Inhale the Freedom!

Take a deep breath. Smell that? That’s the smell of tyranny. The Colorado Clean Indoor Act, passed in 2006 is now looking to go back in time 2 ½ years. There is a new proposal which will allow business’s that receive 5% (or 50k) of their income from the sale of tobacco products to be able to apply for a permit to be established as a cigar-tobacco bar.

The anti-smokers aren’t happy about this. In their world it’s somehow acceptable to force another human being to comply with their way of life. I’m a non-smoker, personally I dislike smoking immensely, I also dislike mind numbing techno beats at Rock Island, but I’m not going to pass legislation to ban their music.

It’s time these people who are supposedly looking out for the rest of us to grow up and start living their own lives, quit dragging me along. Coloradans are not so stupid that they can’t make their own decisions. If someone meanders into a bar that has smoking, yet they hate smoking, if they decide to stay for a drink wouldn’t that be their choice? Call me crazy, but I think it’s ok for people to make their own mistakes. I know plenty of people who eat too much Mcdonalds. I dare people to try and take our micky d’s away from us though

Obama’s Inauguration Speech: A Contradictory Nightmare

If the merit of a president could be condoned by their oratory skills, Obama would already be at the level of a Reagan, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Unfortunately for Obama, the merit of a president is discovered through the process of his actions. The first speech of our newly elected President indicates his fervent willingness to break away from the ideals of our founding fathers. This most memorable of speeches is littered with so many contradictions and ironies; it’s like walking into an AA meeting when everyone is drunk.

Before he even spoke a word, we were witness to the first ironic gesture as he placed his hand on President Lincoln’s Bible. This symbolically spoke of contradictions. Common knowledge of Lincoln was that he freed the slaves in his Emancipation Proclamation, yet this is only true depending on where the slaves were located. The proclamation, if closely read, only freed slaves “In rebellion against the United States.”

As the London Spectator mocked shortly thereafter, “The Principle (of the Proclamation) is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”

Therefore, Lincoln only really freed slaves in areas he had no control in, as in the slaves located in rebellion to the Union.

Contradiction number one.

The next contradiction came from the most sacred of oaths itself. The President’s job is to execute the laws constitutionally passed by congress. When the founding fathers gathered to produce a great and free country, they took meticulous care as to how the government was to be chartered. It was imperative to these men that they protected their people against both anarchy and tyranny. As odd as it may seem, they feared democracy as much as any of us alive today fear a totalitarian dictator.

As Benjamin Franklin once said “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb protesting the vote.”

Their goal was not to set up a democracy, but a constitutionally-restricted republic. When a man like Obama took the oath to protect the Constitution, he perpetrated an enormous contradiction. It is impossible to both protect something and seek to destroy it. Obama has been on record as saying that the constitution is highly defective since it does not allow for the redistribution of wealth. Alluding to the ‘positive’ rights Obama wishes were in the constitution, i.e. the forced confiscation of money from some to be given to others. The constitution was set up with certain negative rights, what a government cannot do to its citizens. This is how to properly protect individual rights.

Contradiction number two.

In his speech itself Obama spoke of individuals who questioned his ability to execute his grand schemes. Claiming that “their memories are short.” And, that those cynics no longer remember what free men and women were able to accomplish. Yet, the irony is that Obama has forgotten that it was men and women who were able to labor in freedom, to usher in a new era of prosperity unhindered by their government. It was not individuals joined in some unnamed ‘common’ purpose, but individuals striving for the pursuit of happiness that achieved America’s greatness.

Contradiction number three.

I have learned, as I’m sure most of you have, that we are all in for disappointments if we try and find any real substance in a political speech. History has shown that politicians are renowned for their ability to say one thing and do another. It is my personal hope that this man, my president, will chuck aside his ideals for a more socialist America, and resume the mantle of the freest country on earth. For the success or failure of a presidency isn’t determined by its beginnings. It is determined by how they leave the state of the union upon their departure.

The Moral Defense of Capitalism

There are many in the political and intellectual world now discussing the failure of capitalism. Once one of capitalisms staunchest allies, former head of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has openly admitted to what he claims are the faults inherent in capitalism. This one time defender of capitalism claimed “capitalism is dead” in a recent San Francisco Chronicle article. Contemporary intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky claim that we must not put people in charge of their own assets, for this eliminates the need to look after each other. President Barack Obama has outwardly claimed a war on energy producers, and thusly free trade, when he has said “We’ve got to go after the energy producers.” As if the men and women who provide American’s with heat, electricity and more should be punished -rather than rewarded- for their hard work.

The criticism touted towards capitalism, and conversely property rights, is the fact that it enables men to act in a selfish manner. Karl Marx has said that “the right of man to property is the right to enjoy his possessions and dispose of the same arbitrarily, without regard for other men, independently from society, the right of selfishness.” The men and women who call themselves the defenders of capitalism usually do more harm than good by their method of ‘defense’, which is to espouse the immorality of selfishness but condone the practicality of capitalism and the benefit it brings to all people.

These defenders are normally half hearted and scared witless that they will be called out on their ‘evil morality.’ Republicans and Libertarians alike have often repeated the mantra that capitalism will save us all. But, when it comes down to the actual implementation of any real capitalist ideals, they back out, like a man afraid of heights attempting to bungee jump for the first time. These “defenders” of capitalism claim that their ideals are in the best interest of everyone; that capitalism really starts with charity

In a recent article in The Objective Standard, Craig Biddle quotes an advocate of capitalism George Gilder who claims that selfishness is simply not the essence of what makes capitalism, and that “capitalism begins with giving.”

These pretend defenders not only fail to understand what capitalism is, but fail to acknowledge that capitalism has never been attempted in the history of mankind. There have been a few laudable defenders of capitalism, Adam Smith and Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard to more contemporary men such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Dominick T. Armentano but they solely defend the practical economic side, not the moral. These men have effectively proven both in theory and with voluminous empirical evidence how capitalism can improve all avenues of our lives: the standard of living, health care, the energy crisis, and the infamous socioeconomic disparity. However, they usually fall short in their ethical premises of capitalism, leaving this to some of the lesser minds who fumble and destroy the core of capitalism: rational self-interest.

Capitalism needs to be understood not just as the most practical system, but as the only moral system for man qua man to live by. It has been chortled out many times that although capitalism is selfish; it taps the creative flux of the sinners among us to create more abundantly for the rest of the population. This ignorance is the real destroyer of capitalism. The moment these intellectuals concede the immorality of their own supposed philosophy they condone the opposite side of their argument.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Our current mongrel system is nowhere near what true laissez-faire capitalism should and could be. The reason for our present prosperity in America and the world is simply a result of our traditional, capitalistically leaning ideology.

For life to be sustained all living things must follow a certain course of action required by that creature’s nature. In human terms, survival of the fittest is determined by the quality of the reasoning mind. To disable or stifle the reasoning mind in order to produce freely will inevitably cause moral and physical demise. Production, whether farm or industrial, is the application of reason to the problem of survival.

Production is the fruit of the principle of individual rights. Freedom is essential for survival. Since Laissez-Faire capitalism allows everyone to consistently act selfishly. The problem lies in the dominant philosophy of our time, one of selfless sacrifice to others, altruism. The misconception of altruism is that it means simply to help others. But in actuality, it is the worst case of illogical martyrdom.

Contrary to popular belief Bill Gates and Sam Walton embody the truest morality. They raised the standard of living, employed millions, provided meaningful products at cheap prices etc. Yet these men, are denounced as being evil profiteers. Who then are we to idolize? Juxtaposed with the commonly understood moralist Mother Theresa, Gates and Walton’s selfishness fostered the utilitarian society. Mother Theresa served by sacrificing her time and energy, while Gates and Walton selfishly traded value for value.

Thus, we come to the major problem in our battle for capitalism. The general consensus is that sacrifice is an equal exchange of choices. The reality is that a sacrifice surrenders something of value for a lesser or non-value. For example, it is not a sacrifice for a married couple to forgo movies and restaurants in order to save for a home. It is a sacrifice to give up those things so their neighbor may have a house. This is what happens when you pay your taxes. Life is made happier by forgoing lesser values for higher values. A sacrifice always results personal loss. If a student wants to become an architect because of their passion, and ability to transform raw materials into whatever they envision, but gives this up to ‘do the right thing’ by becoming a mediocre social worker instead, they have then perpetrated a sacrifice. But, by pursuing his or her passion for architecture they are trading a lesser value for a greater value. Capitalism allows each and every individual to pursue autonomy for passion.

In a truly free society government is forbidden from initiating force, except against those who initiate it, i.e. crime. If an automaker develops a new model he or she is not required to go through government channels to do so. This also means that if the model is not wanted or needed by the public, they must suffer the consequences. No bailouts. This company would be allowed to go bankrupt while other more efficient companies, all acting in a selfish manner, will emerge and prosper upon satisfying the needs of consumers. This process allows consumers to choose and freely influence the marketplace.

Altruism is completely incompatible with capitalism. Altruism forbids people to act in a self-interested way. Under an altruistic ideology, a property owner has no right to use and dispose of his own property as he sees fit.

Capitalism depends on its moral consideration beyond that of its economic counterpart. The point must be conceded that every human has a right to live by their own rational judgment. Our seemingly capitalist practices is immoral because it protects people’s rights inconsistently, and violates everyone’s rights perpetually. With our current ideology we are given a choice between food and poison, poison always wins.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To learn more about how to morally defend capitalism click the link above (The Objective Standard) and read, for free, Craig Biddles great article, which inspired mine.