...Just watching the Florida Republican debate now, DVR yall.... This year I decided to go all in for Ron Paul, even though I have some disagreements with a few of his policies, but it's the fewest disagreements I've had with a candidate ever...But Ron Paul doesn't do a great job actually describing foreign policy, and in this debate it got my gaul more than others; but I don't know why.
....Maybe it's because he doesn't do so well with the argument that bringing people the benefits of capitalism to people WILL bring them freedom...
...Wait, that's exactly it...the more we trade with Cuba, the more free they will become; once people see the benefits of capitalism, they are more willing to fight for the rights those benefits afford...
...I think China has shown that the more we sell them the more free they become...total commies when we cut them off from trade, and in the 35 years we've traded with them they have discovered rights they never knew. now their citizens are fighting to defend the goods they have accumulated, and thus their own freedom. Now the Chinese government is talking about paying the people they confiscate land from; totally unbelievable before we started trading with them. If we had been trading with Cuba, they would be a free capitalist country by now...
...This is where Ron Paul lets me down, he doesn't articulate the power of Free Markets in the creation of FREEDOM...
I just read yet another story of people freaking out over what one of the Dr. Pauls (Ron this time, last time it was Rand) said about the Civil Rights Act. In case you're not familiar with it; both Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul have come under fire for their thoughts on provisions in the Civil Rights Act. In both cases it has been over the provision which forces property owners to serve all races at businesses; the Pauls argue that the government should not force property owners to serve anyone. This has caused many to accuse them of being racist, or in the least supporting freedom that would cause racism to flourish. I can't speak for their personal views, I hope they aren't racist; but I have to agree with them. Some of you may think I'm racist, but I have come to this conclusion simply by adhering to my philosophy.
As I have mentioned before on this blog, my political philosophy is based entirely on property rights, and that all humans inherently have this right by the fact that own their own body; this same philosophy leads to the conclusion that no man can own another (although philosophically there is the oddity of one person selling them-self willingly to another), so there goes your idea that I support slavery. This philosophy leads me agree with the Pauls on this issue. But there is another social problem that I find in forcing businesses to operate this way, it's harder to tell which business owners ARE racist. Under current law, you may unwittingly be supporting racist business owners. I would much rather know that have the light of day shining on these things so that we as individuals and actors in the market can weed these people out and face the actual issues; and punish those business owners by not supporting their business.
Yes, it would have been a much longer and more painful civil rights movement if we as a society and individuals had faced the actual issues, and not just hid underground. But it happens all the time. Any argument with my father about gay marriage ends the same way, "well, if you let gays get married, then people will want to marry their horses". Never mind this preposterousness leap, but I answer him the same on this issue, "good, because I would much rather know which guys are having sex with their horses so I can stay the hell away from them."
When you hide bad ideas, they're still there. It's only when you confront them that they can be abolished. There were many good things to come out of the Civil Rights Act, there were many laws pertaining to public spaces that were absurd and against the Rights of Man (I would say human rights, but that has been co-opted and corrupted so much it doesn't mean the same thing anymore).
There are many nuances and such which I have not addressed, as this could easily turn into an entire book on the subject, but hopefully I have said enough to get my point across clearly. Perhaps I'll revisit this in more depth at another time, or perhaps not.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
From dictionary.com:
Marx·ism/ˈmɑrksɪzəm/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mahrk-siz-uhm]–noun the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
If the government owns a stake in our businesses what does that mean? That is socialism. Is socialism simply a regulation of our business', no, it is the government having stake in our business'. Deregulation is simply the government allowing business to do business, allowing milk producers to sell milk at the price they demand, allowing a company to offer health care at the price they demand, allowing companies to pay what they demand, but the government must demand that the company does not infringe upon your rights, mainly, once they own a stake in it, it is theirs. They can't enforce upon you anything you did not permit them to enforce. But didn't that cause our current economic problems? No, wrong, regulations did, regulations demanding that banks loan money to people whom the banks did not feel were suitable. Both parties were responsible for this. I said this four years ago when the presidential candidates were saying that everyone should own a home, no, everyone who can afford it should own a home, if they want. Deregulation does not mean that there should not be limits placed on companies, when they violate a persons rights they should be held responsible, But deregulation holds the key of competition, competition is responsible for every advance in human evolution.
Deregulation, does that mean no regulation? No, if someone has impeded one of your rights, of course you have a right to recourse, but does regulation hold the key? Regulation is the government telling the market what it should do, when in fact it should be the other way around, the market should tell the government what to do. Is it any coincidence that we passed the 16th amendment, allowing for the government to take income tax, then 13 years later we had the great depression? I'm not a conspiracy monger mind you, but I do not think those who run for office are usually qualified to run a company, so why should we let them run our companies?
But why is deregulation bad? It's not. The government should be there to protect us for our defense and stopping people from stealing our property. But bad regulations are bad. If they are there to stop them from stealing your property, then they are there to enforce the law. What more does one need? To keep themselves from being stupid? Well, that will never work, because no matter how hard one tries, there will always be stupid people.
Think the Right are the ones who abuse people, look at the left, they abuse eminent domain to increase the revenue base; the government takes (they pay them, but it is not a choice to not accept their offer) the land of a property owner to sell or give it to a business which will pay more in taxes. These laws are there for building roads and other necessities, but as of late they have been used to increase revenue bases for the government and for environmental protection.
My friend over at The World of Mike as well as many of my other friends have been strong Ron Paul supporters, and I myself agree with many of Dr. Paul's domestic policy views, like limited government, balanced budgets, constitutionalism, abolishment of the income tax and so on. However I have one problem and that is foreign policies. Why is it that everyone with great domestic policy is an isolationist? It has been proven time and again that this type of policy will come back to bite you. If you ignore the fact that people who are a danger to your country are growing in power then by the time you do something it is too late. Many contest that these foreign powers are not a threat to our national security or economy, therefore we should not do anything about them; but if you don't do anything about them they will become a threat, and by then they are more powerful and harder to stop. Look at WWII, if we would have done something right away instead of ignoring Hitler's rise and eventual invasion of Poland millions of lives and dollars could have been spared. Look at 9-11, if we hadn't just let the Middle East deteriorate into a ramshackle of dictators and jihadists, that could have been prevented. And we must also be vigilant not only for our national security, but also for our economic security. These countries that get invaded can be great customers for our exports and if they get invaded their economies will be destroyed by the ensuing violence, if they have no money they can't spend any on our goods. Look at the nations of Africa, who could be great customers if we would help them become free, and I don't mean just throw money at them that thier bad governments will take and waste, I mean really deal with the problem. Now, I'm not preaching all out war. A very important weapon in our arsenal is capitalism itself. I once had a teacher who said "if you want to stop a country from being communist don't put an embargo on them, sell them washing machines." That is to say, once people have goods and property, they want to be able to keep that property and not let the government take it, then they need laundry detergent and repair parts and so on. We can see this philosophy at work in China; where people are starting to earn money and buy houses, and once they buy those houses they want to keep the government from taking the house they have worked for, and now China has some semblance of property rights (yes they have a long, long way to go, but it is inch by inch getting better) because we are trading with them. So I would just love to have a candidate with great domestic policy who has a grasp on the importance of being involved keeping other countries safe so we can stay safe.
Addendum: The Iraq war
Regardless of whether it was right or wrong, we have gone into Iraq and given them hope, to leave and let them fall apart now would be terrible and cause even more problems for us. This is what happened in Afghanistan, we (CIA) went in and helped them oust the USSR and then we just left, and they collapsed and the power void was filled with despots and criminals who created the environment for the jihadists to blossom in which (among other blunders in the area) led to the 9-11 attacks. So regardless of right or wrong in entering Iraq we must stay and make sure they have a good, stable government to fulfill the promise of safety which we have made, if not they will fall apart and create more fertile ground for them jihadists to recruit from.
