Skip to content

Down Time

February 26, 2009

As you have seen I have not blogged in quite some time. From now on I will try to post when I can, but I am really busy with current events. I am trying to catch up on things, read, and keep up with schoolwork.  Thanks for checking back though!

They Won’t Leave Me Alone

February 18, 2009

I have had it with my government. I have had it with bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, and TV anchors. I have had it with government schools, health care, banks, and loans. I am inching ever closer to making a sign and going outside, writing to my congressman daily, writing to newspapers, and getting more people educated. I have tried sitting on my hands hoping others will speak on my behalf. I have realized it takes all of us to make a difference. I want to be nice, and go along with the show, but they won’t let me. My government won’t leave me alone. I have come to another fork in the road, sit and be quiet, or go out and be heard.

Bailout after bailout, stimulus after stimulus, I cannot take it any longer. It is sad when I talk to family they say there are to many crooks to change things, to many bad people. I think to myself, and this is the United States of America, a country where its own citizens don’t feel like they have a chance to change their governments, to have a say in what goes on, pathetic. Thomas Jefferson would be writing pamphlets such as  Common Sense, and out distributing it to newspapers, and towns if he were here today. He would be standing up for the people, for liberty,..for America. Speaking out, knocking sense into people, reminding them of their rights!

I am sorry but I will no longer sit back and hope things will get better. It is time. To speak out. To protest. To educate. To write.

Idealism vs. Realism

February 17, 2009

(This is an essay I wrote for International Relations)

In the world of ‘International Politics’ there are two ways to look at how the international world should operate: Idealism and Realism. In trying to figure out what view I agree with most I had to research and weigh the good and bad of both.  I have come to the conclusion that Realism is the better of the two. Why didn’t I like Idealism? What problems did I see?

Firstly, My political views did not conform to Idealism. The Idealist view of international organizations, international laws, and morality on an international scale is something I have a hard time to accept. The non-interventionist view on foreign policy that I hold is very much at odds with Idealism. The roots of Idealism, it’s Lockean view, is something I do agree with for the most part, but I don’t think Lockean or Hobbesian theories are good models to follow on the international stage. The Idealist view promotes alliances, treaties, and does not fall in line with what our founders warned us about. Since I am a great admirer of the American Revolution and early American life when I hear about alliances, treaties, and aid all I can think of is what Thomas Jefferson said about “entangling alliances”; As well as what John Quincy Adams said about “America going abroad in search of monsters to destroy”.  Secondly, I also have a problem with international bodies having powers over sovereign countries. Sovereignty is something that should be protected. It just worries me when U.S. Presidents cite U.N. resolutions as justification for war. This road of globalism, treaties, and entangling alliances is not one I would like to travel down and I feel Idealism is a good excuse to take that road. Trade should the driving force of all friendships among nations.

As with Realism, I do not agree with it whole-heartedly. I do feel that my views conform slightly better with this view. Realism argues that each state acts in it’s own self-interest, and its only goal is to obtain power, economic and militarily in order to remain a stable state. There is no international system with the Realist view and the States are the most important actors, not the individuals in other states. I do agree that there should be no international organizations that have more power than sovereign states. My libertarian philosophy teaches me that if I can’t do something illegal or immoral to you on an individual level, the government can’t do it on a state level, and a collection of governments cant do it on the international level. So coercion used to alter states is wrong, all it will do is alienate that state as we have seen with the United States on the international stage in recent years. This does not mean I am for anything immoral; I just question the use of governments to solve the problems.  I think that if states follow their own interests, they would inherently do the right thing. I don’t think it would be in the interest of a state to go around starting wars; after all, wars create an unstable society. The Realist view falls more in line with the non-intervention point of view, but not entirely. I feel that Realism is slightly better than Idealism because of its less interventionist views, and its anarchic view of the nature of international bodies.

To look at an event through the lens of Realism I chose the Russian, Georgian conflict. In August 2008, Georgia launched an attack on the capitol of South Ossetia, reportedly responding to Russian troop movements. South Ossetia was a partial sovereign territory with a government that was backed by Russia from the previous war that started in 1992 between South Ossetia and Georgia. The Realist view tells us that Georgia was perhaps looking to gain power for it’s own self interest, to take back what was once its own. The response from Russia was as well in its self-interest to help an ally and to show that it still indeed has power. The lack of international organizations in the conflict reinforces the idea that the nature of international systems is anarchic. The EU eventually stepped in and gave the two countries a neutral table to sign a peace treaty, perhaps the only thing international bodies should be doing. No other countries had to get involved and both countries saw the downfall of fighting.

In today’s world I think there should be more debate about foreign policy. Idealism and Realism are two views that have substantial credibility but I found both problematic. After weighing the facts with my own beliefs, Realism seems to be better. Sovereignty is better than no sovereignty, self interests is better than interest of anything but yourself, and rational states are better than international bodies dictating policy.

Opposing ‘Stimulus’ — Hundreds of Economists Sign on to Cato Institute Ad

February 9, 2009

Funny Video: “Stimulis: Because all economies have performance issues”

February 7, 2009

This is supposed to be a paraody of those “Cialis” commercials, and lets just say they hit a home run. You have to watch it!

The Daily Rant

February 6, 2009

I have concluded that those who run the country are running it to the ground. I spend so much time debating these issues and to try and comprehend what these people think, and it is just unbearable. Perhaps this is a good thing?  When will I go around just laughing at those people who wanted more government? Saying “I told you so”. Will I do this when people are dieing because of their government? I sure hope not, but I fear that is the only thing that will change this country. It is like a drug addiction, you need to hit rock bottom before you can change. Will they then wake up to the fact that government only makes things worse? That the Federal Reserve should be abolished? and a small Constitutional Republican government should be in place? Perhaps than  my family and friends will realize that government and politics is not just a novelty issue, but one that changes lives, and dictates how you live (sadly). I sure hope the people in this country wise up. Every citizen matters, and nobody can afford to be apathetic. That is like handing your life over to government, please do something.

Obama Is Wrong, Yet Again.

February 5, 2009

In an article by director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom Neal McCluskey, Neal compares President Obama’s rhetoric about more government funding to former President Jimmy Carter who created the Department of Education.

President Carter, of course, got his Department of Education, and schools have also gotten a lot more money, as Adam Schaeffer and I pointed out yesterday. Indeed, looking specifically at the period between 1979-80 and 2004-05 (the latest for which data is available), inflation-adjusted, per-pupil expenditures in public elementary and secondary schools rose from $6,549 to $11,470, a 75 percent increase. And total federal education funding? Adjusted for inflation, In 1980 Washington spent or helped to provide $94.5 billion. By 2006, that figure had ballooned 146 percent, hitting $232.0 billion!

Throwing money at the problem  has not worked, and Obama is throwing more money. Sounds to me like throwing more money down the drain to me. I recommend you read the full article here, and read future CATO blogs and articles. It is a great site and organization to learn about sound economics in a world where the conventional wisdom is to have the government solve your problems.