Check out the new blog at: http://www.rchk.net!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
We've Moved!
Reality Check has graduated and moved on to it's own domain!
Check out the new blog at: http://www.rchk.net!
Check out the new blog at: http://www.rchk.net!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Words to Think About
I came across this quote today and I feel it is a good way to describe the liberty movement and Republicans who still haven't learned anything:
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Monday, April 5, 2010
Food for Thought: It's Everybody's Business
I find this video to be a really powerful reminder why we must fight so fiercely against government attempts to undermine the free market, one of the most essential components of freedom in the United States and around the world.
Perhaps more than anything is the beautiful way in which they it approaches the importance of capitalism in a free society - a level of genuine enthusiasm and eloquence all too often missing in more modern films.
However, wars, or the threat of wars, interrupt the normal operations of our competitive business system, and may result in government controls which crack essential blocks in our foundation of freedom.
If the youth become galvanized with such government interventions and controls as the Bailouts and Health Care Reform, the future of freedom in this country may well begin to look bleak.
If you dont do it for yourself, do it for your children, your grandchildren, and the generations of Americans and immigrants to come that are going to want the same opportunities youve had in your lifetime during their lifetime!
-Andy
Friday, January 22, 2010
Great Contradictions
By Steve H.
Is it possible, in the greater sense of things, to be conservative or liberal without great contradictions? Is there a way to make sense of conservatives who preach small government, who then just expand it in order to fulfill our role as World Police? Does it make sense that liberals, who criticize and despise the power of big businesses, are willing to raise inflation and national debt by giving trillions of every working American’s own dollars to save the failing business giants?
If anyone can make sense of the liberal or conservative ideologies without great contradictions and/or hypocrisies, I’d like to hear it.
Liberals usually deny an absolute morality, claiming morals to be relative, and tend to deny the power of authority. All right, but then why did liberal senators and congressmen (like Obama) vote for the Patriot Act? They continually deny individual, local, and states’ rights, while forever pushing towards national and international Leviathans which can manage the economy and people against their will.
The same secularists who preach reason and tolerance manage to tolerate little and show lacking reason in their political beliefs, often preaching for socialized economies despite their being no historical nor modern examples of a successful socialized economy. Maybe one day a bailout will work as expected, perhaps affirmative action will help minorities instead of setting low standards for them, and maybe one day welfare really will help the poor, but it’s more than reasonably obvious that government handouts have never helped anyone. But as long as sexual rights are preserved and gays can marry, the government can do whatever it likes?
Conservatives don’t make any more sense than liberals do. The conservative ideology is supposed to be about local, individual independence and self-determination. Smaller government, and so lower taxes as well. It makes sense to me, but then conservatives in office generally don’t follow these principles.
Instead they increase funding for the particular programs they like (farm subsidies) and give a tiny tax refund to keep the voters happy, all the while doing their very best to expand the government and military’s presence overseas. Christianity is defined by Jesus’ principles of making peace, moving past materialism, and loving your enemies. Yet Christians on the Right are often the ones pushing for America to break peace and persecute countries that aren’t friendly to us.
It seems self-determination and individual freedom is only important when it comes to money and guns rights. As long as farmers get their welfare and gays can’t marry, everything is just dandy, right? There are only two consistent macro ideologies: Statism and Libertarianism. Either you think a great collective government should control the individual in general, or you think individual freedom trumps state tyranny and government should be as local and minimal as possible. To fight for only certain rights, while oppressing the others, as both conservatives and liberals tend to do, is as contradicting as it is unreasonable. Either you think that someone can do whatever they like, as long as they’re not hurting someone else, or you think that everyone should be controlled by someone that knows better(Bush or Obama?). Rather than promote only the rights you care about, and oppressing those you don’t exercise, support the human rights given to us by the Constitution and defend freedom everywhere.
Is it possible, in the greater sense of things, to be conservative or liberal without great contradictions? Is there a way to make sense of conservatives who preach small government, who then just expand it in order to fulfill our role as World Police? Does it make sense that liberals, who criticize and despise the power of big businesses, are willing to raise inflation and national debt by giving trillions of every working American’s own dollars to save the failing business giants?
If anyone can make sense of the liberal or conservative ideologies without great contradictions and/or hypocrisies, I’d like to hear it.
Liberals usually deny an absolute morality, claiming morals to be relative, and tend to deny the power of authority. All right, but then why did liberal senators and congressmen (like Obama) vote for the Patriot Act? They continually deny individual, local, and states’ rights, while forever pushing towards national and international Leviathans which can manage the economy and people against their will.
The same secularists who preach reason and tolerance manage to tolerate little and show lacking reason in their political beliefs, often preaching for socialized economies despite their being no historical nor modern examples of a successful socialized economy. Maybe one day a bailout will work as expected, perhaps affirmative action will help minorities instead of setting low standards for them, and maybe one day welfare really will help the poor, but it’s more than reasonably obvious that government handouts have never helped anyone. But as long as sexual rights are preserved and gays can marry, the government can do whatever it likes?
Conservatives don’t make any more sense than liberals do. The conservative ideology is supposed to be about local, individual independence and self-determination. Smaller government, and so lower taxes as well. It makes sense to me, but then conservatives in office generally don’t follow these principles.
Instead they increase funding for the particular programs they like (farm subsidies) and give a tiny tax refund to keep the voters happy, all the while doing their very best to expand the government and military’s presence overseas. Christianity is defined by Jesus’ principles of making peace, moving past materialism, and loving your enemies. Yet Christians on the Right are often the ones pushing for America to break peace and persecute countries that aren’t friendly to us.
It seems self-determination and individual freedom is only important when it comes to money and guns rights. As long as farmers get their welfare and gays can’t marry, everything is just dandy, right? There are only two consistent macro ideologies: Statism and Libertarianism. Either you think a great collective government should control the individual in general, or you think individual freedom trumps state tyranny and government should be as local and minimal as possible. To fight for only certain rights, while oppressing the others, as both conservatives and liberals tend to do, is as contradicting as it is unreasonable. Either you think that someone can do whatever they like, as long as they’re not hurting someone else, or you think that everyone should be controlled by someone that knows better(Bush or Obama?). Rather than promote only the rights you care about, and oppressing those you don’t exercise, support the human rights given to us by the Constitution and defend freedom everywhere.
The Beautiful Nature of Lberty
By Thomas C.
Creativity is the foster child of liberty. It is something that is always there in potential like the seed of a flower but must be planted and nurtured to grow. Rigidly
enforced mediocrity is the mark of tyranny and sweeps across all it can like a river of concrete covering good soil leaving a bleak standardized landscape.
The desire to be God and control all aspects of nature includes human nature - what C.S. Lewis referred to as “That Hideous Strength” and Ludwig Von Mises called “spiritual socialism.” So often it manifests itself in “public” education as a way for the masters of the state’s bureaucracy to both brainwash and level young minds – common book program anyone?
In a few though, reverence for God, or perhaps the simple preference for variety and beauty coupled with respect for man’s capabilities – both good and evil, combines to oppose tyranny. Like flowers they break the pavement. Are you one of them?
Creativity is the foster child of liberty. It is something that is always there in potential like the seed of a flower but must be planted and nurtured to grow. Rigidly
enforced mediocrity is the mark of tyranny and sweeps across all it can like a river of concrete covering good soil leaving a bleak standardized landscape.
The desire to be God and control all aspects of nature includes human nature - what C.S. Lewis referred to as “That Hideous Strength” and Ludwig Von Mises called “spiritual socialism.” So often it manifests itself in “public” education as a way for the masters of the state’s bureaucracy to both brainwash and level young minds – common book program anyone?
In a few though, reverence for God, or perhaps the simple preference for variety and beauty coupled with respect for man’s capabilities – both good and evil, combines to oppose tyranny. Like flowers they break the pavement. Are you one of them?
Legalization: A Politically Savvy Solution
By: George E.
According to the New York Times, over 13,600 drug-related killings have occurred in Mexico since Felipe Calderon, Mexico's current president, took office just over three years ago. As the problem threatens to spread into the United States, it is becoming clear that more effective measures must be taken. One of the more obvious solutions is to legalize drugs.
While politicians typically do not care enough about liberty to consider the principle that governments should not protect people from themselves, they might recognize the more practical effects of legalizing drugs. It would drastically reduce the violence associated with the drug trade. In an illegal business, no one can seek legal recourse if he or she is robbed or cheated. Recourse must be sought through illegal means: violence. Legalizing drugs would bring the business into the open and discourage violence.
Furthermore, keeping drugs illegal protects cartels. According to Milton Friedman, strict drug laws raise the opportunity costs for smaller parties to enter the business, thus protecting the large entrenched drug cartels. While legalization would not immediately resolve all of Mexico's drug issues, politicians should at least consider its benefits, however unpopular it might be.
According to the New York Times, over 13,600 drug-related killings have occurred in Mexico since Felipe Calderon, Mexico's current president, took office just over three years ago. As the problem threatens to spread into the United States, it is becoming clear that more effective measures must be taken. One of the more obvious solutions is to legalize drugs.
While politicians typically do not care enough about liberty to consider the principle that governments should not protect people from themselves, they might recognize the more practical effects of legalizing drugs. It would drastically reduce the violence associated with the drug trade. In an illegal business, no one can seek legal recourse if he or she is robbed or cheated. Recourse must be sought through illegal means: violence. Legalizing drugs would bring the business into the open and discourage violence.
Furthermore, keeping drugs illegal protects cartels. According to Milton Friedman, strict drug laws raise the opportunity costs for smaller parties to enter the business, thus protecting the large entrenched drug cartels. While legalization would not immediately resolve all of Mexico's drug issues, politicians should at least consider its benefits, however unpopular it might be.
A Truer Political Spectrum
By Mikayla
As a political science major, I have been exposed to a wide array of views on government, ranging from peace, love and marijuana to bombing any country that does not believe America is the greatest. Beyond opinions, one of the most interesting albeit troubling aspects of this major is seeing how both instructors and students alike have come to misunderstand the very basics of American history and government systems in general. There are many examples of this, but for now we will focus on two.
Misunderstanding #1: The Political Spectrum
Even as far back as elementary school I can recall teachers referring to communism as far left and fascism as far right. The political spectrum, despite popular belief, actually has big government on the left and no government on the right.
Thus, Democrats and Republicans who nowadays critique the other as fascist or communist are misguided at best. Stalin, Hitler, Bush and, yes, even Obama, are all at some point on the left side of the spectrum. It is all big and intrusive government, regardless of the party name. The American government--at least as it is outlined in the Constitution--should fall center rigt, where there is government, but only enough to protect liberty.
Misunderstanding #2: A Republic or a Democracy?
Last quarter one of my professors said in lecture that the founding fathers instituted a form of democracy and the definition of democracy has merely changed over time.
Nice try, professor who shall remain unnamed. The founding fathers made it quite clear they did not want democracy for the United States. The word "democracy" does not even appear in the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution or any of the fifty states' constitutions.
So why the ongoing confusion? Who knows. But it is important to remember
that a republic and a democracy are not one in the same so that Americans do not have unrealistic expectations of how the government works. A democracy is rule by the people and a republic is rule by law. A democracy is unrestrained and the whims of 51% can, at an extreme, destroy the lives of the other 49%, whereas a republic has institutions and laws in place--like the right to a trial by jury of your peers--that restrain the masses and protect liberty for everyone.
As a political science major, I have been exposed to a wide array of views on government, ranging from peace, love and marijuana to bombing any country that does not believe America is the greatest. Beyond opinions, one of the most interesting albeit troubling aspects of this major is seeing how both instructors and students alike have come to misunderstand the very basics of American history and government systems in general. There are many examples of this, but for now we will focus on two.
Misunderstanding #1: The Political Spectrum
Even as far back as elementary school I can recall teachers referring to communism as far left and fascism as far right. The political spectrum, despite popular belief, actually has big government on the left and no government on the right.
Thus, Democrats and Republicans who nowadays critique the other as fascist or communist are misguided at best. Stalin, Hitler, Bush and, yes, even Obama, are all at some point on the left side of the spectrum. It is all big and intrusive government, regardless of the party name. The American government--at least as it is outlined in the Constitution--should fall center rigt, where there is government, but only enough to protect liberty.
Misunderstanding #2: A Republic or a Democracy?
Last quarter one of my professors said in lecture that the founding fathers instituted a form of democracy and the definition of democracy has merely changed over time.
Nice try, professor who shall remain unnamed. The founding fathers made it quite clear they did not want democracy for the United States. The word "democracy" does not even appear in the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution or any of the fifty states' constitutions.
So why the ongoing confusion? Who knows. But it is important to remember
that a republic and a democracy are not one in the same so that Americans do not have unrealistic expectations of how the government works. A democracy is rule by the people and a republic is rule by law. A democracy is unrestrained and the whims of 51% can, at an extreme, destroy the lives of the other 49%, whereas a republic has institutions and laws in place--like the right to a trial by jury of your peers--that restrain the masses and protect liberty for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
