Reuters: Jane Lanhee Lee- 'China's Young Capitalists Covet Communist Party Membership'

Source:Reuters - hostage taking?

"Maoist ideas may appear outdated in a fast-growing and increasingly prosperous China, but ambitious young people still strive to join the Communist Party to forge vital career connections." 

From Reuters

This is what Chinese communism looks like, mixing in state capitalism a combination of private enterprise, with a large welfare state, to go along with some state owned enterprises. And a lack of the social freedom compared with Japan, Korea, Australia, and the West. 

China had figured out whether they like capitalism or not, it's necessary to have it for their country, especially their regime to be as strong as possible. So they can say to their people that personal freedom and choice, is very limited. But at least we can survive as a country economically and see hundreds of millions of Chinese do very well. And keep the status-quo as far as the party in power. And not need to open up our political system and allow for more personal freedom, because their people will they're doing well economically with the system and be able to raise their kids, get an education and live well. 

And see China do very well compared with the world and even developed world. This is their gamble at least so far and so far it's been paying off very well for them. Cuba is trying the same thing with their communist republic as well.

The Objective Standard: Craig Biddle- 'Is Objectivism a Cult?'

Source:The Objective Standard- Craig Biddle speaking on Ayn Rand's objectivism.

"Craig Biddle addresses the question, "If an Objectivist is someone who accepts Ayn Rand's entire philosophy as true, how is Objectivism different from a cult?" In answering, Biddle discusses the essence of Objectivism, the nature of a cult, and the absurdity of positing that the former has anything to do with the latter. 

To explore more of these ideas visit:The Objective Standard." 

From The Objective Standard

I don't see Randianism as a cult, but the inspirational leader for American libertarianism. Even though Ayn Rand wasn't an official Libertarian. Just like John F. Kennedy is the inspirational leader for Liberals such as myself and Ronald Reagan is the inspirational leader of Conservatives. And Franklin Roosevelt in an inspirational Leader for Progressives. 

Now, some of the followers of Ayn Rand at times do seem like cult followers with some of their conspiracy theories that government is out to get them and that type of thing. But the movement by itself I don't see as some type of cult.

Ayn Rand objectivism, is that the individual should always be that: "That the individual is always first. And when people start concerning themselves with the affairs and worries of others, then somehow collectivism would sink in." Again, Ayn Rand, is not a Libertarian. Even Libertarians believe in private charity. And some Conservative Libertarians, even though they wouldn't have created the New Deal, or Great Society, aren't looking to eliminate it. For practical reasons mostly, but would like to see it run a lot better with private options for people who receive social services.

So when you talk about Ayn Rand and objectivism, you shouldn't try to link it with libertarianism, or conservatism. Even though so-called Progressives (who are actually Socialists) will aways do that. Because libertarianism and objectivism are two different things. 

Libertarians, believe in a minimal government, at least classical Libertarians. And that the safety net and charity should only be run by the private sector and with no government involvement. Objectivists, aren't even fans of private charity. And that individuals should always be left to solve their own problems. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

Reason Magazine: Zach Weissmueller: 'Crowded Prisons, Unions & CA Three Strikes: Why We Can't Just Build More Cages'

Source:Reason Magazine- with a look at the California prison system.

"Where other states are investing resources in, 'How do we help these people not come back into the prison system?,' California is not," says Adrian Moore, Vice President of Research at Reason Foundation. 

The United States locks up more prisoners than any other country. And in the country holding the most prisoners in the world, California is the state that incarcerates more people than any other. California's prisons are so overcrowded that the Supreme Court ruled them in violation of the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. 

Moore and others lay much of the blame at the feet of California's powerful prison guard union, the California Correction Peace Officer's Association (CCPOA), which is unrelenting in its advocacy for tough-on-crime laws, including California Three Strikes, under which any third-time felon can receive a 25-year to life sentence, even if the crime is not a violent, "serious felony (PDF)."

California voters have a chance to reform Three Strikes this year by voting for Prop 36, which would allow Third Strikers convicted of non-serious, nonviolent crimes to appeal for a sentence reduction. More than 3,500 Third Strikers were sentenced for a non-violent, non-serious crime, and of these, more than 1,300 were sentenced for drug-related offenses (PDF). CCPOA, which has donated money to stopping similar reforms in the past, has stayed relatively silent this time around, but another lobbying group, the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) has stepped up with a $100,000 donation to an anti-Prop 36 campaign. 

"We do lobby for stronger laws on the book that we can use to put people away, because these are people that are preying on the citizens of California," says Ron Cottingham, president of PORAC. 

But with prisons overcrowding, recidivism high, and local jails facing troubles of their own, some sort of reform will need to happen, says Moore, though he doesn't expect a viable solution to be offered by the unions any time soon. 

"[The unions] are following their own self-interest," says Moore, "which is to have the prison system in California continue to be large and to grow over time, and they have been very successful at that." 

From Reason Magazine

We have too many people in prison in America for several reasons: 

We arrest too many people 

We have too many bad laws 

We arrest people who aren't threats to society and arrest them for things that shouldn't be illegal 

The War on Drugs is an excellent example of that and lose too many people in our education system, young people who turn to crime to simply make a living in America. We simply aren't educating enough people in the United States and giving them a good enough education so they can get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life and not have to victimize innocent people and end up in prison. 

And the people we do arrest that need to be in prison for the good of society, we don't prepare them in prison for life on the outside. So they have the skills that they need to be successful in life and not have to go back to crime in order to support themselves financially.

California is an excellent example of this but the good news is that it doesn't have to be this way. We can correct our corrections system (pun intended) by fixing our education system so we don't lose as many students to crime each year. And by repealing a lot of our bad laws, as they result to the War on Drugs, gambling and even prostitution and instead regulate and tax these activities. And use that money to fund things that we actually need in this country. As well as preparing our inmates for life on the outside with work and education, so they have the skills that they need to make it on the outside.

Reuters: 'Money Clip: Get ready to Work Until You're 80'

Source:Reuters- Money Clip.

"More Americans believe they’ll have to work longer to make ends meet. A new Wells Fargo Retirement Survey shows that 30 percent believe they’ll have to work until they’re 80. Reuters Personal Finance Editor Lauren Young breaks down the survey and explains what it means for people as they near what should be their retirement years." 

From Reuters

Just more evidence of why we need pension reform, including when it comes to Social Security, that empowers and encourages Americans to put more money away for retirement and savings and putting more people back to work faster. We shouldn't be taxing savings or retirement up to a certain percentage which would empower more people to put more money away.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie: 'The Libertarian Case for Gary Johnson'

Source:Reason Magazine- left to right: Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie.

"This is one of three related articles, each making a specifically libertarian argument for the Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian presidential contender.

The libertarian case in favor of voting for Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson is pretty self-evident and exceptionally strong. 

Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of the overwhelmingly Democratic state of New Mexico, is not just the single-most qualified candidate the LP has yet to field for president. At this stage in his life, he's got more experience in managing actual political reality and bureaucratic state operations than the one-term former governor Mitt Romney has or the wet-behind-the-ears senator Barack Obama had when he moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or for that matter, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) had when the good Dr. No ran for the LP in 1988." 

From Reason Magazine 

"Welcome to Ask a Libertarian with Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. They are the authors of the new book The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America." 

From Reason Magazine

Here's a perfect example of why Libertarians should vote for the candidate they want, instead of what they would see as the lesser of two evils. Because if enough Libertarians vote for Gary Johnson for president, whether they are part of the Libertarian Party, Republican, Democrat or Independent, Libertarians if Gary Johnson were to get that magic 5% number, something that the Green Party's Jill Stein is going for with the Green Party, then the LP will have the resources to be able to compete in 2016, maybe double their 5%.

Once the Libertarian Party gets to 5% of the popular vote, then the LP could be a  serious factor in determining who wins the 2016 presidential election. Something they aren't right now for the most part. 

Maybe Governor Johnson pulls votes away from President Obama in places like Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps Florida. We'll wait and see, because he's someone who appeals more to Liberals than Conservatives. I'm an example of that as a Liberal, because Governor Johnson to me sounds more Liberal in the classic sense, then he does Conservative and perhaps even Libertarian. Gary sounds like a Left-Libertarian or Social-Liberal to me, then a Ron Paul hard-core Libertarian.

If Gary Johnson were to break through in 2012 and get that 5%, the LP will have the resources to build their party for the future. And become a real factor in American politics and perhaps become the official third-party in America. Big enough to compete with Democrats and Republicans in the future. 

The Libertarian Party doesn't become a strong third party in America, as long as Libertarians vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils or don't bother voting at all. Or are stereotyped as potheads who see a new government conspiracy theory, every time they look up at the sky. 

Libertarians should turn out and vote for exactly who represents them, even if that candidate has no shot at winning, to be able to build their own party that can actually win in the future.

LibertyPen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Margaret Thatcher: 'Capitalism & a Free Society (1977)'

Source:Liberty Pen- United Kingdom Opposition Leader Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1977.

"Margaret Thatcher and William F Buckley Jr. touch on a variety of subjects including economic incentives, minimum wage and redistribution of wealth.  Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

With all due respect, William Buckley's idea of a free society, even though was similar to Margaret Thatcher's, was actually fairly different. 

Both Buckley and Thatcher believed in economic freedom and private enterprise, as well as at least a certain degree of personal freedom. But the size of the U.K. Government actually went up under Prime Minister Thatcher's tenure as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the 1980s. 

Prime Minister Thatcher also believed in a safety net for people who actually needed it. What separated Prime Minister Thatcher from British Socialists, is that didn't believe in a cradle to grave welfare state there to take care of anyone who chose not to work. And she believed that everyone, including people on public assistance, should be encouraged to get an education and work for a living, if they were physically and mentally able.

Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand- Altruism (1979)

Source:Fully Booked Club- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand on altruism.

“Context: This article looks at the virtue of selfishness & the vice of altruism, according to Ayn Rand‘s philosophy – widely referred to as “objectivism”. Rand is a Russian-American writer and philosopher, best known for her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She has also published two collections of essays: The Virtue of Selfishness and For The New Intellectual. She is a strong advocate for rationality and capitalism (while being a firm critic of mysticism and socialism).”

From the Fully Booked Club 

“Ayn Rand: Why Altruism is Wrong” 

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

From Common Sense Capitalism 

Objectivist Philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Phil Donahue Show in either 1979 or 1980. They talked about Russia pre-Communist Revolution and after the Communist Revolution there. She lived in Russia pre-Soviet Union as a little girl and after the Communists took over a teenager and young woman. I think living through communism and left-wing collectivism and authoritarianism, explains a lot as far as why she became an Objectivist and wanted to get out of Russia and live in the free world.

Source:Phil Donahue Show- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on the Phil Donahue Show, in 1979 or 80.

Ayn Rand on Russian communism on the Phil Donahue Show from 1979, saying that Russian Communists believed that people weren’t people, but collections of the state, subjected to whatever the state wanted them to do.

The main difference between authoritarianism and liberal democracy is, authoritarianism depending on what type of authoritarianism we are talking about, it’s all about the state. A big centralized government, where all power is centralized in one political party, generally.

In an authoritarian state, the people are there not to live their lives, but to serve the state. And once they get out of line, decide to live their own lives, or speak out against the state, they do that at their own risk. And risk severe harm to not only them, but their families as well.

This is the main difference between living in an authoritarian state which is what Soviet Russia was, or living in a liberal democracy like the United States. In a liberal democracy and free society, people tend to control their own lives. And then have to deal with the consequences of their decisions for good and bad.

In a communist stat (to use as an example) individuals don’t exist. It is all about the state and the state is the society. Meaning the big central government decides what everyone needs and what everyone can do and use and just about everything else.

In a communist state, everyone in the country, is there to serve the state and especially the Communist Party and communism. Not there to make the best out of life that they can for themselves and their families.

If freedom scares you and you don’t think you would be able to manage your own life, trying doing time in jail, or prison. Or living in a communist society, because freedom won’t be something that you would ever have to deal with. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

Reason Magazine: 'Condoms, Porn, and L.A.'s Measure B: The Most Bizarre Ballot Initiative of 2012'

Source:Reason Magazine- getting off on porn. Actually, I'm not completely sure about that.

"On November 6, voters in Los Angeles County, California will get a chance to vote on whether actors in porn movies filmed in L.A. county must wear condoms and practice safe sex on camera.

The Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act - also known as Measure B - is a response to ongoing stories about outbreaks of sexually transmitted diseases among workers in one of Southern California's most lucrative industries.

"Self regulation has failed miserably when it comes to the porn industry," says Michael Weinstein of the Aids Healthcare Foundation, one of the main backers of Measure B.

"This isn't the government's place," counters Steven Hirsch of Vivid Entertainment, one of the country's leading producers of X-rated fare. "In a time when we have huge budget deficits, [county officials] are going to take their time and energy to figure out how to police an industry that does a fine job of policing itself."

From Reason Magazine

In other words: LASP (or the Los Angeles Sex Police, is Big Government at its worse, because it's using Big Government to protect people from themselves. I don't have any problem regulating the porn industry and I would even take it further and legalize and regulate prostitution industry, but actually forcing people to do things for their own good,

James Paris & Robert G. Yetman: ‘JFK Assassination: Executive Order 11110 – Did The Fed Kill JFK?’

Source:Amazon- from James Pari's and Robert Yetman's book. I'm sure there's a big enough market of crazy, escaped morons to make this book profitable.

“There are dozens of JFK assassination conspiracy theories, but this book deals with a scenario that most have never considered. In June of 1963 President Kennedy authorized the Treasury Secretary to issue $4.3 billion dollars in Silver Certificate currency. This currency could be issued directly by the U.S. Treasury without the involvement of The Federal Reserve. Executive Order 11110 was signed by President Kennedy just six months before his death and Silver Certificate currency would never be issued again.”

From Amazon 

This photo is from a video that Bill Still produced about the JFK Assassination with the same conspiracy theory in mind, that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas in 1963, because he signed that same executive order about the Federal Reserve in June that year. But apparently that video is not currently available online right now.

Source:FreeState Now- John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) 36th President of the United States (1961-63)

“Who killed President Kennedy? That may be the most hotly-debated question of the 20th century, and there’s no evidence it will be answered anytime soon. Tracy Smith reports on the state of the conspiracy, and talks to prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi and filmmaker Oliver Stone.”

Source:CBS News- filmmaker Oliver Stone is perhaps the President of the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theorists of America. But he has a lot of competition for that role, including from a lot of mental patients. His life, but I don't think I would want to be associated with people like that.

From CBS News 

President Kennedy, who is my number one political hero as a Liberal Democrat, was assassinated, because he was an anti-Communist, who was opposed to Fidel Castro and the Communist Republic of Cuba. Thats why he was assassinated at least as it relates to Lee Oswald.

If there were other people involved, like the Italian Mafia, they were opposed to him because Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s opposition and War on Organized Crime, then do that investigation and see what you can find out. Look at Dallas Organized Crime, especially as it relates to Jack Ruby.

JFK, was seen as a threat and an enemy, to the both the Far-Left (Socialists and Communists) in and outside of America. And the Far-Right, for his support of civil rights, equality, helping people in need and I’m sure other reasons. And of course the Italian Mafia in America because President Kennedy, failed to remove Fidel Castro and his Communist Regime, who eliminated their casinos from Cuba.

These warped ideas, from both the Far-Left and the Libertarian-Right, that Jack Kennedy, was assassinated by the CIA, or perhaps the National Security Council, or Vice President Lyndon Johnson, are exactly that. Which is warped, with no real foundation behind any of those theories.

Jack Kennedy, was President of the United States and was assassinated during the middle of the day during a parade in downtown Dallas, Texas. The only way you assassinate a man as powerful and well-protected as the President of the United States, is through private means. Someone who knows where the President is going to be and where he is. Who has a reason to do it and knows exactly what they probably be giving up. Lee Oswald and perhaps people who helped him, had that access and the tools and ability to carry out the assassination. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Sky News: Cesar Millan- 'Dog Whisperer, Rejects Cruelty Claims'

Source:Sky News- Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan.

Source:Real Life Journal

"Dog whisperer Cesar Millan has defended himself against claims that he is cruel to animals.

The allegations were made recently in a TV interview with presenter Alan Titchmarsh after tweeting animal-lover critics said the Mexican-born trainer used violence and even electric shocks to train the dogs.

But, Millan told Sky News, he made physical contact with the dog to distract the dog from the action it was about to take - for instance, stop the dog from going into fighting mode." 

From Sky News 

Dogs, are similar to humans in this sense, that they have to get to know you and trust that you aren't there to hurt them, before they will open up to you and trust you. And once you accomplish that and you know how to approach them, they'll love you. 

I have a hard time buying (and not because money is tight) that Cesar Milan abuses dogs or any other pets. Of course he could be an Oscar caliber actor on his show and that his show is nothing but an act. And that while he pretends to be this great animal psychologist on TV, in his free time he beats dogs and cats with a whip for the hell of it, or to take out on his anger at whatever is pissing off at the time. I just don't see that.

He reminds me of the great adolescent phycologist who works with lets say troubled urban high school students who grow up in rough neighborhoods. Where their father is not around and if their mother works at all, she works two low-income jobs just to support her kids and doesn't have the time to look after them during the day. But this great teacher or psychologist who is probably a former Marine, or something comes in and teaches these kids how to behave and get with the program. And how important school is to their future and all of that. 

It's hard to imagine someone like Cesar Millan as a bullshit artist, who talks a great game in public, but in private is just as bad as the assholes that he has turned around made productive people out of.

Cesar Milan, at least to me, seems like that guy you want to have around when your dog doesn't know how to behave, or has no interest in behaving and you've tried everything else that you can think of. And you're just desperate, so you go on national TV and bring your home problems to the public. (Talk about desperation) So you bring in the Dog Whisperer to teach your dog how to behave and become a responsible member of the family. How to respond to their parents and other family members. Respond to commands, how to behave on walks, even how to go to the bathroom and anything else. 

I have a hard time believing that someone like Cesar Millan, who clearly loves dogs and has such great skill at training them, would in private be abusive to them and perhaps even criminal. 

Team For Anti Oppress: 'GROWING UP IN PRISON JUVENILES SERVING LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE'

Source:Team For Anti Oppress- with a look at life without parole for juveniles.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Exerpt from: A short documentary about juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole. 

Original short documentary made by Josh Sahib and Sydney Prather. The University of Alabama: Documenting Justice, 2010." 

From Team For Anti Oppress 

I get the idea of if you commit the crime, you should do the time, regardless of how old you were when you committed the crime. But we have adults who commit murder who get out of their crimes while they're still alive. Adolescents simply don't have the same rights, freedoms, and responsibilities, that adults have. So because of that they shouldn't pay the same prices for their crimes that adults do. 

If someone commits murder as a teenager, I'm all in favor of sentencing that person to 25 to life, 30 to life, 40 to life, and make that person have to go through all sorts of steps just before they're even eligible for a parole hearing. Like taking personal responsibility for their crimes and being really sorry for their crimes. But just to throw that person's life away with no hope of ever having freedom on the outside, seems almost as cruel as what the offender did to their victim or victims. 

Henry Hanrahan: ‘The 100 Greatest Movie Insults of All Time’

Source:Method Shop- I hope you get the point of this post. Otherwise you're going to have to answer to the Sergeant.

Source:Real Life Journal

“As you might have guessed from its title, “The 100 Best Movie Insults of All Time” is a video montage of the greatest movie insults. It was made by an evil genius named Harry Hanrahan. Check out his YouTube page when you get a sec and watch this clip of the best movie insults when the kids are not around! Also, it’s definitely NSFW.”

From Method Shop

"The 100 Greatest Film Insults of All Time"

Source:Carl Barter- Paul Gleason, in the great comedy The Breakfast Club from 1985. Speaking of greatest insults: that movie has a lot of the best insults ever. RIP

From Carl Barter 

What I get out of this video, is that we shouldn’t beat around the bush. If we are really pissed at someone or see them as complete losers and don’t give a damn about what they think, we should simply just tell them: “don’t beat around the bush, tell them what you really think”.

I’m perfectly cool with that, the only thing is I tend to go out-of-my-way not to be around people I see as complete assholes or morons. Call me crazy, but I don’t like hanging out with assholes or morons. I know more than I care to admit to and I tend to want to be at least a zip code away from them so I don’t have to admit that I actually know that person. Like if I’m ever under oath having to testify about their latest boneheaded screwup.

Now, if I just happen to be around an asshole who thinks they are as big and great as Godzilla, even though a baby could step on them and they get in my face and we have a little argument, by all means I’ll more than defend myself especially verbally, if simply laughing at them and trying to move on doesn’t work. There are times that assholes need to know what they are, if anything to give them incentive not get into someone else’s face in the future and bring a squirt gun to a machine gun fight. And I’m talking about real machine guns with real bullets, not a water machine gun.

Insults obviously have their place in life and without them some people would have no idea about big of a loser or asshole they are. Because they would never get it anyway and need that light to go off in their head and to get the point that they have serious flaws that need to be addressed. My issue is how you go about insulting someone. Do you bring yourself down to the level of the asshole that you’re putting down, or do you actually put some thought into how you critique that person.

Do you tell the asshole:”holy shit, you’re a fucking moron!” Or do you put some thought like: “I would call you a fucking moron, but that would be an insult to fucking morons”. And there was a similar line like that in this video.

Also swearing, if you have to swear to put someone down, you’re probably not much better off than the person you’re putting down. I realize how popular cussing and swearing is today and I get that and use it myself, but mostly when I’m pissed or shocked about something. Something like: “holy shit! The Washington Redskins actually won a game”. If you are familiar with 2012 Redskins, or the Redskins in recent years, you know winning is like a holiday for them. It doesn’t happen that often and sometimes they even go months without winning.

I like put downs or insults that come with thought. I mean if you were to call me an asshole, mother fucker, go down the line, the most you’ll get from me is a smirk, because I’m probably laughing about the brain cramp you just had coming up with that.

If you’re going to call someone stupid, give them an example of how stupid they are. “When God was passing out the brains, it was your day off, so you didn’t get one. Or he passed on you, because he didn’t think you were worth the effort or would try to sell your own brain”. You want to put me down or impress me with an insult, then impress and put some real thought into what you are trying to say. 

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Chris Preble: 'Why Expanding America's Military Strength Puts The U.S. at Risk'

Source:Reason Magazine- CATO Institute national security analyst Chris Preble.

"People think that strength is a function of how much you spend," says Christopher Preble, Vice President for Defence and Foreign Policy Studies at The Cato Institute. "We've confused having military strength with having the ability to actually make things happen."

Preble sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie at FreedomFest 2012 to discuss military spending, the Obama administration's handling of Libya, and Preble's 2009 book, The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous and Less Free.

Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by around 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians a year. ReasonTV spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks.

For an ever-growing playlist, go here." 

From Reason Magazine

American military strength is not about how much money we spend on our military or how many people we can kill. But how effective we are in influencing the rest of the world, to make it as safe as possible, to make America as safe as possible from foreign threats.

Cato Institute: Robert A. Levy: 'The Differences Among Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians'

Source:The Cato Institute- Robert A. Levy.

"Libertarians are neither conservative nor liberal. Cato Institute chairman Robert A. Levy explained the differences at Cato University on July 31, 2012." 

From The Cato Institute

My response to Robert Levy is essentially this: it depends on what you mean by Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian. 

According to Wikipedia: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy." 

According to Wikipedia: "Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social institutions and practices.[1][2] The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the status quo of the culture and civilization in which it appears. In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights.[3] Conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that guarantee stability and evolved gradually.[2] Adherents of conservatism often oppose progressivism and seek a return to traditional values." 

According to Wikipedia: "Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's violation of individual liberties; emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.[2] Libertarians often share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems." 

From Wikipedia 

Now, according to Robert Levy, what he calls liberal, is what the rest of the developed world calls social democrat or socialist: someone whose essentially always trying to advance the size of the national state to benefit the populist as a whole, even if that means limiting or subtracting individual freedom and choice. 

And also according to Robert Levy, what he calls conservative, is what the rest of the world would call a religious conservative or religious democrat, in some places like Turkey, perhaps a theocrat: someone who believes in a real amount of economic freedom and even property rights, as long as what people are doing with that freedom is inline with the religious democrats idea of personal morality. But the religious democrat is not big on personal freedom and autonomy and believes the state should be used to sanction people who make even personal choices that violates the religious democrat's idea of personal morality. Even if no one is actually hurt by the personal choices that individuals make. 

My idea of what it means to be a Liberal (which I'm proud to be) is inline with Wikipedia's. The reason why we have terms like Liberal and Socialist, is those two political factions are actually different from each other ideologically. They might share the same goals and values, but differ greatly on the role of government in society. 

I also share Wikipedia's notion of what it means to be a Conservative. The only thing that I would add to it is that Conservatives believes in conserving. And when you are talking about government and politics, that means conserving the U.S. Constitution and the in individual rights that come with it, as well as our form of limited government. Not blowing up the U.S. Constitution to either meet short-term political objectives, or to impose some religious philosophy on the rest of the country.

Reason Magazine: 'Are We In the Final Days of Marijuana Prohibition?'

Source:Reason Magazine- high on marijuana. (Pun intended)

"There' a rising tide of acceptance of the fact that people are going to smoke marijuana, and it's like the prohibition against alcohol in the 1930s. There's a recognition that perhaps the laws are causing more harm than the drugs themselves," says Rick Steves, author and travel host.

Steves and others attended "The Final Days of Prohibition" conference in downtown Los Angeles in early October. The conference was put on by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and Reason TV was on the scene to ask about the future of marijuana laws in the U.S., particularly in the upcoming election where the states of Oregon, Washington, and Colorado all have marijuana legalization initiatives on the ballot." 

From Reason Magazine

The War on Drugs, especially as it relates to marijuana, is a perfect example for why I don't believe most Americans are stupid, because we are waking up as a country to fact of how stupid this prohibition is.

Learn Liberty: Antony Davies- 'What Can We Cut to Balance the Budget'

Source:Learn Liberty- Professor Antony Davies giving a little lecture about the Federal budget.

"If the U.S. government cut all government services except Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and payments on the debt, federal spending would still outpace revenues. Prof. Antony Davies argues that there are not specific cuts that will enable government to balance the budget. He says, "Nothing less than a redesign will solve this problem." That redesign should begin by determining what the proper role of government is." 

From Learn Liberty

To use hyper-partisan, left-wing Democratic language but do it in a paraphrase: we can't literally balance the Federal budget on the backs of poor people. Even if you like that idea, the money simply isn't there. 

The non-Social Security-Medicare-Medicaid, social welfare budget is around 50 billion-dollars, in a Federal budget of about 4 trillion-dollars. We have an annual budget deficit of over a trillion-dollars today. 

You could eliminate the entire non-Social Security-Medicare-Medicaid budget and programs, and still be 900 billion-dollars short of balancing the Federal budget. Antony Davies didn't use this language in his video, but that's essentially what he's saying here.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- 'How President Obama and Democrats Can Appeal to Libertarians'

Source:Reason Magazine- Obama/Biden 2012.

"The 2012 presidential race is likely to be a real squeaker. According to most polls, it's in a tie situation and there's little reason to believe anything is going to change drastically between now and November.

If Barack Obama and the Democrats are going to win, they will need every vote they can muster. So maybe the party of stimulus spending, Dodd-Frank, and the broccoli mandate is willing to turn libertarian this time around.

To be sure, Obama's economic and regulatory policies have rightly irradiated him with most libertarians, but there's still little love lost among libertarians for the GOP. When they last controlled the White House and Congress, Republicans spent wildly, expanded government at every level, meddled in people's personal choices, and charted a disastrous foreign policy. If the GOP faithful is lukewarm about Mitt Romney, voters who favor less government spending and more social tolerance are even less enthusiastic. 

So if Obama and the Democrats explicitly move libertarian on some issues, anything could happen. 

Here are three ways that Obama might win at least some of the 10 percent to 15 percent of libertarian-minded voters who believe in shrinking the size and scope of the federal government."

From Reason Magazine

Well to be cynical for a minute, (not that I've never done that) if President Obama were serious about appealing to Libertarians ( and perhaps the Tea Party and Communists as well) this is what he would do.

President Obama would call for the elimination of the New Deal and our broader public safety net.

President Obama would say the 1964 Civil Rights Acts has outlived it's usefulness and call for repealing that and perhaps the same thing with the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Law.

President Obama would say America should no longer be part of NATO and the United Nations. We're cutting off foreign aide, period.

President Obama would call for the elimination of the FBI and perhaps the entire U.S. Justice Department. As well as Education, Labor, Energy, EPA, etc.

President Obama would call for going back to the not so gold standard.

President Obama would say the War on Drugs is not only a failure but 12 year olds should be allowed to use cocaine, if they make that choice themselves.

President Obama would say that Americans are too stupid to elect our own U.S. Senators and that our legislatures with all their wisdom should elect our upper members of Congress for us.

And I could go on, but to not waste anyone's time (especially my own) I'll stop here, because you get the point and we all have better things to do.

If President Obama is serious about appealing to Libertarians and neutralizing some of the Gary Johnson vote, this is what he would do.

He would move to decriminalize marijuana, at least in this sense, that if States legalize it, the Federal Government would no longer enforce marijuana prohibition in States, that have already decided to legalize marijuana. That would help, but coming out in favor of legalizing marijuana and regulating it like alcohol, would be much better for Liberals such as myself and Libertarians. And then come out against the War on Drugs all together. That we should stop arresting people and sending them to prison, for their own good, even jail and prison is bad for them.

Come out against the Patriot Act and indefinite detention.

Real tax reform that eliminates corporate welfare all together. Eliminates wasteful tax loopholes and lowers rates on everyone.

A defense policy that no longer defends developed nations around the World that can afford to defend themselves, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. And use these saving to help pay. Down the debt and deficit and invest in special forces and operations, to concentrate on terrorists groups that would attack us.

Pickup on Gary Johnson's idea of block granting the safety net to the States, with resources to run those programs would be another idea. The problem with this strategy, is that it would be way to late to attempt now, because President Obama would end up doing what he's finally ready to go after Mitt Romney for, which is flip flopping. He would end up reversing course on several key positions, relating to the War on Drugs, Patriot Act, indefinite detention and marijuana as a whole. Now in 2012 it's too late for the President to do it now, but if he gets reelected and idea worth looking into in a second term.

If you're President Barack Obama running for reelection in 2012 spending your first four years not just trying to get America out of the Great Recession, but back to full recovery allowing for the economy to start growing strongly again and you're serious about appealing to Libertarians and so-called Left-Libertarians the Gary Johnson's of the world would your best opportunity here, you target issues where you yourself as a Progressive and moderate Liberal where you could have issues in common with Left-Libertarians. Like civil liberties, defense policy, foreign affairs, civil liberties. Instead of completely flip flopping on all your core issues and ideas that have gotten you to the White House in the first place. 

Lew Rockwell: Daniel J. Sanchez: 'Vote For Liberty by Not Voting'

Source:Daniel J. Sanchez- is a columnist for Lew Rockwell.

"He may not be perfect, but at least he is better than Obama." Even some former Ron Paul supporters have given this line as an excuse for supporting Mitt Romney for the United States Presidency.

The line betrays a deep misunderstanding of what liberty means.

As many libertarians have already pointed out, Romney is not nearly as different from Obama as is commonly supposed. But more importantly, in some vital ways he is actually worse.

The "better than Obama" way of thinking implicitly throws the entire anti-war aspect of libertarianism under the bus. The thinking runs as follows: "Romney may be expected to have an even more imperialist foreign policy than Obama, but he is better than Obama on domestic economic affairs, and that is obviously what matters most."

This is in stark contrast to Ron Paul's own way of thinking. Ron Paul may be in the same party as Romney. But this by no means indicates that Paul himself would consider Romney an improvement over Obama. In fact, it is probably more likely that the prospect of the neocons returning to full power in Romney's wake is more frightening to Paul than the prospect of Obama being given a chance to double-down on his domestic agenda." 

From Lew Rockwell

You vote for liberty by voting for candidates who believe in it. And not voting for people who claim that big government is a problem, but only speak out against big government, when it has something to do with the economy or religion. But won't take stands on critical social issues and civil liberties, because they say the election is about the economy. 

In other words, if you believe in liberty, don't vote for so-called Christian-Conservatives (even though they don't believe in conserving anything) or so-called Progressives (who are Socialists in actuality) because the so-called Christian-Right will attack our social freedom. And Socialists will go after our money and even what comes out of our mouths and in some cases even, what goes into our mouths.

So, yes, I agree with Daniel Sanchez here. If you don't want more Federal involvement into the economy and don't want taxes and regulations to go, don't vote for President Obama. But if you don't want more American military intervention into the rest of the world, don't vote for Governor Romney. And vote for Governor Gary Johnson instead.

Reason: Anthony Fisher- Jessica Blake & Erik Jenson on The Exonerated: 'True Stories of The Innocent Sprung From Death Row'

Source:Reason Magazine- talking about "The Exonerated"

Source:Real Life Journal 

"This play is neither left-wing nor right-wing. We don't have an agenda, our job is to stay out of the way and just let the people tell their stories," says Erik Jensen, co-author (with wife Jessica Blank) of The Exonerated, a one-act documentary play depicting the true-life experiences of exonerated Death Row prisoners. The Exonerated is celebrating its 10th anniversary with a limited run at the Culture Project in New York City.

Jensen and Blank talk with Reason TV's Anthony L. Fisher about how the play influenced former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute the sentences of Illinois' Death Row prisoners to life imprisonment, the support of the Innocence Project, and what life is like for freed prisoners upon returning to society.

The play is directed by actor Bob Balaban and runs through December 2nd, 2012. The Exonerated features a rotating cast including Broadway regulars and well-known performers such as Stockard Channing, Brain Dennehy, Steve Earle, Marg Helgenberger, Christine Lahti, Delroy Lindo, Lyle Lovett, Michael McKean, Joe Morton, Chris Sarandon, Martin Short, and Trudie Styler. The cast also includes two exonerated prisoners playing themselves: Kerry Max Cook and Sunny Jacobs.

About 4.30 minutes. Produced by Anthony L. Fisher. Camera by Jim Epstein."

From Reason Magazine

Anyone whose pro-death penalty and I’m one of them, should be in favor of a long appeals process. To make sure that we get the right people, so to speak and not rush to put to death the wrong people. Not an appeals process that extends the process indefinitely, but that allows inmates and lawyers to bring new appeals, as long as they can bring new evidence that suggests that they may be innocent. So we are always executing the right people and not putting to death the wrong people.

That is the only way to make sure that the death penalty can be applied fairly. Putting the wrong person to death even by accident, whether you’re talking about manslaughter, or giving the wrong person the death penalty, is not a mistake that you can take back. I would be fine with a short appeals process without the death penalty. Because if the convicted murderers lawyers truly believe their client is innocent, they can still work on the case. And if they find evidence that proves their client is innocent, they can always present that evidence and open that case back up.

Every pro-death penalty person, especially if they consider themselves to be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time, should be in favor of a death penalty case like this. Because it makes their case for the death penalty better. That there isn’t a rush to put someone to death. Because they know if the person is guilty they’ll never leave prison anyway. And it gives opponents of the death penalty less evidence and a smaller case to use against the death penalty. And they would have a harder time saying that innocent people have been put to death because of the death penalty. 

Liberty Pen: Walter E Williams: 'Departure From Liberty'

Source:Liberty Pen- George Mason Professor Walter E. Williams.

"Professor Williams discusses the impact of America's departure from Constitutional principles  on individual liberty. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

Whenever Americans lose some of their freedom, they really only have themselves to blame, by voting for and reelecting politicians that pass new taxes and regulations on them. And pass legislation that weakens our constitutional rights and civil liberties. Things like the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, the so-called War on Drugs, and so-forth.

Where I disagree with Walter Williams and where I believe a lot of so-called Libertarians (whether Walter Williams is a Libertarian or not) is labeling everything that government does that they disagree with as unconstitutional. He said in his lecture that it says in the Constitution that one of the roles of the Federal Government is to: 

"The Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare,” and then Professor Williams contradicts himself and says that nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the authority to give farm subsidies and a whole host of other Federal programs. 

Whatever you think of the public safety net, it's constitutional under the Welfare Clause and perhaps Commerce Clause. I think Libertarians (whether they're self-described Libertarians or not) would be better off trying to make the case for why they oppose this government program or that one, instead of labelling everything that government does that they disagree with, as unconstitutional.

The Daily Buzz: Deidre Hall and Lynne Bowman

Source:Deidre Hall- Deidre Hall & Lynne Bowman on The Daily Buzz.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Days of Our Lives star and author Deidre Hall and her friend and coauthor Lynne Bowman discuss their books and their appearance at the Southern Women's Show in Orlando on the Daily Buzz, October 12 2012."

From The Daily Buzz

Deidre Hall, at least to me is the ultimate American Sweetheart. She’s gorgeous yes, but she is so freakin cute, baby-face adorable really and still is, now in her mid sixties. She doesn’t look much older now more than five years ago when I started watching the reruns of the soap operas as night. Because I had to work during the day.

Everything Deidre does, even the way she sits down and moves around or even talks on the phone and of course the way she speaks, makes me want to go, aw! Because she so sweet and has been one of the top soap actress’s, for what thirty years now. And has been on one of the top three soap operas ever since. Days of Our Lives, to go along with General Hospital, which is the best one of the bunch. And The Young and The Restless as well. And she’s just as sweet and funny in real life apparently, as she is on Days.

Russia Today: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: 'Proof Mitt Romney & Oaul Ryan are Consumed by the Libertarian Utopian Me Society'

Source:Russia Today- The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann, courtesy of President Vladimir Putin's Russian Federation.

"Proof Mitt Romney & Oaul Ryan are Consumed by the Libertarian Utopian Me Society" 

From President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today. This post was updated June 24, 2022. Since the Russian Federation has unlawfully invaded the Sovereign Republic of Ukraine, Russia Today (which is part of Vladimir Putin's propaganda machine) it's no longer available on YouTube in America, Russia Today is the network that carries with The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann, so you can't see his video here about Ayn Rand, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and the 2012 presidential election. 

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya (Russian: Россия Сегодня))[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television or free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[64] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content." 

From Wikipedia

I have a real hard time believing that Ayn Rand would see either Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan as Libertarians today especially since both Governor Romney and Representative Ryan both believe in some form of a safety net. 

Apparently according to Thom Hartmann, if you don't subscribe to his brand of big government socialism, you are selfish. Thats basically what he says in this editorial, that anyone who believes that the wealthy shouldn't have to pay high taxes, you are selfish and part of some type of "Me Society". 

Mr. Hartmann goes from attacking libertarianism when it comes to the economy, to speaking in favor of socialism, thats it's the job of government to take from the wealthy and spread that money around, so its more evenly divided throughout the economy. And not take from the rich and directly give it to the poor but have the Federal Government take that money from the rich and use it to take care of the poor. Not use it to empower the poor but literally take care of them. Which is a classical Socialist notion, that there should be such thing, as wealthy, middle or poor people, that we are all equal and its the job of government to bring this about.