I have been interested in publishing, by some means, a book that amounts of economics for laymen. Hazlett published Economics in One Lesson, which attempted to satisfy such issues.
This post will be an attempt to explain orders of production, at least for myself, so that I can more easily explain them for those who are not familiar with economic terminology. I would like to do this with more topics in future posts.
An order of production is a good that is a certain number of one steps from a resulting consumer's good in the process of production. The way that Menger described such orders was that a second order good is one step away from a consumer's good. Thus, a consumer's good is a first order good, uncooked cookie-dough might be a second order good, and the eggs, flour, and other ingredients would all be third-order goods.
To keep with the subjective value theory, treatment by any user of a good defines the order of the good. For instance, you could in theory consume cookie dough, thus you would have used that good as a first-order good. However, other users may treat cookie dough as a second-order good by baking it into cookies, which would then be consumed.
To further upset the supposed objective nature of orders of production, consider hand tools. For a hand tool to be a consumer good, it must be consumed in its usage. Ordinarily, you don't use cookies for anything but consumption. However, it is possible to use cookies for purposes like weight or even insulation. Obviously, such uses would be very inefficient compared to other materials, but that is beside the point. That is, you can use cookies for more than just consumption, thus the "common sense" uses for a good are not necessarily the only possible uses for a good. Rather, it is the user that defines the usefulness, within the laws of physics.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Roads etc
This is a short post, if only because this is a simple idea.
Right now, all roads, as far as I know, are maintained by private companies, but governments pay for those companies to maintain the roads. The same thing occurs as far as how the military gets its weapons; companies build the bombs and bullets, while the government pays for those bombs and bullets to be made.
The difference between public and private roads is who pays for the roads. If you want roads, you will pay for them; why should those that don't use the roads pay(be taxed) for them?
If governments were to (1) stop paying for roads and were to (2) stop regulating roads, then individuals, companies, and communities would pave and maintain roads as they see fit. This would be organic and decentralized, rather than planned and centralized; it is no wonder roads are terrible everywhere I seem to drive, except in my apartment complex, driveways, and parking lots.
Also, I've come up with a proverb (if it can be called that):
Private property is the basis of prosperity; politics is the basis of poverty.
Right now, all roads, as far as I know, are maintained by private companies, but governments pay for those companies to maintain the roads. The same thing occurs as far as how the military gets its weapons; companies build the bombs and bullets, while the government pays for those bombs and bullets to be made.
The difference between public and private roads is who pays for the roads. If you want roads, you will pay for them; why should those that don't use the roads pay(be taxed) for them?
If governments were to (1) stop paying for roads and were to (2) stop regulating roads, then individuals, companies, and communities would pave and maintain roads as they see fit. This would be organic and decentralized, rather than planned and centralized; it is no wonder roads are terrible everywhere I seem to drive, except in my apartment complex, driveways, and parking lots.
Also, I've come up with a proverb (if it can be called that):
Private property is the basis of prosperity; politics is the basis of poverty.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Math Class is Innefficient
I was thinking about how increases in the division of labor result in a more efficient economy, and how labor-saving devices make certain kinds of labor either easier or obsolete.
Therefore, I am beginning to think that math class is inefficient, since writing out the equations and showing your work when using a computer program is so much faster. I agree that if someone is going to go into a science for their career, then being able to solve mathematical equations by hand MAY be useful.
However, I cannot see any point in continuing to write out one's math when one could use a computer program to do the same work, but more quickly. I haven't found any such programs, though I imagine that one could make a lot of money. Let's call this program AutoMath.
AutoMath's gui would provide a list of equations, a custom equation field, the ouput, and an option to output each step from equation to answer. Also, AutoMath should be able to read and output equations written in LaTeX. Obviously, this would not help those instances where you have a word problem, but that could be another program entirely.
AutoMath is a labor-saving device, of sorts, that makes any mathematical work faster, which would be a desktop version of what is already used in financial, military, avionic, and aerospace industries. For instance, the Moon-lander used in 1969 had a computer that solved equations constantly through out the historic landing on the moon. Also, financial institutions use extremely sophisticated mathematical models to attempt to either predict prices or to attempt to buy and sell products and services at the best possible time.
Industries already use the concept behind AutoMath, though AutoMath is meant to be used by math students and scientists. Programmers may or may not find it useful, since a few lines of Ruby could do the same thing.
One last thing: I see this absence of a kind of AutoMath, especially for students, is an atavism that may hopefully vanish within the next generation, as the baby-boomers leave the work-force.
Therefore, I am beginning to think that math class is inefficient, since writing out the equations and showing your work when using a computer program is so much faster. I agree that if someone is going to go into a science for their career, then being able to solve mathematical equations by hand MAY be useful.
However, I cannot see any point in continuing to write out one's math when one could use a computer program to do the same work, but more quickly. I haven't found any such programs, though I imagine that one could make a lot of money. Let's call this program AutoMath.
AutoMath's gui would provide a list of equations, a custom equation field, the ouput, and an option to output each step from equation to answer. Also, AutoMath should be able to read and output equations written in LaTeX. Obviously, this would not help those instances where you have a word problem, but that could be another program entirely.
AutoMath is a labor-saving device, of sorts, that makes any mathematical work faster, which would be a desktop version of what is already used in financial, military, avionic, and aerospace industries. For instance, the Moon-lander used in 1969 had a computer that solved equations constantly through out the historic landing on the moon. Also, financial institutions use extremely sophisticated mathematical models to attempt to either predict prices or to attempt to buy and sell products and services at the best possible time.
Industries already use the concept behind AutoMath, though AutoMath is meant to be used by math students and scientists. Programmers may or may not find it useful, since a few lines of Ruby could do the same thing.
One last thing: I see this absence of a kind of AutoMath, especially for students, is an atavism that may hopefully vanish within the next generation, as the baby-boomers leave the work-force.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Private vs. Government Positive Law
Been a while, but I guess there is no point in posting when I can't think of anything to post. To whit, I have found something I want to post, namely, regarding private positive law.
Theologians mention positive law as any laws that are made in addition to God's laws. A better definition may be that positive law is any law created be any human for the purpose of regulation of human behavior. (Regulation = the causing of regularity)
The most obvious instances of positive law happen to be those laws that governments make and enforce. Laws regarding how you may run your business, what medications you may manufacture, what plant fiber you may not ingest; the list is endless and endlessly absurd when it comes to government's positive laws. (seriously, who gives a crap if I have a sharp piece of metal in my pocket, I happen to collect sharp pieces of metal.)
Private positive laws are the most useful positive laws I have come across in my life time. Businesses tend to write out the majority of private positive laws (I think), though individuals do write their own positive laws. Contracts, whether between businesses, individuals, or both, provide for the most common form of private positive law, because, as I defined positive law above, a contract seeks to regulate human behavior.
When a singer signs a contract to sing so many songs for so much money, that singer has voluntarily chosen to cooperate with a business. The signing of the contract results in both the business and the individual to act in a regular manner, as the contract describes; this regularity would not occur unless all parties to the contract were voluntarily interested in acting regularly. This is the beauty of private positive law in the form of contracts, in that no amount of enforcement or coercion is necessary, so long as the government is no involved, of course.
Another form of private positive law is that of internal business policy. Many businesses, like Google, have a privacy policy that basically says they will not provide private information to outside sources. The sole and tragic exception to that simple policy is when the government starts asking for private information, at which point the privacy policy general accommodates the government totally by explaining the businesses willingness to comply with the government's positive laws (my words not their's).
As you can see, private positive law tends to be helpful in regulating human behavior so long as government does not become an issue.
Government positive laws started out as dictates from chiefs and kings. When the king wanted something, like a tribute or tax, he would declare that all in his jurisdiction shall do or be punished. This simple reliance upon violence (punishment) to regulate human behavior (pay your taxes) is the basis of every government positive law. The possible exception is when a law tells a department of government to do something, as a punishment is not mentioned. (Maybe the government employees know they will lose their job if they don't do as the government positive law says.)
In short, positive law regulates human behavior; government positive law regulates behavior based on violence; private positive law regulates behavior based on mutual consent. It is therefore sad that so many theologians look to government as the sole source of positive law, which is the most disgraceful form of it; maybe more people should be taught economics rather than merely the three R's.
I hope to expound more on private positive law in the future, as it shows how humans can live in tranquility without recourse to the wickedness of government.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Libertarianism in Politics and Voting
Its been a while since my last post, Oh well. I have been mostly reading news articles, fixing computers, and playing video games.
My perspective on the above has been changing most quickly since last summer, though my blog posts have not yet shown that change. Such a modification goes something like this: constitutionalist, minarchist libertarian, anarchist libertarian, autarchist, and now something around voluntaryism, agorism, and anarcho-capitalsim. The distinctions are mostly academic in nature once I got beyond anarchist libertarianism, though I find it interesting that voluntaryists, agorists, and anarcho-capitalists will occasionally bicker that one or the other isn't principled enough.
Principles, notably the non-aggression principle, are what make the libertarians in America different from almost every other political perspective in the world. Libertarianism takes not specific issue, like gay marriage or abortion, as its beliefs. Instead, Libertarianism takes the simple and universally obvious non-aggression principle as the foundation of positions on any particular issue.
This principled stance against aggression results in opposition from conservatives and liberals, but not because cons or libs think the non-aggression principle is wrongheaded. Rather, cons and libs see libertarianism as evil because of the positions it takes on the numerous issues in American politics. That is the basis of mudslinging, but it works to discredit potential libertarians, who have been convinced that only issues matter.
For instance, my mother recently mentioned that she considers herself to be a Pro-Life libertarian. That distinction comes from the fact that the Libertarian Party has a neutral stance on abortion. In case anyone was unsure, the Libertarian Party does not define libertarianism; the LP is merely a bunch of libertarians who want to see an L next to some names in Congress. This is why I have extreme doubt that the LP will ever gain any ground.
Speaking of gaining ground, Ron Paul did more for the spreading of libertarianism while he was on campaign in 2008, than most any LP party. That is because Ron Paul has gotten himself into places where the LP either cannot or will not go, like the widely publicized Republican Convention.
I think that the LP, Ron Paul, and any other libertarian should only have speaking tours. Ron Paul was not applauded at the places he spoke at because he was a great speaker, but he was honest, which is naturally lacking in the most prominent of politicians. I have never heard hide-nor-tail of LP candidates in my area, but I have heard lots about libertarian-esque speakers in places like Arizona and New Hampshire.
Now don't get me wrong, my lack of faith in libertarians getting elected is not accompanied by some desire to find the next-best-candidate. I have given up all hope in politics and therefore voting. Voting has become, to me, a sort of waste of time; I get to show my ID, stand at a booth, color in some circles or poke some names on a screen, watch the results on TV, then forget that I voted at all.
The only other time I can think of that I do similar things was the SAT, and I never saw any benefit in taking the SAT aside from avoiding flak from people who thought the SAT was direly important. What is odd is that most things I go out of my way to do revolves around the idea that I want to avoid complaints; maybe that is my don't-hurt-me reflex out of order.
At any rate, I no longer vote, and I probably will continue to see irony as people are disappointed by politicians who are caught doing illegal/immoral things(Spitzer, Blagoyavich, Bill Clinton). When I was about to do something stupid, my sister said that she would laugh if I get hurt, which I naturally ignored and proceeded to get hurt. She did not laugh, but said, "I told you so."
I wonder how Americans would react to a book that goes through the entire history of political disappointments in America. It would castigate both Republicans and Democrats while pointing out the irony of the event; Libertarian politicians may get a mention, if only to point out the futility of politics as a means of progress.
It was real and it was fun, but I still can't define a libertarian.
My perspective on the above has been changing most quickly since last summer, though my blog posts have not yet shown that change. Such a modification goes something like this: constitutionalist, minarchist libertarian, anarchist libertarian, autarchist, and now something around voluntaryism, agorism, and anarcho-capitalsim. The distinctions are mostly academic in nature once I got beyond anarchist libertarianism, though I find it interesting that voluntaryists, agorists, and anarcho-capitalists will occasionally bicker that one or the other isn't principled enough.
Principles, notably the non-aggression principle, are what make the libertarians in America different from almost every other political perspective in the world. Libertarianism takes not specific issue, like gay marriage or abortion, as its beliefs. Instead, Libertarianism takes the simple and universally obvious non-aggression principle as the foundation of positions on any particular issue.
This principled stance against aggression results in opposition from conservatives and liberals, but not because cons or libs think the non-aggression principle is wrongheaded. Rather, cons and libs see libertarianism as evil because of the positions it takes on the numerous issues in American politics. That is the basis of mudslinging, but it works to discredit potential libertarians, who have been convinced that only issues matter.
For instance, my mother recently mentioned that she considers herself to be a Pro-Life libertarian. That distinction comes from the fact that the Libertarian Party has a neutral stance on abortion. In case anyone was unsure, the Libertarian Party does not define libertarianism; the LP is merely a bunch of libertarians who want to see an L next to some names in Congress. This is why I have extreme doubt that the LP will ever gain any ground.
Speaking of gaining ground, Ron Paul did more for the spreading of libertarianism while he was on campaign in 2008, than most any LP party. That is because Ron Paul has gotten himself into places where the LP either cannot or will not go, like the widely publicized Republican Convention.
I think that the LP, Ron Paul, and any other libertarian should only have speaking tours. Ron Paul was not applauded at the places he spoke at because he was a great speaker, but he was honest, which is naturally lacking in the most prominent of politicians. I have never heard hide-nor-tail of LP candidates in my area, but I have heard lots about libertarian-esque speakers in places like Arizona and New Hampshire.
Now don't get me wrong, my lack of faith in libertarians getting elected is not accompanied by some desire to find the next-best-candidate. I have given up all hope in politics and therefore voting. Voting has become, to me, a sort of waste of time; I get to show my ID, stand at a booth, color in some circles or poke some names on a screen, watch the results on TV, then forget that I voted at all.
The only other time I can think of that I do similar things was the SAT, and I never saw any benefit in taking the SAT aside from avoiding flak from people who thought the SAT was direly important. What is odd is that most things I go out of my way to do revolves around the idea that I want to avoid complaints; maybe that is my don't-hurt-me reflex out of order.
At any rate, I no longer vote, and I probably will continue to see irony as people are disappointed by politicians who are caught doing illegal/immoral things(Spitzer, Blagoyavich, Bill Clinton). When I was about to do something stupid, my sister said that she would laugh if I get hurt, which I naturally ignored and proceeded to get hurt. She did not laugh, but said, "I told you so."
I wonder how Americans would react to a book that goes through the entire history of political disappointments in America. It would castigate both Republicans and Democrats while pointing out the irony of the event; Libertarian politicians may get a mention, if only to point out the futility of politics as a means of progress.
It was real and it was fun, but I still can't define a libertarian.
Monday, January 17, 2011
The Internet, Anonymous, Real Change, Doubt
---------
Internet
---------
http://www.techeye.net/internet/obama-touts-internet-id-for-all-us-citizens
I highly suggest that you read the article linked above, because it makes the very clear point regarding online shopping.
Liberals would likely spin this as reasonable regulation to keep American consumers safe from things like identity theft.
Fundamentalist christian conservatives might spin this as proof that Obama is the Anti-Christ (read the article).
Neo-Conservatives would spin Obama's move as being a apart of a larger effort to fight terrorism, but in this case using identification of Internet users. (that would be utter bullshit)
True libertarians wouldn't spin this, only to point out the fruitlessness of the whole endeavor.
------------
Anonymous
------------
I think that Obama is trying to piss off Anonymous, which is getting easier and easier each time anyone in government even slightly suggests regulating the Internet (FCC + Net Neutrality) or harming someone who uses the Internet for anti-corruption purposes (Julian Assange). I have read pictures by Anonymous and they seem to go something like this:
The government/corporation is doing something we don't like;
We think that a DDoS attack from many locations is proper protest;
All who agree with the above are encouraged to participate in the DDoS on such-and-such date;
They won't get away with this atrocity;
We are many, We are Anonymous.
I may have not caught all of the subtleties of a typical Anonymous post, so plz don't complain; I am merely a blogger, not an Anonymous participator (as much as I would love to, I have more important things to worry about than protests of any kind).
At any rate, I believe that Obama is digging his own whole by unconsciously taking on Anonymous. I cannot wait for the 2012 election posters:
"Obama tried to kill the Internet."
-or-
"Boehner did nothing to stop Obama's massive power grabs."
-------------
Real Change
-------------
John Boehner, the new speaker for the House, will prove himself to be an idiot in the next two years if he doesn't do at least two things:
1) Repeal the Food Safety Modernization act; (a very dangerous and very stupid bill)
2) Repeal Obamacare. (a very stupid and somewhat dangerous bill)
Any idiot can repeal those, if at the very least through the indirect means known as defunding the program.
However, repealing these two acts of Congress would only put America back onto a course without the problems these bills would create. That is, Americans have not yet began to seriously suffer from the effects of either bill, for now.
I will contribute my entire savings account and checking account to Boehner's re-election campaign is he gets at least one of the following passed through Congress:
A) A total repeal of the Income tax, with no replacement, not even the suggested Fair Tax;
B) An abolition of a Federal agency whose budget is at least one billion dollars per year;
C) A repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act;
D) A ban on the playing of Justin Bieber music in public, and/or distribution of his music.
I might work for Boehner for free for 7 years straight if he can successfully purge the United States Code; that would involve what I like to call simply repealing every act of the United States Congress, thus achieving the above A, B, and C. D is just icing on the cake, should he even consider it as even Constitutional, much less as being worthy of a second thought..
------
Doubt
------
Don't get me wrong; I don't consider any Real Change to occur in my life-time, much less before the Second Coming. I can fantasize, can't I?
It will be a miracle if Boehner focuses on a non-partisan issue, like Federal regulation of everything short of my hear beat (obvious hyperbole should be obvious). This is nonetheless the reason why I have written-off any change coming from the Federal government.
I will begin focusing on the States as a source of change, because I see lots of real change:
-New Hampshire has abolished its knife laws.
-Arizona and Alaska have joined Vermont in what is now called Constitutional Carry, with some restrictions.
-Several states (38?) have considered or have already passed laws that challenge Federal regulation of intrastate commerce, specifically regarding guns.
Well, that is all for now, I have to sleep.
Mmmm, freedom.
Internet
---------
http://www.techeye.net/internet/obama-touts-internet-id-for-all-us-citizens
I highly suggest that you read the article linked above, because it makes the very clear point regarding online shopping.
Liberals would likely spin this as reasonable regulation to keep American consumers safe from things like identity theft.
Fundamentalist christian conservatives might spin this as proof that Obama is the Anti-Christ (read the article).
Neo-Conservatives would spin Obama's move as being a apart of a larger effort to fight terrorism, but in this case using identification of Internet users. (that would be utter bullshit)
True libertarians wouldn't spin this, only to point out the fruitlessness of the whole endeavor.
------------
Anonymous
------------
I think that Obama is trying to piss off Anonymous, which is getting easier and easier each time anyone in government even slightly suggests regulating the Internet (FCC + Net Neutrality) or harming someone who uses the Internet for anti-corruption purposes (Julian Assange). I have read pictures by Anonymous and they seem to go something like this:
The government/corporation is doing something we don't like;
We think that a DDoS attack from many locations is proper protest;
All who agree with the above are encouraged to participate in the DDoS on such-and-such date;
They won't get away with this atrocity;
We are many, We are Anonymous.
I may have not caught all of the subtleties of a typical Anonymous post, so plz don't complain; I am merely a blogger, not an Anonymous participator (as much as I would love to, I have more important things to worry about than protests of any kind).
At any rate, I believe that Obama is digging his own whole by unconsciously taking on Anonymous. I cannot wait for the 2012 election posters:
"Obama tried to kill the Internet."
-or-
"Boehner did nothing to stop Obama's massive power grabs."
-------------
Real Change
-------------
John Boehner, the new speaker for the House, will prove himself to be an idiot in the next two years if he doesn't do at least two things:
1) Repeal the Food Safety Modernization act; (a very dangerous and very stupid bill)
2) Repeal Obamacare. (a very stupid and somewhat dangerous bill)
Any idiot can repeal those, if at the very least through the indirect means known as defunding the program.
However, repealing these two acts of Congress would only put America back onto a course without the problems these bills would create. That is, Americans have not yet began to seriously suffer from the effects of either bill, for now.
I will contribute my entire savings account and checking account to Boehner's re-election campaign is he gets at least one of the following passed through Congress:
A) A total repeal of the Income tax, with no replacement, not even the suggested Fair Tax;
B) An abolition of a Federal agency whose budget is at least one billion dollars per year;
C) A repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act;
D) A ban on the playing of Justin Bieber music in public, and/or distribution of his music.
I might work for Boehner for free for 7 years straight if he can successfully purge the United States Code; that would involve what I like to call simply repealing every act of the United States Congress, thus achieving the above A, B, and C. D is just icing on the cake, should he even consider it as even Constitutional, much less as being worthy of a second thought..
------
Doubt
------
Don't get me wrong; I don't consider any Real Change to occur in my life-time, much less before the Second Coming. I can fantasize, can't I?
It will be a miracle if Boehner focuses on a non-partisan issue, like Federal regulation of everything short of my hear beat (obvious hyperbole should be obvious). This is nonetheless the reason why I have written-off any change coming from the Federal government.
I will begin focusing on the States as a source of change, because I see lots of real change:
-New Hampshire has abolished its knife laws.
-Arizona and Alaska have joined Vermont in what is now called Constitutional Carry, with some restrictions.
-Several states (38?) have considered or have already passed laws that challenge Federal regulation of intrastate commerce, specifically regarding guns.
Well, that is all for now, I have to sleep.
Mmmm, freedom.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
What If Republicans Fail?
Are Republicans in Congress and the various state houses and senates going save us from the moves of the current Democrat Congress? I can't say one way or the other, because I was disappointed by the Republicans last time around, but that was then. What about this time? Listening to talk show hosts and reading various articles on the Republican victory this last week, I must still ask the question: What if the Republicans fail?
What if the Republicans repeal only the insurance mandate part of Obamacare? The rest of the bill includes various onerous tax regulations that would serve to create a wider gap between the upper class and the middle and lower class in America. The whole bill is sophomoric, but such sophomoric attitudes has stopped few people from invading Russia, only to be defeating by the Russians. If Republicans edit Obamacare, rather than repeal it, they will be defeated in 2012.
What if the Republicans refuse to put a leash on the Federal Reserve, as a minority of Republicans in Congress are suggesting? If the it is not leashed quickly, then the Fed will continue to manipulate the financial markets, thus damaging the already delicate industrial and commercial centers of America. Can you say, "Welcome to: Post-Industrial America?"
What if Republicans decide that the war is going well and that another surge like Bush's(300,000 troops) and Obama's (300,000 troops) would help American interests in Afghanistan and Iraq? I know of no goal for the Iraq or Afghanistan war as of today, so the Republicans do have an opportunity to at least set a goal for both wars. But the war is not the issue; Republican integrity and intelligence is the issue.
What if Republicans bailout another industry and nationalize that industry, as Obama did with General Motors? The Newspaper industry is due for a bailout, and aren't there enough lobbyists to tempt a Republican here or there to secretly add a few million dollars for the New York Times? Or, a band of Neoconservatives could force through a nationalization of all newspaper companies, placing all of them under the control of the Associated Press. Congress passes laws everyday, so such idiocy is bound to work its way through incrementally.
What if Republicans finally start cracking down on the drug war, the war on poverty(or the poor), and the war on illegal immigration? Even though none of these things are fiscally comparable to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they nonetheless wind up as important issues. I would suggest that Republicans make it easier to work in America, whether that be through easier citizenship applications or through work visas that don't require the person to get permission from their nation of birth. The total scrapping the Federal Tax code, and replacing it with nothing would be a good start. Should illegal immigrants be afforded the freedom to work, then we will not have to worry about any amount of Amnesty of the same; they are here to work for money, not vote for money. Plus, if you want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, you could remove the whole illegality part. But what politician makes his name without first making something illegal, and making a little money off that?
What if the Republicans take on the drug war more so than has been seen since alcohol Prohibition? No-knock warranst are the norm today for police departments, both for weapons and drug confiscations. Should someone tip the cops off that you have drugs or illegal firearms, you could be attacked by the cops, even if all you had was a BB-gun from the 50s, some vitamins, and some Aspirin above your sink. Republicans should move, particularly in the state legislatures, to ban both the issuing and the serving of no-knock warrants, else the drug war will turn into a means of random civilians anonymously putting their personal enemies in the sights ATF agents. Oh wait, that is what already happens. This needs to end, now!
What if the Republicans find some things that Obama did to be acceptable? The numerous monstrous bills that have been passed in the last decade must certainly contain something that a single Republican can convince the rest to leave in effect, right? After all, Republicans are always involved in the numerous committees in Congress, so one of them had to manage to slip in a few hundred thousand dollars for a supportive charity or two; this is the nature of the politician, to pay off those who get you into office; I know of no political party that has none of these politicians, not even the self-proclaimed principled Libertarian party. Those bad eggs in the Republican party are the reason why the moderates go along with the growth of government in America, and they must be exposed as the whining juveniles they are.
How about the Democrats?
What if the Democrats go back to being anti-war, after their short binge of being pro-war with their favorite man in the Oval Orifice. The Democrats could go back to their superficial peace-nick ways, demanding that the Republicans spend less on foreign wars and other such foolery, only to demand that the Republicans instead spend that money on domestic wars (Drugs, poverty, freedom, guns, tax-payers, voting, my future job prospects) or other such foolery.
Basically, the Republicans have an opportunity to recoil government across the board, and I think that is what Americans are expecting, or at least the benefits if such reduction of government. Also, the Democrats will be the thorn in the side of Republicans as they do whatever they are going to do; and I say, let the Democrats hoot and holler about spending, the war, poverty, guns, and a lack of bigger government. In the long run, no Democrat will be satisfied in demanding these things, even if they get them; I wonder if Republicans will be satisfied when 2012 comes around, in whatever they end up doing.
Some of you may have concerns about the lame-duck Democratic Congressional session. I have a quote for you: "If the people fear the government, that is tyranny; if the government fears the people, that is Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson
What if the Republicans repeal only the insurance mandate part of Obamacare? The rest of the bill includes various onerous tax regulations that would serve to create a wider gap between the upper class and the middle and lower class in America. The whole bill is sophomoric, but such sophomoric attitudes has stopped few people from invading Russia, only to be defeating by the Russians. If Republicans edit Obamacare, rather than repeal it, they will be defeated in 2012.
What if the Republicans refuse to put a leash on the Federal Reserve, as a minority of Republicans in Congress are suggesting? If the it is not leashed quickly, then the Fed will continue to manipulate the financial markets, thus damaging the already delicate industrial and commercial centers of America. Can you say, "Welcome to: Post-Industrial America?"
What if Republicans decide that the war is going well and that another surge like Bush's(300,000 troops) and Obama's (300,000 troops) would help American interests in Afghanistan and Iraq? I know of no goal for the Iraq or Afghanistan war as of today, so the Republicans do have an opportunity to at least set a goal for both wars. But the war is not the issue; Republican integrity and intelligence is the issue.
What if Republicans bailout another industry and nationalize that industry, as Obama did with General Motors? The Newspaper industry is due for a bailout, and aren't there enough lobbyists to tempt a Republican here or there to secretly add a few million dollars for the New York Times? Or, a band of Neoconservatives could force through a nationalization of all newspaper companies, placing all of them under the control of the Associated Press. Congress passes laws everyday, so such idiocy is bound to work its way through incrementally.
What if Republicans finally start cracking down on the drug war, the war on poverty(or the poor), and the war on illegal immigration? Even though none of these things are fiscally comparable to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they nonetheless wind up as important issues. I would suggest that Republicans make it easier to work in America, whether that be through easier citizenship applications or through work visas that don't require the person to get permission from their nation of birth. The total scrapping the Federal Tax code, and replacing it with nothing would be a good start. Should illegal immigrants be afforded the freedom to work, then we will not have to worry about any amount of Amnesty of the same; they are here to work for money, not vote for money. Plus, if you want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, you could remove the whole illegality part. But what politician makes his name without first making something illegal, and making a little money off that?
What if the Republicans take on the drug war more so than has been seen since alcohol Prohibition? No-knock warranst are the norm today for police departments, both for weapons and drug confiscations. Should someone tip the cops off that you have drugs or illegal firearms, you could be attacked by the cops, even if all you had was a BB-gun from the 50s, some vitamins, and some Aspirin above your sink. Republicans should move, particularly in the state legislatures, to ban both the issuing and the serving of no-knock warrants, else the drug war will turn into a means of random civilians anonymously putting their personal enemies in the sights ATF agents. Oh wait, that is what already happens. This needs to end, now!
What if the Republicans find some things that Obama did to be acceptable? The numerous monstrous bills that have been passed in the last decade must certainly contain something that a single Republican can convince the rest to leave in effect, right? After all, Republicans are always involved in the numerous committees in Congress, so one of them had to manage to slip in a few hundred thousand dollars for a supportive charity or two; this is the nature of the politician, to pay off those who get you into office; I know of no political party that has none of these politicians, not even the self-proclaimed principled Libertarian party. Those bad eggs in the Republican party are the reason why the moderates go along with the growth of government in America, and they must be exposed as the whining juveniles they are.
How about the Democrats?
What if the Democrats go back to being anti-war, after their short binge of being pro-war with their favorite man in the Oval Orifice. The Democrats could go back to their superficial peace-nick ways, demanding that the Republicans spend less on foreign wars and other such foolery, only to demand that the Republicans instead spend that money on domestic wars (Drugs, poverty, freedom, guns, tax-payers, voting, my future job prospects) or other such foolery.
Basically, the Republicans have an opportunity to recoil government across the board, and I think that is what Americans are expecting, or at least the benefits if such reduction of government. Also, the Democrats will be the thorn in the side of Republicans as they do whatever they are going to do; and I say, let the Democrats hoot and holler about spending, the war, poverty, guns, and a lack of bigger government. In the long run, no Democrat will be satisfied in demanding these things, even if they get them; I wonder if Republicans will be satisfied when 2012 comes around, in whatever they end up doing.
Some of you may have concerns about the lame-duck Democratic Congressional session. I have a quote for you: "If the people fear the government, that is tyranny; if the government fears the people, that is Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)