Manufacturing Conflict

There is a concept that has been floating around for a while now called Manufacturing Consent.  It was put forward by Noam Chomski and Edward Herman.  I think the idea has merit in some regards but I have some doubts in general.

Yes I think the mass media is consensual part of the propaganda machine of the left. On the other hand, when they report on what the right is saying, and when the right report on the left, it interrupts the propaganda.  It works if you can pick apart the other sides arguments, but it's much harder for he left to pull apart the arguments made on the right, although the not the party line republicans.  There is no doubt that their intent is to push the agenda of one side or the other.  They lie constantly to create the illusion that their chosen agenda is what everyone should want.

What I really see happening is the manufacturing of conflict between the left and right.  I think the reason is fairly simple, if we're fighting with each other we're not looking at the manipulations of the power elite.  Hence the growing divide between right and left.  The left has for a long time viewed capitalism with incredulity.  In the last 30 years, I think a lot of that incredulity is the result of being told we live in a capitalist system, when in fact, since 1913 (or earlier) we've lived in a Crony Capitalist system - entirely NOT the same thing.

Many of the wars that we get involved in make no sense and I believe we are led into them by the same people who use crony capitalism, who seek to destroy the free market, who seek the new world order.   I suspect move of the people in mass media don't even know their helping the cause that's destroying them. This manufactured conflict is I think, it's non an uncommon occurrence. We see it in Race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama, men who try to turn every occurrence of black and white interaction into a racial conflict.  We see it in journalist and government support for terrorist, Hamas in Palestine, and Al-Queda in Syria and Lebanon.    I think it even happens on F*ceB00k - huh, yeah I got the idea from reading a an article link from Maggie's Farm concerning "Likes"

Progressives going for the Nanny State, Republicans going for the Corporate State, both supporting wars that amount to colonial aggression under the guise of spreading democracy. Democracy is Mob Rule - why do so many people think that's a good thing?  Look at the riots in Ferguson if you think Mob Rule is a good thing - there's your mob. It's were all mobs go eventually. Without a culture that promotes morals based on a sound philosophy, you end up with situational ethics, which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one - right up there with Corporate Ethics.

When they start telling you to hate someone for what they say or believe - it's time to start looking to your own beliefs - do they stand up to logic, are they formed from a first level philosophy?  If you look at the base of the Libertarian philosophy - despite all the differences, the basics are pretty much the same:

Individuals own them selves and the production of their efforts.
Coercion is immoral.
Individuals have the right to own property.
Self Defense is a Duty to self and third parties where Coercion is used.

Some would simplify and say, The Non-Agression Principle, and Property Ownership, and I'm okay with that because they lead to self defense, and one can assume self ownership.

If you can't get to where they say everyone should be, from that starting place - or what ever starting place you decided is true, then maybe you should examine their agenda before you join the revolution.

Open Borders

From a libertarian viewpoint I'd like to have open borders - the problem is, I don't live in a libertarian nation.  For open borders to work, we'd need a few things we currently lack, and we'd have to get rid of a few things we have.

First we'd have to do away with all the welfare and other entitlement programs. As people entered the country  they'd need to sign a contract, they'd have five years to learn basic english, file their taxes (of which there would be fewer - for everyone), and not get into trouble.   Not getting into trouble would be easer because we'd get rid of a significant number of laws and regulations.   So, no driving under the influence, no contract violations, no criminal convictions.  End of the five years - you get to take the test for citizenship.  If you pass then you get a green card, and you can now vote.  I don't much care where you came from, although I'd be fairly watchful of folks from countries that are known to support terrorists.

We'd need to have open borders and open trade in a lot of other countries too - if we're the only one, then we're going to have a problem.  We're going to have a huge crime problem as long as there's a minimum wage because there will be a huge unemployment problem, and starving people tend to resort to crime when no other option exists.   If everyone had open borders then people would be able to move freely (although perhaps not cheaply) to where ever the jobs were.   - Yeah we'll we know that's not going to happen.   Did you know that even cheerful little New Zealand has MUCH stricter immigration rules than we do?   Yep.  I can't immigrate to New Zealand if I wanted to, even with two degrees, and no criminal record.   Tool old, yeah age discrimination (and for a very logical reason).  Now if I win the lottery, I might pull it off - and I might add to my education to fit one of their strongly desired skills, but even then I might be too old.  Why?  National healthcare, the last thing they need is a bunch of retired folks coming down and plugging up their healthcare system, having never paid into it.

If you have children - they do not become citizens until you do, or until they can pass the test by themselves.   Then again I wouldn't let children of existing citizens vote until they could pass the test either.   If you can't read english (or brail), then you're not going to qualify for citizen - sorry.  Yeah, I know that seem harsh and possibly somthing-ist.   Here's the thing, we got into the trouble we have because we let a lot of stupid people vote.

You'll notice that I don't mention education in there?  That's because if you want that you'll need to pay for it.   (I'm already getting a headache from the whiners...) The idea a "free education" is a myth.  We're simply spreading the cost of it across a lot of people.   You're kids, will be eligible for vouchers once you pass the exam and get your citizenship.  How's that for incentive?    I'm not convinced we should even have "free" education - although there is a significant argument for the pro side.   Even though I don't have kids, I can see how I benefit from their education (well not the ones they're getting now, but the kind they used to get) that I don't find the tax burden unreasonable, although I'm fairly certain that anyone over the age of 65 has paid enough and should be exempt (no I'm not 65 yet , or even 60).

The point here is that my desire to see the borders locked up has more to do with economics than race, more to do with politics than race.

It's not really about that.

There are all sorts of proposals in the wake of EPS1 attack on Aurora.   There's one by Lautenberg and McCarthy that will supposedly make it harder for ciminals to anonymously purchase ammo on-line.   Bitter over at Shall Not Be Questioned has more info.

Normally I agree with those guys 99+%

This time I'm going to take exception; minor, but and exception.

It's not about Gun Control - it's about CONTROL.  They're not trying to control guns, or ammo, they're trying to control people.  That's what governments do - if you let them.   They eventually reach a point where they control every aspect of your life.   Every law is there as a means of controlling people.  If you control the people you win.  Granted it's a long term loosing proposition, but folks like Pelosi and Obama are incapable of seeing beyond they're own desires.  Hell most politicians are incapable of even realizing they're short sighted.

At times it seems like they do it because they think we're too stupid to make our own decisions. I've got to admit having elected Obama - they may have a point - a lot of people are apparently too stupid.  On the other hand, my internal Wookie says: "It's their life to screw up, we must allow them to make their own bad decisions."  Then the Objectivist voice in my head says - but they're inflicting their stupid decisions on me!

Sad but true - it's the way we let the system evolve.  The reality is worse I think.   They know if they tell the right lies, and scare people enough, the people will beg them to take control.  And they will, every chance we give them.  Doesn't matter if it's about Guns, or Finance, or Freedom of Speech.  They want to control it.

The laws aimed at guns are really just the most insidious of the lot, the ultimate goal is to remove our ability to defend ourselves, which makes us nothing more than another dependent of the system.

Dumb or Dumber

We're going to get one or the other.   Why? Well there's just not enough of us to elect Ron Paul (R) or Gary Johnson (L).  The GOP lackeys are going to Vote for who ever the RNC tells them to vote for - that'll be Mitt.  And the progressives will vote for BO.   Either way we'll get what they deserve for a government - possibly what we deserve for not beating the GOP into submission 30 years ago and turning them into the Small Government Party.   I suspect we failed not so much from a lack of trying (although there was a fair amount of that) but lack of foresight as to just how screwed up the GOP would become.  In my case it was an absolute refusal to vote anything but Libertarian - knowing full well I wasn't going to win - but I could sleep at night knowing I hadn't sold out to the GOP. 


Would Ron be better?  Yeah, not ideal but better - except he'd get little or no support from the GOP congress.  Which means he could fix Communist Czar problem that BO created.  He'll probably put us in to seclusion mode for foreign policy - in the short run, as long as we keep up HumInt funding that might not be tragic.  But congress is unlikely to do the rational stuff we want to see until his second term - after we've ousted the idiots that didn't get the message the first time around.   Gary Johnson would be my first pick but he'd be even less effective than Ron Paul for everything but Regulatory appointments (Very important), Supreme Court appointments (Critical), Foreign Policy (serious).   Getting congress to behave - Nah, since neither one is the official candidate for the BIG and BIGGER government parties, congress (except the TP'ers) will be as uncooperative as possible. 


Now Borepatch makes an interesting argument for voting for the unrestrained reign of National Democratic Socialist/Communist/NWO terror that Obama supporters seem to want (of course they're not going to much like what they get but they're convinced they want it and there's no changing their minds). 


I understand the logic - I really do, I'm just not sure we'll recover from what an unrestrained BO will do to us - we may not get another election without a fight (literally a fight as in with weapons).   Maybe I'm over reacting - maybe he'll just really screw things up so bad that the TEA Party gets a huge boost - which means a lot more congress-critters get the boot.    I don't think the Tea Party trusts  Mitt anymore than I do, and they really do want smaller government, controlled spending, and lower taxes so I don't think they'll give up. 


I absolutely agree that Mitt, if elected, will sway in which ever breeze seems most likely to blow him into a second term.   The trick then is to make sure that breeze is fairly strong - dumping every incumbent and putting in a TP'er or Libertarian candidate.  My preference would be any libertarian - and I don't agree with a lot of them but they all want a Small (tiny, damn near non-existant government) which is what I want.   What's the difference between a TP'er and Libertarian - TP'er are still a little to ... Not Democrats rather than even Libertarian Light.   Still a little too willing to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt.  If I think a TP'er has a shot where a Libertarian wouldn't I'd go for the TP'er. 


It will either be BO or MR, both are worst choice, but at least we have a small chance of steering the Mittwit as he sees what we do to congress bit by bit.  Right Now - I just don't know. Either go all in with Borepatch, or hope you draw to that inside straight.   It's either completely screwed or completely screwed only slower.  Me I'm going to vote my conscience, if that means doing a write-in for Gary Johnson - I'm OK with that.  

Round II

I'm one of those people who enjoyed Part I of Atlas Shrugged, and I've been looking forward to THIS

I think the movie is an excellent update to the book.   I appreciate Rand, I'm just not 100% in agreement with her - say 90% - I can think of a few things that are significantly beneficial for society but as yet I can think of no way to privatise them (i.e. make them profitable).   Many of these come from the belief that most people find it very difficult to take a long view (longer than their lifetime).  Which makes some of their rational choices less than optimal for the future - say for example EVERYONE in congress.

A politician says they care about the future of our children - they're lying.
A politician or Bureaucrat says it's for the Greater Good - start looking for the Storm Troopers.

Why not a Libertarian?

There's a pretty good discussion over at Sebastians about why we don't see a good Libertarian running.

Part of the problem is that the Libertarians spend too much time worrying about just how rigidly the doctrine should be followed (and which version of it for that matter).   So they don't want to vote for someone who's only 80% - which leaves them stuck with someone who's generally between 0% and 40% of what they want.  

The other problem, as I see it, is that by nature, libertarians don't feel the need to tell others how to run their lives.  Since government has become a tool for doing exactly that - it's sort of repulsive to even thinking about participating - even if the goal is to make it stop (or at least reduce the onslaught).

I was waxing poetic at the gun shop the other day and one of the fellows said he'd vote for me if I ran - now I don't for a minute think I'm really qualified to run, but then I don't think any of the other bozo's are either.   Anyway my immediate reactions was "No way, you couldn't pay me enough to do that job."   It has sense occurred to me that perhaps that reaction is fairly common amongst the choir.   I've all but given up calling myself a Libertarian, I used to think of myself as a conservative but I'm not - at least by todays definition (as loose as that is).

So I'm thinking what I really am is a Contitutionalist

You're a What?

Oh this is just so close to.... PERFECT.    I was libertarian before they went and screwed it up.  Now I'm not sure what I am.    Got the Mac, Got the Face Palm,  Don't have the suit.