Political Nevada

What is Laissez Faire Capitalism and what is it’s connection with Libertarianism?
Is Libertarianism simply another term for the Laissez Faire Capitalism of the 18th century; and is Laissez Faire another term for Anarchy?
Here are two definitions, one of Laissez Faire Capitalism and the other of Libertarianism.

Laissez Faire is an economic theory from the 18th century that strongly opposes any government intervention in business affairs, it is also called “Let it Be Economics” People who support Laissez Faire are against minimum wage, duties and any trade restrictions

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

Sharron Angle calls herself a Libertarian, and the economics that she is spouting is very much Laissez Faire capitalism. Has Ms. Angle
stepped back into the 17th Century? Is she a Libertarian, a Laissez Faire Capitalist, or are they the same philosophy but different words?

Looking at the definitions of both terms, it seems that Right Wing Libertarians are simply the Laissez Faire Capitalists of the 21st Century. So, it isn’t the ultra conservatives that have won the nomination to represent the Republican Party in their effort to eliminate Senator Reid, it is the Laizzez Fair Party of the 17th century that is running under the Republican banner. Even a tried and true Republican must realize that the Laizzez Fair Capitialist approach is not a practical approach to todays’ world.

Of course even those, like Sharron Angle who profess little to no government intervention on most things wants intervention when it suits their purpose.

Anarchy is very close to the philosophies of both laissez Fair Capitalism and Libertarianism which has never been practical, or reliable in the political, or social world.
These Anarchists feel the individual capitalist is the best to make the decisions for the welfare of the country as well as the people who live in this country. But as much as they want individualism, they complain when something goes wrong that affects their financial stability. They want controls when it suits their purpose and want total “freedom” from control when they are stopped by regulations that might cost them money or inconvenience, even when those regulations are in place to protect the consumer from a serious destructive practice.

People like Sharron Angle believe in “Let It Be Economics” which means they also believe in “Let the Buyer Beware” which is something that civilization grew out of over 50 years ago. The only way to protect people from that philosophy is to have regulations, but for Sharron Angle, regulations are not necessary, are an infringement of the “individuals rights”. Sorry, but it can’t be both ways, either there are regulations to protect the people or there are no regulations, and if there are regulations someone has to make them, who makes them is determined by the voters when they decide to have representation. When regulations are needed, it makes no sense to allow each state to make their own regulations since that would create a continent of 48 independent countries, as well as the two independent countries of Hawaii and Alaska. The confusion as to what the laws would be whenever someone would be traveling between states would be astronomical.

Laissez Faire, Libertarianism, States Rights; they are all interrelated. Within these philosophies are some good and even fair ideas, but taken as a whole these philosophies are based upon a belief that people will do what is right, that rich people will generously share with their poorer neighbor to ensure that no one starves. That philosophy has never worked and continues in its failure today. Selfishness is more the norm than sharing, which is why there has to be rules and laws even when those rules and laws “infringe on My rights”
The world has changed in the past 300 years since Laissez Faire was first proposed, and when looked at in this century, Laissez Faire, True Libertarianism, and Anarchy(which has never worked) will not work.

During every election cycle, and especially this one, we keep hearing about those in office are the “Career Politicians” and those that are running against them for that office are not politicians, just simple folks like you and me.
Guess what? As soon as a person runs for office they become a politician. It doesn’t matter if they never held office, the moment they “throw their hat in the ring” they qualify as politicians.
In the case of the Senate Race for Nevada, every one of the Republicans competing for the privilege to run against Senator Harry Reid, became the thing they are saying that they are not. They have all become politicians.
Several were previously elected officials, one tried to get elected several times and failed, and then there is one who has spent the last 20 years living and working in the other side of the country. This person wants to represent a state that he hasn’t been involved in since he was a young man. He has stated that he wants to represent Nevada because he is not a politician; actually he is more of a politician than those that have previously held office. Being born and living in a place for a few years doesn’t keep you qualified to represent that state,(or city, town, county, etc.), but a true politician wouldn’t let that stop him or her from running.
Every person who gets their name on the ballot, has transformed themselves into “The Politician”. As soon as they decide to run for an office they will be looking for political support and making promises that they are constantly criticizing their opponent for making, because that opponent is a “career politician”. But to beat that career politician they will become that which they claim they detest; they will become a politician, and unless they resign after their first term has ended, they will become a “Career Politician”.
These non-career politicians want the voter to believe that if elected they will do “this, or fulfill the obligation to do “that”, but they fail to add the realization that they will be the junior politician who will be told what to vote on, how to vote, and when to vote by the party they represent which will always be run by their own “career politicians”. Of course, since it will be their “career politicians”, it won’t count. After all everyone knows that “my party is always right and the opposition party is always wrong, and we really don’t have career politicians, because only the opposition has career politicians”.
Want to eliminate career politicians? Don’t allow any term to be more than two years and once that term is ended, the career in politics, at any level, ends. Political service should be voluntary, with no benefits, so there would be no obvious incentive to run for any office. With only a few years in office, that ex-office holder would have no special “clout” with any government entity so their would be no incentive from the corporate world.
Guaranteed that the majority of people running under the excuse that we have too many career politicians would fight to prevent ending careers because they would be ending their own possibilities.
Complaining about the Career Politicians is like complaining about the weather. Career Politicians are as much a part of nature as an earthquake. Just like in an earthquake, the only choices are to wait to access the damage, run away, or hide somewhere safe until its safe to come outside.

Profiling and the Abuse of Power

Several weeks ago a 27-year-old single male took a trip to Idaho to purchase a car. After making his purchase he drove the car back toward Las Vegas. Within a few miles of the border between Idaho and Nevada, on the Nevada side, where there is nothing but isolation, he was pulled over by Nevada Highway Patrol. The officer asked the young man if he knew why he was being pulled over and was told that he didn’t know why. The officer informed the driver that he had failed to put his lights on as per the sign several miles back. As the driver hadn’t seen the sign he accepted that he was getting a ticket. The officer asked for the driver’s license, and asked if there were any wants or warrants issued for the driver. The driver replied that as far as he knew there was nothing. The officer called into his office and promptly returned stating that there was nothing on record for the driver. At about the same time as the officer was finishing the ticket and stating to the driver that everything looked good on the driver’s record, two more highway Patrol officers pulled up and had a conversation with the first officer. After their talk the initial officer asked the driver if he would have a problem with a random search of his person and of the car. At that point the driver was feeling intimidated by all the attention, but felt that he had no choice but to allow the three highway patrol officers to do their search. The initial officer asked if they would find any illegal drugs or paraphernalia on the driver or in the car and was told there would be nothing. The three officers made the driver get out of the car, then two officers began to search the car as well as the driver’s suitcase and personal possessions, while the third officer did a “pat-down” of the driver. After ten minutes the officers decided that they were done and the driver was finally freed to go. As they were getting ready to get into their cars, a homeless wanderer was passing by and one of the officers made a comment to the driver that he should pick-up the bum so he would have company on his drive to Las Vegas. The three officers thought that the comment was extremely funny and laughed as they departed the area. The driver spent an additional half hour picking up the clothes that the officers had strewn throughout the area, shaking off the dirt and folding the clothes as best he could so he could place the clothes back in the suitcase, then reorganized his car so he could continue on his way. None of the officers made any effort to help the driver put his items back the way they had been before their search and none offered either an apology for the mess and inconvenience or a thank you for his cooperation. He felt that once they had finished, he was a non-entity in the way they ignored him.
The driver could not file a complaint because he had been too afraid of the officers to ask for names, badge numbers or to even take note of the numbers on the three patrol cars.
Why was this driver treated to so much attention?
Was it because he is very Hispanic looking?
Was it because he is only in his twenties?
Was it because he had the effrontery to be driving by himself, ( the officer’s comment made the driver think that had he had a passenger, they might not have subjected him to as much scrutiny)?
Was it because the Highway Patrol officers in that area of Nevada are so bored that they needed something to do?
After the driver’s license had been run and the officer found nothing to indicate a problem, why did two additional officers feel the need to join their fellow officer instead of doing their job and keeping the highway safe?
Those that heard the driver’s story believe that the answer to the question as to why this driver was subjected to so much attention is a combination of being Hispanic, in his twenties, a single driver, with officers that are getting paid to protect the public having too much time and too much power on their hands.
They knew that the driver was fearful of being arrested, not because he had committed a crime, but because he was alone with three police officers and whatever would have happened it would have been the word of three police officers against the word of a single Hispanic driver. Who would believe that the officers would do anything against an honest citizen?
This story shows that profiling is part of our lives and without control police can take advantage of their power. Whether we like it or not, there may not be a solution to abuse of power or profiling, but it is an issue that needs a reality check.

Immigration

There seems to be two thoughts on immigration, “kick ‘em all out of the country” or allow those that are already living here “a path toward citizenship”.
The kick ‘em out group seems to feel that if a person is here illegally it is because they entered the country illegally,knowingly.

The problem with putting all the “Illegals” in one bag is that there is more than one reason why a person is an illegal alien in this country.

Below are several examples of illegals:

1. People are issued a three-year visa to live and to work in this country, they are required to renew every three years, but they forget and the visa expires, now they are afraid that if they go to renew they will be deported. Because of their visa they were setup to pay taxes on the money they make, and since they own a house they pay property taxes. Therefore they were legal, now they are illegal, but they are paying their fair share of the income and property taxes.

2. What about the young man or woman who was brought to this country as a child, but never knew they weren’t really citizens of this country. They have gone to an American Elementary School, Junior High School, and High School, even some college and are now in their 20′s. At some point they found out that they are illegal, what should they do, this is the only country they ever knew.They have been paying their income taxes and property taxes as well.

3. The college student who was in this country legally, as a student, when their visa runs out and like the person with the work visa, they forget to renew. They do the same as the three-year visa immigrant, they remain in this country and try not to get in trouble. Perhaps while they were in college they met someone and fell in love, even got married, and had children. What are their options?

4. Many “illegals” have married American citizens and have children from that marriage.

For many that are in those four categories, there is only one solution, they have to turn themselves into the Federal authorities.

The scenario works like this:
They get an Immigration Attorney or an Immigration specialist, who helps them fill out all sorts of paperwork which is then submitted to the INS for scrutiny. Then they wait for an interview with Immigration, which usually takes several months, but may even take a few years. Next, once the interview is over they have to wait several more months until they receive notice that they are to be relocated to their original country. They wait for another few months until they are picked up and placed on a bus(assuming they are being deported to Mexico). Now they must wait until some bureaucrat decides to look at their file; once the file is looked at it is now sent to the FBI who might or might not look into the situation right away. When they do they run a complete check on that person and once the check is finished, they might inform that immigrant of their findings immediately, or might have the information sitting on someone’s desk(until the immigrant’s attorney requests information as to why the 12 months limit is past) at which time that person is now allowed back into the only country they have known.
By the time the process is completed several years has gone by.

There should be other ways to complete the process, especially when that immigrant fits into one of the four scenarios listed above, because that person lived and went to school in only a limited number of places.

Change the process, make it more realistic, less bureaucratic, and there would by more “illegal immigrants” becoming legal.

These anti-immigrants who are ranting and raving about the illegals in this country have no connection to reality, they need to blame someone for their problems, blame makes them feel so superior.

The United States is a country composed of 50 states, at least in theory we are a country. When listening to the Right Wing in this “country” a person gets the impression that this isn’t a country with 50 states, but 50 independent countries that allow a central authority to enact laws as long as it doesn’t infringe on the “Will of the State”, or the “Will of the People”. The “Will of the People”; someone needs to explain that the “Will of the People” is shown whenever people vote, or in many cases, don’t vote. It is not whenever some Right Wing orator decides that he or she doesn’t like what the voter’s decided in the last election. If the “Will of the People” is as important as is said why are these minority groups screaming so loud that the “Will of the People is not being listened to? The voters are the Will of the People, not the minority fringe who happen to scream louder than the rest.
These screamers of the “Will of the People” are the same screamers of “States’ Rights”.
The 10th amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” On the face it seems that the states’ rights advocates are very correct in their belief that the Federal Government should have little power over the states, but this is not 235 years ago when there were only 13 states and those who ran the states were new to the idea of a united country. Today, in a world where weapons can be launched from the other side of the world, and where “multinational” companies control food, medicine, and even the weapons, it is necessary for the survival of the this country that we think as a country first and a state second.
The State’s Rights advocates are very vocal in their beliefs that the state has special rights over the Federal Government. They profess to believe in the Constitution, but how could they when they don’t believe that the Federal Government should have any decision-making control over the states that share this Country.The same people that are professing patriotism are some of the same ones that are threatening to secede from the United States. One very recent example is the Right Wing’s very own Sara Palin. Her husband was one of the leaders of a group that wanted to secede from the United States and until Sara was selected to run for Vice President, she didn’t seem to have any issues with his desire to leave this country. Governor Rick Perry of Texas has been talking about the possibility of Texas seceding from the Union, and calls those who want to leave the United States Patriots. How can someone who wants to breakup this country call themselves patriotic?
These patriots; are they patriotic Americans or are they patriotic Texans, Arizonans, Nevadans, Montanans, etc.? An American patriot believes in this country and would never consider anything as traitorist as seceding from the United States. Those that profess being patriots are traitors to every man and woman who ever fought for this country.
Maybe they are American patriots because their state is in the Americas, not because they care about the United States.
Perhaps their idea of patriotism has to do with how much they agree with the policies of the Central Government of the Confederation of States.We were taught that the Confederacy ended in 1865, but when discussing States’ Rights, the idea of a Confederacy seems the major idea of States’ Rights people, not a true country in the sense of united.
The issue of States’ Rights is extremely old and very much an American tradition, since no other country on this planet has the States’ Rights mentality. Whenever a province of some foreign country cries for their freedom from their country, the United States leads the way to assist that province into becoming “independent”. Perhaps it is time for the 50 states that are supposed to make up this country to become 50 independent countries? That way instead of being a world leader, each one could be a “third world” country with most having a third world economy, with limited financial power as well as limited military power. Obviously some of these new countries would have some military power, depending on the population, such as California, or New York. Others such as Wyoming, Nevada, and Montana could hire mercenaries to protect their borders. Financially, some of the states(new countries) might be able to do well in the global economy, Alaska with their oil fields, Texas with their industry.
Maybe the last 234 years as a country has been a failure and we should just do what the Minority says?
It is a minority that has been calling for States’ Rights. They definitely are a vocal group and they vote, but they do not represent the majority of those of us who believe that we are and should continue to be a Country made up of 50 states, not a confederation of 50 states coming together when it suits them.
They vote and because they vote their power is stronger than their actual numbers. When there is an election a voter turnout of 65% is considered a great turnout. Where are the 35% of the voting population who didn’t vote? If people don’t want the minority controlling the majority, then they better get out and vote. This country should see at least a 90% voter turnout any time there is a national election. If that were to happen, then the vocal minority would go back to their caves where they crawled from and let the United States be the power that it has been, because it is a country, not a confederation of states.