Occupy Whatever

Porter,

You're ... ummmm, sorta right ... about the Tea Party.

The original Tea Party has been hijacked by the Far Right, Bible Bangers, and ultra Rich just as the OWS Movement could just as easily be hijacked by the Terry Robbins / Saul Alinski faction of the Left. It depends on leadership or the lack thereof. If you start a Grass Roots movement that has no leaders, it is easy to be hijacked by the voice that says "Come follow me" like the Pied Paper of Hamelin. There are just enough angry people that have run low on hope who will follow the Devil Himself if he promised to fix all of their problems. Isn't that what happened in Germany about 80 years ago with a crazy little bastard (literally) named Hitler?

We have to come to compromise or we are sunk. Shelby Foote, the Civil War Historian said during one of his clips in Ken Burns' The Civil War:

"We failed to do the thing we have a true genius for, compromise. Americans like to think of themselves as uncompromising but it’s the basis of our democracy, our government is founded on it; it failed. When that happened, we started shooting and killing each other."

Porter,

(It's amazing how parallel the forces that brought them to power are to forces behind the current fascists running for President in the Republican party.)

I'm an Independent now, but I have been both a Republican and Democrat. I am much more of a libertarian than anything else. I don't believe that ALL of the current group of Republican nominees are Fascist, but I do believe that they are pandering to the hard right because someone has told them that they have to do to get elected.

I was raised a Democrat in North Carolina. In 1976, when Carter took office, the state democratic party became controlled by the far left side and it has never changed. That is when I became a Republican; I didn't leave the party, they left me. When the far right took control of the Republican Party, I registered as an Independent. The Ideologues control both parties and set who and what can even be on the ballot. Until that changes, we will never change anything

I personally like some of Dr. Paul's ideas but he cannot get elected, IMO. He is vilified by both the left and right and because of the way he speaks, he can be misquoted very easily. If you take a couple of intentional misquotes and shoot the around the Internet enough time, the person being vilified couldn't get elected to the post held by the guy that euthanizes little homeless kittens.

My dream ticket would be Jon Huntsman for President with either Olympia Snowe or Barbara Collins for Vice President. That would be a ticket I could get behind.

Bush's philosophy of governing was, "My way or the highway." Al-Qaeda and the Taliban make no compromises whatsoever. There's a strong parallel there, don't you think?

My thoughts about bush are that he was only one missed heartbeat away from being President. I think that 6 of his 8 years were really the Chaney / Rumsfeld show, but that is just my opinion. And yes, there is no need to go to the middle east to fight the Taliban. You can find all you want in Texas; we call the Baptist!

Potter,

Will you agree that a major cause of the current difficulty was that Republican lawmakers dismantled the laws and weakened the regulatory agencies to the point that the banking industry simply robbed us because we lost the ability to do anything about it?

No I won't agree with that. I will agree that it was corrupt lawmakers from both side of the isle that removed the regulations. Keep in mind that congress, not the administration (republican or democratic president) that makes these changes. It is the Congress, and more specifically, professional politicians from BOTH parties that have made this happen over the past 50 years. While the Republicans are guilty of the removing the last vestiges of the Glass-Steagall Act, the perversion of the system as a whole started long before with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 signed into law by none other than Jimmy Carter and a Democratic House and Senate. This act started the erosion of the laws put in place after the 1929 Crash and subsequent 1932 Great Depression.

I agree that there is a need to make financial as well as Drug and food regulations, but I don't think, as President Obama stated in the State of the Union Address that there need to be 6 Federal and 4 state agencies that have control and jurisdiction over a single steel-head trout from the time he hatches until the time he returns to spawn. That is just crazy and makes no fiscal or logical sense, but it is how the system has morphed.

But when you get non-specific and start talking about "giving away my freedoms" and "a government big enough to take away everything that you will ever have".

Why would I suggest something like this? The answer to me is best explained in the Affordable Healthcare Act as it was passed. I do not question the fact that we NEED health care reform but I will soundly disagree with the way that it was done. I believe this is a case that the government (congress in particular) has overstepped their bounds. To me, it is not a case of what they did with the AHC law, but how they did it.

If you read our Constitution, you will see it gives the Congress certain powers (Tax, declare war, provide for defense, etc.) but, more importantly, it declares what Congress and the Government CANNOT DO. That, IMO, is what will be the deciding factor during the Supreme Court challenge. Did the congress, in fact, overstep its bounds by requiring everyone to buy insurance (or anything else for that matter) from a private entity that is selling this "thing" for a profit?

I believe that we need healthcare reform, but when the government can REQUIRE you to buy something from someone else for a profit under penalty of law, I think they have gone too far. If they get away with this, what else can they "Require" you to buy? Can they require that you buy your next car from GM? Can they require that you get your next mortgage from Citibank or B of A? Can they require that you set up your 401(k) only with Morgan Stanley? How about your internet and phone service from AT&T (Awful Telephone & Telegraph) or your insurance from AIG? This is the slippery slope that we are starting down.

Congress, when they enacted the AHC Law took the cowards way out. Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the power to levy tax for pretty much any damned thing that they want to. If congress had made this a TAX, there would be little room to question the funding vehicle that they had chosen. The problem is that they did not have the stones necessary to do that.

Just as an FYI, the original concept of Social Security was that it would be a mandated savings program. Henry Morganthau, Jr. (FDR's Secretary of the Treasury for his entire term in office) who was the Architect of Social Security as we know it today, knew that it would never pass muster in the courts if done that way. He recommended to FDR that it be made into a TAX (FICA TAX) and no challenge in the courts has ever been successful.

If you allow congress to overstep their authority, where will they stop? That is what I mean by loss of freedom and it is just one small step down the road that can only lead to the destination of tyranny. I once heard it said the:

"People do not lose their freedoms; they give them away, one at a time."

But, in conclusion, let's examine your statement of:

Y'know ... Whenever I get into a discussion that gets past the name calling and reactionary catch phrases, I find that it usually boils down to a simple clash of values.

To a degree you are right. The difference that I see between the Progressives and the True Libertarians is an issue of convictions and moral beliefs. I, and most libertarians I know believe that most people are by nature good and will do what is "right" simply because it is the right thing to do without prodding from someone else. When I joined the Marine Corps, I was taught the 3 fundamental requirements of being a Marine; Honor, Courage and Commitment. They were explained as follows:

Honor - Doing what is Right solely because it is the Right thing to do.

Courage - Once you have decide what is "Right" you do it; even if it isn't popular with others or profitable to you.

Commitment - Once you have the first two nailed down, you follow the course until you have completed that which is the right thing to do.

As a Freemason, there is not much difference in the way we approach things. I personally believe that, one day I will be required to stand before the Grand Architect of the Universe and give an accounting for what I have done on this earth. I don't think there is much that he has missed and I don't want the interrogation to last too long.

The progressives that I know both here on the vine and in person have a different outlook as best I can determine. They believe that they are the only ones that know what "right " is; that people are by nature bad and must have some one to outline in detail the progressive version of "right" for them; and there must be some all powerful agency or government with power of thumbscrew to enforce this version of "right" upon the masses. After all, we mere mortals are incapable of making decisions regarding personal responsibility, accountability, or morality for ourselves; we must be lead by Adam Weishaupt and the Bavarian Illuminati or his direct genetic siblings.

That is what I find most distasteful about the progressive concept; that I am unable to make decisions for myself because I am not "enlightened" enough to know what is "Right or wrong" with respect to what this new group of overlords consider right. I am a Principle Engineer for a major company, I have been an Electric and Mechanical Engineer for over 35 years, and hold 2 engineering degrees and an MBA; I didn't fall off the back of the turnip truck last night. But, according to some of the progressives on the vine, I must be some genetic throw back to the neanderthal line of humanity because I don't agree with them regarding the overall control of society. Personally, I know when to bath, shave, and how to put out my clothes for work and do not need Hobson to do it for me. I have not needed a bay sitter for over 55 years; my name is not Arthur Bach. I must ask, however, is theirs?

The difference I see is what we define the responsibility of government in our individual lives. Do you want a government who's responsibility is to assist you in being successful and protecting you from the truly bad in our society, or do you want a Nanny state that will remove from you any responsibility, accountability, and culpability at the expense of being able to tell you what to do, when and how to do it?

I am a widower that cares for my 88 year old stepfather. I do it because it is my responsibility; he cared for my mom and my siblings after my father's death and I owe him that much. However, how many people do you know that just ship Grandma or Grandad off the the Medicare Sponsored Human Warehouse because it is too inconvenient to care for them? After all, the old folks are the "government's responsibility", aren't they? This is what I see we have degenerated into; a society where we are not responsible or accountable for anything.

I think the scary talk in the last part of your message does a lot of harm these days because it throws gas on a fire that is already out of control and burning us up.

And this is our biggest disagreement. You believe that we need an all powerful, all encompassing, government ubre alles that will direct us down the correct path as you see it in the name of the salvation of civilization. I, on the other had believe that civilization and freedoms will be doomed BECAUSE of this same Government uber alles that you wish to instill with unlimited power because, in your view, we mere peasants are unable to control our lives in the "right" way. We must legislate Right Think amongst the populous because they are unable to function without it. That to me is far more scary than people standing up for their rights and freedoms.

Glass–Steagall Act

Porter,

One last thing. You say:

If so, will you further agree is that the remedy is to restore and tighten the banking laws and regulators so they can't do that in the future?

While I agree that we need to put the laws in place to regulate our financial institutions, I am not so naive to be believe that it will never happen again. As long as it cost $4 Million to get elected to an office that pays $175k; Professional Politicians can continue to violate the same laws that we citizens are required to follow and can continue to hold office for 20, 30, 40, or 50 years; and lobbyist have unrestricted access to the politician's staffs and can funnel money into them, you will never keep the laws in place. It is not that people are bad by nature, but we are corruptible. In Washington where power and money flow like water, the temptations is far too great, just like a cop that handles millions in drug money every day. Eventually, even the most righteous will falter if enough cash is waved under his nose enough times.

Porter,

I'll disagree with you on several points here. I think I biggest disagreement here is that I am arguing for a middle ground. I am not a "Ron Paul" libertarian, a John Bohner Republican, or a Nancy Pelosi democrat. I believe that Middle ground is essential to the survival of all.

While I do see some of the technical logic of the "Tragedy of Commons" I do not completely agree with the essay or the works by his predecessor, William Foster Lloyd. While I have seen the human creature at his absolute worst (not just in Vietnam , but in Europe, North Africa, and Latin America), I also understand that what has raised us above the Visigoths, Vandals, Huns, and Cossacks, is the fact that MOST of us are willing to look for a better side in ourselves and make provision for those that cannot; a hand up, not a hand out. Note, I didn't not say ALL. Our prison system is a sad testament to the fact that there are some who will not play nicely in the sandbox with others. But, that Moral compass if you will, is what IMO separates us from the Jackals and Hyenas; without that moral compass we would be nothing more. While I, and most of the people I know will work toward our best interest, we are not so callous to turn a blind eye to everything else. That is the middle ground of which I speak. I hope your mother is doing well. I was busy last night with Toys for Tots. I've been working with them since I left active duty in 1973.

I didn't mean it to sound like the Christmas morning cop and I really try not to be partisan, but it slips out sometimes, sorry. I consider myself a Libertarian, but not a "Ron Paul" Libertarian. If you had to sort me into a bin, I would be more of a Margret Chase Smith Republican. I am strongly for personal freedoms and personal responsibility and very much against the Nanny welfare state concept but probably not why you think. I fear what the welfare state is doing to the future.

My parents and grand parents lived through the Great depression. they were country folk so they made out better than most. They could grow, fish or hunt to at least put something on the table. I fear what the welfare state is doing because we have raised several generations that believe corn "grows in a green giant can." How many people do you know today that can fix their own car, leaking roof, or even a dripping faucet? We have conditioned people to live off of the government's stipend and educated them that it will always be there.

What happens when that stipend isn't there anymore? Do you think that they will just sit on the curb and cry or will they turn into an Athens Mob with a handgun for everyone? My money is on the mob. This is my issue with the excessive government welfare state that we (starting with Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George) have created.

It is not "You" that I have a problem with but the progressive mentality of bigger and bigger government that allows and even encourages the individual to abrogate their responsibilities and accountability to the government and its agencies. I give you child Protection and social Services as just one example and the woman that asked a seemingly innocent question about breast feeding her first child and spent a year trying to get her daughter back from Social Services because the social worker thought that the question had some weird connotation. Yet these are the same people that can't find out that a Penn State coach has been molesting children for 30 years; come on now.

You and I both care for our parents because it is our responsibility, but I ask you, how many do you know that are perfectly capable of caring for their parents at this time but it is "Too Difficult", "too much of a bother", or it cuts into their "Me Time"? My step-dad and I along with others from the lodge deliver gifts to several of the nursing homes at Christmas and on holidays like veteran's day. I have seen quite a few people there "visiting" that have just abrogated their responsibility to their Parents or grand parents with the idea that "it is the government's responsibility, not mine." This is what is being taught by the all encompassing government responsibility movement.

I agree with many of the progressive ideas and Ideals, it is the execution that I have a problem with. I truly believe that the progressive want the best for everyone, but they have never understood what the road to hell is paved with. An example of this is the difference between the assistance for those in the Great Depression and the current welfare system. When Henry Morganthau, Jr. went before congress in 1934 to ask for assistance for the people displaced by the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, he cautioned Congress not to make the payments too generous because it would "'would remove their desire to better their situation and create a condition not unlike economic slavery." Unfortunately, Johnson and the Great Society progressives failed to heed his warnings. I give you Cabrini–Green in Chicago, Overtown in Miami, Fair Park in Dallas, and plenty more around the country that have degenerated into nothing but federally subsidized human warehousing. This is what I mean by what the road to hell is paved with.

If the monetary system were to collapse today (as it is doing in Europe), how long will it be before you and I have to pick up arms to defend our loved ones? Like I said before, I've already looked the 2nd horseman in the eyes once and hope I don't live long enough to do it again. But I don't think that even most of the the blame falls on the banks or even Wall Street, but the political system that we have set up over the past 30 or 35 years. That is when it became so expensive to get elected that the politicians sold their souls to the highest bidder in order to get elected. The SYSTEM, lead by the parties and their Ideologues are the reason we have what we have. Politicians that are already per-purchased before the get to Washington and Ideologues that will allow only those of their steadfast ideology to appear on a party backed (and supported) ticket.

Case in point: In North Carolina, the far left side of the Democratic Party took control in 1976 and has never relinquished it. Today, it is controlled out of UNC Chapel Hill (USC - Berkley, Far East Campus). If you are anything except an ultra liberal ideologue, you cannot get your name on the ballot or be supported by the party. That is why Richard Burr (R-NC) is still in office. Had the Democrats run a moderate to even slightly left, he would have been defeated, but they chose Elaine Marshall who ran on a platform of Obamacare, unrestricted amnesty for Illegal Aliens, and 3 or 4 other items that would have made Bernie Saunders think she had gone too far left. Needless to say, we have senator Burr for the next 6 years as well as the Democrats losing control of both state houses for the first time since reconstruction.

No one but a hardened bureaucrat at risk of losing a cushy job would defend the waste and corruption that is so commonly found in government. But the alternative of "everybody for themselves" is not the answer. We agree that government - at least in some form - is necessary. The answer is to make that government serve the people.

On that we will agree. I think that the middle ground is attainable; we have had it before, but we must get rid of the Ideologues as they ARE the problem. They are the ones that have converted the people that may disagree with your stance to hated enemies. You can make a deal with someone who you disagree with, but you cant with a hated enemy. With a hated enemy, it is winner take all, no prisoners, or "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius", which is where we derive the term "Kill them all and let God sort them out".

Most of the people that I know who claim to be libertarians are those disenfranchised centrist from both parties that have been chased away because of the tails that are wagging their respective dogs. I do agree we need laws, just make them responsible, there is a middle ground between uncontrolled government and anarchy.

Porter,

One last thing as I am also guilty of generalizations. When I say "Progressives" I am really referring to the current "Progressive Caucus" in congress. In the 70's and early 80's even the Democrats referred to them as the "Ultra Ultra Liberals." They were the Ideologues that wanted to push the US toward the European Model IMO. Today everyone that is even slightly liberal is tarred by the right as being a "Nancy Pelosi Progressive." The same is being done with the Tea Party; they have been vilified.

The Tea Party originally was not much different than the OWS folks (Ok, we didn't crap in public parks and we cleaned up after ourselves), until the movement was hijacked by the Tea Party Express (Sarah Palin's Cheer Leading Squad). I fear the same thing for OWS. They are in danger of being hijacked by the Saul Alinski / Terry Robbins / Anonymous / anarchist crowd. Many of them wear a "Guy Fawkes" mask, but fail realize what his eventual fate was.

I believe we can have compromise again as soon as we get rid of the ideologues on both sides of the isle.

Porter,

Sorry for the late response; Thanksgiving with the kids and Grand-kids. I think you are oversimplifying my response related to what my fears really are. Perhaps in the future, we can discuss them further. I have sent you a friend request. i doubt that we will ever agree on many things but I think the debate would be interesting at least. We might even sway the steadfast beliefs of each other; that is what compromise is all about. Who knows, it might even catch on; that would be a novel concept!