Permalink
The Hammock |
Subject: Wealth Redistribution, By Any Other Name, Is Still
Slavery
Recently, Florida's Republican Representative, Allen West, gave a speech in Congress where he stated:
Michael J. Hurd has written an excellent piece on West's statements titled, The Self-Imposed Slavery of the Redistribution State, and I highly recommend that everyone first listen to West's short speech and then read Hurd's article in full. Rather than duplicate his analysis, I will just quote a few passages:
In fact, West gets his analogy completely wrong. Redistributive entitlements are neither a safety net, protecting us in times of emergency, nor are they a hammock, affording us with a life of leisure. They are more akin to a fishing net, which indiscriminately sweep us all into its trap, robbing every person of their freedom and independence. Those on the receiving end of the distribution become dependent beggars (Hurd's "Big Babies") whose survival rests in the hands of a government that supports them in exchange for their compliance and their vote. Those on the supply end of the chain are forcibly relieved of the product of their efforts while their actions are severely restricted through regulations. The concept of the autonomous individual with the liberty to pursue their own definition of happiness, while accepting responsibility for their own life, is nowhere to be found. The American dream is dead. On January 22, 2010, Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute informed us that the Federal government's "Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance" (CFDA) had reached the milestone of 2,000 different subsidy programs for individuals, businesses, or state and local governments. I have previously reported on this a number of time, here, here, and here. However, taking another look today reveals that the number of programs now stands at 2,199. This means that during the past two years, 100 new programs continued to be added each year — more than eight new programs every month! This is the means by which your wealth is being redistributed to others. And remember, we elected a Republican majority in the House in 2010 — the place where all spending bills originate. Yet, there has been no decrease in government spending, no reduction in taxes, and no slowdown in the creation of these programs. Because, as Hurd points out in his article, the GOP is every bit as committed to the philosophy of the welfare state as are the Democrats — which means that Republicans are every bit as committed to our subjugation. We know all too well where President ("I do think at a certain point you've made enough money") Obama stands on wealth redistribution and entitlements. Now listen to the other GOP candidates. With the exception of Ron Paul who advocates the phase-out and eventual elimination of these programs, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are all staunch advocates of entitlements. They may pay lip service during their campaigning to "restructuring" or "reducing" these programs, but they are in no way advocating that they are wrong in principle. And this means that they do not believe, in principle, that your life is your own, to do with as you see fit. So every time you hear a politician speak about welfare, or entitlements, or bailouts, or financial assistance, or the needs of others, just stop and substitute in the word "slavery". Because that is the unstated implication that they hope you will never recognize. And freeing yourself from this slavery is the most important reason for engaging in today's battle for serious government reform.
|
|
Permalink
National Service |
Subject: In Orwell's Newspeak: "Isolation" Means Mandatory
Military Service For All
The drumbeat to enslave us never let's up. A few years ago, in my essay, "National Service: A Vicious Concept — And Its Antidote," I wrote about the Obama administration's drive to impose mandatory national service on all Americans. One of the few good thing that you can say about the economic crisis is that it created so many new problems during the past four years that attention was temporarily diverted from this proposal — although it is alive and continues to grow in our government-run educational system. However, the ideological cancer that it is, the call for service is never completely eradicated, and this meme continues to course through our culture, springing to the surface at unpredictable times as a malignant social tumor. In a recent article by New Republic writer Russ Hoyle entitled, "Crisis Ahead for the Volunteer Military", he adds his voice to the call, proposing conscription as the medicine to cure what ails us.
Who are these "defense experts" who remain unnamed and are too afraid to make their worries publically known, only wispering their concerns to true patriots like Hoyle in private? I guess we'll just have to take Hoyle's word for it that they exist and would certainly be worth quoting if they ever chose to come forward. What is the problem needing to be addressed? Troop "bruises" and "isolation". Well, that's certainly clear. And the obvious solution to that "isolation" is the abandonment of a volunteer armed services and its replacement with enslavement of all, for surely there must be companionship, camaraderie and understanding that is fostered by one's shared experience of forced labor.
The volunteer military is a job that some people choose, just as others might decide to be a librarian, an inventor, a lawyer, or work in a factory. What exactly is it that is so special about military service that it results in some unprecedented inability for it to be fathomed? Yes, soldiers face issues that most of us do not fully comprehend, but then again, most people really don't understand the true complexity of an automotive assembly line, nor do they have much idea as to what an architect does in the course of designing a building. So what? That's the nature of a society base upon a division of labor. With so many options available, we end up focusing on certain areas relevant to our own lives at the expense of a deeper understanding of others. This is just a necessary consequence of living in a wonderfully expansive 21st century civilization. If the military faces some sort of unspecified "moral crisis" (whatever that means?) with it's officers, how does this translate to a civilian problem? Instead, it more obviously indicates a defect within the chain of command leading back to the commander-in-chief, and that is where the difficulty must be identified and a solution found. But it turns out that that's not really the "problem" that Hoyle is concerned about.
Hmmm. Did you know that your concern about this county's war efforts and the welfare of our troops was "instinctive"? And were you aware that because you no longer face the draft you have become distracted from your duty to care, and have allowed those "instincts" to atrophy? How could you?! Well, if you are not going to take appropriate responsibility for yourself, there are always others ready and willing to step in.
Whoa Doggy! Did you see the magic happen? Well look again! Hoyle opens his act by waving around "military isolation" in one hand. Then, like any good magician he engages in a lot of misdirection during the middle of the performance. Finally, with a daring feat of prestidigitation, the other hand pulls a "sense of civic responsibility" from out of nowhere for his magnificent conclusion. Bravo! I wonder just how many in the audience noticed the old switcheroo? Hoyle is so sure that his magic is effective that he's even willing to state that a "national service program is not a comprehensive prescription for what ails the U.S. military" and not worry that his readers will catch on. He's already hooked them by their guilt, and all that's left is to reel them in and set them to work at the direction of their government masters. It wasn't that long ago when Rahm Emanuel was saying:
Now, here we are, a few short years later, calling for a "three-year mandatory national service program". Isn't it adorable how soon those little memes grow up! Also, don't miss the call to couple the forced military service with another new "special benefits" entitlement program that further ensures that a larger segment of the populace is even more dependent upon the federal government for their lives — thereby making them much more compliant in following government dictates once released from their slave labor. The progressive's collectivistic mind-set is fully wedded to the total elimination of individualism from the culture. So long as they wield power they will never cease their attack on independence and self-responsibility. As Orwell, Huxley, Levin, Rand and other authors have prophesied, the goal is nothing less than totalitarian control over the thoughts and the actions of every human being. These people are our mortal enemies and it is important that we fight back now, or else we will suffer the disastrous consequences in the very near future!
|
|
Permalink
|
Subject: Merry Christmas
Best wishes to everyone for a wonderful holiday season ...
... and a prosperous new year.
|
|
Permalink
|
Subject: The Straw
Back on September 17th, during his weekly radio address, President Obama proclaimed that Americans must finally start paying their "fair share" in order to reduce the federal deficit. Of course this is all just verbal misdirection used to hide the fact that what he is actually talking about is merely another run at one of the most important goals of his administration — wealth redistribution — from those who have earned it to those that covet it, with the ruling government class taking their usual handling fee in the process. And who is it that is not paying their fair share? Of course it is certainly not the virtuous bottom 50% of wage-earners who contribute little to nothing in income and payroll tax. (The bottom 47% pay no income tax at all, and that is precisely what makes them virtuous!) No, according to Obama, it's the greedy, cheating, wealthy households and businesses — the now famous 1% — that have been holding out on the rest of us, and justice demands that they must finally be forced to pay up. And how are the top 1% fleecing us? By currently carrying only 40% of the total income and payroll tax burden (up from 18% in 1980). And if you increase that pool to the top 1.5% of households, representing the magic $250,000 income number, then that group pays roughly half the total. (For more details, see this article.) So one is forced to ask, in Obama's mind just what level of tax burden does he deem to be fair to impose upon that small minority of Americans? Is it sixty percent? Seventy percent? More? He never tells us, because there is no hard and fast answer. For Obama, merely earning more than someone else is all the evidence required to condemn that person and justify the use of government force to confiscate their ill gotten "surplus." Billionaire businessman Warren Buffett seems to agree with Obama's egalitarian philosophy, and famously issued his call to "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich", demanding that the government raise taxes on him and other wealthy people. Taking up the cause, a group of twenty-four "Patriotic Millionaires" descended upon the Capitol to demand that Congress raise taxes on the wealthy in order to deal with the serious federal budget deficits and growing national debt. And just how serious were they? When confronted by reporter Michelle Fields of The Daily Caller (video below) and offered the opportunity to use their great wealth to make a voluntary debt reduction contribution to the Treasury Department, they all refused. And neither can I recall Buffett volunteering some or all of his fortune towards that end. It does make one wonder whether these patriots are truly concerned about the debt. Or instead, is it possible that their actual motives are not quite so altruistic, having more to do with seeing the chains restricting the freedom and property rights of others pulled ever tighter, even if it ends up impacting them as well?
"Patriotic Millionaires?" In 1957, the author and philosopher Ayn Rand published the novel Atlas Shrugged, depicting the consequences that inevitably result from government intervention in the realm of economics. As that story unfolds, we see the government exerting more and more control over business activities. However, instead of achieving the promised improvement, we observe conditions continuing to deteriorate at an ever accelerating pace. As government policies tie the hands of competent business leaders, making it increasingly difficult for them to act on their independent judgment and in service of their own goals, we do not find them running to the politicians and begging to be altruistically sacrificed on the pyre of subjugation as we witnessed with our patriotic millionaires. No. Possessing far too much integrity to abase themselves in that way, these men and women decide to go on strike by simply disappearing and leaving the problems of managing economic production to those who condemn them for their ability to successfully do so. Over the past few years more and more people have been shocked to see in how many ways Atlas Shrugged has proved to be prophetic in anticipating the specifics actions and consequences that have resulted from bad political actions driven by an underlying evil philosophy. And the idea that men of ability, when pressed too far would choose to strike, is one literary device that has dramatically presaged today's reality. As Rand put it in a conversation between her characters, Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden:
Here are some examples of real-life strikers in action: Stealing from the rich isn't an idea original to Obama; people have been trying it ever since Ogg caught his first wild boar and Yuup decided that he would like his "fair share" of that. But hiring a group of thugs, called "politicians", and getting them to do all the hard work for you was certainly a civilizing advancement! In 2008, the Maryland "Yuups" identified their "Oggs", and they were called millionaires. Here's what happened, as reported in the Wall Street Journal:
Push too hard on your victims, and just like Keyser Söze, "Poof, they're gone!" On occasion, a few of these individuals will make public the reasons for their departure, similar to the radio address delivered by John Galt towards the end of Atlas Shrugged. Here are excerpts from two such letters:
The same story has played out over and over again in New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois and elsewhere. And it's not just wealthy individuals, but entire businesses which also look to relocate when the burden becomes too great. As reported in CNN Money:
Or another example from the Wall Street Journal:
Contrary to what progressive state politicians repeatedly try to tell themselves, so long as alternatives are available, intelligent individuals and businesses will not merely sit back and "take it", but will continue to pursue what is in their best interest. When one state acts abusively, there are 49 other possibilities to explore in order to locate a healthier environment. However, when the federal government gets involved in imposing its punitive taxes and regulation across the entire country, then options become much more limited, difficult and costly. For certain large scale industries and very wealthy individuals, there may be the possibility of moving business or investments offshore. But in many other cases, the problems created by political intervention simply outweight all of the alternatives. The tipping point is finally reached, and the most sensible path is to simply call it quits — a phenomenon that has been accelerating in recent years and has come to be known as "Going Galt". In the Tri-City Herald we here the story of Bob Bertsch:
On David McElroy's Blog, he recounts the words of Alabama coal mine operator Ronnie Bryant who, after having listened to two hours of business-bashing by the public, environmentalists and politicians, had this to say:
Zero Hedge posted the letter that hedge fund manager Ann Barnhardt sent to clients, announcing the closure of her business. Excerpts follow:
The Hazleton, PA Standard Speaker reports that Dr. Frank C. Polidora, an orthopedic surgeon, quits:
The Wall Street Journal discusses Thomas Depping's decision to close Main Street Bank:
Jerry Della Femina tells his story in the East Hampton Independent:
For every newsworthy story of an individual or business that decides to throw in the towel, there are untold others that go unreported. Many businesses — and sometimes entire industries — are destroyed by a burden of taxes and regulations that simply cannot be borne in a market-driven economy. This much is at least clear to some. But what gets little discussion is the psychological toll that all of this government intervention takes. What few seem to understand is that for the small minority who are prepared to accept full responsibility for themselves — living by their own thought, judgment, goals and actions — each unreasonable tax is not merely a burden, but is seen to be a gross injustice; every new piece of legislation is another set of circus hoops through which one is forced to jump; regulations are a leash, and every regulator a self-appointed master with a whip in hand. For the independent man or woman, government intervention attempts to reduce them from their stature as fully human, to some form of caged beast under the constant control of others. Government intervention is the supreme demotivator! It hammers away at passion. It undermines creativity. It erodes drive and the will to succeed. It destroys the joy found in action and the pride realized through success. To put it simply, it drains the fun out of life. In an attempt to place a monetary price tag on our economic losses, enormous energy is invested by bureaucrats, analysts, pundits and the media in calculating debt ratios, unemployment levels, energy costs, borrowing fluidity, and any number of other metrics. All the while the real price being paid — the total loss of human motive willpower — dwarfs all of those calculations, but goes unacknowledged. Go back and reread the stories above and look for what they all have in common. These once productive individuals, all of them wealth and job creators, have pulled the plug on their endeavors. And why? Because, thanks to government intervention, they can no longer find the joy that their work once brought them. The rewards of hard work have been lowered while the costs have increased, to a point where further effort is no longer justified — at which point, it's time to shrug. If you see the issue in this light, then you can understand why, when Ayn Rand spoke of the struggle for our future, she did not describe it principally in economic or political terms, but instead framed it as something much more important: a moral battle — a fight for the true nature and soul of mankind. At its most fundamental level, each person must strive for their passion — their joy — their happiness. And they must oppose anything that stands in the path of those pursuits. Today, the greatest obstacle standing in our way is a government that has escaped its constitutional straitjacket and become an oppressive monster, injecting itself into every crevice of our lives. If we are to move forward along a path to where we once again can assert ourselves as individuals, in full control over our own destines, then it is imperative that each political action we take be directed squarely at that goal. Half-hearted stop-gap measures will not solve this problem, and are in fact, partly responsible for what led us to this moment. It is time to apply the ultimate litmus test to every statement uttered by every person aspiring for political office: Does this candidate articulate a consistent set of well defined policies that support my personal independence? If he accomplishes the things he is proposing, will this maximize the opportunity to pursue my life passionately, allowing me to set my own goals in service of my own definition of happiness? I suggest that if you cannot respond with an unreserved "Yes!", then this is not a candidate worthy of your support. Reject him or her and seek out another who has earned the right to represent you by demonstrating that they fully understand and respect the right to your personal independence. Never compromise when extending your political support, for doing so is simply an indirect way of compromising on your own life, your values, and ultimately your joy. Always consider just what you demand of yourself when pursuing your goals, and then be sure to never settle for anything less from those in whom you are prepared to vest with political power as your representative. This is the only strategy that has any long range hope of correcting our current situation. Anything less is a recipe for our continued cultural descent.
|
|
Permalink
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress |
Subject: Independence — If You Can Keep It!
[Note: The following article was written for Brad Harrington's Cheyenne, WY newspaper, Liberty's Torch, and is scheduled for publication as part of the January 6th, 2012 edition.]
— Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress We are living in possibly the most politically polarized period in the United States since the Civil War. The President's overall job approval rating has fallen to 43%, while Congress has attained a new historic low of just 13%. Republicans seek spending cuts while Democrats hold out for mandatory tax increases and further wealth redistribution. Tea Party groups advocate for smaller, constitutionally-constrained government, while the Occupy movement clamors for an end to capitalism, replacing it with what they call "socialism", but is more accurately a fascist, state-controlled economy. There is an ongoing battle between those who argue for maintaining a secular form of government while others wish to see their personal religious values enacted into law. On any given issue from war to immigration, education, guns, unions, health care, energy, environment, abortion, drugs, entitlements, national service, jobs, or climate change, there are diametrically opposing factions, with many demanding that government force be used in order to impose their views upon everyone else. In a recent web posting, someone wrote, "Way too many Americans seem to be losing all sense of what is right and what is wrong; what it means to treat others with dignity and respect," and when reading the daily news, it seems hard to argue with that assessment. For example, when the Tea Party is charged first and foremost as being racist, then concern for truth, tolerance and understanding have already been tossed out the window. When the Occupy Wall Street movement states on its website that "the only solution is World Revolution" and engages in illegal seizure of property, vandalism, and sexual assaults, then you know that the rule of law has been abandoned. Civility, reasoned discourse and consensus are all early casualties in such an environment. How then do we sift through all the emotions and the rhetoric on these many issues and come to a rational and consistent political position? This is only possible by first answering the question: What is the proper role of government? Throughout most of history men have been treated as mere components, owing their fealty to some larger and more important social entity, whether that be a tribe, theocracy, monarchy, community, society or the state. All of these collectivist systems regarded each person as an expendable resource to be used as necessary in service of some "higher good", and the purpose of government was to define the nature of that good, and be the mechanism which determined how to then best preserve and utilize its human capital. The United States was the first country to stake out a radically different position. Building upon the ideas of Classical Liberalism, each individual was recognized as being autonomous and free, in possession of legal rights equal to all other men, with the rational pursuit of their own happiness being an end in itself. Within this framework government was seen not as the master and director of human life, but simply as a necessary tool to protect those rights, thereby allowing every person the opportunity to determine their own destiny and pursue it to the best of their ability. At its most fundamental level, the American Revolution was a battle waged between two different ideologies: individualism versus collectivism. Two hundred thirty-five years ago, individualism triumphed and the greatness that America has achieved is a direct result of those hard won liberties. But during the past century this country has slowly abandoned its roots, moving back towards a communal collectivism where the government once again exerts its power to dictate goals, control behavior in most areas of our lives, and treat us once more as uniform and interchangeable cogs in the social machinery. Today's great fiction of serving the "general welfare" has now all but replaced our once cherished independence, binding each of our fates together for better or worse — and usually for the worse! We currently face numerous economic and social problems. Yet, despite all of the daily attention these issues are receiving, there seem to be few workable solutions. This is because the wrong questions are being asked. Instead of wondering why students are doing so poorly in schools and universities, the better question would be, "Should the government be in the education business?". Rather than asking how the government could create more jobs, it would be more productive to consider, "Should the government be involved with job creation in the first place?" Should the government have an energy, environment or trade policy? Should it redistribute wealth? Should it have the power to print money?
This is the truly important question. Are governments instituted for the purpose of managing our lives, or, as the Declaration of Independence states, are they "instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed," in order to secure the individual rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?" Anyone who asks and answers this honestly, and is prepared to abide by all consequences of that answer, will then have the key to understanding what are the appropriate actions that a government should take in every circumstance.
|
