Elbert Guillory: Why I Chose To Become A Republican

June 18th, 2013 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

How Modern Liberals Think

February 23rd, 2013 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

via Monty Pelerin’s World

Give Up on the Constitution?!

January 9th, 2013 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

Bill Whittle on The Narrative: The Origins of Political Correctness

December 2nd, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

Thomas Sowell. Common Sense Video.

August 7th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

via Monty Pelerin’s World

Is There a Political Center? Ok, Let`s Build Half a Bridge.

May 19th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

via The Daily Caller

An American Form of Government

March 10th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

The Battle of Big Ideas, Part 1: Constrained vs. Unconstrained Vision

March 8th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

Here’s a short clip on the concept best explained by Thomas Sowell, in my favorite book A Conflict Of Visions. Sowell does a very good job describing in great  detail why Liberal/Progressives think the way they do and why Conservatives think the way they do.

via The Right Scoop

Video Book Review of Ameritopia by Mark Levin

January 27th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

I just bought the book on CD and will listen to it on my 8 hour drive to Wash DC for CPAC 2012.  Here Lee Doren says it’s similar to one of my favorite books – Thomas Sowell;s “Conflict of Visions.”

Character and Change

December 3rd, 2011 § 1 comment § permalink

Share on Twitter

Two from Bill Whittle:

and

The Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street

via Verum Serum

What Tax Dollars Can`t Buy

October 30th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

Good article by Ross Douthat:

The story of the last three decades, in other words, is not the story of a benevolent government starved of funds by selfish rich people and fanatical Republicans. It’s a story of a public sector that has consistently done less with more, and a liberalism that has often defended the interests of narrow constituencies — public-employee unions, affluent seniors, the education bureaucracy — rather than the broader middle class.

The Collective vs. The Individual

October 30th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

Interesting, well constructed video.

I like the Libertarian side of this. He appreciates “Individual Liberty” saying things like “people should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as they do not harm another person or another person’s possessions. But most of it is: “We (the collective We) should be the ones making the decisions. We work for CEO’s who steal a portion of our labor for their personal gain. They are thieves living off of our blood, sweat & tears.”

They believe they can create a Utopia for all… if only.

What people on the left cannot accept is the unfairness of Life itself. We are not created equal in terms of ability and intelligence. I am just not smart enough to achieve what my employer has managing a 1 1/2 billion dollar company hiring 4000 people.

Long ago I accepted that there will always be people “above” me and “below” me, in many different aspects. I accept life as it is and not life as it should be.

via Big Government

From An American Thinker article: Self-Reliance for Dunces By Clarice Feldman: she quotes PJ O’Rourke:

Under collectivism, powers of determination rest with the entire citizenry instead of with the specific citizens.   Individual decision-making is replaced by the political process.   Suddenly, the system that elected the prom queen at your high school is in charge of your whole life.   Besides, individuals are smarter than groups, as anybody who is a member of a committee or of a large Irish family after six in the evening can tell you.  The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. [snip]

Collectivism makes for a very large and, hence, very powerful group. This power is centralized in the government. Any power is open to abuse.

Government power is not necessarily abused more often than personal power, but when the abuse does come, it’s a lulu.  At work, power over the whole supply cabinet is concentrated in the person of the office manager.  In government, power over the entire military is concentrated in the person of the commander-in-chief. You steal felt tip pens.  Hitler invades Poland.

Most government abuse of power is practiced openly, and much of it is heartily approved by The Washington Post editorial board and other such proponents of the good and the fair. But any time the government treats one person differently than another because of the group to which that person belongs — whether it’s a group of rich, special-interest tax dodgers or a group of impoverished, minority job-seekers — individual equality is lessened and freedom is diminished.  Any time the government gives away goods and services — even if it gives them away to all people equally — individual dependence is increased and freedom is diminished. Any time the government makes rules about people’s behavior when that behavior does not occasion real and provable harm to others — telling you to buckle your seat belt or forbidding you to publish pornography on the Internet — respect for the individual is reduced and freedom is diminished.

Two Americas. A Divorce?

August 20th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

From one of my very favorite websites, Monty Pelerin’s World, here’s a good idea, that will never happen (I think).

I’ve been wishing there was a way to do this for years. After all, Progressives are so sure that they are right, and that their way would really be best for everyone, so why not let them have their way?

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950′s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:
–Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

–We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
–You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
–Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
–We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and bio diesel.
–You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

–We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
–You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, home boys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.
–We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks.
–We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
» Read the rest of this entry «

There`s a Difference Between Something Being Desired and Being a `Right.`

July 17th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

A Fling with the Welfare State – From the best of intentions to bankruptcy and recriminations

The intentions of Democrats are only the best. They want all of the old to have lavish retirements, all of the young to have scholarships, and everyone to have access to all the best health care, at no cost to himself.

In the face of a huge wave of debt swamping all western nations, this is the core of their argument: They want a fair society, and their critics do not; they want to help, and their opponents like to see people suffer; they want a world filled with love and caring, and their opponents want one of callous indifference, in which the helpless must fend for themselves.

We could achieve all these wonderful things if we only had a money tree.

 

 

Federalism in Education Made Simple

July 7th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

via The Heritage Foundation

The Philosophy of Liberty

July 7th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

From Monty Pelerin’s World:

And, from the same website, here’s a great explanation of the difference between a democracy and a republic.

George Will Champions the Constitution, as Richard Stengel Defends Woodrow Wilson.

July 3rd, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

George does a great job

Part 2:

From Big Government:

Here are fourteen errors Mr. Stengel has made in his Time Magazine article, starting with the most egregious errors. Here are the fourteen errors, in short:

1. The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.

2. The Constitution is not law.

3. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment emancipated the slaves.

4. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African Americans.

5. The original Constitution declared that black people were to be counted as three-fifths of a person.

6. The original, unamended Constitution prohibited women from voting.

7. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to tax individuals based on whether they buy a product or service.

8. Inter arma enim silent leges translates as “in time of war, the Constitution is silent.”

9. The War Powers Act allows the president to unilaterally wage war for sixty days.

10. We have only declared war five times.

11. Alexander Hamilton wanted a king for America.

12. Social Security is a debt within the meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.

13. Naturalization depends on your birth.

14. The Obamacare mandate is a tax.

Why Study War?

May 29th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

In an excellent a 2007 article by Military Historian Victor Davis Hanson details how the Enlightened West, is shunning teaching the lessons of war, and thereby the lessons of how to avoid them.

Military history is as often the story of appeasement as of warmongering. The destructive military careers of Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler would all have ended early had any of their numerous enemies united when the odds favored them. Western air power stopped Slobodan Milošević’s reign of terror at little cost to NATO forces—but only after a near-decade of inaction and dialogue had made possible the slaughter of tens of thousands. Affluent Western societies have often proved reluctant to use force to prevent greater future violence. “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things,” observed the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. “The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”

Indeed, by ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking—as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, frustrated by the Bush administration’s intransigence in the War on Terror, flew to Syria, hoping to persuade President Assad to stop funding terror in the Middle East. She assumed that Assad’s belligerence resulted from our aloofness and arrogance rather than from his dictatorship’s interest in destroying democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, before such contagious freedom might in fact destroy him. For a therapeutically inclined generation raised on Oprah and Dr. Phil—and not on the letters of William Tecumseh Sherman and William Shirer’s Berlin Diary—problems between states, like those in our personal lives, should be argued about by equally civilized and peaceful rivals, and so solved without resorting to violence.

He gives many examples of the consequences of believing that we have now matured to a point where war can be eliminated, as if human nature is now being perfected:

We must abandon the naive faith that with enough money, education, or good intentions we can change the nature of mankind so that conflict, as if by fiat, becomes a thing of the past. In the end, the study of war reminds us that we will never be gods. We will always just be men, it tells us. Some men will always prefer war to peace; and other men, we who have learned from the past, have a moral obligation to stop them.

Read it here.

 

Why Do Conservatives and Progressives See Things So Differently

May 15th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

Thomas Sowell Video on A Conflict of Visions

Want to know why conservatives think the way they do and why Progressives think the way they do? Here’s a short explanation from one of Sowell’s best books.

Good Intentions ~ Bad Results.

December 11th, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

Share on Twitter

Great Moments in Unintended Consequences.

Waaaaaay back in the 1960′s, I was quite liberal.. But by the 70′s  I vividly remember  realizing that the Welfare system, especially in New York City, was making many things substantially worse for the very people that Liberals were trying to help. I  knew that the program was started with the best of intentions. Slowly, I began analyzing results. What a concept!

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Political Philosophy category at tomllewis.

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline