tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post4600861753541592247..comments2023-04-14T03:44:27.772-04:00Comments on Tom Mullen's Blog: Collectivist Republicans Losing Their FightTom Mullenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-64922476576104711092009-08-21T11:46:21.098-04:002009-08-21T11:46:21.098-04:00You are saying what I have being saying for quite ...You are saying what I have being saying for quite some time. Thanks. Your observation about Palin is true. Alaska also has the highest port tax in the world for cruise ships, which I beleive she instituted. She is an unabashed supporter of her husbands affiliations with Unions as well. I definitely can't vote for her and still have a conscious left intact. The only choice is too be affilated with a so-called "radical" Liberatarian Party, simply because the two other parties are too left of center. While I was studying the Italian Renaissance in Europe, I came to a startling realization that those early pioneers in Capitalism had taught the world a valubale lesson. Freedom had come with freedom in banking and markets first and what followed was science, reason, pragmaticism, rational thinking and objective thought. To undermind our free markets,we slowly or rapidly, depends on the actions, reverse it all and return to Feudalism prior to the Renaissance. I'm sure our framers knew this, or they would NOT have given us a Constitution from the people, instead it would have come the Govt. Keep up the Good work Tom. Republican collectivism or Democrat collectivism, the issue is still the same, we lose our freedoms in the feel good nature of "security."Don Leenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-78090556345025194142009-07-29T19:40:32.810-04:002009-07-29T19:40:32.810-04:00Tom, I certainly wish I could write like that!Tom, I certainly wish I could write like that!GeronLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13145189615256636055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-22242776471928834532009-07-26T11:06:46.988-04:002009-07-26T11:06:46.988-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bill Bulgierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12290455003853997190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-24223691345954543952009-07-26T11:06:25.329-04:002009-07-26T11:06:25.329-04:00I have daid that I am tired of Parties Winning, it...I have daid that I am tired of Parties Winning, it is time for the American people to win. I like the idea of no party,just those of us who oppose what has been happening to this country over the last 100 years. Of course the acceleration into tyranny has been shifted to overdrive in the last couple of administrationsBill Bulgierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12290455003853997190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-80037475747304634592009-07-25T16:48:06.253-04:002009-07-25T16:48:06.253-04:00Wow! What a DELIGHTFULLY refreshing blog!!!! Eve...Wow! What a DELIGHTFULLY refreshing blog!!!! Even the comments from various points of view are all thought provoking and interesting.<br /><br />Well done!Buttercuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491079709316915862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-60514719482045052732009-07-25T16:45:50.103-04:002009-07-25T16:45:50.103-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Buttercuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491079709316915862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-75160329613104918382009-07-25T16:45:05.227-04:002009-07-25T16:45:05.227-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Buttercuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491079709316915862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-41530181088302371812009-07-24T09:02:20.026-04:002009-07-24T09:02:20.026-04:00I made a mis-statement in my previous comment. Wh...I made a mis-statement in my previous comment. What I meant to say was:<br /><br />It is impossible to <i>truly</i> believe we all have a natural right to life, liberty, and to keep the fruits of our labor <b>AND</b> to believe that a tax exists that doesn't violate those rights.<br /><br />Sorry about that.<br /><br />RobertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-17414722534281582112009-07-24T02:25:54.723-04:002009-07-24T02:25:54.723-04:00Tom,
I enjoy reading your articles and agree with...Tom,<br /><br />I enjoy reading your articles and agree with most of what you have to say but I believe there is an additional step you could take in your thinking.<br /><br />While I think you did a great job of pointing out the contradictions in James' comment, I believe there is also a contradiction in your reply.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><i>At this point, there is usually the spurious argument that I am against all taxes. I am not. We all have a natural right to life, liberty, and to keep the fruits of our labor. We have a natural right to defend those rights against aggression by others, including resorting to violence, if necessary, in order to protect ourselves and our property. We have a right to delegate that authority of self defense to government. Providing that self defense costs money, which we have a responsibility to pay in return for the servcies of the people that provide the defense. That is where the legitimate authority of the government to tax begins and ends.</i><br /><br />Maybe you <i>should</i> be against all taxes. It is impossible to <i>truly</i> believe we all have a natural right to life, liberty, and to keep the fruits of our labor <b>AND</b> to believe that taxation is <i>never</i> a violation of those rights.<br /><br />I would agree that we have a right to delegate self-defense to another person or persons, but not to somebody who will just turn around and violate our rights in order to do it. Therefore, I would suggest that we do <b>NOT</b> have a right to delegate that right to "government". We only have a right to contract freely with others in the free market to help us defend ourselves. Perhaps a <i>truly</i> free market would work better than even <i>you</i> imagine.<br /><br />I would suggest your reading the classic book <a href="http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Market For Liberty</a> by Morris and Linda Tannehill.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />RobertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-70115339050338549312009-07-23T22:23:47.452-04:002009-07-23T22:23:47.452-04:00Conservative Teacher,
Where in the Constitution d...Conservative Teacher,<br /><br />Where in the Constitution does it say "it's a two party system?" It is a two party system because the two parties have trained people to think it has to be that way. <br /><br />However, assuming that there is some reason that there will always be two parties (and it is an ancient phenomenon - Rome had two parties VERY similar to ours - the Populares and the Optimates), then why did the Republicans form a party in the first place? Why did all of those people leave the Whigs, instead of just taking them over?<br /><br />The answer is that the WHigs had lost their relevance, credibility, and ability to build winning coalitions, like the present Republicans. <br /><br />You say that "libertarians and conservatives" should join the Republican party. Most of them are members. The constituencies that vote Libertarian Party or Constitution Party, or Conservative Party make up about 4 percent of the vote on a good day. The great majority of people with those ideologies belong to the Republican Party, because it tells them just enough of what they want to hear to keep them around (and because the Democrats are so horrid). Then, the Republicans betray them every time.<br /><br />The neo-con Republican ideology comes from the same monied interests as the communist Democratic ideology. The parties are ruled by powerful minorities that keep large factions in their respective parties by partially convincing them that they are supporting their principles and partially because those factions just can't see an alternative.<br /><br />I suggest that if the Republican Party were allowed to die, all of those "libertarians and conservatives" within it would form a new party, and could attract huge constituencies from the Democrats, because most of the rank and file are not communists either.<br /><br />Read your history. Our republic is at the same point as Rome's was when Julius Caesar came to power. Remember that he became as popular as he did by promising the people other people's property - even before he went off to loot Gaul his first act as consul was a redistribution program that Plutarch said would be more expected from a revolutionary than the member of a respected Roman family. <br /><br />Rome had had it's "Reagan revolution" a generation earlier under Sulla, and it failed for the same reasons that Reagan's did - because it didn't attempt to establish justice, just tilt the playing field back toward the Senate (the conservatives) and away from the ravenous Populares (Rome's Democrats). The neo-conservative Republican revolution is over. Let it die. If you truly want liberty, let the lesser of two evils go away and let's mobilize against greater evil - after we take half their people from them.Tom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-40307473547205597722009-07-23T21:15:04.328-04:002009-07-23T21:15:04.328-04:00It's a two party system. Communists had the c...It's a two party system. Communists had the courage and audacity to hope to take over the Democrat Party, and they were successful. It's a shame conservatives and libertarians are too busy whining and pissing about things, because if they would join the Republican party, they could win it over too. Parties are just empty things to be filled up- perhaps instead of pissing into the wind on here you should join the Republican Party and be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.A Conservative Teacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14310613238755513162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-35593742710519458122009-07-22T12:10:27.465-04:002009-07-22T12:10:27.465-04:00However, I had no choice in paying for your huntin...However, I had no choice in paying for your hunting trip on government-owned land. That money was taken from me without my consent for your benefit at my expense. <br /><br />At this point, there is usually the spurious argument that I am against all taxes. I am not. We all have a natural right to life, liberty, and to keep the fruits of our labor. We have a natural right to defend those rights against aggression by others, including resorting to violence, if necessary, in order to protect ourselves and our property. We have a right to delegate that authority of self defense to government. Providing that self defense costs money, which we have a responsibility to pay in return for the servcies of the people that provide the defense. That is where the legitimate authority of the government to tax begins and ends.<br /><br />We have no right to use force or the threat of force to obtain another's property without their consent. THerefore, we have no right to delegate that authority to any government, which merely amounts to us using the force of greater numbers to steal from someone else. It is in direct contradiction to government's core purpose: to protect us from other people doing this very thing.<br /><br />You say that "people longed for freedom long before the advent of market economics?" Wrong. There has never been a moment in human history where market economics have not existed. Humans can only sustain their existence through their labor, and unless you produce everything you need and want yourself, then you are participating in "market economics." The only question is, "how will you obtain the labor or fruits of labor of others?" <br /><br />In a free market, it will be with their consent - whether through a gift or a trade.<br /><br />In your scenario, someone is forced to give up their labor or its fruits for the benefit of someone else.<br /><br />I dealt with this more in the previous article, Life Liberty and PRoperty are Inseparable. http://thomasmullen.blogspot.com/2009/06/life-liberty-and-property-are.html. <br /><br />I do appreciate the attention to my overly long article and the debate - I hope you take my rebuttal in the good-natured spirit in which it is intended.Tom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-62964092525580089822009-07-22T12:10:12.532-04:002009-07-22T12:10:12.532-04:00James,
Your comments are articulately stated, but...James,<br /><br />Your comments are articulately stated, but there are several flaws in the reasoning.<br /><br />First, I agree with you that the left/right paradigm is divisive. I suggest killing the right while it is weak and then aligning all principled people against the left. My end game is to get rid of the whole rotten left/right scam.<br /><br />However, you go on to say that "in fact in a state of perfect freedom there would be no need to purchase any thing." This is a contradiction.<br /><br />Everything we consume (including food, clothing, services (including hunting on land we do not own) has to be produced by someone. There are only two ways to obtain something that is produced by someone else: 1. with their consent. 2. without their consent. Obtaining the product of another's labor without their consent is the antithesis of "a state of perfect freedom." It is the definition of "a state of perfect slavery." That is what slavery is - obtaining the labor or its fruits of others without their consent.<br /><br />Your example of the hunting land relates directly. You asked someone if you could hunt on their land and they asked for $500 in return. You had a choice to pay it and use their services, or to decline. Their price may or may not have been too high, but they are free to set the price for their services and you are free to decline. You are also free to look for land owned by other people who may offer it at a better price.<br /><br />On the other hand, the "collectively-owned asset" you allude to only charged you a nominal fee for the license and parking. However, the cost of maintaining the land, the cost of liabiltiy for people hunting on it, etc. are not lower just because government owns the land. They simply spread that cost out among taxpayers, including me, who do not use that land. This money is taken from me without my consent to provide cheaper hunting for you. That is an act of aggression and I object to it.<br /><br />In the case of the privately owned land, the people who want to use it bear the cost of paying for its maintenance, including whatever profits the owners wish to make. The buyers are free to pay or to decide not to purchase those services.<br /> (continued in next comment)Tom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-64320768718168905392009-07-22T11:25:06.690-04:002009-07-22T11:25:06.690-04:00Tom,I would suggest that you begin to actualy rese...Tom,I would suggest that you begin to actualy research what dozens of leftists are saying about Obama.For instance google ''Taking-Aim radio'' and Dr. Michael Parenti, just for starters.<br /><br />There are nut cases on the left just as there are on the right,in fact I think it is rather nutty to devide people and their philosophies concerning pressing issues into silly left- right devisions when in fact each issue must be dealt with on its own merit.<br /><br />I consider myself somewhat of a liberal,but one who realizes that only a truly represenitive government ,''unlike the one we have had for much of our history''can be trusted to help solve our problems.On the other hand,the liberal in me understands that behind every corrupt over bearing government lies a corrupt and over bearing private sector which has either formed or hijacked that government in order to acomplish its own devious ends.<br /><br />It seems far to many liberals and conservitives alike are unwilling to deal with reality in regards to the issues.The liberals,''most of them''are willing to give up way to much freedom in order to gain a small amount of freedom while conservitives confuse commercialism with liberty and seem to favor economic growth over the growth of human liberty and dignity.Need I remind you that people longed for freedom long before the advent of market economics ? We do not buy things because we are free,in fact in a state of perfect freedom there would be no need to purchase any thing.Speaking of purchasing things,I did some elk hunting on national forest land last year and was only required to purchase a liscence and pay a two dollar a day parking fee.The year before last I did my hunting on a private reserve which charged me five hundred dollars just for the use of the property.Now Tom surely you can understand the value of collectivly held assests !? The fact is that the more of our natural resources which are privately owned the more it is going to cost us to live,while collective ownership actualy promotes freedom,''that is as long as the public demands the proper management of what is collectivly owned''.Just imagine Tom if someone were to claim private ownership over the sun or perhaps the air we breath ! That may sound far fetched but as I speak there are conservitives who are working to have even the oceans privitised,claiming that privitisation leads to freedom.Again we do not purchase nessecities because we are free ! We purchase nessecities generaly because we have no other choice.<br /><br />Tom the idea of getting back to common sense values just does not hold water.''Common sense'' in fact changes from generation to generation.There once was a time when anyone with common sense knew that women should not be allowed to vote or hold office ! There also was a time when everyone with ''common sense'' knew the nations economy would collapse without the use of slave labor.So called common sense is often nothing more than mass ignorance,something we need less of,not more of.<br /><br />Well Tom I would like to leave you with a question to ponder.There is no need to actualy respond with an awnswer,but just ponder this scenario.Imagine a fox caught in a steel trap,The only way the fox can escape the trap is by chewing its foot off.Is the fox in reality free because of the fact that it can choose to chew its foot off ? So long Tom and do not forget that the purpose of life is life itself.<br /><br />Your freind James.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-84491375890671426532009-07-19T15:11:05.112-04:002009-07-19T15:11:05.112-04:00THanks for reading and commenting, Steve. What ab...THanks for reading and commenting, Steve. What about this: No party?<br /><br />Let the Republicans die away and let's have an election with the Democrats on one side and ALL who oppose them on the other. That should take care of the other half of our problem rather quickly, I would think. It is probably risky, but like I said, what do we have to lose?Tom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-81019080556486659612009-07-19T14:57:41.389-04:002009-07-19T14:57:41.389-04:00Well reasoned as usual. The question is what part...Well reasoned as usual. The question is what party to get behind. The Libertarians say most of the right things but have been unable to organize and recruit enough voters to be credible. The Constitution party seems to be even more disorganized. Maybe the GOOOH Party?<br /><br />It's clear to anyone who understands the issues that business as usual is a recipe for disaster, ant that it is likely too late to prevent a catastrophe. It seems to me that NOW is the time to explore the best way to pick up the pieces, as Tom has again eloquently presented.Steve Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15921214043058952452noreply@blogger.com