THIRTY QUESTIONS ASKED and ANSWERED
What would YOUR answers be? Please discuss without resorting to mockery, flippancy, sarcasm, name-calling invective or vulgarity.
1. Are taxes too high?
YES. Too much government gives us too many taxes. Taxes that continually rise, never go down and never die. The uses to which these funds are put are dubious an damnable in most instances.
2. Is government spending too high?
YES, because too much is wasted on failed programs that never die, bloated bureaucracies and redundant, overpaid, underworked government employees who do nothing but punch keys, push paper and gobble up vast amounts of taxpayer's money.
3. Are we over-regulated?
YES! At the rate things are going the government will soon start to tell us EXACTLY how –– when –– and how often –– we are to wipe our own asses, how may squares of bathroom tissue we may use at each bathroom event, in what direction we may wipe, and how much pressure may properly be applied to avoid injuring the perineum. Given the terrifying strength of ever-metastasizing, out-of-control, increasingly intrusive and overbearing Technology, very soon these homely, intimate activities will be carefully MONITORED, SCIENTIFICALLY MEASURED and RECORDED in a vast CENTRAL DATA BANK. Violators of government standards will be fined and jailed or sent to "re-education centers after repeated offenses, etc.
4. Are you for free trade?
YES. Free Trade would kill the Union-Government Cartel that keeps wages artificially, cripplingly high, and exerts a stranglehold on the American consumer, and therefore, the economy. If American workers were forced to compete on a global scale in a true Free World Market, wages AND prices, and the cost of living would come way down, and the crying need to "outsource" labor would largely vanish. Our currency then might start to regain some of its intrinsic value. Right now, we are living on "counterfeit money" –– FIAT MONEY –– printed up by the FEDERAL RESERVE.
5. Should the minimum wage be abolished?
YES. People who want to work should be allowed to work at ANY wage an employer offers that a given employee is willing to accept. No law, however, should tell a prospective employee he or she must ACCEPT that particular job. There is ALWAYS plenty of WORK that needs to be done. There should be no government constraints whatsoever on working conditions as long as the prospective employee is willing to accept them in exchange for a wage. LOW WAGES are better than NO WAGES.
6. Should rent control be abolished?
No, because I, personally, have known too many nice old ladies and gentlemen in New York, retired living on low fixed incomes, who had lived in their apartments for decades. I'm talking about people in their late seventies into their nineties. To disrupt their lives at such a late stage would be inhumane to say the least. They would have nowhere to go, if they were evicted, and would either have to die in the streets –– literally –– or be institutionalized in some hideous jail-like facility at public expense. Such draconian policies would very likely hasten the demise of these perfectly decent, innocent people who merely had the colossal effrontery to live too long for their landlord's –– and City's –– convenience.
7. Are zoning laws too strict?
NO. If we are to have a sane, decent, orderly attractive, pleasant society in which children may hope to thrive, we cannot have noisy, smelly factories, slaughterhouses and chicken-processing plants, garbage dumps, sewage treatment plants, and the like cheek-by-jowl with residential neighborhoods. And we should never permit cities, towns, villages, counties, or states to abuse the right of Eminent Domain to dispossess homeowners to develop shopping malls, parking lots, or other forms of industry that impinge on residential areas in order to create more taxes for the area or community in question. LOCAL community standards should be permitted to prevail when it comes to the establishment of degrading, morally opprobrious nuisance industries such as "adult" book stores, "adult" move houses, strip clubs, bars, tattoo parlors and houses of prostitution.
8. Do we spend too much on Medicare?
YES. Medicare is rife with "waste, fraud and abuse." It is a cumbersome system that is fast heading toward bankruptcy.
9. Do we spend too much on Social Security?
YES. Social Security, a bad idea to begin with, was supposed to provide SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME to retirees. It was never intended to be the SOLE SOURCE of retirement income for the majority of Americans. Also the "Trust Fund" was SUPPOSED to be kept intact strictly for the purpose for which the act was passed in the first place. Instead the "Trust Fund," which exists only in myth and high-flown theory, has been consistently ROBBED to finance OTHER government projects –– purposes for which it was never intended, so it too is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
10. Should we privatize the Post Office?
YES. It has outlived its usefulness, and has become primarily a disseminator of JUNK MAIL –– a HUGE waste of time, money and paper.
11. Would school vouchers be an improvement over government schools?
YES. ANY alternative to public education, as it exists today, would likely be helpful to the advancement of a free society. Public Education today is run by heartless, greedy, unprincipled, self-serving Unions, and largely provides little more than a nationwide network of Leftist Propaganda Mills.
12. Should we relax immigration laws?
YES.
13. Would housing vouchers be an improvement over government housing?
YES. Although something on the order of structures built by Habitat for Humanity should be set up systematically to replace and ultimately ELIMINATE trailer parks, which are for the most part a hideous BLIGHT on the nation's housing.
14. Should the government sell off more of the public lands?
NO, although I suppose the purpose for which they might be sold should be taken into consideration. No economic interest –– no matter how powerful or seemingly practical –– should EVER work to harm the integrity of our national parks and natural wonders.
15. Are worker safety regulations too strict?
YES. I've never known a "worker" yet who didn't hate OSHA.
16. Does drug-approval by the FDA take too long?
NO. It was tempting to say YES, but considering the long, long lists of potentially hazardous –– even lethal –– side effects accompanying drugs widely advertised today, it's tempting to think that the process of approval should take even longer. It's hard to know whom to believe.
17. Do you think we spend too much on anti-poverty programs?
YES. YES. YES. YES. YES! What we've done since LBJ took office has done incalculable, far-reaching harm, and no discernible good.
18. Is occupational licensing (for doctors, plumbers, and other professions) too strict?
NO, although to mention doctors and plumbers in the same breath is ludicrous.
19. Does the government spend too much on higher education?
YES.
20. Does the Federal Reserve have too much discretionary power?
YES.
21. Should marijuana be legalized?
YES. As long as Liquor, Tobacco, Rock and Roll, and Pornography are legal, why not go whole hog, and let people hell-bent on self-destruction destroy themselves anyway they like without interference? Might be a good way to decrease the surplus population and simultaneously cleanse our gene pool of foul elements.
22. Should all sex between consenting individuals be legal –– even for money?
YES. As long as it’s VOLUNTARY.
23. Do you believe in freedom of expression for books, newspapers, radio, television, the Internet, and so on, even for offensive and unpopular views and subject matters?
NO.
24. Should private clubs have sole authority to select their own members, even if they are discriminatory?
YES. Absolutely. The word PRIVATE implies the right to EXCLUDE whomever the members wish not to be forced to associate with. As free citizens of a free republic, we should have the right to form PRIVATE, EXCLUSIVE organizations as long as they are self-sustaining and gather no support from government.
25. Are you against national service?
YES, unless it is entirely VOLUNTARY. REQUIRED service smacks too much of Hitler Youth, The Young Communists and other government sponsored movements popular in collectivist societies.
26. Are you against the draft?
YES. Certainly against it in peace time, but if we should ever be attacked on our soil, all bets would be off. We MUST be prepared –– and willing –– to defend our HOMELAND.
27. Does the U.S. intervene too much in other countries?
YES. PERIOD! and it must STOP, since it serves no one interests but the makers and purveyors of war materiel, the owners and suppliers of raw material and the international bankers and financiers.
28. Should the military budget be cut?
YES. We should spare no expense for legitimate DEFENSE, but CEASE all AGGRESSION against foreign powers of which we disapprove. Let the CIA gangsters and special commando forces return to assassinating the leaders of rogue nations and violent, destabilizing terrorist organizations such as Al Quaida.
29. Should the U.S. refuse to pay for the defense of allies rich enough to defend themselves?
YES. Absolutely, positively and irrevocably YES.
30. If our country must fight a war to defend herself from enemy attack, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?
NO. If we, ourselves, are ever attacked militarily, God forbid, we should show NO MERCY WHATSOEVER to the enemy. Take no prisoners. Do whatever may be necessary to bring him to his knees, in tears, shrieking in terror, begging for mercy as quickly as possible. The most brutal war is ultimately the SHORTEST and, therefore, the KINDEST war.
“HE WHO WOULD BE KIND TO THE CRUEL WILL BE CRUEL TO THE KIND.”
"EXTREMISM in DEFENSE of LIBERTY is NO VICE."
"MODERATION in WAR is IMBECILITY."
FT,
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agree with this post but would you please expand on #23. Thanks.
LOL! The FDA should be abolished. People die while waiting for approval...AND (!) FDA approval doesn't mean a drug is safe. BALONEY!
ReplyDeleteAndie
DT,
ReplyDeleteIf someone has an affliction that is, absolutely, terminal and there is a drug, yet to be approved, that may save his/her life; why not try it? It's my understanding that, at present, this is disallowed but I'm not positive.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteTerminal patients are not given an option to try "unapproved" drugs. The can just die, according to the FDA.
Have you heard of FEE? They have a tremendous amount of information on the topic. Here is one...
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/abolishing-the-fda#axzz2lgChqGR5
Andie
Free Thinke, do ACTUALLY want a
ReplyDeletecomprehensive 30 point response or would you prefer a cheerleading and Pom Pom waving response. Let me know as I am not into the later.
Andie,
ReplyDeleteI followed-up on your suggestion. While, at least in theory, the FDA [has] a purpose it seems that in many cases it just goes to prove that bureaucracy , all too often, trumps common sense and decency.
No, Jon and Andie, it shows that your God, Kapital, owns your butt.
ReplyDeleteNo, Duck, it shows that you are so naive as to think that your nanny government has your best interests at heart.
ReplyDeleteYour ilk believes that good intentions trump successful outcomes. People can just DIE, eh Duck? The world is overpopulated according to your kind.
Do you know HOW MUCH MONEY and TIME it costs to have your beloved FDA approve a drug?
Naive.
Ducky,
ReplyDeleteWith all respect due and given the complete lack of relevance in your last comment (1:56 PM), it deserves no further response, whatsoever!
What specifically is, say, "Free Trade"? I know it conjures up images of lower prices and lower regulation in the minds of some, or even most people. But that is all part of the game, I believe. There won't be any individual benefit for most people. And it could well be something conjured up for the benefits of global corporations when it is instituted.
ReplyDeleteHere's a specific example: Most items in Canada are more expensive than in America. Cars are several thousand dollars cheaper and it sounds like a good idea to shop for one south of the border. But when one does this most American dealers are specifically not allowed to sell to Canadians. Breaching this agreement can cost the dealership its franchise from the car maker. Others say that the car maker will not allow the warranty to be available in Canada. ETC, etc...
This is but one example that would be touted as "free trade" but it''s a bill of goods only, available to the car maker to shuffle inventory across the border "freely" at apparently no saving to the retail buyer.
So much for NAFTA so readily touted especially the the conservatives in Canada.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYour example, Waylon, if I understand it right, sounds like the absolute ANTITHESIS of free trade. No such restrictions or restraint of trade would exist and ALL products would be available for the SAME price EVERYWHERE, except for factoring in the extra cost of transporting them to out-of-the-way parts of the globe, of course.
ReplyDeleteWaylon,
ReplyDeleteYour example is one of interventionism, not free trade. When you use the words "not allowed" you are no longer referring to free trade.
Andie
Ducky, I specifically asked everyone to refrain from the use flippancy, sarcasm, invective, etc. in responding to these questions.
ReplyDeleteInsolent remarks tend to breed more of the same, and ... I needn't go on.
Yes, Andie, what I would hope for is an end to interventionism, except in the most extreme cases of deceit and abuse of consumer confidence.
ReplyDeleteI agree, by the way, I agree that the terminally ill should be permitted to try any and all experimental drugs as well as "crackpot home remedies" in an attempt to save their own lives.
ALL such decision should be made between patient and doctor -- and in some instances close family members. The State Nanny needs to BUTT OUT, and be forcibly RETIRED sans pension or any form of "benefits." That goddam bitch is KILLING us.
Les, instead of making sarcastic quips and facetious remarks, which seem designed more to call attention to yourself than anything else, why not try to responding honestly and directly to some of the points and suggestions?
ReplyDeleteIt would be much more helpful, and less disruptive if you did, believe me.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING to you and yours!
I did respond honestly Free Thinke, based on what admittedly are perception Perceptions drawn from observation. Now, perceptions certainly can be in error. However, to the one doing the perceiving it is their reality.
ReplyDeleteA wise executive one said it simply, Perception is reality. I've found it to be pretty much spot on.
FT and Divine. The point I was trying to make was that we hear certain words like, say "Free Trade" and it conjures up images of what we think is meant in a rational and free world. To those that benefit the most from it (and it definitely isn't going to be the consumer) it means something else entirely.
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to an excellent video describing Government Motors (aka GM) was bailed out by the taxpayers of America and where it intends to build it's vehicles in the near future—The People's Republic of China.
Something that could only make the leg of an indoctrinated socialist twitch ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo
It may be instructive to ask Ducky to define this Marxian term: "Kapital". Just so we're not confused and think it might refer to any prudent individual who has the foresight to save a bit of today's excess capital for a future "rainy day". In reality with today's manufactured paper "Kapital" all but destroying anything that could remotely be called a market, and is done deliberately with a purpose to destroy markets with dire economic consequences.
ReplyDeleteLink to article describing free trade for the automakers but not for the consumers ...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-car-buyers-blocked-from-cheaper-u-s-prices-1.2435299
FT,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, I think that I was right in the first place. There is one sailor aboard this ship who, clearly, isn't packing a full "sea bag"!
Well, Jon, you are probably right, but I try not to worry too much about things I have no power to change.
ReplyDeleteI'm still pondering on what I should to say to you about Number 23. I can understand why you asked, since I didn't elaborate at all, and it seems I advocate an authoritarian rather than a libertarian position on the freedom of expression issue.
Let me just say for now that ever since the Supreme Court decided to shut down prayer and bible reading in the schools while almost simultaneously opening the door to abortion-on-demand and pornography, we've been going downhill at a terrifying rate of speed.
It may be hard to prove the correlation, but common sense tells me it must be there.
I consider myself as much a libertarian as the Founding Fathers, but there is a world of difference between being a libertarian and being a libertine.
The latter may be understandable and even forgivable in many instances, but as a general rule it's better to encourage the former while doing everything possible to discourage the latter.
Our society has been moving in precisely the opposite direction for a very long time. It started back in The Roaring Twenties, weakened a bit with the Depression and World War Two, and then came back with a vengeance in the SICK-sties.
If we, as individuals, cannot control ourselves, we can be very sure that Someone or Something will take control OF us in very short order.
The invasive presence of radical Islam, and our pusillanimous PC demand that it it be tolerated is another case in point.
If we are to remain a (relatively) free society, we ca not afford to tolerate intolerance or any of various ideological and religious movements antithetical to liberty and optimal chances for personal advancement and self-fulfillment.
I admit my position is paradoxical, but then so is life, isn't it? ;-)
Thanks for your interest.
23. Do you believe in freedom of expression for books, newspapers, radio, television, the Internet, and so on, even for offensive and unpopular views and subject matters?
ReplyDeleteAs a teacher, I have struggles with students who don't know the bounds of "appropriate" language, dress, etc. The parents do the best that they can to curb what their children are exposed to, but such curbs are largely ineffective now without Draconian measures. One homeschool family has cut off the television entirely -- except as a method to play DVD's. No TV channels whatsoever!
On the other hand, restricting freedom of expression is a slippery slope. Political speech is easily criminalized as offensive by tyrants and their minions.
I do remember a day when smut was available but not in our faces. It was easier to be a responsible parent AND a responsible adult then, IMO.
One blogger has mentioned that she doesn't type in anything on the web without imagining that her mother and her grandmother were sitting there watching. This method really does make her "a classy blogger."
Believe me that I can really let fly! After all, when I married Mr. AOW, he was in the Army. I think that I know every epithet ever invented. But I don't let fly on the web. For one thing, my students read what I have to say. More important: I know that the Lord is watching. His standards are very high!
@ FreeThinke: If we, as individuals, cannot control ourselves, we can be very sure that Someone or Something will take control OF us in very short order.
ReplyDeleteA deleterious (and I think intended) byproduct of the libertine left is to convert our nation into a zooful of animals who cannot control themselves, thereby necessitating government intervention into every last corner of our personal and formerly private lives.
This plays convenient handmaiden to the hardcore progressive, dictatorial left, which, like satan, can create nothing. It can only tear down, as it shackles us and destroys our souls.
This plays convenient handmaiden to the hardcore progressive, dictatorial left, which, like satan, can create nothing. It can only tear down, as it shackles us and destroys our souls...
ReplyDeleteAll for our own good, of course!
Boilerplate must be becoming an American pastime. Certainly it can and is found everywhere. From MSNBC. to WND, to Fox News, to the blogosphere, litereally everywhere.
ReplyDeleteSad really. It is like watching groups of collectives battling each other to be king/queen of the hill.
Interesting indeed. What is quite amusing is the growing trend refer to our Classical Liberal. founding Fathers libertarians.
... as libertarians.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats have balls of brass.
ReplyDeleteConservatives’ are made of glass.
The former sound in far lands hinter;
That latter shatter, then they splinter.
Giving the Old Nick his due
Never works out well for you.
~ FreeThinke
Les: Who are your comments directed at?
ReplyDeleteYou throw out a general indictment like that, and we don't know who or what you are referring to.
Silver, email me and I'll explain.
ReplyDeleteAnonomous, rest assured I meant those like you who hide behind your anonymity.
Do you think we really want to know the answer to that question, SilverFiddle?
ReplyDeleteIf someone is feeling annoyed, disappointed, wounded, ignored, rejected, disaffected, or dyspeptic, wouldn't it be better to allow him suffer in silence as much as possible.
I think all of us been out of sorts since the last presidential election. I don't think I've ever experienced that much insolence, grumbling, whining, sarcasm in my life. It's like a catching disease that's become epidemic. Too bad, but the temptation to join the chorus should be resisted, I think.
What I meant, of course, is "Don't add fuel to the fire" -- unless you WANT the house to burn down. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAn interesting observation, for many reason and on many levels.
ReplyDelete"A deleterious (and I think intended) byproduct of the libertine left is to convert our nation into a zooful of animals who cannot control themselves, thereby necessitating government intervention into every last corner of our personal and formerly private lives."
ReplyDeleteEgg-ZACK-Lee!!!
DAT SEZITAWL!!!
It is more accurate to say that it is the social conservatives that wish to inject government into our personal and private lives.
ReplyDeleteThe progressive left on the other hand wish to keep their hand deep in your pocket.
All that aside it is clear to all, or at least it should be, that the nation has choosen division rather than reasonable and reasoned compromise.
Platitudes and hyperbole are commonplace and have effectively won the day. Both sides, or more accurately the entire political spectrum are guilty of encouraging and thereby perpetuating this state of affairs. IMHO anyway.
So be it. It now is what it is and the lines have been drawn. The big difference between then and now is way back when passionate opinionated individuals found ways to compromise and move forward. We have lost our ability and will to do so.
Time for popcorn and beer.
RN: I disagree some, in that liberals seek to inject government into our personal and private lives also.
ReplyDeleteFreeThink: I think that zoning laws are DEFINITELY too strict. This comes from living in an area with a distinct lack of "noisy, smelly factories, slaughterhouses and chicken-processing plants, garbage dumps, sewage treatment plants..." But there are very strict zoning laws. Designed to keep retail far away from residential neighborhoods (requiring long drives), put all doctors offices in one place (silly!), outlaw small houses in order to keep the poor out... and other uses of zoning, that I really think don't belong at all. I support zoning concerning the noxious features you mention.... but think it goes WAY overboard in the examples I mentioned. Agree?
Liberals are most concerned about taxes and societal ills, real or perceived. They are nearly as concernrd about how I live my personal life, they tend to leave that to the SoCons. Who as we know excel at it.
DeleteWaylon: About NAFTA. I believe it is a great improvement because, while it still contains a lot of restrictions on the freedom of the people to engage in their own informed economic decisions, it has removed a huge amount of them.
ReplyDeleteRN: I think you meant "aren't nearly". No, I am not twisting your words. Doing the opposite.
ReplyDeleteBut I think "are nearly" (which you didn't say) is much more true. Personal economic decisions take a much bigger hit under liberalism/leftism than they do under conservatism. I do count these as part of your personal life. They are no less so, than, say, the decision to marry someone of the same gender. And yes the latter is definitely an example of your personal life taking a hit under conservatism.
You have a sublime intelligence, FT. you really do.
ReplyDeleteHelen Highwater