From the Capitalist Pig's Mouth

Many of you may see Jonathan Hoenig from time to time as a commentator on the FOX News Channel (I know--those damn "fascists" over at FOX News!).  He recently gave this speech at the Chicago Tax Day Tea Party in Daley Plaza.  He states:

The basic problem with the government today isn't that the programs are inefficient or that politicians can't work together or even that the controls haven't been implemented in the right way. The real problem...is that the government has the wrong role in our lives!

Despite the fact that the Democrats for the last 100 years have blatantly turned from American freedom towards Marxist ideology not recognized by only the most useful of idiots, both parties would have us believe that our problems stem from not "pushing the right buttons and pulling the right levers" in regards to the economy.  I've said many times before (because it's true) that no nation is a free nation that does not have a free capitalistic economy; not a little capitalism, not some controls, not some weird mix of statism and capitalism such as the Chinese now have.  Statism is statism--whether it is a little bit--or a lot.  And it's like a virus; once it becomes airborne, statism spreads like wildfire. 

America was the first country in the history of the world whose Founders intended to provide for a government whose role was not to be "mommy" or "daddy."  Government cannot be "mommy" or "daddy" unless through legislative force (the equivalent to a gun to your head if you don't comply) they steal from one person to give to another.  That is immoral.  That is why the Soviet Union was called the "Evil Empire," that's why Pol Pot murdered thousands of people, that's why Hitler (a socialist) wanted to create his Aryan racial Utopia.  The Left, is the Left, is the Left.  They have never changed.  They will never change.  The Founders warned us in many of their writings about the collectivist Left gaining power.  From The 5000 Year Leap by Skousen:

Since the genius of the American system is maintaining the eagle in the balanced center of the spectrum [I have issues with this particular view of the political spectrum but let's stipulate], the Founders warned against a number of temptations which might lure subsequent generations to abandon their freedoms and their rights by subjecting themselves to a strong federal administration operating on the collectivist Left.

They warned against the 'welfare state' where the government endeavors to take care of everyone from the cradle to the grave.  Jefferson wrote:

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.  (Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:342.)

They warned against confiscatory taxation and deficit spending.  Jefferson said it was immoral for one generation to pass on the results of it's extravagance in the form of debts to the next generation.  He wrote:  "...we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life (expectancy) of the majority."  (Ibid., 13:358.)

Every generation of Americans struggled to pay off the national debt up until the present one.

The Founders also warned that the only way for the nation to prosper was to have equal protection of 'rights,' and not allow the government to get involved in trying to provide equal distribution of 'things.'  [If it were up to me, I would add an Amendment to the Constitution as suggested in Atlas Shrugged beginning, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade..."]  They also warned against the pooling of property as advocated by the proponents of communism.  Samuel Adams said they had done everything possible to make the ideas of socialism and communism unconstitutional [apparently not enough].  Said he:

The Utopian schemes of leveling (re-distribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of the means of production and distribution), are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown.  (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.  (William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, 3 vols.  [Boston:  Little, Brown and Company, 1865], 1:154

[Brackets are my words.]

So, yes, we have the collectivist Left.  But, part of our problem has also been the Republican leadership which accepts the same notion about the purpose of government which the Left does:  that it is "mommy" and "daddy."  We don't have a two-party system; we have a one-party system with two sides who simply quibble over how to manage, administer, and hold the gun to the public's head.  As Ayn Rand so clearly showed, collectivism is not just a phenomenon of the Left.  It lives on the Right as well.  The collectivist Left simply wants their collectivist, secular materialism to satiate their driving need for a long-dead Utopian vision which the scientific fact of the supremacy of the individual makes impossible to create or maintain.  The collectivist Right's religious notions propagate the idea that altruism, for religious reasons, is a moral idea (this isn't limited to Christianity either--many religions hold this view).  Rand said, "Hold on.  There's a third path morality--one of trade between people.  Trade remains moral.  Collectivism, because it must be done by force through a third party, is immoral (which is, inherently, why it always collapses into misery, death and destruction.)  Most people view charity as a virtue, giving something away for nothing; they model themselves after Mother Theresa, Jesus, Buddha.  Perhaps we should go so far as to stop calling charities--"charities."  Name them something different based on the concept of trade.  This would go a long way in helping to beat back entitlement mentality.  Charity and altruism demands sacrifice by the party giving and it diminishes the human dignity of the person receiving.  Why should one party sacrifice and the other party be diminished when you can avoid either one of those evils by trading?  I would argue, even private charities, funded by private donations, should promote the notion that some kind of return on the investment of the help they give becomes necessary to continue receiving the assistance.  There are very, very few people who are completely incapable of providing for at least some of what is required to maintain their existence--and that small percentage can even be managed through private, voluntary assistance.  It is very important Americans begin to understand philosophical definitions so we can define what we are talking about and not be led by evil, misinformed, or the philosophically ignorant down the path to destruction.  That's the only way to fight the premises which are killing this country.

Jonathan states:

What we should fight for is the type of Tea Party that the Founding Fathers stood for--the original Tea Partiers; not just try to preserve the parental entitlement-state with a better Excel sheet.  Let's be a Tea Party!  Do you want to be a NeoCon Party?  Do you want to be a Green Party?  Do you want to be a New Deal Party?  Do you want to be a Religious Right Party?  Let's be a Tea Party!  Those other parties are over!  Those are the parties that got us into the mess that we're in today!

We're are not a Communist nation.  We are not a theocratic nation.  Now, I don't believe that Federalism gives particular states the right to trample on individual freedoms either.  Bear with my ridiculous suggestion which follows while I make a point:  if all the Catholics in the country want to get together, move to one of the states, and turn that state into a bastion of pro-life legislation--then have at it!  Go for it!  If the secular Left all want to move to California and attempt their Utopian experiment in Utopian living--then have at it!  Go for it!  At least, in that scenario, particular ways of living are not forced on the entire nation and the states can be what the Founders intended them to be:  petry dishes for experiments by the people to see what might work and what might not work.

It is not the Federal Government's job to legislate people's consciences, manipulate their money to redistribute to other people, or play the nation's citizens, one against the other, by playing favorites in regards to how they treat one group of people over another group of people.  A Republic is limited and defined by it's constitution.  Voting is only for the purposes of operating within that limited sphere of protecting the people's rights.  There is no other purpose.  The federal government is not to be used to push a particular religious ideology; it is not to be used to steal from one person to give to another; it is not to be used for politicians to engage in crony capitalism (fascism) in which they buddy up with business leaders and dole out favors to those businesses thereby helping to keep them in power while the everyday Joe gets the shaft; it is not to be used to provide people with a public education which then, of course, has governmental standards to be met (really think about the danger in that, just for one second); it is not to be used to provide people with cars, homes, healthcare, or any other commodity which politicians can dream up to hand out.

If people of a particular conscience hold a view over any particular issue and they want to make headway in promoting that view then they should not be doing it by lobbying (Rand's word was pull-peddlers--those who seek favors from the government) politicians who will force others to live up to that view via the legislative gun to the head.  They should do it by utilizing private, persuasive (not legislatively forceful) organizations which help promote those views on a local or state level.  End of story. 

Our government is the Leviathan it is because everyone has come to believe they have a right to cannibalize other people; whether it is to cannibalize the conscience of another person or cannibalize the hard earned labor of a person makes no difference.  It's the same issue...one of tyrannical premises held by people who want to control others for their own ends.


  There are no such things as "for the good of society," or the "safety of the herd."  There is only the right of the individual to exist for his own sake, as master of his own conscience, using the fruits of his own labor to live the life he believes best serves his needs.  No one else has anything to say about it.  You are your own person, with your own thoughts, dreams, wishes, and aspirations; even if your dream is to sit around and destroy your life abusing drugs and alcohol and have perverse, dangerous sex--that is your right to do so.  But, it is not my responsibility, as an individual in my own right--to pay for your stupidity.  Does life occasionally throw a hardball in someone's direction who may have done nothing to deserve it?  Absolutely.  However, that still does not put a moral noose around my neck, or anyone else's neck, which necessarily makes me, or others, responsible for you.  No man is a slave. 

Enough is enough!  I happily join Jonathan in his sentiments.