Trump on infrastructure regulation - a game-changer IF he follows through.
“For too long, America has poured trillions and trillions of dollars into rebuilding foreign countries while allowing our own country -- the country that we love -- and its infrastructure to fall into a state of total disrepair. . . I was not elected to continue a failed system. I was elected to change it. . . No longer can we allow these rules and regulations to tie down our economy, chain up our prosperity, and sap our great American spirit. That is why we will lift these restrictions and unleash the full potential of the United States of America. . . We will get rid of the redundancy and duplication that wastes your time and your money. Our goal is to give you one point of contact to deliver one decision -- yes or no -- for the entire federal government, and to deliver that decision quickly, whether it's a road, whether it's a highway, a bridge, a dam."
The same collectivist and statist premises underlie welfare statism as full socialism; it's a matter of degree of implementation. His policies are mixed in how far he will go. You never know what he will do next in the name of dictating a "better deal". It isn't freedom he wants, but to dictate what he thinks is better for the economy. Sometimes it may be better than what we have now in direct effect, but it's still statism.
That he wants the economy to be better rather than sacrifice to nature doesn't mean he isn't statist. The same goes for Marx. Remember when socialists used to be for the economy and prosperity? The viros surrendered that to their misanthropic nihilism, taking collectivism to a new depth, but it doesn't make the old-line Marxists and liberals not collectivists or statists. Statist collectivists claiming to be for a collective prosperity instead of nature worship is still statism-collectivism.
Trumps appointments are generally better than or not as bad as the Democrats. But calling them "free market" only serves to undermine the battle for freedom as they pursue statist policies in the name of free markets.
For example, there is a big battle right now over rescinding Obama's National Monument decrees, which included extending Federal control over private property and industry. But we have a Secretary of the Interior (ZInke) who, like Trump and his family, adore Federal land ownership and accept it as a premise. Clinton would have made it worse; the Trump administration officials are deciding on Obama Monument decrees based on what they deem is better collectively for the economy, with no regard for private property rights and freedom.
He shares the same collectivist statist premises that have been increasingly implemented and adopted with increasing intensity and scope in this country for a century. The left is now far worse over the last few decades, leaving Trump like the Democrats of only a few decades ago.
Trump doesn't support the rights of the individual and does not mention them. He doesn't denounced the viros on principle or the climate hysteria ideology. He an anti-philosophical, emotional thinker, a life-long liberal who wants to be more "efficient" with his Pragmatist "deals".
Aside from the anti-philosophical Trump idolatry following the man on the white horse, he was widely recognized as an undesirable candidate but the only practical alternative to the more outrageous leftist Clinton and her mafia.
California is not an "it". We are talking about people. No group of people has a "right" to form an even more statist-collectivist society and oppress a minority with it. There are no collective rights to mob action.
Not that I endorse slavery. My point is that slavery was in fact a part of the entire USA at the time and true equality of blacks took an additional 100 plus years after the civil war
As to California , I agree Mexico shouldn't get it for free. But I do think it should be allowed to secede from the USA
Trump represents more of the same collectivism and statism as the country continues its decline with an occasional zig-zag of protest secondarily superimposed on the general trend on the way down.
Whatever he may do that may serve as some small example in some particular realm, the collectivists don't learn from example. They know what they want, and it isn't economic success for the individual. The battle is philosophical and over fundamentals.
As to the Mexicans taking back California, maybe they should just take it in fact. They are already two peas in a pod
"One point of contact" is not only not deregulation, he is package dealing more government "infrastructure" projects with the problem of permissions and Federal obstruction for private and local government actions.
As for "infrastructure", until roads, bridges and airports are privatized, our economy requires that they be upgraded to the point where they can operate at a safe and efficient level. At the moment, much of the country's public infrastructure does not meet this standard.
Of course real deregulation is good. This is a package deal, with the usual Trumpian confusions on behalf of his dictatorial "deals" replacing any rational concept of proper government.
Texas was an independent country before it joined the US. As a general principle anyone has the moral right to secede from a nation (like Mexico) in order to become freer. Over 150 years later Mexican racists (La Raza) are moving into the American southwest and California demanding Mexican control.
Interesting that Texas became part of USA by doing just that. Many non Mexicans simply declared that it's part of USA now
My point is that national sovereignty is a very muddled thing when a large percentage of the population wants a change. I remember large scale rioting among the Ukrainian population over the issue. In Crimea there was a referendum favoring joining Russia even.
There are a lot of Russians in the Crimea; they have no right to impose Russian control over everyone else -- just as Muslims would have no right to pack some area of this country and demand that it become part of mid-east Sharia.
Load more comments...