What Exactly Is Big/Large Government? – Part III

Image via Wikipedia

Thanks everyone for joining in for Part III of this topic.  Hopefully the our readers (current, old and new) have picked up some interesting information and are definitely using the information provided to make informed decisions today, as well as in the future.  This topic was left off yesterday at why we should be very vigilant regarding Big/Large Government and this entry will address some of those items.

For the “Big Government” statement, you should ask some of your neighbors here (United States) about tying in religion with government.  If my last post did not catch you, again, let’s take a look at today’s countries where religion and government are one, mainly where Sharia Law is ever present (Saudi Arabia).  Now I know people are going to argue that their religion is different, or they will argue that it isn’t supposed to be like that.  Such comments are to be dismissed; as long as one person is part of that “gang” and the tribalism is running full steam, they will not object to anything that falls in line with their belief system.

Any form of “Big Government” is very dangerous to people who promote individuals freedom (like myself).  Regardless if the influence of “Big Government” stems from secular or religious means, the end result is that a group of individuals is going to be persecuted.  History has proven it over the thousands of years of civilization and the amount of literature we have available.  You can’t guarantee the protection of a country’s citizens as long as there are “Big Government” influences running around.  Hence why corporate lobbying, wanting to bring religion as part of public life, false security (I’m looking at your DHS) should be frowned upon, and fought against.

Likewise, with the “Large Government” perspective, you have the arguments of public services versus private services.  The main item of concern more than anything is the costs for such items and the employment and middle management issues you will find (the same issues you will find with any private corporation).  To maintain such items is going to cost money, and we’ve seen countries with very high tax rates compared to our country (like Denmark, for a good example).  It becomes a citizen’s choice and action (voting, leaving, et. al.) to work within such a system, reform such system, or even change it.

I’ll be one of the first to tell you that there is a lot of waste in the government system (that may shock some people because of my moniker, but rest assured, the ones you call “Liberals” are not liberals to begin with); there are quite a few paper pushers as well as middle management and of course, excess waste that can be trimmed while still enjoying some of the same services (if you are one of those that feel that certain items should remain public-controlled and not private-controlled).  I’ve been displeased at the way this country has been handling tax payer money for the past 40 years, as well as the voodoo economics that was sold on this country.

Every good citizen should pay attention to what is happening with our government everyday; and a proud citizen would fight against those who attempt to harm their freedoms.  More often than not, the ones who want Big Government (and to a lesser extent, a very Large Government, but no where in comparison to Big Government) is not the Government itself.  It is your neighbors; they are the ones you have to watch, because they’re willing to use legislation and votes to get their way, and to violate your way of life.

– “Classic Liberal”

What Exactly Is Big/Large Government? – Part II

Image by caddymob via Flickr

Thanks for joining for part two of this topic.  In the last post I’ve made, I pointed out the key differences between the phrase “Big Government” and “Large Government,” mainly because the two are used interchangeably but they can be mutually exclusive items.  Let’s go into some detail as to how both of them affect our daily lives.

With “Big Government,” there is usually a negative impact on freedoms.  There is heavy opposition on people’s personal lives and freedoms (speech, et. al.) as well as dictating the lives and affairs of others.  You will commonly see these types of government with theocracies (integration of church/religion and the State).  If you need to further understand how bad this can affect others, please look at the following:  Saudi Arabia (today), countries that institute Sharia Law (today), Holy Roman Empire (past); the previous items are just a few examples of “Big Government” in action.  We can agree that it isn’t especially pleasant.

With “Large Government,” you tend to be affected more by taxes.  Now we’re not going to argue about taxes on this topic (we’ll save that for another discussion) but it mainly comes down to willingness to have specific services as well as employ the people necessary to provide such services.  This is also a topic that will be saved for another time (especially for the Austrians and Anarcho-Capitalists, since they only want to argue about money and the “free market,” I’ll address that audience another time).  The amount of monies required based on the amount of services and individuals to perform such services can rise/fall, definitely impacting your own personal pay (given the way current first world nations operate).

As I’ve highlighted above, the two items (they are mutually exclusive items, by the way) can impact your own day-to-day life in ways that at very minimum are to be questioned.  However, a concerned, well-informed citizen would always keep their eyes opened on such items.  My next post on this item would highlight why such items can be very dangerous to the people out there and why we should always keep our eyes peeled open and vigilant.

– “Classic Liberal”

Liberal/Left-Wing Media False Claims – Part I

A very common statement you hear today is the legendary “liberal media” bias (you might also hear the equally childish term of “left-wing bias”).  Of course, that stems mainly from accepting the false information that is presented to the public as well as the stigmatized definition of the word “liberal” today (please look at my post “Word Definitions & Associations – Part I” regarding the root word “liber” and its offspring).

Since the word liberal has been properly defined in an earlier post in the correct sense (sorry, the word “liberal” does not mean nanny state or control, much to the dismay of many others and their skewed viewpoints), let’s examine three of the largest news outlets in the United States:

• CNN – under Turner Broadcasting, however they are in turn a subsidiary of … Time Warner.
• MSNBC – under joint ownership of NBC Universal and Microsoft; NBC Universal owning 82% of that stake, however NBC Universal themselves are owned mainly by …. General Electric, a well known Defense Contractor and the second largest company in the world.
• Fox News – under the umbrella of News Corporation; under the helm of Rupert Murdoch who founded News Corp himself.

Let’s take a look at those channels again carefully, and let us look at who owns them.  Now this information is freely available anywhere, as these are publicly traded companies.  I’m not saying anything that isn’t false here, however the general public is being fed information that definitely is.

Do you still believe that there is a “liberal media” conspiracy going on?  Do you believe that there is a left-wing bias really going on?  The companies mentioned above, see where their associations lie, examine where their donations go to.  The news outlet is only the cover on a book, you must open the cover to find out what is going on inside.

– “Classic Liberal”

A Rising Trend with Tribalism in Today's Country

Image by Glen Mies via Flickr

In this country today, people tend to have a gang mentality and try to be a part of an association for whatever reason it may be.  You might associate with others based on ethnicity, color, religions, hobbies, or any other characteristics that may share a degree commonality.  Politics is no different as we have declared “associations” that some individuals wear very proudly on their sleeve.

Part of the trouble with this is, and in politics especially is that we start descending a bit towards tribalism.  In this instance, we are using tribalism when it is applied to a social standing (this relates to everyday life and politics).  Tribalism in the social sense usually involves a unity of members against an outside tribe and also displays prejudiced, discouraging and in worst situations, violent behavior to the outside group.

Why is this important to understand and to be aware of?  Simply put, in today’s country we’re splintered to a point that is not favorable.  The most common deal we see is the supposed “leftist” and “right-wing” statements.  Where one group (or tribe) is declaring the other group wrong just because and they are very willing to take drastic actions (a good example are the people talking about “taking back their country”) for their “sake.”  In my example, that is pure tribalism because they make a claim to something that belongs only to them and not shared with the others that inhabit this nation.

This is a very dangerous precedent that any good citizen must remain watchful of.  I’m never concerned as much about what the government does (I don’t spend time complaining about the government like others to); however history has shown that the most dangerous entity is your neighbors/society itself.  Issues we had with civil rights, freedoms, liberties, any influencing towards a theocratic government is where societal forces and tribalism were always present (Bleeding Kansas, Separate But Equal, 14th Amendment, et. al.).  If a sizeable amount of individuals in this country hold firm to a specific belief that they are wiling to call another group wrong just by association and the aforementioned group is encouraging “action,” we will be heading down a road that no truly wants and will disrupt everyone’s lives.  “Abundans cautela non nocet.”

– “Classic Liberal”

The TEA Party Is Not… – Part II: Grassroots

Image via Wikipedia

The TEA Party is not the grassroots movement they would like you to believe.  The group that started during Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign has long since been folded into the various loosely connected Astroturf groups that have sprung up to co-opt the original message. An original message that wasn’t exactly without serious flaws has become a cacophony of Conservative fear and smear nonsense.

Rather than run down the evidence myself, I present two well written pieces that go into extensive detail on the issues at hand.

Covert Operations by Jane Mayer – The New Yorker

The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party by Frank Rich – The New York Times

– “Left of Center”

The TEA Party Is Not… – Part I: Racist

Image via Wikipedia

The TEA Party is not racist.  Not as a whole, at least.  There are too many separate groups identifying as TEA Parties to summarily group them all together as any sort of singular collective. Certainly there are racist members amongst the groups, but it’s true that this could be said for many organizations both political and otherwise.

To clarify, this commentary is not referring to any particular segment of the TEA Party including the original Ron Paul incarnation. That group has clearly been superseded by a collection of loosely associated but unconnected groups that, while they share similarities do not all share a unified vision.

There have been several isolated incidents to hit the news regarding race in connection with the TEA Party movement. From Tom Tancredo calling for literacy tests before a citizen can be allowed to vote, an item that has an uncomfortable historical tie to repealed legislation in the United States to the unfortunately worded and clueless “statement” issued by former TEA Party Express chairman Mark Williams.

These are just two of the most glaring examples of the reality that there are unabashed racists among the membership of the various TEA Party groups. Nobody should accept however, the misguided generalization that this makes all members of the TEA Party racists. Especially since doing so is the same as accepting the same sweeping generalizations falsely used to paint anyone who disagrees with the TEA Party or other Conservative groups agenda as a Socialist or other such poorly informed conclusions.

– “Left of Center”

Word Associations & Definitions – Part I

Image by cliff1066™ via Flickr

Recently in the United States, we’ve managed to severely pervert certain words to have a definition no where remote close to its actual definition, or distort the meaning to something completely opposite as a scare tactic to the general populace.  Unfortunately for many of the citizen in here, they have fell for such tactics and associate such words/phrases with mean whatever their friends, the media, politicians and anyone else who wants to manipulate viewpoints.  Let’s examine some word associations and definitions, I am going to supply four words:

• Liber
• Liberalis
• Liberty
• Liberal
• Libertarian

If we carefully examine the word structure, the last four on the list all share the same, exact root word, “liber.”  Liber of course, has a double origin.  It was the name of a Roman God, known as “The Free One” and also has origins in Latin, meaning “to free.”  Now let’s re-examine the list once again:

• Liber
• Liberalis
• Liberty
• Liberal
• Libertarian

Common basic facts and civics will point out that all the words on the list all point to the same meaning.  A “liberal” in your proper definition sense is someone who advocates as much freedom as possible, with a very heavy emphasis on individual freedom.  This doctrine was established in the 18^th century in Europe and then, the fledgling United States.  It is where we I have my handle as “Classic Liberal” as well; I strongly promote as much individual freedom as possible (this is where society consistent uses Government to legislate their way of life, resulting in Big Government).

Over recent times, the word liberal has been adjusted to mean completely the opposite of what it is.  I hate using the “No True Scotsman” argument as it is very weak; however since we have a lot of individuals who use the “true conservative” statement, we can use the “true liberal” statement.  A person who is an actual “Libertarian” will not support legislation at the state-level (we call those individuals anti-federalists).  Legislation of any personal/civil issues at any level of government is not endorsing freedom; that is where individuals like Ron Paul (a fake Libertarian) fail (let the States decide).

The term “Libertarian” was first used in the 19^th century in France by a man whose economic ideas were more “collectivist” in nature.  His emphasis on the term and ideology (the gentleman’s name is Joseph DeJacque if you want to look it up, I’ll bring him up on a future post) was directly related to Classic Liberalism (defined earlier).

The second part of “Word Associations & Definitions” in a future post will cover more details about “liber” as well as how it relates to today’s politics (United States, Civics 101, Foreign Policy & World Viewpoints).

– “Classic Liberal”