Defining Socialist-Libertarianism

Recently while looking for other sites with my same political attitudes and bad-ass coolness I googled: Socialist Libertarian. I was shocked at what I found; it does not seem that I am quite like what I found, so I am attempting to re-define it as a true philosophy. The philosophy, and this post may take a long time to perfect, so if it is not finished be patient! Eventually I may have a manifesto…


My Theory of Socialist-Libertarianism incorporates the economic benefits of Socialism and the personal freedoms of Libertarianism; you could almost call it Anti-Fascism. The way it works is that the purpose of government is to guarantee the protection of Life, Liberty and Property, with special exceptions on regarding property. Private property will not be abolished, but it will be the companies and corporations that will all be (partially) publicly owned, so that the company may never become abusive to the people. You may ask, how could this happen? It would make everything so chaotic and would be part of the reason that a true democracy is not possible in a world with large populations. In a way it would be a true democracy; all parts of government elected by popular vote, where business and corporations are also held to the same standard. Mass voting can be achieved in today’s modern world through the internet. I am not doing away with Capitalism, because the companies will still be privately owned, and will allow for the accumulation of wealth within the company, however it will not be shareholders, calling the shots, eliminating the upper-class from screwing over everyone else and filling their pockets at the same time.

I would suggest that the actual government work on the American system, which has a very effective method of checks and balances; also there should be minimum voter turnout (which should not be needed with internet voting). Unlike the Libertarian government, I am not making the government be smaller. In fact it would be extremely hard for a small government to get anything done. From my liberal background, I would like to see the government and mass populous be liberal in their thinking; however I know this may not be possible.

When everything is broken down, it is simply giving people the power to manage the large corporations that have a huge impact on their lives. It is very similar to CO-OPing everything. This whole theory may take sometime to perfect. If it ends up being the people who make unreasonable demands of companies, than it would be the court that steps in. Remember that all voting is optional, so if an out of the way company will only be affected by people who care about it.

Please, If there is anything I have missed, tell me! Lave your thoughts here so I can perfect my theoretical system that may lead to a (dare I say utopia?) better system..

Alternative Energy

"America is addicted to oil" - George W Bush

When I heard this I was first of all shocked and surprised that the good friend of Exxon and the Saudi Royal family had really said this. I thought, 'is this the George Dubya Bush I know?’
Politics aside, it was interesting that he did mention alternative energy resources. The one thing that will always bother me when politicians talk about alternative energy is how wrong they always are. In particular Bush mentioned ethanol, fuel cells "hydrogen", and nuclear power.
The first problem is ethanol. It is a new, organic source of fuel that is extracted from organic material. In 2004 John Kerry talked about this on the campaign trail while Bush was talking about ANWR. I think it could be a useful addition to gasoline, but there are major problems with it. Have you ever heard the thing that if everyone in the world lived like an American, we would need something like three more planets? Well, if every car in the world used pure ethanol, we would need three more planets just to grow all the corn! Plus, Corn turns out to be a very inefficient way of producing ethanol. It will be a useful fuel additive, but we will never be able to use it entirely for fuel.
"Hydrogen"... please people, do yourself a favor and become educated. Fuel cells work on the technology of combining hydrogen and oxygen in a controlled reaction that produces electricity. Fuel cell technologies are useful and may soon be applied in many, many areas, however it has one really, really big problem. Where is all the hydrogen? There is NO source of hydrogen where we could get any of it. The only practical source of hydrogen is water, which would take energy to separate the Hydrogen and oxygen. There are two ways to do this, and both are ironic. One method of separating them is to use coal or nuclear power to “manufacture” hydrogen. Stupid. Obviously whoever thought that it could be a good idea wasn’t thinking about what the purpose of fuel cells were. The other way to extract hydrogen from the water would be what shell had used in a few experimental “hydrogen gas stations” that use solar power. Not as bad as the idea of wasting other precious resources for it, but not as practical as it could be. Hopefully solar farms for hydrogen will never become large or big business, because then we will start running out of space on earth and begin cooling it.

This is my Idea for perfecting our wasting of precious energy:
Oil is a valuable resource. We are stupid to waste a thing like that on things like cars, when really we should save it for things that can not use alternative fuel yet, like planes, heavy trucks, trains, and cargo ships. (When I say heavy trucks, I’m not referring to the “light trucks” and SUV’s that soccer mom’s drive.) We have everything that we need to make efficient cars.
Hybrids are simply genius. They could also be improved by adding lightweight or painted solar panels to improve their energy efficiency. Super-efficient diesels are also here. In Britain, a modified version of small car with a super-efficient diesel got 120 mpg! (don’t have a link, sry) Manufactures also have many, many ideas that may soon become very practical in improving engine efficiency. One idea is using the hot exhaust gas and a heat engine to provide more energy for the car. Gas taxes could easily force companies and consumers into these, but the sad thing is how it’s not being done.

We have the tools we need, yet we refuse to use them.

State of the Union and Osama Bin Laden

Just Last night, President Bush Gave his Fifth State Of the Union Address. As was predicted, the sixth year is the troubled one for presidents. Right on Cue he talked about foreign policy ,and the especially strong rhetoric of "second guessing isn't a strategy". This actually seems like an extremely good argument to his target audience, however his polls remain low.


But i didn't write this post to talk about the state of the union. I wanted to compare his State of the Union Address, with Osama bin ladens new videotape released in January. here is the full transcript of Osama Bin Laden's 'speech to the american people'.

You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences.

And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.

Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.

We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.

I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.

And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.

We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.

And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.

The resemblance started when [former President George H.W.] Bush, the father, visited the area, when some of our own were impressed by America and were hoping that the visits would affect and influence our countries.

Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.

We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before [President George W.] Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on. And we never knew that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.

He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.

Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

If anything, Bin Laden's speech makes you think and it actually reinforces what i have been thinking for years... Stop Pissin' people off! Make no doubt about it, Osama is messed up; He is a radical, violent, extremist. When Compared to Bush, the similararities are quite disturbing. the only difference other than religion is that Bush is not violent by nature in the way Bin Laden is. They are both religious fanatics who are crusading for what they believe to be right, and both have had a privilaged past, and are quite wealthy. In that way i am sure that that Osama actually shares a connection with bush much in the way sworn enemies sometimes respect each other. The only difference is that they have NO respect for one another when they probably should. I repeat, I still think Bin Laden is a bad guy here.
Back to where I was about upsetting radical extremists. we need to stop acting like Israel is a victim and realize that both sides are wrong, supporting neither. Occasionally I feel that the best option for complete and total peace may be the complete and total destruction of the entire area, and made so radioactive that anyone who goes there will die withing hours. not to panic anyone, but I am just saying that maybe both sides should be DESTROYED
Bush is now finding himself in a curious position ("more and more curiouser")in Iraq, and especially the recent elections in Palestine. He spread democracy, and democracy worked. Unfortunatley for him the majority ruled as Hamas won the elctions. In Iraq we find ourselves at the breaking point of a civil war. If we don't get out before it starts, we will be literally 'stuck' there for the next ten years. We have already had the chance to set a timetable to leave when the Iraqi government asked us to leave.
i was no at all surpised with Bush's state of the union adress. i have benn listening to his mumblings for five years now and i know exactly what he was going to say, except the "addicted to oil part". but that will have to wait for another day.

ANGER_OUT

Firefox and Me

I will admit that so far this whole blog has been leaning heavily towards my general tech rants and why people should get firefox, however I have decided that i will try to no longer focus on this area. I should now refer you to the great unofficial Firefox blog. I willsoon get back on track with the angry rant of a socialist/liberterian, but i will blog on anything worth mentioning techwise, such as invasions of privacy, and ways to protect privacy: eff.org. Privacy must be protected in any free nation, and national security can be achieved without paranoia and spying on our own american citizens in violation of the bill of rights...