Archive for May, 2012

By R. C. Seely

americanuslibertae@gmail.com

Lyndon Johnson instituted the policy of Social Welfare, under the implication that poverty raises the rate of crime. That however doesn’t explain why those in the higher economic brackets commit criminal acts.

I contest the connection of poverty and criminal behavior as being false based on the evidence, and I state the true reason behind violations of laws is because of Desperation. Desperation can come in different forms, and outcomes from different needs due to our live experiences. Desperate for opportunity, desperate for money, desperate for attention, desperate for love, this proves a far more complete theorem without all the holes in the hypothesis.

But Johnson didn’t actually give this any contemplation either way. His reasons for taking this route was purely political, he wanted to be see as a champion of Civil Rights, as his predecessor John Kennedy was. The problem is all the evidence points to Johnson being a racist. Any conclusion he would have made, would be tainted by this bias, so his policies are that of segregation not of assimilation. Not all those who advocate segregation are racists though. This is a standard based on the common consensus of the era, and it’s wrong to make judgments on those from the past based on the standards of our era, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m basing them on the standards of his era.

Another example of the Desperation is serial killer Charles Manson. He had a horrible live, devoid of emotion, because he wasn’t given any to begin with. He was the unwanted son of a prostitute and was basically left to fend for himself. Now I’m not using this to excuse his actions, just explain them. Personally I think he should have been executed, but what’s done is done.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are both examples of this as well. What the are in need of is the most dangerous and corrupting of all, the need for power and authority. While Bill might have been the face of the presidency, it was Hillary, that really made most of the decisions during the segment of human history. Fortunately, for all of in order for Bill to get reelected he had to become a Pragmatist and alter his philosophies a little bit.

This one is unfortunately not an uncommon trait for political leaders. Many domestic and foreign have had it. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Adolf Hitler, Richard Nixon, Josef Stalin, Napoleon Bonaparte, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Barack Obama, just to name a few. We could speculate as to whether any of these men had the intention of becoming the enslavers of their countrymen, but I see that as immaterial personally. They had a need for power and they did what they felt they had to do satisfy that need. Simple as that.

This also the key in addiction as well. An addiction has some need in their life not being fulfilled, so they try to numb all emotion with drugs. I contend that with most drugs (some of the more harder and dangerous, could be an exception) humans can internal consume with getting addicted… so long as they are not in a vulnerable emotional state. This goes with all addiction as well, not just drugs.

We all no that people do some usual things when we are depressed, would it really be that big of a leap, to consider it the reasons for our shortcomings. We need to accept responsibly for our actions, I’m not trying to excuse anyone with this concept. I’m saying that utilizing this might be useful in helping those that suffer with such problems find solutions. So start now and cheer up.

Check out the author of this article on You Tube at Americanus Libertae. Also look for the author’s book, T.V., Sex, and Violence, available at Amazon.com or check your local bookstores.

 

 

By R. C. Seely

americanuslibertae@gmail.com

A couple of weeks ago in my local newspaper there was an article about the National Debt, and in this article the author was referencing a book , Thirteen Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. I have not read this book, I won’t lie, but if it does follow the article I feel doing so would be a waste of time.

It is the postulation of the author, that such recklessness is not as big an issue as the more parsimonious members of the media make it out to be. I’m going to have to call propaganda here people. I’m not a Republican and I challenge this claim as farcical at best, perilous and deceptive at worst.

First thing that raised concerns with me was that one of the book’s co-author, was the chief economist for the IMF. The article’s writer touts this up as a proof of credentials, for me it’s a red herring. That is an organization that has shown questionable judgment in their discretion of spending in the past themselves. That’s like letting in a burglar to protect your home, oh yes, he knows how to do it, but he has his bias, that has to rendered into the circumstances.

Secondly, there’s more than just the argument for fiscal sanity in this debate. Most choose to ignore that, but the more pressing contemplation here, is the ethical consideration. People are being forced to indorse policy by bureaucrats spending their money into programs they might find subversive or immoral. That’s not necessarily my feelings about the social programs, but others might, in their opinion feel supporting that specific agenda is wrong (my objections are if I know only a small demographic will utilize them, than I have no interest in supporting it financially). So what about all these wars and other policies by the past administration? Why did we have to support to Bush’s agendas? You would be right, in part at least, the last president did cross the line with some of his programs. No child left behind for example. As for the wars I’ll only give you a point on the questionable legality of it. As for the act itself, protection for our nation is not some pet project by a national administrator, but an act of self preservation. It’s one of the few times the government has a duty to step in. Besides, I don’t remember hearing all you anti-war demonstrators when you-know-who suggested invading Libya. Where were you then? This also discredit’s the entrepreneurs, in this country. It spreads the myth that the private market can’t fill the niches the loss of government intervention would leave. I contest there’s not an ounce of truth to that claim as well, if the field was essential to the economy the market will fill it and improve it even, if not it will die out.

The other moral consideration not taken up, is that some of (myself included this time) find it reprehensible, to borrow money from countries who don’t hold the same regard for human life, and civil rights as this nation does. The administration might not hold it’s people hostage ( all evidence concludes that that’s not the case, but that’s not my point), the country’s who we do owe might. You think their heads of state won’t come up with some very inventive way to punish us for leaving them with a worthless IOU. Besides when did we get to the point that it is acceptable to just cut and run on our debtors. When did we get to the point when our moral compass kept heading south?

As for the spending cuts proposed by the Democrats, if the authors referring to the president’s budget, these are cuts in name only. The cuts he’s suggesting cut about three trillion in ten years, while he’s going to INCREASE spending in the billions, now. Yeah, that kind of math makes sense. Ron Paul’s economic plan would call for an actual cut in spending and tax cuts and a change of the tax code. Even Mit Romney’s plan is better, than the president‘s. I’ll go even further and wager Newt Gingrich (imperialist though he is) probably has a better plan. The problem here is that the president supports this concept of, pseudo-social equality economics, and has surrounded himself with yes-men. Bottom line the only valid reason for tax increases is if it’s spent on getting the National Debt down something the president has no intention of doing. To say that the officials of the Democratic party don’t want to hold the American people hostage through the debt is one of the largest myths propagated. Go out and try to find a job right now, the economists might see the numbers, but they don’t see what it’s really like. You don’t have to have a degree to follow economic logic, or to see through political spin, and anyone who is saying the large scale of spending isn’t a problem, is either a fool or swindler. Want to buy a magic bean, anyone?

Check out the author of this article on You Tube at Americanus Libertae. Also look for the author’s book, T.V., Sex, and Violence, available at Amazon.com or check your local bookstores.

 

By R. C. Seely

This is a nation of entrepreneurs, those who aren’t afraid to step out on a limb, to reach for the brass ring and improve the lives of themselves and their families, and the lives of others whom they employ as well. Some would argue that the best system are the ones that work for all, I would contest that this is not only untrue, but also an impossibility. This statement is made by a man (the author) who doesn’t believe in absolutes, and that’s what impossible is, an absolute.

This is the trap of what I call “Cookie-Cutter” system models, a unified, unrealistic philosophy, that simply doesn’t apply to the real world model.

Everyone is different down to the molecular level, we are in the simplest terms, the output of two separate genetic codes interwoven after all. A series of biological ones and zeros from our parent’s DNA, mutating and creating unique deviations or deformities. In humans this (along with environment and our individual experiences) transforms into our moral code, which is what most of us use to guide our decisions for the rest of our lives.

Because he have this moral code, is the reason that the “Cookie-Cutter” system can’t work. What our reactions to a given situation are not inevitable, it’s at best an educated guess, based on past interactions with the person. The point is we make choices, financial, moral, spiritual, that is the part of the equation under our control, anyway. Then there are outside factors that are out of our control, that’s the other part of the equation.

In conclusion the human will towards liberty is too strong and such attempts to circumvent your will on someone else, is sure to end in their favor.  The larger point here is that not only trying to make decisions of how to live unlikely, but it’s also ethically wrong.  Setting up a system based on this model is like trying to cage up a hurricane.