We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, July 4. 2013
"To champion the nation's founding principles is to commit to a downsizing of government the likes of which can barely be imagined, in today's climate. Who in America is prepared to handle the whole truth and nothing but . . . or commit to so radical a cause? Who on talk radio would dare hint of mounting a righteous crusade of abolition against the welfare principle, as such? Which Tea Party candidate will run for office pledging to slash his constituents' benefits and put the civil servants in his district or state out to pasture?"
Related, from Judge Napolitano: How can we celebrate the degradation of liberty?
Related: Seventy-one percent of Americans think the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed by the way the United States has turned out, a Gallup survey released Thursday shows.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
It's a devilish difficult proposition --to lapse a select dependent below the 'manner to which (because of you) accustomed'.
Lord Macauley, mid-letter of 1857:
On one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for vested rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyrrany of capitalists and usurers, and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink Champagne and to ride in a carriage, while thousands of honest folk are in want of necessities. Which of the two candidates is likely to be preferred by a working man who hears his children cry for more bread?
The frontier, and upward mobility, mooted all that for a long time.
New frontiers are of the mind, which is tough sledding for the left side of the Bell Curve.
The upward mobility in one generation may've been an artifact, a sudden cheap fossil fuel one-off, but now we have to get it back into the natural pace, the biblical three-generation frame. Then, we still have it, just as (in Milton Friedman's immortal answer to a question about the source of optimism) "trees grow".
the socialist trys to solve by moving the right side of the curve to the place of the left side, only to find that that also moves the left side further left. Eventually the awful calculus becomes, simple kill the right side. But then, the former left side is the whole curve, and it snaps back into bell shape. However, there are lots fewer mouths to feed at that point. So that, plus a good secret police, buys another few generation's time.
Now, here and there, that bloody-bought few generations of time are up.
That's why some of us worry about the thermonuclear bombs. Who says any use of them has to be a war between nations, as opposed to a war that appears to be between nations?
The weapons, after all, are city-killers --disproportionately eliminationist of dependency,
and perfectly designed to create a few generations of masonry rebuilding to provide a redux ancient Egyptian pyramid-building communitarianism, replete with the concommitant low expectations and satisfaction with a day's beer for a day's work.
This will be a solution that asserts itself, unless we can offer something better.
Yup --maybe this is a subject that comes under the awful knowledge that got us kicked out of the garden -
Good point. If by some miracle I fell into the presidency, I would promptly delete the Departments of Energy, Labor, Education, Homeland Security, Commerce, the EPA, the IRS, and many others. Overnight. By decree, as Obama likes to do. Those are State functions; the feds have no business interfering in the 10th Amendment. And Homeland Security is specifically a military function, not the make-work fiasco it has become almost from day one.
The hundreds of thousands of surplused bureaucrats could go find work whereever they are able, based on their skill set. Minimal safety nets, we won't let people starve, but no minumum wage; people should get paid what they are worth in a free labor market.
Going hand-in-hand with this would be a full federal tax rebate to the tax-paying citizenry for the massive expenses saved. Federal taxes would be slashed by at least half; likely much more.
The unpaid tax money would grow the economy and increase employment, or the money would be saved, providing capital goods and infrastructure instead of wages and early retirement for drones.
Government 'education' would be a thing of the past. Education should be local, and parents should provide for their own childrens' education, not for children of strangers in another state.
Originally the States were intended to handle these things. But the federal government saw the opportunity to take over, and look at what has resulted. Is there any doubt that it is a disaster?
I would keep the military strong, because it is the one organization that protects every citizen equally. Same with the courts. But most of the others are excess baggage, run by self-serving drones.
And of course, no anti-American UN on US shores. Our UN membership would be terminated. Countries that acted as true allies would be rewarded, one-on-one, commensurate with their value to us, and to hell with the rest. Most of them take our money, and always demand more — and hate us with an intensity that is hard to fathom. Why should Obama hand over hundreds of millions of dollars every year to America-hating Islamist organizations? Is that not treachery?
The result of these actions would be an explosion of wealth and freedom. Other countries would scramble to emulate us. We would have true friends, instead of finaglers who hate us and want our country destroyed.
The original Constitution and Bill of Rights would once again be the basic law of the land. Repeal of the 13th and 17th Amendments would follow; especially the 17th, which is why Senators are completely beholden to their political Party in Washington DC, not to their State's citizens that elected them.
Won't happen, though. The Parties have learned to game the system. They control it now. They have corrupted even Supreme Court Justices — witness John Roberts' inexplicable vote-switch on Obamacare. When the SCOTUS caves, it is over. Is there any doubt that they got to Roberts, just like they got to Petraeus? Petraeus was meant to be an example, so his deeds were made public. But Roberts was gotten to in private; he is much more valuable as Obama's puppet than as an example. The military and the court system are different entities. But make no mistake, Roberts has been corrupted: NO ONe predicted he would bve the onbe to flip.
Americal is lost, folks. Sad to say, today is not Independence Day. It has morphed into Dependence Day.
One Obamaphone buys one vote. It's that simple.
Repeal the 19th by decree, too, while yall at it, Doc.
Indpendent states ended with Axeman's usurpation of US Constitution and principles of Declaration Of Independence
by executive fiat.
Cry me a river now, that
yall want to abandon ship.
Rats are usually
the first to jump.
Ah, we'll muddle thru --the Golden Rule is always there, behind the safety glass, next to the fire ax and extinguisher bottle --
Aye, it's within arms reach of the moren rap.
Moren rap is useful for lassoin' yanker pigs.
They squeal but the squealin' ain't intolerable and the moren rap may be reused mote than a few times.
--Ahoy there, Jack Tar --i would want to be athinkin' twicet afore i'd be aheftin' a riggin' rope whilst espousing the Golden Rule.
Give thee collar a wee tug & think hard on it