The Greatest Threat to an Oppressive Dictatorship is Free Market Capitalism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

When people enter economic exchanges voluntarily everybody wins.  For example, let’s say one person has a hundred dollars of spare cash.  And another person owns a mountain bicycle that sells for $350 new.  The one with the money wants to buy a mountain bicycle.  The one with the mountain bicycle needs cash and wants to sell the bike. These two people meet.  And exchange the $100 for the bicycle.  And both walk away with something they valued more.  The person originally with the $100 valued the bicycle more than the $100.  And the person originally with the bicycle valued the $100 more than the bicycle.  Each person wins in this voluntary economic exchange.

Now contrast that to a managed economy.  Where a few decide for everyone else.  Such as in socialism.  Or communism.  Say, in the former Soviet Union.  Where the economic planners decide to make more tractor parts and less toilet paper and laundry detergent.  Resulting in shelves full of tractor parts no one wanted to buy.  And empty shelves where there was once toilet paper and laundry detergent.  As you can see, when you have forced economic exchanges no one wins.

Countries with economic systems based on free market capitalism where people enter economic exchanges voluntarily have historically had the highest standards of living.  Whereas countries with managed economic systems have had the lowest standards of living.  Liberty and prosperity are synonymous with the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and Hong Kong.  Which were once all part of the British Empire.  Which ruled the world and kept the peace for a hundred years or so.  The Pax Britannica.  She was able to do this because of her wealth.  Generated from free market capitalism.  The rule of law.  Representative government.  Sound money.  And free trade.  Things that today give these nations immigration problems.  Because everyone wants to go to these nations for a better life.

In capitalist nations people live better because there is a profit incentive.  Whereas the countries these immigrants left typically put people before profits.  Where instead of letting market forces set prices and allocate limited resources that have alternative uses the government decides.  Like they did in the former Soviet Union.  And the more government interferes with these market forces the more these economic decisions become political.  Where friends of the ruling power get those limited resources first and at favorable prices.  Allowing them and the ruling powers to profit handsomely from this political favoritism.  At the expense of the people who have to do with less.

The profit incentive puts people first.  Because in free market capitalism market forces are the people.  Hundreds of millions of people coming together to make voluntary economic exchanges.  Where each individual person looks out for his or her best interests.  But when a ‘caring’ government manages the economy to put the people first that government interferes with those market forces.  And goes against the will of the people.  Making the people worse off.  Which is why immigration is always from a country where there is less free market capitalism to a country where there is more free market capitalism.  Because the quality of life increases with increasing amounts of capitalism.  So we should be careful what we ask for when we ask to put people first.  Even when the Pope joins the ‘put the people first’ choir (see Pope condemns idolatry of cash in capitalism by Lizzy Davies posted 9/22/2013 on theguardian).

Pope Francis has called for a global economic system that puts people and not “an idol called money” at its heart, drawing on the hardship of his immigrant family as he sympathised with unemployed workers in a part of Italy that has suffered greatly from the recession…

“Where there is no work, there is no dignity,” he said, in ad-libbed remarks after listening to three locals, including an unemployed worker who spoke of how joblessness “weakens the spirit”. But the problem went far beyond the Italian island, said Francis, who has called for wholesale reform of the financial system…

Sardinia, one of Italy’s autonomous regions with a population of 1.6 million, has suffered particularly badly during the economic crisis, with an unemployment rate of 20%, eight points higher than the national average, and youth unemployment of 51%.

Last summer the island’s hardship became national news when Stefano Meletti, a 49-year-old miner, slashed his wrists on television during a protest aimed at keeping the Carbosulcis coal mine open.

There was one other thing these nations born of the British Empire shared.  Judeo-Christian values.  They lived by the Ten Commandments.  And the Golden Rule.  The good Christians of the British Empire followed the teachings of Christ.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  These Judeo-Christian values went hand-in-hand with free market capitalism.  It’s what made us choose to live by the rule of law.  To honor the contracts we made with one another.  To voluntarily enter economic exchanges instead of just stealing and pillaging our neighbors.

Money doesn’t have value.  It’s a temporary storage of value.  It is our human capital that has value.  Our ability to create things that have value.  Things that other people will voluntarily enter into economic exchanges to trade for with things of value they created.  Whether it be a physical good.  Or money from a paycheck they earned creating value for an employer who uses it to produce a service or good.

Capitalists don’t worship money.  For money only makes those economic exchanges more efficient.  By eliminating the search costs of the barter system.  It’s human capital that capitalists are interested in.  This is what they worship.  People.  Unlocking the latent talent in all of us.  To bring incredible things into existence.  Sanitation.  Waste water treatment plants.  New farming advancements.  Coal-fired power plants.  Things that allowed greater groups of people to live together in growing cities.  Where we have food, clean water and shelter.  Things we take for granted in capitalists nations.  Things that are luxuries in North Korea.  An anti-capitalist country that puts people before profits.  Where people worship the ruling dictator (primarily to avoid imprisonment, torture and death).  And the only people that do well are those close to the ruling power.

We don’t need a new financial system.  We just need to return to what it was before governments intervened into the free market economy to put people first.  Before we completely forget the Ten Commandments.  And the Golden Rule.  For once we use the power of government to nullify contracts to help their crony friends we no longer have a nation of laws.  But one of political favors.  Where the friends of power do well.  While those with no power live at the mercy of those in power.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Will Arizona Shooting Rampage, Giffords near Mortal Wound Save the Left’s Liberal Agenda?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 9th, 2011

The Left is Giddy with the Possibilities of the Arizona Shooting Rampage

We haven’t buried any of the victims yet.  Giffords is still fighting for her life in the hospital.  The government hasn’t put a case together yet against the shooter, Jared Loughner.  But the Left has pointed the finger of blame.  J’accuse!  Tea Party.  J’accuse!  Second Amendment.  J’accuse!  Talk radio.  J’accuse!  Sarah Palin.  J’accuse!  Republicans.  J’accuse!  First Amendment.

All I can say is what a load of merde.

Will the actions of one lone nutcase change the political landscape?  Will it nullify the 2010 midterm election results?  The mandate for limited government?  And lower spending?  Perhaps.  And the Left is just giddy with the possibilities of the Arizona shooting rampage.

Did the Arizona Shooter Advance the Liberal Agenda?

Remember that other nutcase?  Timothy McVeigh?  Who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?  He was a guy that went a little cuckoo after Ruby Ridge.  And the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas (where he watched the buildings burn in person).  Yeah, he was nuts.  Probably wore aluminum foil in his hat (to shield himself from the government brainwashing waves) and feared those unmarked black helicopters.  He was another one of those consummate losers.  No girlfriend.  Bullied as a kid.  Suicidal.  And pissed off at the government.  Who was just another bully.  Nay, the biggest bully of them all.  Who was out to get him.  So he had two burning ambitions.  To get even with bullies.  And to die.

He was not a rank and file member of the Republican Party.  He was, what’s the word?  Yes.  Insane.

But the Left said he blew up the Murrah Building because of the vitriol on talk radio.  In particular, Rush Limbaugh.  Of course, Rush, being born some 17 years before McVeigh, there was no way that he could have bullied McVeigh in school and sent him down that road to the Murrah building.  But that didn’t matter.  The Left didn’t like Rush.  And they needed something.  And this was better than anything they could have ever hoped for.  So they politicized it.

And here we are.  With another lone nutcase who wasn’t loved enough in his childhood.  And now here they are.  Again.  The Left.  Ginning up fear of our fellow citizens (those in the Tea Party, that is).  And trying their best to make us ask them for more government.  It has even delayed the vote to repeal Obamacare.

What the hell?  Is the shooter a liberal Democrat?  Did he want the liberal agenda to advance?  Because that’s exactly what his actions have done.  Giving that failed agenda new traction.  If I was a conspiracy nutcase I’d say something.  But I’m not.  So I won’t.

The Left Parades out the Usual Suspects

It doesn’t come as any surprise.  It’s probably standard operating procedure whenever a nutcase does something stupid.  Whenever they can make a connection between a nutcase and conservatives.  No matter how tenuous the connection is.  And here are some of the usual suspects:  Tea Party, Talk radio, Religious Right, Guns, Sarah Palin, Republicans.

The Tea Party?  Those people upset with the government because they are constantly overstepping their constitutional authority?  Come on.  These are Rule of Law people.  They don’t break the law.  They obey the law.  With extreme prejudice.  And they just want everyone else to, too.

Talk radio?  Rush Limbaugh has some 20 million listeners tune in each week.  And have you ever listened to those who call in?  A lot of small business owners and heads of households.  They’re law abiding citizens concerned about their business and/or family’s future.  They, too, just want everyone to live within the Rule of Law.  Including their elected representatives.

The Religious Right?  Those people who want the Ten Commandments posted in our public buildings?  Come on.  These people don’t kill.  It’s one of their Commandments.  Thou shall not kill.  Their religion is a religion of peace.  Really.  Unlike that one that guy followed who went on a shooting spree on Fort Hood shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”  But he’s just a sick man.  While those in the Religious Right are people to be afraid of.

Gun control?  You know, you didn’t have these problems in the Wild West.  If some nutcase started shooting women and children, he wouldn’t have gotten too far.  Because other people with guns would have shot his ass.  To protect the women and children.  See?  People can use guns in two ways.  It all depends on the people with the guns.  Are they good people?  Or bad?  If you make them illegal, only the bad people will have them.  Which explains why the bad people are all for gun control.  Because it makes easier victims.

Sarah Palin?  Because she used words like ‘lock and load’ and put crosshairs on maps of districts to target for campaign challenges?  That’s bad?  But movies about how to assassinate George W. Bush are just art.  And protected by our First Amendment.  Go figure.  Come on.  Palin is a Tea Party gal.  And Tea Party people are all about the Rule of Law.

Republicans?  Those people who have for years cowered as the Left’s bitch?  Who for decades have asked the Left meekly to let them participate in Congress?  Please?  Which the Left replied, “Sure, we’ll listen to you.  Humor you.  But don’t get your hopes up.  Because elections have consequences.”  The people who capitulate so fast after gaining power because they don’t want to offend and be removed from the ‘invite’ list for all those Washington parties?  Give me a break.  Self neutering people just aren’t a threat.

Another Oklahoma City Bombing?

Yada, yada, yada, the Left hates conservatives.  And will use any crisis or incident to further their hate against conservatives.  Especially when the people have rejected them and their liberal agenda at the polls.

There are some who said what Obama needed was another Oklahoma City bombing to reinvigorate his liberal agenda.  And he got it.  Thanks to this pathetic loser nutcase who feared the government’s manipulation of grammar.  And the Left is running with it.  Shame on them for doing so.  Then again, it is hard for anyone to feel shame when they have no shame.  It’s like trying to punish a lion for killing a zebra.  It’s just who a lion is.

Let us just pray that the victims’ families can escape the politicizing of this terrible tragedy in their lives.  Let them mourn their losses with their families.  Alone.  And in peace.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #14: “Christianity does not beget antidisestablishmentarianism.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 18th, 2010

DID THE FOUNDING Fathers found America as a Christian nation?  No.  Did they found a secular nation?  Not exactly.  Did they found a federal nation?  Yes.

Federalism.  What does it mean?  It means the new federal government would have LIMITED powers.  The new national government would do national things.  Trade.  National defense.  Treat with other nations.  In other words, those things that required a single national voice.  The French didn’t want to treat with the individual states.  They didn’t want one set of trade agreements for Virginia and another for North Carolina.  Neither did Great Britain.  Or the other European powers.  No.  If the United States of America wanted to be an independent nation, then they had to act as a single, unified nation.  So they did.

The other things, the non-national things, they left to the states.  And one of these things was religion.  For when it came to religion, the new federal government did not interfere in the states’ religious business.  Ergo the First Amendment.  The ‘wall’ between church and state was to separate the new federal government from the states’ religious establishments.  If a state discriminated against all but their established religion, that was fine and dandy for it was a moot point as far as the federal government was concerned.  It just wasn’t their business.

Now, a truly secular government would intervene in such a case.  The federal government would later, but at the founding, one of the preconditions for ratification of the Constitution was that it wouldn’t.  And it didn’t.  Interfere with a state’s religion.

WE ALL KNOW the story of the Pilgrims, the Puritans, coming to the New World from England to escape religious persecution.  Probably not as familiar with the backstory.  The English Civil War.  Duke of Buckingham.  King and Parliament.  Queen and Parliament.  The French.  The Spanish.  The Pope.  The Kirk.  The Ulster Uprising.  Oliver Cromwell.  And, of course, William Laud.

Here’s the short version of what happened.  And some back-story to the back-story.  The Protestant Reformation split the Catholic Church.  Much fighting ensued.  This split nations into essentially Catholic and Protestant camps (which broke down into further divisions).  England was Protestant.  Scotland was Presbyterian (a branch of Protestantism).  Ireland was Catholic with a Protestant enclave in Ulster.

Mix them together, add a not great English king, who married a French Catholic, throw in a revised Church of England prayer book, bring back some Catholicism to the Protestant Church of England, dissolve Parliament, recall Parliament, try to dissolve it again and, well, you get civil war.  Parliament wins the war.  They behead the king. 

The English Civil War is a little more complicated than this.  But for our purposes, it’s the religious component that’s important. Everyone persecuted someone at one time.  One group, the Puritans, were Protestants.  Hardcore Protestants.  Calvinists.  They were about as anti-Catholic as you could get.  Didn’t like any of the Catholics’ fancy vestments, icons, statues, pictures, altar rails, candlesticks, stained glass windows, etc.  That church was corrupt.  They had lost their way. 

They didn’t believe in original sin or that you can buy your way into heaven.  God chose your fate before you were born.  If you were one of the elect, you passed your days in long church services and you read the Bible.  If you didn’t do these things it was proof you weren’t one of the elect.  And were damned.  No matter what you did during your life.  Cure cancer, it didn’t matter.  You were damned.

They didn’t like Catholics and Catholics didn’t like them.  And, as it turned out, the Protestant powers that be didn’t much care for them either.  In England or on the Continent.  They just couldn’t be un-Catholic enough to please the Puritans.  Much bitterness ensued.  Many left the Old World and settled in the New World.  Like the Israelites fleeing Egypt, these Puritans came to the New World to establish that city on a hill of Mathew 5:14 fame (from the Sermon on the Mount.  Given by Jesus Christ.  Just in case you’re unfamiliar with it).

THEY CAME FROM England, Scotland, the Netherlands, France and settled in New England, New York and the far side of the Appalachians.  A hard working people.  They provided for themselves.  Went to church.  Read the Bible.  All work and no play.  At least, some would say. 

They established the state-supported Congregational Church in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  John Adams was born and raised a Calvinist and attended this state-supported church.  When writing the new state’s constitution, the state support of the church was a contentious issue.  Most felt that religion was an indispensible part of life.  Others agreed but feared a religious majority would oppress a religious minority.  The process would take 3 years to resolve.

Being in the heart of the rebellion, Abigail Adams, Founding Mother, and perhaps America’s first feminist, experienced much of the darker side of the struggle for independence.  Soulmate of John Adams in every sense of the word, she was as religious as he.  As the war dragged on with no end in sight, she feared it was God’s punishment for the sins of American slavery.

IN VIRGINIA, THE established church was the Anglican Church (i.e., the Church of England).  As in Massachusetts, there was debate about an established majority religion oppressing a minority religion.  For good reason.  It did.  Right in James Madison’s backyard.  Baptists were harassed.  And imprisoned.  You needed a license to preach.  Virginia and the established church made getting that license very difficult.  If you were a Baptist.

America’s least religious Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the Virginian Statute for Religious Freedom.  The Virginian General Assembly passed it in 1786, two years before the states ratified the U.S. Constitution.  To help get the Virginian Baptists on board for ratification, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, promised to add a Bill of Rights after ratification that would add similar rights and protection at the federal level that were enacted at the state level.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN MAY have been a Deist.  He was, after all, the embodiment of the Enlightenment.  Like Thomas Jefferson.  They embraced reason over dogma.  But Franklin believed religious faith was fundamental to civilized society.  His personal beliefs boiled down to simply doing good deeds.  Help others.  And sometimes you need to remind some people to help others.  And that’s why he liked religion.  He spent much of his life helping his community (serving in the state militia, participating in the volunteer fire department, etc.).  At an impasse at the Constitutional Convention, it was he who suggested they should pray.

GEORGE WASHINGTON MAY not have taken communion, but he added chaplains to his army units during the American Revolution.  He believed the American cause was a divine one.  He feared a lack of faith may determine battlefield outcomes.  He led an integrated army of Protestants and Catholics.  And Jews.  And blacks.  And others.  He forbade anti-Catholic demonstrations which were very common in the former British colonies.  When an Army went to Canada to attack the British, they were to respect the Catholic French Canadians and invite them to join their cause.  He would even attend Catholic service on occasion.  Like the army, the nation he would lead would be a melting pot.  Tolerance and respect was the mantra.  For all Americans.

SO, DID THE Founding Fathers found a Christian nation?  No.  Religious establishment was simply beyond the responsibility of the new federal government.  Did Christians settle the original colonies?  Yes.  And they established Christian churches.  And the states were worried that a new federal government would interfere with their religious business.  Some wanted additional safeguards written in.  So James Madison added the Bill of Rights after ratification.  The First Amendment placed a wall between the federal government and the States’ religious establishments.

In time, the states extended the tolerance and respect of religious diversity prevalent in Washington’s army to their states.  They disestablished their established churches.  And, to their relief, religion flourished.  Especially the different branches of Christianity.  Yes, America became even more Christian, but it tolerated and respected other religions.  New York even had a Jewish Temple 3 years after the British surrender at Yorktown.  And even the Catholics were welcomed in the new nation.

DISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM INCREASED THE spread of Christianity.  Like the economy, the freer it was the more it flourished.  And with the great number of Christian religions that have since spread across the nation, it is unlikely that overt acts of Christianity would result in the establishment of one of these.  Or the reestablishment of the Church of England. 

So go ahead and display your Christmas Crèche or the Ten Commandments.  Chances are good that it won’t beget antidisestablishmentarianism.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,