The Federalist Coalition: Justin Stapley- Karl Marx vs. Thomas Jefferson: Liberal Democracy vs. Communism

Source:Slide Player- "7 Thomas Jefferson Karl Marx Example Subjects to Contrast”

Source:The New Democrat

“Our political conflict can often be boiled down to the stark differences in how Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson viewed history and their different beliefs about the role of government in crafting the future.”

Read the rest of Justin Stapley’s piece at The Federalist Coalition

Whether Karl Marx is the founder of Communists and communism and the founding father of Socialists and socialism in general, I don’t know that and I’m not sure anyone else does. So instead of writing a piece about Thomas Jefferson, who I believe at least is the father of American liberal democracy, if not liberal democracy in general, with Karl Marx who perhaps at best might be more of a spiritual figure and leader for Socialists and Communist, but perhaps not their founding father, I believe a more appropriate piece would be to look at Thomas Jefferson who for me at least represents the Liberals and liberalism ( Classical Liberals and classical liberalism, if you prefer ) versus Communists and communism.

I think the best way to compare liberal democracy and communism, is to look at what the Founding Fathers in America ( our Founding Liberals ) created in the 1700s and then look at what the Bolsheviks ( Russian Communists ) created in Russia when they created the Soviet Union there 100 years ago.

The Founding Fathers, created a liberal democracy in America built around individual rights and limited government. And of course they really only meant for this freedom to be for European, especially Anglo-Saxon men who owned property, but the fact even if it wasn’t intentional the rights that they created were for everyone in America regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

The Russian Communists, created a superstate in Russia ( known as the Soviet Union ) that was built around one central, national government in Moscow. Where individual freedom of all levels and all forms was highly discouraged if not outlawed, where everyone was supposed to be taken care of by the national state instead. That is how Socialists tend to operate whether they are democratic or communist: you give up individual freedom and choice, in exchange for personal and economic security.

The real differences between liberal democracy and communism comes down to power and who gets to decide: in a liberal democracy, the power is given to the people to manage their own affairs and lives. In a communist state, the power is given to the national state and is supposed to be used to serve the people. It generally if never works like that in a communist state where those countries tend to the poorest and most corrupt in the world, but that’s what Communists tend to promise for their people. This debate is not about big government versus small government, but about power and who should have it: the state or the people.

“AF-184: Today on the Ancestral Findings Podcast I’ll answer the questions… Who was Thomas Jefferson? Beyond being our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, who was he? Where did he come from, what was his family like, and what other contributions did he make to our country?”

Source:Ancestral Findings: Thomas Jefferson- Who’s Who in the American Revolution?'- Thomas Jefferson: the father of liberal democracy?

The Washington Post: Sheri Berman: 'Some Argue That The West Should Limit Democracy To Save Liberalism: Here's Why They're Wrong'

Source:The Washington Post- "Demonstrators gathered to protest Islamic law wave flags during a rally June 10, in New York. In more than two dozen cities across the United States, the group organizing the rallies, ACT for America, is speaking out against Shariah law, saying it is incompatible with Western democracy. (Craig Ruttle/AP)" Also from The Washington Post.

"Twenty years ago, Fareed Zakaria analyzed the rise of “illiberal democracy” — a form of government with free and fair elections but without “the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property.” Now illiberal democracy seems to be rising, so that even long-standing liberal democracies in Western Europe and the United States seem to be falling under its spell." 

From The Washington Post

America and to a certain extent Europe, has a long history of subsidizing authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and Africa (specifically) for their own national interests. The thinking being that if they don't subsidize these authoritarians whether they're monarchs, theocrats, or Nationalists and let those regimes collapse with democracy taking over, that the opposition would be worst for Western interests than the current regime. 

The Western thinking being that the current regime is the best that they can do as far as the West. And at least the West would be able to work with these authoritarians on issues relating to terrorisms and combating other states where they share mutual enemies.

Well, anyone familiar with the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis and what led up to that Iranian authoritarian monarchy under the Shah of Iran knows that subsidizing dictators and authoritarians has its limits. The 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Tehran was partially to the American and British subsidization of an unpopular authoritarian regime in Iran.

Democracy has its limits and everyone familiar with democracy knows that. Which is why democracy in itself is not a strong form of government, because it would always be held hostage to the popular will of the time and people would have a very hard time governing and making tough decisions for fear of losing their jobs. Which is why I don't believe in majoritarian or social democracy, with no set constitutional rights that can be thrown out simply because one person no longer believes in them or supports one of them, more than the people who do support those constitutional rights.

Which is why I'm instead a Liberal Democrat who of course believes in free and fair democracy to choose our leaders, but that goes along with the rule of law and checks and balances that protects our liberal individual rights and liberty in general. 

Liberal democracy and social democracy, are not the same things. Once you put basic constitutional and individual rights at the will of the current majority, is when those rights can be put in jeopardy. Especially when there's a rise of populism from either the Far-Left with Socialists who do don't believe in the rule of law and checks and balances, because it limits their big government agenda. Or Nationalists who don't believe in the rule of law either and oppose individuals rights and the ability for people to protest their politics and policies.

The rise of right-wing authoritarian nationalism whether it's the Donald Trump movement in America , or with Vladimir Putin in Russia and other nationalist government's in Eastern Europe like in Hungary and Poland, doesn't mean that liberal democracy and liberalism in general is failing. 

Or with the Neo-Communist rule in Venezuela and the liberal democratic opposition there just goes to show you that liberalism and liberal democracy is still strong and people still want it. Especially after watching the illiberal Socialists there destroy the economy in Venezuela. A country that is energy independent, by the way.

What America should being doing instead is taking a stand against authoritarianism, whether it comes from the Far-Left or Far-Right and stand with the people in those countries that simply want their freedom, as well as check and balances and the rule of law. Instead of having a strongman and regime with most of the power in the country and be held accountable. 

With the nationalist Donald Trump Administration in Washington, don't expect America to do that anytime soon. But that is what America and Europe could be doing to expand liberal democracy and liberalism. And not watch leftist and rightist populist Nationalists, try to takeover once democratic Western countries.

Back to the old argument of who America should be backing with the choice being the devil that we know as far as authoritarian regimes that can work with us on national security issues and help us against terrorists and other authoritarian states, or the people on the ground who want the current regime out-of-power and a chance to form a democratic government.

America is supposed to be the beacon on the hill that stands up for individual rights and liberal democratic values. "The city on the shining hill" (to paraphrase Ronald Reagan) And I'm not a Neoconservative looking to replace every authoritarian regime that I don't like. And again democracy has limits and you could literally end up replacing one authoritarian regime with another, which is what happened in Iran in 1979.

But once you go down the road of subsidizing authoritarians over the people that have to live under that form of authoritarianism, you put yourself at the mercy of those people there. And then they rise up and perhaps replace the authoritarian regime that you're backing.

Which is why America should be pushing for democracy, but pushing for liberal democracy that comes with rule of law, checks and balances, and individual rights. And backing oppositions and government's that believe in those liberal democratic values as well. 

You can also see this post on FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Constitution Daily: As Expected, Affirmative Action Arguments Featured Anthony Kennedy & Antonin Scalia

Source:Constitution Daily 

The end of quota set-aside racially and ethnically based affirmative action, is finally coming to an end in America. And may be headed out the door this year with the Texas case at the U.S. Supreme Court. The type of affirmative action that I just described, is not popular in America and that is because of the two young adult populations. The Gen-Xers and the Millennial’s, who simply don’t judge people by race and ethnicity, by in large with exceptions with the Far-Left in these generations. And we have a Supreme Court that at least has a majority that doesn’t want racial and ethnic set-asides and a Congress that can’t and won’t do anything to overrule the Supreme Court, assuming this affirmative action gets thrown out. Which means what comes after racial and ethnic set-asides and quotas once they’re thrown out.

As a Liberal myself I see this as a great opportunity, because once racial and ethnic set-asides are thrown out, we can get back to the heart of problem for why racial and ethnic majorities and really why African and Latin-Americans, are behind economically compared with Caucasian and Asian-Americans. Which has to do with things like education, economic development, infrastructure and civil rights enforcement. African and Latin-Americans, are behind Caucasian and Asians economically, not because of their race or their ethnicity. But because they tend to come from communities where education and economic opportunity, simply don’t exist. At least not to the point where these communities can be successful.

Before doctors can prescribe prescriptions to medical conditions, they first have to know what the problem, or problems that their patients are facing. And find a prescription to those problems. If you have communities that are dealing with high rates of poverty and they lack infrastructure, education and economic development, it seems to me at least that is where you go to fix that economic condition. Not give set-asides to people who don’t have the education and skills to take advantage of what you’re trying to reward them with. Especially when those set-asides come at the expense of people whether they’re Caucasian, Asian, or whoever, who are qualified to take advantage of those economic and educational opportunities.

A real affirmative action program in America, would look something like a Marshall Plan, but do it in America. Where we’re pouring in aide and resources, into underserved communities in America, urban, rural and even suburban, regardless of race. Empowering non-profits, building underserved communities, encouraging economic development in those communities, building schools, making higher education universally affordable, empowering people in those communities to become small business owners, toughen civil rights enforcement, so it’s not in the financial interest of organizations, to deny access to people simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. And then you would see real racial and ethnic equality in America when it comes to economics.

A real affirmative action plan would be a plan that would empower underserved and economically depressed Americans to be able to stand up on their own feet and acquire real economic freedom and live their own American dream. Simply because they were given an opportunity not because of their race or ethnicity, but because they are an American who simply needs an opportunity to get on their own two feet. Not giving people opportunity who are not ready for it, simply because of their race or ethnicity, especially at the expense of people who are qualified to have that access. Economic empowerment should be about empowering people in need. Again regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. Not about giving access to people simply because they’re a member of a traditionally underserved group in America.

Constitution Daily: Debating Affirmative Action

Source:National Constitution Center

As a Liberal, I’m against racial preferences regardless of who they’re tended to favor over any other race and in favor of equal rights and protection, civil rights and civil liberties and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not because I’m not a Liberal, but because I am. Because I got this wild Martin L. King notion that everyone all Americans should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Which really is about as liberal of a notion and value as liberalism gets. Liberals, truly believe in racial tolerance. Not just for minorities, but for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality.

The same reasons why I argue in favor of free speech whether I agree with the speech or not, because I’m a Liberal and not because I’m not. When you have racial preferences even if they’re designed to help minorities over the majority, you’re still approving a form of racial discrimination. You’re saying that certain races of people should get special treatment under law over another, because of their race and circumstances. Just because one race of Americans and in this case European-Americans or Caucasians, have benefited from special treatment in the past, doesn’t mean other Americans are now entitled to special treatment for themselves. It was wrong for Caucasians to benefit because of their race in the past and its wrong for anyone else to benefit because of their race today.

The problem with government in many cases and why it tends to be ineffective and not trusted, is because they like to live under their own laws while they enforce other laws for everyone else. They say we can’t practice racial, ethnic and gender discrimination against other Americans, when that is exactly what they do with racial preferences under so-called affirmative action. If government wants Americans to not judge people for good and bad because of race, ethnicity and gender, then they can’t do those things and expect to be trusted and respected.

Americans, might not be the sharpest tools in the shed as a people, but we know hypocrisy when we see it and we see it everyday. Racial preferences under so-called affirmative action, days are numbered, because we’re finally starting to become that MLK dream of a country. We’re becoming that country that doesn’t like it when Americans benefit from, or are denied access in this country because of our race and ethnicity. And that is because of the Millennial’s. The same generation that says minorities are entitled to never have to hear anything that they find offensive. Also believes in Equal Protection Under The Law and oppose racial and ethnic discrimination.

When the U.S. Supreme Court most likely kills racial preferences under so-called affirmative action in America perhaps as early as next year, it will give America a great opportunity to develop a real affirmative action policy in this country. That won’t be built off of racial discrimination and preferences, but on empowering Americans who have been left behind in this country including because of their race and ethnicity. But instead empowers Americans who come from underdeveloped communities to be able to make a quality life for themselves. And even be able to stay in their community that now has quality schools, infrastructure and new economic development.

What we should do instead as a country is build on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and expanding it to include gays and having a real education, infrastructure and economic system, that’s built off of economic development that says all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, and economic background, are entitled to a real shot at achieving their own American dream. Of living in economic and personal freedom based on what they’re created for themselves form their own skills and production. Not because of their race, or ethnicity, or father’s income level.

You don’t achieve a racial and color-blind society with big government saying, “it’s only okay when we do it.” You do that by saying it’s not okay at all and when you do it there are heavy economic prices to pay for it. To encourage you not to do it at all and to never do it again if you do it in the first place. That is what the 1964 CRA should be about. Not to expand the criminal justice system in America which is way over capacity to begin with. But to say racial and ethnic discrimination is wrong period and is illegal and have real strong enforcement. To encourage victims of racial discrimination to come out and report even if they think they can’t win their case, or can’t afford a good attorney.

Because good civil rights attorneys, would take their case anyway and their would be a criminal case to prosecute as well. And the victims would be entitled to financial compensation if the court finds that they’re victims of racial discrimination in the workplace, or in college, to use as examples. But we don’t create a society where Americans aren’t judged by their race and ethnicity with government not practicing what it preaches. That is what I mean by racial and color blindness, a society where Americans aren’t judged by their race, color, or ethnicity. Not a society that pretends its blind and can’t see race and ethnicity, but where we don’t judge people by those things.

USA Today: Qanta Ahmed- Islamism’s Double Pronged Assault on Liberal Democracy

Source: USA Today-

Source:USA Today

Islamism, from ISIS and other groups, is not just and assault on American and Western values, but its an assault on liberal values, whether it’s in America, Europe or in Asia. ISIS Islamists, want to destroy individual freedom, freedom of expression and individualism in general, all great liberal values and why I’m a Liberal. And replace it with their far-right view of religion and impose their values on everyone in the world that they can reach. Religious and cultural fascism where they decide how everyone should live and if you disobey in any way, or try to live like a human being an individual, you risk your life as a result.

The Far-Right’s version of Marxism which is religious theocratic fundamentalism. How today’s so-called Progressives, can ever say that what Islamists believe is just part of their culture, all I have to say to that is what Richard Dawkins said. Which is, “the hell with their culture.” When you take the side of a group like ISIS and other Islamists, you at the very least are showing sympathy for their perspective and worldview. A worldview where non-Islamist Muslims, women, gays and others, are considered to be second-class citizens who should be forced to live like prisoners in their tiny world.

You can’t have a liberal democratic world and a Islamist world when the Islamists are trying to destroy the Liberals. The Liberals and the West, have no choice but to fight back and destroy ISIS. This is not the Cold War where you had liberalism against Marxist Communism. Where both sides knowing they could destroy each other and the world agreeing not to in order to protect their self-interests. This is a war where the good guys have to win. Very similar to World War II when the West destroyed the Nazis. There’s no co-existence between the Islamists and Liberals. The Islamists have to be destroyed for the good of the West and for there to be any chance that someday Middle Easterners can have a peaceful home and region of their own. Where they’re not always dealing with extreme terrorism.

Paris last month, was the French 9/11 and France was already wide awake against ISIS and bombing them in Syria which is why ISIS hit them. So France is not some socialist pacifist pushover (to be kind) that doesn’t understand the use of force and that there are times that you have to be tough. They know what ISIS is about and what they need to do to destroy them and are already a great American ally in the War on Terror and now the War on ISIS as well. America, will probably have all of NATO, plus Iraq and the Syrian rebels, in the West’s fight to destroy ISIS now, thanks to Paris. Even though Paris was a hell of a price to pay for it, because of that insult on liberal values.

They don’t want another Paris attack happening to them and Britain doesn’t want a major attack in London, or one of their other great big cities and they’re now onboard to destroying ISIS as well and will provide airpower against ISIS as well. So what ISIS has done in Paris as horrible as an attack as that was, but they’ve woken up the West to the threat that they present against us and will take a hell of a beating as a result. What we’re going to see in this fight against ISIS is not neoconservatism and one country taking all the risks and collecting very little rewards for what they put up. But instead liberal internationalism, where a coalition of Western and Middle Eastern countries, take out ISIS together.
The Blaze: Glenn Beck Interviewing Dr. Quanta Ahmed

Conservable Economist: Timothy Taylor:: 'Capitalism for Growth, Government for Fairness'

Source:Conservable Economist- liberal democracy vs socialism.

“When I hear discussions of how to encourage economic growth, along with equality and fairness, I sometimes feel as if the discussants are in the grip of a category confusion, like someone who rinses their vegetables in the shower and then tries to bathe in the kitchen sink. Here’s the confusion as expressed in an October 1990 opinion column by Donald Kaul, who was a prominent opinion columnist, mainly with the Des Moines Register, from the 1970s through the 1990s. Kaul wrote”

Source:Conservable Economist

Source:The Aspen Institute- talking about the sharing economy.

“Airbnb does business in 34,000 cities, has a valuation of over 10 billion dollars, and in a very short time has disrupted the world of hospitality and travel. Its co-founder and CEO Brian Chesky envisions the future city as a place where sharing is front and center — where people become micro-entrepreneurs, the local mom and pops will flourish once again, where space isn’t wasted, but shared, and more of almost everything is produced, except waste. But the journey from here to there won’t be all smooth sailing. What are the ups and downs of the sharing economy, as businesses like Airbnb confront critiques about regulation, economic development, and fairness? What role might businesses play in creating more shareable, more livable cities? How will the sharing economy, with its de-emphasis on ownership, be a tool for addressing urban inequality?”

From The Aspen Institute

You need a healthy private enterprise capitalist economic system for any economy to do well. That has been proven for a hundred-years now. Marxist state-control of the economy simply doesn't work. A big reason why the Soviet Union collapsed is that they ran out of money and their republics wanted a different life for themselves free from Moscow's central planning and economic control. The People's Republic of China, figured that out as well forty-years ago and moved to a more private enterprise economic system. And the same thing with Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Communist Republic of Cuba ten years ago under Marxist dictator Fidel Castro.

So the question is not whether you should have a capitalist private enterprise economic system, or not, but what type of private enterprise system you should have. And what is the role of your national government in the economy to make sure that as many people as possible have the tools that they need to do well in live on their own and paying taxes and not just payroll taxes so when people are struggling, you have the resources to help out the people who truly need it. Instead of having a superstate designed to take care of physically and mentally able people. Who could take care of themselves if only given the opportunity.

You don't want government managing industries. You don't want government doing practically nothing either. You don't companies to be able to legally pollute the air and water, or pass those costs onto taxpayers. Or get away with not paying their workers for the work that they do. You also don't want taxes so high that encourages people not to work and be successful at work. What you do want is as many people as possible to be as economically successful as they can be. You want to encourage people to finish and further their education.

You want to encourage people to do well at work. The larger your middle and upper classes are and the lower your low-income class is, the stronger economy you'll have. Because the more people you'll have that can afford to purchase the products they make. Pay their bills, have a good time like vacationing and eating out and so-forth, putting money away and the stronger economic growth that you'll have.

The reason why I believe in limited government is because I only want government what it should do based on what its good at and what we need it to do. Government, should just be a referee, national insurance system and investor. Laying out the rules for how companies and individuals should relate to each other and the people who work for them and their consumers. But not try to run their business for them.

An insurance system for people who truly need and are out-of-work. Help them get back on their feet and get a good job, but not try to manage their lives for them. Investing in things like education, infrastructure, trade, job trading, people, by empowering people in need to get themselves on their own feet. The more people you have doing well in your economy, the stronger your economy will be, because of all of the workers and customers that you'll have who are independent, on their own and living in freedom and not off of government.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress.

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

Anarchist Collective: The Case For Self-Ownership & Property Rights

The case for property rights and as I argued last week, property rights extends to one's self which is self-ownership and the case for property rights is the case against Marxism. Who owns you? The state, who assumes responsibility for everyone's welfare, or the individual them self? That is what this debate is about. If you believe in property rights, you're not a Marxist. Other than maybe a moderate Marxist, (if there is such a thing) who believes the state should own all business in the economy, but that individuals should own their personal property. Homes, cars, clothes, food, the responsibility for raising their kids, etc.  You can't have a free society without property rights and that even includes self-ownership. Because the state would then assume full responsibility for everyone's welfare. And be the monopoly over the whole country.

And as a Liberal, of course I believe in property rights, including self-ownership, because I believe in liberty. Self-determination, the right for one to chart their own course in life and be able to make the best out of it as they can while still meeting their responsibilities to pay for the services that they receive, both private and public. And really only Marxists on the furthest Left that you can find, don't believe in property rights. People as Far-Far as Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, believes in both property rights and perhaps even self-ownership. From his positions on self-defense, reproductive rights, sexuality, marijuana to use as examples. But believes in a big centralized government to carry out the basic human services that we all need to live well in life. Education, health care, health insurance, childcare, would be examples of that.

And if you go over to the Far-Right, you'll find Neoconservatives, who believe in security and morality over liberty. And don't even believe in the Right to Privacy and have suggested that it doesn't even exist. And want a superstate when it comes to national security and social issues to see to it that no one is behaving immoral and is threatening the security of the country. So under a philosophy like this, people could own their homes and business's, but no Right to Privacy. So government could literally break in to one's home without even having a warrant if they believe someone is behaving immoral. Not just to break in to save someone who is being raped, or being assaulted, or about to be killed. But stop stop people from watching an adult film. Perhaps a non-married couple from having sex, to use as examples.

Its the Far-Left that tends to get accused of being against property rights and self-ownership. But the fact is most Socialists now in the world even and just look at Europe, believe in property rights. Its just really the Marxists on the Far-Left who are against really any form of individuality and self-expression, because they see it as a potential threat to the state. And if you go over to the Far-Right, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, they'l by law will tell women what they can wear in public and force them to be sub-servant to their men. But by in large on the Right at least in the West, property rights and even self-ownership, are very popular and common. At least with the Center-Right. People in the West at least both Right and Left, all believe in at least a certain degree of individual freedom. Because we understand the benefits of self-ownership and property rights.

Constitution Daily: Marci Hamilton: The History of Religion in The United States

Source:Constitution Daily

I believe Marci Hamilton hit it best that one of the great things about America is our Freedom of Religion and religious diversity. Because we are such a diverse country both ethnically and racially a country of Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, Germanic's, Slavs, Mediterraneans, Latinos, Africans, Asians, Indians, Middle Easterners, Jews and others, we are also a very diverse country religiously as well. Because all of these people's have their own cultures, traditions, faiths, that represents where their ancestors come from. That we don't have one dominant ethnic or racial majority with one religion for the whole country and we certainly aren't governed by any religion either. We have Freedom of Religion and freedom not to practice any religion, but we also have Separation of Church and State.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, is free to believe that homosexuality is a sin and that gays are sinners simply for being gay and that same-sex marriage is some moral threat to straight marriage. And she's also free to be deeply wrong about that. But as a government official she swore a duty to serve and protect the public. And even in Rowan County, Kentucky that includes gay people and she simply can't deny gays access and deny them marriage licenses simply because they are gay. She has a sworn duty to serve those people as much as she has a sworn duty to serve straight people. And if she has a problem from that she always resign from office. And perhaps take up the fight of protesting against homosexuality in America wither other members of the Christian-Right in this country.

And while Kim Davis is still serving the whole public in her country she still retains the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin and that gays should be second-class citizens in her county and perhaps everywhere else. Simply by using her First Amendment right and her freedom of religion. But that stops when it comes to forcing your religious beliefs as deep as they may be on everyone else in your community. Freedom of Religion in America doesn't give people the right to force others to live by your beliefs and deny people access because of your beliefs especially when you're a public official. If Clerk Davis doesn't want to serve the entire public in the county she can always resign her office and go work in the private sector like at her church.

George H. Smith: The Philosophy of Independence

Source:The New Democrat

“We hold these truths to self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed but their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Al men are created equal and I know today’s so-called Progressives, who are really Social Democrats, or just pure Socialists, are going to say that our Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals didn’t mean for that to apply to all Americans and everyone. But all men, they’re not talking about Englishmen, who were probably the dominant population in America back then, at least ethnically. They said all men, which has been interpreted and correctly so to apply to all women as well.

The United States, is the oldest liberal democracy in the world. We have the most liberal and the oldest liberal Constitution in the world. Even if our Founding Liberals, only meant our basic human rights to apply to Englishmen, European men and Caucasian men, the fact that they said all men means it applies to everyone. They wanted to escape from a big centralized dictatorial big government rule, that was coming from Britain and create their own liberal democracy. That was built around individual freedom and equality. A limited responsible government to do for the people what we can’t and the states can’t do for us.

That is why we have the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is why we have Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Assemble, Freedom of Religion, to practice, or not practice the religion of our choice, the Right to Self Defense, Right to Privacy, our property rights, the Right to Life and the Pursuit of Happiness, Equal Protection Under Law for all Americans. We wouldn’t have gotten these things had we stayed part of the United Kingdom. The fact that we broke away from them and created this Federal Republic called America and this great liberal democracy with all the freedom that we have, is how we have all the individual freedom that we have.

The Federalist: David Corbin & Matt Parks: Liberty and The Bill of Rights

Source:The New Democrat

In that entire piece by David Corbin and Matt Parks I found one thing that I agree with them on. Having to do with two of our constitutional rights that have been weaken since the so-called War on Terror was declared by President Bush in 2001. The First Amendment dealing with Freedom of Press, which is critical in any liberal democracy. And the Fourth Amendment which protects our Right to Privacy and perhaps our Fifth Amendment which protects our property rights. All of these rights are critical in any liberal democracy. But since the declaration of the War on Terror and the Bush Administration and Obama Administration has been so intelligence hungry and believe they can at the very least stretch our constitutional rights to protect our security.

With the Bush Administration it was Judy Miller in 2002-03 and believe another reporter from The New York Times. And the Bush Administration believing these reporters had information about suspected terrorists that they weren’t releasing and threatened them with prison time if they didn’t give up their sources and information. The Obama Administration had similar stories involving Fox News and the AP in the last few years. The Neoconservatives have won the War on Terror at least the debate inside of the U.S. Government about what is more important in America. Our security or our liberty and security has been winning ever since 2001. And we had a neoconservative Republican Administration that enforced their neoconservative War on Terror from 2001-09. And now a progressive Democratic Administration conducting the same war with the same policies as the last.

As the great libertarian philosopher Milton Friedman who preferred to be viewed as a Liberal once said, you can’t have security without liberty. And I would add and vice-versa that you have to have both. If you’re not secure you don’t have freedom. But without liberty you might be protected from terrorists, foreign invaders and domestic criminals, but now you have to worry about your own government and what they might do to you. Because you don’t have liberty and a basic set of constitutional rights to protect you. Because now you live in a police state. You live in Soviet Russia and perhaps even Putin Russia, or Syria or some other hell hole on Earth like that. Which is not what America is about and perhaps what our last two president’s don’t understand.

The History TV: Thomas Jefferson American Republic

Source:FRS FreeState 

There is a debate in the United States about what is America according to our own Constitution. Are we a republic or a democracy, the fact is we are both, but then why are we both and how are we both. A republic is not necessarily democratic or authoritarian, but it is a republican form of government, small r. Where the people are governed by civilians for the most part, not by the military or a monarchy or religious leaders. But you can have democratic republics and you can have authoritarian republics. 

America is a democratic republic, China is a communist republic to use as examples. A lot of times when people tend to think of democracy, they automatically think of voting the right to vote and majority rule. But the fact is that is only one aspect of democracy. Democracy even depending on what type of democracy, what you are talking about is about freedom and people having freedom over their daily lives and not being harassed by government because they are seen as enemies of the state like in Syria, Egypt or Iran.

America is a federal republic which means we have a federal government as well as state and local governments. Rather than one big government that essentially runs the entire country which is common in authoritarian states. But even at least to a certain extents in big government social democracies. Where a lot of power is centralized with the national government. America is a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy where not everything is done by majority rule. Elections for the most part yes, but where we are governed by a large extent by a Constitution with three branches in the Federal Government. 

As well as our state and local governments that have responsibility for seeing that our Constitution is equally enforced. Where we all have constitutional rights that are supposed to be equally enforced. So we can’t lose our constitutional rights just because they may seem unpopular or get in the way with whatever the current party in power has planned for the country. 

That is what Thomas Jefferson and the other Liberal Democrats who are our founding fathers created more than two-hundred and thirty years ago. A federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy that comes with a lot of individual freedom. Set responsibilities and authorities for government, but where their number one responsibility is to protect our freedom and constitutional rights equally under law.

Constitution Daily: Danielle Allen- Traces Equality in the Declaration of Independence

Source:Library of Congress- The DOI. 

Source:Constitution Daily

Freedom vs. equality which I guess has been an ongoing debate between Socialists and Libertarians perhaps for an indefinite time now. And this whole discussion is really relates to what is called income inequality and the Social Democratic concerns with it and Libertarians there to say that “people should be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. And even if they make a lot more money than their fellow Americans because they earned that success”. With Socialists ( in the social democratic sense ) there to counter that “if we don’t look out for struggling Americans then that affects everyone because of the lost purchasing power. But also because the social costs that come from it”. But also because they believe society has a role to essentially take care of the less-fortunate among us.

As the great libertarian Economist Milton Friedman said “without freedom there isn’t any equality”. Why, because if people don’t have the freedom to do as much for themselves as they can and have the ability to take care of themselves as much as possible, than they won’t. So yeah if you encourage people not to be successful by taxing most of their money way from them to take care of others you may reach equality. A country that has a lot of struggling people in it where most of the country struggles. And very few Americans having much if any freedom at all. But that is not the society that most Americans want.

Americans tend to want to be as successful as they can and you accomplish that by making sure people have the freedom and tools so they can do that. It is not a freedom vs. equality issue for me as a Liberal. But how you get to a society and an economy where as many people as possibly can have the tools to get the freedom they need to be successful in society and not need public assistance to financially survive. And to get there instead of having government take so much from the successful and people who live in freedom we empower as many people as possible who want to work and be successful in life to get themselves the tools to be able to accomplish that for themselves.

Which means things like expanding education and job training for low-income adults whether they are working or not. And making those opportunities for anyone who needs it. And having an education system that produces more high-skilled students and workers. The question for me at least is not freedom vs. equality. To that is a false choice like choosing between food or water.

To me it is how you produce a society where many people as possible that is people who want to live in freedom and would work hard for it, how are they able to accomplish that for themselves which is living in freedom. And then allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor or at least the most of it so they are encouraged to be successful in the future as well. That is how you have a society that is both free and equal. Not take from the very successful to take care of the rest of the country. 
Heard Institute Media: Professor Milton Friedman- Liberty: Freedom vs Equality

The New York Times: Opinion: Nesrine Malik: Freedom to Offend Everyone

The New York Times: Opinion: Nesrine Malik: Freedom to Offend Everyone

A primary advantage of living in a liberal democracy is the ability to say what is on your mind without fear of government interference or sanction or suppression by private groups.  The Constitution constrains the government's reaction and requires the public safety departments of government to protect all from private aggression.  This freedom and protection are enjoyed even by those who say things that are offensive or ignorant.  The Anne Coulters of the world can say Latinos aren't real Americans, women shouldn't have the right to vote, or complain about "the browning of America" as she did at CPAC 2014.  The Bill Maher's of the Far-Left can take shots at Southern Anglo-Saxon Christians and Caucasian people in general.  Again, neither side need fear censorship, sanction, or violence.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution creates large difference betweens the domains of public discourse in America and Europe.  Europeans believe that they need government to protect them from things that they may find to be offensive, even if that means arresting or censoring people for saying hateful things in public.  America is obviously a completely different society and culture.  We are simply more individualistic and believe that  freedom trumps all as long as we aren't harassing or libeling people or committing or inciting violence.

Keep in mind that the freedom to offend also comes with the possibility that you, yourself, may be offended without legal recourse other than publicly justifying and defending yourself.  You will not be entitled to any official legal sanction against the person who offended you.

The First Amendment protection of offensive language must be equally defended for all, regardless of political affiliation, especially in a country that is as politically as divided as we are.  Partisan media have equal rights and responsibilities when it comes to offending either side.  Neither side is entitled to special treatment under the law.

The New York Times: Opinion- David Brooks- The Opportunity Coalition

Source: The New York Times: Opinion- David Brooks- The Opportunity Coalition

I like where David Brooks went with his column today and what I like most about being a blogger, the ability to read so much in one day and then be able to blog what I think of what I read. What David Brooks called the Whig Tradition of using government to empower the less-fortunate to be able to move up the economic scale, is the New Democratic Tradition which in large part is what this blog is about. That just doesn’t go back to Bill Clinton, but take it back to Jimmy Carter or even go back to Jack Kennedy, or even if you want to go back to Wendell Willkie even though he was a Republican. But politically in this New Democratic liberal tradition of using government to expand economic freedom.

And where I also agree with Mr. Brooks is that this is the real economic agenda that President Obama should be pushing. And push it as hard as he can knowing that he probably won’t get much legislation out of this current divided Congress, or even the next Congress. No matter whose in charge of the House and Senate. But to push it to get as much as he can accomplished, but also to help mobilize the country behind the next agenda for the next president especially if we have another Democrat. And issues that President Obama could push as ex-President Obama in his foundation or whatever type of organization he’ll have post-Obama presidency.

Now to talk about the Opportunity Society. Forget about the New Deal or Great Society, City on a Shining Hill, Contract With America or Compassionate Conservatism. What the Opportunity Society acknowledges is that as great of a country that America is with all the freedom and so-forth, not enough Americans have access to that freedom the ability for one to be able to take care of themselves and their families and put money away for themselves and their kids. That for too many Americans especially on the bottom steps of the economic ladder, they live in a stagnant society without hope and the tools to move up the economic ladder.

What the Opportunity Society says is that government isn’t too big or too small. Doesn’t even really take a position on that when it comes to the economy and economic freedom. But that the resources that is had are not used in the right way and not used effectively enough so as many Americans as possible can take advantage of those tools to get themselves the skills that they need to live in economic freedom with the ability to live their own lives. From what you get from economic Conservatives is that government is too big and taxes too much. And rarely if ever gives out specifics. And what you get from let’s say Progressives is that government is too small and taxes too little. With a lot of specifics and things that Americans tend not to want to pay for.

With the Opportunity Society it is not much resources that is the issue. But how that money is spent. And sure I would like to spend more on job training for low-skilled adults. And more funding from the federal level for low-income communities when it comes to public education. And I would like more money spent on infrastructure so more communities have the tools that they need to be successful. But these things mean nothing if that money is not spent well. And what I really want to do is use these resources so the people who need it get the resources they need to get themselves a good education. So they can get themselves a good job and live in economic freedom.

National Journal: Peter Beinart- The End of American Exceptionalism

Source: The Atlantic-

Source:National Journal 

American exceptionalism is an interesting difficult thing to talk about, because it is hard to define. And the fact that exceptional is by itself neither good or bad, it is just different. You could have an exceptionally bad or good football team. The positive being the good which is why American Exceptionalism might not be the right discussion or debate for America. But perhaps the way to talk about America in a positive sense would be American Greatness. Or for people who like to speak a lot about the so-called weakness of America, especially the Far-Left and Libertarian-Right, would be to talk about American Weakness.

What makes America exceptional not necessarily for bad or for good, but when used right from a positive aspect would be our individualism. Which I believe comes from our Constitution. The First and Fourth Amendments, as well as property rights, the ability for Americans to be themselves and our racial and ethnic diversity. And our cultural diversity just highlights these aspects about America. We are so much different from the rest of the world because the whole world lives here. And brings their way of life and being with them and these things makes us so much different from the rest of the world.

So again I do not believe that it is so much that America is so much better than the rest of the world. And we could debate even if we are or are we not. That makes us exceptional, but what makes us exceptional is our diversity the freedom for Americans to be Americans, which is individuals. Where I believe Europeans because they are not as diverse and tend to live in countries where culturally and ethnically one group makes up most of the country, they are less individualistic. And more collectivist not just from an economic point of view, but how they live their lives as well.

Our constitutional rights and our individualism is what makes America better than anyone else. And why I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else, but that alone doesn’t make a country the best place in the world. It is just that these aspects work for me and a lot of other Americans, but perhaps not others who take a traditional mostly religiously based way of what it means to be an American. Or people who want to make America more like Europe and where Americans are less individualistic. And more dependent on the state for their well-being.
The Heat: Thomas Friedman Explores American Exceptionalism In The 21st Century

Yale University: Nicholas Wolterstorff On Faith in Liberal Democracy

Source:FRS FreeState

Faith in liberal democracy is about the freedom of and from religion. But that they are separate from the state and that all of these things come from the Constitution. People have the right to practice, or not practice religion and that we have separation of church and state. Based on the Constitution and that even though we have the freedom to believe what we believe. But we do not have the right to force our views on others especially through law. The right to be heard, but not the right to harass people with your views who disagree with you.

Liberals, get stereotyped as being anti-religion and that if anything we would want to see religion eliminated if not outlawed in society. Even though Liberals created the Freedom of Religion when we wrote the U.S. Constitution and created the United States. As well as the Bill of Rights that gives us all of these individual rights and freedom of choice. To take these decisions for ourselves. Not the right to force our views on people who disagree with us. Which is much different and fascist even. But the fact is liberalism is built around individual freedom, rights and choices. And not statist, or fascist at all.

Now, I do believe that Liberals tend to be more secular than lets say Christian Conservatives, or Islāmic Conservatives. That goes without saying, because a big part of liberalism has to do with reason and evidence. That you go where the best available facts and evidence are. And take your positions and make your views based on that. Instead of using faith to make those decisions for yourself. But that is much different from saying that just because I or someone else is secular, that everyone else should be, or they have to be as well even through law. But again, liberalism is about individual freedom, choice and rights. That the individual can make these decisions for themselves.

Korean 701: Why Liberal Democracy is Important

Source:FRS FreeState

Liberal Democrat which is how I describe my personal politics and personal political philosophy. And what that means because liberalism and what it means to be a Liberal means different things to different people. To lets say today's so-called Progressives, liberalism is about government creating all sorts of programs to take care of people. I’m putting that loosely, but that is what it comes down to. 

Today's so-called Progressives want a lot of government programs especially from the Federal level there to take care of people. Which is what is known as so-called modern liberalism. Libertarians idea of liberalism is who they are which is libertarian. And when they talk about classical liberalism, they are talking about libertarianism. And have a society so free of government especially the markets. And from this the people and business in a Libertarian Utopia would be free without government interference.

A classical Libertarian lets say, only wants government to come in when innocent people are hurt. And to punish those who hurt innocent people. But that is not liberalism, but libertarianism. Liberals believe in both freedom and democracy, a liberal amount of both. Not government, which are too different things and the liberal idea about democracy is yes the right to vote and speak freely and assemble and all of those other great liberal values. But the right for free individuals to live freely in a liberal democracy, a free society.

That government should not be there to protect us from ourselves and to take care of us. But to protect our freedom and enforce our individual rights from those who would take them away. And to help people in need who do not have the freedom to take care of themselves, get the tools that they need so they can have freedom as well. Not take care of people, or try to create a risk-free society, but to protect our freedom and to see that everyone can live in freedom and not need government to take care of them.

Walter E. Williams: Are We Equal?

Source:FreeState Now

There’s a big difference between equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity and equality at all costs. All of these things are guaranteed to us as Americans, except for equality at all costs. And compare equality opportunity and treatment with no one should be treated better than anyone else or that no one is entitled to more success or wealth in America. Which to put it simply equality at all costs that we are all equal and no one deserves to be treated better anyone else. Which is sorta the Progressive notion of equality and why they believe in things like affirmative action. Equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity means that no Americans shall be treated better or worse based on race or ethnicity or any other non relevant characteristics they may have that has nothing to do with the goals or positions that they are shooting for. That they aren’t to be treated better or worse based on these factors.

The fact that 25% of African-Americans live in poverty when the country as a whole has around a 17% depending on which numbers you look at when it comes to poverty. Thats not racist its just that fewer African-Americans have an opportunity to get a better education than European or Asian-Americans because more often than their counterparts they tend to grow up in poverty. Which is a problem but it’s not racist or that more people in the European and Asian-American communities tend to be wealthier on average and have better jobs and their kids have a better access to education and so forth is not racist either. These groups are just taking advantage of the opportunities that were given to them not based on race but how they were raised and so forth.

People doing better than people from another race or ethnicity is only racist. When they are rewarded opportunities because of their race over people who were as qualified as they were or more qualified. Which is why we have civil rights laws in America but it’s not racist just because some groups of people tend to do better than others. As long as they weren’t given those opportunities based on their race. And people who aren’t doing as well weren’t denied opportunities based on their race.