Saturday, October 31, 2009

Man-Hating Government Health Care

You don’t have to be an expert on health care to know that government is already a major force in the industry. As a general rule, government always causes more problems than it fixes. Look at history. In fact, all government programs are ineffective by default because they are nothing more than re-distribution schemes. But this coming Health Care Bill has a very specific charge that few others have had. This Bill declares that man is evil by nature.

How can people who think that man is immoral ever solve human problems? Remember that President Obama has repeatedly accused doctors and insurance companies of doing immoral things for the sake of profit…without a shred of evidence. How can he do this? He thinks in the depths of his soul that man is imperfect, immoral and a thief. This is the extent of his value system when it comes to mankind and it exposes why he is leading us into dictatorship and why he is engaging in almost unimaginable and unnecessary spending. He sees it as a foregone conclusion that all men, even educated doctors, are shysters and charlatans who must be controlled by government in order to do the right thing. To his mind, it is time for every man to step up and sacrifice for the sake of others and, one way or the other, he will make sure this happens; at the point of a gun if necessary. Don’t ask him how he knows that man is evil and that human sacrifice is the solution. You won’t get an answer. He’ll only tell you that Jesus preached it and it is one of our traditional values. He won’t tell you that he just feels it; like he felt it when listening to other Marxists in his past.

When businesspeople are free to function they will seek improvements in products or services to increase profits. Yet the President tells us that the pursuit of profit by insurance companies, doctors, drug companies and medical equipment manufacturers has broken the health care system. He believes that people who have no profit at stake (government employees) will do a better job in providing health care services. Yet, we know that a private company is subject to losing customers and must constantly improve in order to keep them.

In fact, profit-seeking is the engine of improved services, products and lives. Free markets increasingly improve outputs and constantly better the lives of customers. In a free market health care economy, every day millions of transactions take place, the goals of which are to save and/or improve lives. Lowering costs and improving services are the methods for these improvements. Each day, thousands of people in free industries come up with ideas on how to improve their respective outputs. New product ideas, new business processes and new cures come about each day because one individual somewhere, multiplied a thousand times, has come up with a better way to do something. All of these new ideas lower costs, increase profits and weed out previous costly practices.

Capitalism is based upon a conviction that individuals are the engine of improvement, that individuals, using reason, can find a better way; and especially that freedom works. The Founding Fathers believed that man is good; that he is capable of reason. This conviction made our society one of the most advanced in history because it left men free to make their own decisions and advance their own lives through production and trade. Affluence was the outcome of freedom. Better health care was also one of those outcomes.

When government takes over an economic process such as health care, the inexorable movement toward improvement is frozen. Progress stops. Any government program, regardless of how many thousands of pages describe it, can only cause stagnation and decline. If you want to innovate in a system run by the government, you must ask the government, apply for a grant and get approval. But who wants to innovate in government when that innovation might lower costs, reduce a bureaucrat's power and reduce government jobs? Who in government wants to put himself out of a job? In government there is every incentive to do things more slowly, less efficiently and in a more costly way. If something is being done efficiently in government, the incentive is to find a less efficient way to do it in order to justify bigger budgets. When the government owns health care, the innovative individual will lose his ability to contribute to better health care services.

The government tells us that we must be realistic about allowing unregulated private industry into such an important area as health care. This viewpoint is the tip off that they are lying to you; that they want to find fault with capitalism in order to create a new re-distribution program. The argument that we must be “realistic” about capitalism’s failings has been used on many other issues to justify government "fixes" that made things worse. This argument obfuscates the fact that government programs violate individual rights – they require coercion against individuals. You can dress it up as some sort of benign service; but it is force and force destroys; the threat of force restricts; and the only result of force against individuals and businesses is more problems for government to blame on capitalism.

In fact, the astute analyst of the administration's economic policies will notice that the administration is "acting in reverse", so to speak. It is systematically, consciously and deliberately attempting to remove from our economy every factor that would solve our economic problems and leaving in place the coercive factors that are responsible for those problems.

When government no longer protects individual rights, incompetent people who cannot function in a free market go into government to vent their hatred of profits and businesspeople. They want to force people to do what they consider is the right thing; which is to sacrifice for others; the result is government programs implemented by force and run by incompetent people. The chief incompetent today is President Obama. He is the leader of this movement to destroy capitalism and freedom. He says he is making things better. He knows he’s just taking over.

Capitalism does not work in health care today because of past government interventions. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid were previous efforts to fix health care. Their costs, restrictions, rationings, rules and compliance procedures have caused a decline in health care services and an increase in costs. This is the problem the government says it is trying to fix. Add to this other onerous regulations that mandate poor business practices for the insurance industry; the efforts by government to under-pay doctors (in Medicare and Medicaid) and you have a situation where there are too many patients and not enough doctors.

Private insurance companies are in the cross hairs of the administration and the Democrats. This is because private insurance companies make profits. And they typically pay more from premiums than do government programs. Many hospitals would not be able to stay open were it not for these insurance company payments. The comparison with government inefficiency and rationing is too stark; insurance companies, as shackled and controlled as they are, keep doing a better job than government. This is why you hear in polls that most people are happy with their private insurance programs and why you hear the government criticizing the profits made by them. If they can convince you that those profits are evil, then they can drive the insurance companies out of business through the Public Option.

For the President, profits are the problem. This idea drives him and the Democrats on this issue and it moves them to cripple and then take over the companies responsible for health care services. This is the intent of the Health Care Bill; to cripple health care so it can be taken over.

An economy like ours is not just a bunch of levers that can be manipulated at will. If you try to impact one element of the economy by pulling one lever, you increase pressure somewhere else and that might cause the entire economy to collapse. Look at the sub-prime crisis for an example where government tried to manage one element, home ownership, by demanding that banks increase loans to poor people. This almost destroyed our economy because another element, the need to qualify loan applicants, was ignored. The result was huge losses of capital in the financial services industry. Re-distribution was the goal here, and sadly, it happened on a massive scale thanks to Bush, Obama and their friends.

What lever is the government pulling on health care? It is the complaint that costs are too high. This is the same lever it tried to pull with Medicare and Medicaid before; yet costs are still too high. We are missing the proverbial forest for the trees here. The solution is not to artifically drive costs down through massive infusions of tax payer money and increased regulation of the industry; that is a short-sighted view. Pulling that lever through government would only cause an increase of patients which would still drive aggregate costs up and threaten the system even more.

Another clue to the government's perverse thinking here is to recognize that if there were enough profits in health care, no one would be complaining about a broken system. Everything would be humming along just fine and health care would keep improving. The real solution to the health care problem is to get the government out of health care; to stop its incessant pulling of levers. We must provide the incentive for millions of people, industry wide, to reduce costs. That incentive is the profit motive. Only the profit motive can reduce costs and allow for the innovation that will increase profits. This new Health Care Program is not a fix; it is a smashing of the system, the destruction of it. President Obama has created a man-hating government health care bill...the result will be more people dieing younger.

Government programs have decimated the medical professions and hospitals for decades. Private insurance companies, to a large degree, have been good for doctors and hospitals, because they do not under-pay to the extent that government does. Government sees the destruction of the private insurance industry as a way to take over those payments made by private companies and transfer them to the government. They plan to use these profits to pay for the massive costs of the government program. But, metaphorically speaking, they are killing the goose that lays the golden egg; these profits that the government is expropriating from the insurance companies are not going to be realized. They will just go away along with the benefits and options they offered to patients. Likewise with Medicare Advantage policies; these private programs have improved medical services for seniors and given them valuable options not available through Medicare. When the government puts Medicare Advantage out of business, as it intends to do, the savings and benefits to seniors will go away. Remember, government does not create values. Because it is an agency of force, it can only prevent or destroy them. Whenever it tries to re-distribute values, the source of those values dries up.

Let's look at how the whole industry will be impacted by this bill. With health care, the drying up of the industry would happen at every level.

  • First, doctors will not want to work if their practices cost more to operate than revenues will cover. With government constantly reducing payouts, refusing treatments and questioning tests, many doctors will retire early. Also, fewer young people will become doctors if they know that they will have to deal with a government quagmire once they establish practices. This means fewer doctors caring for more patients. Eventually, something will have to be done to lower standards for doctors entering the profession or to increase their pay. In other words, all doctors will work for the government. But no real doctor of ability will work for meager pay; the call to sacrifice will fall flat. Some types will heed the call - charlatans who see an opportunity to make big bucks by taking advantage of gullible patients.
  • Pharmaceutical companies will not be able to make profits due to government forcing revenues under margin. They will have less money for research and development and not enough money to ensure the quality of those medicines they make. The government will bail them out to keep them in business...if they support the right candidates.
  • Companies making health care equipment will also lose profits due to government rationing and driving down of revenues. This will kill innovation and reduce the quality of the machines and lengthen the time of their use. Those companies that pay homage to the right candidates will be bailed out with tax payer money.
  • Hospitals will not be able to keep up with ever decreasing government payouts and will be forced out of business. The government will nationalize all hospitals and install government appointed czars to run them. These czars will be ruthless in demanding cost-cutting measures and will ration care and rooms.
  • Finally, the tax payer who sees his taxes jumping through the roof to support all of these struggling businesses will revolt and demand cost-cutting measures and lower taxes. This last will start the cycle of decline all over again making things worse.
  • Did you notice the patient in this scenario? I'll let you draw your own conclusions, except to say that his voice will be a whimper. He'll be told, "That's just the way it is. What can you do when you have to deal with government." Get the idea? They want you to die. If your health problems are a drain on the treasury, they want you to die.

There are a number of other issues relating to health care, not the least of which is the portability issue that limits the number of private insurance companies that can compete in a state. This reduces competition, raises prices and harms policy holders. Add to this a number of “mandates” on insurance companies that force them to operate in violation of sound business practices, and you can see that the problem in health care is not the profit motive. The problem is the government.

I might be one of the few people to warn about other coercive practices that are sure to come out of this Health Care Bill. Whenever a bill this large (over 1900 pages) is presented without the people being able to read it; when it is voted upon by elected representatives without even they reading it, you can be sure that many boondoggles and coercive measures have been smuggled into it. Only a charlatan would hide his real intentions in a 1900-page document.

But the real problem is another issue; and the answers to these questions provide the clue to the fact that the government does not care about patients at all, not even high costs. How can government address high costs in health care when it is trying to eliminate profits in health care; the very profits that would enable health care companies to deal with high costs? Why would it be trying to impose a system, the likes of which, has destroyed health care in virtually every country in which it has been tried? I know it, you know it, the government knows it. Why then does our government want it? What is the point here?

The point is altruism. The Health Care Plan is not about better health care; it is about expanding the level of sacrifice being done by Americans. The President is a committed altruist, more committed than any President in our history; so committed that he believes man MUST sacrifice for others. In his view, not only are profits evil, wasteful and theft, they are also the cause of all human problems. Of course he believes that only sacrifice will solve those problems. Somehow he has connected all good to sacrifice and all evil to capitalism and profits (Yes, I know, he's Harvard educated, but I suspect that his real influences come from his mother and his surrogate fathers). He believes, from the depths of his soul, that sacrifice is man's imperative; there is no choice, there is no other option, there is no argument, there is no advisor and there is no logic that would convince him otherwise. For him, there is nothing to discuss, altruism is the answer for all questions. This is why his government health care plan is aimed at destroying the profits of hospitals, doctors and private companies. This is why he is the most dangerous President in our history.

If I were to imagine the mind of an altruist speaking what it really believes, it would be something like this: "The only thing that is important for you to understand is that YOU WILL go along with what we tell you; you MUST accept our dominion over you, you MUST live for your fellow man, not some time, not occassionally, but ALL the time; every minute of your life. You are base, evil, filled with original sin, you are the scum of the earth, you are a filthy creature that does nothing but consume the planet and all of its precious life. You are the enemy of life on this planet. Your existence on this planet is the problem and your desire for industry, profits, rights, protections and consumption is nothing more than your petty self-glorification which, today, has come to an end. Here is the gun that says so. From now on, there will be no such thing as profit or the desire for a better life. The day of self-interest is over. The day of thinking you are special is over. This is the time, for the first time in history, where sacrifice rules. Forget your petty self. Rights? Rights are just words that you use in order to exploit people. We won't have any of that. And that you MUST understand. There will be no getting out of the absolute requirement that you WILL sacrifice. Are there any questions? If so, shut up. Now get in line."

Perhaps you think that altruism is about helping people voluntarily, being nice and empathetic. Hopefully you will reconsider this view. The truth is, if you consider altruism to be the right philosophy, you must insist that man not allow the existence of self-interest in any manner whatsoever. You must support Barack Obama totally. And you must practice what you preach. You must be the first to sacrifice your whole being to his cause.

All of the concepts, principles and ideas that we hold dear, ideas that are espoused in our Constitution, will have to go away; they will be discredited in order to make way for the one man who can bring about the triumph of total sacrifice. You'll have no problem about destroying the Constitution. As a dutiful citizen, you will be free only to advance the cause of sacrifice. Even though you may have joined the cause voluntarily, you will insist that the government force dissenters to join; those who refuse to join must be killed. Why compromise when total altruism is at stake? In fact, we know that many people from the last generation, particularly the older ones, had a stake in capitalism and self-interest. Many will pretend to be with you and others will secretly work against the cause...perhaps you'll think that we should just kill them all in order to purify the nation and make the way clear for a proper altruism. This coercive, insistence on sacrifice must be your most precious heartfelt desire. For the first time in history, an altruistic utopia is within your reach. Forget those stale ideas such as reality, cause and effect, the lessons of history, coming doom and other such drivel. Those are the lies of evil reactionaries. You will be impatient with anyone who wants to discuss old ideas. This is your time. You are on the verge of creating the first truly "moral" world in history.

Is this what you want? Do you not see that we are not just engaging in a liesurely debate about whether we should help others or not? The critical issue of our time is whether a once free people will recognize that total sacrifice has been imposed upon them without their choice. That is what Barack Obama has been doing. He isn't the first to try it.

You must realize that Obama stands for your slavery. This is why he refuses to work with "the opposition"; this is why he believes Tea Party protesters are fascists and wrong; this is why he talks in flowery words and eloquent phrases about a new America of sacrifice; this is why he advocates mandatory service for every citizen (proposed by Rahm Emanuel); this is why he apologizes to the world for things America has done; this is why he took weeks to criticize Iran while the people rioted in the streets; this is why he supports a potential dictator in Honduras against a Constitutional government; this is why he is spending more than all Presidents before him combined; this is why he fires executives of private companies, this is why he bails out companies and unions that supported him in the election, this is why he disenfranchises investors and violates the sanctity of contract, this is why he supports Cap and Trade that will virtually destroy American industry; this is why he supports card check for unions, why he supports net neutrality, "diversity" in broadcasting, this is why you hear reports about Marxists and other totalitarian types in his government; this is why he has no problem shoving oppressive and expensive programs down our throats; this is why he supports a Health Care Bill that will destroy health care. He does these things because he believes we must sacrifice. He won.

If you know of a system or philosophy other than altruism that more thoroughly destroys freedom, affluence, happiness, idealism and a respect for man, then I'd like to know what it is. It does not matter to President Obama that your life is destroyed through his massive spending programs. It does not matter that you will be forced into virtual slave labor to accomplish his vision of total sacrifice by all; in fact, when the time is right, he will have no problem sending the cops to arrest you for refusing to participate. The only thing that matters to the President is that you, the formerly selfish American, will pay with your hide for the privilege of living in his America. You will be made to suffer for all the evil done by capitalism in the world. You can complain about your hunger and strife but that is your just reward, he thinks. This is the real soul of Barack Obama. Is it yours?

The question before us as a nation is a simple one. Are we going to stand for self-interested freedom or altruistic slavery? If you want better health care, or even a better America, stop this so-called “Health Care” bill. It screams out that man is evil and must be stopped from making a profit. It screams out that your life will soon be the property of the government. It screams out that dictatorship is what you can expect from the future. If you value life, you will do everything you can to insist that this bill be resoundingly defeated. If you value life you must dis-value this government.*

*For a rational treatment of the Health Care Issue, read “Moral Health Care versus Universal Health Care by Lin Zinzer and Paul Hsieh at The Objective Standard:

To learn about altruism and its sinister intent, Read Atlas Shrugged.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Alinsky and “Rules for Radicals”

Well, I did it. I spent the $14.00 plus tax to get a copy of “Rule for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. I must say, it was an interesting read. You can really get the soul of the man from this book. The smell of poison and rot is palpable.

Enough of ridicule; let’s look at the philosophy. First of all, it is clear that Alinsky was a Marxist masquerading as a “democrat”. Proclaiming democracy has been the method of Marxists since the days of Lenin. American progressives and Marxists have developed the skill of talking “like” they espouse democracy and you can hear it in the words of people such as Obama and Rathke. It is a ruse, a radical’s way of wedging into the mainstream while incrementally inserting more and more government coercion into our lives.

It is an easy bait and switch; they say they favor the people (by distorting Lincoln's quote "of the people, by the people and for the people") and, they claim, they want to ensure people get their rights. What they mean by “rights” is the stealthy move, the bait and switch. The rights to which they refer are man-made "rights" rather than the natural rights enumerated in the Constitution. They are the rights of the poor to receive the profits of the rich. Yes, this is Marxism, but presented as the “will of the people” otherwise known as the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. It is what they call "democracy".

However, Alinsky is not as radical as you might think. He is actually a mainstream intellectual in many ways. Certainly, he shares the same philosophical base with the Marxists but he is also influenced by the same philosophers as are George Soros and Karl Popper. They share the same skeptical base with David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

Before I get into this foundation, I’d like to explain the importance of philosophy for our present debates. Philosophy is the base of all human thinking. It asks questions such as what is the nature of reality (metaphysics), how does man gain understanding (epistemology), what is proper action (ethics), how should he organize his society (politics). The answers to these questions determine the intellectual foundations that justify, argue for and, in some cases, prove what is proper for man. Even if you say that philosophy is powerless in the world, you are uttering a philosophical position.

The philosophers with a skeptical base preached that man is irrational by nature and that knowledge was impotent to affect reality. These thinkers also felt that the only important thing in life is activism; action without foundation; bold leaps and blind decisiveness. Their effect on reality and upon the lives of men was devastating; they brought about the rubble and mass murders of the 20th Century.

Hume, Popper, Dewey and their progeny taught that a philosophy based on sense experience was impractical. They gave us the intellectual fertilizer for Hitler, Stalin and Mao because their ideas destroyed the ability of men to think, to judge and to they let the murderers decide. Still, today, primarily through Dewey, these are mainstream ideas. Alinsky was of this “tradition”.

What is the power of philosophy? History has shown that whenever a new set of ideas replaces an old set this wipes the slate clean and, for better or worse, men take on new attitudes and new ways of doing things. In fact, this is what we need, a clean slate that denies the skeptics their view of man, offers a new view of man as a hero who possesses sovereignty and integrity.

The idea that reality is “objective” and can be ascertained by man is a legacy of philosopher Ayn Rand and it is the answer to the mistakes of empiricism and skepticism. Philosophers like Hume and Kant blinded men to reality by declaring, without “objective” support that man could never see, let alone understand reality. Rand provided the arguments for a view of man that saw him as efficacious and rights-bearing.

The Enlightenment was a philosophical movement that almost swept the slate clean because it developed as an outgrowth of science. Great pioneers like Galileo and Newton had shown the way for men by positing a new view of reality, a view that saw it as knowable. The new science challenged the view that God’s knowledge was supreme. At first, meekly, Galileo demonstrated through scientific induction that the earth was not the center of the universe, that it actually moved around the sun. This view was difficult for the Church fathers to accept and they punished Galileo’s blasphemy cruelly.

The real meaning of the discoveries of Galileo (and later Newton) was that man could could deal with the world. The view of the Enlightenment meant that man could rely on his senses. It meant a new view of man and life. New questions were raised; what kind of society recognizes man’s natural right to live and prosper; what are rights and how are they derived; how should society be organized so the individual can exercise his rights; how do we protect man from the encroachment of tyrannical power? These are the questions that thinkers like John Locke and Francis Bacon, among others, tried to answer. Bacon concentrated on how to improve man’s ability to induce new knowledge while Locke discovered and developed the concept of natural rights. Man’s knowledge expanded and new words, new ideas, new concepts proliferated everywhere, so much so, that today we hardly recognize the fact that we live under the legacy of the Enlightenment, that the slate of religion had almost been wiped clean. These thinkers were joined in their studies by the men who built America, the Founding Fathers, and later, entrepreneurs who sought to implement this new view of man and create a society that leaves us free to explore and prosper.

My religious friends might be disappointed to know that one of the key outcomes of our founding documents is a secular society. Our founders were well aware of the tyranny that was possible under religious domination. But by declaring man's ability to understand reality, Enlightenment thinkers separated themselves from religious views in a fundamental way. No longer was the source of all knowledge an ancient book written by an unknown man; finally, man could write his own book of knowledge and be certain that it derived from observation and logic rather than revelation. This was a massive shift in attitude and perspective. Men were no longer reciting prayers in their heads and consulting the Bible to decide what to do; they were looking out, not in, thinking, not repeating, acting, not waiting for commands.

The monarchy of England was a theocracy in which the King was considered to be God’s representative on earth. These religious men, our founders, sought to eliminate any possibility that organized religion could control government. They knew that a theocracy was not in the interest of our new nation and they established the separation of church and state in order to protect the rights of all citizens against religious bigotry and the forcible imposition of ideas over the mind of man. And they also established the right of men to think either spiritually or logically as his conscience decided. There were very few atheists during this period; it took religious men of high integrity and philosophical acumen, men focused on the lessons of history, to ensure that religion could not gain control of government. We seem to have forgotten this lesson.

A secular society is what we have today. As proof of this look at how “un-religious” most men are today. Few companies operate on a religious basis, religion is prohibited from public facilities and government buildings, when men discuss issues, many are concerned about understanding “the facts” not “God’s word”; they do not emphasize their religious ideas in the public domain and they consider that religion has no place among men trying to solve "real" human problems. Even many of our leaders, who claim to be deeply religious, present themselves as secular-acting and –sounding people. Most of us do not consider looking into the Bible or other sacred texts in order to understand. We look at reality, analyze the facts and make decisions based upon the best judgment of our leaders. This is a wholly new perspective in the world that we fail to realize because few of us know how pervasive and dominant were the views of religion before the Enlightenment.

The above discussion sets the foundation for an explanation of why Saul Alinsky is wrong; he is wrong because of his faulty philosophy. He is wrong because he pits himself against the learning of the Enlightenment; he is wrong because he does not see man as soveriegn and individual but as collective and indecisive. As I mentioned above, the philosophy of skeptics like Hume, Kant, Dewey and Marx is founded upon the idea that man is weak, irrational and incapable of understanding reality. The skeptics accept the notion that man's senses are invalid; and this view coincides more with the views of King George than it does with the founders of America.

It goes without saying that most radicals influenced by Saul Alinsky are out to transform society into one they consider to be fair. Since they view man as essentially incapable of doing the right thing, they have no problem with using the power of government to "nudge" man (by force) so he does what they think is proper - to sacrifice.

Yet, Alinsky calls the society he is working toward a “free society.” And he even eschews an intellectual foundation founded in Marxist anti-capitalism. Don’t be deceived. There are clues in Rules for Radicals about Alinsky’s real philosophy:

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth—truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.”(1)

In these two sentences, Alinsky has told us all we need to know about him. The first flag comes up when we see the term “open society”. If you read my post on George Soros, you’ll remember that an “open” society is one that operates on the premise that there are no “ultimate truths”. Does Alinsky have such a Soros-style society in mind? It is hard to tell from his book. He does mention the term "open society" a few other times but the fact that this book was written for “community organizers” should give you the clue.

The community or society that Alinsky seeks to organize, under his view, is a group of powerless people compared to what he calls the “Haves” meaning those who “have” power. The “Have Nots”, according to Alinsky, should organize and engage in "revolution" against the “Haves”. This assumes that getting power is a struggle between groups who are trying to advance their respective economic positions at any point in time. One group may have it today and another may have it tomorrow - as they vie against each other to advance their own respective benefits. According to this view, there are no fundamental principles that govern such issues as property, rights, contracts, etc. The struggle is about power and who does or does not have it. This sounds like an “open” society.

The idea of an open society was developed by George Soros’ mentor, philosopher Karl Popper. From my Blog Post on Soros:

“Soros writes “…Popper’s Book, ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ struck me with the force of revelation and prompted me to explore the author’s philosophy. He argued that the Nazi and Communist ideologies have something in common; they both claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. Since the ultimate truth is beyond human reach, both ideologies had to be based on a biased and distorted interpretation of reality; consequently, they could be imposed on society only by the use of repressive methods. He (Popper) juxtaposed a different principle of social organization that is based on the recognition that claims to the ultimate truth cannot be validated. Popper called this principle “open society,” and he held it out as preferable to a definitive design.”

Soros is saying that he views any “defined” society as inherently imperfect because it presumes to do the impossible which is to follow ultimate truth. An “open society” on the other hand is based upon the idea that man cannot really know anything with any certainty and therefore, because it accepts this “truth” it is the more proper society. Apparently, Soros did not notice that saying there is no ultimate truth is a statement of ultimate truth. Yet, he was so struck by the idea that he decided to build his life and business around it. The contradiction didn't stop him.”(2)

It seems we have a philosophical connection between George Soros and Saul Alinsky. Indeed, they are brothers in spirit – after the same social goals. But the philosophical connection is deeper and it goes to the very question of whether Alinsky and Soros are practical men. Popper was an empiricist, a student of David Hume and Immanuel Kant and, as such, this makes both Soros and Alinsky pragmatists. Going back to the quote from Rules for Radicals, we find the second flag in the statement. He has no fixed truth, truth is ever changing, everything is relative. As I wrote in the Soros article:

“If we look at how progressives, skeptics and nihilists operate, we find that, like Soros, their method of using knowledge reveals the consistency of their inconsistent views. You will notice that these people always argue from negative viewpoints that analyze specific issues out of context. They accomplish their political intention by ensuring that people do not see the contradictions in their views, through a selective focus and selective arguments. This is also typical of the arch skeptics, Hume and Kant who both characteristically analyzed specific epistemological issues out of context. From these out-of-context discussions they first sowed confusion and then drew sweeping generalizations to the effect that man could not rely on his sensations, could not rely on his knowledge and therefore his only choice was to follow the dictates of religious leaders and dictators by practicing the altruism they demanded. Let’s be clear, the only purpose of skepticism is to reduce man’s mind to a malleable, reflexive and fallible state. George Soros is merely an opportunist taking advantage of Hume, Kant and Popper's life work.”(3)

I would submit that the same is true of Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama and other community organizers of this ilk. Further, I think that the following could easily be said about these pragmatist community organizers:

“(Soros’ activities) are consistently based upon Popper’s view that man cannot know reality; and, Soros thinks, he (man) must be led in herds down a path of his choosing; a path that benefits Soros and his investors. This can be seen in the political campaigns he supports. These campaigns are not intended to offer open discussions of ideas that give the voter a chance to decide for himself among honorable competitors who disagree. Instead, political campaigns, since Soros, are polarizing and full of moral outrage. The Democrats, for some reason, are good and the Republicans are evil, racist, fascist, corrupt and liars. The Democrats support the common man and the Republicans support the greedy rich. Soros-supported Democrats do not argue the issues; they spew venom and hatred toward Republicans and Tea Party protestors. Leftist blogs do not assume that honest people can disagree; they tell us that the Republicans are vile and evil dictators, dishonest and hateful of all that is good. Theirs is a political moral dualism; they are right and everyone else is stupid.

Why does Soros support such tactics? He is a product of his own philosophy; he has no standard of value when it comes to persuasion, according to Hume and Popper, there are no standards for the development of real knowledge. Rather than present us with better ideas, he can only throw as much money as necessary into Democratic political campaigns to “convince” us, through public relations and constant repetition of lies (since we can’t know anything), to appeal to our emotions, our hatreds, our ignorance. This is the better world that Soros wants to make.”(4) Likewise for Alinsky and today’s community organizers. Likewise for the Obama administration.

In order to defeat the progressive agenda, the battle must be a battle for philosophy; in particular, it must be a battle to decide which is the moral system, capitalism or statism (open society). We must recognize that it is a philosophical premise that makes progressives and community organizers sneer at and ridicule opponents who are businessmen, Tea Party protesters, (even honest) Republicans and other dissenters. It is a moral hatred that calls such people Nazis, haters, racists, rednecks and stupid. We must discover the moral principles that counter these nihilistic attitudes and we must convince people, by the force of better arguments, to realize that nihilistic moralizing and ridicule are not productive and they are not making a better world; they are making conflict, hatred and coercion.

Further, we must recognize that the basic political premise of the radicals is re-distribution. Re-distribution is only possible when we accept the notion that profits are evil and that capitalists are thieves. They call it “social justice” and they believe that proper government should confiscate property (through taxation or inflation). We must recognize that our founders established the pursuit of happiness as a basic right, natural and moral, that true moral action could only happen when people were free to seek a better life. They consciously disenfranchised coercion and removed it from our politics; they fought against the very same type of coercion that the progressives and professional parasites seek to make the law of the land today. When you fight against re-distribution you are defending man’s right to be moral. Therefore, you should have the moral fervor and you should see anyone who disagrees with individual rights as evil and sinister.

Re-distribution leads to dictatorship. Every coercive government does re-distribution. Everything it does is re-distribution. You can call it communism, socialism, fascism, welfare-statism, democracy...they all do it. The only antidote to such evil ideas is the correct implementation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The basic Alinsky rule is "Do what you can with what you have and wrap it in moral garments." This principle is their flim flam. It is how they disarm you. This is the tactic Obama uses when he advances the idea of a volunteer army funded by the government, when he advances a health care program, Cap and is all wrapped in the moral garment of "sacrifice is good." Someone has to say that the garment is immoral; the garment is a cover for theft, a blanket under which corruption and moral decline is the order of the day. It is a cover that enfranchises immorality. We must expose this idea to the light by fighting for our right to be moral, to enjoy life, to keep our profits and to work hard. If you don't strike at the heart of your enemy by attacking this re-distribution deception, you let the radicals live to fight again.

Incrementalism is the principle at the heart of “doing what you can with what you have.” Progressives and Alinsky radicals will take small victories if it helps them establish the principle of re-distribution or keep it intact. They will keep pushing the protections in the Constitution until they are gone. If they get push back from you, they'll push in another direction, but they are always trying to incrementally undermine the Constitution through re-distribution. Whenever they lose a battle, they back off, take advantage of whatever gain they have made and then keep fighting on another issue to further undermine the Constitution. They know the tactic, they effectively use the tactic, and until you catch on to it, they’ll keep taking advantage of you.

The only way to stop incrementalism is to roll back all progressive schemes and totally reject progressives in them out and don't vote any new progressives in. If anyone accepts the idea that government should interfere in peoples' lives, the best way to deal with them is to divest them of power (This applies to the vast majority of mainstream Republicans as well). It is not just a difference of opinion; progressives and the coercive principles they advocate are the enemies of freedom and they must be rejected wholesale.

The Tea Party struggle has to be a struggle of ideas. We need better ideas in order to win. This means we must educate ourselves about why the founders fought for and defended freedom. We need to understand why the progressives are wrong. We have to read, study and defend our ideas about a proper society founded on freedom...this is how we won our freedoms. This is how we will get them back.

(1) Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, paperback, page 10
(2) George Soros Tea Party Journal Blog Post
(3) Ibid
(4) Ibid

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Selling Slavery

What is the difference between a person volunteering for community service and the government asking you to engage in community service?

You have to wonder if a multi-million dollar public relations campaign promoting government-managed community service is nothing short of the government demanding community service?

What is the appeal of community service? And more importantly why is the government of Barack Obama trying to sell the idea? What is his motive? Certainly, some of my friends will say that he’s just trying to make a better America. I would respond that we should not be so gullible as to automatically believe the most powerful agency of force in the land. The government is backed up by guns and anything it does, no matter how benign it seems, must be questioned and, indeed, must be opposed as a matter of principle. The government is supposed to protect us against criminals and itself; it is not supposed to collect us into groups working toward a so-called benign goal.

To illustrate the dangers of government supported community service, we must look at history. Images of an army of smiling volunteers working for the sake of the collective hearken back to another day. These romanticized images were used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Communist Chinese to glorify “the people” who were creating a "proud" collective utopia. Not only did they build things and clean up the countryside but they also burned down shops and beat up Jews.

I know, I must be crazy…but I beg to differ. As Ayn Rand has said, (to paraphrase) whenever you see someone demanding sacrifice you can be sure someone is collecting the sacrifices. In my view, when they try to sell community service, the Obama administration seeks to establish the intellectual foundation for slavery. They want men to think like slaves; they want men to obey. They even want men to give up their pursuits for a better life, pleasure, leisure and relaxation and, instead, spend their time thinking about some innocuous idea called "community". This turns men away from their need to work for their own well being and it destroys their sense of self-esteem and pride, diverting pride, not toward their individual accomplishments, but toward how much they can sacrifice for the sake of somebody else's children, someone else's home, someone else's meals or the planet's little fish or polar bears. Couched under the Madison Avenue sales pitches that tout the value of neighbor helping neighbor is a different kind of pitch; it is the pitch of selling servitude. They are leading people into a maze full of hidden doors and deceptive dead ends; a maze where everything is an illusion and every word means its opposite.

I know I'll be accused of being cruel, but, frankly, it is not your job to ensure that the entire world is a better place. Nor should you be forced to give up your standard of living at the point of a gun held by a policeman. Take care of your own little corner, make your own life better through hard work and education, and let everyone else take care of their little corner. If you can work together to accomplish something, great, but you should never be made to feel guilty for taking care of your own needs and desires. History has shown this approach works much better. On the other hand, here’s how community service works.

The basic premise of government funded community service is collectivism. The administration believes in the idea of collective action toward collective goals. This means that the people should work without pay, a demand that would be considered an insult to any rational being. The administration uses collectivism to sell men into working, not for pay, but as a duty.

Is it possible that the administration does not realize that collectivism is the opposite principle established by our Constitution? I think not. I think they understand fully that collectivism is not “the American way”. They want to sell us on the idea of transforming our society into one big collective where all citizens routinely contribute their energy to others…without pay.

Historically, collectivism has had a bloody past. All major dictatorships used collectivism to silence dissent and enlist support. They spread massive amounts of propaganda in order to sell the idea of collective sacrifice as the panacea to all of the nation’s problems. What were these societies? Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Italy, World War II Japan and other smaller examples.

Many Americans think it is possible to have a benign collectivism where only good is done and everything is voluntary. They hope that finally, in America, we can have a “good” collectivism where people are dedicated to the common good and where everyone cooperates. What they miss is that collectivism is like a coin, two-sided, where one side holds good intentions and promised positive results while the other side holds the force that must be mustered in order to ensure that collectivism is accepted by all people. Who is that force intended for? You might be surprised to learn that every collective has the same enemies and it always seeks to enslave or destroy those enemies. The enemy is any individual or nation that functions according to the profit motive.

The Profit Motive
There are three basic reasons why the collectivist government doesn’t want you to make a profit. First, they want to skim the profits for themselves and give you poorly managed social services in return, two, they want to re-distribute those profits in order to buy votes until they can outlaw elections, and three, they want to destroy your ability to be self-sufficient. If you can earn only bare subsistence, you must depend on government, but more importantly, you have lost your pride.

A free person who is responsible for his own success does not need government. In order to survive well, he need only think and innovate. Outlaw the profit motive, tell a person that profit is evil, that it is theft, and you have destroyed the person’s ability to maintain his own sense of self-responsibility, self-importance and pride.

The basic justification for the idea that profits are evil is the Marxist proposition that the only value created in society is that created by the laborer who runs the machines. According to the labor theory of value, the capitalist is unnecessary and parasitical, even evil. Profits are therefore wasteful unless they are spent on the laborer. So if we take the profits away from the rich, we can create a “just” society.

The truth is that profit, and its corollary individual rights, represent one of the crucial intellectual advances in human history. When it was recognized during the Enlightenment that all men should be allowed to keep the results of their work, regardless of how large their profits, the floodgates to riches, scientific research, better products and higher standards of living were opened for all citizens to enjoy (including the laborer). While the laborer was earning a profit of his own, the Marxists would claim that profit in the hands of the capitalist was stolen from the laborer. When the laborer began to enjoy leisure and the products he was producing, as a purchaser of those products, the progressives were telling him that the lavish lifestyles of a few rich people were a cruel travesty that must be met with progressive taxation.

The Marxists failed to recognize that profits and property rights were the reason for the success of capitalism, preferring instead to give the credit for that success to machines. The result was that socialism, in its drive to destroy profits, also destroyed the opportunity for people to use their minds to create better machines, products and lives. Machines did not invent themselves; the human mind invented them; and their higher productivity was not the outcome of an inexorable law of nature; they were the result of human choices. Once profits were outlawed under socialism, the only men who made profits were government cronies. The laborers were not enriched at all but were instead thrown into poverty, exploitation and unemployment.

Only a person with no possibility of improving his condition can be exploited. Socialism exploits people by forcing them to live collectively and to see themselves, not as individuals, but as cogs in a wheel. The propaganda of socialism tells them that their sacrifice today will make the lives of their children and grandchildren easier…but not their own lives. The socialist worker learns to resent the fact that he has not elevated his own living conditions. In fact, the more willing he is to work hard, the more is demanded of him. He learns to reduce his effort and works with less diligence and energy. The message from the government (that he recognizes as a cynical lie) is that things are getting better. This lie is an attack on his sense of reality; yet it is a message that he must repeat or else he will lose his job; it is a message he must believe or else.

Any honest commentator about history will tell you that collectivism and socialism do not work. They are an affront to practical action and they produce the opposite of what they promise. This is because the ideology that supports them is false, based on lies and/or unrealistic expectations. Socialism cannot create affluence because it punishes human incentive and operates by means of the gun. The failures of socialism are recorded history.

You can take it as a rule of thumb that when a progressive or socialist makes a statement, the opposite is true almost every time. They are forced to support the fallacies of socialism because they never question the veracity of Marxist tenets. And since they have gotten power only through agitation and lies (about capitalism), once they gain power, they must keep lying. They cannot suddenly discover the truth that capitalism is actually good. Every statement made by the socialist must therefore be true in reverse.

When a socialist promises to create more jobs by spending the money earned by productive citizens, he must invent words to make it appear that jobs are being created. He is talking in reverse.

A good example of this can be found in the Stimulus Bill fostered by President Obama. The President brags about 30,000 new or saved jobs while ignoring the fact that he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars per job. He also ignores the millions of jobs he’s destroyed. He is thinking in reverse.

The Stimulus Bill stimulates job losses not job creation. Thinking in reverse again. This destroys the value of money (through inflation), the value of hard work (through dependency) and the value of sound financial judgment (through unnecessary shovel ready projects). As producers begin to complain about the unfairness of government checks for the “poor”, the President can only accuse them of being selfish. Yet, all they are trying to do is survive. Again, thinking in reverse. At that point, his next enemies are those who understand and speak the truth.

Before the socialist clamps down on free speech, he will try to get as much willing support as possible. He will continue the lie that collective sacrifice is the solution to our problems and that those who refuse to sacrifice are the problem. Only when everyone joins the collective call to duty can we succeed in having a successful society, he says. Again, he’s thinking in reverse. If someone is critical of the movement, then that person must somehow be removed as an obstacle. Free speech is the enemy of collective action.

Censorship and fear have been used in virtually every socialist society in history, in some cases, with bloody consequences. Those who refuse to accept the government’s lies must be ridiculed. They must be made to feel guilty for not going along with the master plan. They must be isolated and silenced because they are questioning the motives and policies of the leadership.

From where does free speech originate? It comes from the thinking mind, from the person who is not afraid to look at reality and tell the truth about what it observes. When the right of people to speak freely is allowed, it is more difficult for fraudulent ideas to proliferate. Whenever a government feels that it must silence dissent then the truth cannot win and only destruction will follow.

Those who criticize the government are attacked for trying to harm the people. We see this today in the government’s attacks against medical insurance companies, energy companies, Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce. These organizations are being blamed for not assisting the government's collectivist schemes. You can be sure that when the government criticizes private citizens and private organizations, it has become (or intends to become) a dictatorship. The sooner we understand this, the sooner will we be able to join forces to stop it.

The Mind
At every turn, whenever the progressives try to implement their collectivist political agendas, their main enemy is the mind. This is because the mind is necessary for moral action. It is necessary in order to create profits, run businesses, make political decisions, judge government and speak out against injustice.

But there is a more sinister element to the coercive actions of government that indicate how much of a prison our nation is becoming. And this gets back to their attacks against profits. Every dictatorship in modern times has been at war with capitalism. We can find this when we read about how the Soviets disenfranchised, stole from and even murdered people who were considered to have been part of the bourgeoisie. The Communist Chinese had their Red Guards who murdered businesspeople and destroyed shops and businesses. And few today even discuss the fact that the hatred of the Jews by the Nazis included the charge of profiteering.

Today, the Obama administration accuses Fox News of criticizing it in order to make profits. It says the same about Talk Radio, the insurance companies, the oil companies and the Chamber of Commerce. Indeed, you’d think that profits are the only reason anyone would oppose the policies of President Obama. Let's hope so.

Closing the Door on the Prison Cell
You may think “it can’t happen here.” You may think we are too civilized to descend into savagery; but weren't the Germans once considered to be among the most civilized people on the planet? Go to Dachau, as I have done, to see what they did in the name of the collective.

The basic tactic of the Alinsky radicals in the administration is to close the door on the prison cell of any person who disagrees with them. Today, it may not be an actual cell, perhaps just a prison cell in the mind. How will they do it? By means of two Orwellian concepts which, once accepted, will result in the destruction of capitalism and your rights: social justice and democracy.

You may think that these two concepts are good. Of course, society should foster social justice, if you mean by social justice that all men are created equal before the law. That is why we have courts, laws, lawyers and even a Constitution that lays down the basic principles upon which our society is based. We have established rules for court proceedings that allow all parties in legal disputes to present evidence that can be dispassionately considered by an impartial judge. The whole purpose of this form of social justice is to ensure fairness. Indeed, our legal system has been considered to be one of the most just in history.

The radicals, however, play a word game with the concept of “social justice”, a sort of bait and switch. When they tell you they believe in social justice, they have something entirely different in mind. For them, social justice must ensure that all profits go to “the people”; no one should be allowed to be rich; all incomes should be shared equally regardless of effort. In other words, no person should be allowed to make more money than his neighbors. This is called "social justice" but is it? Could it really be rationalized injustice?

Every dictatorship has had a citizen army whose purpose was to impose “social justice.” Whenever the government thinks it can do whatever it wants “for” the people, you can bet someone will be forced to give something up, his property or his life. Whenever a nation decides that the “common good” requires re-distribution of income, you will know it has reached the end of civilized behavior.

The other bait and switch used by progressives, the other method of imprisoning the people, is the concept of democracy. Our government is a republic, not a democracy. It is a system of checks and balances designed to prevent dictatorial powers from taking over the country. There is a democratic vote in republican government; but such voting extends only to those who will represent us in the limited functions of government; such votes do not confer unlimited rule on anyone.

A republic limits the government to protecting people from criminals and government power. A full democracy, on the other hand, would use the “power” of the people to impose coercive demands. Whenever you hear people like Hugo Chavez or his defenders in the administration claim they are advancing “democracy”, you can be sure they are advancing, not limited democratic processes, but unlimited tyrannical rule. They claim it is what the people want, and, once again, they claim to be establishing “social justice.”

Whenever you hear the Obama administration make these and similar reverse arguments, you can be sure they are not seeking to make things better. Their effort to sell you on collective action through so-called voluntary citizen armies is a form of “selective service” recruitment, a form of military draft. All they have to do is claim there aren't enough volunteers and you have the foundation for a uniformed citizen police force empowered by government to make you sacrifice. Don't you wonder what your service number will be? I still remember mine. How could I forget?

If they succeed in selling you on slavery, you will have earned it.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Economic Crisis: A Failure of Socialism

The Sub-prime mortgage crisis has been blamed on capitalism. This is a bald-faced lie told by those who want to bury capitalism under their own dirty dealings and make the way clear for more exploitation of the average citizen. Let's start from the beginning

The Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental institution. The only government agency that has the authority to regulate the Fed is the Fed. Fannie and Freddie are quasi-governmental institutions. Their directors and managers were Democrat operatives and fund raisers who made millions on bonuses that have not been paid back in spite of accounting violations. Fannie and Freddie are regulated by the Democratic controlled congress. When the government refuses to regulate itself that is a failure of the government not a failure of capitalism.

The Community Reinvestment Act that lowered lending standards was a government regulation of the banking industry; it in no way represented a “liberation” of the banking industry or a free market; it required that banks make more loans (according to lower standards) to people with bad credit ratings; it dictated those standards to the banks that would otherwise have practiced good lending practices; that is regulation, not capitalism.

Government backed loans offered to people who cannot afford to pay them back is a failure of government not capitalism; it is the government that could not back these loans but yet told a lie that the loans were secure.

Government backed worthless securities sold as investments by Fannie and Freddie to an already over-regulated financial services industry is a failure of government not capitalism; it was government that made people think the securities were good investments when, in fact, they were worthless.

The entire sub-prime crisis is a result of the idea of government re-distribution from the rich to the poor…it was a government-caused crisis, advocated primarily by Democrats and based upon a Marxist premise; not a capitalist premise. Re-distribution is the Marxist idea that government should re-distribute money and power 'to each according to his needs (the poor need homes) from each according to his abilities (investors in banks must pay)'. This is not a capitalist premise.

The people who backed this entire fiasco from Frank to Dodd to Fannie and Freddie to Obama and other Democrats in Congress (who protected the scheme of sub-prime lending and blocked reform of the system) were not capitalists. The very people who are responsible for the crisis are now claiming that it is a failure of capitalism. They are all socialists. It is these people, not capitalists, who should be investigated and prosecuted.

The sub-prime crisis is a failure of socialism.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Capitalism - The Real Welfare System

Statist governments use the philosophy of altruism to make war upon the individual and as a result they do not allow to each man the freedom to live his own life. Their systems are designed to control or manipulate the majority of individuals in favor of a few gangsters who have gained control of the government. In spite of pronouncements of charity and love for all, promises to help solve major problems, the sluggish growth of economies fraught with government intervention only proves that statism is the real system of exploitation.

A capitalist system is the only system that opens the door for man and human progress because it gives to each man the incentive to live and to be rewarded for that living. Capitalism makes hard work, ingenuity and genius the hallmarks of a society while socialism kills these values. Capitalism is a system where happiness is possible to the individual, where he can look forward to security and not to the drudgery of having his life squeezed out of him for the sake of some fat cat who writes the rules.

To elaborate on this issue, let us look a bit more closely at just how the individual is positively affected by capitalism. We’ll look at several factors in society and identify how capitalism affects them.

In an economic system where every citizen is free to acquire and keep property, capital savings is possible. Hence money becomes available to the businessman who would expand plants, hire more employees and improve production techniques with money borrowed from banks. In this way, increased production generates increased production and both the businessman and the average citizen benefit. A banking system geared to the capital needs of businessmen becomes the transmission belt that turns accrued human energy into an opportunity for the generation of more energy. A fully free capitalist system is the only system that leaves nothing in the way of capital savings and human progress.

On the other hand, the Obama administration will tell you that wealth is created by labor and that it is stolen from laborers by capitalists who earn nothing. They won’t give you this opinion out of scholarly disagreement, they will scream and yell at how evil capitalists are and how they are creating poor neighborhoods, poisoning people and robbing them of their wealth.

Yet, capital savings are distinctly missing in statist systems because such systems are designed for legal plunder. The first thing plundered in a statist system is surplus wealth that quickly disappears into the coffers of government officials and pork barrel spending programs. Since the plunder of surplus wealth leaves the citizen with no incentive to produce, he produces only what he requires for bare subsistence. This leaves little chance for dynamic growth and progress.

Capitalism unleashes individual genius while socialism unleashes gangsters. In order for a free society to advance it needs good ideas created by people who seek to better their own lives. Capitalism creates advanced technology and this creates more value because it increases the power of labor and human energy. The value created by technology in the form of labor, time and energy saving devices proves that labor is not the only factor in society that gives value. In fact, human intelligence is, by far, the most important factor in a free society.

Yet, radicals dismiss human intelligence because, most often that intelligence is brought forward by the factory owners and engineers in corporate management; by the capitalists. And since the capitalists are those that they need to isolate as evil, the capitalists and human intelligence are seldom praised.

In order for a socialist government to gain power it needs organizers who can convince people to work hard for the sake of others. They do this by means of selling people on the idea of service. Anti-capitalists must separate the workers in a society from the capitalists in order to take over. Technology must be denigrated as artificial, using up resources, creating pollution, deflowering the earth and exploiting the labor of people.

Technology is the application of knowledge to the problem of survival. From the use of the first stone to the flight to the moon, from the development of the Internet to cell phones and GPS systems, man has been increasing his technology in ever widening circles and, at every turn, expanding the horizons of productivity and leisure. Without technology man would never have achieved surplus production and savings.

Technology is not the monster many think it to be. In fact, as a human phenomenon, technology is indifferent; it has no mind of its own with which to direct evil upon man. Technology is merely the means by which man achieves a better standard of living. Technology makes life easier and it enables man to thrive.

The haters of technology are haters of man; people who don't want man to seek a better life. They know that technology is achieved by knowledge and that only free and self-interested men seek knowledge. They regard this as evil and attack technology as a way of inducing guilt upon men. People who can solve their own problems through technology are not easily led or ruled.

The haters of man need him to feel guilty for advancing his knowledge so they seek government programs like Cap and Trade in order to destroy progress and replace it with lowered “green” expectations and so they exhort men to slow down and turn down the temperature.

Technology is impossible without knowledge, and the development of usable knowledge is impossible to any great degree without freedom, that is, without a government that protects the property rights of those who seek knowledge. The society that allows freedom of thought and property is a society that says, "Do what you will and keep the rewards." Under such a system, we find that men will think better and that others will utilize their discoveries in order to make and sell better goods to more people. The result is the increasing welfare of the people and the eventual elimination of poverty.

Political favoritism, friendly connections and altruistic considerations are difficult under capitalism. This is because business owners cannot afford to have un-productive people causing problems with customers or product quality. Capitalism offers a man this choice: produce and work or get out of the way. The man who performs a productive job is the foundation upon which capitalism is built, and as long as he and a great many others are productive, there is an ever increasing certainty that they will have jobs. On the other hand, un-productive people need to increase their abilities or find lower paying jobs.

A free economic system fosters a large job market where men are free to choose, to move, to invest, to buy and to consume. If a productive man decides to search for another job, he is free to do so. Because of the dynamic, growing nature of capitalism, he can move from one job to another with little or no hardship.
The ever expanding use of technology and capital provides for opportunities so abundant that the system, never stagnant, is a vital factor in the job security of every man.

An important by-product of this security is that people who have confidence in their ability to hold jobs are able to obtain credit for long-term purchases. This enables them to enjoy luxuries and premium quality necessities while they pay for them.
Welfare-state advocates have long been critics of “capitalist exploitation." And they have been open in their attacks upon the so-called uncertainties inherent in the private sector. They even think that capitalism increases the number of poor people and that gradually lowers the pay of workers. But observe that jobs associated with the government in the welfare-state are the most precarious of all (election to election) and that production is not necessarily a requirement for keeping such jobs. Further, employees of government are often serfs holding little freedom in exchange for loyalty; loyalty, not "public welfare" or productivity, being their most important contribution. They are also not exempt from rule by terror - the terror of having their agency under-financed as a result of power plays by the higher-ups.

Another by-product of the welfare-state is excessive unionism. Powerful unions are created when certain bosses obtain exclusive bargaining power from the government. The government forces employers to deal with the unions because it wants to buy the votes of the union rank and file and obtain campaign contributions from labor bosses. This solidifies the power of the union bosses and gives them the ability to call many of the shots. Powerful unions would not be possible under capitalism, because union bosses would not have the government's gun to back them up. Their oppression of the working man would be impossible.

Leisure is possible only when the problem of survival has been solved. Whether you are sitting around the fire outside a cave or around the television set in a comfortable home, the need for leisure has always been strong in man, for it is through leisure that man can contemplate his success. The division of labor, capital accumulation and technology have worked to provide a forty hour week for many. This is because no system can produce like capitalism, and no system will be able to create the amount and quality of leisure that capitalism has created.

For an indication of this, look at our society. Even though it is not complete capitalism, there is no society in history that has devoted as many industries, enterprises and products to the enhancement and enjoyment of leisure time. Not even the Greeks or Romans had the amount and quality of leisure time as do we Americans.
Given a free economy, unfettered by government regulations and government fiat inflation, this situation can only improve. Those workers who want to advance can use their saved time for more production. Those who want to enjoy their saved time are able to do so with no cost to their standard of living.

Indeed, a major consequence of the creation of leisure time is that more people are liberated to pursue self-improvement. This creates more productive people and better decision makers. They lead better, happier lives and they help to improve cultural and social institutions. They become the leaders that help mold the society on its highest levels.

Few people take time to realize the extent to which consumer goods and services affect their lives. And yet, it almost goes without saying that life would be hard indeed without the products that a capitalist system provides. The automobile is a good example. Without the automobile, few could get to work in the fifteen to twenty minutes that it usually takes. Instead, people would have to spend hours of time and energy just getting to work by other means, so much so that it would hardly be worth the effort. The automobile is probably the greatest time and energy saver since the horse. And its use by many people is possible only in a system where division of labor, capital accumulation and corporate structure are given the freedom to thrive.

For instance, the automobile is not as common in many parts of China because capital accumulation by individuals is virtually forbidden, where a central authority dictates the use of labor, and where the state organizes capital arbitrarily. As a result, the major industry is bicycle production.

Yet the automobile is only one product among many. If we compute the advantages of electricity, electric lights, television, Microwave ovens, video, DVD, computers, radios, cell phones, other time and work saving appliances and hundreds of developments in product quality, we can see that the welfare-state cannot possibly provide the benefits that are found in a capitalist system.

And it is difficult to compute the loss when money is confiscated from the private sector of an economy and redistributed to non-productive sectors. Such a loss affects the products and developments not made, the time not saved, and the lives that would still be flourishing but are not. For instance, when the government takes $5Billion to fund a program that engages in questionable activities, it removes 100,000 jobs paying people an average salary of $50,000 per year. That’s almost 100,000 families that are put out of work by that expenditure.

With all the emphasis on health programs exhibited by government and its planners, one would think that good health would be impossible under capitalism. But if we look at the life expectancy and birth-rates after the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in England we learn that freedom of enterprise fosters better health.
First of all, citizens who make a steady income are able to afford better food which generates healthier people. Secondly, cities are kept cleaner due to the financial feasibility of sewage systems and efficient garbage disposal. Finally, doctors are able to improve services to people who are able to pay.

Truly improved health is possible only with increased economic freedom. Where an incentive for improving health is there, doctors will improve their services and lower their costs. Government schemes can only cash in on past advances and lower their quality. In fact, most of the problems advanced by the proponents of government health care plans were caused by the government. Increased medical costs today can be attributed to increased government regulation of doctors and insurance companies that lower the quality of services, increase the number of patients, raise prices, ration care and attract a seedy lot of doctors who want to cash in on the bonanza – while at the same time driving out of business real doctors who care for their patients.

To summarize, the benefits of a capitalist system far outshine those dreamed of by the most utopian of welfare-statists. The welfare state reflects a lowering of sights, since the private sector is always able to utilize resources more efficiently. In its first stages the welfare state appears to work, but as it advances it becomes the cancer which drains the substance from the free sectors of the economy and lowers the standards of living of all.

The most harmful aspect of the welfare-state and one that belies the “welfare” they pretend to create is that government agencies are not responsible to a customer in the same way that private companies must satisfy customers. This means that they don’t have to achieve economies of scale, don’t have to be productive or efficient. Such a situation means incredibly huge amounts of wasted government revenues. Look at the condition of our educational system that does not educate, our Social Security program that is on the verge of collapse, bloated government expense accounts, fraud and waste on a massive scale and you can see that the huge percentage of our tax revenues that are lost to the government could have been spent more efficiently by the citizens who earned the money.

The welfare-state represents a belief in the expendability of the individual. Rather than helping the individual it considers him a slave who must provide the funds for the functioning of the state. The program and its maintenance are of prime importance, the individual is secondary. Indeed, the welfare-state shows least regard for those individuals who are most able to pay.

Capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes the inviolability of the individual's rights and choices. It is based upon his consent, his contractual agreement and businesses must provide the individual with real benefits in order to stay in business. The individual calls the shots - for himself. As a result, he and society are better off.

The degree of a society's sophistication is the degree of knowledge which it incorporates into its social institutions. It takes a great deal of knowledge and truth to recognize that man has inalienable rights, that his life is his to live, and that "hands off" is the moral requirement of human beings. The welfare-state is not an advance upon this level of knowledge. Any ignorant brute who knows little more than hand-to-mouth can learn how to club someone over the head and steal the product of his labor. And it is this, with the support of laws and guns, that the welfare-state does. It takes a society of intelligence and knowledge to realize that nobody's welfare is served by a constant battle for a piece of someone else's pie.

The justification of a capitalist system is the individual and his rights. These are a matter of fact. That their recognition by society achieves the individual's welfare is a secondary consequence. Capitalism is based upon the principle of property rights. It is property that the welfare-state must expropriate in order to exist. Without property rights human welfare is impossible.