Big government problems result from lack of limits

The pundits have been busy since last week. Many political players have to decide if they will stick with the government and fight information, hoping low-information citizens won't understand, or if they will take the side of information, facts and truth. I already see some political rats scurrying pretending they've been on the side of information and truth all along.

There are Centrists in the Center-Left Alliance who smell scandal, so they're posturing in the middle feigning outrage over Benghazi when three or four weeks ago they were ridiculing those fighting for the truth about Benghazi. The Centrists would sarcastically chant Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, and they're admirers in media would yuck it up. The political class was sure Benghazi would fizzle.

Not only did Benghazi not fizzle, the administration is unraveling. It's one lie after another, and Jay Carney is twisting in the wind because he drank the kool-aid, and now the deception is coming back to bite him in the arse. Many in the political class are still trying to protect Obama, but this is not about individuals when we get down to fundamentals. Yes, individuals are lying and they should be punished for lying, but our statist system is the fundamental problem.

When we remove limits on government power, then a powerful State arises, protected by an unlimited government willing to do whatever it has to do to protect State power -- much is at stake as power grows, and the "State" becomes anti-social, concerned only with domination. Size of government is simply a result of power, but in reality, a smaller government could do just as much damage, mabe more since the ones in control would not have as much to control and could keep everyone playing the same game.

We now have a dominant State that's becoming increasingly tyrannical. This State machine picks winners and losers in ways that weren't possible before. The State machine has become sophisticated. Honest defenders of the Constitution, and independents who wanted only an honest government, were fooled by the election results in 2012, and they were accused of denying statistics. What the public has failed to comprehend is how far State power extends. The public had no idea how much manipulation and chicanery went on behind the scenes to achieve the results the State machine desired.

The public didn't know about IRS intimidation of what they perceive as political enemies. The public didn't know that the IRS targeted "patriots" and anyone who criticized government actions that go beyond Constitutional limits. The powerful State machine has taken on a life of its own, and it's tenacles reach into every nook and cranny in America. Benghazi was covered up because the truth offended the controllers in the State machine. Statists will still ridicule the use of "State machine" and try to marginalize such concepts, but the American people are learning the hard way.

This is an indictment on government with unlimited powers that protects an all-powerful, anti-social State.

Up with Steve Kornacki 5/5/2013 -- The corrupt status quo

On Up with Steve Kornacki, the Progressive-loaded panel continued to set the narrative for 2014. Progressives like Joan Walsh were on the panel, and they pushed the narrative that Tea Partiers have captured the GOP, and the Tea Partiers don't care about the Republican Party, per se, just about political nihilism. So, unless the viewers misunderstand, the Republican Party is now dominated by political nihilists who oppose the Progressive movement because they hate government and Obama and want to starve government so it's incapable of doing anything.

According to the Progressives on Kornacki's show, the Tea Party has no positive agenda, nothing that they want to achieve politically except destroy the government. You would think that Kornacki would want a Tea Party representative on the show to provide at least a modicum of balance and objectivity, but obviously Kornacki lacks confidence in his Progressive views and prefers a circle jerk from like-minded, true believers. To load the panel against Tea Partiers, then pretend this is nothing but a gutless hit job, is dishonest.

There are plenty of Tea Party representatives who would have pushed back on the idea that Tea Partiers even control the Republican Party, to start with, but, beyond that, they would correct the idea that TPers want to destroy government. They want to limit government power, which is not the same as nihilistic destruction of government. If the panelists have read the literature surrounding the creation of America and our Constitution, then they'll be familiar with the concepts of limited government and economic freedom.

Why Kornacki thinks he has to hide behind propaganda and smear campaigns, I don't know, but he should have the courage to debate these issues with intellectually capable opponents, and there are many on the Right he could ask on the show for a lively, enlightening debate. Instead, Kornacki loads the panel and pretends he's done something useful. I don't know how he can feel good about himself as long as he's afraid to face opposition. Even to improve ratings Kornacki should buck up and face his opposition -- these circle jerks are boring, and they make the viewers feel dirty after watching them.

America and a new direction

I have to believe that enough Americans are waking up to create a change in direction. If we've lost a majority to State dependence and the false comfort of security over liberty, then it's over for America, but I don't believe that's the case. I'm hoping America is approaching a Second Revolution.

The State's minions are busy in their attempts to marginalize those who promote limited government, individual rights and a free market, but we're growing in number, and the day will come when the economy is in such bad condition, and the State's failures are so numerous, and the promises have been broken so often, and the deceptions are revealed so clearly, that people wake up and act. We first remove the statists from government through peaceful elections, then we demand our newly elected representatives make the systemic changes necessary for the economy the thrive and a new prosperity to begin.

Before this can happen, the American people have to go through a psychic change, understanding the awesome responsibilities that liberty entails. It's not some telling others how they have to be responsible -- it's that if enough are not responsible and they don't diligently protect liberty, they'll lose it permanently. To be responsible the American people have to think in terms of charity, cooperation, competition and problem solving, because a powerful State achieves total dominance when the people don't appear to possess the abilities necessary to deal with social problems. Who knows what came first, the people asking for government help or government incrementally foisting that "help" on society in order to better control the direction of society -- now, it just has to change. In the 21st century, there's no doubt that Americans in the private sector can deal with the social problems of poverty, access to effective education, proper healthcare, safety net issues of all sorts and planning for retirement, better than government. We only have to limit government, untangle government enmeshment and take on the responsibilities.

Free people are brilliant people. Given the opportunity and responsibility to live together peacefully in civil society, we'll figure it out locally and nationally in more creative and effective ways than bureacracies fighting over and protecting fiefdoms. We'll still need government to protect our rights and police our streets, and settle disputes in courts of law, so that the rule of law allows us the certainty we need to plan and invest and live with relative peace of mind, but a government focused on limited duties will be more proficient than one divided and balkanized and imploding from too much of everything and not enough clarity provided by limits. Our government has become one big redistribution center which builds a base of support through benefits and promises of financial security, and it's bankrupting the nation and creating a nation of dependents. It's spiritually destruction to be dependent on the State. Our interventionist government's only purpose now is to protect the power of the State in any way necessary. We have to redefine the State, regain our sense of country/people/melting pot/nation, and limit government so that it serves us by protecting individual rights. We tell government what to do, not the other way around.

The State becomes just a representative function as we trade freely in the global market, and as we work with other nations to find better ways toward global peace and shared prosperity through production and discoveries and creative energy. We've been destructive long enough, and America can no longer be the Global Police Force, nor can Americans allow the military/industrial complex to abuse  our troops and keep the rest us blind and ignorant regarding its many overseas interventions. Situations like Benghazi, in which the administration just refuses to tell the truth, can't persist.

Yes, we need a new direction. We need to deal with one another in new and innovative and creative ways, and we need to deal with the world differently. There's much to create, to produce, to invent and enjoy. It's only dark because government controls the light at this point.

Conservative, Libertarian, Progressive

As I've written about several times, our labels are losing their meanings -- mainly because political groups fight for dominance through the avenues of our interventionist/statist system of government. When everyone is fighting for political power, labels beceom meaningless. Sometimes, it gets so confusing I have to drill down to whether the issue at hand is one of coercion or non-coercion. In debate, it's always difficult to stay within the strict boundaries of conservative, libertarian, progressive or whatever label is applicable. For instance, we can argue for limited government from all three positions, conservative, libertarian and progressive. Perhaps the most pertinent distinction we can make between political philosophies is whether we're working from a coercive or non-coercive principle. And, even then, even from the libertarian viewpoint, sometimes government coercion is justified.

From a conservative standpoint, if conserve means what Dictionary.com defines as "to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of", then I want to conserve the Constitution. I want to conserve the principles of limited government, economic liberty, anti-statism, non-interventionism. I want to conserve these principles to the extent of rejecting government's regulation of marriage, drug use, pornography and moral behavior in general. It's not that I'm an immoral libertine -- it only means I believe that morality has to be freely chosen if it's to have any meaning, and unless a person's behavior violates the rights of others, then government has no business controlling the behavior. There are many philisophical conundrums involved in the libertarian stance, such as pornography and drug use where children are concerned, and these can be worked out while maintaining the integrity of the principle, but this is the idea in broad strokes. Discussing these conundrums leads us to a richer understanding, not dead ends that force us to turn back to an all-powerful State for forced solutions. So, it's not so simple in the political realm when a Conservative promotes "small government" or when the Progressive argues for a "smart" government -- we must consider what limits to place on government power, regardless how big or small or smart the government might be.

So, I can be conservative when wanting to conserve Constitutional rights, yet libertarian when it comes to believing that moral/social issues be dealt with in the free market of ideas. The Progressive might  say that as a people we should help those who can't help themselves, and I agree, thus making me simpatico with a Progressive position. I also agree with Progressives that we should protect our environment. I'm not afraid to make such a normative argument. It's really a no brainer that in a successful, wealthy nation, there's no reason for a poor child to go without a good education, or an old person to go without food, or for a handicapped person to suffer in neglect, or for big corporations to freely pollute our air and water, so on and so forth.

Conservative, Libertarian and Progressive positions collide when it comes to how to go about fighting for or against progressive change. Do we embrace an all-powerful State to do our bidding, forcing others to act as we would have them act, or do we, as free people, work in the private realm to create the change we seek? Again, if, say, a corporate action violates our basic rights, then that's easy if it's a clear violation-- it's why we have rule-of-law, to protect our rights, so, yes, our government has the duty to protect our rights from the violating corporation. If, however, poverty and hunger are the issues, as a libertarian, I believe it will be much more beneficial to the poor and hungry if solutions are found in the private realm, rather than blaming the rich and demanding redistribution of wealth through government actions. It's much better from my perspective to cooperate with wealthy corporations in the private realm, voluntarily, to find innovative, dynamic solutions. An all-powerful State can't be trusted with unlimited power -- power mongers use the welfare State to perpetuate power and control, and government programs eventually erode from lack of competition, devolving into dehumanizing dependence. Am I right? I'm willing to argue this case with grownups in a free society.

A Conservative would likely say that helping others should reach toward the goals of independence, self-responsibility and self-respect. Even the Conservative can want a Progressive society, although she might not call it Progressive, yet disagree with the means of Modern Liberals/Progressives. Many churches today are involved in dealing with social issues such as poverty and hunger. To me this is Progressive, although it could be seen as conserving the traditional role of Churches as they attend to the poor and needy. Conservative hunters join conservation efforts to protect the environment. When we restore meaning to the labels, and we look at rational solutions in the private realm, it lessens the political impact of partisan battling for control over our statist/interventionist government system. It doesn't eradicate labels or beliefs, just transforms them into cooperating forces/sets of ideas searching for the betterment of society in freedom.

It's mainly the politicization of America that keeps us neatly divided between, or trapped within, Conservative, Libertarian or Liberal/Progressive. These labels and concepts have meaning, and I'm not joining the No-Labels crowd. I'm saying that from my perspective what's important is the difference between coercion and non-coercion, statism and anti-statism, force and voluntarism, interventionism and non-interventionism. Once we've settled that limits must be placed on government power, and we've broken the cronyistic protection of corporate power, then the rest is a matter of free, diverse people persuading each other in a free market of ideas. Conceiveably, once the battle over statist power has ended, labels will have to be re-assessed, because the the labels under discussion are primarily related to politics. This is the ideal, of course, and cynics will say that people can't work out their own issues without  control and regulation and, somtimes, brutal enforcement, from the power elite. Surely this isn't true. Surely we're capable of living freely without Big Brother telling us how it should be done.

If I had my way -- if the original principles of limited government had prevailed over the Hamiltonians -- Conservatives, Libertarians and Progressives wouldn't fight in the public/political realm for power and control, because, basically, the only decisions to make would be which government will best protect our border, police our streets and settle disputes in courts of law. The private sector would be the arena in which we work out issues regarding the means of conservation, the responsibilities of liberty and the costs and benefits of progress.

Ultimately, though, it's not about Rand Paul

One way the media, and the political class in general, obscure limited government/free market principles is by focusing on individuals like Rand Paul. Just like the media focused the individual, Ron Paul, they are doing the same with his son, Rand. There's much more discussion regarding Paul's bladder or John McCain calling him a wacko bird than there is about the ideas and principles Paul represents.

Paul could shift at some point and support a statist policy that causes media and the political class to smear him as a hypocrite, thus damaging the principles that should be more important than any one individual. I got caught up in the wacko bird silliness on Twitter just because humor is an excellent means to deal with stodgy, arrogant characters like John McCain, but the principles regarding limits on government power, economic liberty and military non-interventionism are serious, and their validity doesn't depend on any one person.

I certainly hope Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Justin Amash and the others stand tall and maintain their integrity, but all these representatives are different, and they aren't all singing from the same song sheet all the time. I've heard Cruz talk about terrorism and foreign policy, and he sounds a lot like McCain. I don't know if Cruz holds different views overall  from McCain's hawkish views regarding our seemingly endless war in Afghanistan or our backfiring interventions in Libya and Egypt, because I haven't heard him give a foreign policy speech. So, any one of these New Republicans might not maintain all the principles I would want them to maintain, but we need not allow media and the political class to marginalize the principles themselves just because a few individuals in the group of New Republicans aren't pure constitutional/limited government/free market, non-interventionist Conservative/Libertarian/Classical Liberal.

If we can just stop the Progressive madness and begin the slow process of changing directions, then that'll be a huge, nation-changing turn-around. If we can start looking for ways to limit government power and empower the private sector rather than ways to expand government's power and the public's dependence on government, then maybe we can spare the nation from financial collapse and a State command and control reaction to the chaos caused by a collapsing economy.