Do We Live in a Police State?

[mises.org]

"In the modern United States, federal laws are now so numerous and written so broadly and vaguely, that it is nearly impossible to make it through the day without breaking at least one of them. And through it all, an enormous government apparatus of prisons, prosecutors, police, and bureaucrats remains well-funded, powerful, and nearly impossible to oppose in court."

You know what I took from that speech? How weird it is to see a politician express thoughts that are obviously his own instead of listening to a corporate pawn read a script that he had nothing to do with.

I like what he said just before the 25:00 MM about Private Enterprise coming up with ways to monitor what the Government is doing, sort of like a reversal of 1984 where technology is used to our benefit instead.

Here's a Great Rand Paul Interview from Meet the Press this morning -

[www.youtube.com]

The "War on Women" response is good.

Whoa, these people hate Rand Paul. That Meet the Press Interview made them livid

Dim and divisive Rand Paul self-destructs, again - Salon.com

[www.salon.com]

"Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is what you get when traditional and corrosive American nepotism meets the 21st century GOP echo chamber: a pampered princeling whose dumb ideas have never been challenged by reality.

Paul’s performance was most interesting for the window it gave us into his character, as the indulged but slightly dim scion of an eccentric political family whose every utterance, all his life, has been treated as important. At some points in interviews with the freshman senator, including this one, you can see the wheels turning in his head, maybe a little slowly, as he winds up to deliver what he thinks is a political humdinger. It’s the oily crazy of Rand Paul being adorably Rand Paul: saying what he thinks is brave and leader-like, but that thing turns out to be simply nutty.

Then the media collectively scrunches its forehead and tries to decide if he’s brave or nutty."

************

And as usual, there were untruths in the article -

"Never mind that women still make less than men"

That's not true.

That's only true if you compare apples to oranges.

Behind the numbers: Why do women earn less than men?

[www.foxnews.com]

"Research from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indeed suggests women on average make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men.

Those numbers, however, could represent an apples-to-oranges comparison. The stats compare the pay of all women as a group against the pay of all men as a group, without considering lots of differences. Some analysts are now producing research that suggests the pay difference might be tied more to the jobs men and women each choose than their gender.

"The cardiac surgeon and the person who is checking out at a supermarket -- they are being compared as if they are equals," said Warren Farrell, author of the book "Why Men Earn More" and a former member of the Board of the National Organization for Women in New York.

Pam Villareal, of the National Center for Policy Analysis, points to another difference -- the number of hours worked.

"So you might have a woman that works 35 hours, you might have a man doing the same job that works 50 hours, or he travels more in that job," she said.

Women are also less likely than men to work 40 hours, which would make a dent in women's earnings. "People who work 44 hours per week," Farrell said, "make 50 percent more than people who work 34 hours a week." "

"Well, actually women do make less than men, but it’s not on the scale that we’ve all been lead to believe. The fact is statistics can be engineered to reflect any point of view; liberal, conservative, pro-woman, anti-woman, etc. In the case of men earning more than women, the much believed statistic that women earn only $0.77 to each $1.00 a man earns come from comparing overall median incomes between the sexes; not by comparing the salaries of men and women holding the exact same job title, in the exact same field."

Why Women Make Less Than Men - WSJ.com

[online.wsj.com]

*******************

We've been down this road before - the statists keeps trotting out that falsehood, and we have to keep refuting it. They never quit repeating a lie until it becomes 'conventional wisdom', which it is now - It's become accepted as fact that women make less than men - 77 cents as compared to the dollar that a man makes

Will Rand Paul be right about women when he runs against one for President and (potentially) loses? It will sure look like women are winning then. Your WSJ link isn't working for me.

Interesting video presentation that portrays stay-at-home fathers in a reasonably good light, but then it wraps things up by quoting, as if it's accurate, the 77 cents for ever every $1 stat. The media seems to be in a place where they are simply not allowed to NOT create conflict at every level of society. In this case, they show men and women working together in an effective, positive way, but they can't help but end things in a way clearly designed to raise the ire of women against men. What a great and honest point they would have made if they had acknowledged that the pay disparity exists because so many women are still raising kids and that the stay-at-home dad phenomenon is extremely limited.

[news.yahoo.com]

[mereliberty.net]

"Why Is Salon Afraid of Libertarians?"

"The fact is that Salon is obviously concerned about the rise in popularity of libertarianism. They realize that young people are actually drawn to a consistent and coherent message of peace and free markets, and this represents a challenge to their beliefs. This is why they constantly attack libertarianism and refuse to allow any pro-libertarian responses. They don’t want any of their regular readers to rethink their positions and start writing “Confessions of a former Liberal.”

It’s one thing to have conservatives in opposition to them. Conservatives are fellow statists who simply represent an older less urbane worldview. Libertarianism, however, rejects statism and attracts both young and old. This is why Salon has taken it upon themselves to attempt to stamp it out. Unfortunately for them they’re fighting an idea whose time has come. Statism has brought us nothing but misery in the forms of war, torture, global recession, and mass indiscriminate spying, and now people want something else. The number of people identifying as libertarian is on the rise, and there’s no amount of nonsensical op-eds that Salon can run to stop it."

The biggest police state is between one's ears. If you THINK you're a prisoner, how can you be otherwise?

Good article, HH. I've noticed the left has been demonizing Libertarianism for a while now because it's threatening to them - particularly Rand Paul.

I do have a bone to pick with this statement, though -

"It’s one thing to have conservatives in opposition to them. Conservatives are fellow statists who simply represent an older less urbane worldview."

(Oh, so if you're not 'urbane' your nothing )

I think The Liberals and RINO's are the Statists and The Conservatives are much more sympathetic to and hold most of the same views on the issues as Libertarians. (Except for Open Borders, Abortion and regulating drugs) For Example, Ron Paul and Rand Paul and their supporters are Libertarian/Conservatives.

Whereas the Liberals and RINO's for the most part are the Statists - which means they Love Big Government and Want More Government. The Conservatives are the ones who are always criticizing Government and want a Smaller Government.

The article also states -

"Statism has brought us nothing but misery in the forms of war, torture, global recession, and mass indiscriminate spying " -

- listing the consequences the author thinks 'The Conservatives' have contributed to, but they forgot to include the effects (of Statism) that The Liberals are responsible for - a massive government bureaucracy, regulations out the wazoo, runaway borrowing, spending and taxes, government handouts on steroids - the Welfare State.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2014 01:51PM by KidRaw.