Then our enemy government's powers will be greatly diminished and ensuing self-regulation by Free Market will gradually solve all the problems that is possible to solve.
IX. Phylosophy of pragmatic neo-centrism
I am not sure all this can be called "a phylosophy"– but what the heck? It's a fashionable word, so let's shape up something that somewhat resembles a phylosophy. Since it is based on definition of "a center" as the state of maximally feasible freedom ( the core freedom), then it should have "centrism" in it. Since all emerging entities like to be called "new", then it will be "neo-centrism". Because it proposes close alliance of all the forces of good, of freedom, based on their today's position relatively to the balance of freedom versus totalitarianism, then it makes sense to name it "pragmatic neo-centrism". So be it, even if it will be the short-lived term. The essence means more than a term. As they say in Russia, it's OK to call me a sweet pie as long as you don't bake me in the oven.
The most important criterion of analysis in this phylosophy is the degree of freedom , which correlates with the strength of the feed-back loop and with the best possible outcome in the instances of the self-regulating processes in multifactorial complex systems in the state of dynamic stability. The importance of the degree of freedom with the feedback loop is in its analytical and predictive powers and in its role as the best possible way to optimize aforementioned complex system in the dynamic stability state. To mention just a few examples of such systems: living organisms, economies and societies. All forces that push today's equilibrium point towards higher degree of freedom for the "end-users" of the system and tighter feedback loop (which in socioeconomic life translates into more individual liberties, more freedom of choice, ultimate popular sovereignty and more free market) are classified as the freedom-camp in political terms and as forces of good in moral terms. Vise versa– all totalitarian forces that diminish the degree of freedom in the system and loosen or eliminate the feedback loop (for example-when totalitarians remove the individual liberties and decision making power from a person and give it to the government or to a similar totalitarian entity) are put to the freedom-haters camp politically. From the moral point of view they are considered forces of evil. In other words, forces of good promote POWER TO THE PEOPLE principle while the forces of evil push for POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT.
Particular political forces shift their orientation, as time passes by (sometimes between elections, sometimes as centuries pass by), and some of them change sides while some stay on the same side of the barricade.
The political center in the pragmatic neocentrism is the core-freedom, the classic liberalism, that is defined by the maximally feasible under current conditions freedoms: free market, individual liberties, popular sovereignty. There is direct correlation between the degree of freedom in socioeconomical life and the freedom and prosperity in the country. As closer to the absolute possible freedom as more productive the society is, the better people fare.Thus, the freedom-loving camp is also called "friends of the people".
Vice-versa: as more totalitarian, the closer to the slavery, the less free society is– the less productive society and the worse the poverty is. Thus, the freedom haters and the people's enemies are interchangable terms in this phylosophy.
When evaluating a proposal, a thesis– don't even look at emotional component, how noble it is and all that crap, and don't look at the stated goal. Instead look at the empiric ned results, and go from there. Whatever shift the balance towards "more freedom to the people" is good, whatever grabs power for the government or totalitarian ideology is bad. It doesn't really matter how you explain the reality as long as you accept it as the objective fact. If you think it is the God's hand– so be it. If you under under the impression that it is just Mother Nature's laws– that's fine too. It is much less important how you explain facts than registering them for what their are. The only thing that matters is that you perceive the reality as it is and deal with it properly. If in contemporary America being religious not only helps shift the balance towards more freedom but actually serves as the number factor in promoting freedom – then I am all for religion by all means, even though I am not religious myself. Islam as of today doesn't count, of course, because as long as it is based on the genocidal Shariah laws it is not a true religion and because it is the worst form ot totalitarianism that not just shifts the freedom balance towards totalitarianism but it completely destroys freedom, and not only the freedom of action– even a freedom of thoughts. If being individualistic and egoistic brings freedom and prosperity to the society-then I am all for the individualism and egoism (even though I am an altruistic semi-individualist). If Free Market, including "evil corporations", actually improves the degree of freedom– then I shall send a "thank you" note to the corporations too, even though I like individual enterprises much more. If a degree of the government control is inversely proportional to the freedom and wellbeing of the nation, then I want as less government as possible, even though I grew up under the total government control. If the democracy under conditions of dominance of the totalitarian ideology (such as "free elections" in the islamofascist Gaza) reduces the degree of freedom, then I am against such democracy. Democracy is not a goal on its own merit, it's just a tool to achieve more freedom, if it works. But if under particular circumstances democracy actually reduces the degree of freedom, if it doesn't work– then to hell with democracy. Block Gaza until its people regain their senses back and kick out the islamofascists themselves. If Pinochet's coup interfered with the rights of 10 thousands of totalitarian communists, of the enemies of the people, but saved from hunger and totalitarian dictatorship millions of Chilians, then the risk/benefit ratio is heavily skewed towards giving Pinochet a Nobel peace prise, even though I wouldn't start the coup myself. If Turkish military will remove from the power Iran's and Syria's friend, formerly stealth and now open islamofascist jihadi Prime Minister Erdogan that poses threat to the Turkish people and to all humanity, then I would not be spanking the military. It's not an unrealistic utopian "noble" goal "justifying" the means, as is always the case with the totalitarian enemies of the people, but it's rather the achieved end-result of "more freedom" justifying the risk/benefit ratio.
X. Who won in 2008 elections?
The short answer is "Enemies of freedom= enemies of America". Do you remember as ALL America's enemies both abroad and within the US were happily endorsing Obama? Plus some useful idiots too were endorsing their enemy, but who counts idiots? Since Obama avoided an audit, we don't know yet how much illegal fund transfers Obama got from the terrorists and enemies of America abroad (Hamas, Lybia, Hizballa, Palestinians and the like). Hopefully, the next Congress will shed some light on this potentially treaterous activities. Well, it's clear why those enemies of America supported Husein Obama: tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. All his friends were, are and will be haters of America, haters of freedom and promoters of all kinds of totalitarianism.