The West contains a strong libertarian streak: Westerners value self-reliance and resent unwanted intrusion of government in their lives. They value common sense, hard work, and practical solutions. That's why the GOP has been able to capitalize on the left's penchant for gun control. Western hunters, ranchers, and outdoorsmen see guns as vital components of their everyday lives, and see the Democrats' attempts to limit Second Amendment rights as an attack on their ability to defend themselves and on their personal liberty.
The new Democrats springing up in Montana and other Western states are a product of this environment. You won't find any Montana Democrats speaking in favor of gun control. Senate Democratic candidate Jon Tester is no exception. He's always touted the inviolability of Americans' Second Amendment rights, opposes Brady II provisions, the DC gun ban, attempts to hold gun manufactures liable for crimes committed with their products, and seizing citizens' guns during emergencies.
In fact, despite the NRA's endorsement of Republican Senator Conrad Burns, Tester actually has a better record on firearm rights than the incumbent. Admittedly, Burns earned an "A" from the NRA – back in 2000 – but one issue separates the two candidates:
Tester opposes the Patriot Act.
Gun owners rightfully distrust the Patriot Act. Even the NRA opposes it, having recently joined the ACLU in criticizing the act. In fact, most Montanans distrust the Patriot Act, as represented by a recent vote by the Montana state legislature, which denounced the legislation in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.
In the Senate debate in Butte, Senator Burns accused the Big Sandy farmer of wanting to revise the Patriot Act. "I don't want to revise the Patriot Act," responded Tester, "I want to repeal it." Later in the same debate, Tester answered sharply to a question on gun control with a statement that was considered quintessential Western Democrat: "With things like the Patriot Act, we'd damn well better keep our guns."
While Bush and allies like Conrad Burns continue to tout the administration's unconstitutional extension of executive power, Westerners are increasingly resentful of a government that's reaching into their personal lives and threatening their basic liberties. With warantless wiretapping, rendition and torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, data mining, and the Patriot Act, Montanans see a government concentrating on limiting their rights at home while bungling the war on terror abroad.
In the larger sense, the Republicans are becoming the party of big government, wayward spending, and indiscriminate intrusion, while the Democrats are lining up to define themselves as the protectors of Americans' basic freedoms, including the right to bear arms. Tester is definitely capitalizing on Burns' clumsy and stubborn insistence to defend the President's intrusive and extra-legal terrorist programs in a state where a jealous regard for individualism is a virtue.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
The people that I have met here, for the most part, get all of their information only from the FOX network ... they may well be more Libertarian or Conservative, but they sure seem to echo the neo-con line as put out by FOX.
As for the issue of gun control, it seems to me that the only real danger to western use of sporting firearms for hunting, is that implied by the NRA as a fear factor to increase it's membership. Curtailing the availability of guns in the big cities to reduce crime has very little actual relationship to law abiding westerners. IMHO.
Buzz is that some are expecting the Republicans to take it up. I would fit with the global capitals agenda. Capitalism works best in a totalitarian envrionment.
Well, yeah, what with capitalism based on the notion of private property ownership and free trade, I totally see where you are coming from. :|
Please explain, Cena. I have never heard that before. Those who write about the two always place them at opposite ends of the freedom spectrum.
I look forward to hearing your reasoning.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Democracy -form of government
Capitalism- Business model based on cheap labor and expanding market.
thrives where the work force has very limited rights.
Free Trade- Does not require a particular government. Free trade is the absence of barriars to trade, but trade occurs with nations with any style of government, Saudia Arabia,(monarchy) China,(military dictatorship)
Capitalism must have a constant and expanding very low paid work force, and an expanding population to thrive.
At the turn of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th century, that is exactly what we had in the U.S.
The workers not did not have rights to protective employment practices about wages, hours worked, safety or even privacy.
That is the environment capitalism thrives in and what the business community is after.
-------
Businesses must not have tax burdens
Business must not have obligations to employees
Business must not be subjected toe environmental responsibilites
Business needs bigger profits.
Free trade and the globalization of the economy will eliminate poverty worldwide.
Name one country where poverty has decreased significantly since 1990.
China and a few other nations now have an emerging wealthy class of businessmen, but this has not and is not helping the general populations.
The fact is that anyone or any company could have all the words funds and be would able to do nothing but watch it if there were no people to put to work increasing the value of goods, distributing those goods, consuming those goods.
the workers through better wages
environmental protection
consumer protection
You could say democracy is anti-capitalistic.
The freedom to conduct business in a manner to produce the greatest profits.
The freedom to own all land and natural resources as private property.
The freedom to use people for producing goods and services with no regulation.
That is capitalism, please see late 18th century and all of the 19th century for the natural outcome of of pure unregulated capitalism.
Democracy is not about capitalism, it is about self government.
Grant people rights and ownership in their government, their nation, their own futures and business will be regulated.
When the business community screams and rants about freedom from regulation it is freedom to operate free of any responsibility for the property/resources they own, the people they need to use to extract profit from such property.
I have never heard of a business promoting stronger individual rights.
Never.
In "The Birth of Plenty", author William Bernstein traces the economic history of the world. That record up until the 19th century was one of more or less continuous poverty in which the vast majority of all people lived at a level of bare subsistence. There were always the wealthy few, but there was never a way to raise the standard of living above bare subsistence. In other words, there was virtually no sustained economic growth.
Then came the steam engine, the industrial revolution, the Bill Of Rights, and the United States of America. From its founding, the U.S. has experienced steady economic growth and steady growth of the standard of living of all people. The UK also experienced similar but not as steady or much growth.
Bernstein, using many examples, shows in his book that where four conditions exist simultaneously, economic growth above subsistence levels will occur. He also clearly shows that where only one, two or three exist economic growth above subsistence did not occur. He also showed that where all four existed for a time but suddenly one or more disappeared, that ecoomy would over time revert to subsistence status.
Those four conditions are property rights (all forms), scientific rationalism, capital markets, and advanced transportation and communication systems.
So it surprises me, Cena, that you want to get rid of capitalism since such an action would cause the U.S. and you to revert to a subsistence level of existence.
The capitalism you despise is defined as "An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy."
This definition does not include all of Bernstein's four conditions, but it is close enough. The Chinese come to America to use our capital markets because theirs don't work. The same is true for many other countries.
Capitalism is not democracy, but without democracy or better a republic, capitalism will have a questionable existence.
Cena, I encourage you to study capitalism and to read economists Hayek, Bernstein and Von Mises in order to understand what you are trying hard to kill. IMHO, you are trying to kill the goose that lays the Golden Egg for us all every minute of every day.
Is everything perfect in capitalism?? No, but it is far, far superior to any alternative and no one wants to live at a subsistence level that is dictated by those alternatives.
As for globalization, I note that last week Fed Governor Mishkin said that anyone who is against globalization doesn't care about the poor.
A country where poverty has significantly decreased since 1990. There are many. All those of Eastern Europe, China, Mozambique, and Ireland for starters, but there are many more. There are also those moving in the other direction such a Zimbabwe and most recently Venezuela.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
I saw that Cena's was not so much against Capitolism, as it's extremism in controlling from their position of advantage. That is the real problem in this world, and getting ever so much worse exponentially as we speak.
Ben has never seen me make a statement against capitalism.
I do think we need to find a new economic system since the nature of capitalism requires a growing population. I think we need to stop population growth. NOW.
I now see I not only know more about economic systems than you do. I know more about U. S. History.
I am not anti business, I am not even anti capitalists.
I do not believe our planet can survive unregulated, unrestrained capitalism and the population growth it requires.
Eastern Europe is a mess, you know it, so is Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. They have large populations and their resources are now limited.
I do think India has made progress, and I credit the drive for more education, and more legal equity for the poor. It is working.
If India had not educated their young so well, no one would be going there to invest. But poverty is still the face of India.
If you like capitalism, but want to control its supposed excesses by using the coercive power of government, you only have to look at Europe to determine that such a course will fail utterly. You apparently admit that Europe is a basket case, but it seems to be the epitome of what you want to do.
Politicians love to tell constituents that they can fix most anything and make everything fair, but that is far from being true. Conversely, the private sector has cleansing methods driven by consumers which are far more powerful and effective than anything government can do. Enron was put out of business by its unhappy customers who stopped doing business with it. The government responded to Enron's collapse by passing Sarbanes-Oxley, a true abomination that achieves nothing good and is forcing businesses to react to neutralize its terrible, costly effects. How? By going private, moving overseas, not listing stock in the U.S., etc. This law was a quick way to reduce U.S. jobs.
I disagree that capitalism requires a steady supply of low cost labor. Capitalism is inherently flexible and can adjust to any condition. I know that won't suit your view of these terrible capitalists prey on labor, but it is true nonetheless. That is what is great about free market capitalism because you don't have to work for any particular company and can even start your own whenever you want, at least in the U.S. form of it. Not true in Europe's twisted form of capitalism.
What is this new economic system we need? The world has tried everyone imaginable one to my knowledge. What one did you like better than free market capitalism?
Concerning defending my belief that capitalism cannot truly exist without democracy or a republic, I have no desire to defend it. I will say that other forms of government, all totalitarian, are designed to control the economy in various ways and these are always damaging to private owners. This can severely degrade capitalism and the formation of capital. It also sets up a battle between those who are trying to be capitalists and those in the government who are trying to control things. At some point, that battle has to be won by one side or the other. China is setting itself up for just such a battle.
As concerns a democracy which decides to use the coercive power of the government to force business to share profits or whatever, that is what has happened in Europe and has made it a basket case. I don't recommend that solution but it can be done and there are certainly those in the U.S. who want to similarly kill the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs.
I brought up Zimbabwe as an example of a vibrant economy going back to the stone age over a period of time.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
With warantless wiretapping, rendition and torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, data mining, and the Patriot Act
First of all, there is no such thing as "warrantless wiretapping" unless of course you are speaking about the NSA wiretapping that is part of the war on terror. Then, and only then, is a warrant not required. In addition, it isn't a "domestic" issue, as such a wiretapping is required to either originate, or end in a foreign country, with a suspected terrorist on one end.
Secondly, rendition and torture MIGHT be occurring on enemy non combatants, but that has nothing to do with a citizen's civil liberties. There is no evidence ANY American citizens have been subjected to "torture," unless of course they were captured on the battlefield with the enemy.
Third, same as above, the suspension only applies to enemy non combatants, and NOT American citizens.
Fourth, it's difficult to know what you mean by "data mining" but if you are referring to library records etc, big deal--- perhaps you could make an argument your civil liberties are being violated by such things, however in the hunt for terrorists, such "liberties" aren't really jeopardizing your freedom in the least, UNLESS of course you ARE IN FACT some subversive that rightfully deserves to be monitored.
Lastly, there is NOTHING in the Patriot Act that diminishes your civil liberties any any shape, manner or form. NOTHING ! ! !
If you think you can be SPECIFIC and point something out, I'd be glad to listen.
Um...yes, this is "warrantless wiretapping." That is it part of the "war on terror" doesn't abnegate the fact that no warrants are involved.
Then, and only then, is a warrant not required.
Incorrect. A US district judge ruled that warrants are required, and that the NSA program was illegal.
In addition, it isn't a "domestic" issue, as such a wiretapping is required to either originate, or end in a foreign country, with a suspected terrorist on one end.
Domestic: "of or pertaining to one's own or a particular country as apart from other countries." Considering that the other end is in the US, this does count as "domestic," especially since the NSA is barred from domestic spying.
That the other hand has a "suspected terrorist" is only conjecture, since no warrant is required. It could be anyone, really, but there's no oversight.
Secondly, rendition and torture MIGHT be occurring on enemy non combatants, but that has nothing to do with a citizen's civil liberties. There is no evidence ANY American citizens have been subjected to "torture," unless of course they were captured on the battlefield with the enemy.
The recently passed torture bill allows the government to designate US citizens as "enemy combatants." "Dirty bomber" Vincente Padilla is a US citizen, was branded an "enemy combatant," denied habeas corpus and tortured regularly for 3 1/2 years.
The designation of "enemy combatant" is left solely to the federal government and ultimately with the President. Those branded with that designation lose all rights to appeal to an impartial judge, and no evidence must ever be submitted to show why the person was labeled such.
Fourth, it's difficult to know what you mean by "data mining"...
She's referring to the NSA database of domestic phone calls.
perhaps you could make an argument your civil liberties are being violated by such things, however in the hunt for terrorists, such "liberties" aren't really jeopardizing your freedom in the least, UNLESS of course you ARE IN FACT some subversive that rightfully deserves to be monitored.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that US citizens should be protected from "unreasonable searches and seizures." Your "argument" shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic tenets of American law, and more closely resembles the legal code of the Soviet Union during the Stalinst era.
Lastly, there is NOTHING in the Patriot Act that diminishes your civil liberties any any shape, manner or form. NOTHING ! ! !
For one, the Patriot Act allows authorities to search your personal records, possessions, and records without your knowledge or probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
You'll probably argue that these programs are necessary to combat terrorism, but a recent study from the University of Syracuse on the prosecution of terror cases shows that terror prosecutions are back to pre-9/11 levels, indicating that these programs are ineffectual.
So in summary...you have a bunch of illegal programs...that don't work...that clearly violate basic legal protections of Americans...
With this administration and the religious right, capitalism is doomed. Scientific Rationalism is a dirty word to them and nothing more than leftist propaganda.
Also, we have devolved from a robust capitalism to a monopolistic capitalism that actually stifles competition because the suppliers can easily manipulate the market.
Are you sure that its not the reverse, that there were more monopolies in the past than now?
Please tell us what industries have monopolies today as compared to say 100 years ago.
It wasn't jJack who made the statement about the four conditions. It was me quoting Bernstein from his book "The Birth Of Plenty". What does "scientific rationalism" mean?
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Best regards, Ben
Ray, I stated no such thing.
Ben, if I were you I don't think I'd bother with Ray, anymore than I'm going to bother with Jay. *G*
You haven't actually. You made a bunch of misstatements, and I corrected them. If you're not familiar with either the Patriot Act or the Constitution, I suggest you give 'em a read.
Jay, you covered our loss of freedoms perfectly.
I should have said strong central governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarcies.
But totalitarian does not mean people are not allowed to own land and other resources.
I was using totalitarian as a name for a government that severly limits individual freedoms of the general population.
More confusion in the language. Ben meant communistic, where private property ownership is not allowed, yet he listed China as an emerging capitalistic nation.
China loves all the investment money from capitalists who want the cheap well controlled labor pool.
Rex. Do you think we need a version of capitalism that can survive in a stable population.
Population levels drop with prosperity, yet capitalism as currently being sold needs an expanding population. How much population do you want to see.
China is the only nation I know of that legally limits births. Do you know of any others? I do know of nations that officially forbid birth control, very theocratic in nature, all of those.
I'm no economist, nor am I a social engineer. I'm just trying to follow your argument and get your point. As far as what type of capitalism we need, I think the market will dictate that course. I'm not aware of any government that has successfully taken the free market out of the hands of the citizenry and claimed success. A logical extrapolation, in the event of a stable population, would be a very predictable business forecast. Everything could be precisely measured from labor needs to expenditure of natural resources. That would make capitalism a constant that would, in my opinion, lead to world socialism trending to communism. (We are talking global, aren't we?) The variable is humans. In your scenario, I would predict a population explosion in the wealthier nations as thier status decreases and a decline in population where the status is raised. A grand experiment, indeed. The question is; how long will it take for this balance to be achieved and who would manage it?
I have, and you've misinterpreted them, or you haven't read them. Simple
I am of course opposed to any centrally planned economy.
My point is that capitalism as we know it can only continue if we also have a continuingly expanding population, but that would not address the problem of natural resources.
Would it follow that there will be competition between nations (war) for the resources that remain?
The current push for globalization seems to be leaving education behind. I feel confident that people can find answers to these dilemmas. I don't think there is any wisdom in leaving it to business interests or in the hands of strong central governments.
I don't want to sound redundant or dense, (although it may already be to late for that) but who are these "people" you want to solve these dilemnas? You say, not the business community or a strong central government. In my experience, a business grows to satisfy demand. If you refuse to grow your competition will soon pick up the work you turn down. Eventually, you will be crowded out of the market unless you provide a product or service that is exclusive or unique. You haven't described how your model would work so I will, again, speculate. Since you postulate the population must level off the number of people is a constant given. Therefore, assignments must be made in order to see that everyone gets at least the basic necessities. Jobs will be distributed according to demand for the specific service or product. Areas will be designated as commercial, residential, recreational, etc, because businesses will not be permitted to usurp the peoples land. Natural resources will have to be donated so no profit is derived from public assets. All these incidentals, that are now being handled by the free market with government oversight and regulation, will have to be restructured. There will have to be a broad consensus with some assurance it will work. This is a tall order just to get enough people to agree to give it a try. (An aside. When I was a young adult, many people (hippies) cast off capitalism and started communes. Of course, they had to participate in capitalism to get thier communes up and running. A noble idea but I don't know of any that survived more than a couple of years. Most did not want to sacrifice the comforts and convenience capitalism afforded them.) I don't condemn you for wanting a better way. I just wonder what your plan would look like.
I don't know about the education and globalization connection you are making. My personal opinion, I think the US is and has been "dumbing down" for some time now. I think there are people who are educated in thier field and can do a good job. But beyond that they don't have much general knowledge. I don't think that's some ploy by capitalists, I think it's just a failure of the education system. See ya.
Here's the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'd love to hear how you interpret this to mean that the government can eavesdrop on your telephone calls, and search your records or belongings without either a warrant or probable cause.
It doesn't, and Bush isn't doing any of that via the Patriot Act either.