Libertarians are one party in politics I have trouble understanding. The basic precept of this dogma is a ferocious and unyielding belief that we are born with certain irrevocable rights. As peachy as that may sound, it is often impractical and certainly contradictory on many levels. Let us begin to explore what I call "The Ultimate Hoax." 

    My primary target here are what we call "rights theorists" libertarians. Many rights theorists believe in certain rights we have that would be unobjectionably detrimental to society. One of these rights is recreational drug use. Libertarians believe that humans can do as they want with their bodies so long as they do not harm anybody else. Under their belief-system, every single individual in the entire country can elect to do be on drugs. What would our society look like if this happened? People's lives would be destroyed and their productivity in our society would be unarguably compromised. In essence, people will have the right to govern their bodies but our country will lose its ability to effectively govern as well. This will then jeopardize the freedoms of people everywhere. Libertarianism is a hoax. 

    Libertarians tend to fiercely recognize the rights of commercial speech. In most cases I agree, but total freedom of the airways can certainly be detrimental as well. Credit card companies could engage in predatory practices while targeting specific individuals who are susceptible to falling for their deceitful advertising. At the end of the day our people can be proud that we exercise freedom on the airways. But can they be proud that our people are in potential danger? Sanctioning the rights of one person compromises the right to live happily for another. Remember: Happiness and freedom are both protected under the constitution. 

     Perhaps the most vexing element of Libertarian thought is their implicit (and often explicit) contempt for our government. To think that people are responsible enough to be in full control of their lives without harming others is inexcusably naive. Our government must never encroach upon our people. Our government  should be the protector of our people. We must ensure fairness, demand accountability and mediate conflicts that attempt to bring about injustice in our society. Sitting in a quiet corner is tantamount to anarchy. It will encourage exploitation and treachery. It is the exact opposite of encouraging freedom. Government was not invented for nothing. Let it be.

*please visit my populist blog at  www.demgop.net 

Ronald Racist?

   He is always known as "The Great Communicator." People revere his "values" his "courage" and his tenacious attitude towards those pesky Soviets. But there is a side to Ronald Reagan that people forget. Luckily for those interested, history has one hell of a memory. 

     Reagan tried to impede the societal progression of blacks at all crossroads. It all started when he ran for governor of California. He promised that he would "wipe the fair housing act off the books." He explained his opposition to the law by saying that "if an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house...he has a right to do so." 

    Then came the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Finally black schools were desegregated and water fountains were no longer "whites only." Reagan opposed the act. Apparently he enjoyed the fact that blacks didn't drink in his water fountain. 

   Then came his bid for the presidency. Reagan traveled to Philadelphia, Mississippi where he boldly declared his predilection for "states' rights." At that point, he might as well have been wearing a Klan uniform. Honoring states' rights in the racist hotbed of Philadelphia, Mississippi means honoring Jim Crow laws and other unspeakable means of degradation. Oh, and it doesn't end here. 

     Reagan's presidency was littered with overly racialist policies. He refused to impose sanctions on the Pretorian government in South Africa that had been instituting apartheid. If Reagan had a backbone, millions of blacks could have been saved from inexpressible suffering. 

    It is no surprise that Reagan opposed honoring the achievements of Martin Luther King Jr. by creating a holiday in his memory. That would be like Evander Holyfield honoring Mike Tyson's boxing career shortly after his ear fell off.