This and that

Read this and read that.

Mike is the bomb. What more need I say?

What about the needy?

Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists (I semi-affiliate with all three) are often called heartless, self-serving, and a number of other unkind things. They are accused of not caring about the poor. I find this a bit insulting. I do care about the needy. I just think there is a better way to care for them than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Furthermore, charity forced by the government always backfires.

Ezra T. Benson wrote, "Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet, in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in."

Henry Grady Weaver wrote, "Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own... The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders," who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means."
I second both of these quotes. That is all.

Who's Deceiving the Liberals?

Today I read a book called Who's Deceiving the Liberals? Although I didn't agree with everything in there, I thought it made several good points. One of them was something the author called "Victimhood."

Victimhood is the whole idea that America is filled with victims who need to be saved. The poor, the Black, the Hispanic, the women, the handicapped. And who is going to save them? The Liberals. This is their main philosophy behind every socialist program. Those poor victims need to be saved.

The book made the point that without "victims," the whole socialist/liberal philosophy wouldn't make sense. It is what they are riding on to change America. Thus, it is important that the victims remain victims.

Whereas true patriots have the underlying principle of freedom behind their philosophy, the liberals rely on victimhood to get them into office.

Here's a quote from the book:

In this scenario the Elites portray themselves as the great providers for these “victims,” who, in turn, come to see their very existence as dependent upon the generosity of the Elites. As we might expect, this has resulted in a massive co-dependent relationship across society: the “victims” become dependent on the Elite, and the Elite are able to rely on the votes of the “victims” in order to stay in power.

If the Elites actually helped the downcast rise out of their “victimhood,” they would lose power. They perpetuate this dependence by promoting hate. Ironically, these hate-breeders convince the “victims” that there is so much hate in America that they cannot survive without the protection the Elites provide."

Which is Worse?

At a time like this when it seems we are forced to choose "the lesser of two evils" when deciding a president, which really is worse?

John McCain--I'm actually afraid he'll start WWIII. At the very least, he'll get us involved in another costly, pointless war besides continuing the one we're in now. How on earth did he become the Republican front runner? And why have Republicans all turned into such warmongers?

Hillary & Obama--Either of these would attempt to drastically increase socialism in America. In their attempt to "rescue" the poor by expanding Medicare, Medicaid, and turning health care into a government-run disaster, they may ruin what is left of the economy.

Both Republicans and Democrats would likely increase government spending (either on wars or social programs), and thus likely increase taxes. Is it better to waste America's money overseas or waste it with more inefficient government programs?

I'm really at a loss on this one. I believe voting for either party's nominee is going to violate both my economic sense and my moral compass.

Politics by Elise: Redistribution of Wealth

Redistribution of Wealth is a philosophy that used to be considered dangerously communist. Today, Americans don't even realize that they are being saturated by it. Programs and systems like Medicare, Medicaid, the graduated income tax, and the whole welfare system are forms of the redistribution of wealth.

It is my understanding that government spending (specifically the redistribution of wealth) is ALWAYS damaging to the economy. It interferes with the free market–damaging initiative and effectually hurting the middle class (well, it hurts everybody, but especially the middle class). As proven by communist and socialist governments, capitalism is always the most economically beneficial system; communism and socialism always lead to eventual bankruptcy–thus requiring a revolution and reconstruction of the government. Because increasing our government spending increases our socialism, and socialism is always economically unwise, I believe in restricting the Federal government to only the things which are outlined in the Constitution. This seems to me to be the wisest course of action in keeping our economy safe.

Even if the redistribution of wealth were beneficial to society overall–and it isn’t–I believe it is morally wrong. As stated in the Declaration of independence, each person has three natural, inalienable rights–life, liberty, and property. These rights are for EVERYONE. When the government taxes people unequally in an attempt to redistribute wealth, it violates that third right. Even if someone does make $1 million every year, why should they be forced by government to pay half of that to be “redistributed” to the poor? That is effectually saying that they don’t have as much of a right to their own property simply because they have MORE property. It is saying, “Those with little or no property have the right to that property, but those with a lot of property don’t have that same right, because, well, I WANT SOME OF IT TOO!”

I find this “Robin Hood” philosophy to be fundamentally immoral (despite loving the movie). Taking from the rich simply because they are rich is violating their right to own and control property. I am not triumphing the rights of the rich because I think they are all of infallible and august character, but I recognize that just because someone has more does not mean that they deserve less.

Those are my beliefs as to why it is imperative that we cut back on government spending and the redistribution of wealth. Not only does it damage our economy and eventually lead to bankruptcy, but it is fundamentally immoral.

P.S. To read more on the immorality of the Robin Hood philosophy, take a crack at Atlas Shrugged. Who is John Galt?

Politics by Madison: Property

"This term [property] in its particular application means, "That dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandise, or money, is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of particular value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."

"Property," March 27, 1792 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 478)

Politics by Madison: A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

Speech in the Virginia State Convention of 1829-'30, on the Question of the Ratio of Representation in the two Branches of the Legislature, December 2, 1829 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 51)