Friday, September 27, 2013

Hostage!


The majority of Americans have become hostages of a minority, what we can broadly call the Tea Party. Basically, this group of people wants to destroy the Federal government and will do just about anything to accomplish their wish. Unfortunately, because the House of Representatives is now dominated by these people and because the House holds the National purse strings, the majority of Americans have to suffer their whims. Also, unfortunately, there is no way out of this situation because the districts out of which these representatives are elected have been so maliciously organized that they cannot be defeated. I don't believe this was ever anticipated in all the debates over the Constitution. 

What I do not know is whether the Tea Party is simply an extreme version of Libertarianism or whether they support state and local governments (which, I assume, Libertarians do not do). If the Tea Party does support state and local government, then it seems to me that a happy solution would be to simply exempt those states from any interaction with Federal government and wish their state governments "god speed." This, in fact, would be a benefit to the rest of us because I believe it has been shown that these same states currently require more Federal income than they contribute to the Federal government. This might be facilitated by combining these states with the Republic of Texas. We might coalesce into something called "Washoregonia," a Pacific Rim economy. British Columbia might even join us. 

I have to confess that I do not understand Libertarianism. What I see in it is a hatred of government and a hope for a mythic state of complete individual freedom. But I always thought that Locke and the rest solved the "freedom" issue a long time ago by showing that we are bound to the protection of all our possessions unless we come together into some kind of contractual understanding that institutionalizes the protection of property. Perhaps that's why they like guns so much because they think they can do it alone. 'Alone' is a key word here, I guess. Government IS the possibility of collective action. But if you think that "going it alone" is paradise, then I guess that collective action doesn't mean much. But I don't know what "going it alone" means when it comes to repairing the roads, inspecting the food supply, and keeping airplanes from colliding with one another.

I do wish some Libertarians would explain how the Libertarian paradise would work on a practical day-to-day basis. What I read in their web sites is mostly negative --- what they do not want --- and very little positive. 

Monday, September 2, 2013

SYRIA


Obama and Kerry are both very intelligent men. Why then are they both out beating the drums for military action in Syria. Don't they know what an entirely foolish idea that is? What is the ruling psychology in the US today? For it surely is "psychology" rather than reason. 

First of all, if Obama believes we are obligated to do something, we have to remember that it is Obama himself who put us under that obligation. He is the one who foolishly drew the poison-weapons line in the sand. He didn't have to do that. And didn't he realize he was creating the very mess we are now in? 

"The world" may have decided to ban chemical weapons after the horrors of the First World War, but "the world" no longer seems to feel that way --- at least Russia and China don't seem to care about it. Why can't we let the world figure this out. No one really appointed the US as the chief of police for the world.

Then, look at the practical side of all this. "Limited strikes" means that we are just going to go and mess around with Syria and try to avoid too much damage. But that means we will just piss them off and they will do even more to bate us. Once we have committed anything there we will be unable to hold back. So where is this all going? The first strike means we are at war with Syria. How do we plan to end that war? Just back out after a little hand slapping? Very unlikely.