An interesting take on Trump TV:
“It has a precedent in the Obama administration’s
“West Wing Week,” which was a White House-produced weekly YouTube show about
the goings-on and priorities of the Obama administration. This week, there has
been much concern about the advent of “Trump TV.” Its arrival was treated as
far more insidious, even panic-inducing, than Obama’s similar efforts …
I don’t have a
problem with Trump TV just like I didn’t have a problem with Obama’s “West Wing.” The only thing I resent about either attempt
to get the message out is the limiting of access to competitors and letting
them cover the news as they feel it should be covered. Competition
is key.
Trump, this is a huge mistake. You need to do better than this.
I like this work out of Michelle Malkin. She forgets though, nobody in the government
actually works for us anymore. It simply
doesn’t work that way.
Another example demonstrating that decentralization is superior
when it comes to government programs.
One size does not fit all. And
where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government has the
responsibility to dictate education.
Take this a step further and abolish the DOE.
“The vast majority of parents, 66 percent, believe their
children’s report cards provide more reliable information about their
children’s progress. Parents also gauge their children’s progress by how well
they perform on regular homework assignments.
Why? Because parents can actually intervene with their
children’s homework and work with their teachers based on their children’s
progress reports.
What can a parent do with a bevy of standardized test scores
they often don’t receive until weeks before a new school year?
While much of the education reform debate focuses on school
choice, it’s important to remember that deciding where their children attend
school is just one component of the much larger parents’ rights movement to
empower them over all aspects of their children’s upbringing and
education—including the ability to decide how their children’s academic
progress is measured.”
If you think what is happening in Venezuela is bad and you
would like to avoid that happening at home, you need to prescribe to Jacob
Hornberger’s proposals for the US
response to Venezuela:
“1. Prohibit the U.S. government, including the
CIA, from intervening in Venezuela. Leave Venezuela to the Venezuelans. It is
no business of the U.S. government, whose meddling in the affairs of other
countries has always made things worse, both for the people living there and
for the American people.
Establish a
free society here at home to serve as a model for the rest of the world. 2 2. Dismantle both the welfare state and the
warfare state. Place economic liberty alongside freedom of speech,
religion, and press. End Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare,
subsidies, and welfare. Repeal the minimum wage and all other economic
regulations. Separate economy and the state. Separate education and the state.
Abolish the income tax and the IRS. End foreign interventionism, foreign wars, foreign
bases, and foreign aid. End the drug war. Dismantle the military-industrial
complex, the CIA, and the NSA. Lead the world to freedom by example.”
This is the only logical and lasting solution. I urge you to
have a discussion if you disagree. You will
ultimately realize you are wrong.
Interesting conclusion from Rothbard discussing the difference
between a more empirical form of economics (such as the Chicago school) and an
ideological form (such as the praxeological perspective of the Austrian
school). Empiricism tends to pull
economists more to the right than the left but still tends towards intervention
with the likes of the Federal Reserve and fiscal policies. An ideological view will tend towards either
more socialistic/governmental views or complete laissez-faire. I fall into the category of believing in the
praxeological view and complete and total laissez-faire is the best form of (or
lack thereof) governance.
“Suffice
it then to say that a leading cause of the proliferation of governmental
statistics is the need for statistical data in government economic planning.
But the relationship works also in reverse: the growth of statistics, often
developed originally for its own sake, ends by multiplying the avenues of
government intervention and planning. In short, statistics do not have to be
developed originally for politicoeconomic ends; their own autonomous
development, directly or indirectly, opens up new fields for interventionists
to exploit.”
