Article Archives by Subject:  Individualism

05-18-2014
Permalink
John R. Schindler
John R. Schindler
Subject: Fighting the Wrong Battles

A friend brought a recent blog post to my attention titled, Ideology is Making America Stupid. Written by John R. Schindler, a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, it argues that those on both the political left and right engage in pressing their personal ideologies — a process that he characterizes as: "the substitution of preset cliches over actual thought." Well, that statement gave me pause, as this is certainly not what ideology means to me. So off to the dictionaries I went. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary states:

  • 2a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
  • 2b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
  • 2c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
  • For a rational individual, aspects of all three definitions describe what a personal ideology consists of and how it properly functions, being a systematic (i.e., integrated) body of knowledge used to guide one's thinking in relation to society, culture and sociopolitical ends. In other words, a rational ideology is merely a subset of a broader rational philosophy of life. However, this does not correspond to Schindler's usage. Further investigation at the online Dictionary.com yields this:

    1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
    2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

    This less flattering definition seems closer to the author's meaning, where systematized knowledge is replaced by adherence to doctrine, myth and belief — what I would call a pseudo-ideology. And yes, it is easy to look around and find people who come to the majority of their positions through a process of osmosis devoid of any meaningful critical analysis. The ideology of a rational person is fact-based and always open to revision in light of new evidence. But for the person holding a pseudo-ideology, adherence to their world view is a precarious necessity since their unexamined identity has become equivalent to the ideology they have adopted. To change the latter would be to lose oneself — and people will fight tooth and nail to maintain their self-image. So when the author comments:

    The problem isn't that Americans have ideologies, it's that so many of them have embraced a worldview based on self-deception. Simply put, they devoutly, unshakably believe things that simply are untrue.

    This is a question of Zeitgeist more than naked partisanship, per se, as Americans both Left and Right seem equally devoted to beliefs that, upon close examination, turn out to be false.

    Given the second set of definitions, there is no reason to disagree. Schindler goes on to discuss U.S. foreign policy, but concludes:

    Letting our ideologies blind us in domestic matters has serious consequences for America, but refusing to see the world as it actually is endangers far more than our domestic tranquility.

    But what about the more rational meaning of ideology? Even if the average American implicitly operates more on whim than reason, this is not an excuse to abandon the pursuit of a reality-based philosophy as a guide for one's actions. Dealing with issues in isolation (i.e., in an unintegrated manner) is extremely dangerous and is probably the single greatest cause for the world's troubles. To properly address most national or global issues, a well integrated and rational perspective is a necessity. Let's be careful not to abandon the very real need for a properly based ideological framework as we go about exposing pseudo-ideologies for what they are.

    As I was reading this article, another thought struck me regarding the author's identification of the differences in ideologies. I realized that a great majority of the debate occurring in this country takes place over polarizing issues between left and right. Whether we are discussing abortion, the death penalty, gay rights, property rights, guns, social equality, taxes, the environment, health care, entitlements, wealth redistribution, foreign aid, privacy, etc., the focus is usually centered around pragmatic, concrete concerns. Yet, something important is usually missing, just as it is missing from the discussion in Schindler's piece. Regardless of one's position on any of these specific issues, there is another underlying struggle running orthogonal to them all — the fight for individual freedom versus collective totalitarianism. In other words, the battle for liberty.

    I was immediately reminded of the chart that David Nolan constructed back in 1969 (left below), which integrates a perspective on both economic and personal freedom.

    Nolan Chart- 1969
    Original Nolan Chart – 1969
    Nolan Chart
    Revised Nolan Chart – 2014

    This chart clearly demonstrates how the classical left-right tug-of-war has little to do with advancing towards greater freedom and, in fact, shows how focusing too much on standard political left-right issues can blind us to movement in the opposing direction. In 1969, it was commonly understood that the conservative Republicans were, in general, strong supporters of economic freedom while the liberal Democrats advocated for personal self-expression and choice. However, over the past four decades, the left-wing and right-wing designations have each shifted significantly towards the lower-left, moving ever closer towards the totalitarian position, as depicted in the revised chart to the right.

    Recent history shows that while people argue over their pet political left-right issues until each of them is ultimately decided, regardless of whether the specific outcomes are judged favorably or not, the bitter reality is that personal liberty is almost always further curtailed in the process. What becomes clear is that, in many cases, we are wasting precious resources and valuable time fighting the wrong battles. Of course, this is not to say that there are not important aspects affecting our liberty contained in every one of the left-right issues.

    The point is that while we focus on whether or not birth control should be mandated, or whether tax dollars should be used to bail out car companies, or whether common core is a good educational approach, or whether certain people should be allowed to marry, we are not directly focusing on our personal freedom. Why? Because personal freedom means autonomy and the ability to exercise control over one's own life. It means that the above questions, and many like them, are ones asked and answered in the privacy of one's own mind and are not subject to external debate, let alone government control. By engaging in these debates, we implicitly grant that the answers are up to others to decide for us.

    What we must do is stop looking to our left or right and instead look forward towards our goal located in the upper-right corner of the chart. We need to stop playing the politicians' game where they are the ones allowed to define the issues. Instead, we must adopt the other axis and reframe the debate in clear liberty-versus-slavery terms, making the choice clear through our own examples. It is time to set rather than follow the agenda. In other words, it is time to directly assert our liberty ideology in uncompromising terms.

    04-18-2013
    Permalink
    Melissa Harris-Perry
    Melissa Harris-Perry
    Subject: Whose Life Is It Anyway?

    The provocative movie, Whose Life I It Anyway?, was released in 1981. It stars Richard Dreyfuss as Ken Harrison, a sculptor who is paralyzed from the neck down after a horrible automobile accident. When it becomes clear that he will never recover any additional use of his body and that his life is reduced to nothing more than the care that is offered by others, Harrison decides to end his life. However his wishes are blocked by those opposed to euthanasia and suicide. The story depicts the struggle between two views of life and confronts the question of whether Harrison—or any of us—are truly the ultimate masters of our fate, holding an absolute right to direct and dispose of our own life as we see fit?

    Many other films such as The Truman Show, The Matrix or Dead Poets Society explore the question of the level of control that we actually exercise over our own lives, but none is so explicit as Whose Life Is It Anyway? In each of these stories, the underlying conflict is that of individualism versus collectivism: Do we, as individuals, possess the exclusive sovereign right to determine the course of our life, or are we in some way subservient to a collective group which holds sway over us and may dictate requirements and actions that must be obeyed, even if they violate our desires and will? To state the issue plainly, the simple question is, "are we free or are we slaves?"

    This country was founded on the enlightenment principle of individualism. The Declaration of Independence states in no uncertain terms that each person possesses rights, and that "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And not only do we possess these (and other) rights, but they are "unalienable", meaning that they are an inherent, absolute and unassailable part of our nature as individual human beings. Nothing could be made clearer, and yet, as time has passed, fewer and fewer people in this country understand and adhere to these fundamental truths. Bit by bit, the age old principles of collectivism have reasserted themselves and are now poised to destroy the essence of what has made America unique in the history of the world.

    It was not so long ago that statists had to make an effort to disguise their underlying principles and endevour to sneak them in beneath the conscious awareness of a public that still retained an American sense of life — by which I mean a respect for the virtues of self-motivation and self-responsibility, a belief that hard work was the source of reward and advancement, and an expectation that everyone was entitled to keep and dispose of that which they earned. However, six terms of Clinton, Bush and Obama, coupled with another two generations having been indoctrinated in government schools, has transformed the values of our society such that the cockroaches may now skitter about in the bright daylight without fear, openly spouting their collectivist goals. For example, here is Melissa Harris-Perry in a promotional spot for MSNBC, waxing on about a few collectivist notions which are to her, apparently, self-evident.

    Wait! What was that? Could you please run that by me again.....

    We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these as our children. So, part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.

    Melissa Harris-Perry
    [Emphasis added]

    Ten years ago, would anyone on a major network have dared speak these words and then expected to retain their job? What a difference a decade makes. When conservatives argue that the institution of family is under attack, you have to look no further than Melissa Harris-Perry to see that it's true. And there's no longer any need for subterfuge. It's collectivism brothers and sisters, and we're proud of it! The state reigns supreme and individuals—whether adult or child—belong to us, to do with as we please.

    Well, there was justifiable blowback from all quarters once word concerning this piece made the rounds, and Harris-Perry was forced to respond.

    While there were a few patently disingenuous attempts to misrepresent some of the source of outrage being directed at her video, on balance I thought that Harris-Perry did a pretty reasonable job of identifying the actual core issue in this debate, while laying out her personal world view. Here is an excerpt:

    Unless it is the core philosophical issue of our entire history: the balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities. ...
    This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge upon individual freedoms in order to advance the common good. And that is exactly the fight we have been having for a couple of hundred years.
    Are we a loosely affiliated group of bootstrapped individuals, or are we a people tied to one another through collective responsibility, to care for our young, our elderly, our poor, even our infrastructure.


    Melissa Harris-Perry
    [Emphasis added]

    Well, it is good to see someone on the left at least identify and acknowledge the existence of the individualist viewpoint, even while going on to dismiss it without presenting any substantive arguments, just as she offers no reasons in favor of the "collective responsibilities" position, apparently expecting us to simply observe that it is self-evidently correct. This is a window into the state of today's culture—where viewers of programs such as this wait to be instructed in how and what to think, without the need to burden themselves with facts, rational analysis or the mental integration of thought into fundamental principles. Such a process would demand answers to a variety of questions, starting with:

    • What precisely is a "right" and how does it adhere to an individual?
    • What is the difference between a "negative right" such as the the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and a "positive right" such as the right to health care, housing or food?
    • What is a "collective responsibility" and how does it adhere to an individual?
    • Who decides what collective obligations must be met, by whom, and how is this to be enforced?
    • What justifies the imposition of a collective obligation on an individual who does not accept the premise of that obligation?
    • If goods and services are a "right", who pays for or provides them?  Why?
    • What standard is to be used to weight the "common good" against the "impingement of individual freedoms"?
    • Is the initiation of force an acceptable means for men to deal with one another under any circumstance?  Why?

    The previous vidio clip is an abbreviated version of a longer segment that can be viewed here. Starting at the seven minute mark there is a panel discussion which includes Matt Welch, the Editor in Chief of the libertarian Reason Magazine. Now, of course, Welch has been selected to present the "opposition" point of view, for exactly the same reason that NPR relies upon David Brooks to represent the "conservative" viewpoint—because both can be counted on to concede the progressive premise on most issues. Nevertheless, it is instructive to watch the first few minutes of this discussion in order to see precisely how not to defend liberty. Here is an excerpt of Welch's comments:

    The premise of [your statement] was wrong. We don't lack for spending on public education in this country. ...
    We already have a social contract where we have said everywhere that every kid has a right to public education. That exists, and yet public education is not performing. So that is what we need, I think, to confront, not some notion that it is our overly private sense of our children that we somehow have to break through. No, we've broken through that actually, and what we haven't done is translate that into better education.


    Matt Welch
    [Emphasis added]

    While Harris-Perry has just laid out the philosophical question of individualism versus collectivism and continues to try and steer the conversation back towards this topic, Welch falls over himself conceding the existence of a "social contract" that binds us all to one another with a communal duty, while granting that the state breached the sanctity of the family unit long ago and there is nothing left to discuss on that subject. Welch is not interested in defending the individual rights of the child against compulsory indoctrination, or the individual rights of the parent to determine the best course for their child's development, or the individual rights of the taxpaying adult that is forced to fund the education of other people's children. Instead, his concern lies with more pragmatic matters: the economic efficacy of education spending. In the cause of freedom versus slavery, Welch effectively argues for the latter and Harris-Perry wins, by default, in a TKO.

    So we return to the original question: Whose life is it anyway? If you're waiting for someone like Matt Welch to defend your right to exist on your own terms, then I'm afraid you have already lost the battle. It's up to you to get vocal in identifying and demanding your rights. Speak up at every available opportunity. Do not allow the collectivists like Melissa Harris-Perry to go unchallenged.

    Whose life is it?  "It's MY life. Keep you mitts to yourself and get out of my way!"

    11-06-2012

    Permalink



    Independence!
    Subject: A Personal Declaration of Independence

    The election results are in and more than half of all voting Americans have declared that they believe that their wants, wishes and needs trump your independence and individual rights.

    Coincidentally, today is also the date when my John Galt Pledge page was signed by the 1,000th person. In the wake of today's tragedy, it may be small consolation, but here are one thousand people proud to publically state that they respect your life and your right to live it as you—and only you—see fit.

    I extend my sincere thanks to every person who has signed the pledge, for being willing to take a vocal stand in the cause of liberty. Let's continue to swell the ranks of those who choose the virtue of self-reliance over abject helplessness, and see how quickly we can add another thousand voices to this choir.


    "I swear by my life, and my love of it,
    that I will never live for the sake of another man,
    nor ask another man to live for mine.
    "

    We the undersigned, take this pledge as a personal Declaration of Independence. We each, as sovereign individuals, respectively assert the exclusive right to our own lives, our liberty and our property, as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. As government is properly instituted to protect our rights, we oppose, and declare as unconstitutional, all actions taken by government that violate the very rights it is charged with defending. We support a return to the principle of individualism upon which this country was founded. And rejecting any initiation of the use of force as being wholly inappropriate, we support a society based strictly upon voluntary association and free trade among its people.

    Click here to see the current signers of The John Galt Pledge
    07-03-2011

    Permalink



    Independence Day
    Subject: The True Meaning of the Fourth of July

    In 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!


      The March Of Independence   —  by by Brian Royce Faulkner

        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.

    12-31-2010

    Permalink



    Wyatt Emmerich
    Subject: Working Is For Suckers

    This is a follow up to my previous article Money For Nothin' and Your Chicks For Free, where, among other things, I discussed the erosion of the American work ethic as a consequence of government welfare programs.

    Wyatt Emmerich, the editor of the Weekly Mississippi publications, the Northside Sun and The Cleveland Current, recently published an interesting article titled, With welfare it makes sense to work less, in which he wondered why new manufacturing plants were no longer opening in his state. Here is what he learned:
      "If you ask business leaders, the problem is a lack of skilled labor. People don't want to work. Especially in the Delta, people just won't show up on time and often fail drug tests."

      "'How can this be?' you may ask. You have to work to eat. Well, that's really not true anymore. In fact, our welfare state rewards not working. You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working a $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job."

    Emmerich then produced the following chart, using public data available from government websites, to illustrate his point. These numbers are based upon a one-parent family with two children under 12 years of age, living in Mississippi.

    The second column shows the taxes taken and welfare benefits received by someone earning minimum wage ($14,500/year), while the forth column shows the taxes/benefits for a family working a job which earns $60,000/year. The minimum wage earner actually ends up with $3,411 in additional disposable income!

    Even more shocking is the first column, which shows what happens if one were to work the minimum wage job only one week each month rather than full time. While the earned income would be cut by 75%, taxes would fall by $8,763 while benefits would increase by $4,035, for a net gain of $12,798. This means that working only 25% of the time at a minimum wage job, will yield 92% of the disposable income available to the full time worker earning $60,000, leaving three weeks each month to either lounge around, or possibly work an illegal black-market job that would put you far ahead of the full-time worker.

    What's the message: Only chumps work for a living.

    This relatively simple example demonstrates everything that is wrong with the U.S. economy. Each time the government interferes with natural market forces, they incentivize parasitic behavior while penalizing productivity, further impeding the economic engine. There is only one solution: eliminate all of these government programs and return to a system of private charity and investment to aid those truly in need. No one who was responsible for spending their own funds would ever consider freely participating in a system as corrupt as this. It is only when an impersonal government is allowed to become a third party in wealth redistribution, that results of this type becomes possible. The time has come to just say no to public welfare of every type. If you agree, let your voice be heard.

    Addendum: (From the newsgroup rec.humor.funny)

      Jesus recently walked into a bar somewhere in the Western World. He approached three sad-faced gentlemen at a table, and greeted the first one: "What's troubling you, brother?" he said.

      "My eyes. I keep getting stronger and stronger glasses, and I still can't see."

      Jesus touched the man, who ran outside to tell the world about his now 20-20 vision.

      The next gentleman couldn't hear Jesus' questions, so The Lord just touched his ears, restoring his hearing to perfection. This man, too, ran out the door, probably on his way to the audiologist to get a hearing-aid refund.

      The third man leapt from his chair and backed up against the wall, even before Jesus could greet him.

      "Don't you come near me, man! Don't touch me!" he screamed. "I'm on disability!"
    12-22-2010

    Permalink



    Coming Home
    To Roost
    Subject: Money For Nothin' and Your Chicks For Free

    "For many, immaturity is an ideal, not a defect." — Mason Cooley

    Since the founding of this country, each generation has faced its own unique set of difficulties and struggles, whether those happened to be droughts, floods, fires, tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, abolition, suffrage, civil rights, economic depression, or any number of other natural or man-made challenges. The economic, social and environmental problems that confront us today have their own unique character, but are actually no worse than many of those of the past.

    However, there is a fundamental change that has occurred in our society that does not bode well for our future. Where once the majority of people understood that they must face their problems with the will and strength of character to perform the work necessary to overcome obstacles, this is no longer the case. Today, we now find ourselves in a society where a sizable segment of the populace has been trained to abdicate this responsibility and simply rely upon government management and its financial assistance to mitigate any hardships needing to be faces. Effectively, we now have a class of perpetually dependent, aging adolescents who have never been required to "grow up" and assume the mantle of responsible adulthood. How did we arrive at this state?

    The Erosion of the American Work Ethic:

    America was colonized by people who understood the value of hard work and perseverance. Traveling across the Atlantic with few possessions, effectively cut off from European aid or assistance, the early settlers knew that their survival depended upon their ability to address whatever circumstances presented themselves. So important were these characteristics, that they became codified as religious virtues, handed down from generation to generation in what sociologist Max Weber would later come to classify as the Protestant work ethic. The great accomplishments and economic growth achieved throughout the history of this country are the result of this spirit of productiveness and personal drive exhibited by so many people in pursuit of their dream of creating a better life for themselves.

    Another principle shaping the founding character of this country was the virtue of independence or self-reliance, best seen embodied in the concept of individual rights as delineated in the Declaration of Independence. The recognition that each person was master of their own life, with the unfettered liberty to guide themselves in a manner of their own choosing, implied an acceptance of the responsibility for dealing with their personal survival and happiness. In this country, the future was in one's own control, to be principally determined by the consequences of one's actions.

    From the 17th through the early 20th centuries, the causal relationship between the application of effort, perseverance and self-reliance could be clearly seen resulting in a steadily increasing prosperity, which conveyed an extremely important lesson to each subsequent generation. In general, the American culture was acknowledged as having an optimistic view of the future with a "can-do" spirit, where, with hard work, anything was possible. Opportunities were limitless, while resignation and defeat were not treated as viable options. Still, there were counter-forces at work destined to undermine this positive American psyche.

    Of course, there was the ever-present call for self-sacrifice which has permeated every society on earth. The philosophy of altruism was the antithesis to the value-based culture of the United States. Whereas individualism preached productiveness and pride in one's achievements, altruism demanded the relinquishing of all that was valuable, and a sense of shame in one's abilities. While the goal of individualism was personal happiness, the end result of altruism was the embrace of pain and suffering as noble. In practice, Americans rejected the worst aspects of altruism, but at the same time, lacking a proper philosophical defense against its teachings, accepted the psychological burden of guilt for having repeatedly failed to live up (actually down) to its anti-life requirements.

    However, the greater damage to American culture began in earnest with the inception of the welfare system. The existential roots of welfare in the United States extend back to 1642 with the creation of the first compulsory public school in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Here, the acquisition of an education was declared to no longer be the responsibility or each individual, but a "right". And at the same time, it was also dictated that these individuals no longer retained their free choice in deciding if, when, and by what means, they would pursue that education. Instead, authorities would compel them to attend school at the prescribed place and time, for the mandated duration, studying predetermined subjects and material. In addition, other working member of society would then be forced to bear the cost for providing this newly created "right".

    And so it began. Whenever a so called "positive right" to a good or service is introduced, it carries with it two direct consequences: the undermining of one or more inherent natural rights (in this case, life and liberty), and the forced enslavement of those who are required to provide the good or service to others. Furthermore, the creation of two opposing groups — the providers and the consumers — leads to indirect psychological consequences: resentment on the part of providers, and a demanding expectation on the part of the consumers for what they have been told is their entitlement.

    The imposition of the modern welfare state began in earnest with Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression of the 1930s, was dramatically expanded by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, and has been continually growing ever since. And assistance is no longer limited to individuals in need, but now encompass groups, businesses and entire industries. We are all familiar with the ubiquitous Public Education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, but that only scratches the surface of the many assistance programs that our legislators have created over time. A quick review of a few news articles revealed the following currently active programs:

    Industries
  • Agricultural Subsidies
  • Art Subsidies and Grants (NEA)
  • Biomass Subsidies
  • Education
  • Energy Subsidies
  • Export-Import Bank Loans
  • Fisheries Subsidies
  • Import/Export Controls
  • Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP)
  • Mining Subsidies
  • News Subsidies (NPR, PBS, PRI, etc.)
  • Tariffs
  • Technology Subsidies

    Ethnic, Religious and Trade Groups
  • Affirmative Action Programs
  • Faith-Based Services Funding
  • Minority Business Subsidies
  • Indian Casinos, Land, Resources, etc.
  • Special Privileges for Ethnic Groups
  • Religious Tax Exemptions
  • Union-Specific Legislation

    Corporations and Businesses
  • Bailouts (TARP, etc.)
  • Government Contracts
  • Overseas Private Investment Corp. Loans
  • Publically Funded Infrastructure
  • Research Grants
  • Small Business Administration (SBA)
  • Tax Abatements and Deferrals
  • Families and Individuals
  • Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
  • At-Risk Child Care
  • Automobile Tax Credits
  • Child Care and Development Fund
  • Child and Adult Care Food Program
  • Community Development Block Grants
  • Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
  • Education
  • Elderly Nutrition Program
  • Energy Investment Tax Credits
  • Food Stamps
  • Foster Care
  • General Assistance (General Relief)
  • General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC)
  • Head Start
  • Home Mortgage Financing
  • Housing Assistance for Low Income Households
  • Insurance Programs (FDIC, Medical, Catastrophe)
  • Interest Reduction Housing Payments
  • Job Corps
  • Library Subsidies
  • Low Income Home Energy Assistance
  • Low Rent Public Housing (HUD)
  • Maternal and Child Health
  • Medicaid
  • Medicare
  • Pell Grants
  • Pensions for Needy Veterans
  • Rural Housing Loans and Mortgages (USDA)
  • School Breakfast and Lunch
  • Social Security
  • Social Services (Title 20)
  • Stafford Loans
  • Summer Youth Employment
  • Supplemental Security Income
  • Training for Disadvantaged Youth and Adults
  • Transportation Subsidies
  • Women, Infants & Children Food Supplements
  • Workforce Investment Program (WIN)
  • That's sixty-six different programs or categories of aid currently available from the federal government. Some of these you have certainly heard of, while others may be unfamiliar. However, it turns out that this list is incomplete and there are actually more federal programs out there. How many would you guess?
      80?
      100?
      150?

    Early in 2010, Chris Edwards reported the following interesting fact on the CATO Website:
      "January 22, 2010 is a day that should live in infamy, at least among believers in limited government. On that day, the federal government added its 2,000th subsidy program for individuals, businesses, or state and local governments."

    2,000 Assistance Programs!

    This I had to see for myself. So on December 3rd I went to the website for the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and discovered that the CATO report was incorrect. There were now actually 2,088 program! As I was researching this article, I returned to this site every few days, and upon each visit discovered additional aid programs had been created in my absence. Just between December 3rd and the 20th, six new programs were established. for a current total of 2,094. This means that during 2010, Obama and the Congress were creating new programs at a rate of two per week. And how many of these did the administration inform us of in the name of its pledge for openness and transparency?

    The Department of Health and Human Services alone administers 410 different programs while the Department of Agriculture has 226. And the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation has not one, but four separate programs available. Here is a breakdown of the different categories of available aid:
      Advisory Services and Counseling
      Direct Loan
      Direct Payments for a Specified Use
      Direct Payments with Unrestricted Use
      Dissemination of Technical Information
      Federal Employment
      Formula Grants
      Guaranteed/Insured Loans
      Guaranteed/Insured Loans
      Insurance
      Investigation of Complaints
      Project Grants
      Provision of Specialized Services
      Sale, Exchange or Donation of Property or Goods
      Training
      Use of Property, Facilities or Equipment

    Something free for everyone! Well, not everyone. Because, as noted above, somebody has to actually pay for all this stuff.

    Personal Welfare:

    Where once people understood that it was their responsibility to work to feed themselves, starting in 1933 the federal government stepped in with the Civilian Conservation Corps to create emergency make-work projects for the unemployed. By 1935, at its peak, the CCC engaged roughly 506,000, and after it's nine year run, a total of three million men had passed through its ranks. Seventy-five years later, facing another economic downturn, work is no longer actually required, as unemployment benefits have been cemented into our culture, not as an emergency response which you are expected to earn through hard labor, but as an entitlement to be demanded by right. As of December 4th, the four-week rolling average showed an active enrollment of 4,232,750 people, with Congress and the Administration negotiating to extend these benefits, yet again, to a total of 155 weeks, or three years, with no indication that there is any fixed end in sight.

    During the 1960s, with the intent of helping people living in poverty, numerous state and federal entitlement (welfare) programs were instituted in response to perceived needs. Yet, after decades of tinkering with these policies, study after study revealed that the long term impact on the recipients was an increase in the creation of unlivable slums, the further destruction of the two-parent family, elevated teen and unwed pregnancies, a disincentive to seek out work, rising school dropout rates, and a corresponding reduction in a child's IQ. In addition, children of welfare recipients were shown to be much more likely to be dependent upon these programs once becoming adults. By 1995, the number of people on on the welfare rolls had risen to a staggering fourteen million. And why not. After all, they're entitled to these benefits aren't they? Today, due to subsequent program reforms, that number on direct government assistance now hovers around five million.

    For many, an important aspect of the American Dream is the acquisition of a house of one's own. For generations, the possibility of home ownership has been a powerful motivator, causing individuals and families to work hard and save diligently so that one day they could realize their dream. The recognition that years of work and savings were involved in order to make such a large purchase, clearly conveyed the enormous value that a home represented. And everyone understood this—until the federal government got involved. In 1938, as part of the New Deal, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was established to broaden the secondary home mortgage market by funneling federal funds into banks, to be converted into affordable housing loans. In 1970, a second Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) was established by Congress for essentially the same purpose. With the belief that everyone was entitled to the American Dream, politicians, throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s, put more and more pressure of these two institutions, demanding that they significantly expand the number of families able to purchase their own homes. The result was a significant lowering in the standards required to qualify for a mortgage, with millions of families taking on a debt liability which they could not afford to repay, and acquiring property, the value of which was not properly appreciated. When the inevitable foreclosures came, these same people were indignant at having been "cheated" out of their homes, which they had been repeatedly told were theirs by "right".

    The message is clear: Your future is insured. Should you struggle and fail—or simply not struggle at all—the government will step in and manage your life, providing for you not simply the basic necessities, but the luxuries as well. Personal responsibility and self-reliance are no longer the coin of the realm. It is your need that matter, and we are here to take care of you, because that is your birthright as an American. Sit back and take it easy. You're entitled!

    Corporate Welfare:

    The 20th century was the heyday of private corporate research, with businesses reinvesting a sizable percentage of their profits back into R&D intended to yield future business innovations. These companies often employed scientists in a variety of field, allowing them the freedom to explore areas of pure research which often resulted in startling discoveries leading to a large number of Nobel Prizes. Some of the more notable corporate research facilities included:
    • AT&T's Bell Labs, which was responsible for inventing radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the UNIX operating system, the C and C++ programming languages, information theory, large-scale integrated circuits, CCD sensors, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

    • Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), the birthing place of the modern personal computer, including invention of the bitmapped display, the graphical user interface (GUI), mouse, laser printing, ethernet, what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) text editing, object-oriented programming, along with the liquid crystal display (LCD), the optical disc, IPv6 protocol and the Smalltalk programming language.

    • IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center, in conjunction with numerous other worldwide research facilities, created magnetic storage systems, the FORTRAN programming language, invented the relational database, speech recognition, the token-ring network, the Blue Gene super-computer, the scanning tunneling microscope, wrote the SABRE commercial airline scheduling system, and discovered high-temperature superconductivity and fractal geometry.

    • GE's Global Research Centers which were responsible for the vacuum tube as well as the fluorescent and halogen lamps, the first television broadcast, the jet engine, non-reflecting glass, silicone chemistry, the seeding or clouds, the auto-pilot, Lexan polycarbonate resin, artificial diamond production, solid-state lasers, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

    Of course this merely scratches the surface in the history of the innovations created through efforts of private enterprise. Yet, despite this stellar historical track record of rapid advancement, government has found a need to intervene, undermining the foundation of private research through the public funding of agricultural, scientific, technology and industrial research, either through public universities, or by grants and other subsidies given directly to businesses. According to a CATO report, the direct and indirect subsidy to private businesses in 2006 was $92 billion. Today, with the TARP bailouts, stimulus bills, pork buried in trillion dollar budgets, and the FED's inability to keep track of $9 trillion(!), the size of the corporate welfare system is difficult to estimate accurately. However, a few things are clear:
    • First, as CATO puts it, this public-private partnership clearly breeds an "incestuous relationship" where businesses lobby government for special favors, and government officials extract kickbacks (also known as "campaign contributions") in exchange for back-room promises to wield influence on behalf of the paying business.

    • Secondly, government influence ultimately ends up directing research away from promising avenues of investigation as identified by smart, creative individuals, and towards areas which supports a predetermined political agenda — perverting the scientific method in the process. There are numerous examples of this, but none so clear as the abomination concerning the public funding of climate science research, turning it into the corrupt handmaiden of political interests.

    • And third, when one business can fund its research and development programs at the taxpayer's expense, this frees up those previously allocated funds to be directed towards other areas, including supporting the businesses bottom line. Competitors, still responsible for their own development costs, are now placed at a significant disadvantage and either learn to also feed at the public trough, or eventually close their doors.

    Public funding of research, as well as all other forms of business subsidies, are like a cancer. Once introduced into the free-enterprise system they slowly advance, killing the thriving private organisms, and leaving a malignant form of corrupt Fascism in their place.

    Learned Helplessness:

    From Wikipedia:
      "Learned helplessness, as a technical term in ... human psychology, means a condition of a human being ... in which it has learned to behave helplessly, even when the opportunity is restored for it to help itself by avoiding an unpleasant or harmful circumstance to which it has been subjected. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation."

      "One of the most intriguing aspects is "vicarious learning (or modelling
      [sic])": that people can learn to be helpless through observing another person encountering uncontrollable events."

    This description of learned helplessness gets to the essence of what is most damaging in all government programs of assistance and regulation. Each time the government acts to intervene, it sends a clear and powerful two-pronged message:
    • You are not responsible
    • You are not in control

    Accepting responsibility is the essence of adulthood. Approaching our life rationally, we gather experience and knowledge in order to prepare ourselves for the challenges that the we may encounter. As we acquire more skills and understanding, we gain confidence in our abilities and take pride in our willingness to face the future, whatever it may hold. And because of this, our life becomes an exciting adventure to be embraced, rather than an exercise in fearful caution. But all of this may be undermined if one believes that they have no control over their destiny and no responsibility to choose and guide their future course. Yet this is exactly what the government does to so many.

    While professing to help people in need, every government action does more harm than good, by stripping the recipient of the dignity of their adulthood and forcing them to accept the role of helpless child. When this is repeated over and over, the message is reinforced and the "helplessness" simply becomes the norm. Seen in this light, it is no wonder that so many on welfare rarely demonstrate the initiative to pull themselves out of their impoverished conditions, when every incentive to do so has been destroyed by the government's oh so unhelpful hand.

    Fortunately, the culture of entrepreneurship still thrives in this country, providing an outlet for those motivated by the thrill of a challenge and the opportunity to test one's abilities to the fullest. Start-ups and small businesses have generally flown under the government's radar and been relatively free of its strong-arm regulatory controls. But as a business becomes more and more successful, it draws the government's attention and the game changes. Where once a business leader's judgment was his or her ultimate guide, and the responsibility for success or failure rested squarely upon their shoulders, the encroachment of rules and regulations imposed from the outside destroys that simple calculation. When it begins to be more important to address the requirement of the bureaucrats than those of the market; when pleasing some politician rather than the customer becomes the standard of business success; when the majority of your profits flow in from Washington D.C. with strings attached; then you are playing a child's game of appeasement, and no self-respecting adult would agree to submit to those terms. So the adults are systematically driven from the ranks of big business, leaving their operations to those of undeveloped character, lacking independence, integrity and pride.

    In this country, there have now been four generations raised under the ever increasing presumption that the government is Big Daddy, here to protect his children from the consequences of a complex, unpredictable and painful world. Not everyone has succumbed to the message, but enough have that it brings into question whether there remains a sufficient number of people still possessing the character required to address the difficult choices we now face. Will this country react like the petulant children we see demonstrating and rioting in Greece, France and Britain when faced with reality, or will it stand tall, as a proud adult, and act to preserve its future? We shall soon see.


    External links to reprints of this article:
    04-15-2010

    Permalink



    Barry Goldwater
    Subject: A Tax Day Tea Party Reminder Of Our Mission

      I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
      --
      Barry Goldwater (The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960)

    This is the litmus test for every acceptable candidate for any political office, whether local, state or federal. Copy this quote, reread it often, commit it to memory, and then use it as your measuring stick when evaluating your potential representatives. Do they demonstrate this clarity of understanding of the true purpose in job they seek? And do they exhibit the character and the conscience required to stand proudly and firmly in service of these constitutional principles? Let us settle for nothing less from them, for the restoration of our lost liberty hangs in the balance and demands our full allegiance to this cause.
    10-11-2009

    Permalink



    Bill Whittle
    Subject: American Exceptionalism

    Time for some good news for a change.

    Here is a very highly recommended 15 minute video by Bill Whittle on PJTV where he discusses exactly what makes the United States a truly exceptional country. Watch and enjoy.

    Bill Maher, Barack Obama and the Truth About American Exceptionalism


    [Thanks to Richard Gleaves for bringing this to my attention.]