Posted in Free Society, Liberty, Philosophy, Progressivism, Uncategorized

Never Again: Charges of Race-based Collective Guilt Fueled the Murderous Ideologies of the 20th Century. It Needs to Stop Now.

We all have elements of privilege to which we are heirs. We should strive to make the most of our privilege and be worthy of it; not view it as a crime or the raison d’etre for apology.

Singling out race-based or socioeconomic privilege is NOT speaking truth to power; it is simply bigotry & racism by another name. Does a native-born Chinese individual have privilege in China because he or she knows the culture, language and has familial ties?  I would hope so.  Does a black man from a well-off family in Nairobi have privilege in Kenya?  Absolutely.  But in neither case does that privilege necessarily equate to oppression of someone less fortunate.

Likewise, laying collective guilt at the feet of an ethnic group or race or gender is inexcusable; it certainly has no place in free democratic societies which claim the individual has intrinsic value.  And laying collective guilt on members of an ethnic group or race based on sins committed by their ancestors is equally reprehensible.

The evolution and instantiation of this doctrine can be seen by examining the intellectual history of Socialists, post-modernists and Marxists. As the corpses piled up, the Neo-Marxists and their ilk could no longer defend the failed and bloody examples of communism and eugenics in 20th century.  Their response was to soften and broaden their labor/proletariat vs capitalist fight by pitting races and genders against each other in a victim-oppressor narrative.  In their view, every human interaction is just a micro power-struggle within the larger theater of oppressive dominance hierarchies.  It may look different on its face, but it is the same ideology that fueled the murderous acts of collectivists in the communist revolutions of Russia & China. As Orwell alludes to, the socialists didn’t really love the poor as much as they hated the rich.

Proponents can no longer overtly defend the record of socialism/communism in 20th century; so now they must tone down the rhetoric. The toxic ideology continues, now masquerading in softer cloth as social justice and identity politics, based on their own hierarchy of intersectionality.

Those who would indict an individual for crimes of their ancestors, based on the color of their skin, practice a sinister and malevolent form of racism that will not end well.  It is an ideology that distorts justice and shows no regard for individual sovereignty or free-will.

It’s time we learned the painful lessons of the bloody social experiments of the 20th Century.  It is time to call out identity politics, charges of white privilege and the toxic ideology that underpins it.

We can do better. We need to rediscover the sovereignty of the individual in the tradition of Chydenius, Locke and Bastiat.  Ayn Rand exposed the truth succinctly when she said, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

Posted in American Exceptionalism, American Independence, big government, Dependency, Economic Issues, Entitlements, Free Society, Independence Day, Liberty, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Rule of Law

Bastiat on the Nature of Government (and Why America’s Was the Exception) – Foundation for Economic Education

“I should be glad…if you had really discovered a beneficent and inexhaustible being, calling itself the Government…which can provide for all our wants…correct all our errors, repair all our faults, and exempt us henceforth from the necessity for foresight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, order, economy, temperance, and activity.”

“Nothing could be more convenient than that we should all…have within our reach an inexhaustible source of wealth and enlightenment—a universal physician, an unlimited treasure, and an infallible counselor, such as you describe Government to be.”

Government. We say to it ‘I should like…the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could you not facilitate the thing for me?…the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace.'”

“In all times, two political systems have been in existence… According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems.”

“Government is and ought to be nothing but the united power of the people, organized, not to be an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder among citizens, but, on the contrary, to secure to everyone his own, and to cause justice and security to reign.” – Frederic Bastiat, 1848

https://fee.org/articles/bastiat-on-the-nature-of-government-and-why-americas-was-the-exception/

Posted in big government, Dependency, Economic Issues, Free Society, Income Inequality, Influence peddling, Liberty, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Rule of Law, Uncategorized

Frédéric Bastiat on the Connection between Socialism, Communism, and Protectionism – Foundation for Economic Education

Bastiat.4
Frederic Bastiat

“…As for systems based on legalized plunder, Bastiat says:

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose—that it may violate property instead of protecting it—then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legilstaures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

Bastiat’s words are just as true today as when he wrote them with a quill pen in 19th-century France. How much of the clamoring, bickering, and anger we see today is the result of factions, each vying for their preferred forms of taxation or economic protection?”

https://fee.org/articles/fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric-bastiat-on-the-connection-between-socialism-communism-and-protectionism/

Posted in Access to healthcare, big government, Crony Capitalism, Economic Issues, Free Society, Free-Market, Government Regulations, Government Spending, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Liberty, Organizational structure, Patient Choice, Policy Issues, Tax Policy, Uncategorized, Welfare State

Morals Matter in Policy Making

Bastiat.3The notion that there are only two options for healthcare… 1) Central single payer systems vs 2) The current U.S. system or worse…is a false dilemma with false choices.

Efficient economies (socially sustainable marketplaces) utilize multiple financial tools depending on hierarchy of need or desired outcome. And successful self-regulating systems keep as many incentives aligned at the level of the individual end-user as possible; and ensure individual liberty as a first principle.

The desirable balance minimizes tragedy of the commons, maximizes individual responsibility, minimizes bureaucracy & waste, shames/ discourages rent-seeking behavior & cronyism, aligns reward with effort & risk, and always strives to preserve the sovereignty, liberty & choice of the individual as a preeminent principle.

Centralized tax-funded systems often crowd out these other needed tools within the marketplace and are biased heavily towards collective budgetary priorities, as opposed to individual needs/variations.

Posted in Economic Issues, Free Society, government incompetence, Liberty, Policy Issues, Rule of Law, Uncategorized

Law is Organized Justice

Bastiat.4
Frederic Bastiat

And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.  

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?  

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

802musteno

Posted in big government, Crony Capitalism, Economic Issues, Free Society, Liberty, Policy Issues, Uncategorized

“The State is the great fiction by which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else.”

government-great-fiction-bastiatOne of the best cases against the destructive uses of government was opined by Frederic Bastiat in the words below…
We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, “I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this mean I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!” “