Posts Tagged ‘Democrats’
It’s not a very good time to be a free market right now. Everyone blames you for their lost jobs, their foreclosed homes, and corporate exploitation. Although this blame is misplaced, most people are fearful of the free market and don’t take the time to learn and understand that the free hand of the market benefits the consumer. The theory is simple: good products/services thrive, bad ones fail, and consumers are left with the cream of the crop.
Here’s a site with an interesting look at the economics of the popular sitcom, “Seinfeld.”
The Barber: (Competition) Jerry gets a bad haircut but refuses to change barbers because he is loyal. Eventually, he is convinced to leave his barber of 12 years for the barber’s nephew. Bad quality doesn’t persist in the marketplace; it is competed away. Perhaps the answer to bad haircuts is not more regulation, but more competition.
At last, A free market example to which everyone can relate! There’s lots of other interesting economic concepts presented here using Seinfeld. Since the show is a comedy, many of the examples are not only humorous, but memorable and can be useful in understanding free market principles.
This should come in handy during the inevitable fight over the Barbers Bailout of 2011.
James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty.
By listening to the current political debates in this country, one would believe that America has turned into a forest of wolves. Should we have a public healthcare option, should we send more troops to Afghanistan, should we curb executive compensation, etc. These questions, unfortunately, seem to hinge on the idea that America is a democracy. The democratic form of government is a complex creature. It is regarded today as the American form of government, which the rest of the world should strive to emulate. However, this form of government touted as civilization’s greatest accomplishment by our leaders today was despised by those who founded our country.
True liberty activists describe democracy as the worst form of government imaginable for one major reason: the majority always gets their way. The American system of governance was formed to keep government under control. Congress was given the power to vote on specific issues, and the rest were left up to the states or the people to decide. Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution lists 18 powers on which Congress has the authority to legislate. There are only 18 powers because the founders did not want a government that could vote on anything they wished. However, due to deceptive propaganda, most Americans believe our government to be ruled by majority vote, and that Congress has the authority to vote on anything the majority finds necessary.
Over the last few years I have become very acquainted with politics. I formed my views during the Bush presidency, and they have remained rather stable since then. I disagreed with just about everything George Bush did as president. I disagreed with his economic policies, his foreign policies, and his huge power grab for the executive. However, upon voicing my opinions I was referred to by republicans as un-American and unpatriotic. I felt this sort of ignorant name-calling was unique to the neoconservative side of the American political system. However, recent events have proven me wrong. Read the rest of this entry »
Not too long ago, Republicans were fervently trying to convince Americans that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were necessary to preserve the safety of our country. Their arguments, however, began carrying less and less weight as Americans finally began expressing their dissatisfaction in ever-increasing numbers. In the former anti-neoconservative America, it seemed Republicans were wondering how to justify two useless and illegal wars. Little did they know the best argument they could create to drum up support for their crimes against humanity was a peace-preaching, closet pro-war democrat named Barack Obama. With a democrat now in the White House, the former anti-war liberals have shown their true colors and gone silent. After all, Obama was for peace, right?
Those under this “peace candidate” assumption had little clue as to Obama’s history on Iraq, not to mention his horrible record on civil liberties. After all, Obama voted to instate warterboarding supporter Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security, voted for bills providing billions of dollars in nuclear weapons producing activities, and voted for the Defense Authorization Act’s increase of funds to prolong the wars in 2005. He even voted to commend the armed services that murdered innocent women and children in an attack that supposedly killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a man who had already been reported killed three times previously. Obama also voted against the Kerry Amendment in 2006, which would have withdrawn the troops from Iraq, and voted for a bill giving Bush another $120 billion to prolong the war in 2007. He also voted for the Patriot Act twice, the FISA legislation, and now supports the State’s Secrets privilege of the Bush Administration, giving him a civil liberties record the crows could feed off of for years.
If somebody asked you what restrictions the 4th Amendment places on the federal government, could you tell them? I’m beginning to wonder if Americans understand the US Constitution actually places limits on government rather than the people. I would suggest that every American quickly acquaint themselves with the 4th Amendment, because this will be the next Constitutional law that is completely undermined and haphazardly breached. I say that as if it hasn’t already been violated. However, on a side note, I am always taken aback when I hear democrats and republicans quibble over which one is violating the Constitution, as if either of them actually care. Republicans completely ignore privacy rights and are the current party to start a war without a declaration. Democrats point to comma placement in the second amendment as proof that you shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. Let’s face some facts up front, both parties are in the game for the party, not the citizen.
Having that said, both parties have been in cooperation to pass the first phase of a National ID implementation. Known quite intentionally as the Real ID Act, this law is but the beginning in the American emergence of what the Soviet Union called domestic passports. These were used by the Soviet Union to monitor the place of residence of its citizens, among other things. They are also currently used by China, yet another Communist country.
Real ID on the surface sounds innocent enough, which of course is the intention. Obviously lawmakers knew that Americans would not be happy with an immediate full-scale implementation of a federally managed identification system. Therefore, Uncle Sam decided to start small. Real ID actually establishes minimum standards for state issued drivers licenses. According to dhs.gov, the new cards will be needed for a citizen to board a federally regulated airplane, to access a federal facility or a nuclear power plant. It, of course, is also said to help fight terrorism. Basically, terrorism is the new Soviet Union. Leaders need enemies in order to force a voluntary surrender of liberty.
In understanding Real ID we must first take a look at the questions and answers page of dhs.gov. As the answer to the question of what a citizen will need a Real ID license for, the department of homeland security (DHS) says it will only be used for, “official purposes.” Who defines these official purposes? The DHS does, of course. Evidently, the DHS may also expand on these official purposes in the future to maximize the security benefits of the Real ID. Therefore the DHS, the federal government, has the right to expand on what a citizen cannot do unless they have a Real ID. Let’s also not become ignorant to the fact that your politicians also want biometrics included in Real ID, which is information such as fingerprints and radio frequency technology known as RFIDs.
The government’s first date set to have Real ID implemented was May 11, 2008. However, the DHS had to grant extensions to every single state, including Mississippi, because none were ready to implement the system on that specified date. This means that your constitutional state driver’s license will be invalid after the extension period runs out and the federal government will then implement the unconstitutional Real ID system. The DHS’s webpage says people born after December 1, 1964, will have to acquire a Real ID card by December 1, 2014.
Thankfully, several states are outright rejecting the Real ID system. Maine, Montana, New Hampshire and South Carolina did not even bother asking for an extension because they said they would not implement the program. Idaho and Alaska both filed for extensions yet recently passed legislation against its implementation.
All these ridiculous acts by the federal government are disguised as an effort to fight the war on terror: the Real ID, the torturing of human beings, illegal wiretapping as well as the unconstitutional war. Wouldn’t the defeat of terror involve a people who are not easily terrorized? It seems to me Americans are more scared than ever. We are so scared of being attacked that we are willing to give up the very thing that makes our country great: our civil liberties. For those of you that believe these terrorists hate us for our freedoms, let me ask you a question. When our government takes away those freedoms, have the terrorists won?