Liberals take note: statism doesn’t pay
This is what happens when you put a statist in power:
Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department’s subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward “promoting social and economic justice” and “social change.”)
The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to “include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information,” including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.
As much as Bush was unloved by the liberal media (and the feeling was probably mutual), he would never have tried such heavy-handed tactic. Even as a neocon, such overt exertion of government power (with no apparent compelling state interest) would have gotten him disowned by his own base.
But, as a statist, Obama administration doesn't have any problem with government control and government action—neither does he fear alienation of most of his base when he does something like this—because most of his supporters care far more about redistribution of wealth than liberty and freedom.
If there is any liberal left who gives a damn about freedom (never mind which freedom you cherish most—regardless of order and priority, there are some freedoms that we all care about deeply), take heed: statism is the wrong road to go down, for statism always leads to totalitarianism—and the day when totalitarianism is synonymous with liberalism is when Orwell's nightmare has come true.
Is it dead yet? Douse it again and again until it absolutely is
Because the compromises they will pretend to make will not last any longer than Pres. Obama's campaign promises.
Statism and socialism is like wildfire. If you have even a small seed of it left alive, it will soon spread and consume the whole nation. If we let them introduce even a small bit of socialism in this legislation, it will grow root which will crack the foundation of our republic.
If they want to make "compromises", let us make them in the full range of options, not in the stacked deck they built for us. Let us make some sort of compromise between what we want: abolition of Social Security and Medicare (which will be phased out as those who paid into the system are no longer around); a minimal safety net for those truly destitute, but maximal choice for those of us who would rather choose his own destiny, and what they want: subordination of the individual before the powerful state which controls the individual's livelihood past 65, his income until then, and now his health.
I think it's a fair compromise for now if we let them keep Social Security and Medicare for now, leaving it on a slow downward spiral, don't you think?
Corporate Welfare: What's the problem, 'corporate' or 'welfare'?
Ron Paul asks a question shared probably by many people, including statists
However, the answer from the statists is diametrically opposed to what any sensible libertarian would propose. The statist proposes even more government programs and agencies imbued with immeasurable, vague wisdom. i.e. Get rid of 'corporate' from 'corporate welfare', and do it by the means of more government intervention.
A libertarian would say that we shouldn't have state-sponsored welfare in the first place. Leave charity to charity organization, not by government which cannot create wealth and can only steal from the people at gunpoint.
I just hope that Dr. Paul didn't bring this up because he knew his time was up and couldn't discuss such complex issues in less than 30 seconds.