It struck me today the basic reason humanity can never prosper if we must live with a shared sacrifice.  I am reading Atlas Shrugged currently and this definitely influenced my thought process, so some of you may recognize where this came from.

At the point where shared sacrifice becomes the norm, a human can have only one of two possible reactions.  Either he decides that he will work for his fellow man or he will live off his fellow man.  The third choice of relieving himself of all responsibility one way or another is not a viable option in the real world (John Galt cannot exist). 

If given the choice, what would you do?  Would you work harder so that any person, strong or weak, lazy or hardworking, could benefit from you?  Would you work even harder to make sure that Jimmy down the block can buy a new pair of sneakers?  This question of what you would do is not only asked of you personally, but every single person in society.  Even if a mere minority decides they will live off their fellow man, the society would breakdown.  If you saw that Jimmy down the block was not working and was instead depending on you for his money, would you spend the extra time and work for his sneakers now?  It is impossible for all of mankind to choose to work for his fellow man rather than living off of them.  Since that is an impossibility, a minority, no matter how small, would cause a complete collapse of the system.  It is like a spreading disease when a group or even a single person decides he will survive by the work of another.  Once a single person starts, others will see and join and the epidemic has begun.  Why work when you can enjoy life on the labor of another? 

Society will continue without a major hitch until a breaking point is reached, which is not static nor predictable.  Some have said here on TH that 50% of voters not paying income taxes would be the breaking point and that is true politically in my opinion, yet society will continue beyond that point, though there is no return trip.  Without a majority of people reeling in the leaders of any society, it will continue down the path of destruction.  This all barring a revolution, which can happen with a minority as history has taught us with no less than our own independence. 

As you can see, regardless of whether a majority of man is moral or virtuous or however you would like to phrase the buzz word, man cannot survive with a society of shared sacrifice.  I have often said that if man were machines, a communist society would work best, but alas we are not and we have feelings, emotions, ambitions and other attributes that make it unworkable and destructive to the world.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Ayn Rand wrote a book called Anthem in 1938 which falls during a time when total equality has already fallen over all humanity.  The main character has a name of Equality-72521 rather than a normal name.  I won't describe it much more as it is a very short read for anyone looking to read it.  The point is, it got me thinking about the cycles of humanity.

The world has only been fully populated for the last 100-200 years.  Before that humanity had been constantly exploring the frontiers of their lands.  Now we have space before us now, but I believe we are far from actual colonization of any planet which renders that frontier moot at the current moment.  While humanity was exploring in the past it seems we follow a cycle of prosperity and decay.  Each prosperous time is greater than the previous as we learn as we move forward, but each decay is a result of the previous prosperous time.  The Romans had a prosperous period of about 700 years as a Republic, but once they became an empire they started their decay which took another 700 years(arguably for obvious reasons).  Eventually they were nearly paralyzed with debt and social programs.  They couldn't keep their army up to snuff and paid mercenaries to keep them safe, and soon defaulted on those loans as well.  The German "barbarians" finally came down and ended the Western Roman empire which opened up freedom for Europe.  It was a broken, tribal land for years as the decay continued until they finally started to unite under the banners they more closely resemble now.  The Renaissance brought about a renewal and prosperity took its turn in the cycle.  It was a long prosperous time(compared to the rest of the world) which arguably hasn't ended, though it hasn't increased as other parts of the world have.  Using western Europe as the example, people starting feeling oppressed and left for the new world for freedom and a new life.  The New World then took itself into its own independence and freedom from the grip of Europe.  As Europe started stagnating(decay?) the freedom of the New World created its time of prosperity and it soon passed Europe in most everything from production to living standards.  Now we are on our stagnating path as oppression is increasing from our government over its citizens. 

The point I see here is that whenever oppression has taken hold people were able to move in the past.  Even under Roman rule, the decay they brought upon themselves nearly freed Europe without much of a fight.  Rome itself needed defeating, but it wasn't necessary for Rome to be sacked for Europe to break free.  Previous to Rome was the Greeks and so on from one civilization to another to the beginning of time.  Now, as all land it settled, where is there to run?  In our current situation the metaphorical "Rome" will need to be sacked, but the problem is the power of "Rome" is much greater than any period in history.  It doesn't lie in a place, but in the idea.  The powerful players covering the entire western world would need to be relieved of duty.  Instead of a physical relocation a worldwide revival would need to take place.  The entire western world is beholden to socialist tendencies which paralyze economic conditions, rendering prosperity impossible.  Africa is as non-plussed as ever.  Even China, I forsee, will have major problems with freedom as the information age continues and its people start becoming evermore informed about our lifestyles and their own freedom. Any other places not listed are in the same position nonetheless and there is no free place to run to on the entire planet.  It is as if Equality-72521 has no uncharted woods to run off into because he simply run into the next town only to be shoved into the same daily routine.

A Chinese proverb exists saying "May we live in interesting times"...I believe we are definitely going to see some interesting events happen in our lifetimes.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

As anyone who has had a conversation with a liberal about regulations, they are actively anti-big business.  The evil businessman is always out to get one over the consumer and we are helpless to their whims while paying out our noses for their inferior products.  They believe regulations will bring them down to size and put the consumer as well as their competitors back on a level playing field.  Not only are they wrong about big business in general, but the regulations that supposedly level the playing field across the market. 

Regulations, far from creating any sort of equality, create market collusion and monopolies.  On the competitors side the big businesses are the only ones that can cope with more regulations and still make money.  The percent of their revenues going towards regulations are much lower than a smaller business.  If a regulation is put into place, it either costs a flat percent of revenue no matter the size of the business, in which case none will gain advantage, or it will cost a flat dollar amount, in which case the big business benefits over its competitors.  I think this side is fairly self explanatory and if you have further doubts, do a little research on US Steel's lobbyists for regulations to allow a near monopoly on the market.  On the consumer side I believe it hurts us rather than help.  I will use a most obvious example that most everyone would agree should exist and that is the FDA food safety approvals.  Let us assume for a moment that we have no such food regulations and any company can do whatever they like with their food to get it to the shelf.  You walk into a store, what are you going to buy?  Hormel sits on the shelf and has a brand name to back it up.  They have been around for years and have a record to back them of safety as people have not taken ill after eating its products.  Lemroh is sitting next to it on the shelf and you have no idea if they are safe.  Without any regulations, they could put anything in that package and you wouldn't know.  Which product do you buy?  It seems to me that most everyone would buy Hormel and few would buy Lemroh.  Now, Lemroh could go one of two ways.  One way, their product is legitimate and the few that buy it continue buying it without any ill effects...they eventually spread by word of mouth to be safe and build a product image of their own.  OR....their product isn't up to snuff and soon those buying the product start seeing that product on the news with safety concerns and stop buying it themselves and Lemroh goes out of business.  The market takes out the unsafe product on its own without the need for any safety regulations.  Lemroh would never intentionally sell an inferior product because it would be out of business before it could turn a profit and likely run into lawsuits if they were shown to be negligent in the process.  It is Lemroh's best interest to sell a quality product as they are beholden to the whims of the mob which could put them out of business on a whim.

Without regulations the consumer is on their toes and on the lookout for the best and worst products.  We don't have government regulations to rely on which is likely a good thing because how often have those regulations failed to protect us in the first place?  Not only do we gain independence, but the business doesn't have useless regulations weighing it down.  Now a regulation requiring food safety isn't going to change the market drastically whether it exists or not, but for every good regulation there are many many useless ones.  None of those would be around to cost businesses efficiency and productivity which allows them to lower their prices and increase their output. 

The indirect consequence of this is that with fewer regulations more people will be able to start businesses in their own right and we will have an increase in competition and a greater diversity of products.  Businesses not only lobby to have regulations increased on the market for currently existing competition, but they work to pull the ladder up behind them so to speak.  By lobbying for regulations to increase the difficulty to start a business they can get rid of competitors before they even enter the market. 

To me I see that it is difficult to argue that any regulation is needed.  The same mentality of brand name works on any product or service.  Want to find a doctor?  Ask around for a good one or research doctors on your own.  We already have private companies like angie's list that will give reviews on pretty much anything you are looking for and this is with regulations in place, just imagine how many of these there would be if fewer regulations existed.  Without these regulations the markets open up and we have a benefit of competition and choice in the marketplace which lowers prices and increases quality.  I see no major downsides to this...and for those liberals out there, it is anti-big business...Well, it's pro-competition in any case.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

I have recently gone on a reading binge so Im going jot down some quick notes on the books I read, probably for as much my benefit as yours.  I took notes for Liberal Fascism, but these I read while on vacation so I couldn't exactly do that.  Better to get down the information before I lose it.

Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek

Capitalism uses the resources of everyone to the benefit of all.  A businessman owning a steel company will know all about his area of expertise and act accordingly, while an owner of a coal mine will do likewise.  However, a centralized economy dismisses these resources and allocates as the government sees fit.  This is not only inefficient, but will likely cause much harm to many diverse markets.  A single person, or even a single group of people cannot know all that is needed to run all markets at the same time.  However, despite this glaring defect, we must step back to how a government of this kind comes along, for it isn't as obvious between the transition from capitalism to socialism. 

Capitalism, as stated allows each person to spend and create as they see fit.  Those arguing against capitalism usually clamor for a united front or plan for the economy to move forward with.  Thus, with a plan in tow, the government must make decisions regarding this plan.  With capitalism, no single plan can ever be decided on as people will be going their own way instead of following the plan.  So socialism must regulate people into following a directed path set forth.  To control a population, choices must be removed.  In the transition from freedom to totalitarian, one by one markets are controlled until capitalism is no more.  At this point we find ourselves in the above situation where the government cannot rule efficiently over the economy.  The government cannot possibly take care of every situation and everyone suffers for it.  They must make choices that eliminate markets and possible areas of prosperity because their plan does not include them.  A planned economy cannot be everywhere are once, just as a single group of people cannot know everything the entirety of the population knows.  They must focus and leave out all anything they find unimportant.

The basic idea of this entire book is that whether communism, fascism or socialism, a planned economy is always the basic idea of the movement.  A planned economy cannot happen without removing freedoms.  His arguments are much more solid than what I brought up here and this book is definitely a worthwhile read.

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

This book has to do with liberty of the mind, more than anything else.  You could say this is the first amendment spelled out in 100+ pages.  If one cannot speak their mind, many things are lost that could be.  First off, liberty of the person at hand cannot sustain unless everyone is allowed to speak their minds.  Second, society loses out on the ideas that person may have.  Third, any future minds with ideas that may go against the grain will remain silent and innovation will cease to exist.  A society cannot grow without innovation, as, among others, the Chinese found out when they went into isolation.  How much liberty a person is granted is another point of topic in this book, which goes over whether they are causing harm to others.  For if they are not harming another, they should have all the freedom to express themselves.  

Much of this book is common sense, but it is another point of view on the thought of freedom.  It is not just about the individual, but society cannot survive without freedom for the people involved.  A pretty good read, though it is very in-depth on a narrow topic.

Second Treatise of Government by John Locke

The book begins with a man and his rights while in a state of nature and in a state of war.  Throughout the book Locke builds up the infrastructure around the person until a full government is surrounding him.  A government cannot form unless under the consent of the governed, which did happen in this country.  Whether in monarchy, or another form, the government does not have all reaching authority because the people did not granted it.  No rational being would grant arbitrary power to a government, or any other being, for they will surely abuse it and do as they see fit to the people from with the power was granted.  

It is clear this book was an inspiration to the founding fathers.  Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness are specifically listed in the book at rights of the people.  They are collectively referred to property, which incidentally was the original 3rd right.  The forms of government are not much discussed in this book as he uses examples that would work in all forms, yet the principles which the rights of the people fall under are put to action in the Constitution.  This book is much like a 100+ page Declaration of Independence, from the tyrannical powers to the duty of the citizens to remove themselves from tyranny.

I recommend reading this book before reading the Federalist Papers to get a general idea of where the founders were going in their train of thought.  It may help anyone understand what they were thinking while trying to implement certain laws and ideas.

The Real Ben Franklin

Ben Franklin started writing in his local paper at the age of 12 under Silence Dogood.  He ran away from home at 17 to New York, then Philadelphia.  After working in Philadelphia for a few years he was asked by the governor to move to England and start up a business overseas.  As Franklin had no money the governor said he would front the money and it would meet him in England.  Ben leaves, the money never comes and he makes do himself for a couple years.  Ben returns from England, starts his own printing shop, marries, and begins some of his scientific experiments in his home.  Whenever a public policy came up where he had a major opinion, he wrote about it in the paper, creating a name for himself.  Ben rarely attended church, but he gave money to the church and kept a daily sin total of the 13 sins, where he kept track of one each week for 13 weeks, repeating the task 4 times throughout the year.  Ben always preached keeping non-violent in all protests, even as the war started as he believed they would reconcile with the British in the end and the violence would create animosity between the two sides.  While in Europe he feared his family wouldn't have enough funds, but many states soon elected him to represent them as well, which increased his pay considerably.  He became a well known scientist in Europe for his experiments, such as on electricity and enabled him to join many of the scientific societies all around Europe.  He founded the American Philosophical Society and became its first President well before the Revolutionary War.  After the war he became governor of Pennsylvania until he resigned after 2 terms.  He was at both the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for which he was very grateful.  Of all the inventions he created, he never once took out a patent as be believed he should not benefit more just because God put the idea into his head.

The Real Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was a soft spoken guy without a temper...can you imagine a soft spoken person finding themselves as president today?  He physically could not speak loudly for an extended period of time as his throat would swell up.  He founded the University of Virginia and created the modern architecture found on colleges campuses today.  His love of architecture pushed him to remodel much of his house numerous times.  Before the war he was a tireless lawyer accepting hundreds of cases in a single year.  During his time in the Virginia Assembly he attempted to reformed the criminal codes in Virginia, as well as securing religious freedom in Virginia.  The Declaration of Independence is known as one of the most substantial pieces of writing in modern history.  After the war he gave into public life and became governor of Virginia and diplomat to France, replacing Ben Franklin.  Upon returning home he decided he would like to remove himself and live out his life with his family.  Many of his kids died very early in their lives, with only 2 surviving past 20 and one outliving himself.  His wife died when she was 33 and he was devastated, not leaving his room for weeks.  With George Washington's urgings he accepted being Secretary of State, which brought about heated debates with Alexander Hamilton.  He resigned his post after the first term looking to fall back to his farm for the remainder of his life.  John Adams succeeded Washington, but Jefferson was second in votes despite not campaigning and he was forced into being Vice President.  After seeing the Federalists usurping power he decided he had to act and ran against Adams for President.  He and Aaron Burr tied, though only because of the election process, and everyone including the Federalists knew Jefferson was the will of the people.  They tried holding up the process in the senate for the tie breaker.  They even threatened to ignore the Constitution and elect a leader in the senate and deem him President, which Virginia quickly retorted it would take up arms if that occurred.  Jefferson eventually took office.  Much of his presidency is known from the Louisana Purchase to the Barbary Pirates war.  He retired to Monticello in debt as he used his personal money while in office as President.  Benjamin Rush mediated a reconciliation between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, which began the 14 year period of trading letters between the two.  Like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson never took out a patent on any of his inventions as he believed the world should benefit from them.  He died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, as he wanted.  His assets had to be sold to account for the debt accrued over his life. 

Those last two biographies, I ran through giving an account of some main points.  They are both very good about getting to know the founders.  I still believe we wouldn't have the freedoms we do without Thomas Jefferson.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Our tax system is clearly "broken" because it does not account for the corruption of mankind.  Whenever a person or group of people together have unlimited power, they will undoubtedly abuse that power.  Our tax system gives Congress the unlimited power to tax the citizens as they see fit.  It is written in the Federalist Papers why the founders did this and the main concern was the binding the hands of the government in taxation may keep our hands tied from defending ourselves in a time of war.  As they felt the government may need a unforeseen amount of money at any given time, they should also have an #ff0000 amount of power for the taxation of the citizenry.  However valid that reason may be, it does not account for the fact of giving the government unlimited power during all other times where the increased taxation of the citizens is unneeded and burdensome.  The tax code is now so complicated and confusing that even those that write it cannot understand its entirety.  Along with that comes the problem of the people not realizing how much they are actually taxed and/or where that money goes.  If our tax code was simple enough for everyone to see exactly how they are taking our money, they may have a bone to pick against Congress.  If the taxation bound the hands of Congress by not giving them a general fund, but forcing each taxation to have a specific purpose beforehand, the people may also see where the money is going and have a greater voice of opinion on the matter of taxation.  This is where my ideas stem.  The amount of taxation is really void to the point of informing the people of what the government is doing with the money they are taking.  It is true that the government may need an unforeseen power in taxation, yet why can they not have the power, but be hamstrung on how to spend the money?  Or perhaps forcing them to tax the people as a blanket would cover...only once they would tax everything instead of layering taxes to hide how much the actual tax rates affect commerce.

Idea #1:
Keep the tax code similar, but change how Congress can spend the money.  All money gained by oil taxation must go to building and maintaining roads.  All portions of taxation must be accompanied with where the money is to be spent.  Income taxes, for example, may only be spent on defense at a national level and police at the state level.  Or perhaps sales tax can only be spent on the education system.  They also cannot simply add a reason to an existing tax, which would create another confusing mess.  For them to create a tunnel for turtles to cross the road, they must inform the people that their income tax will be raised for this project.  They cannot simply add to the existing reasons for the income tax rate that this project will be added.  This will keep things separated, though they will still pile up over time.  Even though it may get confusing, the point is that there is no more general fund.  They cannot simply tax and spend the money as they please.  This removes quite a lot of power from them without handcuffing them in times of need.  

I would also like to add that though the past taxes may be confusing, any increases in taxation would be accompanied with a reason that would be easy for people to decipher.  They couldn't say they are raising taxes for the children for education and spend it on saving the trees instead.  This would allow people to keep tabs on the changes occurring without too much of a hassle, which would give them more power when confronting Congressmen and probably lead to a higher turnover rate in Congress.


Idea #2:
The idea that a single tax is the only tax.  The states and the Federal government would have difference places for taxation, but they would only have one each.  Even the local level can have their own without complicating this tax code.  The federal government can choose to tax only once, whether its a sales tax, an income tax or a sort of business tax, only once.  The state and local governments can do much the same.  By this we simplify the tax code incredibly allowing for people to easily see how much the government is taking from them.  Not very much needs to be said for this idea as it is that simple.  A couple thoughts though on some tweaks.  If one should choose an income tax, they cannot remove it from you before you have the money in your hands.  Automatic removal of funds would no longer occur, which would force people to send the money into the government, and by that act would see and feel the loss of that money.  This would of course cause the problem of people overspending and not having the money to send, but this could be remedied I'm sure.  Perhaps the amount of money is given to you, yet kept separate and though you have it you cannot spend it but on sending it to the government.  

Obvious ideas #3 & #4:
The flat and fair tax are obvious choices as well.  The flat tax is great because it removes the power to pit one person against another with the tax code.  When taxes are raised, everyone feels the pain and there is no class warfare as the democrats are constantly advocating.  Personally the flat tax is my favorite, but I like thinking of other ideas as well.  The fair tax is good too because, again it hits everyone the same and in this case it just happens on the consuming end.  The downside to this is that they can layer taxes through the production process of goods and possibly hide the amount of tax being laid.

A mixture of the ideas would work too, but I would rather not complicate this any more than it needs to be.  Getting the ball rolling on a change of the tax code is the most important aspect of any movement away from our current tax code.  By getting ideas out there we have alternatives to choose from which would encourage people that a new system would be better.

I have fun "war gaming" it from time to time on what ifs and I thought about the possibility that the government cannot be reversed without a radical change.  Perhaps the powers will be too great to remove or democrats enact some law that gives them landslide advantages and progressives are in the forever majority.  What then?  Well, the way I see it, we need to declare another revolution. 

I am not advocating a revolution in our current situation because every other option must be sought after first.  If after all possibly routes have been taken and failure comes out on top, we can proceed.  So, take this with some fun and a grain of salt.

My Declaration of Independence(Unfinished)!

Government, when populated by humans, will always find itself seizing the powers and rights of the people.  Whenever the people find it necessary to dissolve such a government, they must provide necessary reasoning for their actions.

It has been established that men do not derive their rights from Government, but from their creator and among these rights are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Government derives their power from the people and are created for the sole purpose of securing the rights of the people, not creating them.  When the people find the Government encroaching upon their basic freedoms and rights, they have a duty to abolish the established Government and institute a new form of Government which they believe will secure their safety and happiness.  A Government should not be altered lightly, but the experience has shown that people will suffer in bearable evils, rather than abolish that which is evil.  When a Government has continually abused the rights of the people, in order to establish a totalitarian form of government, it is the right and duty of the people to abolish such a Government.  When a Government believes it has the power to grant and remove the rights of the people, they have usurped the power granted to them by the people and must be abolished, for if they are able to sustain, they will inevitably enslave the populace.  This history of the Government of The United States of America has shown that it was created to grant the highest level of freedom yet seen on planet earth.  The actions following the foundation of the Government have proven the contempt with which they hold the people, where the laws and regulations instituted no longer strive for freedom, but control.  Let these facts be submitted as proof of Tyranny in the United States of America.

For knowingly and intentionally lying to the American People during election campaigns.
For encouraging class warfare for political gain.
For basing decisions on garnering votes rather than American Prosperity.
For using the tax rates as a political weapon rather than basing tax rates on American Prosperity and required tax revenue.
For denying proper debate of bills moving through the legislature. 
For using tax revenue to create propaganda art for political gain.
For spending the United States into 12+ Trillion dollars in debt, while increasing yearly spending so as to add to that debt.
For creating a ponzi scheme in social security and for failing to save the money collected by using it in the general fund.
For sending the African-American community into continual poverty by the creation of affirmative action and "The Great Society" welfare programs.
For selling legislative votes for the insertion of funds to the bill in question.
For engaging in actions that would find any private enterprise employee/employer in prison, which would follow that they do not believe the laws apply to them thereby creating a government of men and not laws.
For allowing for an environment of inefficiency by government employees.
For allowing tax frauds to serve in offices elected and nonelected numerous times.
For using unelected officials to create laws instead of using the legislative branch as instructed by the Constitution.
For creating a multitude of new offices, predominantly under FDR, which are used for the creation and enforcement of laws.
For waging wars in a conduct that is detrimental to the country by making decisions based on political motives, such as the Vietnam war and the current war on terror.
For taking campaign contributions in return for political favors to corporations.
For invading the private sector of markets with detrimental regulations and bailouts to encourage the continuation of failure.
For knowlingly and intentionally expanding the powers of the federal government beyond the Constitution of the United States.
For erecting a false wall between the Church and State by removing all mentions of religion.
For perverting the judicial system with the creation of hate crimes, along with the intentional appointment of activist judges.
For refusing to protect our southern border in any way and therefore sponsoring the invasion of illegal aliens.
For using leverage to force congressmen to vote in a favorable way.
For making agreements with Unions that encourages corruption and harms the respective market of the union.
For sponsoring the indoctrination of kids by the public school system.
For forcing the American citizens to buy health insurance under penalty of prison time.
For restricting the right to ammunition and by extention the right to bear arms, which is specifically listed in the Bill of Rights as a right the government may not infringe upon.
For shaping campaign laws to favor the incumbent.
For bribing the votes of the poor by promising to give them money, which is the downfall of any free society.
For the passage of bills without reading and comprehension.
For refusing to use the resources found in America, which has kept us dependent on our enemies for energy.
For intentionally removing our military advantage by the signing of restrictive treaties.

Reasons for being unfinished:
We haven't reached the point where it is needed.  The conclusion considering our multiple attempts to reconcile our problems cannot possibly be added until tried. 

I have mentioned before that I was reading the book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg and I have now finished.  I took notes along the way so Im gonna post them up for people to see, in case they don't have time to read it, but want a sort of summary.

Mussolini:
-Praised by all leftists around the world from NYT to Lenin (Pre-WW2)
-Italy not harsh to Jews until Germany invaded them
-To gain power Mussolini did much the same as Hitler.  Created chaos and blamed theo ther side.  His "blackshirts" helped him along the way and in 1924 his fascist party swept the elections
-Mussolini charged with statolatry(state worship) after the war.

Hitler:
-Hitler peddled ideology, but never held them if not politically advancing. 
-Probably hated Jews his whole life.
-Became socialist in Vienna, Revolutionary above all
-The treaty to end WW1 increased Hitler's hatred.  They were stabbed in the back by the government, he claimed.  Hatred for: capitalists, communists and cowards(a front for Jews)
-Mussolini created his movement, Hitler joined a movement
     Nazi's favored the following:
           -universal education
           -increased entitlements for aged
           -nationalization of industry
           -expansion of health services
           -guaranteed employment
           -expropriation of land without compensation(common good)
           -abolition of market based lending
           -abolition of child labor
-Nazism converted communists in Germany first


Wilson:
-More dissidents jailed under Wilson than Mussolini during his reign in the 1920's
-Wilson loved Power(obviously)
-Wilson similar to Mussolini in state worship
-Created "living Constitution" and spoke against Constitution
-In "leader of men" in 1890, Wilson says a leader uses the masses like tools.
-T. Roosevelt claimed property was held at subject to general welfare
-"As [Jefferson's] time is passed, America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise"
-Progressivism supported the communist movement in Russia despite the violence and murder they were committing
-New Deal Economics were awed by communist Russia
-Progressives on the whole are imperialistic
-Wilson started the War Industries Board(WIB), forced industry into embracing the state
-"Committee on Public Information" was a propaganda machine for Wilson
-"four minute men" gave 4 minute propaganda speeches
-Progressives felt dissent from the war was traitorous
-Wilson's Sedition Act banned "uttering, printing, writing or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language about the United States or the military.
-A Wisconsin state official got 2.5 years in jail for criticizing a Red Cross fundraiser
-A man was brought to trial for explaining why he didn't want to buy liberty bonds while in his own home
-Wilson for US Attorneys and Marshals: "No German enemy of this country, who has not hitherto been implicated in plots against the interests of the United States, need not have any fear of action by the DoJ so long as he observes the following warning: obey the law; keep your mouth shut"
-American Protective League(APL) rounded up 50k "slackers".  2/3 were innocent
-APL(secret police) reached 250k by 1918
-"Palmer Raids"(unconstitutional crackdowns)
-Around 175k Americans arrested for failing to demonstrate patriotism
-Hitler called for no dividing lines between rich and poor, just like progressives


FDR:
-"What we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some of the things that were being done under Hitler in Germany" -FDR
-Tried running as Wilsonian for President in 1920, but rejected by American resentment towards progressives
-Good at making agreeable statements
-Told congress if it didn't do what he wanted, he'd do it anyways.
-Shrugged when told the New Deal was unconstitutional

1960s:
-Action above all else
-Movement started with "finding a meaning in life"
-One movement leader Tom Hayden proclaimed the youth must wrest control of society from their elders
-Hayden helped write "Berkeley Liberation Program" which states, "destroy university unless it serves the people"
-"Create a soulful socialism" - Hayden
-Hayden hoped the left's violence could create "liberated territories" for exporting a revolution
-Hayden considered moderate by SDS
-Rudd(SDS) and Weather Underground now teaches in current universities(many from WU teach)
-250 terrorist attacks from Sept '69 - May '70
-SDS formed ties with Castro
-LBJ fought hard to dilute Eisenhower's civil rights legislation while in the senate
-"I did not lie awake worrying about the problems of negr0es(wouldn't let me put the word)" -Kennedy
-LBJ claimed government could take care of everything, he just didn't know exactly how(always a problem if I must say so myself)
-20th century KKK not classical racist, but modern progressive(eugenics) racist

More Recent:
-Liberal anti-fascist beliefs create fascist policies.  Intervention for US Steel caused competition to drop and government/business relationship to grow
-NYT: "There is at least one official voice in Europe that expresses understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt(FDR), this voice is that of Germany, as represented by Chancellor Adolf Hitler"  1933
-Hillary Clinton embodies everything in the progressive era, minus eugenics.  Her healthcare was a good representation of that
-Hillary is all about finding meaning in life
-Obama is the tenants of this book put to practice.

"History is written by the victors"  - Winston Churchill

Though I attributed that quote to Churchill, many before him had very similar quotes, so many in fact say that it is nearly a proverb.  Though it is not entirely accurate, as history is never as simple as that, it certainly holds some water.  As of now, many people think of the Roman empire as a force of good in the world and it is true on some level; though they also went against much that we hold in high esteem today.  Not only did they war upon most everyone they ran into, but they were not the representative republic some people make them out to be.  A more recent occurrence of such phenomena is the civil war.  The main reason the south seceded was not slavery, but states rights.  Had the south won, I do not believe slavery would have persisted too much longer anyways.  However, because they lost, they are demonized to the point that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism. 

Right now I am reading "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg and it is a fantastic piece.  One thing I have recognized throughout the book is how liberals have dictated the conversation and thus dictated history.  Conservatives are constantly hounded because LBJ was president when the Civil Rights Act was passed, we are blamed for the great depression, we are compared to fascism every time we go against a liberal's attempt at handing out free money.  The list goes on, while liberals are strangely free from any baggage of history.  How has this come to pass?

Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the military; he had political enemies put into prison; propaganda from the Wilson White House was the example followed by Hitler and the fascists; his tax policies caused a depression in 1920; Hoover and his government intervention policies helped cause the great depression (though republican, he was certainly a progressive); FDR lengthened the great depression by his social programs; LBJ and the great society has re-enslaved the black race in America; Carter brought the economy to a halt; Obama is sending our country to hell in a handbasket.  Need I go on?  Each and every time something negative has happened on the liberal side, it is forgotten or twisted back on conservatives. 

Liberals are the nexus of racial equality, yet the founding father of their ideology in America was possibly the most racist president we have had.  The Great Society has put all African-Americans on the government dole, creating a permanent poverty stricken class.  Why is any of that never brought to light?  Each and every time a liberal points at a conservative and yells racist, we are tripping over ourselves to claim WE are not racist, while we should be sending the facts back at them instead of allowing them to turn the tables.  Without the Great Society, blacks were entering the workforce and nearing the unemployment rates of other races.  Now that we have had liberal policy dictating this conversation, they have a much higher unemployment than whites.  Instead of defending ourselves against this onslaught of falsehoods, we should be go on the offensive and point out how liberals have wronged blacks at every turn.  Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act at a higher percentage than the democrats in Congress, yet we are blamed as racist?  Not this time.  Send them on the defensive and these lies won't gain as much traction.  With two sides to the story, people will need to think for themselves instead of wonder if only Republicans or conservatives are racist.

Who are the only presidents to jail private citizens without due process?  Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Why is this not brought up during the conversation of what unlimited government leads to?  Woodrow Wilson jailed anyone speaking their minds on WWI.  Is political dissent that much of a crime?  I thought the Constitution specifically gave us the right to freedom of speech?  FDR jailed people solely based on race during WWII.  Has anything of the sort even come close to happening under a Republican?  Why are democrats and liberals not having this shoved in their face at every mention of this overbearing healthcare?  Yet, not a peep and this bill even has prison time for failing to get healthcare.  Instead we are the ones who are pointed to as fascists bent on the annihilation of other races.  We push for limited government so jailing private citizens would be impossible and yet we are labeled fascists.  But was it not the Germans who did just that?  Sure they took it to an extreme by genocide, but rounding up German citizens was certainly part of it. 

The point is that at each turn liberals seem to get off scott free, while conservatives are forced to carry the weight of history, even if we didn't commit the treachery.  It is high time that true history is brought out and shouted down at them.  We need to stop being on the defensive when the cries of racism are leveled, and instead started sending the message back at them with some facts to support it.  By putting them on the defensive, they will be forced to look a fool or explain themselves. 

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Right now our entire globe is at a crossroads with this current economic crisis.  As we speak country by country is showing their financial weakness in Europe, bringing the Euro into free fall.  China relies heavily on other countries for their own economy and is showing their own weaknesses as the western world economy grinds to a near halt.  The United States is in no better condition and arguably worse than any, though we are the only ones holding the rest up.  Without the United States, does anyone think Greece would have been bailed out?  No way.  The Germans would have ran back to the Mark instead; yet because we show some semblance of strength, they are holding committed for now.  All in all, the entire world structure is at a crossroads.

As we stand, we have two, possibly three, groups of people when considering political ideologies around the globe.  The Tea Party is a great representative of the most conservative of the three.  Though the numbers in the actual party are not numbering tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions side with the philosophy coming from the group.  Tea Parties are popping up from Japan to Italy to England and are only gaining strength as we speak.  Last year on September 12th, an estimated 700,000 average Joe's and Jane's gathered in DC on account of organization from the Tea Party and related groups.  Conservative candidates are running over incumbent Republicans in the recent primaries and are looking to take out any democrats in their respective general elections.  Some estimates have the Republicans taking 100 seats this November and though I think that may be high, a considerable amount will change from Democrats and RINOs to young conservative Republicans.  In England, the conservative party essentially won the election, though not the majority.  They have made quite a splash in a country not known for their backing of conservative candidates.  Presidential elections in other European countries are showing that the conservative candidate is rising to power, though here I only mean conservative of the two, not real conservatives(here shows the power of the movement, rather than simple yes/no conservative victories).  

Then comes the socialist/Marxists/communists as the second and third groups.  They are similar in their overall picture when talking about the role of government, yet pairing western socialists and Chinese communists is a tall order.  This group is largely the group in power around the globe.  Since the conservative movement has only began gathering speed in the last 1-2 years, socialists have been inching their way into majorities around the world for decades.  While times are good, they always seem to gain ground as people are not paying attention.  Obama is pushing for the United States to take a motherly role around the world when considering Europe and their problems.  We have already helped out Greece and no doubt we have sent lots of money under the table through banks around Europe(on second thought, we did send money to European banks with TARP one and two).  There are community organizing groups far and wide when considering the socialist agenda in America.  With Obama in power it is tough to distinguish some of these groups from actual arms of the government.  The Europeans are still largely socialist and with the IMF dictating what countries should do, they are a hair's breadth away from a global government over there.  Spain is the next country in trouble and with the lead of Obama, it is doubtful that they will be refused funds.  All in all, socialists are the ones in power as of yet and are still dictating world policies.

Now comes the decision the world must make.  On one side the conservatives are shouting down the socialist policies for bringing the world economy to its knees.  The refusal to curtail spending is the rally call to all conservatives around the globe to get active before its too late.  The forced regulations on the banks caused much of the crisis and if the market had been left alone, this would have never happened.  The cradle to grave big brother approach is costing far too much and will only decrease freedom and prosperity world-wide.  On the other, we have socialists blaming this economic crisis on the absence of regulations.  The banks are at fault as they used predatory loans to gouge the people and are now paying the price, while forcing us to pay the price with them.  This should never happen again and a restriction of freedoms is in order to keep the economy stable.

One side promotes freedom, while the other removes freedom.  One wants the power with the people, the other wants an oligarchy(though they hide that fact).  This entire business will come to a head when Europe collapses in on itself and China begins to waver on buying our bonds, causing the United States to falter.  If the conservatives get the truth out enough, the entire globe may find freedom.  With each country falling, if the conservative models prove correct(finds a majority of minds) each country will turn away from socialism and a massive lesson will be learned that could vanquish socialism like small pox.  On the other hand, if socialists find the majority, the entire globe could lose its freedom in one fell swoop.  The United States citizens will have the government peeking in on every decision they make, from the food they eat to the internet they browse.  Europe, already close to this overbearing lack of freedoms, would immediately fall back into the fascist regimes that dominated the early 20th century.  Asia would move back to full communism and possibly isolation in the case of China.  Freedoms everywhere will be removed.  

So with that, how is this cookie going to crumble?


"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Ive been pondering the possibility of an actual shield from anything including radiation to physical attacks.  Magnetic fields seem to be the only way to do such a thing since nothing is immune to the pull of magnetism.  This of course would have to be paired with a powerful enough energy source, such that we might have to assume a fusion cell may be invented at some point.  Given that, we need to find a way to control a magnetic field so that it is powerful enough to repel something, yet will not wreak havoc on anything other than the object flying towards it.  I did some research and super permalloys do exist that have a permeability much higher than any pure metal.  Im not sure of the exact mixture it took to attain the following numbers, but the table on source site does show a super permalloy that has ultra high permeability, yet disperses the magnetic energy once the field dissipates. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/magprop.html

This alloy needs to be cooled, yet if we are to start this experimenting on our astronauts and NASA spacecrafts, we can assume the uses would be needed in space, which would help in the cooling of the material.  This would greatly reduce the energy needed to keep the alloy at the necessary temperature.    Further into the future, for say military use on single soldiers may require a more profound solution to this problem. 

Line the outside of a ship with multiple layers of this alloy.  I was thinking that the outer layer would be connected and the inner layers would not.  They would be turned perpendicular to the magnetic field until the layer directly outer to it has been damaged enough to stop working as intended.  Once that happens they would align and form the next layer of defense.  This would concentrate the field into the outer layer creating a more powerful magnetic field, rather than spreading out the same energy.  The field should now flow though the hull of the spacecraft because that is the path of least resistance for the magnetic field.  Assuming we have a powerful enough energy source, the magnetic field should protect the ship from most anything.  Anything physical coming at the ship might come in contact with the outer portion of the alloy until it comes in contact with the magnetic field, which it will then be pushed in another direction.  The outer layer may sustain damage, in which case the next layer will align and replace the outer layer as the carrier of the magnetic field.

This is of course a half-baked idea.  All theorizing and nothing to back it up, not even expertise.  I think better when I write things down though, so where better than here?  Im sure there are lots of holes and wrong assumptions, but its a basis of my thought anyways.

Unity is constantly thrown around by the left.  Unity can only occur under 3 circumstances.  One, you surrender your point of view.  Two, they surrender their point of view.  Three, both sides compromise.  Now, this is political unity, the third possibility cannot cause actual unity, so it really ends up being two possibilities.  Either your side or my side wins.  Now what is the motivation behind this unity?  Why does everyone need to believe the same thing?  How does unity occur?  Lets use history a bit for help on this question. 

Which other movements were rooted in unity?  Certainly the fascist movements in Italy and Germany both championed unity above reason or logic. 

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation." -Adolf Hitler
"It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission and welds them into unity." - Benito Mussolini
"that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual" -Adolf Hitler
"It is faith that moves mountains, not reason" -Benito Mussolini

It is no wonder that all books not agreeing with the Nazi platform were burned in Germany.  Hitler also charged the crowds with a  "revolt against reason".  Italy had a much more tempered version of Germany, but only because Mussolini wasn't trying to exterminate a part of his population.  The people of Italy had the same restricted freedoms and movement towards unity.  Note that all versions of unity coming from the left always include coercion.  Woodrow Wilson had thousands of political enemies jailed during his presidency.  Hitler and Mussolini did much the same.  Of course Hitler went above and beyond anyone else in this regard.  Notice the millions that were killed over in Russia for their unity purposes during the communist regime(even before WW2). 

Unity itself is not the harbinger of truth.  Unity is often a suspension of the search for truth and a turn for mob rule.  Why is it that our founders did not give us a democracy?  They knew that mob rule never works and soon freedoms are restricted as the people are used against themselves.  The person is smart, people are stupid. 

How does this relate to today?  Democrats are constantly preaching about unity, but what kind of unity?  Are they ever willing to truly compromise?  Any dissenting points of view are always snuffed out as early as possible, without debate.  This healthcare debate is a great example of where they were unable to have a true debate on the points of the healthcare bill and instead focused on feelings.  Any person who brought up dissenting views was immediately demonized as if they were Sarah Palin herself.  Or they are charged with hate mongering.  With how the democrats are reacting to dissenters, it is clear that they do not believe they can compete on the battlefield of ideas. But they have unity right?  Silencing other points of view is a way of bringing about false unity...the kind of unity Democrats strive for.

If unity is to be brought about, it must be done with ideas, not force.  I know everyone remembers Reagan around these parts.  He simply used common sense to convince people, with ideas, that his view was right.  Anyone see another person doing that today?  Chris Christie in NJ is rallying not just Republicans to his ideas of cutting the spending, but Democrats are starting to get on the bandwagon.  True unity is when people join you for the ideas, not force or manipulation. 

This post turned out much different than I thought it would lol.  Ill post it anyways.  It really comes down to the radical motto.  "The ends justify the means".  They want unity, false though it may be, and they will do anything to achieve it, including elimination of dissenters.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Ok, so I've been hearing that Mitt Romney is a front-runner for the Republican ticket in 2012.  Can I get a hell no!  What was the single issue that has geared the people against Democrats?  Healthcare, am I wrong?!  What did Romney do in Massachusetts?  Romneycare=Obamacare.  End of Story.  Obama is using Romneycare to hide behind as defending Obamacare against being called socialist.  Forget that is doesn't work in the slightest, puts companies out of business, rations care, raises costs and puts everyone under single payer in a matter of years...forget all that.  We ALL know Obamacare is a bad idea, including millions of democrats(and probably including those who voted for the bill as well).  I don't care whether Romney has learned his lesson, I don't care whether he has other good qualities.  I simply don't care because for him to actually bring about Romneycare, means his mind thinks along the line of a progressive.  I understand he is from Massachusetts and was in the middle of insaneville, but that doesn't mean I want a moderate out of that state.  Good for them, not good for us all.

Now, aside from the actual care, what about next election?  What is the single largest issue that is going to be used against Democrats in 2012?  As it stands so far, healthcare.  Of course other issues might crop up, but I can't see healthcare being thrown aside to something larger than 1/6 of the economy.  We have to expect it to stay in the limelight.  Now, instead of Republicans USING healthcare against them, Democrats are now getting to use it against not only our president, but in state races as well.  How does that make Republicans look if the leader they trot out as president created Romneycare, yet the rest of the party are against Obamacare?  Can anyone say "I was for it before I was against it"?

Romney will be a complete and utter disaster for Republicans if he runs for President.  Someone please pass on the word to him that he should step aside for the good of the country and not rely on people not being fooled into voting for him.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

So I keep a small notepad with me all the time and I write down ideas as they come.  I read some of the halo series books lately and the books are full of AI.  Gets me thinking and I jot things down.  I just want to get these out of my notepad and somewhere else.  So here goes.

All these ideas for the creation of a new smart AI.

List all the words in the dictionary with a percent chance of what each word means.  For example, say CD has a 80% chance of meaning compact disc and 20% chance of meaning certificate deposit (made up percentages for an examples sake).  Cross reference words in the sentence being spoken for most likely meaning.  Im hoping this will give the AI a pretty good chance of understanding the idea of what is being said.  This allows for the possibility of it responding in an intelligent fashion. 

Historical data must be archived somewhere in the memory.  All major plot points throughout history can be inserted and allowed use for decision making.  For example all types of sieges throughout history could be inserted with their outcomes and the AI would be able to act accordingly when put into that situation by sizing it up and relating the information to the environment.  This would be tough as the victor writes history, but as best we can muster here.  It would also include scientific information for planets, plants, animals, etc etc. 

The information needs to be connected with pictures for relational use to the environment.  A picture of a bee should be related to a bee being seen by the AI.  Each new piece of information needs to be inserted where it belongs for future relational use.  If the AI is informed something it saw was a bee, that picture should be inserted into its memory as a bee.

The most important thing is how to access the information.  Obviously what I have said would constitute more than measurements in terabytes, so accessing the information could take days if not done right.  I think that buckets of information should be used here.  If something is said, the words should be linked to the definition of the words, along with percentage of each type.  Then link them to other words said, giving a probable idea of the conversation.  Those words should be cross referenced with buckets of information, such as animals, plants, geography, history, politics, etc etc, making each search cut down time considerably.  I like to think of buckets within buckets, much like how we look at a family tree.  Each picture would be tagged with words, for fast indexing to each word if needed.  If nothing is said and the AI is trying to identify something, it should find general characteristics for deriving which bucket to drill down. 

These tags would then allow for the AI to relate one picture to another and allow for quicker memory access when relating events.  Notice when you listen to a song, or smell something specific, you remember the last time you did that?  Relational memory is very strong in humans and allows for very flexible and quick recognition of surroundings.  It cuts down on the searching that needs to be done as it already has somewhere to start.  Make this the focal point of the AI and as it gains extra memory to search through, it won't take longer, but it will be quicker. 

Ok, so I got my ideas out there.  Have fun with it.