Thursday, October 11, 2012

What's The Difference?

Tonight, a large majority of the country watched as the candidates for Vice President of the United States held their debate and discussed their vision’s for America’s future. They discussed how they would fix the problems in our country if they were put in a position of power.

I, however, did not watch that debate. Instead, I was attending a meeting of like-minded individuals and carrying on various conversations about how to solve the problems of today. The debate did happen to be on in the room where the meeting was held so I was able to catch a few things that were said.

However, once I got home from that meeting, I did read up on what happened during the debates. I browsed through the Internet to see what sort of things were said and found some of the key points that were made during the debate.

Based on what I saw and what I read, I learned something that wasn’t necessarily new to me. The rhetoric that was given only solidified what I have known for some time.

Both of the major parties that control our political institutions have rigid platforms that do not change. Candidates from these parties are expected to go along with the platform that their particular party stands on. The money that is donated to these parties is used to maintain the pressure on candidates to keep them within party lines. Both parties are constantly bickering while at the same time they are both responsible for bad legislation. They are both responsible for reducing the rights of American citizens. They are both responsible for our nation's outrageous debt. They are both responsible for multiple wars that are driving our country further into that debt. 

To continue on this current path would be disastrous. Instead of bowing to the political functions that have dominated the country since its inception, we should be focusing on facing the problems we have and presenting solutions for those problems.

What can be done to resolve this problem of a government dominated by the two parties that are hardly distinguishable anymore?

To start, we can decentralize the government. Remove from the federal government those powers that are not specifically assigned to them and give those powers back to the states. 

Let the federal government focus on defending our country. Let me reiterate that. Let the government focus on the defense of OUR country, not a country halfway across the world that most of our school children can't even find on a map. 

Stop federal government from enacting regulations that are not specifically geared toward ensuring personal freedom. 

Stop the federal government from attempting to legislate morality. The government's attempts at controlling what people ingest into their bodies, for instance, have created several billion dollars in debt and have achieved no positive results. Let people choose what to do with their bodies. Give the people back their God-given free will, as long as their free will does not interfere with the personal liberties of another human being.

Let the government focus on protecting the liberty of its citizens and protecting them from violence from others.

The answer to America's problems is the same thing that earned America the distinction of being the greatest country in the world to live:

(1)  A free-market based economy and the prosperity that this economy brings to its people. In a free-market economy there is no corporate welfare. There are no tax loopholes. There are no government subsidies. 
(2)  A dedication to civil liberties that sets our country above all others.  People will be free to live as they choose as long as it does not interfere with another person's civil liberties.
(3)  A foreign policy of non-intervention (not isolationism).  Yes. There IS a difference between those two.

Only together we can bring this country back from ruins. The Republican Party can't do it. The Democratic Party can't do it. Only the people can put this country back on the right course.  Only the people can stand up to their government and demand the end to the ongoing power struggle in America between the Republicans and Democrats and insist on real solutions to the real problems facing us every day.

The bottom line to all of this is what is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats?

From the looks of things these days, I would have to say very little.


  1. Well said. I do however have a question about the following statement --

    "Stop federal government from enacting regulations that are not specifically geared toward ensuring personal freedom."

    What about regulations that are designed to protect workers, prevent monopolies, and, theoretically at least, protect the common folks from getting screwed over by the powerful and the corporations that they control?

  2. I would say this in regards to monopolies. I, personally, do not believe that monopolies are a part of the spirit of a true free-market economy. I think that competition is a bedrock plank of a free-market system. That being said, I would agree with regulations concerning monopolies.

    In regards to protecting workers I would have to ask protect them from what? I would say we protect them from physical harm and violence and from foreign invasion like we would any person but I don't think we need to regulate wages if that is what you mean. I think if a true free-market society were allowed to function, then competition would include competition of wages and that sort of thing. That way, if a person doesn't like what he or she is getting paid to do a job somewhere, he can go look for another place to do that same job that might pay more.

  3. I'm not talking about regulating wages. I'm referring to child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, safe working conditions, etc. Do you think those laws and regulations should be abandoned?

  4., I don't think those regulations should be abandoned but I believe, specifically in regards to regulations regarding safe working conditions, that in a true free-market system, corporate America (for lack of a better term) would be more apt to regulate themselves, don't you think? Here is a scenario. Let's say you are the boss of a factory for instance. Your business is based on production. It does not behoove you to have an unsafe working environment. Injuries at work lead to a reduction in production which ultimately leads to lower profits. Unsafe working environments also leads to a bad reputation in the business community, which is going to lead to another similar factory promoting their "safe" working environment over yours which will lead to people from your factory leaving to go to their factory and that leads to higher production for them and even less production for you. They make more money and you end up bankrupt as a company. Not a good business decision to have an unsafe working environment. Keep in mind that this is all theoretical but does it make any sense to you?

  5. It makes sense. If I was running a factory by all means it would be as safe as humanly possible but then again I don't have the same mindset as most CEOs. Also before there were laws for safe working conditions, workers died on a daily basis, the free market didn't protect anybody.

  6. Even back then though, there was not a true free-market system. I don't think American has ever actually operated under a 100% true free-market system. At best, it has been run under a form of state corporatism.

  7. I'm not sure a true, pure capitalist system has ever existed or could ever exist. In practice capitalism, if not held in check or balanced out, always seems to devolve into corporatism which IMHO leads to feudalism.

    The same can be said for socialism. True socialism has never existed. The countries that have had socialism have either had it mixed with capitalism (i.e. Canada, England) or have been a form of totalitarian/authoritarian communism.

    Both systems are flawed and both need to be held in check, otherwise tyranny prevails in one form or another.

  8. I agree that a pure free-market system (I don't like using the word capitalism for some reason) has never existed but I also think that in practice, the system would keep itself in check.

    The way I look at it we have functioned with the government more or less controlling everything for the past several decades and that has proven unsuccessful so why not give a pure free-market system a try. What is the worst that could happen?

  9. An even worse divide between the haves and have nots?

  10. I respectfully disagree. With the decrease in tax and business regulations that are brought about by free-market reforms, more people would be apt to create new businesses. It will be a better environment for small businesses to function in. It will be a better environment for increased competition. It will be a better environment for the workforce. It is obvious that the more active businesses there are out there, the more places have options as to where to work. Additionally, with the reforms brought about by a free-market system, I believe that more and more people will be apt to contribute their time and financial resources to charity which would also decrease the need for people to be on government assistance. Hence, even less control for the government to have over the people it governs.

    Keep in mind of course that all of this is theoretical. I'm no expert in economics and nobody is going to listen to what I have to say in the grand scheme of things anyway. These type of changes would never come about. It is all a pipe dream.