Rob Bluey: Lou Dobbs Tonight- 'The Rise of the European Superstate'

Source:Rob Bluey- Sally McNamara, is a foreign policy analyst for the Washington based right-wing political action network The Heritage Foundation.

"Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN, June 18, 2007"  

From Rob Bluey

Europe in some ways at least East of the United Kingdom West of the Slavic states and perhaps South of Scandinavia (and this will be the end of the geography segment of this post) have been somewhat at least moving to a United Europe (whether its called the European Union or something else) for about sixty years now. 

After World War II with the creation of the European Union (Europe's own version of the United Nations) partially in response to the Soviet Union and the Cold War but also for economic reasons, Mainland Europe East of the United Kingdom and West of the Slavic states (I'm sorry) is a region of around 400M people with a total GDP approaching the United States with similar living standards. 

So Europe 60 years ago figured they would be better off working together including a single currency that started around 2000. Instead of several countries that are small compared with the biggest countries in the world both physically and population working by themselves. 

Europe figured if they worked together and traded they as a union would have a bigger say in the world, then if they were all by themselves. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc could all be states or provinces in America, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, China, Russia etc,  but together they would be a huge country both physically about the size of Mexico. And in population, together they would be bigger than America. And by in-large the European Union has been a huge success. 

Europe does have a bigger more influential say in the world united than they would separately. And all of the large States in the European Union are all Economic powers. The question is how far down this road of unifying would the European Union go. 

I personally would like to see them come up with a unified defense force that could take a lot of pressure off the U.S. Military as well as a unified foreign ministry and see both of these organizations run by the E.U. Executive for the same reasons. But how much farther down this road of unification would Europe go, because they already have a President, an executive branch, and an elected legislature, as well as a high court. 

Personally I don't see the United Kingdom ever becoming part of the European Union as one Nation. I believe they'll always hold on to their independence. But I could see France, Germany, perhaps Ireland and economic boost they would get out of that as being a state instead of a tiny country of around 4M people. I could see Spain, Italy and a lot of the smaller European nations. 

Another issue would be borders, how far would a United Europe go, economically most if not all the Slavic states aren't ready to be in the European Union. And they all have questionable human rights records that the EU takes seriously, which is why Turkey has never made it into the European Union. 

I could see a United Europe that lets say included South Ireland, but not Britain and then went from western mainland Europe to the Baltic States, perhaps even Poland thats moved quickly down the road of being a liberal democracy or a social democracy. And then going as far south from Portugal to Italy, with the Balkan States not ready for the EU yet. 

European unification would make Europe a super state of 400M people or so and about the size of Mexico physically. And perhaps the largest economy in the world. But if this were to happen, it shouldn't be forced on Europeans and they should have to approve it. 

Personally a United Europe would be great for the United States when it comes to our foreign policy and national security, because we would have another strong partner on our side that could take a lot of pressure off of us. But we would also have another economic competitor with a lot of money that would be able to invest it all over the world. This wouldn't be for us to decide but the European people to deal with and decide one way or the other.

Liberty Pen: Walter E Williams- 'Civil Rights Assumptions: No Perfect Society'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Walter E. Williams, talking about civil rights and poverty in America.

"Professor Williams dissects the fundamental assumptions of the ethnic grievance industry:Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

America will never get past its legacy of racial. ethnic, religious or gender bigotry, that will always be with us. And no matter what we'll ever do, we'll never have a perfect society with no discrimination and where everyone is equal economically or anything else. 

We are all individuals with our own skills and abilities and its really up to us as a society to decide for ourselves what we do with our skills, whether we live up to our full-potential or not. 

That doesn't mean we should have the goal to having the best society that we can with as little bigotry as possible, knowing we'll never have a perfect society but that we shoot for this goal that we'll never achieve, to build the best society as possible. 

Just because some people's in society haven't done as well as others, doesn't mean we should say: "Look, they've been down for so long. That must mean there's no hope for them, they are destined to be on public assistance for their whole lives and generations after them. We might as well just leave them there." And use the American legacy of bigotry to make our case that we care about them, argue more social insurance programs that we'll leave them down, but with a little more money. And we'll also use this message to stay in power so we sound like we care and to raise more money in the future. 

I don't mean to sound partisan if this sounds like I'm coming from a slanted position on this, but this is how I feel. The last thing that we should do with people who are down because they don't have the skills to get up, is to leave them there. And make the bogus (to be kind)  argument as old as it is, that they are destined to fail because of bigotry. 

What we should do instead, is first have strong civil rights laws, that would prevent bigotry from happening in the first place. And then justly punish bigotry when it happens, for one to give the victims of bigotry justice but also to prevent bigotry from happening in the future. 

And then what we should do is have the best available education possible for the whole country. That has the best teachers possible, holds them accountable for good and bad. Pays them well enough to go into education in the first place and then give the parents as much choice as possible as to where to send their kids so they aren't forced to going to bad schools. 

And then also give the parents of low-income students the ability to finish their education and further their education so they to can get a good job. 

The American legacy of bigotry is a horrible evil thing that we'll never live down, just like Germany will never live down Nazism. But that doesn't mean because of this fact that we just give up and accept it. That certain groups of people aren't doing as well as others and that they will always be destined to be worse off than other groups. We should do is empower these people instead to be able to live up to their full- potential as well just like other groups of people in society.

CNN: The Newsroom With Randi Kay- Representative Ron Paul: 'CNN Official Interview: Ron Paul discusses solution for US debt'

Source:CNN- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking to CNN anchor Randi Kaye.

"Presidential candidate Ron Paul discusses debt talks and his decision not to run for re-election." 

From CNN

Bringing the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq especially, are already on the table and will be part of any grand bargain if one is reached in raising the debt ceiling and getting our debt and deficit under control. 

As far as laying off public workers who aren't doing a good job and are a waste of tax payer money: I'm all for that, but it's not that easy. You have to figure out what public workers aren't doing a good job and in what agencies and departments. I mean we're are talking about a Federal public service of around 8M people, in a Federal budget of 3.7T$ where we borrow 40% of that to finance the Federal budget. But another problem would be that some of these employees and probably a lot of them, actually do a good job like in the military, FBI, Justice Department, FDA, the Health Service, State Department, and others. 

If you want to lay off low-performing public workers, I would start in Congress , in both Chambers and in both parties. Then I would work my way to the White House, the President and Vice President could stay. They still have eighteen months left on their terms and then I would work my way to the Supreme Court. 

Just saying you're going to lay off Federal workers, is way too broad, you should be more specific and put more thought in to it. And if you're talking more about laying off more departments and agency's, then you should also be more specific and lay out exactly where. I don't believe the old Ronald Reagan: "Cut and run or slash and burn" strategy is the most appropriate here.

A lot of times you can make government less expensive and more efficient by simply reforming it. For example do we really need hundreds or thousands of Federal programs, public welfare programs for the less- fortunate and others? Or do we need all of these programs to be run out of Washington?

I and Senator Tom Coburn who at times I've agreed with on these issues. Even though he's a Conservative Republican and I'm a Liberal Democrat, but Senator Coburn is a good fiscal Conservative who believes we simply don't need all of these programs and can no longer afford them. And we should look at block granting (sorry, thats a Washington term meaning turning them over to state and local government"s and giving them money to run them) programs like Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Public Housing, Medicare, Children's Health Insurance, etc. CHI is funded with tobacco tax by the way, hoping people would smoke and hurt their lungs to pay for health insurance which is good for people, but thats a different story. 

This would be a better approach in my view instead of the Federal Government trying to manage all of the social insurance programs all over the country and having them all report to Washington. My problem with it, is you would end one headache and start another. Because then the Federal Government would be left to regulate state and local government's to see how they are spending Federal taxes.

What I would like to do is see all of these social insurance programs reformed in a way, including Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. Where they would become non-profit independent services, not fully privatized at least not in the short-term, but they would have their own management and board of directors that they would select. With their own financing up front and then their clients would pay them back once they become self-sufficient. Like with Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Food Assistance. (To use as examples) Social Security and Medicare are already essentially fully funded, but both need to be reformed. 

These other programs would need their own revenue sources but this can all be done. This type of reforms would save taxpayers and the Federal Government, state and local government's, around a trillion dollars a year in appropriations. Because they would no longer have to collect the taxes to fund them and to manage them. And this is just the savings in our social insurance programs and I haven't gotten to the Defense budget yet. 

And the Federal Government can concentrate on what at least its done well historically, national security, Foreign Service, Health Service, law enforcement, and regulating, instead of trying to be everything to everybody.

The "cut and run slash and burn" strategy has proven not to work in the past, for one thing it just angers a lot of special interest groups. And another there are people who actually depend on these programs to help them to survive and you leave them with nothing. But what we can do is reform them in a way to make them more cost-effective and efficient.

TIME Magazine: Richard Stengel- Bill Gates: 'How To Fix Capitalism'

Source:TIME Magazine- talking to Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

"Microsoft founder and philanthropist, Bill Gates, talks to TIME Magazine editor Richard Stengel about creative capitalism & much more. Subscribe to:TIME."

From TIME Magazine

America isn't in the bad economic shape that it is in today because of capitalism or American capitalism. All developed nations in the world and some developing nations in the world, have their own version of capitalism or their own aspects. 

What they all have in common at least the developed nations, is they all have large private sectors. But the American economy isn't failing because of American capitalism, but our economy is failing right now with a lack of economic and job growth and massing debt and deficit, because we've moved away from American capitalism and aren't doing the things that we used to be great at, if not the best in the world. The institutions in our economy that made our economy the largest in the world, are no longer working. 

What made our economy great, was our people and our institutions and are people being able to use those institutions successfully, but those institutions are currently failing. What made our economy strong, was a package of vast economic freedom that was well regulated. Not over regulated or under regulated but well -regulated to prevent people from abusing each other unfairly in the economy and punish them when they do. 

Low taxes to encourage people to get a good education, get a good job and be productive and successful. But where everyone pays their fair share of taxes, with the wealthy paying more than everyone else. But not at such a high rate that they aren't encouraged to be productive and earn a good living. 

A good education system both public and private so our future workers could get the skills that they need to get a good job. Write now our public education system is failing to the point where we are no longer producing enough high-skilled workers and we now have to import high-skilled to fill these good jobs. We used to have one of the best public education Systems in the world if not the best and now we are ranked like 39th in the World. 

And a safety net that caught people who fell through the cracks and helped them back up on their feet. Instead of keeping them on public assistance indefinitely. 

 The last ten years or so we've been in a period of what's been described as Cowboy Economics where the wealthy no longer are required to pay their fair share of taxes. Where companies are encouraged to send jobs out of America, where regulations aren't enforced, where government borrows money instead of paying for their operations. 

Hopefully we are moving away from Cowboy Economics, but we won't get there over night. Even if we returned back to American capitalism tomorrow, it would be ten years before our economy is as strong as it was in 2007 before the Great Recession, because we've piled up so much debt, our living standards have fallen so far and we've lost so many jobs. Several million and now have an unemployment rate at 9.2% which is twice as high as it was in 2007. But we'll get there if we just get back to what we do best and start making things in America again.

Idea Channel: Free To Choose (1979) 'Milton Friedman: The Power of Choice'

Source:Idea Channel- Professor Milton Friedman, from part of his 1979 documentary, Free To Choose.

"An excerpt from the biography of Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman." 

From the Idea Channel

The power of choice: what does that mean exactly and I'm being serious at least for a second? Well, if you look at that phrase, the answer is in that phrase: choice is the freedom to choose, the Freedom for people to choose for themselves how to live their own lives. Put all the options on the table and let people decide for themselves what's best for them and their families. 

Freedom to choose is anti-monopoly (public and private) but its pro-unlimited, open free and fair competition. Don't let anyone control too much of the market and prevent and punish unfair abuses in the system. This is a concept that not only real Libertarians (not Anarchists) believe in, even though they may of invented the phrase, but something that Liberals and Conservatives believe in as well and I'm not talking about Democratic Socialists or Christian-Fundamentalists,  but the real things. 

The freedom for people to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting any innocent person with their freedom to live their lives. At risk of sounding partisan: a concept thats not popular with Socialists and other authoritarians. Their faith in people is lacking to put it mildly, especially compared with these other political factions. They essentially believe at least in some cases that people can't be trusted with freedom to live their own lives and that they essentially need to be taken care of by the central government, with a vast welfare state and in authoritarians case restrictions on how people can live their own lives. Even if they aren't hurting people with what they are doing. 

I recently got in a debate online with a Socialist on health care reform and this person was obviously in favor single payer health insurance. And I support a system of unlimited free and open competition thats regulated properly. And this person asked me what type of health insurance system I'm in favor of. And I said which I am and if you read this blog on a regular basis, you know that I'm in favor of a health insurance system that has freedom of choice for the patients to decide for themselves where they get their health insurance and health care. And that there could even be public health insurance as well as health care in this system. But the people would decide for themselves where they get their health insurance and health care. 

I basically laid out the French health care system in this discussion which is the main difference between a system like this and a single payer health care system. The person I debated literally did not understand the concept of freedom of choice and I explained it to them, but I did it in a humorous way, saying think about freedom of choice the freedom to choose, the answer is literally in those two phrases. 

One problem that I believe Socialists have with this phrase, is how simple it is. That they are used to complex things and policies, where people who are more in favor of individual freedom. Understand this phrase very well because its something they've always believed in.

Reason Magazine: Michael Moynihan- Interviewing Norway Progress Party Leader Siv Jensen: 'Norway's Myths & Realities'

Source:Reason Magazine- Siv Jensen, the Leader of the Progress Party, in Norway.

"In a country of exceptionally high rates of personal taxation and home to one of the world's most generous welfare states, Norway's Progress Party, which describes itself as a "classical liberal" organization committed to "personal freedom," is something of an anomaly. But it is an increasingly powerful anomaly, now ranking as the country's second biggest political party.

In August, Progress Party leader Siv Jensen sat down with Reason senior editor Michael C. Moynihan and explained that Norwegians are growing tired of "regulation, bureaucracy, and high taxes" and why the Scandinavian health care model is bad for America—and Scandinavia." 

From Reason Magazine

I'm glad to hear that there's another type of political party in Norway. That it's not just a country thats dominated by Democratic Socialists. That there is another choice, political party, ideology that people can choose. 

Norway has a ruling Socialist Party, but the opposition party is a Conservative Party called the Progress Party. So Norwegians definitely have a political choice, between Socialists and Conservatives and I'm sure other choices as well.

Either socialism or conservatism is definitely a choice. Interesting enough that a Conservative Party would call itself the Progress Party. I would think a party called the Progress Party would be a Socialist Party or a an actual center-left Progressive Party, but of course they can call themselves anything they want. 

Norway is not the only Nordic state in Scandinavia thats reexamining its welfare state and its democratic socialist policies. Sweden in 2010 elected a Conservative Party or conservative coalition (at least by Swedish Standards). In a country where the Democratic Socialists have been in power for a long time. And Scandinavia especially Sweden, is the socialist utopia the place that Socialists look at to make their case for socialism in their country.

Norway is lucky in a sense that they do have a clear choice in who they want to run their government. The ruling Socialist Party (or whatever they call themselves) and the opposition Progress Party. Which is actually a Conservative Party. Because they really do a get a real choice between democratic socialism and conservatism.

Where Democratic Socialists essentially believe and this might be putting it simply in collectivism. Where you essentially put all of the resources in a country all in one pot. Where no one is allowed to have "too much more than anyone else". And you do this with high taxes basically on everyone to finance a large welfare state for the whole country. Where the Central Government plays a big role in providing goods and services for the country. 

And then with the opposition party Conservatives who believe the best way to provide these goods and services for the country, is to give the people as much freedom as possible to get these services for themselves. So there's a clear choice for Norway.

I'm glad democratic socialism is alive and well in Norway, because Democratic Socialists are definitely democrats. And they believe in democracy and freedom, even though I disagree with them a lot on economic policy as well as foreign policy. But I'm also glad that there's another choice for Norway. And conservatism definitely represents a clear choice for Norwegian voters.

Common Sense Capitalism: 'Professor Milton Friedman- Versus a Socialist (1979)'

 

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman, debating a Socialist as part of his Free To Choose series, back in 1979-80.

"Milton Friedman Versus A Socialist"

America has never had a pure capitalist economy meaning a totally free market. The Federal Government has always been involved in our economy one way or the other whether its been subsidizing private enterprise like agriculture and other areas and even the Postal Service. And then of course we became less of a capitalist economy in the 1930s with the FDR New Deal and the creation of the American public safety net that has only expanded ever since with the highway system under President Eisenhower in the 1950s and then with the LBJ Great Society in the 1960s. 

We've never had a purely free market economy that Libertarians would like to see and of course we've never seen a Marxist-Socialist economy that Marxists would like to see in America, where the State owns the means and production of society, like with Cuba for example. Actually, no large developed nation in the world has a Marxist-Socialist economy. All of these developed nations including America, have a mix economy of capitalism and socialism. With a private sector and a public sector, with a lot of countries having larger public sectors than private sectors and with America where the private sector is large than the public sector. 

Any government program or agency is a form of socialism, not just Social Security and Medicare but anything that government runs is a form of socialism. Socialism in a lot of ways is a public service provided by government. America has always had a mix economic system when its worked well, that gives people a lot of economic freedom. But regulates how people interact with each other to prevent unfair abuses in the system. And that has a safety net that catches people who fall in the system but helps them back up to become self-sufficient. 

As much as Libertarians would like to see America have less government involvement in the economy, and as much as Democratic Socialists would like to see more government involvement in the economy like in Europe, we've never had either type of system of a totally free market or more big government involvement in the economy. 

When the American economy has worked well, we've had American capitalism. A system of vast economic freedom, low taxes, thats well-regulated. A quality public education system and a safety net that catches people who fall and helps them back up. We've never had a pure capitalist economy or a pure Socialist economy, because neither system is good enough to meet the needs of the people on its own.

The Asian Republican: 'Professor Milton Friedman - Productivity and Smaller Government (1978)'

Source: The Asian Republican- Professor Milton Friedman, in I believe 1978.

"Nobel laureate economist, Milton Friedman discusses Small Government and Productivity.  The point of this video is to demonstrate the issues debated in 1970 are the same issues debated in 1776 are the same issues debated in 2011." 

From The Asian Republican

This whole debate of big government vs small government that we've probably been having in America probably since the Founding Fathers were debating how they were going to establish the United States, I believe misses the point and I'll explain. 

Unless you believe in some type of authoritarianism and feel free to take your pick, guess what you believe in limited government. If you believe in some type of democracy which I believe most Americans do, which is a big reason why we live here and so many people have immigrated here, you're like me in this sense, that you believe in limited government and least a particular form of it. 

And guess this as well, you might not even be aware of it which I believe a lot of Americans would qualify as: if you're some type of democrat and I'm not talking about the Democratic Party my party by the way which I'm proud to be a member, but you are at least a democrat in the sense you believe in democracy and freedom, you believe in some type of limited government.

Whether you believe in some type of big government or small government, you believe in some form of limited government. All democrats across the political spectrum believe in some form of limited government. And why I say that it's very simple, all you have to do is know what limited government means. 

Limited government simply means you believe that government is limited in what it can and what it should do. That it has a limited role in society and that it can't do everything for everybody. Even Democratic Socialists believe in a form of limited government. Just they tend to believe that governments limits are in the foreign policy and national security as well as law enforcement areas. And that government shouldn't be trying to limit how people live their own lives. 

Socialist-Liberals- people who are liberal on social issues and socialist on economic policy,  tend to be very liberal when it comes to personal freedom. Just take a look at Switzerland which is a perfect example of this.

Just to be fair and not to sound partisan but truthful, even theocrats and Neoconservatives who are also democrats, again small d believe in a form of limited government. But they believe government's limits tend to be in the economy. But that government can regulate how people live their lives and don't tend to take civil liberties and constitutional rights as seriously as Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and Socialist-Liberals. 

My idea of limited government is fairly simple and yes limited: figuring out what government does well and what it does better than the private sector and what government can and should do that the private sector can't or shouldn't. And how best to fund it to make it the most cost-effective and efficient as possible. And it's all centered around protecting individual freedom. Whether it's national security, law enforcement and catching people who fall with a safety net. (So to speak) And help them up so they can have the freedom to live their own lives as they see fit, like the rest of the country. That's what limited government means to me: it's centered around protecting and promoting individual freedom.

PBS NewsHour: U.S. Representative Ron Paul- 'Freedom Is a Young Idea and We're Throwing It Away'

Source:PBS NewsHour- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) "The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." From Wikipedia." 

"Judy Woodruff sat down with Texas Rep. Ron Paul Wednesday to discuss his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination and the ongoing debt-ceiling negotiations. The interview is the first in a series of conversations with GOP contenders seeking to take on President Obama in the 2012 election. Read the transcript at:PBS ." 

From the PBS NewsHour

I agree freedom is a young idea as far as how it relates to world history, but the freedom is the idea that America was founded on, so it's not a new idea in American history. And speaking of freedom, Representative Ron Paul is a Libertarian running for President in the Republican Party. With two Classical Liberal candidates in Gary Johnson and John Huntsman and Dr. Paul he's the only Libertarian getting serious attention. 

The rest of the Republican presidential field, is made up of Neoconservatives and Christian-Conservatives. And Mitt Romney who wants to be everything to everybody, but is basically when he's not running for President an old school, Northeastern Progressive Republican. (Not your idea of what a Progressive is) . Who's been a big believer in individual freedom at least in the past, on things like abortion and gay rights, until he decided he wanted to win the Republican nomination for President and calculated that those positions wouldn't fly in the Republican Party. 

So Representative Paul really stands out in this Republican field, which is why I've been arguing the last few months at least that he no longer belongs in the Republican Party and should switch to the Libertarian Party. And some have argued to me that he would have no shot at becoming President in the Libertarian Party. 

My points to them are, first of all Ron Paul will never be President of the United States anyway, he will never get the Republican nomination in a party thats dominated by Christian-Fundamentalists and Neoconservatives, especially if Governor Rick Perry decides to run for President. And with the shape of the Libertarian Party today, he would never be elected President with them. And would have to spend a lot of resources just trying to get on state ballots and other things that President Obama and the Republican nominee will already have. 

But thats not my argument for Ron Paul to switch back to the Libertarian Party, where he was once a member and won their nomination for President back in 1988. Especially since Representative Paul is retiring from the House after this term. I believe with his ability to raise money, command mainstream media attention like here in this interview and reach out to young libertarians as well as Liberals and even Classical Conservatives. He could build the Libertarian Party into a major force in American politics and give them the ability to compete with Democrats and Republicans all over the country.

Ron Paul especially since he's retiring from Congress, could spend the rest of his political career (if he ever gets tired of running for President) building his message of maximize freedom and taking it nationally with a strong political party behind him and be the official Libertarian leader in America. Whether its the current Libertarian Party thats reformed and rebuilt or a new Libertarian Party.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- 'The Proper Role of Government'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman.

"Professor Friedman lectures on the proper role of government in a free society.  More videos and information on issues of liberty is available at:Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

What is the proper role of government, a question that has been debated before the United States was formed and has been debate around the world even longer. 

As I see it the role of government, is to protect innocent people's right to live their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Once they hurt an innocent person they are no longer free to live their own life as they see fit, because they just hurt someone else's freedom and will lose their freedom for some time as a consequence. 

Freedom is literally not free, people are held everyday for their own actions and these actions have consequences as a result of their freedom, good and bad. So innocent people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Doing something to them that hurts them in a way that they shouldn't be hurt. 

The role of government is to protect and promote innocent people's freedom and that everything else that government does in America is centered around that.

Whether it's public safety- To prevent people from hurting each other as well as prevent that.

Or national security- To prevent others from hurting the country.

Or government regulation- To prevent and punish abuses in the economy, when people hurt innocent people in a way that they shouldn't have. 

The safety net-  To catch people when they fall (so to speak) and help them back up so they can have their freedom as well. Because without the ability to support yourself and be self-sufficient, you're not really a free person, or as free as someone who can take care of themselves.

The whole role of the Federal Government is to protect innocent people's individual liberty. The ability for innocent adults to be able to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. 

The role of government is not to look after the general welfare of its people in the sense that try to regulate how people live their own lives. But regulate how people interact with each other.

The role of government is centered around one thing, with everything else being a part of that: to protect the individual liberty of innocent adults. The role of government is not to take care of people who are mentally and physically capable of taking care of themselves. But it can help people who can't take care of themselves to get the skills that they need to take care of themselves. 

And the role of government is not to reduce the level of freedom that people have to live their own lives by passing laws that make things that are currently legal, illegal and trying to tell people how to live their own lives. But instead educate the people so they have the intelligence to make their own decisions and are responsible enough to do that. And then hold them accountable for the decisions that they make themselves. 

Government is good at research and letting people know what consequences can come from certain decision-making. But they shouldn't tell people it is illegal to do this, simple because it may have dangerous consequences. 

CNN: Larry King Live- Ron Paul vs. Michael Moore- Health Care Reform (2009)

Source:CNN- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) debating filmmaker and New-Left politcal activist Michael Moore about health care reform, Larry King Live.

"Ron Paul vs Michael Moore sur Larry King CNN (vostfr)"  

From CNN

Is health care or health insurance a right: well let's see to put it simply its not a black and white issue and thats not a duck its really not that simple. If you're really sick and badly hurt and you go to an emergency room, yes they have to take care of you. If a doctor sees a hurt person somewhere and they can help that person. The doctor basically has to do whatever they can to help that person, pure and simple. So too that extent yes Americans have a right to health care and I doubt most people would disagree with that. 

But if someone is hurt on a street or on a road and someone drives by and does nothing to help the injured person, the person who ran away, whether they had a moral obligation or not, they are not legally or constitutionally responsible to help that person. And these are just two examples. 

Do Americans have a right to health insurance: of course not. It's not in the U.S. Constitution which protects and guarantees all of our rights. If you want more evidence, 50M out of a population of 310M people don't have health insurance or don't have enough health insurance. 

Now you could make a case that this is a big problem that the Federal Government should try to help solve. And I think the 2010 Affordable Care Act is a first step in that but legally the Federal Government doesn't have to do anything about it. Whether they have a moral responsibility or not which is debatable. 

You could make a very good case either way and I believe most Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Socialists and Independents believe the Federal Government should do something about health care reform or fix things that have already been done. It's just that all five of these political factions have their own approaches to solving this problem. But none of them have to, they are all interested in solving this problem because it's a big enough problem to solve. 

And having that many people uninsured and not being able to pay for their health care in any way on their own makes health care and health insurance more expensive for everyone else, thats why they are interested in solving this issue. Not because they have a legal or constitutional responsibility to do so.

Americans have a constitutional right to live free as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom essentially. But they are also with that freedom, responsible for their own actions in life good and bad. Because they are also responsible for taking care of themselves as well and are held accountable for their actions.

The Cato Institute: Dan Mitchell & Chris Edwards- 'Cut, Cap and Balance, the Debt Ceiling and Federal Spending'

 

Source:The Cato Institute- fellow Dan Mitchell.

"Cato Institute Scholars Dan Mitchell and Chris Edwards evaluate the plans offered by Republicans for lowering federal spending using a so-called "Cut, Cap and Balance" proposal that would make small cuts to federal spending in the short run, cap federal spending at a higher share of GDP than the last years of the Clinton Administration, and balance the federal budget using a tax-limited balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg. 

Visit Downsizing Government for more information on how to cut unconstitutional and irresponsible federal spending." 

From The Cato Institute

"Cut Cap and Balance" what does this mean: from what I've seen which isn't much. Under the House Tea Party plan is that they would bring the Federal Government down in size and revenue to around 20% within ten years. Basically what it was in 2008, the problem with that plan, whether you agree with that goal or not, is that the end of 2008 we had a one-trillion dollar deficit with the U.S. Government spending 22% of GDP and running huge deficits every year.

And actually I don't have a problem with the House Tea Party goal, but they don't lay out how to accomplish it. It's a piece of paper that says reduce the Federal Government by 20%, put a committee together and let them figure it out how to accomplish it. It's the ultimate punt Formation (excuse the football analogy, if that offends you) but it's getting to be that time of year again finally. Except they are punting on 3rd down and not even trying to finish the drive off. Its look this is what we want to do and you figure out how to accomplish it. 

If this plan had details in it, like this is where we believe the cuts should be made, here are some things that don't work very well. Here are some things we shouldn't be spending money on in the first place. And they go over the entire Federal budget and examine what should be cut and if anything where we should spend more money on and how to pay for it. To go along with the goal of getting the Federal Budget down to 20% of GDP within 5-10 years whatever the goal is. If this is what they were doing, then this plan would have some credibility instead of looking like a plan that was written by a small group of people. And then later they present it to a broader audience and tell them take it or leave it. 

Which is actually what the Democratic Senate is going to tell the Republican House: "We are leaving it and throwing it in the garbage where it belongs." And telling the House to go back to the drawing board and don't come back until you come up with something real that we'll consider. Which is exactly what Senate Leader Reid has already told House Speaker Boehner and the House hasn't even officially voted on "Cut Cap and Balance" yet.

The House Tea Party Caucus has once again proven why they don't belong in leadership and is another reason why John Boehner is the Speaker and they aren't. Because Speaker Boehner who I'm not a fan of but he is an adult in the room. Who if they let just do his job, will reach and agreement with Leader Reid and President Obama. And the Federal Government will be able to avoid defaulting as well as paying down its massive debt.

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman- On Collectivism (1978)

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, giving a speech about collectivism, in 1978.

"Despite its dismal track record, collectivism continues to hold appeal for some.  Professor Friedman discusses this dynamic. Source: Milton Friedman Speaks

Buy it:Free To Choose. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

What is collectivism? It’s a belief by Socialists (and others) that no one in society should have more than anyone else essentially. That we are all in it together and that we should all put our resources to make society better as a whole. Even if some people have the skills and are productive enough to get a lot more out of life (so to speak) than others. 

In a Socialist Collectivist Society ( their perfect world) there wouldn’t be any winners or losers essentially. We would all be even at least on paper. Now try imagining a sports event without any winners or losers, no champions, right: what would be the point of watching the game? Athletes would essentially be entertainers, what would be the point of teams getting better and acquiring better players and coaches. If you know the answers to these questions, I would suggest that you’re a collectivist, someone who believes in collectivism. Now, collectivism is a fine goal, even I will admit that, but that’s basically it a goal that you would see in a perfect world but not in real-life.

Imagine a world of no winners and losers, what would be the point of individual achievement and working hard and being productive as possible. Because the benefits that someone would receive from achieving those things, would be just as equal as the people who didn’t achieve on their own, who didn’t work hard, perhaps didn’t finish school, who weren’t productive. Someone who didn’t make them self the best person that they can be. 

Another issue with collectivism that I have is one of the ways that it achieves it by taxing people at really high rates to take care of people who aren’t productive enough to even take care of themselves. Which sends two bad messages in my view: it tells productive people that they shouldn’t work hard and be productive, because government is going to tax you so high, that you won’t see much of what you worked and well to produce. It also tells people that they don’t need to work hard and be productive, because the people who do those things will take care of you. And we would be left with a society of a lot of unproductive people.

Individualism or individualists (which I’m one) believe that people should be encouraged to get a good education to work hard and be productive as they possibly can. And then collect a lot of the earnings from their work to be able to spend as they please. Yes, pay their taxes based on their ability to pay, with the rich paying more than the middle class and poor and the middle class paying more than the poor. But not at such a high tax rate that it discourages people to earn a good living. 

This is how developed countries succeed, at least the large ones, where people have enough incentive to work hard and earn a good living. Individualism is not even a liberal, conservative or a libertarian value, but all three of these political ideology’s share it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman- Redistribution of Wealth (1978)

Source: Liberty Pen- Economics Professor Milton Friedman in 1978.

"Milton Friedman clears up misconceptions about wealth redistribution, in general, and inheritance tax, in particular:Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

The debate of whether there's redistribution of wealth or not, is a bogus debate. (To put it mildly) Of course there's redistribution of wealth and it's all over the world, at all levels of government. The debate is usually centered around whether government should highly tax successful wealthy people, in order to take care of the less-fortunate or not. But the problem with that argument, is thats not the only redistribution of wealth anywhere.

The highway system, Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, really any government agency or program is a form or wealth redistribution. And what do I mean by that (in case you were wondering) the definition of redistribution of wealth is to to take money from one person or a group of people to give to other people. This happens everyday without people complaining about it. Government takes money from taxpayers in New York to fund bridge, road, base in Texas, as examples.

Government takes money from taxpayers in Florida in payroll taxes to fund Grandpa's Social Security or Medicare in Arizona. Government takes money away from from Joe Jones construction worker again in payroll taxes, to fund John Smith auto mechanic's Unemployment Insurance in Detroit. And there are more examples than that, actually more examples than I'm and hopefully any sane person would be willing to count. 

These are all forms of redistribution of wealth, so when people say they are against all forms of redistribution of wealth, they are implying intentionally or not, that they are against Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, roads, national defense, etc. Perhaps they are not aware of this or they simply don't know any better what they are against.

The question is not whether we'll have redistribution of wealth or not, we will always have some form of wealth redistribution forever. Now people can argue if we should or not but either way, we will always have it. The real debate is to what degree of wealth redistribution we should have and what it should be used for. I'll just use one example and I'll use this example because I care about it a lot and blog about it a lot.

The War on Poverty, a war we've losing badly for about ten years now and you argue we've been losing this war for forty-five years and part of that has to do with wealth redistribution, Socialists say let's "soak the rich!" So government can take care of Joe and Jane and others who live in poverty. Well, a question comes to my mind anyway, should government be taking care of people who don't have the skills and money to take care of themselves.

It's not the role for government to rake care of people who can take care of themselves. And before you call me selfish or a scrooge or a jerk, (or use your own imagination) I'll explain: to take care implies intentional or not an indefinite amount of time that government funded by taxpayers will take care of the less-fortunate. That poor people don't need to better themselves and their worries are over. Because Uncle Sam will take care of them, leave it to your favorite uncle.

But this is what I would do to help the less-fortunate. Yes the wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes and that means a lot more than people who don't make nearly as much. But what I want to do with some of that tax revenue, is to empower low-income people to become self-sufficient, with education so they can get the skills that they need to get a good job and become independent. Which is a much different concept than, "soaking the rich!" And taking care of the less-fortunate through government.

It's not about whether we have wealth distribution or not, we've always had that and will always have that. The question is to what degree and what we do with it. The fact is to have a strong economy in America and any other major country in the world. Taxes on everyone have to be low enough but not too low. So there's enough incentive for people to go to school, get the skills that they need to earn a good living and be as independent of government for their financial survival as possible. Otherwise people aren't going to want to do these things, because government will end up with most of their money. Making them more dependent on government than they need to be.

The Advocate: 'Milton Friedman- Debates Naomi Klein'

Source:The Advocate- Professor Milton Friedman, on Phil Donahue in 1979. 

"Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." 

From The Advocate

This is a great debate except for the fact that Milton Friedman and Naiomi Klein never debated each other in person, as far as I know. Because thats a debate I would pay to see in person. But this is what debates are supposed to be about. 

Debates to me are not supposed to be (excuse the expression if it offends you) an ass slapping contest, where the two debaters take turns agreeing with each other and even go out-of-their-way to agree with the other. And it's really just the fine print that they disagree with if each other if anything.

Debates are supposed to be between to people that represent different visions and perhaps different political ideologies. In where the debaters disagree on most things if not everything but disagree with each other hopefully in a respectful way. And perhaps share the same goals in what they want to accomplish but have different visions in how to accomplish these goals. That in a perfect world or if you're a Socialist in Planet Utopia is what debates would look like at least to me.

The two competing visions here between Naomi Klein and Milton Freidman, two people with different political ideologies as different as water and fire (by the way) or a meat lovers platter and a vegetarian salad. 

The debate with democratic socialism (or social democracy) on Naomi Klein's part. The idea that government should be used to make the country as good and fair as possible through social insurance programs from the Federal Government, the welfare state. And that no one should make too much more money in their eyes than others. And when they make too much money (in Socialist's eyes) they should be highly taxed and that money should be given to people who don't have enough. Thats the Naomi Klein political vision, the Fairness Doctrine or a quick summary of it.

Milton Friedman's political ideology of libertarianism and his vision of maximize freedom which is very simple. Which is one reason why so many people don't understand it, thinking its gotta be more complicated than that. Is that let free people should be free to go out and live their lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. This includes economic freedom which is where Socialists would disagree with Professor Friedman. The more money people have the more freedom that they'll have to live their own lives the way they want to.

Professor Friedman argued that people should have the freedom to earn and make as much money in life as their skills and production will allow. That greed is essentially good because it gives people the incentive to work as hard and be productive as possible. To be as free as possible to live their own lives and be as less dependent on the Federal Government as possible for their economic survival. That there's no such thing as a perfect society or a utopia and that government is not capable of creating this. So you might as well give people as much freedom as possible to create their own wealth, freedom, and happiness, to make society as just as possible.

Two competing political ideologies and visions and what Naomi Klein and Milton Friedman offer here is a choice. The freedom for people to choose which vision to select or not select at all and perhaps pick something else or nothing. Thats what free people can do in a free society like America.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- 'Socialized Medicine (1978)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about socialized medicine in 1978.

"Nobel Laureate Economist Milton Friedman explores the unsettling dynamics set into motion when government imposes itself into the health care system.  (1978)

Source: Milton Friedman Speaks

Buy it at:Free To Choose." 

From Liberty Pen

I have a lot of respect for Milton Friedman, (in case it hasn't been obvious enough) but if you've been reading my pieces lately, it should be as obvious as water is wet, fire is hot, rocks are hard, etc (go down the line if you wish) I don't agree with him on everything. But he's pretty much has it on the mark when it comes to socialized medicine. 

I think our disagreements would be as far as Medicare and Medicaid, both government-run health insurance programs, clearly. He was for eliminating them, I would be for giving them autonomy not privatization, as well as competition for its patients. And we disagree on what should be the alternatives to socialized medicine. 

Professor Friedman would be for completely leaving it up to market forces. Including no regulation of private health insurance companies. Where I believe in unlimited free and fair competition, leaving it up to the people to decide where they get their health insurance and health care, similar to France and Germany.

As well as I'm in favor of Patients Bill of Rights, something Professor Friedman wouldn't be in favor of. I don't believe in over regulation or under regulation when it comes to the health insurance industry, or any other private industry. But I believe in what I guess I would call well-regulation when it comes to the economy. 

France and Germany two essentially social democracies that don't have single payer health insurance systems, incidentally. But both countries have a combination of private and public health care systems. So Professor Friedman as any Classical Libertarian would believe, believed that government especially the Federal Government should not have anything to do with the economy, regulating it or anything else. 

Where myself as a Liberal (or Classical Liberal, if you prefer) believes that government does have a role in the economy, but a limited role. That leaves the people in charged of where they go in life with unlimited free and fair competition, where the market decides which company's succeed or fail. But an economy that's well-regulated and supports people who need help to get themselves on their feet and the health care industry would be an example of this. 

So Professor Friedman and I agree that socialized medicine when it comes to government completely running health care in the country. Take Britain as an example. But even they have moved to allow private health insurance companies and private hospitals. We agree that complete government control over the health care system and any other industry in this huge country, would be a disaster. But we disagree as far as what the alternatives should be. 

I guess I would be in the middle of Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, who believe that government should be completely involved in running basic human services. Things that would be called basic social welfare. Like insurances in the economy like health care and health insurance, education would be another example. And Ayn Rand Radians, who believe that government shouldn't be involved in the economy at all. 

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- 'Gary Johnson Takes The Heat'

Source:Liberty Pen- Governor Gary Johnson, on John Stossel's show, taking heat from the Right.

"Why an honest, clear-thinking, straight-forward politician may be refreshing, but is probably unelectable. Gary Johnson, John Stossel:Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

Gary Johnson is a classical case of someone not fitting in with a party. (Pun intended) Or a skunk in the room. I mean, a Libertarian running for president in today's Christian-Conservative Republican Party. (A Republican Party that doesn't even believe in or understand the concept of a republic and republicanism) Who to some extent still loves their economic freedom (for rich people) and the right to bare arms and their political speech (that they agree with) and Freedom of Religion. (As long as you're a Christian of course) But thats about all the freedom they love and about all they have in common with the Libertarian movement, which doesn't have a big government faction. Unlike the Republican Party with its Christian-Right/ faction, where Republican presidential candidates can't get nominated or elected today without their support.

Another problem that Gary Johnson has which is just as big, is that two of the first three Republican primary's/caucus's is Iowa and South Carolina. With Iowa being the first and both of these states have large Christian-Right factions in them. Governor Johnson would be lucky to win 2-3% of the vote there. 

One thing that Gary Johnson does have going for him which by itself is not enough for Governor Johnson to win the Republican nomination, but is something is that New Hampshire is right after Iowa. And is a state with strong libertarian leanings in it. Sort of how the way the Republican Party as a whole used to be.

New Hampshire, is a state where Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, John Huntsman, Rudy Giulani and of course Mitt Romney, could potentially do well there. Because generally speaking it doesn't care about social issues. This is a State that's elected and reelected pro-choice Republicans to the Senate and House. Like Warren Rudman and Jim Jeffords. Senator Jeffords left the Senate in 2007 and served in Congress for over thirty years. (Combine service) So pro-choice Republicans in New Hampshire is nothing new to them and has been around a long time. After all, the state motto in New Hampshire is 'give me liberty or give me death'.

So if Gary Johnson managed to I don't know, get into some Republican debates between now and December and do well, he could have some momentum going into New Hampshire. Gary Johnson to me is a classical case of the skunk at the party. Because he's running for president in a party that's no longer anti-big government and has loosen it's grip on being pro-limited government. Which is why he doesn't have a snowballs chance in South Florida in July of winning the Republican nomination for president.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Professor Milton Friedman: On Libertarianism

Source: Hoover Institution- Professor Milton Friedman, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, in 1998.

"What are the elements of the libertarian movement and how does one of its most illustrious proponents, Milton Friedman, apply its tenets to issues facing the United States today? Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Inst., Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences discusses how he balances the libertarians' desire for a small, less intrusive government with environmental, public safety, food and drug administration, and other issues." 

From the Hoover Institution

If you look at what libertarianism actually is and I'm not talking about Ayn Rand libertarianism, which I see more as anarchism, but Milton Friedman what I would call mainstream libertarianism, its about maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual. Meaning adults can live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting innocent people with their freedom. Meaning adults can live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not forcing people to do what they are doing or hurting innocent people in any way.

If you look at what mainstream libertarianism is and what's been called classical liberalism and classical conservatism is, they really aren't that different. They all believe in individual liberty, individualism, the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, constitutional rights, American capitalism, and limited government. They all just have different approaches to these issues. 

Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, are all individualist and not collectivist like Socialists or statist like Communists and other authoritarians. Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians, have more in common I believe than things that they disagree with. Especially on social issues and differ more on economic and foreign policy than anything and have different versions of limited government.

To take what Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians disagree on which I'll admit is more fun, let's start with economic policy. Liberals believe there's a role for government to provide a safety net for people who fall through the cracks, to help them get up and become self-sufficient. As well as regulate the economy to prevent people from hurting each other in the economy. Conservatives believe in some form of a safety net, but that it should have as much choice in it as possible and be decentralized as possible.

Conservatives believe in some for of regulation as well, like anti-monopoly laws, that sort of thing, but that regulation should generally be mild. Libertarians traditionally speaking have been against all forms of a safety net, especially from the Federal Government. But lately Libertarian presidential candidates Representative Ron Paul and former Governor Gary Johnson, have moderated those positions. And have talked about privatizing the American safety net and block granting it to the states.  Libertarians don't want government involved in the economy at all basically.

On foreign policy Liberals and Conservatives tend to be internationalists but again in different forms. Liberals tend to be more willing to negotiate and Conservatives tend to be more willing to use military force. Libertarians tend to be isolationist on foreign policy that we shouldn't butt into other countries affairs.

I believe if the Libertarian Party and movement were to ever moderate its position on the safety net state and the War on Drugs, taking more conservative positions on those issues, like being for privatization and block granting of the safety net and being in favor of marijuana legalization yes, but stop there and come out in favor of getting drug addicts out of prison and into drug rehab instead, the Libertarian Party could become a major force in American politics. Because Americans tend not to like big government bossing them around and telling them what they can and can't do with their own lives and bodies. 

Liberty Pen: John Stossel, Walter E. Williams & Thomas Sowell- 'The Case For School Vouchers'

Source:Liberty Pen- Libertarian talk show host John Stossel, arguing for school vouchers, at The Cato Institute in Washington.

"John Stossel, Walter E Williams and Thomas Sowell comment on how market forces can improve education in America. Liberty Pen"

From Liberty Pen

I'm personally not in favor of private school vouchers especially at the Federal level, where education is mostly a state and local issue as it should be. They know the populations that they have and what they have to work better than the Feds.

Also, because I believe money that taxpayers would spend on private school vouchers, could be better spent on paying good educators more money, investing more resources in well-performing public schools and better starting salary's of public educators. As well as public school choice, bringing in competition to the public school system, forcing public schools to compete and do well in order to keep getting students. Including chartersSchools independent public schools that are still owned by the local government.

Education is mostly a local issue with states having a role to provide support and some limited direction. If local government's want to finance private school vouchers, then they have the ability to do that without the state and Feds prohibiting that.

But the Federal Government shouldn't be deciding how parents send their kids to school and to what schools they send their kids too. This is an issue for the locals to decide how their students are educated and then the parents should have the freedom of choice to decide how their kids get educated. Through either public or private schools and which school they send their kids too. Which shouldn't be decided on where they live and forcing kids to automatically have to go to bad schools just because of where they live.

All parents should be able to send their kids to the best school thats for their kid, the school thats best for their kids and will give them the best education possible. And private schools if they want to can also finance on their own private school scholarships for well-deserving low-income students that are stuck going to bad schools.

Education is a local issue with the states being the first line of support and then the Feds to help out with financing, research and that basic standards are met. But the Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of running public or private schools, with vouchers or anything else. This is an issue for local government's.