Libertarianism verses Corporate Welfare

See news commentary below, but first here's this.

SNOOTY SOUNDING ENGLISH NAMES

Abercrombee

Argent

Atchison
Banebridge

Barkley

Bellingham

Belvedere

Bentley

Bradberry

Bradstreet

Brandice

Buckingham

Burlington
Canterbury

Carnegee

Chadwick

Chastane

Chesterfield

Churchill

Cornwall
Chromwell

Devenshire

Donnybrook

Dunlap

Eastwick
Ellingwood

Essex

Fabersham

Farthington

Finch

Hartford
Haulsey

Hugo

Kerrington

Kingsley
Laughlin

Littlefield

Longtree
Lockerbee

Lorrie

Maplethorp

Marquardt

Montenegro

Naragrasit

Newberry
Newcastle

Northrop

Northunberland

Oglethorp

Pendergast

Pennington

Plantegenent

Proctor

Quimby

Rockingham

Rothschild

Rutlege
Salisbury

Sorenson

Standish

Stubblefield

Sutcliffe

Thornberry

Tomlinson

Waverly
Wellington

Wentworth

Wesmorland

Westhaven

Whitcliff
Whitehall

Windser

Winthrop

Witherspoon

Yates

I'm not sure that Thom Hartman gave that libertarian guy an entirely fair hearing.  First of all we must realize that both James Madison and Thom Hartman are redefining the word "Faction".  The generic word is neutral and it applies to any "party" or following of perhaps an individual for leadership.  We have whored out the whole definition of political party in this country to mean - - corporatist party A and corporatist party B and nobody else, almost by design - - has any say at all.  All "personal interests" are not necessarily bad.  But James Madison was saying from the factions he observed- - most work against the populist or democratic interest or the "public good".   I would just advise my liberal friends that nobody considers health care part of the "public domain" or whatever.  To take "aminent domain" over an entire profession IS an encroachment of government; no doubt about it.  And it's a step I personally would not take unless I was very sure that I had an ideal plan to now assume the role of "overseer" in people's lives.  Nobody likes Obama care.  It's the worst of both worlds.  But the other point the same (?) caller made was about the Koch Brothers and the marchers in that very large New York City protest last weekend that was ignored by the news media.  The caller showed his true colors calling a public assembly of 400,000 people (wow - that's a high number) a constitutionally guarenteed right under the first amendment as "a faction" but he said that the interests of the Koch Brothers - - were NOT a faction.  Obviously the Koch Brothers ARE a faction so I don't know how he gets around that.  I have said that libertarianism might work in a perfect world.  If I were a Christian preacher I'd call Heaven a libertarian paradise because over (or up) there everyone has attained to a state of perfection, and it would thus be logical to assume that if the Free Market were exercised in heaven it would opperate flawlessly.   I consider the free market like the highway system.  You don't dig up a whole road system because of a few potholes or bridges washed out- - or Governor Christie is playing games with traffic direction with the George Washington bridge.  I believe as the libertarians do that properly policed- - - the Free Market provides a very efficient and (often) fair means of distributing goods to where they are needed, and promotes a spirit of competetion and a striving for excellence.  But the trouble is - - in reality- - back down here in the real world that doesn't work so well.  Some would say that "Money is not speech".   I would rephrase that to read "Money SHOULD NOT be speech".  Free speech and political discourse should be not something you can buy and sell.  Hence I believe this IS one area we can declare part of the public domain or "The Commons" as Thom Hartman calls it.  Back in business law somewhere- - maybe in my Senior year- - there was talk about "unfair business practices".  We know from the history books that "price pools" where businesses meet together and agree not to undercut each other- - is considered unethical.  But on a "King of the Hill" this practice was engaged in innocently by three business competetors not knowing that what they were doing was inherently wrong.  It's like a four year old kids who throws rocks at people innocently.  He hasn't been told yet that "bad things can happen if you do that".  But what Wall Mart engages in is WORSE than this sort of price pool- - because at least there was an avowed motive of "can't we all just get along' among your competetors.   But in this sense- - I would not say that "greed" is good, but rather "antagonism twords your competetors" is good.  You might say "It's the way God planned the free market system".   Unfortunately I suspect a lot of collusion between- - health care providers or the big oil companies.  And if you looked hard enough I bet you could find something where they violate some sort of law.  If it's "unfair business practice" to use your capital to bury somebody else- - because you under cut them in price for the SOLE REASON of NOT providing better service but to drive them all OUT of business so you can take over.  It's the perona fish sindrone.  This is what Wall Mart does.  I heard that in Hearne Texas the Wall Mart there drove all the other vendors OUT of business, and then Wall Mart itself went belly up because it couldn't stay in business- - probably because of the very economic damage IT had done to the town.  I hope all of this makes sense.  I believe in the principle of government being the referee in a contest and not participate as one of the players.  I agree with the callers that "Picking winners and losers" is contrary to the spirit of freedom or liberty- - or a healthy free market.  But of course I would also say the same thing to the Supreme Court.  Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing "I see our jobs on the bench as umpires calling balls and strikes" and in this I agree.  Unfortunately the High Court and the other courts have become political advocates- - and this has been considered wrong throughout our history.

In terms of working for the agragate good- - let me elaborate thusly.  If perhaps good people sometimes criticize your presence- - but the effect of your actions is to antagonize the bad guys and make them unconfortable to they squirm or are hesitent to put their plans fully in play with You in the picture, than You are an agent of Good- - even if not recognized by all.  In the same vein - - if all the rest of the good guys are constantly making excuses for you- - and would frankly opperate much more efficiently WITHOUT you- - as in the case of President Obama- - then you have ceased to be part of the solution and become part of the Problem.  President Obama's problem now is that HE in fact has Become - Part of the Problem.  The whole liberal picture and "seeing what we need to do now" would be a whole lot clearer with President Obama out of the picture.  This is my oppinion, anyhow.

In terms of the Cosmic perspective - - Sylvia Brown was of the "Miami DES RHO" group.   This is the same group that Jeane Dixon and Ruth Montgomery are members of as well as the church of Scientology and the Miami Dolphins and Heat.  It's also known as Baal and "The Weather God".   Normally it gets a cautious write-up in Federation publications- - however in this case not only are they allies against "The Texas Group" - - - but even more evil outfits are allies against "The Texas group" including the Alcyonnized Lanians, which were responsible for the death of both John Lennon.  And Stu Sutcliffe (as a dog) I'm now informed was done in by the Pittsburgh DES RHO - - who are responsible for the deaths of two of the Pretenders band members and also the fabled Randy Rhodes of Ozzy Osborne fame.  Don't count on this Pittsburgh cosmic group for much of anything though - - - Sting and Bono are NOT considered assets by the Federation.

Meanwhile I was walking the tightrope a couple of hours ago fearing that I would incur a $35.00 overdraft fee before the day was out if I didn't get to the bank before six.  I remedied that problem with the invaluable help of my brother, and we prayed that I would find the resolve to quit smoking so that cigarettes wouldn't be continually eating up my limited funds.