Self-Govern.com - Latest Comments

Re: Wall Street or the Federal Reserve?

Self_Govern — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:11:43 -0000

Thank you for the comment and for the share.

Re: Wall Street or the Federal Reserve?

Greater Nashua Tea Party — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:44:20 -0000

Great, concise article. I wish we could educate the Occupiers on this issue and direct their efforts and energies to Washington DC, instead of Wall St. I forwarded this on to my community.

Re: Libertarianism in Five Seconds or Less

Self_Govern — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:39:50 -0000

Richard,

Perhaps I will be able to answer your questions enough to your satisfaction that you will be unable to resist running down to the town hall and changing your voter registration. Otherwise, you may be the last Obama supporter left!

Now to answer your question, there are certainly some in the libertarian movement who would prefer no government, generally referring to themselves as anarcho-capitalists (see Rothbard, Murray). There are other libertarians who feel that a far more limited government than what we have now would be more practical and a more realistic goal to achieve in our lifetimes. It is a classic anarchist vs minarchist debate.

Personally, I feel that a night watchman state would be reasonable where the legitimate functions of the state are reduced to the protection of individuals from aggression, fraud, and theft.

Re: Libertarianism in Five Seconds or Less

Richard E. Hennessey — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:25:05 -0000

Dear Self-Govern.

I am tickled pink (if not pinko) that you have entered the blogosphere. I am afraid, however, that I won't be able to not ask some questions of you. Let me start with the fundamental, and by no means easy question, that of what you would say libertarianism is to you. You hint at it when you speak about "our support for as limited a government as possible." I'm not sure how that, without some further specification, differs from no government at all. Situations have arisen in history in which people have found themselves beyond the reach of government, so it seems that no government is a logical possibility. Oh, well, let me let you take over here.

Re: Libertarianism in Five Seconds or Less

PJ — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:43:52 -0000

But, if I could quote the great Paul McCartney, for the libertarian who supports euthanasia and abortion it would be, "Live and let die."

Good story. In the middle, though, it sounded more like you went through a religious conversion experience than simply a decision on what political party to support.

(And, if I'm not mistaken, the remnant scripture refers to is the true Church.)

~UP

Re: Libertarianism in Five Seconds or Less

Self_Govern — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:55:38 -0000

I believe he was satisfied to whatever extent possible in a five second answer. I hope it prompted a more thorough investigation into what libertarianism is for him.

Re: Libertarianism in Five Seconds or Less

Richard E. Hennessey — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:04:11 -0000

Was he satisfied with your answer? I myself might have had a few follow-up questions.

Re: Weiner Falls on his Sword

PJ — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:20:50 -0000

You use the word "government" in a very narrow sense. There is self-government, family government, city government, as well as state, national and international government; not to mention the eternal government of the Kingdom of God that, by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, extends to the earth. Governance is found thoughout all of creation and enables a body (individual or community) to remain unified and alive. The answer to unjust abuse in all levels of government is the principle of subsidiarity.

Your stats on divorce I don't buy, but have no desire to research it now.

Re: Don’t Mess with Texas

Self_Govern — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:31:17 -0000

I agree 100%.

Re: Don’t Mess with Texas

Alexander Snitker — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:26:28 -0000

The same bill should be in the Florida house in 2011

Re: Weiner Falls on his Sword

Self_Govern — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:28:31 -0000

A bunch of individuals with the legal authority to coerce at the point of a gun... you can call it government, gangs, or mobs but the point remains. The only way "society" (as you put it) will change is if individuals change and accept that government isn't the answer to their problems.

You cannot show any correlation between Weiner's idiocy and other peoples marriages while anything else is just you postulating. The divorce rate statistic is a weak one and not even accurate anymore. Divorce rate peaked in 1981 and has declined since to one of its lowest points since the early 70's. If your belief were true divorce would have to continue to increase every year until there were virtually no more marriages but statistics prove that not to be the case.

Half of this nation is on the government dole and you're telling me that people don't feel government has all the answers?

Re: Weiner Falls on his Sword

PJ — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:47:22 -0000

If you're going to hold on to "society is nothing but a bunch of individuals" then you must also say that government is nothing but a bunch of individuals. Hence my points sticks, that in order to change the smaller culture of individuals that the larger culture of individuals votes in to officce you must change the larger bunch of individuals that votes for the smaller bunch of individuals and continues to allow them non-accountability.

To answer your other questions, yes my marriage would be affected as is all people's. Not in a way that is measurable, but in a way that a drop of ink affects a large pond. All those drops transformed a culture that had a small divorce rate into one that is over 50% in less than two decades. Your idea that we're radical individuals that don't affect each other is not a wise one.

No one believes the "bunch of individuals" that work for the government are all knowling or all powerful; and I don't think anyone is shocked at Weiner or any of the other countless so-called sex scandals. It's titillating tabloid stuff for a tabloid society. Everyone has their own weaknesses that could cause scandal if they had 24-7 media coverage around them. But people who are leaders are held to somewhat of a higher standard. That's why teachers, presidents, and especially priests get scrutinized more than others.

Re: Weiner Falls on his Sword

Self_Govern — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:41:58 -0000

PJ,

I think your point regarding society was already addressed. Society is nothing but a bunch of individuals. If we as individuals continue to expect a bloated government to take care of us all the while ignoring the plain fact that government is extremely incompetent at managing itself then we shouldn't be surprised when we get scandal and corruption.

People are either deluding themselves or are being fooled by media if they believe that government is all-knowing and all-powerful and has all the answers to peoples ills. Are you disillusioned when a government scandal erupts? Government lacks transparency and accountability and thus you attract corruption. It is inevitable given the conditions.

Secondly, I disagree with your perspective on the harm caused by Weiner's escapades. I know my marriage isn't negatively effected by his actions. Was yours? If not, where is the harm that you can trace back to Weiner sending a photo of his crotch on twitter?

Re: Weiner Falls on his Sword

PJ — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:01:50 -0000

Much of what you wrote I agree with; but two problems stick out to me, one is your conclusion and the other your starting point.

Your last line, "If we want to change the culture of government we need to reevaluate what we expect from government" is fine but not complete. I think a much more important point to make is: If we want to change the culture of government we need to change the culture of society. It is people who vote for the politicians to maintain the political culture, which is a reflection of the culture at large.

The second problem is what I saw as your false starting point, that "the only people hurt by this are his family." While it's obvious they're the ones hurt the most, marriage is a public institution and culture is like the air we all breathe - each thing we do adds to it a little purfume or a little smoke. Everything affects other people even if we don't notice. Not only do we unconsciously influence each other since actions speak louder than words, but we raise or lower the culture we live in by them.

You are correct that people are weak, and the appetites relating to money and sex are often the first things to fall; but regardless of degree of subjective guilt it seems the libertarian philosophy tends to ignore the communal affect that our actions do have on others, and the responsibility that entails.

But I agree that politics/government should leave problems like these to the election process.

Re: The Klan, the WBC, and the First Amendment

Self_Govern — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:55:13 -0000

PJ,

First off, thanks for the comment.

I think the problem is government banning speech on the basis that it may be offensive or dangerous. The first amendment is very explicit, "congress shall make no law..." If Sesame Street started using swears on air wouldn't parents simply shut it off and direct their business elsewhere? Why do we need the FCC to determine what is acceptable and what isn't for on air speech?

To me, the right of free speech ends where the property rights of another begins. What happens when I yell "fire" in a crowded theater? The speech itself isn't inherently evil but the fact that I am violating the rules of that theater makes it wrong, i.e. I am violating the contractual rights of the movie patron who paid to view the movie undisturbed and the theater owner who has rules of conduct for his establishment.

Re: The Klan, the WBC, and the First Amendment

PJ — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 16:00:32 -0000

You speak of what speech should NOT be curtailed, but not of what SHOULD be curtailed and where exactly the line is. Virtually everyone would agree we shouldn't be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowed movie theater, and almost everyone agrees that certain cuss words and behaviors should not be allowed on children's programming. But give me a principle that would clearly delineate the line between what shouldn't be allowed and what should.

Re: Liberty is Lost on Michael Medved

Self_Govern — Tue, 24 May 2011 11:56:35 -0000

JRT, I agree that those people are out there and they are dangerous.

Re: Liberty is Lost on Michael Medved

LibertarianJRT — Tue, 24 May 2011 00:24:01 -0000

There are plenty of people who want to make it illegal for you to drink alcohol, have sex with people you are not legally bound to, and eat "unhealthy" foods. These people live among us and want to be our masters.

Re: Wasted Votes

Kara Grifoni — Sun, 22 May 2011 12:26:16 -0000

Great article as usual :)

Re: Herman Cain, Tea Party Hero?

Self_Govern — Sun, 22 May 2011 12:11:40 -0000

Test