Rand Paul Revolution: Ron Paul 2012 ABC News Interview

.

The person who put together this YouTube video, titled it, “Ron Paul Explains a Socialist!” Even though Representative Paul only talked about Socialists in referring to Elizabeth Warren once and for about a minute. To talk about public education infrastructure and labeling Warren as a Socialist, because she supports the collective and all of these public works funded by taxpayers and are government-run. And because of this, I’m really only interested in this interview itself.

Ron Paul, is 2012, running for President in a party that still had a very young and developing conservative libertarian faction in it. And never had a blizzards chance in South Florida of ever winning the Republican nomination for president. Remember, the 2012 presidential race, was between Flip Flopper, I mean Mitt Romney, but we all know why Mitt is called Flip Flopper. And a big government Neoconservative in Rick Santorum. Who spent sixteen years in Congress voting in favor of big government and higher debt and deficits. At least while he was in the Senate and especially after George W. Bush became President in 2001.

2016, can be different for Ron’s son Senator Rand Paul. Who will now have a growing and more mature and bigger conservative libertarian faction behind him. And the opportunity to combine his father’s positions on civil liberties and personal freedom and keeping Federal power in check and even shrinking it. While at the same time develop a national security and foreign policy that doesn’t try to have American policing the world on its own. But doesn’t turn the rest of the world off either. That listens to and works with our allies. A conservative internationalist foreign policy in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
Ron Paul

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

National Constitution Center: Video: Senator Mike Lee: Our Lost Constitution

.

I agree with Senator Mike Lee that Congress has not lived up to their responsibilities as being an equal partner in the Federal Government with the Executive. Senator Lee, should know being a member of Congress himself. And how long this has been going on, I would go back to the War on Terror with President Bush, that has just continued with President Obama and even gone further. That a lot of our laws, unofficially written even, are written by Federal agencies. And done through executive orders. And of course Congress can overrule executive orders they do not like, or see as unconstitutional. But part of Congress not doing their jobs is not overriding executive orders that they see are wrong, or unconstitutional.

One of the core values of liberalism has to do with questioning authority. Especially centralized authority and big centralized authority. Not anti-authority, but saying that a lot of authority in the hands of one person or one group of people, even on the behalf of all the people, is dangerous and anti-freedom. And the U.S. Constitution with its Separation of Powers and our Federal Republic and our Federalist system and all of our individual and constitutional rights, best and most accurately describes and represents liberalism at its core and realist form. And that is what the Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) laid out with the U.S. Constitution.

You could blame this President, or that President for our so-called lost Constitution if you want to. But when Congress doesn’t live up to their oversight authority, both the House and Senate, to see that they are involved in all laws and regulations that the White House and its agencies writes and to see that the executive is enforcing the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, who is to blame here? The President? The Executive is just doing what they believe they already have the authority to do. And again if Congress doesn’t like that, they, or a group of Representatives, or Senators can stand up and take action. Hold oversight hearings, pass laws limiting the Executive, hold the Executive accountable through the appropriations process.
Mike Lee

Posted in Book TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Plato Shrugs: Blog: What is Communism Without The Spin?

Communism
Plato Shrugs: Blog: What is Communism Without The Spin?

Before anyone throws Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam and all the former so-called Communist Republics at me, forget about all of those countries. The actual definition of communism and Communists are people who are anti-private property. They want most if not all private property replaced short of people’s homes and personal property. They want control of the economy to be in the hands of the central state. They are even to the left of the Social Democrat, or Democratic Socialist when it comes to economic policy. Because Democratic Socialists believe in property rights and private enterprise, to go along with a superstate to meet the basic needs of the people.

You could be a Communist and believe in democratic multi-party elections. And perhaps even individual rights, short of people acting against the state and threatening the stability of the Communist State. You could be a Communist and even believe in private small business’s short of big business’s. With the state being in control of the big business’s to be used for all the people. Communism is a statist authoritarian ideology, because of the nature of the size of the state in a true communist society. But it’s not necessarily anti-democratic or anti-free. There could be freedom in a true communist society. I doubt we’ll ever see that, especially with both Cuba and China moving to private enterprise economies.

But it’s not so much communism that is the real threat to freedom and individualism and the major competitor and arch-rival of liberalism. Liberalism, liberal democracy, being true philosophies that are truly about freedom, individualism and individual rights. But statism, whether it comes from the Far-Left, or the Far-Right, that are the arch-rivals of liberalism, as well as conservative libertarianism. Statism, being all about the state and that the state is superior. And that freedom can’t be trusted and is too risky. Because a Statist believes that freedom gives people the right to make mistakes that the state has to pay for. But if the state is completely in charge and people aren’t free to go out on their own, the state will be able to protect them and take care of them. And no one will have too much, or too little and immorality won’t become a problem.

There are Statists right and left in democratic societies and even in a liberal democratic society like America. (There’s that word liberal again) Statists on the Far-Left, who not only believe that people can’t be trusted with their money, because they’ll make bad decisions with it. Or will end up being really successful and productive and make a lot more money than most people. So you need taxes and regulations high enough to make sure that government controls most of those resources to see that everyone is taken care. And not free to make mistakes with their own money, or make a lot of money.

But on the social side, you have leftist Statists who believe people can’t be trusted as far as how they talk to each other. That hate speech shouldn’t be free and that their form of political correctness should be the law of the land. That minority groups should get special protection from government. That women should be treated superior to men. That people can’t be trusted to even get their own news and that right-wing media shouldn’t be allowed to exist. And that people can’t be trusted as far as what they should eat and drink. And that government should decide what people can eat and drink. The ultimate nanny state. A Statist on the Far-Left in America, makes Democratic Socialist U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders look like a Moderate.

And you see Statists on the Far-Right in America, who tend to look at society through their own cultural and religious views. So-called Religious-Conservatives, but Neoconservatives who tend to share the cultural views Religious-Conservatives, but also come from a national morality and security bent as well. That security and morality should always come before liberty. That liberty should only be tolerated when it doesn’t threaten security and when people are acting moral in their view. And that government should enforce the Neoconservative’s view of national morality and security. And the Neo-Right has dominated the Republican Party for what twenty-five years now. With the GOP only moving back to their conservative-libertarian roots since some guy named Barack Obama became President of the United States. And they decided that they no longer debt and deficits and the Patriot Act and host of other policies started by the Bush Administration.

So look, I’m not a Communist, or any other type of Socialist. Which shouldn’t be a newsflash to anyone familiar with this blog, or my blogging. But I don’t see socialism, or even communism as the main threat to liberty. And I don’t even see it as a real threat or competitor to liberalism. Because the Liberal, will always have better views and arguments than a Communist and even Socialist. Because the Liberals will explain what people can do for themselves if they just have the tools. While the Socialist, or Communist will always try to tell the audience what government can do for the people so they don’t have to act on their own. Which doesn’t tend to fly in America. But the real threat to freedom in America and in general, is statism. Whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right.

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Salon: Opinion: Simon Maloy: Bernie Sanders: How The Socialist Brings Out Socialists True Colors

Bernie Sanders
Salon: Opinion: Simon Maloy: Bernie Sanders: How The Socialist Brings Out Their True Colors

“Hey, Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and so am I! I just didn’t have the balls to admit it when he did. And I didn’t have the balls to admit it before he decided to run for president. Even though Bernie has been in Congress for now twenty-four years, including the last eight in the Senate.”

That is the main effect that a Bernie Sanders presidential campaign will have on the 2016 presidential race. People who up until now called themselves Progressives, or even worst, at least from my perspective Liberals, even though they represent the Far-Left in America, will now call themselves Socialists, or Democratic Socialists. Because, that is what their leader calls himself and they share his politics.

Actually, even though Senator Sanders is the only self-described Democratic Socialist in the U.S. Congress and I emphasize self-described. He’s fairly moderate and mainstream to people who will be supporting him. He might even be moderate and mainstream to a lot of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which he’s a member of, with most of the CPC members being in the House. I bet most of the CPC members in the House couldn’t get elected statewide. To use as an example, they need gerrymandered districts to keep getting reelected. Senator Sanders, represents the Socialist Republic of Vermont, as its called, but we’re still talking about an entire state. Not just part of one.

But, I wouldn’t support a Democratic Socialist for president, unless it was Bernie Sanders, or Mike Huckabee, or Rick Santorum. I could see my wallet and money running for the hills without me. Looking for new ownership, if they heard I was voting for Bernie Sanders for president. But I’m glad he’s running for president. Because it will give Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party the opportunity to admit to who they are and own the socialist label and stop running from it. And say, “Bernie Sanders, is a Democratic Socialist and so am I. I’ve always been one and just didn’t have the balls to admit to it. Because of the negative stereotypes that comes with socialism in America.”

Posted in Social Democratic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Keith Hughes: Video: What is a Socialist?

.

I’m only interested in two types of Socialists when it comes to this post, at least. The Democratic Socialist, take U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, to use as an example. And the Socialist Liberal, take Professor Noam Chomsky, to use as an example. Someone who is as liberal as me on social issues. That the individual is exactly that when it comes to their own personal affairs. And doesn’t believe we need big government to tell us how to live. But where the Socialist Liberal separates from me has to do with economic policy and foreign affairs. That the Socialist Liberal believes the role of government, especially the central government, is to take care of people. The Liberal, just wants everyone to have the freedom to take care of themselves. That government has the responsibility to see that everyone can do that. But not manage their economic affairs for them.

And that is basically where the Democratic Socialist and Socialist Liberal are on economic policy. A central government big enough to make sure that everyone is taken care of. That all of our basic necessities are met and that the central government should provide these services for us. With a private enterprise system to finance all of these government services for us. Financed through high taxes and big regulatory state to see that the private sector is meeting the needs of the people. And not just to maximize profits. Which is what democratic socialism and social democracy are. Not run the economy, but to see that everyone’s economic needs are met.
Socialism

Posted in Social Democratic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Independent Institute: The Beacon: Randall Holcombe: Progressivism: Rhetoric Versus Reality

Progressivism
Independent Institute: The Beacon: Randall Holcombe: Progressivism: Rhetoric Versus Reality

What people need to understand about progressivism, is that it isn’t socialism. Sure, they are both about big centralized government, but progressivism isn’t completely about government. And doesn’t think individualism and individual initiative is necessarily a bad thing. Or that freedom isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Progressives, unlike Socialists in many cases, believe in all of those things. A true Progressive, doesn’t believe that government can and should do practically everything if not everything for the people. Socialists, don’t seem to have a problem that a new tax increase and government program can’t solve and do something new for the people.

Progressivism, was basically born in the late 1890s and early 1900s, under people like Teddy Roosevelt and later Woodrow Wilson and many others, as part of the so-called Progressive Era. These people who might have seem radical then, but today they would be mainstream Center-Left Progressive Democrats. And thanks to the Great Depression and with Franklin Roosevelt coming to power as President in 1933 with an overwhelming Democratic Congress in both the House and Senate, the New Deal was born. The American safety net and social insurance system. To help people in need help themselves and get themselves back on their feet.

The originally Welfare system was badly designed. Because it didn’t require people on Welfare to finish their education and even look for work. Unlike Unemployment Insurance where people have to look for work and even get help from the program looking for work. But the basic idea of progressivism is that government can help people when they are down get on their feet. And protect the innocent from predators. Either in the economy with the regulatory state. And put criminals way when they hurt the innocent physically and otherwise with the law enforcement state. And protect the country from foreign invaders with the national security state.

If you look at the economic options of the 1930s, the progressive economic approach was actually the middle ground. Which might sound strange even for that period. But think about it, you had Conservatives and Libertarians on the Right, saying that government shouldn’t do anything to help people who are down and stay out of the economy all together. To Democratic Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left, saying that private enterprise and capitalism is the problem. And that government should take over a lot of these sectors in the economy to serve the people. Progressivism, is not socialism, but a very mainstream American ideology.

Posted in Progressive | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tom Woods: Video: James Ostrowski: Progressivism: The Idea Destroying America

.

What I’m going to do with this piece, is to layout what progressivism and Progressives are and what they aren’t. I’ll start with what they are not. They aren’t Socialists and Statists, democratic or otherwise. Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and many other Socialists, aren’t Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt. They are way to the left of FDR, LBJ and Harry Truman. Progressives, believe in the good of government and even expansionist government.

But Progressives also believe in the limits to what government can do for people. The Socialist, sees government as a director of society. “This is what everyone needs to do well in life. And the primary job of government is to make sure that everyone has what they need to do well in life.” The Progressive, wants everyone to do well in life, sure! But it’s not the job of government to do everything for everybody, or even try to. That people have to have a certain amount of freedom over their own lives. Or the economy will fail, because people will stop being productive.

Progressives, see government more as an insurance system that people can use to empower themselves and live as good as a life as possible. Especially people who need opportunity to do better in life. And that government should be there to do things that we as people can’t do for ourselves or do as well. Infrastructure, national security, law enforcement, foreign affairs, regulatory state, to protect the innocent from predators, but not to run the economy. Safety net, for people who are down to help them out, but to also help them get back up.

A lot of today’s so-called Progressives who either have adopted the label, or have had it put on them, really aren’t. Progressives, don’t believe most non-Caucasians in the criminal justice system are innocent. They are not anti-law enforcement, or even anti-military. Under FDR and Truman, Progressives built the national security state. America, became the military and diplomatic power in the world under FDR and Truman. Progressives, are also not conspiracy theory prone. And throw out ideas that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the Bush Administration. To use as an example.

If you really want to learn about progressivism, read up on FDR, Truman, LBJ and read and listen to their speeches. When it came both to economic, foreign and national security policy. Check out Senator Sherrod Brown, perhaps one of the few true of classical Progressives in Congress. Now that the Democratic Party has such a large social democratic wing in Congress, especially in the House. Listen to Senator Brown give a speech on the economy and the importance of the middle class. And things like infrastructure, the importance of manufacturing and small business in America. And you’ll have a pretty good idea of what progressivism really is and how its different from democratic socialism.
Tom Woods

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment