1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6247/the-democrats-and-their-doomed-ideology/

The Democrats and their Doomed Ideology

February 12, 2007 by

Here I discuss what the Democratic Party, at the national level, really believes. It’s not socialism of the old sort. But the socialist theory of society still burns brightly. Their model is that in the state of nature, meaning in a state of freedom, all is conflict and cruelty. Pathology and ugliness are everywhere. The government is necessary to step in at every level of society to resolve these otherwise intractable conflicts and manage our way into the new epoch of human well-being. Then they ask us–the incompetent, pathological, unenlightened masses–to vote for them. FULL ARTICLE

{ 32 comments }

Nick Bradley February 12, 2007 at 10:04 am

The Democrats are ideologically bankrupt. Perhaps the best thing for American politics would be a total collapse of the Democratic party… and its resurrection as a libertarian party.

But for this to happen, the Dems would have to lose elections, not the other way around; nothing short of total Republican political hegemony would precipitate their collapse. When democrats win, they interptet their victories as validation of their entire platform: regulation, high taxes, protectionism, and cultural marxism from the central government. In reality, they were voted in (in 2006) because of disgust with US foreign policy.

So, if Libertarians wanted to be pragmatic, they would support the Republicans until Democrats entirely collapse, then re-build the Democratic Party on its Jeffersonian roots.

Jacob February 12, 2007 at 11:06 am

The continued existence of the Democrats shows the danger that Marxist ideology still plays in American politics. The so-called moderation of Bill Clinton was brought about only through the force of a massive landslide by Republicans in ’94. Judging by his own statements and those of his wife, they would have no trouble nationalizing all of healthcare, taxing America into oblivion, and selling employers out to unions.

Republicans have difficulties with the neoconservative wing of the party, which continues to see government as an agency that can act efficiently, if the right people were in place. The Christian Coalition, Libertarian Bloc, and others of that Party could be brought about to a libertarian ideology, at least politically, if the Party were able to expell that borrowed ideology from the Democrats

JCR February 12, 2007 at 11:11 am

Lew, why don’t you try to get the Democratic nomination for President. Your kind words for Bill Clinton and genuine anti-war positions might be enough to capture their hearts. With Ron Paul on the other side; Libertarians would all over the place.

billwald February 12, 2007 at 11:14 am

I’d support Bill Richardson over any of the “Republican” names being circulated.

sports bettor February 12, 2007 at 11:18 am

I hate both major parties, but I didn’t used to. I think the only major thing that the Dems have going for them now is the public’s hatred of the Republican party.

RogerM February 12, 2007 at 11:28 am

You can’t trust either party. Until libertarians become more prominent, our best choice is to keep both parties at each other’s throats by ensuring that one party holds Congress and the other party holds the Whitehouse. That results in gridlock and less legislation being passed. No laws are good laws!

Andrew Gamble February 12, 2007 at 11:36 am

The real challenge for the Democrats is two fold: 1) they must create a valid and lasting identity and 2) they must move away from the stigma of their association with the “victim society”.

The United States began it’s socialist tendencies in the sense that Democrats of the 1900′s through 1930′s forced a government response to events leading to the: 1) control of the means of production through excessive taxation, 2) encouragement of the development of labor unions to give the worker collective bargaining power, 3) creation of price control measures effectively socializing the farm industry and 4) creation of Social Security, Welfare, and Medical programs thereby redistributing wealth over all tax bases. While necessary at the time, all of these bloated bureaucratic programs have become ineffective legacies of Democratic socialism.

This U.S. form of socialism further morphed into the “New Left” variant in the 1960′s and 1970′s with a tendency toward: 1) radical opposition to authority, 2) participatory democracy through non-violent civil disobedience, 3) counter-culture and 4) every “privilege is my right” ideology. All of these political processes are essentially just ‘squeaky wheels’ with no ‘self-righting’ mechanism.

The Democrats are now stumbling along without clear and meaningful positions that speak to the new political base of the United States: Those 30 to 60 year olds who are working with incomes between twice the poverty and just less that the alternative minimum tax income levels. These folks pay a bulk of the taxes in this nation but “feel” little in return. These folks are worried about challenges such as: 1) Can I achieve the dream of home ownership?, 2) Can I get my kids a good post-high school education at an affordable price?, 3) Can I maintain a comfortable lifestyle without going into debt for the rest of my life?, 4) Will Social Security be there as I retire to supplement my other income?, 5) Can I save enough to cover the cost of a retired lifestyle?, 6) Will medical coverage be available at affordable rates?… you get the point. These questions are all ones which Democrats have an opportunity to address and solve. Yet, the Democrats we have available as ‘leaders’ do not address these challenging questions from a relevant voter base but, instead, choose to champion the 1960′s and 1970′s “New Left” radical voters who have become today’s victim society and push social programs now defunct by age and reason.

President Bill Clinton did answer many of these questions. He was a unique Democrat who unfortunately was too much of a regular guy to control his primal drives. Given his troubled Presidency today’s “New Left” Democrats are drifting to define themselves as champions of the struggling middle class. That middle class being abandoned in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s by the Republicans… and now supported by no party. This is the opportunity I believe the Democrats lining up to be President have and will fail to address. The next 10 years will define the next 100 years in this American Republic.

Yancey Ward February 12, 2007 at 11:56 am

The Democrats will be increasingly in control of the government from now going forward. Demographic trends favor them over Republicans and, of course, Liberatarians.

Thomas Puckett February 12, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Mr. Rockwell’s comment regarding the virtues of Bill Clinton and the statement that Republicans “don’t believe in government, steal everything in sight ,wreck the budget,detonate bombs,etc.” is shortsighted to say the least. Bill Clinton had more troops deployed than any other standing President until George Bush, Jr. and he dropped quite a few bombs himself while in office. Stealing everything in sight is what the Clinton’s did when they left the White House and as far as the budget goes, taking funding away from the military and then using that money to prop up the entitlement state is hardly a sign of financial acumen. The money is still being spent by the government and taken out of the hands of the people who earned it. At least with the Republicans we have a functional military while we are broke.
There is no real difference now between either party. I would think that Mr. Rockwell would be pleased by the Kelo vs. New London legislation supported by the Republicans as the end of private property is an integral plank in the socialist(Democrats) agenda. Instead of supporting the values laid out in the Constitution, either side picks the issues that they think will get them a cush government or payoff job after the next election.
The current crop of politicians on both sides of the aisle are for the most part, totalitarians.
The democrats are looking for the way to iron the “kinks” out of the inherently evil socialism(which will never happen) and the pseudo-republicans don’t appear to care about appearing totalitarian at all.
If it weren’t for those few statesmen like Ron Paul who at least force the others to view the contrast of their betrayal of the Constitution and the Republic we would be truly ruined. It is my personal opinion that it is the guilt that a few good men and women are doing the right thing that keeps the rest of the government from plowing through what is left of what made this country great in the first place.

W Baker February 12, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Yancey Ward is the only one, I’m afraid, who gets it. Ideology doesn’t matter to the new demographic in the US – we’re talking about the massive waves of immigration here. What matters is one-dimensional promises from political hopefuls. ‘We will give you this and that when we are elected.’ In other words, literally ‘quid pro quo’.

Generally, the traditional Republican voter has heretofore been a little more savvy. He understands the subtlies in Republican campaign hyperbole. When the candidate says limited and local government, many Republican voters know this doesn’t really apply to their special interest or their slice of the public purse.

But no more. You can bet that candidates from both sides in this next election will be outright promising the moon. The winner will be the one with the best track record of actually getting the money down to street level rather than having most of it hung up in coporate coffers.

If you want proof of this, simply follow the Brown/Cameron postering in Britain in the lead up to Blair stepping down from the throne. Labour and the Tories are usually a decade or so ahead of us in political corruption, although we, as usual, do it on a bigger scale.

jdavidb February 12, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Andrew Gamble, you need to get over the idea that any of these interventions were “necessary at the time.” They were not necessary, they were not helpful. They’ve not outlived their usefulness — they were never useful. They prevented the market from adapting.

Eric February 12, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Hmmm, is Lew changing his mind on politics? Is he saying that there might be something worthwhile in the political arena?

I’ve given up. I’m too old to see any change in my lifetime and my kids are too young to care about anything beyond myplace. I used to be a Libertarian, but even they have become corrupted and no longer the party of principle.

I used to think Lew was right that only education was the way out, but now I’m not sure there is anyway out at all.

J D February 12, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Loathing has been earned by many Presidents of both major parties. Both the Democratic and Republican parties appear to be owned and/or their actions directed by those who have AND make available enough money for serious national political campaigns – Congressional as well as Presidential. Other political parties will be seduced in the same way when and if they pose a serious challenges to the two existing major parties.

The preceding paragraph will remain true as long as it is profitable to direct votes and actions of members of congress and white house residents.

Purchasing candidates will remain profitable while government can take income from most of us for redistribution to those who provide major support for election and re-election campaigns.

From – http://blog.maltese.net/?p=291 – and many other places: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over with the expectation of a different result each time.”

As members of congress and white house occupants have demonstrated for decades their allegiance IS AND WILL REMAIN with “those who brought them to the dance”, should we infer the continuous and ineffective calls for changes in congress and the white house is insanity?

We could but it would be inaccurate; continuous calls for change at the top is ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Those who believe it possible to effect political change by pressure of national opinion are ignorant.

Those aware reform of the political process will not take place so long as that process remains profitable AND continue to advocate such reform, without eliminating the “profits”, are dishonest.

We should rather call for eliminating the profits. This can be done by doing away with the source of the profits: Amendment 16 and The Federal Reserve Act with all its supporting legislation and changes.

The complete text of the 16 Amendment is:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

I suggest an powerful national grass roots movement, led by qualified and motivated individuals and organizations, to add the following to that brief, nasty, war-profits-enabling amendment:

“For purposes of this amendment, income is defined as the amount of money on hand and available for consumption or investment at the end of each year compared to the amount of similar money on hand at the end of the previous year. Income may be negative.”

“Taxes on income defined above shall be assessed at the same rate for all individuals, corporations, foundations and all other organizations which accumulate money for any purpose. There will be no negative taxes.”

“The rate assessed shall be determined by congress based on the amount needed for a balanced budget and reasonable annual decreases in the existing national debt.”

“Taxes will be neither assessed nor collected prior to determination of amount subject to taxation.”

“All legislation authorizing the Federal Reserve System is hereby rescinded. Congress will provide legislation for an orderly return to a gold standard for US money issued by the US Treasury.”

“These changes to amendment 16 shall become effecting five years following ratification.” (end of recommended changes)

The ultimate aim of the recommended changes is to eliminate the ability of those with massive assets to purchase the will of Congress using election campaign contributions and avoiding (via special legislation for protecting income from taxation) their fair share of the cost of what they demand Congress do.

The immediate aim is to provide a change in motivation for those who determine what members of congress and the white house resident think and do.

Demand for aggressive war will cease when the costs of war are fairly distributed by the taxing apparatus described above. Other Federal spending will be closely scrutinized as to whether or not the stated need is legitimate.

J D February 12, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Loathing has been earned by many Presidents of both major parties. Both the Democratic and Republican parties appear to be owned and/or their actions directed by those who have AND make available enough money for serious national political campaigns – Congressional as well as Presidential. Other political parties will be seduced in the same way when and if they pose a serious challenges to the two existing major parties.

The preceding paragraph will remain true as long as it is profitable to direct votes and actions of members of congress and white house residents.

Purchasing candidates will remain profitable while government can take income from most of us for redistribution to those who provide major support for election and re-election campaigns.

From – http://blog.maltese.net/?p=291 – and many other places: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over with the expectation of a different result each time.”

As members of congress and white house occupants have demonstrated for decades their allegiance IS AND WILL REMAIN with “those who brought them to the dance”, should we infer the continuous and ineffective calls for changes in congress and the white house is insanity?

We could but it would be inaccurate; continuous calls for change at the top is ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Those who believe it possible to effect political change by pressure of national opinion are ignorant.

Those aware reform of the political process will not take place so long as that process remains profitable AND continue to advocate such reform, without eliminating the “profits”, are dishonest.

We should rather call for eliminating the profits. This can be done by doing away with the source of the profits: Amendment 16 and The Federal Reserve Act with all its supporting legislation and changes.

The complete text of the 16 Amendment is:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

I suggest an powerful national grass roots movement, led by qualified and motivated individuals and organizations, to add the following to that brief, nasty, war-profits-enabling amendment:

“For purposes of this amendment, income is defined as the amount of money on hand and available for consumption or investment at the end of each year compared to the amount of similar money on hand at the end of the previous year. Income may be negative.”

“Taxes on income defined above shall be assessed at the same rate for all individuals, corporations, foundations and all other organizations which accumulate money for any purpose. There will be no negative taxes.”

“The rate assessed shall be determined by congress based on the amount needed for a balanced budget and reasonable annual decreases in the existing national debt.”

“Taxes will be neither assessed nor collected prior to determination of amount subject to taxation.”

“All legislation authorizing the Federal Reserve System is hereby rescinded. Congress will provide legislation for an orderly return to a gold standard for US money issued by the US Treasury.”

“These changes to amendment 16 shall become effecting five years following ratification.” (end of recommended changes)

The ultimate aim of the recommended changes is to eliminate the ability of those with massive assets to purchase the will of Congress using election campaign contributions and avoiding (via special legislation for protecting income from taxation) their fair share of the cost of what they demand Congress do.

The immediate aim is to provide a change in motivation for those who determine what members of congress and the white house resident think and do.

Demand for aggressive war will cease when the costs of war are fairly distributed by the taxing apparatus described above. Other Federal spending will be closely scrutinized as to whether or not the stated need is legitimate.

J D February 12, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Oops!

Evans Munyemesha February 12, 2007 at 4:00 pm

I see. The only problem the Libertarian people have with government is that they are not the ones in power? I used to think that total abandonment of government was their principle(philosophy)! There is no way out—for now!!!

Eric February 12, 2007 at 4:56 pm

JD: When I grew up, it was said, “You can’t fight city hall”. At that time, government was much more local. At least you could move away, in fact, this is why I left Philadelphia, Blue laws, city wage tax, car inspections every 6 months, etc.

Well, now I’m in CA. It was more free for a while. At least smokin a joint wasn’t a felony any more. But now the FEDs have taken over everything, pretty much. There’s no place to run or hide.

Good luck repealing the 16th. Ron Paul is forever trying to repeal the Federal Reserve. What has that gotten him or us?

Then there are all the laws that restrict 3rd parties. Basically, the dems and reps have passed “enabling” laws that keep out competition. They call it compaign finance reform. The only 3rd party that made any headway was headed by a billionare. That is a remote possibility; a billionare libertarian. Don’t hold your breath. I don’t even think Bill Gates, if he was so inclined, could get himself elected as a 3rd party candidate. And Bill has all the freedom he needs and is no libertarian.

The problem seems to be that the FEDs have a lock on the education system. My 21 year old daughter has never studied a word of the constitution. She was taught that the government is great and our country has prospered because of what the government did, as opposed to the truth: in spite of the government and because of what they were not allowed to (once) do.

So before you try to repeal the 16th, you’d have to get an entire generation or two to actually understand what the 16th is.

Perhaps, though, it was actually the 17th amendment which did the most damage. It changed the senate into a 2nd house of reps. The original balance of powers was changed radically. The states no longer had their man in Havana. So, unless you think you can call a constitutional convention, we’re all screwed!

J D February 12, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Eric, thanks for the commments.

From watching C-Span, I suspect most of Ron Paul’s efforts to do away with the FED are delivered to an audience of acting “Mr. Speaker” and whomever waits to deliver something else for inclusion in the Congressional Record. Mr. Paul is seldom allowed to speak when a quorum is present. That is not a comment on the validity of what he has to say, only on who hears it.

As for educating a generation or two, the following would quickly educate all generations now living in the US:

As a test apply my proposed changes to the most densely populated and the least densly populated state for a period of no less than twenty years.

To make the test more universal, also apply it to the county or its equivalent with the smallest, as opposed to the least dense, population in each state.

Stand back and watch the people and businesses, particularly new business, voting with their feet on which system they prefer to live under.

Imagine a business with no need to keep records for IRS purposes.

Imagine getting all the pay you and your boss agree on and KNOW you get to decide what to do with ALL of it.

Some umbrella would be needed for Social Security until it became apparent, and I believe it would, that without taxes on wages and salaries we could quickly learn to prepare for retirement without assistance from government.

I predict incredible housing booms in the low density state and low population counties selected for the test, but can only predict a housing shortage in the most densely populated state.

jawa February 12, 2007 at 5:56 pm

I once had a discussion with a very serious “anarchist” who claimed that the proper political goal was abolition of the state. I’d like to make a couple of points here regarding this notion as it seems prevalent.

First, the “State”, does not exist, period. It has no independent existence and is, in fact, a fiction. In a very real sense we already live in a state of anarchy; there just happens to be a group of monkeys with guns who have convinced an overwhelming majority of us that they have a legitimate right to rule. So long as this majority exists, these monkeys will have significant power to enforce their dictates, however, this power is not absolute, as any black market economy will attest. You are always free to act in any way you wish, however, you must avoid the monkeys with guns or pay the consequences.

Belief in the omnipotent “State” is a good deal like belief in a false God. Those who hold this view are more likely to be convinced that God (the “State”) does not exist, than that God (“the State”) is evil. If the majority of men and women in this country did not believe in the existence of “The United States Federal Government”, but instead saw only men wielding power, that power would vanish, as no small group of men can effectively control a huge mass of “criminals”.

J D February 12, 2007 at 5:56 pm

P.S.

Eric, I did not propose doing away with the 16th amendment.

I want income defined as annual, after-the-fact, increase in cash position rather than the total of wages or salary.

Eric February 12, 2007 at 6:30 pm

JD: I suggest you read “If you were king” from Harry Browne’s book, Why Government Doesn’t Work. Your proposal, once adopted by congress and the IRS (it would still be there to do audits to make sure nobody cheats) would become so ammended to suit special interests that you’d never even recognize it was your proposal. When they’re done (the lawyers and assistants who actually write the laws), the law will be tens of thousands of pages long and nobody (but the new IRS) will ever read it all. This is the reality of the Beltway bandits.

For example, no law is going to treat the poor the same as the rich. There will be different percentages, etc. There would be deductions for spending on things the government likes, e.g. tax credits for popular products sold by supporters of congressfolk. The sellers would be lining up to loby congress for their own special exceptions. I could go on and on, but Harry explains it better than I can. BTW, this is why a flat tax or a national sales tax will never be created, unless it’s in addition to the income tax. The people who benefit simply will not allow this to come about.

Just look at the rate of election victories for incombents. I think it’s over 95%. The public vote means nothing if the outcome is predictable. Just wait, the dems won’t do a thing about the war in Iraq. And they won’t stop government from growing, they’ll just spend on different things. If war is a racket, and politics is just war by other means, then politics is a racket. And politicians are professional racketeers. Unless you are a clever career criminal, you don’t stand a chance against them.

Andrew Gamble February 12, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Voice of John,
The institution of many social programs of the early 20th century were a knee jerk response to near civil war occuring in the farms of the midwest, labor unrest in industrial cities of the north east and the spread of communist ideals in the U.S.

I agree that the market should drive the economy… I guess you just missed my point. I’ll check out your blog to see if I understand your position better.

CLeonard February 12, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Perhaps Mr. Rockwell was speaking tongue-in-cheek with regards to the value of the Democrat Party. I’m not amused. I believe this government is beyond correction through politics. The democratic process itself is corrupted, and it’s extremely unlikely that any political party — regardless of whether it’s one of the two major parties or some third party — will turn this government back to rational self-restraint. This de facto government — from dog-catcher to President to Federal Reserve chairman — is absolutely not de jure. This nation is so corrupted by promulgation of bad laws that nothing less than radical action will save it. People who believe that there’s something inherently good about our legal foundations need to consider a two-pronged approach to reversing the national trajectory: (i)formation of a de jure government based on fundamental “natural law” and “social contract” principles, utterly outside the existing governmental structure; (ii)continued action in the de facto government’s political arena, for the sake of keeping the finger in the dike (but without any delusions that this secondary prong will suffice).

“Unjust law is not law.” – Augustine (De Lib Arb, i, 5)

Basic Jurisdictional Principles

nicholas gray February 12, 2007 at 11:56 pm

What a difference a Continent makes! Here in Australia we have reverse seasons and reverse terminology to the Northern hemisphere. Our union-loving party is called the Labor party (American spelling for product differentiation) and our pro-business party is called the Liberal Party! We have a third party, small and center-road, called the Democrats, and our new libertarian party has just called itself the Australian Liberal Democratic Party. Despite all these labels, though, students of the state will not be surprised to learn that both Labor and Liberal parties are become more centralistic. It’s the same old beast, Leviathan, with new colouration for the hotter climate. I can only hope that the Liberal Democrats prove successful at keeping bureaucracy at bay.

But I wouldn’t bet on it.

David C February 13, 2007 at 12:02 am

I still have hope. I renember during the Regan campaign, people actually got fed up enough to kick out Carter and high taxes. This time the economic disaster will probably be far worse than in 79, and this time we won’t be able to finance the difference on debt. Hopefully people will get so fed up that they’ll vote in Ron Paul. Also, the socialists don’t have a monopoly in the media anymore. Socialists don’t do as well without a monopoly mouth piece. Also, it is a lot harder to take the facist route in a country so adjusted to free speech and the information age. I really do have hope.

M- February 13, 2007 at 6:55 am

Hi Eric,

For more arguments along the same lines as your war-racket politics-target bit, you might want to check this:

“If protection rackets represent organised crime as its smoothest, then war making and state making -quintessential protection rackets with the advantage of legitimacy- qualify as our largest examples of organised crime.”

C. TILLY, “War Making and State Making as Organised Crime”, in P.B. EVANS, D. RUESCHEMEYER and T. SKOCPOL, Bringing the State Back In, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 169-191.

Best, M-

Eric February 13, 2007 at 10:59 am

M-, Before Harry Browne passed last year, he was writing a book, “The War Racket”. He often said that it kept growing and growing because he discovered so much while researching it. He had quite an influence on my thinking. The line on the protection angle rings true; Harry too used to say that; my favorite line was:

“The only difference between the Mafia and the Government is that the Mafia doesn’t fly flags in front of its offices”.

David K. Meller February 13, 2007 at 11:13 am

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is currently seeking the Republican Presidential nomination. He can use all the help he can get. If you are going to vote at all, Ron Paul would be the one to support,

In over 30 years, he has been impeccably libertarian and Misesian in ALL major areas of public policy, from his support of hard money and a complete gold standard, to ending the Government’s vicious and totalitarian “war-on-drugs”, supporting complete Repeal of the ‘Patriot Act” and full recognition of the 2nd Amendment, to a foreign policy TOTALLY dedicated to the defence of the United States, and the complete and unilateral withdrawal from NATO, the UN, NAFTA, the IMF, and other transnational Government/Corporate packs of hyenas eroding our individual liberty and our nation’s soverignty.

Needless to say, he has opposed the 9-11 coverups, and the resulting odious and barbaric wars of King George the Stupid from their inception.

Ron Paul of Texas may not be perfect–nobody ever is–but he is as close to a perfect candidate for readers of this website, and for our fellow Americans, as we are ever likely to see.

If you believe in political action, and IF you are going to paricipate in the revolting and idiotic farce which characterises the US government’s Presidetial elections, than Ron Paul for President is your campaign.

Even if he doesn’t win, a large number of votes in the Primaries, especially Iowa and New Hampshire, (remember Eugene McCarthy in ’68) will likely have an enormous effect on Our country’s government and politics.

PEACE AND FREEDOM
David K. Meller

Mark Brabson February 13, 2007 at 11:27 am

David K. Meller

I am supporting both Ron Paul for the GOP and Christine Smith for the LP. I don’t think the Democrats have anybody worth supporting, at least none that I know of.

Kevin B February 13, 2007 at 3:26 pm

I’m getting tired of this situation.

I think that most people who really give a damn about liberty and human happiness have given up on politics. Well…now what?

I’m tired of the political media garbage from all sides, democrat/republican/whatever. I feel sick to my stomach just listening to it. I know of a few websites such as Mises that I can visit when I want to read something by someone who doesn’t want to rob me, but I don’t feel like anything, other than education of a handful of people like me, is being accomplished.

Eric posted that he’s given up and that he’s too old to see any change. Well, I’m not too old and I’m just crazy enough to try to make a difference.

Some people have more time than others to read books by Mises, etc. I am making an effort to educate myself, but I am sure that most of the posters here are many years beyond me. My point is that I am asking on behalf of the young doers for advice from the elder thinkers.

So where are we going with this? Is anyone doing any planning or is everyone just complaining? Who among you who desire liberty is helping to guide young capitalists and entreprenuers necessary for change?

For example, I’ve seen many references to the education as being key to change, but so far I see little being done. A little about me: I have been through public, private, and homeschools. I’ve seen what a private education can accomplish and I’m amazed that nothing is being done to capitalize on it’s efficiency. I witnessed many MANY parents pull their kids from public schools. Most of these parents were poor and had to pay for a private education from out of pocket, but they did it. The private curriculum had its qualities but was aimed at a very small market segment. I may be ignorant, but I have yet come across a company who is taking strides in this industry.

I apologize for my post sounding incoherent. I am at work and am trying to “multitask.” I appreciate everyone’s thoughtfulness on this forum.

darjen February 13, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Ron Paul of Texas may not be perfect–nobody ever is–but he is as close to a perfect candidate for readers of this website, and for our fellow Americans, as we are ever likely to see.

Even though I am most likely not voting, I still might throw some cash Ron Paul’s way, should he go for it. If it will help him get out a message of liberty, it might be worth it. Even if he has no chance of winning.

M-la-maudite February 15, 2007 at 5:23 am

Thanks a million, Eric; i’ll surely have a look at Harry Browne’s book -:)

“The only difference between the Mafia and the Government is that the Mafia doesn’t fly flags in front of its offices”.
Well, yes, law & politics are just this: discourse + coercion; and, i guess, flags are there to do part of the advertisment bit…

You shouldn’t give up, though; there is no more value or meaning left, in life, if we let it go and accept to die as slaves.

M-

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: