I am in the process of moving this blog to: http://berational.ning.com/

The new tool allows for more flexibility as well as forums, which I tend to like.  It also allows registered participants to post a photo of themselves in their profile.  It is very humanizing to see what we look like (even if I will not win any beauty contests).

Over the next few days, I will re-post the most read items from this blog over to the new location.  I hope you will follow along.

This is the last item I plan to post here.  Thank you.

Troy L Robinson

Tweet This Post 

There is a lot of chatter on the media these last few days about the (supposedly) ill chosen gifts that Obama has given the Queen and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.  The consensus seems to be that the Obamas just don’t have much experience selecting appropriate gifts.

This explanation simply does not get it.

We are talking about the POTUS here.  Do you have any idea the size of the staff supporting this man?  Do any of you actually believe that Barack took a break from his rock star appearances to stop by the local WalMart, made this purchase himself, then went back to the White House to load it with songs and film clips?  Get real.

This man has available all the expertise he needs to do anything that needs to be done in the world of diplomatic protocol.  Much of it having served in previous administrations.

I submit that both of these incidents were quite intentional, indeed, were calculated to have an effect.  Since I am not an insider, and , obviously lack the ability to read minds, I can only speculate on the underlying intent.  However, I can offer some good guesses.  In my opinion, there are 2 obvious benefits, for the Obama administration from doing this:

1. To a degree, it detracts media and citizen attention from the financial insanity unfolding before our very eyes.
2. More important, it ridicules an essential partner in our former attempts to preserve freedom in the world.  Particularly, it ridicules an important ally of the Bush administration.  One that is still trying to help us in Afghanistan, the war front the Obamanation says needs more troops!

Is there not a clear pattern here?  So far, the Obama administration has offered to improve relations with virtually every government known to hate us, known to desire our destruction, while, at the same time, going out of their way to offend our most important, most powerful ally.

No my friends, this was no innocent gaff.  It is part of a plan to reduce America to just another weak state ruled by a one-world government.

The time to wake up and smell the oppression is now!  Soon, the administration will be so powerful that it will be impossible to resist.  And, when I say SOON, I mean it.  This process is going forward at a speed that surprises even a cynic like me.

Send your tea bags and go to the tea parties.  Then go home and start working with your neighbors to form/reinforce a local militia.

Or, you can just sit there and watch your freedom disappear, as you moan: “if we only had term limits”; “if we only had (you fill it in)”; “why doesn’t somebody do something?”; “why doesn’t the government fix itself?”.

As they take away everything you have worked for, I suggest you also moan to your new masters “why me?  I didn’t do anything”.  At least you will have the comfort of having been right about something.

Tweet This Post 

A few evenings ago, while acting like a rock star on the Tonight Show, the chosen one made a comment to the extent that watching him try to play tennis was like watching the Special Olympics.  Since then, quite a number of pundits have been on his case about this horrible insult to the physically impaired (Is that the PC expression for handicapped?  I have trouble keeping up.)

Now, I will be the first to question whether being a rock star on Tonight is the kind of important state business that justifies the cost of flying AF One from coast-to-coast and back.  Indeed, one can question the propriety of the POTUS being on such a show for any reason.  Valid complaints – though hardly raised outside right-wing talk radio.  But that one passing comment — why all the furor?  Is it that hard to guess that he was ridiculing himself, not the impaired?  That there was no intended malice in his statement?

Why, you may ask, do I even bring this up?  For the simple reason that it is symptomatic of a “disease” that pervades our nation.  That is, the spinning of every comment, every thought, in the most negative way possible, simply to provide another reason to disagree with, even dislike each other.  And, Political Correctness has raised transmission of this disease to an art form.

Why do we do this to ourselves?  The media can be understood (but not excused) because they must think it increases their following, ergo their revenue.  But why ever would the rest of us buy in?  Are we so dumb that we don’t understand we are contributing to phony rules under which we ourselves will be punished or, at least, scorned under?

Worse still, can we not understand how divisive this is?

My friends, we live a a perilous time.

• The economy that provides our wonderful standard of living is under assault, and near collapse.  This is a REAL problem.
• There are a large number of people in this world who hate us, and our way of life, so much that they will destroy themselves in order to do us harm.  This is a REAL problem.
• At least 2 rogue nations are, at this very moment, trying to build nuclear weapons and the systems to deliver them – to us and/or to our allies.  This is a REAL problem.
• We have a government that has abandoned our Constitution and is on a power grab that heads us directly toward a socialist dictatorship.  This is a REAL problem.

No doubt, some of you have real problems you could contribute to my list — but, I think you get the point.

So, with all these REAL problems, problems that must be confronted and solved if we are to continue as a free and prosperous nation, why then do we spend so much time and energy manufacturing phony problems out of misstatements, minor mistakes, disagreements over petty issues, and other indications of our humanity?

Let us pause a moment to take a peek at the possible world of the not-so-distant future – that one world under one government that Mr. Soros and his fellow money grubbers have planned for us…

• Will prayer in school be a hot topic?  No.  You will be told there is no god and that any disagreement may get you shot (and, as an atheist, I fear this as much as any religious person).  Instead, each school day will begin with praises for the “beloved leader” of the moment.
• Will abortion rights be a matter of public discussion?  No.  You will be instructed, by a department of government, whether you will be sterilized, aborted, or allowed to reproduce.
• Will we continue the ongoing, totally useless debate over evolution versus creation?  No.  Since we will all be the property of the state, such debates will be meaningless.  The state will be the beginning, the middle, and the end.
• Will equal rights be an issue?  No.  We will all be equal in that we will have no rights.
• Will distribution of wealth be an issue?  No.  The state will own everything, allowing preferred enjoyment of certain things to themselves and to the thugs that help them maintain power.
• Universal health care?  For sure.  Universally bad – that is, when available at all.

This could go on and on but, surely you have gotten an idea of the kind of world that waits, just around the corner.  But it does not have to be.  We could focus and cooperate on solving the REAL problems.  We could focus, and cooperate on those things that most of agree on – and, they are legion, if we would just stop the petty crap long enough to see it.  We could start to take individual responsibility for addressing the things that really matter, rather than waiting, hoping someone else will.

In a word, we could return to a world dominated by common sense and rational expectations.

Or, we can continue along this path that leads to a world where none of us has to think.  A world where someone else makes all the decisions and tells us what to do – with often severe repercussions if we do not obey quickly enough.

Such a world already exists you know — most domestic farm animals live in it.  Heck, many of them actually seem to like it.

Remember, refusing to decide is, itself, a decision.  This is one you simply cannot escape.  Have a nice day.

Tweet This Post 

Repeatedly, in this blog, I have tried to make the point that the United States of America was established as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.  Obviously the talking heads around the country do not read my blog because it seems that I hear the D word with ever increasing frequency.  Last evening, I heard a clip from an old Ronald Reagan speech where even he referred to our “great democracy”.

Now I understand why the liberal/socialist forces push the idea of democracy.  It is because true democracies are not restrained by bothersome nonsense like, say, constitutions.  In other words, the more they can get America to think of itself as a democracy, the easier it is to ignore our Constitution, a document that, if followed, can really frustrate their attempts to socialize the nation.

But what of the others, even arch conservatives like Reagan?  Why ever would he, or anyone of like political leaning, want to think of America as a democracy?  I admit that this is one question I do not have an easy answer for.  I can only guess that even Presidents of the United States don’t really know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.  To the extent that there may be accuracy in this guess, I can only blame our illustrious “school system” which, from kindergarten through the university level, seems intent on indoctrinating our youth on the glories of the collective and the evils of individualism and self interest.

Some of you might reasonably ask “what is wrong with democracy?  isn’t it fair to everyone?”.  I will be the first to admit that it can seem that way, especially to young, idealistic minds.  Indeed, I still remember a younger version of myself writing a paper on democracy in junior high school.  A paper that quite impressed the teacher.  As I reflect back on it, what it really was, was documented proof that I did not have a clue what I was writing about.  It was just an echo of what I had been taught, with no rational thought on my part.  But it seemed so right at the time.  But I digress — back to the question I posed on your behalf…

The rather complicated answer to “what is wrong with democracy” is that there are a number of potentially fatal flaws in a true democracy.  We can start with the most obvious flaw, one that we are grappling with this very day, that being the ability of a large group to band together to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.  In other words, to use government to plunder their fellow citizens.  The next most obvious flaw is that democracy gives the majority the right and the means to abuse minorities.  If you know anything of our history, you know that we did a pretty good job of abusing minorities, even with the limitations and protections of our Constitution.  One can only imagine what might have happened had there been true democracy back then.  I think it safe to suggest, at a minimum, that the Civil Rights movement would never have gained traction.

Yet there are still many flaws that, while perhaps less obvious, still have the potential to cause great harm.  One such is the notion of known and predictable rules.  With a constitution (that is, a constitution that is actually followed), there are preset limits to what government, in the name of the people, can do.  And, there are outright prohibitions against certain potential government activities.  And, the only way the people can get around these limits is to amend the constitution itself.  A task intentionally made difficult to discourage frivolous changes.  Ergo, a level of constancy and predictability exists.  Contrast this with the absolute lack of predictability that can exist in a true democracy where the rules are whatever the majority say they are, on any given day.  Rules that can be changed at any time, simply at the whim of the majority, no rationality required.

Why does this matter so much?  Let’s try to illustrate using a simple example.  Most of us have found ourselves in a social situation where someone proposes to teach the rest of us a new game.  But, rather than presenting us with a documented set of rules to go by, they explain the rules as the game is played.  When this happens to me, it seems that each new rule that is exposed works against whatever I was trying to do and in favor of the purveyors of the new game.  It can seem (and may sometimes be true) that they are actually making up the rules as we go, always in their own favor of course.  Now this might be tolerable, even amusing, in a social setting where it is, after all, an innocent game where nothing tangible is actually won or lost.  But imagine such a scenario in the real world where business and investment decisions are constantly being made.  How comfortable would you be risking millions of dollars on a business plan, knowing all the while that the majority could, at any moment, change the rules such that you lose your investment?  I dare say you would not be inclined to make many major investments.  Indeed, do we see a form of this happening at this very moment?

There are other subtle flaws as well but I think those illustrated here should be sufficient to make any rational being flee democracy like they would flee a new outbreak of plague.  If only we had more rational behavior and less of the emotion-driven kind.  The answer, as my friend Dae keeps saying, is real education.  Not socialist indoctrination, not political correctness, but real education.  The kind where the students are taught to think for themselves, using rationality and critical thinking.

Why do we continue to tolerate and pay through the nose for anything less?  Get mad, raise hell, and tell your would-be masters that you are not going to take it anymore.  And keep your weapons oiled in case they are hard of hearing.

Tweet This Post 

As everyone knows, in America we have 2 prominent political parties: The Democrat Party (a.k.a. “Dems”) and the Republican Party (a.k.a. “GOP”).

Particularly in recent years, both these parties have let us down.  By not doing what they promised and by doing what they promised not to do.  And, by presenting us with second-rate candidates, often candidates that nobody really wants in office — although many still feel compelled to vote for what they consider “the lesser of two evils”, lest their votes be “wasted”.

So, what are political parties really all about, and, why do we have them?  Indeed, do we even need them?  Let’s analyze a bit:

For starters, I submit that “Political Party” is just a more palatable name for “Political Machine”.  How many of us instinctively feel distaste when we hear or read the term “Machine Politics”?  How many of us, when confronted with the term, immediately envision such things as: ward healing (community activism); ballot box stuffing; voter fraud (dead people “voting”, people voting multiple times, etc.); voter intimidation by thugs working for the “political machine”; vote buying and other forms of bribery?

The truth is that political parties exist for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the voters or the nation as a whole.  Surprising to many, Political parties are not a part of our constitutional government.  They are private businesses, and they should be treated as such — obliged to obey laws, subject to anti-trust rules, and taxed, just like any other business.  Wait, you say, at least they are not for profit businesses.  Right.  And the Pope is a Muslim.

I contend that our present Democrat/Republican duopoly actually harms the political process in several important ways:

1. They use their power, power they have seized, to exclude additional political parties from meaningful participation in the process.  For this, they should be brought up on anti-trust violations.
2. Each of the duopoly parties present voters with what I call a “package deal” (they call it a “platform”).  In voting for candidates of either party, you vote for their entire “package”, even if you have significant objection to parts of it.  Given the 2 party limit, most voters are very likely to have such objections to both party “packages”.  Let me use myself as an example.  I am libertarian in my political leaning.  As such, I tend to be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and favor small, limited government.  Should I try to support the GOP, I am turned off by the attempts at social engineering and by the influence that religion has in the party.  Should I try to support the Dems, I gag on their wish to grow government and to throw money, my money, at every conceivable problem.  Should I try to support the Libertarian Party (which I do), I am marginalized because the duopoly keeps that party, and a number of others, from full participation in the political process.  However, I suspect my political views are very similar to those of a majority of Americans, if only they were given the opportunity to express those views.
3. They use their power to keep good candidates from becoming viable candidates, simply because many good candidates do not want to associate themselves with certain of the platform “planks” of the duopoly.
4. Our political process has begun to resemble that of most communist countries.  They allow only 1 viable party (the Communist Party) while we allow only 2 viable parties (the duopoly).  Hence, there is only a 1 party difference in what those with a choke-hold on the political processes of the two systems will allow – much too close for my comfort.
5. The idea that our elections are open and honest is a myth.  The notion that there are fundamental differences between the duopoly parties is rapidly becoming a myth as well.

What can be done about this mess?  A lot!  First, it is not logical to propose that the duopoly parties actually be disallowed.  Not in a country that prizes and protects the right of free assembly.  But, we can seriously limit their duopoly power in a number of ways, including:

1. Remove the straight party ticket selection from all voting devices.  All this does is make it easier to buy or coerce the votes of the uninformed (they only have to remember one simple thing to do when they get to the polls).
2. Remove party designations from voting devices for the individual races.  This should have the effect of forcing voters to vote for candidates, not for parties.  If you were too dumb to write down the names of the candidates you want to vote for before coming to the polls, or did not even know who the candidates were to begin with… well, I guess that would just be too damn bad would it not?
3. Level the playing field for access to the process.  For instance, if the Green Party has to petition to get on a given ballot, then the Democrat and Republican parties should have to as well.  The notion that the duopoly parties have some natural right to access while all others must work for it is nonsense.  Likewise, all candidates that have qualified to be on the ballot should have equal access to any and all public debates between peer candidates, these debates being little more than free campaign advertising anyway.
4. Treat the organized parties – all of them – like the business entities they are.  That is, make them follow the same laws and rules that other businesses are subject to.
5. Add the new selection “None of the above” to ballots for all elected offices.
6. Add a new amendment to the US Constitution that says “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a political party”.

If we intend to take back control of our constitutional republic, then a logical first step is to take back control of the process by which those who govern are selected.

Get mad, get involved and don’t take it anymore!!  Demand change that will make a real difference.

If anyone reading this has good reasons why the two party system, as it currently exists, should be preserved, I would be most interested in hearing them.

Tweet This Post 

The various talking heads and commentators are having a great time over the teleprompter mishap that happened a few days ago when Brian Cowen, the Prime Minister of Ireland and Barack Obama, the alleged President of the United States got their teleprompted wires crossed and gave parts of each others intended speeches.

Now I am the first to admit that there was a Keystone Kops aspect to the whole affair that was, on the surface, amusing.  And, who among us does not enjoy seeing the powerful made humble, made to look like the humans they, after all, really are?

Yet, there is an aspect of this that I find not in the least funny.  Consider the facts:

1. It took the Prime Minister of Ireland nearly one half minute to realize this was not the same speech he had given earlier the same day.
2. The President of the United States did not recognize his own name when he thanked himself for his hospitality.

Now I don’t think of myself as especially naive.  I know that most important people employ speech writers.  I know that they are busy people who are “on stage” most of the time, with very little time to sit back and contemplate.  Still, I find this a bit much.  After all, these are heads of state.  In one case, the head of the most powerful state in the history of the world.  A head of state with the power at his fingertips, to literally obliterate other countries.  Is it too much to expect them to have at least some clue what they are saying to the world, in the name of the people they govern?

In the case of the Irish PM, is it too much to expect him to recognize the same words he had spoken earlier the same day?  In the case of the  President, is it too much to expect him to recognize his own name?  In fact, is it too much to expect both of these people to have some idea of the content of the speech they are giving?

Could it be that we have elected people to high office who are capable of nothing more than simply repeating whatever appears on their teleprompter?  In my humble opinion, this differs from being a true puppet only in that, with a true puppet, the puppeteer actually speaks the words — and, we can see who he/she is while they are doing so.  To me, this is even worse.  We have what are obviously puppets but are not at all sure who the puppeteers really are.

Is this the “change” over half the voters asked for?  A change to an empty suit with a resonant voice and the ability to seem sincere, no matter what babble emits from his mouth?  Worse yet, how are we to find out who these hidden puppeteers are and what they want from us?

Is this not what happens when serious elections become a nationalized version of American Idol (or Irish Idol as the case may be)?  Is this not what we should expect when we elect people more based on how they look than on the substance of their character?  More on how they say whatever they say than on the substance or truth of the words they said?

Years ago, I led a team of people who, in effect, taught an in-company course intended to change peoples attitudes about sharing their knowledge.  At first, the team used speaker notes on the presentations we gave.  It soon became apparent that this led to the presenter often merely reading the speaker notes to the audience.  Now all the people in the audience were able to read quite well themselves, and the  presentations became like eating dry bread (the substance was there but it was not the least palatable).  So, I had the team remove all the speaker notes and never allowed their use again.  My reasoning being that, if you needed the speaker notes, it was because you did not know the material.  And, if you did not know the material, what business did you have presuming to pass that knowledge on to others?

This turned out to be a valuable approach for my team.  It made us better at what we did.  So, I wonder, if that was good for a few insignificant people at a large corporation, why would we ever accept less from a team we have entrusted with trillions of dollars, with mega-tons of explosives, and with the very freedom of a country?

My answer?  We should not.  Instead, we should demand that all would-be office holders, whether elected or appointed, demonstrate some actual knowledge of the thing they presume to lead.

For instance, the demonstrated inability to operate TurboTax is hardly a qualification for being Treasury Secretary.  Likewise, a demonstrated inability to follow the law is hardly a qualification for being Attorney General (if you don’t know what this means, please Google “Marc Rich pardon”).  Following through and helping those who bribed you with campaign contributions (or worse) is hardly a qualification to be a Senator or Representative.  And on, and on it goes.

Just what does it take to get to you?  Do they have to send you a daily email saying “we think you are stupid”?

Get mad.  Then help get these bozos out of our government.  If the Irish want to keep their bozos, that is their problem.

Tweet This Post 

There is a lot of chatter in the media lately on the subject of self interest.  A.K.A. greed.

On one side, there are the Objectivists (like me) as well as noted economists (like the late Milton Friedman – view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A).  Those in this camp claim that self interest is the motive power that makes a free economy work, in turn delivering the goods and services required for our amazing standard of living.

On the other side, there are those, mostly liberals and socialists, who claim that unrestrained greed is the root of all economic evil.  That it is the reason for the income/wealth disparity in America, that it causes evil companies (especially the CEO’s) to cheat and steal from us to satisfy their endless greed.

Which side is right?  Both are.  Self interest definitely is the motive force of a free economy, yet, in the form of simple greed, it can also destroy a free economy.  How can both be true at the same time?  Simple.  When self interest is enlightened, it is a force for good.  When it is not enlightened, i.e. is simple greed, it can be a force for destruction.  What is the difference?  Let’s analyze:

First, what do we mean by enlightened?  Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines enlightenment as:

1. freed from ignorance and misinformation
2. based on full comprehension of the problems involved

In my simple terms, it means understanding things – in the case of self interest, it means understanding the full effects of one’s actions.   By contrast, simple greed means acting without any regard to the harm done to others by one’s actions.  Let’s try a simple example:

Imagine I own a company that makes a medicine that all people must have in order to say alive.  I have a monopoly on this medicine so  I can expect a huge market.  And, this fits well with my self interest which is to sell as much of my miracle drug as possible, to feed my own profits.  There are a couple of ways I might approach my captive marketplace.

First, let’s use the simple greed approach.  I charge whatever I can, without regard to the economic damage it does to those who can ill afford my prices, without regard to the many of will die because they simply cannot come up with the money to pay me.  What will be the likely result?  First, I will get very rich, at least for a while – as will those who invested in my company.  Second, I will do obvious damage to the society I am part of.  So much that my “customers” are likely to rebel, most likely turning to government to regulate my prices, possibly nationalize my business.  In other words, my own greed is very likely to severely limit my business, ergo limiting the income I can make from it and causing my investors to lose part or all of their investments.

Then, lets use the enlightened self interest approach.  I charge a price that will cover my development and manufacturing costs and leave me a nice profit.  I make arrangements to use some of those profits to help those who can’t really afford my product.  What will be the likely result?  First, I will get rich, as will those who invested in my company.  Those whose lives are extended by my product will be helped — and, because of this extended life, will be around to buy from me for an extended time.  Because of the good citizenship my company demonstrates, it is likely to have a long life, continuing to enrich me and my investors while delivering something essential to my customers.

I could have framed my simplistic example any number of ways, but the point would still be the same.  The point being that it is the process, the “game” if you prefer, that is important.  To have a definite winner or loser means that the “game” has ended.  Yet, when the game ends, we are all worse off.  Me because of lost income, you because of loss of access to something you want or need.  Clearly, it is in all our interests that the “game” go on forever.  For this to happen means we all must be motivated to continue the “game”.  This happens only when all of the “players” perceive themselves better off for playing the “game” than they would otherwise be.  Put in even simpler terms, it means we all stay in the “game” for the simple reason that we want to.  That is, that we are free people, exercising our freedom to choose, in a free marketplace.

Which brings us to the definition of enlightened self interest (from Wikipedia):

“Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.”

“In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed or the concept of “unenlightened self-interest”, in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, that the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests. If a typical individual in such a group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such a group ethic.

Some individuals might profit, in a material sense, from a philosophy of greed, but it is believed by proponents of enlightened self-interest that these individuals constitute a small minority and that the large majority of persons can expect to experience a net personal loss from a philosophy of simple unenlightened selfishness.

Unenlightened self-interest can result in the tragedy of the commons.”

Well, that was enlightening, was it not?  Is it not true that each of us sees examples of both kinds of self interest/greed all around us?  And, it is not too extreme to suggest that, for the moment, the greed crowd is winning.  But, as discussed above, when the greed crowd starts “winning” this means the “game” is nearing its end.

So, you ask, why is there not more of this enlightened self interest?  Because it requires the ability to reason — to take in information and process it with critical thought to come up with rational answers.  The celebrated “dumbing down” of America works for just the opposite.  Can it be a real surprise that simple greed is becoming the norm?  Especially when you stop to consider that your own government is, by far, the greatest practitioner of simple greed the world has ever seen.  No, it was not meant to be that way, but that is the way it has become.  Because we let it.  Us, we the people, we sat on our hind ends, watching meaningless sports and mindless TV shows, while our government was perverted into the atrocity it has become.

I ask again, why is it that a CEO, who genuinely earns say $10 million, a CEO who is instrumental in providing thousands of jobs, is demagogued as a greedy, evil person while a sports star, who can barely sign his/her own name, is paid the same for delivering nothing whatever of value to civilization, squanders it all on drugs, and “bling”, and nobody complains?

I say, get mad, then get educated.   (Yes – you.  Sure you attended a major university but does that make you actually educated?  Think again.)

Tweet This Post 

In the essay I’ve Looked At Money From Both Sides Now http://www.troy.thoughtsaloud.com/2009/02/14/ive-looked-at-money-from-both-sides-now/  I mentioned my theory, mostly plagiarized from Ayn Rand, that money represents productivity.  Clearly a topic of little interest, given its low hit count.  But, I persist because I am convinced that the proper understanding of money and its relationship to productivity is one of the most important issues we currently face.  Likewise, the general ignorance about money is, in my opinion, largely responsible for our current economic/political mess.   So, here goes try #2, from a slightly different perspective…

As previously stated several times, money represents productivity.  This concept is easily illustrated by this ultra-simple example:  Suppose I have built a piece of furniture – built with my own hands.  This piece of furniture is obviously the result of productive work on my part.  Now, along comes you, you like the furniture and you propose to trade with me.  As it happens, I am not in need of any of the actual products of your productive work, so, you trade me money instead.  Money that you obtained from someone else in trade for your productive work.  Money that I have now obtained for my productive work.  Is it not clear then that this money circulates about, representing the result of productive work, in an endless string of trades?  Ergo I conclude that money represents productivity.

“So what?” you respond.

So this.  For purposes of our discussion, there are only 2 forms of productivity:

1. Past productivity (productive work already performed), and,
2. Future productivity (productive work expected to be performed sometime in the future).

Yes, I realize there is also current productivity (work being done this instant) but, any unit of productive work is in the “current” form for such a short time that it is not germane to our discussion.

So, if you are with me so far, we have determined that money represents either past productivity or future productivity.  Further, money that represents future productivity must be borrowed.  Borrowed from some entity that has an excess left form its past productivity.  Ergo, when we borrow money, we are actually borrowing productivity, with the promise that we will repay with our own productivity at some future time.

“So what?” you repeat.

Well, let’s apply these simple rules to the massive amounts of money being spent by our beloved government.  Since government is incapable of productivity itself, it must reply upon the productivity of its citizens.  Said another way, it must confiscate part of their productivity (money) for its own use.  Now, I don’t know about all of you, but I can assure you that I do not, at this moment, have enough money, left over from my past productivity, to pay the share that my government is spending in my name.  I think it is safe to bet that millions of other Americans share my predicament.  So, what is a government to do?

One thing they can do (and have already done to excess) is borrow the money.  Reflecting back on our rules, this means they are borrowing future productivity from some other entity.  It also means that me, your, and our descendants are on the hook to repay this borrowed productivity.  That is why we hear so many people (accurately) claim that government is “mortgaging our children’s future”.  Not a really desirable approach but it works (for a while).

But, what happens when our credit runs out?  That is to say, when other entities refuse to loan us more of their past productivity?  Interesting question is it not?  And, this is exactly what is happening as you read this.  Our largest creditor (China) is quickly coming to the realization they might not get paid for past loans to us, so why would they want to lend us more?  Can’t turn to Europe because they are swimming in debt just like we are.

So, our government laments, “what to do?”.  Ah ha! (imagine a light coming on in a politician’s hollow head)… we are the government, we own the presses, we alone have the right to “coin money”, problem solved!  We will simply print more money!!

Let’s apply our rules again.  Since money representing future productivity can only be borrowed, this new money cannot represent future productivity because our credit has run out.  Whoops, the only thing it has left to represent is past productivity.  Now, my friends, what happens when we add this newly printed money to the money that already represented past productivity?  Simple, it dilutes it.  Just like adding more water to you cup of coffee.  The coffee ends up not as strong as before.  Well, likewise with the money — it ends up not as strong as before.  That is to say, a unit of that money will buy less than it would before the dilution.

Our government calls this inflation.  I call it a clever way to steal our money and make it look like someone else did it.  That someone else being the grocer who must raise prices to offset the loss of money value.  Or the gas station, the clothing store, in a word, everyone you do business with.  End result?  It takes more productivity (on our part) to get us the same goods and services we are used to.  And the best part is that the stealing continues into the future, continues until the unlikely time when deflation restores the previous balance.

Think about it.  Government proposes to raise your taxes 10% and most of us have a fit.  Meanwhile, they steal 20% and we hardly even know who or what hit us.

Then, when the theives run for re-election, we send over 90% of them back to Washington to steal some more.  Why do we do this?  Usually because we let them convince us they will steal it from someone else and give part of it to us. Did you buy into this?  If so, ask yourself if the price of food, fuel and other necessities went up only for the rich?  You know better.  Yet we fall for it every time.  I can only conclude that, as a people, we enjoy being lied to and stolen from.  What else could explain this madness?

Tweet This Post 

Like many Americans, my first introduction to the concept of rights was in the 60’s, when the word, and the notion, seemed to dominate everything.  Indeed, the notion of rights, in my opinion, has been taken far beyond reason, such that rights can now be “created”, seemingly out of thin air, causing me to wonder if we even know what a “right” really is.  Let’s analyze a bit…

For my own purposes, I divide “rights” into two broad groups.  The first I call natural rights, the other I call artificial rights.

Natural rights, I consider the real thing.  These are the rights that Mr Jefferson called “unalienable” and “endowed by (our) creator”.  Not being in the creator business, I see them as rights each person has, simply due to the fact of their existence as a living creature.  Everyone has these rights, has always had them, and will always have them.  For sure, there are human forces that interfere, in varying degrees, with our ability to exercise these rights, but the rights themselves are still there.

A key thing to remember is that natural rights do not come from government.  In fact, I contend that no government has ever had, or will ever have, the power to grant true rights to anyone.  If we are diligent, governments can be constructed to help us protect and preserve our natural rights.  What is far more likely is that governments will intrude on our natural rights – even those governments originally constructed to do just the opposite.  In my thinking, a primary difference between good government and bad government is the degree to which a government intrudes on, or curtails, the natural rights of its citizens.

So, what are these natural rights?  Mr Jefferson listed 3 examples:  “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  There are myriad others that one might add, including the right to to the fruits of one’s own labor, the right of self determination, etc.  I will go so far as to suggest that one’s natural rights include the right to do whatever one wishes to do, so long as what we do does not impede others in the exercise of their own natural rights.

It is true that most of us voluntarily limit or curtail certain of our natural rights because the perceived value of the order, safety, or other advantage gained by curtailing the right is greater than not doing so.  A good example is that most of us gladly curtail our right to drive wherever and however we might choose, in return for the safety and convenience that comes from sensible traffic rules.  Likewise we curtail our freedom of speech such that it does not include yelling fire in a crowded building, we curtail our right to keep and bear arms such that we forgo the right to fire a gun without regard to who or what the bullet might hit.

But, if we are wise, there are very definite limits to our willingness to curtail our rights.  In all cases, the benefits to ourselves from the curtailment should clearly outweigh the benefits to ourselves of keeping the right intact.  In other words, I should only agree to curtailment of a right because it makes rational sense to me that it is in my own best interest to do so, not because someone else “feels” it might be a good idea.

I think it goes without saying that many of us have become lax in this regard as so many of our natural rights have been curtailed, to varying degrees, without needed protest from “we the people”.  And, I fear we will soon discover that is is much easier to guard a right that to recover its free exercise once it has been curtailed.

So, what about those artificial rights?  First, let me suggest that they are not rights at all.  Usually, they are privileges, advantages, or silly notions created through the exercise of power.  Most often governmental power.  A good example is the so-called  “right to vote”.  Clearly, this is a privilege.  A privilege that exists only because some governmental structure exists (else, what would there be to vote about?).  Another example is the so-called “right to a living wage”.   While it is very noble to want that everyone could earn a living wage, to pretend there is such a “right” is the sort of silliness that could only come from a pandering government.

Then there are those “artificial rights” that pose a real danger to our freedom.  One timely example is the so-called “right to health care”.  Since health care is a commodity that must be paid for, and, since some users of the health care system choose to be too poor to pay, this so-called “right” is actually a license for the government to confiscate the fruits of one person’s productive labor, to be used to make up for another person’s failure to be productive enough to pay for the health care they use.  By what leap of fantastical thinking can the  willful violation of one person’s natural rights, by the implied use of force, in order to provide an advantage to another, be called a “right”?  If I seriously called a cat a dog, you might accurately think I was deluded.  Yet we allow our government to conduct plunder, in the name of “rights” and too few of us even question it.  Does this mean I want to withhold health care from the poor?  No it does not.  I think the American people are, for the most part, very generous and would take care of such situations willingly and voluntarily, without the imposition of government force or plunder.

Lastly, how can one reasonably separate natural rights from artificial rights?  Simple.  If a supposed right exists only because of government, it is artificial, ergo, not a right at all.  Natural rights are like the universe itself — they simply exist without apparent cause.  Governments can interfere with your exercise of your natural rights, but, no government can create a right any more than a government can create wealth.  To believe otherwise is dangerous to your continued freedom.

Tweet This Post 

I think it is a healthy exercise, especially in times like the present, to stop and think about how much we trust each other.

It is quite easy to be aware of who you don’t trust.  After all, they no doubt earned your mistrust through some act of word of deed which left a sensitive spot on our psyche.  For instance, it is very easy to mistrust our government, given the lies we have been told, the treasure they have plundered, and the freedoms they have curtailed.

Likewise, some businesses earn our mistrust by failing to deliver the goods and services you were led to expect — or by failing to stand behind them when something goes wrong.  Or, worst of all, luring us into outright scams.

We mistrust specific individuals with whom we have personal contact, for any number of reasons, real or imagined.

If we dwell on examples like those above, we could think of ourselves as not very trusting at all.

Until, that is, we stop to think about the number of people, many of them total strangers, we trust with our money, with our health, with our very lives.  And, we extend this trust constantly, hardly, if ever, even thinking about it.  In fact, it is hard to imagine life in a crowded world without it.  How few of us has the time, energy, or resources to perform “due diligence” on everyone we conduct business with.

We take it for granted that other drivers will stay on their side of the road and stop at stop signs and lights.  We take it for granted that the food we buy – at the grocery or in restaurants, is safe to eat.  We assume the professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) are qualified in their respective professions.

I submit that trust, like friendliness and respect, are the lubricants that make our most of our transactions with others go smoothly and pleasantly for all involved.  Indeed, we are by nature a trusting people.  And, most of us prefer that it stay that way.  Yet, trust is another character virtue that, like decency, honor, dignity, honesty, and self restraint, will soon be on the endangered list if things continue on their current course.

I grew up in a different America — one I’m afraid my descendants may never know.

In the America I grew up in, a “contract” was two people looking each other in the eye and shaking hands on whatever they were agreeing to.  Nothing else was needed, because to default on that unwritten contract mean a blow to one’s dignity and honor, and that, to most people, was far more important than whatever monetary or other value inherent in the contract.  As an aside, let me remind you that the signers of our Declaration of Independence pledged “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor”.  Only honor being sacred, ergo of higher importance to them than even life and fortune.

As a child, my friends and I wandered about, pretty much anywhere we liked, at most any time of day, without the slightest notion that any person, of any ethnic or religious group, might want to intentionally harm us.

I remember when those neighbors who were “wealthy” enough to afford a home telephone would go off on vacation, leaving their homes unlocked in case a neighbor might need to use the their telephone while they were away.

As a teenager, we carried guns in our cars – the same cars we parked on the school grounds.  The guns were for hunting and nobody gave a thought to the notion that one of us might see fit to bring one into the school building and start blazing away.  Such things were just not done.

I can’t even imagine what might have happened had one or more of us decided to beat up a teacher or bus driver.  I can only assure you that we would have ended up far worse off than the person we set out to beat up.  Such things were simply not tolerated.

Yes my friends, we have come a long way from the levels of trust we once had in each other.  And, what is left continues to slip into oblivion.  What do we do then?  Do we simply cease to conduct business with each other?  Does not seem practical to me.  Do we somehow vet every person we presume to deal with, via some gigantic database that sees all, knows all, and, for a price, tells all?  Does this sound like a world we want to live in?  Not to me.

Then why are we letting this happen to us?  Have we become so dumbed down that we don’t realize that a free society cannot exist without trust?  I really do not think so.  Instead, I think we all know better.  And I think we all really do want to be able to trust each other.

Well, my friends, I have good news.  Unlike many of the things that are going wrong with America, this is one that we can fix all by ourselves.  Us.  You and me and millions of others just like us.  And it is the simplest thing one could ever hope for.

And, it is this:  If you want to help restore trust to America, all you have to do is be totally trustworthy yourself.

Well, that and shun those who prove themselves untrustworthy.

Just think of it – the power for change, right there in your own hands.

Tweet This Post