Libertarianism: The Only Thing Worse Than Being a Republican

Wouldn't it be great to be a billionaire and then fund Libertarians and the Libertarian cause---so you could destroy government, lower your own taxes and so, make and keep yet more money?


Wouldn't that be great?

If Your Pet Were Libertarian

The Dog's Bark

Saw this yesterday and loved it.

That is one brilliant dog.

The Republican, Libertarian Lifeguard

God forbid he's your lifeguard and you need him.

People Who Should Just Go Away

I don't mean anything bad or awful should happen to them but honestly, they should just go away.

Mitt Romney

George W. Bush

Dick Cheney (should have happened years ago)

Both Koch brothers

Donald Trump

All the Walton siblings

Chris Christie

Carly Fiorina

Rand Paul.

Rick Perry

Ted Cruz (see a trend here?)

Mike Huckabee (from Arkansas)

Senator Tom Cotton (also from Arkansas)

Bill O'Reilly.

Rush Limbaugh.

Sean Hannity.

Steve Doofus. Doocy. Whatever.

Ray Romano (just because he's so incredibly dull)

I'd say Jay Leno but thankfully, he did go away

Climate change deniers

Obama haters

Haters, period

NRA President Wayne LaPierre

Racists (but that's an easy one)

People who scream, fixatedly, about the nation's deficit

Single-issue people (again, this could be people fixated on the national deficit or abortion or whatever)

The overly emotional

The icy cold, eartless bastards of the world

All the Kardashians (there's more than one, right?)

Kanye West

Anne Coulter (absolutlely)

Rudy Giuliani

Sheriff Joe Arapaio

Megyn Kelly

Rupert Murdoch

Pat Robertson (the crazy, greedy, rich old bastard)

Anyone who doesn't bring intelligence or laughter or kindness--at least one--to the world

Libertarian vs Socialist

I saw this earlier and loved it. Naturally, there's at least a bit of truth to it or it wouldn't work.

I ask you, which would you prefer?

We all work together vs. "every man--and woman--for themselves"?

What Libertrarianism Really Is

I have had no respect for the people who call themselves "Libertarians" nearly since I first became aware of them. To me, they are people who realized their political party--the Republican Party--was falling a apart and they wanted smaller government so they came up with this idea they'd be edgy and controversial, create a new political party and call themselves this.

But the fact is, as I've said before, the thing with Libertarians is that they can't collectively decide how small this new, functioning government is supposed to be, among other things.

Then, last week, I saw this and it helped clarify further more of the issues I know I have with these people and their very loosely-formed group. Enjoy:

You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham

Libertarians believe they're rebels, but they are really political children who scream through tears

Libertarians believe themselves controversial and cool. They're desperate to package themselves as dangerous rebels, but in reality they are champions of conformity. Their irreverence and their opposition to “political correctness” is little more than a fashion accessory, disguising their subservience to—for all their protests against the “political elite”—the real elite.

Ayn Rand is the rebel queen of their icy kingdom, villifying empathy and solidarity. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: “I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

Libertarians believe they are real rebels, because they’ve politicized the protest of children who scream through tears, “You’re not the boss of me.” The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile naïveté.

As much as libertarians boast of having a “political movement” gaining in popularity, “you’re not the boss of me” does not even rise to the most elementary level of politics. Aristotle translated “politics” into meaning “the things concerning the polis,” referring to the city, or in other words, the community. Confucius connected politics with ethics, and his ethics are attached to communal service with a moral system based on empathy. A political program, like that from the right, that eliminates empathy, and denies the collective, is anti-political.

Opposition to any conception of the public interest and common good, and the consistent rejection of any opportunity to organize communities in the interest of solidarity, is not only a vicious form of anti-politics, it is affirmation of America’s most dominant and harmful dogmas. In America, selfishness, like blue jeans or a black dress, never goes out of style. It is the style.

I ask you, how do you run a nation of far more than 315 million people with little government? Or very little?

And how small a government is it, when you're done shrinking it? How small DO we go? What do we get out of, completely? Do we have a national highway system? How small do you shrink the military? And believe me, if you know anything of me, I'm all about shrinking our military spending.

Where do you stop with the cuts?  What's left?

I'm left wondering how much of a nation we are, collectively, if we make all those cuts.

Are we together?

Wouldn't Libertarianism mean that if a state wants to secede, you let them? Would that not be consistent with this train of thought? And if it's not consistent, what would be the position taken on such a situation.

As it is, we're becoming less and less the United States of America.

With Libertarianism, I wonder if we would even be the States, let alone United.

For tomorrow's election day

Kev Mo

Like

Regarding Ferguson: What's with all the silence from the Right Wing?

Yes, it would be nice if all the Right Wingers---the Republicans, the Tea Party, the Libertarians, etc.--would all have already long since spoken up on this.  Not a peep, standing up for the unarmed man, gunned down by the police. In effect, by "government."

Huh.

Go figure.

Governor Sam, on a wonderful--and well-deserved--shortlist

From Alternet today:

6 Rabidly Right-Wing Republican Governors Who Might Get the Boot

What they have to say about the Guv:

 Kansas Pro-Business Libertarian Sam Brownback. Most pundits consider Kansas to be an irrevocably red state, but voters are apparently rethinking their anti-government attitudes after seeing what Gov. Sam Brownback, the former U.S. senator, has done as governor. Brownback ran on a platform that embraced the conservative fantasy that cutting corporate taxes would create so much economic growth that revenues would balloon and cover public programs. Brownback’s plan, adopted after taking office, is spectacularly backfiring. State tax revenues have fallen by 9 percent, leading to cuts in teacher salaries, larger classrooms, draining the state’s rainy day fund, and lowering its bond rating. Brownback, like other GOP governors who like to throw their weight around (i.e., New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christy), is under investigation by the FBI for “whether members of his inner political circle tried to pressure companies to hire certain lobbyists close to Brownback’s administration,” the AP reported.

Brownback faces House Minority Leader, Democrat Paul Davis, who has made the state fiscal crisis the top issue in his campaign. On May 30, Kansas’s Department of Revenue reported that Brownback’s 2012 tax plan created a $310 million shortfall for the current fiscal year. Davis’s first messages have called for “leadership, not experiments.”   

I think the writing is, so to speak, on the wall on this for the good Guv. I'd be extremely surprised if the citizens of Kansas don't give Mr. B the boot this Fall.

We shall see.

Three measures that would go a long way to save America

I think it's safe to say a good deal of Americans think first, we're on the wrong political and/or societal path, be they Right Wing, Left, Republican, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, Libertarian, "Tea Party", Independen or whatever. And second, I think a great deal of us also feel we're terribly, terribly destructive on this path. Many have predicted or are predicting the end of our existence as a nation, at least as we have been for the past previous 300 years.

Herewith, then, I propose 3 rather simple things we could and should do as a nation, to set us back on a constructive, positive path for the nation and all Americans:

1)  We should, without question, end campaign contributions. I think virtually all Americans, of whatever political stripe, agree that we need to get, as I've said many times, the big, ugly, corrupting influence of the wealthy and corporations out of our election system and so, our government.  If we don't do that, if we don't stop these people from buying our legislators, in effect, and so, their/our legislation and our laws and finally, our government, nothing will take place for the betterment of the ENTIRE nation and not just for those same wealthy and corporations.

2) To that end, so that we, as a nation, don't NEED campaign contributions in our elections and so we don't have non-stop campaigns and campaigning, we need to do what England and a lot of other nations did eons ago and that is limit campaigns to, at most, one or two months length.

Think about it. Campaigns don't need to and shouldn't last that long None of us want to hear these people, anyway. All we want them to do is do their job. All we want and need them to do is work for the betterment of, yes, their constituents, but for the nation overall, as well. Additionally, the legislators don't even want to have to shill and prostitute themselves for this money. Let's put two and two together, come up with four and end all this nonsense and corruption and distortion of the system and nation. Let's end perpetual campaigns. This isn't rocket science.

3) Finally, let's get back to where we don't have television stations and channels taking only one side of issues, either the Republican/Conservative or Democrat/Liberal sides--or any inbetween.  Let's reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. Lest you don't know your American history, a refresher:

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

Again, it's my contention this only makes sense and is nothing but simple, logical, intelligent and strongly positive for the nation. We have FAR too many one-sided pundits, railing against either policies or politicians and their rants and tirades go either totally un-debated or weakly so. In a lot of cases, if they are debated at all, it is extremely half-hearted.

The dismissal of this Fairness Doctrine, in 1987, by the Republicans, mostly, has led to, in the worst incarnation, Fox "News."  It is owned by a wealthy, extremely Right Wing executive and spews nothing but one-sided viewpoints with usually no rebuttal at all or very little at all. There have been countless times when their staff has voiced outright untruths (read: lies). It hasn't mattered. They carry on unabated and unanswered.

Their counterpoint has given birth to MSNBC and while I admittedly support them and their broadcasts (truth in advertising), it is also my view that having both of these channels and stations has been extremely negative on the nation overall. As a country, we have become far more polarized, we only listen to our own preconceived, pre-accepted viewpoints and we don't even listen to one another, too frequently.

With all this history and fact in mind, it's my strongly held contention that we should, without question, bring back this same Fairness Doctrine. I feel also strongly that it would help take some of the vitriol and ugliness out of our elections, our political system, our government and even the nation, overall.

People will scream their First Amendment rights are being taken away but that's nonsense. No one is proposing anyone's viewpoint can't be heard. This only says that, on and in the public airwaves, a countering point of view must also be aired.  It is long, long overdue. The original Fairness Doctrine legislation should never have been done away with.

All that said, do I think ANY of this will take place?

Not on your life.  Not on mine.

It's sad, it's frustrating, even demoralizing and defeating but not one of these possible legislative moves will be made at all, unless or until we come to some cataclysmic event or events in the nation, heavens forbid.

This is just my way of tilting at a windmill, out here, so to speak.

A Don Quixote of 2014 and for America, if you will.

We have to do what we can.

Why we need government more than ever

There are two terrific articles in The New York Times today, both brief and both on technology.

The first is

The Most Dangerous Word in Tech

It is about how we have taken innovation to its extreme and we're "innovating" beyond human needs and with not enough or no concern for what said "innovation" might mean for or do to, we humans.  A bit from the article:

We treat innovation like an impersonal force, and a ceaseless outcome of entrepreneurship in tech. If we displace people or distort our culture with innovations that, say, wipe out local bookstores or measure every moment in a warehouse worker’s day, it is the price of a generally beneficial force.

Increasingly, however, economists and social thinkers are challenging the conventional wisdom on innovation.

It goes on to point out that government laid the groundwork for and even began a great deal of the technologies and technological breakthroughs, yet business then privatizes those technologies and reaps all the monetary benefits, thus keeping them from the people and the society. This makes for yet one more way more and more of the wealth of the entire nation, the entire society is whisked away for and to the top "1%", the wealthy or already-wealthy of the society. Clearly this is neither fair or beneficial for that entire society, for the people.

Finally, it also points out that we're far more interested in that "innovating" and concentrating, especially in business, on greater and greater speed and on shorter term investing, as companies, industries and corporations. Clearly that's been a trend that's been building over the last several decades and time and again it's proven itself very short-sighted and even harmful to the very companies it's supposed to be helping, let alone to the people these companies and industries are supposed to be serving, let alone, again, the overall nation, the country, as a larger group.

The second article, again, from today's Times‎, is about a new book: 

A Talk With Simon Head, Author of 'Mindless: Smarter Machines Are Making Dumber Humans'

Simon Head thinks the world has become good for computers, but bad for most humans.

In warehouses run by Amazon and Walmart, he says, workers are monitored by machines, their work output determined by performance optimization programs. At financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, traders and managers depend so heavily on algorithms that they abdicate personal responsibility for events like the subprime mortgage crisis.

The problem isn’t just the machines, however; it’s what machines do to thinking. In his book, “Mindless: Why Smarter Machines are Making Dumber Humans,” Mr. Head bemoans a triumph of computer-led systems thinking and so-called “scientific management.”

These have led to “misindustrialization,” he writes, in which service workers’ emotions are manipulated to optimize retail sales, and Oxford dons are judged by a “research excellence framework” that compels them to publish nonsense to meet irrelevant standards.

And this is why I point out we need government even more now, today, and for two huge reasons.

First, all the industrialization and innovation and dependence on computers and technology is making us, in the business world and so, in the nation and world, overall, far more controlled by those machines and "productivity" and "innovation" so the human factor is being pushed out of the picture, if not ignored altogether.  That can be nothing but dangerous for the people on a small scale but also, in the bigger picture, for, again, the entire nation. We need government and rules to more control the direction of "progress" so all that innovation and technology and progress serves the people instead of the people serving the productivity.

Second, with the coroporatization of America and the world, combined with the wealthy people's and corporation's ability to buy the legislation they want, that will benefit them and their companies, through the very legal but very corrupting campaign contributions, all this gives them strong, nearly unfettered ability to have virtually everything headed in their way so more and more pressure is but on business, those corporations and so, us, the people, for more and more innovation, more and more "productivity", more and more "progress", all at the expense of the people, the worker, the man and woman on the street. The emphasis remains on profits for the companies--and so, the wealthy--people be damned.

That does not make for a healthy, even workable society. No way.

So we need government to not only keep those "at the controls" of society honest--no small feat in itself--but also to keep the wealthy and companies and corporations doing what's best for the larger society and nation, as a whole.

Do I think this will happen?

Absolutely not.  And for a few reasons here.

1) Government and laws never have kept up with technology and advances in industrialization. Government virtually always comes in afterward--long afterward--after there has been a collapse or tragedy of some kind and cleans up the mess. There is no better nor more recent example of this than the 2008 financial meltdown that nearly took America's and the world's economies down;

2) That "innovation" described above is hurtling forward at ever faster speeds, leaving government and our representatives ever further behind;

3) As long as we allow "campaign contributions", it leaves those with great deals of money--again, the wealthy and corporations--virtually if not truly in control of the very government that is supposed to be there to protect the people and nation.

It's all a Libertarian's and Republican's and Right Winger's dream.

It's also the dream of any anarchist.

I don't have my hopes up.

Anyone overly concerned or worried about "big government" in the US, in my eyes, doesn't see what's happened in the last several decades and of late. The "big boys" are in control and they don't like or want "big government" in any way, shape or form and they're getting just what they want, just what they're paying for.

Have a nice Sunday, y'all.

Link:  McCutcheon v. FEC: The 1% versus the .1%

The Republican response to the State of the Union Address

America, Americans and drones

I opened an email today from a very Right Wing, Republican "news" source today--GOPUSA, to be exact--and there was a writer there who was railing against drones.

It got me thinking.

Here was this guy from the very, very Right Wing, a Republican, going on about how he hates/they hate and don't want drones.

And sure, he doesn't and surely lots of his groups don't--well, except the military and the corporations who make them.

But I have news for him.

The Left Wing, the Liberals as well as Libertarians (the reputedly "VERY small government people) don't want the things, either.

Come on, most Americans, if polled would, I'd nearly bet, be absolutely against them. We don't want those things of whatever size, flying in our air space and spying on us.

Heck, here in Kansas City, we don't even want cameras at stoplights so people don't run those same lights and end up crashing into us and hurting or killing us. We want "freedom" that much, lots of us.

I don't think this has been thought out too well, either.

I mean, face it, if the military and our government and the Defense Department is going to have these things, private corporations may well--likely?---have these, too, keeping an eye on us for who knows what reason.

Yet here we sit, idly by, as technology and corporations advance and bring this ever closer to us and to reality.

And the big drones we've seen in media or on TV are nothing compared to what is apparently also possible:

 

Look closely. Besides scary, it's rather fascinating, technologically. And this is the early technology of these things, too:

US military developing insect surveillance drones

My only point here, now, is that first, we need to stay aware of what's going on in technology, in our government and finally, in our courts so we know what we're being exposed to and what's happening.

 

Second, we need now to, besides working on killing campaign contributions to our state and federal legislators so the wealthy and corporations don't own them and so, our government (any longer), we now need to fight these drones, too. We need to be in charge of our world in all aspects.

 

This will take some doing, folks.

 

This will require we get and stay further involved and for the long run and in virtually all aspects of our lives.

 

We need to get and stay busy. We need to get and stay and be engaged on this.

 

The one great thing, however, is that this issue about drones should be one thing that all Americans should and actually, likely do, agree on. That is, the Left and Right Wings of the political spectrum, the middle, the independents, the Libertarians, certainly, the Tea Party members, all of us out here on the streets, likely agree we don't want these things in our lives, spying on us.

 

If we don't use that against them, we will lose on this issue. We need to keep that in mind.

 

We need to come together, as Americans, and fight this.

 

Link:  Patton: Here Come The Drones

Here's Libertarianism for you

If you've been following the news lately, you may have, likely have heard the story about the people who've been exposed to and some even killed by, having received medication from what we now hear is a "compound pharmacy":

‘High risk’ drug making is at center of meningitis inquiry

Federal officials are investigating practices at New England Compounding Center in Framingham, a compounding pharmacy that has been linked to an outbreak of fungal meningitis. The outbreak has been blamed in 24 deaths.

Inside its sprawling red brick offices, New England Compounding Center engaged in the most hazardous type of pharmacy drug making. The company bought unsterilized powders and turned them into liquid steroids and other medicine supposedly pristine enough to inject into a patient.

It’s called “high-risk compounding,” and doing this safely, industry specialists say, requires elaborate and expensive manufacturing processes, sensitive tests for sterility and potency, and exacting attention to detail.

At the center of the federal and state investigation into New England Compounding, whose steroids were contaminated with a fungus that led to an outbreak of meningitis that has killed 24 people nationally, is whether the company violated these procedures.

My point?

My point is, this is yet one more example, like the BP oil blowout and spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the 2008 financial collapse that nearly took down the nation's and world's economies, that we need at least some government oversight and--gasp--regulations.

Without government and without that oversight and without regulations the Libertarians and so many Republicans and Right Wingers and "Conservatives" abhor, we--the people--are left exposed to the greed of we-don't-know-who.

No, thanks.

Leave me out, please.

I'll take some regulation, thank you.

Links: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/PA-lacks-patient-protection-against-sterile-compounding-errors.html

http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2012/10/25/framingham-pharmacy-engaged-high-risk-compounding-higher-chance-contamination/BxwAtkfmCg9rW7EsJqv7HM/story.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/PA-lacks-patient-protection-against-sterile-compounding-errors.html

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/25/163641002/after-meningitis-deaths-a-look-at-drug-safety

On Libertarians

Click on picture for better viewing.

And this would just be the beginning.

Link: http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur

On the Keystone XL pipeline, eminent domain and a foreign corporation

Red'Arc Farm in Direct, Texas Photo courtesy of Julia Trigg Crawford

A farmer, a Texan, an American doesn't want to sell her land to a foreign, Canadian corporation for an oil pipeline. The corporation says if she, and lots of others, in several states, don't sell to them, they will take it by eminent domain. Not only is that not right, but their governments--their State and Federal governments should support her. This is reprehensible. It is unconscionable. "Small government," indeed. Not one government legislator in this entire nation should allow this. I would think it would fly directly in the face of anything and everything the Republican political party and all its adherents stand for. From what I understand, the Tea Party and environmentalists in Texas are on the same side of this issue, fortunately. As famously said in a movie, paraphrased, this should not stand. Link to original story: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/02/texas-farmer-takes-transcanada

This looks to be just one more "Super Tuesday"

With today's vote for the Republican presidential candidate in Michigan, it looks to be just one more great day for Michiganers and Americans, as a whole, for that matter. Worst case scenario? Mitt Romney wins and wins big. How likely is that? Incredibly unlikely, given his very public stance that he was only too happy to let Detroit and GM and Chrysler and the automobile industry in the US fail and go bankrupt. He's reaping what he sowed. Best case scenario--and what's most likely to happen today? Rick "So What If I Don't Have a Brain" Santorum wins here. After that, it's still all good. So what if the Newtster won or Ron Paul? None have a chance, nationally against their Democratic rival in November. So all in all, today seems like just more of this terrific, mild winter we're having. That is, fantastic. Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE81N1PG20120227

Yahoo! and Yahoo! News have become solidly Right Wing

In the last few months, there have repeatedly been times when I've seen a headline on Yahoo! News that strikes me as patently biased, Right- Wing "reporting". Today is another such day as this is the headline I saw: Ron Paul Is a Dangerous Tin Man Who Has No Heart (link at bottom) Sure, it's commentary and it's even from one of their "contributors" but could they be any more biased? This isn't even reporting. This is just ugly, very-slanted opinion. Later, up poppedd these two headlines, too: . First this one: Ex-Aide: Ron Paul Foreign Policy is 'Sheer Lunacy' And then this one: Fmr staffer: Ron Paul planned ‘No’ vote for Afghanistan invasion, staff threatened mutiny It seems clear Yahoo! really doesn't want Ron Paul even remotely considered as a candidate. Don't get me wrong here, either--I'm no big Ron Paul fan or supporter. I just think there should be responsible reporting and journalism in the country for the benefit of the voting populace. This is just ugliness, opinion, again, and possibly even vitriol. It serves no good purpose. Link: http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-dangerous-tin-man-no-heart-053200808.html

California politician calls for the assassination of President Obama---and his family

Nice, huh? Here it is: "California libertarian and Tea Party darling Jules Manson is caught calling for the assassination of President Barack Obama and his children. On Sunday, many Facebook users were greeted by the shocking spectacle of a California libertarian and Ron Paul supporter by the name of Jules Manson advocating for the assassination of President Barack Obama. Manson, a failed politician, recently ran for and lost a seat on the City of Carson’s City Council last March. The following is the text of Manson’s racist, treasonous, deplorable post: 'Assassinate the (expletive deleted by examiner editors) nigger and his monkey children' I only post this to show how horrible this is and so no one else repeats anything remotely like it. We have to shine light into the dark corners of our society to flush this kind of thing out so it isn't replicated. Link: http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-national/california-politician-advocates-assassination-of-obama-and-family?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150481264902206_20390720_10150481406332206#f1fb3395f0c88