Is it time to reframe War on Terror?

Most Americans will not think so, especially following the Boston Marathon bombing, but I think it's time to send different signals to other nations, to our government and to ourselves.  It's unhealthy for Americans to maintain a permanent war mindset, anxious regarding the next terrorist attack. I understand the reaction of some as they rally against terrorists, but the sad fact of the 21st century is that any free country will have many enemies, and the enemies of liberty are diverse -- they don't understand the concept of freedom. This is really nothing new -- liberty has always been under attack by those who wish to dominate. Many of those who don't understand the concept of America or freedom in general are Americans who would have us obeying the central commands of a powerful State.

Going forward, it appears to me that the healthiest mindset is defense of liberty, against all enemies of liberty. Political opposition to liberty can be fought by electing representatives who protect the Constitution and individual rights. Militaristic opposition to liberty can be defended by a strong and capable defense. America has waged enough wars against poverty, drugs, terror, etc., and now the mindset, I think, should be to promote and defend liberty. By limiting government power to intervene in the economy, this will provide focus for government to do what it's meant to do, protect our borders, police the streets to protect citizens from crime and violence, and to settle disputes in courts of law. I fear that now, because security issues are so exaggerated by our interventionist government, the American people are assigning too much power and control to the State and the military/industrial complex. When we're always pushed by the idea of perpetual war, we remain in a state of perpetual submission to the State, a State which assigns extraordinary powers to itself because of the war-time circumstances. Once the State expands power and control, it hardly ever, if ever, gives back the power and control.

It's time for Americans to take back the reigns that control government and to say to those in power, Yes, we want you to do what we pay and elect you to do, protect our rights and our lives, but we're going to return to free living. We understand that there are those who wish to harm us, and there always will be those who wish to harm us, but we're going to promote freedom, not hide in fear and insecurity. We can live freely with our eyes open, fully cognizant of a dangerous world, determined to face and deal with all threats, external and internal, to liberty. We aren't fighting a war against terrorism -- rather, we're defending and promoting freedom. It's a change in mindset that speaks to what we're dynamically moving toward as we go forward.

Morning Joe 4/10/2013 -- Political disease

America is suffering from a political disease. On Morning Joe today, the madness of the political class was on full display. It's obvious these people have become so insulated from the private sector they have no idea how Americans live and think. Not that all Americans think and live alike, but there is much we all have in common across this nation in spite of all our differences. The politicization of America, though, is dividing half the country between statists and anti-statists -- the other half doesn't think in these terms -- they just go about living their lives trusting that those in charge won't do anything too stupid, or they expect them to do stupid things and just go about their lives prepared to deal with it.

It doesn't have to be this way. We could limit government power and pressure individuals in the private sector to cooperate and work out problems that we all have in common, and work out problems locally that are specific to the different communities. Government would then be made up of public servants who protect our individual rights, settle disputes in courts of law and protect our borders from foreign attacks, and work out treaties with other nations on issues of mutual interest. With government possessing limited power and with a free market, government wouldn't be so important -- businesses wouldn't have to camp out in DC to lobby and protect their interests. Citizens wouldn't have to worry about what government will do next, nor would they be dependent on a welfare system that's slowly unraveling. Private charity would take care of the most needy, then the rest could buy private, comprehensive insurance plans to deal with life's surprises and to plan for retirement and healthcare needs.

Our economy would be robust in a free market, and everyone would keep what they earn, so that they can take care of their own lives. Those who don't plan well would pay the consequences until everyone learned there is no Big Daddy government to take care of everything. Government in America is now reaching other types of limits, and they're limits reality enforces on those who ignore the natural laws of reality. It hasn't been that long, historically speaking, since our government created the current statist system in earnest at the turn of the 20th century. Progressives changed the course of America with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the income tax and with Keynesian practices to centrally plan the economy. Our "mixed" economy has met the laws of reality as interventions led to other interventions and now we're witnessing the overload and implosion of an economy that can't withstand anymore interventions -- it can only get worse.

Yet, listening this morning to the likes of the Morning Joe hosts, Joe and Mika, and the guests, Michael Steele, Sam Stein, Margaret Carlson, Kelly O'Donnell, David Gregory, Mark McKinnon and others, it's clear that the political class in this nation is in complete denial. They think government should do more, and they were all excited that Congress will likely compromise on gun control legislation that will do nothing but piss off law-abiding gun owners who are not part of the problem government is trying to fix. If we're to believe the spokespeople for the political class, the problem is mass killings like what happened in Newtown.

The legislation being proposed would ostensibly expand background checks, ban assault weapons, strengthen mental health access, stop individuals from selling guns to individuals without documentation, stop undocumented internet sales, and a few other things I can't remember but aren't as significant as the above. The compromise will expand background checks, stop undocumented sales, unless the sale or transfer of a weapon is between family members. They don't think they can get the assault weapon ban, but they might be able to strengthen access to mental health.

In reality, an obsessed, mentally defective individual who wants to kill children will not be deterred, at least no more so than now. A sick individual now might be stopped somewhere along the way and given the treatment they need, but nothing that's being proposed in the legislation will improve the chances of intervention. Government services are broken, and there are so many holes in the system they can't be fixed by creating more laws. Money will not be spent in these areas when there are so many other areas competing for dwindling government resources. Our nation is facing over a 100 trillion dollar shortfall in unfunded liablities. The legislation will make some people feel good for a couple of days, then everything will go back to the way it was, and even worse. There will be another mass killing.

After the next mass killing, politicians and pundits of all sorts in the political class will say that the previous legislation didn't go far enough, so they will start banning guns and creating a national registry. It will not work, so there will be a cry to clamp down and do everything necessary to stop the senseless killings. The final solution will be a police state, then there will be rebellions, and then...you get the picture.

Government interventions call for more government interventions, and there's a tipping point. Government can't solve this problem. Only society can solve this problem, but we have to trust ourselves to do it, and demand that we be given the freedom to do it. The long road back from statist control to a free society appears too much to travel at this point, but I have to believe it's possible. I have to. Our society is sick, and laws will not heal the sickness. More controls and bans will not heal the sickness. More government mental health programs will not heal the sickness. Liberty and reason and responsibility and consequences will begin the healing process. As a society we must embrace reality and adjust to it, not pretend that we can control it from Washington DC.

A couple of telling comments were made this morning. Mika said Republicans like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are archaic for worrying about government over-reach and privacy concerns related to a national registry. Mika said what with Facebook and Google and drones it's silly to worry about this things now. In other words, I suppose, privacy is violated all throughout society and rights are violated, so why worry? Kelly O'Donnell said that what's happening with the Sany Hook parents is the type of democracy that we're all about -- there's a problem, then many people get together and demand government do something about it. No, no, no, Kelly -- this is not what we're about. The republican principle in the beginning was to avoid tyranny of the masses. We don't want to be ruled by the emotions of the moment, but rather by Constitutional limits. The place for the voices of the parents is in the free market of ideas and opinions. We take these emotional issues to one another, and we work it out -- we don't demand government do something just because the majority wants it done -- this can lead to tragedies worse than Sandy Hook.

Arab Spring hopes meet reality

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/28/arab-spring-optimism-gives-way-to-fear-islamic-rise/

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/28/reasontv-libertarians-without

There's been much hope regarding the Arab Spring uprisings, and many westerners hoped that this represented a movement to gain freedom and dignity, but warning signs were present from the beginning. Religious irrationality was severely underestimated as westerners considered the protesters through a liberal mindset. This projection of liberalism on mideasterners failed to understand the depth of Islamist belief and the unwillingness to separate State and Religion. Liberal-minded westerners also underestimated the power of radical Islamist groups over the people of the Mideast (I'm including northern Africa as part of the mideast region). While Egypt is not Libya and Libya is not Tunisia and Tunisia is not Syria, on and on, the reality of the region's embrace of religion over secular government and liberalism is common. As long as the people of the mideast, or the great majority, are subservient to religious authority, these nations will evolve toward overarcing regional control through Islamist law.

There's been much talk of moderate Islamism in America, but the reality of the mideast is Islam, period, and as long as the Islamist religion governs, there will be no freedom. The only way this mideast system can work is through forced obedience to irrational laws that are antithetical to freedom. We can hope for better according to our beliefs of what creates human flourishing, but I think it's time to leave the affairs of the mideast to those living in the mideast.

Putting the China scare into perspective

http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/23/china-derangement-syndrome

Ronald Baily writes an article at Reason online showing the absurdity of the current idea that China is going to "beat" us. The real issues are whether China will open up and allow freedom for its people, and even if China does maintain its current economic pace, which is not likely, a successful and free China is good for the Chinese, the world and, accordingly, good for us. If China cracks down on its people when they begin to enjoy success and want more along with freedom, it will likely go the way of the USSR.

Private sector stardom -- Chris Matthews can't stand it

On Hardball, Chris Matthews had as his guests, Eugene Washington and Howard Fineman, to tear down the stardom of Sarah Palin, and to wonder what's going on with Palin, the media and the public. Matthews said something to the effect that he and his guests possessed a lot of brain-power for something so trivial, but the result was actually fantastic. They can't stand the fact that Palin is on the outside of the political class doing her thing. It's the same with Beck -- the political class pundits and insiders can't stand it because they can't touch Beck or Palin, or Limbaugh, or John Stossel, or anyone at Fox.

I wrote about this awhile back, and it's coming to fruition. The Right is starting the transformation, while the Left is still stuck in a stale, statist collectivism. The private sector stars are giving the statists fits because they want these people in the political game where the game is rigged. I think that the rise of personalities in the private sector is a very healthy and interesting development, and it could lead to changing Washington from without, if enough pressure can be put on representatives to limit government. Now, we need some libertarian stars, another Mencken, someone comparable in wit to Mark Twain -- we need rabble rousers. The Left should loosen up and play with an Abbie Hoffman-like personality, or another Norman Mailer.

It's not that I agree with everything Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc, say, but it's not necessary in a free society -- we can debate the issues in the Information Age and ascertain enough facts to make judgements and changes. In the statist, political realm, those with whom you disagree have the power to enforce their ideas, but in the free market of ideas, we can all discuss the issues and let the best ideas emerge and rise to the top. This is the America that approached greatness -- the America of true diversity and a strong desire for radical freedom.

Poor Chris Matthews -- this potential new world of unsanctioned ideas and chaotic freedom and private sector stardom can't be controlled -- what is a statist to do? Perhaps, he and Fineman and Washington consoled themselves over a few glasses of fine wine after the show.