We Must Defend Capitalism Morally

                Too often do we Conservatives end up forgetting that many people are not governed solely by Logic and Reason.  Whether it is a sad fact or not isn’t the issue.  Rather, what has harmed many and has left many would-be-Free-Market-defenders declawed is the fact that for the most part, the defense of it has been based only on logic.  While all the facts and theories stand in our favor, they still leave us wanting.

                The fact remains that we are in many ways left open to the attack of Morality.  What are we supposed to do when a socialist responds to our logical claims for the free Market with, “Well what do you think Jesus would want us to do?” or “It is the responsibility for each of us to give to his fellow man,” as justifications for Welfare and the rest of the social safety nets?  In many ways we can’t say much.  With many of us being followers of some religion or another, we can’t help but recognize the fact that our faiths desire us to be charitable. 

                And so this is why there is a need for an ethical foundation for Capitalism.  We cannot hope to gain support merely by battling with Logic – we are not merely analytical, cut and dry creatures.  As humans we possess an inherent need to have some moral guidance in which we can apply to our daily lives.  And so it is necessary for us to show how Capitalism is the only Moral economic system in existence.

                Here we have to look at all the other economic systems.  Communism, Feudalism, Socialism, Welfare statism (which is really just a branch of socialism), and then the Mixed Economy are all immoral in their own way.  In Capitalism, all men are given equal rights.  One man isn’t viewed by the government as more worthy of protection than another.  With this asserted, we have to see how men are treated in this system.  In Capitalism, Individuals trade as that – Individuals.  They aren’t serfs sacrificial to the king are they?  They aren’t the Individuals sacrificial to the Commune are they?  No.  This is why Capitalism is the only Moral System, instead of a sacrificial animal, he is a man, and he is an Individual who can’t be coerced by Force. 

                How can the Left fight this morally?  The Jesus issue isn’t even relevant because Jesus would never have Forced anyone to do anything for the “Greater Good” – that  was their choice.  The responsibility to each other doesn’t mean that we should be forced to do things for others – that would be our choice.  Socialists would say they wouldn’t force Individuals to do such things, but it is a lie.  In Socialism and Communism the only way they achieve their ends is by force and violence.  For proof of such, look at Russia. 

                It is time for us to embrace this approach.  It time for us to fight the Left with an appeal to both logos and ethos.  We will never convince and defeat every collectivist, but we can do better than we are.  It is time for the idea of the Controlled economy to be destroyed and that will only be done by this – proving that Capitalism is the ONLY Morally correct economic system.  Until we embrace this, we will fail. 

Dick Morris - The Great Charlatan

                Since Bill Clinton’s exit in 2000, there has been one man attempting to resuscitate his image, and has done so quite effectively with all considered.  This man is none other than the president’s former consultant, Dick Morris.  If the Republican Party wants to blame any one person for ensuring that they lost the 1996 election, they need not look farther than this pudgy, red faced man.  Were it not for him, it is quite possible that Clinton would have lost.  In fact, according to Dick Morris, it was he that brought Clinton back from “being buried in a landslide.” 

                After Morris resigned from the Clinton administration because of an interesting dealing with a prostitute and a conversation with the president in 1996, he set off then as a man who was a Conservative at heart and had simply helped the Clintons because it was his job.  Or, another explanation he has given, that he became disillusioned with the power couple.  If anything, there is something rather convenient about his change of heart with the end of the decade, especially considering that he had not aided Clinton in simply one election but two. 

                It was with this change in his view, he suddenly became the best friend to a number of conservative commentators, most notably Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.  With this publicity he has gained a voice in Republican politics that should sicken many who are aware of his utterly contradictory past.  A man who fought against the Republicans, now one of them.  A Liberal who ensured the longevity of a president that many disliked, now a Conservative Populist.  If it doesn’t strike you as more than odd that he is still talking at Conservative engagements and events, I ask you to pause and think for a moment. 

                Not only does he now have stock in the Conservative Movement, but he has the audacity to attack those who are more welcomed and worthy of being part of it than he himself.  In an article he wrote nearly a year ago, “Newt’s Right” the closet Liberal attacked Paul Ryan’s plan as “suicidal”.  More recently he recently made a video claiming that Ron Paul is more Liberal than Obama.  While both attacks were ridiculous on their own accord it was only more so when the man couldn’t get his facts straight on either. 

                The time has come for this sad little man to be evicted from the house he has intruded.  Dick Morris is not a Conservative, he is not an intelligent man, and he should not be featured by Conservatives.  The Insiders have got to go if we are going to win this election and Morris is at the least a wannabe-insider.  In short, it’s time to clean house, starting with Dick. 

Why We Need to Stop Antagonizing Russia

                One of the things that has recently come to my attention, or rather I took time to examine it, is the reemergence of Anti-Russian and more precisely, anti-Putin feelings.  Now I know that there are many of us who don’t care for the former KGB officer, however, do we know what the alternative is?  The fact is that Russia isn’t going out of the International theatre any time soon and, is we aware of what group would take over in Russia were Putin not in control?  I don’t think so.  When it comes to understanding the politics of other countries, we rarely care and when we do it’s usually only on the lines of if they are anti-American or not. 

                With the rise of the protests in Russia, it is easy to once again hope (naively) that a conservative, free market, pro-American government will come about if Vlad does not become president again.  However, what many don’t know is that the second most popular party in Russia is the Communist Party.  Behind them is the Liberal Democrat Party which calls for the regaining of Ukraine and Belarus to the country.  And then finally the A Just Russia Party, which calls for a welfare state and Democratic Socialism.  These are the alternatives to Putin and his party.  

                While Vladimir Putin has proven to be contrary, to some people, towards U.S. interests he has done many things that most Conservatives in the U.S. would welcome.  In his country he has implemented a 13% flat income tax, opened up oil and natural resources to extraction, made the country more business friendly and has allowed it to become an energy superpower.  If nothing else, he makes Obama look like the socialist he is. 

                And now, there are riots in the streets of Russia.  Many Media outlets are calling for new elections, saying that the last one was rigged.  Our old friend Gorbachev came out and called for Putin’s resignation.  Even Hilary Clinton came and opened her big mouth.  It seems that everyone is attempting to be the first to call for Putin to be out. 

                However, what do we want instead?  Do we want the Communists back?  Didn’t we beat them already?  Do we really want another Cold war?  What about the Just Russia Party?  They want to socialize the country.  And the Liberal Democrat Party?  They wish to reclaim the lost territory of the Soviet Union, or their “natural borders”.  All these parties would make the Russia of the last 10 years look like a walk in the park. 

                It’s time we realize that the politics of foreign countries aren’t as simple as they are here in America.  The idea that they are under systems like ours isn’t so.  Do I believe that we should be the greatest friends with Russia and Vladimir Putin? No.  However, I don’t believe in antagonizing the person who stands between the West and the reemergence of Communism.  Democracy should reign, and elections should be fair.  But the difference is that in the West, they aren’t crying against false elections, they’re calling for Putin’s head. 

Something I found, though it's a little late

This evening, as Santa Claus soars over America delivering presents, let's examine how many US federal laws he's breaking. 1.) Flying without permission of the FAA 2.) Carrying private mail in violation of the Post Office's Private Express Statutes 3.) Failure to pay tariffs 4.) Failure to register all incoming goods with US customs 5.) Capturing and owning an endangered species i.e. reindeer 6.) Failure to get a federal interstate commercial transportation license 7.) Animal cruelty (he's got a whip for the reindeer). 8.) Import of an unauthorized vehicle

HO HO HO! Merry Christmas to all! Rudolph, is that a drone?

Why Ayn Rand Scares the Left

                If there is any intellectual of the last 100 years who scares the Left, it is Ayn Rand.  One needs only to search her name on the internet and they will find that she is perhaps more abused and insulted than Milton Friedman and Reagan.  Often the charges that most attack her with can be boiled down to “She believes that people should be self-centered bastards and not give a damn about anyone else.” 

                While anyone who has taken the time to read her fiction and nonfiction works knows that the above claim isn’t accurate, the fact that Rand is the target of so many wannabe-commentators reveals the amount of anger that the woman brings out in the Left.  The question honestly begs to be asked – why?  Why does this Russian immigrant, who died in 1982, bring Liberals to the use of such vitriol and character assassination? 

                The answer is actually quite simple – she makes sense.  She is to Socialism what David was to Goliath and the Left simply doesn’t know how to respond to her except to demagogue and paint her as a puppet to the elitists.  Unlike some of the more pacifistic fighters for the Right and Libertarianism Rand doesn’t hold back, if anything she removes the veil that the Progressive and Socialist movement has used for decades – the veil of “the Greater Good”.  It had been this façade that left far too many Conservatives stammering during the New Deal, with the passing of Social Security, and the growth of Welfare.  However she tore it off with her philosophy of the Individual and showed the true face of the Left with her novels. 

                Rand explained that Capitalism is the only Moral Economic System because unlike Socialism, Feudalism, Communism, Welfare Statism, and the Mixed Economy, Capitalism treats people as Individuals and not the sacrificial animals that all the other systems did.  She preached that instead of appeasing everyone else, that one should live for his own happiness.  That Innovation is created by Free Individuals and not Government coercion. 

                This is what infuriates the Left.  Ayn makes clear how the “Good Intentions” of government regulation often lead to worldly Hell.  Her novella “Anthem” shows how government constraint goes against progress.  And her magna opus “Atlas Shrugged” paints the end result of a society that doesn’t give Individuals their freedom.  In short, she kills the Left’s Utopian ideals with logic. 

                It was nearly fifty years ago that Whitaker Chambers savaged “Atlas Shrugged” in the National Review and separated the Conservative Movement from Rand.  Now we are beginning to see the reemergence of Randian ideas with the Tea Party and members of the Republican Party who are influenced by her like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.  It is time for the Right to admit it and embrace it – Rand is right. 

In Defense of the Free Market

Having read enough books at this point to understand Free Market economics quite well, I think it's time to dismiss many of the criticisms that run about "Capitalism" and how it is necessary for government to intervene in them though this has been done by many, far greater people than I. At the end I'll give a couple links for anyone who wants some extra info about the ideas expressed. However, before going on I have to make one thing clear, when I speak of Capitalism and the Free Market, I'm not talking about our current system. Our current system is a mixed economy that becomes more and more totalitarian with each year, and closer to collapse with it. It'll be easier to just address separate topics than to ramble on and on about a ton of misconceptions in one giant paragraph so I'm going to list out the fallacy first then address why it's wrong.
1. Without government saying what a business can do you would have a ton of Monopolies.
I hear this one a LOT and usually they site the oil companies back in the 1800's who were the reason we have Antitrust laws now. To kill this one, we have to identify that there are two types of Monopolies; Coercive monopolies and simple (for lack of a better term) monopolies. Simple monopolies are like the Food Lion in Seven Lakes. The fact is that Food Lion keeps its prices low enough and the population there is so small that there would be no use for another business, like a Winn-Dixie to come in. Now say Food Lion tripled its prices tomorrow. Then a business man may look at that and say, "I could make a good amount of money if I went in there and had my prices as low as they did yesterday." And with that you would destroy the monopoly. These monopolies are often only held because of the smart decisions of the business owners.
A Coercive Monopoly is a monopoly where a business raises its prices above the market value arbitrarily and is not challenged. This is only, ONLY possible if entrance into a certain market is RESTRICTED. And this can only be done by, wait for it......... Government. Only with the banner of the "Greater Good" can these monopolies be created and that is carried by money hungry beuracrats.
Often you will hear someone say, "But the trusts in the 1800's were immune to competition." That would have once been understandable given the scares of that time, however we have come far in the last 100 years in economic thought and it is now ridiculous. They often site Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust and such as proof of Coercive monopolies in the Free Market. They would be wrong. What is never mentioned is that the Petroleum Industry at that time was less than 1% of the Gross National Product at the time. It was barely one-third the side of the national Shoe Industry! The fact is there wasn't as much a need for oil. It was much like the Food Lion in Seven Lakes, simply not enough money to be made. The companies that joined the trust did so because they would have been fighting for very little profit and would have all suffered greatly.
The simple fact is that Monopolies are the boogey men in the closet, something feared but not really there. They are only an issue when the government gets involved and decides who wins and who loses.
2. Without Government Regulations companies would go crazy and millions of people would die!
If you watch enough t.v., you know that this one is wrong. How many times have you seen lawyer ads asking if you have been a victim of a bad drug or been hurt using a certain product? With the above argument, this shouldn't happen. The FDA would supposibly be able to stop this from happening. And even if they admitted that it wasn't always efficient, they claim it would be better than not having such an agency. How so? The fact is that a bad drug may go through the line and the FDA doesn't take it out of production. A hundred people have heart attacks and what happens? "Oh, it happens. The Company should have done more tests." No one is fired, except maybe in the company, but everyone in the FDA is safe. There is no incentive to be absolutely precise! There is no profit to be won or loss in this situation. They have nothing to lose.
The same goes for the TSA. When the underwear bomber got through security, no one got fired! Now we have tons of groping agents working for the government who can't be fired whether they catch a terrorist or not. The fact is the airlines have no choice in what they want to do for security. Even if the agents don't do a good job, it won't be the TSA that is blamed, it will be the the airlines.
Why not let the company that has something to lose take control of these issues? Who is more likely to do better at security? The Government agent who can't be fired, or the company payed employee who will lose his job and benefits if he screws up? The same goes for the drug companies to a point. Why not allow private companies to test drugs and give labels to certain drugs that they find as safe? The fact is that these companies would only last as long as they did a good job! Also the drug companies would need these private companies approval or people would feel less inclined to buy their product, therefore the drug industry would also have to get better.
Some would say, "Well the drug companies could pay off the other company!". Why would a company that makes a living off of approving only good products risk its own profit for a possibly lethal drug? They have no need to do it! It would steal away their credibility and their profits.
3. The Industrial Revolution was the Golden Age of the Free Market and it was horrible.
If I had a nickel everytime. First off, the Industrial Revolution, primarily in England wasn't a Free Market. A Free Market can not exist in an Aristocracy where Kings, Princes, Dukes, Duchesses, Lords and such get an annual income for their blood line. Though it was extremely close to a Free Market, it wasn't one. Secondly, life wasn't that horrible. Yes, many worked long hours for very little pay however that was what their labor was worth to a large degree. The people back then had very little education and the work was relatively simple.
Child labor is often abhorred as a great evil. The fact is that because of the Capitalist system, thousands of children were living longer. In England from 1730-49, 74.5 % of children born in London died before age 5. In 1810-29, the number had dropped to 31.8%. The fact is that many of the families were growing vastly bigger and there was a need for more income. If the children didn't work, their siblings might starve. Also the work the children were often given were simple and usually they recieved food while doing the work. Is it picturesque? No, quite far from it. However this was far better a life than those given to the children who were born into the world of the serfs, or those who didn't work in the factory. What is never mentioned is that the worse off children were those who were under the clergy run (governmentbody) orphanages who were virtually sold into slavery by the authorities.
Many would say that the reason the children left the factories was because the government stepped in. This is another fallacy. The fact is when the labor of the adults became more valuable, the need for child labor disappeared. Most of the first acts in England against Child Labor were against chimney sweeps, somethin obscenely unclean and not related to the factories, and then the government run orphanages. When they went after the newer factories (which were cleaner and far safer), the fact is the business men who had just invested a good supply of capital in a new factory would rather pay adults then go through the regulation process of the children. The inspectors of the factories however were known for going to the new ones more often than the older buildings which were far more hazardous and out of the way. This led the owners of more downtrodden factories to hire children and more children being susceptible to injury. Those who didn't get jobs were more likely to starve and couldn't contribute to the family anymore.
These are all the ones I can address right now, but if I think of anymore I will get them down or add them. Just so everyone knows, most of these arguments are based on those presented in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The unknown Ideal. It's a great read and I suggest it to everyone, it's the most beaten up book in my possession right now.
Here are some great links to for more info:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index
http://mises.org/
http://www.yaliberty.org/

My Economic Plan

Slash and Burn Plan

15% Flat Income Tax (Will be reduced by 5% after the first year to 10%, then by another 5% by the second year, then again after the third year, and by the fourth year the income tax will be at 0%)
3% Sales Tax (Will remain at 3%, no change over time)
7% corporate tax (Will remain at 7%, no change over time)
Elimination of the current tax code will remove all tax-cuts, tax breaks, and subsidies, effectively ending legal tax evasion.

First Year:
1. Closing of the following departments:

• Environmental Protection Agency
• Department of Energy
• Department of Education
• Department of Commerce
• IRS (Upon the Income Tax becoming 0%)

2. Repealing of all regulations passed by Congress and enforced by the EPA since 1990
3. Opening of all federally held land to oil drilling (Land will be purchasable at market rates, effectively denying inept companies from obtaining special privileges)
4. A Balanced Budget Amendment will be passed within congress then sent to the states for Ratification.
5. Defense Spending Cuts –

• Reduction of Defense budget to 2002 levels – 422.18 billion dollars
• Closing of 50% of U.S. held foreign bases – Open to purchase by country the base is present in.
• Removal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
• All Military actions publicly known and unknown will be ceased in foreign countries

6. A Federal Move to Remove ALL Illegal Immigrants

• ICE will investigate all places of business
• States will be empowered to deport any illegal brought into custody
• If States refuse to act, Federal Government will step in
• Total Elimination of “Sanctuary Cities”
• Those who are aiding Illegal Immigrants will be imprisoned for a minimum of 1 year (no chance for parole or reduced sentence)

7. Reduction of Minimum Wage to 1997 level - $5.15
8. Removal of taxes on Tips
9. Unemployment-

• Will be limited to 4 months
• Money received will be equal to an 8 hour work day at minimum wage
• Cannot be extended past 4 months

10. Medicaid-

• Totally transferred to the States
• Removal of ALL Federal regulation

11. Medicare-

• All new recipients will be given the chance to direct money toward former Insurer

12. Social Security-

• All currently at, or above, age 55 will receive promised benefits
• Those at, or above age 45 will receive a maximum of 75% of the benefits promised at age 68.
• Those at, or above age 35 will choose to either receive a maximum of 50% of the benefits promised at age 70, to pay into Personal Federal Social Security accounts or can participate in a State, County, or Town created system.
• Those at, or above age 18 can participate in Federal personal account systems, State, County, or Town created system, or can opt out of systems totally
• State, County, or Town safety net systems will be allowed. Upon entering said system, the citizen will be exempted from paying into the Federal Social Security collection.

13. Document of Exemption

• Document that allows the signer to exempt themselves from paying into Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare in exchange for signing away rights to said programs will be available.

14. Legalization of Marijuana
15. Removal of ALL subsidies, tax-cuts, and tax-breaks in ALL economic sectors
16. Further Federal Cuts

• All Federally granted Education money
• Recreation and Sporting Services
• Protection of Biodiversity
• Community Development
• General Public Services
• Transportation
• All Foreign Aid
  (Total savings from ending these = $359 Billion)

17. Repeal of Anti-Trust Laws (Effectively nullifying all influence created by the courts)
18. Welfare

• Increased focus in Fraud investigation
• Congress shall set incentive for the finding of Welfare fraud

19. Federal Employee Salaries

• All those making above $100,000, will be reduced to a salary of $100,000
• Total Freeze in salary after prior point, no increases in any circumstance

Christopher Hitchens: An Obituary

                The philosopher Voltaire once said, “He was a great patriot, a humanitarian, a loyal friend; provided, of course, he really is dead.” 

                There is perhaps no better way to express the opinion one might have of the famous (or infamous) polemicist.  In his life as the world renowned essayist, author, speaker, and commentator the man was someone who was loathed by many and those who called him friend were probably quite hesitant in their announcement of it.

                As someone who called himself a Marxist, he said that he believed that Capitalism had its beauty.  As the anti-war Baby Boomer, he later called for intervention into Iraq and against Islamic Fascism.  A fan of the same Thomas Jefferson who obtained the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, he showed little tolerance for anyone who believed in a deity.

                 With this mongrel of ideology, the very verbal Hitchens assailed those on the Right and the Left.  To him neither Reagan nor Mother Teresa were above his assaults.  When asked in one interview what he thought of the death of Reverend Jerry Falwell he answered, “It’s a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to.”

                 Perhaps an act of cosmic irony, Hitchens developed cancer of the esophagus a year ago.  Now, he is dead.  Reverence is not something that I believe him deserving; he didn’t grant that even to the families of the dead he attacked. 

                 As Gore Vidal’s “heir”, he made the clown Vidal desirable.  As an author, he made illiteracy respectable.  And as a human being, he made the animals seem civilized.  If there is any emotion that we should shed for the man, it should be pity.  For it is a pity that he ever spoke at all.