Divisive Drug Crackdown By Phil Mckenna
You’re on to a problem with the article. If government was limited to protecting us from others who’d harm us, instead of the increasingly zero sum game whereby many strive to use government force against others for their personal benefit, there really wouldn’t be much reason to be divisive.Taxes (at all levels combined) would be less than 10%, while today it’s at least 4X that.
Paying the government 10% to provide courts, police and the military (to protect our borders) is not something many would fight about. It’d probably be even less. I’m reminded of the 2012 election, where Ann Romney was talking about tax returns?, and said “We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life ” (emphasis mine).So it’s not like the attitude doesn’t exist here, we just don’t have the fancy titles.?Oh, what a simpler time. When only releasing two years of tax returns was considered scandalous.?Broadly speaking, the ability for your “social/economic class” to be different from that of your parents. Individuals have different interests and goals from other individuals and these interests and goals are sometimes in conflict such that an outcome needs to be negotiated.One of the difficulties here is that “negotiation” is often a show of force- either the left or right moving towards increasing their grasp so they can push their respective agendas unopposed (in contrast to those teeth clenched agreements that while aren’t good, are better than the alternatives).
This sets up an endless cycle of brinkmanship that ends in a stalemate (effectively no governance) or potentially tragic consequences (Trump).We are divided because we are individuals, but we are also united as we all have to get along.In essence, “Right” then becomes acting like the adults in the room, not necessarily sacrificing all principles, but understanding some sacrifice will likely happen to serve a larger goal.People often forget political exchanges are also markets, and as such competition is good. “We are divided because we as individuals have different interests and goals from other individuals and these interests and goals are sometimes in conflict such that an outcome needs to be negotiated.”I disagree. There’s no conflict provided you don’t take my money, property or liberty to achieve your goals, or try to get government to do it for you. So no conflict, and no negotiations are necessary.Regardless of how worthy your goals are, using government to achieve them, makes them unworthy because of the harm it first does to others. Involving government, creates conflicts, because all government does, is use force against individuals (and other than to collect taxes, hopefully it uses force only against criminals who’ve harmed others). Being united through politics is an idiotic non-starter.
The people who are the strongest backers of “unity” are the most divisive.Being united through non-political activities is realistic. Sports, civic institutions, hobbies social clubs. These things bring people together.
The trend of politics invading these areas is dangerous. Or if “dangerous” is too far, at least it’s bad.We root for the same team, we’re on the same side. Now it’s political and we’re not on the same side.
We’re at the same party or event, we have something in common – we have a conversation, we make jokes, we become friends. Now everyone has to talk about politics, so we’re not friendly. This harms the general quality of life. Bronson, my measuring stick for bullsh.t is politics.
Once something becomes political, I know right away it is bullsh.tGlobal warming – bsSJW and black lives matter – BSkneeling and stupid arguments about kneeling and a god damn song – BStranny bathrooms – BSgay bakers – bseverything that is bandied about on the news and talk radio ad infinitum. – BSAll of this crap is designed to distract from the real graft going on in Washington. The debt, never ending wars,the FED antics, entitlements, spending, the police state, our growing departure from capitalism are the only things worthy of our attention and the sheep don’t care. DC is winning all of the time. It wasn’t Russians who said you were either with us or against usEd is getting sloppy.Bush actually said:Every nation, in every region, now has adecision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
Fromthis day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regardedby the United States as a hostile regime.“Us” was actually the US as a nation. The “you” that may or may not be with us were other nations, not Americans. But now that the Left has gone entirely post modern Marxist, that’s what.they. do as well, relentlessly, so that a false equivalency between what they are doing and what the Right, and particularly Trump, is doing is simply hogwash.Ed left out the most obvious and egregious single example in recent history: Hillary’s “basket of deplorables”, who are everything evil in the world, and particularly.out to get. everyone else based on their identity group, so that the Left can, like Adam Sutler, “make them remember why they need us”.
Respectfully disagree with articleThere are philosophically based arguments that are important to have and by and large the philosophy that supports libertarianism is enjoyable to me. The problem with libertarianism, however, is libertarians almost 100% of the time take this philosophy too far. This argument for instance.It is absolutely baloney that division is a strength. Competition and differences within a shared set of rules is a strength but it is often looking more and more like we cannot even agree on the same set of rules in America. That is a weakness, there is no way to spin that. Saying we are stronger when people are politically at each others throats, when it is more and more apparent that our government appears nonfunctional, people are fighting incessantly over race, when people appear to be embracing a strongman, when fascism and communism both have ceased to be the boogeyman they were in the 40s, that is a weakness.Let us not pretend that just because Bush and Obama are despicable messengers that they are not correct. America needs to figure this out or we will be in trouble.
We are figuring it out. One bunch of would be Aristocrats – people who want to tell us Peasants how to live – is losing its grip on the country. What the next bunch will look like – and there WILL be a next bunch – is not yet clear. So, for a while, we have squabbling and acid indigestion all around. When the Progressives have joined the Social Darwinists and the Planter Aristocracy on the ash heap of history, and the next bunch of would-be Social Betters engulf the institutions things will calm down.
For a while.spit. Eh the problem with “division”, “unity” and so-on, is that it’s all a matter of degrees.Let’s look at the presidency. With one notable exception, regardless of who wins or loses, both sides accept it and move on. Even when folks feel the election was “stolen”, they don’t riot or rebel or anything, they just complain an awful lot and make snide comments and start conspiracy theories.Compare to nations that are really divided (including America in 1864), and have armed conflicts over matters of secession, and yeah, our “divisions” are kind of small.Then look at congress.
Look back sixty, seventy years, and you see a lot of voting across party lines, and a lot fewer party-line votes. Now most votes are either unanimous (or nearly so) or party-line, with not much in-between.
Divisive Drug Crackdown By Phil Mckenna Movie
That’s a definite sign that the divisions are growing.So sure. America has always been divided. But there’s degrees. We’re still on a downhill slide that’s been going on for decades. With our history of how low we can go, I’m not sure it’s inappropriate to argue that we should maybe change that trend line. Our divides are artificial and created by the entrenched political aristocracy who only seeks to maintain the status quo. They no longer seek to govern for the good of the country, but only for the good of those who keep them in power.
We have people who have been in public office for decades and yet have become multi-millionaires on salaries that should make that impossible considering the other costs of Federal office. How does one maintain two residences and manage all the other costs to live in DC and their home state, honestly?
Divisive Drug Crackdown By Phil Mckenna Full
All the majority of Congress worries about is winning the next election to maintain their personal gravy train.