Comments on: SP Lowers the U.S. Debt Rating

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:22:04 +0000

tarran, I appreciate your thoughts. I’ll definitely look at more of Ron Paul’s books to see if I can find what I’m looking for. What I have in mind (and should have stated before) is something like the Contract with America for the 104th House. It was simple, readable, and bulletized. The voters fundamentally bought into it.
I am probably one of the very, very few folks who actually recall hearing the 1940 Republican convention on the radio in which Wendell Willkie was nominated. I tell you that in order to illustrate how long I have been interested in the federal government. During my entire adult life I have tried to “evangelize freedom”. It appears to have had little affect. Thus my hope for an agenda that can be read and understood and will appeal to the electorate.

By: tarran

tarran — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:21:36 +0000

Phil, I think Ron Paul and a few others have written book length treatment of how we could unwind things.

In the end, though, they are all politically unfeasible as everyone here seems to recognize.

I don’t think things will collapse in fire. Americans are too peaceable for that. In the end, I think we will see a collapse like that of the Soviet Union or ancient Rome, where people just start ignoring the dictates from Washington, and a few decades later the stars and stripes will no longer be flown anywhere.

Depressingly, I think this collapse will take away the one benefit of the U.S. constitution. The continent spanning free trade zone that was the United States. I think we will see significant barriers to interstate commerce as the federal government becomes weakened. Here in Massachusetts, for example, the craft breweries came close to being legislated out of business by a law requiring them to buy half their agricultural supplies from in-state farms.

Thus, I think that in the troubled times ahead, we have to evangelize freedom. We can’t merely shriek that big government sucks. We also must persuade people that little government is good.

How you do that, whom you prozletize, etc all depends on your particular circumstances. I don’t advise trying to recreate the pre WW-I federal government. It’s a futile, uphill battle. Rather than row the canoe against the currents of history we should go wit the flow and steer the boat to avoid the worst of the rapids ahead.

As technology advances, people’s material wealth will become greater, and the impetus justifying socialism will become less and less. In the future, the case for liberty will become easier to make, not harder. On the other hand, the statists and collectivists will have a harder and harder time justifying their desire for control. So talk up freedom (as opposed to talking down the state) and open the eyes of those around you to the possibilities or a freer life.

By: tkc

tkc — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:02:36 +0000

Phil, the cynic in me has pretty much taken over. What needs to happen won’t because their is too much political/economic pain to pull it off. There is just no will on the side of the welfare/warfare state to limit the government and to put the fiscal house in order. I’m becoming more and more convinced that there is no way out and that the country will collapse.

After all, look at what is going on in London. I could see that happening here.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:32:47 +0000

All but a few walk-ons to this web site appear to agree that federal government’s proper purpose is to secure our natural rights. All other purposes are ancillary.
Most, also, appear to agree that the ninth and tenth amendments should be recognized to mean what they say: i.e. very limited powers of the federal government.
Please, could one of the “Contributors” begin a topic devoted to discussing a step-by-step means to get the country back to, or at least close to, that ideal?

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:32:40 +0000

tkc, I agree wholeheartedly. Do you think that there may be a path to get out of this seemingly inevitable result?

By: tkc

tkc — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:18:31 +0000

Phil, I would suggest that a system that tries to govern 300 million people must be decentralized. No single person, or say, 535 people, could accurately predict the needs and wants of so many people. They’ll never get it right due to the limits on information.
If they tried they’d have to be omni-present. Government everywhere, all the time. Care to take a wild guess as to where that road goes?

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:36:26 +0000

Dr. T, I couldn’t agree with you more. But I’m at a loss as to how to bring the ultimate answer about. After retirement I decided to take government very seriously. I spent practically my whole day, each day, learning all that I could about the current issues, proposed bills, regulatory agencies, etc., etc. After analyzing an issue I would write (what I thought to be) reasoned commentary, with suggestions as to how to legislate, to my representatives in Congress and to the President. This went on for a few years. What I learned was that the ins and outs of the federal government have become so entangled and complex that no single individual has a hope of understanding the “system”. Also, that our representatives and the President do not and cannot understand the system. Furthermore they have no interest in hearing ideas from any source other than their aides and handlers. Hence my question about suggestions.

By: Dr. T

Dr. T — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 04:26:43 +0000

He already suggested not buying U. S. government bonds. If you mean suggestions for reducing the national debt, the answer is simple: reduce the size, scope, and powers of the federal government to those originally enumerated in the Constitution.

By: Phil

Phil — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:27:16 +0000

Having done your analysis, do you have any suggestions?