Posts Tagged ‘Freedom of Choice’

“Dr. Martin Luther King, politically was a De…”

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Politically Dr. Martin Luther King, politically was a Democratic Socialist and proud of it. At least when it came to economic policy and foreign policy. He was a democratic collectivist in the sense he believed that the job of government especially the central government, was to see that everyone was taken care of and no one had to go without. And believed in the democratic socialist model of the welfare state that is common in Scandinavia, where the job of the central government is to seen that a lot of the people’s needs are met by the government. Education, health insurance, health care, child care, very generous benefits for the working poor and non-working poor, etc. But he also had what’s called a classical liberal streak (that I call a real liberal streak) where all Americans are entitled to basic individual and equal rights. This quote in this photo is a perfect example of that. Where he’s saying that, “man is not made for the state, but the state is made for the man.

Individuals, don’t get their power from government, but vice-versa. All of our elected officials are exactly that. They have to run in order to serve us and be given the power and responsibility that we the people give them. The people aren’t required to serve the government and serve the politicians, other than obeying the law and cooperating with law enforcement. We don’t have all of these individuals rights under the Bill of Rights, because the current party in power at any given time says we do. Those individuals rights are constitutional and guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. And it’s the job to make our rights are protected. Not to pick and choose who has them and who doesn’t. Which is one reason why I’m such a big believer in civil liberties and freedom of choice and so opposed to political correctness. Dr. King here is speaking for We The People in an individualist way. Saying that we as Americans have basic individuals rights that don’t come from government.

Something that I disagree with Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists on, is the relationship between government and society and government and the people. The socialist-left, tend to combine those groupings into one group. When they say society has done this and provided the people with these things or this country does this for it’s people, they mean the government does these things for the people. When in fact government is the people that are supposed to work for the people and in many cases are elected. Society, is the people and in many cases the people are responsible for job creation, providing health care, education and so-forth and in many cases that is not done by government at all, not even through the financing. But that these services are provided by the private sector, the people who work for private organizations and business’s. When Dr. King was talking about We The People here, he was talking about the basic individuals of the people. Not government and saying that government gets all of their power from the people they’re supposed to serve.


Read Full Post »

Bill Maher
Oxford Union: Video: Bill Maher Full Q&A

Bill Maher, I would describe politically as a Socialist-Liberal. Liberal, on personal and social issues, especially freedom of speech. Where he puts basically no limits on it. And neither do I really, other than libel, harassment and inciting violence. But, he’s pretty Far-Left on economic policy and consistently endorses big government socialism and higher taxes on everyone, to pay for new government social spending. And says that government should take over this and that and education is one of his examples. And he’s in favor of a maximum income and other big government socialist policies. And that America, should be like Europe, perhaps across the board.

But when it comes to especially free speech issues and the right to offend, especially when he’s right, I’ve backed him on every single so-called controversy that he’s brought to himself in the last year. As Maher says, he’s the real Liberal when it comes to talking about religion and talking about what he doesn’t like about it. But what separates Maher from lets say Ben Affleck, or Salon, or the AlterNet, or some other Far-Left publication, is that Maher when he criticizes religion, just doesn’t pick on Christianity. The Far-Left, picks on Christianity, because they see it as a redneck religion, that only Southern rural Caucasians follow.

The Far-Left, won’t at least openly criticize any non-Caucasian, especially women and any non-Western religion, because they see that as bigotry, or at least that’s what they say. And what separates a Bill Maher, or Sam Harris, from Ben Affleck and his followers, is that Maher and Harris criticize religion and people that they disagree with and have serious issues with. Regardless of their religion and ethnicity, or race. But again to the Far-Left, the fake liberals on the Left, any criticism of non-Christians, non-Jews, non-Caucasians, people of non-Western descent, is considered bigotry to them. Where Bill Maher as a social Liberal lets say, believes in Free Speech. And that means the right to speak freely, even if you offend people. Especially when you’re right.

Read Full Post »

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

George Carlin is arguing that Americans don’t have freedom of choice as far as things that matter. Yet we as Americans make both personal and economic choices everyday. And so did George Carlin when he was alive and I wish he was alive today. But he made real consequential choices about his life everyday. Like what he would talk about in his monologues, or should he go on the Tavis Smiley Show to use as examples.

Americans make real consequential choices everyday about what we eat, what do we wear, when do we wake up, what to do in our free time, who we want to befriend and get involved with romantically. And as we are becoming more liberal and libertarian as a society, we are getting more power to decide what we should do with our money. Like should we gamble or not purchase and use marijuana or not. Gays are being able to decide should they get married or not.

Perhaps what George Carlin and excuse me for trying to get into his great head and great brain, but maybe he was saying what Americans really have now are fewer choices with what we can do with our own money. Since we now have such large multi-national corporations. That we have less competition now with so much financial power in the hands of a very few. And we have less choice economic choice from that perspective than we use to. And that would be a very fair point.
George Carlin

Read Full Post »

Nanny State

Nanny State

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

Last night I wrote a blog based on a blog I saw from Progressive Professor Robert Reich, where he was criticizing organize gambling in America. And making the case that America was becoming a “Giant Casino” because of organize gambling. And I’m sure other activities Progressives seem to feel the need to protect people, even if they don’t want their protection. That grown American adults are too stupid to make their own decisions in life. Like how to spend their own money that they earned themselves.

But of course with the so-called Progressive of today, it is not our money, meaning the money that we have and earned for ourselves is ours t begin with. That it’s government’s money that they would call the public’s money and we only get to keep what Uncle Sam allows us to keep for ourselves. And even to protect people from themselves, that we are not capable with our money because we are not capable of deciding for ourselves whether or not we should be able to gamble our own money or not.

That we need our Uncle Sam to babysit us and teach how we should live our own individual lives, because we are simply too stupid as individual Americans to make these basic decisions for ourselves. Gambling like any other activity that comes with risk like riding a motorcycle, horseback riding, going to nightclubs and even concerts, comes with a certain amount of risk. That people who again choose to make that decision for themselves., will only make the best decision that they can with the best available information that is available.

We don’t need government to babysit us and make our decisions for ourselves. What we need government to do is to regulate these activities to stop and punish predators so innocent people who’ve again made the choice to participate in these activities themselves. And to set basic rules to make them as safe as possible. Much different from government putting their big fat foot on the ground, that generally gets stuck in their mouth to begin with, “saying no! You can’t do these things and if you do anyway, we’ll punish you for your own good”.

Generally I go off on Religious and Neoconservatives, when it comes to freedom of choice. And their lack of support for it and criticize them for being in favor of big government. And go off on Progressives for supporting big government as it relates to the economy. But Progressives also have some big government tendencies on these some of these social issues as well. I’m not saying that Progressives are big government supporters across the board.

Because Progressives are not, if they were, then they would basically be Communists. Or how communism has been practiced, take Cuba. And I’m not saying this to be partisan as a Liberal. Because on most social issues, Progressives tend to be very good when it comes to personal liberty. Like abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality and to a certain extent marijuana when it comes to the non-paternalistic wing of the progressive movement.

But when it comes to what people can do with their money, except for marijuana to a certain extent, if there’s any risk or the chance that people can get hurt as a result, or where people can make a lot of money from these activities, they seem to feel the need to try to outlaw these activities. It’s not just Bob Reich’s blog against organize gambling last night. But Progressives seem to feel the need to outlaw hate speech.

Because today’s Progressives seem to feel people can get hurt from having to listen to it. They want to protect people they care about from having to listen to things that may offend. While they make every First Amendment argument they can think of to attack people they are against. Take the Supreme Court decision last year, in March having to do with the Westboro Church.

Or the need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to use against Fox News. Because apparently they don’t believe Americans can tell the difference from real news and what’s bogus reporting, which is what you get a lot from Fox News. The so-called Progressive feel the need to not only protect people, but protect them from themselves. Which is exactly what big government is, whether its applied to economic or social policy. And Progressives are guilty at times on both fronts when it comes to big government.

Organized gambling is not a question of whether it is going to be around or not. It has been around with us at least as long as we’ve been a Federal Republic. The question is how should it be around and should people feel worried about going to jail or not, if they chooses to gamble their own money. Do we need Uncle Sam to protect people from ourselves, or have an educated public that is more than capable of making these decisions for themselves.
The Real News: American Casino

Read Full Post »

American Casino
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

If you believe in things like individual liberty, freedom of choice and even property rights, that people not only own their material property, but themselves as well their lives and how they live their lives, then you shouldn’t have a problem with organized gambling at least as far allowing individuals to make the decision whether or not to gamble their money on their own or not.

Now if you don’t believe in things like personal liberty and freedom of choice, that people are generally stupid and can’t be trusted to make their own decision especially with their own money, then you sure as hell will have a huge problem with legalized organized gambling. And perhaps are in favor of setting up some federal agency of babysitters that will decide what we can and can’t do with our own earned money that we get paid working for a living.

But again if you believe in personal liberty and believe that individuals should be able to make the personal decision of whether or not to gamble or not, you believe it should be legal. Whether you personally believe in gambling or not. But that you don’t believe people should be arrested or prosecuted, because of what they did with their money. As long as they are not hurting others with what they are spending their money on.

Big winners when it comes to organized gambling, are of course the casinos. They wouldn’t be in business otherwise, I mean seriously who goes in business to lose money. I’ll tell you who, the people who go bankrupt and out of business as fast as a fat person cleans their plate at an all you can eat buffet. And perhaps are so stupid that they weren’t even aware that they went into business to lose money.

Just like the big winner in the War on Drugs are drug dealers. Just because people make a lot of money running a business, doesn’t mean that’s bad. Something that today’s so-called Progressives perhaps including Robert Reich doesn’t seem to understand and believe anyone who profits off of services that they provide for the public are somehow immoral or something. And just because you make things illegal, doesn’t mean it goes away.

Again take the War on Drugs and I would add prostitution, the oldest profession in the world legal or otherwise to use as examples. Organize gambling should be treated like any other business. Subjected to regulation and taxation, to make it as safe as possible. Instead of Uncle Sam putting his big fat foot on the ground, assuming he can get it out of his mouth and saying, “no! You can’t do that and if you do it, we’ll arrest you for your own good”. Again similar to the War on Drugs.

Big Government Progressives and Neoconservatives have this notion that government has to be strong, in order to protect the people from themselves. And that certain things that they don’t like have to be illegal. To protect us, so we don’t make bad decisions with our own money and lives.

A couple problems with that, both of them are practical. One they don’t seem to realize that these activities are going to go on regardless of whether they are legal or not. The other being that they don’t tend to be very good at spending other people’s money. As Libertarian Professor Milton Friedman argued and make mistakes on their own. The Progressive War on Gambling, is similar to the Progressive War on Corporate America. That if these activities are legal, then certain people will make a lot of money.

Again if you’re going to live in a liberal democracy, then you need to be able to admit some facts. That you’re going to live with a lot of people who are different from you. And who look at life and live life different from you. And for us to survive as a liberal democracy, with individual liberty, we need to accept these facts, to be able to live with each other as best we can. Not try to force our values onto others and try to play Uncle Sam for the whole country and Uncle Sam knows best. Because a lot of times he simply doesn’t.
The Pit Movie: 2010 Documentary Trailer

Read Full Post »