Brent Abrahamson: President Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights Speech

Source:Free State MD

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in 1933 he obviously inherited the Great Depression and created the New Deal to respond to it. By the early 1940s, we were committed to World War II thanks to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany murdering European Jews. President Roosevelt creates the New Deal, we get out of the Great Depression by the early 1940s, we win World War II by 1944-45 and President Roosevelt was looking to complete his Presidency. He was President for twelve years, 1933-45 and had plenty of time to figure out what to do with it. And he decided to build on the New Deal, which he called the 2nd Bill of Rights. Which has also been called the Fair Deal, which was about economic security for all Americans.

FDR wanted to create things like national health insurance, perhaps national healthcare as well. Education reform, perhaps a national higher education system. And all the economic rights, like a right to a good job, a right to a living wage, a right to health care and health insurance, a right to a pension. Europe has these things or at least once they did, but once you guarantee that all Americans have a right to a good job and other things like that, it makes it very difficult to remove unproductive workers. As long as they are not stealing or abusing coworkers that sort of thing. Because they now have a right to that job. Like someone would have the right to free speech and other things.

For any of these economic rights to be real, they need to be part of the U.S. Constitution. Which they currently are not, otherwise they can always be removed just by statue. And President Roosevelt was never successful in accomplishing that. What he should’ve focused on, was creating an economic system where everyone would have the opportunity to be successful. Based on what they contribute to society and that means quality education for everyone.

Washington Times: Opinion: Kathleen Wolf: I Got This Funny Feeling You're Still in Kansas

Source:The Daily Post

I no longer get angry when I hear right-wingers claim about how much Liberals are trying to destroy America or make America into something else we aren’t. Or trying to control how Americans live their own lives, I just find these claims hysterical. Because they tend to come from the Far Right. Religious and Neoconservatives, big government Republicans, who attack Liberals for believing in things that the Far-Right believes in, big government. 

Listening to Rick Santroum and Michelle Bachmann talk about the dangers of big government, is like listening to Jerry Garcia talk about the dangers of drug abuse. They know why these things are bad, only because they’ve done them and believe in them. So what they are preaching about, is what not to do. "Do as I say, not what I do, because I’m an idiot". And learned from bad experience what not to do. Hearing Rick Santorum preach about the dangers of big government is the perfect case and example. 

Senator Rick Santorum who voted for more federal Intervention in public education, voted to expand Medicare and make it larger, also voted to borrow 500B$ to pay for it, believes the Federal Government should be regulating marriage and running it, supports a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw pornography. I could go on, but I’ll spare you the rest and yet Senator Santorum and Michelle Bachmann who’ve taken the same positions on these social issues, call themselves Conservatives, people who believe in limited government. 

Limited government left the building with a kiss my ass sticker when you support expanding the Federal Government. If you run now and find a brain and kick big government out instead, you may still be able to catch limited government. When real Conservatives, Classical Conservatives, people like George Will and Senator Mike Lee. Charles Krauthammer and others, there are still some real Conservatives left, talk about the dangers of big government and we need to get back to limited government. 

Limited government that's based on the U.S. Constitution , as well as Libertarians and yes real Liberals such as myself, you should listen to these people. Because they know what they are talking about. But when you listen to Neoconservatives like Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and others, talk about the dangers of big government, take it with at least a couple grains of salt, more like a jar, because it would like listening to a drunk alcoholic about the dangers of alcohol. "Look at me and how screwed up I am, believe me its not worth it". 

James Miller Center: President Jimmy Carter Report To The Nation on Energy (February 2nd, 1977)

Source:FRS FreeState

President Carter was right to take on energy policy and creating a national energy policy. That would move America off of foreign oil and move us towards energy independence. He understood that America has a surplus of natural resources and that we can and should be energy independent. Like Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia and others and we shouldn’t have to import foreign oil. He understood the energy crisis of 1973 and how that hurt the American economy, thanks to OPEC. And understood the energy crisis of the late 1970s and how that effected the American economy. With higher energy prices, that contributed to our high unemployment. Because people were spending more money on their energy and as a result weren’t spending money on other products.

The problem with President Carter’s energy policy, is that it didn’t go far enough. It was almost completely focused on renewable energy resources. Wind, solar, natural gas and others. When yes, they should be part of a comprehensive energy policy. But those energy industries were so brand new and underdeveloped in the late 1970s. When this speech was given and still are today. That they alone can’t get America to energy independence. America produces oil, coal, nuclear and natural gas. We have the potential to produce a lot of these and can produce them all over the country. But we simply can’t get there on nuclear Power and oil drilling alone. They won’t get us to energy independence, but they are our mature energy resources right now. And have to be part of the picture.

Renewable energy, conservation, high energy standards, should and have to be part of a national energy policy. For our economy, so we can produce a lot more jobs in brand new energy industries. For our environment, to make it cleaner. And for our foreign policy, to get us off of foreign oil. And so countries that don’t have our best interest at heart, will have less leverage over us in the World. And this is exactly what President Carter was pushing. But he didn’t go far enough. He should’ve included oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power as well.

Because we don’t have to develop oil, gas, nuclear. Just produce more of them and do it as safe and as clean as possible. These energy industries are already there, because they are already there and mature. And employ a lot of Americans in this country. And we can produce them in a way that doesn’t harm the environment through regulation and taxation. President Cater deserves credit for focusing on energy policy and making it a centerpiece of his economic policy. And probably pushed this debate farther along than any President since. But missed an opportunity to create a comprehensive energy policy. That by now could’ve moved America to energy independence and finally off of foreign oil.

AlterNet: Joshua Holland: 'Freedom From a Dead-End Life'

Source:Free State MD

When Religious and Neoconservatives complain about big government, and the dangers of big government, take that with at least one grain of salt, actually you may need a jar.  If you don’t end up laughing after hearing from that, because they believe in big government, just in a different form. And are either not willing to admit that or are unaware of it. Sort of like an alcoholic unaware that they are an alcoholic. Same thing with people addicted to cocaine. Addicted to big government is more accurate, than being against it.

Neoconservatives are the people that gave us indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, constitutional amendments to ban pornography and same-sex marriage, No Child Left Behind, the expansion of Medicare in 2003. The most vocal opponents against marijuana legalization , even for medical marijuana. Would ban adultery and pre-marital sex and perhaps even women being allowed to work out of the house if they could. If Neoconservatives are against big government, than the New York Yankees represent South Carolina and play all of their home games there. 

When you hear Progressives complain about big government or as they would call it big brother, again at least one grain of salt, if you're not laughing. Actually you may need a months supply of salt and salty potato chips, because who the hell are they fooling. These are the people who believe New Deal and Great Society didn't go far enough because they are social insurance systems and not social welfare systems. 

Services that people in need used and not universal services that would be available to everyone to manage all of their economic affairs for them. . And would like to create a welfare state in America to expand on what we have already. And be able to regulate things like hate speech, outlaw gambling, throw out the 2nd Amendment, outlaw private contributions to political campaigns. Even regulate the media with the “Fairness Doctrine”. Eliminate choice in how we pay for our healthcare by eliminating the private health insurance industry. 

Perhaps eliminate private schools including universities and put the Federal Government i  charge of education. Because they say "this is how other countries do it, so this is how we should do it as well". Today's so-called Progressives which is really just a nice way of saying Socialists or even Statists, are champions of big government in America. But not just as it relates to economic policy, but key personal freedom issues relating to what we can eat and drink and even how we can communicate with each other. Where we should get our media. 

What America needs is not less freedom with new things being outlawed. Whether they come from the Far-Right or Far Left. What we need is more freedom across the board, not freedom to abuse innocent people. But the freedom to live our own lives and then regulate how we interact with each other. Better education so people have even more freedom over their own lives, because now they would have the education they need to make the right decisions with their own lives. 

Not some superstate that will do our cooking for us, or buy or groceries, or decide where we should work or live, or what we should say to each other. Or what we should do with our own money. But not try to protect us from ourselves, but laws that are there to regulate how we treat each other. Smart educated people are the true free people in America. Because they have the knowledge to manage their own lives and make their own decisions. That is what America needs more of. Not a super babysitter trying to manage our lives for us.

Salon Magazine: Troy Williams: When Mormons Were Socialists

Source:The Daily Journal
Hopefully this is not a news flash for anyone, but I’m not an expert on religion. I'm also not ten-feet tall, if anyone is wondering that as well. I'm especially not an expert Mormonism, which is probably one reason why I’m Agnostic. A devout Agnostic, if there’s such a thing, but what little I do know about Mormonism, is extremely little, as small as Danny DeVito. Which is probably only enough to fill up a bottle cap. That  there is a communitarian aspect to Mormonism. That they live together in compounds, that sort of thing.

To suggest that Mormons are Socialists and they believe all people should live this way, have multiple spouses, at least for men, that sort of thing, is a big stretch. The only socialist religion out there, if you want to call it a religion, would be Atheism, or really militant or fundamentalist Atheism that you see on the far-left. The belief that there is no God and today's so-called Progressives tend to be Atheist. The closest thing we have to a socialist religion in America would be what is supposed to pass as progressivism today. Which is another way of saying democratic socialism. 

Today's socialism really,  is a very collectivist, communitarian, share and share alike philosophy. "That we are only as strong as our weakest link. That we need a strong, large centralized, bloated, I mean big government to mandate, I mean insure economic equality in America. That we don’t have rich, middle or poor people. That we are all the same and equal". That's what progressivism looks like from today's so-called Progressives is. And if this was a religion,  it would be a socialist religion. 

And as much as today's, well Socialists in America, may complain or hate religion, they have as much faith and belief in the state, especially the federal state to take care of and look after and manage the people's well-being, as the Religious-Right believes Jesus will do those things for the people. The Religious-Left in America (and yes, there is such a thing) to call Mormonism a socialist religion or to link Mitt Romney to socialism at any point, is a stretch and pretty humorous. 

Sort of like calling people who have salad with their steaks, a vegetarian. A blind person wouldn't believe that because they could smell the beef. "Where's the beef, right in front of my nose".  But people are welcome to say and believe anything they want, in a liberal democracy, including Socialists who wished we weren’t a liberal democracy. And if anything Socialists have more freedom to express themselves in our liberal democracy, than in a social democracy. Because of our liberal First Amendment.

The Humble Libertarian: Judy Morris: Big Government at Work: Tennessee Senate Approves Bill To Warn Students That Hand-Holding is a Gateway Sexual Activity: Big Government Gone Wild

Source:Real Life Journal 

This just in, in the world of big government, a world so big Ray Charles could see it blindfolded. The Tennessee Senate just came up with an idea to restrict how Americans live their own lives, and beat Rick Santroum and Michelle Bachmann to the punch, or at least made this idea public before they did. They just approved a bill that would warn Tennessee students that they apparently don’t trust to make their own decisions in this area, that is consensual human contact. 

Apparently Tennessee schools aren’t very good or something. And their students aren't capable of making these decisions on their own. They just passed a bill That would warn their students, that "Hand Holding Is a Gateway to Sexual Activity”. And no this is not a joke, kinda like alcohol is a gateway to marijuana. Or flying in a gateway to Bungee Jumping.Driving is a gateway to drunk driving, smoking is a gateway to arson. Well that makes just as much sense as this Tennessee Senate bill. 

You know what the next step to this is, well I’ll tell you anyway. The Tennessee Senate may try to outlaw adultery or pre-marital sex. Maybe they'll create a Tennessee State Sex Police, where an officer would go buy each home in the state everyday and night, to make sure no one is having an adulterous affair. Or go by every club and bar and demand to see everyone’s marriage license, to make sure they are not having an affair. 

These assumptions aren’t completely far-fetched. U.S. Senator  Jim DeMint, a champion of big government suggested back in 2010 that adultery should be illegal in the United States. But now he’s saying the Republican Party should become more libertarian on social issues. Holy Mitt Romney flip flop Batman! Make up your mind man! You're on complete opposite sides of the same issues! Stop taking pages from Mitt Romney’s playbook. This is big government at its worse, interfering with how Americans live their own lives. 

And just another reason why sane intelligent people shouldn’t live in Tennessee. Even though I would like to visit both Nashville and Memphis. And makes Tennessee look like a laughing stock to everyone who doesn’t live in a mental institution or in the Bible Belt. Which is most of the country, but with state senators like this, who needs mental patients. And it gives reason to believe that are mental institutions aren’t overcrowded enough.

AlterNet: Bill Maher on Rosengate: 'I Think What She Meant is That Mitt Romney's Never Gotten Her Ass Out of the House to Work'

Source:The Daily Journal

I’ve gone out of my way to avoid blogging about “Hillary Rosengate”. As Talking Points Memo coined it this week. A progressive Magazine by the way, because it was one of the dumbest things I’ve heard said in American politics. Which is saying something, I mean we had eight years of George W. Bush as President. 

Dumb thing to say especially coming from one of the best political strategists and analysts in the business today in Hillary Rosen. Both Democrats and Republicans would acknowledge that. So dumb to the point that after Hillary Rosen made her statement saying that “Anne Romney has never worked a day in her life” on CNN’s AC360 on Wednesday night, she ends up apologizing for it on the CNN Morning Show on Thursday. 

And the Democratic Leadership goes out of their way to make it clear that they disagree with what Rosen said. The White House makes it clear that Hillary Rosen doesn’t work for them, or for the Obama reelection campaign. Thanks to Rick Santorum who’s turned out to be a year around Christmas Gift for the Democratic Party, as well as for comedians, bloggers and political satirists, Democrats have been kicking butt when it comes to female voters in 2012. 

The Democratic Party has been kicking Republican Butt, especially Mitt Romney’s, when it comes to female voters, as CNN political analyst Gloria Borger said. "Mitt Romney doesn’t have a gender gap with women, but a gender gulf", or gender canyon. Something to that effect, in others words a huge deficit amongst Female Voters. 

President Obama was already having a bad week to begin with. From last Friday’s jobs report that showed job growth slowing. And Hillary Rosen gives the Romney campaign a gift from God. Something positive to talk about, their support for motherhood. I mean seriously who’s against Motherhood, I mean that would be like hating freedom, or sex or sleep, anything else where most Americans absolutely love. 

To suggest that you're in favor of motherhood, which was what the Democratic Leadership was saying post Hillary Rosen’s comments, is like saying you support having a strong country where everyone can get a job that needs one. That you're against crime, especially murder and you hate racism. These things are so obvious, that you shouldn’t have to try to convince people of your positions. 

Hillary Rosen is the big foot in the mouth that the Republican Party has been waiting for ever since they decided that Mitt Romney should be their presidential nominee and Rick Santorum should be his main challenger. They figuring that if "we are going to have to foot in the mouth's running for president, Democrats should have at least one. And I mean a really big one since we have two of them for both legs.

Washington Times: Timothy C. Daughtry: The Tea Party Will Learn to Love Mitt Romney

Source:The Daily Post

In  a way I feel for Mitt Romney, I don’t feel sorry for him. It's almost impossible for me to feel sorry for anyone worth 200M$. But I feel for him because he almost has to go back to the future for him to fit in the Republican Party. He’s a Northeastern Republican that probably looks up to Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and others. But now running for President in a Southern religious and neoconservative party. That now looks up to Jerry Falwell and the Southern Baptist Convention. And sees Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan as Liberals. 

Imagine that, Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan Liberals. Basically the two fathers of the conservative movement, the two men that put conservatism on the map in American politics, as Liberals. Which would be like calling Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann Libertarians. Or calling Ron Paul a Socialist. If the Tea Party was something of it's own, not so in bed with the Christian Right, like they are lovers having affairs with other people's spouses, then maybe I could believe the Tea Party would get behind the Mitt Romney.

This is why Mitt Romney doesn’t fit in with the Tea Party. He’s from Massachusetts, he was their Governor. He’s Mormon, he’s a Northeastern Republican. The Christian Right considers Northeastern Republicans part of another Political Party, like the Democratic Party. Back in the day Mitt supported equality for homosexuals. Meaning they shouldn’t be discriminated by law, because of their sexuality. And still holds that position today, wait five minutes and maybe he’ll change it. 

Mitt Romney as Governor of Massachusetts signed “RomneyCare” into law. Which four years later became “ObamaCare”. Mitt doesn’t believe things like pornography, gambling and homosexuality should be against the law. The Christian Right the brothers and sisters of the Tea Party, believes they should be outlawed in America. And consider them to be threats to national security. I’ve laid out the thought process’s of both the Tea Party/Christian Right and Mitt Romney. If you're still awake and have read all of that, you know how they are completely different. 

And they are supposed to vote for Mitt for President. I’ve heard the argument that the Tea Party/Christian Right will vote for Mitt Romney to defeat President Obama. I heard the same argument made about John Kerry in 2004 that so-called Progressives would vote for Senator Kerry because they wanted to defeat President Bush. And if you haven’t been in an coma all this time, you know how that presidential election went. Mitt Romney is past his time in the Republican Party.

The Atlantic: Alexander Abad-Santos: Jon Stewart Mourns The Miracle That Was Rick Santorum's Campaign

Source:Real Life Journal

I’ll say this about Rick Santroum and this is probably the only nice thing I'll say about Senator Santorum in this post. But at last its true, Rick Santorum ran a hell of a presidential campaign as far as where he started, as someone who wasn’t even expected to make it to Iowa, let alone win it. Because he was thought of as a loser who was kicked out of the U.S. Senate by 16-18 point by his own state. He was seen as way too far to the right and keep in mind we are talking about the Republican Party here. So that's saying something. 

I mean Michelle Bachmann who didn’t even make to New Hampshire apparently considers pornography and same-sex marriage as our biggest threats to national security. You can’t get to the right of someone like that, she’s so far to the right she couldn’t see Conservatives with a telescope or with X-ray vision. So what Senator Santorum did and accomplished was something pretty impressive.

Rick Santorum came from looking like an ex-politician who’s political career was over, to finishing in 2nd place in the Republican presidential race. Only trailing the frontrunner in Mitt Romney. And came damn close to winning, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin. If he wins those four States or just two to of them, he’s still campaigning for President right now, with a competitive shot at the Presidential Nomination. And had he made those state Campaigns about the economy, instead of Jesus Christ knows best how free Americans should live their lives, maybe he wins those states. 

But no, that wasn't good enough for Ricky. Ricky wanted to be the Father of America and yet he runs for President instead. Telling Americans how to live their lives and focusing on social issues in an economy with 8.2% unemployment and he probably should've won those States. But remember we are talking about Rick Santroum here. The leader and champions of big government republicanism. That's just not in his creed, he believes the number one problem in America is that are too free and need more restrictions.

What Rick Santorum did by dropping out this week, was save his political career. Instead of continuing to campaign and looking like nothing more than a sore loser. Who doesn’t know when he’s taken too many punches. And leaves options open for himself, like perhaps the Vice Presidential Nomination. Running for President in 2016 and being the frontrunner, or perhaps running for Governor of Pennsylvania in 2018.

Or even running for Priest in Pennsylvania as an Italian-Catholic and have the right platform to tell free Americans as immoral we are and need our newly elected father to guide us in how we should live our own personal lives. To be serious for a second, running for Priest seems to be a job right up Ricky's ally and something he might actually be qualified for. Instead of trying to run for president in a liberal democracy free society.

The Nation: Sasha Abramsky: Arizona's Private Prisons: A Bad Bargain

Source:Free State MD

If you look at what the main role of government is anywhere, its to protect society in an effective way that’s cost-effective. Thats the main reason why we pay taxes anywhere. If government can’t protect society, then we would be stuck living in a constant state of anarchy. Where we wouldn’t be free to live our own lives, because of a constant state of danger. If you look at what the main role of the for-profit sector or corporations, its to make money. If they are not able to do that, then they go out of business. So if you’re running a private prison, your job is to make money for that prison. The more inmates you have, the more money you make at taxpayer expense. The more laws you have, the more inmates you’ll have to make the most money you can.

If government can’t protect its society, then they are useless. And we would live in a constant state of anarchy. Where they wouldn’t be able to perform any other public service. Because of all the constant lawlessness. If corporations can’t make money, then they become useless and go out of business. The main role of prisons is to protect society from criminals that are guilty and represent a threat to society. But then release them from prison, after they serve their sentence. And no longer represent a threat to society. If you’re running a private prison, its in your financial interest to have as many inmates in your prison as possible to make as much money as you can from taxpayers. And even keep them in prison longer then their original sentence.

I understand the feeling that states have to cut their corrections costs. And to save money on their corrections systems. Especially in these tough economic times, where budgets are very tight. But private prisons with their lobbyists lobbying for as many new laws as possible, with Prison Sentences as long as possible is not the way to do that. The way to do this is not to have what libertarian Professor Milton Friedman called “Bad Laws”. Laws that put people in prison for what they do to themselves. Rather than how they hurt society. Take our drug laws and Laws against gambling and prostitution to use as examples and then put back prison industries and put your inmates to work. So they can pay for their living expenses.

People shouldn’t be making money off of “Bad Laws”. Especially at taxpayer expense. And inmates shouldn’t be in prison longer so corporations can make profits. What we need to do with our prisons is have real rehabilitation, education and work. So our inmates can cover their Living expenses and work. And not have to come back to prison in the future.

AlterNet: Robert Reich: 'How We're Turning America Into a Giant Casino'

Source:Free State MD

Last night I wrote a blog based on a blog I saw from Progressive Professor Robert Reich, where he was criticizing organize gambling in America. And making the case that America was becoming a “Giant Casino” because of organize gambling. And I’m sure other activities Progressives seem to feel the need to protect people, even if they don’t want their protection. That grown American adults are too stupid to make their own decisions in life. Like how to spend their own money that they earned themselves.

But of course with the so-called Progressive of today, it is not our money, meaning the money that we have and earned for ourselves is ours t begin with. That it's government's money that they would call the public's money and we only get to keep what Uncle Sam allows us to keep for ourselves. And even to protect people from themselves, that we are not capable with our money because we are not capable of deciding for ourselves whether or not we should be able to gamble our own money or not. 

That we need our Uncle Sam to babysit us and teach how we should live our own individual lives, because we are simply too stupid as individual Americans to make these basic decisions for ourselves. Gambling like any other activity that comes with risk like riding a motorcycle, horseback riding, going to nightclubs and even concerts, comes with a certain amount of risk. That people who again choose to make that decision for themselves., will only make the best decision that they can with the best available information that is available.  

We don't need government to babysit us and make our decisions for ourselves. What we need government to do is to regulate these activities to stop and punish predators so innocent people who've again made the choice to participate in these activities themselves. And to set basic rules to make them as safe as possible. Much different than government putting their big fat foot on the ground, that generally gets stuck in their mouth to begin with, "saying no! You can't do these things and if you do anyway, we'll punish you for your own good". 

Generally I go off on Religious and Neoconservatives, when it comes to freedom of choice. And their lack of support for it and criticize them for being in favor of big government. And go off on Progressives for supporting big government as it relates to the economy. But Progressives also have some big government tendencies on these some of these social issues as well. I’m not saying that Progressives are big government supporters across the board. 

Because Progressives are not, if they were, then they would basically be Communists. Or how communism has been practiced, take Cuba. And I’m not saying this to be partisan as a Liberal. Because on most social issues, Progressives tend to be very good when it comes to personal liberty. Like abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality and to a certain extent marijuana when it comes to the non-paternalistic wing of the progressive movement. 

But when it comes to what people can do with their money, except for marijuana to a certain extent, if there’s any risk or the chance that people can get hurt as a result, or where people can make a lot of money from these activities, they seem to feel the need to try to outlaw these activities.  It's not just Bob Reich’s blog against organize gambling last night. But Progressives seem to feel the need to outlaw hate speech. 

Because today's Progressives  seem to feel people can get hurt from having to listen to it. They want to protect people they care about from having to listen to things that may offend. While they make every First Amendment argument they can think of to attack people they are against. Take the Supreme Court decision last year, in March having to do with the Westboro Church. 

Or the need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to use against Fox News. Because apparently they don’t believe Americans can tell the difference from real news and what’s bogus reporting, which is what you get a lot from Fox News. The so-called Progressive feel the need to not only protect people, but protect them from themselves. Which is exactly what big government is, whether its applied to economic or social policy. And Progressives are guilty at times on both fronts when it comes to big government. 

Organized gambling is not a question of whether it is going to be around or not. It has been around with us at least as long as we've been a Federal Republic. The question is how should it be around and should people feel worried about going to jail or not, if they chooses to gamble their own money. Do we need Uncle Sam to protect people from ourselves, or have an educated public that is more than capable of making these decisions for themselves.

The Huffington Post: Robert Reich: 'Turning America Into a Giant Casino'

Source:Free State MD

If you believe in things like individual liberty, freedom of choice and even property rights, that people not only own their material property, but themselves as well their lives and how they live their lives, then you shouldn’t have a problem with organized gambling at least as far allowing individuals to make the decision whether or not to gamble their money on their own or not.

Now if you don't believe in things like personal liberty and freedom of choice, that people are generally stupid and can't be trusted to make their own decision especially with their own money, then you sure as hell will have a huge problem with legalized organized gambling. And perhaps are in favor of setting up some federal agency of babysitters that will decide what we can and can't do with our own earned money that we get paid working for a living. 

But again if you believe in personal liberty and believe that individuals should be able to make the personal decision of whether or not to gamble or not, you believe it should be legal. Whether you personally believe in gambling or not. But that you don’t believe people should be arrested or prosecuted, because of what they did with their money. As long as they are not hurting others with what they are spending their money on.

Big winners when it comes to organized gambling, are of course the casinos. They wouldn’t be in business otherwise, I mean seriously who goes in business to lose money. I'll tell you who, the people who go bankrupt and out of business as fast as an fat person cleans their plate at an all you can eat buffet. And perhaps are so stupid that they weren't even aware that they went into business to lose money. 

Just like the big winner in the War on Drugs are drug dealers. Just because people make a lot of money running a business, doesn’t mean that's bad. Something that today's so-called Progressives perhaps including Robert Reich doesn't seem to understand and believe anyone who profits off of services that they provide for the public are somehow immoral or something.  And just because you make things illegal, doesn’t mean it goes away. 

Again take the War on Drugs and I would add prostitution, the oldest profession in the world legal or otherwise to use as examples. Organize gambling should be treated like any other business. Subjected to regulation and taxation, to make it as safe as possible. Instead of Uncle Sam putting his big fat foot on the ground, assuming he can get it out of his mouth and saying, "no! You can't do that and if you do it, we'll arrest you for your own good". Again similar to the War on Drugs. 

Big Government Progressives and Neoconservatives have this notion that government has to be strong, in order to protect the people from themselves. And that certain things that they don’t like have to be illegal. To protect us, so we don’t make bad decisions with our own money and lives. 

A couple problems with that, both of them are practical. One they don’t seem to realize that these activities are going to go on regardless of whether they are legal or not. The other being that they don’t tend to be very good at spending other people's money. As Libertarian Professor Milton Friedman argued and make mistakes on their own. The Progressive War on Gambling, is similar to the Progressive War on Corporate America. That if these activities are legal, then certain people will make a lot of money.

Again if you're going to live in a liberal democracy, then you need to be able to admit some facts. That you're going to live with a lot of people who are different from you. And who look at life and live life different from you. And for us to survive as a liberal democracy, with individual liberty, we need to accept these facts, to be able to live with each other as best as we can. Not try to force our values onto others and try to play Uncle Sam for the whole country and Uncle Sam knows best. Because a lot of times he simply doesn't.