It has been a LONG time since my last post but I am back and really want to provide value to you as a reader by presenting information about the most pressing issues in regards to keeping our nation directed towards Constitutional limits.
We are now facing an immediate crises in regards to illegal immigration which should get everyone immediately calling the white house and demanding that the President does not encourage or try to pass amnesty! Here is the number to the White House so you can get on the phone now: 202-456-1111 and you can contact them by email by clicking HERE.
Here is the article about how the President is now considering using an executive order to pass amnesty to illegal immigrants:
Click HERE for the full article.
Amnesty is Unconstitutional! Click HERE for a great article that explains in layman's terms how and why amnesty is unconstitutional and why a vote for "amnesty" regarding illegal aliens is, according to current law, technically an act that would require the office removal of anyone who voted in the affirmative in either the House or Senate.
I would love to hear your comments regarding the current immigration problem we have in the United States and what you think would be a good solution to this problem. Thanks for sharing!
Monday, June 28, 2010
Friday, April 17, 2009
Universal Heathcare anyone?
THIS NOTE WAS POSTED BY MY GOOD FRIEND CANDACE SALIMA. I STARTED LEAVING A COMMENT AT THE END OF THE NOTE AND IT GOT TOO LONG FOR A COMMENT AND SO I AM POSTING MY RESPONSE HERE IN MY BLOG... PLEASE READ THE STORY/COMMENT BELOW AND THEN MY RESPONSE....
The note just before this one was written by mother and her experience with Universal Healthcare in the military. I also posted it on my personal blog (http://candacesalima.blogspot.com). A comment was posted there that is astounding and I wanted to share it with my friends:
Keeley has left a new comment on your post "America's Viewpoint: Universal Healthcare, Huh?":
Yep, that about sums it up.
My family live in England under their national health care and thus:
My Nana has cancer and is not being treated - because she's elderly and this is her second bout. She will die. The end. She is not worth the resources.
My Aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer...and had to wait about six weeks for the operation to remove the lump. So she waited. And stressed. And cried. And worried.
My father had rotator cuff surgery. He was sent home that day and was in out-of-his-mind couldn't-sleep- sheer agony for a week. He sat upright in a chair for a week because to do anything else was too painful.
My Mother had pneumonia several years ago. Not the walking pneumonia, but the hospitalized-she-might-die kind of pneumonia. Took her about five years to fully recover. While she was in the hospital there was a nurse who was absolutely brutal. She would throw the patients (elderly women) around. Threw one woman around so badly she was terribly bruised up the side of her leg from her ankle to her hip. Nothing was done to discipline this nurse, and no doubt her reign of terror continues.
My sister has epilepsy. Her doctor prescribed the wrong dosage, causing my sister to have fit after fit after fit until she could be hospitalized and her medication sorted out.
When I went into hospital, the ring I bought with my own money when I was six was stolen off my finger while I was unconscious. I know it's silly, but I loved that ring! I saved and saved and saved for it. And now it's gone. I had my initials engraved on it - how much worth could that tiny little thing be to someone else?
MY COMMENT:
Wow! A testimony that I hope will wake people up to what Universal healthcare REALLY is and not what it professes to be...you know one day I was watching Oprah (since I watched this show, I no longer watch) and she did a special on universal healthcare and tried to portray it as this benevolent and charitable system of healthcare...I remember one question she posed that was particularly disturbing. The question was asked, "Universal heathcare comes down to this question, do you believe a janitor's son has the same right to healthcare that a CEO's son does?"
I was sickened because these are the kinds of questions that get socialistic policies popular because it sounds like you are an evil, selfish person if you do not answer yes to the question! When really, the question should be asked this way, 'Do you believe it is morally right and acceptable to hold a gun to the CEO's head and steal his money that he rightfully earned and then give it to the janitor?'
You see the first question in evaluating any social system cannot be: What happens to those who are helpless and incapable of supporting themselves? Such people, by definition, are dependent for their survival on others—on those who are capable of working and who can produce wealth.
Thus, the first question must be: What happens to the thinkers and producers? What conditions make it possible for them to think and produce? The fundamental answer to that question is: FREEDOM—the freedom to direct their own actions and to keep the property they have produced.
Thus, to advocate for a system that puts taxes and regulations on the producers in the name of helping the disabled is a hopeless contradiction—it means helping the non-producers by throttling the producers on whom they depend.
So why is it that people advocating socialistic government make it look like we owe something to the janitor who clearly (in the socialist's mind) was born without the wealth and opportunities of the CEO?
Without a socialistic society the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer, right?
Quite the opposite.
Capitalism is the only system that leaves everyone free to rise by his/her own efforts. The history of capitalism provides countless instances of people who improved their lives through work and ability. There are the millions of immigrants who came to America and worked their way up to the middle class—or higher. One of the great historical examples was Andrew Carnegie, who rose from a penniless sweeper at a steel mill to revolutionize the steel industry and make one of the largest fortunes of his day. It is no coincidence that 19th century America—the most purely capitalist era in the nation's history—brought us the phrase "from rags to riches."
The reason why capitalism allows people to rise by their own efforts is that capitalism is driven by only one fundamental consideration: profit. But profit can only be earned through an increase in the production of wealth: profit comes from inventing a new product, producing a good more efficiently, promoting it to a wider market, etc. It comes from doing things better, faster, and smarter than before. This means that capitalism offers an open field to anyone who works hard to improve his skills—and it offers riches to anyone who thinks hard and comes up with new and better ideas. It is under capitalism, for example, that a company like Microsoft creates scores of millionaires out of individuals whose qualification is not inherited wealth or social connections, but only the ability to create and sell computer programs.
The rule under government regulation, by contrast, is very different. It is a common error today to talk about "crony capitalism." Cronyism is in fact a hallmark of state-run economies. When politicians and bureaucrats hold power over the economy, the only hope for success comes from currying their favor. Thus the competition for wealth becomes a competition, not over who can produce the most, but over who can make the most bribes or call in the most favors. It is under these systems that established wealth, family connections, and the "Old Boy's Network" become the determinants of success, rather than individual ability. But that is a problem created and perpetuated by statism, not capitalism.
But the advocates of socialism and universal healthcare cry out, how can you justify the huge disproportionate salary and rewards given to CEO's over what a lowly janitor makes?
A recent study claimed that corporate CEOs make, on average, 400 times as much as the company's lowest-paid employee. Let us assume that this figure is correct. Is that really "disproportionate"?
Let us concretize the question. What kind of work is performed by the lowest paid worker in a company? This worker might be, for example, a janitor. His work consists of performing routine, pre-established tasks, requiring little thought and only moderate physical effort. If he performs his work well, there is a moderate benefit: a clean workplace is more productive than a dirty one. But if he performs his work poorly, the consequences are minor—and the worker can easily be replaced by a better janitor; since the skills required are not complex, almost anyone can perform the job properly.
In the case of a CEO, by contrast, his work consists primarily in making decisions—decisions about what products the company should produce, how much it should invest in improvement of its equipment, whether it should raise money through stocks, bonds, venture capital, etc.
Bear in mind that wealth is not produced by blind, uncoordinated action. The best employees in the world working the longest hours are useless unless they are making a useful product backed by adequate funding and good marketing.
But ensuring that a company's resources and personnel are being used productively is the job of the CEO.
In justice—if justice means rewarding merit—an employee ought to be paid in proportion to the value he brings to the company. By that criterion, is there anything "disproportionate" about paying the CEO an enormous salary? If there is, the disparity is in the other direction. A good CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company is not worth so little as 400 employees, much less 400 janitors; he is worth as much as thousands of employees. Their work is profitable only as long as he makes the right decisions.
Of course, a bad CEO—one who makes poor decisions and wastes a company's resources—can wipe out the work of thousands of employees. But that is precisely why companies offer their CEOs such enormous financial rewards, rewards that are often dependent on the company's performance. For such a crucial position, nothing less will attract and motivate the best minds.
I am so sick and tired of the collectivist thinking that has and continues to poison our minds!
Who will speak up for the rights of the CEO?
Today, even the lowest specimen of humanity—especially the lowest specimen of humanity—can count on support from numerous sources. A homeless drug addict has a dozen different organizations, agencies, shelters, rehab programs, and the like devoted to his aid. A Nazi who burns a cross on his front lawn knows he can call the ACLU to protect his rights. But what if a peaceful, responsible, productive CEO or businessman—even a hero of American business—finds himself under attack?
Who can he call?
The note just before this one was written by mother and her experience with Universal Healthcare in the military. I also posted it on my personal blog (http://candacesalima.blogspot.com). A comment was posted there that is astounding and I wanted to share it with my friends:
Keeley has left a new comment on your post "America's Viewpoint: Universal Healthcare, Huh?":
Yep, that about sums it up.
My family live in England under their national health care and thus:
My Nana has cancer and is not being treated - because she's elderly and this is her second bout. She will die. The end. She is not worth the resources.
My Aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer...and had to wait about six weeks for the operation to remove the lump. So she waited. And stressed. And cried. And worried.
My father had rotator cuff surgery. He was sent home that day and was in out-of-his-mind couldn't-sleep- sheer agony for a week. He sat upright in a chair for a week because to do anything else was too painful.
My Mother had pneumonia several years ago. Not the walking pneumonia, but the hospitalized-she-might-die kind of pneumonia. Took her about five years to fully recover. While she was in the hospital there was a nurse who was absolutely brutal. She would throw the patients (elderly women) around. Threw one woman around so badly she was terribly bruised up the side of her leg from her ankle to her hip. Nothing was done to discipline this nurse, and no doubt her reign of terror continues.
My sister has epilepsy. Her doctor prescribed the wrong dosage, causing my sister to have fit after fit after fit until she could be hospitalized and her medication sorted out.
When I went into hospital, the ring I bought with my own money when I was six was stolen off my finger while I was unconscious. I know it's silly, but I loved that ring! I saved and saved and saved for it. And now it's gone. I had my initials engraved on it - how much worth could that tiny little thing be to someone else?
MY COMMENT:
Wow! A testimony that I hope will wake people up to what Universal healthcare REALLY is and not what it professes to be...you know one day I was watching Oprah (since I watched this show, I no longer watch) and she did a special on universal healthcare and tried to portray it as this benevolent and charitable system of healthcare...I remember one question she posed that was particularly disturbing. The question was asked, "Universal heathcare comes down to this question, do you believe a janitor's son has the same right to healthcare that a CEO's son does?"
I was sickened because these are the kinds of questions that get socialistic policies popular because it sounds like you are an evil, selfish person if you do not answer yes to the question! When really, the question should be asked this way, 'Do you believe it is morally right and acceptable to hold a gun to the CEO's head and steal his money that he rightfully earned and then give it to the janitor?'
You see the first question in evaluating any social system cannot be: What happens to those who are helpless and incapable of supporting themselves? Such people, by definition, are dependent for their survival on others—on those who are capable of working and who can produce wealth.
Thus, the first question must be: What happens to the thinkers and producers? What conditions make it possible for them to think and produce? The fundamental answer to that question is: FREEDOM—the freedom to direct their own actions and to keep the property they have produced.
Thus, to advocate for a system that puts taxes and regulations on the producers in the name of helping the disabled is a hopeless contradiction—it means helping the non-producers by throttling the producers on whom they depend.
So why is it that people advocating socialistic government make it look like we owe something to the janitor who clearly (in the socialist's mind) was born without the wealth and opportunities of the CEO?
Without a socialistic society the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer, right?
Quite the opposite.
Capitalism is the only system that leaves everyone free to rise by his/her own efforts. The history of capitalism provides countless instances of people who improved their lives through work and ability. There are the millions of immigrants who came to America and worked their way up to the middle class—or higher. One of the great historical examples was Andrew Carnegie, who rose from a penniless sweeper at a steel mill to revolutionize the steel industry and make one of the largest fortunes of his day. It is no coincidence that 19th century America—the most purely capitalist era in the nation's history—brought us the phrase "from rags to riches."
The reason why capitalism allows people to rise by their own efforts is that capitalism is driven by only one fundamental consideration: profit. But profit can only be earned through an increase in the production of wealth: profit comes from inventing a new product, producing a good more efficiently, promoting it to a wider market, etc. It comes from doing things better, faster, and smarter than before. This means that capitalism offers an open field to anyone who works hard to improve his skills—and it offers riches to anyone who thinks hard and comes up with new and better ideas. It is under capitalism, for example, that a company like Microsoft creates scores of millionaires out of individuals whose qualification is not inherited wealth or social connections, but only the ability to create and sell computer programs.
The rule under government regulation, by contrast, is very different. It is a common error today to talk about "crony capitalism." Cronyism is in fact a hallmark of state-run economies. When politicians and bureaucrats hold power over the economy, the only hope for success comes from currying their favor. Thus the competition for wealth becomes a competition, not over who can produce the most, but over who can make the most bribes or call in the most favors. It is under these systems that established wealth, family connections, and the "Old Boy's Network" become the determinants of success, rather than individual ability. But that is a problem created and perpetuated by statism, not capitalism.
But the advocates of socialism and universal healthcare cry out, how can you justify the huge disproportionate salary and rewards given to CEO's over what a lowly janitor makes?
A recent study claimed that corporate CEOs make, on average, 400 times as much as the company's lowest-paid employee. Let us assume that this figure is correct. Is that really "disproportionate"?
Let us concretize the question. What kind of work is performed by the lowest paid worker in a company? This worker might be, for example, a janitor. His work consists of performing routine, pre-established tasks, requiring little thought and only moderate physical effort. If he performs his work well, there is a moderate benefit: a clean workplace is more productive than a dirty one. But if he performs his work poorly, the consequences are minor—and the worker can easily be replaced by a better janitor; since the skills required are not complex, almost anyone can perform the job properly.
In the case of a CEO, by contrast, his work consists primarily in making decisions—decisions about what products the company should produce, how much it should invest in improvement of its equipment, whether it should raise money through stocks, bonds, venture capital, etc.
Bear in mind that wealth is not produced by blind, uncoordinated action. The best employees in the world working the longest hours are useless unless they are making a useful product backed by adequate funding and good marketing.
But ensuring that a company's resources and personnel are being used productively is the job of the CEO.
In justice—if justice means rewarding merit—an employee ought to be paid in proportion to the value he brings to the company. By that criterion, is there anything "disproportionate" about paying the CEO an enormous salary? If there is, the disparity is in the other direction. A good CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company is not worth so little as 400 employees, much less 400 janitors; he is worth as much as thousands of employees. Their work is profitable only as long as he makes the right decisions.
Of course, a bad CEO—one who makes poor decisions and wastes a company's resources—can wipe out the work of thousands of employees. But that is precisely why companies offer their CEOs such enormous financial rewards, rewards that are often dependent on the company's performance. For such a crucial position, nothing less will attract and motivate the best minds.
I am so sick and tired of the collectivist thinking that has and continues to poison our minds!
Who will speak up for the rights of the CEO?
Today, even the lowest specimen of humanity—especially the lowest specimen of humanity—can count on support from numerous sources. A homeless drug addict has a dozen different organizations, agencies, shelters, rehab programs, and the like devoted to his aid. A Nazi who burns a cross on his front lawn knows he can call the ACLU to protect his rights. But what if a peaceful, responsible, productive CEO or businessman—even a hero of American business—finds himself under attack?
Who can he call?
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Moral Basis of Capitalism
Capitalism is the only moral social system because it is the only system that respects the freedom of the producers to think and the right of the individual to set his own goals and pursue his own happiness.
I loved this article by Robert W. Tracinski and hope you will take the time to read it and then post your questions about its premise after reading.
"With the fall of communism and the alleged end of the "era of big government," many commentators and politicians grudgingly acknowledge the practical value of capitalism. The free market, they concede, is the best system for producing wealth and promoting prosperity; the private economy, in Bill Clinton's words, is the "primary engine of growth."
But this has not led to the triumph of capitalism. Quite the opposite: Federal taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product are at their highest rate since the Second World War; antitrust assaults on the market's winners are growing; the regulations on the federal register continue to expand by 60,000 pages per year; even the Republicans' recent tax cut proposal would only mandate a minor decrease in the projected growth of government revenues. By practically every measure, government interference in the free market is growing.
If capitalism is recognized as the only practical economic system—then why is it losing out to state control? The reason is that no one, neither on the left nor the right, is willing to defend capitalism as moral. Thus, both sides agree, whatever the practical value of capitalism, morality requires that the free market be reigned in by government regulations. The only disagreement between the two sides is over the number of regulations and the rate of their growth.
What no one has grasped yet is that capitalism is not just practical but also moral. Capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the virtues necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual.
Every product that sustains and improves human life is made possible by the thinking of the world's creators and producers. We enjoy an abundance of food because scientists have discovered more efficient methods of agriculture, such as fertilization and crop rotation. We enjoy a lifespan double that of the pre-industrial era thanks to advances in medical technology, from antibiotics to X-rays to biotechnology, discovered by doctors and medical researchers. We enjoy the comfort of air conditioning, the speed of airline transportation, the easy access to information made possible by the World Wide Web—because scientists and inventors have made the crucial mental connections necessary to create these products.
Most people recognize the right of scientists and engineers to be free to ask questions, to pursue new ideas, and to create new innovations. But at the same time, most people ignore the third man who is essential to human progress: the businessman. The businessman is the one who takes the achievements of the scientists and engineers out of the realm of theory and turns them into reality; he takes their ideas off the chalkboards and out of the laboratories and puts them onto the store shelves.
Behind the activities of the businessman there is a process of rational inquiry every bit as important as that of the scientist or inventor. The businessman has to figure out how to find and train workers who will produce a quality product; he has to discover how to cut costs to make the product affordable; he has to determine how best to market and distribute his product so that it reaches its potential buyers; and he has to figure out how to finance his venture in a way that will best feed future growth. All of these issues—and many others—depend on the mind of the businessman. If he is not left free to think, the venture loses money and its product goes out of existence.
The businessman has to have an unwavering dedication to thinking, not only in solving these problems, but also in dealing with others. He has to use reason to persuade investors, employees, and suppliers that his venture is a profitable one. If he cannot, the investors take their money elsewhere, the best employees leave for better opportunities, and the suppliers will give preference to more credit-worthy customers.
The businessman's dedication to thought, persuasion, and reason is a virtue—a virtue that our lives and prosperity depend on. The only way to respect this virtue is to leave the businessman free to act on his own judgment. That is precisely what capitalism does. The essence of capitalism is that it bans the use of physical force and fraud in men's economic relationships. All decisions are to be left to the "free market"—that is, to the un-coerced decisions of buyers and sellers, manufacturers and distributors, employers and employees. The first rule of capitalism is that everyone has a right to dispose of his own life and property according to his own judgment.
Government regulation, by contrast, operates by thwarting the businessman's thinking, subordinating his judgment to the decrees of government officials. These officials do not have to consider the long-term results—only what is politically expedient. They do not have to back their decisions with their own money or effort—they dispose of the lives and property of others. And most important, they do not have to persuade their victims—they impose their will, not by reason, but by physical force.
The government regulator does not merely show contempt for the minds of his victims; he also shows contempt for their personal goals and values.
In a free-market economy, everyone is driven by his own ambitions for wealth and success. That's what "free trade" means: that no one may demand the work, effort, or money of another without offering to trade something of value in return. If both partners to the trade don't expect to gain, they are free to go elsewhere. In Adam Smith's famous formulation, the rule of capitalism is that every trade occurs "by mutual consent and to mutual advantage."
It is common to condemn this approach as selfish—yet to say that people are acting selfishly is to say that they take their own lives seriously, that they are exercising their right to pursue their own happiness. By contrast, project what it would mean to exterminate self-interest and force everyone to work for goals mandated by the state. It would mean, for example, that a young student's goal to have a career as a neurosurgeon must be sacrificed because some bureaucrat decrees that there are "too many" specialists in that field. Such a system is based on the premise that no one owns his own life, that the individual is merely a tool to be exploited for the ends of "society." And since "society" consists of nothing more than a group of individuals, this means that some men are to be sacrificed for the sake of others—those who claim to be "society's" representatives. For examples, see the history of the Soviet Union.
A system that sacrifices the self to "society" is a system of slavery—and a system that sacrifices thinking to coercion is a system of brutality. This is the essence of any anti-capitalist system, whether communist or fascist. And "mixed" systems, such as today's regulatory and welfare state, merely unleash the same evils on a smaller scale.
Only capitalism renounces these evils entirely. Only capitalism is fully true to the moral ideal stated in the Declaration of Independence: the individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Only capitalism protects the individual's freedom of thought and his right to his own life.
Only when these ideals are once again taken seriously will we be able to recognize capitalism, not as a "necessary evil," but as a moral ideal."
I loved this article by Robert W. Tracinski and hope you will take the time to read it and then post your questions about its premise after reading.
"With the fall of communism and the alleged end of the "era of big government," many commentators and politicians grudgingly acknowledge the practical value of capitalism. The free market, they concede, is the best system for producing wealth and promoting prosperity; the private economy, in Bill Clinton's words, is the "primary engine of growth."
But this has not led to the triumph of capitalism. Quite the opposite: Federal taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product are at their highest rate since the Second World War; antitrust assaults on the market's winners are growing; the regulations on the federal register continue to expand by 60,000 pages per year; even the Republicans' recent tax cut proposal would only mandate a minor decrease in the projected growth of government revenues. By practically every measure, government interference in the free market is growing.
If capitalism is recognized as the only practical economic system—then why is it losing out to state control? The reason is that no one, neither on the left nor the right, is willing to defend capitalism as moral. Thus, both sides agree, whatever the practical value of capitalism, morality requires that the free market be reigned in by government regulations. The only disagreement between the two sides is over the number of regulations and the rate of their growth.
What no one has grasped yet is that capitalism is not just practical but also moral. Capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the virtues necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual.
Every product that sustains and improves human life is made possible by the thinking of the world's creators and producers. We enjoy an abundance of food because scientists have discovered more efficient methods of agriculture, such as fertilization and crop rotation. We enjoy a lifespan double that of the pre-industrial era thanks to advances in medical technology, from antibiotics to X-rays to biotechnology, discovered by doctors and medical researchers. We enjoy the comfort of air conditioning, the speed of airline transportation, the easy access to information made possible by the World Wide Web—because scientists and inventors have made the crucial mental connections necessary to create these products.
Most people recognize the right of scientists and engineers to be free to ask questions, to pursue new ideas, and to create new innovations. But at the same time, most people ignore the third man who is essential to human progress: the businessman. The businessman is the one who takes the achievements of the scientists and engineers out of the realm of theory and turns them into reality; he takes their ideas off the chalkboards and out of the laboratories and puts them onto the store shelves.
Behind the activities of the businessman there is a process of rational inquiry every bit as important as that of the scientist or inventor. The businessman has to figure out how to find and train workers who will produce a quality product; he has to discover how to cut costs to make the product affordable; he has to determine how best to market and distribute his product so that it reaches its potential buyers; and he has to figure out how to finance his venture in a way that will best feed future growth. All of these issues—and many others—depend on the mind of the businessman. If he is not left free to think, the venture loses money and its product goes out of existence.
The businessman has to have an unwavering dedication to thinking, not only in solving these problems, but also in dealing with others. He has to use reason to persuade investors, employees, and suppliers that his venture is a profitable one. If he cannot, the investors take their money elsewhere, the best employees leave for better opportunities, and the suppliers will give preference to more credit-worthy customers.
The businessman's dedication to thought, persuasion, and reason is a virtue—a virtue that our lives and prosperity depend on. The only way to respect this virtue is to leave the businessman free to act on his own judgment. That is precisely what capitalism does. The essence of capitalism is that it bans the use of physical force and fraud in men's economic relationships. All decisions are to be left to the "free market"—that is, to the un-coerced decisions of buyers and sellers, manufacturers and distributors, employers and employees. The first rule of capitalism is that everyone has a right to dispose of his own life and property according to his own judgment.
Government regulation, by contrast, operates by thwarting the businessman's thinking, subordinating his judgment to the decrees of government officials. These officials do not have to consider the long-term results—only what is politically expedient. They do not have to back their decisions with their own money or effort—they dispose of the lives and property of others. And most important, they do not have to persuade their victims—they impose their will, not by reason, but by physical force.
The government regulator does not merely show contempt for the minds of his victims; he also shows contempt for their personal goals and values.
In a free-market economy, everyone is driven by his own ambitions for wealth and success. That's what "free trade" means: that no one may demand the work, effort, or money of another without offering to trade something of value in return. If both partners to the trade don't expect to gain, they are free to go elsewhere. In Adam Smith's famous formulation, the rule of capitalism is that every trade occurs "by mutual consent and to mutual advantage."
It is common to condemn this approach as selfish—yet to say that people are acting selfishly is to say that they take their own lives seriously, that they are exercising their right to pursue their own happiness. By contrast, project what it would mean to exterminate self-interest and force everyone to work for goals mandated by the state. It would mean, for example, that a young student's goal to have a career as a neurosurgeon must be sacrificed because some bureaucrat decrees that there are "too many" specialists in that field. Such a system is based on the premise that no one owns his own life, that the individual is merely a tool to be exploited for the ends of "society." And since "society" consists of nothing more than a group of individuals, this means that some men are to be sacrificed for the sake of others—those who claim to be "society's" representatives. For examples, see the history of the Soviet Union.
A system that sacrifices the self to "society" is a system of slavery—and a system that sacrifices thinking to coercion is a system of brutality. This is the essence of any anti-capitalist system, whether communist or fascist. And "mixed" systems, such as today's regulatory and welfare state, merely unleash the same evils on a smaller scale.
Only capitalism renounces these evils entirely. Only capitalism is fully true to the moral ideal stated in the Declaration of Independence: the individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Only capitalism protects the individual's freedom of thought and his right to his own life.
Only when these ideals are once again taken seriously will we be able to recognize capitalism, not as a "necessary evil," but as a moral ideal."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Good Idea by Beck!
Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?
Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?
Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?
If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.
We surround them.
So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain? Below are nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common. I urge you to read the instructions at the end for how to help make your voice heard.
The Nine Principles
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude
You Are Not Alone
For more information and to join the online community please join me on http://www.the912project.com/
Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?
Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?
If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.
We surround them.
So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain? Below are nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common. I urge you to read the instructions at the end for how to help make your voice heard.
The Nine Principles
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude
You Are Not Alone
For more information and to join the online community please join me on http://www.the912project.com/
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Thoughts on the Election
Last night's presidential election was seen as a great victory for many people across the United States and a sound of warning to others. Last night was hard to swallow for me. I had a hunch that Obama would win the presidency and that the Democrats would win more power in the Senate and the house but I guess I just was not as emotionally prepared for it as I had thought. My husband did not have any desire to watch the election coverage after Obama had secured his victory. I have to admit that I would have liked to watch more just so that the reality of the awful situation we are in would have sunk deeper into my brain.
Wednesday morning I woke up and spoke with my Mom about the election and she mentioned something about how she just hoped that Obama was not the anti-christ. Then about an hour later I had a text from one of my young women, Stephanie. It was a message that said something about the anti-christ prophesy in Revelations and how Obama met the description in the prophecy. I decided then to do some research into what and who the anti-christ is and found a few interesting pieces of information in my research.
First, I found a great talk by President Marion G Romney titled, 'America's Promise'. In this talk he states:
“Just as Jesus Christ has piloted to this land of America the vanguard of each succeeding civilization which has dwelt upon it, so has he made known to them his everlasting decree “that whoso should possess [it] should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off … when they are ripened in iniquity” (Ether 2:8–9).
Our present civilization is no exception. We who live in America are under this everlasting decree. And the Lord has said, “My word shall be verified at this time as it hath hitherto been verified” (D&C 5:20). Jesus Christ, the God of this land, led Columbus to it. He led the Pilgrims to Plymouth. He sustained and gave victory to the colonists. He established the Constitution of the United States (see D&C 101:80). Over a period of some twenty-six centuries he directed the writing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the record of the former inhabitants of this land. At his command, Moroni finished the record and hid it up in the Hill Cumorah, where, under his surveillance, it was safely preserved for some fourteen hundred years.
By the power of Jesus Christ, the God of this land, the record was brought forth, translated, and in 1830 published. For nearly 150 years now it has been bearing its message to all who will receive it.
After setting forth the everlasting decree concerning this land and reviewing the destruction of two civilizations, Moroni, seeing the present inhabitants of America, and knowing by the power of God that we would have the record, penned this message directly to those who inhabit this land:
“And this cometh unto you … that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done” (Ether 2:11).
Now why do I emphasize this theme? I do so as a warning against the ongoing anti-Christ trend in America today.
In distinguishing communism from the United Order, President David O. McKay said that communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and that it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land.”
I fear for I believe we now have elected a President that ascribes to communistic philosophies and who I would call a communist. (Here is an article I found interesting to prove this statement to be truth: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/)
Now even if Obama is not the anti-christ, I know that socialistic philosophies have become popular in our country and can be found everywhere in our government. Socialism leads to communism and my opinion is that we are not far from getting there. There are many warnings from prophets about this. I found a talk on this subject by President Benson that was of particular interest to me because it contains things that we can and must do now to be able to stand against these philosophies and views. I believe his words are most relevant to us all now and must be taken seriously.
Here is what President Benson has said; “Said President George Albert Smith, “I am saying to you that to me the Constitution of the United States of America is just as much from my Heavenly Father as the Ten Commandments. When that is my feeling I am not going to go very far away from the Constitution and I am going to try to keep it where the Lord started it, and not let anti-Christ come into this country.” (Conference Report, April 1948, p. 182.)
And speaking of anti-Christ, if you want to get some idea of how we are flaunting the Constitution, see how the Constitution defines treason. Then observe what we are doing to build up the enemy, this totally anti-Christ conspiracy. If we continue on this tragic course of aid and trade to the enemy, the Lord has warned us of the consequences that will follow in chapter 8 of Ether in the Book of Mormon. [Ether 8]
Thank God for the Constitution that made it possible for the Lord to establish his church and base of operations here in the United States for these last days. And may God bless the elders of Israel that when, as President John Taylor said, “the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of earth and proclaiming liberty.” (Journal of Discourses, 21:8.)
The elders of this church have a prophetic mission yet to perform so far as the Constitution is concerned. In a discourse by Joseph Smith on July 19, 1840, he said:
“Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” (M8d 155, Bx4, Joseph Smith, Church Historian’s Library.)
Now, how are the elders going to prepare for that mission? How are they going to know what the Constitution is so they will know when it is on the brink of ruin? In many of the law schools of today you will hear that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Could it be that the Supreme Court, which President McKay said is leading this nation down the road to atheism, is the agency to tell us what this divine document is? Can we learn best how to preserve it by studying what it is at the hands of some of those who are seeking to destroy it?
But President McKay had a better approach when he encouraged us to support good and conscientious candidates who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our founding fathers. Ah … there it is … the Constitution in the tradition of our founding fathers. They are the ones the Lord referred to as wise men. It is to them, the Lord, and his prophets that we should go to determine what the Constitution is. There must have been a tradition of our founding fathers or President McKay would not have referred to it.
One of the best books on this subject was written by Clarence Carson and is entitled The American Tradition; it is distributed by the Foundation for Economic Education at Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., served on their board of trustees for some time. I now have the honor of so serving.
To the Lord, his prophets, and the founding fathers we must go to learn of this divine document so our efforts will be to preserve and not destroy the Constitution.
The Prophet Joseph Smith said in a great discourse in Nauvoo on February 7, 1844, “Were I the President of the United States … I would honor the old paths of the venerated fathers of freedom; I would walk in the tracks of the illustrious patriots who carried the ark of the government upon their shoulders with an eye single to the glory of the people. …” (HC, 6:208.)
As I see it we have a great work before us in not only educating ourselves but also the next generation and teaching them true principles espoused in the constitution so they will be prepared to also stand against the adversary and all of those that have been and will be deceived by him. There will be many that have been and will be deceived. Evidence of this is everywhere. The adversary has done a great job of making socialistic programs look benevolent, compassionate and just plain good and right. It is hard to answer questions like this, 'don't you believe that a gas station attendant's son has the same right to health care than a ceo's son does? The misconceptions and deceit that are behind these ways of thinking will continue to lead many to believe and follow these teachings. I believe we must prepare now for a great battle to come in which each of us will be faced with a choice. A line is being drawn. There is going to come a time when you must stand on one side or the other. I believe the time is fast approaching. What side will you choose?
Wednesday morning I woke up and spoke with my Mom about the election and she mentioned something about how she just hoped that Obama was not the anti-christ. Then about an hour later I had a text from one of my young women, Stephanie. It was a message that said something about the anti-christ prophesy in Revelations and how Obama met the description in the prophecy. I decided then to do some research into what and who the anti-christ is and found a few interesting pieces of information in my research.
First, I found a great talk by President Marion G Romney titled, 'America's Promise'. In this talk he states:
“Just as Jesus Christ has piloted to this land of America the vanguard of each succeeding civilization which has dwelt upon it, so has he made known to them his everlasting decree “that whoso should possess [it] should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off … when they are ripened in iniquity” (Ether 2:8–9).
Our present civilization is no exception. We who live in America are under this everlasting decree. And the Lord has said, “My word shall be verified at this time as it hath hitherto been verified” (D&C 5:20). Jesus Christ, the God of this land, led Columbus to it. He led the Pilgrims to Plymouth. He sustained and gave victory to the colonists. He established the Constitution of the United States (see D&C 101:80). Over a period of some twenty-six centuries he directed the writing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the record of the former inhabitants of this land. At his command, Moroni finished the record and hid it up in the Hill Cumorah, where, under his surveillance, it was safely preserved for some fourteen hundred years.
By the power of Jesus Christ, the God of this land, the record was brought forth, translated, and in 1830 published. For nearly 150 years now it has been bearing its message to all who will receive it.
After setting forth the everlasting decree concerning this land and reviewing the destruction of two civilizations, Moroni, seeing the present inhabitants of America, and knowing by the power of God that we would have the record, penned this message directly to those who inhabit this land:
“And this cometh unto you … that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done” (Ether 2:11).
Now why do I emphasize this theme? I do so as a warning against the ongoing anti-Christ trend in America today.
In distinguishing communism from the United Order, President David O. McKay said that communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and that it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land.”
I fear for I believe we now have elected a President that ascribes to communistic philosophies and who I would call a communist. (Here is an article I found interesting to prove this statement to be truth: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/)
Now even if Obama is not the anti-christ, I know that socialistic philosophies have become popular in our country and can be found everywhere in our government. Socialism leads to communism and my opinion is that we are not far from getting there. There are many warnings from prophets about this. I found a talk on this subject by President Benson that was of particular interest to me because it contains things that we can and must do now to be able to stand against these philosophies and views. I believe his words are most relevant to us all now and must be taken seriously.
Here is what President Benson has said; “Said President George Albert Smith, “I am saying to you that to me the Constitution of the United States of America is just as much from my Heavenly Father as the Ten Commandments. When that is my feeling I am not going to go very far away from the Constitution and I am going to try to keep it where the Lord started it, and not let anti-Christ come into this country.” (Conference Report, April 1948, p. 182.)
And speaking of anti-Christ, if you want to get some idea of how we are flaunting the Constitution, see how the Constitution defines treason. Then observe what we are doing to build up the enemy, this totally anti-Christ conspiracy. If we continue on this tragic course of aid and trade to the enemy, the Lord has warned us of the consequences that will follow in chapter 8 of Ether in the Book of Mormon. [Ether 8]
Thank God for the Constitution that made it possible for the Lord to establish his church and base of operations here in the United States for these last days. And may God bless the elders of Israel that when, as President John Taylor said, “the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of earth and proclaiming liberty.” (Journal of Discourses, 21:8.)
The elders of this church have a prophetic mission yet to perform so far as the Constitution is concerned. In a discourse by Joseph Smith on July 19, 1840, he said:
“Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” (M8d 155, Bx4, Joseph Smith, Church Historian’s Library.)
Now, how are the elders going to prepare for that mission? How are they going to know what the Constitution is so they will know when it is on the brink of ruin? In many of the law schools of today you will hear that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Could it be that the Supreme Court, which President McKay said is leading this nation down the road to atheism, is the agency to tell us what this divine document is? Can we learn best how to preserve it by studying what it is at the hands of some of those who are seeking to destroy it?
But President McKay had a better approach when he encouraged us to support good and conscientious candidates who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our founding fathers. Ah … there it is … the Constitution in the tradition of our founding fathers. They are the ones the Lord referred to as wise men. It is to them, the Lord, and his prophets that we should go to determine what the Constitution is. There must have been a tradition of our founding fathers or President McKay would not have referred to it.
One of the best books on this subject was written by Clarence Carson and is entitled The American Tradition; it is distributed by the Foundation for Economic Education at Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., served on their board of trustees for some time. I now have the honor of so serving.
To the Lord, his prophets, and the founding fathers we must go to learn of this divine document so our efforts will be to preserve and not destroy the Constitution.
The Prophet Joseph Smith said in a great discourse in Nauvoo on February 7, 1844, “Were I the President of the United States … I would honor the old paths of the venerated fathers of freedom; I would walk in the tracks of the illustrious patriots who carried the ark of the government upon their shoulders with an eye single to the glory of the people. …” (HC, 6:208.)
As I see it we have a great work before us in not only educating ourselves but also the next generation and teaching them true principles espoused in the constitution so they will be prepared to also stand against the adversary and all of those that have been and will be deceived by him. There will be many that have been and will be deceived. Evidence of this is everywhere. The adversary has done a great job of making socialistic programs look benevolent, compassionate and just plain good and right. It is hard to answer questions like this, 'don't you believe that a gas station attendant's son has the same right to health care than a ceo's son does? The misconceptions and deceit that are behind these ways of thinking will continue to lead many to believe and follow these teachings. I believe we must prepare now for a great battle to come in which each of us will be faced with a choice. A line is being drawn. There is going to come a time when you must stand on one side or the other. I believe the time is fast approaching. What side will you choose?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
A friendly exchange
I have been having a friendly exchange with an old friend from Kentucky. The exchange took place via Facebook ( love that site). That is where we became "friends" again. I noticed that he had on his profile that he chooses to call himself a Democrat. I took notice to a few of his postings to his profile and thought I would ask him about his political affiliation and why he professed to be such a staunch democrat. He then stated that he had been waiting for me to ask him that question ... (I think that he had been doing a little research on my profile which told him that he may have found a political rival which got him a little excited)
I would like to share our exchange thus far for the pure fact that I love to debate and even more than that...I love to win a good debate! You be the judges and let me know who you think is going to win this one.
Side note---(I have to warn you though that my beginning arguments were not well thought out...they just spewed out and I kind of regret the way I began the exchange, but oh well, you live and you learn!...I will also not be using his name...just 'friend' out of respect for privacy)
Friend: Hey Heather,
Where do I begin? I fully believe that the Democratic Party is the party of the people. The Democratic Party gave us the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society. I believe in a social safety net. I believe that health care is a right of every human being. The environment and energy independence is vital for our future.
I believe in progressive taxes. "Too whom much is given, much is required."
What can I say? I'm a true liberal.
Heather (me): Thank you for answering my question.
The party of "the people", so do you ascribe to the Marxist philosophy of govt?
You are a socialist... I see that.
Really, health care is a right of every human being? I am not sure where that was stated in the Constitution?
I do believe that the environment and energy independence is vital to our future but I believe that we are probably at odds with how to go about solving this...you see I am a radical capitalist and believe in the free market system and believe that if it were left to the free market system with the govt out of the picture, a lot more would be accomplished.
I also believe in the original way that our govt was founded in that there should be no taxation without representation.
Let me ask you this, I know someone who is suffering greatly because they are not able to afford food for whatever the reason. You do not know this person. I come to your home and take a portion of what you have earned to give to this person because I feel that they need it more than you do because you are not starving. What you are telling me is that you would be perfectly ok with this?
I think the scripture you quoted is an excellent one but think you have twisted its intent. "Where much is given (knowledge, truth, principles), much is required (our right to choose implies that we have a stewardship over the blessings we have been given)
I think the founders had it right and that people have every right to choose to do good for their fellow men. I have faith in principles. They are what this great nation was founded upon and the more we stray from them, the more we will find ourselves greater in bondage. What can I say, I love my freedom and will not see it taken from me by anyone! Thanks for allowing this exchange of ideas to take place. Talk to you soon,
Heather
Friend:
Of course I would reply. I don't consider myself a Marxist. In my view Marxism is anti-family, anti-religion and I don't feel comfortable with that.
And yes, I believe health care is a human right. You are correct. It isn't a right in the Constitution. But we, through our elected representatives can establish health care for all. By the way, universal health care doesn't have to look like it does in Europe or Canada. We can make it however we want. I don't favor government run health. I simply believe that the Government can pay the insurance premium. The people can then choose their doctor.
I do not believe that the market should be left to do as it will. Do you think that we should remove all regulations? If not then why would you keep some.
In regards to the Scripture I quoted I don't disagree with the principles it includes. I don't think I quite twisted it.
In regards to the environment your correct. I do believe the Government should be a MAJOR investor. For one example, lets say we
make a goal of 15% of our energy coming from Wind. The government will need engineers to design it. High paying jobs there. We then need to build the wind turbines. More high paying jobs there. We then install the turbines. More high paying jobs.
This would be good for our country. People working. Taxes being paid.
We need a Manhattan project for this!!
Talk to you later Heather. Hope your well.
Heather (me):
So where do you stem your philosophical beliefs from if not from the Marxist philosophy?
On to health care declared by you to be a human right. Firstly, health care is difficult to define. It clearly encompasses preventive care (for example, immunization), public health measures, health promotion, and medical and surgical treatment of established illness. Is the so called " human right to health care" a right to basic provision of clean water and adequate food, or does everyone in the world have a right to organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, infertility treatment, and the most expensive medicine? For something to count as a human right the minimum requirement should surely be that the right in question is capable of definition.
Secondly, all rights possessed by an individual imply a duty on the part of others. Thus the right to a fair trial imposes a duty on the prosecuting authority to be fair. On whom does the duty to provide health care to all the world’s citizens fall? Is it a duty on individual doctors, or hospital authorities, or governments, or only rich governments? It is difficult to see how any provision of benefits can be termed a human right (as opposed to a legal entitlement) when to meet such a requirement would impose an intolerable burden on others.
Along the lines of this and some of your other points you have made, I ask you to keep in mind that we, the people who have created our government can give to our government only such powers as we, ourselves have in the first place. Obviously we cannot give what we do not possess. So, the question boils down to this, what powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, but it is a question I bring up to gain a better understanding of what I believe to be the principles which underlie the proper function of government.
The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
I use this simple test to see if the government should be responsible for something...I ask myself, do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.
To be sure, there are times when this principle is really annoying and inconvenient. Sometimes I think, if I could only FORCE the stupid, lazy ignorant people to get off their butts and get a job and provide for themselves and other times I wish I could FORCE my mom and Dad (who make a generous living) to share the love and help my needy family out once in a while... But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where should the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far but no farther!" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives?
O.k. on to the environment thing...first, anyone who has studied history knows that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. See, the reason I thought you were a Marxist (and I still think you are to a degree) is that according to Marxist doctrine and if I am understanding you correctly you also believe that a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, a person's well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet's previous constitution reflected this philosophy in its emphasis on security; food, clothing, housing, HEALTH CARE....
The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and, in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. In all actuality the Russian people had very few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their previous constitution while the American people have always had them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed.
The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. To sum it all up, America has been prosperous and despite the fact that socialism has creeped into our system of govt, still is prosperous is due to this formula...
1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is not possible without incentive
5. Of all forms of incentive-the freedom to attain a reward for one's labor is the most sustaining for most people..sometimes called the profit motive, it is the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulates and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce
7. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INVERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.
I am unalterably opposed to Socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right to private property for government to OWN or OPERATE the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise. This includes of course, energy production and all other means of protecting and strengthening our environment.
And yes, I do think you misrepresented that scripture...God does not believe in the redistribution of wealth and you can quote me on that!
Thanks again for the exchange!
Friends,
Heather
I would like to share our exchange thus far for the pure fact that I love to debate and even more than that...I love to win a good debate! You be the judges and let me know who you think is going to win this one.
Side note---(I have to warn you though that my beginning arguments were not well thought out...they just spewed out and I kind of regret the way I began the exchange, but oh well, you live and you learn!...I will also not be using his name...just 'friend' out of respect for privacy)
Friend: Hey Heather,
Where do I begin? I fully believe that the Democratic Party is the party of the people. The Democratic Party gave us the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society. I believe in a social safety net. I believe that health care is a right of every human being. The environment and energy independence is vital for our future.
I believe in progressive taxes. "Too whom much is given, much is required."
What can I say? I'm a true liberal.
Heather (me): Thank you for answering my question.
The party of "the people", so do you ascribe to the Marxist philosophy of govt?
You are a socialist... I see that.
Really, health care is a right of every human being? I am not sure where that was stated in the Constitution?
I do believe that the environment and energy independence is vital to our future but I believe that we are probably at odds with how to go about solving this...you see I am a radical capitalist and believe in the free market system and believe that if it were left to the free market system with the govt out of the picture, a lot more would be accomplished.
I also believe in the original way that our govt was founded in that there should be no taxation without representation.
Let me ask you this, I know someone who is suffering greatly because they are not able to afford food for whatever the reason. You do not know this person. I come to your home and take a portion of what you have earned to give to this person because I feel that they need it more than you do because you are not starving. What you are telling me is that you would be perfectly ok with this?
I think the scripture you quoted is an excellent one but think you have twisted its intent. "Where much is given (knowledge, truth, principles), much is required (our right to choose implies that we have a stewardship over the blessings we have been given)
I think the founders had it right and that people have every right to choose to do good for their fellow men. I have faith in principles. They are what this great nation was founded upon and the more we stray from them, the more we will find ourselves greater in bondage. What can I say, I love my freedom and will not see it taken from me by anyone! Thanks for allowing this exchange of ideas to take place. Talk to you soon,
Heather
Friend:
Of course I would reply. I don't consider myself a Marxist. In my view Marxism is anti-family, anti-religion and I don't feel comfortable with that.
And yes, I believe health care is a human right. You are correct. It isn't a right in the Constitution. But we, through our elected representatives can establish health care for all. By the way, universal health care doesn't have to look like it does in Europe or Canada. We can make it however we want. I don't favor government run health. I simply believe that the Government can pay the insurance premium. The people can then choose their doctor.
I do not believe that the market should be left to do as it will. Do you think that we should remove all regulations? If not then why would you keep some.
In regards to the Scripture I quoted I don't disagree with the principles it includes. I don't think I quite twisted it.
In regards to the environment your correct. I do believe the Government should be a MAJOR investor. For one example, lets say we
make a goal of 15% of our energy coming from Wind. The government will need engineers to design it. High paying jobs there. We then need to build the wind turbines. More high paying jobs there. We then install the turbines. More high paying jobs.
This would be good for our country. People working. Taxes being paid.
We need a Manhattan project for this!!
Talk to you later Heather. Hope your well.
Heather (me):
So where do you stem your philosophical beliefs from if not from the Marxist philosophy?
On to health care declared by you to be a human right. Firstly, health care is difficult to define. It clearly encompasses preventive care (for example, immunization), public health measures, health promotion, and medical and surgical treatment of established illness. Is the so called " human right to health care" a right to basic provision of clean water and adequate food, or does everyone in the world have a right to organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, infertility treatment, and the most expensive medicine? For something to count as a human right the minimum requirement should surely be that the right in question is capable of definition.
Secondly, all rights possessed by an individual imply a duty on the part of others. Thus the right to a fair trial imposes a duty on the prosecuting authority to be fair. On whom does the duty to provide health care to all the world’s citizens fall? Is it a duty on individual doctors, or hospital authorities, or governments, or only rich governments? It is difficult to see how any provision of benefits can be termed a human right (as opposed to a legal entitlement) when to meet such a requirement would impose an intolerable burden on others.
Along the lines of this and some of your other points you have made, I ask you to keep in mind that we, the people who have created our government can give to our government only such powers as we, ourselves have in the first place. Obviously we cannot give what we do not possess. So, the question boils down to this, what powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, but it is a question I bring up to gain a better understanding of what I believe to be the principles which underlie the proper function of government.
The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
I use this simple test to see if the government should be responsible for something...I ask myself, do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.
To be sure, there are times when this principle is really annoying and inconvenient. Sometimes I think, if I could only FORCE the stupid, lazy ignorant people to get off their butts and get a job and provide for themselves and other times I wish I could FORCE my mom and Dad (who make a generous living) to share the love and help my needy family out once in a while... But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where should the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far but no farther!" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives?
O.k. on to the environment thing...first, anyone who has studied history knows that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. See, the reason I thought you were a Marxist (and I still think you are to a degree) is that according to Marxist doctrine and if I am understanding you correctly you also believe that a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, a person's well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet's previous constitution reflected this philosophy in its emphasis on security; food, clothing, housing, HEALTH CARE....
The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and, in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. In all actuality the Russian people had very few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their previous constitution while the American people have always had them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed.
The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. To sum it all up, America has been prosperous and despite the fact that socialism has creeped into our system of govt, still is prosperous is due to this formula...
1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is not possible without incentive
5. Of all forms of incentive-the freedom to attain a reward for one's labor is the most sustaining for most people..sometimes called the profit motive, it is the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulates and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce
7. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INVERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.
I am unalterably opposed to Socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right to private property for government to OWN or OPERATE the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise. This includes of course, energy production and all other means of protecting and strengthening our environment.
And yes, I do think you misrepresented that scripture...God does not believe in the redistribution of wealth and you can quote me on that!
Thanks again for the exchange!
Friends,
Heather
I am picking this one up tomorrow....
I came across a book review of David Freddoso's book, "The Case Against Barack Obama" which I thought brought up some brain-on points as to why electing Obama may be a poor choice in the upcoming elections.
"David Freddoso's "The Case Against Barack Obama" is a well-researched 240 pages which lays out the case that Barack Obama is anything but the agent of "change" and "reform" which he wants voters to "hope" he is.
Freddoso shows that almost every time Obama was in a position to support reform or a reformer, he has instead sided with the corrupt political machine (he did come out of Chicago politics, after all) which promoted his future.
Through a combination of ruthless (but legal) action to eliminate competitors from the ballot and blind good luck (two opponents whose messy divorces give him an open path to election), Obama has gotten to be a US Senator without winning any seriously contested election.
He has no experience in any area of government which might qualify him to be President of the United States. He makes errors in statement and judgment, but has positioned himself in such a way that any criticism must make the critic a racist. He wants to raise every tax he has heard of, including saying in a debate that he'd raise capital gains tax rates even if it meant the government took in less revenue (in the interest of "fairness")!
The American people are catching on, and Freddoso's book should help. In a year that has so much going for Democrats, the fact that Obama and McCain are virtually tied says volumes. It's not just Obama's obstinacy in support of policies which create high energy prices. It's also that his utter lack of qualification is starting to show through the shiny rhetoric.
The book also goes into great detail about Obama's past "radical influences", not just the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (whom we've all heard too much about), but several others, showing that there's a clear trend in Obama's best-known friends and influences: They hate(d) their nation and people who aren't black.
Freddoso makes it clear that he doesn't believe Obama is a Communist or a terrorist or even a racist even though so many of his close associates are. But these associations cast serious doubt on Obama's judgment and on his likely tendencies in situations where an answer requires a true and fair understanding of this nation.
As someone who lived in Chicago for a long time, I can say I have never heard of a clean Chicago politician...and that includes Obama. His too-close relationship with slum lords including Tony Rezko shows him to be all too willing to funnel taxpayer money to his campaign contributors, regardless of the evil they perpetrated with that money.
Freddoso spends a bit of time on the issues of taxes and ethanol, but heaps his greatest (and well-deserved) scorn on Obama's opposition to a bill which would guarantee that babies born alive be given the same protection of rule and law that any other humans receive. The issue came up after a nurse at a hospital was handed a very premature baby who was born alive after an abortion failed to kill it. The hospital, at the aborting mother's instruction, refused to offer medical care to the baby. The nurse held it for the 45 minutes until it died.
Keep in mind as I write this that I am pro-choice....
Obama's position was a reprehensible and erroneous grasp at using
Roe v. Wade as an excuse to block a bill simply saying that a baby already born can't be left to die. The measure had no implications for abortion law, and when a similar bill came to the US Senate the same year, it passed unanimously, including with the votes of the most pro-choice Senators. Yet Obama opposed more "born alive" legislation the following year.
[If you don't believe me that this bill had nothing to do with the legality of abortion, you can read the bill's full text HERE and see for yourself. You can see Obama's gutless "present" vote, which has the same effect as a "no" vote, HERE. And you can see Obama's truly stupid "constitutional muster" argument on page 86 of THIS document.]
There is no way to view Obama's position other than as truly reprehensible, and I believe this is an issue which should be spoken of far more in public.
Obama's lead among women, which he must have to win in November, is shrinking and is now less than other Democratic candidates had at similar points during recent presidential campaigns. If Obama's support for infanticide becomes as public as it should, it would do tremendous damage to him...especially given the knife-edge that his support among women already rests on due to his having beaten Hillary.
"The Case Against Barack Obama" is a quick read that's well worth the time of anyone who wants to understand what we may really be subjecting ourselves too if American voters don't follow Obama's own words to look at deeds rather than words when examining his history, as well as his own words, spoken in 2004, that there's no way he could be ready to be President in 2008."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)