Pages

Thursday, May 11, 2006

What Should be Regulated? -and- Concentration Camps in America!

I am a person adrift on the political sea. I can't grasp at anything with good conscience. I like The Libertarian Party but disagree with them about drugs and lack of regulation on sexual issues (can anyone say "child brides"?) and probably there are other issues I'd disagree with although there are many more that I think are correct.

Here's an excellent rundown on the political parties in the U.S. There are droves of them, but most have a membership that would fill a small schoolroom.

Of all the parties, the one that came closest to my own beliefs was the American Patriot Party, which was Jeffersonian in nature. It was disbanded in 2006.

The Republican Party lost its focus long ago, and (aside from superficial differences) there is little difference from The Democrats. Both of these parties wish to control and regulate too much; they only disagree about whom they should choose.

I think there are areas that require regulation, however. My litmus test is: Where's the victim? If you can assign a victim, it is a crime.

Of course there are times when you could say that society as a whole is a victim, which would allow regulation of a certain practice which may not have a particular victim. The Rebublican party makes that claim when it's discussing the issue of gay marriage. As I've said before, the only definable impact on society would be additional court costs, thus additional taxation, to deal with all the additional divorces that might ensue. If that barrier was removed, it might be argued that it would harm no one.

NOTE: I'm not saying I'm pro gay marriage. I am actually relatively ambivalent about it since I question defining marriage as a union which is sanctioned by the government.

I'm anti-abortion, since I believe that growth connotes life and a growing fetus is a live one.

But when it comes to a mother killing her baby after its birth, no one disagrees that its murder. Here is an article today about a crack whore who drank and smoked crack all through her pregnancy and left the baby to die, abandoned in an alley amongst debris and broken glass. And there are other mothers listed here who recently killed their babies also.

This is why I would love to see mandatory sterilization for all citizens, which could only be reversed when the mother can pass a parenting test and be tested for drugs and any serious disease which would doom a baby from the outset (such as AIDS). I know it's just a fantasy, but I can dream.

So what's my beef with making all drugs legal, then? Don't we have the right to kill ourselves off in any way we deem appropriate? Not when it impacts the bottom dollar.

I don't fancy my taxes going to treating some derelict who smoked so much pot (which is a known carcinogen) that he's coughing up lungs in his final stages. I don't see paying for heart surgery for the cocaine addict, or tooth repair for the crack addict. If I have to part yearly with money that I've earned the hard way, I don't want to see it going to that.

You may agree with some or all of what I say here, but I think that we all can agree that the government has grown to a point where it is stifling us. Some people are making the argument that we are currently under martial law now, and they actually make an excellent point. We may be. And the government only wishes to strengthen their chokehold on the American people.

I am not an alarmist, and I am not a conspiracy theorist (for the most part, although I'm old enough now to know that it can and does happen). But Bryan recently did a report on the Concentration Camps Being Built in America. My initial reaction was to roll my eyes. Then I decided, what the heck, I'll watch the video for a couple minutes. What I learned shocked me. And when I researched it, I found out that it's completely true.

These Concentration Camps are currently only used for prison labor, but a recent government report by Homeland Security says that they are considering using them for political dissidents or anyone that protests the war.

My posting this could certainly be seen as threatening to them, so I do it with trepidition. However, I think it's important that we stop burying our heads in the sand.

No, I haven't gone nuts. See and research it for yourself.

24 comments:

ENGLISH RANTER said...

Nice blog... so many political parties, so little choice.
Feels the same here in the UK :-( The choices between libertarianism and authoritarianism are always difficult.
I think that due to the environmental pressures that the world is facing we need to deconstruct the massive societies we have built (and are now trying to globalise) to produce new micro-states that exist in energy self-sufficiency.
Within these libertarian, marxist, socialist, etc, mini societies could exist, offering choice and liberty within a small sustainable systems.
But I think it needs a lot of thought - and, of course, a revolution ;-)

michelle said...

I will comment later, however, what is this? You become an instigator on my blog...go ahead look again...and the last two days you fill yours with serious topics? Some friend you are!

Miss Cellania said...

There is a lot of discussion in the adoptive parents groups about "passing a test" before you can become a parent... because we all had to! We had to prove we had a strong marriage (or family support if single), adequate income, decent health (including AIDS tests), and proper housing, among other things.

Ed Abbey said...

So many things to comment on Saur but I'll just stick with the political parties for now. My party of choice would be the Constitutional Party but since they aren't a real threat yet in the voting, I've been mixing it up between the two main parties over the last few elections. I probably would have considered myself more republican than democrat but with Bush at the helm, even that classification is now up for grabs in the next election. If he keeps it up, he may even make Hillary look like an attractive vote and I shudder at that thought.

Mr. Althouse said...

Well! You've have opened up several cans'o'worms here. Or have you? I agree with most of what you say. I am in fact a registered Libertarian (which effectively aces me out of the primaries in California - but I'm standing on principle!), but I am also a realist. A conflict of interest? Let's see...

In a perfect world, people would be allow do whatever they pleased, including harm to themselves as long as it didn't harm anyone else - as you said, no victims. Unfortunately, the real world is full of pitfalls that make this kind of after-the-fact determination impossible. Example? Nicotine - 90% addictive on first use. It is the number one or two cause of preventable death in the country and guess who's paying for the bulk of their treatment?

How about illegal drugs? Crack cocaine and meth: More dangerous than heroin. These drugs will take a normal, well-adjusted, moral, upstanding, healthy, tax-paying member of society and turn them into a derelict in record time. By the time they know what hit them, they are well into the system - or dead. Victims include... everyone. I have seen it first hand – believe it.

What about an over-reaching government that meddles in the minutia of everyday life? Too much?? Without a doubt! However, the Libertarian purist would say no to government retirement (social security), no public education, no public anything except the bare minimums like police, fire, military and the like. All other services should be paid for by the tax dollars saved of the families and the capitalistic, altruistic private sector. Right! Sure, there public welfare state has grown into a behemoth and the government has wiggled it’s way into areas of private life (like gay marriage and Terri Shaivo) that is has no business being, but it also has a responsibility to help those that could not otherwise survive… can anyone say Katrina?

I could go on, but I gotta git –

Great post, Saur

~Mike

daveawayfromhome said...

Well first, I'll reprint the comment I made in my own blog a couple days ago when you pointed me at this video - disturbing indeed:

The video is, to be sure, worrisome. I've been aware of Rex84 and its subsequent programs, but have never heard about the various details in that much... uh, detail.

What I found the most disturbing was the name for (one of the) program (s?): "End Game". That is far too close to "Final Solution" for any program involving prison camps. Whether it's a joke or not, it indicates a level of thinking that is at best sick, and at worst, evil.

How much research did you do? Did you read the Army document on Reg 210-35? (I didnt) Did you look up the Oregon Senate Bill #742? Did you Check out the Ohio Anti-Terror bill?
I've gotta say, find the Ohio bill a bit worrisome, given the voting battleground nature of Ohio, and the Diebold questions regarding vote fixing (though living in Florida, I'm sure this is old hat to you).

Another thing occurs to me; although it probably wouldnt be allowed for "security reasons", I'd be curious to know just how competently any preparations in these camps have been done. Are the camps actually secure, or is it mostly a stage set created to siphon public money off into the coffers of the contractors, such as Haliburton?
The idea that this administration is capable of pulling off the coup that this issue implies seems laughable at first thought, but second thoughts make me wonder if many of the "blunders" of these people arent clever ways of destroying things they dont like in an underhanded way.

Finally, if you want to be more disturbed, have you seen the way Dubya yearns towards monarchy? Not just disagreeing with laws, but blatently disregarding them.

Cutting and pasting done, let me address a few more points:

While I dont like the idea of legalizing drugs, and I hadnt even thought of the reasons you pointed out not to, I would like to point out that the Drug Trade operates in the freest possible market (other than oil, apparently). Instead of maintaining that really free market, why not legalize it, then regulate the hell out of it.
Or, alternately, let's legalize marijuana, and re-criminalize alchohol, which is at least as destructive to the nation as any other drug.

As for needing to pass a test to have children... Part of me wants to ask if this is a joke (with a punch line involving nazis), and half of me wants to say, "damn straight!" Unfortunately, this would just become yet another element in the hidden Class War we've got going on right now. Wealthy people would still breed at will, producing God knows how many more Paris Hiltons, while poor people would be denied child-bearing rights based simply on lack of income (and you know it would come to that, however good the intentions started out). You want to stop stupid people from having children? Make birth control free and easily available, and teach reproductive education in the schools, uninhibited by religious "moral" issues.

Finally, regarding political parties, I think any adherance to a large organization (and this doesnt necessarily stop at political parties) is just a way to avoid thinking about issues. "Oh yeah, I'm a Democrat, here's a list of what I believe if you want to know, now I've got to go watch Lost". Same for Republicans (apparently even moreso considering the number of people who still support Lord Bush's Cabal). Skip the parties, think about the issues, weigh them all, then vote for anybody who comes closest.
I'd also like to say that a vote for a third party isnt necessarily a vote thrown away. Those who run the parties watch who abandons them for the third parties, and they'll do what they can to bring you back. The two sides are too close right now not to.

Scott said...

Well you are not afraid of getting policital are you? Pretty interesting post. As usual I find myself in disagreement about most issues with you. haha...

I guess it is the Canadian socialist in me. I am actually Conservative when it comes to economics and liberal when it comes to social policy.

I would be totally against the legalization of drugs, specifically "hard" drugs because it has such a negative impact on the individuals that use them. I do think that we need to look out for people sometimes and that would be a case where it is very important.

Scott

Edge said...

What shoudl be regulated and what can be enforced are two different things. We can regulate it all, but we'll probably never be able to enforce it.

Nice post.

~Jef

AP3 said...

Personally, the Green Party comes closest to me.

Jamie Dawn said...

I long for good, strong, steady leadership. Pres. Bush has qualities that I admire, but I wish he would give more prime time speeches. I like to see and hear our president, whether I agree with all he says or not. I want to know what he thinks, where he's leading us, etc...
A good leader does just that... leads.
The illegal immigration issue has me pretty pissed off at the Pres and at Congress.
Political parties should do the same thing as leaders. They should stand for ideals, and lead towards them.
There is alot of uncertainty in our nation presently.

daveawayfromhome said...

I forgot to say this:

Conspiracy Theories are almost never true, but that doesnt mean the information that they contain isnt.

United We Lay said...

I think this means I'm in big trouble. There are a lot of things I would do, maybe even things that boarder on the R word, but I don't want to pu tmy family at risk, be under constant surveillance, etc.

Ellen said...

I took the little quiz to find out if I were a Libertarian, and found that I am a "centrist", but closer to being a Libertarian than a Statist. And all this time I thought I was a Liberal Left.....
Ya learn something new everyday, that's for sure.

I read through the list of different political parties, and some of them were downright scary.
I'll bet our founding fathers are turning in their graves right now for the mess we've gotten ourselves into with the present administration.

I not only read your links, Saur, but daveawayfromhome's link. Sad, sad, sad, to say the least of the new stuff we are finding out about our leader. Dave hit the nail on the head when he stated that we need to skip the parties, weigh the issues, and vote for someone who comes closest. Now if they could only put up a candidate worthy of all that......

Bryan said...

Grin!

"However, I think it's important that we stop burying our heads in the sand."

You go, girl!

I'm going to post an interview Alex Jones did with one of the reporters who helped bring Watergate to the public, and hence bring down a crook of a president.

There will be some Skull & Bones stuff you won't want to miss. :D

mal said...

it is depressing that there exists so little real dialog on issues of import. I think the government is missing the advantage of Gay marriages, they would get to pay the "marrriage penalty" along with us straight types! Woooo Hoooo! can you spell t-a-x r-e-v-e-n-u-e?

As regards concentration camps? even this administration is not crazy enough to think they can deny due process to citizens and if they are I think they would be looking at a revolt

EmmaSometimes said...

Mandatory sterilization NO kidding. Satchmo said it best, "and I think to myself what a wonderful world"

As for parties, I'm an Escapist. I want to live in Europe.

neal said...

Very interesting! I would consider myself somewhat of a Libertarian also but I don't like what little money I earn going to support treatment for drug addicts any more than you do. I also don't like my hard earned money going to support or pay for services going to illegal immigrants either. Then look what my protests have got me, NOTHING!!!! And you can bet your sweet bippy, haven't heard that in awhile have you, that I protest. I am probably on some list somewhere as a threat due to the volume of letters I send off to those in power.

As far as the parties themselves go, I agree that there is little difference betweent the two main parties. One caters to the rich and the other to anyone with a cause, that is as long as the cause isn't hard work and trying to raise a family in a world where the dollar doesn't go as far as it should. So we have the Republicans who want to let the rich get richer, and the Democrats who want to take from everyone who has anything and give it to those who don't or don't deserve it. Who stands up for the shrinking middle class?

It is truly unfortunate that there are so many of us out here that tread the middle ground yet we are ignored by both parties.

I know it would never happen on a large scale but it would be interesting to see what would happened if all the disenfranchised Americans just once voted Libertarian or even Green Party. Just enough to get that candidate elected. The gridlock would be monstrous. It might force the two parties to return somewhat to the middle, then again it might not. It would be interesting though.

Nice post anyway...

Lee Ann said...

Pretty intense stuff!

actonbell said...

So many gray areas! One thing that bothers me is that some of the established parties have knee-jerk reactions to everything, and the other thing that occurs to me is that we'll still be fighting our little cultural wars as our planet becomes uninhabitable. I'm with Aral--we need more input from the Green Party.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Everyone, Again, I am sorry I didn't get a chance to address each and every one of you. However, the contributions were as surprising and interesting as what *I* posted! Thank you for the contributions. Some of you said things that I didn't expect. I really enjoyed this one!

This has been a terribly busy week for me, and I'm going to be on the road most of the day Friday. But busy can be good, too! I'm hoping it will be profitable, as well. ;o)

exMI said...

Ah Saur, you miss the point of the Libertarians. they would legalize drugs but they wouldn't pay for the addict's care afterwords. If you are stupid enough to get addicted then it is your problem and if you can't find some person or group willing to help you then tough, the government isn't going to do it.
I personally like the Libertarian pary in almost all aspects except their absolute lack of a rational foreign policy.

Badoozie said...

wow, i tend to agree that i don't fit into either one of the main political parties, and it makes me hate voting

as for the women who are charged with a crime when they kill their baby, or leave it to die, same thing, you forgot to mention the people who murder a pregnant woman, also get charged with murder of the unborn child. so, in that case, its not a fetus, but rather an "unborn child". hmmmm

remember eugenics? back when the government tied the tubes of welfare moms against their consent, while they were giving birth to about the 20th child? that was ruled against the law at that time. people also believe that disabled / mentally challenged people should be allowed to pro-create. how do you feel about that?

i would never think you've gone nuts. crap almighty, if you all could hear some of my ideas rolling round in my half empty head, you might have a heart attack. thats why i keep most of them in check.

i will watch that concentration camp thing.

remember the entire premise of this country was founded on low-federal involvment, leave it to the states? but the states, were being naughty, hogging the money for the rich people, enslaving people, refusing to let certain people vote, being discriminatory, and worst of all, not taking care of the disabled. so, the feds got a lot of pressure, and that is when they first started to get involved more heavily. they found that a good way to have a say in state control, was to offer the states money, stipends, grants, whatever. and along with that money, came the locus of control. you want our money, you do what we say. and the states want that money!!!!

see there, i do know something aside from being a trouble causer

Anonymous said...

I agree with you about the mandatory sterilization, especially for anyone receiving any form of public assistance. It should apply to both male and female. Regarding drugs - I can see your point about health care costs. My idea would be to legalize drugs and allow addicts to get any amount they want. They would have to register as drug users and have a chip implanted verifying this. As an identified drug user they would no longer be allowed access to any type of medical treatment related to the drugs. Medical care not related to drugs would have to be paid for in full up front. They could not get organ transplants. If they die they would be cremated along with other users. No notification to the family needed. This last is to encourage families to prevent members from becoming users. I believe these thoughts were once mentioned in a work of fiction. I do not remember the author, however.

Three Score and Ten or more said...

Saur, I have to agree that government is too big and is stifling us, but I watched the concentration camp video and had an absolutely opposite reaction to yours. I watched it twice, and the guy reminded me of the absolute worst debaters that I coached for the High School debate team. Broad generalizations, mis-quoting or quickly flashing sources. I take that back, He didn't remind me of high school debaters as much as he reminded me of Kevin Trudeau, the huckster who sells the book on what the government and the doctors don't want you to know.
I'm sorry, but I am still at the eye rolling stage.