In my earlier article Communist vs. Capitalist Vocabulary, I discussed what I meant when I said that the first word the little communist (Billy) learns in kindergarten is S-H-A-R-E, while the first word learned by the little capitalist (Johnnie) is T-R-A-D-E.
In the article I pointed out the insidious nature of S-H-A-R-E being a first word learned and also pointed out that Johnnie - even without being taught property rights - has a very definite idea of property, and has an innate resistance to its theft.
After reading the earlier article, one may ask why it is that this little proto-human (Johnnie) has such an innate reasoning about property and an innate resistance to its theft, and it is obvious that the reason for this is that it is an evolutionary survival mechanism.
Consider, if you will, the earliest days of man, and ask yourself what man would it be that would survive if he simply turned over his scarce property (food, clothing, shelter) without which he would starve, to one who, instead of creating such things on his own ,or trading them for other things of value, was just allowed to take them. No, my good friend, the humans that did that did not live long enough to procreate (they starved, or froze, or were eaten by beasts).
Thus it is that what we have in the world today is a species whose very existence sprang from the idea of NOT SHARING. NOT sharing, meant survival and propagation, and NOT having a sense of ones own property meant death and extinguishment of that particular hereditary line.
Thus it is that little Johnnie is exhibiting a trait (What's Mine is MINE, Not Yours) that has kept the human race alive -and the reason HE has it is because he is the end result of a million years of evolution that propagated these traits and extinguished others.
Keep in mind, however, that Billy is also exhibiting a trait - also in the human condition - that it is easier to take than it is to make. Consider too, that he is also exercising a form of survival strategy. However, this is not a long term survival strategy, for if all you do is take, then who is left to make? And, even if there are those that can make, the question is "will they" and "for how long"?
Think of it this way, as long as there are others to take from, and there are others that do not mind starving and dying so that the Billys of the world might live, then Billy may indeed survive . However, the question is for how long? It is easy to see that at some point Billy is going to run into somebody that will kill him, instead of giving up that which they themselves need to survive, and indeed this is exactly how the human evolution has played out to ingrain in even the tiniest babe a sense of property and the intimate and instinctual connection of property to survival.
The reader may now ask what does this have to do with Communism, Socialism, & Collectivism, and I will now proceed to show what it has to do with it. The connection is that the grown-up Billys of the modern world are not stupid, and by executing various survival strategies over the past 2000 years, they have learned that if they can convince a group of sufficient size (but not too great a size) that the need of the "have-nots" stakes a moral claim on those that "have", then they will be able to persist in their strategy of "feeding" without producing much of anything themselves.
Thus it is that the smart collectivist does not mount a frontal assault against the producers, for to do that would polarize the producers and in not to short a time there would be few collectivists. In addition, if a frontal assault succeeded, then in not to short a time (50 years?) the collective would perish as there would be no one left to produce.
No, the smart collectivist, executes a different strategy. He insinuates the ideas of the collective into the population via slogans, symbols, art, literature, religion, and especially into the minds of the children (the kindergarten scenario above) - and, critically important, he does this so that not all are turned into collectivists. This is critical - that not all be turned into collectivists, for even the true collectivist knows that if there were nothing but collectivists, that nobody would eat because, as in Jamestown in early America, where all land was held and worked in common, with rations distributed evenly from a central storehouse, there was no incentive for an individual to work harder and, with such an attitude of "Why should I work if my neighbor is required to make sure I do not starve", everybody indeed starved.
No, the smart collectivist, tries to, in the mass of producers, create and then calve off from the main mass of producers two groups.
The first is a mass of modified Johnnies, who after 15 years of exposure to such pap as "share" because others are in need and you have more - or the pap that selfishness is bad - or the pap that what's his really isn't his, have been body-snatched and re-educated to the collective and thereafter turn into community organizers, marching all around town (with Billy) trying to organize all the other body-snatched Johinnies and Billys of the neighborhood to come together into a shouting mob to take from the producers of the world - all while carrying signs accusing the producers and property owners of the world as being selfish. (Hell yeah, they are selfish - it is THEIR property.)
The second group is different in that they have not yet been completely body-snatched, but have been sufficiently indoctrinated with the kindergarten lessons, to be useful to the collectivist agenda which is to propagate and survive.
The members of this second group are the kind that get up and pronounce that private property rights should be respected - but that all children should be insured; or that complain about the government taking over health care - but in the next breath intone how it is "society" that should come together to pay for care for their aging parent; or that talk about how people should bear the consequences of their acts - but then participate in engineers without border, doctors without borders, carpenters without borders, habitat builders without borders, etc, where they go into a society that in 5000 years has not learned to, for example, drill a water well, and proceed to drill it for them, thus upsetting an entire societal structure with their do-goodedness.
These are the same people/groups who talk loudly at tea parties against government intrusion - but when that government intrusion is going to throw pork their way, are nowhere to be seen, but everywhere to be heard, as they grovel ,grunt, and shove their way to the head of the line. (A perfect example of this being individual members of a national engineering society who while protesting the evils of Obamunism, try to move themselves to the head of the handout line by raising a hue and a cry about how their profession should get government money for work that is not in need of doing, and if it is in need of doing, should be funded at the local level instead of at the national level.
These in-betweens & bystanders are very useful to the true collectivist because they are economically productive, are attached to their station in life, and are attached to the fruits that they have been able to gain and retain by in essence being closet collectivists, or by averting their eyes from what it truly is that they obtain their wealth and possessions. Essentially, they are people that are so wedded to their comforts in life that they will suffer giving up a portion of their property - if they can convince themselves (and indeed they do so convince themselves) that they can just be left alone to enjoy the rest, or if they judge that it is less work to just give up than it is to fight. (BTW - The IRS tax structure is EXACTLY set up with this in mind.)
As a stark lesson in what I mean, consider Nazi Germany and the work of extermination of the Jews. Ask yourself, if they came for your Jewish neighbor, but not for you, would you have stood against the Nazi boots - or would you have "stood-by"? If the answer is that it depends on the cost to you, then you might be an in-between , or a bystander.
Considering the above, is it any wonder then that the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their property, and their sacred honor, instead of pledging 5% of their income, or a couple weekends of their time working in a homeless shelter.
How many of us would do that - Pledge our lives? Pledge our property (all of it) ? Pledge our sacred honor? Not very many of us, I am afraid, and THAT is exactly the strategy of the collectivist. To take as much as can be taken without causing a complete attack from the production tribe, and to even bribe part of that production tribe with promises and selective delivery of economic gain to those that can be body-snatched and induced to continue to stand-by.
It is these in-betweens and bystanders that the collectivist needs, for it is they that set the tone of social acceptability and pressure, it is they that work in the factory or the office, and it is through them that the true collectivist achieves his aim of creating a system where a sufficient number of producers continue to produce, and where he the collectivist, just as a vampire bat, can feed.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Communist vs Capitalist Vocabulary
Since I made the original post, I have had comments from readers indicating that they were not grasping exactly what it was that I was trying to say, sometimes asking "What's wrong with sharing?". Therefore, I expatiate here in a bit more detail.
Philosopher Ayn Rand tells us that there are 2 kinds of people in the world, the producers and the looters.
Producers sustain themselves (and society) by using their minds and their talents to create objects that they consider that they themselves own, and that they themselves expect to trade for things that others creators have produced - a voluntary value for value exchange if you will. Their creating is not limited to creating things such as a new metal alloy used for railway track, or creating software for manipulation of data, but also includes business systems and organizational structures for efficient production and administration of the products that flow from their creations or the creations of others.
As an example of a value for value exchange, consider two neighbors, Farmer A and Rancher B. Farmer A grows grain, and Rancher B raises and fattens cattle for sale. Farmer A wants beef, but raises none of his own, while Rancher B, wants grain but grows none of his own. It is easy to see that Farmer A and Rancher B will be induced out of self interest (ooooo scary words for a collectivist), to strike a value for value exchange. Farmer A trading some grain for cattle- Rancher B trading some cattle for grain. Both, with each doing what they do best (Farming or Ranching), end up having their self interested needs satisfied by this voluntary exchange, and this then results in a net increase in value of the Farmer-Rancher system - product trades hands and the immediate surplus (extra value) is that we have 2 satisfied parties.
This is not the only value that is created, for there is an additional increase in value that arises because if such exchange had not happened, the Rancher would have to become a less efficient Rancher/Farmer, and the Farmer would have to become a Farmer/Rancher, and indeed the chances of either one of them being able to create as much product is greatly lessened, for why should the framer raise grain beyond his family's, needs and why would the rancher raise beef beyond his if there is nobody with which to trade. Thus it is then that by voluntary exchange there is the creation of an immediate surplus of value, and the creation of a secondary value (to society as a whole) - [think a place where you can go to trade your lumber for some beef and some bread].
An important point here is that the exchange is NOT a zero-sum game where for one to win, another has to lose. Value trades hands, AND in doing so MORE value is created. THIS is the touchstone of the free market and of voluntary exchange - that someone "winning" does NOT mean that another party has lost and that surplus and societial value is created in the exchange. Again, in the ideal capitalist world there is NO loser; BOTH parties come out winners; and value is added to society.
Keep all this in mind then, next time you hear about how some greedy industrialist is exploiting the poor worker, and consider the true meaning of the word "exploit" which is "to put to productive use", and additionally consider in this sense then, that the capitalist is exploited by his capital - his capital, always searching to be used has used the industrialist as a conduit to create that which did not exist before. Further consider that it can just as easily be said is the poor worker that is exploiting the industrialist. Worker wants money - worker withholds his labor unless in exchange he gets the capital of the industrialist, and indeed, the laborer in a sense takes advantage of that capitalist in even asking to be paid for his days work. In summary then a capitalist thinks in terms of "What's mine is mine, What's yours is yours. Let's trade some of what's mine for some of what's yours."
This then brings us to the looters. Think collectivists. These are the people that do not create on their own, but live as parasites off of the backs of the creators and producers and indeed try to find ways in which they can take the grain of Farmer A without exchanging any of their cattle. (Think "What's mine is mine , What's yours is mine too, and I am justified in taking it because you have more than I do.)
Keep in mind now that parasites end up killing their hosts and in the truest sense of the word looters are indeed pariscites, for their philosophy of feeding off the fruits of the creators will indeed eventually kill the host. Witness what happened in the Soviet Union where the collectivist mentality that consumed that country resulted in a flight of creators from that country and outright "going underground" of those that could create but could not leave. It was just such "social justice" as we saw in the Soviet Union that exactly resulted in people standing in breadlines - and such collectivist mentality that resulted in the extinction of the Jamestown Colony in the Americas.
In summary then, the creed of the creators/producers is individualism, free exchange, and property rights, and they use the means of capital ($) to achieve their ends which are the production of objects of wealth such as TV's automobiles, jets, computers, etc. , and the conversion of their creations into another object which represents the most refined state of value - money - and which represents the work that they have already done.
So, next time you want are tempted to utter "that person is rich and he doesn't do anything for a living", consider that the person of which you complain has already done the "work", and also consider that his money is not buried in the garden, but is placed in institutions where it is used to create the very business that is paying your paycheck. Also, the next time you hear a collectivist say that it was the workers that built the country, respond to him by telling him that it was not workers but money (capital) aggregated by the capitalists, that built the country, and ask him what kind of job those exploited workers would have if capital was not available beforehand.
Looters on the other hand, a.k.a. communists, socialists, social justiceists, community organizerists, collectivists in the Randian sense, do not sustain themselves by creating and adding value, but attempt to sustain themselves thru taking, by force if necessary, goods that have been produced by the creators, either by taking the goods themselves, or by forcing the transfer of some form of the possessor's wealth to themselves, without trading anything of equal value in return.
With all this as background,and returning now to kindergarten, I think we all can see in our mind's eye, the kindergarten playground where little Johnnie is quietly playing with his monster truck in the sandbox. Along comes Billy, who on seeing that monster truck, wants to play with it. Now, keeping in mind that these are two little tykes, whose minds have yet to be molded, and whose minds are in such a state that everything they are exposed to is an original molding experience, it is easy to see that little Billy will, because he has not yet been taught property rights, go over and try to grab that truck from Johnnie's hands and himself start playing with it.
I think it is also easy to see in the mind's eye, and, critically important, being mindful of the fact that Johnnie himself has not been taught property rights, that little Johnnie will protest little Billy trying to take his truck. Indeed, the fact that Johnnie protests is an indication that the natural human understandings of right and wrong have a connection to property, for here we have a 4 year old, having been taught nothing about property, having an innate sense that what is his is HIS and not the other guys - so much so that he resists the forceful taking of his property by another.
Continuing with the playground scene, in now steps a mother who, in soothing tone, tells little Johnnie that he is being "selfish" and should "share" his toys with others - eventually coaxing him to give up his property.
Consider now what lesson(s) is being taught to little Johnnie. What he has just been taught is that another person's "need" lays a moral claim on him to fulfill that need, and that the word "share" means that the way to obtain what one wants is to go grab it from somebody else and when that other person objects, to call it "sharing". He has also learned that he can leverage his chances of getting what he wants at the expense of another by inveighing against that person as being "selfish".
Consider now what Billy, this little proto-communist, has learned. He has learned the first lesson of communism - of the collective - that his need or desire to possess that of another lays a moral claim on others to fulfill it, and like Johnnie, who had the idea right in the first place that your need does not create any requirement for me to give, but was re-educated on the playground, both now have become community organizers who march around proclaiming how all the producers of the world are supposed to give up, for free, the fruits of their production to those that did not produce it, and who march into the halls of Congress to grasp the levers controlling the machinery of government so as to effect their ends of "redistributive change".
Think now if the lessons had been different. That instead of teaching Billy (and body-snatching Johnnie) that "need" of one lays a moral claim on the property of another, and that selfishness on the part of the possessor of property is something bad, and that possessors are supposed to share; that, instead of these teachings, that Billy had been told, Johnnie's truck is Johnnie's property, not yours, and Johnnie does not have to share his toys with you. Suppose further that Billy was taught, then and there on the playground, that is wrong for him to try to take by force the property of another, and that just because he wants that truck does not mean that Johnnie is supposed to give it to him. Suppose further that he had been told that if you want that truck, then you need to find something that Johnnie wants (like that cupcake you have in your hand), and see if you can trade your "stuff" for his "stuff" - and that Johnnie is under no obligation to consummate the transaction if he does not want to.
Do we think that Billy, unless he was a "bad seed", would grow up to be a communist or a collectivist? Do we think that Johnnie, would grow up thinking that another's need becomes his requirement to provide? I think not. No, I think that both would grow up to be producers, capitalists, traders of value for value, writers of conservative blogs- persons who would espouse the view that "What's mine is Mine; What's yours is Yours ...and, most important of all ... What's Mine is Not Yours - regardless of how much better a place/use you think you can find for my money than I can."
Thus it is that the first word that the future communist learns in kindergarten is S-H-A-R-E, while the first word the capitalist learns is T-R-A-D-E.
Philosopher Ayn Rand tells us that there are 2 kinds of people in the world, the producers and the looters.
Producers sustain themselves (and society) by using their minds and their talents to create objects that they consider that they themselves own, and that they themselves expect to trade for things that others creators have produced - a voluntary value for value exchange if you will. Their creating is not limited to creating things such as a new metal alloy used for railway track, or creating software for manipulation of data, but also includes business systems and organizational structures for efficient production and administration of the products that flow from their creations or the creations of others.
As an example of a value for value exchange, consider two neighbors, Farmer A and Rancher B. Farmer A grows grain, and Rancher B raises and fattens cattle for sale. Farmer A wants beef, but raises none of his own, while Rancher B, wants grain but grows none of his own. It is easy to see that Farmer A and Rancher B will be induced out of self interest (ooooo scary words for a collectivist), to strike a value for value exchange. Farmer A trading some grain for cattle- Rancher B trading some cattle for grain. Both, with each doing what they do best (Farming or Ranching), end up having their self interested needs satisfied by this voluntary exchange, and this then results in a net increase in value of the Farmer-Rancher system - product trades hands and the immediate surplus (extra value) is that we have 2 satisfied parties.
This is not the only value that is created, for there is an additional increase in value that arises because if such exchange had not happened, the Rancher would have to become a less efficient Rancher/Farmer, and the Farmer would have to become a Farmer/Rancher, and indeed the chances of either one of them being able to create as much product is greatly lessened, for why should the framer raise grain beyond his family's, needs and why would the rancher raise beef beyond his if there is nobody with which to trade. Thus it is then that by voluntary exchange there is the creation of an immediate surplus of value, and the creation of a secondary value (to society as a whole) - [think a place where you can go to trade your lumber for some beef and some bread].
An important point here is that the exchange is NOT a zero-sum game where for one to win, another has to lose. Value trades hands, AND in doing so MORE value is created. THIS is the touchstone of the free market and of voluntary exchange - that someone "winning" does NOT mean that another party has lost and that surplus and societial value is created in the exchange. Again, in the ideal capitalist world there is NO loser; BOTH parties come out winners; and value is added to society.
Keep all this in mind then, next time you hear about how some greedy industrialist is exploiting the poor worker, and consider the true meaning of the word "exploit" which is "to put to productive use", and additionally consider in this sense then, that the capitalist is exploited by his capital - his capital, always searching to be used has used the industrialist as a conduit to create that which did not exist before. Further consider that it can just as easily be said is the poor worker that is exploiting the industrialist. Worker wants money - worker withholds his labor unless in exchange he gets the capital of the industrialist, and indeed, the laborer in a sense takes advantage of that capitalist in even asking to be paid for his days work. In summary then a capitalist thinks in terms of "What's mine is mine, What's yours is yours. Let's trade some of what's mine for some of what's yours."
This then brings us to the looters. Think collectivists. These are the people that do not create on their own, but live as parasites off of the backs of the creators and producers and indeed try to find ways in which they can take the grain of Farmer A without exchanging any of their cattle. (Think "What's mine is mine , What's yours is mine too, and I am justified in taking it because you have more than I do.)
Keep in mind now that parasites end up killing their hosts and in the truest sense of the word looters are indeed pariscites, for their philosophy of feeding off the fruits of the creators will indeed eventually kill the host. Witness what happened in the Soviet Union where the collectivist mentality that consumed that country resulted in a flight of creators from that country and outright "going underground" of those that could create but could not leave. It was just such "social justice" as we saw in the Soviet Union that exactly resulted in people standing in breadlines - and such collectivist mentality that resulted in the extinction of the Jamestown Colony in the Americas.
In summary then, the creed of the creators/producers is individualism, free exchange, and property rights, and they use the means of capital ($) to achieve their ends which are the production of objects of wealth such as TV's automobiles, jets, computers, etc. , and the conversion of their creations into another object which represents the most refined state of value - money - and which represents the work that they have already done.
So, next time you want are tempted to utter "that person is rich and he doesn't do anything for a living", consider that the person of which you complain has already done the "work", and also consider that his money is not buried in the garden, but is placed in institutions where it is used to create the very business that is paying your paycheck. Also, the next time you hear a collectivist say that it was the workers that built the country, respond to him by telling him that it was not workers but money (capital) aggregated by the capitalists, that built the country, and ask him what kind of job those exploited workers would have if capital was not available beforehand.
Looters on the other hand, a.k.a. communists, socialists, social justiceists, community organizerists, collectivists in the Randian sense, do not sustain themselves by creating and adding value, but attempt to sustain themselves thru taking, by force if necessary, goods that have been produced by the creators, either by taking the goods themselves, or by forcing the transfer of some form of the possessor's wealth to themselves, without trading anything of equal value in return.
With all this as background,and returning now to kindergarten, I think we all can see in our mind's eye, the kindergarten playground where little Johnnie is quietly playing with his monster truck in the sandbox. Along comes Billy, who on seeing that monster truck, wants to play with it. Now, keeping in mind that these are two little tykes, whose minds have yet to be molded, and whose minds are in such a state that everything they are exposed to is an original molding experience, it is easy to see that little Billy will, because he has not yet been taught property rights, go over and try to grab that truck from Johnnie's hands and himself start playing with it.
I think it is also easy to see in the mind's eye, and, critically important, being mindful of the fact that Johnnie himself has not been taught property rights, that little Johnnie will protest little Billy trying to take his truck. Indeed, the fact that Johnnie protests is an indication that the natural human understandings of right and wrong have a connection to property, for here we have a 4 year old, having been taught nothing about property, having an innate sense that what is his is HIS and not the other guys - so much so that he resists the forceful taking of his property by another.
Continuing with the playground scene, in now steps a mother who, in soothing tone, tells little Johnnie that he is being "selfish" and should "share" his toys with others - eventually coaxing him to give up his property.
Consider now what lesson(s) is being taught to little Johnnie. What he has just been taught is that another person's "need" lays a moral claim on him to fulfill that need, and that the word "share" means that the way to obtain what one wants is to go grab it from somebody else and when that other person objects, to call it "sharing". He has also learned that he can leverage his chances of getting what he wants at the expense of another by inveighing against that person as being "selfish".
Consider now what Billy, this little proto-communist, has learned. He has learned the first lesson of communism - of the collective - that his need or desire to possess that of another lays a moral claim on others to fulfill it, and like Johnnie, who had the idea right in the first place that your need does not create any requirement for me to give, but was re-educated on the playground, both now have become community organizers who march around proclaiming how all the producers of the world are supposed to give up, for free, the fruits of their production to those that did not produce it, and who march into the halls of Congress to grasp the levers controlling the machinery of government so as to effect their ends of "redistributive change".
Think now if the lessons had been different. That instead of teaching Billy (and body-snatching Johnnie) that "need" of one lays a moral claim on the property of another, and that selfishness on the part of the possessor of property is something bad, and that possessors are supposed to share; that, instead of these teachings, that Billy had been told, Johnnie's truck is Johnnie's property, not yours, and Johnnie does not have to share his toys with you. Suppose further that Billy was taught, then and there on the playground, that is wrong for him to try to take by force the property of another, and that just because he wants that truck does not mean that Johnnie is supposed to give it to him. Suppose further that he had been told that if you want that truck, then you need to find something that Johnnie wants (like that cupcake you have in your hand), and see if you can trade your "stuff" for his "stuff" - and that Johnnie is under no obligation to consummate the transaction if he does not want to.
Do we think that Billy, unless he was a "bad seed", would grow up to be a communist or a collectivist? Do we think that Johnnie, would grow up thinking that another's need becomes his requirement to provide? I think not. No, I think that both would grow up to be producers, capitalists, traders of value for value, writers of conservative blogs- persons who would espouse the view that "What's mine is Mine; What's yours is Yours ...and, most important of all ... What's Mine is Not Yours - regardless of how much better a place/use you think you can find for my money than I can."
Thus it is that the first word that the future communist learns in kindergarten is S-H-A-R-E, while the first word the capitalist learns is T-R-A-D-E.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Service to Whom? - The Insidious Nature of the Government School
I hear on one of the talk shows this morning that the state of Maryland has a requirement that you have to do community service in order to graduate from high school.
I see a judge has ordered community service as part of the "punishment".
I see a bill passed by the House and the Senate and signed into law, said bill having the name the GIVE Act.
Everywhere I turn what do it see??? Service to others (a.k.a. the camel's nose for Service to the State)
Tell the truth, I am sick of it. I guess that any reader of the About Me section to the right of this blog, will not be surprised, and that he will not be further surprised as he reads most any of the posts here.
I have a question - If everybody is doing service to others, then what about his responsibility to himself? Do you really think that a society can be built on service to others, instead of service to ones self? If so then, let me know so I can give you an address to send your money to, because I need your money more than you do.
So sad it is for me to come to the understanding that the very things that made this country great - self interest, self reliance, making people bear the consequences of their folly instead of bailing them out, etc - are the very values that have created so much wealth that people now are able to (but not for long) ignore what it was that got us here in the first place.
Thus it is that we have all these touchy-feely, do-gooder agencies, and thus it is that if you kid does not stand up and proclaim in a loud voice to his classmates that he does not matter, then he will be ostracized and his future dimmed because he did not spout the politically correct line of "Service to the State". And yes, this includes "Habitat for Humanity". If you want to go build a house for somebody, using YOUR money, and YOUR time, the bully for you. But why do you go around telling everybody about how "caring" you are?
Are you doing all the "helping" because you really want to "help", or are you doing it because by so doing, you make yourself feel good, or because you either want something to put on your resume or college transcript, or because you want to have something to "crow" about. The fact of the matter my dear reader is that help is a private affair and this currently in vogue idea of "service" it the nose of collectivist camel trying to take over the tent.
I, for one, am sick of it. How about you? Are you sick of it too? Will you stand up, and stand against, such thinking - thinking that will lay this country bleeding in the ditch as sure as would any IED. Have you yet freed your mind from toxic idea that you are supposed to live for others, .. of your requirement to sacrifice ... of the idea that another mans "need" lays a moral claim on you to fulfill that "need"?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
How it Happens
"I do think that if we try to defend capitalism and try to defend freedom just on the basis of the Judeo-Christian morality , we're in trouble. [Be]cause I think that philosophy is much more consistent with socialism than it is with capitalism. [Ed Note: He is correct on this point.] This country was founded on the principles of the enlightment: on John Locke; on individualism; on ideas that came out of the age of reason, not ideas that came out of the New Testament. [Ed Note: He is correct here too.] And that's important."
...
"That [the Jefferson Bible] is full of altruism, that is full of this idea that we need to be our brothers keeper, it is full of the idea of need as a moral claim against us, and that is what Obama, and that is what socialists use in order to get us to accept health care and to get America behind them."
"The key is that we understand that capitalism stands for individualism, self interest, a rational pursuit of our own happiness , that's in our Declaration of Independence, and we launched the Campaign for Liberty on a moral foundation of the right to pursue happiness - individual happiness - your own happiness.~ Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand Institute Director, Responding live to a comment made by Glenn Beck .....
We need to reject this notion that somebody's need, somebody that doesn't have health insurance, somebody that doesn't have a pension, or somebody that does not have money to buy food, [that their need] lays a claim - a moral claim and a political claim on my life, on my productivity, on my success. If we can reject that, then capitalism and freedom are easy after that."
__________________________________________
"I do feel we have a collective responsibility to the least among us to some extent, but I'm not a socialist. [Ed Note: Oh, really? Think Again.] I think that is terrifying."~Pat Caddell, Former advisor to President Carter, speaking to Glenn Beck on 9/12/2009
__________________________________________
~Ayn Rand"Reason is not automatic, and those that deny it, cannot be reached by it."
___________________________________________
~ A. Koenig, aka Seneca"It is far easier to think the lie to be the truth, than it is to discover the truth itself."
So my friends, here in the first statement, we have the clearest presentation of the objectivist philosophy that I have ever heard ........ and here in the second statement, we hear the clearest presentation of the muddled thinking of those that Ms Rand is referring to in hers, the third statement.
More to be posted later but other commitmments require me to take leave for now so that I can be my own keeper ....and not yours.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Audacity of Unawareness
On April 15th, 2009, Barack Obama, claimed that he was unaware of the Tax Day Tea Parties! Granted, the MSM has done a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best). But how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?
This much we know:
- He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America .
- He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.
- He was unaware he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
- He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.
- He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya .
- He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill!
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.
PLEASE. There are people in comas who are more aware of world affairs ...... and have you checked out his Czars: their loyalties and affiliations?
***----****
~ from Tom
This much we know:
- He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America .
- He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.
- He was unaware he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
- He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.
- He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya .
- He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill!
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.
PLEASE. There are people in comas who are more aware of world affairs ...... and have you checked out his Czars: their loyalties and affiliations?
***----****
~ from Tom
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
What Little Communists Learn in Kindergarten
Do you know what was the first word the little communist learned in kindergarten?
S-H-A-R-E
Do you know what was the first word the little capitalist learned in kindergarten?
T-R-A-D-E
In what kind of kindergarten did you learn?
In what kind of kindergarten are your children learning?
How about your neighbor's kids?
S-H-A-R-E
Do you know what was the first word the little capitalist learned in kindergarten?
T-R-A-D-E
In what kind of kindergarten did you learn?
In what kind of kindergarten are your children learning?
How about your neighbor's kids?
Friday, September 4, 2009
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington
Some more points to ponder .....
1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams
3 Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4 An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
7 You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8 Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9 You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the
others.
14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
Sent to me by a patriot
~Seneca
Some more points to ponder .....
1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams
3 Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4 An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
7 You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8 Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9 You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the
others.
14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
Sent to me by a patriot
~Seneca
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The People Speak
It is about time that others are seeing and calling out the connection of what is happening now to what was happening in 1935-39
I have maintained since Bush 2 was in office with his Orwellian use of terms like "Patriot" Act and "Homeland" Security, that we were sliding toward the rule of the despot. When I mention this to republicans they treat me like I have a stink. I guess that when it is the other guy presenting as Nazi, then they are all mad, but, when you say that it is their side too that is pushing us toward such things, then you are a traitor.
I am an equal opportunity spade caller and ONLY when the republicans and the democrats both wake up and start calling these guys out on their socialist/communist/statist agenda will the country change.
I have a bumper sticker -- It's Not Left vs. Right, it's the STATE vs. YOU. That , I believe , is the truth ..... and the faster the people wake up and throw these traitors out the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)