Up with Chris Hayes 3/24/2013 -- The problem is government, stupid

This is Chris Hayes' last Up show. Steve Kornaki will take Hayes' place, while Hayes moves to the 8pm time slot replacing Ed Schultz. Kornaki is a Hayes look alike, smart as a whip and personable, so no one will really notice the change unless they're paying close attention. However, the five people who watch Ed Schultz will realize halfway through the show that Chris Hayes is someone else. The five Schultz viewers will not understand anything Hayes says, so Hayes will have to rely on Uppers going to the new time slot, which should be a benefit for all since Uppers aren't really morning people.

This morning's show's first segment was about NY politics, and I started to look for a Scooby-Doo rerun, but decided to see how they'd talk about NY's problem with vanishing middle-class workers. They said a lot of stuff that statist government officials say. NY government need to tax the rich, then do something else to the rich, then make the rich, new companies pay their fair share, then do something else to the rich, and so forth. Taxes have surpassed 50% for the "rich", and this includes middle class businesses. Hayes said there's some questionable research showing that higher taxes don't run off the "billionaires". Nothing runs off billionaires, but, it seems to me, that if NY is experiencing a flight of middle class workers, this might be because government interventions, costly rules and regulations, high taxes and a generally unfriendly business environment are all running off middle class businesses and preventing start-ups. They touched on this, but then didn't correct what they said earlier about taxes -- no, taxes might not run off billionaires, but they run off the real engine of economic growth -- small businesses.

I can't believe that Hayes didn't see this clearly and lead the conversation to how the NY government officials should stop intervening, taxing and regulating businesses. Increasing the minimum wage to $10 dollars or so isn't the answer, geniuses. The problem is NY government.

The next panel was about LGBT rights and the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act. Yes, DOMA is unConstitutional. The different conversations from LGBT activists led me to believe that striking down DOMA is a small victory -- they want much more. As I listened to them, I got the distinct impression that these leaders of the movement have a lot to lose if solutions come too fast. When Hayes mentioned that the young conservatives he speaks to have no problem with same sex marriage, the LGBT activists rejected this possibility, saying that the Right will always be their opponents.

In a libertarian society, government would have no say-so regarding marriage, and all contractual relationships would be protected by law, so all couples and partnership arrangments could make their own rules and regulations regarding their private relationships by simply writing them out and agreeing to abide by them. I imagine this libertarian society would have strong, enforcable laws against any coercion in the private sector against LGBT individuals, not because they are part of the LGBT community, but because they are part of the American community under our Constitution which protects their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I have a feeling, though, that this libertarian society still wouldn't satisfy some leaders of the LGBT movement, or some leaders of practically all special interest movements. These people make their living and receive their identity from being victims and having powerful opponents to demonize. I'm sure not all the leaders of the special interest movements are like this, maybe just a handful, but I've seen enough to know that there are some who would never be satisfied -- they don't want equal opportunity and fair play -- they want advantages and for others to be punished. So, to distinguish themselves from the unhealthy charlatans, I would recommend to the LGBT leaders on UP this morning to start showing more hope for change and acknowledgement of libertarian principles to be applied widely.

Sunday Morning News

I watched Hardball and Up with Chris Hayes this morning. Chris Matthews, like most MSNBC hosts, has spent most of his time on each program tearing down Republicans. Chris Hayes is one of the few hosts on MSNBC who goes beyond Republican bashing. I'm not a defender of Republicans, but I do think that most of our fundamental problems originate from both parties in a statist/militaristic system that's constantly empowering the State and destroying our economy and our freedoms. Our society has been politiczed and miltarized to the point that if changes aren't imminent, collapse will be. Although our society can allow government to continue beating down our economy, pushing the day of reckoning to another generation, it's a crap shoot when the whole house of cards (!) falls down. It's shameful that we continue to put off dealing with our problems.

Hardball and Chris Matthews represent, consciously or unconsciously, State propaganda and narrative building which keep the nation divided politically while the State expands its control. The political battle is stoked constantly by media, pundits, intellectuals looking for niches in the realm of political power, the President, party operatives, on and on throughout the political class. The public hasn't completely caught on, but many are waking up and condemning government in general, even if they still balk on matters of national security and patriotism.

Chris Hayes represents the progressive narratives, and how the current progresssive mindset is built on faith in government interventions, technocratic solutions which are coercive even if Cass Sustein tried to convince us it's more like nudging the people for the good of the collective. Hayes talked this morning about sequestration and then cyber-security concerns. The sequestration battle is another diversion that appears to be important government work, but actually reveals how our system is leading us to collapse. Before talking about the sequestration, Hayes had a panel discussion regarding media dissatisfaction with access to the President, especially when he played golf with Tiger Woods. This is all silliness but it reflects our unhealthy obsession with Presidents. It's worse than Britain's obsession with the Royals, because the Royals don't have the power we've stupidly given Presidents.

Concerning cyber-security, it appears to be another State ploy to expand power. One guest on Up with Chris Hayes said we need better systems to block hackers, but this is already happening in the private sector. The problem is that we can't trust our government to level with us.

On one hand we have Progressive intellectuals explaining the necessity of an interventionist government that might have to violate individual rights and the Constitution for the welfare of the collective, then on the other hand we witness the economy destroying activity that emanates from government interventions and expansion of State power and control. The State power players will naturally think that political and military power are primary in a dangerous, complex world, but as the Soviet Union discovered, when political power and military power are primary and the economy is sacrificed to politics and miltarism, countries collapse.

We can discuss spending cuts vs infrastructure investments, but it's all moot unless we make systemic changes to our government, end the mideast madness, and begin freeing up the private sector to heal the economy. The realist and the sophisticates will sniff haughtily at my idealistic ramblings, and if they're feeling generous will attempt to teach me about political realities, but all I have to say is that if the the statist/militartistic system is not changed, can't be changed, then we can't survive. If that's the verdict, then so be it, we'll all get together during the rebuilding, if we aren't under marshall law.

The Young Intellectuals

Chris Hayes has a public service spot on MSNBC promoting ACA type national healthcare coverage. I imagine Hayes wants a more comprehensive less cronyistic plan, but ACA is what's been offered and it's what Hayes is obviously defending. I'm not questioning Hayes' sincerity -- I'm sure he believes what he says, but I'm not sure he's thought this all the way through. Hayes says that the point of coverage is to make sure our fellow citizens, our human brothers and sisters, so to speak, get coverage and don't needlessly suffer. Most people will superficially agree with this -- if we can ensure that the poor receive heathcare access then we should do it, right?

The problem I have with many of the Young Intellectuals, as I will call them here, is that they were apparently educated and trained to assume government has to provide social services like healthcare, and that government can provide this type of national coverage and access better than what would emerge in a true free market. The most popular Young Intellectuals on the Left, like Ezra Klein, Chris Hayes and Melissa Perry-Harris, are convinced that interventionist, Democratic government is vital to addressing the social problems we all agree should be ameliorated if possible -- hunger, healthcare access, clean water and air, gender and racial equality/justice, and so forth. Other Young Intellectuals, like Conor Friedersdorf and Julian Sanchez, have more of a libertarian understanding, although, regarding social services, they will agree, if I understand them correctly, that the Welfare State is vital even if they think it lacks in efficiency.

I pick at some of these Young Intellectuals, but only because I admire their amazing intelligence and become frustrated when they make arguments like the one Hayes is making on MSNBC. I can feel the passion that Hayes emits, and it plays well, but it's misleading. I won't say that I absolutely know that government-run healthcare will fail, although, personally I have no doubt, but Hayes could at least show appropriate scepticism. Hayes might say he's promoting something much better than ACA and that ACA is only the beginning, but, if this is so, it should be made clear, because the ad piece leaves the unmistakable impression that Hayes is promoting ACA. There's no doubt that ACA can help some for a given amount of time, but there's no certainty that ACA is sustainable and that it won't wind up hurting the people it's ostensibly designed to help.

The problem I have with assuming government has to provide healthcare is that it shuts the door on all private sector solutions. Most insurance companies are using their energy to strengthen government connections through lobbying in order to be in a favored position when government starts controlling the healthcare industry completely, so they aren't putting their brain-power into innovating and coming up with creative market solutions. Government has intervened in healthcare coverage and treatment for so long, and it's made such a mess, I hate to what will happen as technocrats attempt to fix what they broke, designing systems for 300 million plus people. Hayes and the Young Intellectuals don't have to be wild-eyed libertarians, but I do wish they would use their brilliant minds to think with appropriate scepticism beyond government policy to the potentially abundant, creative and innovative private realm for possible solutions. Many of these amazing brains are wasted in the service of defending an anti-social State that's concerned primarily with power, when they could freely search for greater, more sustainable, non-political social solutions.

Up with Chris Hayes 12/1/2012 -- Progressive irresponsiblity

On Up with Chris Hayes, we can summarize by saying filibuster bad, majority rule good -- let Obama's fiscal light shine -- support workers -- blah, blah, blah. Much of the progressive agenda sounds good before you think about it. Of course those who win in elections should have their say in legislation. Of course we need to raise more money if we want to pay for government. Of course the game is rigged against workers. Duh.

It pays though to think before accepting the progressive agenda. It also helps to know a little about history and economics and libertarian ideology. Maybe the filibuster is misused in congress and the majority should be able to have their way on most issues, but, with our statist system, majority rule is really dangerous. It's dangerous enough that 60% can vote in changes that will transform the country, but it's really dangerous to give either party the power in a statist system to make policy with a majority vote. The first party to get the power will most likely give itself such advantages it would be almost impossible to get them out of power.

Regarding the President's plan to deal with the fiscal cliff, as it's called, Hayes said that no one really cares about the debt and deficit. This is an attitude that's prevalent among progressives -- money's cheap and we'll deal with the debt later. Progressives see an opportunity after the election to move forward on the progressive agenda, and they will not let a budget fight stop them. Obama didn't win a second term to be a capitulating Bill Clinton who gives into the Republican concern for deficits and debt. Progressives believe that all the talk about debts and deficits is only code to stop progressives from raising taxes on the rich and to stop their investment plans. Even if Hayes is right, it's the height of irresponsibility to not only ignore the debt but to add to it significantly with more spending on "stimulus". The same kind of "stimulus" that didn't stimulate before. Even if Americans don't really care about the debt and deficit, other countries do, and reality cares. Progressive attitudes reflect the attitudes of the people when Rome fell, when Britain fell and when all other power structures crumbled under mismanagement, sloth and irresponsible waste of resources.

Yes, I have sympathy for those who are not politically connected, because this has been my lifelong battle, fighting against a system that's rigged to protect a power elite, but to give more power to the State, which is the architect of the rigged system, is insane. What has to happen is limits placed on power so that the parties aren't battling over the feeding trough which has perverted the market and provided a path for the most unscruplous and politically savvy to gain protected power, thus suppressing workers and small businesses.

I have a problem with progressive means, because to me it appears that the agenda is all about political power -- however, to help the suppressed and oppressed, it will take economic means in a free market and limits on State power.

More on Benghazi

I've completely had it with hypocrites like Chris Hayes and all the other Leftists who've criticized foreign interventionism in the past, yet play word games now to defend Obama for political reasons when it's clear that Obama's intervention in Libya has gone haywire, like all mideast interventions, and now people are dead.

Obama has politicized foreign relations, and his interventions are having unintended consequences. Obama has us in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Egypt and even covertly in Syria. The Left would crucify a Republican president who created the mess that Obama has created, but the Left tosses its credibility out the window for cheap political gain -- principles be damned. The Left is filled with unserious people who care about political power more than they care about what's right and wrong.