[Via Jack Liberty]
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
OK. I get it. Americans feel vulnerable. My roommate from university worked for Cantor Fitzgerald and died on 9-11. I get all that.
I also know that over 2 million children will die this year from diarrhea this year world wide. Each of those children could be treated $1.25.
So in the grand scheme of things, some religious nutcase flying into your country with a home made bomb that wouldn’t get him a passing grade in junior high science class stuffed down his underwear is not worth snot.
Get your God damn priorities straight.
qb : You’re an idiot. If you had any idea how much money the USA and US organizations spend on treating diarrhea and malaria and untold number of other diseases in third world countries? I’ve spent the major earning years of my life treating those kids and even their parents. I don’t agree with a lot of the restrictions that come with the aid but, in general, the United States is an extremely generous nation.
Imagine how much more generous we might be if we didn’t have to worry so much about homeland security.
qb: Well said!
Animby: I think you completely missed his point. qb agrees with you.
I like Ron Paul’s scepticism of government agencies … now I wish he’d open his eyes to the other threat of big unregulated corporations.
# 4 Greg Allen
I second that.
The problem with these agencies and the like and the people that run them, is that they become an end unto themselves. I’m sure originally they were set up for the “greater good”, but eventually they are about being self sustaining entities and power for power’s sake. They loathe outside/congressional oversight and just become ego games/prizes for those involved. You think if world peace all of sudden happened, they would go away quietly?
Could say the same of the CIA, Defense, and State too !!! They keep involving us in wars all over the world !!! But I guess if the US got out of the War Business, our economy would really collapse !!!
#6 Well said. The purpose of any bureaucracy is to sustain itself no matter what it’s clients or regulators require or desire.
Why is this labeled as Military? It should be labeled as Demagoguery.
This man would replace government agencies with private firms like Blackwater. Whom can make policies that allow only internal investigation and limit prosecution at a federal level through contracts.
Right now the agencies can all be investigated and punished for wrongdoing. These agencies have heads that report to the Congress and Executive branches.
Sounds like to me that Ron Paul has placed some investment capital into firms like Blackwater and is impatient for him to make some returns.
Cursor_
#4/5, I like Ron Paul’s scepticism of government agencies … now I wish he’d open his eyes to the other threat of big unregulated corporations.
In the first sentence you denounce big government agencies and then in the second you praise them?
#9, This man would replace government agencies with private firms like Blackwater. Whom can make policies that allow only internal investigation and limit prosecution at a federal level through contracts.
And where did you get that piece of misinformation?
He would replace the majority of government agencies with nothing and let the States handle them as per the Constitution.
I think you title is wrong: “Congressman Explains Why the NSA and TSA Makes Us Less Safe”.
He didn’t explain anything – he made unsupported accusations. No facts were given, no proof, nothing but unsupported pure opinion.
This is the big problem we have with the “News” media. They do not report “News” they report opinions and most of them are unsupported with any facts at all.
Listening to Ron Paul now is like listening to a senile elder. You smile at him and hope he has a nice day.
Everything agency exists because of money going to the districts and states of powerful Congressmen. All of you know politics is about bargaining and back scratching. Americans didn’t invent it, but we honed it to a fine art. I also notice no one complains when federal dollars are dropped in their hometown.
Animby said “You’re an idiot.” When my kids were teenagers, they would agree with you.
“If you had any idea how much money the USA and US organizations spend on treating diarrhea and malaria and untold number of other diseases in third world countries?” Yes. I do know. That is money well spent. And you know what? In the grand scheme of things, it is dirt cheap and effective. And it demonstrably improves security.
qb #14 – I must have misunderstood your original post. Since you agree with me, you must be a fine human being and I think your teenagers were a bit premature in their judgment.
Animby
If you misunderstood my intent, then the fault is mine, not yours. 😉
The end of the interview is very telling.
“Who would you replace this with?”
“err… maybe individuals… maybe communities…”
In other words, lots of criticism but no real answers.
Reminds me a lot of the tea-party platform “Whatever you are doing, it is wrong.”
# 10
I see your point. However, I meant that he seems blind to the problems of his extreme reverse alternative i.e. practically no government (except defence) with most of the power in what would inevitably be the hands of the large corporations (who practically control/are the government now by the way).
Reasonable, consistent regulations (the simpler the better) should be enforced by courts not massive bureaucracies. Rights for individuals and reasonable freedom for corporations (while protecting the rights of individuals), who are not allowed to be “too big to fail” and never powerful enough to hijack the government (as they have). This should be done by the peoples representatives in the state legislatures as per the constitution if that is the will of the people or by a centralised government if it is the will of the people to change the Constitution by referendum (i.e. direct democracy) and make it so (the Constitution should always reflect the will of the people).
I took that to be generally what Greg Allen meant assuming he was familiar with Rep. Paul’s wider stated position on such matters, but I could be wrong. I assume Mr. Allen is more than capable of his own clarification, if he feels the need. Regardless I hope I have clarified my position sufficiently.
#10 I couldn’t have said it better myself. Smaller government is always better than bigger government. One day, when we all know better, no government will trump small government.
#18 I’m happy with where you’re bringing the conversation. Your unfounded fears are what keep the government in power. Corrupt corporations wouldn’t be so large without the assistance of government regulations that allow them to grow while keeping their competition at bay. Large corporations aren’t the government, they just have the government in their pocket. Big difference between “control” and “are”. Let me show you why. If Walmart went out of business tomorrow, you’d say ok, and do your shopping at K-mart, or whatever. If the US government disappeared tomorrow, you’d shat your pants.
Now, 12 years of government schooling has brain washed you into believing this is a government for the people, by the people. WRONG! This is a government for the special interests by the special interests. Unless you have lobbyists worth millions of dollars controlling senators 24/7/365, your opinions don’t mean a thing in this system. So, the only regulations that are going to pass are going to be the ones that favor corporations. Good luck with your direct democracy and changing the constitution, which is a dead letter by the way, because either it did nothing to stop the growth of government, or it allowed the growth of government to this point.
/sarcasm/ Finally,courts are too busy locking up drug dealers and users while letting murderers, child molesters and rapists out to make room in the jails, to be concerned with anything else. /sarcasm/ (I thought the Judicial branch’s job was to interpret, not enforce…)
#10 LibertyLover
Where did I get that?
From his own mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSP9NteApqI
Cursor_
# 19 BmoreBadBoy
So you half agree but are implying you do not. Fine, where do I start?
“Unfounded fears”
Not fear disgust.
“Corrupt corporations wouldn’t be so large without the assistance of government regulations that allow them to grow while keeping their competition at bay.”
Agreed (or more accurately you agree with me).
“Walmart…K-Mart”
No, they influence. Monsanto, Halliburton, the Fed’s, Goldman etc. control/are the (illegitimate) government.
“Big difference between “control” and “are”
Yes, I am aware they differ, but only slightly if they result in approval of the corporate agenda. CONTROL representatives financially, faulty planes etc. & ARE (Executive) – Geitner (NY Fed. – bailouts), Paulson (Goldman Sachs – bailouts), Cheney (Halliburton), Bush (Carlyle Group). In, out, in, out, contract, out, war, out, in, out, bail, out.
“…If the US government disappeared tomorrow, you’d shat your pants”
Straw man & false dichotomy. I implied control should be wrestled away from the corporations, not that the government should be dissolved. As it is impossible to defend something I did not say, you will have to argue that point with yourself.
“…brain washed you into believing this is a government for the people…”
Whatever gave you that idea. I said it should be, not it is.
/irony?/ “WRONG! This is a government for the special interests by the special interests.”
RIGHT! That’s what I said, so you agree.
“Good luck with your direct democracy and changing the constitution”
You really are not following my argument are you? I did not say it should be changed, I said the (legitimate) power rests with the states and if people want to vest it in the Federal Government they should amend the constitution to make it legitimate. That’s how the Rule of law and Constitutional Government works.
“…which is a dead letter by the way, because either it did nothing to stop the growth of government…”
That is the fault of the people. I did not say it has magical self sustaining properties.
“…or it allowed the growth of government to this point…”
Well which one is it. Either you think it is powerless or all-powerful. You can not (rationally) argue both.
So you agree it sucks but you think we’re powerless to do anything about it, so you choose to instead attack an argument which you largely agree with but say you don’t. Fine.
#21 LDA – Ok. I’m glad we’re having this discussion.
Your disgust is legitimate and I also am equally disgusted. I just believe yours is slightly misguided.
All those mega corporations you mentioned are not government according to its definition. They do not have the assumed power to tax, make laws or detain. Citizens of the US are not internal to those corporations. Yes, they do have tremendous control since they have copious amounts of money. But if there was no government with the ability to tax, make laws or detain, that government would not be there to be controlled by those mega corporations. And who’s going to wrestle control of the government from the corporations?
Should the government be for the people? Of course it should. Is it? No. Will it ever be? No. “That’s how the Rule of law and Constitutional Government works.” Yeah, right. It works the way 9 muckity-mucks dressed up in robes decides it works. It’s called “interpreting” the constitution.
As far as I’m concerned, there is no such thing as a legitimate government. I don’t recall signing a contract or agreement or constitution with the States or Federal governments to give them any power over me. That power is assumed, and wrongfully so. Therefore, the constitution is only as powerful as the amount of people who capitulate to the government that ascribes to it.
So yes, we agree the situation sucks. We just disagree why it sucks.
Dallas please grow up sir. Your lack of common sense is appalling.
# 22 BmoreBadBoy
O.K. Sounds very reasonable. Especially the part about being born under the current regime without agreeing to the prevailing zeitgeist.
I thought this may end up being another unpleasant argument. I am pleasantly surprised.
P.S. I do however believe it can be changed (am I naive? maybe).
There ya go, Ron Paul – making sense AGAIN! Oh when will the common sense ever end!!!!
DHS is a boondoggle agency that was created to make the American people *feel* safe while it actually *does* nothing in practice to make us safer. It just collects information on We The People, which I’m sure was it’s original intent in the first place. There are so few “terror” incidents that it hardly warrants this massive & expensive bureaucracy, that apparently can’t really prevent anything. And the reason that there are so few terror events is because terrorism has been way overblown by elements in the US and other governments to control us – it’s not that they’re discovering any plots as most of these 10th grade grads couldn’t find their ass with the proverbial flashlight and several thousand hands.
If we were serious about US safety, we wouldn’t allow illegal immigrants to flow into this country at will, we wouldn’t be settling thousands of immigrants from Muslim countries, which are the main source of international terrorism (as Bush did and as we continue to do) and we wouldn’t be allowing things like enormous liquid natural gas tankers to be shipping from Yemen into ports like Boston.
The entire terrorism/homeland security effort is a racket to make money and control us. That’s all it really is or was or will be. For example, I understand Michael Chertoff is one of the heaviest investors in the new scanning technology. Surprise, surprise!!!!! Let’s get rid of these agencies and go back to basic effective police work like the FBI used to be capable of (and maybe still are).