1000 Nations: The Most Progressive Movement on the Planet

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Pictures of Dubai before and after becoming a special economic
zone (SEZ) and undergoing substantial legal reform. See
also pictures of Schenzhen, China - amazing!
Image Source: AThousandNations.com

Small governments are the most effective political bodies in the world.  You often hear or see the phrase "Think Globally, Act Locally" most often in reference to climate change, however, if we applied this concept to governance, the world would be a much better place.  


          People often talk about competition making businesses better, but how can competition make governments more accountable, more useful and more responsive to the needs of their people?  The answer: create more of them!  Governments by definition cannot survive without their citizens, therefore, it would seem to benefit us if we force them to compete over our tax dollars.


          While there is of course a finite amount of land and little likelihood that the 188+ nations already established will part with theirs, there are efforts to create special economics zones if not radical open ocean platforms. These are the ideas espoused by organizations like FreeCities.org and Seasteading.org.


          Imagine a world in which governments had to compete for citizens from 1000 nations?  While central banks, politicians and technocrats more and more attempt to consolidate the world under one government, the ultimate goal of megalomaniacs over the millennia, the rights, liberties and needs of the many will factor less and less into the decision making of the few.


          Ever since the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the US Constitution what were essentially several large spheres of influence operated by German, English, Russian, Spanish, French, etc. empires gave rise to a wave of independent nation states embracing democracy under popular sovreignity.  


          Since that time these formerly independent nation states have been slowly consolidated once again under the European Union, the Meditterenean Union, the African Union and ultimately the United Nations under the auspices of peace and prosperity.  If our current economic crisis and perpetual warfare has shown, this system which has operated over the past 50 years has not resulted in what was promised.


          These systems have been called "The Most Progressive Movement on the Planet" while libertarians refer to it as the most important step toward securing prosperity, personal liberty and peace.

Brazen Racism at Occupy Phoenix

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com


The Tea Party has been consistently accused of racism and without substantial evidence.  This is an example of some of the most vitriolic rhetoric out there, but don't expect what you are about to see to characterize (nor should it) the Occupy "X" movement that is spreading nationally and around the world.   

Will this evidence show the left and the right that racism is a benighted feature of both sides of the political spectrum?  Doubtful... Regardless I have a lot more to show from Occupy Phoenix, coming soon...

The Real GOP Choice: Paul or Romney?

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Who's it going to be GOP?

Ron Paul is now and has been for sometime a legitimate candidate.  Romney is on his second chance, Paul is as well.  A recent Rasmussen Report shows Romney is the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama, but Paul is within a percentage point.  The question then is, who will the GOP rather have as their candidate, Paul or Romney?


          Mitt Romney has shown himself to be a skillful debator and a smooth orator.  Ron Paul on the other hand has a voice that unfortunately comes off a bit whinny, he tends to stammer and loses a bit of coherence from time to time.  However, when in small groups, in interviews with major media and when compared to last year the Congressman from Texas has made huge improvements in his ability to connect with people. 


          When the rubber meets the road, Romney is peeling out.  Mitt received some Big Love from fellow Republican Jeff Flake today adding fuel to establishment support along with the capitulation of Tim Pawlenty who as of last week permanently subdued his criticism of Obamneycare and jumped on board with the former Governor of Massachusetts.  Other nominations like Sarah Palin (if she doesn't run), conservatives stars like Paul Ryan, and other campaign dropouts that may be cannibalized are waiting in the wings.  Is there any doubt that John Huntsman will propose in similar fashion and marry into the Romney camp once his campaign has embraced its futility?  I think not. 


           Meanwhile... Rick Perry has a commanding lead over both Paul and Romney in major polling, yet he falls behind Obama 46% to 39%, according to Rasmussen.  Perry enjoys broad support among conservatives and has Lord Limbaugh fawning since I can't remember, but can he "win over suburbia?"  The differences in Romney and Perry are succinctly described by Alex Castellanos, former aid to Romney:

“You can see the playbook pretty clearly here: It’s populist against patrician, it’s rural Texas steel against unflappable Romney coolness, conservative versus center-right establishment, Texas strength versus Romney’s imperturbability, Perry’s simplicity versus Romney’s flexibility.”

It is on this question that the Romney appeal factors in, electability.  For once Ron Paul is a factor is this equation as well.  Paul is in third in a Real Clear Politics average if the non-candidate Sarah Palin and those voting for her are factored out.  The recent surge for Paul came after Bachmann's latest backfire.


          If we accept, contrary to the generic ballot, which favors Republicans on average by 0.5% that if Perry wins the GOP nomination he will lose to Obama, who is most reflective of the country's and the GOP's values?  Most Americans want Obamacare repealed while only a third believe it is good for America.  In this case Romney and his health care reform in Massachusetts isn't copacetic with the American mainstream.  


          When it comes to bailouts, while Romney criticized holding General Motor's hand on CNN he championed the TARP program, the essentially ex post facto legislation endorsing the myriad of financial vehicles covertly concocted by the Federal Reserve to bailout big banks.  At the 2009 CPAC Conference Romney evidently didn't believe America could survive without them:

"I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system."

          Ron Paul on the other hand excoriated all attempts at price fixing, printing money, secret lending, etc. and therefore shares more common ground with the American people who loath all recent bailouts than Mr. Romney.  Moreover, the American public wants to see the Federal Reserve fully audited, however, Mitt is contented with current auditing practices as he "believes" the Fed is "independently audited" and doesn't want Congress meddling in its affairs.  If the Fed is so transparent perhaps Romney will explain why Bloomberg required the US Supreme Court and a FOIA request to pry out that the they lent $1.2 trillion in secret lifelines to foreign banks.

          When it comes to foreign adventurism or national defense (can't seem to find a consensus definition) the American public overwhelmingly wants out of 10 years in Afghanistan, doesn't know or care for anything in Libya, almost half don't think "major" cuts in defense will put America at risk, and almost 80% of Americans feel we spend too much protecting other countries.  Listening to our generals, as Mr. Romey would have it, most likely doesn't accomplish a more noninterventionist foreign policy something mainstream America seems to crave. 

          If the campaign were tomorrow, the GOP would be in a tough position to choose to either to win big and lament four to eight years with a flexible patrician or a choose a arduous intellectual battle on behalf of a consistent and ardent libertarian.  If the GOP wants change, I'd suggest they put their helmets on and run with Ron.  

          

Libertarians and Conservatives, Who Understands the US?

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

A friend of mine asked me a couple of days ago: what is the difference between a libertarian and a Republican (or conservative).  I offered him a simple critique: while Republicans may deride big government at home, at least publicly, they applaud military adventurism abroad and reinforcing traditional values at home.  Libertarians on the other hand are consistent in their advocacy of liberty from government intervention in all arenas.

           We were talking about Ron Paul (R-TX) at the time and my friend was very confused (as is Rush Limbaugh) about why Ron Paul would run as a Republican, "He's not going to win" he assured me.  I reminded my friend that I had heard that more than once, but also reminded him that, albeit Ron Paul hasn't come close to winning the presidency, he has greatly influenced American politics.  

          Additionally, Congressman Paul has infused the GOP with a viral dose of libertarianism, which has set brush fires in the minds of millions of young conservatives (and popular progressives) which will no doubt spread in the coming years.  Ron Paul sparked the modern day Tea Party movement (which he receives little credit for) a fact some conservatives would love to bury.  

          He has shattered campaign fundraising records with spontaneously ordered (how wildly appropriate!) moneybombs, the most famous of which occurred on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party with 58,407 individual donations in one day, which undeniably anticipated the popular movement.  Since 2008 Ron Paul has doubled his political visibility, almost won the '10 Iowa Straw Poll, brought two sons into politics and launched one, Rand Paul (an ostensible libertarian), into a higher office than Ron Paul ever attained!

          While there has been much written on the difference between conservatives and libertarians Ron Paul has exemplified those differences.  He has shown libertarians labor towards a fixed set of philosophical principles while Republicans tend to favor pragmatic principles informed by charismatic leaders and the varying political winds.   

          My friend reminded me of as much: "[Republicans] don't want to hear some of that stuff", referring to Dr. Paul's more controversial positions.  This is because unlike libertarians, Republicans (very much like Democrats) are often swayed by demagoguery, according to Ron Paul in his recent book Liberty Defined:

"...[these] demagogues seek influence and political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, and expectations of the public.  They do not enlighten; they browbeat and play rhetorical games." 

          Paul showed in Monday's CNN/Tea Party debate he wasn't afraid to offend the prejudices of neo-conized Tea Partiers when he claimed 9/11 was in part a likely result of over 900 bases (that we know of) in 130 countries around the world.  He argued that 9/11 was arguably blowback from clandestine operations and overt intervention throughout the Middle East over the last 60+ years not merely because our culture is antithetical to fundamentalist Islam as Rick Santorum suggested - something conservatives in the audience expected to hear.  Dr. Paul even went further, admonishing the crowd, "...if your not annoyed by this there is something wrong!" 

          Libertarians are an international bread, whereas Republicans are found only within the United States.  They believe the Constitution was meant to extend beyond our borders as it defends "persons" not merely "citizens."  Not only can one find libertarian strains within left wing and right wing circles here in the US they are found internationally, albeit mostly in English speaking countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

          A Gallup poll (above) shows to me the most important synthesizing characteristic of the libertarian ideology.  Whereas Republicans and Democrats believe respectively that "big government" or "big business" are the biggest threats to the United States it is the libertarian who understands how the collusion of both these vested interests including, to a much smaller degree "big labor", threatens to our country.  Big government enables big business to buy political favor and cut down competition through regulation, barriers to entry and subsidies, which collectively raise prices, unemployment, profits and impoverishes the middle and lower classes. 

          Similarly, libertarians like Ron Paul understand like political winds the value of goods and services extend from the human mind alone!  Prices aren't set in some ivory tower at Harvard or Stanford and planes, trains, gold, bottled water and iPods don't have an inherent value besides what social needs and circumstance dictate.  Money is (or should be) the viewed the same way.  Why do we allow a few people like Ben Bernanke and a dark consortium of private member mega-banks whom run the Federal Reserve to dictate the worth of the dollars we hold in our hand?  For the same reason we don't allow them to decree what the tomatoes in our garden are worth.  

          It would seem in a democratic society, one that professes to have a free market, that the people should dictate the price of our currency transparently through Congress in accordance with the Constitution!  Never mind the standard on which the money is based (gold, silver, toenail clippings, etc.) libertarians want abolish this financial dictatorship, Republicans are coming around (a little) and 74% of Americans want it audited.  All signs the libertarian drum beat is being heard and felt.   

Image Source: Kevin Middleton at
RedBubble.com

          Lastly, there is something very special about libertarians and Ron Paul that America doesn't fully understand.  Ron Paul wants to put the "States" back into the United States of America!  Ask yourself an honest question: who is my state legislator?  Who is my state senator?  Who cares is probably the next question!  With so many decisions going on in Washington DC all eyes are now refocused on that humid swamp passed on long ago for greener more temperate pastures.  

          Many refer with derision to our 50 states enacting their own laws as a patchwork, a hodgepodge or a mishmash of different laws, but that was the original beauty of America.  In a phrase coined by Lord Bryce and popularized by Justice Louis Brandeis the separate states are seen as "laboratories of democracy" giving the United States a competition not only in the free market, but also in the market of governments, which generated fresh new ideas for public problems and therefore competed for citizens!  After 1913 when states legislators no longer elected Senators to serve as their ambassadors to Washington DC "senators became substantially less responsive to the policy interests of the state legislature."

          Besides the controversial legalization of drugs, dismantling of the FDA, EPA, CIA, FAA, etc. which bog down most debates over the libertarian ideology and Ron Paul's campaign there lies the magic we have lost in this country, respect for reason, life, liberty, property and most all limited government. 

          

The Patriot Act Is Not Conservative

Jack Hunter
The American Conservative
5/31/11

If Americans needed another reminder of why the Democratic Party is absolutely worthless, they got it during last week’s Patriot Act extension debate when Senate Majority leader Harry Reid again behaved exactly like the Bush-era Republicans he once vigorously opposed. In 2005, Reid bragged to fellow Democrats, “We killed the Patriot Act.” Today, Reid says that anyone who opposes the Patriot Act might be responsible for the killing of Americans. Dick Cheney now hears an echo and Americans deserve congressional hearings—as to whether Harry Reid is a sociopath, mere liar, or both.

But while Democrats stand pat for Bush Republicanism, the GOP now debates the extent to which it will remain the party of Dubya. Tea Party favorites like Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee and Congressmen Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Allen West and others, all voted against the Patriot Act. To varying degrees, each of these GOP representatives questioned the act’s effectiveness and legality. But unfortunately, most Republicans still won’t ask any questions.

The “War on Terror” that defined and preoccupied Republicans during the Bush era brought with it not only massive government growth and debt, but an unprecedented expansion of extra-constitutional state power, symbolized most famously by the Patriot Act. In the name of national security, government officials could begin wiretapping phones, hacking into email accounts, prying into business records and spying on citizens—all without a warrant and at government officials’ own discretion. Defenders say the Patriot Act did what needed to be done after 9/11. Critics say it did away with the 4^th amendment.

Let us say both have a point, and that for arguments sake, both Harry Reid and Dick Cheney are correct in arguing that it is sometimes necessary to surrender our liberties for increased security. Is this still true a decade after 9/11? Will it be true two decades after 9/11? How about three? Have the actions of Osama Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists forever altered our Bill of Rights?

Allegedly, the default position for conservatives is to distrust the government and defer to the Constitution. Concerning the Patriot Act, too many conservatives blindly trust the government at the expense of the Constitution. This type of thinking mirrors the logic of the Left, in which the constitutionality of a big government program like Obamacare is considered irrelevant due to the severity of the problem at hand. The liberal healthcare ends justify the unconstitutional means. This characteristic mentality of the Left is exactly how most of the Right approaches the Patriot Act—though it is an outright rejection of what most conservatives of any generation have held most dear.

Think about it. Conservatives get upset about many things on a regular basis—ACORN corruption, NPR funding, demanding that French fries be renamed “Freedom Fries.” At any given time there is always some new and outrageous rightwing distaste of the week.

But most of these controversies are a speck on a gnat’s ass compared to the damage done to the Constitution by the Patriot Act. For genuine constitutional conservatives, something like NPR funding is undoubtedly wrong but ultimately trivial and peripheral—while the protection of the Bill of Rights is crucial and integral. If George Washington or Thomas Jefferson were alive today, are we to believe that they would be more outraged that: A. The federal government helps fund public radio. B. The federal government snoops on citizens without restraint. Those who answered A. truly don’t understand the mindset of the men who founded this country.

A Republican critic of mine once asked me during a radio broadcast “Jack, can you show me where any American has been harmed due to the Patriot Act?” I replied, “Can you show me where any American has been harmed by Wikileaks?” The caller said he couldn’t, but stated that he believed private individuals shouldn’t haven’t access to private government documents. The gentleman was basically saying that whether or not Wikileaks has hurt anyone to date is irrelevant—the whistleblower outfit shouldn’t be trusted with such power to begin with. I argue the same is true of the federal government. So did the Founding Fathers. That’s why they wrote the 4^th amendment.

The entire reason we have a written charter like the Constitution is to specify the enumerated powers that define the hard parameters of our federal government. Among those powers is national defense and security. But much of what we call “defense” is anything but. Similarly, a total police state could undoubtedly provide much better security, though few Americans would desire a country so void of liberty. After all, most Americans can barely tolerate the way the federal government handles air travel these days.

When Ronald Reagan said there was nothing closer to eternal life on this earth than a government program he could have easily been describing the Patriot Act. When Barry Goldwater said that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” he could have easily been describing the minority of Republicans who now at least question the Patriot Act. When James Madison wrote, “Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other,” he could have easily been describing our current state of perpetual war that now gives seemingly permanent life to the Patriot Act.

If the “War on Terror” is a perpetual war—as so many politicians readily contend—have we now permanently given up our liberties? If terrorists really do “hate us for our freedoms” is the best method of defeating them to permanently surrender our historic freedoms? And if so, who is really winning the War on Terror? Us or the terrorists?

By the very nature of their philosophy, conservatives are supposed to question their government. And given the very nature of our Constitution, this is precisely how the Founders would expect any true patriot to act.

Read more of Jack Hunter's work at The Southern Avenger.

Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship in 'Action Comics' #900

Comics Alliance
Laura Hudson
April 27th, 2010

After recently undertaking a journey to walk -- not fly -- across the United States in the "Grounded" storyline and reconnect with the country and everyday Americans, Superman appears to be taking another step that could have major implications for his national identity: in Action Comics #900...
...Superman announces that he is going to give up his U.S. citizenship. Despite very literally being an alien immigrant, Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of "truth, justice, and the American way," from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the iconic red and blue of his costume. What it means to stand for the "American way" is an increasingly complicated thing, however, both in the real world and in superhero comics, whose storylines have increasingly seemed to mirror current events and deal with moral and political complexities rather than simple black and white morality.

The key scene takes place in "The Incident," a short story in  Action Comics #900 written by David S. Goyer with art by Miguel Sepulveda. In it, Superman consults with the President's national security advisor, who is incensed that Superman appeared in Tehran to non-violently support the protesters demonstrating against the Iranian regime, no doubt an analogue for the recent real-life protests in the Middle East. However, since Superman is viewed as an American icon in the DC Universe as well as our own, the Iranian government has construed his actions as the will of the American President, and indeed, an act of war.

Superman replies that it was foolish to think that his actions would not reflect politically on the American government, and that he therefore plans to renounce his American citizenship at the United Nations the next day -- and to continue working as a superhero from a more global than national perspective. From a "realistic" standpoint it makes sense; it would indeed be impossible for a nigh-omnipotent being ideologically aligned with America to intercede against injustice beyond American borders without creating enormous political fallout for the U.S. government.

While this wouldn't be this first time a profoundly American comic book icon disassociated himself from his national identity -- remember when Captain America became  Nomad? -- this could be a very significant turning point for Superman if its implications carry over into other storylines. Indeed, simply saying that "truth, justice and the American way [is] not enough anymore" is a pretty startling statement from the one man who has always represented those values the most.

It doesn't seem that he's abandoning those values, however, only trying to implement them on a larger scale and divorce himself from the political complexities of nationalism. Superman also says that he believes he has been thinking "too small," that the world is "too connected" for him to limit himself with a purely national identity. As an alien born on another planet, after all, he "can't help but see the bigger picture."

Do you think the shift to a more global role makes sense for Superman? If he really is going to renounce his U.S. citizenship in order to function as a more international figure, how do you think it will affect the character?

Read more about Superman and other comic heros at Comics Alliance.

EDITORS FOLLOW UP:

More about Captain America's flirtation with Nomad from Wikipedia...

The original Nomad is an alternate identity, which Steve Rogers adopts after he abandons the Captain America costume and title.

In Captain America #180 (December, 1974) Rogers becomes disillusioned with the U.S. government when he discovers that a high ranking government official (heavily hinted to be the then President of the United StatesRichard Nixon) is the leader of the terrorist organization known as the Secret Empire.

Rogers then decides to abandon his Captain America identity, feeling that he cannot continue to serve America after this latest discovery has shattered his faith in the nation's status. However, a confrontation with Hawkeye (disguised as the Golden Archer) forces Rogers to realize that he cannot abandon a life of heroism, and he subsequently takes on the name "Nomad" (as it means "man without a country") adopting a new dark blue and yellow uniform with no patriotic markings on it at all.

This identity is short-lived, with Rogers maintaining it for a mere four issues of the comic to varying degrees of success; he even trips over his own cape at one point. At the conclusion of Captain America #184 (April, 1975) Rogers returns to the role of Captain America when he realizes that he could champion America's ideals without blindly supporting its government.

Lion Of Liberty Says...

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."


 – Pericles (430 BC)

Pericles (Greek: Περικλῆς, Periklēs, "surrounded by glory"; c. 495 – 429 BC) was a prominent and influential statesman, orator, and general of Athens during the city's Golden Age —specifically, the time between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars.

Thucydides, his contemporary historian, acclaimed him as "the first citizen of Athens".