Land Of Opportunity

Our Founding Fathers created a capitalist system that provided the greatest level of freedom and protection of each individual’s rights. That, in turn, provided each with the greatest opportunity to achieve his goals and realize his dreams. 

“Opportunity” means the potential to achieve with a probability correlated with one’s ambition, skill set and perseverance. This must be distinguished from ”assurance” (or a guarantee) of achievement. Such guarantees are only made by government to privileged groups in the form of services and products.  

This is yet another way to distinguish between forms of government: capitalism (with “opportunity”) and statism (with “assurance”); or between their moral codes: the right to the pursuit of happiness vs. happiness itself (via guarantees/force).   

In illustrating this point, focus should not be on those who, through no fault of their own, cannot provide for themselves - do not have any “opportunity.” There will always be (preferably non-government) financial support for them. 

If you are looking for a fundamental difference between the Tea Party and the OWS protestors, look no further: it is about “opportunity” vs. “assurance.” The Tea Party wants government to better uphold our rights, eliminate unessential spending and strengthen our “land of opportunity.” The OWS protestors want to redefine “opportunity” to mean “assurance”; they want: 

Economic equality: that goes far beyond our founding documents that call for “equal rights” - equal opportunity. One does not have a right to the wealth of others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wealth disparity, as long as wealth is earned and everyone has the opportunity to profit from the economic system. The latter is only possible under capitalism; today’s mixed economy places many restrictions on individuals with some being irrationally disadvantaged. 

Jobs: they require effort, not sitting in a park. Employers provide opportunities to work for those who earn them; jobs are not a handout. The better jobs require education and a competitive edge; and the unemployment rate for those with a college education is as low as 1/3 the rate for the non-educated. While everyone cannot afford such education, there are many opportunities to be trained pre or post-hiring for those with sufficient desire and ambition. 

Health Care: as noted before, no such product or service can be a right. Our problem is one of high cost due to government intervention in that industry. The focus needs to be on creating the broadest opportunity to purchase HC insurance; and that requires a free market that can enable reform of the system to make insurance affordable for all, retain high quality of care, and minimize such intervention. To retain any semblance of freedom and opportunity, the Supreme Court must overturn the ObamaCare mandate. 

Thanksgiving thought: be thankful that only a fraction of 1% of us are pretending to represent the 99% protesting against the top 1% (of wage earners). Stop expecting the unearned and envying the top 1%, respect individual rights, and take advantage of this land of opportunity to be productive.

Cronyism

Politically speaking, cronyism is government favoring of selected individuals or groups, resulting in financial and/or political gain by the favored. It involves political payback, results in increased costs to taxpayers, and is immoral.  

With the separation of State and economics and a full recognition of individual rights, cronyism would essentially be eliminated: politicians would be completely disincentivized from such favoritism. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism despite the disparaging misnomer “crony-capitalism.” Call it “crony-socialism.” 

All the attention is on the corporate/private sector side. Government administration/Congress favors certain corporations with loans, subsidies or bailouts; the corporations are then pressured to sacrifice their capitalist principles in “cooperation.” Other corporations are punished with over-regulation and controls; that invites them to lobby to defend their interests. Depending on political views, contributions, bribes and compromises, some are advantaged by their lobbying efforts. Some will certainly attempt to use the political process to gain competitive advantage.  

The result, of course, is corruption, increased costs to all parties, and great harm to our economy and taxpayers - all due to government’s statist policies. In a small way, the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors see the true harm done. But due to their statist bias, they are primarily attacking the wrong side of the problem: government’s role is being ignored. 

Also ignored are the following forms of cronyism that further endanger our rights. 

In all efforts to redistribute wealth, government favors selected groups of people over others; and in the end, such efforts hurt the favored more than those intended to be harmed. A perfect example is ObamaCare: in an attempt to favor the uninsured poor and middle class, it is an entitlement that will raise health care costs and taxes for all, and lower the quality of care; and many employers will drop their insurance plans, leaving employees without their lowest cost insurance option. It also subjectively favors businesses with mandate waivers. 

In the constant plea for “fairness,” some are meant to be sacrificed for favored others. How can it possibly be “fair” to favor non-productive over productive individuals? That is a ruse to disguise the real and immoral goal of economic equality. 

Public unions are advantaged at the expense of the private sector. If “fairness” is to be an issue, why no outcry about union executive salaries that are greater than most corporate employees? 

Government constantly favors special interests via legislation, regulation and tax code. E.g. environmentalists and green energy vs. oil/gas/coal industries. 

And we certainly cannot overlook individual payback in the form of appointments, grants et al resulting from election support. 

We must eliminate all of the above forms of cronyism; in fact, it would also be cronyism if only selected portions of it were eliminated. If we could let the free market - not irrational politicians - determine winners and losers, and supply and demand for products and services, then we could realize rapid economic growth.

Is Obama a Friend of Israel?

President Obama continues his lies in his new AttackWatch web page. And foremost among them is the claim that he is a friend of Israel. Highlighted below are AttackWatch headings that need disputing. 

·       Political leaders in both countries have acknowledged his support. 

What else could they say? That is certainly no evidence of support. 

·      Robert Gates testified that Obama has done more to improve our relationship with Israel than any President in the last 45 years. 

In the testimony provided, Gates acknowledged that our partnership with Israel is critical to our national security. But no evidence of Obama’s steps to improve the relationship can be found. 

We all know of the evidence to the contrary: he has pressured Israel to concede to Palestinian demands (enhanced by Obama himself) and to accept a Palestinian State with 1967 borders which would seriously threaten Israel’s security (despite “mutually agreed swaps”). He has appeased Muslim States that support terrorism and even provided them financial aid; yet he once threatened to cancel aid to Israel. 

·      Obama said “the bonds between the U.S. and Israel are unbreakable…. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels…. It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.” 

His actions are much louder than his words. As a statist - with a transparent ideology, he no more shows an understanding of the real values of Israelis than he does of Americans. His “bond” does not preclude him from pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions. Peace should not depend on “having leverage with the Palestinians” who support terrorism. He is willing to put Israel at risk for the sake of a Palestinian State that would become another terrorist threat to Israel. And he deceives himself when expecting Israel - with its new borders - to defend itself by itself against any and all Arab States. 

He would likely - out of necessity - act to prevent Israel’s destruction; but in the meantime, he will also likely continue to show support for the Arab States, and that simply puts more pressure on Israel. His plan for peace will necessarily fail and he knows it; and the Palestinians know it, which is why they hope for a U.N. vote to sanction a Palestinian State.  

Obama is much to blame for Abbas taking this issue to the U.N. And after the political blunders, he still could have prevented it, as the U.S. did similarly in 1989 and forced the repeal of the 1975 “Zionism is Racism” resolution in 1991, by threatening to withdraw U.N. funding. In his U.N. speech, while he over-praised the U.N. for enabling peace in the Middle East, he betrayed our interests by his weakness regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. So he deserves the box he has put himself in: out of necessity, he will have to vote ‘no’ on a Palestinian State resolution; and that will further isolate him from the rest of the world. 

In summary: Obama can’t change the conditions for peace in favor of the terrorists and then expect peace or even to avoid the confrontations that follow. But he always does want to eat his cake and have it to! A friend of Israel? I don’t think so.

American Exceptionalism

“Exceptionalism” is the belief that something is exceptional in relation to all else of the same kind. Thus “American Exceptionalism” is the view that America is exceptional relative to the rest of the world. But exceptional in what respect? 

Our founding principles made us unique and exceptional. “Individual rights” extended morality into the social system and limited the power of the State; they became an individual’s protection against the force of the collective. “The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the U.S. was the subordination of society to moral law” (Ayn Rand). We became the first truly moral society. 

For the first time, man’s life, property, freedom and pursuit of happiness were his rights by moral principle and by his nature. He was treated as an end in himself, not as the means to the ends of others or society. Capitalism, individualism and more specifically the American industrialist were born. The result was unprecedented wealth creation with an increased standard of living for all, and an enhanced value for life manifested by unprecedented charitableness. 

Unfortunately, the lack of a complete philosophical foundation for capitalism has enabled the latter to be seriously compromised over time - e.g. by an altruist/collectivist ethics. And there is a high correlation between the level of adherence to capitalist principles and the level of our exceptionalism. 

Until recently, such compromise has resulted from a lack of understand and/or acceptance of our founding principles. But now we are dealing with our first truly anti-exceptional, explicitly anti-exceptionalism President. Obama has antipathy for what made this country great; he chooses to trade greatness for mediocrity. Why? 

His explicit statist ideology trumps all. His principles are anti-American. E.g. his domestic policies prevent economic recovery; his foreign policy of “leading from behind” is despicable and dangerous, as is his self-effacement when used to offset the image of American superiority.  

He duped the American public with his message of “hope and change”: he was merely “hoping” for us to ignore his long-term associations with, and acceptance of the beliefs of, the most radical statists in the country; and his “change” was always intended to mean a strong movement toward statism and to immorally redistribute wealth. He sacrifices truth for lies to protect his secrets - his ideology, racism, multiculturalism, crony-socialism and general ineptitude. To him, the decline of American values is simply a rebalancing of American and non-American values; American exceptionalism is considered immoral; individual initiative and responsibility are to be replaced with collective values.

I am tired of hearing about the failure of capitalism which no longer truly exist; about corporate greed when greed is primarily associated with statists; about a “social contract” of sacrifice when the only existing “contract” is to protect individual rights; and about class warfare, only existent under statism (e.g. Obama uses racism, sexism, wealth envy and economic/environmental myths to divide us). Get Obama out of the White House and we might have a chance to regain our exceptionalism.

Greed: What Is It Really?

Long before the liberal talking point “capitalism breeds greed” or “the rich are greedy”, “greed” has had real meaning: “an insatiable and immoderate desire for wealth beyond just limits” (Oxford dictionary). In essence, it is expecting the unearned and undeserved. That simply does not apply to the moral pursuit of wealth and earned profit.

Under Capitalism and free markets, individuals are incented to be productive and to profit from free exchange of goods and services with others. All gain value in the exchange and no greed need exist. Those who truly act greedily will not survive for long: either competition will force them to be more rational, or others who recognize their greed will lose trust and stop doing business with them; and government will appropriately punish those who violate others’ rights in the process.  

Liberals assume that the “greed of rich capitalists” justifies virtually any actions government wants to take against them. First, not only are true capitalists not greedy, but they have always been the most benevolent. Second, this assertion rests on the false assumptions that success and wealth are achieved by the wealthy sacrificing the poor to them and, therefore, the wealthy have a duty to serve the “greater good” through redistribution. Third, nothing can justify government actions against them except their initiation of force against others.

In all statist systems, government interferes with the private sector, and forces individuals and businesses to act against their own judgment and to sacrifice for the sake of the collective/society. This creates conflict among men and causes the real greed - greed of those who:

·       Use political power over others and necessarily violate their rights. E.g. public unions that want forced economic advantage over the private sector; environmentalists who are willing to destroy our economy for the sake of their irrational ends.

·       Participate in the redistribution of wealth: the recipients and government that forces it via taxation and special interests; and those who support the entitlement culture and can never take enough.

·       Demand a right to happiness (vs. only “the pursuit of”) and to the necessities required for a lifestyle (vs. only life).

·       Dictate an income threshold beyond which one has “made too much” and then tell him how much he should be allowed to keep. (Public sector excluded)

·       Pressure corporations to cooperate in exchange for government favors and to sacrifice their principles for their own protection. (Cronyism)

·       Add “pork” in legislation (greed for votes).

·       Pay no income taxes but demand more from those who do; not those who want to keep the income they have earned at no one else’s expense.

Government simply needs to leave individuals alone to produce wealth, stop envying and punishing the most productive among them, and accept the fact that it is true capitalism that provides the highest standard of living for all while minimizing the concern for greed.

Obama: “Ignorance, Stupidity or Connivance?”

Walter Williams wrote an interesting article titled “Ignorance, Stupidity or Connivance?”

He noted the absurdity of President Obama wanting to impose a luxury tax on corporate jets as a means to generate revenue to fight federal deficits. As a relevant example of cause and effect, he noted how thousands of jobs related to the yacht industry were lost after Congress imposed a similar yacht tax in 1990. Further, yacht business was significantly outsourced and U.S. revenue was lost vs. the $millions of falsely projected revenue. 

The government’s error is obvious and is essentially the same with every income redistribution effort: its “zero-elasticity vision”; i.e. the belief that price or tax changes do not affect purchasing behavior, especially of the rich. 

But I’m not so sure that Williams did not himself make an error of omission. His final assessment is that Obama "is not stupid enough to believe that a tax on corporate jets would be a revenue generator"; that he simply wants “to inspire envy and resentment against wealthy Americans as a tool in pursuit of his higher-tax agenda.”  

The latter is certainly true, albeit he can accomplish that goal without proposing such a tax. Most Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are unfortunately altruistic enough to accept some forced taking from the rich and giving to the poor. But Obama goes further: his statist ideology causes him to have a more over-reaching goal of broad income redistribution based on his own envy and resentment, multicultural views and the presumed right to usurp individual rights in any way he chooses. He essentially wants to discourage any attempt to gain wealth to become rich. And that hurts the current poor and middle class the most. 

That is where the public draws a line: their altruism does not make them blind to the fact that the economy cannot grow by punishing the most productive among them.

On that score, Obama is “stupid” - and anti-American; and that is what we have to fear.

Honesty

The principle of honesty says that one must refuse to fake reality - to pretend that the facts are not what they are. It is loyalty to reality and rationality, and requires that one live by the ideas he accepts as true - to mean what he says.

However, as with all moral principles, honesty is an absolute in a specific context: it is a guide to action that applies within a specific set of conditions. It is a guide to life-sustaining actions; thus one cannot be expected to act for his own destruction or to cause harm to others. And such actions, in turn, must have reference back to the principle; i.e. the principle must always be upheld.

Thus, to be honest is to fully obey the principle within the relevant context. Virtues are broad abstractions, not concrete-bound rules or commandments.

That is why lying, generally a form of dishonesty, is not necessarily immoral. But the conditions that can make it moral are not subjectively determined - without reference to the principle. Thus, it is immoral to lie in order to gain a value, but not to preserve one.

An example of “preservation” is lying to prevent a criminal from harming you or someone you value. One’s virtue should never become a means to serving the ends of evil.

It is moral to lie to government to protect one’s rights.

It is moral to withhold information from someone - even a loved one - if such information would prove harmful to him; or due to age is better provided at a later time for his own well-being.

Such examples may seem like, but should not be confused with, “white lies.” The latter is defined subjectively as a minor or unimportant lie, without regard for the principle of honesty.
But it does follow that when lying morally, one is not actually being dishonest - faking reality or relying on an irrational principle. He is acting for the good: for the good of himself, of the person to whom he is lying, and of the honesty principle itself.

Obama The Lyin’-Hearted

It is not unusual for a Presidential candidate to “stretch the truth” to get elected. But to consistently lie before and after being elected is rare; and Obama is the most guilty. 

Obama’s morality is as explained in the second half of “Linking Politics to Morality” (in this blog). His statist ideology is the result. And dishonesty is just one of the many vices of one who so rejects reason and rationality in his life. A lie is a knowingly false statement made with the intent to deceive. Given the chronic nature of his lying, one can only assume that he believes his ends always justify his means.

The following is a collection of many of his lies. You need to decide when enough is enough! 

·      Economy

    Financial bailout: he did not want any, but then he said that the one he approved was critical to save our economy. It ended up being a scan - the panic was false, and it became a means to control banks and other industries and to create a stimulus package to help special interests. 

    Trade: he said he supports free trade. Then he fights it; e.g. anti-Nafta, tariffs on Chinese products to appease labor unions, “buy American” legislation and restrictions where countries fail to restrict CO2 emissions - all without regard for retributions. 

    Taxes: he said no new taxes on the middle class. Then he pushes programs (e.g. HC with mandated insurance) that clearly will tax them. He said he just wants to increase taxes on millionaires, but his proposals actual do so for all families with income over $250k. 

    He criticized millionaires and corporations for their use of corporate jets; yet he knows that his own stimulus plan included a tax break that incented them to buy more jets. He recently proposed removing the tax break as “it will only take from people who are doing extremely well”; but he knows that the middle-class and pension funds will be hurt as the stocks of companies making those jets fall. 

    He said that 80% of the people want his budget plan with tax increases, yet he knows that the polls show that is closer to 30%. And he said he wants to cut the deficit but shows no desire to do so. 

    Shovel-ready projects: his stimulus was supposed to have immediate effect, e.g. with construction projects; yet he knew that with today’s environmental regulations and bureaucracy, such projects would not be ready for the shovel. 

    Green jobs: he pushes hard for growth in such jobs. Yet he knows that government does not create wealth; that it can only take wealth and jobs from the private sector and replace that with government jobs that are not productive ones that actually help the economy; and that “green” is merely a talking point. 

    Wealth redistribution: he uses any excuse and program to achieve this broad goal. E.g. “need” for services, environmentalism based solely on emotion. 

    Being consistent with that goal, he said there would be no congressional salary increases (7/11); but said salaries increased an average of 8%. 

    He said that he would never “pull the plug on Grandma.” Then he said that if the debt ceiling is not raised, then he cannot guarantee that seniors will receive their social security checks. Yet he knows that most of the SSA outlay is covered by current FICA taxes and that those checks are most certainly guaranteed. (And that program is not even an entitlement: it is our money in a government ponzi scheme that he is threatening to withhold!)   

    He said that the U.S. could default on our debts causing a global financial crisis; yet he knows that essential debts would be covered and there would be no serious repercussions. 

·      Education

    He asked children to work hard to achieve their goals in life as independent beings; and he plans on helping them along the way with subsidized education. But he purposely fails to tell them that his aim is to make them more dependent on govt. and that their success should be shared by all. 

·      Energy

    Global Warming: he says the evidence of man-caused warming is indisputable and the debate is closed. But he knows that there is no evidence of any warming due to man and that, in fact, the temperature warming (1% in a century) ended a decade ago. 

    Cap and Trade: based on the GW myth, he has wanted legislation to force drastic change in the use of energy. He says it will be good for our economy and for the planet. But he knows that such legislation is designed to make energy so expensive that Americans will use less of it and be forced to use more of the less efficient alternative energy sources, thus bad for the economy. Many new taxes are to be added to force said use. 

·      Foreign Policy

Israel: he said he fully supports Israel in Middle East conflicts.

But he has pressured them to stop all settlement growth until they negotiate a Palestinian State, knowing full well that the Palestinians will never yield to Israel’s rational conditions. He is even supporting training of Palestinians to enable them to fight Israel more effectively in case the latter does not succumb to the pressure. He also knows that with decades of violence, the Palestinians could not possibly be able to live with a peace accord. 

Another Obama condition for peace is a return to pre-war, dangerous boundaries. He speaks for freedom without acknowledging that Israel represents the only example of freedom in the ME. He is merely contributing to the belief that Israel is the cause of Muslim poverty; and he evades the fact that our survival as a free nation is dependent on the moral strength of Israel and capitalist values in general. 

Iran: he said he would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

He has since been passive with them and knows Iran will not consider changing its nuclear ambitions - especially given his own weakness. It is also false when he argues that negotiations with Iran would be enhanced if Israel yielded to Palestinian demands. He knows Iran is the greatest beneficiary of such U.S. concessions; and he is simply diverting attention from his unwillingness to deal with Iran while making Israel the eventual fall guy when Iran becomes a nuclear power. All while knowing full well of the serious dangers of the latter scenario. 

Eastern Europe: he said he would support countries against Russian dominance.

Then he decides to withdraw long-term plans for a missile defense system in the area - at the pleasure of Russia and Iran. 

At the same time, he says we will build a “defense umbrella” in the Middle East if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon - which he knows would then be too late. 

Iraq and Afghanistan: he said he would pull out of Iraq immediately, but he has remained there longer than planned by Bush. His goal was only to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but he has escalated a larger war there against the Taliban with virtually the same Iraq goals for which he criticized Bush. And he knows that it is virtually impossible to succeed in achieving such goals there. 

These lies are merely to gain international acceptance. And to give hope for peace - despite it being impossible - which will likely prolong further violence.

·      Health Care

He said that he wanted to fix our HC system, not control our HC. But he pushed for a single-payer plan which is total government control, and he accepted a public option which he says does not imply any control.

    He said that his plan will not add to the deficit or tax the middle class.

    He said Medicare benefits will not be cut.

    He denied that there is end-of-life planning in the proposed bill.

    He said the proposed plan did not cover illegals.

    He says we will keep our doctors and control all aspects of our care.

    He vilifies insurance companies knowing that it is government restrictions imposed on them that create concerns about cancelled policies et al, not the companies themselves.

    He says he will fight all special interests in this area, but supports the greatest special interest of all - the tort bar.

He understands causes and effects; he simply believes that his agenda justifies any such deceptions. He even lied about multiple HC cases in order to strengthen his case for ObamaCare - including that of his mother who was taken care of quite fine by our HC system.

·      Individual Rights

    Free speech: he says it is certainly a right and he supports the Constitution; then he supports laws that restrict talk radio, internet communications and “hate speech.”

    Guns: he likewise violates the 2^nd amendment when agreeing to gun and ammunition restrictions. 

·      Personal Relationships

Acorn: he denied working with them, denied their illegal activities, and denied government was supporting the organization. Yet he linked himself closely with SEIU which is closely linked to Acorn.

Rod Blagojevich: Obama denied having any connection with the former Illinois governor who tried to sell the Obama seat in congress.

Rev. Wright: he denied knowing the Rev.’s radical views. 

Read “Radical-in-Chief” (Kurtz) if you have any doubt about his lies regarding other relationships.

·      Special Interests

    He promised no favors to special interests.

    Then he put Lobbyists in high positions; many organizations were promised stimulus money in exchange for favors (e.g. supporting his HC plan).

   

·       Regulations

He said that his administration is the only one that has conducted a significant review of regulations. But Gore noted that it was done in 1999. He said cost of regulations under him was less than under Bush; but, in fact, his in 2 years equaled Bushes in the first 6 years.

·       Trade

In support of a trade deal with S. Korea, he claimed that they export a lot of cars to the U.S. but we don’t export cars to them. Yet just in the first 4 months of 2011, we exported $141M worth of cars to S. Korea. 

·       Welfare

He acknowledges that welfare programs can encourage dependency and discourage working. Yet he talks as though our current system does not do that - where all but 1 of 70 programs don’t even require able-bodied recipients to look for work. And he fights against reducing benefits.

Obama’s arrogance adds to this problem: he feels superior and is intolerant of others’ views; he has apparently concluded that the public is too dumb to figure out his schemes and that he must pursue his goals at all cost. And only an extremely biased media would allow him to continue in this manner - to deceive the public so badly. 

We cannot afford such a statist in this country - a country that was founded on capitalist principles of freedom and individual rights. We cannot afford to let this immoral president continue in office beyond 2012.

Linking Politics to Morality

There is a hierarchy of concepts in philosophy: from metaphysics to epistemology to morality to politics. Let’s look at some important linkages between concepts to arrive at an acceptable political system.

Reason is a critical first value for man: it is his only means of acquiring knowledge and truth. Since man has a volitional consciousness - free will, he must use reason to abstract and form concepts, and to base his conclusions on available facts. And that provides the only means to make proper choices and take proper actions for his survival.

Morality is a code of values that guides man’s choices and actions; it only pertains to those actions open to his choice. Its purpose is to enhance his life - to enable him to be virtuous and happy. It should be clear why man needs such a code; but what code should he follow?

One must begin with some standard of value by which one judges good from bad/evil. Given the above, that must be life itself: that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good, and that which opposes or destroys it is the evil. Actions are required to gain and keep one’s values and sustain and enhance the good in life. The following virtues define those actions.

Man’s essential characteristic is his rational faculty. Rationality is the recognition of reason (as described above) and that nothing can alter the truth dictated by reality and reason. It must be man’s most fundamental virtue, the source of all of the following virtues.

·         Independence: accepting responsibility for forming one’s own judgments and never subordinating one’s mind to another’s.

·         Integrity: acting in accordance with one’s convictions and values, to rational principles; never sacrificing the latter to the opinions or wishes of others.

·         Honesty: loyalty to reality and rationality; never practicing deceit or evasion. It requires living by any idea you accept as true; mean what you say.

·         Justice: never seeking or granting the unearned or undeserved. To judge and be judged based on all factual evidence available; i.e. objective judgment.

·         Productiveness: pursuit of purpose and the use of one’s mind to sustain life through productive work and the achievement of one’s goals. This is highly correlated with reward.

·         Pride: recognizing oneself as his highest value, having earned it, by striving for moral perfection – consistently practicing all virtues. This correlates with strength of character.

This is a pro-life, pro-individual morality of rational self-interest. The result is happiness - one’s end goal in life; and self-esteem - living up to one’s values and strength of character.

“Rights”, a moral concept, are inherent in man’s need to survive. They necessarily pertain only to individual actions. And based on this morality, force can never be initiated in violation of rights.

This moral foundation dictates the only proper function of government: to protect individual rights. And we should be thankful that our original political system - called Capitalism - was based on that belief and enabled America to become the freest and most productive society in history.

Any rejection of reason is an escape from the responsibility of rational thought. The result is inappropriate choices, actions and conclusions. Emotionalism, not rationality, will be one's guiding virtue and other virtues will be compromised or negated.

·         Dependence and Obedience replace Independence: not accepting responsibility for oneself and relying on others for one’s survival.   

·         Compromise replaces Integrity: Loyalty to one’s subjective whims leads to sacrificing one’s convictions/principles to others. In any collaboration between two men holding different basic principles, the more irrational one wins.

·         Dishonesty replaces Honesty: failing to adhere to reality and to live by what you say.

·         Mercy replaces Justice: unearned forgiveness, subjective judgment. (Don’t confuse this with being charitable or caring for others.)

·         Unproductiveness replaces Productiveness: lacking purpose and desire to achieve one’s goals.

·         Humility replaces Pride: having a relatively low assessment of self/self-esteem/self-respect; contentment with one’s moral flaws. (Don’t confuse this with merely recognizing one’s failings.)

 

This is anti-life. The standard of value becomes subjective, leaving one with no guiding principles and with a morality of sacrifice and irrationality. It sacrifices higher values to lower values, ability to inability, achievement and wealth to need, a love of life to envy, self-esteem to self-denial, and happiness to duty. It is a code for the unearned and undeserved.

As need trumps life as a standard, the theory of rights begins to self-destruct: rights are replaced with arbitrary government “privileges”, and policies based on ‘sacrificing to need’ make the pursuit of individual rights a virtual crime. Conflict becomes the norm as one is given the “right” to infringe others’ rights. Life is necessarily sacrificed by force.

The resulting political system is necessarily some form of statism. Included is:

·         Arbitrary government control of at least some aspects of our economy and our actions.

·         Lack of adherence to our constitution and the DOI.

·         Failure to truly protect our rights. E.g., bending to special interests, cronyism, collectivism over individualism - concern for the unidentifiable “public good” at the expense of the individual.

·         Egalitarianism: economic equality with need trumping justice. This is used to justify redistribution of wealth, ignoring the distinction between the earned and unearned.

·         Multiculturalism: a belief that all cultures are inherently equal, regardless of their moral flaws. It fosters an anti-American bias even in favor of cultures determined to destroy us. It attempts to negate America’s exceptionalism.

·         Talking points (emotional assertions) replacing the truth.

 
Capitalism (as in the beginning) is clearly the superior, and only moral, political system. And placing a high value on individual life, it will always be the most benevolent system. The primary reason for our long-term trend toward statism is that statists and others who have abandoned reason have only recently faced rational moral opposition (previous issue). Moral truth is key; and let’s hope Gandhi was right: “the way of truth has always won.”