The Atlantic: Adam Harris: ‘What’s The Deal With Free College?’

Posted on March 13, 2019 by Ederik Schneider
36918

Source:The Atlantic Magazine– Adam Harris, talking about so-called free college 

Source:The New Democrat 

From Adam Harris: “Every day now, it seems, another Democratic candidate announces his or her 2020 presidential run. Among the most popular ideas these hopefuls campaign for is a tuition-free secondary education. A free-college proposal has practically become an entrance fee, says writer Adam Harris.

In a new Atlantic Argument, Harris explains that while this is an intriguing idea, it is also a vague and sweeping one, and voters want policy specifics. The nuts and bolts of education proposals in the 2020 election, Harris says, “are critical to understanding whether or not, six years from now, the student-debt bubble reaches $2.5 trillion, or even $3 trillion.”

“What’s the deal with free college?” I believe is the perfect question in this debate, since it’s basically like asking, “what the deal with flying trucks?” Since neither exists or ever existed. When you get something for free from wherever it might be, it means you didn’t pay anything for the service that you supposedly received for free. And government is the perfect example of that.

If you’re going to ask, what’s the deal with free college, you better know the answer to, “what’s the deal with taxes?” As well as, “why do we pay taxes?” And, “where does government get the revenue to pay for the services that we receive?” If you already know the answers to these questions, then you know if government starts to not only get into the college financing business, because it’s already there with Adam Harris already explaining that in the video, but if government were to go further and essentially take over the business or be such a player in to that it’s now paying for the college education of every single American who is eligible to go to college in America, you will know how government is paying for everybody’s college education which of course is through taxes. And not just on wealthy people, but for every single American who works for a living.

Government services of course are not free. Even if you’re not working you’ve already paid for the public assistance or retirement that other Americans got when you were working. And if you’re not working right now, but will be in the future you’re paying for the public assistance, or retirement, or unemployment that Americans will receive in the future. As the great economics professor Milton Friedman once said, “no such thing as a free lunch.” He was referring to the public services that we receive from government that we all pay for. The only way to go to college for free is by winning a college scholarship either through athletics or academics, or have parents or grandparents that can afford to send you to college with their own money. Otherwise you’ll be pay for your college education one way or another.

The Atlantic: Adam Harris- ‘What’s The Deal With Free College?’

Posted in The Atlantic, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Real News Network: Paul Jay: ‘Is Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialism, Socialism?’

Posted on March 12, 2019 by Derik Schneider
95318

Source:The Real News Network– U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont

Source:The New Democrat

“Sanders says that medicare for all, a living wage, and other reforms is the socialism that’s possible, but is he too reserved on strengthening public ownership? – with Jacqueline Luqman, Eugene Puryear, Norman Solomon and host Paul Jay”

From The Real News

Apparently we need and the people from the so-called Real News Network need a refresher course on Socialists and socialism, because there are Socialists and then there are Socialists and none of these factions are the same as the other except when it comes to Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats. Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, are the same faction.

Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats both believe in a democratic form of socialism or socialist form of democracy and neither wants to eliminate the private enterprise or even capitalism. They just want the national government to provide the people’s workers benefits. Things like health care, health insurance, pension, child care, education, etc. Services that a country like America you would get those services from the private sector, or at the very least would have the option in getting those services from the private sector.

Senator Bernie Sanders, believes in democratic socialism/social democracy. He’s not looking to government to come in and close down private business’s ( except for perhaps health insurers and hospitals ) or have government come into people’s homes and other properties and kick people out and have the properties taken over by the government.

Under a Bernie Sanders Administration if a President Sanders had his way let’s say, the private sector in America would remain in place, but the public sector at least at the Federal level would be a lot larger. Trillions of dollars would be added to the Federal public sector every year in new social programs and in expansions in current Federal social programs, but the private sector would remain in place.

I’m not explaining this because I’m a fan of Senator Sanders, because I’m not even though I respect his candor and honesty, but to explain his own politics so people know what they’re getting when they hear about Socialist Bernie Sanders. He doesn’t represent the Communist or Marxist wing of socialism and looking to turn America into a gigantic Cuba, but instead if he had his way America would become like a gigantic Sweden or gigantic Scandinavia. Where the national government would be a lot larger and more expensive, taxes on everyone would be a lot higher, but the national government would provide a lot more social services and individuals would still own their own properties.

Posted in The New Democrat, The Real News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

CPH: David Levering Lewis: ‘The Improbable Wendell Willkie’

Posted on March 11, 2019 by Erik Schneider
87168

Source:Southern Methodist University– David L. Lewis, talking about his book about Wendell Willkie.

Source:The New Democrat 

“In the wake of one of the most tumultuous Republican conventions ever, the party of Lincoln nominated in 1940 a prominent businessman and former Democrat who could have saved America’s sclerotic political system. Although Wendell Lewis Willkie would lose to FDR, acclaimed biographer David Levering Lewis demonstrates that the corporate chairman–turned–presidential candidate must be regarded as one of the most exciting, intellectually able, and authentically transformational figures to stride the twentieth-century American political landscape. The Center for Presidential History:SMU Center . This recording is the property of the SMU Center for Presidential History and may only be used for research and teaching purposes. It cannot be copied or reproduced for profit.”

From SMU

“In the wake of one of the most tumultuous Republican conventions ever, the party of Lincoln nominated in 1940 a prominent businessman and former Democrat who could have saved America’s sclerotic political system. Although Wendell Lewis Willkie would lose to FDR, acclaimed biographer David Levering Lewis demonstrates that the corporate chairman–turned–presidential candidate must be regarded as one of the most exciting, intellectually able, and authentically transformational figures to stride the twentieth-century American political landscape.”

75969

Source:Livestream– David L. Lewis’s book about Wendell Willkie

If anyone is wondering why I bother too write about Wendell Willkie a man who maybe only 5% of the country has ever even heard of and most of those people being old enough to remember his presidential campaign or born just after his 1940 presidential campaign: the reason why I’m interested in Wendell to the point that I write about him is because I base my own politics and political ideology around 3 people: Thomas Jefferson, the father of American liberal democracy. John F. Kennedy, the last Liberal and not just Classical Liberal President that we’ve ever had. And Wendell Willkie, the last Classical Liberal as well as Liberal Republican nominee for President. Who left the Democratic Party, because he believed they were moving in a socialist big government direction under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.

65836

Source:Presidential History Geeks– Classical Liberal Wendell Willkie

Wendell Willkie, is a political hero of mine and if the Republican Party today was the Willkie Republican Party, I would be a Republican instead of at best an Independent Democrat today. Wendell, was a Republican who supported civil and equal rights of all Americas. Who opposed social classes even as it relates to race and ethnicity. Wendell, was to the Left of President Franklin Roosevelt on civil rights for African-Americans, as well as other racial and other ethnic minorities. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the Republican Party was the civil rights part. First lead by President Dwight Eisenhower who opposed school desegregation and also supported a broader civil rights bill in the 1950s. And without Congressional Republicans, President Lyndon Johnson doesn’t get his civil rights laws in the 1960s.

Wendell Willkie, was anti-Communist, antiauthoritarian Liberal Republican. Think about for a second and see if you can get past that. He obviously wouldn’t fit inside the Republican Party today, but there wouldn’t be much room for him inside the Democratic Party today either. Because he was a true constitutionalist who believed in constitutional rights for all Americans and believed in limited government. He was one of the first true liberal internationalists that we’ve ever had in a presidential candidates at least., who believed that America couldn’t police the world, but we needed to be engaged with the world to protect liberal democracy and stand up to communism and other authoritarian ideologies. A Wendell Willkie, couldn’t fit inside of a Republican Party today, that’s dominated by Nationalists when it comes to foreign policy and in general. And a Democratic Party that’s not only now embracing democratic socialism, but doesn’t seem to have issues with authoritarian socialism either.

Wendell Willkie to me, even though I’m maybe 1 out of 5 Americans who’ve ever heard of man ( perhaps a few more ) is very interesting to me because he was a man and a political candidate who was not just ahead of him time as it relates to foreign policy, the Constitution, limited government, and civil rights, but also represents the the liberal democratic ( or classical liberal, if you prefer ) void that was left inside the Democratic Party when President John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by a Communist, with the Democratic Party moving Left ever since President Kennedy was assassinated. We no longer have a liberal ( or classical liberal ) wing in either the Democratic or Republican Party today and is still missed by me and other Liberals ( or Classical Liberals, if you prefer ) today.

Posted in Classical Conservatism, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mr. Beat: The American Presidential Election of 1980- John Anderson For President

Posted on March 8, 2019 by kireschneider
39055

Source:Mr. Beat– A 3-way presidential election?

Source:The New Democrat

“The 49th episode in a very long series about the American presidential elections from 1788 to the present. I hope to have them done by Election Day 2016. In 1980, Ronald Reagan seems unstoppable as he tries to “make America great again.”

The 49th Presidential election in American history took place on November 4, 1980. As President, Jimmy Carter faced quite a few obstacles, and things just weren’t all peachy. The country faced low economic growth, high inflation and interest rates, and an energy crisis, in which the prices of oil went way up since supply went down in certain areas. This shortage was partially caused by the Iranian Revolution of 1979, in which a new Islamic government hostile to the United States overthrew the old one. ”

From Mr. Beat

There are political Independents and then there are political Independents. Independents tend to get stereotyped as liberal or moderate on social issues and fiscally conservative. Which just isn’t the case in a lot of if not most cases. There are Socialists who are Independents. There are Conservatives who are Independent. There are Libertarians who are Independent and I could go on. A political Independent is just someone who who is not associated with the two major political parties and in some cases not associated with any political party.

56898

Source:Political Matters– John Anderson For President, 1980 

When Representative John Anderson from Illinois, ran for President in the general election in 1980, he ran as a political Independent, but he was a progressive-conservative Republican ideologically. And I know that sounds like jumbo shrimp, or fuel efficient SUV, a Libertarian-Socialist and I could name a tone of other terms that sound like Oxymorons and sound like they were invented by morons who don’t realize that these terms don’t go together.

But back in the 1970s and well before as far back as perhaps the 1940s, there was a Progressive Republican wing of the Republican Party. People who would be called progressive on social issues and believed in civil rights and commonsense regulations when it came to business, civil liberties, but who also believed in fiscal responsibility. Believed in balanced budgets and lower taxes, a strong national defense, who are anti-Communists and didn’t like authoritarianism at all whether it was communist or some right-wing authoritarian ideology. Believed in the rule of law and being tough on crime.

Representative John Anderson, ran for President in 1980 as an Independent, ( meaning not as a Republican or Democrat ) but ideologically he was a progressive-conservative Republican. He was part of the Nelson Rockefeller or Dwight Eisenhower wing of the Republican. George H.W. Bush at least before he ran as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President in 1980 was from this wing of the party as well. And governed this was as President himself. Ideologically he was very different from President Ronald Reagan while at the same time sharing values with President Reagan as it related to national defense, anti-communism, lower taxation, and other issues. So if you want to know where someone stands politically, don’t look at their party registration, but look at their politics and what they actually believe.

 

Posted in Independents, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scott Bradley: A Law For Everything?

Posted on March 7, 2019 by Rik Schneider
97748

Source:Scott Bradley– Not in a free society 

Source:The New Democrat

I actually like this piece from Scott Bradley and I don’t mean to be insulting here, but I had him pegged as someone who was more of a Christian-Conservative and not just that but a Christian-Theocrat or Christian-Nationalist who did believe that it was the role of government to not just legislate morality, but to legislate and enforce laws based on fundamentalist religious scripture. So things like alcohol and premarital sex, adultery, along with homosexuality and gambling would all be illegal in a theocracy and that form of government.

But what Bradley is doing here instead is saying that something might be wrong or immoral and not God’s will, but doesn’t mean it should automatically be illegal. Alcohol is obviously bad for people especially if it’s abused, but that alone doesn’t mean it should be illegal. And the same thing with gambling, adultery, to use as examples. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with premarital sex, but it does violate some people’s religious beliefs, but that alone doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Which I guess is what Scott Bradley’s point would be here.

The great political humorist P.J. O’Rourke once said that he’s very socially conservative in the sense as far as how he lives, but he doesn’t believe that government should force everyone to live like him, just because his own personal lifestyle is pretty conservative. Me personally, I don’t drink alcohol let alone smoke tobacco and I don’t gamble, but I would never want government to force other people to make the same decisions that I’ve made here, especially since they’re not hurting anyone else simply by having a drink or smoking a cigarette or gambling their paycheck.

I believe if you’re going to have to free society there are certain things and activities that government simply has to put up with in order to protect the freedoms of that society. Including behavior and activities that come with real risk that I’ve already mentioned and even more like marijuana and even prostitution and pornography. And that government should come in when people are hurting innocent people with the choices that they’re making. It’s not a question of whether government should legislate morality or not since that question is already moot anyway. But the real question is to what extent and I want government to protract me and every other innocent person from predators, but not try to protect us from ourselves; Which is where I come down as a Liberal.

Scott Bradley: A Law For Everything?

Posted in Freedom of Choice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tom Woods: ‘Remember When Conservatives Didn’t Make You Pull Your Hair Out?’

Posted on March 6, 2019 by Ederik Schneider
69278

Source:Player FM– Conservatives or anti-Conservatives?

Source:The New Democrat

From Tom Woods:

Source:Tom Woods: ‘Remember When Conservatives Didn’t Make You Want To Pull Your Hair Out?’

“Remember when conservatives used to be antiwar, opposed centralized power, and actually wanted to eliminate government agencies rather than just take them over? Yes, such people once existed. Robert Nisbet, whom you’ll never hear mentioned on right-wing radio, but who was one of the great thinkers of that tradition, was one of them. I resurrect him — not literally, so don’t get your hopes up — in this episode. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:”

This is a great conservation because when I think of Conservatives as a Liberal ( or Classical Liberal, if you prefer ) I don’t think of people who try to pull my hair out. Maybe that’s just me not seeing any Conservatives at my barber shop, ( ha, ha ) but I think of people as a Liberal that I actually have a lot of things in common with. People who are anti-Communist and anti-authoritarian all together, as well as anti-Socialist, but people who believe in not just the republic, but the federal republic and not people who want theocracy regardless of what religion a theocratic government would come from.

Conservatives, actually are people who believe in fiscal responsibility, regardless of what the current Republican Party is saying today. Ass well as a strong, but responsible and limited national defense. Not Neoconservatives who believe that it’s the job of America to force democracy on the rest of the world that doesn’t currently have it, or believe that deficits don’t matter. That expansionist deficits and debt are worth having a strong national defense and that tax cuts pay for themselves. The Lindsay Graham’s of the world and other Neoconservatives in Congress who actually believe in this.

When I think of Conservatives, I think of people who believe in limited government based on the U.S. Constitution. who believe in conserving our individual rights and that the best way to do that is to limit governmental power especially at the Federal level and decentralizing governmental power, which is one of the main reasons for having a federal republic unlike a unitarian government where most of the governmental power in the country is centralized in the national government especially with the executive.

The people that Tom Woods was talking about that he was calling Conservatives, aren’t actually Conservatives at least when a Republican is President. The so-called Constitutional Conservatives from the Tea Party era from earlier this decade only applied to President Barack Obama. Once President Obama was out of office the Constitution no longer mattered that much to them ( if at all ) except as it related to executive power and believing that the President has the power to do basically anything, just as long as these anti-conservatives ( as I call them ) or Nationalists actually agree with what the President is doing. This is no longer about Constitutionalism or Republicanism when it comes to today’s Republican Party, but about short-term partisanship and short-term political convenience.

The reason why we have a Libertarian Party and a Conservative-Libertarian movement today, is because we have a Republican Party that no longer believes in limited government and Constitutionalism. Who now believe that executive essentially has unlimited power just as long as the executive is doing what they want him to do and the executive is a Republican. I believe those are the people that Tom Woods is talking about when he talks about “Conservatives who don’t make him want to pull your hair out.”

But to me Conservatives are people who would never want me to make me pull my hair out, because they tend to have principles that I agree with. The beliefs in the U.S. Constitution, limited government, individual rights, strong but limited and responsible national defense., and fiscal responsibility. I obviously don’t agree with Conservatives on everything as a Liberal, but we once had a strong Conservative-Libertarian movement, that was a great alternative to Liberals and Progressives in America. And I wish the Republican Party would at some point get back to that, especially when there’s a Republican in the White House.

Posted in Tom Woods | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Globalist: Richard Phillips: ‘Enter Alexandria O. Cortez, Socialist’

Posted on March 5, 2019 by Derik Schneider
77651

Source:The Globalist– The U.S. Congress: good luck finding a more unpopular institution anywhere

Source:The New Democrat

Socialism, similar to libertarianism and perhaps conservatism and when I think of conservatism I think of Conservative-Libertarians, but that’s a different discussion, but socialism similar to these other political ideologies have different factions. I get that, I was one of the first people to acknowledge that when I first started blogging ten years ago. So when I think of Socialists, I don’t automatically think of Communists and the Fidel Castro’s of the world or Neo-Communists ( as I call them ) the Nicholas Maduro’s of the world. But when I think of Socialists, I don’t automatically think of Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, like Swedish or French Socialists. I take each Socialist and socialist faction one by one and look at them individually.

62497

Source:Salon Magazine– U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, D, New York, self-described Democratic Socialist

For me if you want to recognized as a Democratic Socialist, you can’t just be in favor of government-run health care and health insurance, as well as a lot of welfare state programs, you also have to be in favor of democracy, free and fair elections that include non-socialist democratic parties and candidates, including conservative parties and candidates, you have to be in favor of a free, fair, and open press, check and balances, limits on executive power, and you have to be against bigotry regardless of where and who it comes from. Not just be against bigotry when it targets non-Europeans and non-Christian religious groups, but antisemitism as well.

In case there is anyone left who doesn’t already know this, but Jews are both ethnic and religious minorities in every country in the world outside of Israel and in most countries their tiny minorities representing 1-2% of the population ( depending on what country you look at ) so when you when you attack Jews simply because they’re Jewish, you’re attacking not just a religious minority, but an ethnic minority as well when you’re outside of Israel. Which is something the Far-Left and not just in America, but in Britain as well doesn’t seem to understand or even care about. Who seem to believe that oppression and bigotry against Palestinians is somehow a horrible thing, but it’s OK when it’s against Jews in and outside of Israel. Why, because Palestinians are Arab and not Jewish, why would that make any difference.

Freshman Representative Alexandria O. Cortez and Representative Ilhan Omar can all themselves Democratic Socialists all they want, but until they come out against antisemitism and the state oppression and authoritarianism of the Socialist Maduro Regime in Venezuela, they’re just Socialists to me. Perhaps even hippie Socialists or hipster Socialists, yuppie Socialists, which are common in both New York and San Francisco, but they’re just Socialists who apparently don’t have issues with bigotry just as long as it targets the rights groups ( according to them ) and don’t have issues with authoritarianism, just as long as it’s left-wing authoritarianism.

If you want to be a Democratic Socialist, you have to remember that Democratic Socialists starts with Democratic which applies at least that you believe in at least some level of democracy and appose authoritarianism regardless of where and who it comes from. And you oppose authoritarianism regardless of who and where it comes from. The same thing with Liberals and liberalism, anyone can call themselves a Liberal, but if you don’t believe in liberal democracy and the individual rights that come from liberal democracy, you’re not very liberal if at all. The same thing with Democratic Socialists and democratic socialism, if you don’t believe in democracy and don’t oppose bigotry in all forms, you’re not much of a Democratic Socialist.

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

The Onion: ‘Trump Base Celebrates President For Standing Up To The Constitution’

Posted on March 4, 2019 by Erik Schneider
78666

Source:The Onion– President Donald Trump: “I don’t need the Constitution”

Source:The New Democrat

“WASHINGTON—Enthusiastically praising the commander-in-chief for holding firm in the face of opposition, Donald Trump’s political base cheered on the president Friday for standing up to the U.S. Constitution. “He stayed strong and really showed the Constitution who’s boss,” said 48-year-old Trump supporter Ross Heddens, applauding the president’s bravery and determination in taking on the document that represents the social contract through which all authority vested in the U.S. government is ultimately derived. “No fundamental system of laws is going to get in his way. Trump has shown that he won’t allow mere constitutional articles—not even the ones that explicitly delineate which powers are granted to which branches of government—to stop him from doing what he has pledged to do. That’s how tough he is.” Members of Trump’s base went on to urge the president to continue standing his ground by ignoring any future rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court that may seek to prevent him from fulfilling his campaign promises.”

From The Onion

“Congress poised to reject President Trump’s national emergency declaration; Rich Edson reports.”

Rand Paul says he'll vote to block Trump's border emergency

Source:Fox News– U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) deciding not to kiss President Donald Trump’s ass over the border wall. But says he could kiss the President ass in the future, on different issues. Actually, I don’t know if he said that.

From Fox News

At risk of sounding serious for a moment which I can promise you will be fly by as fast as one of Donald Trump’s political positions: Donald Trump and his base in America doesn’t represent political Conservatives and political conservatism. Similar to how Communists and Socialists in general are illiberal on many if not all issues, the Donald Trump and his base are anti-conservative. They don’t believe in tradition, even in “little annoying documents” like the U.S. Constitution which they trend to view as obstacles to their political agenda.

Donald Trump, wasn’t elected to conserve tradition and the status-quo. He was elected to blow those things up. He views rules, checks and balances, tradition as not applying to him. And the mindset that he wasn’t President or even around when the U.S. Constitution and our form of government was put together and never officially signed off on it, so why should it apply to him. And views the The White House and the executive as extensions of the Trump Organization.

People need to understand these things when they look at Donald Trump and understand that the man is not even a Republican, let alone a Conservative. He doesn’t believe in Republicanism let alone conservatism. And neither does his bases at least in a constitutional and political sense, regardless of whatever their religious values and beliefs might be.

So when I say that Donald Trump is not a Conservative or Republican that’s what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about what his party registration is. Someone could own a second home far from where they actually live and technically, be a resident of that community. But if they’re never there and perhaps just own that second home as an investment or own it to avoid taxes, they’re really not part of that community.

If you’re familiar with the term RINO that the Tea Party coined back in 2011-12 ( Republicans in Name Only ) which is how they described establishment Republicans ( the real Republicans ) who weren’t as far to the Right or as partisan as they were, well, RINO is Donald Trump. I mean we’re talking about a man who claimed to be the King of Debt when he was running for President and that he liked debt and all of that. Which is something that no actual Conservative would ever be proud of.

So when Donald Trump takes a position on something that his base ( or political cult, depending on who you talk to ) they’re not interested in how gets it done, just as long as it gets done. So if Congress including Republicans say no to President Trump’s so-called border wall, the President just says: “I’ll do it without you.” even though U.S. Constitution ( that little annoying document ) says that the President cam’t appropriate money by himself and that only Congress has the power of the purse. And his so-called national emergency is just an example of that.

The Donald believes he can pull the licenses of media organizations whether it’s NBC News or CNN or anyone else ( not named Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, The National Enquirer ) because he believes that First Amendment and the Freedom of Press doesn’t personally prevent him from taking such actions.

Donald Trump, really is a wannabe dictator and autocrat and we should thank God and Founding Fathers ( The Founding Liberals ) everyday ( even if we’re not religious ) for our Constitution and checks and balances that we ca use to fight back against his authoritarian leniencies

Posted in The New Democrat, The Onion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

History Collection: Dwight D. Eisenhower Quotes On Politics, War, and Freedom

Posted on March 1, 2019 by kireschneider
23917

Source:History Collections– President Dwight Eisenhower, on extremism

“Dwight D. Eisenhower (”Ike”) was one of the most prominent American presidents and US Army Generals. In this video, you can find his thoughts about warfare, American politics and government.”

From History Collection

President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “if you want total security go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom.” President Eisenhower, talking about the value of freedom, freedom of choice, personal autonomy, etc, the tools that every person every free society uses to manage their own affairs.

40390

Source:Words On Images– President Dwight Eisenhower, on freedom

The only thing that is free about a free society is the freedom for individuals to make their own decisions. Everything else about a free society comes with choices, investments, even costs. To be able to do things and make your own decisions, you have to earn that buy doing other things. Like getting and education, and good job that allows you to able to take care of yourself. And those really aren’t costs either, but more like investments because you get a lot of education and a good job that you’re good at other than money and a good job which is knowledge that you can use in your future which either helps you at work or in other places, but with everything that you do in life.

And in any society wether it’s a free society or an authoritarian society or even let’s say a social democratic society where the national government attempts to eliminate as much economic risk as possible, but falls short of nationalizing the economy there’s going to be some risk there. Which is why a good education is so important so the people have as much knowledge and quality information as possible to be able to make their own good decisions and investments. But even life in prison ( not that I know from personal experience ) comes with real risks and those risks generally having to do with one’s physical security. Even non-violent offenders have to deal with the risk that one of their fellow inmates might actually hurt them or worst at some point.

And in any authoritarian society where both economic and personal risk is eliminated or that’s what the government tries to create, there is a risk that the state might pick you up, because they see you as some threat to the regime. Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia are great examples of that. So in no society and no form of life comes without personal risk. The question is how do you manage it and what decisions you make with your own life.

For me is the best form of life is a free life where people are able to make their own personal and economic decisions themselves, but are then held accountable for their own decision making for good and bad. And allow for everyone to get themselves the best education that they can so they can make the best lives for themselves as possible. As well as encourage people to get a good education, good job, earn a good living. So you have as many free people as possible in society.

Posted in American Presidents, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scott Bradley: ‘Should We Try To Legislate Morality?’

Posted on February 28, 2019 by Rik Schneider
2360

Source:Freedoms Rising Sun– Moot question

Source:The New Democrat

To answer Scott Bradley’s question: no we should not try to legislate morality. At least when it comes to personal behavior and how free adults conduct themselves in their personal lives.

17948

Source:Merion West– Americans, protesting against alcohol prohibition

It’s sort of a moot question anyway because every civilized country in the world with a functioning government whether it’s a developed country or developing country, legislates morality at least in the sense that it lays the rules for how people can interact with each other. To put it simply, we’re not allowed to hurt innocent people. We’re not allowed to rape each other, physically attack each other, steal from each other murder each other, kidnap each other, commit fraud against each other. We’re not allowed to commit these acts and other dangerous acts against innocent people and if we do we face steep legal consequences for doing these things. Which is why we have jails and prisons because we have people who hurt innocent people everyday and have to pay a justifiable price for them.

89192

Source:Faithful Thinkers– Freedom of Religion, but not theocracy

But that’s not my main interest here anyway, because I’m more interested in what government’s role if any is when it comes to how people conduct themselves in their personal lives. I’m not talking about people hurting innocent people, but I’m not talking about who people act and do with their own lives and conduct themselves in their personal lives and how much freedom should we have in our own lives. When people can have sex, what we can eat and drink, smoke, the types of entertainment that we can listen to and watch, what we can do with our own bodies and what we can put into our own bodies.

Government already legislates morality and I think Scott Bradley is at least smart enough understand that at least, if he doesn’t already know that. The real question is to what extent and should we remain liberal democratic republic or not where personal freedom and autonomy is vast, even if some of our personal choices and activities offends others religious and cultural values. Or do we want big government coming in and telling us who we can have sex with, when we can have sex, who we can marry, what we can put into out bodies, do in the privacy of our own homes and tells us this is what moral and what’s not based on some religious and moral code. And even if what we’re doing is not actually hurting anyone, it still has to be illegal, because it’s immoral according some people’s religious and moral values.

And as a Liberal myself I believe it’s not the job of government to try to protect us from ourselves, but to protect innocent people from predators and predatory behavior. And as long as people aren’t hurting innocent people with what they’re doing, government should stay out of the way and allow for free adults to live their own lives and deal with the consequences of their own decisions. Instead of big government coming in and telling us what we should believe and how we should think and this is how we should live our own personal lives.

Scott Bradley: ‘Should We Try To Legislate Morality’

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment