Economic Policy Journal: David Gordon- 'A Libertarian Argument for the Welfare State'

Source:The New Democrat- the official slogan for the Libertarian Party.

"The Niskanen Center in Washington, D.C, bills itself as a “libertarian think tank:” but its conception of libertarianism is one that many of us will find surprising. Jerry Taylor, the founder and president of the Center, in an article of March 10, “Do Libertarians Want Freedom or Not?” argues that libertarians ought to be sympathetic to welfare measures and legislation that restricts freedom of association to promote civil rights.

Why should libertarians support these policies? Taylor’s argument is a simple one: libertarians want to promote liberty and these policies will do so.  “If libertarianism is about advancing individual liberty, however, these aren’t acts of surrender. They are necessary prerequisites for a free society.”

How can Taylor say this? The welfare state seizes people’s property in order to “help” those whom the state wishes to subsidize, and laws that forbid racial discrimination in housing and employment likewise in obvious ways restrict liberty. No doubt there are arguments for these measures, but how can these arguments belibertarian ones? Surely these arguments would have to take the form that it is justifiable to restrict libertarian rights in order to help the poor or racial minorities."

From the Economic Policy Journal 

"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- talking about what they call social liberalism.

From the Mometrix Academy

Left-Libertarian, would be a solid way to describe my own politics I believe. I prefer Liberal or even Classical Liberal, Social Liberal even, but I'm someone whose all about individual freedom. But that it should be for everyone. That everyone should have the opportunity to achieve that and not have to live off any welfare state or private charity if just given the opportunity to live freely. 

Where government has a role is not as the director of society, but as a supporter and even referee. Not to call the plays and coach the teams, but to step in when predators break the rules that hurt the innocent. So that is where I guess Left-Libertarians, or Social-Liberals and Liberals, disagree with the Ron Paul Classical Libertarians lets say. Who just want government to stay home and perhaps arrest people when take from someone else's freedom. Or stop invaders when they invade the country.

The Left-Libertarian argument for the welfare state or what I prefer is the safety net, is that poverty is a real threat against freedom. And it keeps people down trapped away from freedom. So what you can do with a social insurance system is to help those people in the short-term and prevent them from having to deal with the worst forms of poverty like homelessness. As well as help them get on their feet and live in freedom and not off of taxpayers. 

A real safety net promotes freedom for everyone else, because you're creating new taxpayers and real consumers with real resources to consume the products that are made by the private market. Which creates good jobs for everyone involved. 

This is not an argument for a big centralized superstate where states and localities become almost non-relevant, or high taxes across the board. That discourages individual freedom and individualism. Just an insurance system for people who truly need it to help them achieve freedom as well. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

The Steve Allen Show: Diana Dors Hooray For Love (1960)

Source:The Daily Review

It’s simply not possible for me to see too much of Diana Dors right now and believe me I’ve tried. If I don’t get over this compulsion fairly soon I might seek professional help. She along with Anita Ekberg, Ava Gardner, Liz Taylor, Shelley Winters, are my favorite not just Golden Age Hollywood Goddess’s right now, but my favorite Hollywood Goddess’s right now. Add Angie Dickinson, Marilyn Monroe and Kim Novak to that list. Diana, was so adorable with a hot baby-face, English accent and personality to match.

I’ve seen The Run For Doom which is her Alfred Hitchcock Hour episode from 1962, probably twenty times now. And it’s a very good show, but she makes it great. Simply because of her performance on it. Her presence on it is simply overwhelming by the way she moves and her adorable facial expressions. But keep in mind she was a hell of a lot more than a baby-face goddess with a great voice and personality. She was a hell of an actress and a very funny performer as well. She reminds me a lot of Shelley Winters as far as personality and comedic timing.

Diana could make serious parts look funny and keep people staring at her with her with her add living. Again watch The Run For Doom. Or be the funniest person in the room when you let her go off the cuff. Like she did with Bob Hope, Steve Allen and many others. As far as Hooray For Love, again Diana had many talents. She played a singer nightclub singer/gold digger in The Run For Doom. And in this performance she’s singing Hooray For Love on The Steve Allen Show, (Got me for who that show was named after) Great face, great voice, great body on a 5’6 frame. Tall and curvy, but definitely not too tall and I just wish she lived a lot longer and had a much longer career. Because she was so special.

Prager U: William Voegeli: 'Government: Is it Ever Big Enough?'

Source:Prager U- where big government tends to come from.

“Can the government ever be too big? How much spending is enough spending? And if there can be too much spending, where is that point? William Voegeli, Senior Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, explores these complex questions and offers some clear answers.” 

From Prager U

William Voegeli, like most hyper-partisan right-wingers, makes the classical obvious mistake of mixing up social democracy, or democratic socialism or whatever you prefer) with liberalism.

In Europe, Liberals, are considered right-wing. Why? Because Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, are considered Center-Left there. In Canada of all places that constantly gets labeled as a social democracy, even though it has a federal system where the provinces and localities, have real power there, Liberals are considered centrists. Why? Because the social democratic New Democrats, are considered Center-Left or left-wing.

Voegeli, kept saying Liberals want more government and more spending and all the traditional Tea Party propaganda about what liberalism is supposed to be. Replace the name William Voegeli with Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin and you would get the same rhetoric.

It’s supposed to be Socialists or Social Democrats, who are terrified of the socialist label (except for Bernie Sanders) who run for the hills every time they hear that label about them. So why are so-called Conservatives like Bill Voegeli afraid to use the s-word when talking about social democracy and socialism more broadly? Because they want to attach Liberals with every big government authoritarian ideology that comes down the pike. Even religious conservatism, whether it’s Islāmic or Christian. And they’ve been very successful at it at least since the late 1960s.

I’ll answer Bill Voegeli’s question in a couple of ways: the first, way somewhat simplistic only because this is a simplistic question and the second way in a more substantive way.

The simple answer government, is big enough only when it’s doing exactly what we need it to do. No more or no less, which is basically my definition of limited government. So when it’s doing too much, that’s called big government. When it’s doing too little, that would be called small government. Which is every Libertarian’s marijuana high or drunken fantasy.

The more substantive liberal answer is that you need government to protect, defend and promote.

Protect the people from predators, where law enforcement comes in. Defend the country from predators, which is where defense comes in, but foreign affairs and intelligence as well.

Promote freedom and the general welfare. And that doesn’t mean a welfare state, but protect everyone’s individual freedom and right to be free and live freely, short of hurting any innocent person intentionally or otherwise.

Assist people who need help and for whatever reasons get knocked off their feet. But only help them get by in the short-term as you’re also helping them get themselves up. Finding a job, job training, that sort of thing. Which is basically what the definition of a safety net is.

And then protect consumers and workers from predators that would hurt them in the economy. Not run business’s, but set basic rules again to protect workers and consumers. Which is what a regulatory state is.

Again, I know this sounds simplistic, but we’re dealing with a simplistic question and I’m really just correcting what Bill Voegeli said here anyway.

Government is big enough only when it’s doing exactly what it should be doing and nothing more or less. You don’t need a big government managing people’s lives for them from either and economic or personal standpoint.

But if you want government doing practically nothing and throwing caution to the wind, try living or visiting a stateless society that has practically no government. And see how long it is before you try to escape from that country. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

TIME: Jeffrey Kluger- What Donald Trump Can Teach You About The Narcissists in Your Life

Source:The Daily Review

To be fair to Donald Trump and every other American who has ever run for President of the United States the most powerful and important job in the world, (no offense to the rest of the world) anyone who runs for President of the United States, has at least a certain degree of narcissism. And no I’m not a psychologist, but I do have commonsense and I’m also a political and current affairs junky whose seen a lot of politics and debates about current affairs. I mean imagine a candidate for President of the United States who not only didn’t think they were up for the job, but made that clear on the campaign trail. How well would that candidate do?

Imagine a presidential candidate whose campaign theme was something to the effect, “vote for me, because I think I can.” Or, “vote for me and I’ll get it my best shot.” In other words the candidate thinks they’re up to the task, but lacks the self-confidence to know for sure. How would someone like that even get a single campaign volunteer let alone a campaign employee. Elitists get picked on a lot, but the fact is you want accomplished people to run for office. You don’t want people who’ve never accomplished anything in life other than being born to serve in the highest offices in the land. You want people who are accomplished and even wealthy from running a successful business and creating a lot of good jobs and selling a good affordable product.

Now having said all of that, The Donald is beyond self-confidence. His body is on Planet Earth, but his mind is out of this world. If you combine the campaign promises that Donald Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders have made to their supporters, you would never need anyone else to run for president for decades. Because both The Donald and Senator Sanders have promised so much without and clear vision and path to accomplish those promises they would have Congress and whoever is President at the time having to deal with their promises for the next twenty years or so. Bernie, with his political grocery shopping list that would empty every single grocery store in the New York area. The Donald saying America is going to win so much in the future that they’re going to get tired of winning. I guess America would become like the New York Yankees of the early 1990s. (Sorry, you have to be a baseball fan to get that) With his only plan being that he’s a good dealmaker.

Sure, I bet narcissist fits the personality of Donald Trump. And again I’m no psychologist, or try to play one on TV. But I think we need a new term for someone who tells everybody they speak to that they’re going to accomplish everything that is positive for them. Panderer is probably a better term. Out of this world, to describe the personality and overconfidence of Mr. Trump. Or a narcissist on a two-week drinking and marijuana binge that claims they see Martians all around them and that raccoons can fly. But again narcissism is not something I would suggest for anyone. At least not someone with a healthy mind. But the problem with American politics is not that we have too many self-confident qualified accomplished people in government. But that we have too many people who haven’t accomplished much. Who claim to be ready to serve in higher office and then get elected to it.

Lyle Denniston: 'Where Do Abortion Rights Go From Here?'

Source:National Constitution Center- U.S. Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“The state, I think, is going to talk about the remaining clinics.  Would it be (a) proper, and (b) helpful, for this Court to remand for further findings on clinic capacity?...Suppose there were evidence that there was a capacity and a capability to build these kinds of clinics [that would satisfy Texas law], would that be of importance?”

“Do you think the district court would have had discretion to say we’re going to stay this requirement for two-and-a-half, three years, to see if the capacity problem can be cured?”

—Separate questions asked by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy during the Supreme Court’s hearing Wednesday on the constitutionality of a 2013 Texas law that imposed new restrictions on how abortion clinics were to be structured and operated.  Kennedy appeared to be focusing mainly on what would happen to existing clinics in Texas if the court were to uphold those new restrictions, and, in particular, whether they could handle the demand for some 70,000 abortions a year in the state.

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

In the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion going back to Roe v. Wade 43 years ago, the Justices have never attempted to calculate how many abortion clinics were needed in a given state to serve women’s decisions to seek an end to their pregnancies.  But they appear to have at least hinted that, if the number falls far short of the capacity needed to make sure that the right to an abortion remains secure in that state, that may result in a constitutional violation.

This is a kind of predictive numbers game that the court does not have the research staff to try to work out, but the Justices may be on the verge of launching such an inquiry in lower courts.  The court was pondering that possibility on Wednesday, as it held its first significant abortion hearing in nine years.  If it takes that step, suggested by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (who appeared to be holding the key vote), the scope of abortion rights may not be clarified for a couple of more years.  This constitutional right might thus be in a kind of limbo in the meantime.

The new case examined by the court, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, does get into the question of the numbers of available clinics because one of the more recent tactics of state legislatures seeking to reduce the number of abortions in America has been to adopt strict clinic regulations that clinics contend they cannot afford to satisfy and still stay open.  The legislatures have adopted such measures on the premise that they are necessary to protect women’s health, but the clinics and doctors have been challenging them on the premise that they are merely anti-abortion laws in a protective disguise.

In Texas, the legislature in 2013 adopted a requirement that any clinic performing abortions must upgrade its facilities to equal those of a surgical center.  The clinics have argued that it could cost more than $2 million to upgrade in that way, and so the effect is to shut them down.  The Texas law also includes a requirement that any doctor performing abortions must have the professional privilege of sending patients to a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.  That, too, was under review on Wednesday, but Justice Kennedy, in particular, seemed to be focusing mainly on the surgical requirement, as potentially the most demanding.

Several members of the court appeared to be troubled that the lower court proceedings in this case did not produce enough hard evidence of why clinics that have closed did so, and what the likely impact on others would be if the court were to uphold one or both of the 2013 restrictions.

This, for Kennedy, became a question of capacity should the number of clinics be significantly reduced because of the new law.  In response to one of his questions about that, Kennedy was told by a federal government lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. (on hand to support the clinics’ challenge), that the clinics that would be able to satisfy the law and thus stay open could only perform about 14,000 abortions a year, when the annual demand for abortions in Texas is somewhere around 70,000.  “I really think this is the key,” Verrilli added, “because I do think this is the locus of the substantial obstacle [to Texas women’s abortion rights].”

Were the court to follow Kennedy’s suggestion that the data on prospective clinic closures be gathered with the case returning to lower courts, it would give this eight-member court (now without the late Justice Antonin Scalia) with a way to avoid splitting four-to-four on the constitutionality of the Texas law.  The court does not like to divide evenly, especially on a major case, because that essentially accomplishes nothing.   So, as the Justices begin discussing at a Friday morning closed-door conference what to do with the Texas case, the option of returning it for further development in lower court proceedings surely will come up.

It was more than obvious, throughout the hour-long hearing, that there are three Justices who very likely would vote to uphold the Texas law, and four who very likely would vote to strike it down.  That, of course, would leave the controlling vote with the eighth Justice, Kennedy.  He was the only one whose strong leanings were not clearly evident during the hearing, which ran for nearly a half-hour longer than had been scheduled.

The court will next meet in public next Monday morning, to announce action on pending cases.  Although it may be too early for the Justices to have made up their minds about where to go with abortion law, it is not out of the question that there could be something to announce on Monday.

If the court is not able to compose a definitive ruling now on the Texas restrictions, the issue is surely likely to arise in cases from other states.  Whether or not the court by then will have a full bench of nine Justices remains uncertain.

Source:National Constitution Center

"The U.S. Supreme Court today took up the most important abortion case in 25 years. Here’s what’s at stake."

Source:NBC News- at SCOTUS

From NBC News

I thought on this beautiful warm morning in the nation’s capital (the capital of the free world) that I would write about something as unifying as abortion. Where there’s such an absolute consensus, arguing against it is like arguing in favor of slavery or something. (Ha, ha!) 

But to be serious, I’ve always find it ironic that a state like Texas which claims to be so pro-life, consistently leads the nation in state killings. And the most uninsured and with high crime rates and not just in Houston and San Antonio and everything else. I mean, I understand the mainstream pro-life position on abortion. It’s the other stuff that puzzles me. I would think anyway that a state that claims to be pro-life wouldn’t lead the nation in death penalties. But maybe that’s just too much common sense for the average American, or something.

As far as the Texas abortion case: If you try to shut down health clinics, because they perform abortions, you’re violating Roe V Wade. Because you’re essentially saying that women can’t get an abortion in your state. And you might say they could go to their local hospital. But a lot of Americans especially in Texas perhaps, live far away from hospitals and rely on local clinics for their health care. The neighborhood doctor. (If you will) Or say women can’t get an abortion after a certain period of time. You’re still violating Roe V Wade. 

With this Texas abortion law, putting the state’s view over the individual and saying the state knows best what health care people should have and when they should get it. States that claim to be anti-big government, shouldn’t be promoting it and telling their people what they can do with their bodies.

To sound a bit more positive, if I was even offering free advice and no I’m not a charity, but if I had free advice for the anti-abortion movement, (I hate the term pro-life when it comes to abortion) I would suggest they become more consistent and positive on this issue. And then if they offered to pay me for my advice I would layout several steps for them to take. But if you want to hear it anyway. I would say people who claim to be pro-life, should be against the death penalty. Be against abortion with exceptions for life and health of the mother, if you believe fetus’s are babies and therefore alive and deserving of the same Right to Life as people. You say that the state should never promote killings, except and only as a last resort to defend the public. Lethal force to defend the public as a last resort, but if you have the murderer in prison for life, you’ve already removed that threat to the public.

My positive message for the anti-abortion movement would be yes, you’re anti-abortion, but you’re also pro-life. So you’re promoting adoption and quality parenting for all. Quality education for all. And anti-poverty agenda that promotes economic freedom for low-income parents and school choice for their kids. You’re acknowledging the obvious (without stating it) that you don’t have the political power to outlaw abortion, so you offer an alternative instead. And get the message out that their options for women to take when they have unwanted pregnancies. Like adoption and for low-income women to self-improve and get the skills they need to be successful in life. Instead of passing laws that might look great in your state, but then get thrown out later on simply because they’re unconstitutional.

As far as abortion rights and reproductive rights in the future, we now no longer have 5-4 pro-choice position on abortion on the Supreme Court, but a 5-3. And most likely thanks to the Democratic Christmas gift known as Donald Trump, the next U.S. Justice will also be a Liberal. So whether the anti-abortion movement like it or not and you can pretty much put the nail in the coffin that they will hate this reality, they’ll probably be stuck with abortion for at least another generation. 

So again if I’m offering advice (free or otherwise) to the anti-abortion movement, I’m saying you need a positive alternative here that can actually become law. Trying to almost completely outlaw abortion if not completely do it (if you are Governor Scott Walker) is not in the cards right now. So get involved in
liberal democratic marketplace of ideas and tell American women they have other options here.

Donald Trump's Most Idiotic Moments

Source:The Daily Review

Donald Trump’s most idiotic moments. Tough thing to write down and to name, because that list grows larger everyday. Sort of like the belly of an obese man stuck at an all you can eat meat lovers buffet. The only thing that Donald Trump’s reality TV show for a presidential campaign has proven and that’s exactly what it is and is only serious in a technical sense, but the only thing he’s proven is that he isn’t qualified to be President of the United States. You don’t get to the Major Leagues by never ever playing any organize baseball. You at least start at high school if not sooner. Then you get drafted and start your professional career in the minors, or you play college baseball. Because there’s a large learning curve between the little leagues and Major Leagues.

The Donald is trying to learn about American politics and government and what it means to be President literally on the fly. Perhaps getting some information from whatever advisors he might have who are risking their professional reputations by being associated with his reality show/presidential campaign. When Fox News struggles to take a Republican presidential candidate especially the frontrunner seriously as a presidential candidate and doesn’t believe he’s qualified to be President, whether it’s Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly or Chris Wallace, you know their might be a problem with the frontrunner. Fox News makes fun of The Donald. This is not just MSNBC and NPR. The national media loves the ratings they get from him, but don’t see him as President and that includes FNC.

All right you want my list (so far) of most idiotic statements that Donald Trump has made since he launched his latest reality show called “Who Wants Donald Trump For President?” (Every stupid voter dumb enough to buy used cars at the original price. Even if they’re missing a tire and door) Well I’m going to tell you anyway.

1. “Mexico is going to build the wall.” With no plan to accomplish that.

2. “Mexican immigrants are raping American women.” With no evidence.

3. “Muslims celebrated 9/11 in New York and New Jersey. Again no evidence. Even Governor Chris Christie, one of his hostages, I mean spokesmen contradicted him on that.

4. “Barack Obama doesn’t have a legitimate birth certificate.” He became President of the Birther States of America when he said that. Which is every state that doesn’t have a metro center.

5. Saying he would pay the legal bills of people who beat up protestors at his campaign rallies. You could probably get him on inciting violence on that one alone.

If the Donald Trump reality show/presidential campaign was just a bad Showtime or HBO movie or mini-series, I wouldn’t have any issue with it other than it being bad TV. But as a free American I could choose not to watch it. But this guy actually is running for president and not only that, but is likely the next presidential nominee for the second largest political party in America. That actually does have a rich history pre-Tea Party meltdown that they’re still suffering through. A man who doesn’t have any qualifications to have the most important job in the world, but likely to be on the ballot for president in all fifty states.

President Harry S. Truman: Speech to Congress on Foreign Policy- March 12th, 1947: ‘The Truman Doctrine’

Source:THULE- Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) President of the United States (1945-53)

“Truman talks about giving aid to Greece and Turkey for fear that Communist forces in those countries will take over. March 12, 1947.”

From THULE

When I think of the greatest American president’s, Harry Truman would be on my first hand. When you’re talking about the 20th Century, I believe it comes down to either Harry Truman or Franklin Roosevelt. I would give the edge to President Truman when it came to civil rights and desegregating the military, (to use as an example) creating the tools to fight and eventually win the Cold War against Russia.

When you want to talk about the so-called progressive foreign policy, (and that phrase gets thrown around Senator Bernie Sanders presidential campaign) you want to look at FDR and HST. A liberal internationalist foreign policy, that is not about basically going without any strong military presence at all, or trying to police the world, but working with our allies to promote freedom and democracy and keeping the world safe.

Conservatives, certainly had a role in creating the National Security State in America. Department of Defense, the CIA, United Nations, NATO, etc. But it’s really Progressives that were in power the whole time during this period. Like the Roosevelt Administration and then later President Truman and his administration, that decided the way to defeat the Soviet Union, is for the West to be strong and united against communism and authoritarianism in general. Which means a strong America, a strong Canada and a strong Europe. The whole point of NATO which is the North Atlantic defense alliance, that covers North America and Western Europe, for the most part, was to prevent Russia from attacking any of these countries. This was created by Roosevelt/Truman, two Progressive Democrats.

The progressive foreign policy or what I at least call liberal internationalism, is about being strong at home, a strong economy and strong military, not to police the world. But to prevent anyone else from even attempting to attack you. And to work with your allies to keep the world as safe as possible, assist your vulnerable allies with military and economic aide.

This speech right here from President Truman was about economic and military and economic aide to Greece and Turkey. Two long time allies of America. That was part of the Truman Doctrine. Being strong at home and working with your allies around the world like Greece and Turkey, to prevent Russia and other authoritarian countries, like China, from trying to take over peaceful countries.

President Truman’s main accomplishments as President were in foreign policy. Ending World War II against Germany and Japan. And again putting the tools in place to fight and eventually win the Cold War. The National Security State at home, United Nations and NATO abroad.

Russia never tried to invade Western Europe the Democratic states there and the United States and Soviet Union never fired a shot against each other during the Cold War. Because both countries were so strong militarily and America was so strong economically most of this war, that both countries were smart enough not to go to war against each other, because of all the damage and lost lives that could have come as a result. And President Truman deserves a lot of credit for this. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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