Why does it seem our political process has become so vitriolic, so intense, so violent? Why are people so upset? Why does it seem like we have lost our sense of harmony?
Listen to Isabel Paterson: "(T)he real source of social harmony is the spontaneous actions of individuals in a society governed by contract, not force." (The God Of The Machine, Isabel Paterson; Transaction Publishers, 2009; p il) (Ms Paterson first wrote these words in 1943.) She also saw "the free enterprise system as the promoter, not the destroyer, of a humane order of life." (ibid) BO believes that to provide for the needy in our society, we must force people at the point of law (guns, threats, IRS with double-barreled shotguns) to pony up everything they have so the government can divvy up to each one's needs: "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." No wonder so many think our President is a socialist of the first degree.
No wonder people are getting extremely defensive. The feds are getting so threatening that the only choice the people have is to submit and bend the knee or to oppose force with force.
And so if people are becoming vitriolic and forcefully outspoken, maybe it is because they feel threatened when they express themselves. They are beginning to feel like they are being pressed into a structure they want no part of.
The best way to change that is to give each individual the freedom to make his/her own contracts for his/her own business and associations/relationships. When that happens people can choose when and who they want to associate with and they don't feel forced into doing anything.
When the feds forced investors to give up their investments in GMC and other companies and turned that money and those investments over to the unions, that created a lot of stress and ramped up the conflict, not only from the investors that were robbed, but from others who realized from that example that they could loose everything they have. The only way the feds can ease this is to get out of the private sector and just let people create their own society by their own contracts. "The principle of social harmony is liberty, the rights of the individual; that is the natural law of man, which the United States had discovered and formulated, before the French Revolution." (ibid. p 156) "(I)f it (an idea, like socialism) cuts across an idea previously accepted, it will divide nations in fatal strife....(E)very major disaster is the result of inadequacy, error, or perversion of intelligence." (ibid. p 53)
If BO (and the ruling class) doesn't like the intense opposition from the citizens of this country, then he (and they) need to back off and work to make a contract with the people. A forced contract just leads to tyranny or rebellion/anarchy.
The "use of the state for 'genuinely benevolent and humane' purposes of social betternment and security must lead to 'economic serfdom, an autocratic, bueaucratic, supreme state...So it is not security, it is dependence, quite another thing.'" (ibid. p il) What is really interesting here is that to have a really humane society, we must have a society of freedom, a society where individuals are free to choose for themselves how and when and where they work and associate. That has created the most humane society that has existed so far and now the libs are trying to destroy that. They are trying to destroy the humane way of life our Constitution and Declaration of Independence created for us. May that never be!
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Principled Leaders
"There is no national movement for socialism or dictatorship in America...nothing but fumbling compromisers and frightened opportunists." (For The New Intellectual, Ayn Rand, New American Library, 1963; p 45)
Does this sound familiar today? How many of us are screaming at the top of our lungs because our "leaders" seem to be nothing but a bunch of "fumbling compromisers and frightened opportunists"?
"To oppose anything, one needs a firm set of principles." (ibid.) That seems to be what so many of our "leaders" lack, a firm set of principles. Or maybe their firm set of principles is all or part of the following: "the growth of government power is not an abridgement of freedom...the demand of one group for an unearned share of another group's income is not socialism...the destruction of property rights will not affect any other rights...man's mind, intelligence, creative ability are a 'national resource'...to be taken over, subsidized and disposed of by the government...businessmen are selfish autocrats because they are struggling to preserve freedom, while the 'liberals' are the true champions of liberty because they are fighting for more government controls...the fact that we are sliding down a road which has destroyed every other country, does not prove that it will destroy ours...dictatorship is not dictatorship if nobody calls it by that abstract name...none of us can help it, anyway"(ibid, italics in original). In either case, if our "leaders" can be characterized by no set of principles or any of the principles above, we are in deep trouble and need to find some others to lead us.
This is a time of crisis. We cannot be led by fumbling compromisers or frightened opportunists. We need leaders who have the principles of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and are willing to oppose the socialist slide that started decades ago with Woodrow Wilson, FDR (or even before them) and the socialist idea that government can solve our problems. "Government cannot solve our problems; it IS the problem." (Reagan) The only thing that government can do is create a safe and secure atmosphere where the private sector can do its incredible work of solving our problems. This has worked in the past and it can and will work again. (Katrina is a good example of that.)
Just think: Ayn Rand originally wrote these words 50 years ago. It has taken us 50 years to wake up, but we are awake now. Let us very consciously keep the pressure up and the fight on.
Does this sound familiar today? How many of us are screaming at the top of our lungs because our "leaders" seem to be nothing but a bunch of "fumbling compromisers and frightened opportunists"?
"To oppose anything, one needs a firm set of principles." (ibid.) That seems to be what so many of our "leaders" lack, a firm set of principles. Or maybe their firm set of principles is all or part of the following: "the growth of government power is not an abridgement of freedom...the demand of one group for an unearned share of another group's income is not socialism...the destruction of property rights will not affect any other rights...man's mind, intelligence, creative ability are a 'national resource'...to be taken over, subsidized and disposed of by the government...businessmen are selfish autocrats because they are struggling to preserve freedom, while the 'liberals' are the true champions of liberty because they are fighting for more government controls...the fact that we are sliding down a road which has destroyed every other country, does not prove that it will destroy ours...dictatorship is not dictatorship if nobody calls it by that abstract name...none of us can help it, anyway"(ibid, italics in original). In either case, if our "leaders" can be characterized by no set of principles or any of the principles above, we are in deep trouble and need to find some others to lead us.
This is a time of crisis. We cannot be led by fumbling compromisers or frightened opportunists. We need leaders who have the principles of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and are willing to oppose the socialist slide that started decades ago with Woodrow Wilson, FDR (or even before them) and the socialist idea that government can solve our problems. "Government cannot solve our problems; it IS the problem." (Reagan) The only thing that government can do is create a safe and secure atmosphere where the private sector can do its incredible work of solving our problems. This has worked in the past and it can and will work again. (Katrina is a good example of that.)
Just think: Ayn Rand originally wrote these words 50 years ago. It has taken us 50 years to wake up, but we are awake now. Let us very consciously keep the pressure up and the fight on.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
People's Blindness
Here is "the real motive of any person who's ever preached the slogan: 'From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need'....At first, I kept wondering how it could be possible that the educated, the cultured, the famous men of the world could make a mistake of this size and preach, as righteousness, this sort of abomination...Now I know that they didn't do it by any kind of mistake. Mistakes of this size are never made innocently...they have a reson that they do not wish to tell...There wasn't a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself." (For The New Intellectual, Ayn Rand; New American Library, 1963; pp 122, 123)
Why would BO say something so stupid as: "We need to spread the wealth around. That is good for us all"? Doesn't he realize this has been going on in our country for 2 centuries? Maybe he doesn't know the history of this country. Capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other financial structure or any other society. Was all poverty gone? No, of course not. And the socialist structures certainly could not even begin to claim they had accomplished that. Capitalism did a much better job in easing poverty than any other structure. All the other structures created more poverty. And capitalism raises people out of poverty without taking from some by force to give to someone else who has not worked for it. And capitalism created more charity than any other society. It did not erase poverty, but it did much more than any other society ever has.
So why did he make such a claim? Why do people who are socially cultured, educated, supposedly intelligent make such a stupid claim and buy into this destructive silliness? It could be a number of reasons. 1.) It could be they are just evil and want to destroy our country. 2.) Or they are not smart enough to realize that what they said makes no sense at all. 3.) Or as Ayn Rand states: they wanted to horn in on the profits that were being made in our society without working for them.
The last one makes most sense. Look at the corruption in our federal government today. Look at Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, and the list could go on almost without end. Look at the lobbyists. Look at the CEOs that cuddle up to the politicians. Read Reckless Endangerment by Ann Morgenson and weep. When taxes are put together with the force of law, people begin to hope they can horn on the wealth that will collect under the threat of law.
The only way to solve this is to shrink government to such an extent that people are not tempted to use it to force others to supply what they want. The federal government's purpose is not taking care of us, is not providing for us our daily needs. Its purpose is to create an atmosphere where the private sector is safe and secure so that it can do the work that supplies us with our daily needs. Anything beyond that leads to corruption and tyranny, which is where we are headed if we don't get this stopped.
Why would BO say something so stupid as: "We need to spread the wealth around. That is good for us all"? Doesn't he realize this has been going on in our country for 2 centuries? Maybe he doesn't know the history of this country. Capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other financial structure or any other society. Was all poverty gone? No, of course not. And the socialist structures certainly could not even begin to claim they had accomplished that. Capitalism did a much better job in easing poverty than any other structure. All the other structures created more poverty. And capitalism raises people out of poverty without taking from some by force to give to someone else who has not worked for it. And capitalism created more charity than any other society. It did not erase poverty, but it did much more than any other society ever has.
So why did he make such a claim? Why do people who are socially cultured, educated, supposedly intelligent make such a stupid claim and buy into this destructive silliness? It could be a number of reasons. 1.) It could be they are just evil and want to destroy our country. 2.) Or they are not smart enough to realize that what they said makes no sense at all. 3.) Or as Ayn Rand states: they wanted to horn in on the profits that were being made in our society without working for them.
The last one makes most sense. Look at the corruption in our federal government today. Look at Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, and the list could go on almost without end. Look at the lobbyists. Look at the CEOs that cuddle up to the politicians. Read Reckless Endangerment by Ann Morgenson and weep. When taxes are put together with the force of law, people begin to hope they can horn on the wealth that will collect under the threat of law.
The only way to solve this is to shrink government to such an extent that people are not tempted to use it to force others to supply what they want. The federal government's purpose is not taking care of us, is not providing for us our daily needs. Its purpose is to create an atmosphere where the private sector is safe and secure so that it can do the work that supplies us with our daily needs. Anything beyond that leads to corruption and tyranny, which is where we are headed if we don't get this stopped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)