There has never been a pure free market capitalistic system just as there has never been a pure communist or socialist system, where there is government ownership of the means of production and each individual has equal access to society’s resources. However, we can rank economies as to whether they are closer to capitalism or closer to communism or socialism. If one ranked countries according to whether they were closer to the capitalistic end of the spectrum or the socialistic or communistic end, then ranked countries according to per capita GDP and finally rank countries according to Freedom House’s “Map of Freedom in the World,” he would find a pattern that is by no means a coincidence. The people in those countries closer to the capitalist end of the economic spectrum have far greater income and enjoy greater human rights protections than those toward the socialist and communist end.

According to the London Telegraph article, Moore’s film features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor. This is pure nonsense and revealed as such by asking, “If you’re an unborn spirit, condemned by God to a life of poverty but allowed to choose the country in which to be poor, would you choose a country near the communist end of the economic spectrum or the capitalist end?” If you chose the United States, you’d find that according to the government surveys, the typical “poor” American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer, and whether he has health insurance or not, he is able to obtain medical care when needed. Try to find that in Cuba, Russia, China or North Korea. If we buy into the nonsense of Moore’s priests, the world’s poor people are incredibly stupid. Whether fleeing legally or illegally, their destination country is likely to be closer to capitalism than their departure country.

Go read the whole article here.

—————————————

I’ve gotten some feedback on the subject of deregulation, and the effect of greed.  Many are quick to demonize it, but I think we all need to slow down and take a look at what greed really is, before we admonish the “greedy”.

Interestingly, greed, is one of the 7 deadly sins, so we should strive to not be greedy, right?  Well, greed is defined in several different ways, but the most unbiased true definition (not relating to material wealth – I’ll explain why this is important in a moment) of greed is: An eager desire or longing; greediness; as, a greed of gain.  Is this not merely an extension of self interest?  What is self interest?  Self interest is defined as personal interest or advantage.  Everyone acts in ways of self interest, some more than others.  The reason is because life is a competition, like it or not.  You cannot beat the self interest out of anyone, and that is the paradoxical nature of self interest, i.e., greed.  To clarify my point, allow me to give several examples.

1. Early in life, we play games.  The object of a game is to win.  The desire to win is an act of self interest.  Yes it is fun to play, but winning and losing is part of the game, and the desire to win is part of human nature.  If the true object of the game is only to have fun, why do we keep score?  Why do we play at all?  Can we not find more fun and productive things to do if the object is “fun”?

2. When we go to school, we get graded on our performance.  We strive to get good grades based on our performance, and to gauge how we are faring against our peers.  Some learn faster, or in different ways, than others.  It is in our self interest to get the best grades possible, so that we not only know we are learning, but to ensure that our future will be bright, by being accepted into higher educational facilities which boast better educational practices than others.

3. When we are done with school, we hope that we’ve learned what we needed to, and that we have the skill set necessary, for a particular job.  It is in our self interest to get the best job possible (best environment, best pay, best benefits, etc) that most closely fits our needs.  We hope to climb the ladder (if we work for someone else) because we bust our humps every day to try and prove that we are worthy of higher pay, better benefits, better environment, more responsibility, etc.

4. If we open our own business, it is in our self interest to ensure the business survives so that we can support ourselves and our family, so that we do not go on the government doles, which brings me to my next point.

5. Those on welfare also act in self interested ways.  Some would say that they are selfish, others would say greedy, and I can certainly see that point.  This is not to say that I think we should not help anyone, we should be able to help those that cannot help themselves (disabled, physically or mentally, children with no family and cannot fend for themselves yet).  A hand up, not a hand out.  For those that can help themselves, they are simply acting in a self interested way to “get something for nothing”. It is far too easy to “game” the system.  Want more money?  Have another kid.  Get hurt to collect disability also, etc.  Getting a welfare handout check is acting not only in a way of self interest, but it is also at the expense of others.  Does anyone seriously believe that the government can make the poor “rich” by “spreading the wealth around”?  Where is the incentive to work?

6. Politicians act in self interested ways.  It may not be for money, but for position and power.  If you think that those you elect to office, no matter D or R, really want to “help” the little guy, you are sadly mistaken.  Politicians are no different than the public.  George Carlin said something like, if you have a greedy, ignorant population, you will have greedy, ignorant politicians.

7. People who vote do so in self interested ways.  What will my politician do for me, or my group?  As if we’re all oppressed, right?  Many seem to have forgotten how friggin awesome our country is/was because of our Constitution and it’s limits on government, and the personal freedoms our Bill of Rights protects.  It only ever has been, and always will be, the other guy who was at fault, right?  As I’ve pointed out before, when the government gives someone something, it has to do it at the expense of someone else.

8. Even religion and clergy act in self interested ways.  They always want a little more.  The church needs an addition, they need to grow their congregation, etc (and notice how it’s almost always tied to “you need to give more to the church”).

Here’s my point.  We cannot prosecute or persecute people for acting in self interested ways, and so quickly take it to the level of “greed”, because we all do it.  If you think you do not act in greedy ways, you are kidding yourself.  I only cherry picked the most politically palatable examples above.  Really, make an honest assessment of your actions and see how many you can classify as acting only in the interest of others.  There was a Friends episode (unbelievably) that dealt with this.  Even when you give your time and / or money to a charitable (by your own free will, by the way, not by government mandate) organization, it still makes you feel good, so even it is not completely selfless.  Put yourself in the position of others who you classify as greedy.

Take a corporate CEO for example.  You think they make too much money.  Compared to what, the average worker?  Do you have any idea the kind of pressure they are under on a daily basis?  Do you really know how much they sacrifice in regards to a truly coherent family life because of their work?  I highly doubt it.  They are generally in the spotlight more than they’d like, and have to put up with the stress of the livelihoods of hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or demanding employees, stockholders, boards of directors, and the general public.  Do they create that much wealth for the company and for the stockholders?  Maybe, maybe not.  But you cannot, and should not, demonize them for what they make.  If you were in their position, I seriously doubt you would turn down a luxurious contract.  And besides, there are free market mechanisms in place that deal with this already.  Boards of directors hire and fire CEO’s.  Stockholders elect the boards of directors.  If you don’t like the company, or think the CEO makes too much, don’t buy the stock of the company.  Don’t buy products the company makes, nobody is forcing you to buy what they sell .  If you own their stock, elect a board, or appeal to the board, that will act in your interest (aha, there’s that caveat again – self interest of the best stock price possible – oops).  If they are truly incompetent managers that don’t deserve the pay, the company will go bankrupt.  If you don’t buy the product they sell, or have stock in the company, why do you care at all?  Why do you want to control them?  What gives you that right?

Now here’s where we’ve really jacked up.  The politicians we’ve elected are not allowing this to happen.  The free market mechanism that deals with incompetence (bankruptcy) is not being allowed to function.  Is it in my interest to bail out a car company?  No, but I’m being forced to pay for it anyway, for the “greater good”.  Sooooo, now I’m technically paying for cars with my, yes, my, tax money (or eventually, inflated fiat currency), but I’m not actually getting a car?  That’s wrong.  How can anyone justify that to save some jobs in the short term?  Why doesn’t the government just start their own car company?  They know what’s best for us, anyway.  They’ve already appointed a car Czar.  Welcome to Communist Russia, we’d be glad to sell you a Trabant.  It only costs $99,999, but with tax incentives, the cost to you (that you can see) is only $29,999!  (You will actually pay the full $99,999, but we’ll tell you that we’re taxing those “greedy rich” more).  Isn’t that great?!  You are supporting American workers, and inflated, over powerful unions!  Everyone is happy!  Until they’re not.

This almost always comes back to regulation, and deregulation.  The real job of the government is not to regulate the hell out of everything, it is arbitrary.  Prosecute fraud, yes.  But they should not dictate what people should make.  You vote with your dollars every day.  You vote for politicians every 4 years.  Do the math.  The market is absolutely, unequivocally, the most efficient and best resource for regulating the market.  The government is always a step behind.  Derivatives of mortgages blew up, so we need to regulate derivatives.  Uh, you don’t need to, Barry, the market has, or is trying to, learn it’s lesson and cleanse the mess of derivatives by bankrupting the businesses that engaged in it.  Miring us in propagandist nonsense that a company is “too big to fail” is utterly farcical.  I think that it is simply meant to paper over the real reason they failed, trying to make a profit (ooohhhh, greedy) in an over-regulated, ever changing regulation, and over-taxed environment, with governmental decrees on how to conduct business.  Here’s the slippery slope argument.  If the government thinks they can do everything better, why don’t they just do it and take over everything?  Oh, that’s right, I’ve said it before, it’s because socialism doesn’t work.  Liberty and freedom work.

Leftists say that those on the “right” (this includes me, as I’m a Libertarian, limited government kind of guy) are always the nay-sayers.  The party of “no”.  I say, that is separatist nonsense.  When I say no to bailout, I say yes to market consequences for poor decisions.  When I say no to over-arching government programs, such as the poorly run Department of Education, I say yes to private schools, like Charter schools and Montessori, and I say yes to variations in the education of our children.  Because I do say no to everyone thinking, acting, and feeling the same way.  When I say no to the regulation of food products and safety on a national scale, I say yes to victory gardens, community gardens, and farmers markets. I therefore, by extension, say yes to limitations of the contamination of the food supply, as large scale regulation increases the incentive for farmers to become huge corporate conglomerates that spray our food with herbicides and pesticides that have been proven to cause cancer, heart attacks, brain aneurysms, and myriad other health issues.  When I say no (by repeal) of all Presidential Executive Orders, I say yes to the true checks and balances nature of our three branch system of federal government.  I don’t want a dictator.  If I did, I’d move to Cuba, or Venezuela.  (psst, that’s why refugees flee those countries, because of the dictators)  When I say no to ethanol subsidies, I say yes to lower food prices.  When I say no to government spending, I say yes to sustainability without the destructive debt loads for the entire country!  And finally (for this rant) when I say NO to the Federal Reserve Bank(!) I say YES to sound and honest money.  Sound money is the foundational pillar of keeping our government and our markets honest.  Restore that, and most of these niggling regulatory issues will be solved.

“Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws.” — Mayer Amsched Rothchild

It’s a rigged game folks, and we’re bickering with each other over whether the ball should be pigskin or cowhide.  Here’s another great quote:

“There are a thousand striking at the branches of evil for every one who is striking at the root.” — Henry David Thoreau

…[Cultural Marxists] took over and began acting, well, like lunatics. I learned from the local media that the former academic vice president had rejected an applicant for a top job because the applicant “wasn’t black enough.” The job was academic vice president for diversity and the interviewee was an African-American man with very impressive credentials. According to news reports, this man was told that he was well qualified, but that the College preferred an African-American with somewhat darker skin.

So here was a man who had probably been discriminated against in employment during his lifetime who had reached the peak of his professional career, and was interviewing for what was probably his dream job. And he is told he wasn’t getting the job, once again, because of his skin color. And you probably thought “lunatic” was too strong a word.

This is a very entertaining article. Highly recommended.  Read it here.

The recent financial crisis has renewed interest in old issues. The Bush administration has announced plans to buy $85 billion in preferred stock in what are (for the time being) private financial institutions, like Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley. The total commitment by the Treasury is set at $250 billion. While this move by the Treasury Department into the financial industry is unique in American history, it has precedents elsewhere, and has been debated many times.

Karl Marx proposed “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Years later, so-called “market socialists” like Oscar Lange, Abba Lerner, and H.D. Dickinson proposed state control over credit and financial capital. While these market socialists accepted trade and the use of money with consumer goods, markets for capital goods would be simulated and markets for financial capital would be wholly replaced by central planning. Capital investment would therefore be determined by state officials, rather than by competition for funds in financial markets. Lange was particularly clear about how the state would determine the overall rate and pattern of capital investment. State officials would set the overall rate of capital accumulation, instead of interest rates. State officials would also determine the pattern of investment, instead of profit-seeking capitalists and entrepreneurs.

Finish reading the article here…

The feds are sending all the wrong signals. Is there any reason not to max out every one of my credit cards and purchase as much gold as I can? If the government is getting in the business of forgiving debts then why not include everyone? Oh wait, that’s right, the government is only interested in bailing out those institutions that deserve to fail. A typical family of four with a bit of debt and an upside down mortgaged house is not worthy, at least not directly.

The truth is no institution, no family, and no individual should be worthy of a government bailout. The redistribution of wealth is not supposed to be in the fabric of America. It is getting to the point that one wonders if the next President will be sworn in on the Communist Manifesto rather than the Bible.

This is no longer my America. This is no longer the America of our founders. We are prisoners of our own apathy.

Our Mommy and Daddy government is over-protective. We are not prepared to ever fail and therefore learn our lessons. Keep feeding us your delicious bailouts, your wonderful welfare, your fabulous foreign policy, your terrific taxes, and your lovely lies until we’re fat and drunk on our own stupidity.

Then again, why not keep your bailouts, taxes, welfare, foreign policy, and lies to yourself? Let the Constitution be your parenting guide. Give us the freedom your own parents promised us. Don’t disappoint and embarrass them anymore. Stop protecting us from ourselves.

Let us know liberty. Let us fail. Let us learn. Let us pick ourselves up off the ground stronger and more prepared for the next challenge of our day.

“…this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.”

“The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use ‘the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,’ 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.”

So, then, what is an unruly crowd?  Is it anything at all akin to the peaceful, park-loving protesters and bystanders who were spontaneously surrounded by SWAT Police in full riot gear and arrested on Labor Day in St. Paul, Minnesota?

Folks, this concerns me.  In fact, quite frankly, this makes me want to go run and find a cave.

Let’s look at the big picture:

1) We won’t defend our borders, and, quite frankly, neither of the two mainstream Presidential candidates are interested in any action on that front. Instead, we’ve got volunteer Minutemen who have to do the government’s duty, from spotting illegal immigrants and alerting authorities on the border of McCain’s home state of Arizona, to building a fence in Texas.

2) We now have greater civil unrest in Mexico, as the Mexican Mafia has now turned to terrorist-like acts of violence against citizens, as opposed to singling out politicians and others involved in the drug trade. In fact, as civil unrest and violence in Mexico increase at our own borders, and even crosses over them into our own nation, the government decides that the most sensible and effective course of action is to label these individuals as “narcoterrorists”. Instead of focusing on the most TRULY sensible and logical next step, working to secure our borders, Washington now uses recent events as a justification for increasing “its investment in the fight against the drug trade by spending $2 billion in counternarcotics aid money to Mexico and Central America through the Merida Initiative.” Well, why not?  The War on Drugs and the War on Terror haven’t been successful so far, so why not throw a couple more billion at the problem, doing the exact opposite of what common sense dictates?

3) Speaking of the War On Terror, has anyone noticed that Osama Bin Laden was never charged with a crime for his involvement in 9/11?  Has anyone noticed that no criteria have ever been suggested towards an identification of success, or victory, in the War on Terror?  Heck, even Asia, which is “home to more Muslims than the Middle East”, believes that “the current US administration has been overly focused on the Middle East”.

So, we’re not accomplishing anything by “addressing threats abroad”, or by fighting a “War on Drugs”, or even with the official Border Patrol.  Yet, we will train our militaries for domestic crowd control?  Congress and the military will put together equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic…, but they won’t defend our borders, or even bother to read Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which specifically states that everything they are doing is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what they are empowered and obligated to do?:

…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…

Congress is, at this very moment, collapsing our economy.  Whether you believe that the Wall Street disasters are incidents of negligence or of deliberate fraud and corruption, the end result is the same:  our government has failed us, and it won’t take much more for a total economic collapse.  It would seem to me that, in the event of a total economic collapse, there might be a little bit of “civil unrest”.  Apparently, the U.S. Government also feels that our country is headed down this path, as they are doing more to prepare for “dealing with crowds” than they are about returning to the Fundamentals of the Founding Fathers in an effort to nurture and naturally heal this country back to a position of financial strength.

In at least two spots, Neil perfectly sums up the stance of Ron Paul and the Revolution, paraphrasing “Look, you guys [GOP, McCain, etc.] are the ones who abandoned the party, not me.  I’m going back to what our roots are.”

Ron Paul preaches the foreign policy ideology of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington in an age where doing so is quite unpopular. Neither the Democrats or Republicans are willing to keep the over-reaching US hands overseas to ourselves. Charlie Wilson seemed to possess this trait as well. The Cold War then is equivalent to the War on Terror today. How ironic it is that if it weren’t for Charlie Wilson’s interventions in Afghanistan in the 1980’s the War on Terror may not even exist today. At least not in its current form.

Osama Bin Laden was amongst those rebels we gave weapons and money to in order to help them defeat the Soviets. This was Charlie Wilson’s doing. He like many at the time were blinded by the evils of the Soviet Union and communism. So instead of foreseeing the inevitable economic collapse of their empire and letting Afghanistan run its course, he lobbied to get weapons and funding funneled covertly to the Afghanistan resistance. This propped up Afghanistan enough to push the Soviets back in retreat. Once this was complete, the US stopped the funding. This left Afghanistan out in the cold and alone with 50% of their population 14 years old and younger (according to the movie).

I’m no expert on the middle east or Islam. I do know the common sense of cause and effect though. It seems to me the problem was not with the United States “abandoning” Afghanistan following their conflict with the Soviet Union, but rather getting involved in aiding Afghanistan in the first place. If we never allied with Afghanistan against the Soviets, the Soviets would have occupied the country. Yet another country for the Soviets to maintain would likely have cost them more economically than retreating as they did thanks to the American aid.

It is arguable that if the US did nothing, the Soviet Union would have fallen even sooner than it did. It is estimated that up to $20 billion in tax payer money was funneled into Afghanistan in the effort. In hindsight that seems like a colossal waste of money for trying to affect something that was already going to occur without that expenditure.

Today we are spending ourselves silly with our foreign aid and interventionism.  We have 700 bases all over the world. We continually pass legislation giving monetary aid to foreign governments as our own debt increases (now over $9 billion and growing). It is seemingly more and more likely that the only way this behavior will end is by an economic collapse. I was born in an America full of dreams and boundless hope. I hope I don’t leave behind an America in ruin for my children and yours to sort out. They deserve better. We deserve better. Our founding fathers wouldn’t even recognize the country they created. It is not too late to turn it around now, but sooner or later that point of no return will come. That is unless we do something about it by getting involved.

At the end of the movie Charlie Wilson says “we f—– up the end game.” Perhaps the best way to avoid that in the future is to never begin his kind of game in the first place.

STOPandLook productions brings you an animated series exploring the substance behind the political terminology used in contemporary debates. There are 6 parts to this series (including the introduction).

Introduction:

Part 1:

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Even now, people think nothing of professing their attachment to socialist ideology at cocktail parties, at restaurants serving abundant foods, and lounging in the fanciest apartments and homes that mankind has ever enjoyed. Yes, it is still fashionable to be a socialist, and—in some circles within the arts and academia—socially required. No one will recoil. Someone will openly congratulate you for your idealism. In the same way, you can always count on eliciting agreement by decrying the evils of Wal-Mart and Microsoft.

Isn’t it remarkable? Socialism (the real-life version) collapsed nearly twenty years ago—vicious regimes founded on the principles of Marxism, overthrown by the will of the people. Following that event we’ve seen these once decrepit societies come back to life and become a major source for the world’s prosperity. Trade has expanded. The technological revolution is achieving miracles by the day right under our noses. Millions have been made far better off, in ever-widening circles. The credit is wholly due to the free market, which possesses a creative power that has been underestimated by even its most passionate proponents.

Read the rest at Mises.org.

In a previous post I wrote that the push for Socialism began in the US with the Franklin Roosevelt presidency. Actually, I referenced a column by George Will which provided convincing arguments that FDR’s policies started America on its Socialist course.

Some made comments that I was crazy for thinking that Socialism was being thrust upon the United States. I naturally think that anyone who thinks aspects of Socialism aren’t already here is walking around with blinders. Here is why…

To illustrate my point, let’s perform a hypothetical test. First, find someone who has no existing knowledge of the US Constitution. Next, give them the list of policies listed below. Finally, ask them if they believe the policy is currently practiced by the United States or not. How many ‘yes’ answers do you think you’d get. Here is the list:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.

A good case could be made for ‘yes’ answers to all 10 of these policies. Where did these policies come from? Perhaps it’s obvious by now, but they are the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto.

For examples of where each of these planks are already practiced in America see this liberty zone article.

Again I ask you. Do we have Socialism/Communism in America?

Shouldn’t we actually follow the document on which our country was founded rather than the Communist Manifesto? I really hope you join me in answering ‘YES’ to that question.

I believe there is only one candidate running for president who will do everything within his power to get our country back to its Constitutional roots. That candidate is Ron Paul. Check him out.