Dec-09
20
John Mackey – An American Hero?
By
I tһіחk ѕο.. Aѕ much аѕ I detest tһе Christian News Channel, aka FoxNews (btw, I detest CNN, MSNBC, аחԁ CNBC more) tһеу ԁο occasionally һаνе ѕοmе ехсеƖƖеחt guest appearances. One such appearance recently wаѕ John Mackey. Oh, tһе scum bags tag οח tһіѕ one іѕ іח reference tο ѕοmе οf tһе members οf tһе audience, аחԁ a couple οf tһе clips οf protesters, аחԁ, especially, tһе final segment wһеrе Stossel brings іח another guy (didn’t ɡеt һіѕ name bυt іѕ clearly аח unapologetic socialist)..
No related posts.
I did take the time to watch this in it’s entirety. Russell Mokhiber was the unapologetic socialist in the end. I do have to say that the degree that Mokiber is effective is based on some of the questions that you hear their ilk ask, and what the responses to the questions are. So when the questions were asked like, “Would you privatize the national forests?”, “How about a free market in education and roads?”, and “What about the public funding of thousands of parks across the country?”, there has to be a clear and consistent answer.
The principles of a true free society as it pertains to education, parks, forests, and roads is a far reach for most people, even those loyal to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, have a hard time explaining their libertarian philosophy. It’s sad but I dare say we are so far removed in having a government run strictly constitutionally, and to hint that everything should be privatized will almost always fall on deaf ears.
If we can not be consistent and compromise on other issues we will fail in the debate. People want freedom to a degree. They will still sell parts of their liberty for the perception of security in social security, welfare, and now seemingly health care.
Chris,
You make a good point. I would argue that what is sorely needed is to focus on the moral role of a government. I do not believe, as do some libertarians, anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate concept. There is a special role for government; the notion of government does not imply a double standard. Rather, free market capitalism requires government act in its fundamental, moral, role as the protector of rights and not the initiator of physical force..
I think Ayn Rand said it best:
Things need to be taken individually. Education, for example, cannot be a reasonable matter for government intervention and its use of physical force. There is a ocean of evidence on multiple levels that demonstrate that government monopoly over education is a horrible means to attain a generally common desire for an educated public. Infrastructure development (roads, bridges, sewer systems, power distribution, etc.), are all also generally desirable but again ought to be analyzed individually. Could private investment consortiums arise that could negotiate deals with individual land owners for roadway development? Certainly. Same for bridges and the like. There is no inherent need for government intervention in these areas – if one engages in the thought experiment. However, such a notion ignores the obvious fact that all around us we have nothing but government owned roads, bridges, sewer systems, etc.. So, the question really becomes what pieces of this can be divested from government control most readily. The process ought to be a movement towards private ownership of all those instrumentalities now controlled and funded by government. There are obvious places to start, such as education..
So, it becomes a test for any politician who wants to hold office. Do they support such a devolution of government control, or not? So, when an issue such as supporting or expanding the role of government in any area other than the protection of individual rights and private property arises the answer has to be NO.. We have to take it all apart, piece by piece. This will require a lot of effort, a generation or two perhaps.. But there is no reason not to believe that it cannot be accomplished, other than the philosophical premises of those who believe otherwise – and that is the battle we fight, but it is a good fight because freedom, liberty, and individual rights are not fundamentally on their side..