NATIONALIZING THE INFRASTRUCTURE?
The airline industry has been ruined by government in making us wait for hours in lines to be searched by people who look more like terrorists than anyone in line.
If a passenger dares scold any of the searchers for long delays or offensive touching, that passenger can be sentenced to five years-plus in prison. Thus over half of the American public say they refuse to fly unless it's an emergency. Because of this, the airlines are going bankrupt, canceling peripheral routes until nothing is left to cancel except employment contracts as the airline goes belly-up. This appears to be intentional by government, since it refuses to relax the delays.
Bill Anderson in his insightful article PROFITS AND HIGH PRICES: MORE ECONOMIC NONSENSE tells us that, "...if oil executives decided to make long-term investments in additional [oil producting] capacity just to head off draconian controls being demanded by congress, then we would be witnessing what would be, in effect, government control of a vital industry...."
Do you think that government fully intends to nationalize the airline, oil/natural gas, utilities and media industries, like Marxists governments do? Please add your comments.
If so, can any reader speculate which public leaders *could be* directly organizing this, or do they remain in the shadows of limousine back seats?
All responses will strictly be speculative and not necessarily related to real-world conditions and events.
Comments
Adam,
Your Lincoln analogy is fair and accurate but I would like to ask you did Lincoln represent his contingency? I think it is a mere coincidence that Lincoln and the current president are both Republicans. I think most people would agree that political party consistencies rarely exist in the scope of months and never in the scope of centuries. I think you are giving the party too much credit for such a consistent political platform in the span of 140 years.
I believe the consistency or common denominator lies in the human condition and not the party. I agree that both presidents were at the helm during difficult times. I agree that both men acted indifferent to their Constitutional pledge. I agree that both men were quick to respond militarily in a time where other responses might have yielded better results, but I think both men acted as most of us would do during the times of chaos and disorder. We all tend to react much quicker than we respond. The human condition of pride and self preservation tend to run to the front of our psyche in times of trouble.
I think it is natural for an individual to fall victim to anxiety and self doubt but it is for the rest of us in a Democratic Republic, the electorate, to recognize other solutions and request more reasonable effects to chaotic causes. So, if the electorates supported their perspective leader's reaction during those times, then didn't both of these men actually represent their contingents well? I think they did represent the heart and minds of a majority of the people that they represented. Now there is a new question to quandary, could there be tyranny and/or injustice in a majority and if so what is the solution?
Dave,
I thought that was what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify before I responded in depth. With the clarification in place, you allow for an extremely complex response to your question:
Yes, I believe that Lincoln and Bush both represent their constituencies when one considers that they both won their elections. However, it is interesting that the first Lincoln Administration was elected by a less than half of the voters. It is also interesting that the second Bush administration was elected with by more than 50% of the voters - but just barely. (Another scary thought about this election is it's map - a nearly exact duplicate of a political map from the Second American Revolution (the Civil War for all the politically-correct readers out there).)
Now, we must consider what makes a constituency: is it receiving the more votes than any other candidate? Is it receiving more than half of the votes? Is "constituency" synonymous with "mandate"? Can constituencies (mandates, if applicable) change during the elected official's administration?
The reason I ask: During the first Lincoln Administration a majority of the Federal (Yankee, Union, what have you) public was against invading the South. The Federal public saw that invading the South in attempt to restore the old Union would, in fact, destroy the old one and erect a new, "perpetual", Union. The Federal public knew that a perpetual Union was not the object of the founders. The right of secession had always been accepted before Lincoln's time - even Alexander Hamilton is recorded as being "adamately opposed to the use of military force to either force a state to perform some "duty" against its will or to stop it from seceding if it wanted to. In The Federalist Papers (number 81) he stated:
(The reader may recall that Northerners were the first secessionists.) Just think, William Henry Harrison was thought to be Hamilton's heir, Henry Clay was thought to be Harrison's, and Lincoln was thought to be Clay's - looks like Lincoln forgot to read up completely on the words of his predecessor before he maneuvered the South into firing on Fort Sumter, thus swaying his populous to his view, which allowed him to invade the South.
SWAYING THE SOUTH TO FIRE OF FT. SUMTER:
What I'm getting at is that Lincoln swayed a huge majority of the Federalists from being against invasion to being for it - by cunningly maneuvering the Confederacy into firing on Sumter and prompting the secession of Virginia (my home State). (For more information on Virginia's Secession and the causes prompting it, see my research paper entitled "Why Virginia Bade Farewell", which received a 100% for accuracy.)
Now, moving on to the current administration: Bush was elected by a majority in 2000 (but it was very close). He got great public support initially towards his "War Against Terrorism". The idea of "turning the other cheek" in response to 9-11 was never a widespread concensus until after the inauguration of the Second Bush Administration (also elected by a small majority). According to Steven Laffoley in his "Grim King George and the Price of Paving Paradise" article, Bush's approval rating is "spiraling ever downward to ugly Nixonian levels" - in otherwords, the American populous is now doing just the opposite of what it did during the Lincoln Administration. His approval rating starting relatively low, but then peaked at an astounding level when we thought we needed to go to war (we say we're a Christian society, but yet "turning the other cheek" never occured to us) and then spiraled ever downward from that point forward.
I have given your criticism on my statement regarding the Republican party some thought and I concur with your criticism. That statement was incorrect according to my own beliefs.
In response to this question, I would say that tyranny can exist in a majority in the Bushian scenario in that a majority of voters elected Bush because they agreed with him, and now the tyranny exists because the majority now disagrees with him. I am not sure as to the solution regarding this matter, but look forward to reading the future posts of you and of our readers in this regard.
In the Lincolnian scenario, we can say that tyranny of Northern majority led to the issues prompting secession of the Southern States (they considered the overwhelming Northern majority tyranny), thus we can derive that secession was their solution.
I look forward to reading your response and those of anyone who may be reading out there!
J. Adam Craig
"Striving to lead by example rather than by unnecessary rule."Site Administrator
Adam,
Your response is very convincing, your research is impressive and your argument is very strong. There is very little that has been left for reply but I will give it a try. Presidents are elected by a combination of a majority of voters from each state resulting in a process counting the Electoral College's votes from each state. The population of each state determines the number of electoral votes. The point being that the process of electing a president is not left up to a simple majority but a system of segmented majorities thus empowering the states as well as its citizens. This emphasis on state empowerment is always on the minds of sitting presidents. They are sworn to protect the Constitution which protects not only individuals but states and other competing institutions. I would argue that if these influences are built into the electoral process of our Constitution then it should be considered reasonable that sitting presidents would recognize multiple interests in their decisions. This I believe is the case with Lincoln and our current president. I think that their decisions were necessary and proper in the scope of their obligations to their electorate. The issue that I would like to make in criticism of these presidents and their perspective issues of military force is that the fault lies not entirely with the administrations but with the Legislative branch of our government. It is the Legislative branch which is responsible for wars and they are subject only to public opinion. If there is fault with war there can only be fault with the Legislative branch and the population which empowered them. Presidents can argue and implement war but it is Legislatures that fund it. If war is not monetarily reasonable then it ceases to exist. It might be interesting to look at the similarities of the roles of the perspective Legislatures in respect to the issues at hand. In closing, I believe that the president to war ratio is missing a factor. The factor is us, the people. Nothing happens without our consent or approval whether it is political, financial or otherwise.
Dave,
Thanks for the response, and my apologies in my delay in responding...I've been very busy with many issues both within and without this site - recruitment of additional perspectives for the article and this forum interface, namely.
davewilkinson wrote:
I would argue that neither Lincoln or Bush was/is very disturbed with this portion of their Oath. Take Lincoln for example - he disobeyed (destroyed) his own Constitution (repealing Habeas Corpus w/o Legislative approval) to "save" it.
Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program, whilst I can't deny its being a great concept, is thouroughly unconstitutional according to Amendment X:
The Constitution states that since Federal interference in Public Schools - even the concept of Public Schools, per se - is not provided for by the Constitution, the Federal government has no power to interfere with it, but rather that right is reserved to the States or the People.
J. Adam Craig
"Striving to lead by example rather than by unnecessary rule."Site Administrator
Adam,
The tenth amendment has been disregarded for so long that many political leaders feel that there is no obligation follow it. The Supreme Court ruled against the obvious and reasonable interpretation of the tenth amendment by clarifying on Article 1, section 8 (the last item) of the Constitution. In short, Congress can pass any law as long as it is considered necessary and proper. This affirmation is authorized as "Constitutional" regardless of the federal v. state v. individual sphere. The Congress has a green light to pass such laws. The presidents' agendas are passed into law by Congress. The Judicial branch has made the light green in order to validate the actions of Congress. So what is the issue, if all three branches of government take the Constitution lightly but consistently and the whole incident is unchallenged by the electorate? Let me answer my own question by quoting the D of I:
In closing, self government does not work without self discipline. At the current time most people don't know enough to care but that is their prerogative. Our system of government is actually an experiment in progress. Every day the experiment trudges onward whether people care or not. Our king is the law and or conscience should be our policeman. Until our leaders and we the people all know the law and follow the law then no one's life, liberty or happiness is secure even though we have the law. Obedience to the Constitution is equivalent to obedience to state laws, codes and statutes such as speed limits and stop signs. Many people prejudge their obedience to such laws as being relative to their own desires and wishes instead of denying themselves in order to serve a king that they put on the thrown by their own consent.
We've got ol' "Dishonest Abe" to thank for this, in my opinion.
I love this statement! I think summarizes exactly one of the points of this site's mission.
Absolutely! Just think of how old Greece and Rome were when they "fell". America isn't even on the map when we compare the age of our Federal government with their Empires.
Yes, it is. But isn't that a scary thought?
Yes, especially when we consider that our colonial ancestors were self-disciplined and, thus, self-governed enough that there weren't even paid policemen during that time. Think of how non-self-disciplined current society is and how scary life would be here if we had to be our own policemen... (I look forward to some feedback from our Libertarian Peaceful Assembly participants on that idea!)
WOW! I love following your train of thought, Dave! I couldn't agree with you more thoroughly but couldn't begin to tell you how disorganized my attempt at saying the same idea would be! Your expression skills are to be praised to no end...are you related to Thomas Jefferson???
Dave,
WOW! I commend you, as usual, on a very well thought out post! I wish I could organize my thoughts nearly half as well as you can! However I am not sure exactly what you're getting at in the use of the word "contengency". Could you please clarify your meaning so that I can give a more in-depth response.
It's great to see some activity beginning to happen on the forum. I am getting ready to set the intro page so that it gives visitors an option to go to the forum or to the articles first. I think that may attract more attention to the forum.
It's really great to be able to discuss ideals with other site members.
J. Adam Craig
"Striving to lead by example rather than by unnecessary rule."Site Administrator
oooops!
Dave,
Thanks for the response. I concur. If anyone else would like to give input, please feel free.
J. Adam Craig
"Striving to lead by example rather than by unnecessary rule."Site Administrator
Adam,
I think your liberty for liberty trade is on point and it is a widely accepted trade in this day and time. I think that we should ask ourselves if by serving security are we actually serving liberty or simply serving ourselves. If we are simply making ourselves more secure without a regard to lost liberties then it is regrettable, but if we sincerely feel that the security does actually serve the preservation of liberty then it is justified. The intent is important. I think that it is important not only to do the right thing but it must be done for the right reason. In closing, I would like to recall or paraphrase a quotation. I believe it is Franklin's words but I can not provide a reference: Any man who loves security more that liberty deserves neither. Both are important and in many cases they tend to compete for our resolve. The priority is determined by us and our decision reflects our character.
I will try to respond to the Lincoln comparison after some more thought.
Thanks so much for posting! It is great to see this half of the site beginning to receive some notice from the non-Administrators!
Before I respond directly to Jack's question, let me first clarify with the readers that when a site Administrator posts on the forum, he is not speaking on the beliefs or concepts of PeacefulAssembly.org, he is simply speaking on behalf of his own ideals (as if he were any other reader), and he is just as anxious as anyone else to expand his ideals. In other words, an opinionated statement by a Site Administrator on the Forum is not a statement on behalf of the site as a whole.
That said, on to Jack's question:
Let me begin by linking the readers to the article, Profits and High Prices: More Economic Nonsense as was linked to the Ludwig von Mises Institute by Peaceful Assembly on November 14, 2005.
No, I do not think that government intends to lead this nation down the path the Maxists would have us take. I think their actions are subconcious and came about as a response to September 11. We, as Americans are sacrificing liberty in hopes of retaining liberty. Let me say that again: "We are sacrificing liberty in hopes of retaining liberty". Let me ask, "What is liberty without liberty?" Well, it's certainly not liberty.
This is similar to Prefessor DiLorenzo's argument against Abraham Lincoln in The Real Lincoln when he discusses King Lincoln's idea of preserving the "Union" and Constitution when his actions as he went about it actually destroyed both of them. The same applies to my response to Jack's question: we think that we can preserve liberty by destroying it. Just like ol' "Dishonest" Abe destroyed the old and true Union in favor of the new, false, perpetual "Union" that we experience today.
I have never been much on name calling, but if I had to call a name on the issue we are experiencing today, I would point out our first Socialist president, Abraham Lincoln. No, really - we study and idolize Lincoln so much that it should be no surprise that we begin to act as Lincoln would - we just don't realize it. And to think, Lincoln was a Republican, and G. Dubya Bush is too. They haven't changed much.
Please don't hesitate to respond! I'm eager to get a debate going - it doesn't matter the topic, but this one seems a good one to start with.
J. Adam Craig
"Striving to lead by example rather than by unnecessary rule."Site Administrator
Post new comment