Monday, October 28, 2013

The Paradox of the Free Society



In a free society governed by a representative government, the representative government will be perturbed by the simple maxim that positions of power will attract those that seek power. Within the body of the masses you will have competing instincts for collectivism and individualism. As much as it, in the individual manifests as offsetting urges to be part of community and establish a personal independent identity, it represents a similar split personality in politics at every level, creating a caucus for collectivism and a caucus for individualism. The problem is as Madison noted: men are not angels. This will, within the caucus that supports collectivism, strengthen it and unify it in purpose, as the greediness for power apparent in those that seek positions of power aligns with collectivist goals of a more powerful governing body capable of better acting in the public good. Within the individualist caucus however, the greediness for power is at odds with the goals of individualism which is to reduce the power of government to control the individual. In this way the caucus for more powerful government will always be unified and the caucus for less powerful government always divided; an expression of the corrupt nature of man. Within this reality, in a population where both ideologies share a fairly even representation within the masses, government is ensured a continual bias for more power that eventually deprives the society of freedom. This is the Paradox of the Free Society. For in a free society, it’s man’s freedom to choose his path, fettered by his own fallible nature and with his desire to be part of a community, along with one final failing, his unwillingness to be adequately educated and informed to keep this paradox always in his mind so that he might wage war against it, which will invariably lead to his enslavement.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Congratulations You've Convinced Me

President Obama:
    Here in July of 2013, I read another one of your partisan divisive campaign speeches on the economy. Here now in the 54th month of your Presidency where unemployment throughout has been higher than the peak unemployment of the preceding recession, I have a little commentary on your speech about boosting the middle class.
    You see I am middle class, having come from a middle class family. I have come to a time where I find myself at a unique juncture. In my late 30s, I’ve a comfortable income that, while it doesn’t put me in your damned to hell upper 2%, does get me to between the 10th and 5th percentile. My family and home are well established. My wife provides a reliable second income. Savings are beginning to accumulate. I’ve reached earlier than usual, what will probably be the salary zenith in my field. Now this would be the time, with ample security and a well-paying career field to fall back upon, years of opportunity ahead, where I would consider taking the risk, and venturing out on my own with a new business in an area where I feel passionate.
    The problem is that, in the past four and half years I’ve seen too much. When the good people of this nation cemented their decision that your direction was the direction they wanted to go last November, I got the message. This is the new America: The America where regulators brag about crucifying businesses like a Roman invasion, to set an example for other businesses to fear. Regulating bodies when at their best are indifferent to a business as they lay onerous burdens upon it, and as shown now, at their worst, are deliberate engines of destruction to others’ labors of creation. I see a myriad of permits and fees that are nothing more than extortion of an aspiring business owners dreams, enslaving him to a bank for years for pieces of paper that have no real world value; In effect, skimming off the top before the cow is even milked. I see the nation’s tax collector, used as a political tool to harm those for the words that they say and what they believe. I see political campaigns headed by the administration against private Citizens when it is simply convenient and expedient to do so. And finally, if someone was to cough up the vig to sell on your street, forgoes his right to politically participate in our society, builds a successful business plan through God only knows how many hours of worry about its future and the future of his family, sacrifices income and with it many things for his family, actually becomes successful and starts reaping the reward for having risked that much of his life and given up so much, then that business owner becomes demonized as the “rich” who only became successful because of luck; Because a lot of people work hard, and a lot of people are smart.
    Message received Mr. President. I at one time believed my success in a business venture, if I ever attempted one, to be of my hand with little owed to others, because others did not leave the comfort of their secure life, nor the leisure of it, to build something new. I am not risking my family’s future if success is luck or has to be in majority credited to the collective. If I am to go through the risk, sacrifice, and effort to build something I want it to be mine. This idea of collective credit for a business success is akin to a paint maker or canvas cutter taking credit for The Starry Night.  I will not give up my right to politically participate as part in parcel to the privilege of doing business. I will not build something with love and passion, to see the potential destruction of it by regulatory bodies used against me as a political tool to either force my silence, or as unbridled extortion of money for your pet causes. One needs to look no further than Gibson Guitar to learn that lesson though plenty of other examples are available. Nor will I see the bully pulpit used as a public rallying point to harm my business when it becomes convenient to do so. Finally I will not sacrifice, risk, and toil to build something that brings employment, taxes, and new goods to market, only to be told in the end that I owe someone something for having created it. After everything has been invested, tears cried, hairs greyed, family ignored, sleepless nights had, nice things given up, health compromised for stress, only to be told at the dawn of success, that I’m not paying my fair share? NO THANK YOU!
    You never stopped to think did you Mr. President? That someone would watch what you did, and listen to what you say, and believe your intent?  It never occurred to you that the people willing to take the risk of starting a business knowing the atrocious failure rate of new business believed in themselves to be able to succeed where others had failed? You see, to start a business no one has any “leg up” on anyone else. You have to know that in 15 years three quarters of businesses will have failed. What leads someone to dive into a failure prone environment like this? Not the belief that success is luck and you have a 75% chance of wasting 15 years of your life. It is the belief that success comes from within, that the decisions you will make will bring the odds into your favor. It’s an unqualified belief in one’s self to succeed on one’s merits. That such an attitude about self-determination and self-determinism is usually accompanied a conservative ideology, did that ever occur to you Mr. President? That the very people you need to take risks and sacrifice of themselves to drive America’s flagging economy and employ the still largely unemployed American people are principally the same people you have been dumping on non-stop for four and a half years? You talked about tomorrow’s seas and tomorrow’s skies. Well looking at those seas and skies and how the winds have changed in my life I’m seeing a lot more of you and politicians like you. So I see all these things getting worse not better. 
    I got the message Mr. President. Instead of risking everything to create jobs, I’m going to take a job and deprive an up and comer of an opportunity. Instead of working myself to the bone to make something you’ll destroy on a whim, I’ll seek the security of modest employment. Instead of making more GDP, taxes, and products for America, I will continue to live comfortably and modestly. And while I sit plump and comfortable stuck right here in the middle class not trying to start a business, those that already own a business, or as you call them, the rich, will get richer for lack of competition. Those that are unemployed and those that would have followed me will not get the opportunities that a business venture created nor my current job, so then those people, or the poor as you call them, will get poorer. But go ahead and blame the lost income mobility on Republicans, no one will call you on it. You see that’s the final leg of income mobility that you don’t ever seem to care about or consider; that when someone reaches my level near the peak of their potential as a career employee, they take the next step and risk it all for the big success. You never stopped to consider…”What if I talk them out of even trying.” All of your top down scheming and central planning cannot overcome the fact that I am not alone in how I feel and America needs us to feel differently to succeed. But you’ll just shine on those grey clouds with a platitude like “Some say…I reject that” while America’s economy silently testifies that I’m exactly correct.
    You win Mr. President. As you might be inclined to say, I’m making enough money.  I don’t want to be rich anymore or try and build a business anymore. It isn’t worth the time, sacrifice, trouble or the risk. Instead, I’d rather find out who John Galt is.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Only Thing Left is to Tell You; "I Told You So"

A number of months ago (though unfortunately not very many posts ago) I wrote Thirty Four Senators as a warning about partisanship within the Senate and how only a very small amount of blind partisanship was needed to make a President untouchable by impeachment. I warned that a President unimpeachable was De Facto a dictator, capable of using all sorts of coercive powers, normally restrained to the enforcement of law, against political opposition.

Well well well. Here we are, and the EPA has been preferentially helping liberal groupsThe IRS has been targeting conservative and certain religious groups for not only harassment by virtue of audit, but also divulging of their private information. Sounds good right? This of course comes on the heels of Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking various health industry companies for large sums of money....er donations...to fund Obamacare. Since Sebelius is the head of HHS or essentially the head regulator for these businesses, this is the equivalent of your County Sheriff knocking on your door and asking you for "donations".

But finally it all of that coercive power hit home when the Obama Regime (I can not bear to use the misnomer "administration" any longer) targeted the press. Using the DOJ to pull phone records of Associated Press reporters to look for a source.

Look at the above list, and that list is just some of the abuses that have happened: this list shows a systemic abuse of executive authority for political ends. You can't look at the whole, multiple instances across multiple departments, and not conclude that the problem did not originate at the Presidential level. 

We warned you: Socialism is not a natural state of man. It can only occur on small scale in encapsulated voluntary societies, or in a large scale society by coercion; Big brother must force it upon the people. We warned that this President was an ardent ideologue, willing to do anything to get his vision of a perfectly fair society and that coercion was coming, and in many cases that it was here. But you in the press turned away, still believing in your ideology, writing us off as paranoid and ignorant. You built up Obama to be unimpeachable. And now you, I, we, are stuck with him, no matter what he does, there is NO way to get the necessary votes to remove him from office. You can't tear him down, you simply don't have that power anymore. Even if you tried, you could not do it.

So you got a black eye AP, all you can do is wipe away your tear and try not to make him so angry next time, and maybe he won't hit you.

 I'm writing this, at the effective end of the Republic of the United States of America, and the dawning of the new American Dictatorship, not to entreat you to do the right thing and reverse this. That time has passed. Only to smugly say "I told you so." Now you have the same choice as the rest of us. Submit or be purged. 

Friday, March 15, 2013

Ok Time to Take Down the Statue of Liberty

As most of you all know. The establishment of the United States started by those fleeing religious persecution in England. The United States has long granted Asylum to those seeking it from nations that persecuted them for their religious beliefs.

The modern story: A German family, unhappy with the curriculum of German public schools, (I know right? What possible objection could they have to a public school curriculum? Work with me here.) feeling that it taught values not in line with their faith began home schooling their kids. You can't home school in Germany. German government steps in, and tightens the bolts, imposing fines and at one point hauling the kids off in  police vans. After being told they faced permanently losing their kids. The family decided it was time to leave Germany. They came to the US and sought asylum on religious grounds. The Germans outlaw homeschooling according to their supreme court,

" counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies."
LifeSiteNews

e.g. The admitted specific intent is to quash dissenting thought out of existence.

Enter the New United States:

Citing that Homeschooling was not a "Right" therefore not subject to requests for asylum.  The Obama State Department has denied asylum to the German family.

Now stop and think about that for just a second. Germany has ADMITTED, it uses the public school systems to brainwash kids into a single philosophical point of view. ADMITTED THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF DENYING A HOMESCHOOLING OPTION. Literally "We get to educate your kids so we can brainwash them to our point of view" is Germany's defense of their ban on homeschooling!

The US State department and the Obama administration stand behind that assertion. The very same Obama Administration (now wrap your head around this) that released illegal immigrants from jail, who had committed crimes in the US, not deport, released, back into the US, now asserts that these LEGAL immigrants (They entered the country legally) should have to go back to Germany where they will face losing their kids.

If this is who we are then it is the height of hypocrisy that the flame of liberty is depicted to burn at our gates.

http://conservativeread.com/obama-admin-wants-to-deport-christian-homeschoolers/#i8ydhOSlrtztuPDx.01

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Thirty Four Senators

Constitution of the United States of America

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 1

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.


Article I, Section 3, Clause 6

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.


Article II Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

What am I trying to point out here? Well in the event the President violates the law, in a way worthy of being removed from office, the procedure is clear and constitutionally defined. The House passes an article of impeachment and passes the matter to the Senate for trial, wherein two thirds of the Senators, Sixty Seven, are required to convict the President and remove him from office. This also means that if Thirty Four Senators find the President innocent, he is not removed from office. 
Well these rules were written, fairly speaking, before caucuses had really started in earnest, and prior to political parties existing in the US at all. Long before the idea of party loyalty, and centuries before the concept of ends justify all means progressivism. A certain honor is expected amongst the Senators, which, while it might have been a valid expectation in the days of State Appointed Senators of the Founders era of Statesmen, is a completely invalid expectation in the modern era of popularly elected Senators.
So the modern world of US politics begs the question: What if, the President of the United States, had sufficiently ideologically rigid proponents in the Senate bound either by blind loyalty or sharing a common ideology that disrespects Constitutional limitations to federal power, such that under no circumstance they would vote to remove the President from office?

What do you have then? You have a President who wields executive authority, writing new law by executive order, usurping the power of the other branches of government without any check to that power. With the last political means to hold a tyrant in check effectively neutralized. What do we the American people do then? Faced with a de-facto dictator?
What if understanding that impeachment was impossible, the House Speaker deliberately avoided confrontation, and simply gave in on any issue to avoid precipitating the obvious Constitutional Crisis in favor of feeding a quieter one; Where the same outcomes happen with mere lip service paid to the separation of power.  A cowardly speaker, confronted with a would be tyrant, who gets whatever he wants. What do we do then America? As the tyrant gathers power? All done with totalitarian supporters in both houses of Congress proclaiming “Of course this is Constitutional.”
Recent events make this more than a simply rhetorical question. The President faced with a split congress has already abused the power of executive order without reprimand from Congress. That same President when faced with a statutory imposed debt limit has threatened to ignore Congress and simply mint the needed coinage, or simply keep spending and borrowing regardless of Congressional will. That same President pre-threatened to use executive order to impose his will if Congress refused to come to heel and enact his wishes on gun control.
This is the question that has been burning in my mind for a number of days. Do we have, a would be tyrant elected as President, who cares not about his oath, and fundamentally doesn’t believe in a Constitutional Federal Republic? Do we have a cowardly speaker who would not protect his own branch of government from usurpation if that means risking a crisis? And most important of all, does that President have thirty four Senators, true believers, who would not see him be brought down, no matter what he does or what happens? If so, then what? What do we do then America?