CATO Institute: Doug Bandow: 'Is Liberalism Good For Religions?'

Source:CATO Institute- In its classical and real sense, liberalism is great for religions

"Featuring Joseph Loconte, Associate Professor of History, The King’s College; Daniel Philpott, Professor of Religion and Global Politics, University of Notre Dame; Mustafa Akyol, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute; moderated by Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.

Liberalism, a political philosophy that grew out of the Enlightenment and champions reason, freedom, and equality, has lately been criticized by some religious thinkers in the West. Liberalism, in their view, only “atomizes” individuals, weakens society, and ultimately corrodes all faiths.

Yet other religious intellectuals think that there are many reasons to appreciate liberalism, including the very freedom that the believers have found in liberal societies to practice and manifest their faith and to be free from the persecutions that have defined much of human history. Moreover, they think that under liberalism, religions flourish in healthier ways — through persuasion rather than coercion, and through civil society rather than state power.

This discussion is particularly relevant for Islam, since Muslim opinion leaders are often ambivalent, at best, on whether they should accept liberal standards of human rights or rather reject them as alien and detrimental. If liberalism is rejected even by Western Christians, whose religious traditions have been much more at peace with liberalism, Eastern Muslims will not even consider it."

Source:CATO Institute

From Wikipedia

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion."

This is another post from this blog about what liberalism actually is and what it isn't and religion, individual choice, and free speech are great topics to look at when you're talking about liberalism, because they all get to free choice and thought, which is what liberalism and liberal democracy is all about.

If you look at liberalism from a stereotypical big government and even communist sense that liberalism is essentially based on big government and the test being that the more liberal someone is, the more government they believe in and the less individual choice that you believe in, under this test liberalism would be horrible for religions and believers, because Communists would be the most liberal people around.

And under this bogus test ( let's call it ) progressivism and Progressives would be horrible for religions and believers, because under this test Communists would be the most liberal and progressive people around. Even though communism, is the most illiberal and regressive political ideology anywhere in the world. ( At least on the left ) But that's not the actual test about what it means to be a Liberal and whether someone believes in liberalism or not.

The test for what it means to be a Liberal ( meaning someone who believes in and practices the philosophy of liberalism ) is whether someone believes in liberty and equal rights. ( As the Wikipedia link says ) People who believe in limited government, individual rights, including civil rights and human rights.

Those include things like property rights, the right to privacy which includes freedom of choice, like whether someone should be able to or not practice any religion of their choice, or no religion at all, or in my case I'm Agnostic. That Liberals believe in not only freedom of or from any religion and they also believe in Separation of Church and State. That religion should not be illegal in a free society, but that there shouldn't be any official religion and any state sponsor of religion in a free society.

And under this test the liberal test or the Wikipedia test, ( if you prefer ) liberalism is great for all religions and even Agnostics and Atheists, Communists even and people who believe that liberalism should actually be outlawed in society, because individuals have a constitutional right of whether or not to practice any religion at all or no religion at all, because they have that constitutional right in a liberal democratic free society.

Again, if you look at liberalism is actually about and that being based off of liberal democracy and not some stereotypical, big government sense where Liberals are supposed to essentially be Socialists and even Communists who view individual choice and freedom in general as dangerous and bad for society. And you need a government big enough to make sure that individual choice is limited as mush as possible.

CATO Institute: Michael Tanner- 'Democratic Primary Voters Turn To Socialism'

Source:National Review- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont. 

"Outside the media and political circles that follow her every move, few probably noticed or cared when Alexandra Ocasio‐​Cortez pronounced capitalism “irredeemable.” But what are we to make of the refusal of former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper — supposedly the moderate in the Democratic field — to admit that he was a capitalist? Speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe last week, Hickenlooper turned aside several direct questions about whether he was a capitalist before allowing that “some aspects” of capitalism, like small business, “probably work.” And what about the fact that 77‐​year‐​old avowed socialist Bernie Sanders is in a statistical tie for the Democratic nomination?"

From the CATO Institute

"Democrats’ hard left turn to socialism. 2012 GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain discusses future of the Democratic Party."

Source:FOX Business- Not sure that Herman Cain is the best spokesman on the Democratic Party, but I don't work for FOX News. Thank God! 

From FOX Business

Source:FOX News- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: two self-described Democratic Socialist members of Congress 

This is a great a timely piece from CATO's Michael Tanner, because I was watching The Lead with Jake Tapper in CNN yesterday afternoon, ( you can do that when you work from your desk and office ) and they were talking about this exact same issue.

Tapper, asked Conservative CNN political analyst  Amanda Carpenter basically the exact same question and she responded something to the effect of why the Democratic Party is now embracing socialism and she talked about the primary voters in the Democratic Party and their support of socialism.

Karen Finney, who is a respected Democratic strategist and CNN political analyst said something like: "This is not true since only one declared Democratic presidential candidate is a Socialist." That person being Senator Bernie Sanders, who is no longer the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress with several Democratic Socialists getting elected to the House last year. He's not even the only Socialist in the Senate, just the only self-described Socialist. which is very different.

CNN's Karen Finney, completely missed the point yesterday ( perhaps intentionally ) about Socialists and socialism in the Democratic Party. I realize that socialist and socialism are still scary words within the Democratic Party Leadership and establishment that Finney is part of, because when they think of those two words they remember George McGovern and the McGovernites in the 1970s and the rise of the New-Left in the late 60s and 70s. And all the negative stereotypes that come from being both a Socialist and a Democrat, especially Socialist-Democrat.

But socialist and socialism are not scary words with young Democrats and young Independents who are considering voting Democratic in 2020 and voted Democratic overwhelmingly in 2018.

When your current frontrunner at least as far as your declared presidential candidates is polling at 30% and leads every one else by at least double figures which is what Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is doing right now for 2020, you not just have more than one Socialist in your party, but you have a someone who probably represents 30% of the party if not 1/3 or more than that if the Jill Stein voters were to come out for Senator Sanders next year instead of Dr. Stein, you not only just have more than one Socialist in your party, which is stating the obvious anyway since the Democratic Party has always had Socialists in their party whether they're self-described or not, but you have a socialist faction inside of your party.

The Democratic Party today now has a large block of Democrats including Democratic Socialists voters, who embrace the ideas of Socialists and socialism and want to see those policies put into place in this country. That's just the state of the Democratic Party right now whether the Karen Finney's and other members of the Democratic Party Leadership are ready to acknowledge that or not.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

CATO Institute: Sheldon Richman- Dissolving the Inkblot: Privacy As Property Right

Source:CATO Institute

I love the U.S. Constitution for what it is, because I see it as the one document that protects all of our individual freedom in America, both personal and economic. As all Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians should. And I would never remove or amend any of our amendments in it, or the Bill of Rights.  But if there were two things that I would add to it, it would be two new additional constitutional rights. The Right to a Quality Education, so no one is trapped in a bad school simply because they come from low-income parents, or a low-single single-parent. And what this is really about and maybe I would amend the Fourth Amendment to include this, or just create a new amendment, but I would add a guaranteed right to Freedom of Choice.

Where I agree with Libertarian Economist Walter Williams is that property rights extends to one's self. Their own body and because that we're all responsible for our own personal decisions. Even when people make bad decisions for us, it is us that have to live with them and in a sense we become responsible for someone else's bad decisions. I actually have personal experience with this. And given that and given we live in a liberal democracy and free society we should be responsible for one's self, as well as our kids until they come of age. But we and government shouldn't be responsible for making the decisions for other free adults in their own personal lives. So instead of someone telling us, no you can't do that when it comes to our own personal decisions, we should make those decisions ourselves. Just as long as we aren't hurting innocent person's or people.

The Freedom of Choice, is not the freedom to hurt innocent people. It is the freedom for one to make their own decisions and as long as they aren't hurting innocent people and then held personally responsible for their own bad decisions for good and bad. And that is where self-ownership and self-government comes in. The right for people to self-govern themselves and make their own decisions. Not someone's else's decisions. Like whether to live healthy or not, whether to live or not, whether to gamble or not, whether to smoke marijuana or not, whether to either pay for sex, or sell themselves for sex or not. And I could go on, but hopefully you have other things you would like to do in your lifetime than to read this indefinite list.  But the freedom for people to make their own personal and economic decisions. And then be held personally responsible for them.

Freedom of Choice, is yes the freedom to decide, but just because someone has that freedom doesn't necessarily mean they'll do that. It just means they have the personal freedom to make their own decisions. To drink alcohol, or not, to smoke marijuana, or not, to have a homosexual relationship and marriage, or not and again I could go, but I trust you have lives. It says that as intelligent and educated as a group of individuals in government might be, that generally they're and others are better off if they make their own decisions instead of making the personal decisions of others. And then set the rules for how people should interact with each other. But not decide for everyone else just because they may think someone is bad or dangerous and can even make a good case for that, that no one else should be able to make those decisions for themselves.

Cato Institute: 'Daniel Shapiro on the Welfare State'

Source:CATO Institute- Daniel Shapiro on the so-called welfare state.

"In his new book, Is The Welfare State Justified?, philosopher Daniel Shapiro insightfully combines moral and political philosophy with contemporary social science to argue that proponents of the welfare state — egalitarians, communitarians, and liberals alike — have misunderstood the implications of their own principles, which in fact support more market-based or libertarian institutional conclusions than most people realize." 

From The CATO Institute

I'm not sure that Daniel Shapiro understands what Social Security is. And even though the title of his talk is about the so-called welfare state, this video only covers Social Security. Social Security, is not a retirement system. It would be very difficult for someone to pay their bills and not live in poverty if Social Security was their only income. Social Security, like most social insurance programs, is exactly that. Social insurance for retirement. To help people fund their retirement, but not be the sole income of their retirement.

For most Americans unless they have a government job, if they have a pension its a private pension. That either they funded them self, or they funded with help from their employer. Social Security, is not only not only the national retirement system, but it isn't a retirement system at al. It is insurance that people pay into through their working lives and then collect from once they retire. To go along with any private savings and perhaps a pension plan that they picked up during their careers. So when people talk about privatizing Social Security and creating private savings accounts, private savings accounts already exist. And they're talking about privatizing retirement insurance.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

CATO: Ilya Shapiro: ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion Violates Federalism

Source:FreeState Now

by Ederik SchneiderCATO: Blog: Ilya Shapiro: ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion Violates Federalism To say the 2010 Affordable Care Act is not perfect, would be like saying mud is dirty or concrete is hard. Whether you support the 2010 ACA and would’ve voted for it in Congress or not. Or signed it as President or not, your idea of Healthcare Reform. Including my own, would be different. I have my own issues with the ACA, I would’ve like to see a Public Option. That wasn’t run by the Federal Government in the ACA. Which is what was in the Democratic House bill and the original Democratic Senate bill.  

I would’ve gone farther to bring down healthcare costs with things like preventive care, taxing junk food and drink, getting junk food and drink out of public schools, encouraging people to eat healthy and exercise, mandatory physical education K-12 and other things. And I certainly didn’t like the Medicaid expansion that was in the ACA that wasn’t paid for. And thats what I”m going to blog about.

Medicaid was set up in 1965 as part of the LBJ Great Society. To provide Health Insurance for low-income people who can’t afford it, sounds noble enough right. And that the Federal along with state governments would provide the funds to pay for it, another Federal mandate on the states. One problem with Medicaid has been the Feds haven’t lived up to their share of the costs of Medicaid that they wrote in their own law and as the cost of health care in America has gone up. 

Health care costs have gone up since Medicaid was created in 1965, so has the States Medicaid costs. But the Federal Government, has not only not paid for their share of what they originally said they would pay for, but of course they haven’t been providing the funds to pay for the new Medicaid costs that the states have picked up as well. Which have been made worse the last ten years with state revenue shrinking with a couple of recessions and everything else.

What I would like to do with Medicaid is take it off both the Federal and state budgets. Allow each State to have their own Medicaid as well as healthcare system. And then turn Medicaid into a semi-private non-profit health insurer. With each State having their own version of Medicaid. And make Medicaid self-financed as well by their customers and employers, Unemployed workers would get an additional tax credit to go along with their public assistance check to cover their Medicaid insurance. 

low-income workers would pay for part of their Medicaid insurance. And their employer would cover the other part. And both the workers and employers would be eligible for a tax credit to cover that. And you could pay for that out of corporate welfare. As well as workers and employers could use that tax credit and opt out of Medicaid for private health insurance.

I got this rule that I like to use in life, before you create a new mess, clean up your first mess. Which is how I would describe Medicaid. Its a Financial Mess, that no one wants to pay for. Because the money isn’t there, it has to come out of general revenue. And takes money out of other priorities. So before you expand something like that, you should first fix it.

Cato Institute: Richard Epstein: The Classical Liberal Constitution

The Classical Liberal Constitution is the United States Constitution. With all the constitutional and individual rights that it protects. The problem with the USC is not the Constitution itself, but big government supporters on the far-right and far-left who do not support the Constitution and judges they believe who do too far to protect our freedoms. And then they back politicians who look for ways to try to change our Constitution.

The way to know that our Constitution is a Classical Liberal Constitution, just look at our Bill of Rights and all the amendments to it and I’ll give you a few of them.

1. Our Freedom of Speech that gives us the right to essentially say whatever the hell we want to. As long as we aren’t libeling people or threatening people or inciting violence.

2. Freedom of Assembly the ability for Americans to get together with each other and even hold meetings. Without government getting in our ways as long as we aren’t planning criminal activities.

3. Freedom of Religion to go along with Separation of Church and State. The ability to practice or not practice any religion that we want. But that we are a federal republic and governed by our Constitution and not by any religion.

4. The Right to Self-Defense which is critical in a developed country our size with all of our wealth. The fact that law enforcement can’t protect all of us all the time.

5. Our property rights and Right to Privacy which in a way go together. The fact that government can’t come into our homes and take our property from us without just cause.

6. Our Equal Protection Clause that guarantees under law that no American is discriminated against based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion which is critical in any liberal democracy.

It is not the United States Constitution that is the problem in America. But the people on fringes of both political wings who believe we have too much freedom. And have too much power as far as the political offices that they hold on both sides. So the solution to this is to elect more people on both the Left and Right who support our Constitution and will defend it.  

Cato Institute: Doug Bandow: America on Welfare

Source:FreeState Now

If we were really serious about reducing poverty and government dependence as it relates to the economy, people would be making more money working than not working. And people who are not retired, or physically or mentally disabled, would make less money in cash payments, than people who are working. Even if they are low-income workers. Because we would have laws in place that prevent the unemployed who are on Welfare Insurance from making more money than people who are working and collecting cash payments. And they would still get the public assistance that they need to survive like. Food Assistance, public housing, Medicaid to use as examples. But they would receive less in direct income than someone whose working full-time whatever they are making. Instead of having this policy that basically says, “look, you are barely surviving at all on your own right now. How about you quit your job and get on Welfare where you could make more money.” Which is what we’ve been doing since the New Deal and what we should do instead is incentivizing people to work over not working.

You want more people working and fewer people not working and collecting from public assistance, then work simply has to pay more than not working. And work has to pay enough so people prefer to work. So instead of having a minimum wage for workers, you would apply that to the unemployed on Welfare. Where they would make what someone working full-time making 7.25$ an hour would make. But low-income workers would make 10$ an hour working full-time. And still collect the public assistance that they would be eligible for with their income. But also eligible for financial assistance for eduction and job training. So they can get themselves better skills and leave their low-skilled low-income job for a good job. That allows for them to leave public assistance for the middle-class. And someone whose on Welfare, but in an education or job training program is now making 8.25$ and hour. While they are preparing themselves to go to work. Instead of 7.25$ an hour that the person on Welfare whose not in education or job training currently.

A low-income worker now making at least the living-wage at 10$ an hour is still working, but also eligible for financial assistance to go to school, or to a job-training program. So they can improve their skills and get a good job. That gets them off of public assistance all together and into the middle-class. Because now we are incentivizing work and independence over dependence. And a difference between what a welfare state is, or an entitlement society, compared with an empowerment society, that empowers people to be able to take care of themselves.

CATO Institute: Video: George Will Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner

Source:The Daily Post

George Will said in an interview with Charlie Rose in October, 2008, a future blog about that coming up, that, "there's a Libertarian Wing and a Social Conservative Wing in the GOP." And that the "Libertarian Wing, is getting larger in the GOP." Thanks to Ron Paul, CATO Institute and others ,. He's mostly correct and I agree with most of that. I would just phrase that a little differently . And would put it this way, that there's a Conservative Wing and I mean Conservative across the board not Statist in any sense and there's a Statist Wing in the Republican Party. People who are Neoconservatives, who now make up the Christian Right, Tea Party and people who don't identify themselves with either of those groups.

Thats the State of GOP today. Made up of people who believe in economic freedom, except for the right for workers to organize. Religious Freedom for Christians, they want Big Government out of our wallets, so they can get in our bedrooms and living rooms. To tell us how we can live our lives, who we can sleep with, who we can marry, what we can watch on TV and what we can listen to. What bars and clubs we can go to etc. To a certain extent even what we can do with our own money. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Neoconservative Wing of the Republican Party is winning in the GOP. Which is bad for them and anyone who believes in liberal democracy and doesn't want America to become a one-party State, which is most of us.

Because as we move along as a country, we are getting younger, more tolerant, more liberal and Libertarian. We are becoming a country that wants Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Generation X and Y are perfect examples of that. But as the changes are happening, we have Neoconservatives who are still stuck in the 1950s. Haven't figured out that color TV is common and that people like to have a good time and don't want to be told how to live their lives. That not all Americans don't fit in with the establishment, that we are all individuals and don't fit into the neoconservative box of what Americans are supposed to be. And that if you don't fit in that box, which is only the size of a lunch box. That somehow you are Un-American, or Socialist.

George Will, is right about the GOP in the sense of the two wings that make up today's GOP. What he would call a Libertarian Wing, that he fits in, that I would call Conservative which is different. And a Social Conservative Wing, that I would call Statist. That are Neoconservative Republicans and are unfortunately for the GOP, the Statists are not only coming, but are winning in the GOP and are on course to put the Republican Party out of business.

CATO: Roger Pilon: Our Constitution is Out of Step With the Rest of the World

Source:FreeState Now 

If you look at the United States, all of our constitutional rights and individual liberties come from, well if you guessed the U.S. Constitution, you’ve been paying attention I haven’t lost you yet. But wait there’s more, because that's how our form of government and the Federal Government is built around. Unlike in authoritarian republics or even in some social democracies, there’s a limit to what our Federal Government can do, especially the Executive. It's what limited Government is built around in a liberal democracy. To limit the power of government to interfere in how free adults live their own lives. 

Which is why we have things like Freedom of Speech. So if the people doesn’t like what the government is doing, they have a constitutional right to protest that and organize a movement to reform. And that's just one example of free speech. 

The U.S. Constitution has things like yes the First Amendment, which guarantees our free speech, but also rights like the Second Amendment, the right for us to be able to defend ourselves. 

The Fourth Amendment, which is our Right of Privacy as well as well as the Fifth Amendment which guarantees our property rights, so government can’t take our property away without probable cause.

 The Tenth Amendment that limits the power of the Federal Government. So they can’t do whatever they want, but instead their power is limited. 

We are a liberal democracy, which means free adults have the Constitutional Right to live their own lives. And not be interfered by government without Probable Cause. Basically as long as we are not abusing others with what we are doing.

We are a liberal democracy with probably the most liberal Constitution in the World. We have constitutional rights that other democracies just doesn’t have. Because they are social democracies and less individualistic, that believe one of the roles of government is to take care of their people and even at times protect people from themselves. Our Constitution might be out of step with others in the World. But thats because of how free we are, which is what liberal democracies are about. Not because we are doing something wrong.