I have hope for the future. His name is William ‘BJ’ Lawson.
His blog at United Liberty yesterday, aptly titled Recovery Through Debt Slavery, hit on some great points about our current economic crisis. While Obama supporters want to put partisan politics aside so they can spend our way out of this crisis, Lawson points out:
The root of our problem isn’t partisan politics — it’s high school math that is lost on our economists and central bankers...
Obama has mastered bank-centric newspeak. Isn’t it odd that the President of the United States cannot conceive of saving money to buy a home, car, or college education? Isn’t it strange that we’re dependent on the “lifeblood” of new debt...
Please, take a moment to educate a friend on the unsustainable nature of our debt-based money system. Economic recovery cannot be accomplished by tightening the chains of debt slavery.
Before you dismiss his comments because he is a Republican, consider this from his bio:
You see, we have a nation that is increasingly divided. People appear to enjoy sports like Democrats vs. Republicans, Liberals vs. Conservatives, Straights vs. Gays, Blacks vs. Whites, Spanish vs. English, and so forth… when the fundamental problems we face together as Americans don’t discriminate.
Limiting our discussion to labels like "liberal" or "conservative" prevents real discussion about the issues. You see, these words we use to describe schools of thought are exceedingly dangerous. They confuse instead of enlighten, and divide instead of unite. At worst, people stop thinking entirely.
Take myself, for example: I’m a registered Republican, fiscally conservative, but personally strive for generosity. I consider myself “tough on crime” when crime is defined as one person hurting another person, but with my medical training I question why we criminalize and incarcerate people with addictions who have hurt no one except themselves. I’m very much in favor of supporting our troops, maintaining a strong defense, and appropriate use of force, but pre-emptive war and nation building in developing countries doesn’t sound all that defensive to me. I understand that my household budget demands certain discipline, and I am uncomfortable pretending we can borrow as much money as we want from foreign investors and our own Federal Reserve. While my family and I strive for moral ideals based upon our Christian faith and resulting understanding of desirable behavior, we believe that our role is to encourage and not stand in judgment of others. (italics mine)
I am not, nor do I ever see myself being a Republican, in particular because they are dominated by the big government, socially conservative neo-cons. I disliked the Bush administration even more than the current Obama administration. They are, in most ways, one in the same as far as I am concerned. Both want big government to control you.
Lawson is different. He leans libertarian and brings an anti-war, pro-personal responsibility, pro-individual liberty agenda to the Republican Party. I hope the Republican Party accepts his ideas or dies of irrelevancy. Although Lawson lost a challenge to uber-tenured North Carolina Congressman David Price in the last election, his ideas ring too true to be ignored. Both Republicans and Democrats need to take heed of his message.
Posts
3 comments:
Yeah!!! BJ Lawson is awesome! I followed his campaign very closely last fall and I'm praying we will see another run in 2010 and get him into the House of Reps! I don't know if anybody knows who David Price is, but he is something like a 12 term incumbent that BJ ran against. Can't stand the guy he's one of my top ten most disliked politicians.
Let's get BJ in office! If he runs again they will be having 'moneybombs' similar to those that set records for funds raised in 24 hours for the great Dr. Paul.
First of all, I don't trust a word any politician says. Obama, Clinton, Bush - they'll all say what they think you need to hear. I wouldn't trust Mother Teresa if she ran for office. They're sales men/women and you can't go by their pitch. You have to go by their actions. Bush ran on bringing the two parties together, and left with the country more divided than when his term began. So basically what I'm saying is, BJ can say whatever he wants, but it won't mean anything unless he backs it up. I don't know anything about the guy so I don't know what he's done so far.
I'm also confused about you saying Obama's administration being the same as Bush's. I'd like a little supporting evidence - even if it is slightly off-topic.
I'd also like to point out that the government taking a hands-off approach is exactly why we're in the recession that we're in. To me deregulation is like allow your 5 year old to dictate what he/she has for breakfast. "Haagen Daaz, the breakfast of champions." The way I see it, greed can destroy the economy. We lost the bet that we don't need to regulate things, that Wall St. won't try to get rich in the short term if it'll hurt them in the long term. We need some one to tell us to add some fruit and greens to our diet. We need parents.
Hanad,
You said: “First of all, I don’t trust a word any politician says. Obama, Clinton, Bush - they’ll all say what they think you need to hear. I wouldn’t trust Mother Teresa if she ran for office.”
I am totally with you on this one. That is why I don’t trust them or any promises they make, no matter which side makes them. In fact, I can’t understand how you can come to that realization, yet want THEM to regulate the economy? What super human intelligence and god-given right do THEY have to tell us they know what is best?
You also said: “I’d also like to point out that the government taking a hands-off approach is exactly why we’re in the recession that we’re in. To me deregulation is like allow(ing) your 5 year old to dictate what he/she has for breakfast.”
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Where do you think these politicians get their money? Our federal government is OWNED by Wall Street. Wall Street being regulated by Washington is like your five year old being regulated by a drunken bozo the clown.
The recession was CAUSED by TOO MUCH regulation! Free market forces were SUSPENDED by the government. (And I am not quite sure where people get this idea that this country has EVER had a free market.) The Federal Reserve has been controlling the money supply for almost a century, printing money whenever government over-promises entitlements and “stimulus packages” it can’t pay for (which is where inflation comes from--another unseen form of taxation).
The housing market is at the center of our current economic crises. The Federal Reserve (a government entity) set interest rates artificially low, creating artificially high home prices. (Thus, the “free market” was not allowed to set these prices based on true market value.) Then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (also government entities) lent money to people who couldn’t afford these loans. (The government “decided” everyone should own there own homes. The “free market” didn’t make these loans.) This is essentially government central planning run a muck!
And now we want these same poorly run entities to “save us” from the evil “free market”? (Remember-the free market rewards the innovators and producers. Government rewards the failures, throwing more and more money at the things that DON'T work, claiming that it will fix itself if it just has more money!)
As for those on Wall Street who do wrong, we already have laws on the books to throw people in jail if they commit fraud or do something that willfully harms other individuals. But in reality, that will never happen to these people anyway. Wall Street pays for our politicians. Therefore, it would be naive to think politicians could be capable of regulating their own financiers! You also have to ask, by trying to do so, what other “regulations” does your Almighty Government inadvertently impose on the rest of us? Every time a law is made to control someone “bad”, it has the unintended consequence of taking away the rights of those of us who did nothing wrong. More laws do not make bad people good. They most often just complicate the lives of ordinary good people. (I wonder how many “terrorists” our government has stopped by making me take my shoes off every time I go to the airport? Ludicrous, when you think about the stupidity of it. But government had to “do something”, so there is it’s solution to “stopping” the “terrorists”.)
And greed. Everyone blames greed. But if the politicians are in with their Wall Street backers, then how do we regulate greed on Wall Street? The only thing that counters greed is failure, or more accurately, the FEAR of failure (risk). Surprise, surprise! Government involvement messes this up as well! When government bails out the losers, they remove this all important risk factor. Government bailouts ENCOURAGE MORE bad behavior. With this in mind, did it really make any sense to give $800 billions dollars to those that failed? (Want to "stimulate" the ecomomy? Give $30,000 to every man, woman and child in this country. That would make MORE sense! But no, government knows best. Let's let government pick the "winners".)
Hanad, you also asked: “I’m also confused about you saying Obama’s administration being the same as Bush’s. I’d like a little supporting evidence - even if it is slightly off-topic.”
I have stated repeatedly, Bush and those on the neo-con right use war and fear to control us, expanding the power and scope of government. Obama and the left use economic crises and fear to control us, expanding the power and scope of government. They both use FEAR to convince us that we need them to “save” us. The difference is only in the details. Whether you are hit over the head with a baseball bat or a steel pipe, in the end...you are still hit over the head. Big government from the right or big government from the left, both are greedy for power and control.
Both side create laws to control people in the name of what’s “right” by their constituencies and to institute their “version” of justice on the rest of us. If you combined the policies of Bush and Obama, some of the things our government would control include drug use, CEO pay, guns, abortion, the free market, gay marriage, health care, speech, trade, civil rights, civil liberties, freedom of dissent, freedom of movement, freedom of association, where you can send your children to school, where you can travel, what you can own, where you can live, what you can eat, how much you can own, and who owns you.
I hate both sides because I think individuals should get to make these choices, not the nanny-state both Democrats and Republicans want to use to control us.
If you feel the need to have a parent watch over you, fine. But I choose personal responsibility. Please keep YOUR “parent” out of MY life. I don’t think your “parent” really knows what is best for me, nor is as concerned about my well-being as much as I am. And I personally like vegetables, but if I choose to eat Haagen Daz for breakfast, I promise to be responsible for the consequences.
Jack Kinder once said, “High achievement always takes place in the framework of high expectation.” We need to believe in each other. And personally, Hanad, I believe you are the best person to chose what is best for your life. You don’t need government to save you from yourself.
Thanks for the opportunity to engage in some thoughtful discussion. I hope my diatribe doesn’t discourage you from writing more. I enjoy the interaction.
Sincerely,
Dane
Post a Comment