Oh well, the majority wants it

Hardly anyone in media or the political realm know how to reason anymore. I'm not sure if political pundits, operators and analysts intentionally obscure the truth or whether they just no longer know how to think in ways that are bigger than the immediate spin on their agenda.

Recently, on all liberal news outlets, you hear the pundits, analysts and operators talk about how the majority of Americans want background checks. When they say this it's with utter disbelief that anyone can oppose background checks, especially Republicans, when the majority of Americans want background checks.

First, we don't how the question was asked in the poll. If you ask if gun dealers should make sure that mad killers aren't being sold guns, then most people will say no, that they should be checked. If you ask people, though, if there should be background checks if these checks would likely lead to a national registry which demands that all trades and gifts and purchases be registered, then the results will change.

If you look at Constitutional issues and ask if the government should violate the Constitution in order to control guns, you'll get a much different response. The bottom line is, though, that majority opinion is never a good reason to pass laws. What if a poll shows that the majority of Americans want only people who attend church regularly to own guns? Would that be something no one can oppose? Remember, even the ACLU has problems with the current gun control efforts.

Keynes meant well

Just as Progressives mean well, for the most part. I'm sure there are statists in DC who push for power grabs because power is profitable and it enables the good life, with respect and recognition and all the stuff human egos love to go along with the good life, but the purpose of Progressivism is surely to do good and make life easier, better for the "people".

John Maynard Keynes wanted the same when he fought for government action and planning to end high unemployment as 20th century Britain's more conservative leaders opted for the regular, less generous government plan. I won't go down the old Hayek/Keynes battle over economic models, because we've never tried a real free market approach and Hayek never called for a true free market approach. The arguments over economics, mostly, have been over what forms of government interventions are best -- the Right/Republican Party has its ideas and the Left/Democratic Party has its ideas, but both assume a statist system.

My point in this post is that the well meaning actions of government have brought us to a dangerous place. It's easy to understand the instinct to use government power during a recession to make things better. Especially once government becomes big and active in so many areas of our lives -- it seems natural that government should create jobs or provide welfare benefits to help the unemployed until the economy recovers. Unemployment benefits are paid for partially by employers, and if we need more taxes to fund the assistance for a while, we can simply raise taxes on the wealthiest citizens. It sounds like the compassionate thing to do and something that America should do for its people.

The insistence that government provide welfare/assistance speaks to motives. The motive of statists is to maintain State power over the private sector. The ideal of government serving the private sector by protecting Americans against violation of basic rights has become a silly notion that many intellectuals see as quaint and out of touch with modern needs. One NYT's writer recently wrote that we should basically drop the Constitution. Modern society wants to drop reality. It's the restraints of reality that foil the good intentions of Progressives, so the restraints are denied or ignored. Most Americans can't even conceive of assistance to the poor and needy coming from the private sector.

As our government goes from one fiscal crisis to another, economic reality is forcing itself on the American economy while politicians find more ways to delay the fiscal reckoning. America possesses great resources, knowledge, skill, innovative ability, and potential, so we can likely ride on what we possess for a while longer, even though we aren't putting it all to productive use as we should, as other nations wait for us to face reality and make the necessary adjustments. However, we're sinking deeper into an economic fantasy world from which it will be difficult to extricate ourselves. We can only hold off reality for so long. Keynes said in the long run we'll all be dead, but this has been said for a long time and we're alive -- in the long run, which is upon us, we'll all be broke.

Chuck Schumer in favor of free speech violations

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/17/schumer-calls-for-limits-on-first-amendment-rights-during-senate-debate/

Chuck Schumer erroneously rationalizes the violation of free speech by claiming that yelling fire in a theater and libel are both restrictions on free speech, so the 1st Amendment is not absolute. It is absolute as written, unless a Congressman wants to violate the Constitution. Neither one of these examples are free speech issues -- they have to do with violation of rights caused by what is said. How does Schumer justify this law? What basic rights are they protecting from violation? You can't restrict free speech just because you don't like what's being said, or based on how it will influence others politically. Unless the "speech" involved creates actions that violate the basic rights of a person or number of persons, then the "speech" can't be restricted according to the Constitution.

Morning Joe 6/29/2012 -- Two faces of conservativism

On Morning Joe today the conversation was, of course, about the Supreme Court's ACA mandate/tax ruling, upholding the constitutionality, basically, of the healthcare bill. After listening to Scarborough, Michael Steele, and quotes from a David Brooks article, I realize more than ever that Conservative/Liberal and Right/Left mean nothing within the realm of the State. The two sides are parts of the statist status quo which have divided and conquered the private/economic realm. Statist Republicans are defending Roberts because they say he's thinking of the long run, and that had he opposed ACA it would have created much more polarization. This is the type of rationalization that's allowed progressivism to utilize an interventionist government to expand State power. The State in a broad sense is the multifaceted machine that protects the domination of the elite few over the many. State players range from tv show hosts dependent on a strong State to a Chief Justice more concerned with protection of a powerful State than with protection of the Constitution.

Statists fear a showdown between the forces of limited government/free market and the forces of interventionist government, because they fear losing control if the limited government forces win. The GOP has been a part of the expansion of State power for decades, and, now that a small faction within the party has joined with the Tea Party forces, the protecters of the status quo in DC, like Roberts, have to stop the advancement of the limited government forces, as the GOP establishment has to marginalize and prevent the limited government faction's growing influence from eating away at the power structure.

The other face of conservativism, the Burkean statists who protect the domination of the elite few over the many, pretend to represent the reasonable voices of the GOP, while marginalizing the limited government forces as extremists in the party who are causing unnecessary polarization and strife.

If Romney can't lead a true opposition campaign against the forces of statism, then ACA will be implemented, and we haven't seen anything yet. Control of healthcare and finances, the two major accomplishes of progressivism recently, are the last statist victories necessary for complete control. Statist Republicans will call this hyperbole, but then they aren't concerned with limited government and a free market.

Redstate Republicans

Redstate Republicans are a faction of the GOP which doesn't possess the knowledge to fully understand what they are against or for. The Republican Party will either transition to classical liberal principles, or it will become irrelevant. The type of "conservativism" represented at Redstate has no philosophical foundation, so its attacks on "liberals" lack historical perspective. The participants know they dislike Democrats, Obama and liberals, but they lack the intellectual capacity and knowledge of political philosophy to make a good case for true opposition to modern liberalism.

Because Ron Paul has ideas which don't conform with their simplistic version of "conservativism" they smear him as a kook, racist (that's rich), and traitor who defends terrorists. The Redstate Republicans are basically tools for the Republican establishment, although they pretend to be independent rebels who possess the true "conservative" spirit. Despite their grumbling, they will be led by the nose in 2012. The special type of ignorance possessd by the Redstate crowd has driven independents to the Democrat Party, although these Democrat leaning independents are just as misguided if they think Democrats will ever renounce their form of statism that's destroying our economy. Obama promised to be a new kind of Democrat, and the independents believed him -- now these independents would like to vote Republican, but they are finding problems with the Redstate type Republican.

The Redstate faction is loud, so they appear to be representative. They'll eventually follow the establishment choice for the Presidential race, and then justify their capitulation by saying winning counts, and anything is better than Obama, but they won't be able to explain why. Anything is not better than Obama. True classical liberal opposition to Obama is better than Obama. The Redstate crowd will follow anyone who promises to cut spending, keep marriage sacred, fight abortion, loves Jesus, is repulsed by certain unapproved behavior,  kick some union ass, fight illegal immigration and keep the war machine alive. These are the issues important to the Redstate Republicans, right or wrong, and it doesn't matter how powerful a rightwing government becomes as long as it represents these concerns. They never have well-reasoned explanations why they support what they support, they just do, by God. Higher principles of individual rights, equal opportunity, non-interventionism in private behavior and foreign, sovereign countries are not important. Obviously, these higher principles are too complex for the Redstate Republican to bother with.

The Redstate Republicans have no idea how their unexamined value-judgements affect the evolution of State power -- they just want their little worlds protected from what they don't understand. Perhaps if they would put a little effort into learning the history of domination and freedom and what the Constitution actually represents, they wouldn't be so bitter when someone like Paul, who does understand, supports things that don't fit their stunted worldview. Then, if they disagee, they'll have the tools to intelligently explain why, rather than call names and dreg up old newsletters from 1990 -- and even if Paul turns out to be morally unfit to be President, they'll realize that the ideas were what was really important all along. The Republican Party needs a philosophical foundation based on classical liberal principles, not delusional, pseudo-conservative, social warriors striking out blindly in fear, unable to indentify the enemy.