The Republican Party's Civil War: Will Freedom Win?
I noticed the author and editor of this book, Dr. Ed Hudgins from the Atlas Society, has recently landed in the Gulch. Since two of the authors of this book are fellow gulchers I thought you may want to check this out. Please consider reviewing. Other authors in this collection of essays are: David Mayor, David Kelley, Walter Donway and William Thomas. from wdonway (in a post from a year ago): "The Republican Party's Civil War" asks: What were the underpinnings of the party in political philosophy, what are they today, and what must they become if the party is to stand for the rights to live, liberty, and happiness? They are important questions for those who realize that in America, at every election, there are only two parties. "Is the success of "The Republican's Party's Civil War"--which puts in no uncertain terms the choices that America faces--and exposes the futility of the businessmen who pour money into the party and suppose they have done all the can--and refutes the all-too-justified perception that the Republican Party is the pal of Wall Street's crony capitalists--worth the time it takes to compose a few intelligent sentences for an Amazon review? " I guess they'd like some reviews :) This subject always spurs a lively discussion in the Gulch so bring it!
I completely agree with you regarding the Republicans, however. The voters WANT the Tea Party-style candidates, as has been shown for ten years. They want the basic principles of limited government which establishment Republicans seem much more willing to discard in favor of political power and appeasement of the media and Democrats.
I have to feel sorry for Chelsea. Every kid deserves to believe that they were the product of parents who loved each other - even those who later got divorced.
http://reason.com/search?f[pagetype][0]=...
Armies and police are there to protect our rights and to defend us from those that would violate them. I have a hard time justifying "sting" operations where police entice someone into a crime then arrest them for it because they are the type that might commit a crime. I have a hard time with attacking other nations because they might attack us. I have a hard time using force to ensure fairness much less for making up for the sins of our forefathers.
Other than providing judges for resolving contractual disputes I can't see what government has to do with commerce. Wherever government uses its force, corruption results. Cronyism is the destroyer of the economy but it is like the sting because it entices businesses to take the bait and then damns them for it but not refusing the personal and political gifts that it brings.
Both parties are equally guilty despite what they say because what they say is not what they do anyway. The belief that Republicans can form a coalition that would lead to freedom is based on some of what they say that Democrats don't even give lip service to but there is no evidence that they have ever believed their own BS.
However, I don't think they state that their "practical way to achieve it" will be instantaneous or pain-free, certainly will not occur overnight, absolutely not fully in 2016, but has to start somewhere.
let's see if we can get a couple of the authors to come in and address your points freedom.
Stephen Hopkins, "1776"
imnsho...
There's a little box you check if you want to contribute $3 to the presidential election.
I'm wondering if I actually did that between the two terms Reagan was in office.
That could conceivably be the only time.
Since then I have once upon a time occasionally responded to a GOP fund raising requests with small amounts of money.
Once upon a time is a long time ago. Now I look upon unopened envelopes with disgust before tossing them into File 13.
I snail mail joined the Tea Party and donated some money.
A couple of months later I received an email request to join the Tea Party.
Now I wonder if someone takes Caribbean family cruises with any of that dough.
A few years ago, surveys found about half of those who identified as associated with the Tea Party considered themselves social conservative with a little under half identifying as libertarians. But the social conservatives as well as libertarians gave priority to rolling back government, not to pushing a social agenda. That might be changing though, and if it is, it's to the detriment of the fight for liberty.
.
That explains some things.
I think you have your priorities straight.
Liberty first.
Eisenhower definitely comes in third amongst the presidents since 1900 after Reagan and Coolidge. I will grant that point.
What to do -- 'work to form the 'REP'S' into what they USED TO BE........
Seems to be the only way - for now -
I think we have to redefine the content of 'Republican', vote people into office who will make even some incremental increases to our protection from government abuse, and gradually work our way up the Constitutional food chain until we have a functional 21st century Constitution in place.
Jan
THEN -- they vote for 'someone' to fix things. Soon as the boat settles down -- the hand goes out (for the freebies) and votes return to the 'liberals'.
WE are NOT a Democracy -- WE are a REPUBLIC -- under democratic rule. Unfortunately -- we 'forget' that.
Can mankind create GOVERNments of Force and submit to their Rulers, and expect to be truly FREE?
The fact that "so very few grasp the essential principles of Liberty" was not always so, and is the outcome of a decades long effort by the Left-leaning and Far Left educational establishment (and their J-school graduates in the 4th Estate) to stop those ideals from being taught, and substituting their own agenda.
It took a long time to obliterate those principles from a lot of, but by no means, all of, the population. Reversing it may take as long as it took the Left to accomplish what they attempted. There are many signs of at least the start of a reversal, but no guarantees, especially since the issue is now no longer an issue of just reclaiming the US, but whether the world will not destroy itself before that can happen.
I can't argue on specifics right now, because it's been too long since I read it. But I've been meaning to get it out and read it again, so hopefully this will become a "hot" thread. It deserves to be, whichever side you're on. Then I hope to comment further...
Its the parties themselves that are the problem. It doesn't matter who, with what goals gains control of the party. The parties are outside of the law and the Constitution which is not structured to limit and control such entities. The parties will always result in an 'us vs them' situation amongst the populace, will always provide for an additional split of 'the political class vs the populace' situation, and furthers a corporate/government partnership vs the populace arrangement. At best the party structure can only lead to compromise which concept AR despised.
Additionally, the 'hidden' government of the bureaucracies and technocracies that are essentially self managed and controlled entities again outside of the Constitution, and the government employment unionization with work rules and the impossibility of firing or disciplining known or discovered malfeasance, and as subject to lobbying and the revolving door employment between corporate/special interest foundations/regulated businesses--all in opposition to the interest of the citizenry.
Much could also be discussed about the need to remove the financial/power sources and incentives of taxes and fees and licenses again imposed at all levels of government outside of the Constitutional framework and controls.
In short, the book falls short for me.
ion or commission since then, did a great thing in
regard to the Civil War and abolition; if the South
underwent economic problems as a result, I don't
feel sorry. Only individuals have rights.