I’m arguing that when one starts demanding social reforms they need to identify who or what they are expecting will step in and do the reforming. I’m further arguing that the Collectivist always falls back on demanding that the State implement all the reforms, thus becoming larger in its power and scope.

This is folly. And it is based on the unspoken assumption that we’re going to find angels in the ranks of the federal government to manage the economy so that it is fair and virtuous. The inclination to make the government demand that universities lower their tuition, for example, obviates the purpose behind a free market. It also ignores the last 75 years of government intervention into the higher education market. Such recommendations take for granted that we’ve had a free market for education, which we haven’t had for decades. Yet, why would we still demand FURTHER government intervention into the education market, in order to make the education market more fair? Hasn’t the government been doing that for 6 or 7 decades? Has it worked? Why is it suddenly going to work better, now?

I’m essentially saying that growing the size of the government for the purpose of managing the market is what’s led to all the social outrages these OWS protesters are picketing against. I’m not against their outrage, I’m against their recommendations–most of which are easily assumed based on their rhetoric and the history of radical socialism.

Ending the Federal Reserve is the one and only recommendation you’ve listed that I agree with, because that in effect removes the government-banking cabal that caused the financial collapse. Ending the Fed would reduce the power of the central government, and dismantle the banking monopoly. A free market does not generally lead to such monopolies–to the contrary, most (if not all) monopolies are brought into being by government favoritism. The banking monopoly is a prime example, as well as the worst example of this.

I also oppose executing people without evidence; in fact I oppose execution, period. Different blog topic though.

In my opinion, the protesters are driven by economic grievances and by moral repulsion to the overwhelming corruption that has corroded America. Their signs propose pragmatic reforms to substantive problems. Some such recommendations are taking money out of politics, ending the Fed, lowering tuition, having the rich pay fair tax rates and ending the abominable injustice of the court system where people are executed without evidence.

It is about time that people came out against these injustices. Individualism and freedom do not equate with the lunacy of state-endorsed supply side economics that pretends that an economy can function without consumers and that owners have no moral responsibility to their workers. These ideologies only seek to increase one person’s freedoms at the expense of another’s according to amoral criteria (wealth).
Individualism cannot include the right of the individual to mistreat others, just as collectivism cannot include the right of the many to mistreat the individual. The freedom of the individual and the welfare of others are legitimate concerns that must be balanced intelligently; to not balance these demands intelligently because of the influence of moneyed interests and bribery makes the system corrupt.

I think that the protests are a result of and a response to such corruption in the justice system, government and trade (cronyism and monopoly) and hence are entirely legitimate, morally and practically.

What is immoral is the current right-wing statist ideology that tries to justify and excuse the actions of the corporate and political class of self-interested elites. Such a system has increased the servitude of others in meaningless, amoral and immoral careers by a dearth of employment opportunities and a lack of access to the capital required by those who want to start their own businesses. Rather than encouraging variety, the current system is based on the concentration of industry, often toward immoral ends. Financial institutes have used their clout to consolidate their positions by putting others in debt, energy conglomerates have used their clout to stifle technological development and corporate media have used their clout to delude the public and maintain the status quo. Protesting this status quo is a moral imperative, which should be embraced according to the moral concerns of the left wing (treating others well) and right wing (respecting the individual’s freedom) alike. Currently, the economic freedom of the average individual in America is being displaced by the corrupt ideology of the freedom of the wealthy elite to do whatever they want.

He didn’t liken the borders to a cage, he likened lining the border with impenetrable & militarized fences, to a potential cage. How is he wrong? What do you think the Berlin Wall was?

Paul said we could go ahead and build a wall and militarize the border, but that is not what he thinks America is about. We don’t need to lock people out who are coming to contribute to our society; and we don’t need the impression of locking the world out either. It’s what totalitarian societies do to keep people out (and to keep people in)–Germany, Russia, China. Yet, oddly, Neocons will call him the Isolationist!

You suppose a day that Americans would be kept in is an extreme idea, and yet we have Rick Perry who used executive orders (which many would say are grossly unconstitutional on the federal level) to force 12 year olds to be vaccinated. Mitt Romney believes in forcing people to buy health insurance (sometimes). And these are our “Conservatives” ! Democrats are becoming downright totalitarian Socialists.

Yea, I don’t know if I can just sit back and trust that America will always be a free society.

What Paul was saying on this issue was echoed by some others on the stage as well: We don’t have an immigration problem, we have an entitlement problem. But for entitlements, there would be few reasons to limit immigration into the US.

But the “big boys” once again demonstrate their inability to see the forest through the trees. We don’t have an immigration problem requiring a Berlin-style fence. If anything, the Hispanics who are coming here are just replacing some of the Americans we’ve aborted. Big deal. What we have is an entitlement problem. If we limited entitlement spending and quit providing free health care, education, college and retirement, we would not have a problem with immigration.

This is like smothering your house in honey and building a wall to keep out the bears. Or, you could scrape off the honey like a sane person.

I’m not defending Gaga, I think she falls into the offense for the sake of offense category. But I still support art which may be incidentally offensive if it has and artistic merit.

This is also one of the reason why I like Christians. If they are offended, they limit their rage to angry blogs then turn the other cheek. This beats decapitating innocent bystanders in fits of rage.

Please. They don’t realize they’re being offensive? It’s just art? It’s really about love and positivity. . . . my feeble, mortal mind must have missed that part. I was too busy focusing on the “artist” Gaga delighting in her own flatulence and self-aggrandizement.

Christianity is an easy target: There are no legal or physical repercussions (as there would be in Muslim countries) to insulting and attacking Christianity.

And “artists” know what they are doing. These cases could be won in court. She obviously realizes she’s placing Catholic imagery in a video for a pulsating, somewhat dark, disco track, to be played over crowds snorting cocaine and dropping ecstasy, and using language that is outright (not borderline) blasphemous. How original.

It’s weak, and exposes the artists’ lack of originality, integrity and ability. I actually think Lady Gaga is very talented, and probably the most intriguing artist in pop music today (although her music is not my cup of tea). But what’s the religion bashing about? Sing your disco and let it be. The Bee Gees sold hundreds of millions of albums without being offensive (except to people’s ears once and while).

Honestly, even if you think Christianity is a very important thing to “rebel” against because you feel its oppressive… it’s 2011. Look around you. There’s no Vatican police forcing her to be Catholic. If she wants to be a Pagan, who cares? It’s a free country.

She used her free speech to bash my religion. Hence, I’m using mine to call her a perverted fool, bound for obscurity along with her hero Madonna.

Give it a century or two. The history of music has been far more respecting of talent and achievement than antics and clownishness. If Mozart ever dressed up as a dominatrix and writhed around like bitch in heat while performing, nobody cares now.