I have pondered very long on this question. There are many different ideas to "forge a better society". Rather than getting into the fallacy of the statement itself, I want to answer the question to start a dialogue with people who do believe one can social engineer for "Social and Economic Justice."
So what does it mean, "social and economic justice". My interpretation would be the following. "To insure every person has equal opportunity to reach what ever goals they set for themselves, and for every person to be protected from fraud, discrimination, and complete destitution when their choices land them in an unhealthy and/or insecure place in society." I wonder if most can agree with this definition.
I know some people will challenge the above definition by adding specific ideological principals, but rather than put that in the definition, lets add those to the solution to separate ideologies into their proper place.
My idea of insuring Social and Economic Justice.
1) A fundamental shift from a top down approach to a bottom up approach. Rather than making a centralized all powerful government. Who knows how to protect the vulnerable, insure equality, or help the destitute, but the ones closest to those people. Charity starts at home, it does not start in Washington. I live in Sterling, IL. We have dozens of churches, we have dozens of charitable organizations, we have some great companies and we have many people of different philosophies. Let's use those resources to help city government prioritize what needs to happen here to make a great community. The last 100 years has systematically changed our culture to where people are becoming apathetic. Having a far off bureaucrat make decisions on who gets taxed and who gets the money is not only nonsensical, but immoral. The argument those on the other side might make is, that what if the local government or community discriminates or is corrupts. The ignorance of this argument is why would someone think a stranger from some far off centralized government be any different? The key is local involvement. There once was an environmental sticker that said, "think globally, act locally". There is some truth to that. Act locally, keeping in minds the universal truths of life, liberty and property.
2) Education shift. The critical step to "create" a better tomorrow is to prepare people for the challenges in the world. The problem today is schools focus on Reading, Math, Science, Cultural sensitivity, Sex, Environmental Studies, and Globalism. What we need to focus on is Math, Science, Reading, American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, Personal Responsibility and Natural Law. Yes some of these are the responsibility of the parents, but we need to make sure that our children understand choices have consequences, that social engineering = oppression of someone, and that failure is a learning tool, not an excuse. We will prepare our children for the world with the tools to succeed, not with ready made excuses, or chips on their shoulders. Without an honest intellectual understanding of Capitalism vs Marxism, are children are doomed to Marxism, as it has been made as an emotional appeal rather than logical one.
3) Equal justice under the law. When did they take the blind fold off lady justice? We see too often, well connected people get off. A treasure secretary, a congressman, a senator that are tax cheats that are not persecuted, while regular citizens and even some wealthy actors go to jail. How about a Director who rapes a girl? Where we see people get rich off of back door deals with government officials. With millionaire Senators lecture private citizens about greed, yet take 6 figure salarys and unbelievable benefit packages while lining their pockets with favors by the vary people they attack as making too much money. It is time our justice system returns to core values - enforcing all laws that have their root in Natural Law. One of the easiest ways to insure a better society is to enforce laws and create equal penalty under the law.
These 3 fundamental ideas will create the closest thing to what those that believe in Utopia could be here on earth. It has never been tried in the history of the world. The closest thing we have ever come to this was the first 80 years of our union.
We are compelled to restore our country to her principals of Liberty and a Judeo-Christian Culture from the secular progressive agenda. Blind justice, Limited government, and a faithful, virtuous people are what makes us a Great Nation.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Congratulations Sauk Valley
Wow, what a great day for liberty! Thanks so much for everyone that contributed in making yesterday an amazing day. 100's of people came out to show their support, and 1 came out to protest. Not sure what he was exactly protesting by disrupting us by pretending to vomit and pass out in front of us. Something about minimum wage, can't afford health care and what would Jesus do. I would have loved to have an intellectual and theological conversation with him, but I doubt we could change his mind. Years of Marxist indoctrination is not easily to overcome.
Unlike a Leftist rally, like those in Minneapolis during the Republican convention, where the protesters threw things at elderly conventioneers and spat on them. We believe in the first amendment and allow even ridiculous people have their 1 minute of unintelligible public display.
It was awesome to see the wide range of people at our rally. People who came forward to speak ranged in age from 12 to 80, from as far away as the North suburbs of Chicago, legal immigrants to those who's ancestors signed the Declaration of Independents.
Thank you and God Bless those fellow citizens that helped put together this fantastic event.
Being only the 3rd Tea Party and first one that attempted to have a structure, I think we managed to pull it off. I am sure we could have done many things better, so we would love suggestions. I already know 2 things that we need to focus on immediately. First, make sure the mp3 player we use for the national anthem can be seen in the bright sun. Sorry about that. Second, I think we need to stress that all speakers to keep it under 5 minutes. Even though we all enjoyed the information, it pulled the first part from 1 hour to nearly 2. I am thinking of getting a huge clock so the speakers can pace themselves. I am guilty as anyone to lose track of time.
I think for the next Rally, we want to focus on our platform. What are the 3-4 things we really want to do as an organization. My thoughts are 1) Corruption Reform, 2) States Rights Push, 3) Local Education initiative. I left off Health Care because I believe by the time we meet again, it will be over - the majority in power will have forced something upon us. Sad but historically supported. I also believe we need to focus on building our grass roots effort to have a real re-boot revolution (non violent of course).
Suggestions are welcome.
Unlike a Leftist rally, like those in Minneapolis during the Republican convention, where the protesters threw things at elderly conventioneers and spat on them. We believe in the first amendment and allow even ridiculous people have their 1 minute of unintelligible public display.
It was awesome to see the wide range of people at our rally. People who came forward to speak ranged in age from 12 to 80, from as far away as the North suburbs of Chicago, legal immigrants to those who's ancestors signed the Declaration of Independents.
Thank you and God Bless those fellow citizens that helped put together this fantastic event.
Being only the 3rd Tea Party and first one that attempted to have a structure, I think we managed to pull it off. I am sure we could have done many things better, so we would love suggestions. I already know 2 things that we need to focus on immediately. First, make sure the mp3 player we use for the national anthem can be seen in the bright sun. Sorry about that. Second, I think we need to stress that all speakers to keep it under 5 minutes. Even though we all enjoyed the information, it pulled the first part from 1 hour to nearly 2. I am thinking of getting a huge clock so the speakers can pace themselves. I am guilty as anyone to lose track of time.
I think for the next Rally, we want to focus on our platform. What are the 3-4 things we really want to do as an organization. My thoughts are 1) Corruption Reform, 2) States Rights Push, 3) Local Education initiative. I left off Health Care because I believe by the time we meet again, it will be over - the majority in power will have forced something upon us. Sad but historically supported. I also believe we need to focus on building our grass roots effort to have a real re-boot revolution (non violent of course).
Suggestions are welcome.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Down to the Wire
We are in our last few days before the big Sauk Valley Tea Party. We are excited by the support and out reach we have received from so many people. I believe this movement has gained traction and is about to explode in size. We look forward to meeting all of you on Saturday and celebrating our American exceptionalism. God Bless.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Of Course Socialized Medicine is Coming
All you have to do is look at the table below and it is not too big a stretch to lose hope that our Rally's are an exercise in futility if the only reason we are together is to stop Health Care Reform. Depression Government power grab and the Great Society occurred because there was no balance in our federal system. The last time the more progressive party has had total power they created what has become trillions in unfunded mandates that is now on the path to collapse. Is there little doubt with complete control of the federal government, Health Care Reform (Socialized Medicine) is coming?
Now, don't get a head of me and think I am saying Republicans should be in power more than 4 years in the last 75. It is the balance that is important. We simply were out of balance 38 years out of the last 75 which allowed spending programs and social engineering to flourish.
We need to make this Tea Party a Revolution in order to break the monopoly of the megalomaniacs and progressives in our government. Our plan needs to focus on 4 goals
1) We need to influence our local schools and universities and make sure a balanced approach on History, Economics, and the Social Sciences is taught.
2) We need to inspire each other to develop the new media and break the strangle hold of the mainstream media that slants the news.
3) We need to find libertarians and conservatives to get involved in government, to choke the stranglehold progressives have (regardless of party).
4) Finally, we need to pass NEW CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS on our federal government. Spending cap, term limits and banning institutional lobbying will bring about a new era of personal responsiblity and accountability in America.
Regardless what happens on health care or any other bill in the next two years, we need to be laser focused on the change that long term eliminates even the debate on these programs and institutions the government has built.
Now, don't get a head of me and think I am saying Republicans should be in power more than 4 years in the last 75. It is the balance that is important. We simply were out of balance 38 years out of the last 75 which allowed spending programs and social engineering to flourish.
| Year | Congress | President | Senate (100) | House (435) |
| 2009 | 111th | D | D - 55*** | D - 256 |
| 2007 | 110th | R | D - 51** | D - 233 |
| 2005 | 109th | R | R - 55 | R - 232 |
| 2003 | 108th | R | R - 51 | R - 229 |
| 2001 | 107th | R | D* | R - 221 |
| 1999 | 106th | D | R - 55 | R - 223 |
| 1997 | 105th | D | R - 55 | R - 228 |
| 1995 | 104th | D | R - 52 | R - 230 |
| 1993 | 103rd | D | D - 57 | D - 258 |
| 1991 | 102nd | R | D - 56 | D - 267 |
| 1989 | 101st | R | D - 55 | D - 260 |
| 1987 | 100th | R | D - 55 | D - 258 |
| 1985 | 99th | R | R - 53 | D - 253 |
| 1983 | 98th | R | R - 54 | D - 269 |
| 1981 | 97th | R | R - 53 | D - 242 |
| 1979 | 96th | D | D - 58 | D - 277 |
| 1977 | 95th | D | D - 61 | D - 292 |
| 1975 | 94th | R | D - 60 | D -291 |
| 1973 | 93rd | R | D - 56 | D - 242 |
| 1971 | 92nd | R | D - 54 | D - 255 |
| 1969 | 91st | R | D - 57 | D - 243 |
| 1967 | 90th | D | D - 64 | D - 247 |
| 1965 | 89th | D | D - 68 | D - 295 |
| 1963 | 88th | D | D - 66 | D - 259 |
| 1961 | 87th | D | D - 64 | D - 263 |
| 1959 | 86th | R | D - 65 | D -283 |
| 1957 | 85th | R | D - 49 | D - 232 |
| 1955 | 84th | R | D - 48 | D - 232 |
| 1953 | 83rd | R | R - 48 | D - 221 |
| 1951 | 82nd | D | D - 49 | D - 235 |
| 1949 | 81st | D | D - 54 | D - 263 |
| 1947 | 80th | D | R - 51 | R - 246 |
| 1945 | 79th | D | D | D - 242 |
| 1943 | 78th | D | D | D |
| 1941 | 77th | D | D | D |
| 1939 | 76th | D | D | D |
| 1937 | 75th | D | D | D |
| 1935 | 74th | D | D | D |
| 1933 | 73rd | D | D | D |
We need to make this Tea Party a Revolution in order to break the monopoly of the megalomaniacs and progressives in our government. Our plan needs to focus on 4 goals
1) We need to influence our local schools and universities and make sure a balanced approach on History, Economics, and the Social Sciences is taught.
2) We need to inspire each other to develop the new media and break the strangle hold of the mainstream media that slants the news.
3) We need to find libertarians and conservatives to get involved in government, to choke the stranglehold progressives have (regardless of party).
4) Finally, we need to pass NEW CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS on our federal government. Spending cap, term limits and banning institutional lobbying will bring about a new era of personal responsiblity and accountability in America.
Regardless what happens on health care or any other bill in the next two years, we need to be laser focused on the change that long term eliminates even the debate on these programs and institutions the government has built.
Solutions Always Start at Home
What personal life decisions do you NOT want to make?
What responsibilities do you NOT want to have?
What services do you NOT place any value on?
Which neighbors do you NOT want to help?
Which neighbors do you WANT to discriminate against?
Which neighbors do you WANT to give preferential treatment over you?
Which neighbors KNOW BETTER than you on how you should lead your life?
These questions must be asked and they must be PERSONAL. How else can we understand to the extent we need government. The problem is, many people do not answer the questions for themselves, but they answer them for other people. For example, "I would never discriminate against my neighbors, but "those people" discriminate." Or, "none of my neighbors should have a controlled advantage over me, but "WE" must help "those people" to get ahead." Or, "I know what is best for me, but "WE" need to help "those people" because they do can not help themselves."
The problem today is those that believe in social collectivism have taken the "I" out of the debate. They have attempted to make "I" a dirty word. "I" is selfish, greedy, unpatriotic. However, "I" is the only way we can help people understand the evil of social collectivism. Once the argument is changed from I to "them" or "we", it defers responsibility away from the individual so it is easier to discriminate, to give away power, to give up liberty.
When the questions become personal and about people you know, it becomes clearer about our personal responsibilities, our desire for liberty, and our need to be involved. Who wants to give up any of their own decision making? Who wants to avoid responsibility? Who truly places no value on services? Who thinks their neighbor is better equipped to run their own life than them self?
Please someone come forward and prove me wrong and say, "I do not want to decide what I eat, where I send my children to school, what car I buy." Or, "I want to discriminate against my neighbor, I know better how to run their life."
Yet, this is exactly what we are saying, by relinquishing power to government to allow others to control our lives and tell us who gets preferential treatment, who gets unfair burdens, what service are more important than others to us, and what we can and can not do with our lives.
The next time someone argues about the need for collective compassion, responsibility, or "improving" a system, turn the argument to a very personal one, by asking the questions above.
On the Health Care Reform bill ask, "should your neighbor decide your cancer treatment, or should you?" Should your younger neighbor have more availability to health care then you because of their social value?" The social collectivist might think they are smart by responding, "what if you neighbor is richer, should they have more health care available to them?" The answer is simple, "so then YOU DO WANT SAY OVER YOUR NEIGHBORS PERSONAL DECISIONS!" Therefore, you then DO WANT to give up YOUR right to personal health care decision because you want to for others.
The Key is once you admit wanting a say in other peoples lives, you are giving up a say in your own. The solution always starts at HOME.
What responsibilities do you NOT want to have?
What services do you NOT place any value on?
Which neighbors do you NOT want to help?
Which neighbors do you WANT to discriminate against?
Which neighbors do you WANT to give preferential treatment over you?
Which neighbors KNOW BETTER than you on how you should lead your life?
These questions must be asked and they must be PERSONAL. How else can we understand to the extent we need government. The problem is, many people do not answer the questions for themselves, but they answer them for other people. For example, "I would never discriminate against my neighbors, but "those people" discriminate." Or, "none of my neighbors should have a controlled advantage over me, but "WE" must help "those people" to get ahead." Or, "I know what is best for me, but "WE" need to help "those people" because they do can not help themselves."
The problem today is those that believe in social collectivism have taken the "I" out of the debate. They have attempted to make "I" a dirty word. "I" is selfish, greedy, unpatriotic. However, "I" is the only way we can help people understand the evil of social collectivism. Once the argument is changed from I to "them" or "we", it defers responsibility away from the individual so it is easier to discriminate, to give away power, to give up liberty.
When the questions become personal and about people you know, it becomes clearer about our personal responsibilities, our desire for liberty, and our need to be involved. Who wants to give up any of their own decision making? Who wants to avoid responsibility? Who truly places no value on services? Who thinks their neighbor is better equipped to run their own life than them self?
Please someone come forward and prove me wrong and say, "I do not want to decide what I eat, where I send my children to school, what car I buy." Or, "I want to discriminate against my neighbor, I know better how to run their life."
Yet, this is exactly what we are saying, by relinquishing power to government to allow others to control our lives and tell us who gets preferential treatment, who gets unfair burdens, what service are more important than others to us, and what we can and can not do with our lives.
The next time someone argues about the need for collective compassion, responsibility, or "improving" a system, turn the argument to a very personal one, by asking the questions above.
On the Health Care Reform bill ask, "should your neighbor decide your cancer treatment, or should you?" Should your younger neighbor have more availability to health care then you because of their social value?" The social collectivist might think they are smart by responding, "what if you neighbor is richer, should they have more health care available to them?" The answer is simple, "so then YOU DO WANT SAY OVER YOUR NEIGHBORS PERSONAL DECISIONS!" Therefore, you then DO WANT to give up YOUR right to personal health care decision because you want to for others.
The Key is once you admit wanting a say in other peoples lives, you are giving up a say in your own. The solution always starts at HOME.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
A Response to a Response on Common Good
Someone, please enlighten me as to what exactly is the "common good"? Certainly, we should be able to agree on that. After all, they are "common", right? Health Care? Oops it seems over 1/2 the country disagrees with what the Dems and the 'President' want to do. How about Iraq, nope, better not go there. How about one that is actually in the constitution, the right to own guns, oops, seems some want to re-write that one. How about abortion, social security, cash for clunkers, stimulus package, welfare reform, the patriot act, government funding of Acorn? You see, there is no such thing as "common good". All of our founding fathers with the exception of Hamilton believed that the Federal Government did NOT have the power to promote any "common good" outside those specifically enumerated in the constitution. Our founding fathers knew, as do I, when you have a "common good" that others don't see as COMMON or GOOD, and you use the government to force that "COMMON GOOD" upon others, that is called OPPRESSION. And that is against our right to Liberty AND Property.
When your computer is infiltrated by a virus, you "reboot" to go back to a restore point before the virus. We have had over 100 years of progressive ideology transform our Constitutional Republic and Government. I used the issue of health care as an example about the fundamental philosophical differences between those that want to protect our Natural Laws, and those that impose tyranny on those that don't agree with the mandated "common good". Similar to our founding fathers, we are starting with corner protests, but our ideology of liberty will grow and prevail, because it is human nature to be free. Our movement is to re-connect people with the concept of individual liberty and personal responsibility. We all should strive to make a difference, but you don't petition your government to do so, you get off your computer and volunteer, form a charity, coach, mentor, start a business, mow your neighbors lawn, read to a child, make a difference in others' lives. It is not the Governments responsibility to take care of us (nor is it allowed by the constitution). It is our individual responsibility to take care of ourselves and others. So again, I say, we must REBOOT our Government and return our country to a Constitutional Republic that valued and protected EVERYONES individual liberties.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Recess Rally Aug 22, 2009 at 12pm
Hope to see everyone in front of Bill Fosters office on Saturday. Even if you are not in his district but want to help organize 9.12 to be a huge success, please stop on by.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Response to the Comments Made to My Letter to the Editor
I am choosing not to defend my letter on the Sauk Valley site, because I get tired of getting into a ideological battle with kool aid drinkers. However, because of the pseudo intellectual disinformation, I felt compelled to retort here for those with an open mind and ability to think for themselves.
Socialists attempt to redefine their own views as not being socialist, because they know that term connected to their ideology will be their defeat by the individualism of America. Mussolini did the same thing by calling his brand of socialism, fascism. It is dishonesty or ignorance to define "means of production" as being only goods and not services. Economics 101 here. Means of Production is the means that are used to produce goods and services, including the social relations between workers, technology, and other resources. Miss guided definitions come from two possible reasons. 1) Ignorance or 2) Fraud. My guess it is fraud to justify socialism for only social service. Their attempt at fraud however, does not hold up to logic. If the Federal Government should be in charge of insurance and health care because they are services, then they have every right to control the airlines, investment banking, travel agencies, window washers, marriage councilors, UNIONS and little league baseball.
The federal government was given the power by the people to help organize the infrastructure of the country to insure the free trade of goods between the states and to protect our borders from foreign powers. So even a child would understand the need for a post office and military in colonial America. How that extends to social services is absolutely mind numbing.
Wikipedia pseudo intellectuals are dangerous with their erratic dot connecting. Article 1 section 8, clause 18 is quoted as support for greater government powers along with references to Madison and Hamilton. Key line in Article 1 section 8, clause 18, "vested by this constitution". The race baiters always leave that line out. The Federalists, believed that the government would not grow out of control with this article, because it was limited by the constitution. Alexander Hamilton did argue for more flexibility in federal powers. But he was alone and by historical accounts a fervent nationalist. Unlike what was stated in the response to my letter, his fellow federalist James Madison, the guy who authored the line in the Constitution, disagreed with Hamilton and believed those powers were regulated to those only enumerated in the constitution. Madison was fanatical about checks and balances on the federal government and protection of individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.
The anti-federalists realized the General Welfare clause left enough vagueness and wiggle room to have the potential for corrupt men to create a powerful central government. The comment that the anti-federalists lost the debate again shows the ignorance of history. If it was not for the anti-federalists, we would not have had a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Despite this victory, the anti-federalists nightmare and what was beyond the imagination of federalists like Jame Madison has happened. The progressives made the leaps from Post Office and Armed Forces, to social security, to the great society, and now socialized medicine. Thomas Jefferson warned against this when he said, "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
It was silly to loosely connect today's tea partiers with the Anti-Federalists of Colonial America. As much respect and admiration I have for the Anti-Federalists, I nor anyone I know wants to reduce the Federal Government to equal or less power than the States as with the Confederation of States. We simply want the federal government to return to the power and size enumerated by the Constitution.
It is also laughable to think socialists try to equate themselves with the Federalists. Madison, if here today, would be viewed as a libertarian. As far as Hamilton, he did not believe in Democracy, yet these Democracy lovers seem to quote him every chance they get.
The fundamental flaw with the Wackos are their lack of understanding of the natural laws and the respect for individual life, liberty and property. To state the government has the right to pass universal health care or any program for that matter that imposes on the natural laws and rights of ANY of its Citizens is not only wrong, its unconstitutional and immoral.
The ultimate form of bigotry is to be prejudice against the individual. Since these progressives appear to not have any value for individual liberty, they are worst form of bigot.
God forgive the ignorant and bless those that fight for their Liberty.
Socialists attempt to redefine their own views as not being socialist, because they know that term connected to their ideology will be their defeat by the individualism of America. Mussolini did the same thing by calling his brand of socialism, fascism. It is dishonesty or ignorance to define "means of production" as being only goods and not services. Economics 101 here. Means of Production is the means that are used to produce goods and services, including the social relations between workers, technology, and other resources. Miss guided definitions come from two possible reasons. 1) Ignorance or 2) Fraud. My guess it is fraud to justify socialism for only social service. Their attempt at fraud however, does not hold up to logic. If the Federal Government should be in charge of insurance and health care because they are services, then they have every right to control the airlines, investment banking, travel agencies, window washers, marriage councilors, UNIONS and little league baseball.
The federal government was given the power by the people to help organize the infrastructure of the country to insure the free trade of goods between the states and to protect our borders from foreign powers. So even a child would understand the need for a post office and military in colonial America. How that extends to social services is absolutely mind numbing.
Wikipedia pseudo intellectuals are dangerous with their erratic dot connecting. Article 1 section 8, clause 18 is quoted as support for greater government powers along with references to Madison and Hamilton. Key line in Article 1 section 8, clause 18, "vested by this constitution". The race baiters always leave that line out. The Federalists, believed that the government would not grow out of control with this article, because it was limited by the constitution. Alexander Hamilton did argue for more flexibility in federal powers. But he was alone and by historical accounts a fervent nationalist. Unlike what was stated in the response to my letter, his fellow federalist James Madison, the guy who authored the line in the Constitution, disagreed with Hamilton and believed those powers were regulated to those only enumerated in the constitution. Madison was fanatical about checks and balances on the federal government and protection of individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.
The anti-federalists realized the General Welfare clause left enough vagueness and wiggle room to have the potential for corrupt men to create a powerful central government. The comment that the anti-federalists lost the debate again shows the ignorance of history. If it was not for the anti-federalists, we would not have had a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Despite this victory, the anti-federalists nightmare and what was beyond the imagination of federalists like Jame Madison has happened. The progressives made the leaps from Post Office and Armed Forces, to social security, to the great society, and now socialized medicine. Thomas Jefferson warned against this when he said, "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
It was silly to loosely connect today's tea partiers with the Anti-Federalists of Colonial America. As much respect and admiration I have for the Anti-Federalists, I nor anyone I know wants to reduce the Federal Government to equal or less power than the States as with the Confederation of States. We simply want the federal government to return to the power and size enumerated by the Constitution.
It is also laughable to think socialists try to equate themselves with the Federalists. Madison, if here today, would be viewed as a libertarian. As far as Hamilton, he did not believe in Democracy, yet these Democracy lovers seem to quote him every chance they get.
The fundamental flaw with the Wackos are their lack of understanding of the natural laws and the respect for individual life, liberty and property. To state the government has the right to pass universal health care or any program for that matter that imposes on the natural laws and rights of ANY of its Citizens is not only wrong, its unconstitutional and immoral.
The ultimate form of bigotry is to be prejudice against the individual. Since these progressives appear to not have any value for individual liberty, they are worst form of bigot.
God forgive the ignorant and bless those that fight for their Liberty.
Eureka! A Better Health Care System
The federal government has no power based on our Constitution to redistribute wealth and provide health care for some while taking property from others. Nor do they have the power to take from all and allocate health care out as they deem fit. Both of which are part of the current proposal.
I propose an alternative that is much more in line with what our founding Fathers could support AND smarter relative to the current Health Care plan.
What the federal government can do. 1) insure free interstate commerce and 2) protect against Fraud
What follows is 4 simple steps to improve the system we have today.
1) Health care insurance must be borderless within the US. No restrictions on offering insurance across State Lines. That does not exist today. In fact, government regulations not only forbids it, but create extra costs through a bureaucratic nightmare of paper work for the insurance companies. Any insurance company can offer a plan, in any state to any person.
2) Protect against fraud by making health insurance a 1 page, no foot noted document. Language simplification and definition are key to protecting against fraud. This is similar to what is already done in auto insurance. Universal definition such as the meaning of WHOLE, PREVENTATIVE, CATASTROPHIC, etc are exactly the same in coverage no matter who is covered or where. Along this an alla cart system would be developed with standard definition of coverage whereas people could pick and choose coverage depending upon their specific need without confusion. Finally, payment simplification must be created. Standardization is the key and it protects from Fraud. Most of the complication has not come from insurance companies but rather differing state and federal laws.
3) Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid as we know them today. The overwhelming cost of these programs are crippling our government. Making everyone take some level of individual responsibility for their health puts the power back with the individual and increase its importance relative to sneekers or car payments. This idea will bring out the fear and racist mongers who would say that the poor can not afford insurance. That is bull dung. Flooding the market with another 30 million Americans shopping for health insurance would lower everyones premiums and the most poor could afford an appropriate level of coverage, especially if the number of insurance companies competing for that business explodes. The second fear tactic would be about those with pre-existing conditions. This would be addressed with one semi intrusive government program. Incentivize insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions with tax breaks for having a certain percentage of those policies accepted each year. Also, you incentivize Hospitals with similar tax breaks with their expenditures on under insured patients. Finally, the last scare tactic is concerning the elderly, where most of the expenses in the system takes place. This would be addressed as above, but would add one extra safety net similar to what we do with unemployment. If a person over the age of 70 has a difficult time finding appropriate coverage for health care/drug insurance AND they can show a need based on fixed income, there could be an option where a supplemental social security payment goes directly to an insurance provider. I could make a hundred arguments how the free market would address all the fear mongering, but we are so far away from a free market, I think compromise is necessary to ease all the fear mongering. Eliminating the medicaid/medicare bureaucracy would hugely reduce the cost of health care.
4) Protecting American citizens from Bureaucracy and Pre-existing conditions with multi-year term medical policies with second opinion appeals on denied care. Opening up insurance policies to be multi-year similar to Term Life Policies protects consumers from changing health conditions. Addomg a second opinion appeal puts medical care in the hands of the patient and doctors. If a patient finds 2 non-related physicians to independently recommend the same course of treatment, insurance denials are reversed. It is the insurance companies responsibility to understand medicine, not the doctors job to understand insurance bureaucracy. The fundamental problem with our current health system is government intrusion and insurance company favoring legislation. Creating more of a free market system, puts the pressure back on the business to adjust to the market, not the other way around as it is today.
These 4 simple steps would improve health care for all. Sound too simple? Why not try this first, before moving towards socialized medicine?
I propose an alternative that is much more in line with what our founding Fathers could support AND smarter relative to the current Health Care plan.
What the federal government can do. 1) insure free interstate commerce and 2) protect against Fraud
What follows is 4 simple steps to improve the system we have today.
1) Health care insurance must be borderless within the US. No restrictions on offering insurance across State Lines. That does not exist today. In fact, government regulations not only forbids it, but create extra costs through a bureaucratic nightmare of paper work for the insurance companies. Any insurance company can offer a plan, in any state to any person.
2) Protect against fraud by making health insurance a 1 page, no foot noted document. Language simplification and definition are key to protecting against fraud. This is similar to what is already done in auto insurance. Universal definition such as the meaning of WHOLE, PREVENTATIVE, CATASTROPHIC, etc are exactly the same in coverage no matter who is covered or where. Along this an alla cart system would be developed with standard definition of coverage whereas people could pick and choose coverage depending upon their specific need without confusion. Finally, payment simplification must be created. Standardization is the key and it protects from Fraud. Most of the complication has not come from insurance companies but rather differing state and federal laws.
3) Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid as we know them today. The overwhelming cost of these programs are crippling our government. Making everyone take some level of individual responsibility for their health puts the power back with the individual and increase its importance relative to sneekers or car payments. This idea will bring out the fear and racist mongers who would say that the poor can not afford insurance. That is bull dung. Flooding the market with another 30 million Americans shopping for health insurance would lower everyones premiums and the most poor could afford an appropriate level of coverage, especially if the number of insurance companies competing for that business explodes. The second fear tactic would be about those with pre-existing conditions. This would be addressed with one semi intrusive government program. Incentivize insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions with tax breaks for having a certain percentage of those policies accepted each year. Also, you incentivize Hospitals with similar tax breaks with their expenditures on under insured patients. Finally, the last scare tactic is concerning the elderly, where most of the expenses in the system takes place. This would be addressed as above, but would add one extra safety net similar to what we do with unemployment. If a person over the age of 70 has a difficult time finding appropriate coverage for health care/drug insurance AND they can show a need based on fixed income, there could be an option where a supplemental social security payment goes directly to an insurance provider. I could make a hundred arguments how the free market would address all the fear mongering, but we are so far away from a free market, I think compromise is necessary to ease all the fear mongering. Eliminating the medicaid/medicare bureaucracy would hugely reduce the cost of health care.
4) Protecting American citizens from Bureaucracy and Pre-existing conditions with multi-year term medical policies with second opinion appeals on denied care. Opening up insurance policies to be multi-year similar to Term Life Policies protects consumers from changing health conditions. Addomg a second opinion appeal puts medical care in the hands of the patient and doctors. If a patient finds 2 non-related physicians to independently recommend the same course of treatment, insurance denials are reversed. It is the insurance companies responsibility to understand medicine, not the doctors job to understand insurance bureaucracy. The fundamental problem with our current health system is government intrusion and insurance company favoring legislation. Creating more of a free market system, puts the pressure back on the business to adjust to the market, not the other way around as it is today.
These 4 simple steps would improve health care for all. Sound too simple? Why not try this first, before moving towards socialized medicine?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Congratulations the Tea Party is Growing
Wow, I can not believe the numbers. We have had 64 visits yesterday to our little web site and over 230 visits in 1 week. With hits from 16 states, we are stirring interest in the movement and hopefully that turns into big numbers at our rallies. The one oddity is we have only had 1 hit from Rock Falls. Does anyone know someone in Rock Falls that can start spreading the word?
On a serious note, we need someone to help organize the Recess Rally at Fosters office. I have asked a few people and have yet to get a response. I live in Don Manzullos district and am not as connected with those people in Fosters District. Can someone contact me to take on that task. I will help with postings.
We should use the Foster Rally as a meet up spot for everyone in our Party so we can get to know each other afterwards at a restaurant around the corner. I am not sure what is open on a Saturday afternoon, but hopefully one of them with enough seating will and we can share a cup of Jo and some strategy for our Big 9/12 Rally.
Thanks again to everyone that is helping spread the word and contributing to the Forum. God Bless - Steven Yde
On a serious note, we need someone to help organize the Recess Rally at Fosters office. I have asked a few people and have yet to get a response. I live in Don Manzullos district and am not as connected with those people in Fosters District. Can someone contact me to take on that task. I will help with postings.
We should use the Foster Rally as a meet up spot for everyone in our Party so we can get to know each other afterwards at a restaurant around the corner. I am not sure what is open on a Saturday afternoon, but hopefully one of them with enough seating will and we can share a cup of Jo and some strategy for our Big 9/12 Rally.
Thanks again to everyone that is helping spread the word and contributing to the Forum. God Bless - Steven Yde
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Tea Party Reading List
Education is the best way to fight tyranny and help our future generations have a shot at fighting the rhetoric of populist oppression.
I have compiled a must read list that I believe should be part of the required reading in our high schools to give our children a head start on the brain washing that goes on in our Marxist universities and media.
Although there are hundreds of great books, I have boiled it down to just a few as a rudimentary to a solid philosophical foundation.
Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson - this book is a very easy read and lays the foundation of why capitalism is the best form of economics and any intervention by the government creates disparity and actually hurts the economy in the long run.
Ludwig Von Mises Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis - for a bit more depth, Mises takes a deep view on Socialism and its real impact.
I have compiled a must read list that I believe should be part of the required reading in our high schools to give our children a head start on the brain washing that goes on in our Marxist universities and media.
Although there are hundreds of great books, I have boiled it down to just a few as a rudimentary to a solid philosophical foundation.
Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson - this book is a very easy read and lays the foundation of why capitalism is the best form of economics and any intervention by the government creates disparity and actually hurts the economy in the long run.
Ludwig Von Mises Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis - for a bit more depth, Mises takes a deep view on Socialism and its real impact.
Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism - the only contemporary book is a must read. The left HATE this book and disparage it as loosely coincidental, grasping for straws, and the like. Rather, this book is well researched, heavily footnoted, and through direct quotes and historical actions of the progressive, socialist and fascist, shows their similarities.
W. Cleon Skousen's The 5000 Year Leap - this book documents the Founders basic principals that led to our constitution and republican form of government. It teeters on being boring with the lengthy quotations from dozens our our Founding Fathers. However, because of its extensive quotations, it is the most convincing book every written documenting directly our founders thoughts on an expansive and intrusive government.
Thomas Paine's Common Sense - Go back the beginning. Paines book is what helped turn the public's opinion on theWar for Independence. The first paragraph says it all. Government at best is a necessary evil.
Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America - Having a foreigner come to America when we were still a republic is a wonderful expose on the uniqueness of the American system. Despite the name, the purpose of the book is to show how America at least at that time, had not fallen into a mob rule democracy like so many European countries had, which in turn led to the rise of Socialism and Fascism in the 20th century.
There are many other great books, but this mix of publications is a great start to get the basics of economics and the intent of our Founding Fathers to make a uniquely successful republic.
W. Cleon Skousen's The 5000 Year Leap - this book documents the Founders basic principals that led to our constitution and republican form of government. It teeters on being boring with the lengthy quotations from dozens our our Founding Fathers. However, because of its extensive quotations, it is the most convincing book every written documenting directly our founders thoughts on an expansive and intrusive government.
Thomas Paine's Common Sense - Go back the beginning. Paines book is what helped turn the public's opinion on theWar for Independence. The first paragraph says it all. Government at best is a necessary evil.
Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America - Having a foreigner come to America when we were still a republic is a wonderful expose on the uniqueness of the American system. Despite the name, the purpose of the book is to show how America at least at that time, had not fallen into a mob rule democracy like so many European countries had, which in turn led to the rise of Socialism and Fascism in the 20th century.
There are many other great books, but this mix of publications is a great start to get the basics of economics and the intent of our Founding Fathers to make a uniquely successful republic.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Letter to the Editor Advertising our Tea Party
This was submitted last night to the local paper in hopes it is published to help build awareness of our tea party.
Do you know what the Natural Laws are? It is what the Founding Fathers articulated in our Declaration of Independence and used as the measuring stick for each Amendment in our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers called them God given and unalienable. These Natural Laws are our individuals right to Life, Liberty and Property. So when our government is spending beyond our means and forcing things upon us that violate our liberty or takes our property, it is acting immorally. We are a patient and trusting people, so when that voice inside us tells us something is seriously wrong with our Government, we need to act. That is why busy working people who have never protested before find themselves joining together to let their voices be heard. We developed the Sauk Valley Tea Party, a grass roots movement to help re-boot our local, state and federal governments to align them with our Founders Principals. If you are tired of the rhetoric of politics, if you oppose Government options to Health Care, if you believe Government is the problem and not the solution, if you agree with Thomas Paine that Government at best, is a necessary evil that must be contained, you are not alone and should join us on Sept 12, 2009 to let your voice be heard. Please visit our website at www.saukvalleyteaparty.com
Do you know what the Natural Laws are? It is what the Founding Fathers articulated in our Declaration of Independence and used as the measuring stick for each Amendment in our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers called them God given and unalienable. These Natural Laws are our individuals right to Life, Liberty and Property. So when our government is spending beyond our means and forcing things upon us that violate our liberty or takes our property, it is acting immorally. We are a patient and trusting people, so when that voice inside us tells us something is seriously wrong with our Government, we need to act. That is why busy working people who have never protested before find themselves joining together to let their voices be heard. We developed the Sauk Valley Tea Party, a grass roots movement to help re-boot our local, state and federal governments to align them with our Founders Principals. If you are tired of the rhetoric of politics, if you oppose Government options to Health Care, if you believe Government is the problem and not the solution, if you agree with Thomas Paine that Government at best, is a necessary evil that must be contained, you are not alone and should join us on Sept 12, 2009 to let your voice be heard. Please visit our website at www.saukvalleyteaparty.com
Amendment 10 of our constitution states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. We the People need to exercise our rights and Re-boot this Government to not work for us, but rather stick to those things enumerated in the constitution. This is not about the issues, but the megalomania and avarice in politics and the fundamental philosophical change by a minority that could destroy our America.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Sauk Valley Tea Party Values
On 9-12 we again will meet to show our unity in opposing oppression and an out of control federal government. At this venue, besides demonstrating our displeasure with the current regime in Washington and Springfield, we will start to structure our organization to better address our grievances. Part of this will be to adopt with consensus our core state values and platform. This blog offers a preliminary draft of our core values to be documented and put on our website.
Sauk Valley Tea Party Values
1) RETURN OF OUR RIGHTS. We believe that all Government Actions must adhere to our Constitutions Bill of Rights. Not through some court process, but through the common sense of the people. The Government is to not tell the people their rights, but rather, we the people shall inform the Government of its limitations. We have a right to religious expression, both public and private, to speech, to assemble, of the press including the Internet, to own a gun, to due process, and from the government forcing anything upon us that is not based in the constitution as spelled out in the 10th amendment. The Bill of Rights is not a living breathing document, but an eternal truth that represents the detailing of the 3 God given Natural Laws - the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property. The Governments sole purpose is to protect the rights of the individual even to the detriment of the common good, but not to the detriment of another's individual rights.
* Life - all human life is precious and must be protected from the harm of others
* Liberty - no citizen shall be denied freedom that does not impose upon the life, liberty or property of others.
* Property - the government has no authority over any justly acquired property of its citizens unless that property unduly infringes upon the rights of others.
2) LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Federal Government has overstepped its constitutional rights by performing duties not outlined in our constitution. We the people will act within our rights to return our Federal Government to its rightful role and size. The federal government only needs to be large enough to protect the borders of our country and insure the ease of interstate commerce. Looking at the $3.5 Trillion 2010 budget, just under $1Trillion is dedicated to our framers original intent. Unfortunately, these unfunded mandates are impossible to reverse in the short term. Therefore, to stave off further encroachments and help reverse the tide we support an amendment to our constitution that limits the size of our federal government to 15% of GDP. Our federal government has averaged around 20% for the past several decades, so 15% is a reasonable and attainable goal (equal to about a $2 Trillion Budget for 2010). This type of spending restriction is better than a balanced budget amendment, because it limits the size of the federal government and its power rather than motivating the government to spend more by taxing more.
3) ELIMINATE PERSONAL INCOME TAX. Taxation - the tax code is fundamentally against our own constitution. We must repeal the 16th amendment and return our federal governments size to enable it to run as our founding fathers intended through minimal tariffs on imported goods. The tariffs should not be done in a punitive manner, but rather recognizing the framers intentions of raising money by penalizing those things that limit domestic production rather penalizing domestic production. With only $2.5 trillion in imports and income tax revenue of $1 trillion it appears difficult to fill the gap. However, if we are mandating a Federal budget to 15% of GDP that reduces the federal budget by $1.5 and the current federal receipts, less income tax is $1.3 trillion, therefore only $200 billion must make up the difference. Our recommendation is to eliminate the income tax and have a 10% tariff on all imports.
4) AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE. The Federal Reserve likewise is fundamentally against the constitution. Our goal is to eliminate the secrecy of our monetary system and re-create a free market system to our monetary system so all may see who coins the money and how it is disseminated into our economy. We support HR1207 which Audits the Federal Reserve.
5) TERM LIMITS. The fastest way to eliminate corruption is to remove life time political offices. We support a constitutional amendment to limit all elected federal officials to just 2 consecutive terms.
6) ELIMINATE INSTITUTIONALIZED LOBBYING. Our constitution allows for individuals to address grievances with the government, not institutions. We recommend an amendment to our constitution that limits all lobbying of elected officials to just 1 local representative and the 2 senators. It would also stipulate that no lobbying may be done outside the elected officials local office. No organization or its affiliates no matter how loosely connected can lobby across state lines. Finally, the amendment would eliminate any and all campaign contributions from anything, but individual citizens. This amendment would also contain a provision that no elected official can be employed as a lobbyist for 4 years after they leave office.
7) ILLEGALIZE EARMARKS AND BACK DOOR RESOLUTIONS. No amendments to any bills passed by congress can have added to them unrelated funding, laws or procedures. Bills must be clean and deal with only the primary topic. They must be read allowed in congress and on C-Span to police this policy and insure simple, uncomplicated bills that have tyranny buried in them.
8) WE SUPPORT CAPITALISM. There is no 3rd way and no middle ground in economics. Intervention leads to oppression and long term economic consequences. The role of governments are to only protect our fundamental liberties against fraud and force. Our federal government has intervened heavily into our economy and giving favoritism to those more politically connected. Capitalism did not cause our economic melt down, but rather government intervention and manipulation of our monetary system by the federal reserve.
To Summarize We the Sauk Valley Tea Party believe in
Limiting the Federal Spending to 15% of GDP
Illegalize Earmarks
Ban Institutional Lobbying
Enact HR1207 to Audit the Federal Reserve
Repeal the 16th Amendment
Term Limits of 2 Consecutive
Yes to Capitalism
In other words we demand LIBERTY.
Sauk Valley Tea Party Values
1) RETURN OF OUR RIGHTS. We believe that all Government Actions must adhere to our Constitutions Bill of Rights. Not through some court process, but through the common sense of the people. The Government is to not tell the people their rights, but rather, we the people shall inform the Government of its limitations. We have a right to religious expression, both public and private, to speech, to assemble, of the press including the Internet, to own a gun, to due process, and from the government forcing anything upon us that is not based in the constitution as spelled out in the 10th amendment. The Bill of Rights is not a living breathing document, but an eternal truth that represents the detailing of the 3 God given Natural Laws - the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property. The Governments sole purpose is to protect the rights of the individual even to the detriment of the common good, but not to the detriment of another's individual rights.
* Life - all human life is precious and must be protected from the harm of others
* Liberty - no citizen shall be denied freedom that does not impose upon the life, liberty or property of others.
* Property - the government has no authority over any justly acquired property of its citizens unless that property unduly infringes upon the rights of others.
2) LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Federal Government has overstepped its constitutional rights by performing duties not outlined in our constitution. We the people will act within our rights to return our Federal Government to its rightful role and size. The federal government only needs to be large enough to protect the borders of our country and insure the ease of interstate commerce. Looking at the $3.5 Trillion 2010 budget, just under $1Trillion is dedicated to our framers original intent. Unfortunately, these unfunded mandates are impossible to reverse in the short term. Therefore, to stave off further encroachments and help reverse the tide we support an amendment to our constitution that limits the size of our federal government to 15% of GDP. Our federal government has averaged around 20% for the past several decades, so 15% is a reasonable and attainable goal (equal to about a $2 Trillion Budget for 2010). This type of spending restriction is better than a balanced budget amendment, because it limits the size of the federal government and its power rather than motivating the government to spend more by taxing more.
3) ELIMINATE PERSONAL INCOME TAX. Taxation - the tax code is fundamentally against our own constitution. We must repeal the 16th amendment and return our federal governments size to enable it to run as our founding fathers intended through minimal tariffs on imported goods. The tariffs should not be done in a punitive manner, but rather recognizing the framers intentions of raising money by penalizing those things that limit domestic production rather penalizing domestic production. With only $2.5 trillion in imports and income tax revenue of $1 trillion it appears difficult to fill the gap. However, if we are mandating a Federal budget to 15% of GDP that reduces the federal budget by $1.5 and the current federal receipts, less income tax is $1.3 trillion, therefore only $200 billion must make up the difference. Our recommendation is to eliminate the income tax and have a 10% tariff on all imports.
4) AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE. The Federal Reserve likewise is fundamentally against the constitution. Our goal is to eliminate the secrecy of our monetary system and re-create a free market system to our monetary system so all may see who coins the money and how it is disseminated into our economy. We support HR1207 which Audits the Federal Reserve.
5) TERM LIMITS. The fastest way to eliminate corruption is to remove life time political offices. We support a constitutional amendment to limit all elected federal officials to just 2 consecutive terms.
6) ELIMINATE INSTITUTIONALIZED LOBBYING. Our constitution allows for individuals to address grievances with the government, not institutions. We recommend an amendment to our constitution that limits all lobbying of elected officials to just 1 local representative and the 2 senators. It would also stipulate that no lobbying may be done outside the elected officials local office. No organization or its affiliates no matter how loosely connected can lobby across state lines. Finally, the amendment would eliminate any and all campaign contributions from anything, but individual citizens. This amendment would also contain a provision that no elected official can be employed as a lobbyist for 4 years after they leave office.
7) ILLEGALIZE EARMARKS AND BACK DOOR RESOLUTIONS. No amendments to any bills passed by congress can have added to them unrelated funding, laws or procedures. Bills must be clean and deal with only the primary topic. They must be read allowed in congress and on C-Span to police this policy and insure simple, uncomplicated bills that have tyranny buried in them.
8) WE SUPPORT CAPITALISM. There is no 3rd way and no middle ground in economics. Intervention leads to oppression and long term economic consequences. The role of governments are to only protect our fundamental liberties against fraud and force. Our federal government has intervened heavily into our economy and giving favoritism to those more politically connected. Capitalism did not cause our economic melt down, but rather government intervention and manipulation of our monetary system by the federal reserve.
To Summarize We the Sauk Valley Tea Party believe in
Limiting the Federal Spending to 15% of GDP
Illegalize Earmarks
Ban Institutional Lobbying
Enact HR1207 to Audit the Federal Reserve
Repeal the 16th Amendment
Term Limits of 2 Consecutive
Yes to Capitalism
In other words we demand LIBERTY.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The 2 K(C)arls
Most people have heard of Karl Marx. Most do not realize Marx had 2 visions for his economic philosophies, one early on in his life, and another towards the end of his life. Most know beyond the nuances, however, that he believed in a centrally planned economic system that forced equality of economic condition across a people, played out as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism. Regardless of the form of ism that Karl can be noted for, all have turned out to create oppression of some kind and led to the greatest slaughter of man in the history of the world.
The other Carl, I bet, would not be known, if you asked a thousand random people. A few may recognizing the name, but confuse him with his son who was an important mathematician. I am referring to Carl Menger. His ideas led to the idea of marginal utility, developed a system of value and price based on reality, and created what is known today as the Austrian School of Economics. This school is the most fervent advocate of capitalism in economic thought.
Even though their lives overlapped not more than a few hundred miles from each other, their outlooks on economic theory, human philosophy and the way to a better world could not have been further apart. While Marx espoused the idea of centralized forced equity, Menger believed a free market was the most fundamentally fair and virtuous system of economics.
An unusual difference between Marxism and the Austrian School of Economics is in epistemology. Epistemology is the idea that there are basic truths in economics and it is more important to 'know that' than 'know how'. At first one would assume, Marxism is the epistemology, however that would be inaccurate. Although there is a dogma to Marxism, it focuses on the incessant need to change the natural order to create their utopia. However, this is precisely what gets the philosophy in trouble. Breaking down natural social order and overlaying an unnatural institution to force equity ends in tyranny. No one argues that there is a need to know how, but that should be reserved for the non-social sciences where experimentation does not lead to mass murder. The Austrian School believes there are some universal truths to a society and to "know that", man can focus on the tools that bring about the greatest social value.
The fundamental difference between the left and right today is this epistemology. The left want to "dial the knobs" and are hell bent on finding a solution to mans suffering and continually create crisis to force social equity and move towards their elusive utopia. The right believes once you start forcing anything outside the 3 Natural Laws, societal benefits break down and oppression follows. In other words, "knowing how" to create a better society has given us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and the French Revolution. The "knowing what" gave us Jefferson, Washington, Paine and the American Revolution.
Despite the media elites, universities, and some in our governments love affair with interventionist economics, and the knowing how, Carl Menger gave us the knowing what. We need to go back and learn as much as we can about the realities of economics and human nature to do a better job to promote those economic thoughts that brings about a better world - that of capitalism. And we should thank people like Carl Menger, Ayn Rand, Ludvig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, among many others as great defenders of liberty and laissez-faire government as the greatest opportunity for man to thrive.
The other Carl, I bet, would not be known, if you asked a thousand random people. A few may recognizing the name, but confuse him with his son who was an important mathematician. I am referring to Carl Menger. His ideas led to the idea of marginal utility, developed a system of value and price based on reality, and created what is known today as the Austrian School of Economics. This school is the most fervent advocate of capitalism in economic thought.
Even though their lives overlapped not more than a few hundred miles from each other, their outlooks on economic theory, human philosophy and the way to a better world could not have been further apart. While Marx espoused the idea of centralized forced equity, Menger believed a free market was the most fundamentally fair and virtuous system of economics.
An unusual difference between Marxism and the Austrian School of Economics is in epistemology. Epistemology is the idea that there are basic truths in economics and it is more important to 'know that' than 'know how'. At first one would assume, Marxism is the epistemology, however that would be inaccurate. Although there is a dogma to Marxism, it focuses on the incessant need to change the natural order to create their utopia. However, this is precisely what gets the philosophy in trouble. Breaking down natural social order and overlaying an unnatural institution to force equity ends in tyranny. No one argues that there is a need to know how, but that should be reserved for the non-social sciences where experimentation does not lead to mass murder. The Austrian School believes there are some universal truths to a society and to "know that", man can focus on the tools that bring about the greatest social value.
The fundamental difference between the left and right today is this epistemology. The left want to "dial the knobs" and are hell bent on finding a solution to mans suffering and continually create crisis to force social equity and move towards their elusive utopia. The right believes once you start forcing anything outside the 3 Natural Laws, societal benefits break down and oppression follows. In other words, "knowing how" to create a better society has given us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and the French Revolution. The "knowing what" gave us Jefferson, Washington, Paine and the American Revolution.
Despite the media elites, universities, and some in our governments love affair with interventionist economics, and the knowing how, Carl Menger gave us the knowing what. We need to go back and learn as much as we can about the realities of economics and human nature to do a better job to promote those economic thoughts that brings about a better world - that of capitalism. And we should thank people like Carl Menger, Ayn Rand, Ludvig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, among many others as great defenders of liberty and laissez-faire government as the greatest opportunity for man to thrive.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Institutions vs Individuals
The best example of how large institutions cannot produce a "common good" without oppression is the inability for the worlds largest Church to achieve consensus among its parishioners on the most fundamental issue of abortion, let alone stop the murder of innocent life. Our Vice President, Speaker of the House, and Illinois Senator claim to be Catholic yet support the killing of innocent life which is clearly against their claimed Faith. The Church is in a conundrum, they want to be the driving force for positive change, but can not be oppressive towards those affiliated or opposed to them, or they are becoming the very thing they are trying to stop. Individual responsibility, compassion, love and faith is what has been the engine for positive progress in this world. The apostles went out 2 by 2, not all together. Jesus turned to Peter and said to him upon this rock, not to all of them collectively. As a Catholic, the self sacrifice of the saints and martyrs are those things honored in our traditions. Man institutionalizes in the beginning for all the right reasons. They begin with consensus for the purpose of progress and recognize the power of institutionalizing to bring about positive change quickly. However with the power of institutionalizing comes corruption and oppression. Once consensus breaks down within an institution, factions of consensus grab power to put forth their agenda to the detriment of the rest. In other words, institutions can not be successful long term without consensus because they lose the power of the institution. Therefore, institutions that want to continue to have influence result to oppression of others to move the factions agenda forward.
Society is different from an institution and a wonderful gift from God. It is a natural collection of individuals interacting, competing, working together, influencing, educating, loving and sharing. Institutions are not natural. Once a formalized structure is created it designates an unnatural pecking order, natural societal relationships break down and all the negatives associated with centralized power begin. The path to a more compassionate, charitable, loving world is decentralization, not centralized institutions. In a decentralized world, if a person feels oppression within their local affiliations, they have the ability to look not too far to find an affiliation with whom, they have consensus. In a centralized world, those oppressed have no place to go.
With individual liberty comes the responsibility to think and act. Relying on large institutions creates intellectual laziness, a herd mentality and always leads to powerless bureaucracies or oppression. Institutions are not the driving force of long term positive change in this world, rather the oppression of man. Therefore, it is important to recognize that we must focus on those things where consensus can be reached and fight against those things that create oppression. Our founding fathers knew this oh so well. George Washington could have been President for life, but he stepped aside knowing even the best intentions lead to problems down the road. The Tea Party Movement is not one looking to grab power, but rather decentralize power for the purpose of limiting oppression and instilling the liberties our country once knew.
Society is different from an institution and a wonderful gift from God. It is a natural collection of individuals interacting, competing, working together, influencing, educating, loving and sharing. Institutions are not natural. Once a formalized structure is created it designates an unnatural pecking order, natural societal relationships break down and all the negatives associated with centralized power begin. The path to a more compassionate, charitable, loving world is decentralization, not centralized institutions. In a decentralized world, if a person feels oppression within their local affiliations, they have the ability to look not too far to find an affiliation with whom, they have consensus. In a centralized world, those oppressed have no place to go.
With individual liberty comes the responsibility to think and act. Relying on large institutions creates intellectual laziness, a herd mentality and always leads to powerless bureaucracies or oppression. Institutions are not the driving force of long term positive change in this world, rather the oppression of man. Therefore, it is important to recognize that we must focus on those things where consensus can be reached and fight against those things that create oppression. Our founding fathers knew this oh so well. George Washington could have been President for life, but he stepped aside knowing even the best intentions lead to problems down the road. The Tea Party Movement is not one looking to grab power, but rather decentralize power for the purpose of limiting oppression and instilling the liberties our country once knew.
The Philosophy of Liberty
This is a wonderful representation of how we need to start with the basics and throw out the layers of "good intentions" in this world. The only fight worth fighting is to fight for 3 fundamental human rights - protection of all life, liberty (freedom from oppression), and property.
Monday, July 13, 2009
No Such Thing as Left and Right
The terms left and right have their origins in the French Revolution. The left were the social collectivist revolutionaries that ended the Revolution with a Reign of Terror and ultimately the formation of a Dictatorship. The right were the ones that favored a constitutional monarchy and individual rights. Many of those on the right eventually lost their heads in the guillotine to the left. These terms have morphed over the years to mean liberal (social collectivists or progressives) on the left and conservative (traditionalists or individualists) on the right. Regardless of the nuances of definition, the idea of a continuum from left to right does not paint a complete picture of competing philosophies. A more accurate portrayal of how philosophy intersects with government style work better on a two dimension XY axis chart. The X axis is the difference between respect for the individual vs the desire for social conformity. Regardless if the social conformity is racist, classist, religious or nationalist it always has the same effect, benefit to some, oppression for others. Not to say there is not danger on the opposite extreme where respect for the individual taken to the extreme can lead to an anything goes situation unless there is consensus among individuals as to what "rules" apply to all. Therefore, you can not have a good understanding of left and right unless you input the idea of centralized vs decentralized authority on the y axis. The reason is, whatever a persons ideology is of utopia, there either needs to be consensus or forced consensus to move towards the ideology. The authority moves from decentralized to centralized.
An example of the continuum is the individual, family, extended family, neighborhood, church, community group, the town, the township, the county, the state, confederation of states, country, confederation of countries, world. I have noted some examples of various groups, presidents and philosophies to give and understanding of the axis. Note that Fascism is not the same as Communism. There are different nuances to the 2 philosophies, but the outcomes are similar - centralized authority which creates oppression to a group or groups of people. Not everyone will agree on each President's place along the axis, but it is good thought provoking exercise. I challenge people to read history on the reign of Woodrow Wilson and his personal philosophy and contrast that to someone like Mussolini. The similarities are eerie.
Looking beyond left and right it is very important, because of the consequences to those philosophies. Centralized most often move with left philosophies and right philosophies to remain pure must stay within decentralized governments.
The United States was originally founded as a confederation of states, but was too decentralized to insure protecting the liberties of those within and between the states. The US Constitution was the answer to balancing between individual liberties, states rights and a uniquely American Country culture. Unfortunately, our country has moved right to left and from top to bottom throughout the years to a point there are some very real similarities between our current political system and a classic fascist government.
An example of the continuum is the individual, family, extended family, neighborhood, church, community group, the town, the township, the county, the state, confederation of states, country, confederation of countries, world. I have noted some examples of various groups, presidents and philosophies to give and understanding of the axis. Note that Fascism is not the same as Communism. There are different nuances to the 2 philosophies, but the outcomes are similar - centralized authority which creates oppression to a group or groups of people. Not everyone will agree on each President's place along the axis, but it is good thought provoking exercise. I challenge people to read history on the reign of Woodrow Wilson and his personal philosophy and contrast that to someone like Mussolini. The similarities are eerie.Looking beyond left and right it is very important, because of the consequences to those philosophies. Centralized most often move with left philosophies and right philosophies to remain pure must stay within decentralized governments.
The United States was originally founded as a confederation of states, but was too decentralized to insure protecting the liberties of those within and between the states. The US Constitution was the answer to balancing between individual liberties, states rights and a uniquely American Country culture. Unfortunately, our country has moved right to left and from top to bottom throughout the years to a point there are some very real similarities between our current political system and a classic fascist government.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Say No to Common Good
"Common Good" is at best a Noble Lie at worst a prevarication. What is good for one, is rarely good for all. "Common Good" is a man made tool to control behavior, make people sacrifice something or take something away from them. Unlike "Common Good", Universal Good is a Divine Truth with 3 principals - the protection of life, liberty and property of each individual human. Also known as the Natural Laws of Man and the basis for our Declaration of Independence.
The "Common Good" tool is used to sacrifice all or part of a Universal Good. Entitlements, progressive taxation, "sin taxes", the draft, Obama's volunteer bill, price fixing, stimulus packages, universal health care, are just a few examples of legislation under the guises of "Common Good".
The Hippocratic oath says "do no harm". This oath taken by physicians, obviously does not apply to politicians. "Common Good" legislation always ends up hurting someone, sometimes the very people it was intended to help. Once governments trys to protect anything outside the Universal Good, they become oppressive. "Common Good" is politicians way to excuse themselves from responsibility for their actions as they manipulate people into sacrifice, service or obligation. "Common Good" is code for "I am about to infringe upon your life, liberty or property, for my personal idea of Utopia".
Rather than sacrificing for the "Common Good", I am asking you to fight for the Universal Good of the protection of Life, Liberty and Property. As Edmond Burke said, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
The "Common Good" tool is used to sacrifice all or part of a Universal Good. Entitlements, progressive taxation, "sin taxes", the draft, Obama's volunteer bill, price fixing, stimulus packages, universal health care, are just a few examples of legislation under the guises of "Common Good".
The Hippocratic oath says "do no harm". This oath taken by physicians, obviously does not apply to politicians. "Common Good" legislation always ends up hurting someone, sometimes the very people it was intended to help. Once governments trys to protect anything outside the Universal Good, they become oppressive. "Common Good" is politicians way to excuse themselves from responsibility for their actions as they manipulate people into sacrifice, service or obligation. "Common Good" is code for "I am about to infringe upon your life, liberty or property, for my personal idea of Utopia".
Rather than sacrificing for the "Common Good", I am asking you to fight for the Universal Good of the protection of Life, Liberty and Property. As Edmond Burke said, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Greed vs Avarice
The term greed is used ad nauseam by populist politicians and others wanting to denigrate the idea of mans natural desire to better themselves. Where it becomes a negative is only when it comes at the detriment of others. That word is not greed but avarice.
Avarice means covetousness. In other words accumulating wealth through control, manipulation, fraud and force of others. It is not the desire for more that is the problem, it is the desire for more to the detriment of others that is the sin.
Capitalism is based on the desire for more, but has nothing to do with avarice. Capitalists know avarice is damaging in the long run to the capitalist system and is seldom practiced. For this reason, institutional avarice seldom occurs in the private sector for very long. However, avarice rears its ugly head in the Public sector constantly.
Let me be clear. There are crooks and flawed people that allow money to control them to the point of harming others rights or property. But in the private sector, this is the exception, not the rule in a free society. The only place where avarice is allowed to flourish unfettered is in the Government. To better understand that point, look at all the legislation that penalizes success, redistribution of wealth with the progressive tax code, all the entitlements for only certain people of a ethnic, racial, economic, and even sometimes political standing. Note the report that came out today that counties that voted for the Democrat candidate for President in the last election are averaging double the stimulus money per person as those states that voted for the Republican candidate. Conspiracy - no, ideological favoritism and avarice - yes.
Avarice appears to be a corner stone of certain economic philosophies. Socialism uses class warfare, Fascism uses ethnic or labor divisiveness, Keynesian's use the "we know better" for the "better good" position. All display avarice. When the individual is dehumanized into the collective, avarice runs a muck. Avarice is that utopia where man gets to play a god and determine who gets what.
The next time someone says you are greedy, ask them, if they know the difference between greed and avarice.
Avarice means covetousness. In other words accumulating wealth through control, manipulation, fraud and force of others. It is not the desire for more that is the problem, it is the desire for more to the detriment of others that is the sin.
Capitalism is based on the desire for more, but has nothing to do with avarice. Capitalists know avarice is damaging in the long run to the capitalist system and is seldom practiced. For this reason, institutional avarice seldom occurs in the private sector for very long. However, avarice rears its ugly head in the Public sector constantly.
Let me be clear. There are crooks and flawed people that allow money to control them to the point of harming others rights or property. But in the private sector, this is the exception, not the rule in a free society. The only place where avarice is allowed to flourish unfettered is in the Government. To better understand that point, look at all the legislation that penalizes success, redistribution of wealth with the progressive tax code, all the entitlements for only certain people of a ethnic, racial, economic, and even sometimes political standing. Note the report that came out today that counties that voted for the Democrat candidate for President in the last election are averaging double the stimulus money per person as those states that voted for the Republican candidate. Conspiracy - no, ideological favoritism and avarice - yes.
Avarice appears to be a corner stone of certain economic philosophies. Socialism uses class warfare, Fascism uses ethnic or labor divisiveness, Keynesian's use the "we know better" for the "better good" position. All display avarice. When the individual is dehumanized into the collective, avarice runs a muck. Avarice is that utopia where man gets to play a god and determine who gets what.
The next time someone says you are greedy, ask them, if they know the difference between greed and avarice.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Issues
The list of people joining is growing. I have received emails from several people addressing several issues. I encourage people to talk about them in the Forum. Expressing your views is what makes this country great. We may not always agree with each other on some topics, but I think there are some issues where we have unanimity. This blog will address those issues.
Government spending - I don't think anyone
would dispute that our federal government has acted irresponsible with our money. As Government spending surpasses 40% of our nations entire GDP, total debt moves towards $100 trillion, and bills are being approved without ever being read, we have reached a tipping point. Redistribution of wealth and the cradle to grave entitlements are crushing what our founding Fathers remarked as the "great experiment in liberty". We need to reverse course. Let's stop arguing over specific bills and instead shift the debate to State vs Federal Government powers. Our response needs to be, let the States decide. By taking power from the hands of the Federal Government and putting it on the States, the power moves closer to the will of the people and the natural result will be the failing of those states making poor choices - alla California and the success of those States making good decisions. Rather than Red State vs Blue State, it will be to success goes the spoils. That may sound heartless to some, but how is that any worse than, we all go down together. You don't have to force everyone to touch a hot burner to get them to understand it is hot. In the same vein, we don't need to have the entire country adopt policies when we can learn from the individual states that implement them first. If we can reduce the power of the Federal Government and turn the system back into a States Rights debate I believe many of our other goals will fall into place. The following platform will return our country to the Constitutional Republic it once was.
The Sauk Valley Tea Party Platform
1) Petition for an amendment to the Constitution that limits Government Spending to %15 of GDP. An amendment on spending would do far more than a balanced budget amendment in that it puts a clear cap on spending and thus the power of the federal government. 15% is plenty of funding for those things called upon in our constitution as the responsibility of the federal government.
2) Repeal the 16th Amendment. Income taxes are not only unfair, but unwise. Penalizing success never works. You don't punish your child for improving his/her grades. Prior to the 16th Amendment, our country acquired its revenue through tariffs. What better way to raise revenue than to penalize those things that stifle domestic production. "Free traders" will tell me that this would create a trade war and harm our exports, but don't believe their propaganda. Does anyone really believe free trade exists? We import billions from China, yet their manufacturers do not have the same restrictions or circumstances as US manufacturers - how is that free? Imposing higher duties on imports may hurt our exports in the short run, but the increase in domestic production would far outweigh any negative impact in the long run. The tariffs are not punitive, they only need to be high enough to fund a much leaner Federal Government.
3) Term limits across the board. Our Founding Fathers believed men should serve their government at their leisure. We have made serving in government a career rather than a sacrifice. We are creating a ruling class or bourgeoisie, the very thing we fought against in our Revolution. Look at all the second, third and now fourth generation of politicians in Washington. 2 consecutive term limits across every position would insure our government is not locked into a culture of corruption. No person is irreplaceable.
4) Illegalize Earmarks - No representative can put in any local spending amendments that are not relevant to the bill. Local expenditures must remain local. Voting on whether a city airport needs expansion should have nothing to do with a national defense program. If an airport is crucial to a military installation it should be made clear in the bill with detailed justification.
5) Ban Institutionalized Lobbying - we live in a free society where every individual is important. The game has been set up in Washington in a way that you have to Pay to Play. That is immoral. If a trade organization is interested in having influence on passing legislation they should have the same recourse as the average citizen - call, write or meet your LOCAL representative at his local office. In other words, an industry lobbyists would only be allowed to meet with the congressman and state senators from their HQ's district - period. It does not matter they have factories in multiple states - 1 congressman, 2 senators per group - period.
6) Enact HR1207 to Audit the Federal Reserve. The Fed Reserve can not be allowed to act in its best interest when it is not in the interest of the American People. Transparency can only happen if the books are opened.
We ask you to get involved and help us build a coalition of rugged individuals.
Government spending - I don't think anyone
would dispute that our federal government has acted irresponsible with our money. As Government spending surpasses 40% of our nations entire GDP, total debt moves towards $100 trillion, and bills are being approved without ever being read, we have reached a tipping point. Redistribution of wealth and the cradle to grave entitlements are crushing what our founding Fathers remarked as the "great experiment in liberty". We need to reverse course. Let's stop arguing over specific bills and instead shift the debate to State vs Federal Government powers. Our response needs to be, let the States decide. By taking power from the hands of the Federal Government and putting it on the States, the power moves closer to the will of the people and the natural result will be the failing of those states making poor choices - alla California and the success of those States making good decisions. Rather than Red State vs Blue State, it will be to success goes the spoils. That may sound heartless to some, but how is that any worse than, we all go down together. You don't have to force everyone to touch a hot burner to get them to understand it is hot. In the same vein, we don't need to have the entire country adopt policies when we can learn from the individual states that implement them first. If we can reduce the power of the Federal Government and turn the system back into a States Rights debate I believe many of our other goals will fall into place. The following platform will return our country to the Constitutional Republic it once was.The Sauk Valley Tea Party Platform
1) Petition for an amendment to the Constitution that limits Government Spending to %15 of GDP. An amendment on spending would do far more than a balanced budget amendment in that it puts a clear cap on spending and thus the power of the federal government. 15% is plenty of funding for those things called upon in our constitution as the responsibility of the federal government.
2) Repeal the 16th Amendment. Income taxes are not only unfair, but unwise. Penalizing success never works. You don't punish your child for improving his/her grades. Prior to the 16th Amendment, our country acquired its revenue through tariffs. What better way to raise revenue than to penalize those things that stifle domestic production. "Free traders" will tell me that this would create a trade war and harm our exports, but don't believe their propaganda. Does anyone really believe free trade exists? We import billions from China, yet their manufacturers do not have the same restrictions or circumstances as US manufacturers - how is that free? Imposing higher duties on imports may hurt our exports in the short run, but the increase in domestic production would far outweigh any negative impact in the long run. The tariffs are not punitive, they only need to be high enough to fund a much leaner Federal Government.
3) Term limits across the board. Our Founding Fathers believed men should serve their government at their leisure. We have made serving in government a career rather than a sacrifice. We are creating a ruling class or bourgeoisie, the very thing we fought against in our Revolution. Look at all the second, third and now fourth generation of politicians in Washington. 2 consecutive term limits across every position would insure our government is not locked into a culture of corruption. No person is irreplaceable.
4) Illegalize Earmarks - No representative can put in any local spending amendments that are not relevant to the bill. Local expenditures must remain local. Voting on whether a city airport needs expansion should have nothing to do with a national defense program. If an airport is crucial to a military installation it should be made clear in the bill with detailed justification.
5) Ban Institutionalized Lobbying - we live in a free society where every individual is important. The game has been set up in Washington in a way that you have to Pay to Play. That is immoral. If a trade organization is interested in having influence on passing legislation they should have the same recourse as the average citizen - call, write or meet your LOCAL representative at his local office. In other words, an industry lobbyists would only be allowed to meet with the congressman and state senators from their HQ's district - period. It does not matter they have factories in multiple states - 1 congressman, 2 senators per group - period.
6) Enact HR1207 to Audit the Federal Reserve. The Fed Reserve can not be allowed to act in its best interest when it is not in the interest of the American People. Transparency can only happen if the books are opened.
We ask you to get involved and help us build a coalition of rugged individuals.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
My First Tea Party
I want to thank everyone who braved the rain today to come out and let your voices be heard and signs seen. Despite the inclement weather, it was comforting to see people sharing the same passions as my family. We are not the "demonstrating" type. We are working people who would frankly rather be celebrating the 4th as we have in years past with friends and family. However, my eyes have been widening since 9-11 and today I feel no longer able to "trust" the system. As an independent thinker with a thirst for history, it has become clear, that our country has veered so far off course, that I can no longer be part of the silent majority.
The time for action is now. The platform is simple - reduce the size and power of the federal government by over half, bring true transparency to our monetary & taxation system, end the megalomania of the career politicians with term limits, reverse the special interest patronage, and develop a grass roots network of independent, constitutionally inspired, God-loving citizens.
My purpose is clear. I want to help educate anyone who will listen about our Constitution, economics, and our history in hopes they will join me in standing up for the American Way.
I invite anyone to write for this blog to share our wealth of opinions and knowledge. Simply email me and indicate you would like to contribute and I will add you to the editors list.
God bless you and our great country.
The time for action is now. The platform is simple - reduce the size and power of the federal government by over half, bring true transparency to our monetary & taxation system, end the megalomania of the career politicians with term limits, reverse the special interest patronage, and develop a grass roots network of independent, constitutionally inspired, God-loving citizens.
My purpose is clear. I want to help educate anyone who will listen about our Constitution, economics, and our history in hopes they will join me in standing up for the American Way.
I invite anyone to write for this blog to share our wealth of opinions and knowledge. Simply email me and indicate you would like to contribute and I will add you to the editors list.
God bless you and our great country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)