Starving Socialism

No related posts.

This article is a very succinct and extremely well-stated argument by Onkar Ghate. And it would surprise no one who chimes in here that it is utterly consistent with my world-view. As a disclaimer, I have met Onkar. He is a very bright fellow, polite, and very mannered.. He is precise in his language and is delicately measured in his unwavering advocacy for individual rights..

The simple answer to his rhetorical question at the end of the article is simple: Yes!

Related posts:

1. Ideas Matter! Live Lecture on Thursday Night. A LIVE LECTURE BROADCAST TO UNIVERSITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY! U of M simulcast information UW Madison simulcast information Your “reckless and irreverent” correspondent will very...
2. New York S2994 NIB : Annual Registration of All Firearms Over at the The PPJ Gazette, Lynn Swearingen describes the language in a New York Senate bill that will require registration of ALL firearms within...
3. The Source of Natural Rights – Part II Physical force is anti-life. And to whatever extent or degree it is used, it restricts or prevents one from acting on his or her own...

Give the quiz a try. Be honest and answer the questions without help. It will be interesting to see the scores of those that visit our website. I also invite all politicians to give it a try, but please resist your natural tendency to lie or cheat (sorry, I could not resist).

I missed three questions for a score of over 91%. One wrong answer was due to not properly reading the answer.

Take the test here

No related posts.

Werd.

..

Related posts:

1. Uneducated DUI Medal Winner Son of Crony Capitalist Gets State Jobs Was informed of this story and read the JS Online story (here). The linked story reveals problems on multiple levels. First of all, we have...
2. Tony Schultz: Wisconsin’s Socialist Pig Folks, please listen to this video!! It is a quick primer on everything that is wrong with Wisconsin. The ignorant sister spews lies right out...

Gay History Month

The discovery of America by Christopher Columbus was by pure accident. It all started with Chrissy and the boys setting sail on a Mediterranean gay cruise. Seriously, what real sailors would be caught dead on ships named the Pinta, Nina , and Santa Maria (how gay). The boys were so engrossed in a game of buff-climbing the mast that they did not notice being blown off course. The next thing you know Club Med landed in the Carribean.

The demise of Napolean Bonerparte (his real name) started when he lost a towel snapping fight against Lord Wellington at the Waterloo Boy’s Club.

Washington’s army caught Lord Cornholewallis and his aides with their panties down in Yorktown. It seemed that the British General and the boys were having so much fun doing a wig and corset swap that they did not notice the rebels surrounding them. Unfortunately for the French they just missed the party.

The little Dutch boy was really a little Dutch girl. She stuck her finger in a dike that had nothing to do with water.

The great San Francisco earthquake started with vibrations caused by a giant Congo line at the Rumpus Room.

No pictures are necessary to figure out how Teddy Roosevelt and the Roughriders got their nickname.

Amelia Earhart was not really lost in the Pacific during her around the world flight. After seeing the topless island women she decided to start the world famous Borneo Bitch Slap Polynesian Pleasure Palace.

The real words spoken by Alexander Graham Bell to his assistant were, “Mr. Watson cum here!”

The astronauts during the Gemini and Apollo space program were queer. Only gay guys would volunteer to be crammed in a can with another guy for a week.

I was so afraid of bending over and picking up my wallet on the ground in San Francisco that I kicked it all the way to Tahoe.

No related posts.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” – Thomas Jefferson

Related posts:

1. Government Thug in Chief One of the great authorities on the Constitution and American history is Judge Andrew Napolitano. In the following brief interview with Ralph Nader, he describes...
2. Sunday Night Snippet: A House Divided A sign outside a Hudson establishment has the Lincolnesque words “Divided We Fall”. I speculate this pertains to the cacophony over the passage of the...

The way that humans live (survive) is by acting on their rational judgment, as opposed to animals or plants that survive by evolutionary instinct and/or biochemical reactions which mutate over time via natural selection. Of course, humans also evolve and mutate but their fundamental tool of survival is their rational mind. And when we humans are precluded or stopped by force from exercising our rational judgments our lives are ratably lessened, and in the worst case resulting in death. Choosing to ignore this objective, metaphysical, fact of the need to act rationally and use reason to survive and live will just as directly limit an individual’s independence; his freedom to act on his own judgment, which is the definition of liberty. Remember that man has no innate instincts to guide his actions. If a man chooses to ignore reason and rational action he doesn’t need an instinct to tell him that pain, suffering, and possibly even death will eventually find him – it will find him whether he likes it or not because that is the nature of reality.

The axiom here is that as and to the degree force is applied, or irrational actions are taken, an individual’s freedom to act, his liberty, and his life (or the quality thereof), is reduced. Conversely, the more an individual uses reason and rationality, and the less the extent to which his reason and the use of his own judgement are hampered or restricted (by force or his own irrational choices), the greater his quality and quantity of life will be.

As individuals we have free will, and as such we can (and do) choose to use reason, or not. We can choose to act on our best judgments, or not. Moreover, we are not infallible – we all too often operate on less than perfect information. And this feature of humanity, free will, is what fundamentally gives rise to the concept and study of morality; chosen values. And values are those things we act to gain and to keep that make life possible. Again, these are facts of reality and not revelations, edicts from government, or decrees from a dictator or monarch.

Humans therefore need a principle that recognizes these metaphysical facts regarding the initiation of physical force and an individual’s judgments. A principle that integrates these concepts, recognizing that humans need to act on their own judgments, and that force serves to prevent such action. Such is the principle of individual rights. And the fundamental purpose of properly recognizing individual rights is so that people can live together peacefully in a social context to maximize their individual life while recognizing the rights of others to do the same.

Ayn Rand stated:

“Rights are a moral concept that provides for a logical transition guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relations with others. It is the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context; the link between a moral code of a man, and the legal code of a society – between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.”

So it is that individual (natural) rights are both moral and political, and are a reflection of the fundamental fact that man needs to be free; liberty is his natural state if life is his goal. And if life is his purpose, then he must be free to pursue those values that allow and sustain it. If you cannot get your moral rights from the facts of reality, then they are no more “natural” than printing money can be said to create wealth. And this is no small concept! Point being what is good or bad only has meaning in the context of a living being – nothing is good or evil if you no longer exist. “Good” and “Values” have no meaning except in the context of a living human person, animal, or plant.

Natural rights, properly understood, are in fact individual rights, and individual rights are, in fact, natural rights. The subordination of the government to the individual, implicitly found in the Declaration of Independence, is premised on those metaphysical facts of reality which place the interests of the individual ABOVE the interests of any government, i.e. the subordination of government (“society”) to the individual. And such is the antithesis of all collectivist ideologies that have ever existed, as well as the inane notion of collectivized rights. Natural rights clearly do not come from a supernatural source, they are a direct reflection of the metaphysical facts regarding what it actually means to live, and what is required to live, as a human being (as opposed to a slave, a serf, a delusional dupe, a prisoner, or a corpse). Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness then, properly understood, are premised upon natural (individual) rights, and not some decree, supernatural revelation, or social convention.

This was what the founders lacked; the integrated philosophical premise to the political system they unleased so marvelously upon the world.. Clearly they observed and recognized some of those metaphysical facts required for life, e.g. freedom. But an integrated philosophical premise was missing, and allowed for subjective interpretations of the grand political system they invented. After all, natural rights as espoused back then implied an intrinsic feature that simply wasn’t there. No matter how many corpses were analyzed, no rights could be found amongst the heart, liver, stomach and lungs! It wasn’t until the 20th century and a brilliant philosopher named Ayn Rand that this defendable base and definition of individual rights was discovered – and she discovered it through the recognition of the real world, life sustaining, needs of man. It is her singular and profound contribution to humanity. It is our responsibility to grasp it, understand it, and apply it.

So it is, to a degree, something of a setup here that I asked where natural rights come from. Whether you believe in the supernatural or not, you cannot defend our founders vision, you cannot have a coherent theory of natural rights, you cannot defend capitalism (and its premise of individual rights and private property) from the notion of supernatural sources for natural rights. Nor can you defend them by asserting them to be intrinsic features of man unconnected to any rational base. Both of these, as I mentioned at the outset of Part I, “opens the door wide for any would-be looter of either the mind, or your pocketbook.” If there is any hope for mankind, it is from a rational basis grounded in reality for the natural, individual, rights of man that will finally set us free from the subjectivists of every stripe. So, the answer to the question is simply that natural rights come from the recognition of those fundamental requirements of a man to live, and specifically it is his own life which is the standard of value.

h/t to Craig Biddle for his great book Loving Life, and his essays, and lectures.

Related posts:

1. Where do “natural” rights come from? Do “natural rights” come from God? What say you....
2. Collective Bargaining is Not a Right With all this talk of collective bargaining rights, one must wonder if the people using the term can define the meaning of a right. Often...
3. Republicans Gave Unions Their Rights – History When Democrat Gaylord Nelson took ownership of the office of Governor in the state of Wisconsin, in 1959, one of the first laws that was...

The socialists speak of freedom and collective bargaining or living wage or healthcare rights as if the terms can be perfectly interchangeable. But their rights have nothing in common with the term that Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration of Independence. I forget the name of the writer, but rights in a society based on liberty have one common thread; the exercise of rights does not obligate others.

The right to free speech and thought does not obligate others to listen or agree. The right to religious faith does obligate others to believe. The right to private property does not obligate others to groom or protect. The right to freely associate does not obligate others to join or be your friend. The right to commerce does not obligate others to exchange. The right to pursue knowledge does obligate others to teach you. The right to be left alone does not force you to participate in the agenda of others. Freedom is the absence of force.

Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution does little in defining true rights. The first Ten Amendments were not meant as a defining dictionary to rights. The intent was to formally restrict government from over running the natural rights of man.

Rights as used by the socialists have nothing to do with freedom. The right to collective bargaining means using the force of government to negotiate. The right to healthcare means forcing others to treat and finance. The right to a living wage means forcing others to pay. The right to education means forcing others to provide the means for teaching.

No right to force exists in a free society.

Related posts:

1. No Common Ground After observing the protesting teachers’ union thugs and their supporters up close after an Americans for Prosperity rally yesterday, it is becoming more obvious that...
2. Beware the Hypocrits Scott Walker has described the budget repair bill as politically bold, but modest in its provisions. Well, that may be. However bold this bill is,...
3. Carnac on Liberal B as in B, S as in S …………… It makes no sense at all. How much sense do these two stories make? We can call in “sick” But don’t take away collective...

Much of the story is happening now. According to the author, events may spin the country apart later this summer. As a weekly series, partial chapters will be released on Sunday evenings. With the protests by government union thugs and the passage of currency legislation in Utah this week, portions of two chapters are showcased later tonight.

All copyrights remain with the author

No related posts.

No related posts.

Then in 1967 another law was passed to grant collective bargaining rights to state employees. Republicans controlled the Assembly 53-47 and the State Senate 21-12. The governor was Warren P. Knowles, a Republican.

It was the Republican Party who fostered in the era of Unionism in the state of Wisconsin.

Related posts:

1. A Line in the Sand Governor Walker’s proposal limiting collective bargaining for government employees is no less a defining moment for some Republican legislators. With almost certainty, the bill will...
2. Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill The Wisconsin Senate is expected to begin deliberations at 11 a.m. on the controversial budget repair bill. Demonstrators opposed to the bill began gathering early...
3. Sergeant Schultz Reporting For Duty                      Remember Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes? The know nothing, hear nothing, see nothing buffoon that we all laughed at because of his outright stupidity?...

It appears two reasons exist for an individual to shy away from voting if identification is required. They are either not a citizen or running from the law. Are Sjoberg and Nelson proposing that aliens and criminals have the right to vote?

Long before the idea of same day registration, first time voters would have to file six weeks in advance to allow proper time for election officials to verify citizenship and residency. Shortening the time period means less time for accurate verification and the door for fraud widens.

The real problem in the voting process is that we technically allow thieves to vote for more looting. Stealing defined as taking another’s property through force or fraud. Whether one receives a government issued check in the form of a direct subsidy, payroll, pension, or a form of welfare, then the individual has in effect taken another’s money through government enforced confiscation.

As Benjamin Franklin noted, “when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” The debate over the County nursing home exemplifies Franklin’s idea. Proponents favoring more tax dollars for the facility argue on the basis of a non-binding vote of county residents several years ago. Letter writers to the paper voicing support for continued taxpayer financing for the nursing home fall into two categories: government workers that want to protect their salaries and pensions or people that have a relative under the care of the county.

If we are ever to restore our liberties, then maybe it is time to put forth the idea that individuals receiving a government check other than a tax refund or Social Security ( both are means of returning stolen property) to be disqualified from voting.

Can you imagine the letters to the editor if such an idea came to fruition?

No related posts.

“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”

Judge Roger Vinson

This is the Judge who ruled that the constitutionality of the Obama Care Legislation that was forced through congress was null and void. Government doesn’t have the power to regulate inactivity. This would be the first time in history if it stands.

This ruling is a victory for Federalism and individual Liberty.

See Ruling.

No related posts.

They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious…

No related posts.

This week in the Missouri state Capitol, a large rally was held in favor of defending state sovereignty. Rep. Tim Jones and Senator Jane Cunningham spoke about their respective bills filed to protect Missourians’ right to choose their own healthcare and not be forced into the federal government’s plan under threat of fines or imprisonment. This centralization of more and more power in Washington D.C. is fostering a citizens’ movement to understand and defend personal liberty and the federalist principle of state sovereignty – a governing principle captured eloquently in the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Joplin Independent

No related posts.