Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Liberalism’

Attachment-1-929

Source: The Independent Institute

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Libertarian Economist Walter Williams once said something that I actually agree with. He was talking about property rights and extended them to one’s self and one’s body. That the individual has complete control of their own body and therefor gets to decide what’s done with their body. What they can eat, what they can drink, what they can smoke, even who they can have consensually have sex with. Even if the sex is homosexual sex, taking money to have sex with someone else in a consensual way.

How we can spend our own money short of using our money to have someone beat up or murdered, or spending our money in order to have something stolen from someone else. And that includes spending our money to gamble even at casinos or private card games, to use as examples. That private property rights just doesn’t cover one’s home, or car, or personal possessions, like a business that they may own. But ourselves as individuals and our own bodies. Short of hurting an innocent person with our body or other property like money.

This is really the main difference between a liberal democracy like America with guaranteed constitutional and individual rights that include property rights as I just mentioned and living in a Marxist-Communist state like North Korea (to use as an example) where individualism is essentially outlawed. Where the state (meaning the national government) owns everything in society. Including where the people live and work, even shop.

Even social democracies like Britain that are very socialist as far as how their national government and economy works, have a high degree of property rights in their country. They just aren’t guaranteed especially under a constitutional system which is what we have in America. Property rights are the rights for individuals to control and operate what they actually own including their own bodies.

Our property rights are guaranteed in America under both the Fourth and Fifth amendment’s in the Constitution. That can’t be interfered with by the state (meaning government) without probable cause. That the state views what someone is doing as a threat to bodily harm or financial harm to an innocent person. Not talking about an anarcho state (meaning anarchy) where everyone can essentially do whatever they want including hurting innocent people. And then it’s left up to the victim to decide what should happen to their predator and left up to the victim to inflict whatever consequences on their predator.

But talking about a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy where property rights including to one’s self are guaranteed short of hurting innocent people with our property. As much as so-called Progressives in America today (Socialists in reality) complain about property rights, private property, and individualism in America and that too much in their view is left up to the individual to decide how they should live, they take advantage of our property rights and free speech everyday. And you can say the same thing about the Christian-Right in America but their complaints about our property rights tend to be more about our personal freedom and our freedom to make our own lifestyle choices, instead of our economic freedom.

But that’s just one thing that is great about America that one doesn’t even have to believe in property rights and either personal or economic freedoms, or either of them in order to take advantage of them and live with them. People who don’t believe in free speech (just one property right) can use their First Amendment rights to make the case why censorship is necessary to outlaw speech that they disagree with and that offends them.

Because the censors whether they are political correctness warriors or Christian-Conservatives who are offended by certain forms of entertainment, have the same free speech rights as people who believe in free speech. Who are free speech nuts like myself, to borrow a phrase from Kirsten Powers and Jeffrey Lord. (Two political analysts at CNN) Just as long as we’re not using our free speech rights to incite violence or irresponsibly libel innocent people. That property rights extend to everyone including people who don’t believe in them.

The Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Private Property Rights

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Attachment-1-811

Source: The Independent Institute 

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

According to Wikipedia the definition of social justice is, “justice in terms of distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within society.”

People let’s say on the farther left (Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists) take the definition to mean that there should be distribution of wealth in society. That wealth should be distributed based on what people need to live well. Not based on what people earn. And of course the central government usually a unitarian government in most social democracies (one large government for the entire country) will collect most of the wealth in the country and dish it back out in the form of welfare state payments to the people based on what the government believes people need to live well in society.

So the people not just living above poverty, but living somewhat comfortably, but short of being wealthy and perhaps even upper middle class. Socialists (democratic and otherwise) don’t believe in rich or poor. They want equality of outcomes where no one is wealthy or poor, but able to live well. This type of economic system is how Scandinavia operates and the states there and to a certain extent even in Britain. (Even when the Conservatives are in charge)

The libertarian notion of social justice is to put it in plain terms is that what’s mine is mine and what’s yours, is yours. To paraphrase Libertarian Economist Walter Williams. Meaning what the people make for themselves is exactly that. And shouldn’t be subjected to taxation especially to help pay for the people who don’t have much to live on and are in living in poverty as a result.

To go back to the Wikipedia definition of social justice. Liberals (in the real and classical sense) concentrate on the opportunities portion of social justice. Liberals believe in an opportunity society. Where everyone has the ability to make a good life for themselves. Where everyone has access to a quality education even if they live in poverty. And if they live in poverty that their parents or parent, has the ability to finish and further their education so they can get themselves a good job and make a good living.

Get off of public assistance, buy a nice home and live in a nice community where they don’t have to worry about being physically harmed when they go to the grocery store, or are coming back or going to school. Where they have a basic fundamental sense and reality when it comes to their own economic and physical security. And then what the people make for themselves financially, they’re able to keep most of that and pay back in taxes what it takes for the government to function effectively and to do only what we need for government to do well for us, that is also consistent with strong economic and job growth so people are encouraged to be productive and make a good living for themselves and their families.

And yes you need an effective government to invest in what makes economies strong so as many people can benefit from capitalism and private enterprise as possible. Not to run the economy or to run business’s, or tax and regulate private business so much that the government essentially owns and runs those companies.

But to see that everyone can get a good education. Where kids aren’t sent to school simply because of where they live, but what’s the best school for them even if that might mean a charter school or private school all together.

Where economic development is encouraged so you don’t have ghost towns essentially where the only people who live there are people who can’t afford to live anywhere else. Where gangs and organize criminals run the communities.

Where you have an modern infrastructure system so companies can get their products to market (to use an old phrase) and also to encourage more private economic development.

A responsible regulatory state to protect consumers from predators and worker from abusive employers.

And a limited effective safety net (not welfare state) that serves an economic insurance system for people who are out-of-work, or lack basic skills to get themselves a good job. But also empowers low-skilled individuals to get themselves on their feet by finishing and furthering their education and learning a trade so they can get themselves a good job.

Where Liberals separate from Socialists has to do with government’s involvement in the economy. Socialists want government to take most of the national income and dish it back out based on what they believe people need to do well. Where Liberals differ with Libertarians is that Liberals believe that the people should be able to to keep most of what they earn. But that Liberals believe there is a real role for government even in a free society and that being part of a free society is like being part of a club. Where you end up paying for the services that you consume and even some of the services that don’t personally benefit you.

Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Social Justice in The Classical Liberal Tradition

Read Full Post »

AngloSource: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

From this topic, I’m more interested in the founding of the American Federal Republic and American Liberal Democracy. Thanks to the American Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals and the liberal democracy that they built-in America. After they won the American Revolutionary War against the United Kingdom and the British Monarchy.

The Founding Fathers, wanted to break away from the British Monarchy, the British King and build a free society in America. The U.K., obviously had a problem with that, since the American Colonies were still part of Britain. The Founding Fathers, wanted their own free society and no longer live under dictatorial authoritarian rule under the United Kingdom. Where there was a state religion from the U.K. Where they were taxed heavily for services that they didn’t receive. And build their own country and created a Federal Republic that was going to be a free society.

The Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals, were very brilliant. Yes, they didn’t want this liberal democracy, liberal free society to be for everyone. At the time, just Anglo-American men who owned property. And they owned African slaves and treated the American-Indians like second-class citizens. But what they put on paper applies to everyone as far as our constitutional individual rights. And not just Anglos and Caucasians in general. And not just for men and men who are property owners. But the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, applies to all Americans. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or property status. And they created a brilliant form of government and free society, that is our Federal Republic and Liberal Democracy.

The Film Archives: Kevin Phillips- The Triumph of Anglo-America

Read Full Post »

 

PJ Watson

Escaped Mental Patient

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Actually, Info Wars or Prison Planet Live, the group I guess that Paul Joseph Watson works for, Alex Jones’s clan, is another way of saying The Onion. The difference being, that The Onion has a better record as far as reporting things that are actually true. Actually, Fox News reports more real news than Prison Planet Live and Info Wars combined. And if it wasn’t America’s liberal First Amendment, which is our Freedom of Speech for all you out there who don’t know what the First Amendment is, (God help you) PPL and Info Wars wouldn’t be allowed on the air.

They wouldn’t be on the radio or allowed to blog or anything. Because they have such a bad habit intentionally or just from being escaped mental patients of saying and reporting things that are simply not true. If they were operating in a much further left social democracy like Sweden, Canada, Britain or Australia, they would be put of business for reporting so many things that aren’t true. So they need to get down on their hands and knees and thank God for American liberalism. Because thanks to our liberal Constitution, they’re allowed to stay in business.

PJ Watson, or Paul, or Joe, or whatever the hell he goes by, talked about Sweden as this example of extreme liberalism. Where they take away a lot of someone else’s money to take care of people who simply aren’t productive enough and produce enough to take care of themselves. Another example of where he is wrong about liberalism. What this character is talking about and perhaps is not smart enough to be aware of it, is called socialism and a democratic form of it. Again, Sweden social democracy where the central government is expected to take care of the people. Perhaps the most socialist of any developed country in the world. And yes, they are a developed country.

Liberalism, is simply about freedom being available to everyone. Both personal and economic. That everyone has the opportunity to live in freedom and to be able to manage their own affairs in life. That it’s not the job of government to take care of everyone. But to protect freedom for the people who already have it. And expand freedom for people who don’t have it, but need and deserve it. Public social insurance and a safety net is part of that. But to empower people in need to get on their own two feet, while helping them pay their short-term bills to be able to survive in the short-term. Not taking from the successful to take care of the poor indefinitely.

Paul Joseph Watson: Absolute Proof That Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

Read Full Post »

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

As far as Martin O’Malley beating Hillary Clinton next year, no one is expecting him to do that. But plenty of upsets have happened inside of the Democratic Party during presidential years in the past. And all the Democratic nominees coming out of nowhere were all serious intelligent candidates, who were successful in their current and previous jobs. Who were great politicians and communicators, who very likable and spoke very well to the Democratic base. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. All current or former President’s of the United States. Martin O’Malley is just as good as a politician as Jimmy Carter at least and perhaps Barack Obama.

As far as the NCAA. Why should just student athletes not be able to earn money while at college either though their field or outside of their field? Why should athletes suffer, while law students, medical students and everyone else are not only allowed to work their way through college, but earn money while at college. And a lot of these athletes come from lower-middle class to low-income families. Where their parents can’t afford to pay for their cost of living and send them money while they’re at college. They don’t have to worry about their schooling, but they have to be able to pay their other bills while their at school.

As far as Carly Fiorina, she is less accomplished than Mitt Romney as a politician. Which is sort of the death knell for a potential serious presidential candidate. Had she defeated Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010, then maybe she would be a serious candidate right now. Because she could say that she’s one statewide in one of the bluest states in the country. And now has foreign policy experience on the Foreign Relations Committee or Armed Services Committee. She has business experience and was a successful business executive and everything else. But that didn’t happen and now she looks like someone who is just trying to get any big job and get her name in the public eye.
Eleanor Clift

Read Full Post »

Governor Bill Clinton

New Democrat


Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I’m a Liberal Democrat and a New Democrat and yes those are the same things. Except I might be more liberal than New Democrats today on some social issues, especially civil liberties. Especially since 9/11 where I believe we can’t have security without liberty. That they need each other and New Democrats today since 9/11 tend to side more on security than liberty. Hillary Clinton would be a perfect example of that. But the New Democrats are the Liberals in the Democratic Party and I’m going to explain that.

The New Democratic philosophy is not Republican light or sounding more progressive or socialist. And moving past the New Deal and Great Society and creating a real welfare state in America. But is about building off the principles of the Founding Fathers in America. And that individual liberty is for everyone. And not just European-American men, but the entire country regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, family income. And using government to expand freedom and not government dependence.

The New Democratic philosophy is about individual liberty for everyone. It is not anti-government and having a government so small that it can’t help people in need. And let the market take care of the rest. Or a pro-big-government philosophy and using government to take care of everyone. But empowering everyone in need to be able to take care of themselves. And this blog covers a lot of different issues about what exactly that means. But New Democrats aren’t Social Democrats on the far-left or Moderate Conservatives on the center-right.

The New Democratic philosophy saved the Democratic Party and represents exactly how Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992. Because pre-1992 Democrats were seen as European Social Democrats who wanted to center most of the power in the country with a big government in Washington to take care of everyone. They were called Liberal Democrats even though the Democrats in charge who had most of the power in the Democratic Party were Social Democrats on the far-left and mainstream FDR New Deal Progressives. But they weren’t Liberals at least on economic policy and national security.

By the time Bill Clinton left the White House in early 2001, Democrats were now clearly beating Republicans on most of the economic issues. By the time George W. Bush left the White House in early 2001, Democrats were now even beating Republicans on fiscal responsibility and the federal budget. That is the legacy of the New Democratic Coalition that it saved the Democratic Party. And made them a governing party again

Politics and Prose: Al From- The New Democrats and The Return to Power

 

Read Full Post »

American Economy
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I know this is going to sound like a copout and trying not to take a hard stand and everything else, but the answer to why the American economy does better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents to put it simply, is both. Democratic presidents tend to have better economic policies which I’ll get to later than Republicans. And when a Democrat is President many times they become President just right before the economy is about to take off. Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton are perfect examples of that. Harry Truman would be another one and Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter are unfortunately the exceptions to that.

As far as policies Democratic presidents both liberal and progressive tend to want an economy that works for everyone. Sure Republican presidents I’m sure believe in the same thing. But Democrats put in the policies that make that economy come about. Which is why they focus so much on education, infrastructure, job training for low-income workers and unemployed workers whether they are educated or not, encouraging companies to invest in low-income areas.

Republicans tend to believe in what George H.W. Bush called when he ran for president in 1980 ‘Voodoo Economics’, that some others call Trickle Down Economics. “You cut regulations and taxes for employers and individuals and the economic activity that will come from those business’s and individuals that now have that extra money will now be invested in other business’s and that economic activity will benefit everyone as a whole”. That is the theory anyway, but the results have been at best mixed for thirty-five years or so ever since the policy was introduced in Congress by then Representative Jack Kemp and Senator Bill Roth.

As far as the lets say good luck, yes Democratic presidents have inherited economies that were just about to take off. Bill Clinton comes to mind in 1993 with the Cold War just ending and with the start of the Information Technology Revolution just getting under way around 1990-91 with all the cell phones and laptop computers now online and of course the internet just getting under way. The Clinton White House had their own website under way from the start and had email as well.

So yes Democratic presidents happen to of become President when the economy is just about to boom. But they’ve also have pushed policies that empowers all workers to be able to take advantage of economic booms. Economic booms do nothing for people without the skills to take advantage of them. Which is why education is always so critical for any economy to do well. And Democrats tend to push those polices more than Republicans.
PBS: Washington Week- Does The Country Do Better Under Democrats or Republicans?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: