LIBERTY AND CAPITALISM

13 05 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber 

There’s an existing interconnection; a vital-intractable, a symbiotic absolute, a palpable intellectual crossing point that proportions the extent of personal liberty to a nation’s form of economic configuration.

Liberty is the father; capitalism the scion, individual liberty la familia. However, along with the blessings of liberty and its benefits arise (for every voting age American) the requirement of self-reliance, behavioral responsibility, and the prudent participation in all of the individual mandates of citizenship. Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” will perish from this earth if we the people allow the subordination of individual liberty in favor of a governing-socialistic protectorate.

Socialistic economies limit and often stymie individual liberties. This type of economy is accompanied with high taxation, a central planning-bureaucracy, and unsustainably high deficit financing coupled with an ever-mounting public debt. Sound familiar? The informed populous of Europe and fifty-percent of Americans are cheerfully complicit with socialism. They have willing traded their individual liberty for the ruse of economic security. European socialists and American liberal progressives, striving to make rational sense out of the ridiculous, have redirected deductive reasoning into the absurd. They have forthrightly created the economic Land of Oz; for only in this make-believe economy can government spending account as a necessary contributor to the nation’s Gross National Product.

Taxation is not commodification; the industry of government siphons off profits and wages to governmental purpose. Governmental purpose often runs amuck of original intent; cash created by taxation is not only fungible it is the most influential instrument of corruption. 

Capitalism’s DNA dynamics does expose society to the risk of repetitive financial-fiscal disturbance. The capitalistic system is an “at risk” enterprise.  Therefore the reality of capitalism invokes a criterion of anxiety. Anxiety, uncertainty, and disquiet-angst are factual-mainstays of this type of economic system. One may conclude that capitalism because of its participatory requirements are the cause of societal and financial inequality. I believe, as stated by Jerry Z. Miller, “that inequality derives less from the unequal availability of opportunity than it does from the unequal ability to exploit opportunity.” But I do concede that capitalism does challenge the individual onto a measure some will not be able to achieve.

The moral political tradeoff for these socialist economies is the creation of a robust welfare component mandated to stand along-side the dynamics of a capitalistic system.  I suggest that such an interface is not only incompatible as well as wholly unmanageable. It is effectually sanctioning the insatiable cash-eating carnivore (the welfare component) the means to devour its very source of financing.    

Liberal progressive socialistic economies (as expressed in Europe or the one President Obama is striving to create in America) offer an economic system wherein, notwithstanding the sensible hesitation of a few level-headed politicians who truly understand the tax-dependence of government on the profitability of business want to force business to the edge of nationalization. These very same are unionist to the core; economic theorist extraordinaire and practitioners of constitutional-perversion.  They are legislators who possess an ideological commitment to egalitarianism; while smartly combating entrepreneurial efforts with regulatory manipulation and creative tax initiations. Their focused endeavor is to control and therefore redirect the “for profit” instinctual of business, by regulation and coercive tax initiatives so to financially support government’s redistribution of wealth agenda. 

Nevertheless, in the interest of having profits to tax, albeit inwardly fighting off their acrimonious inclinations whilst decrying the present social-financial inequality as a by-product of capitalism; socialist-liberal-progressives do accommodate a cumbrously encumbered free marketplace. Taxable sources does seem to bend progressive ideology to the center…now if we can just motivate these progressives to move to the right.





FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA

3 05 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

We Americans have been taught to revere democratic ideals and to unquestioningly believe that the government of the United States is a democratic-republic. We were taught to believe in the moral principle of majority rule, that one-man-one-vote was the cornerstone of democracy,  that the nation’s elected mimicked the political conscience of the founders, that representatives of the people were statesmen of repute, and that governmental power was subjected to the constitutional system of check and balance. And above and beyond any other American belief, we were taught to believe that this nation was a nation of laws, not one of men.  

When I reached fifty I stopped smelling the roses and grew up; my understanding of the world matured. Such a development did not come upon me as a shocking bright light but rather as a dimness that cultivated into brightness over a very long time. Certain realizations emitted themselves from the once vague and disinteresting into the unavoidable palpable. Confrontations with reality, usually in the form of business opportunities, were thrust before me, clarification preceded illumination, the knowledge attained budded into enlightenment. Upon engagement I was astonished to discover; no matter the size or type of business, be it insurance, gaming, payments, entertainment, governments, businesses private or public… no matter the spoken language or the geographic domicile, these commonalities persisted:  I found business sagacity abysmally low grade, certainly, insufficient when measured against the task, leadership was either absent, misaligned, perverted, or corrupted. I also noted a prevailing congenital ethos that virally induced corporate leadership into a state of cognitive insensitivity. In other words, management suffered from an unwillingness to think beyond precedence; consequently, management was unable to analyze their present reality. Arrogant-pretense substituted cognitive sensibility; subterfuge subverted good sense and the able were pushed out as unfair competition.

Most significantly I learned that while serving as a Sergeant in the Marines I could have lost the Vietnam War — there was no need for me to graduate from Yale or Harvard to lose the war. So long ago I established a credo: the value is measured by the definitive result. Not shiny objects, the fanciful, the education or rank that one attained, nor the eloquence of one’s style; I learned that performance had to be so profound it could not be denied.

Now indulge me and revisit my first paragraph, scan the second, and compare what I discovered in the world of business juxtaposed the United States Congress in the place of business. Note the congressional application of the constitution contrasted to the founders’ contextual meaningfulness. Review government spending — not just our recent waste of cash but government spending since President Kennedy. Compare the trillions spent on education, social services, military goods, wars, the nonsensical and ridiculous; the investigation will evidence a cause to prosecute. But instead many citizens don’t even vote!

The present administration will not apply majority rule to the 2nd amendment; instead it wishes to diminish its meaning. Public referendums are reversed by the courts. One man, one-vote…, well, how did ACORN, unions, and Democratic Party vote gathers manage that hallmark of democracy? Interestingly, voting places are described in multiple languages but citizenship requires an understanding of English. If the language of the candidates when declaring their political agenda is in English, why is the voting format in Spanish?  The modern electoral process is not about the voter understanding the issues; it is all about partisan fulfillment on Election Day.

The Founders and elected representatives of repute be damned; the elected (regardless of party) with few exceptions embrace two goals, the attainment or retaining of power Politics is not a craft of statesmanship; it is the application of persuasion. By hook or crook, politics is committed to the building of voter consensus not necessarily to the will or interest of the people.

The system of check and balance has been eroded by the over-stepping of the judiciary, the abhorrent neglect of legislative responsibilities (such as reading a bill before voting and for flagrant truancy) by both houses of congress; but, the principal abuser since Lincoln has been the executive branch. We are no longer a nation of laws but one of presidential degrees, executive discretion, regulator-designed definitive directives and mandates. The day-to-day operations of the United States government are managed by committees, unelected congressional staff, and lobbyists.

A democratic republic requires an enlightened and engaged electorate; in contrast to an enlightened electorate we have: Voters who have monetarily less, vote for the politician that promises to give them more, and those that have more vote to protect what they have secured. Liberty and freedom along with the ethos of self-reliance and the philosophical ideals of individualism have been denigrated and slandered by the charm of the progressives’ utopia of fairness. The charade of “establishing a level playing field” is a consistent promise that less the theoretical is impossible to implement. Then there is the conceptual myth that wealth distribution is a measure of justice and therefore morally justified. And of course there is always the progressives’ “go to,” the mythos ruse utilized when truth-telling is inconvenient, the well-worn socialist-Leninist distortion, class warfare, and the populous instigation thereof.

I do believe that one could discern that the governance of a democratic republic by the people, in the interest of the nation, is unattainable; at least, as perceived to be enacted by NOT betraying the meaningfulness of the constitution. But then of course I could be wrong…   





THE COOKIE JAR

1 05 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

Two times a day, at an hour of mother’s discretion, one cookie at a time was put into our hand and subsequently into our mouth. The cookie was delicious. We wanted more, at least one more was our plea; but mother, citing good sound reasoning, would have none of that and flatly denied us children that one more cookie. Within the confines of satisfying our wanting, mother’s reasoning was rejected; what remained in our mind was our wanting for more cookies.

Now we knew where the cookie jar was placed and although cautioned never to retrieve a cookie without mother’s knowledge. Despite the warning we deceived mother, advantaged our brother and sister, and stole a cookie out of the jar. We ate the cookie; we did it again and again until all the cookies were gone.

If the government replaced mother, the children were the people, and the cookie was currency printed by the Federal Reserve, purposed to deficit-purchase social/health services delivered under the banner of federal and State entitlements such as ObamaCare, and Medicare, the metaphor of mother-and-cookies would directly reference the nation’s undisciplined aptitude on self-control.

We are enabled into fiscal self-destruction by our politicians. We want more cookies. We really don’t care if more cookies are unhealthy… just give us want we want. Oh yes, and we refuse to pay for the cookies.

Additionally, there is a large segment of Americans who, gathered under the ideology of liberal progressivism, believe that getting unlimited amounts of cookies is a right of Americans. This right in the spirit of generosity also extends to non-citizens; factually, these progressives believe the right to eat as many cookies as one desires is universal. For these believers paying for the cookie is simply a matter of deficit financing and taxing corporations and of course the rich.

Further, in the interest of fairness and the unanimity of shared economic sacrifice, progressives envision eliminating all individual tax deductions for any gross income above $250,000 and of course, corporate deductions must also bend to that circumstance of fairness and sacrifice for the common good.

So says the progressive politician: “cookies for everyone and damn the consequences thereof…”