Whatever his flaws, Ron Paul is the only politician (that I’m aware) adamantly stating the obvious folly of Government meddling in the economy.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a [coercive] monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

Same ole story, different scale. Controls breed controls - always have, always will.

This bill seems to be almost unanimously rejected by both sides of the pragmatic isle. Instinctively, the slightly more rational economic sense of the right invokes hesitation for support - not enough to outweigh their altruistic motives nor the temptation to seize the power-steak dangling before them.

The left, who burns with a passion to further socialize our economy, but are loathe to support Bush in such a “progressive” measure - especially one which could remedy the punishment of economic accountability for corporate executives, can’t stand not getting credit for one of their signature plays. To them, the bill isn’t quite unjust or irrational enough. They’ll compromise anything, including their own non-principles.

Damn! They’re amusing as long as you ignore the fact that they’re destroying America.

Here’s a great read illustrating the intellectual decline of America. Despite his shortcomings, an “extremist” such as Goldwater would be a breath of fresh air in todays stagnant political circus.

From Goldwater’s speech:

We must assure a society here which, while never abandoning the needy or forsaking the helpless [sigh], nurtures incentives and opportunities for the creative and the productive. We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions.

And I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who, unafraid and undaunted, pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.

This Nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we, we as individual citizens, can and should do. And during Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspirations — a Nation where all who can will be self-reliant.

We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man, and we see the whole man as the great reason for instituting orderly government in the first place.

We see — We see in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And — And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We don’t seek to lead anyone’s life for him. We only seek — only seek to secure his rights, guarantee him opportunity — guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed. [emphasis and dismay added]

And the best part…

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. [emphasis mine]

From Myrhaf:

Tonight we watched the beginning of the end of freedom in America, brought to us by well-meaning Republicans who have not the slightest idea that their perverted hierarchy of values will lead to destruction of individual rights. They were all good people we saw on TV tonight. Good, solid Americans. Their ignorance of economics and philosophy will be the end of the country they love.

I have many friends and family who correctly detect and loath the destructively nihilist essence of the left. What they fail to see are the thorns in their own bed of roses - which are just as deadly and cloaked in a much more palatable guise. The truth is they are still cheering for a losing team, and for exactly as Rand wrote in “Conservatism: An Obituary”:

Yet capitalism is what the “conservatives” dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society. [emphasis added]

As long as sacrifice, in any sense of the word, is part of a political platform the result will be destruction of wealth, freedom and life.

The preemptive race card is already being tossed out by the Kindergarten Party (HT) at the notion of an Obama loss.  An especially pathetic example is this garbage by Jacob Weisberg - the collectivist editor at Slate.com.

This is the second (that I’ve noticed) race-baiting read on Slate in the past few weeks - at least they’re consistent.  Weisberg alternates between two distinct tactics - 1) smear McCain based on age and his (alleged) lack of collectivist enlightenment, and 2) smear anyone even glancing at the thought of not pulling the Obama lever as a Klan member.

Both tactics are transparent, illogical and void of intellectual merit - standard leftist prattling.  A few quotes…

Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

Hmmm… perhaps it could be that while McCain is just as bad, he manages to maintain a slightly more resilient cloak over his vision (i.e., his desire to destroy virtually every freedom that led to the greatness of our nation).  They both prescribe compulsory compassion and sacrifice as the answer.  Both are fully willing, and unfortunately capable, of inflicting massive economic destruction as they trample rights in their quest to reform and pressure (force by gunpoint) their altruist vision on America.

If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Or, considering older whites statistically are the most educated and wealthy, maybe A) they see through the bullshit of his entire campaign, or B) they realize that his socialized welfare-state vision cost money, and they’re the ones who’ll be paying for it.

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world’s judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn’t put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Sorry Jacob, putting a individual of a particular race into office won’t resolve the philosophical cancer at the root of racism.  Buying votes through class-warfare and income redistribution bribery will only breed more non-thinking idiots prone to taking intellectual shortcuts.

Racism is an intellectual shortcut driven by laziness or stupidity.  A collectivist takes the quick and easy route in dealing with others by choosing to derive elements of their character by group-based inheritance.  Unfortunately, just as inheritance in object-oriented programming, not all attributes are guaranteed to withstand becoming concrete from abstraction.  As Ayn Rand wrote:

A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin.

Invoking or establishing the awareness to deal with another human as an individual requires one to have the philosophic underpinnings needed to see men as individuals who should be valued according to their minds.  Considering the philosophic bankruptcy of our world and the deliberate indoctrination resulting from near universal acceptance of the collectivist mindset, most people stand little chance to hold a fundamental appreciation of individual sovereignty.

Objectivism is the only school of thought that involves such appreciation and applies it consistently.

The only way to eliminate racist ignorance will be for Americans to (re)discover the value of the individual.  To celebrate a charming vote-buying champion with the phony symbolism of monumental achievement does nothing more than perpetuate the group-think mentality responsible for the ignorance they wish to defeat.

If we continue on our present path our children will grow up thinking of freedom as a myth.  In a nation riddled with government meddling we’ll have equal opportunity for sure - very little of it.   Since collectivists deny reason (causality, justice etc.) and derive self-esteem from the sum opinion of others, Jacob’s emphasis on the world’s opinion seems fitting.

As a brief tangent, I find it important to distinguish racism, a broad implementation of collectivism, from stereotyping, a classification or initial conclusion based on social or cultural patterns.  If I drive through a rough part of town and see a group of shady characters, I absolutely assume many conclusions based on stereotypes.  Extending well beyond race (which the criteria for such conclusions could but doesn’t necessarily include), any attribute that pertains to the setting or an entity within is considered. This is not intellectual laziness.  This is thoughtful perception - especially when such stereotypes include a premise of significant profit or loss to the beholder.  A individualist-minded observer would realize that any one of those thugs *could* represent the epitome of reasonable ingenuity - despite the odds.

You may or may not agree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn’t just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation’s historical decline.

What Jacob fails to understand (or care about) is that none of those “big issues” are responsibilities of a government within its proper scope.  The fact that the US has deluded itself into thinking otherwise is the real symptom of the historical decline he misdiagnosed.

Weisberg and others contend that racism will play a large role in the election.  Whether they actually believe that, or conveniently commission its use for the root of a variety of tactics, I don’t know.  I’d guess they don’t either, but they have to luxury to play the card from both sides of the deck, so it doesn’t matter.  They can use it both to paint non-leftist whites as unenlightened, mouth-breathing, Fascist cavemen (as some voters certainly are), and as a form of denigration, regardless of legitimacy, to guilt others into not being “one of those guys.”

This double edge sword represents a textbook Argument from Intimidation - “only a racist wouldn’t support Obama.”

While any objective individual will attest, especially one living in the south, that caveman racism is certainly still alive any well - I think the fact that Obama is an avowed Socialist scares off many more whites that does his race.  As Myrhaf wrote

I firmly believe Obama is the least American, most European presidential candidate ever. This little man has no idea what made America great. His vision of America’s ideals is exactly what is destroying American liberty and individual rights.

Indeed he is absolutely against every ideal that brought about the American splendor.  To Obama, accountability is a term only applicable in the pragmatic context of denigrating republicans or big business, justice is only valid in the wretched context of “social justice”, and freedom is a diet-life clobbered by pragmatic, feel-good statism bent on the wholesale violation of individual rights.

Our quality of life is a direct result of individuals who valued personal achievement.  Obama publicly promotes witholding personal achievement and its wretched materialist nature, and that self-esteem is merely a derivation of one’s ability to become a spoke in the collective wheel.

Sure, there are idiots who wouldn’t vote for a person of a different race even if he were the perfect embodiment of their political philosophy, but shouldn’t spitting in the face of reason, rights, and freedom cost B.O. a few votes?

GusVanHorn sums it up with this…

If this is going to be the man in the bully pulpit for what most people see as the pro-capitalist political party, we’re better off having an open socialist in office so such foolishness gets the label it deserves.

Either way, America has already lost this election.

David Boaz highlights the anti-individual, and hypocritical demeanor of the clowns attempting to rule the greatest nation.

Below is the transcript of one clown’s commencement speech with noteworthy phrases highlighted, below are my comments (here are others):

Thank you, President Roth, for that generous introduction, and congratulations on your first year at the helm of Wesleyan. Congratulations also to the class of 2008, and thank you for allowing me to be a part of your graduation.

Thanks also for your generous campaign contributions Mr. Roth.

I have the distinct honor today of pinch-hitting for one of my personal heroes and a hero to this country, Senator Edward Kennedy. Teddy wanted to be here very much, but as you know, he’s had a very long week and is taking some much-needed rest. He called me up a few days ago and I said that I’d be happy to be his stand-in, even if there was no way I could fill his shoes.

Oh, I think in terms of philosophical merit, you’re exceeding his standard - plus albeit less humorous for the college crowd, the lack of senility is refreshing.

I did, however, get the chance to glance at the speech he planned on delivering today, and I’d like to start by passing along a message from him: “To all those praying for my return to good health, I offer my heartfelt thanks. And to any who’d rather have a different result, I say, don’t get your hopes up just yet!”

Too late.

So we know that Ted Kennedy’s legendary sense of humor is as strong as ever, and I have no doubt that his equally legendary fighting spirit will carry him through this latest challenge. He is our friend, he is our champion, and we hope and pray for his return to good health.

A true legend indeed Osama.

The topic of his speech today was common for a commencement, but one that nobody could discuss with more authority or inspiration than Ted Kennedy. And that is the topic of service to one’s country – a cause that is synonymous with his family’s name and their legacy.

Such a noble clan.

I was born the year that his brother John called a generation of Americans to ask their country what they could do. And I came of age at a time when they did it. They were the Peace Corps volunteers who won a generation of goodwill toward America at a time when America’s ideals were challenged. They were the teenagers and college students, not much older than you, who watched the Civil Rights Movement unfold on their television sets; who saw the dogs and the fire hoses and the footage of marchers beaten within an inch or their lives; who knew it was probably smarter and safer to stay at home, but still decided to take those Freedom Rides down south – who still decided to march. And because they did, they changed the world.

I bring this up because today, you are about to enter a world that makes it easy to get caught up in the notion that there are actually two different stories at work in our lives.

The first is the story of our everyday cares and concerns – the responsibilities we have to our jobs and our families – the bustle and busyness of what happens in our own life. And the second is the story of what happens in the life of our country – of what happens in the wider world. It’s the story you see when you catch a glimpse of the day’s headlines or turn on the news at night – a story of big challenges like war and recession; hunger and climate change; injustice and inequality. It’s a story that can sometimes seem distant and separate from our own – a destiny to be shaped by forces beyond our control.

I’m not sure if this is a hint of determinism, or an appeal to bolster the notion of helplessness and lack of purpose. My guess is that’s it’s a setup line for his insights (to come below) regarding the way to find purpose.

And yet, the history of this nation tells us this isn’t so. It tells us that we are a people whose destiny has never been written for us, but by us – by generations of men and women, young and old, who have always believed that their story and the American story are not separate, but shared. And for more than two centuries, they have served this country in ways that have forever enriched both.

I say this to you as someone who couldn’t be standing here today if not for the service of others, and wouldn’t be standing here today if not for the purpose that service gave my own life.

Now we get to the meat. His life had no purpose before he felt the urge to serve? What misery.

Read the rest of this entry »

Following up to my previous comments regarding the man who’ll likely be our next president, via Myrhaf I’ve found many others who share my sentiments. I honestly believe this man represents the embodiment of a potent collectivist brew, a marxist-racist-islamic mole. This trifecta of philosophical cancers is shrouded by a facade of articulate and tactical rhetoric which both plays to, and fuels the altruistic and mental stupor or our population. Add in the subtle (even subconscious) motive of white liberal guilt, and you’ve got a strong hand to play.

If we are to judge individuals by their words and the company they keep, there are some pretty stark conclusions available.

Socialist Paul Kanjorski [D-PA] further spearheads our descent into destruction with a gem of barbaric brilliance he’s named the “Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008″. H.R. 5800 would establish a “Reasonable Profits Board” that would serve to determine if oil companies are bringing in too much money.

Since we’ve, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the founding principles for this nation, and are no longer chained by constitutional justification, this measure is fair game.

Here’s uncle Sam’s claim - “You don’t have a right to your profits, we do. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how you might reinvest your profits, we’d rather confiscate them by force as a form of pandering and income redistribution.”

It escapes me how any human could claim the right to dictate the appropriate profitability of another. Unless he’s the consumer, by what right can he tell another how much the product of his labor and resources should be worth in barter? A producer and his voluntary consumers are the only entities with any justifiable means to determine price. Any man that claims such determination can rightfully be made by anyone other than the producer and consumer, and then imposed by force, is an advocate of slavery.

The proper response to this meddling is for the victim (big oil) to simply say “no, we quit”. It would only take once, as the crumbling economy would send a message to congress reminding them who’s rightfully in charge - the men of production, not crooks and cowards who scheme their way into office and pander to stay there. Kanjorski and all the other rodents would scurry in a desperate attempt to officially retract the 13th amendment in order to fix their boo boo. I long for the then day where men proudly assert their right to the product of their labor. When the victims realize their sanction is the only power Washington thugs maintain, the sick little game that is American politics will be nothing more than a footnote in history.

So, keep pushing Paul. The more you push, the sooner those of us who understand life, liberty and property can rebuild the nation you’re doing your best to obliterate.

It’s official. I’ve returned to the dreary conclusion that there’s not a single candidate in the 2008 election that I can vote for in good conscience. Yep, I’m thinking I was very wrong regarding Ron Paul. Over the past week, I’ve reconsidered my support for his campaign. Like a light switching on in a closet with rats, it’s become shockingly apparent that part of his platform is pragmatic, and built on shaky premises. I applaud his adamant defense of the constitution, his open intent of dismantling several government agencies, his unfaltering support of the second amendment (without stipulations), his defense of property rights and his acute denigration of collectivism (which he accurately summoned is as the underlying pier of racism).

I agree with lots of what he says. Unfortunately, he misses the target on some key issues. Why can’t he tie it all together?

He condemns our ridiculous degree of taxation, but his primary reason is that it would “help the economy”. Why can’t he mention the case that it’s simply wrong to take by force from person A and give to person B? He chastises collectivism in the form of racism, but he fails to criticize the largest collectivist death-blob - the welfare state.

From his letter to congress on May 22, 2002, Paul writes.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

Ok…. great - as if Social Security itself isn’t a collectivized frivolous government program.

Why doesn’t he connect the dots?

He correctly points out that our mission in the middle east is hugely misdirected, but just today in a South Carolina speech claims that we should be “minding our own business”.

Minding our own business? Is he a pacifist?

To completely absolve barbaric faith, and to blame the threat of terrorism on the US not “minding its own business” is absurd. Barbarians fight even amongst themselves by the same means, for the same ends… is that due to us not minding our own business as well?

Let’s be honest, there’s no way Paul will even be in the top three, so my vote is really nothing more than a symbolic gesture. That being said, I still think Paul is the way-lesser of all evils… I just wish he could fix the 20% of his premises that seem to be syrupy gray.

In this article, Yaron Brook very eloquently defends individual rights against the gigantic, emotionally pulsating, collectivist death-machine.

Although this glob of evil seems to be just another page out of the collectivist playbook, there is a distinguishing factor that is noteworthy. Most socialized schemes simply want to horde the results of your productivity in order to redistribute to those who need them more. Socialization of medicine actually takes it a step further in that it requires the wrangling of a highly specialized skill set. Not only does it need your money to pay for someone else’s care, it also needs the brain and body of the individual who completes the equation - the physician. To exist, it needs both indirect and direct slavery.

Despite the emotional appeal that government-imposed “universal health care” would repair American medicine, it would utterly destroy it. A “national” health care system would be immoral, impractical and unconstitutional; it violates the volition of all parties involved, which stifles their ability to innovate, administer, or effectively conduct business.

It is immoral because there is no individual right to health care. There is only the right to pursue the ends that maintain one’s survival without encroaching on the rights of others. It is immoral (commonly known as theft) to take from one individual, to sacrifice one individual, for the sake of another. Individuals are responsible for their own (and anyone else’s whom they choose) health care cost and choices. Medical care is a service that requires expertise in biology, anatomy, medicine and technology. Individuals who achieve this expertise spend a large portion of their life becoming educated and adept in these fields. They then assume extremely high risk in administering and executing their skill set. Individuals who offer this service have the moral right to charge whatever cost they see fit. You and I as consumers have the choice to either use their service (on their terms) or not. That’s it… we have no right to their expertise, no right to a portion of their life… regardless of who’s footing the bill.

It is impractical because the free-market is the only proven means to innovation and productivity. The reason we have $400 notebook computers and $500 50″ flat panel televisions is the free-market. Any time you abandon the objective rules of economics, innovation and value suffer. Entrusting government the responsibility of managing life or death situations for millions of individuals is absurd. The same dysfunction that thrives in public education and all other socialized schemes will prevail in the most deadly way imaginable.

It would be unconstitutional because no where in the either the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, or any other document pertinent to the founding of our nation, is government meddling in the health care industry mentioned. Conversely, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, both of which are required by socializing medicine. Forcing professionals to render services outside of their terms and/or forcing individuals (you and I) to pay for someone else’s medical care is slavery.

13-1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

We have no right to health care - period. By definition a right cannot impose action on another individual… only privileges or mandates can do such.

The real culprit responsible for our current state of medicine is Government. Government meddling in the insurance and medical industries is precisely what has led us to where we are. This read in The Objective Standard offers a vivid summary of the meddling. Get Government completely out of medicine and our level of affordable care, technology and innovation will soar to unprecedented heights.

Our lack of socialized medicine is one of our last remnants of capitalism and the principles this once great nation was founded on. Science, technology and productive individuals coupled with our consistently objective friends, supply and demand, is the only prescription that can/will remedy the woes of American medicine.