Options
The Charlotte Tea Party Speech
kuzi16
Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
The Charlotte Tea Party Speech by Dr. John David Lewis, Dept. of Political Science, Duke University was first first delivered on April 15, 2009, Charlotte, North Carolina. This is a slightly revised version by Dr. Lewis for printed publication. Permission is given to read this in full, wherever defenders of liberty may gather.
It is high time for a tea party in America!
But to do this right, we need to understand what it means. So I want to think back for a moment to what happened over 200 years ago, at the time of the original Boston Tea Party.
The Founders of this nation brought forth a radical idea. It was truly radical, practiced nowhere before this time.
This idea was the Rights of Man. The Founders saw each of us as endowed with certain inalienable rights, rights that may not be separated from our nature as autonomous beings.
These inalienable rights are:
· The Right to Life--the right to live your own life, to choose your own goals, and to preserve your own independent existence.
· The Right to Liberty, which is the right to act to achieve your goals, without coercion by other men.
· The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, to act to achieve your own success, your own prosperity, and your own happiness, for your own sake.
· And the Right to Propertythe right to gain, keep, and enjoy, the material products of your efforts.
Unless Im mistaken I dont see anything here about a right to happiness. I see a right to the pursuit of happiness: the right to take the actions needed to attain ones own happiness. Nor do I see any rights to things at allno rights to food, clothing, healthcare or diapers. There is only a right to act to achieve those things. This is called freedom.
These rights to actthe rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happinessare founded on a certain view of man. Each of us is an individual, autonomous, moral being, with the right to choose his own values and capable of directing his own life.
Look at the person next to you, and look in the mirrordo you see the individual sovereign human being, existing for his own sake, with the right to live, to love, and to act?
This ideathe Founders idea of the individual Rights of Manled to a radical view of government. Government was not to be inherited by the force of an entrenched aristocracy as in Europe, imposed by the divine right of kings through generations of oppression, or enforced by the force of a club.
Government in America was to be designed and instituted by thinking men, for a single purpose: to protect and defend the Rights of Man.
This is what the American Declaration of Independence says: To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. Thinking men, armed with the idea of rights, created a government limited to the protection of individual rights.
For centuries in Europe, the relationship between the people and the government had been that of serf to master: everyone was a servant of the ruling elite. In America, this was turned upside down: government became the servant of the individual. The very reason for a government--and its purpose--is to secure our inalienable, individual rights.
The results in America speak for themselves: the greatest most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. I here quote the writer Ayn Rand (and if you want to understand what is happening today, read her novel Atlas Shrugged). Ayn Rand, speaking to the graduating class at West Point, said that the United States was the first and only moral nation in the history of man, the first nation founded on a moral principle, the Rights of Man, and with a moral purpose, to secure these rights for all men.
This principle of rights is so strong that over years the Americans were able to correct the original shortcomings that the Founders could not overcome. Slavery and the denial of womens suffrage both fell when the principle of rights was properly applied to all men. To correct the original errors did not require the Americans to overthrow the principle, but rather to strengthen and to deepen it, to apply it to everyone, and to renew their commitment to it.
And that is what we must do today.
Because something very bad has happened in America over the last century. A cancer has implanted itself in the land of the free. A cancer has grown in our government and in our society. The cancer is the idea that government is no longer to be the defender of our rights, but rather the grantor of wishes.
Over the past century the idea took hold that governments purpose was not to secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but rather to satisfy our needs, whims and wants. That idea has been implanted in our schools, our media, and our government.
Do you wish for a better house? Theres a government housing agency to give it to you, with taxes extorted from those who buy their own house. Do you wish for health care? There is a government agency who will extort it from others and give it to you. Do you need food? There is a welfare agency to grab the wealth needed to give you food stamps.
And who will provide these handouts? The government, many people say, the all-powerful being that looms over us and grants our wishes. But who is to provide the goods that government hands out? Every person who works and produces, and whose property, gained by the sweat of his efforts, is taken from him by force.
The government has, once again, become a ruling aristocracy, set up as our masters, disposing of our lives.
This cancer has now grown to the point where this ruling elite controls a budget of over four thousand billion dollars a yearmore money than can be conceived by the human mind. The government had to grow this bigand it will continue to grow until it destroys this nationbecause it is acting according to the idea that it is morally right to take the wealth from those who produce it, and to give it to those who want it.
At the root of this idea is a view of man that is totally at odds with the vision of the Founders: the modern vision of man as a whining dependent, who begs for the needs of life from an all-powerful governing aristocracy. This ruling elite claims the moral right to distribute the wealth of those who earn it to those who wish for it.
If we are going to challenge this monstrosity, if we are going to expunge this cancer, then this is what we must reject. We need to regain the vision of ourselves held by the American Founders. We need to stand up, and assert ourselves as autonomous moral beings, with the right to our own life, liberty and the pursuit of our own happiness. We need to reject the claim that we are weak and dependent beggars, and to assert our own competence to run our own lives.
It is going to take as great a commitment to destroy this cancer as it took to build it. Were going to have to be strong, were going to have to be independent in our thinking, and we are going to have to reject handouts when they are offered to us. And were going to have to speak out.
At its heart, the economic and political crisis is a deeper problema moral problem. The cause of the crisis today is the worship of need, and the view of man as too stupid to act for his own sake, and worthy of being milked of all his values, to provide for others. This is what we must reject.
Do you think that this is a conspiracy to seize your wealth? It is far worse than that. As Ayn Rand wrote, It is not your wealth that they're after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.
This is an attempt to seize your life, to destroy your sense of self as an independent human being, and to replace it with a being with no self-esteem and no capacity for individual actiona being doomed to beg for sustenance from an all-powerful ruling elite.
This ruling elite, looking down on us right now, cannot understand gatherings such as these, in which free people gather to defend liberty. They think that this must be orchestrated by a vast conspiracy, because they cannot understand how autonomous human beings might gather by their own choice, to affirm their commitment to liberty.
Our so-called leaders think this because they dont see autonomous moral beings at all. They see only serfs, sniveling and whining, begging their masters for the scraps needed to survive, acting as a collective mob rather than as thinking individuals.
Look at yourselves again. Do you see in your face, and in the face of the person next to you, the slave of a group, with no moral status, no rights and no liberties, who is bound from birth to serve? Or do you see an autonomous being with the right to live for his own sake?
Will you knuckle under and become a helpless dependent? Or will you stand tall, and defend your right to your own life, your own liberty, your pursuit of your own individual happiness, and your own property?
It is time to stand up, to say no to the creed of dependence, to assert ourselves, to assert our own moral status, to defend our right to our own lives and property, and to make our voices heard.
Thank you very much.
It is high time for a tea party in America!
But to do this right, we need to understand what it means. So I want to think back for a moment to what happened over 200 years ago, at the time of the original Boston Tea Party.
The Founders of this nation brought forth a radical idea. It was truly radical, practiced nowhere before this time.
This idea was the Rights of Man. The Founders saw each of us as endowed with certain inalienable rights, rights that may not be separated from our nature as autonomous beings.
These inalienable rights are:
· The Right to Life--the right to live your own life, to choose your own goals, and to preserve your own independent existence.
· The Right to Liberty, which is the right to act to achieve your goals, without coercion by other men.
· The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, to act to achieve your own success, your own prosperity, and your own happiness, for your own sake.
· And the Right to Propertythe right to gain, keep, and enjoy, the material products of your efforts.
Unless Im mistaken I dont see anything here about a right to happiness. I see a right to the pursuit of happiness: the right to take the actions needed to attain ones own happiness. Nor do I see any rights to things at allno rights to food, clothing, healthcare or diapers. There is only a right to act to achieve those things. This is called freedom.
These rights to actthe rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happinessare founded on a certain view of man. Each of us is an individual, autonomous, moral being, with the right to choose his own values and capable of directing his own life.
Look at the person next to you, and look in the mirrordo you see the individual sovereign human being, existing for his own sake, with the right to live, to love, and to act?
This ideathe Founders idea of the individual Rights of Manled to a radical view of government. Government was not to be inherited by the force of an entrenched aristocracy as in Europe, imposed by the divine right of kings through generations of oppression, or enforced by the force of a club.
Government in America was to be designed and instituted by thinking men, for a single purpose: to protect and defend the Rights of Man.
This is what the American Declaration of Independence says: To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. Thinking men, armed with the idea of rights, created a government limited to the protection of individual rights.
For centuries in Europe, the relationship between the people and the government had been that of serf to master: everyone was a servant of the ruling elite. In America, this was turned upside down: government became the servant of the individual. The very reason for a government--and its purpose--is to secure our inalienable, individual rights.
The results in America speak for themselves: the greatest most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. I here quote the writer Ayn Rand (and if you want to understand what is happening today, read her novel Atlas Shrugged). Ayn Rand, speaking to the graduating class at West Point, said that the United States was the first and only moral nation in the history of man, the first nation founded on a moral principle, the Rights of Man, and with a moral purpose, to secure these rights for all men.
This principle of rights is so strong that over years the Americans were able to correct the original shortcomings that the Founders could not overcome. Slavery and the denial of womens suffrage both fell when the principle of rights was properly applied to all men. To correct the original errors did not require the Americans to overthrow the principle, but rather to strengthen and to deepen it, to apply it to everyone, and to renew their commitment to it.
And that is what we must do today.
Because something very bad has happened in America over the last century. A cancer has implanted itself in the land of the free. A cancer has grown in our government and in our society. The cancer is the idea that government is no longer to be the defender of our rights, but rather the grantor of wishes.
Over the past century the idea took hold that governments purpose was not to secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but rather to satisfy our needs, whims and wants. That idea has been implanted in our schools, our media, and our government.
Do you wish for a better house? Theres a government housing agency to give it to you, with taxes extorted from those who buy their own house. Do you wish for health care? There is a government agency who will extort it from others and give it to you. Do you need food? There is a welfare agency to grab the wealth needed to give you food stamps.
And who will provide these handouts? The government, many people say, the all-powerful being that looms over us and grants our wishes. But who is to provide the goods that government hands out? Every person who works and produces, and whose property, gained by the sweat of his efforts, is taken from him by force.
The government has, once again, become a ruling aristocracy, set up as our masters, disposing of our lives.
This cancer has now grown to the point where this ruling elite controls a budget of over four thousand billion dollars a yearmore money than can be conceived by the human mind. The government had to grow this bigand it will continue to grow until it destroys this nationbecause it is acting according to the idea that it is morally right to take the wealth from those who produce it, and to give it to those who want it.
At the root of this idea is a view of man that is totally at odds with the vision of the Founders: the modern vision of man as a whining dependent, who begs for the needs of life from an all-powerful governing aristocracy. This ruling elite claims the moral right to distribute the wealth of those who earn it to those who wish for it.
If we are going to challenge this monstrosity, if we are going to expunge this cancer, then this is what we must reject. We need to regain the vision of ourselves held by the American Founders. We need to stand up, and assert ourselves as autonomous moral beings, with the right to our own life, liberty and the pursuit of our own happiness. We need to reject the claim that we are weak and dependent beggars, and to assert our own competence to run our own lives.
It is going to take as great a commitment to destroy this cancer as it took to build it. Were going to have to be strong, were going to have to be independent in our thinking, and we are going to have to reject handouts when they are offered to us. And were going to have to speak out.
At its heart, the economic and political crisis is a deeper problema moral problem. The cause of the crisis today is the worship of need, and the view of man as too stupid to act for his own sake, and worthy of being milked of all his values, to provide for others. This is what we must reject.
Do you think that this is a conspiracy to seize your wealth? It is far worse than that. As Ayn Rand wrote, It is not your wealth that they're after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.
This is an attempt to seize your life, to destroy your sense of self as an independent human being, and to replace it with a being with no self-esteem and no capacity for individual actiona being doomed to beg for sustenance from an all-powerful ruling elite.
This ruling elite, looking down on us right now, cannot understand gatherings such as these, in which free people gather to defend liberty. They think that this must be orchestrated by a vast conspiracy, because they cannot understand how autonomous human beings might gather by their own choice, to affirm their commitment to liberty.
Our so-called leaders think this because they dont see autonomous moral beings at all. They see only serfs, sniveling and whining, begging their masters for the scraps needed to survive, acting as a collective mob rather than as thinking individuals.
Look at yourselves again. Do you see in your face, and in the face of the person next to you, the slave of a group, with no moral status, no rights and no liberties, who is bound from birth to serve? Or do you see an autonomous being with the right to live for his own sake?
Will you knuckle under and become a helpless dependent? Or will you stand tall, and defend your right to your own life, your own liberty, your pursuit of your own individual happiness, and your own property?
It is time to stand up, to say no to the creed of dependence, to assert ourselves, to assert our own moral status, to defend our right to our own lives and property, and to make our voices heard.
Thank you very much.
0
Comments
At its heart, the economic and political crisis is a deeper problema moral problem. The cause of the crisis today is the worship of need, and the view of man as too stupid to act for his own sake, and worthy of being milked of all his values, to provide for others. This is what we must reject. Do you think that this is a conspiracy to seize your wealth? It is far worse than that. As Ayn Rand wrote, It is not your wealth that they're after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man. This is an attempt to seize your life, to destroy your sense of self as an independent human being, and to replace it with a being with no self-esteem and no capacity for individual actiona being doomed to beg for sustenance from an all-powerful ruling elite. This ruling elite, looking down on us right now, cannot understand gatherings such as these, in which free people gather to defend liberty. They think that this must be orchestrated by a vast conspiracy, because they cannot understand how autonomous human beings might gather by their own choice, to affirm their commitment to liberty.
-end quote.
Wouldn't it be agreed that the ruling elite are the problem? Aren't they the CEO's of banks, credit companies, pharmaceutical companies, people in congress-senate (govt in general) who act for their benifit rather than the People they represent.... I'd like to what exactly this speech was paraphrasing, like what are the years it is talking about.... If it is because of national healthcare, helping out the auto industry and even the financial institutions ... then I am confused. Let me see isn't it due to the fact that these industries failed and were allowed to operate without restraint...? (less govt intervention). I don't think that the Govt should control every aspect of life but I do know that greed is the cancer and that greed has exploded in this country by a lot of the large businesses. And yes that greed moves into the govt as well, like when officials get perks or contributions by companies they are bound to do what is their best interest not the american public. The cancer is not govt, it is greed in general along with people that have large political influence.
OR
is it greedy to take money away from one group and give it to another (less productive) group because you feel that your way of doing things is better than the way it is already being done? is it greedy to take 20%-45% of every workers income simply because they earned it. Is it greedy to expect others to pay your way through life via government programs? is it greedy to expect goods and services even though you yourself does not provide any goods or services.
yes there is greed in the private sector. there should be laws to taking advantage of people but nothing more. the real greed is in the government. there should be no law that punishes success.
it also isnt always purely about the money. Power and control have a lot to do with it.
i could be wrong... the cancer may not in fact be the government, but it sure as hell isnt the solution.
the tea parties are not about just health care. they arent just about the bailouts. they arent just about taxes. they arent just about any one program or policy. they are about the entire group of policies and ideas being implemented. all of them lumped together are a massive surrendering of rights over to the government. it is a large part of our daily lives that will be changed. its too much government. the more government there is, the less rights we have.
our constitution is already a joke. both sides pay little attention to it except to talk about it on the 4th of july. the constitution was set up to limit the government, not us. our government is becoming anti-constitutional. they view it as a road block on the journey to getting what they want. the problem is, that road block is keeping us (the people) free. the constitution is there to make sure the government isnt getting to powerful.
the problem is, it is getting to powerful. we have fewer rights every day. there are laws out there banning people from smoking in their houses or in their cars. there are laws that dictate what kind of cars we can drive. there are laws dictating what kind of food we can eat. there are all kinds of laws that dictate what people can and cannot do that have no victims if broken.
what is ayn rand talking about in that quote?
Personal responsibility vs. the nanny state.
self actualization vs. Government hand outs.
Helping yourself vs. mooching off of a system.
Government regulation vs. Free trade.
Liberty vs Tyranny
in this: when you destroy the self, the drive of a human, and force them to live as you wish them to live (without choice); when you take from them as you see fit and distribute those goods as you see fit without regard to these who made those profits you are engaging in what is known as slavery.
im not saying we are slaves in every aspect of our lives. I also dont think we ever will be 100% slaves to our country, but the closer we are to that, the less happy and prosperous we will be as a nation.
Would you say that privatization should be more wide spread about? How about having only private police, or private firefighters? That would be less govt intervention. I think it would be great to have to pay for them services when or if I ever needed them. I love paying out the ass for health care. I miss my benefits while in the Army, I thought I had very good health care. I could even go outside of the military doctor for treatment. The Oregon Health plan is much better than the insurance that rapes people for cash and coin. Even with my job which offers very good benefits it is still expensive and it keeps going up and up. I just fail to see how letting private industries keep going on the path they are going.
the government should not interfere with private corporations unless they are infringing on the rights of others. those people being stupid and buying things they cannot afford is not the governments problem. nor is it mine. the government has alot to do with this "raping" of people.
i have posted this before:
Heres one way that Obama plans to make affordable healthcare available to all:
Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies. Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
Hello, is this the insurance company? I want fire insurance for my house. Yes, my house is already on fire, but I have a right to insurance. This kind of persecution of insurance companies has prevailed for many years, causing premiums to skyrocket. California law prohibits an HIV test from being required or used by health insurance companies as a condition of obtaining health insurance coverage. Obama will make this kind of persecution more complete.
why is this persecution? it takes more money to treat someone with HIV than it does to treat someone who is healthy. why does that matter?
the way insurance works is all off of numbers and statistics on who uses what health care and how often. the premium on a 25 year old male who is healthy is low. if you throw aids into the mix the premium goes up because you use it more often. if you already have cancer and you know you have cancer and you try to get more insurance then you will not be able to use that insurance on that cancer. why? because you will have a net loss on the insurance company. they cannot make a living by handing things out. whats to stop people from getting the insurance and only holding while they are sick? there is no profit in that.
this means that you get the insurance while you are healthy and you live healthy so that you have a lower premium.
if you are able to get insurance for pre-existing conditions then you can get the insurance one day, use it to fix your broken arm with a HUGE payout to you (compared to what you put in) then cancel it as soon as the cast comes off. this thinking would destroy the insurance industry and indeed it already has to some extent.
this is not the only issue with the health care industry. there are other reasons why its expensive. malpractice insurance is crazy from stupid lawsuits. the lab work is not cheap. the advancement of technology keeps things expensive. here again, insurance companies (and other corporations) are not the problem, the government regulation is.
you fail to see how letting private industry doing what it does will fix this?
.... maybe its because you have yet to see private industry in action. the government has their hand in this. they are causing the rise in costs way more than the private sector.
"investigation" may be a better term.
im not sure if anyone is for torture. the real debate is over what is torture. to tell the truth, i havent paid that much attention to this story. im not sure why. i have only seen some of the news on it.
so here is my limited information opinion:
water-boarding seems to be one of the key practices that is being looked at. I have heard that this practice constitutes torture even though you will not die from it and you are able to just get up afterwords and walk around unharmed. (maybe a bit shaken, not basically unharmed) why is this torture? The obama administration has claimed that this is torture because it makes the person feel that they are in eminent danger of drowning and/or death.
im not sure if that deffinition is torture. I mean, i could make a claim that listening to politicians speak is torture. we all know it isnt really, but where IS the line?
another thought is if these interrogation methods work or not. do the recipients of the interrogation methods end up giving good information? the obama administration has not given up that information, just what methods were used.
this isnt an easy question. I am against torture, but i am for extracting information that will save the lives of hundreds (if not thousands) of americans. there was 9/11 style event planned that was supposedly uncovered by some of these "torturous methods." I dont know if the ends justify the means, but what i do know is the guy survived the interrogation with little to no harm and many american lives were saved.
two side thoughts:
1) If the obama administration claims that torture is making a person feel that they are in eminent danger of harm or death then the obama administration willingly tortured hundreds (if not thousands) of New Yorkers last week. click
2) trying to prosecute members of the bush administration over, effectively, a policy difference is a poor decision. the Republicans already lost the election. the democrats have the super majority (thanks spector!). there isnt much that republicans can do. they are now powerless. prosecution of your predecessor is what uncivilized, third world nations do when there is a coup. this wasnt a coup. this isnt a military based hand-over of power. this was an election. the people didnt like the policy of one party so they voted for the other. this doesnt mean that Bush or the Republicans necessarily broke the law. what if an extreme conservative were to be elected after obama? couldnt that be the beginning of a cycle where each side will drag the other to court every time there is a power change? arent we supposed to be more civil than that?
I think healthcare is a right. A right that AMERICANS(read that one again) are entitled to. I also believe that a robust and healthy private sector is needed to balance the governements. When there is no option, there is monopoly, and where there is monopoly there is more unchecked power and control than any one man(or organization) should have, Rockefeller's Standard Oil is a textbook example.
On a sidenote. I am against torture...just to torture. I am for the forceful extraction of information that will affect the security of the masses. I've been through SERE school. It's basically a 2 week long ass kicking but one of the things they do is to waterboard each one of us. They do it so we know what to expect should that situation ever happen to us. It does not kill you and it does not cause any long term damage, however it does make you fear for your life, and all in all it doesnt hurt...you just cant breathe much. You are placed on a wooden board face up and the board is declined at about 30 degrees, your head being low. They hold you on this board, hold a towel over your face and pour water over the towel. Water enters your nasal passages and lungs, you cough, sometime puke, but the angle of the board causes the inhaled water to drain right back out of you.
Now if i were ever to in country and get captured you think i would get waterboarded...should i be so luky(geneva convention doesnt exist), voltage, ripping out fingernails, having slits cut between your toes and fingers, whips, rats...having your head cut off. I dont see the big deal over waterboarding to extract information. The fact i've been through it lends credibility.
Prosecuting the top people in the last admin is uncivilized? how is that? So letting them go untouched while breaking numerous laws is okay? Worked for Nixon I know but it has to stop. It is insane. As an example of how rep vs dem works, let me see, oh, Clinton is impeached over getting a BJ and lying about it (a rep majority) and oh Bush gets nothing for all the deaths, lies, broken laws he did during his term. So in a sense it's okay to break laws, invade a country, send thousands of US troops to their death for no real concrete reason, break laws of this country... but don't get a BJ and lie.. or maybe it's don't get a BJ and lie while being a DEM... They need to be prosecuted. Will it happen, I really don't know, probably not.
on a side note, how is health care a privilege? Shouldn't the most powerful country in the world be a leader? Well most other powerful countries have national health care, a form of national banking and it seems to work okay. The myth about a national health care will destroy private business is such a bunch of bull pucky. If anything it would make them more competitive.
If we have a right to a thing, an object, then we have a right to coerce another human being to provide it, thus depriving him of liberty.
its a recipe for violation of all rights because to have a right to something means you have a right to initiate the use of physical force or deceit to get it.
The initiation of physical force, or the use of its intellectual equivalent, deceit or fraud, is the only way to violate rights. In each instance, you have deprived the individual of his freedom to make choices about how to support and enjoy his life
...the life that he alone owns.
there are goods and services that are highly desirable, even necessary for life, but these things cannot be rights, and this is demonstrable through a simple exercise in logic:
Let us say your house is on fire, and you live in isolation, with no government around. If we post a right to fire service then your rights have apparently been violated, but by who? If you have a right to food, water, and clothing, who has violated your rights by not providing them, in the absence of government? God? The Universe itself? Its easy to see how this is a nonsensical formulation.
Rights refer to action, not objects. We have a right to seek food, but not to food itself; we have a right to seek an education, but not to education itself; we have a right to seek shelter, but not to shelter itself. A right does not ensure that someone will acquire something, it just ensures he may seek to do so.
I claim that a necessary property of a true right is that it is cost-free. For example, equal rights is cost free because there is no cost to saying that everyone should be treated equally. You can treat everyone equally even when you have no money left. Free speech can be a valid right because it costs nothing to let people speak.
a government cannot "grant rights."
rights exist in and of themselves.
governments can only recognize or violate rights Standard oil was violating the rights of people by taking advantage of them through no choice on services. this is an example of government protecting rights. the private sector will have option within itself. look at just about any market. there is almost nothing out there that does not have competing brands. if there is, it changes because people want to cash in on that. thats the way the markets work.
by government entering the scene, and taking over an industry (not just a company), a monopoly is created. ...especially if it is a program to make things "cheaper" or "more affordable" than the private sector can.
the good or service still costs the same, but instead of charging the individual for it, they are charging the group. this makes us all work for the benefit of the government.
the individual will not endlessly work for the benefit of the masses. good to hear from someone who has been "tortured" according to Obama.
it is very clear that you have not read my links and did not even consider my argument.I have given well referenced links in this thread and in others on to why i feel that the crisis was more than just Bush's fault, but the only thing that you seem to be regurgitating is the "Bush did it" line.
yes, he did some. but by the time he got in office, the machine that caused this crisis was already in motion.
im sure there was some element of greed. im sure there was some element of Bush being stupid. it just wasnt ALL his fault.
Given the broad scope of government intervention in the U.S. home mortgage sector through the GSEs, the maze of other agenciessuch as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB), and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)and the cascade of Congressional actssuch as the Fair Housing Act (1968), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), the Community Reinvestment Act (1977), the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975), the National Affordable Housing Act (1990), the Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (1994), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (1994), and the American Dream Down Payment Act (2003)it is simply ludicrous for anyone today to speak of the U.S. mortgage sector as having been a fully free market before the latest crisis. Only more ludicrous is the claim that the few free elements still remaining, but not the interventions, caused the crisis. many conservatives would say that too. except they would say its because the republicans have fallen away from a logical system that had worked for them for years. the republicans are disorganized. they have lost their way. bush was a good example of that. in a way i agree. the republicans have always stood for lower taxes.
...and thats good. however, they dont finish the equasion. if you tax less you need to spend less. the last few republican presidents have made HUGE increases in spending.
you can look at it the other way. the republicans get in and they clean up by lowering taxes and reforming wealfare etc. then the democrats come in, hike taxes up and promote redistribution of wealth.
like you said, neither party is perfect.
blaming all problems on ONE party and not the other is very dishonest. lets get it right. he was impeached for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice.
yes that was some of it but boiling it down to that is not castig the correct light on it. here are the actual articals of impeachment:
Article 1: Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.
Article 2: Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case.
Article 3: Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case.
Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.
reference
thats not "over getting a BJ and lying about it" there was way more to it than that. again, tell me what law he broke and how.
and
the war was continuously funded by the democrats. even after they took over the house and the senate they continued to fund it even when bush couldnt stop them from pulling the plug.. If you want to be fair, you cant blame it all on bush.
and you wanna talk military deaths?
clinton vs. bush
Bush: 7033 US military deaths. 2001-2006
Clinton: about 14000. Look it up read my last post in this thread or go back to Puros rants and read the second to last post on this page.
it wont make them more competitive. it they will be just as competitive as they are now (best case), but you will be forced to give up more money in your paycheck every month to taxes. If you chose to buy private insurance because you hate the way that the government runs their health program than you are SOL because you cant opt out of the system. you have less choice. this creates the incentive for people to use the government program and will, in fact, hurt private industry. nobody wants to pay twice and get the good or service once.
shouldnt we be a leader?
we are being a leader. We are showing the world that the people are not the slaves of the government. we are showing the world that we care about individual rights unlike many countries out there. we have been the leader since 1776. we got to this place because of individual liberties and personal responsibility, not because of government programs and higher taxes. isnt this what we were tryingt o escape when we left Britons rule? isnt large oppressive government the Anti-American dream?
* Deception of Congress and the American Public
in regards to what? the article didnt say. I can only assume that means the WMDs. every country in the world had the same info. it was wrong. this was stupidity. not breaking the law. though i would love to have stupidity be illegal, i cant.
Improper Detention, Torture, and Other Inhumane Treatment
arent we debading that right now? what ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" oh wait. hes a republican first, not a human being. this goes back to the posts above about torture. water boarding is not against US law. no laws broken here. also no specific details were given. you cant prosecute on generalizations.
Retaliating against Witnesses and Other Individuals
this i am unfamiliar with. i would love to see more info on it.
Leaking and other Misuse of Intelligence and other Government Information
im gunna call shananigans on this one. Obama and the dems did the same thing. why arent they being crucified like bush is? oh wait... i know why. they arent republicans. the media gives liberals a pass on so many things.
im not saying that the republicans shouldnt be held up to the fire, but im saying that the liberals are not held to the same standards. everyone should be held to the same standards.
Laws Governing Electronic Surveillance
maybe.
again i would llike to have more info on this before i make any claims. if im not mistaken, the surveillance that was taking place was from calls originating in the us that are going out to known terrorists in other countries.
i also seem to remember clinton doing something similar to this but again, since he was a democrat, it was no big deal.
Laws and Guidelines Prohibiting Conflicts of Interest
what like al gore trying to pass global warming laws so that HIS COMPANY can sell more carbon offsets?
oh! you mean Halliburton providing a service that only their company can provide. i dont think that was illegal. they didnt have any other options. plus, they followed all laws in selecting the company.
I do agree that we did not have a good reason to invade Iraq. however, there were no laws against it, AND the democrats voted for it and funded it. again, if bush was doing illegal things while in office he would have been impeached in the last two years. there was nothing stopping the democrats except the fact that there were actually no legal standings to do so.
do i agree with how bush ran the war? no. was it illegal? no. i cannot and would not prosecute based on policy differences.
but i digress...
this thread was originally about how overwhelming government intervention has the potential to destroy the nation...
not about who did/did not or should/should not get impeached.
Kuzi, you are a nice guy with tons of cigar knowledge. However, like so many other's you just can't take criticism of your choosen political party.
To defend George Bush and his administration's policies just proves this. The tactics used in Iraq (waterboadring) was illegal, and then when it was brought to the world's attention the US changed its' laws so that it was no longer illegal. I mean c'mon, do you really now believe that it is alright to do that to another human being, because they passed a law, so that it is no longer illegal?
You are always talking about government regulations and how they should stay out of people and businesses way and not get involved in almost anything. Your preferred method just means that you would rather take your walking orders from big business, and don't kid yourself we have all been doing a good deal of that for a long time now. There will always be rules and regulations. You just seem to prefer to get yours' from big business learders and wealthy people, instead of the government. At least with the government you get to have some say as to who will be determining some of those rules and regulations. That does NOT happen in the corporate boardroom.
In fact I would argue that LACK of good regulations are what has lead to the current situation in the US and around the world. Here in our socialist Canada, we have not been exposed to the same bank failures and mortgage problems that you have in the US. There is one reason for that Kuzi, and only one. We here have used regulations and laws to ensure a profitable but stable banking system and now that the $hit has hit the fan in that industry, we solcialist Canadians are NOT suffering as so many Americans are. This is just one example of why rules and regulations are exactly what the function of a good government is all about. Letting Corporate types who's only concern is to make profits set the rules of the game is a sure way to see your economy tank.
Also why is it that if the "Socialist way" is so wrong, that it is by using socialist policies that the world's leaders hope to fix the financial mess that the great free enterprise system caused?
No one system is the answer to everything. A flexible but regulated system which provides both profits for the corporations and reliability and security for the public at large is what is required. That means a good mix of free market and regulation is what will not only get things working again, but will allow them to continue to work into the future without the risk of this whole scenario being played out again some time in the near future.
In other words... someone is always going to be setting policy, making regulations and determining how the world works. For me, I would rather have a government perform these tasks over some faceless corporate entity, who are only interested in profit, and who already have a disproportional amount of influence on governments, worldwide.
I really want to have all brought to the spotlight to answer for what they did, rep or dem.
It never ends, money makes the world sink or swim. I doubt the credit card legislation will go through.
every president has their ups and downs. there are things done wrong and there are things done correctly. do i think that bush did a ton of stupid ass things? yes. do i think that being stupid is an impeachable offense? no.
I stated above that my knowledge was limited on this topic. i admitted to this from the get go. As current law stands, you cannot impeach him for this. if the law changes can you retroactivly impeach him? if so is that a good idea? i dont know.
again, thank you for coming into the argument too late and then assuming that i am wrong about everything and a conservative. dont assume. it will make you look bad. yes and no. i could at least chose what big business i wanted to follow. i would have choice or competition.
if we take government regulation to its logical extreme then we have communism or fascism. there you have no choices. however we dont live in a world of extremes so arguing in them is fairly pointless. false. read above. if i dont want to have a GM car i go elsewhere. therefore GM has to produce a better car for me to want it. that is me getting my say in what i want. If the government says: everyone buy this car or esle" i have no choice. i didnt vote for that car. read this
good government is all about protecting the rights of the individuals. that is all.
the US economy may be in poor standings right now but the US still (even right now) produces more than Canada. our survival rate for heart attack, stroke, and cancer is higher than canadas. the US still runs the world economy. yes its slipped a bit but we still outproduce pretty much every country in the world. because there is a basic lack of understanding on how a socilaist system deprives the individual of liberty.
If we have a right to a thing, an object, (as we would in a social system) then we have a right to coerce another human being to provide it, thus depriving him of liberty. its a recipe for violation of all rights because to have a right to something means you have a right to initiate the use of physical force or deceit to get it. The initiation of physical force, or the use of its intellectual equivalent, deceit or fraud, is the only way to violate rights. In each instance, you have deprived the individual of his freedom to make choices about how to support and enjoy his life ...the life that he alone owns. rights originate from our status as sentient beings and are not granted by society i agree. the world is to complex for one government run system to work. this is why individuals are best at regulating themselves. the only reason why we would need a government would be to protect the rights of the people. it is impossible to regulate any market. needs change. people change. demands change. profit will drive people to be better. profit will drive people to improve their product. profit is what has made the US great for so many years.
the controlling of peoples lives through government regulation is evil.
forcing others to live the way YOU want to live is evil and greedy.
giving people the choice of goods and services via free markets is good, prosperous, productive. this is an oxymoron
Another look at how the large businesses have a grip on the throat of the American People, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/republicans-defend-tax-ha_n_195617.html.
i cant speak much on tax havens. let me do some reading and try to learn a bit before i make an opinion one way or another.
but my initial reaction is, good for them. they found a loophole in the tax code. of course this is an uninformed reaction....