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.

The Huffington Post: Maegan Carberry: A State of The Union Guide For Socialists and Racists

Source:Free State MD

Maegan Carberry is right, being a Liberal doesn’t make someone a Socialist. And being a Conservati­ve doesn’t make someone a racist. But that should go without saying, but the question is why being a Liberal or Conservative, doesn’t make those people Socialists or Racists. Is because both liberalism and conservatism are based on individual liberty and limited government­. Liberals and Conservati­ves both believe, going from Jack Kennedy to Ron Reagan, that people should be judge as individual­s, not members of groups.

And that people should be able to live their own lives and not be overburden by government­. Through high taxes and government telling people how to live their lives. With limited government­, we don’t have a welfare state, with government trying to take care of us. But a safety net to help people who need it get back on their feet. And with limited government­, we don’t have especially the Federal Government­ trying to prevent same-sex Marriage from becoming law. Or being conservative about all aspects of the federal budget, except for the defense budget. That you have to be fiscally responsible all across the federal budget.

What gets stereotype­d today as liberalism and conservatism, aren’t liberalism and conservatism. But in liberalism­’s case, sort of looks like neo-communism or democratic socialism. Wanting government to take care of people with a King Kong sized superstate there to manage our economic and personal lives for us. Managing our education, health care, health insurance, diet and exercise, what we can watch and how we can talk to people. “That individual freedom is dangerous because people are generally too stupid to manage their own economic and personal lives. That freedom is the freedom to make mistakes at the costs of Big Government. Mr. Uncle Sam, the national parent of America.

In conservatism’s case, it’s really neoconservatism. A mixture of a warped interpretation of Christianity, that you would think would’ve been made up in some Hollywood script, but that there are Americans who take this theocratic ideology seriously and treat it as its real. Mixed in with Martial Law, where personal freedom, things like to the right to privacy, Freedom of Speech that Neoconservatives, disagree with, property rights are essentially outlawed. In the name of protecting the moral fiber, character and security of the superstate. Big government authoritarian nanny statist ideology when it comes personal issues and freedom.

Liberalism is not socialism or communism. And conservatism is not neoconservatism, a theocratic and military authoritarian ideology. Liberalism and conservatism are both anti-statism. Not anti-state, but that the state needs to be limited to doing the things that the only the state can do. Which doesn’t include managing the lives of the people.

The Huffington Post: Richard Eskow: If the President Won't Do Something About Jobs, Who Will?

Source:Free State MD

Ever since the mid-term elections of 2010, the President has been in full reelection mode. Thinking that if Democrats can lose the House, he could lose the White House just as easily. And every decision and policy position and speech he’s given, has been based on that. Only when President Obama has to take a stand on anything, its after endless concentrated thought on every possible proposal and idea that's out there. Libya being a perfect example of this and then after finally taking a position on anything.

Watching Barack Obama make up his mind on anything, from a distance anyway, is like watching a midget try to tackle an elephant. It is really difficult and painful thing to see that you want it to end and for some resolution to the matter. "If we do this, than that will happen and that will be bad. But if we don't do this, than than this could happen and that might be worst". Politicians who try to please everybody tend to be the most unpopular. Because they end up offending everyone. And that is sort of where President Obama is right now. 

It's the weakest position possible designed to offend the very least. It's  Independent voters that the President is targeting. Meaning that he can’t seem too strong on anything, because he might offend those who look for the middle ground on everything­. Which means that President Obama ends up doing what he wants the least, which is looking weak. Because he can't figure out what the hell he should do. Right now President Obama who’ve I tended to agree with on foreign and economic policy, is the On the Other Hand President. "Well if we do this, it could work, but on the other hand if we do this instead, it might work better. And costing the country economically because we have a weak economy that needs strong action". Sometimes you just got to say, screw it! And do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. That is what leadership is about and what being President of the United States is about. The On the Other Hand Presidency might turn out to be Effective Leadership in the long-term. But its definitely weak leadership in the short-term. And costing President obama popularity and the ability to lead a large divided country.