Observations of Political Landscape
I struggled for some time to understand what went wrong in the economic collapse.
I listened to a great deal of debate about who should be blamed.
The suspects for the collapse were speculators, mortgage bankers, the FED, Wall Street, Washington D.C., and borrowers.
It turns out the collapse was caused by all the above.
Here is Peter Schiff at the Mortgage Bankers Speech from 2006, with one of the best explanations for the crash before it happened.
When the subject of smaller government comes up, it is often met with the love it or leave attitude. If you think the government is spending too much or invading individual liberty, then you’re told to move to Somalia where they have basically no government and live in a fantasy paradise of no government.
Wanting a smaller and less powerful government does not equal wanting to live in Somalia. Its just another “love it or leave it” argument. Wanting to change something shows you care about it. If you didn’t care about this country you would move away or just not say anything. Asking a family member to stop drinking too much doesn’t mean you hate them; it shows you care.
Shrinking government is far from wanting no government. Taking away the government’s power to decide what constitutes victimless crime or power to appropriate away more wealth is not calling for the destruction of government. The if government isn’t big, it will be like Somalia argument sounds like someone overweight saying if they don’t eat donuts, they will become anorexic.
Political partisans can agree the government is too big and powerful, but they don’t see the government as a whole body and instead focus on individual body parts. Listening to pundits speak about how “the right side of the body is fat,” countered with “no it’s the left side of the body that’s fat” is like listening to firemen argue which side of a building needs water while the building burns down.
The huge federal budget is an example of a gluttonous government. Forty-three cents out of every dollar that it spends is borrowed. The solution to the deficit isn’t giving the government more donuts–it’s telling it to eat less. The government wanting to raise taxes is like a fat guy saying, “If I was 10 feet tall, I wouldn’t be considered fat.” The problem is when the government gets bigger, its appetite also grows; it will only turn into a fat giant if it grows any larger.
The gluttonous power of the government needs to be reigned in also. Their hunger of power is that of eating Chinese food: soon after they have the power, they hunger for even more. Taking away victimless crime laws won’t leave the government as skin-and-bones any more than drinking diet pop will suddenly make you skinny. It won’t be anarchy, as in Somalia; there will just be fewer things for which the government needs to be fed.
Don’t starve the government to death. Just see it has a healthier tax and power index.
When is “in everyone’s best interest” just an excuse to have it your way?
Here are some of examples from U.S. history where individuals suffered “in everyone’s best interest:”
Its easy to look back on these and see the underlying dynamic of the majority rationalizing control of the minority. Keep in mind at some point, the majority passionately defended and protected all the above laws as being in everyone’s best interest.
Here are some current issues which claim to be in everyone’s best interest that ignore the impact on individuals and minorities:
If you can’t figure out who is, has been, or will be harmed by any of the items above, then you have fallen for the benefit of all argument. You have been blinded by the ends if you can’t see the harm of the means.
If are having trouble figuring out who has been harmed, ask yourself these questions:
The phrase in everyone’s best interest is often a red flag for bad legislation; because there is little government can do that is beneficial to all without bringing harm to at least one person. Its easy to rationalize just about any action for the benefit of all, as long as you completely ignore those harmed by the benefit.
Rand Paul and Ron Paul are questioned by Anderson Cooper about congress and compromise.
Ron Paul “they compromise on the welfare state, they compromise on the warfare state, they compromise endorsing the monetary system”
Rand Paul “we are compromising, but we are compromising for more spending”
Congress should be willing to compromise on what gets cut from the budget, but cutting the budget should not be compromised.
On You Can’t do That on Television, slime was poured whenever someone said, “I don’t know.”
Politicians have no qualms about modifying citizens’ behavior, so it would only be fair to treat them likewise. There should be a political talk show along these same lines as YCDTOTV, but with these rules for when the slime flows:
Saying, “I don’t know” would be perfectly safe on the show, because it’s refreshing when politicians admit they don’t have an answer for everything.
Overweight children is only one area where American parents are failing their children. With parents doing such a poor job of raising children, I think it’s time for others to follow Washington D.C.’s example and step up to the plate to help. Bastions of self control and discipline–like Washington D.C.–can’t shape the next generation alone.
Here are some suggestions where others can follow DC’s example and pitch in to help parents raise their children.
Stossel – On The Road To Serfdom Part 5 – This segment of the show focuses on fairness and equality in laws.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b4NRNB-ujAThe eye-opening part in the video is when it shows how the U.S. Justice department sued schools which allowed students to use the Kindle reading device, because the Kindle discriminates against students who are blind. The show gives examples of restrictions put on high achievers and special rules for people with disabilities to bring about equal opportunity.
Towards the end, Chandler Tuttle says, “Freedom is not just some theoretical means to an end; it’s an end unto itself. Freedom isn’t a strategy, it’s a goal.” I’m glad this was pointed out because in most political discussions, freedom isn’t brought up as something tangible and having real value. Liberty usually takes a backseat to national security, and often is a secondary issue in less pressing matters because it doesn’t have physical properties. When this concept is brought up, the people defending freedom are usually labeled as amoral, self-serving bastards for valuing freedom over fairness.
Is it fair that some people are blind? As long as no other person caused them to go blind, yes, it is fair. Contrary to popular belief, life is fair. Life doesn’t choose one person over another, and as long as there isn’t someone deciding who is blind or tall or short or blue eyed, life is fair. The luck of the draw applies equally and without bias. It takes a conscious decision to be unfair, such as when a government puts restrictions on some and gives advantages to others.
Fairness means an absence of bias. There aren’t any people free of bias, so any system with people deciding fairness will undoubtedly be unfair. When people are free to do whatever they want with their lives and don’t interfere with someone else’s freedom, what remains are the natural rules of life, and life is fair. The freedom vs. fairness argument is a false dilemma, because in reality freedom equals fairness.
http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:152474
And if I had just one wish, just one wish in the whole world…if I had one wish, it’d be for politics to change–that good ideas weren’t so easily dismissed by demanding impossible solutions.
In this episode of South Park, Kyle’s parents don’t want him to attend a concert, so they come up with an impossible task. They won’t allow him to go to the concert until he brings democracy to Cuba.
The health care debate brought this South Park episode to mind, because objections to purchasing health insurance across state lines are met with a similar response. Create a list of impossible goals to make the idea just go away.
Objections are raised to purchasing health insurance across state lines because it doesn’t do the following:
Purchasing health care across state lines won’t do any of the above, either. It also won’t bring peace to the middle east or democracy to Cuba or cure cancer. What it will do is lower the cost of health insurance, making the goals above easier to achieve.
The truth is there isn’t any plan that can do all the above and bring down costs at the same time. Its not going to happen, because it violates the laws of supply and demand. It’s a fantasy and has been from its inception.
Purchasing health insurance across state lines has these advantages:
We have choices in life insurance, car insurance, home insurance. They don’t have the problems suggested by all the fear, uncertainty and doubt arguments made by opponents.
Its time politicians stopped playing these parental mind games, and started looking at real world solutions to real problems.
The Republican Party had done enough damage by globing on to every TEA Party protest, and Sarah Palin comes along to bury what was left. What started out for some as honest revulsion to uncontrolled taxing and spending has been fully transformed into marketing endless wars.
Sarah Palin has done more damage to the TEA Party than all the media’s straw man attacks and FoxNews promotion combined. The lesson learned: any group that starts to threaten established political power will be attacked from all from all angles.
Here is a clip from A Face in the Crowd (1957) that sums up what Palin’s performance turned the TEA Party into.
Full version of A Face in the Crowd available on YouTube
“Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” That saying sums up most federal programs and departments; whatever the intended goal, in the end they’ll achieve just the opposite.
Here are some examples of the Law of Opposites at work in government.
Ethanol fuel subsidies consuming more energy than the fuel produces.
Borrowing and spending to fix an economy wrecked by borrowing and spending.
Affirmative action laws which discriminate to fight discrimination.
The scene in Ghostbusters, where Con Edison is ordered by the EPA to turn off the power to the ghost containment grid.
The list goes on and on. The law of opposites doesn’t apply to everything in government; it is a cynical view, but it often turns out to be true. Cynicism aside, it is pragmatic to question actions of government to see if they are achieving their goals and if taxes are being spent wisely.
One of the biggest examples of big government solutions achieving the opposite result has been the war on terror. This video shows a gas tanker stolen by the Taliban, which then gets stuck and latter bombed. Some of the people present were lured by the possibility of getting free gasoline.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcfEibh8oWcThis video might be a worst case example in fighting the war on terror, and isn’t meant to imply every terrorist’s death carries a matching number of civilian deaths. The video is an example of the rules and procedures of a bureaucracy becoming the primary focus, and the original goals become secondary.
After 9/11, enlistment went up in the U.S. armed forces. Americans were willing contribute their time, and lives if necessary, to fight terrorism. Imagine if the people in this video had been Americans, the U.S. armed forces would see another spike in enlistment. When this video was shown on Al Jazeera, it probably caused a spike in enlistment in terrorist organizations.
It’s another example of out of control government: hundreds of billions borrowed and spent to fight terrorism, which results in growing the ranks of terrorists. It is throwing money at a problem to make it go away. And when the problem doesn’t go away, the answer is always the same–throw more money.
Questions about the war on terror achieving its goals are immediately met with accusations of hating America, being isolationists, appeasing terrorists, and waving the white flag. To those who are defending this version of a big government solution and throwing money at a problem, is this the good kind of big government solution?