Political Labels

There is so much discussion in this country about Socialism vs. Capitalism etc., but most people seem to have little understanding of these terms. Lets begin with the socialism vs. Capitalism example. Capitalism believes in a free market, where businesses and individuals are free to do what they want with their money without any government intervention. Socialism basically means that the government either takes over parts of the free market, or forces people to buy certain products, or tells businesses what they can sell, or how much they can sell it for. By those definitions, you can conclude several things. First of all, the United States, and most other countries in the world are socialist. Now socialists themselves will tend to disagree with this, but by my very loose definition of the word, the U.S. definitely fits into this category. Another thing that you can conclude is that most conservatives will be in favor of capitalism, and quite a few liberals will be in favor of socialism. Now a lot of conservatives disagree with socialism simply because of socialist Russia during the cold war, but usually they don't have a real understanding of socialism. First let's take a look back into history to see if socialism really works. Some examples of socialist nations are, "Communist" USSR, NAZI Germany, "Communist" China, and plenty more. Now there are a lot more examples, but these are the most well known because these were nations that had been capitalist, and therefore were some of the most powerful nations in the world. Most people will also be confused by the labels, because communists aren't usually considered socialist, and a lot of people don't connect NAZI with socialism. NAZI stands for National Socialist German Workers Party. When Hitler gained power, he was able to take over the media, and the businesses, and therefore the individuals lost there power to fight him when he decided that the government should kill all Jews because Germany had become a socialist nation. In a capitalist nation, he would not have the power to take over those things and therefore the holocaust could have been avoided if the government's power was restricted. On to the argument about communists not being socialist. You are correct that communism is not socialism, but these countries were not really communist. If you look at Marx's writings, you will see that a "communist" government progresses from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. These countries were definitely not in the feudalism stage, and they had control over businesses and technology, so they could not be in the capitalist stage, and communism means that there is no government and all of the people's earnings are shared, so obviously the only stage left is socialism. These were socialist nations, with the government having the same amount of power that our government has today. The only difference was that these nations decided that it was right to stop people from earning more money than others, and so thousands of people died, because the obvious result of any socialist nation over an extended period of time isn't everyone becomes rich, but instead makes everyone poor. Now a Marxist will say that these examples were distortions of true Marxism, which according to Marx's theory they may have been. But if you were to attempt to achieve Marxism in any nation, you would end with very similar results. Why? The same reason why the United States has become socialist... political power. It corrupts anyone who it is given to, and they will use it to achieve their own goals instead of giving the people liberty. For this reason, Marxism is really not reasonable. You see, while feudalism, capitalism, and socialism were governments that he could observe around him, communism was only a hypothesis that doesn't agree with the data.
So now that we understand socialism, capitalism, and communism, let's move on to democracy, vs. republic. Most people think that it shouldn't be democracy vs. republic, but instead democracy vs. dictatorship, or some other label that accompanies governmental power. The truth is that democracy promotes "freedom", and a republic promotes "liberty". What's the difference? Freedom means that you are given the privilege by the government to do what you want, until they (or the voters) decide to take it away. Liberty means that you are given inalienable rights that cannot be taken away whether the majority says so or not. Obviously you can see the degradation of countries over time. The United States is a perfect example. It went from the weakest most inefficient government of all time, to the most powerful government in the history of the world. We've gone from capitalist to socialist, and from a republic, to a democracy. Luckily for us we have the constitution that puts so much restriction on what the government can do that it basically is just made to sit there and do nothing. In order to become a socialist democracy, our politicians had to squeeze past its regulations and restrictions, until they were completely forgotten all together. Since we were the most prosperous and free nation, we will most likely have the hardest fall onto poverty and desperation unless we go back to the original principles of our founders.

Am I Really Just a Liberal or Conservative?

I have seen plenty of liberals telling libertarians that they are really just trying to force their conservative beliefs on others by labeling themselves as something else. I have also seen a few conservatives saying the same thing about libertarians being liberal. So am I really just trying to disguise my true beliefs in a middle-ground, freedom loving mask? Well obviously I'm going to tell you no, but how can I justify this claim? Well, considering my last post, I have a feeling that most liberals who look at this are going to think that I'm just another conservative, and most conservatives will probably agree with me. The reason for this though is in my earlier posts. If you'll notice, the last post was about money. In one of my earlier posts where I listed the general beliefs of liberals conservatives and moderates, I explained that generally conservatives promote freedom in fiscal areas, and liberals promote freedom in social areas. Since the last post dealt with the fiscal side of things, and Juris Naturalists always promote freedom, I would naturally agree with conservatives in this area. So while in the last post I sounded like a conservative, in later posts I may sound like a liberal, but truly I am something completely different.
Before I end this post, I would like to go back to my claim about conservatives making the fiscal side of things free. This is obviously not always true. If you go back to any conservative, or liberal president within the last 100 years, they have increased restrictions on all of the peoples freedoms, not just the social side. The reason for this is political power. Conservatives tend to argue with this and often make the claim that they are the party that promotes small government and freedom, but if you look at their beliefs on issues, they simply don't agree with that claim. I recently saw a summary on liberal vs. conservative beliefs (obviously done by a conservative) that stated at the beginning that the conservatives were for small government, and complete freedom and liberals were for large government to help the people, but as I went down the list of issues of conservatives vs. liberals, I noticed that not one of the issues on either side promoted freedom in the least, but instead took more away from the people. Both liberals and conservatives restrict freedom not promote it, and that is why I am a Juris Naturalist.

National Deficit

Obama has unveiled his 2011 budget. It will cost 3.8 trillion dollars even after the supposed deficit cutting. On top of this, it will spike the tax rate for the rich. Let's once again go back to the founders. The founders knew that government and taxes were a "necessary evil". Although they are necessary, the founders also wanted freedom for Americans. To balance this out, they make taxes as low as possible, and only put taxes on things like tobacco, alcohol, and overseas trade. As a result, the people were happy, and free. Obviously, there were still poor people, but a lot fewer of them. Today tobacco, alcohol, and overseas trade make up 3% of our taxes. This means that 97% of the taxes that we have today were not originally intended by our founders. This includes income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. etc... The founders started a revolution against England, partly because their taxes were at rates that were extremely low compared to today. Frankly they revolted because England had become what our country is currently becoming. The king had taken away all of their "unalienable rights" that were "endowed by our creator". They had destroyed to liberties of the people, and that is what our leaders are doing today. They forget that the money is ours, not the governments. They forget that what we do on our own property is our business even if it hurts us or is unethical, and they forget most of all that we have rights that they cannot simply take away on a whim.
So now that I've ranted and annoyed all of you who read this... I will once again offer my solution. My solution is simply this: Instead of taking away the liberty of the people, let's take away the liberty of the government. To do that we must throw away all dependence on the government. This includes all of the government programs that we have our money stolen from us to fund. This includes health care, and medicaid, and, the government printing our money for their own purposes, and unions, and any other program that could be run by a private business more efficiently, which is almost every one of them. We need to repeal thousands of laws that tie down our freedom, and instead "tie down the government with the constitution". Our laws have already been created and cannot be changed. Our laws don't include Not being able to choose between health insurance companies, or not being able to own a gun, or even not being able to take drugs. We are given the right of liberty, but our government has replaced it with "freedom" which they own, and can change whenever they see fit.


"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."