American Thinker: Jim Yardley: 'A Different View of Paternalism'

Source:American Thinker- right-wing populist publication.

"The word "paternalism" has been bandied about concerning the various pathetic defenses of Barack Obama's now infamous claim that "If you like your health care, you can keep it. Period."

From the American Thinker 

"Paternalism describes the relationship between the Federal Government and tribes.  It is an important concept to understand when critiquing how Indian Affairs is conducted in light of indigenous rights and sovereignty." 

Source:Sovereign Stories- from them.

From Sovereign Stories

There are two forms of paternalism at least as I see it: one that obviously comes from our parents as shocking as that may sound and I believe the only people it should come from. And as annoying as and in some cases positive parental paternalism may sound, our parents at least tend to have our best interests at heart even when they go too far. 

But then there is what I call governmental paternalism whether it comes from governmental laws, or proposals to create new paternalistic laws and they are basically built around the notion even if they are done with the best intentions, that government knows best what the people themselves need for their own good.  

Things like proposals to outlaw homosexual activity or pornography from the Far-Right. To having the Federal Government regulate marriage in the United States. 

Then there are paternalistic proposals from the Far-Left in trying to regulate what people can eat, drink or smoke for our own good. Because paternalists on the Far-Left believe they know best what people should be eating, drinking and smoking.  

And as much as right-wingers especially those right-wingers who may have some governmental paternalistic views when it comes to social issues, like to label the Affordable Care Act as paternalistic, it is not. Because what it does with the minimum health insurance requirement is to say that everyone is required to have enough health insurance to meet their own individual health care needs.

So people in America can’t past their own health care costs on to other people. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t require people to live healthy and take care of themselves. 

What the ACA says is that we are all responsible for our own health care costs at least those of us who can afford our own health insurance. And for those of us who choose to live unhealthy, they can still do that, but they won’t be able to pass the costs of their unhealthy decisions on to other people.

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

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

Townhall: Derek Hunter: 'The Problem With Libertarians'

Source:Townhall- I'm willing to bet my last dollar that Terry Mcaullife is not a Libertarian.

"There was a time I called myself a Libertarian. And there was a time I was a Libertarian. I just wanted to get government to leave me alone, to leave people alone and to go all crazy and limit itself to doing only that which is spelled out clearly in the Constitution. That was what a Libertarian was. But it’s not anymore. 

The word no longer has any meaning, no definition or parameters, certainly no coherent philosophy to speak of. And there’s no one to blame for that except Libertarians themselves. 

So what happened?

By not even loosely defining the parameters of a set of beliefs, Libertarians allowed their brand – as it was – to be hijacked by anyone willing to wear the label. They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy.

That pretty much sums it up.

Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

The great Reason magazine is a wonderful publication filled with great articles, solid journalism you won’t find elsewhere…and a voice that does little more than complain.

Reason is great at highlighting abuses by every level of government, stories ignored by other media outlets. But you won’t find much in the way of philosophy or solutions. (There’s some, it just doesn’t seem to be a focus.) They preach to the choir, and it ends there.

I love the Cato Institute and have a lot of good friends who work there, and they do offer some good solutions. They just refuse to do anything about them. Cato has a deserved reputation for refusing to play nice with anyone else. When was the last legislative “victory” spearheaded or introduced by Cato?" 

From Townhall 

"Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He is an expert on discrimination, labor policy, regulation, and South Africa as well as a well-known columnist and the author of South Africa's War Against Capitalism (1989), The State Against Blacks (1982), and More Liberty Means Less Government (1999).

In this lecture given at a Libertarian Party of Georgia event on March 23, 1991, Williams talks about libertarianism generally and relates his own moral arguments against state coercion. Williams also briefly suggests a few things he thinks libertarians should be doing if they want the libertarian movement to grow."  

Source:Libertarianism.Org- Professor Walter E. Williams in 1991.

From Libertarianism.Org 

So let's see if I have this straight: Derek Hunter once viewed himself as a Libertarian, till he figured out that Libertarians believe in legalizing pot, prostitution, and don't want America interfering into other countries wars. So what the hell did he think Libertarians believed in? 

I agree that there doesn't seem to be any real definition of Libertarian now and that's the fault of people who call themselves Libertarians, even though in the real world, there really just right-wing Anarchists, the so-called Anarcho-Libertarians. 

So I'll give you my definition of Libertarian: 

"Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value.[1][2][3][4] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing the rule of law, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, freedom of association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism, and voluntary association." Actually I lied, that's Wikipedia's definition, but that's the best one available right now. 

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

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

Bleacher Report: Matt Fitzgerald- ‘Athletics May Reportedly May Play at Giants AT&T Park if New Coliseum Deal Fails’

Source:Bleacher Report- two of the Oakland Athletics.

Source:The Daily Times

“Jean Quan, the Mayor of Oakland, confirmed that the Athletics will stay in the Oakland Coliseum through 2015…

From the Bleacher Report 

At risk of stating the obvious: (trust me, not the first time I’ve taken this risk) for the Oakland Athletics to remain in the City of Oakland, they’re going to have to get a new ballpark and perhaps renovations to the current Oakland Coliseum (whatever the hell the current name of choice is) in order to remain competitive and not end up in San Jose, Sacramento, Portland, or Las Vegas.

Turner Sports: NBA 1987-Chicago Bulls @ Washington Wizards: Michael Jordan Highlights

Source:Real Life Journal 

Don’t worry Wizards fans, the Bullets as they were called back then and I wish they were still called now, or at least something that actually has something to do with Washington, instead of Los Angeles, which is what the Wizards sounds like, but the Bullets won this game. Michael Jordan having a big night for, Da Bulls! But no other Bull doing much damage to the Bullets, who as a team scored 119 points against, Da Bulls! During this game, after already wrapping up another playoff spot in the Eastern Conference. In reality, MJ wasn’t by himself before Scottie Pippen, as far as having other players who could score. This Bulls team also had Orlando Woolridge, Gene Banks and Charles Oakley. But for the Bulls to beat really good teams and even deep teams, that the Bullets were back then, MJ had to do a lot of the work on his own.

NBC Sports: 1987 MLB All Star Game

Source:Ian Ward- Kansas City Royals starting pitcher Bret Saberhagen. When he was on and healthy, one of the top pitchers in all of MLB in the 1980s.

"1987 MLB ASG Film" 

From Ian Ward 

What I remember about the 1987 MLB All Star Game as a 14 year old, was the Oakland Coliseum and a few other things. But when they only played baseball there, after the Raiders moved to Los Angeles in 1983, I think the Oakland Coliseum, even with the miles of foul territory, where relief pitchers would get a workout just walking from the bullpen, to the pitchers mound, or just back and forth from the mound to the dugout, or where someone of them would try to hail cabs, so they wouldn't have to walk as far from the bullpen and dugout to the mound, (ha, ha) I think this was a beautiful place for baseball. 

This ballpark looked good, there was alway plenty of sun, the grass beyond the outfield walls, 48,000 for baseball, so there should've been a lot of great seats for baseball (at least without the miles of foul territory) and the Athletics started winning again shortly after the Raiders left. 

Officially, the Oakland Coliseum was a multi-purpose stadium, but it was always a baseball first stadium. And with no football there, they could put in lower-deck box seats in the foul territory and it would be a great place just for baseball. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

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

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

The Daily Beast: Peter Beinart: Brown University's Campus Leftists vs. Free Speech

Source:FreeState MD

I hate the term ‘campus Liberals’ to refer to people are supposed to be Liberals even though they aren’t and sound more like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez supporting and admiring Neo-Communists, that they do Liberals. I'll get to what I mean by that later, because you simply can’t be a Liberal if you do not believe in free speech period. It would like someone whose a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise or capitalism. Or a Libertarian whose against the right to privacy and in favor of the War on Drugs. There’s a big reason the first amendment is the first amendment because it is the most important amendment we have and the most important freedom that we as people have.

Take free speech away and you might as well take away democracy and the freedom to assemble and the right to privacy.  Because one doesn’t work without the other with people being able to organize and speak their minds even if it offends people on the fascist Left or fascist Right. People who believe they are God (even if they are Atheists) and have all the answers and are right about everything to the point they believe they shouldn't have any opposition. So if you believe in censorship as a policy and that free speech only applies to people who you agree with, then you are not a Liberal. Just like someone whose against c capitalism and wants the economy to be nationalized is not a Conservative. Or someone whose against the right to privacy and against freedom of choice is not a Libertarian.

The reason the United States Constitution is one of if not the most liberal constitution’s in the world is because of all the freedom it guarantees us over our own lives. Which pisses the hell out of statists on the Left and Right who believe people tend to be stupid. And we need their version of big government to manage our lives for us. It doesn’t guarantee happiness, success or wealth, but provides us with the freedom to gain these things for ourselves in most cases. Our education system fails us in many ways to see that all Americans have the freedom to live in freedom. But under our Constitution we all have the constitutional rights to obtain freedom in America. Including the right to speak and express ourselves and write and organize and assemble. 

And we are guaranteed all a certain level of privacy as well and is starts with the First Amendment. And if you do not believe in it, you are not a Liberal, but perhaps a statist. Or fascist, or some type of collectivist that wants everyone to be the same with no individuality. Perhaps you have your foot so far up your ass that you think you're God with all of the answers about what people need to be happy and healthy in life. And that since you are God, you're not entitled to opposition and the freedom and individuality is not needed in your utopia. 

People with egos the size of planets, who lack a solid basis in reality and see themselves as imperfect, have no business trying to govern a free society. And without for people to be themselves, because you want a world where we all think the same and believe in the same things where dissent is not tolerated. So when I hear the term ‘campus Liberal’ and I hear about these so-called Liberals who believe in censoring people they disagree with because it may offend certain groups they believe need their protection, I believe the real meaning of Liberal has disappeared and has been replaced by something else. 

I’m not sure if I should laugh or get angry as a Liberal when I hear so-called Liberals take such anti-liberal statist, collectivist and now fascist positions on things. Now not just having to do with the economy, but now our personal affairs and how we can express ourselves. Because these people aren’t Liberals, but instead represent the false negative stereotypes of liberalism. And real sorry class of people that live such sorry lives and don't have enough to keep themselves busy and make themselves happy. That minding their own business is simply not good enough, that they feel the need to mind other people's business as well. Especially in an era where Americans are finally seeing what liberalism really is. And not how it has been stereotyped and bashed for forty years.

Mometrix Academy: What is Social Liberalism

Source:Mometrix Academy- Socialism liberalism: is not socialism 

Source:FRS FreeState

"Learn more about social liberalism and its roots. Know what social liberals believe and why. Make sure you are prepared for your exam.

Mometrix Academy is the world's most comprehensive test preparation company. This channel will provide you with videos that will help you learn about many different subjects."

Source:Mometrix Academy

In this post, I’m just going to get into what social liberalism is and what it isn’t. What it really is and what it really isn’t and I’m writing this especially this weekend when I hear people who are called ‘college Liberals’ who want to control speech they disagree with on campus. And have it eliminated, or outlawed as if these people are Liberals, or even Social Liberals. Because they want to eliminate speech that may offend people they want to protect. When the fact is for anyone who understands liberalism social, or otherwise knows that one of the key elements of liberalism is free speech and the right to free assembly.

Just look at the First Amendment which is one of the most liberal things ever written. Paraphrase- Congress shall make no law that fringes on free speech in America. So when talking about liberalism social, or otherwise, or studying it, make sure you are actually talking about liberalism and not fascism. Like these politically correct speech codes by the Far-Left in America that want to eliminate speech in America that they find offensive. Because these people aren’t Liberals, but Fascists, or leftist statists. Which is a bit different.

So free speech is a big part of social liberalism, but it is certainly not the only part. And when Americans tend to think of social liberalism, they tend to think of people are pro-choice on abortion and other women’s healthcare issues. And that even the state meaning government in general should have to fund these things for women who can’t afford them in general. As well as being pro-women’s rights in general and pro-gay rights and pro-minority rights. And that none of these groups should be discriminated against at all. When the fact is these things aren’t true. Liberals, are pro-individual rights which is different.

That we are all created equal with certain basic fundamental rights that can’t be taken away from us unless we hurt other people’s freedom. And being pro-individual rights covers everything from abortion to homosexuality. But also things like marijuana. But also gambling and pornography. And again free speech which even covers an individual’s right to quite frankly be an asshole and say and do offensive things. And that everyone is treated equally under law. And are not denied things based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality or sexuality.

A good way to think of social liberalism, or a Social Liberal is someone whose pro-choice. Literally pro-choice across the board regardless of the issue. As long as people aren’t hurting innocent people with the choices that they are making. That people should have the right to make their own bed in life and make their own way. But then are also responsible for sleeping in their own beds. In other words, individual freedom and responsibility. And not being able to force others to pay for one’s bad choices in life.

As for what the women in this video had to say about social liberalism, who will go nameless simply, because she didn’t give out her name and I don’t personally know her, or know of her. She nailed the definition of liberalism in the broader context. And perfectly laid out how liberalism, or how she called it social liberalism is different from libertarianism, or what is called classical liberalism. Or even democratic socialism, even though she didn’t mention that. That liberalism, is about individual liberty and individual rights. But that those rights are for everybody and that where government in is not to manage our lives for us. But to help people in need be able to get by in the short-term and help them be able to live in freedom as well. And not need to be taken care of.