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

Source:History Collections– President Dwight Eisenhower, on extremism

Source:The New Democrat 

“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 goverment.”

From History Collection

President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “If you want total security go to prison, where 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.

Source:Words On Images– President Dwight Eisenhower, on the value of 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 by 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.

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.

Read Full Post »

Foreign Policy: Opinion- Daren Acemoglu & Simon Johnson- It’s Time To Found a New Republic

Source: Foreign Policy Magazine  

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

I read this article called It’s Time To Found a New Republic from Daren Acemoglu and Simon Johnson over at Foreign Policy Magazine. And it wasn’t just the title of the article that caught my attention. It’s Time To Found a New Republic, if they spent more time on the title maybe they would’ve called It’s Time For a New Republic, Time To Create a New Republic, The New American Republic. When something is found you don’t need to fine it, because it’s already there.

But getting pass the wording of the title of their piece most of their article was about American history and the progressive movement. Starting with the Progressive Era of the early 1900s and going up to the New Deal of the 1930s and the creation of the our national infrastructure system of the 1950s. And then towards the end they were had some policy proposals.

Ranging from a national basic income, which I disagree with, to ending partisan, racial, and ethnic gerrymandering which I’m in favor of. When I saw the title of their piece I’m, thinking maybe they were talking about creating a new form of American government. That the problem with American society (as they might see it) is the structure of our government all together. Perhaps they don’t like our Federal system based on limited government and would propose replacing that with a unitarian style of government that you see a lot of in Europe. Where most of the governmental power in the country is based with the national government. Instead of spread out between the national, state, and local government’s.

Just to comment on Daren Acemoglu’s and Simon Johnson’s economic proposals. I don’t believe the problem of income inequality (if you want to call it that) has to do with our government structure and how power and responsibility is spread out. Not that they were arguing that either necessarily. But it has to do with the skills gap and opportunity gaps in the American economy.

If you live in rural America and grow there, or you’re raised in a rough part of an inner city your chances of doing well in America are far lesser than if you come from a middle class neighborhood in a city or from the suburbs. Also if you have parents or even one parent who are doing well in life, not necessarily rich but doing well enough for you to be raised right and have you what you need to do well growing up, your chances of doing well in America are much better if you come from a low-income family in a low-income neighborhood, where your parent or parents are just struggling to survive.

So you want to reduce income inequality (again, if you want to call it that) you have to reduce the inequality that’s part of our education system and have an education system where more Americans can simply get a good education. Regardless of where they live and where they grow up and who their parents are. And of course regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Which should go without saying anyway.

As well as having an adult educational system in this country where low-income adults whether they’re currently working or not, can advance in the American economy by finishing and furthering their education and getting themselves a good job that leads them to economic independence.

As well as having that system available for workers who already have a solid education. High school diploma plus some vocational training and perhaps a college degree, but now find themselves working in a field where those jobs are disappearing or where they’re no longer able to make the money that allows for them to live comfortably. And allow for them to further their education perhaps even in a new field for them.

The problem with the American economy has nothing to do with our form of government. Or our Federal Government is too small, our state and local government’s, have too much responsibility, or middle class Americans are undertaxed and have to much personal and economic freedom and have to make too many decisions on their own.

The problem with the American economy and why we have income inequality (if you want to call it that) has to do with education and skills. We need to move pass the idea that schools should be funded based on the property values of the people who live in those communities . Which has to do with property taxes. And sending kids to school based on where they live, instead of what’s the best school for them.

And get pass the idea that if you start at a low-wage low-skilled job because you’re low-skilled, that you’re stuck working jobs like that indefinitely. Because you can’t afford to go back to school or simply don’t have the time for it, because you’re working multiple low-wage jobs just to try to survive.

You close the skills and education gaps in America, you reduce poverty, because you’ll not just have more Americans working as long as you have pro-growth economic policies in place that promote economic development and growth, but you’ll also have more Americans working good jobs. Which will also improve your long-term economic and financial outlook of the country. Because you’ll have fewer Americans on public assistance.

Source: RCO 64

RCO 64: The American Form of Government

Read Full Post »

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

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 »

The Founding Fathers & Classical Liberalism

Source:Red State Eclectic– our Founding American Liberals. Sorry Leftists, get over it.

“Tomorrow (15 minutes left not to be lying), I expect delivery of Richard Epstein’s magisterial “The Classical Liberal Constitution” which will be one of the tomes that I shall engross myself in over the next half year to gain a deeper understanding of the nexus of law and liberty.

Writes CATO:

In his latest book, a wide-ranging tome covering vast areas of our law, Richard Epstein mounts a principled attack on modern Supreme Court jurisprudence and much of the legal scholarship that has grown up around it. The major disarray that infects every area of modern American life, he argues, from deficits and debt to health care, financial services, declining standards of living and more, could not have happened under the original constitutional structure, faithfully interpreted in light of changed circumstances. It arose from a profound progressive break with the classical liberal tradition that guided the drafting and interpretation of the Constitution.”

From Red State Eclectic

“Speech about Classical Liberalism and how it influenced the founding fathers. Also explains what the difference is between classical and modern liberalism.”

Source:D Kendel– talking about classical liberalism.

From D Kendel

I’m not interested in classical liberalism versus what’s called modern liberalism. So that’s where I differ here between the Red State Eclectic and D Kendel. I’m interested in actual liberalism and Liberals (whether you want to call it classical liberalism and Classical Liberals or not) versus people who are called Liberals today, but in many cases are actually very illiberal (not liberal) with the defense of Communists and other authoritarian leftists, as well as supports of crackdowns on free speech and personal freedom and claims that American capitalism is somehow racist.

If American leftists weren’t scared to death of what’s called the s-words, (socialist and socialism) as well as the c-words (communist and communism) or even Social Democrat and social democracy, or what Senator Bernie Sanders (the only self-described Socialist member of the U.S. Congress) democratic socialist and democratic socialism, the American Center-Right would be made up of people who are called Liberals and Conservatives everywhere else in the developed world. And the American Center-Left would be made up of true Progressives in the TR, FDR, HST, LBJ, and Progressive Republicans from the past like Nelson Rockefeller.

But since being called a Socialist, even a Democratic Socialist, or even leftist, is like coming down with the flu or getting hit with the plagued, or being accused of being a rapist or murderer, terrorist, or some other type of violent criminal, American leftists hide behind liberal and conservative like they’re wanted by the FBI and scared to death for their own lives.

The main difference between liberal and socialist, like social democrat or democratic socialist, has to do with individual rights, like the rights that come from liberal democracy, versus what are called collective or welfare rights, that you would get in a social democracy.

Liberals trust an educated public and individuals to make their own decisions with their own lives and then be held responsible for their own individual decisions. Socialists trust government to make people’s economic decisions for them and in some cases personal decisions as well.

This is not about classical versus modern when you are talking about Liberals. But Liberals versus leftists (democratic and otherwise) instead.

Read Full Post »

Noam Chomsky: Why Free Speech is Important

Source:Awakened Citizen 89– Professor Noam Chomsky making the case for free speech.

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

From Good Reads

Something the Far-Right and Far-Left in America may never understand. Free speech means nothing in America or anywhere else in the world. Actually, it doesn’t even exist, if people aren’t free to express themselves and say exactly what they think.

I’m not talking about threatening violence against innocent people, or committing, which is what the censors and fascists both on the Far-Left and Far-Right always point to and say: “Well, we don’t have the right to threaten to kill someone. So free speech isn’t guarantee.” I’m talking about the right for free people to express themselves and say exactly what’s on their mind, short of inciting violence, lying under oath or on official documents, committing fraud, etc. But that we all have the right to express ourselves and make our views known about whatever we’re thinking about, even if the other side hates what we have to say.

Read Full Post »

The Fiscal Times: Bruce Bartlett- ‘The Coming Revival of Liberalism’

Source:The Fiscal Times– now here’s a symbol of American liberalism. Not the left-wing, pop culture stereotype, of what liberalism is supposed to be.

“A new poll from Public Religion Research Institute shows growing support for a more liberal approach to policy that I think will gather steam in years to come.

For example, 63 percent of people support higher taxes on those making more than $250,000, with only 34 percent opposed. There is now majority support for allowing gays to marry versus 41 percent opposed.
Raising the minimum wage is supported by 73 percent of people, with just 25 percent opposed. And 54 percent of people favor legal abortion, with 42 percent wanting it to be illegal.

The poll also makes clear that people are becoming increasingly concerned about a lack of jobs, the growing gap between rich and poor, and the declining standard of living. They are becoming more receptive to government activism to deal with national problems and less confident that the private sector can fix them.

These are all issues on which the liberal approach to policy is more popular and the conservative position is weak. I think it is only a matter of time before liberal intellectuals begin articulating specific ideas that will find favor with the electorate–conservatives will be left with little to say except, “no.”

Source:The Fiscal Times 

“Bruce Bartlett Steps Into TYT” 

Source:The Young Turks– Bruce Bartlett on TYT.

From The Young Turks 

I guess my response to Bruce Bartlett’s piece would be: it depends on what you mean by liberal and liberalism. Apparently Mr. Bartlett’s idea of Liberals and liberalism falls into the mainstream media, left-wing, pop culture stereotype of what it means to be a Liberal, what Liberals believe in, and what liberalism, is that they’re just left-wing, Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, who want to transform America into Scandinavia, or perhaps Cuba economically and politically. 

Socialism might be on the rise in America as far as it’s popularity, with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and perhaps Senator Elizabeth Warren being the unofficial leaders for American Socialists. But apparently that’s who Mr. Bartlett is talking about when he’s talking about so-called Liberals. 

Perhaps this silly (no, I don’t believe that) but when I think of Liberals, I think of people who believe in liberal democracy, which is what Liberals actually believe in and what liberalism is actually based off. Liberals believe that the people should have the right to self-determination, which means personal autonomy, the freedom to act for ourselves and think for ourselves, to make our own decisions in life, instead of some big government (socialist, or otherwise) trying to run our lives for us. That’s my idea of liberalism, because that’s what liberalism actually is, the belief in liberal democracy.

If you polled Americans about whether they believed in the right to self-determination, both personal and economic freedom, limited responsible, government, and fiscal responsibility, liberalism would actually poll very well in America. And we would have lot of Liberals in this country, even though those folks probably wouldn’t be aware that they’re Liberals, thanks to our vast ignorance when it comes to political philosophy in this country. 

 

Read Full Post »

Mark T. Mitchell: ‘The Limits of Liberalism’

Source:Notre Dame Press– author Mark T. Mitchell’s book about liberalism.

“In The Limits of Liberalism, Mark T. Mitchell argues that a rejection of tradition is both philosophically incoherent and politically harmful. This false conception of tradition helps to facilitate both liberal cosmopolitanism and identity politics. The incoherencies are revealed through an investigation of the works of Michael Oakeshott, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Michael Polanyi.

Mitchell demonstrates that the rejection of tradition as an epistemic necessity has produced a false conception of the human person—the liberal self—which in turn has produced a false conception of freedom. This book identifies why most modern thinkers have denied the essential role of tradition and explains how tradition can be restored to its proper place.

Oakeshott, MacIntyre, and Polanyi all, in various ways, emphasize the necessity of tradition, and although these thinkers approach tradition in different ways, Mitchell finds useful elements within each to build an argument for a reconstructed view of tradition and, as a result, a reconstructed view of freedom. Mitchell argues that only by finding an alternative to the liberal self can we escape the incoherencies and pathologies inherent therein.

This book will appeal to undergraduates, graduate students, professional scholars, and educated laypersons in the history of ideas and late modern culture.”

From Notre Dame Press

“Terry Eagleton, John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester, delivers the second lecture in a series of lectures entitled “Faith and Fundamentalism: Is Belief in Richard Dawkins Necessary for Salvation?” In this lecture, Professor Eagleton explores the limits of liberalism.”

Source:Yale University– University of Manchester Professor Terry Eagleton talking about liberalism in 2008, at Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut.

From Yale University 

To respond to Mark T. Mitchell’s argument: yes, Liberals don’t believe in tradition, necessarily, unless you are talking about freedom and equal rights, things we’ve always believed in and always will. Liberals tend to be modernists and believers in progress. And sometimes that goes against tradition, especially if you are someone who believes in always conserving the status quo.

What Professor Terry Eagleton seems to be saying and I’m not that fluent in Yale speak but what I get from my decoding of this lecture is that liberalism is counter to Christianity and religion in general. In other words: if you are a Liberal, you worship the state rather than some God.

I’ve heard these stereotypes before and I’m sure there are some Atheist Liberals just like there are Atheist Conservatives and Libertarians and of course Socialists or Communists probably have the largest percentage of people who are Atheists.

But if you are a Liberal, you do not worship the state and you do not worship anything, necessarily. Because Liberals base their beliefs on the best available evidence at the time. And base their ideology on freedom so we do not worship the state because we are not Communists or Socialists. Liberals are supposed to question authority and the establishment. Well government tends to be the largest establishment and authority in any developed society.

If you look at liberalism (at least in the classical sense and I at least would argue the real sense) you are talking about a philosophy about liberty, which is where the word liberal comes from and is based on. So if you are talking about a society where there is no rules not even to protect the innocent from predators, then you are talking about anarchism, which is actually the extreme form of liberalism. You could literally argue that so-called Libertarians today are the extreme Liberals, but not the Socialists and Communists.

Read Full Post »

The Independent Institute: Beyond Politics- ‘Roots of Government Failure: William Shugart Interviews Randy T. Simmons’

Source:The Independent Institute– Randy T. Simmons, talking about his book about big government.

Source:The Daily Times 

“William Shughart interviews Economist Randy T. Simmons, author of “Beyond Politics: The Roots of Government Failure.”

To order copies of Simmons’ book “Beyond Politics: The Roots of Government Failure,” visit:The Independent Institute.”

From The Independent Institute

Government tends to fail and become inefficient when it tries to do too much. When it tries to get involved in areas that it tends not to be very efficient at. Like regulating how people live their own lives and trying to protect people from themselves. Which is what Christian-Conservatives and Theocrats believe in and claim that national security and morality is paramount over everything else. And that we need some type of moral code to govern how people can live their own lives. Even if what they are doing isn’t hurting anyone, including themselves. Just because they don’t like what people are doing with their lives.

Or when government tries to get involved into the economy which would be another example of government trying to do too much. Which is what Socialists want to see whether they are looking for government to nationalize private enterprise or not.

Or Social-Democrats want to create a welfare state and have government provide services or leave government to provide services that are traditionally handled by the private sector, because they don’t believe the private sector can be trusted to provide these services, because they have a profit motive.

Which is why I’m a Liberal Democrat, because I believe in individual liberty which is what liberalism is about. Not how Conservatives and Libertarians have stereotyped it making it look like democratic socialism. And why I believe in limited government, to limit what government can do. To allow the people to be as free and self-sufficient as possible in living their own lives and only be dependent on government to provide the services that they can’t provide for themselves.

This is why I believe we need a national debate about what the role of Government, especially the Federal Government is. Because that government effects everyone in America and what government’s role should be in America.

And why I believe we should have a National Constitutional Convention to figure these things out. What the U.S. Constitution says and means, what the Federal Government is doing today, is what they are doing constitutional or not. And things that they are doing that are constitutional, should they being doing them at all. Or can they be best handled better in the private sector and then limit the Federal Government to the things that they should be doing that are constitutional and eliminate or cut their role in the things that they shouldn’t be doing. Whether their role there is constitutional or not and perhaps even we’ll find some things.

Even though I wouldn’t put any money on that, that they aren’t doing currently that they should be doing . And find a way that they can best perform that role in the most fiscally responsible way possible.

Me personally I believe the role for the Federal Government should be very limited, not as limited as Libertarians, but very limited. And then dramatically cut back its roles in the things that I believe it has too much of a role today. And I would limit the Federal Government to, national security, foreign policy, Federal currency, law enforcement and regulation.

Not even social welfare except for regulating it. I would turn our safety net and I mean all of it, over to the States and then let them set up their own social insurance systems. But then have them convert those programs into semi-private non-profit self-financed community services. And if we had a national debate like this, then we could figure out what the role of government is in America.

Read Full Post »