Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Prager U has a new video Socialism Makes people selfish talking about what socialist ideas do to a culture. Their claim is that it creates a culture of entitlement. I can agree with Socialism creates a culture of entitlement, but not to his defense of Capitalism. He makes the same mistake many conservatives have made in the past. Prager tries to defend Capitalism as the better system of altruism; one that supports service to others. This is a weak position because Capitalism promotes rational self interest and helping others is a natural  byproduct of the division of labor society. Socialism will always win in a contest of sacrificing the individual to the group. Instead, I agree with Harry Browne’s stronger observation; That the Price of Liberty is personal responsibility. To highlight that Socialism promotes other people being responsible for you vs. Capitalism promoting Personal Responsibility is much more effective. So let's follow the psychological conclusions of each idea. Socialism - other people are responsible for you- leads to others owe you something - leads to not much value put on those people because after all, they owe you something (entitlement mentality).  Capitalism - leads to taking your own life into your hands- leads to high self esteem and personal responsibility - leads to respecting other people who work hard and are  responsible for  themselves (Individual rights mentality).

The flip side of the entitlement culture are the personally responsible people that feel that they should offer their life of servitude to pay for those that are not responsible for themselves. Many people are brought up to believe that their main purpose in life is to sacrifice their life to something bigger than themselves (ie. society, government, god/gods, etc). So many of those people grow up conflicted because a successful  life requires you to be concerned with your rational self interest and to understand that your life belongs to no one else. However, subconsciously they feel the need to be responsible for the irresponsible by any means necessary; including forcing other people into servitude. This leads to the observation of hard working rational individuals supporting socialism, fascism, communism and other statists governments.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

The Golden Scapegoat

Ever get tired of hearing how one group is always perpetrator of all of a person's woes in the world. Usually there is no solid causal evidence shared in regards to that groups sins. The problem is not with (insert your favorite hated group -corporations, businessman, etc) _______, but with the power to grant wishes and punish enemies. In other words, the evil of statism. The entitlement culture granted the government the power to grant wishes and punish their enemies. This automatically created a pressure group mentality (us vs. them, rich vs. poor, etc.) because no one wants to be on the receiving end of the punishment. Instead, each group fights for control of the government to grant the wishes of their special group and to punish the enemies of their group. The problem is not the individual groups (unions, business owners, corporations, rich, poor, etc), but the power of granting wishes and punishing enemies. The government’s sole moral purpose is to protect the individual rights of life, liberty, and property. There would be no reason to fight for control of the government, when it no longer has the power to control your life. This is why the Price of Liberty is Personal Responsibility. When we give the government the power of wishes; we take turns at playing master and slave. Instead we should strive to be personally responsible free individuals.

#thegoldenscapgoat #pressuregroupwarfare

Individuals create and government tries to steal credit

Government does not create things; individual people do. For some politicians to say that without government; there would not be any financial backing for profitable research (ie. government created the iphone) is just wrong. I give you exhibits A,B, and C.   

  1. Kickstarter
  2. Venture Capitalists
  3. Other crowdsourcing companies

The list of financial avenues in the free market goes on and on. Harry Browne liked saying that government breaks your legs, hands you a crutch, and then tells you that you would not be able to walk if not for the government. Now government taking money from one person, backing the research of another person, and is now  telling us that we would not have any research funding if it was not for government. In a free market, the money taken from the taxpayer would have received a return on their investment; whether that be personal satisfaction or monetary gain (stocks, dividends, etc).  #individualscreategovernmentstealscredit

Radical Capitalist Episode 50: Did the Government Create the iPhone? Brexit?

Sunday, July 13, 2008

In the world today, our politicians like to give us one word to describe why we should vote for them. I believe Ayn Rand called this the package deal. An example, is how people like to view selfishness as inherently evil. Selfishness is a concern for one's interest. Their is no moral evaluation built into the concept. It can not tell us if concern with one's interest is bad or good; that is the job of the philosophic field of ethics. Besides the package deal of "Climate Change" of recent, "we need change" spews out of almost every politician's mouth. Like a virus, it begins to infect everyone that it comes in contact with. Beware of the Change zombies.

The Politics of "Change"

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Free Trade, Outsourcing, and the New York Times

Some times you think the free trade message is not being heard. Well in the below article published for the New York times, we see that morally defended articles still make through for the free markets of Capitalism.

What to Expect When You’re Free Trading - New York Times

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Party of Principles vs. Party of Favors

In response to : Party of Principle - the Inherent Contridiction

I have always found it interesting and sad when people attack principles. Principles are general core truths that guide ones actions. One needs principles to guide ones actions. I have found pragmatism to usually entail that you make decisions based on individual situations with out regard to how that situation plays out in the context of the big picture or what the long range results of such actions are. When asked what should I do, the pragmatist answers, "What ever works for the range of that moment." The funny thing is we all need principles and that is the pragmatist's principle of action. In other words stealing can be okay depending on what the situation is, because stealing is not wrong as a principle of its own. It is only wrong depending on the situation. At least this is the normal view for a pragmatist. So smearing some libertarians as purist because they are principled is sad. A purist is someone that does not follow principles, but follows due to blind faith. Are their purist in the Libertarian party, you bet. However, their are just as many principled Libertarians. So what is the basic core principle that our Libertarian party should follow? It should be the protection of Individual rights which includes property rights. That the government's job is the protection of these rights and that the only moral use of force is to defend individual rights. That is the core principle. So the question is do you believe that in every situation that individual rights should be protected or do you believe that in some situations the individual's rights are null and void? If you say yes to the latter, here is an example of how not following principles leads you to the opposite of individual rights. Once you say there is exceptions, then you have to name who will decide on whether an exception is applied to a particular case. Now how do make sure that person is fair? We decide to vote on who is appointed this task. In the end result, it is some one that is voted in who decides if you have rights in a give situation. What you have here is not a right to do certain things, but a matter of permission to do certain things. Permission can be revoked and rights can not. Is this what you would call protecting Individual Liberty? Rights are principles that are necessary for individuals to prosper and live in a society. Is it these principles that you do not want the libertarian party to follow? If we throw our principles out the door so that we can have more influence- then we would not be any better than the republican or democratic parties. We would be a party of favors instead of a party of principles. As far as out reach, what attracted me to the Libertarian party was that they were a party of principle and their principle was protecting Individual Rights in all situations. Since the take over, I have with drawn my support for the Libertarian party. I am politically homeless again and will vote for the person that is more principled to Individual Rights. After all, if the Libertarian party's new principle is some times we follow individual rights and some times we don't, then how does one choose between the other candidates (democrat or republican) that some times votes for liberty and some times doesn't. This is why we need principles and a party that is principled. If not we divide our votes even more amongst all the parties.

numly esn 56082-070518-477959-26 Rate content:

© 2007 All Rights Reserved.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Why do we import certain things instead of make it ourselves?

Walter Williams has written a wonderful article on exporting Jobs  in comparison to importing certain goods like Cocoa. The interesting thing is that his example does not just apply to people losing jobs to overseas country, but also applies to jobs that are loss do to better competitors in the U.S. that create jobs for their companies, but cause people to lose jobs in other companies. The economy is always balancing itself out to improve the living standard of everyone as long as we have a free market. If not the benefits of division of labor would be crushed by government rewarding their friends while punishing their enemies. Click below to read Walter's article:

Trade Deficits and Exporting Jobs: Why Trade At All? by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine

Technorati Tags: , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Pentagon taking a page from the government of V for Vendetta?

If ever there was a sign that we are headed towards Fascism. The pentagon starting a News Correction Unit? Let's say it together- "political censorship". Yes, it appears that is on the horizon coming to a town or blog near you. See the link below for more info:

Slashdot | Pentagon Reveals News Correction Unit

powered by performancing firefox