We have all heard the arguments against government “anointed” health care: The high unsustainable costs, the monopolies it will create, the special interest it will create, the lucrative contracts to favored constituencies it will create, the forfeiture of choice, the rationing, which ultimately leads to a total government takeover.
All are valid arguments; however, let’s not forget the most fundamental argument of all, which is: Health care is NOT a right.
A right is a moral sanction of mans actions. It says one’s actions are proper and good. Therefore to violate a man’s right is immoral and evil. The fundamental right, of which all others are corollaries, is the right to life. What this means in practical terms, is the right to live for one’s self not for the sake of others. The primary implementation of mans rights is to pursue a standard of living of one’s own choosing free from force or coercion. The only moral purpose of government, then, is to protect these rights. If government extends it powers beyond protecting these rights into the aggressive role of confiscating people’s wealth for the greater good of society, government becomes a tyrant plundering the people.
Any artificial right, such as the right to health care, destroys the real rights of people by forcing them to pay for the health care of those who cannot afford it. This is aggressive force to take one’s income and give it to another.
It is neither moral nor well intended to lay claim to the rewards of someone else’s productivity. It is vicious and predacious to demand a good or service without compensation, or to force someone else to pay for it. A right by its very nature makes no claim on someone else’s property or income, a right as our founders conceived it, only applies to the freedom of action not the compulsion of others. In other words these new rights, such as in the case of universal health care, which require the coercion of others cannot be a right. Such new rights are in fact immoral and evil.
What government health care—or any other form of government created publicly funded program that redistributes wealth or subsidizes one group at the expense of another—does, is it turns the productive in society into serfs of the state.
Showing posts with label Wealth Redistribution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wealth Redistribution. Show all posts
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Happy Independence Day
As I survey the crowds of flag waving 4th of July celebrators marveling at the grandiose displays of fireworks bursting above, I wonder, if they understand what it means to have individual rights.
I ask myself, do they realize the Boston Tea party was a protest against a government created monopoly? And if so, do they make the connection between then and what is happening today with our own government created monopolies; such as Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, education (K-12), and others?
Do they consider that the battles of Lexington and Concord began over the confiscation of privately owned firearms? Do they make the connection that today we have places in America where gun ownership is virtually prohibited while in others it is strictly limited?
Do these revelers really understand that we are less free and more heavily taxed than our ancestors under British rule?
Is this really a celebration of the American Revolution—the taking up of arms against one’s own tyrannical government…I wonder which side they would have been on—or is it just a celebration of cool flashy lights in the sky?
Happy Independence Day everybody.
I ask myself, do they realize the Boston Tea party was a protest against a government created monopoly? And if so, do they make the connection between then and what is happening today with our own government created monopolies; such as Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, education (K-12), and others?
Do they consider that the battles of Lexington and Concord began over the confiscation of privately owned firearms? Do they make the connection that today we have places in America where gun ownership is virtually prohibited while in others it is strictly limited?
Do these revelers really understand that we are less free and more heavily taxed than our ancestors under British rule?
Is this really a celebration of the American Revolution—the taking up of arms against one’s own tyrannical government…I wonder which side they would have been on—or is it just a celebration of cool flashy lights in the sky?
Happy Independence Day everybody.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The cost of Universal Healthcare
The proposed healthcare reform measure being touted by the Obama White House is a recipe for failure and the result will be a complete government takeover of healthcare. That will mean higher taxes, lower quality of care, larger deficits, and bureaucratic rationing.
Despite a weak economy and facing trillion dollar deficits Barrack Obama is hurrying to restructure the healthcare system at a cost of more than a trillion dollars. The chances of sweeping healthcare reform being enacted are high since a significant number of Americans have come to accept the belief that healthcare for everyone is a civil right. A recent Rasmussen poll shows 42% of Americans believe healthcare is a fundamental right.
According to the White House, the start up cost for this program is estimated to be a whopping $634 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the cost will be $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Further more the CBO reports 23 million Americans will loose their private healthcare plans.
Coming up with the money to pay for this entitlement program is proving to be problematic. As it stands the spending cuts praised by the Obama administration only account for $309 billion and his proposed tax increases will only raise $267 billion leaving a shortfall of $60 billion.
So far the Democrats have refused to tell us how they are going to pay for their health plan. What we do know about the plan is Obama’s intentions to increase taxes on businesses and the wealthy and hire 800 new IRS agents to go after offshore tax shelters.
Obama is also considering a plan that would tax the health benefits provided by private employers. This is the very thing Obama criticized John McCain for during the 2008 presidential campaign. If health insurance was taxed as regular income, the government could potentially collect an additional $250 billion a year. Those costs will be shouldered by everyone insured by their employer, provided employers continue to offer healthcare once the tax shelter is lifted.
One notorious pitfall of any government program is that the program always costs more than originally estimated. One reason is that slick politicians lowball the cost as a market strategy to get the measure past and because there are always hidden costs and unforeseen crisis that require more money to keep the program solvent.
Both Medicare and Medicaid cost significantly more than they were originally estimated by over $60 billion. Medicare will exceed the payroll tax by 2017. Medicare is already committed to paying $38 trillion over the next 75 years. Adding to those costs Obama’s nationalized health plan will run an additional $15 trillion.
Another example is President Bush’s massive $534 billion Prescription Drug Benefit Plan to Medicare. Current estimates now place that at $1.2 trillion by 2015. And that’s not all; the 75 year outlook places the added burden to Medicare at $4.4 trillion.
Nowhere to be found in any of these proposals is how to cover those future costs.
If Massachusetts State run healthcare model teaches us anything it is giving the government greater control over healthcare will result in burdensome consequences for taxpayers and healthcare consumers. The original cost estimate was $125 million. This price tag, however, has risen faster than originally predicted to an excess of $400 million in 2009 and will cost the state an estimated $869 million in 2010. Many recipients of the new Massachusetts health system find themselves without a physician because doctor’s offices aren’t taking new patients.
Politicians, in their vigor to promote entitlement spending, say they can do it all; cut taxes, reduce the deficit, and provide healthcare to everyone at a lower cost. History has shown this to be false. Something has to give; expect higher costs or less coverage. This will result in nothing less than lucrative government contracts financed by the tax payer.
Here we have another expensive federal program when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned even without this trillion dollar healthcare reform the ever increasing costs of current programs will soon affect interest rates, economic growth and financial stability. Government has shown us that cutting spending in any meaningful way is pure fantasy. Since it is difficult for politicians to relinquish any government program there are only two choices; raise taxes or borrow money further increasing the deficit.
Despite a weak economy and facing trillion dollar deficits Barrack Obama is hurrying to restructure the healthcare system at a cost of more than a trillion dollars. The chances of sweeping healthcare reform being enacted are high since a significant number of Americans have come to accept the belief that healthcare for everyone is a civil right. A recent Rasmussen poll shows 42% of Americans believe healthcare is a fundamental right.
According to the White House, the start up cost for this program is estimated to be a whopping $634 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the cost will be $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Further more the CBO reports 23 million Americans will loose their private healthcare plans.
Coming up with the money to pay for this entitlement program is proving to be problematic. As it stands the spending cuts praised by the Obama administration only account for $309 billion and his proposed tax increases will only raise $267 billion leaving a shortfall of $60 billion.
So far the Democrats have refused to tell us how they are going to pay for their health plan. What we do know about the plan is Obama’s intentions to increase taxes on businesses and the wealthy and hire 800 new IRS agents to go after offshore tax shelters.
Obama is also considering a plan that would tax the health benefits provided by private employers. This is the very thing Obama criticized John McCain for during the 2008 presidential campaign. If health insurance was taxed as regular income, the government could potentially collect an additional $250 billion a year. Those costs will be shouldered by everyone insured by their employer, provided employers continue to offer healthcare once the tax shelter is lifted.
One notorious pitfall of any government program is that the program always costs more than originally estimated. One reason is that slick politicians lowball the cost as a market strategy to get the measure past and because there are always hidden costs and unforeseen crisis that require more money to keep the program solvent.
Both Medicare and Medicaid cost significantly more than they were originally estimated by over $60 billion. Medicare will exceed the payroll tax by 2017. Medicare is already committed to paying $38 trillion over the next 75 years. Adding to those costs Obama’s nationalized health plan will run an additional $15 trillion.
Another example is President Bush’s massive $534 billion Prescription Drug Benefit Plan to Medicare. Current estimates now place that at $1.2 trillion by 2015. And that’s not all; the 75 year outlook places the added burden to Medicare at $4.4 trillion.
Nowhere to be found in any of these proposals is how to cover those future costs.
If Massachusetts State run healthcare model teaches us anything it is giving the government greater control over healthcare will result in burdensome consequences for taxpayers and healthcare consumers. The original cost estimate was $125 million. This price tag, however, has risen faster than originally predicted to an excess of $400 million in 2009 and will cost the state an estimated $869 million in 2010. Many recipients of the new Massachusetts health system find themselves without a physician because doctor’s offices aren’t taking new patients.
Politicians, in their vigor to promote entitlement spending, say they can do it all; cut taxes, reduce the deficit, and provide healthcare to everyone at a lower cost. History has shown this to be false. Something has to give; expect higher costs or less coverage. This will result in nothing less than lucrative government contracts financed by the tax payer.
Here we have another expensive federal program when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned even without this trillion dollar healthcare reform the ever increasing costs of current programs will soon affect interest rates, economic growth and financial stability. Government has shown us that cutting spending in any meaningful way is pure fantasy. Since it is difficult for politicians to relinquish any government program there are only two choices; raise taxes or borrow money further increasing the deficit.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Unholy Alliance
The assaults on freedom take on many forms and come from many directions. In our fight to remain a free people we must realize it isn’t only the altruists who worship at the altar of collectivism that we need to watch out for. It also comes in the form of vicarious entanglements between big business and government.
This unholy alliance between government and big business has wreaked havoc once again on the economy and instead of being exposed for what it is it goes largely unnoticed. Government in its outrage gives the corporate elites trillions in taxpayer money while hiding its culpability behind a veil of anti-business rhetoric and lip service.
Not everyone gets off so easily however. In an attempt to muddy the water and rescue union workers in the auto industry the government threatened non-tarp lenders resisting the sale of Chrysler with the full-force of the White House press corps to ruin their reputations. They were also threatened to have the IRS sicced on them and having the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through their books looking for anything and everything to destroy them with according to Thomas E. Lauria the lawyer representing the hedge funds. Faced with these sorts of threats, these funds submitted to the White House.
The fact is the treasury department is being run by boogieman Rahm Emmanuel who is infamous for being the attack dog for the Clinton Administration. It isn’t any secret that he wants the Treasury where he can finally wield omnipotent authority over the most untouchable dept. in the U.S. government.
Such outright thuggery by Obama’s henchmen is a sure and certain sign of our descent into “Fascism” or at least it certainly gives the appearance of a dictatorship—and in some ways it is.
Economic fascism takes on many forms and sooner or later one can be sure it will morph into political fascism or at least it is another pillar of support for political fascism.
America’s form of fascism is very advanced and complex it has been woven into the fabric of society through years of legislation and court rulings. It’s really an interwoven patchwork of laws, philosophies, and relationships and as such it would be difficult if not down right impossible to undo—at least completely. Normally fascism is when private industry owns the means of production but government dictates controls over them. In America it has taken on the face of unholy matrimony between government and business where both partners protect the interests of the other–for good or for bad.
What the corporate elites get out of the marriage is conditions favorable to them that bestow protection from competitors and allows them access to easy money and easy credit to make billions of dollars. This also allows for the creation of mega-corporations that are to big to fail.
Of course this isn’t always a synergetic symbiosis by any means because what is required by the corporate elites in return for this favoritism is an obligation to lend moral support—or at least keep silent—for legislation and policies that might not always seem business friendly. They must gratuitously give financial support for political campaigns and surrender tax dollars for financing massive government expansionism—In other words the big business elites are the catalyst for the political elites to gain and maintain POWER.
Do you ever wonder why corporations give so much money to political campaigns? Have you noticed they almost always give money to both parties? It is because no matter who wins the elections it is business as usual. Some of the most devout supporters of government intervention are some of the richest capitalist elites—Warren Buffett talking head for government bailouts and Obama’s stimulus plan as one example. And despite all the anti-capitalist rhetoric that has gone on for the past fifty or so years on Capital Hill nothing really ever changes.
Let me explain, the Federal Reserve is made up of a board of directors who come form investment banking, naturally they are going to give preferential treatment to the financial markets. Although the FED is not a government entity per se it is still the purveyor of government monetary policy. The FED has been infamously implicated with every boom and bust cycle since its inception. During the recession of the late 1920’s it was the FED’s mis-correction of the markets resulting in unrealistically high interest rates and withholding money from circulation combined with war debt from WWI, and corporate protectionism through tariffs that caused the Great Depression. The FEDs culpability in today’s crisis is by creating easy money by setting unrealistically low interest rates and putting to much money in circulation. These sorts of artificial manipulations distort market forces and create bigger boom cycles but also cause bigger bust cycles.
Everyone in the business world knows about these boom and bust cycles. They are a part of the everyday economic landscape. Traditionally the way the financial sector handles these booms and bust cycles is to get in on the boom make as much money as possible and try to predict when to get out before the bust. There will be a bust because the market has to correct itself. Usually these boom and bust cycles come and go fairly quickly without much harm being done. But every now and then artificial market manipulations combine with other aberrant and unforeseen forces to create a financial tsunami. But before it washes ashore engulfing everything in its path, the financial elite, with surfboards in tow, rush into the waters hoping to catch a ride on the big kahuna wave and cash in and get out before the wave breaks with catastrophic impact upon the rocks. In other words it is an all-out hit and run speed race to make billions in a short period of time risking everything if they don’t get out in time. That’s how it works—more or less. Sometimes they don’t get out of the way fast enough. Of course government acting as a life lifeguard, backed with what must seem to them as an endless supply of taxpayer dollars, is ready and obligated to bail them out.
All anyone has to do is to take a closer look at the connections between Wall Street and Washington to see that many folks in influential positions in Washington came from Wall Street or went to work for Wall Street making huge fortunes after they left the government.
For example, President Bush’s family made their fortune in oil; Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Halliburton. Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, later became the CEO for Citigroup’s executive committee, Henry Paulson was the CEO for Goldman Sachs before becoming the Secretary of Treasury under Georg Bush. And the list goes on. Many in Congress and the Whitehouse have made fortunes in capital ventures and other forms of business.
Barrack Obama, with all his talk of “change we can believe in” and hailing himself as the savior of the working class, hasn’t changed a thing. For all his talk it is the big business elites who are getting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Of course John McCain would have done the same thing as did Bush with his TARP funds. This is why this is a non-partisan problem—after all freedom is in everyone’s best interest, right?
The question one needs to ask himself for a clearer view of things is who is benefited from government bailouts and stimulus bills Big Business or the taxpayer?
Perhaps one of the most damaging thing this unholy union does is it creates a misaligned view of capitalism which fosters fear of exploitation and anti-free market sentiments. This fear or mistrust of capitalism is the exact impetus that allows such an alliance to persist. Of course the economic model we have today is NOT capitalism. Under capitalism businesses are at the mercy of market forces that keep things streamlined and in order. Disorder brings chaos which brings more streamlining and integrity. In its current form there can be no integrity. True capitalism breeds competition, fairness in the marketplace, integrity, opportunity, choice, quality, and freedom. The mega corporations could have never grown so large that they couldn’t fail if it weren’t for government intervention.
What all the bailouts and stimulus packages really amounts to is just another wealth redistribution scheme only this time instead of taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, worse, it takes money from every taxpayer—in fact, generations of taxpayers—and redistributes it to the corporate elites. Now tell me government and business is not in bed together. Whether you call it economic fascism or a mixed economy or whatever, what it really boils down to is a pseudo–uncapitalist economy run by a handful of corporate and political elites.
Change we can believe in would be a divorce between government and big business—and other special interest elites too. We need to allow the free market to be free from the corruptive influences of this unholy marriage. This would allow the market forces to police corrupt corporations—in other words let the company, who’s CEO and Board of Directors who make bad decisions, fail and investors who throw money into risky ventures that artificial prop up values, that cause bubbles, die by the sword. In the end there will be less of a tendency towards fascism, better business models, less risk, more choices of products and services, better products at lower prices, more jobs, more opportunity for the creative entrepreneur, and fewer and less severe booms and busts.
This unholy alliance between government and big business has wreaked havoc once again on the economy and instead of being exposed for what it is it goes largely unnoticed. Government in its outrage gives the corporate elites trillions in taxpayer money while hiding its culpability behind a veil of anti-business rhetoric and lip service.
Not everyone gets off so easily however. In an attempt to muddy the water and rescue union workers in the auto industry the government threatened non-tarp lenders resisting the sale of Chrysler with the full-force of the White House press corps to ruin their reputations. They were also threatened to have the IRS sicced on them and having the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through their books looking for anything and everything to destroy them with according to Thomas E. Lauria the lawyer representing the hedge funds. Faced with these sorts of threats, these funds submitted to the White House.
The fact is the treasury department is being run by boogieman Rahm Emmanuel who is infamous for being the attack dog for the Clinton Administration. It isn’t any secret that he wants the Treasury where he can finally wield omnipotent authority over the most untouchable dept. in the U.S. government.
Such outright thuggery by Obama’s henchmen is a sure and certain sign of our descent into “Fascism” or at least it certainly gives the appearance of a dictatorship—and in some ways it is.
Economic fascism takes on many forms and sooner or later one can be sure it will morph into political fascism or at least it is another pillar of support for political fascism.
America’s form of fascism is very advanced and complex it has been woven into the fabric of society through years of legislation and court rulings. It’s really an interwoven patchwork of laws, philosophies, and relationships and as such it would be difficult if not down right impossible to undo—at least completely. Normally fascism is when private industry owns the means of production but government dictates controls over them. In America it has taken on the face of unholy matrimony between government and business where both partners protect the interests of the other–for good or for bad.
What the corporate elites get out of the marriage is conditions favorable to them that bestow protection from competitors and allows them access to easy money and easy credit to make billions of dollars. This also allows for the creation of mega-corporations that are to big to fail.
Of course this isn’t always a synergetic symbiosis by any means because what is required by the corporate elites in return for this favoritism is an obligation to lend moral support—or at least keep silent—for legislation and policies that might not always seem business friendly. They must gratuitously give financial support for political campaigns and surrender tax dollars for financing massive government expansionism—In other words the big business elites are the catalyst for the political elites to gain and maintain POWER.
Do you ever wonder why corporations give so much money to political campaigns? Have you noticed they almost always give money to both parties? It is because no matter who wins the elections it is business as usual. Some of the most devout supporters of government intervention are some of the richest capitalist elites—Warren Buffett talking head for government bailouts and Obama’s stimulus plan as one example. And despite all the anti-capitalist rhetoric that has gone on for the past fifty or so years on Capital Hill nothing really ever changes.
Let me explain, the Federal Reserve is made up of a board of directors who come form investment banking, naturally they are going to give preferential treatment to the financial markets. Although the FED is not a government entity per se it is still the purveyor of government monetary policy. The FED has been infamously implicated with every boom and bust cycle since its inception. During the recession of the late 1920’s it was the FED’s mis-correction of the markets resulting in unrealistically high interest rates and withholding money from circulation combined with war debt from WWI, and corporate protectionism through tariffs that caused the Great Depression. The FEDs culpability in today’s crisis is by creating easy money by setting unrealistically low interest rates and putting to much money in circulation. These sorts of artificial manipulations distort market forces and create bigger boom cycles but also cause bigger bust cycles.
Everyone in the business world knows about these boom and bust cycles. They are a part of the everyday economic landscape. Traditionally the way the financial sector handles these booms and bust cycles is to get in on the boom make as much money as possible and try to predict when to get out before the bust. There will be a bust because the market has to correct itself. Usually these boom and bust cycles come and go fairly quickly without much harm being done. But every now and then artificial market manipulations combine with other aberrant and unforeseen forces to create a financial tsunami. But before it washes ashore engulfing everything in its path, the financial elite, with surfboards in tow, rush into the waters hoping to catch a ride on the big kahuna wave and cash in and get out before the wave breaks with catastrophic impact upon the rocks. In other words it is an all-out hit and run speed race to make billions in a short period of time risking everything if they don’t get out in time. That’s how it works—more or less. Sometimes they don’t get out of the way fast enough. Of course government acting as a life lifeguard, backed with what must seem to them as an endless supply of taxpayer dollars, is ready and obligated to bail them out.
All anyone has to do is to take a closer look at the connections between Wall Street and Washington to see that many folks in influential positions in Washington came from Wall Street or went to work for Wall Street making huge fortunes after they left the government.
For example, President Bush’s family made their fortune in oil; Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Halliburton. Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, later became the CEO for Citigroup’s executive committee, Henry Paulson was the CEO for Goldman Sachs before becoming the Secretary of Treasury under Georg Bush. And the list goes on. Many in Congress and the Whitehouse have made fortunes in capital ventures and other forms of business.
Barrack Obama, with all his talk of “change we can believe in” and hailing himself as the savior of the working class, hasn’t changed a thing. For all his talk it is the big business elites who are getting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Of course John McCain would have done the same thing as did Bush with his TARP funds. This is why this is a non-partisan problem—after all freedom is in everyone’s best interest, right?
The question one needs to ask himself for a clearer view of things is who is benefited from government bailouts and stimulus bills Big Business or the taxpayer?
Perhaps one of the most damaging thing this unholy union does is it creates a misaligned view of capitalism which fosters fear of exploitation and anti-free market sentiments. This fear or mistrust of capitalism is the exact impetus that allows such an alliance to persist. Of course the economic model we have today is NOT capitalism. Under capitalism businesses are at the mercy of market forces that keep things streamlined and in order. Disorder brings chaos which brings more streamlining and integrity. In its current form there can be no integrity. True capitalism breeds competition, fairness in the marketplace, integrity, opportunity, choice, quality, and freedom. The mega corporations could have never grown so large that they couldn’t fail if it weren’t for government intervention.
What all the bailouts and stimulus packages really amounts to is just another wealth redistribution scheme only this time instead of taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, worse, it takes money from every taxpayer—in fact, generations of taxpayers—and redistributes it to the corporate elites. Now tell me government and business is not in bed together. Whether you call it economic fascism or a mixed economy or whatever, what it really boils down to is a pseudo–uncapitalist economy run by a handful of corporate and political elites.
Change we can believe in would be a divorce between government and big business—and other special interest elites too. We need to allow the free market to be free from the corruptive influences of this unholy marriage. This would allow the market forces to police corrupt corporations—in other words let the company, who’s CEO and Board of Directors who make bad decisions, fail and investors who throw money into risky ventures that artificial prop up values, that cause bubbles, die by the sword. In the end there will be less of a tendency towards fascism, better business models, less risk, more choices of products and services, better products at lower prices, more jobs, more opportunity for the creative entrepreneur, and fewer and less severe booms and busts.
The Road to Fascism
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So it would seem the road to fascism is also paved with good intentions.
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Friday, May 1, 2009
Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting Part 2
Today, the conservative philosophy of individualism, personal responsibility, and limited government spending is being touted as racist, even being compared by some as tantamount to Neo Nazism. Of course conservatism is about free markets, individual freedom, and limited government and Nazism is about political and economic totalitarianism which are complete polar opposites.
In "Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting" (Part 1) I discussed how important the Republicans were to the civil rights movement and how over inflated the democrats role has been portrayed. In this installment I will show how a political shift occurred in black political affiliations.
Prior to the 1930’s blacks were predominately Republicans, however, today 90-95% of blacks vote Democrat. What brought about this paradigm shift in political ideology?
Patronage!
During the Great Depression FDR sponsored a barrage of massive spending projects. Some of these were programs such as the AAA, FERA, CCC, and the gargantuan WPA, which provided government jobs for millions of people who were out of work... But these jobs became a tool for silencing opposition to New Deal programs as well as for targeting large blocks of voters.
It was James Farley—chairman of the DNC and Postmaster General—along with Emil Hurja—deputy director of the DNC—job to mine data on the political effects of “Patronage” and exploit it for political purposes. The results were stunning, one news article in the Chicago Tribune reported, “When such vast streams of federal moneys are flowing over a land it is probably beyond human nature to give a sincere opinion on broader issues…” and likened it to “…It is Santa Claus with his pack that has been endorsed rather than any definite program of recovery or reform.” Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party, made a particularly interesting observation when he commented, “One doesn’t shoot Santa Claus.” In fact it was so effective, for example, in one black neighborhood in Chicago, which was 90% Republican, turned 95% democrat virtually over night. Similarly, the same affect played out across the country especially in larger urban areas. One could easily conclude that these “New Deal” policies were used to take advantage of susceptible populations giving them government subsidies in exchange for votes.
Today federal money is still being used for political gain by those who wish to gain and stay in power and by those who wish to keep them in power. Although, the programs differ somewhat form FDR’s day they are still used in the same way and paid for by taxes. In other words “patronage” is still being carried out today under the guise of various wealth redistribution programs.
So the liberal argument goes that any threat to the redistributive powers of government is an attack on the disadvantaged: the elderly, the children, the environment, and the poor who are largely ethnic minorities. The liberal logic here is anyone who would dare propose stemming the tide of government money poring over the land, despite the harm it does to property rights and individual liberties, must be selfish and racist.
What this emotional argument says is that man is a sacrificial animal whose material well being is all important—i.e. welfare, government jobs, free education, free healthcare, etc—man’s private property and freedom is strictly secondary. The altruist and those seeking to take political advantage of this philosophy rely heavily upon government spending which lends itself to coercive infringements upon the tax payer. When the tax payer complains a heavy dose of social ridicule and scorn is then applied to alienate and shame him into silence as we have seen time after time especially against the most productive in society, and most recently leveled against the “Tea Party” supporters by liberal media commentators and people like Jeanine Garofalo. So, although standing up for the moral principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and limited government has nothing whatsoever to do with being mean, selfish, or a racist, that is what the left whishes it to be, so that is the self-made alter-reality they’ve created and continue to proselytize in hopes to legitimize their false reality.
In "Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting" (Part 1) I discussed how important the Republicans were to the civil rights movement and how over inflated the democrats role has been portrayed. In this installment I will show how a political shift occurred in black political affiliations.
Prior to the 1930’s blacks were predominately Republicans, however, today 90-95% of blacks vote Democrat. What brought about this paradigm shift in political ideology?
Patronage!
During the Great Depression FDR sponsored a barrage of massive spending projects. Some of these were programs such as the AAA, FERA, CCC, and the gargantuan WPA, which provided government jobs for millions of people who were out of work... But these jobs became a tool for silencing opposition to New Deal programs as well as for targeting large blocks of voters.
It was James Farley—chairman of the DNC and Postmaster General—along with Emil Hurja—deputy director of the DNC—job to mine data on the political effects of “Patronage” and exploit it for political purposes. The results were stunning, one news article in the Chicago Tribune reported, “When such vast streams of federal moneys are flowing over a land it is probably beyond human nature to give a sincere opinion on broader issues…” and likened it to “…It is Santa Claus with his pack that has been endorsed rather than any definite program of recovery or reform.” Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party, made a particularly interesting observation when he commented, “One doesn’t shoot Santa Claus.” In fact it was so effective, for example, in one black neighborhood in Chicago, which was 90% Republican, turned 95% democrat virtually over night. Similarly, the same affect played out across the country especially in larger urban areas. One could easily conclude that these “New Deal” policies were used to take advantage of susceptible populations giving them government subsidies in exchange for votes.
Today federal money is still being used for political gain by those who wish to gain and stay in power and by those who wish to keep them in power. Although, the programs differ somewhat form FDR’s day they are still used in the same way and paid for by taxes. In other words “patronage” is still being carried out today under the guise of various wealth redistribution programs.
So the liberal argument goes that any threat to the redistributive powers of government is an attack on the disadvantaged: the elderly, the children, the environment, and the poor who are largely ethnic minorities. The liberal logic here is anyone who would dare propose stemming the tide of government money poring over the land, despite the harm it does to property rights and individual liberties, must be selfish and racist.
What this emotional argument says is that man is a sacrificial animal whose material well being is all important—i.e. welfare, government jobs, free education, free healthcare, etc—man’s private property and freedom is strictly secondary. The altruist and those seeking to take political advantage of this philosophy rely heavily upon government spending which lends itself to coercive infringements upon the tax payer. When the tax payer complains a heavy dose of social ridicule and scorn is then applied to alienate and shame him into silence as we have seen time after time especially against the most productive in society, and most recently leveled against the “Tea Party” supporters by liberal media commentators and people like Jeanine Garofalo. So, although standing up for the moral principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and limited government has nothing whatsoever to do with being mean, selfish, or a racist, that is what the left whishes it to be, so that is the self-made alter-reality they’ve created and continue to proselytize in hopes to legitimize their false reality.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Kool-aid drinkers attack Tea Drinkers
It is the epitome of pathetic when people standing up for the moral principles of fiscal restraint are called racist pathological teabaggers suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Obama kool-aid drinkers stay true to their leftist colors and worship of pragmatism as Janine Garofalo of SNL fame and liberal poster child Keith Oberman make fun of the Tea Partys taking place across the country proving just what kind of character they have resorting to arguments of intimidation and revisionism when the facts are against them.
According to Ms. Garofalo anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist and conservatives don’t understand what the Boston Tea party was all about. One has to wonder what her version of it is.
It’s appalling that the race card is pulled at the drop of a hat. Where is the line drawn when any disagreement of the Obama’s policies is considered racism? This is further proof of what the left will resort too to inimadate and persecute their enemies to promote their immoral agendas.
Punch drinker CNN’s Anderson Cooper threw in his .02, concurring with Keith Oberman, calling tea party goers ‘teabaggers.” He described the tea parties themselves as "full-throated" and "toothless," he continues with his entendra: "They want to give Presiden Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending."
"Teabagging" for those who don't know, refers to a sexual act involving a part of the male genitalia and another person's face or mouth.
Obama kool-aid drinkers stay true to their leftist colors and worship of pragmatism as Janine Garofalo of SNL fame and liberal poster child Keith Oberman make fun of the Tea Partys taking place across the country proving just what kind of character they have resorting to arguments of intimidation and revisionism when the facts are against them.
According to Ms. Garofalo anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist and conservatives don’t understand what the Boston Tea party was all about. One has to wonder what her version of it is.
It’s appalling that the race card is pulled at the drop of a hat. Where is the line drawn when any disagreement of the Obama’s policies is considered racism? This is further proof of what the left will resort too to inimadate and persecute their enemies to promote their immoral agendas.
Punch drinker CNN’s Anderson Cooper threw in his .02, concurring with Keith Oberman, calling tea party goers ‘teabaggers.” He described the tea parties themselves as "full-throated" and "toothless," he continues with his entendra: "They want to give Presiden Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending."
"Teabagging" for those who don't know, refers to a sexual act involving a part of the male genitalia and another person's face or mouth.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Immorality of Big Government
Every one of us should take to heart what they believe and why they believe it and they should know how to defend what those beliefs are intelligently.
Whenever we are confronted by a particular philosophy or behavior or policy the morality of the position should be validated by comparison of the contents to the facts of reality. The first question you should ask yourself is does it have value in the real world? Using real world criteria is important because consequences, intended and unintended, are very real. Decisions based on emotionalism or on what one wishes as an outcome without deriving their conclusions based on facts, logic, and from antecedent knowledge are likely doomed scenarios. These scenarios often explode out of control when faced with independent reality and can come with costly unintended consequences.
In order to judge a moral philosophy from an immoral one, start by asking yourself is there value and why do I need it? A “value” is something that one acts to gain or keep. This value is both desirable and ethical and it is solely based on action. The process of obtaining the value is called virtue. In order for something to be valuable it must be virtuous meaning it takes rational action to gain it or keep it. It must advance the conditions needed for mans survival. Man’s survival isn’t just the perpetuation of the species but the perpetuation of man living a rational life as a sovereign being.
Let’s put this into context. Start with the simplest premise of man’s survival, which is freedom. In order to preserve freedom man must first define what it is and how it is implemented.
Freedom is best expressed as the freedom to think independently and act rationally on those thoughts. Freedom is implemented through property rights—property is the fruit of one’s labor, wealth is property. The cornerstone of freedom is laissez-faire ownership of the fruits of one’s own productive efforts. From this one can judge the morality of any philosophy whether altruistic in nature i.e. centralized government, socialized medicine, the welfare state, or any other philosophy big or small, liberal or conservative, authoritarian or anarchist.
Armed with this knowledge you can defend your beliefs from a position of moral superiority. From here it is just a matter of expanding your knowledge on the various subjects.
Freedom is delicate and many people don’t realize how many freedoms they have already lost, how many encroachments there have been upon their property rights. In order to maintain freedom government must be kept to its proper role.
The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce. And the biggest threat comes from a concentration of centralized power. The immoralists dedicated to the proliferation of their immoral agenda would rather see power centralized in one location, for example, power at the state level rather than at the municipal level. They prefer to see centralized power at the federal level than at the state level. This allows them to control legislation that they deem necessary for the benefit of the public rather that be a transfer of money from the rich to the poor or from the private sector to the government. Concentrated power in one central location, in this case Washington, opposes a society dedicated to freedom.
I have already blogged on the proper role of government so I’ll only briefly describe the tenants of a moral government here which is to protect man from the coercion of other men. To do this government has a moral obligation to provide national defense against foreign enemies and to provide domestic law enforcement to protect men from criminals. They also have the moral obligation to protect the sanctity of contracts between men from unlawful breeches by force or fraud. To these ends does government protect man’s life and his sovereignty?
Freedom isn’t always safe because freedom cannot guarantee success it can only provide the opportunities and incentives. Freedom comes with risks, it doesn’t only provide the opportunities to succeed but it is also the freedom to fail. For this reason some people oppose freedom preferring safety afforded by a paternal government instead.
It is often necessary to change a definition of a term to make an immoral idea seem innocuous or even favorable to further the agenda. Be watchful for changes in nomenclature and catch phrases like “fairness”. Remember “fairness” implemented as an anti-discriminatory credit practice for low income borrowers was a major contributor to the housing crisis. Forcing lenders to put low income applicants with poor credit histories on the same level playing field as a high income earner with good credit in the name of equality had devastating consequences in the real world…Just one example (among many) of the unintended consequences of an irrational feel good idea.
Proponents of immoral authoritarian philosophies will also use subversive tactics to play upon one’s emotions, often using children or some other disadvantaged group to parley their message of why we need more government involvement—a concentration of power. In this example welfare and equality is the end that justifies any means necessary. Welfare and equality has become an alternative to freedom taking government out of the “moral” role of protecting people’s rights placing it into the aggressive role where the government partners with special interests to take things away form one group of people and give it to another.
When someone complains about this practice the immoralists use the argument by intimidation calling their opponents names such as “mean spirited” or “arrogant”, and other names to socially persecute and shame their detractors into silence. They use carefully crafted propaganda to promote their agenda and the legislative powers of government to force compliance.
Another deception is this misnomer that government can create wealth. The fact is government cannot create wealth. The government can give people jobs but those jobs are paid for by taxing people. These government created jobs destroy other jobs because if those people weren’t taxed, they would have spent or invested their money somewhere else. This spending and investing would help create new companies and help other companies to expand which would create new jobs and along with it wealth for a greater portion of society not just a few select people who receive government handouts at the expense of the tax payer. This is a prime example of how society is far better served by the private sector.
Another common ploy used by proponents of immoral philosophies against the free market is to decry the deplorable working conditions in the factories during the early stages of the industrial revolution as a critique against capitalism and an argument for regulation. Of course what isn’t mentioned is the higher standards of living made possible by those jobs. Why else would people abandon their meager living scratching at the dirt on rural farms and move to the cities to work in the factories? No one forced these folks to leave their farms and rural communities to seek work in the factories it was voluntary and they did so to improve their personal conditions. Still, compared to today’s standards those conditions were certainly poor, but the people who worked in those jobs were happy to have them and the conditions they worked under were certainly a step up from what they had previously.
Does capitalism support better working conditions? Free unfettered competition certainly does. As companies compete for the best and brightest and most productive workers salaries increase, bonuses and benefits increase and so do improvements in working conditions.
An example of this can bee seen today in underdeveloped countries where there is little regulation yet free trade has brought improvements to the standards of living for many people who profit form these factories moving to their shores. An immoralist might complain that the wage is too small putting a terrible burden on the worker ignoring that that same worker may have been jobless before or only made half of what he makes now. These higher wages have allowed parents to afford to send their kids to school which has effectually decreased child labor and increased the standards of living. In fact it has led to less human rights violations, not more, as the immoralists have argued.
Another deception is that laissez-faire capitalism is the cause of monopolies. It is government through anti-trust laws and subsidies that create monopolies, mediocrity, and higher costs for many goods and services. For example, the central pillar of our health care system, the “tax-subsidized, employer-based health care” where choice has all but been eliminated. Regulations by an over-centralized bureaucracy wrought with widespread inefficiency continue to destroy incentive, quality, innovation, and market power which limit the options available to the consumer and strips consumers of their power to negotiate individual plans or a la carte at lower prices.
What it really boils down too is that when government subsidizes an industry—or a group of people—besides creating a special interest, it completely disrupts the normal free market relationships between buyers and sellers of services. When that happens, accountability to the consumer is lost, quality suffers, and prices spin out of control.
The fundamental edict underlying every argument for governmental controls over what would otherwise be the free market is the lack of belief in freedom. Movement towards centralized control of economic activity is the road to becoming kept citizens because the free market acts as a buffer between political power and economic freedom. All these factors combine to chip away at the public’s confidence in the free markets opening the door even further to allow in political and economic totalitarianism.
Consider another false argument which is it’s the government’s responsibility to protect the poor from the rich.
I ask you, can Donald Trump come to your home and take your car? Can he force you to stay at one of his hotels? Can he confiscate a portion of your income against your will?
If you want Mr. Trump to provide you a service you have to pay him, and if he wants a service from you, he must pay you. He has no more power to take from you as you have to take from him without a mutual agreement. The same can be said about any rich businessman or industrialist.
Many of these tiresome arguments against capitalism and assaults on the wealthy are emotional arguments steeped in fear rather than on the facts of reality. As for pitting one group against another group such as the poor against the rich the constitution does not favor one over the other. Both the rich and the poor have the same constitutional protections. In other words a rich person has every right to his large estate as a poor person has a right to his small estate.
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
~~ Thomas Jefferson ~~ (1743–1826)
Today many in our society assume that, in a democracy, the party that wins the majority can vote themselves what ever they want, for example, free health care. Does the majority have the right to confiscate the incomes of the wealthy (or middle class for that matter) to give themselves relief? This is a perfect example of the majority oppressing the minority. Our constitutional government was set up precisely so this doesn’t happen. To advance the immoral philosophy of wealth redistribution is to destroy the very essence of property rights and stands in utter opposition to our constitutional republic fulfilling the words of Benjamin Franklin when he was asked after the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, “What form of government did you give us?” “A republic if you can keep it.”
Let me interject just one more thought: If you think the rich greedy capitalists prey upon the poor, what about the government? Excise taxes are disproportionately paid by the poor.
The bottom line in all this is there are only two means of human interaction, reason (moral) and force (immoral). Immoral power comes from compelling someone, through the use of force, to act against their will. If someone forces you to do something against your will it is a violation of your rights and is punishable by law. However, the immoralists have collectively banded together to get around the law by centralizing power and electing politicians who promise to force others (often targeting select groups of people) against their will to provide prosperity to the rest.
Government is the only authorized institution that can use force to make people act against their will. That is why the immoralists rely so much on government. The corollary is the more reliant people become on government the bigger and more powerful, more immoral, and forceful government becomes which inevitably leads to the destruction of the conditions necessary for mans survival as a rational sovereign being.
I guess you really can’t have your cake and eat it to. You can’t have concentrated central planning controlling everything from the financial markets to massive spending on a plethora of social programs and have freedom too. Throughout the history of the world these two concepts have proven to be incapable.
So the next time you hear someone advocating for bigger government or favoring more government spending, more government regulation, nationalizing banks, socializing medicine, or anytime you see government employing coercion against one person or group to provide something for another person or group (wealth redistribution) you can confidently identify these fallacious principles as immoral and call it what it is.
Whenever we are confronted by a particular philosophy or behavior or policy the morality of the position should be validated by comparison of the contents to the facts of reality. The first question you should ask yourself is does it have value in the real world? Using real world criteria is important because consequences, intended and unintended, are very real. Decisions based on emotionalism or on what one wishes as an outcome without deriving their conclusions based on facts, logic, and from antecedent knowledge are likely doomed scenarios. These scenarios often explode out of control when faced with independent reality and can come with costly unintended consequences.
In order to judge a moral philosophy from an immoral one, start by asking yourself is there value and why do I need it? A “value” is something that one acts to gain or keep. This value is both desirable and ethical and it is solely based on action. The process of obtaining the value is called virtue. In order for something to be valuable it must be virtuous meaning it takes rational action to gain it or keep it. It must advance the conditions needed for mans survival. Man’s survival isn’t just the perpetuation of the species but the perpetuation of man living a rational life as a sovereign being.
Let’s put this into context. Start with the simplest premise of man’s survival, which is freedom. In order to preserve freedom man must first define what it is and how it is implemented.
Freedom is best expressed as the freedom to think independently and act rationally on those thoughts. Freedom is implemented through property rights—property is the fruit of one’s labor, wealth is property. The cornerstone of freedom is laissez-faire ownership of the fruits of one’s own productive efforts. From this one can judge the morality of any philosophy whether altruistic in nature i.e. centralized government, socialized medicine, the welfare state, or any other philosophy big or small, liberal or conservative, authoritarian or anarchist.
Armed with this knowledge you can defend your beliefs from a position of moral superiority. From here it is just a matter of expanding your knowledge on the various subjects.
Freedom is delicate and many people don’t realize how many freedoms they have already lost, how many encroachments there have been upon their property rights. In order to maintain freedom government must be kept to its proper role.
The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce. And the biggest threat comes from a concentration of centralized power. The immoralists dedicated to the proliferation of their immoral agenda would rather see power centralized in one location, for example, power at the state level rather than at the municipal level. They prefer to see centralized power at the federal level than at the state level. This allows them to control legislation that they deem necessary for the benefit of the public rather that be a transfer of money from the rich to the poor or from the private sector to the government. Concentrated power in one central location, in this case Washington, opposes a society dedicated to freedom.
I have already blogged on the proper role of government so I’ll only briefly describe the tenants of a moral government here which is to protect man from the coercion of other men. To do this government has a moral obligation to provide national defense against foreign enemies and to provide domestic law enforcement to protect men from criminals. They also have the moral obligation to protect the sanctity of contracts between men from unlawful breeches by force or fraud. To these ends does government protect man’s life and his sovereignty?
Freedom isn’t always safe because freedom cannot guarantee success it can only provide the opportunities and incentives. Freedom comes with risks, it doesn’t only provide the opportunities to succeed but it is also the freedom to fail. For this reason some people oppose freedom preferring safety afforded by a paternal government instead.
It is often necessary to change a definition of a term to make an immoral idea seem innocuous or even favorable to further the agenda. Be watchful for changes in nomenclature and catch phrases like “fairness”. Remember “fairness” implemented as an anti-discriminatory credit practice for low income borrowers was a major contributor to the housing crisis. Forcing lenders to put low income applicants with poor credit histories on the same level playing field as a high income earner with good credit in the name of equality had devastating consequences in the real world…Just one example (among many) of the unintended consequences of an irrational feel good idea.
Proponents of immoral authoritarian philosophies will also use subversive tactics to play upon one’s emotions, often using children or some other disadvantaged group to parley their message of why we need more government involvement—a concentration of power. In this example welfare and equality is the end that justifies any means necessary. Welfare and equality has become an alternative to freedom taking government out of the “moral” role of protecting people’s rights placing it into the aggressive role where the government partners with special interests to take things away form one group of people and give it to another.
When someone complains about this practice the immoralists use the argument by intimidation calling their opponents names such as “mean spirited” or “arrogant”, and other names to socially persecute and shame their detractors into silence. They use carefully crafted propaganda to promote their agenda and the legislative powers of government to force compliance.
Another deception is this misnomer that government can create wealth. The fact is government cannot create wealth. The government can give people jobs but those jobs are paid for by taxing people. These government created jobs destroy other jobs because if those people weren’t taxed, they would have spent or invested their money somewhere else. This spending and investing would help create new companies and help other companies to expand which would create new jobs and along with it wealth for a greater portion of society not just a few select people who receive government handouts at the expense of the tax payer. This is a prime example of how society is far better served by the private sector.
Another common ploy used by proponents of immoral philosophies against the free market is to decry the deplorable working conditions in the factories during the early stages of the industrial revolution as a critique against capitalism and an argument for regulation. Of course what isn’t mentioned is the higher standards of living made possible by those jobs. Why else would people abandon their meager living scratching at the dirt on rural farms and move to the cities to work in the factories? No one forced these folks to leave their farms and rural communities to seek work in the factories it was voluntary and they did so to improve their personal conditions. Still, compared to today’s standards those conditions were certainly poor, but the people who worked in those jobs were happy to have them and the conditions they worked under were certainly a step up from what they had previously.
Does capitalism support better working conditions? Free unfettered competition certainly does. As companies compete for the best and brightest and most productive workers salaries increase, bonuses and benefits increase and so do improvements in working conditions.
An example of this can bee seen today in underdeveloped countries where there is little regulation yet free trade has brought improvements to the standards of living for many people who profit form these factories moving to their shores. An immoralist might complain that the wage is too small putting a terrible burden on the worker ignoring that that same worker may have been jobless before or only made half of what he makes now. These higher wages have allowed parents to afford to send their kids to school which has effectually decreased child labor and increased the standards of living. In fact it has led to less human rights violations, not more, as the immoralists have argued.
Another deception is that laissez-faire capitalism is the cause of monopolies. It is government through anti-trust laws and subsidies that create monopolies, mediocrity, and higher costs for many goods and services. For example, the central pillar of our health care system, the “tax-subsidized, employer-based health care” where choice has all but been eliminated. Regulations by an over-centralized bureaucracy wrought with widespread inefficiency continue to destroy incentive, quality, innovation, and market power which limit the options available to the consumer and strips consumers of their power to negotiate individual plans or a la carte at lower prices.
What it really boils down too is that when government subsidizes an industry—or a group of people—besides creating a special interest, it completely disrupts the normal free market relationships between buyers and sellers of services. When that happens, accountability to the consumer is lost, quality suffers, and prices spin out of control.
The fundamental edict underlying every argument for governmental controls over what would otherwise be the free market is the lack of belief in freedom. Movement towards centralized control of economic activity is the road to becoming kept citizens because the free market acts as a buffer between political power and economic freedom. All these factors combine to chip away at the public’s confidence in the free markets opening the door even further to allow in political and economic totalitarianism.
Consider another false argument which is it’s the government’s responsibility to protect the poor from the rich.
I ask you, can Donald Trump come to your home and take your car? Can he force you to stay at one of his hotels? Can he confiscate a portion of your income against your will?
If you want Mr. Trump to provide you a service you have to pay him, and if he wants a service from you, he must pay you. He has no more power to take from you as you have to take from him without a mutual agreement. The same can be said about any rich businessman or industrialist.
Many of these tiresome arguments against capitalism and assaults on the wealthy are emotional arguments steeped in fear rather than on the facts of reality. As for pitting one group against another group such as the poor against the rich the constitution does not favor one over the other. Both the rich and the poor have the same constitutional protections. In other words a rich person has every right to his large estate as a poor person has a right to his small estate.
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
~~ Thomas Jefferson ~~ (1743–1826)
Today many in our society assume that, in a democracy, the party that wins the majority can vote themselves what ever they want, for example, free health care. Does the majority have the right to confiscate the incomes of the wealthy (or middle class for that matter) to give themselves relief? This is a perfect example of the majority oppressing the minority. Our constitutional government was set up precisely so this doesn’t happen. To advance the immoral philosophy of wealth redistribution is to destroy the very essence of property rights and stands in utter opposition to our constitutional republic fulfilling the words of Benjamin Franklin when he was asked after the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, “What form of government did you give us?” “A republic if you can keep it.”
Let me interject just one more thought: If you think the rich greedy capitalists prey upon the poor, what about the government? Excise taxes are disproportionately paid by the poor.
The bottom line in all this is there are only two means of human interaction, reason (moral) and force (immoral). Immoral power comes from compelling someone, through the use of force, to act against their will. If someone forces you to do something against your will it is a violation of your rights and is punishable by law. However, the immoralists have collectively banded together to get around the law by centralizing power and electing politicians who promise to force others (often targeting select groups of people) against their will to provide prosperity to the rest.
Government is the only authorized institution that can use force to make people act against their will. That is why the immoralists rely so much on government. The corollary is the more reliant people become on government the bigger and more powerful, more immoral, and forceful government becomes which inevitably leads to the destruction of the conditions necessary for mans survival as a rational sovereign being.
I guess you really can’t have your cake and eat it to. You can’t have concentrated central planning controlling everything from the financial markets to massive spending on a plethora of social programs and have freedom too. Throughout the history of the world these two concepts have proven to be incapable.
So the next time you hear someone advocating for bigger government or favoring more government spending, more government regulation, nationalizing banks, socializing medicine, or anytime you see government employing coercion against one person or group to provide something for another person or group (wealth redistribution) you can confidently identify these fallacious principles as immoral and call it what it is.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Wealth Redistribution Part Three: The Original American Model
Aristotle warned, “If the majority distributes among itself the things of the minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city.”
The founders shared this view as well, which is democracy is inherently “incompatible with personal security and the rights of property.” What the founders understood is that taxes could become a weapon for one group of people to prey upon another group. This is why the constitution limited the government to indirect taxes such as tariffs, duties, and excise taxes. Today’s income tax is none of these, in fact the income tax is a new classification of taxes altogether that falls out side the constitutional definition of what and who can be taxed. (More on this later)
Jefferson (and the other Founders) opposed confiscating wealth and reallocating of property by government. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter, April 1816, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
The framers made sure the constitution was very strong on property rights—what belongs to you is yours. If someone tries to take it from you, you can stop him yourself or call the sheriff. Our founders understood that in democracies the majority can take property from the minority so the framers of the constitution put in safeguards so this wouldn’t happen.
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 the rights of the collective. In other words the “Bill of Rights” offers no class of people or special interest group any special rights. That is why we are a constitutional republic—ruled by law not by majority opinion.
Another thing our founders understood very well was the importance of property rights as an integral component of individual liberty. In fact property rights are the only means of implementing one’s rights. This is the private ownership of land, livestock, the income one earns, etc, etc. And they also understood the fact that incentive, creativity, and productivity is more often propagated by reward and dignity is a product of self-achievement.
So they created 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.
I think the principles of American economic philosophy are best described in G Edward Griffin’s book “The Fearful Master”:
1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is impossible without incentive.
5. Of all forms of incentive—the freedom to attain a reward for one’s labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called profit motive, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive diminishes as government controls, regulations and taxes increase to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.
7. Therefore any attempt through governmental intervention to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.
Suffice it to say in order to preserve the rights of people the founders favored measures to encourage free-market solutions for the natural distribution of wealth rather than by government mandate. The American economic method is capitalism and capitalism is the only economic system that fully supports individual rights.
The founders shared this view as well, which is democracy is inherently “incompatible with personal security and the rights of property.” What the founders understood is that taxes could become a weapon for one group of people to prey upon another group. This is why the constitution limited the government to indirect taxes such as tariffs, duties, and excise taxes. Today’s income tax is none of these, in fact the income tax is a new classification of taxes altogether that falls out side the constitutional definition of what and who can be taxed. (More on this later)
Jefferson (and the other Founders) opposed confiscating wealth and reallocating of property by government. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter, April 1816, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
The framers made sure the constitution was very strong on property rights—what belongs to you is yours. If someone tries to take it from you, you can stop him yourself or call the sheriff. Our founders understood that in democracies the majority can take property from the minority so the framers of the constitution put in safeguards so this wouldn’t happen.
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 the rights of the collective. In other words the “Bill of Rights” offers no class of people or special interest group any special rights. That is why we are a constitutional republic—ruled by law not by majority opinion.
Another thing our founders understood very well was the importance of property rights as an integral component of individual liberty. In fact property rights are the only means of implementing one’s rights. This is the private ownership of land, livestock, the income one earns, etc, etc. And they also understood the fact that incentive, creativity, and productivity is more often propagated by reward and dignity is a product of self-achievement.
So they created 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.
I think the principles of American economic philosophy are best described in G Edward Griffin’s book “The Fearful Master”:
1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is impossible without incentive.
5. Of all forms of incentive—the freedom to attain a reward for one’s labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called profit motive, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive diminishes as government controls, regulations and taxes increase to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.
7. Therefore any attempt through governmental intervention to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.
Suffice it to say in order to preserve the rights of people the founders favored measures to encourage free-market solutions for the natural distribution of wealth rather than by government mandate. The American economic method is capitalism and capitalism is the only economic system that fully supports individual rights.
Wealth Redistribution Part Two
The altruist calls compassion a duty of everyone in society. The method for showing compassion for the poor, vulnerable, and underprivileged, however, is to take the productive fruits of those fortunate enough to be successful and give it to those who did not earn it through the use of force, implied or otherwise.
The goal of the altruist is “wealth redistribution”, need proof?
Hillary Clinton:
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Barrack Obama:
"We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money."
Michelle Obama:
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal healthcare and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
"We've lost sight of the fact that we are one another's brothers' and sisters' keepers in this nation. We have to prepare to sacrifice something big for the greater good."
Karl Marx:
“Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.”
“If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all…”
Adolf Hitler:
“It is thus necessary that the individual should finely come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole…This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture…By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.”
Two things are clear hear, 1. The altruist wants to seize a portion of your income. 2. They believe it is one’s duty to sacrifice on behalf of society.
It should be understood that wealth redistribution is a weapon to wage war on certain classes of people but it is also a recipe for destroying incentive in the nation as the more successful cut back on their productive efforts.
However, if one wishes to show his compassion for his fellow man, for society, he is certainly free to do so by his own voluntarily action, perhaps by donating some money to charity or volunteering his time and talents to help others in need. But the collectivized altruistic model calls for every citizen to do his part. But if he chooses not to, for whatever the reason, perhaps he struggles to pay his own bills. The government is empowered by the collective to garnish his wages, put liens on his home, confiscate his property, or even imprison him…And if he resists any of these measures to collect the fruits of his labor, on the behalf of society, the state can physically restrain him or even kill him.
Now ask yourself is this really compassion—Force?
All real rights of man are defined by the right to own property. Without it there can be no other rights. So any new rights, such as the right to welfare or free medical care for example, violate the real rights of men because it imposes a compulsory obligation upon the productive class in society to pay for the services of the unproductive or under-productive, robbing them of their earned property—income. Forcing someone to work on the behalf of someone else is, by definition, slavery. The practice of confiscating the product of one’s efforts is oppression. Therefore any so called right that violates the rights of others cannot by definition be a right.
The goal of the altruist is “wealth redistribution”, need proof?
Hillary Clinton:
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Barrack Obama:
"We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money."
Michelle Obama:
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal healthcare and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
"We've lost sight of the fact that we are one another's brothers' and sisters' keepers in this nation. We have to prepare to sacrifice something big for the greater good."
Karl Marx:
“Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.”
“If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all…”
Adolf Hitler:
“It is thus necessary that the individual should finely come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole…This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture…By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.”
Two things are clear hear, 1. The altruist wants to seize a portion of your income. 2. They believe it is one’s duty to sacrifice on behalf of society.
It should be understood that wealth redistribution is a weapon to wage war on certain classes of people but it is also a recipe for destroying incentive in the nation as the more successful cut back on their productive efforts.
However, if one wishes to show his compassion for his fellow man, for society, he is certainly free to do so by his own voluntarily action, perhaps by donating some money to charity or volunteering his time and talents to help others in need. But the collectivized altruistic model calls for every citizen to do his part. But if he chooses not to, for whatever the reason, perhaps he struggles to pay his own bills. The government is empowered by the collective to garnish his wages, put liens on his home, confiscate his property, or even imprison him…And if he resists any of these measures to collect the fruits of his labor, on the behalf of society, the state can physically restrain him or even kill him.
Now ask yourself is this really compassion—Force?
All real rights of man are defined by the right to own property. Without it there can be no other rights. So any new rights, such as the right to welfare or free medical care for example, violate the real rights of men because it imposes a compulsory obligation upon the productive class in society to pay for the services of the unproductive or under-productive, robbing them of their earned property—income. Forcing someone to work on the behalf of someone else is, by definition, slavery. The practice of confiscating the product of one’s efforts is oppression. Therefore any so called right that violates the rights of others cannot by definition be a right.
Wealth Redistribution Part One
It should be known that when I use the term “altruism” or “altruist” I am referring to a group or individual that would advocate collectivizing or nationalizing the altruist ideal and not the individual who is charitable of his own personal volition. People should be charitable but they should never be forced to surrender their property in the name of compassion.
Let’s define what wealth redistribution is in clear terms. Whoever takes it upon himself to redistribute wealth says that the wealth belongs to that person. In other words, if government is the agent of redistributing wealth then that wealth, your wealth, belongs to the government. This is basically saying the individual is nothing more than a sacrificial animal whose purpose it is to serve the greater good of society.
The altruist believes that some individuals’ productive efforts should be taken away and given to other people who did not produce it by imposing significantly higher taxes on the most successful individuals and companies in our nation. This is class warfare in which one class of people, those who do not produce or earn wealth pit themselves against another class of people, those who produce or earn wealth to take a portion of their wealth, therefore causing harm to that group of individuals, not to mention damaging the integrity of property rights in the process.
During the Presidential elections Barrack Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Basically what Obama was saying is that the government should seize the wealth of successful folks in the name of equity.
However, the Constitution is very strong on property rights. It was Hugo Chavez who said, the United States Constitution is too individualistic and ought to be reformed to be more socialist.
The stated policies of Barrack Obama seem to agree with Mr. Chavez. Listen carefully to this audio recording:
In the audio we hear Obama’s frustration that the Constitution places too much restriction on government when he complained about the Warren Court didn’t go far enough to facilitate redistributive economic policies. What Obama was really hoping for was for the courts to impose a “right” to welfare.
What wealth redistribution really amounts too is wealth confiscation and legalized plunder. One could also call it “nationalizing your pocket book”.
Frederic Bastiat (French economist and theorist in the mid 1800’s) points out that once the government over steps the clear line between the protective role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so called benefits for some of its citizens; it becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder.
Bastiat explains legal plunder:
“When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed…
How is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them. And gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen by himself cannot do without committing a crime…”
John Locke said: “The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.
What Bastiat and Locke observed and what Karl Marx accurately describes as class struggle is really “class warfare” where each class or special interest group competes to sway the balance of governmental power in their favor. This is also a fair description of democracy. In fact it was Karl Marks who said “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
It is Marxist doctrine that says, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is what’s important; his privacy and freedom are secondary. It is this altruistic doctrine that views men as sacrificial animals.
The altruist says your productive efforts belong to society and government is the principle agent that enforces the will of society. What the government doesn’t tax is a gift to you from them. This insidious doctrine is irresponsible and puts the individual on the road to becoming a kept citizen because the redistribution of wealth consumes the fruits of his labor and since property rights are essential to liberty it also robs him of his liberty.
Let’s define what wealth redistribution is in clear terms. Whoever takes it upon himself to redistribute wealth says that the wealth belongs to that person. In other words, if government is the agent of redistributing wealth then that wealth, your wealth, belongs to the government. This is basically saying the individual is nothing more than a sacrificial animal whose purpose it is to serve the greater good of society.
The altruist believes that some individuals’ productive efforts should be taken away and given to other people who did not produce it by imposing significantly higher taxes on the most successful individuals and companies in our nation. This is class warfare in which one class of people, those who do not produce or earn wealth pit themselves against another class of people, those who produce or earn wealth to take a portion of their wealth, therefore causing harm to that group of individuals, not to mention damaging the integrity of property rights in the process.
During the Presidential elections Barrack Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Basically what Obama was saying is that the government should seize the wealth of successful folks in the name of equity.
However, the Constitution is very strong on property rights. It was Hugo Chavez who said, the United States Constitution is too individualistic and ought to be reformed to be more socialist.
The stated policies of Barrack Obama seem to agree with Mr. Chavez. Listen carefully to this audio recording:
In the audio we hear Obama’s frustration that the Constitution places too much restriction on government when he complained about the Warren Court didn’t go far enough to facilitate redistributive economic policies. What Obama was really hoping for was for the courts to impose a “right” to welfare.
What wealth redistribution really amounts too is wealth confiscation and legalized plunder. One could also call it “nationalizing your pocket book”.
Frederic Bastiat (French economist and theorist in the mid 1800’s) points out that once the government over steps the clear line between the protective role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so called benefits for some of its citizens; it becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder.
Bastiat explains legal plunder:
“When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed…
How is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them. And gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen by himself cannot do without committing a crime…”
John Locke said: “The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.
What Bastiat and Locke observed and what Karl Marx accurately describes as class struggle is really “class warfare” where each class or special interest group competes to sway the balance of governmental power in their favor. This is also a fair description of democracy. In fact it was Karl Marks who said “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
It is Marxist doctrine that says, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is what’s important; his privacy and freedom are secondary. It is this altruistic doctrine that views men as sacrificial animals.
The altruist says your productive efforts belong to society and government is the principle agent that enforces the will of society. What the government doesn’t tax is a gift to you from them. This insidious doctrine is irresponsible and puts the individual on the road to becoming a kept citizen because the redistribution of wealth consumes the fruits of his labor and since property rights are essential to liberty it also robs him of his liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
