Category Archives: Economics

Capitalism: A Necessity

Posted on by

My 17 year old wrote this essay for his English class this summer.  While the Brits are rioting over what kind of socialism they want, and American public employees have taken to the streets for more of our money, calling for revolution if they don’t get 100% of the coerced funds they think they want, this is a timely piece.  Advocating freedom is always timely though.  I didn’t help him a whit (other than to try to raise him right) and here I left in the parts with which I had minor gripes over syntax, or over a word or two;

Capitalism: A Necessity

We live in a world full of criminals, fools, rapists, murderers, and countless other evil-doers. Many of us are left to deal with the ramifications of these burdensome people. However, evil-doers are not the only issue; many well-intentioned people make mistakes that affect millions. In considering these seemingly never-ending problems of the world, one is left with quite a dismal picture. The subsequent thought is, how can these problems be solved? Is it possible? How can we make society better? There are many ideas about how to best deal with society, some of them promising to perfect it and eradicate crime and evil. In all reality, there will always be evil and evildoers. However, a condition can be imposed which makes life better for all of us, protecting us, and allowing us the freedom to think, create, and trade with others. This condition is Capitalism.

Capitalism is the only system of government which allows individuals the most possible freedom while, at the same time, protecting them from the potential harm of others. This is because its main function is the government recognition [of] individual rights. Individual rights are “conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival” (Rand, Man’s Rights). Among them are:  that a person has the right to their  own life, that a person has the right to liberty (or the freedom to think and act), and that a person is free to “pursue happiness,” or to do what they please. A person assumes these rights with the caveat that they may not violate any other person’s rights. A system such as this protects individuals, while still allowing them freedoms proper for their survival.

All rights are actually corollaries of the right to life. Man is a living creature; naturally, he must have the freedom to perform all actions necessary to stay alive. Also, Man is a thinking creature; he relies on his creative faculty to produce the tools necessary to live. Therefore, in order to have the right to his own life, he must have the freedom not only to create, but to own what he creates. Otherwise, he is a slave, subject to the whim of a master (Rand, Man’s Rights 322) and has no right to his own life. Essentially, all other rights ensure Man’s right to life which, in itself, is a basic condition for his survival.

Capitalism holds that government’s only enterprise is the protection of these basic rights. It was also the form of government originally intended for the United States by its founders. As stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Declaration of Independence). It is clear in this excerpt that the founders of the United States thought of government as a protector of the people rather than a controller or a regulator.

A well known  aspect of Capitalism is the absence of economic regulation, or a free market system. No economic regulation can exist in a capitalistic system because it inherently inhibits people’s right to free trade – therefore violating their right to life. A common argument against Capitalism is that a lack of regulation would allow business to grow exorbitantly, take advantage of society, cause poverty and contribute to a general degradation of people’s lifestyle. However, in a free market, if a business is not practicing in a manner that is beneficial to the public, a niche is created for another business to enter, and the public is free to boycott the business in support of an emerging one. As long as a business does not violate another’s rights, they are free to act as they wish. However, in the situation where a business is violating other’s rights, judicial action would be appropriate, just as with any other criminal.

Capitalism is the only system of government that does not require, and in fact prevents, control by force. It ensures that no force may ever be initiated and that the only appropriate force is self-defense. The only method by which any trade may occur is by mutual consent – a transaction in which both parties involved must agree. In this system, it is inherent that both parties benefit; both consensually walk away with something they consider more valuable than what they traded. Other systems of government such as Socialism and Fascism are based on the notion that each individual in society is less valuable than a “public good” and that force may be initiated on society for the sake of this “public good.” In reality, this translates to an ever-growing government control of the citizens. These systems, unlike Capitalism, fail to recognize that society is actually a group of individuals rather than a single entity. In a capitalistic system, individuals are free to act in their best interest and are barred from violating another’s right to do so, creating an optimal situation for the success of society.

An argument made against Capitalism is that it inherently results in people unable to take care of themselves being left to starve because of the lack of redistribution programs such as welfare. However, in a Capitalist system, people are free to help other people as they wish. If an individual believes another person or group should receive help, then that individual can provide monetary support or bolster more widespread support. Additionally, charity organizations can flourish and help millions worldwide. By no means does Capitalism prevent needy people from receiving help. It actually works more efficiently than a welfare system; Capitalism does not support people who, entirely capable of caring for themselves, decide instead to take advantage of a government redistribution system unless other people willfully decide to support them. In a Capitalistic system, force upon any party is forbidden because it violates people’s rights, so redistribution is impossible.

Capitalism is the system that best allows man to produce wealth – anything of value which helps improve his survivability. It does this by giving man the freedom to think, discover, and act on his own volition without oppression from any entity (government, criminals, etc.). Man did not evolve as a highly specialized community species such as bees or ants. By nature, man works best if he is allowed to make his own choices. The early caveman did not create the spear because his only motive was to work for a “public good” – to improve the lives of other cavemen – he created the spear out of his self-interest in his own survival. Even so, the result was an improvement in mankind as a whole; because they saw the first, other cavemen’s lives were improved by using his idea for themselves. Capitalism does not ensure a perfect society. Rather, it ensures the conditions which best allow society to function. It does this by protecting Man’s rights.

 

Works Cited

Decaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (1776). Print.

Rand, Ayn. “Appendix: Man’s Rights.” Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet, 1967. Print. This chapter specifically outlines the nature of man’s rights and their necessary existence.

The public college teacher gave him a “B”.  I’m a little bit suprised she didn’t lose composure and start breaking things.  Maybe she’s been in contact with her higher-ups, trying to find ways to deal with this problem “under the radar”.

State Sponsored Media?

Posted on by

Speaking of the tools and mechanisms of oppression, have any of you noticed how many government or Ad Council ads there are on AM radio lately?  We’re being told where to find out how to raise our kids, fasten their car seats, talk to kids about drugs, notice the signs of a stroke (call 911) quit smoking, and ZOMG– be afraid of your food!  In the 20 minutes or so I listened to KMAX this morning, there were two or three government ads to one commercial ad.

Now; I haven’t looked into who runs the Ad Council or where its funding comes from, and I don’t know how many of the government ads are actually paid for as opposed to being forced as “public service announcements” but it’s looking more and more like there is already a mechanism in place to further control radio stations– threaten to their pull ads, which are becoming a majority of the ads on the air.

I thought y’all might want to look into this, as there has been “chatter” for years about how to clamp down on talk radio and yet no one is talking about the recent uptick in Big Brother ads.  I smell “Hope and Change” in this.

Same planet but different worlds

Posted on by

As everyone knows by know S&P downgraded the U.S. debt rating after the debt ceiling was raised.

I then heard some pundits on the radio saying this was the fault of the Tea Party and Republicans. If they had raised the debt ceiling earlier instead of engaging in brinkmanship it would have happened. The increased interest rates the Federal government will now have to pay will cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of dollars each year and taxpayers can “thank” the Tea Party for that.

The major news media gleefully repeats this line:

Former White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday pinned responsibility for the recent U.S. economic downgrade on the Tea Party movement, arguing that the group’s political “brinksmanship” during debt ceiling negotiations “brought us to the brink of a default” — and that, subsequently, “this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.”

WHAT?!!! Where are their layers of editorial oversight?

Did anyone bother to actually read what S&P said was their reason for the downgrade? It was right there in their press release (emphasis added):

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

The rating was lowered because progress containing the growth in public spending is less likely that previous assumed. Who was it was trying to contain growth in public spending? Unless the media and the liberal politicians are living in a different world than I am that was the Tea Party. The Tea Party was not sufficiently effective in reducing spending so S&P downgraded the debt rating.

Thomas Sowell has it right. There is no point talking to them. These people are suffering from Peterson Syndrome. They do not have the mental tools to determine truth from falsity and with the pedal to the metal they are driving the U.S. into a financial abyss.

Invest in food, gold, silver, and copper jacketed lead.

Update: The Washington Times, although somewhat more obliquely, says the same thing.

Update2: WizardPc has a humorous take on it.

It’s going to get worse before it gets better

Posted on by

S&P downgraded the U.S. debt rating. And it’s not looking good for the future either:

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’.

And with each downgrade the interest rates increase which makes the debt burden more difficult to bear which makes it more likely another downgrade is coming.

Hope and change just keeps coming.

Mass printing of money is almost for certain in our future. I figure than in another couple years I can probably pay off our mortgage with that half ounce of gold in one of my safes or a few hundred pounds of lentils…

Gold and silver

Posted on by

The price of gold is now $1670.00 an oz. Silver is $41.80.

I think it’s the hope and change taking effect.

Quote of the day—Tea Party

Posted on by

US Treasurys Now a Toxic Asset.

TeaParty@TeaParty.org
August 2, 2011
Subject line to this email.
[If only there were somebody we could unload the toxic asshats in Washington on. Someone with an abundance of tar, feather, and rails would please me.—Joe]

Debt reduction via a police state

Posted on by

As the Federal debt started exploding a few years ago I tried to look ahead and figure out what would happen. Lots of bad things of course, but one potential outcome, as I mentioned in a blog post a few days ago, was that a new wave of politicians would get elected and scrap most or all of the nanny state agencies to cut expenses. Sort of “every cloud has a silver lining” kind of thing.

I should know better than to think any government operation could have a “silver lining”.

What I had never considered, not even in my most pessimistic moments was that the Feds would find a way to turn the crisis into a way to further expand their control. Instead of control weakening as funding became harder to get there is a path whereby funding is obtained by increasing control. Sure, I know about the war on drugs and confiscating property “involved” in a drug crime being used to fund law enforcement. But this is much, much worse.

I recently had a reliable source tell me the EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory agencies have been told to explore how they can supply their own revenue such that they become self supporting. “Run like a business” and even potentially make a profit. My source explicitly called out the EPA and OSHA but one can easily imagine how this mandate will be extended to the ATF and hundreds of other government organizations.

If the color didn’t just drain out of your face and you nearly fainted you either don’t have a very good imagination or you have a government job.

The only way these regulators can “make” money is through fines and confiscation of property. One of the examples given to me was of dust production in a particular type of facility of which there are thousands all across the country. I’ll not name them to avoid giving the Feds easy targets but these facilities have existed for many decades and are an essential part of our infrastructure. The regulations say that if more than 0.125” of dust builds up on the interior surfaces of the buildings they must be cleaned or else they can be fined. The problem is that no one knows of a fix for the problem. It would take 7 to 8 hours to clean a facility. It’s a problem similar to the classic “If one man can dig a post hole in two minutes how many minutes would it take two men to dig a post hole?” It just can’t be done in less than 7 to 8 hours. Once the facility goes back into production the dust will exceed spec in about 30 minutes. Obviously a facility that is in maintenance mode 15 times as much as it is in production mode is not viable. So maybe they could just pay the fine and figure that is “just the cost of doing business”. That doesn’t work either.

If the Feds come back a week later and they are out of spec the fine can be doubled. And doubled again the next week (or day) if they are still in production. Basically it amounts to after the first fine the operator will have to shutdown the facility or find a permanent fix to the dust problem—and no such solution exists. Dust, in many situations, cannot be significantly reduced.

Numerous other examples were given to me of extremely low-hanging fruit that the Feds can “harvest” at will if they only know where to look. This type of problem exists essentially everywhere. It’s Huffman’s rule of firearms law on a massive scale applied to nearly every industry and every person (remember Three Felonies a Day?). That is how they can generate revenue, “become profitable”, and our country becomes a police state.

Quote of the day—Samuel Butler

Posted on by

All progress is based on the universal innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income.

Samuel Butler
[While this is widely attributed to Samuel Butler it is not found in a search this particular Samuel Butler’s work. It could be it is a different Samuel Butler or the collection is incomplete. But regardless of who should be given credit I think it is worthwhile to note that while this statement has a great deal of truth to it catastrophic failure is also associated with living beyond one’s income. If you question the validity of this latter claim you should run for public office. If you “know” it is false and can convince enough people of your delusion you too could become president.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Madison

Posted on by

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

James Madison
1794
For context and related quotes see here.
[It’s too bad we don’t have still have a constitution Madison would recognize. If we did we wouldn’t be in the middle of an economic and financial crisis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kevin Baker

Posted on by

To surrender completely to the control of others – either a secular government or a religious one – control that invades every waking action, requires people unwilling to do for themselves. The first step is and must be the destruction of education. People must be prevented from thinking for themselves, from reasoning. George Orwell explained it with “Newspeak” in his novel 1984:


…


That preparation started in the early years of the 20th Century. Thus today we have “politically correct” speech. With destruction of language skills comes the destruction of logic skills – if you can’t read, you can’t integrate ideas new to you. In fact, new ideas are gibberish – words that have no meaning. “Politically free” is a null value to someone planted in the fields of politicism. It’s a weed.


A free society requires an informed and virtuous citizenry.


“Free,” “informed” and “virtuous” have become null terms.


The 21st Century will be a century of struggle between freedom and politicism. Polticism has two competing versions – Marxist and Muslim. Freedom?


Null term.


Kevin Baker
July 4, 2011
TL;DR
[Kevin has some good points. There are even some points that he doesn’t directly address that support his pessimistic outlook. For example, the title, “TL;DR”, is very telling. Our society changed dramatically with instant entertainment. I’m certain that television and even radio are factors in the transformation of our culture into a more ignorant one. We can be mindlessly entertained rather than improving our minds and/or our bodies or producing something of value. The idiot boxes are such a great temptation that instead of doing something productive we take another hit of the entertainment drug. And there is so many “drugs” to chose from. If one doesn’t grab you in the first 15 seconds you change the “channel” until you find one that does grab you. Instant gratification is critical to success of a “channel”. Who in their right mind would be willing to read and understand, let alone write, books like those of Locke and Hobbs (unless it was Calvin and Hobbs) when you have Grand Theft Auto, Entertainment Tonight, and meth available? Those are so much easier to understand and offer near instant gratification. Who has the time to even read a Kevin Baker post? Understand it? Bah! In the grand scheme, it’s almost no one.


The fraction of the population that is capable of that is so small and the fraction of those that would care even if they could understand it that the blip on the vote tally would be impossible to detect in the statistical noise let alone the voter fraud. And the voter fraud will always be aligned against the likes of Kevin.


I understand all that. But I still have, perhaps perverse, optimism for the outcome. While the upside of our near instant communication isn’t as obvious as the downside I still think the potential exists to ultimately prevail. Because we have the ability to communicate to thousands across vast distances at nearly the speed of light and publish we have a incredible advantage over Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Samuel Adams. They were part of a nation of just three million people and built the foundation of most powerful economic and military force the world has ever seen. We have three million or more like minded people in our country now. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are ten times that many. The problem is that those people’s voices have been drown out by the noise from the parasites clamoring for “social justice”, or “their fair share”.


There have been many great civilizations before us that collapsed and some of the causes may even be common to our own. Internal and/or external enemies, exhaustion of natural resources, over population, or even climate changes (you have heard of the little ice age, right?). But our current crises is mostly due to internal enemies with some added pressure by external enemies. As Kevin points out these are the cults created centuries ago by Marx and Mohammad. I think the Marx cultists is doing most of the damage and is the bigger threat. But I think it is possible that even they have reached the zenith of their power and may soon experience a catastrophic collapse even more rapid than our society as a whole.


What the socialist/communist/progressive masses don’t understand is that they are, as Ayn Rand pointed out, looters. And the life of an unhindered looter is only great as long as there is someone left to loot that doesn’t offer meaningful resistance. And they just looted the last “store” on the planet.


The Marxists always describe people in terms of “class”. I think there is a grain truth to be harvested from a class division of people. But it’s not the class division taught by Marx and his cult. The class division I find useful is of producers and looters. And as the economic realities of discovering the last store on the planet has already been looted the looters will either become producers or they will die off. I suspect there will be lots of dead. Most from starvation and disease and a few from being shot by the producers that finally start doing what should have been done a long time ago—protecting their property from the looters.


The instant communication channels will allow us to find other producers and identify looters. This will give us hope and it will enable our cooperation. This is the upside to our technology and may yet save our species from the great endarkenment looming over us. This is an ace-in-the hole that no civilization before us ever had available.


The looters of the future will not be so well camouflaged as the looters of today. Today they have a few leaders who wear suits and smile as they wave to the camera and ask for your vote. In the not so distant future their leaders are likely to live lives that of the last couple of years of Saddam Hussein and meet similar ends. The looters will be hungry, dirty, and run in wild packs. Without the camouflage producers will recognize them for what they are and appropriate action will be taken.


I don’t know the end result of the coming final class struggle. Maybe the looters will destroy the last of the producers and it will be another ten thousand years before a civilization can rise from the ashes. But at this point I don’t think that is a forgone conclusion. I think the producers may have to look the other way as millions of looters become beggars and then finally corpses. They may be millions of tons of rotting flesh to be cleared but the producers may be able to survive the coming apocalypse and end up with a much stronger society two or three generations from now.


Some lessons are very, very difficult to learn. But sometimes you cannot advance to the next level until you master the current level.



I just hope Gerard Vanderleun is wrong and our society can learn the lesson of this level before we have lost all our lives and it is game over.—Joe]

Project ‘Fast And Furious Gun Restrictions’

Posted on by

The more I see on this scandal with the BATFE, the more it stinks.  Here are several issues I have, in no particular order.  To me they’re obvious quirks in the story that aren’t being discussed.  If someone knows of these being brought up and addressed, please do share;


The Old Media are actually covering this to some extent.  They don’t cover anything unless it in some way promotes the leftist cause.  They’re actually being critical of the BATFE, but wait.  The “problem” is being spun as one of too few restrictions.  BATFE is bad, not because they’re idiots or self-serving thugs looking for more funding, or outright criminals or tyrants, but because they didn’t stop gun purchases.  Keep an eye on this.


Very large purchases of guns were supposedly “allowed” to take place.  We’re being asked to believe that Mexican criminals purchased up to dozens of guns at a time, on several occasions.  First; if these were real straw purchases wherein there was a genuine worry about secrecy, they’d take place in dibs and dabs, so as not to attract attention.  Second; why would powerful Mexican cartels with international influence be interested in paying hundreds of dollars more, per gun, in the U.S. compared to getting them at global street prices?  Even the cartels would know about our background check system at gun stores, yet these purchases supposedly took place at gun dealerships, where they would know that such large purchases would attract immediate attention.  But they did it anyway?  Too many stinky points.  I say the purchases were engineered, either by, or in close cooperation with, BATFE, and not simply “allowed”, as we’re being asked to believe.


We’re told that hundreds of these guns were found at crime scenes (I think I heard the number 800 dropped the other night).  What?  Really?  Hundreds?  That’s an awful lot of clumsy, absent-minded, criminals, isn’t it?  Leaving their guns, so painstakingly straw-purchased at inflated prices at U.S. retail dealerships, behind at crime scenes to be found in very short order by our super heroes?  Stinky, stinky, stinky.


A big government operation, not to shut down Mexican cartels, not to investigate corruption in Mexico that’s threatening people in the U.S., not to revisit the effects of our War On Drugs, but instead to draw attention to how our evil gun rights in the U.S. lead to death and destruction in other countries.


These issues aren’t being brought up in the press or by the Congressional “investigations”.  Nope.  Instead it’s all about; “You bastards! Why didn’t you guys stop gun sales?”  All this after Obama promised anti gun rights groups he’d be doing something for them “…under the radar“.


I think the indignation we’re hearing from the press and from Congress is all feigned.  Good Cop, Bad Cop.


My younger brother and I put together a list of socialist tenets many years ago.  It’s been lost to computer upgrades and internet evolution, but one of those tenets was; “When restrictions on freedom produce disastrous results, freedom is to blame and the solution is more restrictions.”  Look for it in this case.  It’ll happen, I guarantee.  It’s in the DNA of it.

This Public Servant Bit Needs More Discussion

Posted on by

This is an addendum to the post below.


As stated; as a public employee, as a public servant, your job, your individual tasks, your pay and the very existence of the department for which you work, exists purely at our (The People’s) pleasure.  It is our prerogative to alter this relationship, to dismiss you, or to eliminate your department entirely, at a whim.


As a public servant, you have no “right” whatsoever to a particular salary, or to a particular job, etc.  If we decide we must lower your pay or dismiss you altogether, your proper response would be something like; “I understand.  Thank you for the opportunity to have served you.”  At that point you are free to go your own way and prove your worth in the marketplace as you see fit.  May you live long and prosper.


If you decide, on the other hand, to get hostile about it and start in with the name-calling and the threats, what can We The People conclude about the relationship we’ve had with you?  Look at me when I’m talking to you!


In private practice, a servant that gets hostile with the home owner will probably result in the police being called in on a domestic disturbance.  At the very best it would result in an unflattering reference when you apply for another job.  This is OUR house.  If the hostility continues and becomes threatening, what are we to do?  If the police aren’t able to help us get you public servants under control, well then, what?  What are we left with for options in that case?  You aren’t going to get your way, let me just put it like that.  Not for long, I can tell you.  This is OUR country.

Exposing Leftists

Posted on by

College students are asked to sign a petition to impose Affirmative Action upon the basketball team (for diversity), to redistribute GPA points, ban conservative talk radio, etc.  Good stuff.  Enjoy.


What I took away was the students’ apparent total lack of ability, or preparation, for these discussions, meaning that high schools and universities aren’t encouraging such critical thinking at all.  I believe my son, who just graduated from high school, could give these petitioners a resounding talkin’ to.


HT to Glen Beck

Logical Contradiction

Posted on by

NRCC Chairman, Pete Sessions, just sent out a letter.  First sentence;



While House Republicans are working hard to return our country to economic prosperity and strengthen and secure Medicare…


Let me see if can put this into perspective.  While House Republicans are working hard to run our economy for us (because we’re too stupid and/or evil to do it ourselves) and to try, once again, to make socialism viable.  ETS; Or are they working hard to free the economy so it can work, AND trying to make socialism viable?  They don’t say.  That’s about how I read it.

Critical Pedagogy Hits Home

Posted on by

There’s been some talk about it lately and it’s been in the news, but it’s also been in your home town school for some time.  Here is a history paper, handed out in my son’s history class, complete with syntax errors, inexplicable asterisks, bad grammar, omitted words, and miss-numbering.  The kids were told to memorize it.  Keep in mind the title of the piece – “U.S. History”  This is all American.  Everything below is what made/makes us tick;



U.S. History
Philosophies — Foreign and Domestic


“What Made/Makes Us Tick”


1. Capitalism – Pure*** vs. Regulated


An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


OK, right there; no mention of property rights, the acknowledgement and protection of which result in capitalism.  “Corporately owned” IS privately owned, but they must make a distinction.



Pure capitalism over time results in poverty, worker abuse, environmental destruction, a two class social structure, and governmental control by the wealthy.  All economic, political and social norms were control directly ad indirectly by the wealthy.  Even the presentation of religious views were seen through the eyes of the capitalistic values.(2-


Karl Marx would be giddy with pride seeing what our public schools are teaching my kids today.  There’s so much wrong with that one paragraph I don’t know where to begin.  For one thing, “governmental control by the wealthy” defines a corrupt government.  The acknowledgement and protection of property rights, which defines capitalism, does not lead to governmental control by the wealthy.  That’s a contradiction in terms, but you’re not supposed to notice.  Corrupt politicians lead to governmental control by the wealthy, and for that they should be arrested.



Regulated Capitalism – has produced our nation.  Government regulates what industry can do within limits.  Environmental impact (air quality), worker safety, fair pay, fair trade, and business dealings are regulated by law.


The Fascisti would certainly approve of that statement, and they were committed Marxists.  Notice throughout this whole piece that there is no mention of human rights, or of America’s founding principles.  That would blow the whole thing though, wouldn’t it?



2. Expansionism


The belief that the nation must grow to acquire natural resources, new areas of trade, and living space. (Safety Value Theory – Turner Thesis)


3. Manifest Destiny (New Manifest Destiny)***


— Similar to Expansionism.  This was the belief that God had pre-determined (destined) the United States to expand.  It was an outgrowth of the Puritan ethic [God rewards those who work hard and live an exemplary life.]  The term eventually meant that the U.S. would eventually control the land from coast to coast.  This belief system motivated the “Western Movement.”  The acquisition of land and the displacement of Native Americans became justified in part by this belief system.  The Mexican War, the Southwest land, Northwest Territory, and Alaska are also acquired with belief system as the driving force for America to expand.


Nearly every country that ever existed has practiced some version of Manifest Destiny or Expansionism.  The American government did some terrible things to the Indians.  The innuendo I get from this is that there are wrongs remaining to be righted, which is actually being said elsewhere, complete with the “R” word (revolution) in the above linked video, as part of a school curriculum.



4.  Whiteman’s Burden – Anglo Saxonism***  The term is taken from a poem by Rudyard Kipling in which he states is was “the white man’s burden” to colonize the other nations for their benefit.  In practice it was the belief that:


God had chosen the Anglo-Saxon race to colonize the “less fortunate” peoples of the world.  In so doing they were to bring them education, the Christian faith, a Puritan work ethic, capitalism, health care, and the other “benefits” of our culture.


Ah, so America really IS racist!  Crap!



5.  Imperialism***


–,The control of one nation over another nation or territory for the purposes of acquiring natural resources, trade, and/or military advantage.  This is the core of U.S. expansion.  The acquisition of Hawaii, Cuba, and the Philippines are examples of imperialism.


Notice how they slipped trade in there, like trading with people in another nation amounts to Imperialism.  We bastards!  Those poor victims!



6.  Rugged Individualism


— The belief that individuals are to provide for their own needs without the help of others.  “I can do it myself.”  This was the pioneer spirit and the belief of the nation in the 1800s.  It worked against the average person during the latter part of the Industrial Revolution as corporations controlled the variables of life.  Working harder did not mean greater rewards for the worker.  It meant greater profits for the corporation.


The ideal of self sufficiency worked against the average person, eh?  So you’d be better off relying on others.  Notice too the repeated use of the word “worker”.  “Workers of the World Unite” then, I guess.  There are those evil corporations again, and the use of “profits” as an epithet.



7.  Social Darwinism


— Applying the theory of Darwinism, survival of the fittest, to political and social life.  The strong must survive to benefit the entire nation.  No sympathy for the weak, (poor, workers).  Laws and social customs were for the benefit of the fittest (rich, industrialist, upper crust of society).  When you combine the philosophies of Social Darwinism with imperialism, and Manifest Destiny., the world created was a tough one for the average person.


The Nazis were Social Darwinists, or I would say “Socialist Darwinists”.  Let’s be clear.



8.  Humanitarianism


— the belief that mankind should help others just because they can.  “Social Gospel” of the latter 1800s.


“Just because they can”, mind you.  Not because it’s the right thing to do.  Not because there are rich people who are, you know, actually human.



9.  Liberty/Freedom/Self-determination*


These fundamental beliefs began to take on a new meaning for many of society as the end of the century approached.  The empathy to “occupied countries” overseas and to the oppressed at home gains attention of a wider spectrum of society in the late 1800s.


Again no mention of rights, rights protection, or founding principles.  Instead it’s all up for grabs, depending on prevailing theories.



9. AMERICAN IMPERIALISM


It is easier to define American Imperialism by contrasting it with Imperialism.


Imperialism is centered on Social Darwinism, Manifest Destiny, and White Man’s Burden.


There were never, ever, anywhere, any non-white Imperialists then.  You racist, you.



American Imperialism tempers those beliefs with humanitarianism and the beliefs of self-determination, freedom and liberty.  Our present foreign and domestic policies are motivated by this belief.


There you have it.  We’re an Imperialist nation.  Damn us all to hell.


This history lesson is a self-contradictory and confused jumble of omissions, lies, half truths and truths.  Would Karl Marx strongly disagree with any of it?

Atlas Shrugged: Part 1

Posted on by

This started out as a comment at Tam’s post about target marketing fail while waiting for Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 but grew to the point I figured it should be a post of my own.


Son James made a very similar “target audience” fail remark during the previews about different movies at our location as well.


James has read the book three times and I read it once then listened to the unabridged audio version once (yes, Galt’s eight hour monologue actually takes eight hours). We both liked the movie but had some minor criticisms about the movie skipping over some points too rapidly for “newcomers” to really understand the points being made.


We both really liked that the sex scene with Dagny was not the way Rand always portrayed an ideal man/woman relationship.


The scene wife Barbara liked best was where the guy wanted Rearden’s money but asked Rearden’s name not associated with the donation.


I agree with the commenters who said the casting of James Taggert was a little off.


I was uncomfortable with a train going 250 MPH on those curves with the passengers standing up. Sorry, but I don’t think they ran the numbers through the physics equations before they filmed those scenes. And the curves had better have some appropriate slope to them to keep the train from rolling over or pushing the tracks off the railway bed.

Overheard in bed last night

Posted on by

Paraphrasing just a little…



Joe: So what is the Tea Party protest sign you were talking about with James and Xenia?
Barb: Xenia is going to carry one that says, “Refresh the tree of liberty.”
Joe: That’s a little over the top. I wouldn’t carry one like that.
Barb: It was John’s idea.
Joe: Xenia’s a big girl and can make her own decisions. That she is a young woman and John is in the military helps some.
Barb: I wonder what sign they will make for me.
Joe: Probably it will be something like, “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”


Here is a picture of son James and daughter Xenia at the protest in Olympia Washington today:


JamesXeniaProtest

Quote of the day—Milton Friedman

Posted on by

Inflation is taxation without legislation.

Milton Friedman
[I was reminded of this by David and it being April 15th.—Joe]

I Stumbled Across This Excellent Dissertation

Posted on by

And it turns out to have been written by me, so I’m quoting myself.

In a discussion about capitalism, this was asked;

Does Need and Want enter the equation?
How does Marketing elbow it’s way in between Production and Consumption?

To which I replied;

Interesting question. I’d say that need and want are omnipresent in all interactions, but the basic equation is still the same. That production necessarily precedes consumption is obvious, whether or not the goods or services being consumed are both needed and wanted, or merely wanted. Each individual should be free to decided what he wants or needs to produce, what he wants or needs to consume, with whom he will trade, and how, in order to reach his goals. That includes the form of communication we call marketing.

Marketing is as old as humanity. Actually that’s a short sighted statement, because marketing, usually by males to potentially receptive females, has been going on for millennia in other species. Not sure where you’re going with that. I make widgets and want other people to buy them. They’ll never know I have these widgets available unless I advertize in some way. Often that advertizing is as difficult and expensive as the actual production but, just like the colorful feathers on the peacock, I can’t continue without it. If I believe my widgets are superior to widgets made by other producers, it is my want, my duty and my need to explain that superiority. That’s the communication between producer and potential consumer. That enables products of all descriptions to receive trial in the free market. The best performers will in the long run and overall, tend to win out over the lesser performers. Even products some people hate may do very well if there are enough who like them.

To the extent that the producer wants to produce and trade, and to the extent that the consumer wants and/or needs the product, marketing helps both.

If your thought is that marketing can and does steer people in directions they should not go, I would agree in many cases, though interference in that process can only have further negative consequences. Right at the start, legal interference denies the freedom that is the ideal in our society. Ultimately people are responsible for their personal choices, and reality will be the judge.

I may not like what some people spend their money on, I may not like the products some people offer, and I may not like how some people market their products. In a free society, that’s my tough luck. Everything has its costs, and the cost of liberty is that people I dislike may do things I dislike, so long as no one’s rights are being violated. Maybe instead I should find something to worry about that I can actually change. If I believe in my position passionately, I should have the freedom to get together with like-minded individuals and a) do better marketing of my own of a better product, or b) do an ad campaign of my own, warning others of the pitfalls of that other guy’s marketing. If I’m telling the truth, too bad for the other guy, and good for his unsuspecting customers. If I’m lying, he can sue me for defamation or some such, or his customers may ignore me.

The good thing about a truly free market (something no one alive has ever actually seen, by the way) is that people are free to make their own decisions. The bad thing about a free market is that people are free to make their own decisions. Our founding principles and documents acknowledge this dichotomy and uphold it as the ideal.

There are those who would put us in a situation where other people are making our decisions for us. That’s just trading retail bad decisions for wholesale bad decisions, with brute force being the operating system as opposed to free choice and rights protection. We know where that leads.

Quote of the day—Karl Marx

Posted on by

The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.

Karl Marx
[In this age with both state and Federal government collapsing from the weight of “entitlements” I find the irony of this funny in a very sad, sick sort of way.—Joe]