Be strong enough to stand alone, be yourself enough to stand
apart,
but be wise enough to stand together when the time comes.
— Mark Amend
The Loss of the American Spirit
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of
America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object.
— Patrick Henry
At a monthly meeting of a group of liberty-oriented people, when the
subject of the recent election came up, the speaker asked the audience,
"How many of you are still on suicide watch?" I believe he was
only half joking. I have taken some time since the November 6th
election to reflect on the outcome, while trying to formulate a new
perspective on the state of this country and where I stand in relation
to it. These are some of my thoughts.
Ayn Rand wrote about a person's "sense of life" as being the
integrated sum of their basic values. She also said:
A culture, like an individual, has a sense of life or, rather,
the equivalent of a sense of life—an emotional atmosphere
created by its dominant philosophy, by its view of man and of
existence. This emotional atmosphere represents a culture's
dominant values and serves as the leitmotif of a given age,
setting its trends and its style.
[The Age of Envy, 1971]
Just as an individual's sense of life can be better or worse
than his conscious convictions, so can a nation's. And just
as an individual who has never translated his sense of life
into conscious convictions is in terrible danger—no
matter how good his subconscious values—so is a nation.
This is the position of America today.
If America is to be saved from destruction—specifically,
from dictatorship—she will be saved by her sense of life.
[Don't Let it Go, 1971]
In 1971, what qualities did Rand see as forming the basis of
the uniquely American culture? The independence of self-made,
self-reliant, self-confident individuals; a common sense respect
for knowledge; a trusting, generous and benevolent spirit; and an
innocence as to the depth of evil that could exist in others.
Fourteen years after publishing Atlas Shrugged, she still maintained
a guarded optimism regarding America's future when she penned the
following warning:
If America drags on her present state for a few more
generations (which is unlikely), dictatorship will become
possible. A sense of life is not a permanent endowment. The
characteristically American one is being eroded daily all
around us. Large numbers of Americans have lost it (or have
never developed it) and are collapsing to the psychological
level of Europe's worst rabble.
[Don't Let it Go, 1971]
Here we are, forty years later, living in a country with a population
that has increased 54%, from 203 million in 1970 to 313 million today,
having imported all manner of cultural ideologies from other parts of
the world. During that period, two more generations have pass through
a decidedly left-leaning, government-controlled, educational system.
And consider the increase in the size and scope of government, based
upon these numbers from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):
Description
1970
2012
% Increase
Total Federal Outlays
$1,158 billion
$3,796 billion
228%
Total Outlays as % of GDP
19%
24%
26%
Human Resources Outlays
$446 billion
$2,473 billion
455%
Human Resources as % of Outlays
39%
65%
69%
Human Resources as % of GDP
7%
16%
115%
[1970 figures are shown in inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars]
Not only has total government spending increased by 228%, but there
was a dramatic shift in allocations from other areas into Human
Resources—which includes all of the welfare and entitlement
programs—roughly doubling the percentage of the populace whose
lives were, to some extent, directly dependent upon government-enforced
wealth redistribution. Rand's hope that Americans would continue to
live up to their unique heritage of liberty and individualism has not
been realized. And nothing drives that fact home with more power than
the results of this past election.
Writing at
American Thinker,
Daren Jonescu concluded that the 2012 election was "a referendum
on the principles of modern civilization itself". I agree. While
I do not think that the election was the actual tipping point for this
country—I'm afraid that that event occurred a while ago—it
certainly was the symbolic marker of our entry into a new era where
concerns for the last vestiges of individual rights have been set aside
by a majority of voters.
If we are to move forward from this point, it is critically important
that we squarely face the truth concerning this fundamental shift that
has occurred in our country and incorporate that knowledge into all
future strategies.
In place of the "rugged individualism" that was once a
predominant American virtue and to which one could proudly
appeal, today we face an entitlement culture built upon a
foundation of learned helplessness—the result
of our leaders and educators ensuring everyone that we are
neither responsible for our successes
("You
didn't build that!") nor for our failures
("You're the victim here!")
That common sense respect for knowledge that Rand once observed
has been critically eroded from every quarter. The scientific
method which grounds theory on a foundation of objective and
repeatably observable facts has been replaced by any number of
"ends-justify-the-means" ideologies that begin with
agendas and then manipulate or manufacture "facts" to
produce the required results. Whether it's the right's
biblical
attack on evolution, the left's
ecological
attack on human progress, the administration's
program
to promote unsustainable "sustainable" energy, the
indoctrination
of children trained to parrot ideas they cannot possibly
understand, or any number of other situations where this
methodology is used, the results are always the same: the
undermining and destruction of critical thinking ability in
a broad segment of society.
While Americans remain highly generous,
and charitable,
the baseline level of trust
and goodwill that once existed between people has been
severely diminished if not outright extinguished. The
primary factor responsible for this societal shift is the
expansion of an ever more invasive government into our lives.
As psychologist Dr. Michael Hurd states:
It would never be wise to depend on a corrupt mafia boss to
do your bidding, as the American voters now depend on
corrupt politicians to do their bidding for almost
everything: unemployment insurance, education, medical
care, retirement insurance, the list will never stop
growing.
Sooner or later, this dependence-via-coercion comes back to
bite you. When you make people do things through coercion,
you destroy any sense of good will. Good will is necessary
for all human relationships, and it's necessary to keep
civility, including respect for individual and property
rights, in place.
Another aspect of progressive politics is its need to
dehumanize individuals by categorizing them into various
groups, and then pitting those groups against one another.
Whether the divisions occur along racial or ethnic lines, or
play out in the form of worker vs. management; wealthy vs.
middle class; women vs. men; able vs. disabled; the haves vs.
the have-nots; productive vs. entitled; religious vs.
secular; and so on, the result is to:
Disempower individuals from acting in their own behalf,
based upon their own values
Generate suspicion and fear towards those outside of
your group designation
What this all means is that without a unifying spirit (i.e., a shared
sense of life) to provide a common bond, it becomes more
difficult to organize the populace towards common goals. The reduction
in the ability of the average person to reason deeply, combined with an
education that is woefully deficient in a basic understanding of recent
American and world history, make it problematic whether one can
successfully communicate complex political ideas to a wide audience.
This also leaves people much more susceptible to misinformation and
lies. When you couple all this with a growing sense of suspicion,
resentment and sometimes outright hatred towards others, then
organizing a majority of people for any purpose becomes nearly
impossible. Unfortunately, these are the conditions we face today.
Lessons from the 2012 Election
Big Hat, No Cattle –
by Randy Newman
But when it came down to the wire
I called my family to my side
Stood up straight, threw my head back,
And I lied, lied, lied
Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put
them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing
how long the rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it
roughly.
...
On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney
had not handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice
to handle Obama's absurdities roughly.
Sowell is a great thinker, but here he shows precisely what is wrong
with the Republican party and the conservative movement. While his
first point concerning the need to clearly identify the rotting essence
of Obama's core philosophy is correct, it is irrelevant to evaluating
Romney's election performance. Romney did not fail to rout Obama
because he is too nice. He refrained from attacking because, at his
own core, he agrees with everything that Obama stands for. It is true
that Romney had no "coherently articulated vision," but had he
been able to formulate one, it would have been indistinguishable from
his opponent. There is nothing special about Romney—he is
just another in a long line of marketable mouthpieces for the loose
"me-too" ideology that defines the GOP. And so long as
conservatives continue to blind themselves to this fact and look for
ways to excuse Republican ineffectiveness in one case after the next,
they will simply be squandering their time, effort, money and hopes for
a better future on a party that has designed itself for, and pledged
itself to inevitable defeat.
And do not expect to see the Republican party reformed. To present a
vision that opposes the progressive agenda requires articulating some
basic truths which are unpleasant, and to a large extent the general
public is not interested in this. Instead, a majority now crave the
"Big Lie" which evades our current sociological, economic and
political reality by replacing an awareness of troubling facts with
a fear-soothing story—a narrative—offering safety,
entitlement, and full-time, cradle-to-grave care emanating from The
Great and Powerful Oz—or as he is known in these lands, Uncle
Sam. Both Republicans and Democrats lust after Oz's power as much as
the public wishes to suppress its own fears. And so, working hand in
hand, the power-seekers and the fearful will continue to embrace this
fairy tale view, right up until the moment of immolation. And
that is the real and important message of the last election.
Just how far will the GOP go in service of the "Big Lie?"
Faced with uncomfortable facts such as a $16.5 trillion debt
and annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion for the foreseeable
future, what do Republicans do? Why they simply extend
more credit. But wait, that's not all! They go the
extra mile to eliminate any cap and inform the Administration
that it can spend as much as it likes, while they sit there,
grinning at the American people and stammering, "What, Me
Worry?"
Whether you calculate the unfunded liability of the government's
pension commitments and entitlement programs at
$87
trillion,
$222
trillion, or somewhere in between, the inescapable fact is
that there is no possible way to come close to meeting these
obligations as currently structured. So what do Republicans
do? Absolutely
Nothing. They craft up their own budget legislation which
"contains no spending cuts." After all, there's no
need to upset the folks in Peoria by confronting them with
these troublesome facts — at least there's apparently no
pressing need to do it today! And besides, despite what
some Republicans might mumble on the campaign trail, most are
just as firmly committed to maintaining all of the welfare and
social safety net programs as Mitt Romney was to
Obamacare—oops, excuse me, I meant Romneycare. (Oh well,
as Hillary Clinton so eloquently expressed it, at this point,
what difference does it make?)
Recognizing the history–proven fact that taxing the
middle and upper income earners diverts critical financial
resources from investment and production, placing a brake on
economic recovery and job creation, do Republicans stick to
their long-standing pledge of not increasing taxes? I'm
Afraid not. That too was just another lie.
Republicans often tell us that they believe in individual
rights, but few back up those words with action. The party in
power in 2001 that gave us the Patriot Act, has also been the
largest supporter of the
NDAA,
voting with an overwhelming majority to make sure that even
the provision for indefinite detention of American citizens
without due process, remains firmly in place.
And just in case any rabble rousers might try to upset the
GOP's cushy apple cart, there is always gatekeeper Karl
there to beat back the riff raff and continue to insure the
Republican's rightful place on the looser's throne. We're No.
2! We're No. 2!
While there are a few elected Republicans in Congress that, somewhat
inconsistently, take a stand for individual rights and speak the truth
when the Emperor clearly has no clothes, the great majority remain
committed to the party ideology that produces results like those above,
and that is unlikely to change in the near future. Despite having had
four years to observe the practical consequences of the Republican's
inability to deal effectively with Obama, not only was a McCain clone
nominated in order to lose once again, but the voters decided that it
was important to send 89% of the running Republican incumbents back to
Washington. While Tea Party forces might ultimately be able to effect
a slow change within the GOP, the past two election cycles have shown
that whatever can be achieved through these political means will be too
little and come much to late.
If the Republican Party cannot be effectively salvaged, then what about
the possibility of an alternative third party rising to replacing it?
While this has certainly happened in the past—the Republican
Party itself replaced the Whigs
in 1860—this appears unlikely in today's climate. In 2012, the
strongest alternative to Obama and Romney was Gary Johnson. Yet,
despite having performed over twice as well as past Libertarian
presidential candidates by garnering 1.28 million votes, this still
amounted to less than 1% of the total vote and failed to influence the
outcome in even a single state. If this is the best that could be
accomplished after forty years of Libertarian Party effort, I think we
can dismiss this as being any sort of hopeful prospect in the near
future.
It was Ayn Rand's position that political change could only come about
after the culture—the predominantly accepted ideas by a majority
of people—had first been transformed. I agree. Rand presented
her philosophy through novels in order to dramatize and communicate to
the widest possible audience the implication of certain fundamental
principles in action. Over the past fifty years Objectivist scholars
and intellectual activists have devoted a significant effort to spread
an understanding of exactly what provides the necessary foundation for
freedom, individual rights and limited government, and it is undeniable
that all of these efforts have had a very visible and positive impact
upon a great many people. And yet, despite all of those years devoted
to educating our society about the value, source and meaning of
freedom, on November 6th, a majority of people went to the polls and
sent a clear message that liberty was no longer their predominant
value and therefore no longer their goal. With their ballots they
proclaimed that they had formally switch allegiance from an implicit
philosophy founded upon individual sovereignty and personal
responsibility to one of collective subservience in exchange for relief
from any accountability. Unfortunately, despite heroic measures, the
past methods used by Objectivists have been unsuccessful in changing
the direction of our culture.
And if we cannot look to a better educated populace which has been made
consciously aware of the forces currently at play in our society, it is
equally foolish to expect to rely upon the general common sense
of even a minority of voters. In an article titled, Virginians
Vote to Defend Property Rights, Ari Armstrong discusses how, in the
last election, 82% of the state's citizens voted for a constitutional
amendment to limit the abuse of eminent domain, while at the same time
voting 51% for Obama, and concludes that this:
shows that many Americans care deeply about individual rights,
even if they do not fully understand them in principle or
always defend them in practice.
Oh, were that only true. But isn't this conclusion simply wishful
thinking? No one that actually cared about property rights could
possibly vote for Obama, the great nationalizer, if they were at all
conscious of what has occurred in this country over the past four
years. Yes, people are voting for this amendment, but it is not an
actual respect for property rights that is driving many of them.
Or consider the call to reduce federal spending. The most vocal group
demanding significant cuts are the Tea Partiers. Yet, according to
this Wall
Street Journal article:
In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies
said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make
significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce
the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly
2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security
"unacceptable."
There is no common sense operating here. Disaster knocks at
the door and yet most people refuse to consider even semi-realistic
half-measures let alone real solutions to these problems. The longer
we continue to rationalize the actions of the general public to fit
our desire to find breakout flashes of true rationality, the longer we
waste our time hoping that they will, as a large group, be convinced
to see the light and become mobilized as a positive force for political
change. As I stated above, it is time to accept the fact that a
majority of U.S. citizens have implicitly chosen collectivism, while
certainly failing to comprehend the full consequences of that choice.
Just as our economic system is in a significantly mixed state as it
continues it progression away from free markets towards centrally
planned interventionism, our social-political system is also a
mongrel, incorporating remnants of freedom along with rapidly expanding
elements of totalitarian control. While these trends have been
observed developing over a long period, for many, there has been an
ongoing assumption that there was still time to work within the system
to alter the ultimate outcome. Another critical lesson of this
election has been to signal that the time for that approach has now
expired. When living under a government of strict,
constitutionally-limited powers, with a court system that objectively
identifies and upholds individual rights, it remains possible to affect
change by way of the ballot box. But once a country has significantly
transitioned into collectivism, with a relatively unconstrained
totalitarian polity that holds the individual subservient to the
state's interests, then the idea that one's vote is an effective
tool in the cause of liberty becomes just another aspect of the
"Big Lie"—the soma—being
dolled out by the entrenched political masters to keep their subjects
pacified
by false promises of empowerment and control.
It's Time for a Change of Plans
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results
— Albert Einstein
The world of even a little more than a decade ago has significantly
changed and we are now fighting a different type of battle—one
that is going to demand the adoption of a completely different strategy
from those of the past. Understanding this requires a recognition of
three points I addressed in the previous two sections:
Time to act in service of our liberty is running out.
Expecting even minimal positive change in the near future
through the standard political system is unrealistic.
Changing the culture through a trickle-down process, by first
educating an intellectual class in Objectivist philosophy or
libertarian principles has shown itself to be insufficient to
the task at hand.
This is not to say that we should forsake trying to influence the type
and quality of political candidates elected, or that we should abandon
efforts to educate as many people as possible to the philosophical
principles that freedom requires. The point is that we can no longer
make these activities the primary focus of our efforts if we are to
have any hope of salvaging our future.
There is a fundamental mistake lying behind the assumption that we
must first educate a large enough group of people to value and respect
rights, freedom, capitalism and personal responsibility, and then
convince them to join with us in voting these things back in as the
"law" of the land. In some ways, this is a collectivist error that
implies that these things are dependent upon—that they rise and
fall—with the attitudes of society as a whole. We are speaking
about individual rights here, and as the Declaration of
Independence so clearly points out, our rights are inherent and
unalienable. Or as Ayn Rand formulates it:
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote;
a majority has no right to vote away the rights of the
minority."
If this is something that we truly accept, then there is no need to
beg others to help us obtain, or grant us permission to exercise our
rights. All we must do is choose to assert them. A
clear awareness of this choice is the change that needs to occur in
order to chart a new course forward.
Politics is a
homeopathic
undertaking that dilutes the effectiveness of every participant down
to zero. Instead of accepting the rules of this game which has been
crafted solely for the benefit of those in power, we must reject the
political system and begin acting with independence, taking back
control over our own lives and directly pursuing our own values in a
manner that makes the achievement of success possible. And while, on
the global stage, the action of a single individual often may not
be seen producing a measurable result in itself, the aggregate of many
people working towards small but real change can add up to something
significant and extremely important.
Independent action must always be carried out with care and
intelligence, taking into account the current context and state of our
society. On the other hand, calm intellectualizing about issues is
never going to get the job done. What is required is a proper fusion
between the intellect and the emotional. Passion is what motivates
action, while rationality is what insures meaningful results. I
would suggest that up to this point, we have been far too accommodating
in our response to events that have transpired during just the past
two administrations. In that short time, along with a great many other
things, our government has saddled us with:
An Open-Ended War on Terror
Afghan and Iraq Wars
Pointless Nation-Building Exercises
Enhance Interrogation Techniques
The New-START Russian Arms Treaty
Sale of Jets and Tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood
Fast and Furious
The Benghazi Embassy Attack
The Patriot Act
Warrantless Surveillance and Wiretapping
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
Indefinite Detention of American Citizens
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
The TSA
Obamacare
Dodd-Frank
Expansion of the IRS
The Housing Bubble
The Financial Crisis
Recession and Unemployment
Inflation
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Failure to Pass a Federal Budget
Massive Annual Deficits
A $16.5 Trillion Federal Debt
$87-$220 Trillion in Federal Unfunded Liabilities
Nationalization of the Financial and Automotive Industries
Nationalization of the Insurance and Medical Industries
Nationalization of the Higher Education Loan Industry
Legislation by Executive Order
Gun Control
An Open Attack on All Constitutional Limits Imposed upon the
Government
Given the abrogation of our rights, the curtailment of our freedoms,
and the wholesale theft of our property, both present and future, we
have every right to be, not just mad, but furious! And while
there is certainly a growing level of resentment and disgust occurring
across the country, there is nothing like the appropriate level of
anger being expressed. I'm encouraging everyone to consider the list
above and the impact that these things have on your life. How do they
curtail you freedom of action? How do they rob you of opportunities?
How do they destroy the pursuit of your personal happiness? What are
the eventual implications of each? Then I want you to get
Mad As Hell and, like Howard Beale in Network,
let everyone know that You Are Not Going to Take it
Anymore!
Network Movie Clip
Making the Rounds
Never lose your head, but do unleash your passion and allow it to
motivate you to act in any and every way possible to push back at
the forces that are actively working to destroy freedom by replacing
your right to pursue your own life as you desire it, with an imposed
and open-ended obligation to society—which is government
Newspeak for
being relegated to the status of a slave. We cannot afford to
dilly-dally while waiting for some nascent cultural change that is
not going to arrive in time, if ever.
Independent action is our last remaining line of defense. If we
do not stand up for ourselves, no one else is going to do it for us.
Don't Take it Lying Down
The degree of liberty or tyranny in any government is, it follows, in
large
degree a reflection of the relative determination of the subjects to
be free
and their willingness and ability to resist efforts to enslave
them.
— Gene Sharp
I was recently introduced by a friend to the political scientist,
Gene Sharp, who
has devoted his career to the study of nonviolent resistance directed
against tyranny. Drawing upon his studies of the thoughts and actions
of political activists and thinkers such as Gandhi,
Thoreau and
others, Sharp distilled out his theories for effective nonviolent
resistance and presented them in his writings, as an organized
strategy. The 2005, 600 page
Waging
Nonviolent Struggle (WNS) is a comprehensive volume detailing his
latest thinking on the subject, while the slender
From
Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation,
(DTD) first published in 1993, is more a handbook for those interested
in the practical aspects of mounting an effective opposition to
despotism.
While the United States has not yet reached the level of political
dictatorship that has and continues to be observed throughout many
parts of the world, as I and many others have passionately argued,
we are on an accelerating path with clear historic parallels that,
if unchecked, will inevitably lead to this result. In reading Sharp's
books, I was struck by a number of strategies that could also be
applied to the battle in which we are currently engaged—strategies
that could be just as effective in derailing our totalitarian train
without first having to wait for it to reach its final destination.
In what follows, I will share some passages from DTD and discuss how
they might apply to our struggle to restore freedom in America.
Sharp starts off by making a few observations about the futility of
attempting the wrong sorts of actions.
In the past some people may have attempted resistance.
Short-lived mass protests and demonstrations occurred. Perhaps
spirits soared temporarily. At other times, individuals and
small groups may have conducted brave but impotent gestures,
asserting some principle or simply their defiance. However
noble the motives, such past acts of resistance have often been
insufficient to overcome people's fear and habit of obedience,
a necessary prerequisite to destroy the dictatorship. Sadly,
those acts may have brought instead only increased suffering
and death, not victories or even hope.
. . .
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point
is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has
chosen the very type of struggle which the oppressors nearly
always have superiority.
Remember that in his writings, Sharp is talking about full blown,
repressive dictatorships as you would find in places such as China,
North Korea or Cuba, so we need to scale back some of the rhetoric
a bit to fit our circumstances. Nevertheless, there are critical
points being made here that certainly concerns us.
One of the most important observations is that energy, resources and
hope invested in actions that fail to produce meaningful results can
actually be counterproductive, leading to dispare and demotivation.
Take for example the rise of the Tea Party movement that began about
one year into the Obama administration. This grassroots undertaking
lit the fire of activism under many people and steadily gained
momentum, resulting in a series of successful protest rallies across
the country, massive letter-writing campaigns directed at congressional
representatives, while propelling otherwise non-political people to
become actively engaged in the campaigns of 2010 and 2012. And while
a very respectable level of results were achieved by these efforts, the
overall effect was still extremely disappointing for many, and the
movement is, unfortunately, now only a shadow of what it once promised.
Another of Sharp's points is that, while answering government force
with force can be emotionally satisfying, it is imprudent since it
is playing to totalitarian strength, not its weaknesses. As I
previously noted, passionate emotion is critical to providing the
necessary motivation to act, but is of no use if those actions are
headstrong and foolish.
Sharp delineates four tasks that are required in order to take down a
dictatorship:
One must strengthen the oppressed population themselves in
their determination, self-confidence, and resistance
skills
One must strengthen the independent social groups and
institutions of the oppressed people
One must create a powerful internal resistance force
One must develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation
and implement it skillfully
Refer to DTD for a full explanation of what is implied by each of these
points, but whether your intent is to dismantle a dictatorship or to
turn a country on the brink of becoming a socialist welfare state back
towards freedom, Sharp is saying that it is a monumental task that
requires serious commitment, coordination and planning. In the United
States, very little in the way of these four points have been addressed
by those committed to liberty. Instead, the actions taken so far have
been sporadic, ad hoc, and uncoordinated. I do see recent and
encouraging signs that, to a limited degree, things are improving.
However, without that "wise grand strategic plan for
liberation," I agree with Sharp, that success is unlikely.
In some situations where no fundamental issues are at stake,
and therefore a compromise is acceptable, negotiations can be
an important means to settle a conflict.
. . .
When the issues at stake are fundamental, affecting religious
principles, issues of human freedom, or the whole future
development of the society, negotiations do not provide a way
of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. On some basic
issues there should be no compromise.
. . .
Negotiations are not the only alternative to continuing war of
annihilation on the one hand and capitulation on the other.
The examples [cited], illustrate that another option exists
for those who want both peace and freedom:
political defiance.
[Emphasis added]
It is very encouraging to see that Sharp is no moral relativist.
He believes in standing firm and fighting for one's fundamental
principles—something that should be well appreciated by
Objectivists and libertarians alike. And now we get to the thrust
of the books—the use of political defiance as a powerful
tool to fight back against, and ultimately slay totalitarianism.
Sharp next analyzes the source of true power, which is briefly
summarize in the following excerpts:
Whence Comes the Power?
Achieving a society with both freedom and peace is of course no
simple task. It will require great strategic skill,
organization, and planning. Above all it will require power.
Democrats [i.e., those seeking democracy] cannot hope
to bring down a dictatorship and establish political freedom
without the ability to apply their own power effectively.
Necessary sources of political power
The principle is simple. Dictators require the assistance of
the people they rule, without which they cannot secure and
maintain the source of political power. These sources of
political power include:
Human resources, the number and importance of the
persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating with, or
providing assistance to the rulers
Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to
perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating
persons or groups
Intangible factors, psychological and ideological
factors that may induce people to obey and assist the
rulers
Material resources, the degree to which the rulers
control or have access to property, natural resources,
financial resources, the economic system, and means of
communication and transportation
Sanctions, punishments, threatened or implied,
against the disobedient and noncooperative to ensure the
submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime
to exist and carry out its policies
All of these sources, however, depend on acceptance of the
regime, on submission and obedience of the population, and on
the cooperation of innumerable people and the many institutions
of the society. These are not guaranteed.
. . .
As the political scientist Karl W. Deutsch noted in 1953:
Totalitarian power is strong only if it does not have
to be used too often. If totalitarian power must be used
at all times against the entire population, it is unlikely
to remain powerful for long. Since totalitarian regimes
require more power for dealing with their subjects than do
any other types of government, such regimes stand in
greater need of widespread and dependable compliance habits
among their people; more than that they have to be able to
count on the active support of at least significant parts
of the population in case of need.
Here Sharp points out that much of the rulers' political power actually
rests in the hands of the populace, and through non-cooperation it can
be withdrawn. Again, this should sound very familiar to Objectivists
as it is really nothing more than an application of Ayn Rand's
principal of the Sanction of the Victim. When enough individuals realize
that they actually hold the power, then the jig is up for all
authoritarians!
Karl Deutsch also shows us that while governments may hold the majority
of cards when it comes to the ability to wield force against its
citizens, that force may only be of limited use, as resistance builds
quickly in proportion to the level of force employed. This is even
more true in the case of America, where there is still a reasonably
strong expectation of rights and where those rights still remain in
effect to some degree. The current push-back
against encroachments on the second amendment is a good example, where
even the discussion of using the power of government to restrict
or collect firearms from private citizens is creating a furor.
Weeknesses of dictatorships
Among the weeknesses of dictatorships are the following:
The cooperation of a multitude of people, groups and
institutions needed to operate the system may be
restricted or withdrawn.
The requirements and effects of the regime's past
policies will somewhat limit its present ability to
adopt and implement conflicting policies.
The system may become routine in its operation, less
able to adjust quickly to new situations.
Personnel and resources already allocated for existing
tasks will not be easily available for new needs.
Subordinates fearful of displeasing their superiors may
not report accurate or complete information needed by
the dictators to make decisions.
The ideology may erode, and myths and symbols of the
system may become unstable.
If a strong ideology is present that influences one's
view of reality, firm adherence to it may cause
inattention to actual conditions and needs.
Deteriorating efficiency and competency of the
bureaucracy, or excessive controls and regulations,
may make the system's policies and operations
ineffective.
Internal institutional conflicts and personal rivalries
and hostilities may harm, and even disrupt, the
operation of the dictatorship.
Intellectuals and students may become restless in
response to conditions, restrictions, doctrinalism,
and repression.
The general public may over time become apathetic,
skeptical, and even hostile to the regime.
Regional, class, cultural, or national differences may
become acute.
The power hierarchy of the dictatorship is always
unstable to some degree, and at times extremely so.
Individuals do not only remain in the same position in
the ranking, but may rise or fall to other ranks or be
removed entirely and replaced by new persons.
Sections of the police or military forces may act to
achieve their own objectives, even against the will of
established dictators, including coup d'état.
If the dictatorship is new, time is required for it to
become well established.
With so many decisions made by so few people in the
dictatorship, mistakes of judgment, policy, and action
are likely to occur.
If the regime seeks to avoid these dangers and
decentralizes controls and decision making, its control
over the central levers of power may be further
eroded.
With knowledge of such inherent weaknesses, the democratic
opposition can seek to aggravate these "Achilles' heels"
deliberately in order to alter the system drastically or to
disintegrate it.
Almost every item on the list above applies to our government, and
each can be exploited to good effect, given a well thought out and
coordinated overall strategy. Recognition of this fact should be
very empowering to activists striving to restore liberty!
Exercising Power
What techniques of action will capitalize on the theory of
political power? ... The alternative of choice is political
defiance. Political defiance has the following
characteristics:
It does not accept that the outcome will be decided by
the means of fighting chosen by the dictatorship.
It is difficult for the regime to combat.
It can uniquely aggravate weakness of the dictatorship
and can sever its sources of power.
It can in action be widely dispersed but can also be
concentrated on a specific objective.
It leads to errors of judgment and action by the
dictators.
It can effectively utilize the population as a whole
and the society's groups and institutions in the
struggle to end the brutal domination of the few.
It helps to spread the distribution of effective power
in the society, making the establishment an
maintenance of a democratic society more possible.
The workings of nonviolent struggle
Nonviolent struggle is a much more complex and varied means of
struggle then is violence. Instead the struggle is fought by
psychological, social, economic and political weapons applied
by the population and the institutions of society. These have
been known under various names of protest, strikes,
noncooperation, boycotts, disaffection, and people power.
. . .
About two hundred specific methods of nonviolent action have
been identified, and there are certainly scores more. These
methods are classified under three broad categories: protest
and persuasion, noncooperation, and intervention.
Sharp provides the framework for the design and execution of campaigns
which have been successfully applied in the past to battle oppression.
His books are filled with many specific suggestions and are well worth
reading by anyone interested in further thinking on this subject.
However, he constantly returns to the most important point: that
ultimate success can be measured in proportion to the advance work
done in preparing a well thought out plan.
The Need for Strategic Planning
Very careful thought based on a realistic assessment of
the situation and the capabilities of the populace is required
in order to select effective ways to achieve freedom under such
circumstances.
If one wishes to accomplish something, it is wise to plan how
to do it. The more important the goal, or the graver the
consequences of failure, the more important the planning
becomes. Strategic planning increases the likelihood that
all available resources will be mobilized and employed most
effectively.
...
Some individuals and groups, of course, may not see the need
for broad long-term planning of a liberation movement.
Instead, they may naively think that if they simply espouse
their goal strongly, firmly, and long enough, it will somehow
come to pass. Others assume that if they simply live and
witness according to their principles and ideals in the face
of difficulties, they are doing all they can to implement them.
The espousal of humane goals and loyalty to ideals are
admirable, but are grossly inadequate to end a dictatorship
and to achieve freedom. ...
There are also activists who base their actions on what they
"feel" they should do. These approaches are, however, not only
egocentric but also offer no guidance for developing a grand
strategy of liberation. ... What is needed instead is action
based on careful calculation of the "next steps" required to
topple the dictatorship. Without strategic analysis,
resistance leaders will often not know what that "next step"
should be, for they have not thought carefully about the
successive specific steps required to achieve victory. ...
It is also just possible that that some democratic movements do
not plan a comprehensive strategy to bring down dictatorship,
concentrating instead only on immediate issues, for another
reason. Inside themselves, they do not really believe that
the dictatorship can be ended by their own efforts. Therefore,
planning how to do so is considered to be a romantic waste of
time or an exercise in futility. ... Unfortunately, because comprehensive strategic plans for
liberation are rarely, if ever, developed, dictatorships appear
much more durable than they in fact are. They survive for
years or decades longer than need be the case.
Planning Strategy
Particularly, strategists will need to answer many fundamental
questions, such as these:
What are the main obstacles to achieving freedom?
What factors will facilitate achieving freedom?
What are the main strengths of the dictatorship?
What are the various weaknesses of the
dictatorship?
To what degree are the sources of power for the
dictatorship vulnerable?
What are the strengths of the democratic forces and
the general population?
What are the weaknesses of the democratic forces and
how can they be corrected?
What is the status of third parties, not immediately
involved in the conflict, who already assist or might
assist either the dictatorship or the democratic
movement, and if so in what way?
[Emphasis added]
There is a lot of truth conveyed in these few paragraphs. It is time
for people to decide whether or not they are really serious about
fighting for their freedom, or are mearly content to complain about
its loss. And if the choice is to fight, then are they willing to
take the steps that are realistically required of them in order to be
successful in their pursuit?
Planning for democracy
It should be remembered that against a dictatorship, the
objective of the grand strategy is not simply to bring down
the dictators but to install a democratic system and make
the rise of a new dictatorship impossible. To accomplish
these objectives, the chosen means of struggle will need to
contribute to a change in the distribution of effective power
in the society.
...
When the grand strategy of the struggle has been carefully
planned there are sound reasons for making it widely known.
The large number of people required to participate may be
more willing and able to act if they understand the general
conception, as well as specific instructions. This knowledge
could potentially have a very positive effect on their morale,
their willingness to participate, and to act appropriately.
Spreading the idea of noncooperation
For successful political defiance against a dictatorship, it is
essential that the population grasp the idea of noncooperation.
... Once the general conception of noncooperation is grasped,
people will be able to understand the relevance of future calls
to practice noncooperation with the dictatorship. They will
also be able on their own to improvise a myriad of specific
forms of noncooperation in new situations.
Objectivists, libertarians and many conservatives understand that
democracy is a fatally flawed goal, and that a properly
implemented constitutional republic, founded on a respect for
individual rights and which strictly limits the power and scope of all
government, is what is actually required. Nevertheless, the points
Sharp raises remain fully applicable. It is never enough to fight
against something. One must be able to articulate what one is
fighting for, and always keep a vision of that positive goal
in mind as the driver of one's actions.
An Example of How Small Actions Can Produce Large
Results
Madness, and then illumination.
— Orson Scott Card
When reading about nonviolent political defiance in Gene
Sharp's books, I was reminded of a small, but very powerful
scene from Orson Scott Card's science fiction novel, Shadow
Puppets, which perfectly illustrates this method in
action.
The story is set in Earth's future and deals with geopolitical
conflict, primarily between the countries of Asia and the
Middle-East. At this point in the story, China has invaded
India and is attempting to occupy the country. India's chief
political strategist, a young girl named Virlomi, is struggling
with how to mount a resistance. The following passages are
selected excerpts from Chapter 5, titled, Stone in the
Road.
(Note: The entire chapter may be read here.)
India was simply too large to digest all at once, and like the
British before them, the Chinese found it easier to rule India
by dominating the bureaucratic class and leaving the common
folk alone.
Within a few days, Virlomi realized that this was precisely the
situation she had to change.
. . .
There was no solidarity. As always before, the conquerors were
able to rule India because most Indians did not know what it
meant to live in "India." They though they lived in this
village or that one, and cared little about the great issues
that kept their cities in turmoil.
. . .
The indian people had to be roused from their slumber now,
while there were still allies outside their borders who might
help them, while the Chinese were still overextended and dared
not devote too many resources to the occupation.
I will bring war down on there heads to save them as a nation,
as a people, as a culture. I will bring war upon them while
there is a chance of victory, to save them from war when there
is no possible outcome but despair.
. . .
She set down the pitchers at the side of the road, picked up
a few stones and carried them to the middle of the road. There
she set them and returned for more, arranging them in a broken
line right across the road.
Only a few dozen stones, when she was done. Not a barrier of
any kind. And yet it was a wall. It was as obvious as a
monument.
. . .
Virlomi looked around at the others. "It's what they told me
in the other towns that had a wall. It's the Great Wall of
India. Too late to keep the barbarian invaders out. But in
every village, they drop stones, one or two at a time, to make
the wall that says, We don't want you here, this is our land,
we are free. Because we can still build our wall."
. . .
Virlomi went from village to village, each time pretending that
she was only passing along a custom she had seen in other
places.
. . .
In the third week she came for the first time to a village that
really did already have a wall. She did not explain anything
to them, for they already knew — the word was spreading
without her intervention. She only added to the wall and moved
quickly on.
It was still only one small corner of southern India, she knew.
But it was spreading. It had a life of it's own. Soon the
Chinese would notice. Soon they would begin tearing down the
walls, sending bulldozers to clear the road — or
conscript Indians to move the stones themselves.
And when the walls were torn down, or the people were forced to
remove their walls, the real struggle would begin. For now the
Chinese would be reaching down into every village, destroying
something that the people wanted to have. Something that meant
"India" to them. That's what the secret meaning of the wall
had been from the moment she started dropping stones to make
the first one.
The wall existed precisely so that the Chinese would tear it
down. And she named the wall the "flag of India" precisely so
that when the people saw their walls destroyed, they would see
and feel the destruction of India. Their nation. A nation of
wallbuilders.
And so, as soon as the Chinese turned their backs, the Indians
walking from place to place would carry stones and drop them in
the road, and the wall would grow again.
What would the Chinese do about it? Arrest everyone who
carried stones? Make stones illegal? Stones were not a riot.
Stones did not threaten soldiers. Stones were not sabotage.
Stones were not a boycott. The walls were easily bypassed or
pushed aside. It caused the Chinese no harm at all.
Yet it would provoke them into making the Indian people feel
the boot of the oppressor.
The walls were like a mosquito bite, making the Chinese itch
but never bleed. Not an injury, just an annoyance. But it
infected the new Chinese Empire with a disease. A fatal one,
Virlomi hoped.
And I hope you can see how this little act implements many of the
strategic points that Sharp identifies as effective means of resisting
despots. I also hope it is clear how similar strategies could be
developed to resist the totalitarian acts of our government. Consider
the many ways that our current political system disrupts your life, and
try to think up small ways that you can become the pebble in the shoe
of our politicians and the sand in the machinery of our government.
Then find ways to spread your ideas to others so that they can join in
and help turn a minor annoyance into a serious impediment.
If you found Card's little story interesting, then you might like to
read just the introduction to Chapter
12: Putting out Fires, where Han Tzu, the Chinese military
strategist, come up with his own plan to address the "flag of India."
And this shows exactly why Thomas Jefferson was correct when he
observed that, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Because there is always someone, right around the corner, who is
actively working to undermine your right to be free.
The Right to Your Rights
Get up, stand up,
Stand up for your rights.
Get up, stand up,
Don't give up the fight.
— Bob Marley
Over the past 100 years, We, the People of the United States, became
complacent and allowed our freedoms to be taken from us, bit by bit.
It probably started in 1788, soon after the adoption of the U.S.
Constitution, but the clearance sale didn't really take off until
1913 when Woodrow Wilson nationalized the banking system, launched
the income tax, and reintroduced the military draft, among other
serious transgressions. This was the point when the citizens should
have rightfully risen up in revolt, just as the colonists had done at
the original Tea Party rebellion. But instead, by accepting these
gross violations of our rights with quiet resignation, a signal was
sent that this, and more, would be tolerated. And
"more" was soon to follow, and then "more"
after that, leading us to the sorry place we find ourselves today.
We must throw out all of the rationalizations and accept the plain fact
that the true fault lies neither in the actions of politicians, nor in
the structure of government, but in the failure of enough free citizens
to act in the manner necessary to demand an uncompromising respect for
their rights. Our rights have become devalued because we
stopped valuing them ourselves! Ayn Rand wrote:
"'Value' is what one acts to gain and/or keep."
Failure to take action in defense of one's rights is a clear statement
that they are not considered worth defending. Having assumed that
position, it is no wonder that others then refuse to honor them. They
are merely following your lead. So here we are, and as Dirty Harry
might put it:
"You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do you want your
rights back?' Well, do ya punk?"
Assuming that the answer is "Yes!," then it is now up to us
to fight for and retake that which is our birthright.
The next question then becomes: "Exactly what are you willing
to risk, invest and do to ensure those rights?"
Pushing Back
Here in America we are descended in spirit from revolutionaries
and
rebels — men and women who dare to dissent from accepted
doctrine.
— Dwight D. Eisenhower
Once again, quoting psychologist Michael Hurd from another excellent
article:
The ongoing federal budget and national debt crisis reminds me
of a bad—and frankly hopeless—marriage. Each side
blames the other, without any implied ownership of the problem
itself.
. . .
This leaves the responsibility on the backs of the American
people themselves, the vast majority of whom are not elites,
intellectuals, economists or anything of the sort.
But the American people are not going to do anything, either.
They have assumed there's nothing they can do, and it's really
just a matter of waiting and seeing what happens, and hoping
for the best.
. . .
What will it take? Will America go the way of the few other
free republics who have perished throughout history? Or will
the resurgence of freedom emerge as, itself, an unprecedented
event in human history to date?
Know it or not, like it or not, this is the story of our times.
Most of us will probably live to know the answer. America had
the Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression and the
second World War.
This may be the biggest crisis yet. Its outcome will, for
better or worse, change everything.
This is certainly something to ponder. Do not be one of those who has
assumed that there is nothing that you can do. Don't sit back, hoping
for a white knight to rescue us from the advancing calamity. Be an
active participant in "the story of our time" and help move us
towards a positive outcome. But let's learn from our past mistakes,
and be sure that we adopt a sounder, more effective strategy as we
move forward.
Yes, the last election showed us that a majority of people (at least
of those willing to vote) have chosen collectivism over individualism.
However, that is only a small majority—which means that something
like 48% of people do not actively support the current
trend—which means that, with the proper incentives, there are up
to 150 million people who might be recruited into a visible and vocal
protest movement. As Samuel Adams famously said:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an
irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
From among that deep pool of potential recruits, our task is to locate,
activate and coordinate the important minority still in possession of
that evaporating American Spirit, and who, like the Founding Fathers,
are still willing to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives,
our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in the service of liberty.
For it is this small group who will make all the difference by leading
the way, blazing the path which many others will then follow.
Earlier, I said that I agreed with Rand's position that cultural change
must necessarily precede political change. To restore a political
system that truly upholds freedom and rights, it will be necessary
to alter the fundamental moral basis of society, moving it from its
current implicit and explicit message of self-sacrificing altruism to
one promoting self-actualization, responsibility, and personal
happiness as virtues. And this is why I support the actions of the
intellectuals who are planting the philosophical seeds that will yield
long-range result.
However, there are other more immediate methods of influencing people
and soliciting their participation that appeal to their better emotions
and self-interests. These tactics may not produce fully consistent and
long-lasting results, but they can still be valuable in generating
more immediate action required to avert some aspects of the crisis we
now face. Let's investigate some possibilities in this category and
see how they could also have a positive effect upon our culture.
Tactics: From the Bottom Up
If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.
— Benjamin Franklin
No more quiet resignation. It's time to get active and noisy —
and I mean really active and really noisy! Over the past
four years there have been polite Tea Party protests and letter writing
campaigns which have certainly conveyed a message and had some impact.
But it is time to raise the bar and start leaving some indelible slap
mark on the faces of those that demonstrate such contempt for our
lives, our rights and our autonomy. We must harness the frustration,
disgust and anger of people across the country and refocus it as a
passionate demand for liberty, in ways that cannot be ignored. We have
to create a protest movement that grows louder by the day, coupled with
individual actions that work to cripple those who abuse their positions
of power. Here are some suggestions:
Secession:
If a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from
a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country—it
has the right to do so.
— Ayn Rand
After the November 6th election, citizens across the country
felt so alienated from their government that they immediately
began filing petitions on the White House
petition
website for their state to secede from the union. By
November 15th, petitions for all
50 states had been created and hundreds of thousands of
signatures had been submitted—not by cranks, but by once
free people who were shouting that they had had enough and were
unwilling to passively stand by for another four years as their
liberties were further violated! Of course, the White House
petition site is a ridiculous joke intended to amuse, distract
and disempower the masses. All of the petitions were
summarily dismissed,
and yet, I do not think this was a foolish act on the part of
the people.
I support a continuing and expanding secessionist movement, not
because I think that secession is a particularly good geopolitical
idea, nor because I think that it is likely to be successful. I
support it because it is an excellent form of very visible and
vocal protest against the loss of freedom citizens and states are
experiencing at the hands of the federal government, and it brings
to the forefront of debate the critical issues of liberty,
individual rights and a constitutionally limited government.
Currently, the state of Texas has an organization called the
Texas Nationalist
Movement which fights on for state independence, and I would
encourage groups in other states to organize similar movements
as a means of keeping this issue active. This is a perfect example
of becoming a very bothersome pebble in the shoe of the federal
government, and every moment that the Obama administration is
forced into focusing on states' rights issues is a moment they are
unable to function elsewhere.
However, I don't think that these state-based movements are
necessarily the most effective form of protest. Because they
require organized group efforts, they are difficult to manage and
impose considerable overhead. So, in addition to those actions,
I suggest a personal secessionist movement, where
individuals declare that because of the violations of their rights,
along with the many illegal actions taken by the legislative and
administrative branches which overstep the enumerated powers
authorized by the constitution, that we, as individuals, no longer
recognize the legitimate authority of the government. As the
Declaration of Independence says:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government"
At this point, I see this particular action, not as any form
of civil disobedience or illegal activity that could get one
arrested, but strictly as an exercise of free speech—a
pronouncement declaring the withdrawal of moral support for
our current corrupt form of government. There are a number of
creative possibilities that could be employed to communicate
one's stance. Individuals could write blog articles or letters
to the editor expressing their support for this grassroots
movement and the reasons why. We could wear T-shirts with a
clever personal secessionist message, or put up yard
signs and employ bumper stickers in order to generate dialog with
others, allowing us to express our concerns and invite others
to join us.
With enough participation and promotion, I think this idea could
eventually go viral and take on a life of its own, much like the
"Flag of India" wall building in Card's story. And like
all the truly effective forms of protest, this secessionist idea
really turns the government's actions against itself. While
preferring to ignore the entire thing, The more they are ignored,
the more dissatisfied people will become, causing the movement to
expand. And the more vocal and widespread the protest, the more
the government is then forced to respond, creating its own
uncomfortable political dialog.
I would be interested in hearing from others who think this is
an interesting idea and would like to pursue it further.
Nullification:
Nullification
is the doctrine, originally proposed by Jefferson and Madison, that
the States, having formed the Union, sit in final authority on the
exercise of federal powers, and may nullify (i.e., reject) federal
laws that are judged to exceed the powers delegated to it by the
U.S. Constitution. With the expansion of federal powers in the
20th Century, the theory of nullification has been revived,
and is being actively investigated in relation to a number of
recent federal actions. For example:
In the 2012 election, the states of WA and CO have
effectively nullified federal
narcotics laws by legalizing the sale and use of
marijuana.
A number of states have passed or are proposing
legislation to nullify all or part of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA),
which includes provisions for the suspension of Habeas
corpus and the indefinite detention of American citizens.
This includes:
AZ,
FL,
MI,
MO,
NV,
SC,
TN,
TX,
VA,
WA,
WY,
and possibly others as well.
States and Sheriffs are actively preparing in advance to
nullify any gun
control legislation passed by the current
administration. For example, Tim Mueller, Sheriff of Linn
County, OR, notifies VP Joe Biden of his intentions here.
Localities, such as the town of Sedgwick,
Maine, are passing "Food Sovereignty" laws to nullify the
recent draconian interventions of the FDA.
All of these actions, and others like them, are extremely important
in reasserting control over a runaway federal government that has
simple assumed the ability to legislate anything and everything
without limits, while not just ignoring, but actively trampling
citizens' rights. If you find one or more of these issues relevant
to your life, then I strongly recommend that you become involved
with an organization in your state that is pursuing nullification
legislation, and contribute your support to the cause. It is much
easier to influence the policies of your state than it is at the
federal level, so apply pressure where you have a better chance
of having impact.
Just as the concept of nullification applies to the relationship
between the Union and its constituents, the states, the same
argument can be made concerning the relationship between the
various states and their constituents, the
citizens—which means you! And just as the
states are learning how to reassert their sovereign rights, we
citizens must once again do the same for ourselves. When states
act to violate our rights, then it is incumbent upon us to declare
the state's actions null and void and be prepared to uphold those
convictions through our actions. Winston Smith of NY (a pen name
to be sure) fully understands this, and on January 20, 2013, he
crafted an open letter titled, Declaration
To Defy The NY SAFE Act Of 2013, which reads in part:
We the People of New York State, that is, the natural
persons lawfully residing within this state, do hereby
order and direct, The governor and the senate to
immediately repeal the NY SAFE act of 2013.
This is not a request or a demand, but an order and
directive, as it is unlawful, null and void, being in
direct opposition to the Second Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, and in violation of
New York Civil Rights — Article 2 — § 4.
This is the will of the people, and as you are our duly
appointed representatives, you will see to it that our
will is carried out.
The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is the RIGHT of all the
people. This RIGHT is not subject to registration.
Registration means surrendering our lawful RIGHT in
exchange for permission, which may or may not be granted,
or can be taken away, at the behest of the magistrate.
This goes beyond infringement or diminishing our RIGHT.
It is direct violation of the very principle upon which
this RIGHT was declared in our constitution.
. . . Listen here now: We will not comply. We will not
register our firearms, let alone surrender them. We will
not be your subjects. You may deem us criminals for doing
so, but it is you who have broken the law, and we who
defend it.
Read the entire letter. This may be the most important document
of this decade, since it sets the framework for what must happen
if we are ever to regain our liberty in this country. The
People—the individual citizens—you and I—must
learn how to reestablish control over our own lives. We must
reassert our desire for personal freedom. And we must recognize
that our freedom require that we act in service of it—that
we must defend it in the face of those who constantly seek to
invalidate it and render us their slaves.
Starving the Beast:
Obama and his minions are doing everything within their power to
destroy your wealth. They have institutionalized unemployment by
following New Deal policies which long ago were proven failures.
They interfere with business at every level to insure a minimum
of customers and a maximum of regulatory overhead. They are
tightening the screws in order to extract wealth from every possible
source. They are destroying savings by holding interest rates
near zero while devaluing cash through inflation and massive debt
accumulation.
Virginia
is not waiting around for the collapse of the dollar, and has
joined 13
other state who have or are considering minting their own
alternative currencies backed by gold and silver rather than a wish
and a prayer.
On the economic front we should do whatever we can to starve
the government, and we should do it immediately so that the
consequences of Obama's policies are experienced while he is
still in office where he receives the well deserved blame. To
whatever extent possible, consider adjusting you finances to
best protect yourself for the future while minimizing any support
for the state.
Reduce your taxable income to a minimum
Maximize contributions to IRA/401k/HSA
Avoid capital gains where possible
Relocate to a state without an income tax
Work part time
Reduce spending to avoid additional sales taxes
Avoid unnecessary purchases
Barter when possible
Avoid restaurants — eat at home
Purchase used rather than new
Order online to avoid sales tax
Relocate to a state with low or no sales tax
Reposition your finances
Withdraw all cash from the banking system
Dump all government bonds and securities
Convert dollars into gold and silver
Invest in commodities
Invest in emerging overseas markets
Invest in foreign countries with strong currencies
California, one of the most mismanaged states in the country,
attempts to tap its residents for more and more money. The
predictable response is that companies
close up shop and relocate to other more business-friendly states,
while, on average, a quarter-million residents
flee each year, depriving the state of billions in lost revenue.
Illinois tries the same thing and produces the same
results. Maryland imposes a huge new taxes on on the wealthy,
and ends up losing 31,000
residents in a four year period.
Tired of being abused by their governments, Facebook co-founder,
Eduardo
Saverin and France's Gerard
Depardieu relinquish their citizenship. Like these and so many
others, you can always vote with your feet and deprive oppressive
regimes of all of your talent, effort and capital. And as an added
benefit, there is nothing quite so satisfying as seeing the sad
look on the face of progressives' as revenues actually fall as a
result of their tax increases!
Starve the propaganda wing of government by canceling subscriptions
to all newspapers and news magazines, and refuse to watch or listen
to news outlets that promote a totalitarian agenda.
When possible, boycott all businesses that advocate for a
public-private partnership. Translated, this means they support
using the government to act as their mob enforcers, either
requiring that you do business directly with them, or else
transferring some of your wealth to them through their government
goons. Promote their competition.
Organizing:
Let's revisit Mark Amend's quote from the opening to this article:
"Be strong enough to stand alone, be yourself enough to
stand
apart, but be wise enough to stand together when the time
comes."
Many important forms of protest can be executed individually,
with the impact accruing from the additive effect of numerous
singular acts. However, there are also certain tasks that are more
successfully accomplished through group actions. It is also true
that the closer you operate to the source, the more effective your
actions will typically be. This is why small groups, functioning
locally can often achieve more meaningful results than those
working at the state, national or international levels.
In my area, I have recently found two liberty-oriented activist
groups that are making a real difference at the city and state
level. The first is the
Citizens' Alliance for Property
Rights which works to insure that the property rights of all
individuals are not infringed by tyrannical government action.
The second is Liberty 21, a group which is fighting at the city
level to halt and then reverse the imposition of the United
Nations' Agenda 21/ICLEI
action plan.
I recommend that you seek out the worthwhile local activist groups
operating within your community and contribute your efforts to
seeing their objectives realized.
Going Galt:
About one year into Obama's first term, for many people the writing
was already on the wall as to where this country was headed, and
from a number of sources there were concurrent calls to follow
the lead of the heros in Atlas
Shrugged and simply withdraw in one form or another from a
decaying and abusive society. This spontaneous movement came to be
known as "Going Galt." Wendy McElroy wrote an article
titled, When
to Say: Enough! where she does an excellent job of
explaining this in greater detail:
"Going Galt" refers to the process by which an individual
removes support from the political system as an act of
disgust, protest or self-respect. Usually, the withdrawal
involves a financial disconnect but it also can involve the
decision to withdraw one's talent and skill. For example,
an industrialist may decide not to run a factory, a doctor
might cease to practice medicine. The decision could be
prompted by myriad factors: disgust with paperwork, an
agonizing lawsuit... An increasingly common motive: people
prefer not to earn money that is snatched away by taxes and
"redistributed" to those who produce nothing. The
situation is akin to a farmer plowing under a field rather
than sell at a price that is tantamount to theft.
"Going Galt" does not refer to forming a new society. For
many if not most people, the withdrawal is partial and a
matter of commonsense [sic] as much as political protest.
The economic and social equation has changed. When a
government penalizes your productivity to the point of
seizure through taxes, paperwork, possible lawsuits etc.,
then ceasing to produce is a way to remove yourself as a
target and alleviate stress. Suddenly, spending time with
your children or hobbies becomes far more attractive.
. . .
"Going Galt" is a destination at which people arrive from
different directions and intentions. My intention is as a
political protest and in a desire for personal freedom. I
am tired through to the marrow of my bones of supporting
the thieves and hypocritical looters who call themselves
"public servants." I am far from alone in this utter
visceral disgust. Remember again, at the end of
Atlas Shrugged, a slew of ordinary people who have no
political ideology "Go Galt" by refusing to contribute
their energy to a parasite society or even by sabotage.
Everyone can participate in Going Galt by finding one or more
aspects of your life that can be changed in order to increase
personal happiness while withholding one's time, energy, money
or sanction from social structures that have been engineered to
usurp rather than preserve your liberty. While the individual
actions you choose to take may seem small and even petty, when
you add up those withheld efforts across a large group, the
overall effect can be quite large and very meaningful.
For example, I have stopped making contributions to all charities,
as I will no longer pretend that I have a voluntary choice in
dispose of my income when it is already being taken and
redistributed by force. Those voluntary contributions simply
help prop up a criminal enterprise. Take the case of natural
disasters such as hurricanes
Katrina
or
Sandy.
In the aftermath of these events, compassionate people might wish
to extend a helping hand to those who suffer through these events.
But while they are making a voluntary monetary contribution or
offering aid in other forms, the government is saddling all of us
with an involuntary bill in excess of $155 billion—much of
which goes to
fraud,
waste, or
unrelated activities.
Any voluntary contributions simply help make more of this type of
theft
possible.
For a number of other examples of people who have Gone Galt, see
my 2011 article,
The
Straw.
Civil Disobedience:
Passive resistance can be an effective weapon against the state.
In another interesting essay titled, Two
Attitudes toward the State, Wendy McElroy reflects on an
enlightening example set by Henry David Thoreau:
An invaluable resource ... has been Henry David Thoreau's
essay "On Civil Disobedience." Specifically, I turned over
and over the story of his famous one-night stay in jail for
refusing to pay a tax...and what happened directly after
his release. And here I'll let Thoreau speak for
himself...
"It was formerly the custom in our village, when a
poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to
salute him, looking through their fingers, which were
crossed to represent the jail window ... My neighbors
did not thus salute me, but first looked at me, and
then at one another, as if I had returned from a long
journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the
shoemaker's ... When I was let out the next morning, I
proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my
mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party..." Thoreau
journeyed off with a swarm of children who moved
joyfully through the fields and forest. At one point,
Thoreau paused and noted to himself, "in the midst of
a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two
miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be
seen."
Upon his release from jail, Thoreau felt no rage toward his
neighbors, no bitterness. He did not brood or rail against
the injustice of his arrest. He shed everything but the
insights he had gathered from the experience. And, then,
he went about what he called "the business of living."
That is a wonderful phrase. The business of living.
When a tax collector knocked on his door and confronted him
with the demand to pay up, Thoreau probably asked himself
the same question I've been asking myself since 9/11.
Namely, what is my relationship to the State? In
answering, it is important to understand that Thoreau's
refusal to pay the tax was not the act of a determined
political dissident; it wasn't part of a pattern in his
life through which he fought for the ideal of freedom.
Thoreau refused to pay because he knew the specific tax
would support the Mexican-American war, which he thought
was immoral; rendering support to the war violated his
sense of decency. In short, he did not want to cooperate
with evil.
But unless and until the state literally knocked on his
door, Thoreau was happy to go about the business of living
as though the state did not exist. His insight while
standing on a high hill is simple but profound: "and then
the State was nowhere to be seen."
. . .
Oddly enough, the attitude of ignoring or obviating the
State — again, as much as possible — may well
be the most effective strategy for countering it. That's
not my purpose; my purpose is the business of living. But
by privatizing your own life, you make the state
increasingly irrelevant, which is what politicians fear
most. They are desperate to be part of our lives, to teach
our children, to regulate our work, to read our messages
and hear our phone calls, to dictate our medical
choices... And the most effective personal response when
the State knocks at your door may well be to not answer
even by the act of raising your fist.
Thoreau, like Gandhi, adopted methods of passive resistance in
response to government actions judged to be morally wrong. Unlike
active resisters such as the Occupy Wall Street crowd or the
anarchists, who choose to destroy
property, disrupt
business, inconvenience
others, or commit
murder, passive resistance can actually be more insidious,
because, as McElroy so accurately points out, nothing is more
important to totalitarians than meddling in and controlling your
life—just ask NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg!—and nothing
get under their skin more than being denied that opportunity. This
sort of irritant can anger politicians, which may cause them to act
rashly in response and end up hurting themselves politically, in
the process.
Any form of civil disobedience includes risks, but the level of
risk must be weighed against the possible objectives to be
obtained. Individual acts of non-cooperation can often fly under
the radar, but are easily punished when so deemed "necessary" by
the authorities. On the other hand, well coordinated acts of mass
non-cooperation spread out over a dispersed population can be
effective, both as a means for generating publicity and for making
it difficult for the government to single out any small group or
individual for selective punishment.
Everyone is encouraged to consider how acts of civil disobedience
might play a role in their life. And also think about how those
ideas you have might be communicated to others and leveraged into
coordinated means of protest. Here are a few ideas from Fort Liberty to
get the juices flowing:
Comply with government orders as slowly as possible
Fill out government forms incompletely and illegibly
Pay all taxes and fines at the last possible moment
Take a job with the government and then do it poorly,
or not at all
Withholding Services:
If you are a business owner, one way to really gum up the
day-to-day workings of government is to withhold normal services
upon which these these agencies have come to rely. Yes, this may
incur a cost for refusing to do business, but you must calculate
just what price you are willing to pay to fight for your personal
freedom. For example, if you are a provider of office supplies
to your local city hall, informing them that you will no longer be
selling to them will create a number of problem and costs that
those administrators will have to bear as they search for
alternative sources. If you are located in a small town and know
that the owners of other similar businesses share your concerns
over the abuses of government reach, you might be able to organize
them in a boycott which would then make city operations much
more difficult.
USA Today
reports that the Burlington, VT city council put forth a measure to
ban semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines. A firing
range in a nearby town was used by the Burlington police for
target practice. In response to the proposed legislation, the
range informed the police department that all privileges had been
suspended, effective immediately! Now that's the sort of strong,
immediate feedback that can have impact.
If you cannot completely withhold services from the government,
then another possibility is subterfuge or sabotage. I'm thinking
of something along the lines of what Oskar Schindler did when he
ran a munitions business in Nazi Germany, but never actually
produced a functional shell in his factory, thereby undermining
the German war effort.
Politics:
As indicated above, I believe that spending time, energy or money
attempting to directly influence politics, either through the
voting booth or by trying to persuade entrenched politicians to
vote a particular way on specific legislation, to be mostly a waste
of time. A much more effective approach would be to use those
resources to engage in one's own form of protest and in convincing
other liberty-minded individuals to honor their anger at what is
happening in this country by getting involved in some form of
protest as well. An organized and growing protest movement that
visibly demonstrates its rising ire at our current form and method
of government will get considerably more attention from the
politicians, while making it increasingly more difficult for them
accomplish their own goals.
However, if political activism is to be a part of the mix, then I
would suggest that great effort be put behind a call for the
inclusion of an opt-out provision being part of all
existing or new social/economic programs. Until the time where
government is once again fully constrained by proper constitutional
limits, the next best way to fight the collectivism being rammed
down our throats is to allow each person a choice of
participating in these enterprises, or going it alone.
Rather than arguing over a myriad of details concerning how to
reform public education, or entitlements such as Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, welfare, etc., on which politicians
will never agree, let's put control back in the hands of the
individual by allowing each person to decide for themselves, based
upon their own personal context, whether they wish to remain in
these various institutions, or would prefer to opt-out. People
sticking with the program would continue to pay taxes and receive
benefits, while those opting out would have their taxes reduced by
a specified amount in exchange for agreeing to forgo all future
benefits. This solves the problem of deciding where cutoffs should
be made in phasing out these programs, by letting every person
decide for themselves. One person may believe that they have
"invested" in Social Security to such an extent that it is in their
best interest to stick with the program, while another may see the
opportunity to flee the Ponzi scheme and take full control of their
retirement investment as an opportunity, and jump at the chance.
Whatever the choice, individuals would once again be empowered to
make choices concerning their life, rather than being forced into
the one-size-fits-all approach of the central planners.
For a fuller discussion of this idea, see my 2011 article,
An
Open Letter to Politicians and Political Candidates.
Tactics: From the Top Down
We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral
base: altruism.
We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its
epistemological base: irrationalism.
We cannot fight against anything, unless we fight for
something —
and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of
man as a rational being.
— Ayn Rand
Up to this point, this article has focused on what is wrong with the
world at large, with our government, with our country, with our
culture, and what steps we can still take to fight to preserve and
restore our freedom. That is the "Bottom Up" perspective which
begins by identifying low level problems and then seeks ways to
address them. This approach relies on negative emotions such as
anger to fuel passion, which in turn motivates a willingness to act.
But the Bottom Up approach is insufficient for getting the job done.
It's insufficient because, while it identifies what is disliked and
needs to be escaped, it provides no vision—no goal—to
guide a forward direction of travel. It provides no hope! For that,
we require a "Top Down" approach; a perspective which starts
by identifying where we wish to go, and then formulates a plan to
get there.
The beauty of the American political experiment was that it recognized
that there was no single, ultimate goal that applied to everyone.
It recognized that people were individuals, differing in untold ways,
and therefore left it up to each to pursue their own unique vision of
happiness, providing only the framework necessary to make that
possible.
Throughout this article I have often spoken of restoring liberty or
freedom. But freedom is not an end-goal. We do not cherish freedom
for freedom's sake. We cherish our freedom because it affords us the
opportunity to pursue self-chosen goals which bring us happiness. It
is easy to lose sight of this when one is mired solely in a bottom up
mindset. And this is why we must be careful to always maintain that
top down view which keeps us anchored to reality.
With that thought in mind, I would like to conclude by sharing a few
observations made by Bill Whittle that
may inspire optimism in a better and brighter future, so long as we
continue to fight for it.
I was introduced to the following hour long video titled, "Where do
we go now?", by a friend. Filmed on November 13, 2012, this is
basically Whittle's postmortem on the election. There are two segments
here that I find particularly relevant to setting a positive vision for
our future. The first, from 0:38:20—0:45:40 (7:20
minutes) is a very interesting discussion of the transformation of 18th
century agricultural America which, by necessity, established a
decentralized (horizontal) form of government, into a 20th century
industrialized America with a highly centralized (vertical) government.
The encouraging thing is the observation that we have now moved on to
a 21st century information economy, which is once again decentralized
and incapable of being centrally managed, meaning that our current
form of government is as inevitably doomed as the makers of buggy
whips and film cameras.
The second interesting segment in the video above begins at
0:57:10 and runs to the end (5:42 minutes), where Whittle
discusses his vision for the future of private space travel and man's
inevitable return to the moon.
But to really get become inspired, I do not think anything can beat
the following 2013 virtual presidential inaugural address (20 minutes).
Just knowing that there are others out there capable of articulating
these thoughts cannot help but fill any of us with renewed hope for
our future. Enjoy.
Conclusion
Think of your life, your goals and your values more as a personal state
of mind rather than as an element of the society in which we find
ourselves. We are not the product of our society; society is the
product of that which we individuals pursue and achieve. So I would
say that regardless of what external events are occurring at this
moment, our rights and the meaning behind the U.S. Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence remain intact and in force for any of us
who chose to honor them with our words and our deeds. Let's go
forward, reclaiming that which is ours by right, and work to build that
better world in which we wish to live.
Subject: The Straw
Back on September 17th, during his weekly radio address,
President Obama proclaimed that Americans must finally start paying
their "fair share" in order to reduce the federal deficit. Of
course this is all just verbal misdirection used to hide the fact
that what he is actually talking about is merely another run at one
of the most important goals of his administration —
wealth redistribution — from those who have earned
it to those that covet it, with the ruling government class taking
their usual handling fee in the process.
And who is it that is not paying their fair share? Of course
it is certainly not the virtuous bottom 50% of wage-earners who
contribute little to nothing in income and payroll tax. (The bottom
47% pay no income tax at all, and that is precisely what makes them
virtuous!) No, according to Obama, it's the greedy, cheating, wealthy
households and businesses — the now famous 1% — that have
been holding out on the rest of us, and justice demands that they must
finally be forced to pay up.
And how are the top 1% fleecing us? By currently carrying only 40% of
the total income and payroll tax burden (up from 18% in 1980). And if
you increase that pool to the top 1.5% of households, representing the
magic $250,000 income number, then that group pays roughly half the
total. (For more details, see this article.)
So one is forced to ask, in Obama's mind just what level of tax burden
does he deem to be fair to impose upon that small minority of
Americans? Is it sixty percent? Seventy percent? More? He never
tells us, because there is no hard and fast answer. For Obama, merely
earning more than someone else is all the evidence required to condemn
that person and justify the use of government force to confiscate their
ill gotten "surplus."
Billionaire businessman Warren Buffett seems to agree with Obama's
egalitarian philosophy, and famously issued his call to
"Stop Coddling the Super-Rich",
demanding that the government raise taxes on him and other wealthy
people. Taking up the cause, a group of twenty-four "Patriotic
Millionaires" descended upon the Capitol to demand that Congress
raise taxes on the wealthy in order to deal with the serious federal
budget deficits and growing national debt. And just how serious were
they? When confronted by reporter Michelle Fields of The Daily Caller
(video below) and offered the opportunity to use their great wealth
to make a voluntary debt reduction contribution to the Treasury
Department, they all refused. And neither can I recall Buffett
volunteering some or all of his fortune towards that end. It does
make one wonder whether these patriots are truly concerned
about the debt. Or instead, is it possible that their actual motives
are not quite so altruistic, having more to do with seeing the chains
restricting the freedom and property rights of others pulled ever
tighter, even if it ends up impacting them as well?
"Patriotic Millionaires?"
In 1957, the author and philosopher Ayn Rand published the novel
Atlas
Shrugged, depicting the consequences that inevitably result
from government intervention in the realm of economics. As that story
unfolds, we see the government exerting more and more control over
business activities. However, instead of achieving the promised
improvement, we observe conditions continuing to deteriorate at an
ever accelerating pace. As government policies tie the hands of
competent business leaders, making it increasingly difficult for them
to act on their independent judgment and in service of their own goals,
we do not find them running to the politicians and begging to be
altruistically sacrificed on the pyre of subjugation as we witnessed
with our patriotic millionaires. No. Possessing far too much
integrity to abase themselves in that way, these men and women decide
to go on strike by simply disappearing and leaving the problems of
managing economic production to those who condemn them for their
ability to successfully do so.
Over the past few years more and more people have been shocked to
see in how many ways Atlas Shrugged has proved to be prophetic
in anticipating the specifics actions and consequences that have
resulted from bad political actions driven by an underlying evil
philosophy. And the idea that men of ability, when pressed too far
would choose to strike, is one literary device that has dramatically
presaged today's reality. As Rand put it in a conversation between
her characters, Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden:
"If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his
shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his
chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still
trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength,
and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down
upon his shoulders-what would you tell him to do?"
"I . . . don't know. What . . . could he do? What would you
tell him?"
"To shrug."
Here are some examples of real-life strikers in action:
Stealing from the rich isn't an idea original to Obama; people have
been trying it ever since Ogg caught his first wild boar and Yuup
decided that he would like his "fair share" of that. But
hiring a group of thugs, called "politicians", and getting them to do
all the hard work for you was certainly a civilizing advancement! In
2008, the Maryland "Yuups" identified their "Oggs", and they were
called millionaires. Here's what happened, as reported in the
Wall
Street Journal:
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state
tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy.
Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket,
raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And
because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose
income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as
9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior,
declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and
able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted
the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the
millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In
2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were
filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which
the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial
decline." On those missing returns, the government collects
6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the
extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires
paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year —
even at higher rates.
Push too hard on your victims, and just like Keyser Söze, "Poof,
they're gone!"
On occasion, a few of these individuals will make public the reasons
for their departure, similar to the radio address delivered by
John Galt towards
the end of Atlas Shrugged. Here are excerpts from two such
letters:
Good
Bye and Good Luck, by former Illinois state senator, Roger
Keats.
As we leave Illinois for good, I wanted to say goodbye to my
friends and wish all of you well. I am a lifelong son of the
heartland and proud of it. After 60 years, I leave Illinois
with a heavy heart. BUT enough is enough! The leaders of
Illinois refuse to see we can't continue going in the direction
we are and expect people who have options to stay here. I
remember when Illinois had 25 congressmen. In 2012 we will
have 18. Compared to the rest of the country we have lost
1/4rd [sic] of our population. ...
We live in the most corrupt big city, in the most corrupt big
county in the most corrupt state in America. I am sick and
tired of subsidizing crooks. A day rarely passes without an
article about the corruption and incompetence. Chicago even
got caught rigging the tests to hire police and fire! Our
Crook County CORPORATE property tax system is intentionally
corrupt. The Democrat State Chairman who is also the Speaker
of the Illinois House and the most senior alderman in Chicago
each make well over a million dollars a year putting the fix
in for their client's tax assessments. ...
Our home value is down 40%, our property taxes are up 20% and
our local schools have still another referendum on the ballot
to increase taxes over 20% in one year. I could go on, but
enough is enough. I feel as if we are standing on the deck of
the Titanic and I can see the icebergs right in front of us.
I will miss our friends a great deal. I have called Illinois
home for essentially my entire life. But it is time to go
where there is honest, competent and cost effective government.
We have chosen to vote with our feet and our wallets. My best
to all of you and Good luck!
Why
I'm Leaving New York, by Tom Golisano, Chairman of the
Board of Paychex, Inc.
I love New York. But how much should it cost to call New York
home? Decades of out-of-control budgets, spending increases
and relentless borrowing have made New York simply too
expensive.
Politicians like to talk about incentives — incentives
for businesses to relocate, incentives to buy local and
incentives to make smart decisions. After reviewing the 2009
budget, I have identified the most compelling incentive of all:
a major tax break immediately available to all New Yorkers. To
be eligible, you need only do one thing: move out of New York
state.
Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple simple things:
registering to vote, changing my driver's license, filling out
a domicile certificate and signing a homestead certificate
— in Florida. Combined with spending 184 days a year
outside New York, these simple procedures will save me over
$5 million in New York taxes annually.
That savings doesn't include that Florida has a 6 percent sales
tax, compared to New York's 8 percent or more. Florida has
lower utility taxes and lower gasoline taxes. The Florida
homestead certificate guarantees my property taxes will not
grow more than 3 percent. ...
It's not an easy decision, but I'm being forced away from my
family and friends, a pain shared by too many parents and
grandparents in this state.
I'm leaving. And by domiciling in Florida, I will personally
save $13,800 every single day. That's a pretty strong
incentive.
Like I said, I love New York, but I'm not going to pay New York
more for the waste, corruption and inefficiency that is New
York state government.
The same story has played out over and over again in
New Jersey,
New York,
Rhode Island,
Illinois
and elsewhere. And it's not just wealthy individuals, but entire
businesses which also look to relocate when the burden becomes too
great. As reported in CNN Money:
Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state
budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking
friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.
And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water,
have stepped up their courtship of California companies.
Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are
telling California firms how business-friendly they are in
comparison.
Companies are "disinvesting" in California at a rate five
times greater than just two years ago, said Joseph Vranich, a
business relocation expert based in Irvine. This includes
leaving altogether, establishing divisions elsewhere or opting
not to set up shop in California.
Late Tuesday night, Democrats in the Illinois house and senate
rammed through Governor Pat Quinn's 67% hike in the state
income tax and a nearly 50% jump in the state corporate tax.
The increase will add $1,400 to the average family's tax bill,
and we doubt it will help job creation in a state that has lost
374,000 jobs since 2008.
New Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker immediately rolled out a
press release inviting Illinois businesses to decamp to the
Badger State, contrasting his agenda to reduce taxes and
welcome business with the Illinois increase. Indiana Governor
Mitch Daniels added: "We already had an edge on Illinois in
terms of the cost of doing business, and this is going to make
it significantly wider."
Contrary to what progressive state politicians repeatedly try to
tell themselves,
so long as alternatives are available, intelligent individuals and
businesses will not merely sit back and "take it", but will
continue to pursue what is in their best interest. When one state acts
abusively, there are 49 other possibilities to explore in order to
locate a healthier environment. However, when the federal government
gets involved in imposing its punitive taxes and regulation across the
entire country, then options become much more limited, difficult and
costly. For certain large scale industries and very wealthy
individuals, there may be the possibility of moving business or
investments offshore. But in many other cases, the problems created
by political intervention simply outweight all of the alternatives.
The tipping point is finally reached, and the most sensible path is to
simply call it quits — a phenomenon that has been accelerating
in recent years and has come to be known as "Going Galt".
In the Tri-City Herald
we here the story of Bob Bertsch:
It took Bob Bertsch 25 years to build his construction business
and just a day for it all to go away.
Bertsch, 65, said he is down-sizing because the tax burden got
too expensive to stay in business.
"I am tired of carrying all the tax load," Bertsch said. "I
renew 13 licenses here every year just so I can spend money in
this city."
Bertsch makes no attempt to conceal his frustration with the
costs government imposes on small businesses like his.
"Government is killing small business. We used to have 24
employees at our peak. Now, all of those people who used to
work here are in unemployment lines," he said.
On David McElroy's
Blog, he recounts the words of Alabama coal mine operator Ronnie
Bryant who, after having listened to two hours of business-bashing
by the public, environmentalists and politicians, had this to say:
My name's Ronnie Bryant, and I'm a mine operator. I've been
issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water]
discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to
the comments being made by the people ... [pause]
Nearly every day without fail — I have a different
perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations
looking for work in Walker County. They can't pay their
mortgage. They can't pay their car note. They can't feed
their families. They don't have health insurance. And as I
stand here today, I just ... you know ... what's the use?
I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would
employ probably 125 people. They'd be paid wages from $50,000
to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to
$60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work.
And my only idea today is to go home. What's the use? I don't
know.
I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in
their eyes — looking for work. And if there's so much
opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there's
no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them.
So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I've
decided is not to open the mine. I'm just quitting. Thank you.
Zero Hedge
posted the letter that hedge fund manager Ann Barnhardt sent to
clients, announcing the closure of her business. Excerpts follow:
Dear Clients, Industry Colleagues and Friends of Barnhardt
Capital Management,
It is with regret and unflinching moral certainty that I
announce that Barnhardt Capital Management has ceased
operations. After six years of operating as an independent
introducing brokerage, and eight years of employment as a
broker before that, I found myself, this morning, for the
first time since I was 20 years old, watching the futures and
options markets open not as a participant, but as a mere
spectator.
The reason for my decision to pull the plug was excruciatingly
simple: I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and
positions were safe in the futures and options markets —
because they are not. And this goes not just for my clients,
but for every futures and options account in the United States.
The entire system has been utterly destroyed by the MF Global
collapse. Given this sad reality, I could not in good
conscience take one more step as a commodity broker, soliciting
trades that I knew were unsafe or holding funds that I knew to
be in jeopardy. ...
Everything changed just a few short weeks ago. A firm, led by
a crony of the Obama regime, stole all of the non-margined cash
held by customers of his firm. ... What was a surprise was the
reaction of the exchanges and regulators. Their reaction has
been to take a bad situation and make it orders of magnitude
worse. Specifically, they froze customers out of their
accounts WHILE THE MARKETS CONTINUED TO TRADE, refusing to even
allow them to liquidate. This is unfathomable. The risk
exposure precedent that has been set is completely intolerable
and has destroyed the entire industry paradigm. ...
I will not, under any circumstance, consider reforming and
re-opening Barnhardt Capital Management, or any other iteration
of a brokerage business, until Barack Obama has been removed
from office AND the government of the United States has been
sufficiently reformed and repopulated so as to engender my
total and complete confidence in the government, its adherence
to and enforcement of the rule of law, and in its competent and
just regulatory oversight of any commodities markets that may
reform.
The Hazleton, PA Standard Speaker
reports that Dr. Frank C. Polidora, an orthopedic surgeon, quits:
A Hazleton doctor is resigning from the medical staff of St.
Luke's Miners' Memorial Hospital, Coaldale.
Dr. Frank C. Polidora, a longtime Hazleton orthopedic surgeon,
blames the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act in March for his decision. He has been on the
hospital's staff since 2003.
"The Democrats' 'passage' of OBAMACARE on March 21, 2010, was
the final straw," Polidora wrote in his resignation letter to
William Crossin, chief executive officer of St. Luke's-Miners.
The resignation is effective Saturday.
Contacted Thursday, Polidora said his decision to leave had
nothing to do with the hospital, a facility he praised.
Rather, it was about following his own principles. ...
"To be a true physician, one must be moral. To be moral
requires freedom, both political and economic. The freedom of
the physician has been lost by degrees over the last 45 years,"
he wrote in his letter. "OBAMACARE has totally destroyed this
freedom, especially as it applies to a hospital practice." ...
"I fear for the future of the hospital as those in power in our
country are seeking to replace the practice of medicine, the
profession of healing, with an industry that produces health,
but who will, intentionally or not, create a process that
removes the unhealthy," Polidora said in his resignation letter.
The Wall Street Journal
discusses Thomas Depping's decision to close Main Street Bank:
Main Street Bank lends most of its money to small businesses
and is earning decent profits. But the Kingwood, Texas, bank
is about to get out of the banking business.
In an extreme example of the frustration felt by many bankers
as regulators toughen their oversight of the nation's financial
institutions, Main Street's chairman, Thomas Depping, is
expected to announce Wednesday that the 27-year-old bank will
surrender its banking charter and sell its four branches to a
nearby bank.
Mr. Depping plans to set up a new lender that will operate
beyond the reach of banking regulators — and the
deposit-insurance safety net. ... "The regulatory environment
makes it very difficult to do what we do," says Mr. Depping.
...
Bankers have long complained about their overseers, but it is
rare for a bank to basically close its doors aside from an
acquisition or failure. Mr. Depping blames the move on a
tightening regulatory noose.
In the beginning it was a dream. I would own a restaurant in
East Hampton. It would be a warm, beautiful place with great
food and wonderful service. It would become one of the most
popular restaurants in the Hamptons. ...
So why am I selling one of the most successful restaurants in
East Hampton? In 2008 I watched Barack Obama run over Hillary
Clinton to become our President. From the very first "Yes We
Can" and "Change You Can Believe In," I decided that this
country was falling in love with an attractive,
great-speechmaking hustler/socialist who, if he got into
office, was going to pursue his agenda to destroy the best
health care in the world and re-distribute wealth. Yours and
mine. I told my friends that from that moment on everything
I owned — my houses, my advertising business, my
newspaper and my restaurant — was for sale. ...
Why does this so go against my grain? Maybe it's because of
where I've come from to get to where I am. I've been broke,
so broke with a wife and kids and no job that I had to borrow
money from my parents, who didn't have it for themselves but
always managed to come up with it for me.
I got lucky and worked day and night and built a great
advertising agency. I have employed thousands of people in
my lifetime. I've been good to them and they have been good
to me.
I'm just not ready to have my wealth redistributed. I'm not
ready to pay more tax money than the next guy because I provide
jobs and because I work a 60-hour week and I earn more than
$250,000 a year.
So why am I dropping out? Read a brilliant book by Ayn Rand
called Atlas Shrugged, and you'll know.
For every newsworthy story of an individual or business that decides
to throw in the towel, there are untold others that go unreported.
Many businesses — and sometimes entire industries — are
destroyed by a burden of taxes and regulations that simply cannot be
borne in a market-driven economy. This much is at least clear to
some.
But what gets little discussion is the psychological toll that all
of this government intervention takes. What few seem to understand
is that for the small minority who are prepared to accept full
responsibility for themselves — living by their own thought,
judgment, goals and actions — each unreasonable tax is not
merely a burden, but is seen to be a gross injustice; every new
piece of legislation is another set of circus hoops through which
one is forced to jump; regulations are a leash, and every regulator
a self-appointed master with a whip in hand. For the independent man
or woman, government intervention attempts to reduce them from their
stature as fully human, to some form of caged beast under the constant
control of others.
Government intervention is the supreme demotivator!
It hammers away at passion. It undermines creativity. It erodes
drive and the will to succeed. It destroys the joy found in action
and the pride realized through success.
To put it simply, it drains the fun out of life.
In an attempt to place a monetary price tag on our economic losses,
enormous energy is invested by bureaucrats, analysts, pundits and the
media in calculating debt ratios, unemployment levels, energy costs,
borrowing fluidity, and any number of other metrics. All the while
the real price being paid — the total loss of human motive
willpower — dwarfs all of those calculations, but goes
unacknowledged. Go back and reread the stories above and look for
what they all have in common. These once productive individuals, all
of them wealth and job creators, have pulled the plug on their
endeavors. And why? Because, thanks to government intervention, they
can no longer find the joy that their work once brought them. The
rewards of hard work have been lowered while the costs have increased,
to a point where further effort is no longer justified — at
which point, it's time to shrug.
If you see the issue in this light, then you can understand why, when
Ayn Rand spoke of the struggle for our future, she did not describe it
principally in economic or political terms, but instead framed it as
something much more important: a moral battle — a fight for the
true nature and soul of mankind. At its most fundamental level, each
person must strive for their passion — their joy — their
happiness. And they must oppose anything that stands in the path of
those pursuits.
Today, the greatest obstacle standing in our way is a government that
has escaped its constitutional straitjacket and become an oppressive
monster, injecting itself into every crevice of our lives. If we are
to move forward along a path to where we once again can assert
ourselves as individuals, in full control over our own destines, then
it is imperative that each political action we take be directed
squarely at that goal. Half-hearted stop-gap measures will not solve
this problem, and are in fact, partly responsible for what led us to
this moment. It is time to apply the ultimate litmus test to every
statement uttered by every person aspiring for political office:
Does this candidate articulate a consistent set of well defined
policies that support my personal independence? If he accomplishes
the things he is proposing, will this maximize the opportunity to
pursue my life passionately, allowing me to set my own goals in
service of my own definition of happiness?
I suggest that if you cannot respond with an unreserved "Yes!",
then this is not a candidate worthy of your support. Reject him or
her and seek out another who has earned the right to represent you
by demonstrating that they fully understand and respect the right to
your personal independence.
Never compromise when extending your political support, for doing so
is simply an indirect way of compromising on your own life, your
values, and ultimately your joy. Always consider just what you
demand of yourself when pursuing your goals, and then be sure to never
settle for anything less from those in whom you are prepared to vest
with political power as your representative. This is the only strategy
that has any long range hope of correcting our current situation.
Anything less is a recipe for our continued cultural descent.
P.S. 01-06-12:
Here is a link to an article by Hungarian entrepreneur Andor Jakab,
who explains in detail precisely why he's not even considering
getting started building up a new business. The final straw can
break some before they even get out of the gate!
This
Is Why I Don't Give You A Job
Subject: The True Meaning of the Fourth of JulyIn commemoration of the Fourth, the poet, Brian Faulkner, has been
gracious in allowing me the honor of publishing one of his compositions
which speaks so eloquently to the true meaning of this occasion.
As we celebrate this holiday, let's take a moment to remember the vision,
strength of will, and difficulties faced and overcome by those who created
and fought for the independence and liberation of the human spirit. And
let each of us renew our own pledge to continue that fight, dedicating
ourselves to doing all we can to see that each individual is once again
allowed the full opportunity to pursue their own definition of happiness,
unhampered by the dictates of others.
Please enjoy, and I wish a very happy Independence Day to all of my
independent readers!
We march along the street
With flags and banners high;
We praise the days of liberty
When bright was each man's eye.
We sing the spirit bold
That fired every will
To fight the fight of liberty,
And we are fighting still.
For Independence now
We raise a mighty cheer;
Our individual liberty,
It is an aim most dear.
For sacred right of life,
And property, its twin,
We praise the ways of liberty
To draw new seekers in.
There're many who know not
The things were said and done,
When war for human liberty
Was fought, and mostly won.
And many more are blind,
Bare truth will never see,
Who sacrifice their liberty
To false security.
But we, who are the few,
We march with shoulders proud;
We praise the ways of liberty
And sing its songs aloud.
The roll of drums is strong,
Our cannons smoke and roar,
The flag of Independence
Goes flying on before.
One letter does it bear
(In blazing stripe of gold)---
The "I" of human liberty
That we all grasp and hold.
We march beyond today
With fearless tongues and hands,
Until the "I" of liberty
In every thinker stands.
Across the lanes of air,
Into computers' page
The birth of Independence---
The "I"--- will come of age.
Into our children's schools
The books of light will shine,
Till many youths, in liberty,
Will sing, "My life is mine!"
In business place and home
Free thinkers will prevail,
Till smiles of Independence
For everywhere set sail!
New marchers of the mind
Will follow guilt no more---
The moral right of liberty
A creed for rich and poor.
The cross of altruism
We'll gladly hail, "Goodbye!"
No sacrifice when liberty
Waves "I" across the sky!
We march along the street,
We march through every town;
We'll swell the self of liberty
Till hate of life is down!
The roll of drums is strong,
The fifes are sweet and bright;
Our minds of Independence
Give "I" its rising height.
We sing the spirit true
That will in time hold sway
Till Independent Liberty
Is its own endless day.
Then right, and left, and right,
And right and left again,
Come all you sons of liberty
And join the march of men.
Now on and up we go,
And no! we'll never cease!
The "I"s of Independence
Are mastering ---increase!
Our rockets soar in air,
Our colored streamers fly!
The dawn of Independence
Is bursting with its "I"!
Now right, and left, and right,
And right and left again;
Come all you sons of liberty
And swell the ranks of men!
I extend my sincere thanks to Brian for his continuing inspiration in the
cause of liberty. For more of Brian's wonderful poetry, please visit his
website.
Subject: Don't Worry, Be Happy! Yeah Right!
In a recent piece in the Los Angeles Times titled
Researchers say it's official: TGIF, baby!, Shari
Roan reports on startling research that reveals that "People are
happier and feel better on the weekends". Who knew? The
article reports:
The study found that people love the freedom associated with
weekends and even feel better physically.
The study reinforces what is known as the "self-determination
theory," which means that well-being is based on one's
personal needs for autonomy, competence and social
relationships.
So, this research from the University of Rochester has concluded that
people find pleasure in "freedom", "personal
autonomy", and "self-determination". Stop the
presses!
Maybe someone should inform the people in Washington D.C. that their
intrusive meddling into the lives of the citizens, with their policies
to regulate our every decision and action, is a clear violation of
our right to the
pursuit of our own happiness.
In fact, let's start with the abomination known as health care reform
which is explicitly designed to eliminate self-determination and
freedom of choice for every one of us, destroying our individual
autonomy and instead, treating us like a herd of cattle. Let's all
make one final effort to contact the White House and our congressional
representatives and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that their
actions are making us VERY UNHAPPY, and that we DEMAND
that they stop violating our unalienable rights and begin protecting
them as they swore an oath to do when they took office.
Oh yeah, and don't forget to let them know that now we have scientific
proof backing us up! :-)
Subject: Redefining Humanity
In an article titled,
This
is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine
humanity, published in The Guardian, George Monbiot lays
bare the soul and the intend of the entire environmentalist movement.
Describing the Copenhagen climate summit, he states:
"This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves.
Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among
impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides
what it is and what it will become."
And like all good socialists, the issue for Monbiot is not what
will we, as individuals, become. The only relevant question
is what will be the transformation for humanity as a whole —
with all of the inconsequential individuals simply forced to conform
to the collective will.
And who is to decide this bold new direction for humanity? Well, for
Monbiot that's a moot point as the decision has already been cast,
with the consequences of that foregone decision sprinkled throughout
the remainder of the article. Consider such prescient observations as
the following:
"The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal
tragedy."
"Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our
nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking
or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the
lives of clerks."
"The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is
over."
"[I]t is ... a battle between two world views. The angry
men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on
their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we
have."
"[F]ossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification
beyond its Paleolithic dreams. [... allowing] us to live in
blissful mindlessness"
"The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they
cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching
their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around"
"All those of us whose blood still races are forced to
sublimate, to fantasise. In daydreams and video games we find
the lives that ecological limits and other people's interests
forbid us to live."
"There is no space for heroism here; all passion and power
breaks against the needs of others. This is how it should
be"
As Ayn Rand once wrote:
"Man is the only living species that has the power to act
as his own destroyer — and that is the way he has acted
through most of his history."
This article perfectly summarizes the real issue behind the
environmental movement. I agree that it is concerned with nothing
less than the redefinition of humanity. And the vision of that new
humanity is as a passive video-gamer, vicariously placated by
virtual-acts that were once undertaken in reality. With our lion
hearts caged, and all thoughts of heroism ground out of existence,
we will all voluntarily accept our new place as clerks and stewards
of the planet, and sacrifice ourselves in service to "other
people's interests". Nothing more can be expected when the
"original sin" of our human nature unavoidably leads to "primal
tragedy".
Monbiot articulates the polarity that exists between
environmentalists' view of mankind and those held by Ayn Rand. So,
who's the destroyer and who's the savior? The choice is yours.
Either lay down you copy of Atlas Shrugged and accept your redefined
role as a hapless, mindless sheep — or grasp your copy firmly
in hand and wield it as the tool it was intended to be, standing
proudly in the long tradition of our Paleolithic ancestors who knew
how to dream of a better future and then work creatively to realize
it.
[Thanks to Robert Tracinski for bringing this article
to my attention.]
Subject: We Own You. Get Used to It!
On today's OpEd page, a Wall Street Journal editorial
highlights the true goal of ObamaCare, as articulated by one of its
supporters, John Cassidy of the New Your Times.
Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better
medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but
occasionally a supporter let's the mask slip and reveals the
real political motivation. So let's give credit to John
Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker,
who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to
be clear about what the reform amounts to."
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose
dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a
costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not
pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be
self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as
planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect,
is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama
Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program,
which, once established, will be virtually impossible to
rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy,
ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States
a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats'
"political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to
further redistribute income by putting health care further
under government control, and in the process making the
middle class more dependent on government. As the party
of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats
of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular
bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to
break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr.
Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap,
I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically
necessary to get great reforms enacted."
No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being
lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be
stuck with the bill.
So there you have it. It's OK for the politicians to lie to us,
because they own us and operate from a position where they can freely
make critical decisions about our lives without regard to our own
personal thoughts, beliefs and desires. Truth is reserved for those
possessing the right to self-determination, so let there be no illusion
that the concepts of the right to one's life, liberty and property
have anything at all to do with what is now occurring in this country.
We are effectively all slaves of the state and subject to whatever whim
it manages to concoct and ram through as legislation. The limitations
on allowable government action that are delineated in the US
Constitution are being totally ignored by all three branches of our
government. We are rapidly becoming a totalitarian state.
Sign the John Galt
Pledge and then contact each of your Senators and Representative
and let them know, in forceful terms, that you are not
asking, but demanding that they adhere to the
intent of the US Constitution and expect them to protect and defend
your constitutional rights. It is time to let everyone in Washington
know that you are mad and have reached the limits of your
patience.
Subject: Community Service Is Not What Made America Great
I discovered an excellent article by C. Edmund Wright at American
Thinker, entitled "Community Service Is Not What Made America
Great, which I would encourage everyone to read. Here
are a few excerpts:
"Dare we say that the planners of the 9-11 attacks understand more
about the greatness of America than our current President and some
in Congress?
[T]he 9-11 attacks had nothing to do with Medicare, the Junior
League or Earth Day or working in a soup kitchen, let alone
registering voters or pushing for sub prime lending on behalf
of ACORN.
The 9-11 masterminds understood what it is that makes America
great, and it was precisely some obvious icons of that greatness
they attacked. It is our government-limiting Constitution --
creating an environment conducive to free enterprise, innovation,
opportunity and military might, used for the good of all freedom
loving peoples -- that has made America great.
In short, it is our freedom.
In stark contrast to our president and others, I say what we need
now is a lot of self-interested financially motivated pursuits
taking place. On the anniversary week of 9-11, it's a good time
to champion that which the terrorists were trying to destroy
-- that which makes America great. And for the record, they were
not trying to destroy candle light vigils for death row inmates
or the "Adopt a Highway" program.
All of that is fine, but they were trying to destroy free economies
and opportunity. They were trying to destroy the brain trust of a
military whose history is that of conquering dictators and asking
only enough real estate in return to bury their dead. They were
trying to destroy our way of life. The American way of life. You
know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
They were trying to destroy what made us who we were before Obama
came to save us from our own greatness. They did not succeed.
But if we can't tell the truth about what it is that made this
country great, then we will do it to ourselves.
Fantastic! Given all the problems we are dealing with these days, it
is nice to be reminded of the underlying greatness of the USA which
we are struggling to preserve—and I cannot thank Mr. Wright
enough for having done this.
Mr. Wright also make the following astute observation:
The point here is not that volunteering is bad. It is good. So
is charitable giving. True community service -- not agitating or
"organizing" -- is good also. But you cannot donate or serve or
volunteer in a vacuum. In fact, you cannot really provide
any "net volunteering" or "net giving" until you have taken care
of all of your obligations first. So by definition, pursuits
that enable you to "give back" are superior to the act of giving
back.
Exactly! It is self-interested, self-responsible adults that
get things accomplished and have created the great wealth and standard
of living that we enjoy in this country. And you have to create
something, whether it be money or free time, before you can
"redistribute" or "volunteer" any surplus to causes that reach
beyond the requirements of one's own life. This is the simple fact
that almost everyone in government fails to understand—or
willfully ignores.
Capitalism—free enterprise—is an economic system of
creation. It allows wealth to be accumulated and leveraged over time,
allowing us to continually improve our standing, generation after
generation. It is a system that works precisely because it rewards
the virtues of productivity, effort, intelligence and risk-taking.
In contrast, socialism is a system of redistribution only. It does
not understand or acknowledge the creative process. It sees our
standard of living as a fixed pie, simply to be recut in a "fairer"
manner so that all share equally. It penalizes the very virtues
that capitalism rewards, and because of this, it ultimately becomes
an engine of destruction as it drives out the good. And that is why
Mr. Wright warns that, unchecked, the current administration may yet
achieve what the terrorists were unable to do.
Subject: The Spirit of Independence
Liberty-minded people tend to be extremely independent, in both
thought and action. They think for themselves, and act on their own
judgments. Therefore, they are often opposed to becoming involved in
any group, organization or movement, preferring to walk their own
path. I'm familiar with this because it applies to me as well.
As a thinker, it is natural for me to believe that all that is relevant
to an argument is its truth or validity, and that everyone else should
be similarly swayed by the facts alone. Thus, when facing an issue, my
first inclination is to put pen to paper and bang out a detailed
analysis. But, as a realist, I am aware that there is a great segment
of the populace that does not think about ideas at sufficient depth to
operate in that manner. Many of these people, while basically good
intentioned at the core, will not be swayed by simple rhetoric and
analysis, and instead will often end up following the direction of
a group rather than blazing their own intellectual trail.
Our opponents have long recognized that there is a strong power of
persuasion to be found by assembling large groups which speak in a
single voice. They have often accomplished this through unions, but
over the years they have honed the tactic to such a degree and have
become such masters of the technique that we find that we now have a
"community organizer" in the White House! The conservatives have
begun to wake up to this and we are seeing them fight back fairly
effectively with the Tea Party organizations. But what is missing
from the Tea Parties is a well coordinated core of ideas. Many
individuals have used those organizations as a platform to express
extremely well articulated and important messages, but what they
lack is that common philosophical core — a single great idea
— upon which everything rests and which gains its strength as
the number of participants grow.
What I am attempting with this site is to provide a means where
we can organize as a group, around one important core principle,
and become persuasive to another segment of the population that we
currently are not effectively reaching. If you are reluctant to sign
up because of that strong independent streak that we all share, then
please reconsider. It is extremely important that we pool our
resources in an effort to stop being dragged over the cliff of
socialism which is within our sights now more than any time in the
past sixty years. In a world of greater independence there would not
be such an urgency to act. But the the erosion of our autonomy and
individual rights over the past one hundred years has resulted in us
all being bound together with a single noose so that we are all
subject to the same outcome.
So, please add your voice here and help the message of freedom and
individual right be heard clearly by all.
Please add me to the list to be notified of updates to this site.
