Conservatism, Libertarianism, Clarity And Cooperation In Crisis

I wonder if some people are asking about me: “Who’s side is this guy on?” Well to begin with, I don’t think that is the first kind of question we should be asking. I’m pretty libertarian when it comes to the federal government: degrees less so as jurisdictions approach my home. As I’ve said, I’m extremely pro-life, not only in my sentiment but in my belief about how a society’s neglect of respect for human life inclines to corrupt the character and behavior of its citizenry. But, I am not for the proposition that it should or the attempt of the federal government to prosecute abortion. It wouldn’t work, either in terms of effective application or in terms of social instruction. I also think gay marriage is a socially silly idea. Having children is a colossal element of life and society. And, children need both a mother and a father. I think I hold some important principles and ideas. One of them is that my children would have lost more without their mother than without me. But, I don’t want a word…ANY word…from a federal government about marriage.

I commented on the Debra Medina discussion that I would prefer to have Medina as governor if the US Congress passed command and control of the health care system in The United States. And, I did so while acknowledging that I don’t favor the stark dealing with the immigration issue that focuses only on law enforcement and border sealing, to the exclusion of restructuring and refining the immigration and assimilation process. Yes, she was flat-footed on Glenn Beck’s surprise question. So what? Many people don’t seem to have come to terms with what is the, and I mean THE, imperative issue of our time. And that issue is that states have surrendered their sovereignty and this federal government is trying to usurp remaining drops of it. A governor who sees the injustice of that will stand up and say “No! Someone will put me in jail, first!” As we have come to know them, “politicians” will be unlikely to say that. If in that respect she is an unpolished politician, give me that manner of coarseness.

The fact is this: the problem has been developing for years. But, with the acceleration of 2009 and the looming crises of the national debt, dollar devaluation and weakness, and close at hand collision of entitlement revenues and liabilities, very stark circumstances will soon be forced on the American public. The only path out of deprivation uncommon to Americans and even a feeble effort to address those problems, will require a dramatic restructuring of our economic environment. Our only other option is to shrink into the pathetic subsistence of mediocrity in both production and consumption that an atmosphere of rarified liberty would bring. Some would, but I’m thinking a lot of Americans won’t sit still for that. Be assured, such a path would only worsen as Americans with better ambitions took their resources elsewhere.

A shorter and superior route than hoping for a national legislative program and hurdling the obstacles of every interest group, would be for states to renounce all federal constraints on commercial and social activity or if necessary, participation in the union altogether. The former would be preferable, but either direction would quickly build and be followed by other states as commerce, work, and wealth burgeoned in states that followed it. Now, as long as people will put up with it, they can pretend that these difficulties won’t come. But, the many unemployed are a measure there, already. And conditions will worsen. I’m not a combination of soothsayer and Chicken Little. The numbers just don’t add up; and I’m not even an accountant. And, how is a society that is already in a financial crisis going to take on even more collectors of unemployment benefits?

Like I said, changes are going to have to come. There is either planning for it or denial. I said I would vote for Perry by default because even he will recognize that dramatic action is demanded. I was never a huge fan of Kay Bailey Hutchison. I think she would be the last to act and the least thoughtful in doing so. And, she is unequipped to express my values in any case.

But in any circumstances and these in particular, conservatives of other stripes and libertarians ought to be in cooperation not conflict. Obviously, there are global concerns as well, and I expect that conservatives mindful of that will have an eye to questions of security and global morality. But if we can prop our economy with loose money and corporate treading of water (I can’t foresee much new business innovation) until the fall elections, I would be glad to see rigorous constitutional libertarians like Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul in Kentucky and Peter Schiff in Connecticut gain seats in the Senate to loudly sound the alarm of our situation. I’ve been victim of it for a few years now as a lifelong philosophical conservative, but especially in light of present and impending challenges, I lament watching conservatives of differing stripes descend to the typical Internet form of name-calling and derision. How the house is decorated is not a priority when you aren’t certain of a pot to pee in.

These are multi-part campaign stops and you will need to go to the successive parts on YouTube. But, here is video of Rand Paul and Peter Schiff. If you can make the time, watch and ask where you disagree. I may disagree on the extent of foreign vigilance, which I agree should be expressed soberly, carefully and modestly as possible while still safe and mnoral. But none of that will be at the front of our minds if we extend our financial irresponsibility. Our adversaries might find that a good time to assault us. But as I said, others will mind that while these guys are minding our liberty and finances at home. Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist, no doubt with plenty of thoughts about health care. And, Peter Schiff is an investment advisor and broker.

Comments

Gordon Seeton This blog sounds like; yes, the federal governments is too much, I do want a smaller federal, but let us keep the same governor because he will say no faster to them and the Illegal Alien border problem enforcement is no good until we look at the whole immigration problem. He also posts that short of states leaving the union we are doomed to become a failed county because people will not accept what needs to be done. Than we have, the people that he believes may be exceptional whom are influential and have perceptive in their field. This whole idea of only certain people understands the big problems are what have caused our county to become a nightmare for millions of our citizens. 

To keep allowing the federal government to tax, people in any state outside of national defense without a state approval need to be stopped while we still can do it. Until people understand that both the Rep. and Dem. sides need to keep the tax and spend power for their own welfare nothing will change soon. This is the same type of party line. 

We have become a slave to our own special greed bag of goodies and they all know it. The only to stop them is to vote them all out at the federal and state level and to continue on every cycle to bring newly elected office holders into office. That will bring real change. ...See More7 hours ago · Report
Paul Hughes The problem with Libertarians, they range from Far Left to Far Right, with little in-between. The only thing they agree on: they do not want anybody telling them what to do. But what basis is that for an organized political movement? They do little but tear down, not build up.7 hours ago · Report
Larry Perrault Paul:

I'm not crystal clear on your primary point. Do you deny that we are sailing into a financial hurricane? If so, I can't quite blame you because so many people appear unruffled when they appear on television; perhaps because they all are comfortable enough that they don't want too severely to rock the boat? Or because they rest in the assumption that America always survives and rebounds? "We're America! Saving the world is what we do!"

Those are fine sentiments. But, belief in the American dream won't make 2+2=6. That,ts what we are looking at; only you can add 12 0r 13 0's. It's true: Those with much will survive one way or the other. But, the vast majority in the middle or at the bottom will get squeezed as in a vice or crushed.

I didn't say the only way out is secession. But, I said in order even to get on a road of escape, will require a hugely restructured commercial and social environment. And, I can't see Washington gathering the courage to create it. In reality, all tat is necessary is for states to reassert their constitutional sovereignty and to nullify all federal restrictions on commercial and private activity. States that did that would see rapid infusion of capital, labor and commercial ventures.

If I were making the decision, I'd call all social control to the state capitol and dismiss the citizenry from filing and paying federal taxes, offering to work something out between the federal and state government. I've been saying things like this for months and finally am hearing groups that analyze such things admit that just a political change in Washington is not going to change the dire circumstances coming upon America. Surely, smarter people than I have known this all along and been unable to come out and say it.
 

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy