The Gross National Debt

Monday, December 27, 2010

Applying a gold standard

As much as I hate to admit it, I do like Bill Clinton for one thing.

He got federal spending under control. I don’t like the way he did it, but he did it. That’s more than any president in my memory has managed to do.

Warning. If you click this link nothing bad will happen, but you’ll be looking at a commentary filled with economic statistics, numbers and other stuff tom ake y9our eyes glaze over unless you are an economist.

Summating what he says, return to the federal government spending levels in 2001 when Bill Clinton was in charge and the budget was balanced

I don’t agree with everything this UGA professor says, especially bringing back Clinton. But I like the fact Clinton led Congress to a balanced budget.

That’s more than you can say about any president in my memory.

At that, Clinton didn’t do enough to reign in spending. Hidebound to a dogmatic agenda and political party, he couldn’t do much more.

This is what separates liberals and conservatives and all the other political divides out there from the realists.

Realists deal with reality. The others deal with wishes. Yes they do. If they didn’t deal in wishes, then we’d have a balanced budget, very low taxes, a stable economy and a responsible citizenry.

How about you? How do you define yourself? Liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarchist, fascist, socialist, communist or whatever? Reboobican, Damnocrat, Tea Farty, Liberaltarian or one of other other splinter groups out there?

Lemme ask you this - what makes your particular political ideology stripe correct and the others wrong?

Before you answer that, lemme ask you this: What gives you the right to dictate the course of affairs of another adult human being?

Your answer will be used against you.

If I object to your attempts to control me, what makes you right and me wrong? For that matter, what makes me right and you wrong?

Set aside things like actual crimes - murder, rape, other forcible actions. These are obvious attempts to coerce another against their will. Pretty much everyone who is rational agrees this is a crime. Murder certainly is a crime because it deprives a person of their life. Aggravated assault is likewise a crime.

Or should we set those aside?

If these attacks on a person are crimes, then what about economic attacks? Is this a crime? If you take money from me, against my will, is this a crime? If you steal my wallet and take my money, is this a crime? Why?

If you attempt to take money away from me and I resist, is this a crime?

Enjoy paying income taxes do you?

There, in a nutshell is my chief problem with liberals. They steal my money and spend it on things I have objections to and restrict my rights. Wait, that’s my objection to conservations. Dangit, that’s what I object to in Reboobicans, no Damnocrats, wait  … theTea Farty.

Ah heck. It’s what I object to in all of them. Which you knew, I was just making an extended point.

I also object to all others restricting my rights.

But it’s what they do.

A maxim if power is: To exert power, you must first take it from someone else.

The taking can be a voluntary submission or it can be taken by force. Simply because taking that power is legal under the laws of the land does not make it just.

Realists admit that sometimes force is necessary, but it should be the minimum amount of force needs to obtain the correct end in the shortest amount of time possible. One the goal is achieved, the only force which should then be applied is to maintain the status quo.

Realists of my stripe also do not like using force because we know it can be later used against us. All the rest don’t get that. They believe rules apply to others.

How about you? Are you willing to apply the same rules to yourself which you put on others?

The Golden Rule still applies.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hi. I welcome lively debate. Attack the argument. Go after a person in the thread, your comments will not be posted.