Stopping the Political Fight

Back and forth between the parties. The GOP may find a way back. Right now we would be better for it. In the long run we will end up just where we are now.The economics are the issue now and the GOP is the leader on freedom in that arena. They will fall again when they don't take it far enough or when the freedom of society issues raise up.

EXPLOITING TAXPAYER RAGE NOT THE WAY BACK FOR GOP

"Tapping in to the rage of taxpayers by exploiting their fears then,
would almost certainly result in unanticipated problems for the GOP.
But beyond that, is this the way the Republicans wish to return to
power? The Rovian strategy of using wedge issues to cleave the
electorate over gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues got
Republicans elected but also sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
By the time 2008 rolled around, those wedge issues had lost their
potency and there was ample evidence of a backlash by center-right and
center-left moderates against the GOP and
their perceived intolerance. It was Obama who exploited this backlash
by promising to govern based on not what divides us but by what unites
us."(cont.)

"But if the GOP were to descend to the Democrat’s level – scaring people by screaming about “socialism” and the attendant imagery of economic doom and gloom, the party may indeed make some gains but with what kind of mandate? And would it be as effective as preparing the people for tough choices by playing to their native optimism and saying that as Americans, we are capable of anything if we pull together? Coupled with some new ideas about targeted tax cuts and real “stimulus” spending instead of the porked up monstrosity offered by the Democrats, that rage could turn to optimism and hope which would attract a helluva lot more people than scare tactics."

Optimism is one thing and it is a great thing. The parties tend to sell optimism on there strong suites not as a whole. They can't. You either have more economic less social freedom or less economic more social freedom. Both freedoms are under attack so do we run to the GOP? I am not convinced.

Is there a viable third party now? Are we stuck with a typical but more extreme fight? The consequences of a perpetual collectivist system end the debate out right. Can we have a third party that puts and end to the fight with freedom are do we have to keep the fight going to protect freedom with the GOP? I just hope the GOP doesn't screw it up so bad that they allow the collectivists to take power permanently.

Unsure of the New American Tea Parties

You just knew this was coming. New American Tea Party

Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows

"Seattle on Monday. Denver on Tuesday. Mesa AZ on Wednesday. Overland Park, Kansas today. What a week, huh? We got the anti-stimulus, anti-entitlement protest ball rolling — and now the movement, spurred further by CNBC host Rick Santelli’s call for a “Chicago Tea Party,” is really taking off."

St. Louis Tea Party At the Arch -- Friday at 11:00 AM

"St. Louis area conservatives will host a protest against the Obama Generational Theft Act this Friday at 11 AM at the steps of the St. Louis Gateway Arch."

I am Extremely happy that the other side is finally rallying. It will help counteract the so called Moonbats. A much needed step.

It am also rather proud the the local 97.1 Talk is getting recognized by so many. Allman Is much more logical than most. He doesn't use the name calling, is on point and usually gets the root of the issues.

Rick Santelli's Rant spins on. He is a wall street guy so his credibility with some is zero. They want to say he is just arguing for wall street. It missed the point. He is arguing for economic freedom, it need to be put in that context. Just ad the "porkulus" Should be. STOP calling it that please.

That is the fundamental flaw with this.

Tea Party USA Watch: Taxpayers coming together

"Tons of groups and individuals are stepping up to the plate in the wake of last week’s anti-stimulus/anti-entitlement protests and the call for a nationwide Tea Party."

The info page of the Tea Parties on PJTV

"America is on the brink of another revolution. In a new American Tea Party, citizens across the USA are beginning to protest giant government programs that reach deep into their pockets. These programs create huge economic burdens on American families and threaten their livelihood now and into the future."

Anti-stimulus/ Anti-entitlement? Deep into their pockets? This is the same old Republican arguments. Truthfully I want a more Libertarian argument. Your singing to the choir. I will not get you very far. I am concerned that these will be painted as conservative dogma and nothing more. Those in power don't have to fight off any argument they have been for the pas few weeks. Again I am voicing my objection to who is leading this movement. They are going to be painted with a very similar brush to the one Conservative paint the crazy left. It will all be a fringe blip.

Is it not better to make a clear economic freedom ( don't call it free market) and social freedom case. It covers ever thing that is on the table and everything that is to come. Do not say founding father, use specific names. No porkulus comments. No more Generational Theft. Track ever thing back as quick as you can to those two points. We need to vastly smarter and have a more carefully though basic out public argument.

You want a revolution act like it. No Freaken Republican Revolution. We need a pre-FDR, Wilson revolution. A sane Libertarian one. I (and the people) will not be on a Republican, Malkin, Hannity, Rush revolution. That is not really a revolution.

FREE PEOPLE FREE TO WORK

Looking Around, Where Are The Libertarian Going?

Feeling boxed in to a conservative label by the stimulus arguments I went looking again. I am trying to find constructive disarming and well place with more traffic to link to. The first is is nearly impossible the second is nearly impossible not to find. So in my travels there is this: Econlog. Right at the top is an outtake from a libetrarian disscution an this:

"I confess to being an intellectual snob, but by the same token I claim to be able to differentiate between knowledge and educational pedigree. I respect a well-read self-taught individual more than a Harvard-educated narrow-minded one.

To put it another way, I see a difference between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. To the average lefty, both of them are morons. I think Reagan was genuinely engaged with profound ideas. Palin may have talent and charisma, but I do not think she could explain Hayek."

Great! I can explain Hayek either but I can learn. Parts of the back and forth are just about over my head as well as other parts of this blog. That's a good thing as long as I don't drown.

There has been an ongoing debate about where the Republicans should go after the election. It is largely settled now. Some of the fall out is discussions on libertarian ideas. I admit that I am a novice when it comes to the detailed intellectual (in the weeds) knowledge of libertarianism. The definition changes? Some times it is for anarchy and at time it takes more of a socialist bent?

It is still murky. Most of this discussion (I didn't read every word) is about who the libertarians will embrace now or who will embrace them. I would in a novice way that they should go there own way. Throw some of the craziness overboard and take power. Many cases have been make both way if RINOs could run on their own. Libertarians falls into same kind of place. I do believe the answer to both is yes.
I am not trying following their points exactly. This back and forth started in 06 with:

Brink Lindsey and:

"Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism's relentless dynamism and wealth-creation--the institutional safeguarding of which lies at the heart of libertarian concerns--have been pushing U.S. society in a decidedly progressive direction. The civil rights movement was made possible by the mechanization of agriculture, which pushed blacks off the farm and out of the South with immense consequences. Likewise, feminism was encouraged by the mechanization of housework. Greater sexual openness, as well as heightened interest in the natural environment, are among the luxury goods that mass affluence has purchased. So, too, are secularization and the general decline in reverence for authority, as rising education levels (prompted by the economy's growing demand for knowledge workers) have promoted increasing independence of mind."(cont.)

"Hence today's reactionary politics. Here, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rival ideologies of left and right are both pining for the '50s. The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while conservatives want to go home there."

It goes on to link changes in tax policy on the liberal side to what I consider conservative ideas in order to move the libertarians there direction. FASCinating.

Wilkinson

"Many bloggers seem to be fixated on the immediate political feasibility of libertarian/liberal fusionism. But I think this misses the point. Feasibility is in part a function of the availability of a well-developed and broadly understood position, and a grasp of the kind of policy that follows from it. Fixating on the status quo balance of interest groups is a great way to go nowhere, or just to drift with the waxing and waning of constituencies wedded to superannuated ideas. I think Brink has opened an important conversation for liberals of all stripes genuinely concerned with helping people successfully exercise their autonomy and lead satisfying, dignified lives"

Jonah Goldberg responds:

"The first principles simply aren't aligned. The theoretical arguments in favor of the stimulus amount to rubbing the libertarian cat's fur backwards. And the so-called "libertarian center" hardly seems to be decisive or even relevant to the public debate. In the most important and fundamental debate about the role of government in a generation, the libertarians are lining-up with, and even marching out in front of, the conservatives."

John Hood follows:

"But that's not the same as suggesting that there is at least as much of a natural affinity between libertarians and modern-day liberals as there is between libertarians and modern-day conservatives, if not more. This statement just isn't true. The principles of liberty and virtue are certainly in tension within the broadly construed Right, but the principles of liberty and egalitarianism would be perpetually at war within a reconstructed Left."

Will Wilkinson's response:

"I think Obama and the Democrats are already in the process of screwing it up. The romance of transformative hope is going to wear off pretty quick as all-but-uncontested Democratic policy deepens and lengthens the recession. There’s a lot of culturally and psychologically liberal people out there who are, and are going to be, interested in a liberalism that actually works. I want to use this time of ferment to work on developing the missing option in American politics: an authentically liberal governing philosophy that understands that limited government, free markets, a culture of tolerance, and a sound social safety net are the best means to better lives.

So “whatever happened to liberaltarianism” is that it’s an ongoing project to change who talks to whom, to freshen the stale dialectic of American politics, and to create new possibilities for American political identity."

"sound social saftey net"? Private sector or governmental?

Then two posts: The Future of Liberaltarianism and The Future of Liberaltarianism (II)

"This is obviously a political gloss on what is essentially an intellectual project, and I know Will, like many libertarians I admire, prides himself on not thinking in terms of partisanship. But for anyone who cares about political outcomes, I think it's important to consider the correlation of forces when you set out on ideological projects - especially in a country where the two-party structure has been as durable as it's been in ours. I understand the impulse for smart, independent-minded libertarians to flee what seems like an increasingly anti-intellectual American Right and seek conversations and alliances with the friendlier parts of the left-of-center. But the vacuum on the Right also militates in favor of smart, idiosyncratic thinkers trying to fill it, instead of fighting for a seat at the crowded liberal table. "

As fun as all this is I still think you need a leader that would clarify libertarian positions for the party and run with it. Drag who you can from the two parties and go. With some wins those who are not wedded to the parties will leave for something more in their wheel house.

Gun Control Though Paperwork

I was on the fence over the concealed carry laws. Not for very long. It passed hear in Missouri and it is a good thing. St. Louis resisted issuing licences but I think they worked it out. I had thought that was the worst of it. Then the discussions on the Heller started. So law A says you can have\use gun in instance a not b. Then law b says you can have \use gun in instance b not a. WTF? It was more complicated and includes an outright ban on handguns.

As complicated as laws are I wouldn't rule out passing 5-6 laws all but outlawing guns and a final bill that outlaws all but what the first laws didn't cover. Would any one catch on for some time? Then there is what seems to be the current tactic.

My sister is going to school in Mass. I know not the best idea but the music teacher she needed is there. She didn't fly. She is pretty savvy and I wasn't to worried but it is a two day trip and family is along way away. A gun? No, not even close. Pepper spray? Cheap enough. She should be fine with that. Nope. You have to register with a small fee with the local sheriff in Mass. She would have to register pepper spray. Paperwork. She didn't want to deal with that on top of everything else.

It appears to be the same thing with gun control. I have heard (that's authoritative) that you can get a gun permit in New York. You need several thousand dollars, a lawyer and a year or so to waste on it. The problem? They ban the insane and others that should not have guns. Fine, we are doing that now. Then ( a wild for instance) if you want gun here is the 300 page form. The last 100 pages need to be sighed by 10 local agencies 25 or so state and 40 Federal. They have to be done in order and take 6-9 months each. And only one gun at a time. And some classes. And a few background check. And we need school records. And a mental evaluation. And financial statement. And have you ever taken money from Washington, we have to be equal about guns and can't support you and your gun. and on and on.

Now if it was that bad in the next 10-15 years it would be struck down. However you can do far less with the same result. Congress Sets Table for Confiscation of Firearms I have my doubts about the characterization. Everything is pretty upside down. It is possible. One of the Free Republic posts explains the law. I would start there.
From the bill at GovTrack: Highlights by me

SEC. 102. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--

(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;

(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;

(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;

(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding-- (Continues)

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and

(10) the signature of the applicant.

(Continues)

SEC. 304. FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS. (cont.)

SEC. 305. CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION.(cont.)

SEC. 403. INSPECTIONS.

In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held. (cont.)

My eyes gaze over. The whole bill is easy enough to fine. I am not to sure how bad this is. It was introduced by a Mr. Rush? From Chicago? Is that good? Nope.

Finally a brake down of the constitutional problem. I don't know the source very well so RAOR(read at your own Risk). The gun issues is important but the tactics are deceptive and are not limited to guns.

Libertarian investigation

I have been trying to, well find a label that encompasses my view of the world. Labels aren't the best route to go, but it be nice to point to an ideology that i mostly agree with. Any who there is this: Why I am not a libertarian. I have been acquainted with libertarian thought in passing. Basically a constitution first party, there is more to it but for now we will leave it there.

This article is dense and just about over my head so maybe i missed something.

"If you are not a libertarian, and if this sub specie aeternitatis thing strikes you as somehow dubious or shady, I feel no hesitation in informing you with absolute confidence that the common concept of progress, which perhaps you are operating under, is a lie and a delusion and a snare. At least inasmuch as that term applies to the problem of human government, and not physics, oil painting, or backgammon. There is no reason to think the political designs of 2007 are any better than those of 1907, 1807, or 7. In fact, there is quite a bit of reason to think that the truth is just the opposite."

If you reach back far enough you arrive at a tribal model, i think we have progressed past that a little. As for the 20th century learning what doesn't work i think of as progress.

"And this is the first reason I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism is, more or less, basically, the ideology of the American Revolution. And the American Revolution was, in my own personal opinion, more or less, basically, a criminal outrage of the mob - led by leaders who were either unscrupulous, deluded, or both."

He may have a point. Don't contribute to conspiracy what you can to incompetence. Incompetence on the English part, and contributing conspiracy on the American's part. I don't know enough of detailed history to know for sure. I think it would have been pretty hard to get any real representation an ocean away in those days. So some of both?

After slogging though all that he goes into property. i know vaguely that libertarians have a view on property. i never quit got a clear picture of it here, but it was a different way of looking at it for me. Over all it was in lightning, not that i blindly buy it all. He has a rather entertaining style that i enjoy even if it is over my head from time to time, yes i had to look up words.

Take a look around, there are several other in lightning an entertaining post if you can make it though them.