"Capitalism is based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights..."
"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy," said President (Elect) Barack Obama on January 9, 2009.
With no respect on my part for the ignorance of a President who embraces Marxism and ignores the Austrian economic school of free enterprise, I can tell you that 200 of our leading economists who are not Keynesians say the President is wrong. This includes William Poole, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
They said so in full-page newpaper ads in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal [see below] against the trillion dollar spending binge proposed by democrats.
"The ad, sponsored by the Cato Institute, blasts the massive boondoggle that funds liberal projects under the guise of "stimulating" the economy."
"Keynes distilled a fantastically wrong theory of capitalism and of a socialist paradise erected out of paper money. Moreover, Keynes offered no theory of stagnation at all." Ludwig von Mises Institute
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned...
"The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve the common good. It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence." Ayn Rand
Keynesian politics embraced by President Obama and the Democrats deny the justice attendant with capitalism, of allowing the people to prevent, let alone clean up, the mess made by the government. Instead, Keynesianism adds layers of government on the layers of the mess.
Republicans also believe in Keynesian economics, to the extent that at present they are decrying those parts of the "stimulus plan" which are not "stimulating." They like certain parts of the plan. They don't want the parts that appear to be only pork.
However, if some of those pork projects were proposed outside of the stimulus plan, they would vote for it. So would I. Example: no one disagrees that the National Mall is falling apart and needs repair. But resodding it should not be called "stimulus" and be expected to help the economy, nor should any "stimulus" be called "government partnership" with capitalism. Government interference in the economy should always be voted down.
When the government becomes a "partner" with capitalism, capitalism no longer exists. Then, the system becomes what is called a "mixed economy." To the extent that the economy is "mixed" in this way is the extent to which that economy is socialist--or worst.
We are in a world of hurt right now, because of government actions in the wrong places, and government inaction in the wrong places.
The rallying cry of the laissez-faire capitalist is, "Get out of my way!" Our government is doing everything it can to stand in the way of economic recovery, which can only come from consumer interest in goods produces. When the government dictates where capital is to be spent, the consumer is likely to be uninterested in the product, because it is a politically-motivated product, like wind farms and goat milk instead of cow milk.
Let the market do its job. The job of the government is to keep a watchful eye on the ethics in the market place, so the Birney Madoff's of the world, and the Enrons, and the sub-prime markets don't ruin us in the future.
A special California legislative session is beginning to deal with this fiscal year’s budget deficit, as high as $10 billion by some estimates.
California can learn from those states with the most economic freedom, because they perform better on all fronts.
In 2005:
-the 15 freest states grew at a rate more than six percent greater than the 15 states with the least economic freedom;
-per-capita income in the 15 most economically free states grew a full 31-percent faster than in the 15 states with the lowest levels of economic freedom;
-in the states with the most economic freedom, employment growth was a full 216% higher than other states, including California, which ranks a dismal 47th out of 50 states in economic freedom, according to PRI’s U.S. Economic Freedom Index;
-New York still ranks dead last; -in California two years ago the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent--it is now 7.7 %, predictable in a state that maintains conditions hostile to job growth. Contrast the record of other western states; -the unemployment rate in Utah is 3.5 percent, less than half of California’s and 'hardly a month goes by without Utah announcing a corporate relocation or a new factory". Condensed from: Pacific Research Institute Vol. 13 No. 45: November 5, 2008 K. Lloyd Billingsley Editorial Director
It causes alarm to think we may have elected a President who may create less economic freedom. Barak Obama inspires hope and good will, and perhaps many good things will come of his Presidency in the social/moral world. Perhaps there will be less racism, both overt, and the sort that is hidden but just as malignant. Perhaps black hopes will cause fathers to return to families they have long abandonded.
Perhaps--many many things. Obama is a breath of fresh air, he is not afraid to demonstrate his education by being the most erudite-sounding President-elect in my lifetime, and his communication skills appear to be greater than Ronald Reagan, "The Great Communicator."
But he is untested in the eyes of national affairs. All we know of him is that he is the most liberal, the Senator furthest to the left in his voting record, perhaps in the history of the Legislature.
As evidence, his website says things such as this: "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief." [emphasis added] http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#jumpstart
There is no ontological definition for windfall profits. When government decides what is an "excessive" profit margin, you can bet the governement will want to do something to "redistribute" all that money. Despite the enormous profits made by Exxon-Mobile, the oil industry makes a smaller percentage in returns for every dollar invested than do the majority of businesses. The same with the auto industry, which if it was doing well, could be targeted as easily as the oil companies. But it was revealed a few days ago that General Motors is burning through $1 billion a month because of lost revenues. What if it was making $1 billion a month because people liked the cars they made? Would that be excessive profits, subject to windfall taxes?
What about Wal-Mart, the most successful and biggest company in the world? Sure, they keep prices low for those Americans who can't afford the expensive department stores. But look at their profits! Whoo-weee! Now there's something Obama could easily tax!
But the point is, everything Obama has said he would do with the economy will only make it less free, less capitalistic, and more taxable, speaking in terms of wealth-spreading. (His words.)
If I understand his ideas of making NAFTA more fair--in other words, removing any incentives government may have previously offered to business who move work out of the U.S.--then I agree whole heartedly. If his idea is to punish businesses who move out, then I disagree.
The fact is, Obama inspires hope for a better world, but from everything he has said and done--so far--we can expect less economic freedom in the U.S. in the coming years, not more.
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC. The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
The political accommodation of majority opinion is called democracy. The Constitution was established as a federal democratic republic form of government. This is fundamentally different from a democracy: it is removed from the tyranny of populist majority votes that cause injustices, incurred when a simple majority of votes determine the welfare and status of the losing side.
Federal means "A union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states;" [the antonym is "nationalism," where the government is centralized]
Democratic means "Characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all;" [but it cannot mean creating economic equalization, because those from whom capital is taken to be given to others in an attempt to balance the economics scales will be politically violated; those who recieve the alms will learn it can be expected to continue]
Republic means "A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote but is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and who are responsible to them." [definitions found at http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/glossary.html#Republic]
What that definition of republic leaves out is that democraticrepublicanism counters the tyranny found in "democracy by simple majority." Democracy that is direct, that is not filtered through the elected representatives of republicanism, would quickly become a totalitarianism by populism; in other words, which ever side, right or wrong, moral or immoral, had the most votes would determine the course of law. We would become a nation of despots.
This direct democracy is derived from the Greek "popular government" existing in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC, notably Athens. "In this form, there were no defined human rights or legal restraints upon the actions of assembly, making it the first instance of 'illiberal democracy.' An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which although fairly free elections take place, citizens are cut off from real power due to the lack of civil liberties." Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
"Civil liberties" is a misnomer, when "unlaienable liberties" is the literal description. The phrase "civil liberties" as used in the United States has always had the hollow ring for me of describing something other than "human rights." The rest of the world does not use "civil rights." The United Nations adopted the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," in 1948. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html "Human Rights Watch" is the name of an organization dedicated to "defending human rights nationwide." http://www.hrw.org/ "European Convention on Human Rights (4 Nov 1950) and all Protocols" is obviously older than the American concept of "civil rights," as instituted in the attempts to gain for black Americans the unalienable and equal liberties not denied to white Americans.
Of course, the American phrase "civil liberties" absolutely means the same thing as "human rights," but I say it is a misnomer because it deflects the idea that all "human" rights are "individual" rights as determined by "individual sovereignty."
This concept of individual sovereignty is very often challeged by those who don't understand that it is derived from the Enlightenment idea of "common sovereignty."
Barack Obama is taking America down a path modeled by Jimmy Carter, and threatens to be as bad a president as his trailblazer. A unlikely guide unwittingly will help make the case.
On November 3, 1976, the day after Jimmy Carter's election, the New York Times ran a profile explaining his remarkable political victory -- how a one-term governor from Georgia, with no significant record, began planning his presidential campaign in the second year of his one-and-only four-year term, and then went on to secure the nomination from more experienced rivals and defeat a sitting president:
"He believed passionately that if he could talk to enough voters about a "Government as good as the American people," he could win. . . "Words, skillfully used, could play dual roles for him. Liberals came to conceive of him as one of their own. Conservatives responded to him sympathetically as well. Blacks in Harlem voiced their support. Whites in Mississippi got behind him. . . . [T]he theme was always visible: a government as good as the people. It was voiced a hundred different ways, but the impact on his listeners was constant. Americans, he said, were entitled to decent, compassionate, honest, competent government because Americans are decent, compassionate, honest and competent."
In other words: Jimmy Carter won by constantly telling Americans that he was the one they were waiting for.
Carter was certified as the One in the closing benediction at the 1976 Democratic convention, given by no less a figure than the father of Martin Luther King, Jr. Televised on all three networks (the entire visual media at the time), the benediction heralded Jimmy Carter as someone sent to redeem the country: "Surely the Lord sent Jimmy Carter to come on out and bring America back where she belongs."
Thirty-two years later, no one associates Jimmy Carter with Roosevelt or Kennedy, or with "governing." Few people believe the Lord sent him, or that he brought America back where she belonged.
What were we thinking when we elected him? The answer is: some of the same things we are thinking now."
In Talking Philosophy - The Philosophers' Magazine Blog, (posted yesterday, October 21st, by Jeff Mason,) the question is asked about why humans search for the answer to immortality. Mason goes through the various civilization's searches, from the Egyptians to the Greeks to Christians.
But when all is said and done, he answers very little about the spiritual connection men have inside them to what is commonly called our souls. The soul is called into question and denied by scientific naturalists. It does not sound as if Mason fits that bill.
But his final answer is this: "The question of the existence or non-existence of an immortal soul is a practical metaphysical question. We cannot know the answer, but we have to take a stand. How we answer it says something about our ultimate values, our conception of the good life for human beings, the art of living well and the meaning of death."
Where Mason is wrong is that it becomes a metaphysical question only after the epistemological questions have been answered. For the majority of people this is done informally, as they question what and why the soul might be, and how and why it might be transcendental, surviving past physical death, or how it might have been "implanted" at the moment of conception.
People who go through the crisis of questioning their faith in God and the afterlife do have a serious metaphysical problem to contend with. But the problem will not be solved by answering a question of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the answer; the questions and the validations come from epistemology. Theology is epistemology applied to the spiritual side of metaphysics. Theology is supposed to answer those questions and lay a groundwork of metaphysics for the faithful and the believers.
Epistemology is the road traveled by Pilgrim in his "Progress"; metaphysics is the destination at which he arrived. Mason gets a "D" for his answer.
Note: I have been mistaken in the title to use for "sntjohnny." Here is what he wrote to me recently: "For quick reference- I am not a pastor or a reverend. I did finish the pastoral ministry degree in college which in many denominations is sufficient to receive ordination but in my denomination an additional four years on top of the bachelors degree is required- and I didn't do that. (and no complaints about it, either!)"
Introduction by Tony Horvath:
"Recently an atheist [Clark] stumbled upon my site and put [there]
The reader has all the information in the links above to follow this exchange, if they like.
"In my blog entry I indicated that many atheists won’t be convinced by anything less than their own ‘Road to Damascus’ experience. Mr. Clark responds:"
Part Two, (or is it Three?)
Atheists don’t believe such revelations as "revealed" or "natural" are possible, because the cause of them does not exist. A revealed revelation, as Horvath points out, "concerns that which is known and can only be known because God himself reveals it." A "natural" revelation is one which comes through contemplation about the nature of existence.
Any "atheist" who could possibly be looking for a revelation, revealed or natural, would be a contradiction, in terms of what his beliefs were, as concerning the lack of a god who could give such revelations versus what he expected as either an epistemic or metaphysical quality of knowledge. In other words, he either believes no god exists, in which case no quality of knowledge can be called "revelation" in the religious sense; or he believes religious-type revelations are possible, in which case he is wrong about being atheist.
By definition, an atheist knows there is no god, in the sense that all the resolutions of logic one has in one’s mind is what he “knows.” This is sometimes called “justified true belief,” as opposed to “unjustified.” The justification comes from the soundness of the argument that there are only two choices: naturalism and supernaturalism; and from the soundeness of the proposition that faith is the negation of reason.
Theists, on the other hand, 'know,' by the same standard, that God exists. Atheists 'know' he does not. Each of them has found the soundness, the justification, within his own logic that to doubt it would be to doubt his own mind. To go looking for a revelation, or even to expect that perhaps such a supernatural quality of knowledge will be imparted to him, implies that he knows nothing either way, and perhaps has no beliefs one way or the other.
You say I am engaged in an unnecessary discussion on what constitutes an atheist, that there are different kinds of atheists, including what we construe in technical terms as weak and strong atheists. You say your problem as a Christian Apologist is that these issues are largely an internal matter among atheists but each atheist insists on telling you what atheism absolutely is! "Atheism," you say, "reduces, ultimately, to each individual atheist’s perception of atheism."
My contention is that just as there cannot be such a thing as a strong chair vs. a weak chair--which would be what: anything not manufactured as a chair but which works as a chair anyway?--and just as there cannot be a thing such as a strong apple versus a weak apple......The point is, "chair", "apple", "naturalist," numismatist," and "atheist" are concepts. What is a weak concept versus a strong concept?
It is true that "naturalist" and "atheist" are concepts indicating epistemic determinations. But a definition is still a definition, and the only one that can be argued is the one that takes the idea to its logical extreme. Anything less than the extreme is less than the essence of the concept. Why debate things which are not the essence of the debate?
You say you recently had one instance where you asked an atheist if he agreed that revelations were possible if one happened to him. He answered, “You’re asking me whether if god came to visit me (like some amplified Jehovah’s Witness) and explained the whole thing, then would that change my opinion? Uh, yes."
Tony, I myself will tell you the same thing: If God came to me it would be less than rational to ascribe his identity to him. But I will also tell you that since the concept of "atheist" means denial of the supernatural realm, asking your question is like asking whether one would believe in sapient army ants if one showed up. Of course I would believe in sapient army ants if one showed up. It isn't going to happen.MORE
Check out http://sntjohnny.com/front/ and discover the wonderful world of rational Christianity. Now THAT is a "breath of fresh air." CEC
Compiled from "Act! for America"
"The article below was written by Kenneth Timmerman, President and director of the Middle East Data Project. He has authored a number of books including Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown in Iran. For his work in exposing the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear weapons program, he was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Timmerman is also a member of the Board of Advisors of our sister organization, American Congress for Truth.
"Timmerman's article reveals that [because of] foreign nationals from the Muslim world [making] illegal contributions to the Barack Obama campaign, the Federal Election Commission has compiled a list of questionable foreign contributions totaling nearly $34,000,000!"
"It was recently announced that Strong American Schools, the group founded by magnates Bill Gates and Eli Broad to put education high on the presidential-election docket, will die in March. It will, in all likelihood, expire in relative anonymity. "The initiative’s biggest problem has been having to compete against behemoths like war and Wall Street for headlines–a struggle education couldn’t possibly win–but as I wrote back in May, the group also hasn’t offered anything new or noteworthy, a sure way to go unnoticed. Top-down, “government should do more of x” reforms just don’t fire anyone’s imagination because, well, that’s what we’ve been doing for decades and things just haven’t gotten much better. "And so, Strong American Schools, you will be missed…but not for very long. posted by Neal McCluskey on 10.02.08 @ 7:23 pm Filed Under: Education and Child Policy "
The Ayn Rand Center Responds to the Financial Crisis
"Americans are now facing an historic economic crisis. What was the cause? What is the cure? How do we prevent it from happening again? While pundits and politicians blame the current housing and financialcrisis on "greedy" businessmen and lax regulators, and are frantically urging the government to expand its control over our economic lives, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights has launched a new Web pageto defend a different view--that the actual cause of the crisisis government intervention, and the only cure, laissez-faire capitalism. http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=rL8idB-SoNNA8lMh3mz0Ig..
Note:I will be the featured speaker at the Center For Inquiry (CFI) meeting, October 16, 2008, in Portage, Michigan. The topic is "Atheism as a 'Religion' Protected by Courts According to the Establishment Clause." http://www.centerforinquiry.net/ CEC
If John McCain is not elected President come November, his generation will go out like old, toothless lions with their heads down and their tails dragging the ground. It may or may not be his fault. The Maverick is not known for a cool head, is not the long-awaited elequent public speaker that his rival is, and had admitted some of his own drawbacks. But he does have the experience in foreign polic that Barak Obama does not; he has shown the ability to work both sides of the isle, which Obama has attempted but has no real track record on, and he won't effect the kinds of wide-sweeping social and military changes that Obama has promised.
It may or not be McCain's fault if he loses, for the reasons listed, but it may be that Obama has enlisted and engaged too many liberal and socialistic followers, as well as people too unaware that Obama is socialistic, for McCain to win.
There will never be another candidate from McCain's generation who will get to try to correct their world before they are gone forever. McCain was born in 1936, too early to be a "Baby Boomer," but too young to enter World War II. But no one from his generation will likely get to run for President again; the youngest would be 68 years old in 2012, and by then I think it certain that the younger generations, who will themselves be 67 years or younger, will have wondered what the world would have been like had they elected Barak Obama. Or they will know it and possibly approve.
I don't like the far liberalism and the socialism of Obama. But there are things about McCain I dislike equally as much. Both have their strengths; both have their weaknesses. Obama might actually be the better President if what America is worried about is its "world image." [See "The Libertarian Case for ObamaSeven potential upsides to a hope-monger presidency" http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/unusual-headlines-saturday-musings.htmlMORE
"Peter Bernstein draws a conclusion from the current problems in the financial markets: The subprime mortgage mess, [ ] etc, could not have happened in a planned economy.
"Oh really? Another story from today’s New York Times reports: [ ]"JPMorgan Chase, for instance, has 70 regulators from the Federal Reserve and the comptroller’s agency in its offices every day [with] open access to its books, trading floors and back-office operations."
"Goldman-Sachs, which was largely unregulated, mostly avoided losses related to the mortgage market through prudent hedging. Citigroup, which was highly regulated, suffered such losses. Expect state control without the promised payoff in a planned economy." http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/09/28/the-risk-free-society-comes-into-view/
New study: People lie 50 percent more
in e-mail than hand written notes
"The study -- done by researchers from Lehigh, Rutgers and DePaul -- had an odd set-up: 48 full-time MBA students were given $89 and told to divide it with a fictional second party in a remote location. The students believed that the other party didn't know the total pot, however, so they were free to make up a figure and send along half of what they made up.
"Those who wrote on paper to the fictional second party said, on average, that the total pot was $67. Those who e-mailed the other party claimed the total pot was $56.
"Like many studies of human behavior, this one creates a pretty odd scenario.
"[H]ow are people so convinced that their chosen religion is right over all the others. It seems impossible that a person can believe in a religion simply because he or she wants to - there must be some logic behind their reasoning - but I cannot understand it."
Response from Peter S. Fosl on September 25, 2008 "This is a remarkable phenomenon, one that was noticed even in ancient times--the consensus gentium. Strictly speaking,I think, there is no good reason or defensible logic for belief in the standard religions. [more at link below]
Response from Andrew N. Carpenter on September 29, 2008 "In his magnificent recent book, A Secular Age, the Canadian social philosopher Charles Taylor addresses exactly why it is that many North American and Western Europeans find themselves able to view religious belief as a choice that one can make on rational or other grounds." more
You can put my signature on that, too.
