Who’s to blame? It would seem we’ve forgotten history…again.
It seems we have forgotten the mistakes of the past. All one needs to do is look back in history to see how government interference into the free markets worsened the depression turning it into the “Great Depression”.
The depression of the late 20’s and 30’s was blamed on the free market and it was believed the only way to fix the problem was to reign in the greedy capitalists by government regulation and the courts.
Today it is recognized by many economists and historians that the blame for the Great Depression lays squarely on the shoulders of government. First Herbert Hoover miscalculated when he signed the Smoot-Hawley Act into law granting protective tariffs for American business which resulted in trade with Europe coming to a grinding halt. The Federal Reserve reacted with a series of disastrous interest rate hikes that sent the economy into depression. Then anti-business measures such as FDR’s “National Recovery Act” deepened the depression.
Government deserves the lion’s share of the blame. According to UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, it was FDR’s policies that needlessly exacerbated and prolonged the great depression by 7 years.
Not only did FDR’s “New Deal” Policies make the depression worse, they also changed the way government and the courts operate putting the country on a course towards destroying the integrity of private property rights and towards becoming a collectivized nation.
The Great Depression, which was caused by government intervention in the first place, was blamed on capitalism and the cry was for more regulation.
Once again we have been told that the current economic crisis is the result of the failures of capitalism. Government leaders especially within the current ruling Party have constantly blamed today's financial problems on the lack of government regulation.
The truth is government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets. Let me explain. The government has embarked on an altruistic campaign of promoting the “right” to the American dream, which is the artificial right to own a home.
Today’s economic crisis can be traced back to the “Community Reinvestment Act” of 1977 and the Carter administration. The “Community Reinvestment Act” or CRA was created to protect low income borrowers from discriminatory credit practices.
In 1995 President Bill Clinton asked Congress to make some regulatory changes to the “Community Reinvestment Act” by strengthening enforcement. In 1999 with the help of Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer, President Clinton was able to expand the “CRA” even further, giving it even stronger teeth explaining that it "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act.”
The Clinton administration directed federal agencies to expand credit and government began pressuring banks to lower their lending standards to allow low income wage earners to qualify for loans. This was achieved by abandoning the long time practice of insuring the borrower could afford the loan by means of income verification, credit history, and savings history.
See video clip of the Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" program that forced banks to make bad loans:
Community organizations were empowered by the Clinton administration to promote these loans. One such organization was ACORN. ACORN began applying pressure to banks to lend money to those who did not qualify for loans under traditional industry standards by holding protests, sit-ins, and through civil litigation.
But it wasn’t by stick alone the government bullied private banks into lowering their standards to promote home ownership. The government also employed the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to secure and buy up these loans.
The final nail in the coffin was the Federal Reserve, which began a campaign of easy money by artificially lowering the interest rates priming the pump for future disaster.
All these factors contributed to creating a situation in which lenders were enticed to lend, or punished for being responsible, which lead to a lending frenzy that artificially drove home prices skyward (bubble) that sooner or later had to painfully come crashing back down to earth.
The insistence on subsidizing the American dream, which is just another form of welfare rather than promoting responsibility, caused this crisis. This crisis--to the extent it has become--would have never happened under normal free market conditions. But instead of accepting the blame, Washington and the media would rather demonize Wall Street and sound the all familiar cry for more government regulation.
In light of this knowledge it isn’t logical to believe that the situation today is the result of a lack of regulation. The problem is not the failure of the free market, but of perverting the principles that allow the free market to work.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
One Example of the Dangers of Pragmatism and the Collectivist Philosophy
As I was writing the previous post I was reminded of a conversation I had with a guy at work recently. He said he felt that healthcare was a right and that government should give everyone free health care.
What first struck me about what he said bedsides the obvious “right” of healthcare was that he “felt” it was a right--not to mention the fact that this is confusing an opinion for a right. Feelings are not knowledge neither is having an emotion a method of acquiring knowledge. Only through the exercise of reason and logic can someone acquire knowledge.
Reason is a process of concept-formation and perceptual integration that identifies the true nature and attributes of reality. The method of reasoning is called logic. Logic is the process of non-contradictory identification.
After a short period of back and forth on the pros and cons of capitalism (which I’ll discuss in a later post), this person went on to say that the government doesn’t do enough to help people.
After I reminded him of what rights are guaranteed by law in the Constitution, and what such “new rights” do to the real rights of people, he said that my way of thinking is outdated and does not conform to today’s standards. He went on to say that the Constitution should be rewritten to reflect today’s society. He even said there should be a Constitutional Convention every ten years to make sure the Constitution keeps pace with changing societal mores.
This has got to be one of the most dangerous philosophies I have ever heard in terms of what the effect would be if this was attempted. Man’s rights would be dictated by majority opinion. The majority would get to decide what those rights were and who would get them and then be subject to change at the whims of a new majority opinion.
This is a perfect example of pragmatism. This philosophy contradicts the real rights of man and the pragmatism here is that one can oppose the moral principles of freedom and yet expect to always be free.
What first struck me about what he said bedsides the obvious “right” of healthcare was that he “felt” it was a right--not to mention the fact that this is confusing an opinion for a right. Feelings are not knowledge neither is having an emotion a method of acquiring knowledge. Only through the exercise of reason and logic can someone acquire knowledge.
Reason is a process of concept-formation and perceptual integration that identifies the true nature and attributes of reality. The method of reasoning is called logic. Logic is the process of non-contradictory identification.
After a short period of back and forth on the pros and cons of capitalism (which I’ll discuss in a later post), this person went on to say that the government doesn’t do enough to help people.
After I reminded him of what rights are guaranteed by law in the Constitution, and what such “new rights” do to the real rights of people, he said that my way of thinking is outdated and does not conform to today’s standards. He went on to say that the Constitution should be rewritten to reflect today’s society. He even said there should be a Constitutional Convention every ten years to make sure the Constitution keeps pace with changing societal mores.
This has got to be one of the most dangerous philosophies I have ever heard in terms of what the effect would be if this was attempted. Man’s rights would be dictated by majority opinion. The majority would get to decide what those rights were and who would get them and then be subject to change at the whims of a new majority opinion.
This is a perfect example of pragmatism. This philosophy contradicts the real rights of man and the pragmatism here is that one can oppose the moral principles of freedom and yet expect to always be free.
The Proper Role of Government
Man’s survival depends on three things. The first is his ability to reason, which is the means by which he interacts with other men and the mechanism that guides his behavior. Man also needs purpose which is productive work and self-esteem which is self-worthiness, embracing the concept that he is worthy of happiness. What this basically means is that man has a right to life and a right to pursue a life worth living.
This is worth repeating; this concept, which is “man has the right to life and a right to pursue a life worth living” is uniquely American.
Let me make one quick point here. This does not mean man has the absolute right to a life worth living, only the right to pursue that life. Remember these are rights of action. You cannot expect rewards for inaction but to act or not act in your own best interest is voluntary. In other words, you reap what you sow.
The Declaration of Independence prescribes this quite eloquently as the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to own property, and the right to pursue one’s own happiness.
Therefore if this is man’s real rights than what role does the government play in protecting these rights?
Men have only two ways of dealing with one another which is through volition or through intimidation—by reason or force. The government is the only institution with a monopoly on the physical use of force, so the question then becomes whether or not that force is to be used to protect or violate the individual rights of man.
The founders understood the delicate relationship between state powers and protecting the individual quite well. They understood that the most grievous of atrocities perpetrated upon mankind have been committed by government. The founders set forth a form of governing that protects the individual and society from the abuses of government.
The founders knew that in order to safeguard these rights the government must be limited in size and scope so, they gave us a Republic. A Republic is a government that is limited by law, thus leaving the people alone. The law in America is the Constitution, which explicitly restricts the powers of government and protects the individual from the majority.
The Bill of Rights is a document that specifically protects individual liberties—it doesn’t grant rights, it PROTECTS them, and it doesn’t protect collective rights. In other words, no special groups of people have protected rights under the Bill of Rights and that is why we are a constitutional republic—ruled by law not by majority opinion.
The Bill of Rights is defined in negative terms, in other words it is what the government can’t do to people and what the majority can’t do to the individual.
Another thing our founders understood was the importance of property rights as an integral component of individual liberty. This is the private ownership of land, livestock, income, etc, etc. And they also understood the fact that incentive, creativity and productivity is more often than not propagated by reward, and dignity is a product of self-achievement.
We also live in a democracy which by definition is the rule of the people or majority rule. Democracy is important to the “will” of the people and although democracy plays an important function in society it is also dangerous in that the majority can take someone’s property (income, land, business, or even their children) by simply having the majority of votes. Democracies have never lasted long because sooner or later the majority figures out that they can vote themselves the property of others. This is what happened to the ancient Greeks.
Democracy is the process of legislating opinions. The republic which means to be “ruled by law” protects the individual from the whims of the majority. Another way of putting it is democracy can be a means to legislate the majority’s opinion but in a republic it can do so only as long as it dos not violate the law.
The essence of a republic is the fact that the rights of government are not subject to the majority rule but by the law.
In conclusion the only rational function of government is to protect man’s individual rights. This is accomplished, first and foremost by government obeying the law then by providing a police force to protect men from criminals, provide a military to protect men from foreign aggression, and to provide courts to protect men from breach of contract, and to settle disputes among men.
This is worth repeating; this concept, which is “man has the right to life and a right to pursue a life worth living” is uniquely American.
Let me make one quick point here. This does not mean man has the absolute right to a life worth living, only the right to pursue that life. Remember these are rights of action. You cannot expect rewards for inaction but to act or not act in your own best interest is voluntary. In other words, you reap what you sow.
The Declaration of Independence prescribes this quite eloquently as the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to own property, and the right to pursue one’s own happiness.
Therefore if this is man’s real rights than what role does the government play in protecting these rights?
Men have only two ways of dealing with one another which is through volition or through intimidation—by reason or force. The government is the only institution with a monopoly on the physical use of force, so the question then becomes whether or not that force is to be used to protect or violate the individual rights of man.
The founders understood the delicate relationship between state powers and protecting the individual quite well. They understood that the most grievous of atrocities perpetrated upon mankind have been committed by government. The founders set forth a form of governing that protects the individual and society from the abuses of government.
The founders knew that in order to safeguard these rights the government must be limited in size and scope so, they gave us a Republic. A Republic is a government that is limited by law, thus leaving the people alone. The law in America is the Constitution, which explicitly restricts the powers of government and protects the individual from the majority.
The Bill of Rights is a document that specifically protects individual liberties—it doesn’t grant rights, it PROTECTS them, and it doesn’t protect collective rights. In other words, no special groups of people have protected rights under the Bill of Rights and that is why we are a constitutional republic—ruled by law not by majority opinion.
The Bill of Rights is defined in negative terms, in other words it is what the government can’t do to people and what the majority can’t do to the individual.
Another thing our founders understood was the importance of property rights as an integral component of individual liberty. This is the private ownership of land, livestock, income, etc, etc. And they also understood the fact that incentive, creativity and productivity is more often than not propagated by reward, and dignity is a product of self-achievement.
We also live in a democracy which by definition is the rule of the people or majority rule. Democracy is important to the “will” of the people and although democracy plays an important function in society it is also dangerous in that the majority can take someone’s property (income, land, business, or even their children) by simply having the majority of votes. Democracies have never lasted long because sooner or later the majority figures out that they can vote themselves the property of others. This is what happened to the ancient Greeks.
Democracy is the process of legislating opinions. The republic which means to be “ruled by law” protects the individual from the whims of the majority. Another way of putting it is democracy can be a means to legislate the majority’s opinion but in a republic it can do so only as long as it dos not violate the law.
The essence of a republic is the fact that the rights of government are not subject to the majority rule but by the law.
In conclusion the only rational function of government is to protect man’s individual rights. This is accomplished, first and foremost by government obeying the law then by providing a police force to protect men from criminals, provide a military to protect men from foreign aggression, and to provide courts to protect men from breach of contract, and to settle disputes among men.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Enemy within Part Two
The second primary enemy that endangers freedom is pragmatism.
During the Presidential elections we heard several speeches in which Barrack Obama proclaimed himself to be a pragmatist, even boasting and reveling in it.
While Americans disagree on many moral, political, and economic issues, there are those who believe the way to address these issues is always through moderation and compromise. Barrack Obama promises change and says he can bring this nation together and mend our differences through pragmatism.
As a School of philosophy pragmatism was founded by C.S. Pierce and William James in the late 19th century. According to its founders, pragmatism is primarily a way of addressing philosophical questions.
William James wrote, “Pragmatism does not represent any specific substantive doctrines; rather it is distinguished by its method of clarifying ideas, clarifying in practical terms by tracing the practical consequences for accepting one idea over another.” In other words, the meaning of any truth depends entirely on its practical effects. Pragmatism’s roll is not to discover truth; rather it is to act without regard to independent reality.
Pragmatism, however, fails to answer this one very important question: don’t we need truth, which is the understanding of the external reality, in order to understand the practical consequences of our actions?
The facts that identify pragmatism:
Pragmatism says truth is whatever one wishes for as an outcome. Truth is therefore the expedient which allows its practitioners to forget or remember history for whatever is convenient at the moment. It allows them to remember or forget facts, depending on their usefulness to justify their behavior.
The pragmatist might say truth may not be the same for everyone. It depends on one’s circumstances and perceptions. What’s true today may not be true tomorrow. Therefore pragmatism is a short term perspective manifested as in the moment thinking. Pragmatism resists identifying facts by their essential nature. There is really no right or wrong way. There is only emotion and what’s expedient. This disregards independent reality and separates one’s behavior from the consequences. This is why causality is irrelevant and revisionism of the past and of the facts is so prevalent.
Pragmatism is held by its practitioners as a virtue; be practical, be agreeable, be expedient. However this insidious doctrine of pragmatism suggests conforming to an alternative code of ethics—that one’s behavior is devoid of absolute standards of right and wrong or good and evil. Pragmatism is, in other words, a code of non-ethics.
Another way of putting it, pragmatism is the intensional language of abstraction—of advertising, the politician, the diplomat. It is guiding behavior disassociated from independent reality and without the use of extensional facts.
One’s perceptions should be investigated by means of “reason and logic” of the extensional facts to identify the facts of reality. Pragmatism is the antithesis of reason, it is the practice of deceiving one’s self to the true nature of reality. In essence pragmatism is the lack of essence.
During the Presidential elections we heard several speeches in which Barrack Obama proclaimed himself to be a pragmatist, even boasting and reveling in it.
While Americans disagree on many moral, political, and economic issues, there are those who believe the way to address these issues is always through moderation and compromise. Barrack Obama promises change and says he can bring this nation together and mend our differences through pragmatism.
As a School of philosophy pragmatism was founded by C.S. Pierce and William James in the late 19th century. According to its founders, pragmatism is primarily a way of addressing philosophical questions.
William James wrote, “Pragmatism does not represent any specific substantive doctrines; rather it is distinguished by its method of clarifying ideas, clarifying in practical terms by tracing the practical consequences for accepting one idea over another.” In other words, the meaning of any truth depends entirely on its practical effects. Pragmatism’s roll is not to discover truth; rather it is to act without regard to independent reality.
Pragmatism, however, fails to answer this one very important question: don’t we need truth, which is the understanding of the external reality, in order to understand the practical consequences of our actions?
The facts that identify pragmatism:
Pragmatism says truth is whatever one wishes for as an outcome. Truth is therefore the expedient which allows its practitioners to forget or remember history for whatever is convenient at the moment. It allows them to remember or forget facts, depending on their usefulness to justify their behavior.
The pragmatist might say truth may not be the same for everyone. It depends on one’s circumstances and perceptions. What’s true today may not be true tomorrow. Therefore pragmatism is a short term perspective manifested as in the moment thinking. Pragmatism resists identifying facts by their essential nature. There is really no right or wrong way. There is only emotion and what’s expedient. This disregards independent reality and separates one’s behavior from the consequences. This is why causality is irrelevant and revisionism of the past and of the facts is so prevalent.
Pragmatism is held by its practitioners as a virtue; be practical, be agreeable, be expedient. However this insidious doctrine of pragmatism suggests conforming to an alternative code of ethics—that one’s behavior is devoid of absolute standards of right and wrong or good and evil. Pragmatism is, in other words, a code of non-ethics.
Another way of putting it, pragmatism is the intensional language of abstraction—of advertising, the politician, the diplomat. It is guiding behavior disassociated from independent reality and without the use of extensional facts.
One’s perceptions should be investigated by means of “reason and logic” of the extensional facts to identify the facts of reality. Pragmatism is the antithesis of reason, it is the practice of deceiving one’s self to the true nature of reality. In essence pragmatism is the lack of essence.
The Enemy within Part One
Are we sowing the seeds of our own destruction?
It was Abraham Lincoln who said:
“If danger ever reaches us it must spring up from amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Phillip Van Stern said:
“The fight for freedom is an endless battle. Its victories are never finale; its defeats never permanent. Each generation must defend its heritage, for each seeming conquest gives rise to new forces that will attempt to substitute fresh means of opposition for the old. ”
In 42 B.C. the Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero understood the dangers that come from within when he said:
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
And George Washington warned, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master!”
Suffice it to say that America’s unique freedoms will never be conquered from without. The United Stated has the most powerful military in the world and when allowed to fight without political restraint can defeat any army on the globe. The biggest threats to freedom are right here walking among us.
The primary threats to freedom are the perverse philosophical doctrines of 1. Altruism, and 2. Pragmatism (discussed in Part 2). And 3. Apathy.
The doctrine of “altruism” states that man is a sacrificial animal whose duty is to self-sacrifice on the behalf of others, on behalf of society. The stance this results in is that it is immoral and selfish for man to produce and keep the rewards of his own efforts, while it is moral and virtuous to live off the rewards of someone else’s labors.
The effect altruism has on society is that it undermines the original concept of rights. In order to give people new rights, which require no effort on the behalf of the beneficiary, in order to mandate prosperity for everyone real rights have to be compromised. Since the government cannot produce these new rights out of thin air they can only be taken from the real rights of individuals. Essentially, it is the redistribution of rights, but the catch is it takes from the real rights of all individuals and replaces them with artificial rights that are only given to specific groups of people.
Of course it is moral for an individual with the means to do so to voluntarily help his neighbor as long as he doesn’t put his own survival at risk but the collectivized form of altruism mandates the confiscation of private property by means of force. This is not only inherently anti-American but it goes against the moral principles needed for man’s survival.
It was Abraham Lincoln who said:
“If danger ever reaches us it must spring up from amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Phillip Van Stern said:
“The fight for freedom is an endless battle. Its victories are never finale; its defeats never permanent. Each generation must defend its heritage, for each seeming conquest gives rise to new forces that will attempt to substitute fresh means of opposition for the old. ”
In 42 B.C. the Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero understood the dangers that come from within when he said:
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
And George Washington warned, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master!”
Suffice it to say that America’s unique freedoms will never be conquered from without. The United Stated has the most powerful military in the world and when allowed to fight without political restraint can defeat any army on the globe. The biggest threats to freedom are right here walking among us.
The primary threats to freedom are the perverse philosophical doctrines of 1. Altruism, and 2. Pragmatism (discussed in Part 2). And 3. Apathy.
The doctrine of “altruism” states that man is a sacrificial animal whose duty is to self-sacrifice on the behalf of others, on behalf of society. The stance this results in is that it is immoral and selfish for man to produce and keep the rewards of his own efforts, while it is moral and virtuous to live off the rewards of someone else’s labors.
The effect altruism has on society is that it undermines the original concept of rights. In order to give people new rights, which require no effort on the behalf of the beneficiary, in order to mandate prosperity for everyone real rights have to be compromised. Since the government cannot produce these new rights out of thin air they can only be taken from the real rights of individuals. Essentially, it is the redistribution of rights, but the catch is it takes from the real rights of all individuals and replaces them with artificial rights that are only given to specific groups of people.
Of course it is moral for an individual with the means to do so to voluntarily help his neighbor as long as he doesn’t put his own survival at risk but the collectivized form of altruism mandates the confiscation of private property by means of force. This is not only inherently anti-American but it goes against the moral principles needed for man’s survival.
Foundations
These first few posts will establish the foundations for future discussions. In order to have rational discussions, participants must have an accurate map of reality which provides the context for the discussion. Having accurate maps are necessary to understand the terms being discussed.
Moral Responsibilities
The first rule for the preservation of man is to uphold moral principles. These moral principles are found in the Declaration of Independence which are:
The right to life
The right to liberty
The right to own property
The right to pursue happiness
This country was founded on the moral principles of individualism and independence. All rights in this country are strictly defined as rights of action. All other rights are negative meaning one cannot violate the rights of others. At the same time the bill of rights establishes what the government cannot do to people.
It should be recognized that wealth creation and economic prosperity are the result of protecting the rights of individuals to plan, produce, and trade in a truly free market. Failure to protect these rights by dictating prosperity for everyone through redistributive policies and market manipulations is the destruction of real property rights, which is the right to keep what one earns.
Property rights dovetail into the right to pursue one’s own happiness, which is the pursuit of knowledge, wealth, and dignity through one’s own efforts. To think independently, act voluntarily, to produce, and to benefit from the results of those efforts is the natural state of man and government interventions into these moral principles destroy the real rights of man. The corollary to this is that redistributive policies are incompatible with individual liberty.
Capitalism, in its simplest terms, is based on the idea of property ownership. People have the right to think, act, earn, produce and keep the results of their efforts. Capitalism is a system of private ownership, private control, and voluntary interaction.
Socialism, in its simplest terms, is government control of the means of production in which government owns the factories and exerts omnipotent control over the economy.
Today it isn’t uncommon for people to refer to the term “mixed economy” when describing our current economic system. This means a mixture of private ownership and government regulation of private enterprise and market manipulation.
To explain further our current system has a mix of economies such as socialism—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (entitlements). There are cases in which government has partnered with private industry such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the proposed nationalization of some banks and healthcare. There are also cases of government subsidizing business and price and interest rate fixing.
Understanding these concepts lays the groundwork for future discussions on many topics about man’s current moral, political and economic condition.
Moral Responsibilities
The first rule for the preservation of man is to uphold moral principles. These moral principles are found in the Declaration of Independence which are:
The right to life
The right to liberty
The right to own property
The right to pursue happiness
This country was founded on the moral principles of individualism and independence. All rights in this country are strictly defined as rights of action. All other rights are negative meaning one cannot violate the rights of others. At the same time the bill of rights establishes what the government cannot do to people.
It should be recognized that wealth creation and economic prosperity are the result of protecting the rights of individuals to plan, produce, and trade in a truly free market. Failure to protect these rights by dictating prosperity for everyone through redistributive policies and market manipulations is the destruction of real property rights, which is the right to keep what one earns.
Property rights dovetail into the right to pursue one’s own happiness, which is the pursuit of knowledge, wealth, and dignity through one’s own efforts. To think independently, act voluntarily, to produce, and to benefit from the results of those efforts is the natural state of man and government interventions into these moral principles destroy the real rights of man. The corollary to this is that redistributive policies are incompatible with individual liberty.
Capitalism, in its simplest terms, is based on the idea of property ownership. People have the right to think, act, earn, produce and keep the results of their efforts. Capitalism is a system of private ownership, private control, and voluntary interaction.
Socialism, in its simplest terms, is government control of the means of production in which government owns the factories and exerts omnipotent control over the economy.
Today it isn’t uncommon for people to refer to the term “mixed economy” when describing our current economic system. This means a mixture of private ownership and government regulation of private enterprise and market manipulation.
To explain further our current system has a mix of economies such as socialism—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (entitlements). There are cases in which government has partnered with private industry such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the proposed nationalization of some banks and healthcare. There are also cases of government subsidizing business and price and interest rate fixing.
Understanding these concepts lays the groundwork for future discussions on many topics about man’s current moral, political and economic condition.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Introduction:
Who is an American?
America proudly stands as the beacon of freedom that illuminates the darkness that surrounds those who worship false realities and the anti-life. An American unapologetically stands for freedom—freedom above order and freedom above safety.
The story of America is the story of bravery, adventure, hope, progress, and the pursuit of freedom and opportunity for every man, women, and child. America is a nation of opportunity but not one of guarantee. In America anyone, regardless of gender, race, or financial status, can succeed if they are willing to get an education, have a strong work ethic, and exercise good judgment in the choices they make. Although opportunity exists for everyone there can be no guarantee of prosperity without violating someone’s rights.
An American is someone who:
• He pursues life to the fullest, his purpose is to think and act for himself, and he finds joy in his own achievements.
• He seeks freedom and opportunity, not security.
• He is self-sustaining, not a kept citizen to be taken care of by society.
• He takes risks to succeed or to fail.
• He refuses to surrender his dignity for a handout.
• He prefers the challenges of life to guaranteed prosperity.
• He does not cower before any earthly master or threat.
The foundation of all just and moral rights is that which supports the right of man to own his own life.
“The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his own effort has no means to sustain his life. The man, who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.” Ayn Rand
When it comes to “rights”, Laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system that fully supports the individual rights of men.
This blog is a lexicon of extensional philosophy in the political and economic realm. It is the objective observation of the plight of man and the role society plays in the rational life of the individual.
What is the purpose of man? The ingredients to finding one’s purpose is through the ethical pursuit of one’s rational self-interests.
Man in order to survive must have three things: 1. Reason. 2. Purpose. 3. Self-esteem.
In determining the tenants of what’s required for man’s survival can be termed as “Natural Rights”.
The Natural rights of man:
1. Freedom to think independently
2. Freedom to act upon those thoughts
3. Freedom to produce and to keep the rewards of one’s productive efforts
4. Freedom to pursue a rational purposeful life—the pursuit of one’s own happiness
All these are elements of action and of voluntary cooperation between men for the survival and the betterment of men.
For man to achieve these worthy virtues of action he needs truth. The recognition of reality is truth. To recognize independant reality man needs to reason. Reason is the ability to accurately integrate one’s intensional world with his extensional observations. The recognition of truth is the guiding factor for man’s ethical behavior. Truth cannot be compromised without very real consequences. And pragmatism is the antithesis of reason (more on Pragmatism later).
For example, here are some invariable truths as they apply to the political and economic realm:
· Capitalism is the only system which fully recognizes individual rights.
· Altruism and pragmatism is the worship of an alternative intensional realty that is inherently immoral and stands in opposition to the moral tenants of a purposeful life.
How can this be true you ask? Read on.
For those of you seeking objective truth in an independent reality you’ve come to the right place.
America proudly stands as the beacon of freedom that illuminates the darkness that surrounds those who worship false realities and the anti-life. An American unapologetically stands for freedom—freedom above order and freedom above safety.
The story of America is the story of bravery, adventure, hope, progress, and the pursuit of freedom and opportunity for every man, women, and child. America is a nation of opportunity but not one of guarantee. In America anyone, regardless of gender, race, or financial status, can succeed if they are willing to get an education, have a strong work ethic, and exercise good judgment in the choices they make. Although opportunity exists for everyone there can be no guarantee of prosperity without violating someone’s rights.
An American is someone who:
• He pursues life to the fullest, his purpose is to think and act for himself, and he finds joy in his own achievements.
• He seeks freedom and opportunity, not security.
• He is self-sustaining, not a kept citizen to be taken care of by society.
• He takes risks to succeed or to fail.
• He refuses to surrender his dignity for a handout.
• He prefers the challenges of life to guaranteed prosperity.
• He does not cower before any earthly master or threat.
The foundation of all just and moral rights is that which supports the right of man to own his own life.
“The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his own effort has no means to sustain his life. The man, who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.” Ayn Rand
When it comes to “rights”, Laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system that fully supports the individual rights of men.
This blog is a lexicon of extensional philosophy in the political and economic realm. It is the objective observation of the plight of man and the role society plays in the rational life of the individual.
What is the purpose of man? The ingredients to finding one’s purpose is through the ethical pursuit of one’s rational self-interests.
Man in order to survive must have three things: 1. Reason. 2. Purpose. 3. Self-esteem.
In determining the tenants of what’s required for man’s survival can be termed as “Natural Rights”.
The Natural rights of man:
1. Freedom to think independently
2. Freedom to act upon those thoughts
3. Freedom to produce and to keep the rewards of one’s productive efforts
4. Freedom to pursue a rational purposeful life—the pursuit of one’s own happiness
All these are elements of action and of voluntary cooperation between men for the survival and the betterment of men.
For man to achieve these worthy virtues of action he needs truth. The recognition of reality is truth. To recognize independant reality man needs to reason. Reason is the ability to accurately integrate one’s intensional world with his extensional observations. The recognition of truth is the guiding factor for man’s ethical behavior. Truth cannot be compromised without very real consequences. And pragmatism is the antithesis of reason (more on Pragmatism later).
For example, here are some invariable truths as they apply to the political and economic realm:
· Capitalism is the only system which fully recognizes individual rights.
· Altruism and pragmatism is the worship of an alternative intensional realty that is inherently immoral and stands in opposition to the moral tenants of a purposeful life.
How can this be true you ask? Read on.
For those of you seeking objective truth in an independent reality you’ve come to the right place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
