Saturday, March 26, 2011

Reconsidering Modern Realities... or Not

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

I am first and foremost an avowed believer in the American Capitalist system as it once was. A system responsible for creating the greatest wealth the modern world has ever known. A system that created a nation of wealth (the USA)able to assist Europe and Japan in rebuilding their devastated infrastructure following the close of World War III. A nation responsible for the outpouring of the greatest foreign aid globally than ever seen bore in the annals of human civilization. A system that Ayn Rand understood needed to be unfettered by government interference or by business seeking special consideration either through subsidies or special tax "considerations" or favorable treatment. In other words in a true capitalist economy there would exist no such term as "to big to fail." The very fact our national leaders have accepted, and pushed this misguided notion on the American people should give all thinking Americans reason to pause and question what is really happening to our nation and its once vaulted economic system.

I am an independent conservative. Which means essentially that I favor change when experience, and or rational judgment, based on modern realities warrant it. Nothing in this dynamic world of ours remains static forever, save certain ethical principals of morality.

It is difficult, to say the least, for an independent conservative (see my Conservative Manifesto) to side with a known progressive. However, when said progressive presents an essentially sound argument based in reason and logic it requires their position be considered. And considered with an open mind unfettered by preconceived notions and beliefs. Only following additional research and consideration of the opposing viewpoint does it make sense to discard it to the recycle bin.

With this in mind Rational Nation USA asks its readership to consider the following comment from an independent small business owner left on one of my posts.. Having worked for both small business and Multi Nationals in managerial capacities I can relate to, and understand his concerns.

Capitalism as it should and could be is the ideal. However, this ideal has been bastardized by both corporations and the government over many years. We as a nation are seeing the results of this today. So we have a choice. Continuing to do the same that brought us to this economic crossroads and fail. Or reconsider what "true capitalism" means and make a sharp course change to correct our ship. THE CHOICE REMAINS OURS.

Consider the following if you will with an open and unfettered mind. Then, and only then decide for yourself the right path to take. For if we become so compartmentalized that we cannot honestly consider opposing, and potentially valid views from our own cherished beliefs we are indeed lost.

Here then the comment from a reader of this independent conservative and rational sight.

TAO said...
 I am pro business because I own a business and have been in business for over 25 years now.

Not real sure how this competition ideal of yours would work in an economic system where "too big to fail" is just another term for monopoly.

So, pull the government out of the economy and let business compete! Tell me, are you going to break up these mega monster corporations before you do away with government? In case you have not noticed but during this "recession" we witnessing the greatest period of consolidation this nation has ever seen in banking and healthcare.

The only competition there could possbily be would be between small companies and large companies and lets be romantic...the small companies are losing their ass...

Our mega corporations have gotten so big that they have even taken over our government....and everyone on the right wants to make government smaller and let corporations compete!

I would advise all would be capitalists to read John Kenneth Galbraith if your goal is to save capitalism....

As a small businessman let me tell you, taxes are secondary right now inregards to jobs creation....what small business people need to create jobs is CAPITAL....and you can't get it from a bank me, I know that for a fact.

This progressive, and small independent business owner's comments certainly deserve consideration. While I may not agree with 100% of his views {and I certainly don't} their is, at least in this independent conservatives view enough to give serious consideration.

As an independent conservative I have no agenda other than to seek the truth. The result of which I fervently hope will be America finding it's way back to the track from which it has been derailed by its own doings.

It is time American political dialogue returns to the traditional principals defined by the best of our founding fathers. And for those that are enamored by the current crop of GOP/Tea Party activists I recommend revisiting your history. That includes Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin. James Madison et al. You may be surprised at the revisiting.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel


  1. His observations are correct. Only the well-connected fat cat cronies got stimulus money from the government. Dirty Hank Paulson took care of his gold-plated wall street banker buddies first, and surprise! there was none left for small banks, who are now being gobbled up by foreign banks because our dollar is trashed and everything in America is going for bargain bin prices.

    I still maintain Bush should have let it all collapse, but our government was infested with too many wall street rent seekers. The big guys, who were leveraged with exotic financial instruments would have been jumping out of skyscraper windows, and the small banks, who enjoy no such special favors from the government, would have picked up the pieces.

    The bailout was to maintain the status quo.

    Government regulation serves the same purpose. Conservatives were shocked when Walmart expressed support for government healthcare reform. Why not? They can afford it.

    Big biz loves government red tape! Big biz has teams of lawyers to penetrate the dense bureaucratic sludge our federal government produces. If that fails, they have high toned lobbyists to bribe politicians for special favors.

    Government red tape keeps out the little guy and snuffs competition.

  2. Enough with these stupid subsidies, too. A) They're ineffectual (can you say Amtrak/ethanol/llamas?). B) They mostly tend to help help rich people, anyway (federal flood insurance, subsidies to agribusiness, etc.). And C) they're draining the frigging budget big time. Enough already!

  3. Silver - You said... "The bailout was to maintain the status quo."

    Yup, you got that right. Fear of the unknown {change} is often greater than the known "evil."

    Thus the propensity to maintain the "status quo."

  4. Will - a) Absolutely correct, b)This is generally true, c) To this one can only respond, ABSOLUTELY frigging true!

    It is indeed time for real truthful positive change. Sadly Obama ain't it. Anymore than any of the republican potential candidates for 2012 will be.

  5. Just as we have law and order in our society, so too must we have law and order in our business.

    If a republican (small "r" for all you hyper-partisans out there) government can not levy taxes, and parcel expenditures, and keep records, and make assessments, let alone enforce contract law, or raise an army, or deal with a crisis, then it is not a government, and the land is lawless. You may as well go back to the early Dark Ages.

    The US Constitution may have its failings, but it is a uniquely great historic document. I say stay with it. But let's not backtrack. The great thing about the Constitution is that we can both amend it and interpret it rather broadly. The trouble with the Constitution is the same, of course.

    There never was any notable period in American history when the federal government didn't play a large role in our developement. If anything, the government built the nation - that "government," of course, being We The People.

    The rails, the power, the water, the peace, WWII, the schools and hospitals, the places for teh little leagues and scouts and clubs, the highways and parks and protected forests and rivers and lakes and coasts, and on and on and on... - it was all our wonderful Constitutional government.

    You guys get that right?

    All you have to do is keep your eyes on the prize - a better now... and future.


  6. JMJ - Wow! A progressive romanticizing about the past. Albeit with the progressive slant that government did it all. As though without government "We the People" would have been helplessly incapable of accomplishing anything.

    You see the difference between a conservative {as properly understood} and a progressive is we believe the federal government has a proper but limited role in our lives.

    Which in a nutshell is as you said... the ability to enforce contracts, provide for the national defense, regulate commerce between states and international trading parters, and provide for the enforcement of our national laws. As well as maintaining our interstate highway system which was primarily devised with the military in mind and national security in mind.

    All the rest should fall to the individual states. And yes, this would mean federal taxes would drop drastically and state taxes would necessarily rise.

    As it always should have been. However, beginning in the late 1800's early 1900's when the progressive movement took hold power started to move increasingly to the feds.

    And yes, lets go back to observing the constitution. he living part of the document was the ability written into it for amending it. Rightfully so. And there is a reason why the process of amending is so laborious and requires such a majority of the states for it to happen.

    Our founders recognized the provision needed to be in place to amend. They did not intend for activist judges to interpret the document at will and thus essentially write law based on their political biases.

    Words have meanings. SC Judges, being properly schooled in the law were merely meant to pass judgement based on the wording of the constitution AS WRITTEN. The task of amending was left to the congress and the states.

    Much more later if you wish JMJ.

  7. Let me add another wrinkle to your narrative, the US Chamber of Commerce, in a recent study believes that states are one of the reasons that this country cannot create jobs.

    Basically, do away with states and we can create jobs.

    Again, everyone gripes about the relationship of government and big business but no one has a solution for solving the problem...the idea that we would allow the too big to fail, especially in light of the fact that too big to fail are in fact monopolies, to fail and then somehow, we would just pick up the pieces and move on really isn't realistic. Nor does the idea that if we all of the sudden stopped with all the subsidizes that somehow that would make a difference...

    As I stated at LCR:

    If your local police force is corrupt and if tomorrow all your policemen fell off the face of the earth would that mean that your town would no longer have crime or criminals?

    In reality we have to take over our police force, or in this case our government, and then use government as a tool to turn things around but as long as the people are powerless things will go on as they usually do....

    JK Galbraith called this "countervailing power" and as long as there are no countervailing power groups to balance the power of big business nothing will change and our politicians will follow the path of least resistence.

  8. @TAO,

    "Basically, do away with states and we can create jobs."

    I understand you said this in direct reference to the linked article on your comments, but do you believe this? Do you think we should do away with states?

    Not a loaded question. I am genuinely asking.

    Cheers, sir.


  9. Donald,

    Its like my question: "...if we believe that free markets and globalization are the ideal for economic systems then should we also demand one government?" If you believe that the world is one big free open market then shouldn't the world be on big free open country?

    Unfree markets are only thus due to governments as it is government regulations that create unfree markets and the first regulation of all government are national borders...

    I do not endorse the concept of one world government, but I also do not believe that markets are free; Ours maybe but ours is the only one and I have yet to see the benefit to our country of being a free market in a world of unfree markets.

    But I will leave that to those who believe in free markets.

    I also naturally mistrust anything that the US Chamber of Commerce comes out with so I really have not had time to really think about the concept of no state governments. Since countries much smaller than the United States have smaller governmental units I would initially believe that the US Chamber is pulling a stunt that will benefit only their members, kind of like the stunt they pulled with free markets.

    Personally, I think the end goal of the US Chamber is to do away with political government (government of the people) all together and replace it with their own rule (government of the corporation).


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.