A Lesson in Irresponsible Economic Policies or "There is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"

Our Future?

I have only two questions. 1. How long will it be before your town or State follows suit? 2. When will the people wake up and demand that our representatives in government act in a responsible manner by treating their constituents as adults who are capable of ruling their own lives as the founding fathers intended?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Need I say Anymore?

Poverty, Crime, Welfare and Minimum wages, Is there a Correlation?

This man believes that there is.




And then there are the words of wisdom from the man who wrote these words. Are they the words of a man who would approve of a socialistic form of a way of life as so many are clamoring for?

"For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?

On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.

St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence."

I am, your’s,
Ben Franklin

And we must not forget the words of Raul Castro;
"Cuba must stop being the only country in the world where it is not necessary to work.”

Your Tax Dollar Hard at Work (Part II)

We speak of that new millionaire who is still using food stamps but we can't blame him for it. He is using them in accordance to the laws in regards to food stamps. We also cannot blame the State of Michigan either for the State is only following the guidelines of the federal government out of whose treasury the money comes for food stamps.

You and I may consider what he is doing as being unethical and the man is without scruples for abusing the system outside of its intent and purpose. But if we acknowledge that laws can influence the way a man thinks and feels then we must ask ourselves one question. Is it just man who is at fault or is it the law itself that can be blamed for his feelings?

One more thought that people should consider. This man was using food stamps prior to winning the lottery. That means he must have had enough money to buy lottery tickets with. If the man was so needy and was getting welfare to provide for his needs then where did he get the extra money necessary to buy those tickets?  The only answer that I can come up with is that he used your tax dollars to buy the tickets.

I have to admit I still remember a time when people felt shame for taking a government handout of any kind. But then again there was a time when a poor person was not looked upon as being someone deserving of pity either nor did that person appreciate being shown pity. Those were the times when a man knew that if he was to make it in this world he had only himself to depend upon. Those were the times when self-respect was more important than having a dollar in your pocket.

We are a nation of laws or at least we promote ourselves as this kind of nation to the world. It is by laws that allow our government to serve the people or at least we promote that principle of government. Laws are enacted so as to benefit the people or at least we are taught that in our schools. There is one thing about laws that isn't mentioned though.

Laws can also be taken advantaged of for the intent and purpose of self-gain. And it doesn't matter what type of laws we speak of whether they be criminal laws or civil laws. In criminal law this is recognized by the axiom of “Tis better that one hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.”  Do we wish to use that same form of axiom in regards to those laws dealing with the financial welfare of individuals? Is it better to allow one hundred persons to take advantage of these programs for self-gain than to deny it to one person of need?

On top of people undeservedly taking advantage of these programs we must also consider one more factor. That factor being the actual fraudulent claims that by the very nature of the programs will result within a program like this. Is it better to allow one hundred fraudulent claims than to deny it of one person in need? Here is more of an example of fraud or people taking advantage of the genorosity of the tax payer. 200 ineligible dependents

As those who have been following me on this blog probably already know my answer is no. and in my opinion there is only two ways that the government can deal with the financial welfare of individuals that cannot be taken advantage of, legally or illegally. The government can expand the program so as to allow everyone to participate in that program without any bias or prejudice. The other way is for the government to eliminate the program all together. You have two guesses as to which one I’d prefer.

Now, there will be some who will call me hard-hearted because of this. They will tell you I have no compassion. If that be their feelings about me then so be it. But if I am to be accused of this it will be only at the expense of those towards whom I am soft-hearted. If I am to be accused of this then it will only be at the expense of those who I feel deserve greater respect then what is being shown to them.

Where do my thoughts lie? They lie in the idea of the 48% who display their ethics by working 1/3 of every day or more away from their families so that some may spend the whole day with their families, the taxpayer. My feelings lie in the knowledge that the government demands that the taxpayer has to place the needs of strangers above the needs of his own family. My feelings and thoughts lie in the fact that these men must provide the means to other so that they can fulfill their dreams before he is allowed to fulfill his own and those of his own family.  Is that what the American Dream is all about?

What say you? Are my thoughts and feelings misplaced?

Your Tax Dollar Hard at Work

Man wins two million dollars and still buys his food with food stamps.  Is it any wonder that our governments have so much debt?  The thing about it is that he feels no guilt about using them. How many others hold to these same feelings?  Here is a good example of how programs like this affect people.  Congratulations, taxpayers.  Here is how your compassion is received and returned.

Here is why Raul Castro said, "Cuba must stop being the only country in the world where it is not necessary to work.”

 Million dollar food stamps

The End Results of a Constitution Seen as a "Living Document" not as a "Contract"

Ok, folks, this is the kind of Supreme court rulings you can expect to get handed down when you interpret the Constitution in the manner of it being a “living document” instead of it being interpreted in the manner of a “contract”. It is just this type of flexibility that needs to be prevented. It was just this type of government abuse of power that is the reason for constitutional law.

It is just this type of rulings that justifies the accusation that government is abusing the power given to them by the people. So, all of you who thinks that our way of life as given to us by the founding fathers has failed to live up to its promises take a good clear look at the future you are promising the people. Take a good look and see a future that has already failed before you have implemented it completely.

Take a good look at what your government expects of you, the people. It expects that you submit unto its power without the right to protect the privacy of your home now. This is your change you promised. This what we have to hope for in the future. Justify it if you can.

The future you promised is nothing but taking us back to the past prior to the founding fathers when the government had the right to invade your home and do whatever it wanted. This is what you get when you no longer adhere to the principles of individual rights but promote the idea of class rights. Do rulings like this declare that the government is a servant of the people or is it declaring that government is the Master?

And if you look into my past articles you will see many warnings about what can result from the way you interpret life, government, and the constitution. And know this, if we the people submit to rulings such as this I will predict that it will only go downhill from here in regards to individual rights if they are not already been denied to the people.

As for their excuse of the idea that to submit unto the government's power in order to avoid violence is just that, it is just an excuse to grab even greater power. Violence would have been avoided if the agents of the government had acted in accordance to the law. All this ruling did was to deny an individual the right of self-defense. If a man no longer has the right to protect the security of his home then what does he have the right to protect?

Now, what am I speaking of? Of what am I ranting about? It is this.  Read and weep, my friends.  I can't think of anything more shameful than what I have read here.  Liberty has just been lost as it never existed for the people.  I hope you can enjoy your victory my liberal friends.
Court: No right to resist an illegal act of a government agent

a h/t to the Libertarian Patriot

Liberalism, a Look at It as being in the Mode of the Enlightenment of the Founding Fathers

I have just spent some time viewing Dr. Hicks teachings of philosophy and what I have learned from these lectures was probably the most enlightening lectures that I have ever heard. The following video is but the first of this series of lectures. It is a series of lectures explaining the philosophy of Post- modernism. The most significant understanding I got from these lectures is the fact I hear these same arguments used and see them being utilized in the politics of today's world.

The one significant conclusion that I have come to is the idea of what a liberal sees himself as being identified and what a conservative sees himself as being identified. Both sees themselves in the mode of the founding fathers thus see the opposition in light of this perception of themselves. But in order to understand this we must first identify the fact that we live in the age of the philosophy of modernism or as it is more commonly thought of as living in a modern world as ushered in by the enlightenment era or the age of reason. And our nation is a foundational example of this new train of thought.

This then would identify the time prior to this age as the age of premodernism or the premodern world with any age after this as being the age of post-modernism or the post-modern world. The liberal sees himself in the mode of the founding fathers who were the innovators of the modern world movement in that the liberal today is the innovators of the post- modern movement. This contrast with the conservative who is attempting to conserve the modern world movement as the founding fathers ushered in.

In closing I can only say that I suggest that you should sit thru the whole series of videos and see how his lectures are being played out in this modern world and understand from a philosophical point of view what the conflicts of political viewpoints are. If you listen closely you'll hear the arguments of liberalism as they now are presented as well as being instituted in this society.

And you will understand why the liberal mindset is so critical of the way of life we have in this nation also. You will also understand how Marxism plays a part in this mindframe as well. I believe you will find that the time spent watching as well as listening to these lectures will be time well worth it.  I know I did. What say you?

The rest of the lectures can be found here, Dr. Hicks

A New Look At the Success of Socialism

The Basic Theory behind Socialism

The Right of a job as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist faces layoffs

No exploitation of the worker as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist hires a man to work

All Property is the Property of the Community as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist owns private property









In closing I can only say that I prefer the promise of failure that is inherent in the Capitalistic system over the promises of success that is promoted by the Socialistic system.

What say you?

UPDATE:
At the suggestion of one of my valued commenters I will change the wording of the preference that I made above to;

In closing I can only say that I prefer the guarantee of failure to some persons that is inherent in the Capitalistic system over the promises of success to all persons by the Socialistic system. The only thing that both systems possess in common are politicians who will lie to the people.

Here is a Challenge, A Challenge That No Liberal Can Afford to Turn Down

Click on the Picture above

So, some politicians advocate taxing the rich more than they are already taxed. Well, the hilarious part of this is the fact that nobody pays taxes willingly and that includes liberals. Myself, I would have to question the sanity of anyone who would say that they pay their taxes willingly. And if you raise the rate of taxation on some people are they going to pay their taxes more or less willingly than they do now? Let's see how willingly the rich pays their taxes at the rate now. How many of them are avowed liberals? Click on the picture for the link.

And we must admit one more thing. These persons are but a few of the rich who could afford to pay their taxes but didn't. And we can say that they only paid their taxes because they got caught not paying them. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many more persons such as these who are just as guilty of tax evasion but just have not been caught for some reason or another. I would further propose that tax evasion occurs not only in the class of the rich but that it occurs in every class of taxpayers.

As anyone who lives by a budget knows, taxes is an expense item just as any other expense item listed in that budget. Yet when it comes to paying that expense it has the lowest of priorities in our lives. We are far more willing to pay any other expense than we are of taxes. What is it about taxes that we give it our lowest priority?

I think that there are as many reasons for it as there are persons to take on this question and place an answer to it. My take on it can be summed up with three thoughts. Those thoughts being;

It is the one item in our personal budget that we do not perceive as a necessity to sustain our individual Life. It is the one item in our budget that we perceive as going against every principle of the meaning of personal Liberty. It is the one item in our budget that is an obstacle in our personal Pursuit of Happiness.

And I'll add one more reason. It is the one expense item that is imposed upon persons rather than accepted as a result of a agreement between two parties. It is the only expense item that a person could end up in prison for not paying even if it means not paying some other more important expense.

Here is my challenge to every liberal in the nation. If you honestly believe that raising taxes on the people is the right thing to do then do it.  If you honestly believe that raising taxes on the people is being fiscally responsible then do it. If you believe that raising taxes is abiding by the will of the people then do it.  But be willing to raise them high enough so that tax revenues equal expenses of the federal and state governments as well as the local governments each and every fiscal year. Then raise them a bit more to start paying off the debts of this nation.

Let's see just how fiscally responsible it turns out to be. There is no excuse for not doing it if you really believe that is the way to go. If you do not than everything you promise, every word you say is nothing but empty rhetoric and shows that your ideology has no merit.

UPDATE:
Just an added thought that I might pass along to all that I have challenged.  If it is additional revenue that is needed to balance the budget and to pay off the debt of the government then it must come from somewhere and someone.  As we see the rich will try to get out of paying it and unless we do raise taxes then the burden must fall upon our children.  Let's hear what they have to say about taking on the burden of the debt.



So, what say you, my liberal friends?  Do the youth of our nation give you even greater incentive to do what you think is right by raising the taxes on the people?

A h/t to "The Conservative Girl" for the video.

Who are the Real Servants of the People?

I need to say no more about my stance on government and who are the real servants of the people. This video says it all for me. To me, this video exemplifies the difference in the meaning behind "In God we Trust" and "In Government we Trust". For in this video we see how government shows its belief in the people instead of demanding that the people show its belief in government.

a h/t to the professor over at Legal Insurrection for this video and story.

Business Run Like a Family, Living as a Business (Part 2)

As was said in the previous post, if a family ran their lives more like a business they would realize just how much like a family a business is already run. In order to do this we must look at the situation from a financial aspect of the family. The reason being is that is what business is all about, finances. And whether we like it or not financial affairs consume a major part of the lives of people and the better people manage their financial affairs the better their lives are.

So, what is it that business practices that would benefit a family? The very first thing to understand is that every business that became successful starts out with a business plan. And that business plan contains a goal that it strives to meet in order to consider it self successful. And within that plan is a time limit to meet that goal. And each and every person who is a part of that business has but a single purpose, to do their part in achieving that goal and when this is realized then it can be said that teamwork is in play.

Another aspect of a good business plan is that it must be examined periodically to ascertain if the business is on track for meeting the goal as set. If there be a problem then a solution must be found so that it does remain on track for that goal to be achieved.

And this would be the first thing a couple should do once they have decided to marry, create a family plan for their lives together. This has to be a plan that each must strive to achieve in the knowledge that it will only be achieved as a team. It is this that gives real meaning to the idea of love for each and every member of that family will be working to achieve that goal not only for themselves but doing it to help every other member of that family achieve that goal also.

For if they do not each person of that relationship will create one for themselves in expectation that the other will support that plan and in time those plans will end up in conflict. A good example of this are celebrity relationships.

People who create a good family plan leaves more than just an inheritance for their children. They leave a legacy for the world as well as for their children for they have passed down something to be remembered for generations to come. When it is time to look back on a life each person can do so in satisfaction of what they have achieved as a family.

The most important tool of business is called a “budget”. Without a budget a business has no idea of how it is doing. It is the backbone of every good business. And no man should even attempt to start up a business without a good understanding of the use of this tool. He must understand that a budget is more than an expense sheet. From this budget both a profit/loss sheet and a balance sheet can be made.

This is also true with a family plan. A good understanding of the many uses of a budget is an integral part of a good family plan. It should be the determinant of every penny spent whether on a short term basis or on a long term basis. For it is only in the spending of money that a person has control over. And this be true of both, business as well as a family.

It is not how much a person earns that is the determinant of whether a man is rich or poor. It is how a man spends his earnings that will determine it. Every man will spend his earnings with the intent of accumulating assets or he will spend his earnings with the intent of accumulating liabilities. Whether or not a person has a good understanding of a budget will be a big factor in determining which of the two categories in which a person will find himself. This be true of both, the man who is the head of a business or the man who is the head of a family.

One basic understanding in regards to a budget is the fact that earnings is the subjective as well as the limited aspect of a budget. And expenses should be ascertained as determined by the limitations of those earnings. If a person does not realize this as well as abide by this simple principle the success of a business and the well being of a family is jeopardized and each member of both institutions will have to suffer the consequences.

One last thought before I finish. There are four basic institutions in every society, the family, business, institutions of charity and government. Each and every one of these institutions need a budget. Each of these institutions need leaders who understand what a budget is and its purpose if they are to run that institution in a manner that is beneficial to the welfare of the effected members of that society.

Of those four institutions only one is a monopoly. Of those four institution only one has an effect on each and every person in society. Can we, the people, afford for that one institution to fail which is inevitable if its leaders do not have a good understanding of the purpose of a budget? Can we afford to elect men who spend money accumulating liabilities rather than accumulating assets?

Business Run Like a Family, Living as a Business

I heard a teacher in college once exclaim the following;

“If people ran their lives more like a business and businesses ran more like families everyone would have a better life.”

As a student I had no way to argue for it or against it so I just accepted that the teacher was a wiser person than I was. But now, I would dispute this. This statement is a statement only a politician who thinks he understands the discipline of sociology or only by a sociologist who wants to be a politician would make.

And I have just about as much respect for a sociologist as I do a politician. They both possess the same fault . They both believe that they can create the perfect society and each, with the help of the other, believe that this state of existence is an attainable goal.

And how do each try to create this perfect society? They believe that if the dominant sector of a society changes its attitude towards the subordinate sector of this society and treat them as equals then they will have a perfect society. And they see nothing wrong in the use of force to bring about this change in attitude.

And they justify this use of force by using the excuse they are just helping the less fortunate individuals of society. What they do not think about is that the word help does not permit the use of force to bring about change. Help, to be known as help must be voluntary and consensual on the part of both parties, the one being helped as well as the one doing the helping. Helping another by the means of force is the foundational basis of the meaning of being a slave.

For it can be said that by the use of force a slave is helping his Master. Yet, one thing must be noted, no one will ever use the word help in their description of a Master/slave relationship. In fact people will describe this relationship in a manner that not only decries the use of force but declares it an intolerable situation because of the use of force to not only create that relationship but also necessitates the use of force in order to maintain that relationship.

Now, granted, recognition of the difference between these two concepts does not change the behavior of either person but it does have an effect on the attitude of each person in regards to themselves and in regards to the other person. The reason being is that a person must do the same thing when aiding another person.

What neither realizes or fails to understand is the fact that in order to create this perfect society they must have absolute control over every aspect of the lives of every one of the members of this society. You can't explicitly declare that you are going to change the way a society is without implicitly declaring that you are seeking to change the individuals of that society. The same is true when a person is forced to do something for himself.

And the justification for this that there are people who knows what is the best thing to do for another person. In other words some people believe that they are much more wiser than others thus this justifies making decisions for them. This is treating people as if they are children rather than treating them as adults who have the ability to make their own decisions in life.

We make decisions for children because we know that they are not mature enough to make good decisions on their own. We also know that there must come a time to cut the umbilical cord and recognize that it is time they must be responsible for their own decisions even when we as parents feel that the decisions they make are not beneficial to them.

In both cases we have a “cannot” instead of a “can” situation. A slave cannot make his own decisions about his own life because he does not have the power and authority to do so. A child cannot make his own decisions because he does not have the sufficient maturity to do so. The big difference being is that enslavement is intended on being a permanent condition of life while childhood is known to be a temporary condition of life

That is the biggest problem with the equality principle. In order to achieve equality force must be applied. Equality can never be achieved on a voluntary and consensual basis even if it is accepted that people should be treated and behave as equals. The biggest reason being is that each of us has a different concept of the meaning of equality. The proof of this is seen in the fact of the many different segments of society demanding equal treatment from other segments and they demand this equal treatment without thought of the fact that it isn't being practiced within their own segment of society. How can you demand from others something that you do not practice yourself?

In closing I will only add this remark as a rebuttal to the observation stated in the beginning;

I would say that if families ran their lives more like a business they would realize just how much like a family a business is already run. This is one thing that a farmer's family learns first hand.

A Government by Constitution or by Ideology, Which is Your Choice? (Part 2)

Once grandpa had the full attention of the crowd once again he continued with the following words.

"Accepting the solution will require every ounce of courage within each of you, the people. Accepting this solution will require that each of you to put aside any differences that you might have with others and unite as a people who desires a constitutional government. It will require that each of you put aside your political ideologies and act as a people united in seeking a way of life as no other people have in this world. Can you do that?

Believe it or not this solution is already available and is just waiting to be implemented. It is a solution that began over a hundred years ago though its purpose would be seen as different than its purpose as I outlined this day. And if you accept this solution you must understand this difference if you are to defend your position. It will require that you keep your focus on the future instead of allowing your opponents to focus your thoughts on the past.

You, the people will need to ask yourselves whether or not your political ideology takes priority over the Constitution as it was intended. For only one can determine what kind of nation we will be. For I am about to test your courage of conviction as it has never been tested before. The ramifications that will result will be tremendous and will be felt for generations to come.

The choice is yours, my friends. We can once again be a nation united by the consent of all or we can remain a nation united by force. We can once again be nation governed in a constitutional manner or remain a nation governed by ideology. Which do you, the people, choose?

The solution is to demand that the States ratify the Corwin amendment to the Constitution. This amendment has already been passed by the Congress of the United States. Three States have already ratified it. All that it requires is that you, the people, demand that your State add their names to the ratification of this amendment. The one benefit of this amendment is that it has no time limit in regards to its ratification.

It is a simple amendment and uses very little words. Presidents Buchanan as well as Lincoln both approved of this amendment. In fact, President Lincoln sent a message to the governors of each State urging them to ratify this simple amendment. It is an amendment that even President Lincoln understood as clarification of the intent of the founding fathers in terms of the rightful interpretation of the Constitution.

And this alone would be reason enough to ratify it and make it the most important addition to the Constitution for it would require that all abide by the Constitution as the founding fathers intended not by political ideology. This amendment would declare that the Constitution was clearly written and that there are no ambiguous statements in it. For it would clearly define the limitations and the division of powers of the form of government that the founding fathers had in mind. Of this there can be no doubt if one seeks a Constitutional government as it was intended to be. It will explicitly declare what was only implicitly understood.

Another benefit of the ratification of this amendment is that our history as a nation will be understood in a different light. Heroes will no longer be seen as heroes and villains will no longer be seen as villains. The words of the past will be understood as they should be and without bias or prejudice as they are now.

What are the words of this simple amendment? They are the following words;

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State”

Read the words my friends. Ponder their meaning. Recognize the implication of its purpose and effect. Realize just how much this simple amendment will bring about change to the governance of this nation. Think about how this simple amendment has the power to unite us as a people and as a nation. Think about how this simple amendment will allow all persons to fulfill all of their political dreams regardless of political persuasion. Challenge your own preconceptions about government and its role in the lives of its citizens.

The choice is yours, my friends. In the acceptance of this challenge you will be seeking a government that abides by constitutional principles. In the rejection you will continue to have a government that abides by ideological principles. How much value you place on the Constitution will be determined by your decision."

With these words grandpa paused once more as he saw the crowd begin to really look at each other and you could hear the buzz of whispers throughout. Then a shout could be heard from the crowd.

“And how will this one amendment do all that you have promised that it would do?

Grandpa just grinned and said, “A good question, my friend, and I hope that there are many more like this. For it is the answers to questions such as this one that each of you must know if you are to defend your position on this issue of division of powers that the founding fathers intended.”

A Government by Constitution or by Ideology, Which is Your Choice?

Grandpa took grandma and me to a political gathering at a local park. Grandpa and a few other men were asked to give a little talk at this gathering. Here were the words he had to say.  His voice had the strength of his convictions.  Within his voice was a resolve that betrayed his beliefs.


“Our founding fathers declared this a nation of people. In doing so they eliminated the idea of a nation of classes. But that elimination of classes was not by the use of force but by recognition of the individual. And if you want a government that does not divide us up into different classes then it must be you that acts so as to prevent it. And there is a way to do just that.

People, when this nation was founded we became the United State as a result of a mutual agreement of the States. Right now we no longer are the United States by agreement but by force. This was the primary end result of the war between the States. If you want a nation united by agreement once more rather than by force then it must be you that demands it. And there is a way to do just this.

People, this agreement that I speak of is called the Constitution of the United States. This constitution clearly separated the powers of government between the federal government and State governments. This separation no longer exists because the States lost their rights as guaranteed in that Constitution. If you want a nation that recognizes these guaranteed State's rights then it must be you that sees to it that they be recognized. And there is a way to do this.

People, we now have a huge gigantic all powerful federal government. It no longer is the limited government as the founding fathers intended for it to be. If you want a government that is limited in its powers then it must be you that must protest this unauthorized seizure of powers. And there is a way to do this.

People, as a result of this unauthorized seizure of power the federal government has run up a debt that not even our children or grandchildren will be able to pay. If you would like to see the federal government pay off this debt and allow you to leave your children a nation that does not demand that they pay for the debts of your generation then it must be you that is willing to pay down this debt. And there is a way to do this.

People, as a result of this unauthorized seizure of power the federal government has attempted to force its citizens to give up their individual rights time and time again in the last 75 years beginning with Franklin Roosevelt. The latest attempt is commonly referred to as Obamacare. Truman attempted this while he was in office and Clinton attempted this while he was in office. If you would like to prevent another attempt at a government takeover of your life then it must be you that protects your own individual rights. And there is a way to do this.

People, as a result of this unauthorized seizure of power the federal government is confiscating a greater amount of money from you then is necessary in taxes to pay its bills. This prevents you from using that additional money to take better care of your family. If you believe that the needs of your family takes priority over the bills of the government then it must be you that makes sure that your government understands this. And there is a way to do this.

People, as a result of this unauthorized seizure of power by the federal government, the Supreme court is divided in its interpretation of the very Constitution it must rely on to judge its cases. If you believe that it should be interpreted consistently in all cases so that the laws apply to all then it is up to you to leave no doubt as to how it should be interpreted by every member of that Court. And there is a way to do this.

People, as a result of this unauthorized seizure of power by the federal government, Congress is divided by political ideology instead of being united in purpose and intent and divided only by the authorized means to promote the purpose and intent.

People, I could go on and on about how the federal government is abusing its power and authority and if none of the above arguments does not touch your sense of a unjust government then sooner or later I could. And that includes each of you regardless of political ideology.

The only question that remains is whether or not you, the people, wish to be governed in a constitutional manner or not. If you do then there is a way to be assured of this. If you do then you must be willing to accept the consequences that will result from the application of the solution so that your children will not have to. The choice must be made by you, the people.

Have I tempted you enough to listen for the solution? I hope so for I see no hope for this nation unless you, the people, do. The solution will be change, a very big change. Change that will require that all of government honor its agreement with the people. Change that will require that all of government respect each and every one of its citizens over whom it rules as men of free will as promised instead of treating them as subjects whose lives are determined by the men of government.

This will be change that will require that you, the people, accept the sacrifices of that change so that your children and grandchildren will have hope for their own future as respected individuals. This will be change that you, the people must be willing to pay the price so that your grandchildren will not need to pay. Are you willing to make that sacrifice? Are you willing to pay that price? I know that I am.

Before I tell you the solution I must give this warning. If you accept this solution your opponents will not allow you a moment of peace. You will be accused of being the lowest of life forms, of this I have no doubt. Your reputation will be tarred and feathered. Your opponents probably will challenge your self-esteem and self-respect in ways that you cannot imagine. Even your families will not be immune to the attacks of this stance.  You will be aligned with the greatest of villains of history by your opponents even as I say that you will be aligning yourselves with the greatest of heroes of our nation, the founding fathers”

With these words said grandpa paused to allow the words sink into the minds of the crowd that had gathered to hear him.  The crowd just stood there in silence glancing at each other and at members of their own family.  But none moved as they awaited to hear the rest of grandpa's words though you could feel the apprehension in the air around them.

Human Beings With All of their Differences and Inequalities of Nature (Part 4)

To continue with this series of essays about human beings we need to examine one more position. It is the center position of the extremes as described in the previous posts.


The absolute extreme of the center is more difficult to describe. The reason being is that it is usually defined as a combination of the two outer extremities, the right and the left. One way to describe it would be that it is an absolute compromise of the absolute extremes. The big problem with this is that it focuses on the outcome without considering what happens to the means.

We as human beings are governed by our principles concerning morality. Those principles influence our every decision of behavior. What a compromised solution does is necessitate a change of behavior without consideration of the beliefs involved. The behavior has changed but the principle held still remains. In other words, the man has become a hypocrite to his beliefs and with each compromise he makes the more of a hypocrite he is. And with each compromise made the easier it becomes to compromise again.

A man who is willing to compromise is a liar. For that man is portraying himself to the world as being somebody that he is not. His behavior belies his beliefs. Most important is the fact that he is betraying the most important person in his life, himself. In order to live with himself truth would have to have no meaning to this person.

And like lies one compromise will, inevitably, lead to another compromise. Sooner or later this man will be forced to face the truth about himself and when this happens he will have to suffer the consequences of his own making. Since compromise cannot be justified on its own merits then it only can be justified by demeaning the purity of the absolute extreme positions in some manner or another.

The big problem with this position concerns responsibility and doing things the right way or the wrong way. This is a position of shared responsibility. This would be a position where all behavior is behavior that is considered as being both determined and of free will. This alone would declare this position as being self-contradictory. Why would we want someone to accept responsibility for a behavior that they have no control over? We would be blaming the victim of this behavior if we hold him responsible. Is that the right thing to do?

It is also a position where right and wrong must be considered as being blurred. Some would even say that there is no right or wrong way of doing things. This would be a position of amorality. It would be a position taken where evaluation of behavior is not influenced by one's sense of morality. The only conclusion that a person can come to based on the premises allowed is that responsibility of the behavior cannot be ascertained logically without presupposing responsibility. This would go against the whole idea of the meaning of justice.

This would presuppose that something else other than a sense of morality should be used to ascertain responsibility. What else can people possess on an equal basis that could be used as a determinant of responsibility that would not be biased and prejudicial? What else can people possess on an equal basis that does not automatically declare one person guilty and another person innocent of behavior simply by the possession of it? What else can a person possess on an equal basis that doesn't automatically prevent a relationship between two persons of different positions of society? What else can a person possess on an equal basis that would restrict the behavior of each equally?

What say you, my friends? Can someone provide me an answer to my questions?

Education and Its End Results, A Tale of Failure?



The ball and chain of Ignorance

 You hear the argument a lot by liberals that conservatives seek replace science and to impose theology upon this nation. What are your viewpoints in regards to these statistics about a nation?


A third of the people of this nation believe that the solar system revolves around the earth.

55% of the people of this nation believe that all radioactivity is man-made.

29% of the people of this nation believe that man roamed the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Sounds as if this is a nation that has imposed theology upon its people and ignored science in its educational system, doesn't it? Even I was surprised at these figures when reading about them. Gave me a moment of pause when evaluating the educational system of this nation. Have you any guesses as to which nation these statistics refer to? The answer may surprise you. The answer is here
-------------
WANT TO GET RID OF THE FLEAS IN THE CARPET?
Forget all of the chemical poisons. Get out the vacuum cleaner. Flea Cleanup

Human Beings With All of their Differences and Inequalities of Nature (Part 2)

As we said in the first part of this essay people are funny creatures. They can be categorized into generalized groups with the same attributes and then re-categorized into sub groups until we get a category of one individual person whose attributes have no equal. And while we declared that there is no absolute extreme nor an absolute center we can imagine that there is one and determine what that person's attributes would be.


If we were to take a person on the absolute left of our illustration we could then see what drives him. Being outer motivated he would believe that he has absolutely no control over his own life. Since he had no control then he would accept absolutely no responsibility for his actions. He would know what he has done because he has the ability to think of what he is doing but he would believe he could not have prevented what he did. He would go through life believing he had only one option of behavior and his proof is the fact of his own behavior. This is the essence of the meaning of determinism.

The idea of good or bad behavior would be irrelevant to this man because to acknowledge that would be to acknowledge the possibility that he had a choice of behavior. He would be perceived as being a man without any emotions or feelings for others or anything not even for himself. And to be consistent he would believe this is true for everyone as well as everything. The idea of free will would be non-existent in the mind of this person. He would be a person without regret for anything he did. Seeking forgiveness would not occur to a person such as this for that in itself would require that he had a choice as would accepting praise.

This would be a person who would attribute his every behavior to the laws of physics in some manner or another. Life would have no meaning to this person other than the fact that it is a part of the nature of this existence. Since life would have no meaning the concept of liberty or the pursuit of happiness would be meaningless concepts to this person also.

The laws of the state would be meaningless to this person. By the nature of his existence, as believed, he will either abide by them or he won't because he has no choice. Any benefits or consequence he may get out of it is only as it should be. His fate is determined already. He is only experiencing what he was fated for him by existing. This person would only see the laws of the state as being necessary until science has discovered the laws of the behavior of man. Once discovered the state would cease to exist for it would not serve any purpose anymore.

Inequality of persons would also be meaningless because he would believe that all are equally bound by this same idea and that no one had a choice of who they may be in this existence. Since the idea of consent would also need to recognize the concept of choice then it also would have no meaning. The idea of force would be the only concept he would recognize as existing thus justifying its use. Its justification would come from defining it along the lines of being a scientific term of being nothing else other than a physical influence on behavior. And with this definition declares the righteousness of the principle of the ends justifying the means.

Even the idea of the existence of a God would be meaningless to this person. For to recognize His existence would also mean he'd have to recognize the existence of free will at that level also and declare that a life form with free will was the ultimate cause of all things even his behavior. And once this possibility is accepted then it could be declared that this person no longer holds to an absolute position to the left. He would hold to a position of a lesser degree of absoluteness.

This might be declared as one version of the meaning of perfection. It would be an existence where anything and everything would just be accepted as a part of the natural way of life. If it be the natural way of life then it is a life determined thus incapable of change. Man would only be declared as a witness to what life is as it should be. And it is only fate that determined that he be a witness to life and be emotionless about what he witnessed, a life without purpose or potential, a life without any meaning or opportunity. He would be witness to a life without value either to himself or to others. To demand that he be anything other than this would be demanding that he be a hypocrite to his beliefs.

Now this evaluation can be applied to all of the left each to a lesser degree of absoluteness than another or a greater degree of absoluteness than another as one finds himself on the spectrum of the curve. For as one sees himself so does he expect others to be also and any variance would be a contradiction of belief. And by doing so abides by the principle of treating others as he himself would like to be treated.

If there be a change of belief it would be a change that places them further to the left than where they be now. The only influence for this new change would be the new discoveries of science in regards to the causes of human behavior.

In closing, the left consists of those whose beliefs are consistent to the concept of determinism to a greater degree of porportionality. And government is but a tool to be used as the means to bring a society closer to the perfect existence as determined never to need change. And they see this as being inevitable as science learns more thus will be the catalyst of this inevitability.

Human Beings With All of their Differences and Inequalities of Nature

Funny creatures are the human animal. As told in a previous post they can be separated by two basic principles, those who are inner motivated and those who are externally motivated. They can be further identified by the idea that externally motivated persons accept the premise of determinism while internally motivated persons accept the premise of free will.

We can go even farther in this identification by using what Sociologists call the Bell curve. Each person of a group possessing his own particular point on that curve and no one point being occupied by more than one person. This alone would declare us as individuals with no equal. The inner motivated person will occupy a space to the right of center while the externally motivated person occupying a space to the left of center.

Based upon the principle of this Bell curve, about 68% of the people will occupy the center, divided equally from the center. The other 32% of the people being distributed on the outer edge of this curve also equally divided as illustrated in the picture below. By placing those persons who are externally motivated on the left half of this curve and those internally motivated on the right half of this curve we can identify each group along familiar lines of political identification, the left and the right.



The Bell Curve



By seeing a people along this line of thought we can now assign each of the personality traits and their complements to each side of the curve. Independency would be assigned to the right half of the curve and dependency to the left half of the curve. Those to the left would possess a collective mindset while those to the right would possess more of an individualistic mindset.

The most telling attribute that can be seen in this is how each side assigns responsibility to the behaviors of persons. Those to the left will assign responsibility to external causes while those to the right will assign responsibility to internal causes. Those to the left has a less tendency to assign blame to the person who committed the act than those on the right. And this has a great influence on each sides understanding of the meaning of justice or what would be called a just society. This alone would be enough to see how a person's view of things would influence his political views.

From the picture above a person can understand why some viewpoints are considered as extreme viewpoints while others are considered as centralist viewpoints. We must also understand that while viewpoints may be seen as being extreme that doesn't mean that they are of the absolute nature. It is just as hard to conceive of a viewpoint possessed that is on the absolute extreme as to conceive of a possessed viewpoint that is of the absolute center. These are positions that could only be occupied by God in my mind. It is only when persons take an absolute stance in regards to their possessed position that the position may have detrimental effects on themselves as well as others. For it is then that results in the perception that violence or force is an acceptable means to an end.


While the above may be advocated for individual persons there is one thing that can occupy the farthest extreme of this curve. It is the discipline of science. And it seeks to occupy the most extreme position on the left. It is the study of cause and effect and seeks to measure the amount of influence the cause has on the effect. And in the hard sciences, with the use of mathematics, science can come to an absolute conclusion.

And while the soft sciences can never come to an absolute conclusion this doesn't prevent them from creating a perception that their relative conclusions are absolute conclusions. And this, unfortunately, can lead a society to a misleading perception of the problems within a society and can effect how a solution is to be determined. Most important is how it may affect a person's perception of how others should behave when they assign responsibility to certain behaviors. They can end up demanding a certain behavior from others which could result in an act of hypocrisy by that other person.  This can have unintended devastating effects on a relationship.

The Value of Thoughts, The Value of Life Itself and the Price We Must Pay in Exchange

 Grandpa was heard mumbling while sitting at the computer.  Grandma just chuckled at me as she said,

"Ahhh, he said something  that got one of his friends angry with him again."

As we slipped closer behind him we could hear him say;

"Tell me, is there anything in the world that man has not given a value to? Is there anything of this world that man will not exchange for something else? And when man does exchange one thing for another isn't it because he has placed a greater value on the thing he seeks to possess than the thing he already possesses and is willing to give up in exchange?


When we explicitly increase the value of an object do we not implicitly decrease the value of its opposite? And if the answer is yes then what is the price that must be paid?

As we give greater value to safety do we not decrease the value of taking risks? As we give greater value to equality is not the value of dominance and subordination decreased? If greater value is given to the food that feeds the body does that not decrease the value of the food that feeds the spirit of man? And if this is so then what is the price to be paid?

As we give greater value to the collective does this not decrease the value of the individual? As we give greater value to the possessions of a man do we not decrease the value of the means we used to obtain those possessions? If true then what is the price that we must pay?

As we look at issues strictly from a neutral point of view do we not devalue the positives of that issue and increase the value of its negatives by default so as to declare that one neutralizes the other thus eliminating any value it has? What must be given up that has value in order to achieve a goal in life? Can we, as a people, afford to devalue anything that has value to an individual and do it without degrading the individual himself?

We talk about the quality of life yet we seek to extend the quantity of life with medical advances. What are we giving greater value? And once we have answered this question doesn't that answer implicitly declare that the other is devalued at the same rate?

Isn't the value of life the real issue when we speak of abortion, one side giving value to one life and the other declaring the other has greater value? Isn't it the value of life the real issue when speaking of medical care? Isn't it the value of life that is the real issue when we speak of welfare? We speak of wars, is the real issue the value of a man's life or is it the value of the quality of life that we seek that allows us to willingly and consensually pay the price of a man's life that is the real issue?

When we speak of the value of an education do we not implicitly declare that the possession of an education gives greater value to a person as a member of society? If an issue is defined does not that definition of the issue determine its value? And if we redefine that issue are we not redetermining the value of that issue also? If the answer is yes then are we giving it greater or less value? And what is the price that must be paid when that re-determination is made?

When we seek to change a way of life in a society aren't we implicitly declaring that the new way of life has greater value than the one we want to give up for it? And if so, have we taken into consideration what the price will be? Most important is the question how do we determine the value of that change without knowing if it will be a better way of life? What is the means by which we can determine its value? Was that change worth the price we must pay for it? Is it worth the sacrifice of all of the good that can be seen in the old ways because that will be part of the cost of the change?

There will be those who will promote the change and declare that there is no need to give up the good of the old way but that is like saying that it is possible to have your cake and eat it too. There will be those who will promote the change and only present the old ways in terms of negative value but all that does is hide the truth and can justifiably called misrepresentation of the facts or to use a term commonly heard today, false advertising. And when that is revealed I get skeptical of what is being promoted because then I wonder what is the actual value that is being hidden."

When grandpa stopped mumbling grandma looked at me and asked,

"What say you?"

The Fire of Liberty, The Security of Enslavement

They say that there are two types of persons in this world, those who are outer motivated and those who are inner motivated. The inner motivated internalizes responsibility while the outer motivated externalizes responsibility. This would be the foundational basis of a person's world viewpoint.


This concept governs the whole viewpoint of a person whether on a personal, political or religious level. It will be this concept that determines whether one is a determinist and collectivist or an individualist who believes in the free will of a person. While it can be determined that we are one or the other of these we must recognize one other type also.

To recognize this other type we must first designate these first two concepts as being the two extremes of the spectrum so as to create a center point of that spectrum. We can find the other type made up of both of the extremes which came about by the use of compromise. That type might be slightly left or right of that center point depending upon the issue or topic of discussion or debate.

In politics this division is clearly recognized by the political positions one takes in politics in regards to the role of government. These positions are commonly referred to as being on the right or the left with the independents in the middle of the fray. Every political party can be placed on this spectrum somewhere to the left or right of center on this spectrum with Democratic and Republican parties traditionally being recognized as being closest to the center on either side.

Without being judgmental the two political extremes of this spectrum would be the concepts of anarchy and either socialism or communism. I say it in a nonjudgmental way because in a perfect world these two concepts could be considered as the perfect political type of systems. Both theories has its foundation based on the least of those in society. One sees the strongest of society thus perceives all of society on the terms of the strongest. The other sees the weakest of society thus perceives all on the terms of the weakest.

One question that always came to mind when I came to this conclusion. That question being; in a perfect world would all be equal to the weakest of society or would all know the equality of the strongest of a society? Only when we can answer this question could we really determine which theory is the perfect theory of a perfect society and which is the least perfect theory of a perfect society.

But one problem with both theories is that we do not live in a perfect existence thus both are doomed to failure. And both are doomed for the same reason, the excessive use of force that only occurs in an imperfect state of existence. This is not to say that either system could not be tried and on a certain scale be seen as being successful.

But its success would not be as a result of creating a better society as the proponents of the system would convincingly promote. Its success would be dependent upon the acceptance of this excessive use of force as being justified in one manner or another. And in time a man will no longer see this excessive force as being justified and a rebellion will begin.

The centralist may be gloating over the fact that the extreme right and the extreme left are at each others throats but what the centralist don't realize is the fact that both sides are actually rebelling against the centralist position. Both sides have come to realize that they can no longer compromise their basic principles of government.

The only question that remains is which side the people will choose? We already know that the people will not accept the extreme of the right. Their compassion for the weak will prevent this. Whether or not they are strong enough as individuals to reject the extreme of the left is another story though.

What say you, my friend? Are you strong enough to resist the temptation of the promises that is being used to promote this form of society? Has individualism died out within the soul of the people? Has the fire of liberty been smothered by the promise of a security blanket? Only you can answer these questions, my friend.