Why Not Libertarianism?

Image: Wikimedia Commons

It seems at some point in their journey many conservatives follow the sirens’ song into at least a brief flirtatious fling with libertarianism. Some wake up to the reality of libertarianism and return home; others do not. As someone who more than casually flirted with libertarianism, this is a topic I’ve spent some time contemplating. While, like many forms of populism, it looks appealing on the surface, the more deeply I considered libertarianism, the more I came to reject it. Here are my thoughts on why, as both a conservative and a Christian, I cannot accept libertarianism.

Libertarianism begins with a rather Rousseauean “social contract” view that all government is somehow inherently evil, and therefore something to, at best, only be tolerated. All libertarian writings of which I am aware echo this notion of government as at best a “necessary evil.” Libertarians consistently describe government as “use of force” against the individual. This blog post sums up quite well the thought consistently expressed by prominent libertarian thinkers like Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods.

This view of government as a “necessary evil” stands in stark contrast to the authentic conservative and authentic Christian views of government. Instead of being something “imposed” on man by other men as part of some sort of “social contract,” the classical Thomistic and Kirkian view understands that man is social by nature and therefore sees just government as an inherent good ordained by God. Man, by his very God-given nature, seeks not only the company of others, but order as well. This is why man naturally forms families, from which society develops. Such collections of people, again by their very nature, demand order. Providing a framework for order, in other words promoting the “common good,” is the true purpose of just government.

Therefore, we may conclude, in deference to the libertarian position, just government is both good and necessary. Problems do not inherently arise from government itself. Instead, problems arise from unjust and irresponsible governments. On this point alone, conservatives should reject libertarianism. Yet, as we look closer at libertarianism, we uncover even more concerns.

As to my specific arguments against libertarianism, first, one cannot simply pick and choose what a philosophy means. The choice of adopting a particular philosophy involves accepting the entire framework of that philosophy. If we pick and choose from among various beliefs, then we have in fact created something new, no matter how loudly we might claim otherwise. While I radically oppose the ideas of someone like Nietzsche, for example, I can at least respect his intellectual honesty in taking his ideas to their logical conclusions; of course as a result of his radical ideas about the supremacy of the individual alone, we mustn’t forget he died broke, alone, and insane.

Thus, when it comes to libertarianism (as a philosophy, not merely a political party), it rests on the foundation that man alone is the highest good. We find such a notion inherent in the libertarian claim, “The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.” For the libertarian, the individual is the most important. Yet, this is false. Man is not the highest good. God alone is the highest good. Libertarianism makes the same mistake as every other tyranny by placing man under man – and like every other tyranny, refuses to acknowledge its fundamental mistake.

Additionally, if individual rights are all that matters, a fundamental question comes immediately to mind. Namely, where does my right to do as I please end and your right to do as you please begin? I suspect the answer would be when my actions (engaged in through my “rights”) begin to “infringe” on your “rights.” Yet, how do we clearly define “infringement?” If we say it’s merely by convention, then by the philosophy of libertarianism itself, this is an arbitrary infringement on my rights – and therefore should not bind me. If we say there is an objective standard, then the entire basis of libertarianism (the individual’s rights are the highest order) collapses, for if objective standards (i.e. the “common good”) exist, it is not simply about “individual rights.”

Another example of libertarianism placing man at the pinnacle comes from the Libertarian Party website, “Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property.” In other words, each individual is his own god. I can do what I want, when I want; and you can do what you want, when you want. As an aside, this is why a certain candidate for president thinks it fine for a theocratic orthodox Islamic state to obtain nuclear weapons despite the fact their leadership has made clear their intentions for those weapons (as the Party website proclaims: “Live and let live is the Libertarian way”) – since each individual is his own god, no one has any claim to objective truth, so why would we have any say over what another chooses to do? We need go no further than this to see such a philosophy inherently degenerates into anarchy.

However, we can go further: we do not have a “right” to do anything we want with our body. Even secular states have understood this fact for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Yet, for Christians, this point becomes even clearer. As children of God, created in His image and likeness, our bodies do not belong to us alone, but rightly to the One who created them. His Law makes clear there are indeed limitations on our actions and the use of the bodies He granted us. If I borrow your car, may I do with it anything I please, including willfully or irresponsibly destroying it? Certainly not! Yet, we believe the exact opposite is true with the greatest gift in the universe: the bodies given us by a loving God. Therefore, the Christian must immediately reject the notion that, “Each individual has the right to control his or her own body…” There are limitations on our choices and actions; yet these are not imposed on us from other men, but flow from dictates of the Divine law.

Second, I believe the Founding Fathers would vehemently disagree with the notion, “The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.” I believe they made very clear and repeated arguments that the only proper purpose of government is the representation of those it governs. The American War for Independence was not fought over taxation; it was fought over representation.[1] Even totalitarian regimes claim they exist only to protect the individual. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels argue that communism provides far greater protection for the individual than does capitalism because it frees the masses from the clutches of the “oppressors.” It is protection of representation for the governed, not merely “rights” which differentiates a representative Republic such as ours from other forms of government.

Further, without going to any other resource beyond reason alone, I can easily make the argument there exist legitimate purposes for government beyond merely the protection of individual rights; in other words, I can argue in favor of the common good, properly understood, over merely “individual rights.” Consider, for example, national defense. National defense is very clearly a collective action of government directed toward the common good, not merely the protection of individual rights. If it were only about individual rights, then the individual could “opt-out,” and if enough individuals chose to do so, national defense would break down. Instead, national defense is a legitimate example of the concept of the “common good” as something going beyond simply individual rights; in this case, a legitimate action of just government to “provide for the common defense and general welfare.” In fact, when it comes to national defense, the government can (and has) legitimately overrode individual rights in favor of providing for “the common defense and general welfare.” By its very name, the true “common defense and general welfare” infringes on “individual rights” in order to provide for each individual his maximum liberty and freedom. Yet, the libertarian would cry “foul” to any perceived infringement on “individual rights.”

Thus, while libertarianism, like other forms of populism, appears attractive on the surface, we must remember all that glitters is not gold. A deeper look at libertarianism reveals its roots in Rousseau’s misunderstanding of human nature. As such, we find libertarianism promoting the individual and his “individual rights” as the highest good, thereby producing a view of all government as itself always inherently evil. Based on its promotion of these false notions regarding human nature and man’s relationship with God, libertarianism is simply not a philosophy which can, or should, be embraced by conservatives or Christians.

[1] Michael P. Farris, Constitutional Law for Enlightened Citizens (Purcellville, VA: Home School Legal Defense Association, 2006), 5-7.

Chinese Stealth Fighter “Leak” Perhaps Intentional? Really?

Chinese J-20

The Wall Street Journal ran a piece today which speculates the recent online posting of video and photos showing China’s here-to-unknown J-20 stealth fighter might have been an intentional move on the part of the Chinese.  It might be intentional?  Gosh, and I suppose the Pope might be Catholic.

China allows only state controlled media.  China controls its citizen’s access to the internet.  China doesn’t allow unauthorized people to wander up to military bases and take photos and videos while secret military projects are being tested.  China doesn’t allow those silly notions we entertain of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  So why would anyone believe the release of these photos and videos is anything but an intentional move on the part of the Chinese?

The WSJ article goes on to mention these photos and videos just happened to appear right before United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates heads to China “…on a mission to repair military ties.”  And yet we still question if the release was intentional?

The Chinese government is very concerned (to put it mildly) over our reckless, out-of-control spending and printing of money.  Since they own a large share of our debt, they stand to take a big hit if when to dollar collapses.  They have warned us in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate much longer our spending habits threatening their investments.  As I mentioned in a previous post, with little notice by the mainstream media, Russia and China agreed to go off the dollar for trade between the two nations.  And yet we still question if the release was intentional?

The Chinese military leadership is growing increasingly unhappy with the Chinese government.  The military leaders are seeking more control and more power.  And yet we still question if the release was intentional?

The Department of Defense down plays the significance of these photos and videos.  However, the Chinese are well-known for taking foreign technology, reverse engineering it and producing a better end product.  We’ve already seen examples with the Chinese buying Soviet MiGs, taking them apart then building a better fighter.  We’re also talking about the same DoD whose intelligence analysts were apparently unable to distinguish between a missile contrail and an aircraft contrail – it was left up to a blogger to supposedly “solve” this mystery.  Add to it the nefarious dealings of Clinton, Gore and the Democrat Party with China which have never been fully explained.  Throw in the fact the videos and photos of the J-20 appear to show an aircraft of similar design and assumedly similar capability as the F-22.  And yet we still question if the release was intentional?

I had an opportunity to hear the esteemed entrepreneur, developer of the Atari 2600 and founder of Chuck E. Cheese, Gene Landrum, PhD, speak yesterday.  During the Q&A, someone asked what we should be doing.  Dr. Landrum’s only-half-joking response: “Learn Mandarin Chinese.”  One of the smartest business brains in the world sees where we’re headed.  And yet we still question if the release was intentional?

晚安，祝你好运

We Must Hang Together

Greek Riots, 2008 (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

It starts today.  It starts here.  It starts now.  The time to remain asleep and sitting on the sidelines has long since passed.  The radical left, including many of those very close to Obama, have become quite open and vocal about their intent to collapse the United States in order to “fundamentally transform” it into their Marxist-socialist vision.  There is simply no longer any excuse to pretend not to know and understand their agenda – they have made it abundantly clear through their own words and actions.  At this point, a decision to do nothing is a decision to empower the radicals in their attacks on the basic fabric of the American system and the Constitution.

The radical left is now openly calling for violence in the streets and agitating for people to rise up in class warfare.  Do you understand why?  Historically, open warfare has always been the last step before Marxist take-over of nations – look at the history of communist revolutions in Russia, China and Cuba.  They’re openly calling for violence because they believe they’ve brought us to the “end game.”  They’ve been maneuvering for a long time while most of you were asleep (and remain asleep).  They are openly saying they’re very close to their goal.  They truly believe all that’s left is for the proletariat to rise up in class warfare to take down the bourgeoisie

They’re so close to victory, they’re now even outright openly dismissing the Constitution.  Why do you think it is we’re now hearing a growing chorus from the left telling us the Constitution is old, outdated and too obscure to mean anything today?

Do you even understand the grave risk posed to our society today?  Or are you ignorant enough to believe that simply because America has existed all your lifetime, it’ll simply go on existing unchanged with no effort on your part to defend it?

The majority of American people who do not want a “fundamental transformation” of the United States into a Marxist-socialist state need to rise up and band together now!  Don’t be like the people of Cuba who refused to pay attention to what was going on around them, not realizing until it was too late that Castro was turning their nation into a Marxist-socialist state.

Their weapons might be guns and bombs, but our weapons are even more powerful: knowledge and truth.  If we’re educated about the truth and spread the truth of American liberty and freedom, their Marxist lies wither and die.  If we’d simply band together in knowledge and truth, we could easily and quickly defeat the radical left.  However, it requires all of us standing together – not most of you remaining asleep or on the sidelines hoping that someone else will do the “heavy lifting” for you.  YOU, as an individual, must get involved and get involved now!

Here are some action steps to get you started:

Action Step 1:  Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.  Those doctrines describe exactly how our government is supposed to operate.  Once you know how your government is supposed to operate, you can better recognize when your elected representatives are doing things they’re not allowed.

Action Step 2:  Read The 5,000 Year Leap.  This book gives you a “quick and easy” overview of the founding of the United States and the principles upon which our nation was founded.

Action Step 3:  This is the critical step – share what you learn with others!

These three simple action steps will get you headed in the right direction.  The key is to get off your butt and do something to defend your way of life and the Constitution before it’s too late!

As Ben Franklin wisely told us:

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

A Comparison of Presidential Thanksgiving Day Proclamations

As we prepare for Thanksgiving Day, let us pause to consider two drastically different Presidential Proclamations.

The first from President Obama (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/23/presidential-proclamation-thanksgiving-day):

A beloved American tradition, Thanksgiving Day offers us the opportunity to focus our thoughts on the grace that has been extended to our people and our country.  This spirit brought together the newly arrived Pilgrims and the Wampanoag tribe — who had been living and thriving around Plymouth, Massachusetts for thousands of years — in an autumn harvest feast centuries ago.  This Thanksgiving Day, we reflect on the compassion and contributions of Native Americans, whose skill in agriculture helped the early colonists survive, and whose rich culture continues to add to our Nation’s heritage.  We also pause our normal pursuits on this day and join in a spirit of fellowship and gratitude for the year’s bounties and blessings.

Thanksgiving Day is a time each year, dating back to our founding, when we lay aside the troubles and disagreements of the day and bow our heads in humble recognition of the providence bestowed upon our Nation.  Amidst the uncertainty of a fledgling experiment in democracy, President George Washington declared the first Thanksgiving in America, recounting the blessings of tranquility, union, and plenty that shined upon our young country.  In the dark days of the Civil War when the fate of our Union was in doubt, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a Thanksgiving Day, calling for “the Almighty hand” to heal and restore our Nation.

In confronting the challenges of our day, we must draw strength from the resolve of previous generations who faced their own struggles and take comfort in knowing a brighter day has always dawned on our great land.  As we stand at the close of one year and look to the promise of the next, we lift up our hearts in gratitude to God for our many blessings, for one another, and for our Nation.  This Thanksgiving Day, we remember that the freedoms and security we enjoy as Americans are protected by the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces.  These patriots are willing to lay down their lives in our defense, and they and their families deserve our profound gratitude for their service and sacrifice.

This harvest season, we are also reminded of those experiencing the pangs of hunger or the hardship of economic insecurity.  Let us return the kindness and generosity we have seen throughout the year by helping our fellow citizens weather the storms of our day.

As Americans gather for the time-honored Thanksgiving Day meal, let us rejoice in the abundance that graces our tables, in the simple gifts that mark our days, in the loved ones who enrich our lives, and in the gifts of a gracious God.  Let us recall that our forebears met their challenges with hope and an unfailing spirit, and let us resolve to do the same.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 25, 2010, as a National Day of Thanksgiving.  I encourage all the people of the United States to come together — whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place of fellowship for friends and neighbors — to give thanks for all we have received in the past year, to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own, and to share our bounty with others.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

BARACK OBAMA

Now let us consider a slightly different approach from George Washington proclaiming the first Thanksgiving Day:

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

What a difference a couple hundred years make….

Mumbai – Why?

Is it, Mr. President?

In the middle of one of the worst financial crises in our nation’s history, Barrack Obama is taking a trip to Mumbai at tax payer expense which is projected to be the largest and most costly presidential trip ever.  Some estimates are putting the cost for this little jaunt at up to $200 million per day or $2 billion for the entire ten day trip, which also includes stops in Indonesia and South Korea.  Does this guy just not get it?

Mumbai ring a bell?  It should for good reason.  Nearly two years ago it was the site of a well-coordinated Islamic terrorist attack.  On November 26, 2008, Pakistani Islamic jihadists attacked various locations and seized control of several hotels, killing 173 people.  It took until the 29^th for Indian Special Forces to finally subdue the remaining Islamists at the Taj Mahal hotel.  This is the hotel where Obama is staying – the entire hotel rented out for “security” at US tax payer expense.  You can see the Taj Mahal hotel burning in photos from the Boston Globe link.

So why is Obama spending money we don’t have in order to travel to a highly unstable location?  Why is Obama purposely putting himself – and all those traveling with him – into an extremely unsafe and dangerous situation for no obvious gain?  Don’t get me wrong, the point isn’t should we be spending this much money to protect the President.  Of course we should provide the best security for every president.  The point is, as they’d say during World War II, is this trip really necessary?

As Rome Burned…

50 MILLION Mark Note, Weimar Republic, 1923 (Wikimedia Commons)

With our attention focused squarely on the results of the mid-term election, the Fed attempted to sneak past their announcement of monetizing another $600 billion of US debt.  This process, know as quantitative easing, involves the Fed buying US treasuries (the equivalent of bonds or what most people would call IOUs) as a means to “stimulate” the economy.  How do they get the money to do it?  Easy – the Treasury prints it for them!  Put in simple terms, if you tired this at home, it’d involve having a friend print money for you to cover your debt – and you’d both go to prison for racketeering and counterfeiting.

Economists have dubbed this round of debt monetization “QE2” since it’s the second buy-up of debt by the Fed following the $1.7 trillion debt buy-up by the Fed in 2008 — although Titanic is a more apt name since that’s what’s coming if it doesn’t work.

Our government is convinced it can spend its way out of debt.  Have you ever tried this?  If so, how’d it work out?  Even an ounce of common sense tells you such a policy makes absolutely no fiscal sense.  The way to get out of debt is to control spending.  If the debt gets overwhelmingly bad, the only workable relief left is bankruptcy – or a financial “reset.”  Those are the only ways out of debt.  If someone offers another solution which he can’t explain in simple terms (such as “quantitative easing”), it’s not a real, workable solution.  Instead, it’s either simply delaying the inevitable or a “plan” designed to nothing more than distract your attention from the real problem.

If what the Fed is doing works, at the very least the money in your pocket and your bank account will decrease in value.  We’re told perhaps 20% — if we’re lucky.  So take whatever you have now and reduce it by 20% — that represents the reduced buying power of your money as the Treasury prints more and more money for the Fed to buy up our own debt.  Keep in mind; this is the best case scenario.

What happens if it doesn’t work out as planned?  Well, don’t worry about that.  It’s always worked before, right?  Not exactly.  Take a look at the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe to see what happens.  Again, spending yourself out of debt is impossible!  It doesn’t take a CPA to figure out if expenditures continually exceed income you cannot remain in business for long.

Well, the United States weathered the Great Depression just fine, thank you very much, you might reply.  I’m glad you brought that up.  Without getting into all of FDR’s failed policies, which actually worsened the depression and made it the Great Depression, for purposes of this argument, we’ll simply consider one factor.  That one factor is manufacturing.

At the time of the Great Depression, the United States remained one of the leading industrial (i.e. manufacturing) nations.  We made lots of “stuff” the rest of the world wanted – particularly a Europe recovering from World War I.  While the destruction during World War I was not nearly as great as World War II, the human capital of Europe was nonetheless devastated.  They simply no longer had the bodies to put in factories to make stuff.  Therefore, the rest of the world was dependent on the United States for stuff.  That meant even in a bad economy, dollars were still coming in.

How’s that picture today?  We have almost no signification manufacturing left.  We import vastly more than we export.  The only thing we have the world still uses is the dollar.  What happens when they grow tired of our failing dollar?  What do we have left that requires the rest of the world to turn to us?  On a news show last night, one pundit talked about the strength of the service “industry.”  Service industry?  Are you serious?  When the dollar fails, we are to honestly believe we’ll be fine because the rest of the world will flock to our shores to take advantage of our fine restaurants and hotels?  That’s it?  Hotels and restaurants are our fall-back plan?

I hate to sound like Chicken Little and I pray to God that I am Chicken Little, but I warn you, I think the sky is about to fall.  What’s your Plan B?  ‘Cause it’s obvious to me that the government doesn’t have one.

Not Race, but Power

The NAACP levels charges of racism against the TEA Party movement, claiming their actions stem from racial slurs hurled at black members of congress during the rally against passage of Obamacare a few months ago.  Yet, despite the salivating media looking to disparage the TEA Party movement and a $10,000 reward offered by Andrew Breitbart, absolutely zero proof has surfaced of anyone saying any racial slurs – even with all the video cameras rolling at the time. So, the NAACP claims very strongly appear to have absolutely no basis in reality.

While attacking the TEA Party movement over supposed racism, when zero evidence exists, at the same time the NAACP ignores members of the New Black Panthers intimidating voters and calling for the murder of all white “cracker” babies.  Clearly, a double standard is in effect here.  Why?

In reality, the current situation has nothing to do with race.  Instead, it has everything to do with advancing the largest Marxist-socialist power grab in history.  It’s a tactic ripped directly from the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals play book.

The idea is to disparage the enemy so his voice becomes irrelevant.  It’s the age old military tactic of divide and conquer.  For some reason, there’s still a large group of Americans sitting on the sidelines.  If they can be convinced the TEA Party movement is nothing but a bunch of racist white “crackers,” then they discount anything said by someone associated with the TEA Party movement (and by implication, anyone who wants to see government return to its Constitutional bounds).  Just like Russia, just like Nazi Germany, just like the Cuban Revolution, by the time the majority of people wake up to what’s really going on, it’s too late to do anything to stop it.

In order to defeat the enemy, we must first understand the enemy.  Today’s enemy of liberty, freedom and the Constitution are Marxist-socialist radicals.  They are very clearly operating directly from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  Understand the Rules, and you have the ammunition to defeat them.  They’re attempting to use our “rules” against us to defeat liberty, freedom and the Constitution.  Let’s turn the table and use their rules against them to defeat Marxist-socialist tyranny.

Far too many people, who don’t understand the radical’s mentality, think radicals employ over-the-top speech simply to express a point.  This ignores the fact that radical after radical throughout history told us exactly what he intended to accomplish (Hitler’s Mein Kampf as merely one example), yet people brushed it off as “just wild talk.”  When a radical speaks, he’s not just blowing smoke; he actually means what he says.

Like most radials, Alinsky expresses a typical atheistic attitude which believes if you think your ends are worthy, then any means used to reach those ends can be justified – likewise, the more important you believe your ends (such as establishing a “utopian” Marxist state), the more otherwise unthinkable means become “justified.”  This is an extremely dangerous position.  It means when a radical says in order to reach the goal of “liberation,” all white “crackers” must be killed, he means all white “crackers” must be killed.

With that in mind, here are Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

Wind the Clock

Wind the Clock

When I went through pilot training, there were still a few “old heads” around who taught an important and valuable lesson which remains applicable today.  They consistently said the first thing to do in an emergency is “wind the clock.”  The expression refers back to the days when aircraft clocks, like old watches, required winding in order to operate.  In this context it means when something bad happens, “doing something” immediately is almost never the correct solution.  Instead, before rushing to “do something,” you need to pause, analyze the situation and then take the correct action based on the situation at hand.

What do we hear today?  With ever increasing rapidity, particularly since Bush’s progressive “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system” Stimulus I, we’re told we must “do something” immediately or everything will collapse.

The economy is in trouble, so we must do something immediately and pass the stimulus bill (read by no one except the special interest group who wrote).  The car companies are in trouble, so we must do something immediately and put them under government control (while violating the rule of law to “bailout” bloated union pension plans).  The medical system is failing, so we must do something immediately and pass Obama care (yet another bill read only by the progressive special interest group which wrote it).  Do you see any pattern here yet?

Now we’re told the evil, capitalist oil companies (despite following laws established by the federal government and being forced to drill not where they wanted to, but where to government forced them to) are destroying the environment and needlessly stringing us out on oil dependence.  So…wait for it…we must do something immediately and pass cap and trade (amazingly yet another bill read only by the special interests who wrote it).

Gang, sit down, take a breath and stop allowing these people to lead you wherever they want merely by playing with your emotions.  Honestly, do you ever make really good decisions when you’re operating only off pure emotion or panic mode, believing you must “do something” immediately?

You’re not supposed to think.  They want you to only react.  Why do you think it’s become one thing after another, after another, all thrown on top of each other.  The game is to completely overwhelm you.  They want you operating in the realm of pure emotion, in the realm of panic.  It’s a very effective technique to keep you completely off balance and to keep you from thinking.

They don’t want you to think, because calm, rational thought is their enemy.  They know you’d never accept their agenda if you actually took the time to think it through and follow it to its logical conclusions.

The “dirty little secret” is you don’t have to play their game.  You don’t have to allow them to drag you to the realm of pure emotion and panic.  Instead of buying into the lie we must “do something” immediately, you have another option.  It begins with remembering to first wind the clock.

Book Review: The Overton Window

Overton Window

What’s going on behind the headlines today?  Is there a “behind-the-scenes” purpose?   Why are such clearly savvy people in positions of leadership consistently making such seemingly poor decisions?  Why do ideas and positions considered completely unacceptable yesterday seem perfectly acceptable today?  In The Overton Window, Glenn Beck explores these ideas in a fast moving “faction” thriller, “faction” being his term for works of fiction based on real events.

In the book, a young PR exec and heir apparent to his father’s high-roller client PR firm, Noah, meets a young woman, Molly, who’s involved in a patriot group, Founder’s Keepers.  Together they learn the truths behind the headlines and the “spin machine” attempting to drive public toward a certain end.

Beck wants us to understand what’s going on is not tied to a particular political party.  He wants us to see the problems infecting both parties.  Therefore, we never meet the President; we never learn his name, nor what party he’s from – only that a Presidential election is “upcoming.”  Instead, we see how politicians of all stripes sell themselves out for power, money, sex – whatever their “candy of the day” — and thereby become puppets of larger players behind the scenes.  We claim we want change, yet reelect incumbents at a rate around 90% and then wonder why nothing ever changes.

A couple other items stand out in Beck’s book.  First, he also throws in a “conspiracy theory” “believer” to show us what can happen if we take random facts and use them to make false conclusions.  He shows us how being this person or associating with this type of person is not necessarily a good idea.  Second, the last chapter of the book is something of an “end notes” in which we’re told what is fact, what’s based on fact and what’s purely fiction.  Beck provides us links to the sources and encourages us to do our own homework and reach our own conclusions.  Instead of accepting the baseless “conspiracy theories” or the latest “spin,” we must do our homework to uncover the facts – facts which are out in the open if only we want to look for them and seek the truth.

The “Overton window” is a model illustrating how to manipulate public opinion and move the public at large toward a certain end.  At any particular time, the public will accept a certain range of options.  If the option you want them to accept is not within the current window, you must move the window of acceptability.  This is generally accomplished (barring a crisis to take advantage of) through “nudges” in certain directions.  If you slowly “bump” the people’s window in a certain direction, you eventually reach the point where want you want to accomplish is now within the acceptable option window of the people.

Often, we’re presented two wildly opposed extremes.  The goal is forcing us to eventually accept a certain extreme (say nationalized health care), but they know we’d never accept this move overnight.  Therefore, the window is slowly moved towards that direction, so for example, instead of making us accept nationalized health care overnight, we instead are lead to accept bits and pieces slowly over time until one day we finally realize, for example, we have nationalized health care.

The current Gulf oil leak crisis perfectly illustrates the Overton window in operation.  Before the oil well mishap, most Americans were solidly against cap and trade and had no particular opposition to off-shore drilling.  While a mishap which must be investigated and learned from, it doesn’t automatically follow as a logical conclusion to end all off-shore drilling.  To take this position is the same as calling for a ban on all commercial airlines after a major aircraft mishap.

Yet, in the spirit of “never let a good crisis go to waste,” those who want to impose cap and trade are now in full spin mode.  They want to change your perception.  They want to move your Overton window towards acceptance of cap and trade (which is simply a Ponzi scheme of massive taxation).  In order to do this, they must do everything possible to prevent you from thinking about the facts.  This is why you see such a focus on emotional appeal (“reckless” oil companies, “we’ll make them pay,” etc.).  If they keep you in the realm of emotion, they get you to say “yes” to things you would never agree to otherwise.  Have you ever made really good decisions when you were incredibly emotionally worked up compared to the decisions you made with a clear head?  This is the Overton window in action.

Two themes hinted at in this book but not fully developed are points I mentioned in my review of 10 Books That Screwed Up the World.  First, our society (thanks to an Overton window changing public opinion about belief in God over the past few recent decades) has generally accepted an erroneous utilitarian philosophy which leads most people to live as practical atheists (those who claim to believe in God, but live their lives as if He didn’t exist or at least has no real impact on their lives) and actual atheists (those who flat out deny existence in God – including a few like Nietzsche who at least have the intellectual honesty to take such a belief to its actual and real dark conclusions).

Thanks to this belief, people (in particular the self-appointed intelligentsia) see others as merely means to an end.  If in your own mind, you end goal is “good,” it doesn’t matter how many people your trample on or even murder to reach you goal, since your goal, as far as you’re concerned, is “good.”  We see this at operation in every totalitarian society in human history.  We even see it in the philosophy of people like Ayn Rand, who believe it’s “every man for himself” and if you’re more “powerful,” you have a “right” to achieve your goals over allowing others to achieve their goals – quite literally “survival of the fittest.”

This erroneous philosophy leads directly to the next misconception – the belief man is capable of creating utopia on earth.  Regardless if this utopia is based an anarchical individual “freedom” in which it’s “every man for himself” or complete totalitarianism where the “enlightened” guide the unwashed masses who are too ignorant to understand what’s best for them, it’s a complete falsehood.  Man is not capable of creating utopia on earth.  Man cannot reach full actualization during his earthly life.  His earthly life is to prepare him for full actualization in his next life.  You can beat you head against the wall of Truth all day long, but at the end of the day you end up with a broken head while the Truth stands firm.

I don’t pretend Beck’s book is prize-winning writing, but it’s never the less a very important story for us to understand.  I recommend reading this book and encouraging others to read it as well – especially those still sitting on the fence who can’t quite see what’s really going on; those who haven’t quite fit all the pieces together.  Of course the anti-Beck crowd from all corners is simply going to dismiss this book based on a hatred of Beck without even bothering to read it.

The Whiskey Rebellion: The Federal Government’s First Big Power Grab

Alexander Hamilton

Those few Americans left who have actually read and understand the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution know today’s government is far off track from what our founders intended.  How did we get so far off course?  Some point to out-of-control spending of the last few decades, some point to the socialistic programs of FDR and Wilson, others to the progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt, and yet others to the Civil War (which was not really a civil war, but a war of aggression by the federal government against the states who sought to remove themselves from the contract of the union).  Yet we can go back even further, to an event most people have never heard of: the so-called Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 – the first attempt by a federalist minority to go beyond the bounds of the constitution in an effort to increase federal government control of the states.

While today we view whiskey as simply an adult beverage, it held a much different place in the culture of early America.  To understand events surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion, it’s vital we understand the place of whiskey production in the late 1700s.  Whiskey was an extremely important commodity in the early states, especially on the western frontier.  Due to limited transportation avenues for getting crops to market – no railroads and few roads – most farmers found it necessary to convert extra grain into whiskey.  Additionally, many areas, especially in the western frontier, were cash-strapped, so whiskey quite often served as an important item of barter in lieu of non-existent hard money.

President Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, desired to consolidate the power of the federal government.  Hamilton was an accomplished economist and understood that whoever controls the money supply also controls the power.  Therefore, as an ardent federalist, he schemed for a plan which would put the federal government in control of the nation’s wealth.  Most people know nothing about Hamilton’s plans or actions, yet they continue to impact us to this day.

In 1791, Hamilton put his plans into action.  First, he convinced President Washington and Congress that the federal government should assume the states’ debt from the War for Independence.  Most people at the time saw this as relieving a burden from the states, but failed to see the power it placed in the hands of the federal government, for once the federal government “owned” the states’ debts; the federal government “owned” the states.  Along with assumption of the debt, Hamilton also oversaw formation of the First Bank of the United States to centralize monetary control.  Additionally, he convinced Congress to impose an excise tax on whiskey, the first “internal” tax imposed by the federal government.  Hamilton sold the tax to Congress as a means of paying off the just-assumed states’ debt.  However, he admitted the tax would serve “more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue” and “wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government.”

Not only was the tax extremely unpopular, it was applied in an unequal manner.  Large distillers (big business) paid a flat tax on their production, while smaller distillers (mainly the farmers who owned small stills and operated as small businessmen) were charged a per-gallon rate.  Large producers ended up paying an excise tax of roughly six cents per gallon, while the small producers were taxed at nine cents per gallon.  Faced with a tax they considered unfair and un-Constitutional, small producers all over simply refused to pay the tax and jurors refused to sit for their trials, so enforcement proved all but impossible in most of the country.  Despite the federal government’s official version, the vast majority of resistance to this excise tax occurred through peaceful civil disobedience.

Matters came to a head in the summer of 1794.  Washington and Hamilton decided to focus on four counties in western Pennsylvania.  They chose this area since they found wealthy officials willing to serve as tax collectors.  Washington and Hamilton believed they could make an example of the protestors in Pennsylvania and thereby get the rest of the country in line behind the federal government.

On 7 August 1794, Washington invoked the Militia Law of 1792, allowing him to federalize the militias of Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.  Under Washington’s direct field command, this force of nearly 13,000 troops (a larger force than the entire Continental Army during the War for Independence) marched on western Pennsylvania to round up the tax-resistance ring leaders.  With this action, Washington became the only sitting United States President to personally lead combat troops.

Alerted to the federal government’s move, some of the leaders fled to safety in the west.  However, the government eventually arrested about twenty people.  Following a trail in Philadelphia, all but two were released or acquitted.  The court convicted the two remaining men, Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, of treason and sentenced them to death by hanging.  In the end, Washington pardoned both men.

The Whiskey Rebellion was the first time the federal government used force in an attempt to impose its will on the American people.  After fighting such a long war specifically to gain independence from this type of heavy-handed government tactic, the American people were dismayed.  It drove many people from the Federalist Party towards Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party.  Hamilton resigned as Secretary of the Treasury in 1795.  Most small whiskey producers continued to ignore the tax.  After succeeding Federalist John Adams as President, Jefferson repealed most internal federal taxes, including the Whiskey Tax in 1803, believing the federal government should rely on external taxes for its finance.  Unfortunately, thanks to Hamilton, the stage was set for continued power grabs by the federal government at the expense of the people.