The Fear of Individualism : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education: One of America’s most important girls to the world was the political philosophy of individualism. The central tenet of this idea is that every human being is important, especially from the point of view of law and politics, as a sovereign individual, not living by the permission of the government or some master or lord. That is the basic idea underpinning not only the democratic process, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the various prohibitions addressed to the government concerning how to treat the citizenry, but the free market economic system as well.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The Fear of Individualism : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
Good article, so true. If America doesn't stand for the individual, who will?
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Liberals: Will you give absolute power to the next Right Wing President?
My comments relative to this story from the Atlantic
The Obama Surveillance Revelations Are Pushing Liberals Over the Edge "There have been concerns before about Obama's record on civil liberties and the security state, but people are genuinely shocked by the extent of this."Stand for ideals, not a man. Men are fallible. Bush, Obama, etc. Hold their feet to the fire equally. I'll say one thing for a smaller-gov libertarian approach: There would just be less men/women to be corrupt, by sheer numbers. Less administrators, hopefully less corruption, and easier to see what they are doing. And I would ask every committed and passionate progressive, liberal, or democrat this: Would you really, in your heart of hearts, want Bush, Nixon, Cheney or some future right-wing president to have his hands on information that could be used to blackmail or thwart any citizen, any congressman, any judge, know every connection to liberal causes, know every donor, know exactly how fast your grassroots groups are growing, etc. It's TOO MUCH POWER, for either party, any president. George Washington had all the power to rule our country handed to him by the generals he just led, and he turned it down. He warned us against such power. Be your own Washington, and demand your liberal friends be strong as well. Recording every touch point of every American is not for our country, not for the land of the free. To accept this, would be to commit national suicide.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Proliferating scandals expose truth about Obama -- chicagotribune.com
I've said versions of this line in my head for 5 years. I hope many read this article:
"Obama doesn't bother me. I disagree with his politics, but that's not what's galling. What's appalling was the pack mentality of journalists — and I don't need polls to tell me that most are liberals — who were so eager to wag their tails at his approach."
Proliferating scandals expose truth about Obama -- chicagotribune.com
I understand an expect there to be bad men in politics. That will never stop. What is unforgivable and frightening, is the media abdicating it's responsibility to support a political ideology. To the extent they continue doing so, more record growth for new media voices like Beck, Breitbart, and others.
"Obama doesn't bother me. I disagree with his politics, but that's not what's galling. What's appalling was the pack mentality of journalists — and I don't need polls to tell me that most are liberals — who were so eager to wag their tails at his approach."
Proliferating scandals expose truth about Obama -- chicagotribune.com
I understand an expect there to be bad men in politics. That will never stop. What is unforgivable and frightening, is the media abdicating it's responsibility to support a political ideology. To the extent they continue doing so, more record growth for new media voices like Beck, Breitbart, and others.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Open Letter to Politifact Editors
Dear Politifact,
I know it’s hard to remain unbiased, we all care about issues differently, but I had assumed Politifact was doing a good job of it. Then I saw your justification for doubling down on this issue:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/10/mitt-romney/romney-campaign-says-women-were-hit-hard-job-losse/
I guess I should have been looking closer at your other analysis, because I thought you did a piss poor job on this one. The credibility of your work is diminished after having read your justifications, and that sentiment will likely last a long time. I will certainly share my concerns among my networks. We are all looking for some honest, factual analysis, and you blew it.
I don’t have the time to break it all down, but I will show you 4 simple examples:
You are checking on a very precise, measurable fact. Is the number 92.3%, or is it not? Is it close, or not?
You state, “So timing was important. And if you count all those jobs lost beginning in 2007, women account for just 39.7 percent of the total.”
But Obama wasn’t in office in 2007. This statement does not negate the 92.3% fact for the time Obama WAS in office. It is your attempt to say “Well, even if the fact is true, there are other facts that happened just before then that fit our agenda better, so let’s point those out.” If you want an opinion column, or to provide political analysis, go write that somewhere else. If you put ‘FACT’ in your name, just stick to the facts. What happened in 2007 doesn’t change the number in 2009 one decimal. It provides context, but that’s not the purpose of fact-checking. If you want to be a political operative, seeking to provide “the other side of the story”, so be it, but put that crap in a disclaimer at the top of your page.
You tag your final analysis with the statement “Mostly False: Men lost more jobs earlier”. Earlier? Who gives a flip, that's not the point in question! If someone says “America is an integrated country”, are you going to say “That’s mostly false, because earlier, they weren’t integrated.” Stop pretending to be fact checkers, just admit you are “checking on what we think a politician really meant, even if they didn’t say it, because we are the best journalists and know what they are implying, and we know the stupid citizenry can’t figure out on their own so we have to supply them context beyond the parameters of the fact in question”.
Second example:
You quote Betsey Stevenson saying “"in every recession men’s job loss occurs first and most”. Mitt’s team was not talking about “EVERY RECESSION”. They weren’t even talking about his recession. They were talking about a precise number under a specific President.
Your attempts to respond to a fact, by talking about historical trends, and data outside of the years in question, is maddening, very disappointing.
Third example, you wrote:
"To the extent there have been excessive job losses among women, a lot of it has to do with the fact that there has been an enormous reduction in state and local government employment," Bartlett said.”
No one asked “why” there are job losses. That’s not he issue at question. You're not writing for a Newsweek cover story, or a Sunday talk show. Is the statement of 92.3% true, or not? Stop trying to avoid a discussion of facts, with quote after quote of context, commentary, and root-cause theories.
Fourth example:
“Bartlett added that many of those government jobs were eliminated in states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures.” down to.. "You could hardly blame Obama for that," Appelbaum said.”
The tweets you start the column off give a number, and say “under Obama”. They did not say it was his policies, that he personally fired people, what happened six months prior, etc, etc. You are trying so hard to avoid a true fact-check, that the more I see how you approach this issue, the more I wonder if you’ve ever had any credibility in your PolitiFact section. Do you realize how biased you are, or are you blind to your own character flaws?
I didn’t see a single thing, even though you had two swipes at it, that would justify the ‘False’ rating for that quote about 92.3%. I gave you plenty of my time tonight, and you did not deliver.
I guess I should have been looking closer at your other analysis, because I thought you did a piss poor job on this one. The credibility of your work is diminished after having read your justifications, and that sentiment will likely last a long time. I will certainly share my concerns among my networks. We are all looking for some honest, factual analysis, and you blew it.
I don’t have the time to break it all down, but I will show you 4 simple examples:
You are checking on a very precise, measurable fact. Is the number 92.3%, or is it not? Is it close, or not?
You state, “So timing was important. And if you count all those jobs lost beginning in 2007, women account for just 39.7 percent of the total.”
But Obama wasn’t in office in 2007. This statement does not negate the 92.3% fact for the time Obama WAS in office. It is your attempt to say “Well, even if the fact is true, there are other facts that happened just before then that fit our agenda better, so let’s point those out.” If you want an opinion column, or to provide political analysis, go write that somewhere else. If you put ‘FACT’ in your name, just stick to the facts. What happened in 2007 doesn’t change the number in 2009 one decimal. It provides context, but that’s not the purpose of fact-checking. If you want to be a political operative, seeking to provide “the other side of the story”, so be it, but put that crap in a disclaimer at the top of your page.
You tag your final analysis with the statement “Mostly False: Men lost more jobs earlier”. Earlier? Who gives a flip, that's not the point in question! If someone says “America is an integrated country”, are you going to say “That’s mostly false, because earlier, they weren’t integrated.” Stop pretending to be fact checkers, just admit you are “checking on what we think a politician really meant, even if they didn’t say it, because we are the best journalists and know what they are implying, and we know the stupid citizenry can’t figure out on their own so we have to supply them context beyond the parameters of the fact in question”.
Second example:
You quote Betsey Stevenson saying “"in every recession men’s job loss occurs first and most”. Mitt’s team was not talking about “EVERY RECESSION”. They weren’t even talking about his recession. They were talking about a precise number under a specific President.
Your attempts to respond to a fact, by talking about historical trends, and data outside of the years in question, is maddening, very disappointing.
Third example, you wrote:
"To the extent there have been excessive job losses among women, a lot of it has to do with the fact that there has been an enormous reduction in state and local government employment," Bartlett said.”
No one asked “why” there are job losses. That’s not he issue at question. You're not writing for a Newsweek cover story, or a Sunday talk show. Is the statement of 92.3% true, or not? Stop trying to avoid a discussion of facts, with quote after quote of context, commentary, and root-cause theories.
Fourth example:
“Bartlett added that many of those government jobs were eliminated in states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures.” down to.. "You could hardly blame Obama for that," Appelbaum said.”
The tweets you start the column off give a number, and say “under Obama”. They did not say it was his policies, that he personally fired people, what happened six months prior, etc, etc. You are trying so hard to avoid a true fact-check, that the more I see how you approach this issue, the more I wonder if you’ve ever had any credibility in your PolitiFact section. Do you realize how biased you are, or are you blind to your own character flaws?
I didn’t see a single thing, even though you had two swipes at it, that would justify the ‘False’ rating for that quote about 92.3%. I gave you plenty of my time tonight, and you did not deliver.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Share Bastiat with a Friend, Today
Take a moment to think of three people or networks you have that could use a reminder to read through Bastiat's The Law, view a good Milton Friedman video such as The Pencil, or walk through the Bar Stool Economics metaphor again. This links can help:
The Law, by Bastiat
"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. "Milton Friedman on: "Lesson of the Pencil" Should be required viewing and discussion for every student in 10th grade and again in 12th grade. Bar Stool Economics explained:
Thursday, April 19, 2012
New Media Expressive with Obama Eats Dog
Obama's supporters and the media (same thing) go on the attack over a decades old story of Romney's dog getting diarrhea. Silly stuff, really, but if that's where they want to go.
Read about a complete egg-on-the-face turnabout brought to you by the New Media. Turns out Barack did more than have a sick dog, he ate one. Complete PR fail with their romney dog meme.
The one-liners were rife on Twitter, and collected here: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/obama-bites-dog/
These pictures seemed appropriate to add to our photoshop-politics collection:
Read about a complete egg-on-the-face turnabout brought to you by the New Media. Turns out Barack did more than have a sick dog, he ate one. Complete PR fail with their romney dog meme.
The one-liners were rife on Twitter, and collected here: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/obama-bites-dog/
These pictures seemed appropriate to add to our photoshop-politics collection:
Monday, November 21, 2011
Socialism and Fascism - Hitler and Occupy Protesters
Came across an article from Lawrence University, at http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html.
It is interesting how many of the demands of the leftist 'Occupy' movement align with the beliefs and plans of Hitler. I bet if you went down to Zucotti park and quoted, as Hitler did, "The Common Good Before the Individual Good", many of them would say "That's right!".
It is interesting how many of the demands of the leftist 'Occupy' movement align with the beliefs and plans of Hitler. I bet if you went down to Zucotti park and quoted, as Hitler did, "The Common Good Before the Individual Good", many of them would say "That's right!".
In case anyone still doubts the fact that there was no difference in princple between the fascists and the socialists, consider the following revealing quotations from various infamous Nazis and other fascists:
We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.
The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.
We demand profit sharing in big business.
We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.
We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.
In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...
The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.
[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .
(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Occupy Protesters Eating their Own - Victory at Hand
Word of advice to the OWS movement: You have a golden opportunity. Declare victory now, immediately, and then stop the occupying and go on to stage two of GA meetings and Meetup planning sessions. If you don't declare victory and leave, your chaos, hypocrisy, and mayhem are about to bring a humiliating and public defeat while THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING. You will do more to make the progressive movement unpalatable to the masses than anything republicans could do. They are relishing every day of this occupy movement, as a serious blunder by the progressive-minded portion of the populace. As they say, "don't fight a man that's determined to commit suicide."
This article is a delicious read, and the comments are just as rich. It highlights the hypocrisy of some Occupy protestors, the challenges facing those trying to bring order to the chaos, and the realization that not everyone who likes to control others wears a three piece suit.
Occupy Seattle Disrupts Pro-Occupy Wall Street Forum, Drives Away Supporters
This article is a delicious read, and the comments are just as rich. It highlights the hypocrisy of some Occupy protestors, the challenges facing those trying to bring order to the chaos, and the realization that not everyone who likes to control others wears a three piece suit.
Occupy Seattle Disrupts Pro-Occupy Wall Street Forum, Drives Away Supporters
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Bring It All Down, Man - Page 1 - Larry Kelley
Take a walk with Larry through the Oakland protest march. It's rich...
Bring It All Down, Man - Page 1 - Larry Kelley - Excerpt...
Bring It All Down, Man - Page 1 - Larry Kelley - Excerpt...
In attending the occupation of Oakland, I was struck by how the American Left has coalesced around the advocacy of Saul Alinsky, a man that 99% of the so called 99%ers have doubtlessly never heard of. In the 1930’s Alinsky created the “crisis strategy” which prescribed flooding welfare rolls in order to bankrupt cities. David Horowitz has led the country in detailing how it was the Alinsky model which profoundly influenced Barack Obama and gave birth to vast “shake-down” organizations such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). But even more importantly, he points out it was Alinsky, who, though not a communist, united the various socialists, anarchists, union workers, the disadvantaged and disaffected into a nihilist common cause—the seizure of power.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
OWS’s Lack of Focus - Tibor Machan
I've tried to inject some sense through the #ows twitter channel, to expose some of the illegitimacy of the "99%" meme they push. There are a number of legitimate means of using the system to address their grievances, if they truly represent 99% of the country. For example, 99% could vote out every politician and replace them with those they agree with. They could easily file a class action suit, if a bank did in deed injure them or defrauded them. And finally, if they are 99%, they could focus on a corporate target, buy up all the stock, and take over the board and leadership of the company.
The fact they haven't done any of these things shows they do not represent 99%. So, what does that mean, well, they could do the above with much less than 99%, heck, a class action suit could be had with 2% or less, but still they don't. So what does that all mean? Well, it means they represent a very tiny fraction of Americans, they can't win through a vote, they have no specific injury to take to court, so they just want to protest and 'Occupy' to enforce a 'tyranny of the minority', to have their will implemented and forced upon the majority.
While hanging out in the #ows twit stream, I heard them calling to sing a petition of 100K people to support their movement. That was a big deal to them at the time, and they were putting that call out nationally. Well, 100,000 people supporting them means they have about .0003% of the country's support. Not very close to 99% is it? And if they are that massively incorrect in their 99% claim, how many other issues are they lying or misinformed about?
The below article about the lack of focus of OWS is by Tibor Machan, Ph. D. A distinguished professor working with Auburn, Chapman, the Hoover Institute at Stanford, and the Cato Institute.
Column on OWS’s Lack of Focus � A Passion for Liberty
The fact they haven't done any of these things shows they do not represent 99%. So, what does that mean, well, they could do the above with much less than 99%, heck, a class action suit could be had with 2% or less, but still they don't. So what does that all mean? Well, it means they represent a very tiny fraction of Americans, they can't win through a vote, they have no specific injury to take to court, so they just want to protest and 'Occupy' to enforce a 'tyranny of the minority', to have their will implemented and forced upon the majority.
While hanging out in the #ows twit stream, I heard them calling to sing a petition of 100K people to support their movement. That was a big deal to them at the time, and they were putting that call out nationally. Well, 100,000 people supporting them means they have about .0003% of the country's support. Not very close to 99% is it? And if they are that massively incorrect in their 99% claim, how many other issues are they lying or misinformed about?
The below article about the lack of focus of OWS is by Tibor Machan, Ph. D. A distinguished professor working with Auburn, Chapman, the Hoover Institute at Stanford, and the Cato Institute.
Column on OWS’s Lack of Focus � A Passion for Liberty
When someone, some organization or an institution is charged with corruption, this is a serious matter. It is comparable to accusing some people of malpractice in medicine, education, engineering or the like. And such a charge requires specific proof in order to make it credible. Otherwise is it irresponsible.
All the while OWS has been afoot, however, no specific accusations have been laid out by the participants or leaders or supporters. It is all vague and unfocused. It is much more like scapegoating those on Wall Street, given that the group doesn’t bother to be specific and fails, moreover, to go after the main culprits, for example those in Washington who urged the banks to make borrowing easy. In 1992 Bill Clinton’s administration did, in fact, implore banks to do just that, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example. So why are these not the targets of OWS?
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Activist Fakes Being Runover by Police at Class Warfare Protest
In this early frame from the incident, you can clearly see that his feet are both free of the bike and tires. In this one, his left foot is the closest, but looks like he missed the position he was shooting for, and later in the film switches to jab his right foot either in harms way or up close to the back tire.
And in this second one you can see, from the position of having his legs free of the bike, now they are sticking under the bike. They aren't under the front wheel, and from the bend in his knees/shins you can see they aren't under the back wheel at this point neither. That only happens by the agitator putting them there himself, either to 'look' like they were run over, or perhaps an attempt to get them run over by the second tire, taking one for the team so to speak. Other images and audio show him screaming his head off even before this moment and during, despite his feet not being run over.
Furthermore, there wasn't anyone really in the street ahead of the cop initially. Cameramen were on the near side sidewalk. This agitant faked a fall, trying to roll up by or under the cop all of a sudden.
And in this second one you can see, from the position of having his legs free of the bike, now they are sticking under the bike. They aren't under the front wheel, and from the bend in his knees/shins you can see they aren't under the back wheel at this point neither. That only happens by the agitator putting them there himself, either to 'look' like they were run over, or perhaps an attempt to get them run over by the second tire, taking one for the team so to speak. Other images and audio show him screaming his head off even before this moment and during, despite his feet not being run over.
Furthermore, there wasn't anyone really in the street ahead of the cop initially. Cameramen were on the near side sidewalk. This agitant faked a fall, trying to roll up by or under the cop all of a sudden.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The ONE Sign Your Teens Should Remember from 2011
Post this sign on your 17-24 yr old children's Facebook pages, with a note: "This was the ethos I was raised with. Let's talk about what it means. Love you."
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Why Barack Obama could be America’s last big government president – Telegraph Blogs
My comments regarding this article:
Nile,
I would very much hope you are right. The greatness that our Founders made possible is at stake of dying under the constant rolling darkness of socialism that has taken over so many countries on so may continents.
I think Obama has woken some decent but previously asleep citizens to the problems with our government, but to truly be out of the woods long term, we will have to deal with TWO CORE ENGINES that promote collectivism, and attack individualism and a free society:
The Press and Educational Institutions. Those two work together for a profound and nearly insurmountable enemy. The school systems influence our children, with a measurable and decidedly liberal viewpoint from 4 yrs through graduate school. All of their formative years, 8 hours a day. Even before school, tv programs developed by the same educators, indoctrinate our children in the values and priorities of liberal ideology, laying the groundwork for collectivism. The press then takes over from there, completing the slanting of truth and the predominance of a collectivist worldview for our entire adult lives.
Liberal politicians block school choice and any weakening of the public school concept Marx so believed in, at every turn. And the main stream press maintain their righteousness through numbers and ostracisizing opposing opinions. NBC validates CBS, validates NPR, validates ABC, etc.
Over the past ten years, new press vehicles have emerged to counter this, and homeschooling has grown dramatically. Whatever the methods, we will not shirk a trending towards socialist meltdown until the press and education systems are reformed, or at least provided adequate competition.
Why Barack Obama could be America’s last big government president – Telegraph Blogs
Nile,
I would very much hope you are right. The greatness that our Founders made possible is at stake of dying under the constant rolling darkness of socialism that has taken over so many countries on so may continents.
I think Obama has woken some decent but previously asleep citizens to the problems with our government, but to truly be out of the woods long term, we will have to deal with TWO CORE ENGINES that promote collectivism, and attack individualism and a free society:
The Press and Educational Institutions. Those two work together for a profound and nearly insurmountable enemy. The school systems influence our children, with a measurable and decidedly liberal viewpoint from 4 yrs through graduate school. All of their formative years, 8 hours a day. Even before school, tv programs developed by the same educators, indoctrinate our children in the values and priorities of liberal ideology, laying the groundwork for collectivism. The press then takes over from there, completing the slanting of truth and the predominance of a collectivist worldview for our entire adult lives.
Liberal politicians block school choice and any weakening of the public school concept Marx so believed in, at every turn. And the main stream press maintain their righteousness through numbers and ostracisizing opposing opinions. NBC validates CBS, validates NPR, validates ABC, etc.
Over the past ten years, new press vehicles have emerged to counter this, and homeschooling has grown dramatically. Whatever the methods, we will not shirk a trending towards socialist meltdown until the press and education systems are reformed, or at least provided adequate competition.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
I've had it with Giving Back and Takes a Village BS
Was out checking a few blog posts and comments tonight, and I got to tell you, I've had it with the twin false arguments of 1) wealthy people owe society for helping them get there, and 2) wealthy people and corporations have a moral obligation to "give back". Below was a post where I responded to those ideas tonight, and wanted to share it on this blog. Feel free to modify and share the response as needed. I would love to see national figures, such as Thomas Sowell, address this issue head on.
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare,’” she says of
Democratic tax policy. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich
on his own. Nobody.”
I'm so sick of this fallacious argument. Intelligent people should FIGHT IT on every blog they see it. And start hitting back on this, which is directly related: "Giving back". They say everyone needs to 'give back', corporations need to 'give back'. It's become part of our lexicon, and corporations all play along, fearful of the vengeful left. I manage a charity, and work on many causes, but not because there's a moral imperative to give back, as if I owe something. It's because I care about them, with my free will, not an expectation. Here we go, check it:
The one guy/gal that builds a 1000 person company is rare, statistically. I wish we had more, but business is hard, and risky. But to the point, the left says that a person owes society for being able to get rich, but that guy/gal had the same society as the 50% that are below the average, and the poor, and those on welfare. I went to the same schools, had the same teachers, same cops, politicians, etc, as everyone else in my community. I made something of myself, many didn't. What was the variable? Me, and my parents, mentors I chose. I made the effort. No mentors every came to my house asking if they could teach me something. The village didn't keep me up late studying harder than other kids, I did, with my parents guidance and encouragement.
If the 'village' was the reason the lone man succeeds, then it must also be the reason many more others failed. That's the response that should be shared every time you hear that garbage. When a county gives some land at a reduced/free rate to a big business to come in, that's not a gift, they aren't being altruistic. They are buying jobs, and then touting it to buy votes. It is a trade, not a gift. The state/county just waves the magic pen, it's up to the business to do all the work. And then, if the business brings in more jobs than projected, is the state going to "give back" for getting the better part of the deal? Hell no.
If society is struggling, if there are too many poor, too many uneducated, then stop selling that lie that the village is the reason for a rich person's success, unless you are going to admit that the same village is responsible for all the poor it has taught to be helpless, taught to expect that the rich must 'give back'. (Pretty lousy success ratio for that village, maybe we should trade it in for a new one. ) If anyone should be giving back, the state and poor should be giving to policies and decisions that bring more explosive profitable businesses, that cause a wave of direct, secondary, and tertiary benefits that growth brings to the society. And they should be 'giving back' appreciation, thanks, and respect for the rare person that can build a large business. If it's so easy, then everyone would do it, now wouldn't they?
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare,’” she says of
Democratic tax policy. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich
on his own. Nobody.”
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare,’” she says of
Democratic tax policy. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich
on his own. Nobody.”
I'm so sick of this fallacious argument. Intelligent people should FIGHT IT on every blog they see it. And start hitting back on this, which is directly related: "Giving back". They say everyone needs to 'give back', corporations need to 'give back'. It's become part of our lexicon, and corporations all play along, fearful of the vengeful left. I manage a charity, and work on many causes, but not because there's a moral imperative to give back, as if I owe something. It's because I care about them, with my free will, not an expectation. Here we go, check it:
The one guy/gal that builds a 1000 person company is rare, statistically. I wish we had more, but business is hard, and risky. But to the point, the left says that a person owes society for being able to get rich, but that guy/gal had the same society as the 50% that are below the average, and the poor, and those on welfare. I went to the same schools, had the same teachers, same cops, politicians, etc, as everyone else in my community. I made something of myself, many didn't. What was the variable? Me, and my parents, mentors I chose. I made the effort. No mentors every came to my house asking if they could teach me something. The village didn't keep me up late studying harder than other kids, I did, with my parents guidance and encouragement.
If the 'village' was the reason the lone man succeeds, then it must also be the reason many more others failed. That's the response that should be shared every time you hear that garbage. When a county gives some land at a reduced/free rate to a big business to come in, that's not a gift, they aren't being altruistic. They are buying jobs, and then touting it to buy votes. It is a trade, not a gift. The state/county just waves the magic pen, it's up to the business to do all the work. And then, if the business brings in more jobs than projected, is the state going to "give back" for getting the better part of the deal? Hell no.
If society is struggling, if there are too many poor, too many uneducated, then stop selling that lie that the village is the reason for a rich person's success, unless you are going to admit that the same village is responsible for all the poor it has taught to be helpless, taught to expect that the rich must 'give back'. (Pretty lousy success ratio for that village, maybe we should trade it in for a new one. ) If anyone should be giving back, the state and poor should be giving to policies and decisions that bring more explosive profitable businesses, that cause a wave of direct, secondary, and tertiary benefits that growth brings to the society. And they should be 'giving back' appreciation, thanks, and respect for the rare person that can build a large business. If it's so easy, then everyone would do it, now wouldn't they?
Monday, September 19, 2011
Soros is Pissed at Day of Rage Organizers
Soros screams at reps from ACORN, SEIU, and Adbusters, regarding the Day of Rage protests on Sept 17th, 2011 in America.
This video is meant for comic relief. It's not meant to be a research paper on the exact relationships or facts involved. It's just funny.
This video is meant for comic relief. It's not meant to be a research paper on the exact relationships or facts involved. It's just funny.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Thanks, Fidel, but you're 50 years too late - Telegraph
Article in the UK telegraph asks why Fidel didn't share what he knows to be true years ago, that the Communist model doesn't work for people. As an American of Cuban ancestry, I must say Americans do not wish ill on Cubans. We love the Cuban people, and Cuba should be the jewel of the Carribean. It would prosper so well, and we would love to see that. But like an alcoholic uncle, you can't always help those you wish to. They have to agree to work with you to help them, they have to admit their problem before recovering. When people are arrested for merely growing a few vegetables and selling them to their neighbors, giving them aid is not going to fix the problem. The Cuban people don't need foreign aid, they need a government that allows them to live free and use their talents.
Thanks, Fidel, but you're 50 years too late - Telegraph
Thanks, Fidel, but you're 50 years too late - Telegraph
excerpt...
Hmm. Sounds very much like a “rejection of the Revolution” to me. And if indeed it was, then it must come pretty close to being a historical first. Did Mao ever express any regrets about the 20 million who died during his Great Leap Forward? Was Stalin ever moved to tears over the millions more who were shot in the back of the head by his secret police or froze and starved in his Gulags? Of course not. That’s the thing about Leftist ideologues. Whether they’re major league mass murderers such as Pol Pot or simply pathological destroyers of economies like Gordon Brown, they usually remain in a state of blissful self-delusion right to the bitter end.
...
(go read the full article and join the discussion.)
Generation Y » Inside the Neighborhood, Outside the Heart
I really like the Generation Y blog of Yoani Sanchez. She is courageous, and is saying what needs to be said about systems that destroy the beautiful aspirations of individuals.
Generation Y » Inside the Neighborhood, Outside the Heart
Generation Y » Inside the Neighborhood, Outside the Heart
“You must turn in your passport!” So they told him on arriving in Caracas, to prevent him from making it to the border and deserting. In the same airport they read him the rules: “You cannot say that you are Cuban, you can’t walk down the street in your medical clothes, and it’s best to avoid interacting with Venezuelans.” Days later he understood that his mission was a political one, because more than curing some heart problem or lung infection, he was supposed to examine consciences, probe voting intentions...
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Putting our economy in the hands of Chavez fans
This article gives three great viewpoints on how much of a farce the global warming conference is, and how insidiously the 'movement' is being used as a global political campaign to promote socialism, and destroy capitalism. The shame in it all, aside from the fear that the lunatics and corrupt will hold any ground, is that it hurts the cause of responsible environmental policy. There's an appalling lack of leadership from the Western powers. Washington, Churchill, and Thatcher would be sick to their stomach to see such corruption go unopposed.
putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans/
putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans/
These maniacs in Copenhagen are voting on your future:
President Chavez brought the house down.
When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Atlas Flexes His Muscles - MoneyShow.com
Atlas Flexes His Muscles - MoneyShow.com
Great to see that others are still reading, still keeping the mind alert. We need more young voters to understand the principles Ayn tried to convey. Collectivism is not their friend, it is their doom.
Great to see that others are still reading, still keeping the mind alert. We need more young voters to understand the principles Ayn tried to convey. Collectivism is not their friend, it is their doom.
If you take the time to re-read Atlas Shrugged, you’ll find it eerily predicted events that are actually happening in our country today. Did you ever think government would own a majority of General Motors, and have the power to name its chairman or chief executive officer? Did you ever believe we’d have a “pay czar”—setting compensation levels for corporate executives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)