Now, it’s time to wise up.   Stop being one of those people who doesn’t think you need to actually use your freaking brain.

I’ve seen a disturbing trend recently when looking for opposing viewpoints to read to edumacate myself:   There is no opposing argument.   No, it’s not that there aren’t any people out there calling capitalism and objectivism stupid.   It’s just that they don’t bother to tell you why.

The opposition to capitalism can be summed up by this exchange:

Collectivist:   Capitalism is obviously stupid.  Whoever still believes in it is a dumb poop-head.
Objectivist:   Why?
Collectivist:   If you don’t already know than you’re obviously too dumb to get it.   Idiot.
Objectivist:   Umm, OK.

I hate collectivism.   But what I hate even more is when someone has an opposing viewpoint but refuses to make an argument for it.  Am I missing something?   If you really believe something, wouldn’t you try to educate someone who doesn’t get it?

Anybody see the same things I’m seeing?  Anything different?   Anything at all?

Yesterday, my fiance and I were applying for passports.  We need them quickly because, of course, we waited too long to get them.  They already cost $75.00 for the State Department’s processing and the Post Office charges $25.00 for their processing fee.  OK, I guess I can understand, kind of.  But since we’re in a hurry, we’re pretty much screwed, right?

Nope.  We were informed that for an additional $60.00, we can get a bright orange sticker that says “expedite” on it attached to our applications.  This means that the processing people will process them before the others.  Isn’t this essentially a bribe?  Wouldn’t this be something we’d complain about if we saw it in some third world country?  There is no additional costs to the State Dept. to accomplish this, justifying the $60.00.  They simply see the sticker and move it to the front of the line.  It is nothing more than greasing the palms of the government in order to get something done faster.  Holy crap.

Am I missing something?  Can someone explain to me how it is not a bribe?  I mean besides the fact that they don’t call it a bribe.

This, to the dealership, was a shock.  They knew there were going to be some lots shut down, but why theirs?  It was one of the best in the area.  My fiance rightly posed the question, “why, no matter how crazy the government is, would they shut down the best dealerships?” 

The answer is two-fold:  first, the rival dealership in the area has very strong political ties to the Democratic party.  They actually wrote letters to local politicians to encourage them to shut down others.  Obviously a terrible thing.  The second is very telling when it comes to the leftist, socialist views now taking hold in our country:  socialists have a very distorted view of capitalism.

The leftists in power nationally, and to a larger degree locally and for a long time here in Cleveland, think that those who are successful in a capitalist society did not earn their success.  They believe the successful are such because they cheated, lied, and stole.  It is not possible that someone not as smart and awesome as themselves could amass any wealth.  It must be ill-gotten.

The reality is pretty far from that.  Ownership of property and self are much better than the alternatives:  ownership by government and the collective.  Socialism is not far from the old styles of government run mostly by dictators and monarchs.  Your self is not yours.  In those forms of government only force dictates who owns what.  Whether it is once person or the collective, they only own things based on the threat of force.  In a capitalist society, only you can own you.  It is the only form of a community that does not require force or the threat of it to determine ownership.

So, that is why socialists decide to shut down successful companies and give to others.  They will give to those who they stand to gain from.  Welcome to the new America.

See, he believes that the free market is why everything failed.  The free market is why the housing market collapsed and why the banks were doing really stupid things.  He goes so far as to say people “don’t recognize the extent to which it failed.”  It makes me sick that someone so intelligent can have such a weak grasp on reality. 

Dow is basing his assumptions on the fact that banks became so crappy because government wasn’t forcing them to do certain things.  This logic is flawed.  The banks were doing and have been doing most of what they do because of political and legal pressure.  Plus, if there weren’t government-created organizations promising to buy bad loans, they would have never been made in the first place. 

I would argue that the opposite of what Mr. Dow says is true.  Had the government been hands-off, we would have never seen the housing market’s incredible, ill-advised run up.  That’s not even mentioning the fact that banks were sued and protested against for not giving loans to people buying houses in parts of the country which could best be described as sh*t.  If you had to make those decisions, would you loan money to someone buying a house in the crappiest neighborhood at a price you thought was way too high?  No, you wouldn’t.  Well, if you were a bank, you’d get sued.  Then, they’d protest your branches and call you racist.  This is followed by the federal government telling you to make those loans and they will guarantee them with Freddie and Fannie. 

Do you know what the result of that would be?  Me too!  Just what happened.  So please, Mr. Dow, don’t try to sell me some liberal spending agenda.  I understand that you want an excuse for the government to give money to people you think deserve it, but, as we’ve gone over many times on this site, that’s just not possible and it’s just not right.

With the current administration, the government is doing just that.  They believe, and have said so, that since they are the majority, they can do whatever they damn well please.  When questioned about Republican criticism of his plans, President Obama said, basically, we won so shut up. 

What really kills me is that there are many Americans on both sides of the aisle that say, “yep.  He’s right.”  No, he’s not.  He needs to follow the rule of law like anyone else.  He only has certain, enumerated powers according to the Constitution.  Too many of the opposition even thinks that since he won he can do what he pleases.  But that’s not what capitalists are all about. 

How does all of this relate to Honduras?  I’m glad you asked.  To recap, the president of Honduras was trying to change the rules so he could run the country for longer than he was supposed to be allowed.  The country’s constitution was being threatened by one man who was trying to take more power than it was supposed to have.  That sounds familiar. 

Then, the supreme court of Honduras issued a court order to have President Zelaya detained and removed from office, as they are constitutionally obliged to do.  The military carried out this order with no violence involved.  It was exactly as a civilized society should do.  But the socialist leaders of the world, including Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama, claimed that something was terribly wrong even though nothing, really, was. 

“Oh my goodness!  This man was elected by the people!  His will should be done no matter what!” they say.  Not true.  He, like our own president, has no right to expand his power unconstitutionally.  There is no reason a free nation should be backing away from the situation and even, as many have, support the ousted ruler.  In fact, we should be supporting the courts and the laws that helped create a free nation there. 

Obviously, there are some pitfalls that must be avoided.  If our executive branch was strong, yet compassionate to the free people of Honduras, it would support the non-violent move while issuing warnings that they would only be supported if they continued to do things the peaceful way, the interim president steps down as he says and new elections are held.  Everything can be done peacefully and correctly.  The socialist leaders of the world support Zelaya because many of them took their power by doing the exact same things.  They eliminated term limits.  They then give things away and let the majority rule and take what they want from the minority.

What lessons should we learn?  We should learn that massive expansion of powers to one branch of our government is a bad thing.  It is supported by bad people because that’s how bad people become tyrants.  We want to avoid mob rule disguised as social justice.  No, I don’t support a military coup or anything like that.  I just support the American citizens becoming wise and not being dumb enough to support those who want to take freedoms from us.  We are by no means at the same scary point as Honduras, but we want to stop ourselves before we get there.

Barack Obama is a turd. We knew this already. But then he said this:

“Right now, doctors, a lot of times, are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. So if … your child has a bad sore throat, or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, “You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.”

Now, that may be the right thing to do. But I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.”

Now, let’s try to ignore for a moment that he basically just smeared most ear, nose, and throat specialists out there.  Instead let’s focus on that fact that he is making crap up and getting away with it.  How many people right now are going, “Yeah!  Those a-hole doctors are screwing me and my kids!”  First, if doctors on a wide scale, or even a small scale, doing unnecessary procedures, there’s already a law against that.  They would be sued and taken down.  Second, if it was a question of cost, it would usually be cheaper to take the tonsils out than to have a lifetime of allergy treatments, dumbshit. 

OK, that’s enough of that.  The REAL problem here is that some idiot politician will be in the business of making medical decisions under a socialist healthcare plan.  Do you really want a d-bag who couldn’t do anything in the real world so he became a politician making decisions regarding your surgery?  I didn’t think so. 

Hopefully enough people are starting to see this moron and his cronies for exactly what they are:  socialist jerks with a need for power to accomplish their goals.  Eventually, they will control everything we do.  I feel bad for our kids.

Most of these voices against the coup are claiming they want an end to the old, violent past of the region and that this just sets them all back.  However, we are missing some serious points here.  First, Zelaya was not taken prisoner, tortured and killed.  He was merely removed.  There was no bloodshed.  The only blood that could be spilled is if Dictator For Life Chavez instigates some violence  Second, why has President Obama claimed that Zelaya’s removal was illegal?  As a matter of fact, the only reason he was removed is because HE was doing something illegal.  He was trying to pull a Chavez and all the other dictators of the area and extend his term in office.  Shouldn’t we be all outraged over that?  Don’t get me wrong, maybe this coup wasn’t the only way to go about it, but shouldn’t we be thankful for the lack of violence?

As a Wall Street Journal editorial put it, “The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.”  I couldn’t agree more.  There are those in our nation who would rather see government powers expanded, and are blinded by that ideal.  They have no concerns about the people’s right to change their government when it is no longer working in the nation’s best interests.  Obama and Hillary should read the Declaration of Independence.  It goes against everything for which they stand.

“Under Britain’s National Health Service, for example, smokers in Manchester have been denied treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk are refused hip and knee replacements. Patricia Hewitt, the British Health Secretary, says that it’s appropriate to decline treatment on the basis of ‘lifestyle choices.’” Steyn adds, “Smokers and the obese may look at their gay neighbor having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and wonder why his ‘lifestyle choices’ get a pass while theirs don’t. But that’s the point: Tyranny is always whimsical.”

We don’t want a government who decides what lifestyle choices we make.  I would think those who are so against the mixing of religion and politics, despite being a bit misguided, would understand this more than anyone.  However, these are just the people who are for this type of government.  Obviously, the American people don’t understand what they are getting themselves into (or can’t go back and fix their mistake).  I hope, though, that we are not distracted enough by a suit with a teleprompter so badly that we turn a blind eye to our nation being stolen from us.  I’m not holding my breath.

UPDATE:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Promises-Promises-Obamas-apf-396436588.html?x=0&&printer=1

This article makes a good point with a solid quote from an independent organization saying that the only way Obama could promise these things is if here were “king.”  Somehow I don’t see the main stream media calling him out for these blatant lies, but maybe because that’s because they think he actually is king.

My original question is an honest one.  If there is someone with a reply, feel free to share.  No, I’m not assuming everyone in every age knew truthfully what was going on around them.  However, those charged with teaching and philosophising historically seemed to have a pretty good idea.  I guess, if we want to consider religious leaders who used unethical BS to convince others to fall in line as such, that could qualify.  Just wondering.

This statement proves that one of two things must be true:  Either Obama doesn’t understand the role of the Supreme Court or he is choosing to ignore the Constitution.  Please read this article by Walter Williams.  You cannot ignore it.  It is a fact.  The Supreme Court’s job is to be a referee.  Nothing else.  I will not go on too much more with the analogy, as Mr. Williams does a fantastic job.  All I want to do is illustrate the fact that Barack Obama either doesn’t understand the role of the Supreme Court or is choosing to ignore it in order to further his power grab.  Don’t tell me otherwise, or I might explode from hearing (or reading) too much stupidity.  A referee that will make judgements based on past successes or failures of one of the parties involved is worthless.  That is all.

A great example of a hired man in a hat (from the video) taking stuff from us is going on right now.  As of yesterday, we, the taxpayer, are 60% owners of General Motors.  Why are we buying this company?  Because they are crappy, miserable, and run like a bunch of drunken monkeys are in charge.  That’s no reason for charity.  By the way, that’s all this is.  It’s welfare, but on a much larger scale.  Rather than a person who screwed up a small business or can’t hold a job, it’s a gigantic company who, despite millions of dollars into R & D, couldn’t determine their ass from a hole in the ground. 

Don’t trash us capitalists for knocking charity, though.  Giving to those in need is fine if it is to someone or some organization that is actually trying to do better.  Just don’t force us to do it using personal guilt via the government.  This quote from Ayn Rand’s The Objectivist says it best:

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

Which brings us back to the video.  People force you to give up freedoms in the name of many good things.  That doesn’t make it right.

There is never going to be respect for the Muslim world when they’re the children we can’t upset and we’re the adults expected to know better. Why can’t Muslims in the Middle East ever be like, “Don’t worry, that’s just those silly Christians. They don’t know any better.”?

The reason I bring this up is that it completely encompasses the liberal thinking in our nation today.  When someone treats a black man like crap for doing something stupid, he’s racist.  Really, though, he’s just being treated like an individual who did something stupid.  It’s like someone is saying, “hey, they’re black.  They don’t know any better.”

It’s not just with black and white people.  It’s everything else.  “They’re treating Hillary like crap.  It must be because they hate powerful women.”  Or they just think she’s being an idiot.  Isn’t treating someone with kid gloves and patronizing them basically saying they are not worth as much as a white male?  It’s awful. 

Perhaps worse than an annoying liberal saying these things is when someone does it to their own kind.  Jesse Jackson leads the league in this.  He acts as if black people need hand-holding, free handouts, and a leader.  I would argue to Jesse that I, unlike him, think that black people are just as capable and just as smart as anyone else, so they shouldn’t get any special treatment.  Who’s the racist person here?

All I’m saying is that in a free, capitalist society, there is no room for racism.  It’s stupid and doesn’t make any sense.  Differentiating between people based on the color of their skin would harm you or your business.  If you passed up on the best workers because of something so trivial, you’d be out of business or have crappy relationships for the rest of your life.

This thinking is why we are on a straight track toward fascism.  We cannot expect the government to come in and fix all of our problems.  If we are stupid enough to screw up a credit card or miss a payment on something, there is a reason they make us pay those huge rates.  If they do not, the company loses money.  Lots of it.  Now, we all know these companies are not going to lose the money the government is telling them to lose.  They are not in the business of charity.   What does this mean for you, the timely-paying, upstanding credit customer?

You are paying more.  From now on, you will have to pay more to borrow, which means you will probably do less of it.  Which means the economy will not have you contributing as much as you have in the past.  It also means, if you are a business owner, you will have less money for innovation.  It means, if credit is cheaper to those who default more, they will borrow more, which is obviously bad for the economy.

When the government interferes, they make things worse.  The world is not perfect.  It never will be.  But every time the president says, “we have to…” insert thing here, he’s trying to stifle the free market.  And when he does that, he only creates a situation that needs more regulation.  And more.  And more. 

The free market may allow for some people to get completely screwed, and I do in fact feel sorry for those people.  But I ask you this:  is it better to save some people from bad credit than to live in a country that does not allow for innovation, stifles creativity, and eventually squashes the individual? 

Sadly, I think I know the answer many people would give.

A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom and controls—with no principles, rules, or theories to define either. Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship. A mixed economy has no principles to define its policies, its goals, its laws—no principles to limit the power of its government. The only principle of a mixed economy—which, necessarily, has to remain unnamed and unacknowledged—is that no one’s interests are safe, everyone’s interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system—or, more precisely, anti-system—breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defense and offense, as the nature of such a jungle demands. While, politically, a mixed economy preserves the semblance of an organized society with a semblance of law and order, economically it is the equivalent of the chaos that had ruled China for centuries: a chaos of robber gangs looting—and draining—the productive elements of the country.

-From Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand

Wow.  If this doesn’t describe “how we got here” as people like to say these days, nothing does.  Forgive me for not posting this excerpt earlier, as it is one of the most importantly prophetic from Rand’s writings. 

What I like about this commentary is that it not only describes why our economy is crappy but why our political system is crappy, as well.  “Such a system … breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps…” It is exactly why I about blow a fuse when people tell me that the Constitution and our founders intended for us to be a formless blob that can constantly change.  Wrong.  It is a set of rules that LIMITS the government’s powers and outlines what they are supposed to do.  If followed, we’d be much better off.  This is why we must keep fighting for our individual freedoms no matter what our oppressors say or do to try and shut us up.