicide by throwing themselves off the ground floor of one story buildings. It's coming soon, I can feel it.
Also be mindful for snowplows pulling in front of your private jet.
it's different this time
9. Will they get rid of the slave tax and move towards a more logical consumption tax?
Answer: Never in a million years as long as we have a debt based economy based solely on consumption.
10. Will they allow the Keystone pipeline, creating thousands of middle class jobs and reducing our need to be politically and militarilly involved in the middle east?
11. Will they repeal at least portions of Obamacare and allow the survival of at least some small businesses?
12. Will they do anything to stem the tide of illegals filling the rolls of our growing welfare state?
13. Will they continue to make it impossible for union teachers and government employees to get fired even after stealing, pedophiling, etc?
Not going to solve everything by any means, and probably won't do all of the above. They may at least slow the rate at which we are circling the toilet bowl though.
Just like back in 2010 they'll say 'Sorry, we really tried to do that stuff we swore we'd accomplish by its just not possible'....same old shit.
AS to #10
You really do not understand the stipulations and the requirements of performance of the Nixon Kissinger 1973 Treaty with the Saudis, do you?
It is just the basis for our World Reserve Currency status...that's all.
And you are so willing to trash all of those benefits for a pipeline and Tar Sand Oil?
It does not matter as Obama has already acted to destroy that agreement...TO OUR DEMISE.
The Keystone will be the final nail in the coffin.
And yet you are just as bad as Obama as you want to bury us. And you do not understand that the Republicans are pushing for this as THEATER...as the damage has already been done.
You are just another stupid and uninformed voter...
So when you respond, "Just what are you writing about?" my response will be, "Exactly."
How is it more "logical" for me to support more government spending, based on how much I consume?
Why should you pay more than me to support the criminal enterprise in DC because you bought your wife a fur, and I bought mine a cloth coat?
More logical would be a flat tax AMOUNT, which is distinctly different and more fair than a flat tax RATE.
Why aren't we talking about taxing The Fed instead of taxing us? We are paying interest on green pieces of paper. Well let's tax them on their use in our economy.
All those questions can be replaced by a single one - can America reverse its deep plunge into a fascist, police state?
YES WE SCAM!!!
The sheeple are happier if proffered the illusion of choice.
Well who's going to keep us "safe" if we don't have gov't thugs in badges beating and killing us daily for "our protection"?
more boogeymen. more heroes.
more leaders, more followers/led.
so many "choices" so little time.
Just one question: "Will the Bo$$e$ change"?
Thank you. People who think Obama is the problem are fucking stupid. Do you get mad at Kermit or Jim Henson???
No, stupid fuckheads are people who think Obama isn't a problem. Is he the only problem? No. Is he a major problem? Yes.
When did our soicety lose its ability to critically think? Seriously.
Fine, but you left it open which is the bigger or more urgent priority to remedy.
Obama is part of an EXECUTIVE branch that gets told what the fuck to do. If you want to be angry be angry at LEGISLATORS who are paid to do the bidding of their owners. Unless Obama plans to JFK his way out of a shitty legacy focus on the real issue. Obama is a fucking dickless figurehead.
Seriously? The whole Obama movement with ACA was the usurpation of constitutional separation of powers and transfer of control to the executive branch. When was the last time we had a budget?(BTW required by law, cough cough). I agree with you that a lot of this is semantics and I agree that legislators are to blame but Obama is a sociopath who is now cornered. He will lash out and take everyone and everything with him. Everyone better be careful with the glee about the Republicans, they are truly dickless and spineless and will cave on every issue. These elections made things worse than if it was a wash(the devil you know and all that).
Constitutional crisis is coming before the next Congress, don't know if it will be with immigration or the sequestration but it's coming.
The Insurance Mandate is really a very interesting development.Mandating Insurance for this,that and the other activity surely is quite lucrative.So much potential-there are so many things that can be made illegal w/o Insurance,it's difficult to even choose what is the next best Insurance Mandate to impose.They are all so tempting-and entirely possible.Maybe start out small with something like Bicycle insurance,gradually moving into Pet insurance,Renter's insurance,Firearm insurance,Storage unit insurance,Long Term Care insurance,flood insurance,dental insurance,Identity Theft insurance,Homeowner's insurance,Mortgage and Loan insurance-and so on.They can and will lobby for more and more mandated insurance.It's a No Brainer.
You forgot to add the JUDICIAL branch too. All Roberts had to do was rule the ACA unconstitutional, and that would have been the end of it.
Its a good point.
I think many have been trying to come to terms with what Roberts did. He can only be described as more of a statist-technocrat than a Supreme Court Justice. He thought it was more important that "the structure" (the facade) remain in place and be allowed to work through the issue of MANDATING an action and PENALIZING non-action than following the rule of law.
My opinion is he over-thought it, which allowed him to side with the socialists on the bench, by saying the voters will remedy this. That is not following the rule of law, the law as we know it, the freedom to act or not to act.
Its akin to a bunch of firemen standing around watching a prarie fire consume homes and property because the fire was caused by lightning, nature. Nature in this case, being .gov itself...and commenting on the dark storm clouds from which the bolt came from are about to produce a torrent of rain to put the fire out...so...we'll take no action.
No Roberts, your duty was to follow the rule of law that says the state cannot compel someone to engage in commerce (force you to buy a product or service) and put the fire out instead of allowing peoples lives and property to be destroyed. Your duty (Roberts) is to the rule of law, the Constitution and the people, not the state.
Obama is most likely an actor.Hillary was all set,and then suddenly they wheel out this Obama.At the time I thought they were doing it to make sure the Democrats would lose.The Republicans are now being moved into place so they can create a huge cf to piss everyone off so Hillary can have her Turn?
Suddenly?!?! Langley has been nurturing l'il Barry since he popped into this world, whenever and wherever that was.
Barry is a CIA langley test tube baby. They also cloned him, so if he goes off script, they have another identical barry ready to step in and take over.
I agree with you,TD.Highly suspicious background.
And what do you think is going to happen the day after Obama leaves office? NOTHING! That's what's gonna happen, and that's the author's ENTIRE POINT. What don't you get?
Thank you, Syrin, for your sane comment.
Kermit owes me money, little mutha fukker.
Sorry, Obama annointed himself Chancellor of the Progressive Socialist Movement. He doesn't get to wriggle free just cuz he was doing what him waz told. I actually blame Abraham Lincoln for the progressive socialist shiite hole that America has become. That and Kim Kardashian. She's not as stupid as she seems you know.
As far as Charles Hugh-Smith, gee thanks for thinking for me buddy. You want to chew my food too. Government has always been theatre. Always will be. Until blood is shed in revolution which ain't ever ever ever gonna happen in the land of Facebook.
What I love is how pet issues defined by the media become front and center, like the pipeline. Does anyone really believe that the Keystone pipeline is the most important issue facing America right now? Actually, probably a huge percentage of the population does because the media has framed the debate between the parties to make that issue seemingly very important. And sure enough, the Red Team immediately announced that it plans to fight this important fight as part of their mandate. You just have to laugh.
"You just have to laugh."
But you don't have to vote...
>> as part of their mandate.
Hey, hey, hey, don't forget, they included the children.