Having had paid attention in History and Western Civ, as well as to current events, I know that there have been cultural swings, back and forth, toward, and away from, the Puritanical. (How many commas was that? Seemed like a lot...) I just never thought I would see so many in such a short time. (Commas, as well as cultural shifts...)
One thing that is certain, and historically demonstrated, is that each time there is a shift, the amorphous "center" ALWAYS shifts farther away from what the conservatives are supporting.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Obama accused of sending troops to kill Christians
In yet another of his attempts to whip up the uneducated and uninformed masses of Red-Publican listeners, Rush "His Fatness" Limbaugh has made wild, unfounded accusations against our POTUS.
He accurately reports that Obama is sending troops to Uganda to help quell some violence. Where he gets it all KINDS of crazy wrong is when he uses the name of the violent group to support his accusations.
The LRA, or "Lord's Resistance Army" certainly sounds like it would be the sort of thing Limbaugh would support.
The problem lies in the fact that the name is just that: A name. And, as Shakespeare once wrote A Rose, By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet. and, by inference, A Death Squad, By Any Other Name Would Kill/Kidnap/Maim/Rape/Pillage As Much.
And, Limbaugh has done his usual quality work when it comes to finding out what he's talking about. Or, for those not familiar with his "quality work", you could just assume I mean :
As Little As Possible.(He read the Wikipedia page that was created and edited by the LRA...)
Here is the comedic breakdown of events, by Stephen Colbert, of The Colbert Report. Yes, Colbert plays it for laughs, but as my kid would say: "It's Funny, Because It's True."
He accurately reports that Obama is sending troops to Uganda to help quell some violence. Where he gets it all KINDS of crazy wrong is when he uses the name of the violent group to support his accusations.
The LRA, or "Lord's Resistance Army" certainly sounds like it would be the sort of thing Limbaugh would support.
The problem lies in the fact that the name is just that: A name. And, as Shakespeare once wrote A Rose, By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet. and, by inference, A Death Squad, By Any Other Name Would Kill/Kidnap/Maim/Rape/Pillage As Much.
And, Limbaugh has done his usual quality work when it comes to finding out what he's talking about. Or, for those not familiar with his "quality work", you could just assume I mean :
As Little As Possible.(He read the Wikipedia page that was created and edited by the LRA...)
Here is the comedic breakdown of events, by Stephen Colbert, of The Colbert Report. Yes, Colbert plays it for laughs, but as my kid would say: "It's Funny, Because It's True."
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The "Hockey Stick" Graph Shown to be accurate
A couple of years ago, in 2009, a small group of Al Gore Haters, looking to discredit his constant pontificating on Climate Change, actually broke into the email accounts of some of the prominent researchers.
Therein, they found the programming code used for plotting the data:
Now, I will confess to being out of the programming game for a couple of years, and my understanding of the above code is also restricted by the fact that the subroutines referenced are not available for me to review. But, I don't see anything here that screams gross "data cooking".
I see what *might* be corrections applied to data collected near population centers, which would be artificially elevated due to high radiant heat from man made objects, like tarmac, concrete and asphalt...
The resulting graph (below) had a distinct "hockey stick" shape" as the mean temperature rose in the last few decades. Skeptics claimed the shape was due entirely to the "corrections" seen above.
Well, to make a long, and highly contentious story short, those who got all worked up over the supposed data cooking hired and funded an independent team of researchers to basically run the whole thing over again from scratch.
Then a funny thing happened. Today, in fact. The results from the new, nay-sayer funded, research were published.
The results confirm a one degree (Celsius) average rise in the overall global temperature. Some places were higher, some lower. The apparently rapid melting of the ice caps could be caused by a single degree rise from "freezing" to "not freezing", right?
I have seen some amazingly venomous attacks posted on various message boards and blogs. Some of them used "junk science" to defend their attacks. CO2 energy absorption rates, energy sources, and so on.
To my ears, these ring with the same sound as those who said that all you had to do was look out over the ocean to see where the world ended.
Sure. Empirical observation may support your argument, until somebody comes along and actually GOES where you're pointing. And, as a few seconds of reflection will show, there are those that will STILL get red in the face, call you wrong, and criminally insane, and a threat to the safety of the world...
Even after you offer to take them to see what you've seen.
Therein, they found the programming code used for plotting the data:
; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’ ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
Now, I will confess to being out of the programming game for a couple of years, and my understanding of the above code is also restricted by the fact that the subroutines referenced are not available for me to review. But, I don't see anything here that screams gross "data cooking".
I see what *might* be corrections applied to data collected near population centers, which would be artificially elevated due to high radiant heat from man made objects, like tarmac, concrete and asphalt...
The resulting graph (below) had a distinct "hockey stick" shape" as the mean temperature rose in the last few decades. Skeptics claimed the shape was due entirely to the "corrections" seen above.
Well, to make a long, and highly contentious story short, those who got all worked up over the supposed data cooking hired and funded an independent team of researchers to basically run the whole thing over again from scratch.
Then a funny thing happened. Today, in fact. The results from the new, nay-sayer funded, research were published.
The results confirm a one degree (Celsius) average rise in the overall global temperature. Some places were higher, some lower. The apparently rapid melting of the ice caps could be caused by a single degree rise from "freezing" to "not freezing", right?
I have seen some amazingly venomous attacks posted on various message boards and blogs. Some of them used "junk science" to defend their attacks. CO2 energy absorption rates, energy sources, and so on.
To my ears, these ring with the same sound as those who said that all you had to do was look out over the ocean to see where the world ended.
Sure. Empirical observation may support your argument, until somebody comes along and actually GOES where you're pointing. And, as a few seconds of reflection will show, there are those that will STILL get red in the face, call you wrong, and criminally insane, and a threat to the safety of the world...
Even after you offer to take them to see what you've seen.
Monday, October 17, 2011
A Recent Conversation on a popular Social site.
The following post was supposed to go up early this morning. Something else caught my attention, and had to be dealt with first. After spending two hours vomiting (both literally, and in the more prosaic meaning, by writing) over that something, I can now return to my planned schedule.
During a discussion of the overall perceived benefits and/or disadvantages of the OccupyWallSt. protests, one of the commenters made the following statement:
(When asking permission to quote that individual here, I promised anonymity. Edited for errors in formatting only.)
"There's a simple way to create change. It's called voting. I've heard commentary describing 23% of REGISTERED voters (not eligible voters, just the ones that took the time to get on the voter rolls) as a high turnout. In many other countries (Denmark, for example), 89% of ELIGIBLE voters would be considered a LOW turnout. Instead of getting in the way of traffic, get a bunch of people in each district to send their Representative AND Senator a petition simply stating something like "We the undersigned are voters in your district and have the following complaints about how you represent us. The corporate interest you favor supply 75 % of your campaign funding. We can supply 100% of the votes that will put in someone willing to actually represent us. Which do you need more?" The catch is, this works only if people follow up on it BY ACTUALLY VOTING"
My response:
"Your model is the ideal, not the reality. Yes, actually voting can make a small difference, but with all the so called Checks and Balances, your candidate is unable to be effective in office. For example: If Obama had not met resistance on his policies from Congress and the Senate, don't you think he would have been able to keep all his campaign promises? And then there's the lobbyists, whose job it is to pester the elected officials 24/7. Corporations are the only ones that can afford to apply that kind of political pressure to the elected. That's how the tax laws got where they are. That's how the labor laws got where they are. That's how the import tariffs got where they are. Voting gets "your guy" in office. If you can somehow find a way to vote for congress and senate in every state, then voting will do what you wish it did.
Then you have the opposing voters...
I'm not racially biased, unless you count that horror called the Red Neck. Demagogue BELIEVERS.
A sound bite isn't policy. Especially when the sound bites are "We Need to be worried about the rise of Soviet Russia" (spoken this past summer [2011] by a GOP front runner...) and other phrases of equal intelligence. When people do their civic duty by doing more than JUST voting, but becoming educated about the facts, issues, and long term effects of policy, rather than just snippets of demagoguery, then we can sit home and depend on others to be as responsible as we."
At the time, I felt it was an important set of ideas to relate. Both the original post, as well as my response. But, the previously mentioned "something" has really knocked me for a loop.
During a discussion of the overall perceived benefits and/or disadvantages of the OccupyWallSt. protests, one of the commenters made the following statement:
(When asking permission to quote that individual here, I promised anonymity. Edited for errors in formatting only.)
"There's a simple way to create change. It's called voting. I've heard commentary describing 23% of REGISTERED voters (not eligible voters, just the ones that took the time to get on the voter rolls) as a high turnout. In many other countries (Denmark, for example), 89% of ELIGIBLE voters would be considered a LOW turnout. Instead of getting in the way of traffic, get a bunch of people in each district to send their Representative AND Senator a petition simply stating something like "We the undersigned are voters in your district and have the following complaints about how you represent us. The corporate interest you favor supply 75 % of your campaign funding. We can supply 100% of the votes that will put in someone willing to actually represent us. Which do you need more?" The catch is, this works only if people follow up on it BY ACTUALLY VOTING"
My response:
"Your model is the ideal, not the reality. Yes, actually voting can make a small difference, but with all the so called Checks and Balances, your candidate is unable to be effective in office. For example: If Obama had not met resistance on his policies from Congress and the Senate, don't you think he would have been able to keep all his campaign promises? And then there's the lobbyists, whose job it is to pester the elected officials 24/7. Corporations are the only ones that can afford to apply that kind of political pressure to the elected. That's how the tax laws got where they are. That's how the labor laws got where they are. That's how the import tariffs got where they are. Voting gets "your guy" in office. If you can somehow find a way to vote for congress and senate in every state, then voting will do what you wish it did.
Then you have the opposing voters...
I'm not racially biased, unless you count that horror called the Red Neck. Demagogue BELIEVERS.
A sound bite isn't policy. Especially when the sound bites are "We Need to be worried about the rise of Soviet Russia" (spoken this past summer [2011] by a GOP front runner...) and other phrases of equal intelligence. When people do their civic duty by doing more than JUST voting, but becoming educated about the facts, issues, and long term effects of policy, rather than just snippets of demagoguery, then we can sit home and depend on others to be as responsible as we."
At the time, I felt it was an important set of ideas to relate. Both the original post, as well as my response. But, the previously mentioned "something" has really knocked me for a loop.
A Typical Republican... Part III
Wow. Just wow.
For those who wanted to see examples of demagoguery...
Tea Party Nation Leader says #OccupyWallSt. organizers and protesters are Communists and Nazis
In the sixth of some very short paragraphs, he claims that communists and nazis are socialists "hate freedom and liberty and both want to see freedom and liberty replaced with tyranny."
Just. Wow.
Here we have what is probably the best example of a demagogue that I have EVER seen in my lifetime.
Using emotionally charged rhetoric, provably FALSE rhetoric at that, to "Rabble Rouse"
Inflaming indignation in those that either can't, or won't be bothered to fact-check his references to communism, Nazi-ism, or socialism and the basic tenets of each.
My grandpappy always taught me to "know my enemy", which is the ONLY reason I took the time to study each of these political ideologies.
You can't avoid something when you don't even know what it looks like...
You can't fight something when your own personal ignorance allows it to slip past you unrecognized.
That we live in such a world as this. Where people like this Judson Phillips can count on the support of the uninformed and uneducated. Undeniably taking advantage of their fears and biases.
And how brazen of Judson Phillips to be using the proven tactics of Nazi-ism and fascism in order to get that support...
And, what makes me actually physically ill is the sure knowledge that he will get away with it.
I am shaken to my very core.
For maybe the third or fourth time in my entire life, I find myself hoping there is a God, so that this Judson Phillips will be assured of his due, his eternal punishment.
I firmly believe that while #OWS is important, and needed, this Judson Phillips has shown me that the problems of this world are much more basic, and primal than just some economic woes.
If we need to rise up, then we need to rise up against things like this, as well.
For those who wanted to see examples of demagoguery...
Tea Party Nation Leader says #OccupyWallSt. organizers and protesters are Communists and Nazis
In the sixth of some very short paragraphs, he claims that communists and nazis are socialists "hate freedom and liberty and both want to see freedom and liberty replaced with tyranny."
Just. Wow.
Here we have what is probably the best example of a demagogue that I have EVER seen in my lifetime.
Using emotionally charged rhetoric, provably FALSE rhetoric at that, to "Rabble Rouse"
Inflaming indignation in those that either can't, or won't be bothered to fact-check his references to communism, Nazi-ism, or socialism and the basic tenets of each.
My grandpappy always taught me to "know my enemy", which is the ONLY reason I took the time to study each of these political ideologies.
You can't avoid something when you don't even know what it looks like...
You can't fight something when your own personal ignorance allows it to slip past you unrecognized.
That we live in such a world as this. Where people like this Judson Phillips can count on the support of the uninformed and uneducated. Undeniably taking advantage of their fears and biases.
And how brazen of Judson Phillips to be using the proven tactics of Nazi-ism and fascism in order to get that support...
And, what makes me actually physically ill is the sure knowledge that he will get away with it.
I am shaken to my very core.
For maybe the third or fourth time in my entire life, I find myself hoping there is a God, so that this Judson Phillips will be assured of his due, his eternal punishment.
I firmly believe that while #OWS is important, and needed, this Judson Phillips has shown me that the problems of this world are much more basic, and primal than just some economic woes.
If we need to rise up, then we need to rise up against things like this, as well.
Musings on Libertarianism...
The following was inspired, in its entirety, by seeing a town vehicle, marked "Town Of *place name* Electrical Inspector" drive past me, as I was returning from dropping my children at school.
Funny, how the mind works...
I have long considered myself a devout Libertarian. That description can be very confusing to some. Understandably so. (If you follow the above link, you'll find a Wiki entry that covers every color of the word.)
I thought I would take a minute to help define exactly what my particular set of beliefs are.
FAIR WARNING: This will be a very 'stream of consciousness', and/or 'train of thought' kind of post that will seem to ramble. If things go well, those ramblings will direct you to the unified set of ideas that will help you understand the purpose of this post. (I hope) So please, bear with me.
This country, and the war that gave it independence, was based on a set of principles that included individual freedoms as one of the most basic promises to the governed. Aside from that, there were certain protections from forceful coercion, either by foreign governments, fellow citizens, or other entities, commercial, religious, or political. This included the execution of contracts that were obviously, and demonstrably unfair to one of the contractually bound parties. (It was a way to protect the uneducated and uninformed from predatory practices. Something even the Forefathers could see was one of the possible outcomes from a Capitalist society.)
The paradigm has shifted, considerably, over the centuries. To use a phrase I had originally thought was of my own invention, it could be described as having moved toward, and entirely into a Barnum-ist economy. (Barnum famously having said: 'There's a sucker born every minute.") People and corporations will take advantage, at every opportunity, of people's ignorance to turn a profit. Best exemplified by Barnum's famous "This Way to The Egress" sign. The ignorant (Notice, please, that I am making a distinction between "ignorant/uninformed", and "stupid".) would see the sign, and think there was some exotic display on the other side of the door, when in fact the word Egress was just another way of saying "Exit". There was no way to get back in to see the rest of the wonders without paying admission a second time.
Many years of insider deals, political misconduct, and just plain criminal activity by our elected officials has allowed this Barnumist attitude to become the norm. The Mortgage Crisis is the best example I can think of. I'm sure you can come up with your own examples, and I welcome them in the comments.
So, in the course of 235 years, we have progressed to this point. A point where the populace has taken to the streets in some of the biggest cities around the globe to protest.
Personally, I think that the protests are pretty cool, in that some people are not mollified by Bread & Circuses, and realize the need to speak out, if only to make other people aware of the problem.
Now, I had to explain Barnumism in order to provide the description of the "villain".
(A very recent, like minutes ago, discussion allowed me to see that we have moved past Barnumism, and into Walmart-ism, where entities exert financial, and political pressure in order to achieve wholly selfish goals.)
So, anyway. back to Libertarianism. Sort of.
After this nearly a quarter of a millennium, we have laws on the books forbidding the tying of alligators to fire hydrants, and the carrying of ice cream in the back pocket of your pants.
(Ok, ya. I know these are extreme examples, and they are purely on a State, or even Town/City level, but you get the idea I'm trying to get across.)
Really? I mean, really?
To me, personally, this best exemplifies the NEED for Libertarianism. Thousands of volumes of legislated "protections" for people and entities, when a very liberal estimate of 50 volumes would do.
Someone, I have no idea who, once said: You can't legislate morality.Someone else (The famous and prolific writer Unknown) said: You can't legislate stupidity.
And yet we have thousands of laws, around the country, that try to do just that. There are just as many, if not more, laws that try to govern the ethics of individuals and businesses.
My first instinct is to say, again: Really? I mean, really?
But, we're back to Barnumism & Walmart-ism. People, and therefore corporations which are run by people, will take advantage, at every opportunity, in order to get ahead. Face it. We've all done it, to some extent.
But, would we, as individuals of conscience, do it to the tune of a million dollars? A billion? Especially knowing the effect on the "fleeced" that it would have?
Some people will answer a resounding "YES!"
That's why the gazillion laws have wound up on the books.
And that is why we need to retain some protections, in law, for the citizenry.
And let's not even go into the Tax Code. There are degree programs at some very prestigious schools, just to deal with it... Seriously. A Master's degree, just to understand the Tax Code? Really? I mean, really?
There are many that feel Libertarianism includes a significant reduction in government, overall, as well as government's power over the individual. While in principle, I think this is a good thing, there are some basic exceptions that need to be in place: (Here's the part where the Electrical Inspector had its influence on my thoughts)
Protections from the above described Barnumists, and Walmart-ists. Individuals, as well as those that represent corporate entities. (Including, unfortunately, builders of homes and commercial properties. Being people, they will sometimes take shortcuts, if allowed. Sometimes, to the detriment of other people. Up to and including placing those people at risk of injury and/or death.)
I suppose we could TRY to allow them to self-regulate, but that hasn't worked out so well in other industries, like those that produce food for human consumption.
Infrastructure. Roads and bridges, Emergency Services, Public Education, transport services for the aforementioned, as well as public transportation services. And, the previously mentioned Building/Electrical inspectors.
Protections from coercion, either through physical, or financial means. (This includes, if you think about it: theft, muggings, carjacking, extortion, racketeering, and all crimes of violence where you are coerced into surrendering life, liberty, personal security and/or property.)
Protections and support for those displaced and dispossessed by the current "normal" practices.
( I know, I know. How do you determine how long, and how much. We'll leave that for a later discussion. I, frankly, don't have the answer.)
We might, as a society, be ready to accept a nation without child labor laws, as we kinda sorta "know better" by now. ( I would like to think )
So. Up to this point we have reviewed Barnum-ism, and some of the points of my version of Libertarianism.
To sum up:
Eliminate the susceptibility to Barnum-ism, by education, and other means.
Spend the required time to eliminate the attempts to legislate morality, ethics and wisdom, thereby cleaning up the criminal codes. (Tell me that THAT won't create jobs...)
Remove and revise the tax codes into a more equitable and more easily understood form. (I don't have the answers here, either. Only suggestions. I do not have my Master's degree in Tax Law... But! I DO know that one cannot be assured of fair representation without being able to understand the tax codes themselves. I seem to remember something about "No Taxation without Representation")
Retain and restructure the government's involvement in the day to day minutia of the governed. (more streamlined and MUCH less invasive, please. Do we REALLY need the TSA? Research the actual effectiveness of the TSA, and then be honst with yourself, and others, about it.)
This includes infrastructure.Unless employed specifically to build, maintain, and or operate infrastructure, the average citizenry won't have the time to preform the required work.
(We could take some of the burden off of the infrastructure by increasing funding to, and for volunteer services like some Fire companies and Citizen Police.)
My particular take on it is this: The government that interferes with the day to day life of the governed people least, governs best.
I will admit that I don't have all the answers. I can't honestly say that I have even a significant fraction of the answers. I wish I did.
What I do know is that I have lived by the following maxim: "Maybe I don't have the answer to that, but someone does. Lets find them!"
As always, I welcome your thoughts. Keep it clean, only attack the ideas, and be prepared to back up what you say with verifiable fact. Unless of course, you are claiming opinion, and willing to admit that it is just that: opinion.
Funny, how the mind works...
I have long considered myself a devout Libertarian. That description can be very confusing to some. Understandably so. (If you follow the above link, you'll find a Wiki entry that covers every color of the word.)
I thought I would take a minute to help define exactly what my particular set of beliefs are.
FAIR WARNING: This will be a very 'stream of consciousness', and/or 'train of thought' kind of post that will seem to ramble. If things go well, those ramblings will direct you to the unified set of ideas that will help you understand the purpose of this post. (I hope) So please, bear with me.
This country, and the war that gave it independence, was based on a set of principles that included individual freedoms as one of the most basic promises to the governed. Aside from that, there were certain protections from forceful coercion, either by foreign governments, fellow citizens, or other entities, commercial, religious, or political. This included the execution of contracts that were obviously, and demonstrably unfair to one of the contractually bound parties. (It was a way to protect the uneducated and uninformed from predatory practices. Something even the Forefathers could see was one of the possible outcomes from a Capitalist society.)
The paradigm has shifted, considerably, over the centuries. To use a phrase I had originally thought was of my own invention, it could be described as having moved toward, and entirely into a Barnum-ist economy. (Barnum famously having said: 'There's a sucker born every minute.") People and corporations will take advantage, at every opportunity, of people's ignorance to turn a profit. Best exemplified by Barnum's famous "This Way to The Egress" sign. The ignorant (Notice, please, that I am making a distinction between "ignorant/uninformed", and "stupid".) would see the sign, and think there was some exotic display on the other side of the door, when in fact the word Egress was just another way of saying "Exit". There was no way to get back in to see the rest of the wonders without paying admission a second time.
Many years of insider deals, political misconduct, and just plain criminal activity by our elected officials has allowed this Barnumist attitude to become the norm. The Mortgage Crisis is the best example I can think of. I'm sure you can come up with your own examples, and I welcome them in the comments.
So, in the course of 235 years, we have progressed to this point. A point where the populace has taken to the streets in some of the biggest cities around the globe to protest.
Personally, I think that the protests are pretty cool, in that some people are not mollified by Bread & Circuses, and realize the need to speak out, if only to make other people aware of the problem.
Now, I had to explain Barnumism in order to provide the description of the "villain".
(A very recent, like minutes ago, discussion allowed me to see that we have moved past Barnumism, and into Walmart-ism, where entities exert financial, and political pressure in order to achieve wholly selfish goals.)
So, anyway. back to Libertarianism. Sort of.
After this nearly a quarter of a millennium, we have laws on the books forbidding the tying of alligators to fire hydrants, and the carrying of ice cream in the back pocket of your pants.
(Ok, ya. I know these are extreme examples, and they are purely on a State, or even Town/City level, but you get the idea I'm trying to get across.)
Really? I mean, really?
To me, personally, this best exemplifies the NEED for Libertarianism. Thousands of volumes of legislated "protections" for people and entities, when a very liberal estimate of 50 volumes would do.
Someone, I have no idea who, once said: You can't legislate morality.Someone else (The famous and prolific writer Unknown) said: You can't legislate stupidity.
And yet we have thousands of laws, around the country, that try to do just that. There are just as many, if not more, laws that try to govern the ethics of individuals and businesses.
My first instinct is to say, again: Really? I mean, really?
But, we're back to Barnumism & Walmart-ism. People, and therefore corporations which are run by people, will take advantage, at every opportunity, in order to get ahead. Face it. We've all done it, to some extent.
But, would we, as individuals of conscience, do it to the tune of a million dollars? A billion? Especially knowing the effect on the "fleeced" that it would have?
Some people will answer a resounding "YES!"
That's why the gazillion laws have wound up on the books.
And that is why we need to retain some protections, in law, for the citizenry.
And let's not even go into the Tax Code. There are degree programs at some very prestigious schools, just to deal with it... Seriously. A Master's degree, just to understand the Tax Code? Really? I mean, really?
There are many that feel Libertarianism includes a significant reduction in government, overall, as well as government's power over the individual. While in principle, I think this is a good thing, there are some basic exceptions that need to be in place: (Here's the part where the Electrical Inspector had its influence on my thoughts)
Protections from the above described Barnumists, and Walmart-ists. Individuals, as well as those that represent corporate entities. (Including, unfortunately, builders of homes and commercial properties. Being people, they will sometimes take shortcuts, if allowed. Sometimes, to the detriment of other people. Up to and including placing those people at risk of injury and/or death.)
I suppose we could TRY to allow them to self-regulate, but that hasn't worked out so well in other industries, like those that produce food for human consumption.
Infrastructure. Roads and bridges, Emergency Services, Public Education, transport services for the aforementioned, as well as public transportation services. And, the previously mentioned Building/Electrical inspectors.
Protections from coercion, either through physical, or financial means. (This includes, if you think about it: theft, muggings, carjacking, extortion, racketeering, and all crimes of violence where you are coerced into surrendering life, liberty, personal security and/or property.)
Protections and support for those displaced and dispossessed by the current "normal" practices.
( I know, I know. How do you determine how long, and how much. We'll leave that for a later discussion. I, frankly, don't have the answer.)
We might, as a society, be ready to accept a nation without child labor laws, as we kinda sorta "know better" by now. ( I would like to think )
So. Up to this point we have reviewed Barnum-ism, and some of the points of my version of Libertarianism.
To sum up:
Eliminate the susceptibility to Barnum-ism, by education, and other means.
Spend the required time to eliminate the attempts to legislate morality, ethics and wisdom, thereby cleaning up the criminal codes. (Tell me that THAT won't create jobs...)
Remove and revise the tax codes into a more equitable and more easily understood form. (I don't have the answers here, either. Only suggestions. I do not have my Master's degree in Tax Law... But! I DO know that one cannot be assured of fair representation without being able to understand the tax codes themselves. I seem to remember something about "No Taxation without Representation")
Retain and restructure the government's involvement in the day to day minutia of the governed. (more streamlined and MUCH less invasive, please. Do we REALLY need the TSA? Research the actual effectiveness of the TSA, and then be honst with yourself, and others, about it.)
This includes infrastructure.Unless employed specifically to build, maintain, and or operate infrastructure, the average citizenry won't have the time to preform the required work.
(We could take some of the burden off of the infrastructure by increasing funding to, and for volunteer services like some Fire companies and Citizen Police.)
My particular take on it is this: The government that interferes with the day to day life of the governed people least, governs best.
I will admit that I don't have all the answers. I can't honestly say that I have even a significant fraction of the answers. I wish I did.
What I do know is that I have lived by the following maxim: "Maybe I don't have the answer to that, but someone does. Lets find them!"
As always, I welcome your thoughts. Keep it clean, only attack the ideas, and be prepared to back up what you say with verifiable fact. Unless of course, you are claiming opinion, and willing to admit that it is just that: opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)