The Jholdas Group » politics

The Decline and Fall (or Will it be Rise) of America

michaelrbaer — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:55:37 +0000

Whether you are conservative or liberal, rich or poor doesn’t matter much for this conversation. I just want to ask you to think about America. Our home. Most of us from any philosophical or political stripe would agree on this—America is in trouble and appears to be in a stall if not a descent. My question is why? Here are some of my random thoughts. Maybe some will resonate with you.

First, it’s not the politicians it’s the people. We love to berate them and criticize them and threaten to throw them out of office (and Lord knows they deserve it) but let’s not forget who put them there and who keeps putting them there. Us. You. Me.
Deficit spending—whether for war or welfare, guns or butter. You can’t spend what you don’t have. It’s economic suicide. And while most everyone wants “cuts” no one wants their pet priority cut; cut somewhere else.
The public is generally ignorant—of science, math, and most regrettably, history. Americans don’t know their own history and certainly don’t know the full story. A people with no sense of history have no hope of making good decisions about the future. Indeed, they may have no future.
The public is constitutionally ignorant. Few have read it. Few believe in it. Few know what its purpose was and is. As a country we have cut the lines to our stable moorings and are adrift on a sea of international relativism—sailing with no compass other than our own opinions. This cannot end well.
The public is ignorant of the thoughts of the Founders. We don’t know what they meant because we don’t know what they thought. We don’t know what they thought because Jon Stewart and Sean Hannity don’t quote Locke or Gladstone or Cicero. Who? Exactly.
Tribalism is the organization of societies into gangs, bands, parties, groups, and clans who think and talk alike. America has become a very tribal country (much like Iraq, sub-Saharan Africa, Indonesia, and other 3rd world nations) accelerated by 4G technology.
Inclusion and tolerance (once virtues) have become tsunamis of moral indifference and ethical confusion. Yes, Virginia, there are some things that are wrong.
The ugly twin of extreme inclusion is political correctness. When we hesitate to wish someone a Merry Christmas or get blasted for rooting for the Braves (whose mascot insults “native Americans” something is stupidly wrong. People with thin skins need to grow up. I’m a bald, middle aged, Welsh-Scottish-German-Swiss-Jewish-Southern male. If I was as sensitive as some people you couldn’t say “good morning” to me without a perceived slur.
Niche focused media (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) preach their brand of data and news to their own choir. I never have to listen to anything I don’t already agree with because I’ve got a remote—the ultimate arbiter of truth—and a “news channel” that feeds my opinions.
Americans have short memories. 9/11 wasn’t even a decade ago. My dad fought in WWII. Some of us can remember segregated schools and bathrooms. It’s a good thing to remember and not live so much in the sound byte of the moment or the latest tweet.
The rejection of American exceptionalism is anti-historical. Other than Israel, no country has a history or sense of destiny like America once had. Conservatives abuse this and make it into American superiority; liberals dismiss it as pipedreams and insulting to the world community.
www.who-can-I-sue.com pretty much says it all.
Washington has become the center of our universe. More change and goodness is possible locally than we could ever dream of in DC.
Good hearted people have been duped into thinking that government can do a better job of helping those in need than their neighbors—you and me. As a result, no one gets help.
Where did we get the idea that rights were dispensed by the government? Where did we come up with the idea of “group” rights—white rights, black rights, women’s rights, Latino rights, students’ rights, left’s rights, gay rights; isn’t it about individual rights as human beings? Respect for individual rights and dignity is the only antidote to the rise of tribalism.
And finally, and I believe this to be the root of everything I’ve outlined, we refuse to honor God as God. America has gradually turned her back on true religion—the fear and worship of God and the humble serving of others—in favor of church attendance, mystic experiences in the forest, and fuzzy use of the word “spiritual.” No nation can long survive the abandonment of its God.

My purpose in writing this is not to add to the cacophony of political arguments in the US. In fact, I’m done with that. Instead, I’m going to concentrate my blogs, tweets, and other publications on three things: the presentation of true religion, the communication of positive, historical truth about America and the Constitution, and the sharing of stories of people around the country who are doing good. There are plenty of folks who can point out what’s wrong. By God’s grace, I’m resolving to focus on what’s right wherever I find it. I’m sure that many of my conservative friends will find things to disagree with; no doubt my liberal friends will also. I really don’t care. But if you want to dialogue on what’s true, and pure, and helpful, and praiseworthy, and good…then join in.

Government’s Sole Purpose

michaelrbaer — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 03:35:21 +0000

Why do men enter into society, into an agreed government of any kind (unless they be the victims of some military-totalitarian regime)? Protection! Protection of our lives from invaders and murderers. Protection of our freedom from enemies and slaveholders. Protection of our property from pillagers and thieves. Apart from protection what other reason would a man possibly have for banding together with others?

This Election

michaelrbaer — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 01:25:13 +0000

This election is not about who cares MOST for the oppressed; it is about who cares BEST. I know of NO successful federal programs (let’s see, the War on Poverty is 45 years old and Washington is definitely losing); I know of MANY private and individual efforts that help the poor and create real jobs and personal dignity. If Obama’s program is right then why hasn’t it worked anywhere in the world; it’s not new: UK, Russia, Kazakstan, East Germany, Italy, ad nauseum. America is at it’s freest and most prosperous when government is the least involved.

Libertarian?

michaelrbaer — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:20:58 +0000

A libertarian is a person – any person – who consistently advocates individual freedom and consistently opposes the initiation of the use of coercion by anyone upon the person or property of anyone else for any reason. (Coercion is here defined as any action taken by a human being against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to his or her body or property. This includes murder, rape, kidnaping, assault, trespassing, burglary, robbery, arson and fraud.) Some libertarians (such as the late Robert LeFevre) not only oppose all forms of initiatory coercion, but also the use of retaliatory coercion (revenge or criminal justice). The vast majority of libertarians, however, maintain that physical force used in self-defense or defense of one’s family or property is fully justifiable. But, all libertarians, by definition, at least oppose the initiatory use of coercion. They support the rational principle of the individual human rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This means that each individual has the right to keep what he earns for himself and his family, and this includes the right to use, trade, sell, give away, or dispose of his property as he sees fit. A person who violates the rights of others by initiating coercion, violence, or fraud against them forfeits his right to be left alone by government and may be arrested, charged, tried, and imprisoned, deported or executed if convicted (depending on the nature of his or her crimes). The basic, proper function of lawful government is therefore limited to protecting these rights of the peaceful individual from criminals and foreign aggression, and in not violating these rights itself, for if government is allowed to go beyond this legitimate function and itself initiates force in violation of the rights of peaceful citizens, it necessarily contradicts the only rational justification for its own existence by acting criminally itself. Real libertarians take individual rights seriously – seriously enough to consistently uphold them against the initiation of the use of force by anyone (including government) for any reason. This means that government must be bound by the policy of “laissez faire” – which means that government has no business coercively interfering with the lives of peaceful (non-coercive) citizens in their private affairs and voluntary (market) relationships. Libertarians may or may not approve of some of the things that some people may do in private or in voluntary relations, but whatever their own code of personal moral conduct is, they do not seek to ban any private or voluntary activities by the use of force, including the force of government action. To do so would be to violate the very principle of individual rights of person and property, and thereby undercut any rational argument in favor of freedom or defense of the free-market system. Those exception makers and outright coercive busy-bodies in our midst (referred to as “interventionists” or “statists” by libertarians) who do want to abandon government by principle and instead put Whim in charge of the use of legal coercion are the people who help set the stage for arbitrary and capricious governmental tyranny – leading in the direction of totalitarian dictatorship. Libertarians Are Not Conservatives Libertarians are not “conservatives”; libertarians are radicals (principled advocates) for individual freedom and responsibility – and the pure free-market private-enterprise economic system which would result from a consistent application of that principle. A “conservative” on the other hand is one who wishes to preserve the status quo. The status quo in America today is the semi-socialist, semi-fascist mixed-economy welfare-state – a system inimical to personal freedom and responsibility. Libertarians do not support such a system, and oppose any and all measures to expand it while favoring the total repeal of interventionist laws and regulatory agencies. Conservatives of the William F. Buckley or William Bennett variety are generally more concerned with imposing “order” than with allowing freedom. Although they often (and rightly) complain that government has got “too big” and too meddlesome in our lives, on some specific issues they themselves favor using the political power of government to legislate and enforce their view of morality upon the populace in “the national interest” or for the “social good.” William Bennett, for example, opposes the legalization and/or decriminalization of the sale and use of heroin and cocaine, and he continues to support the no-win “War on Drugs” which is causing violence to escalate in our society. Libertarians, on the other hand, realize that “enforced morality” (in such personal matters) is a contradiction in terms; without freedom of choice there can be no moral responsibility and personal growth. Libertarians also perceive that freedom brings about a more complex, dynamic and harmonious order in society (co-ordinated by the market price mechanism) than any static view of order imposed by central political planning and regulations of our non-coercive behaviors. Libertarians are for individual freedom – and this includes the freedom of people to do some things that we and other people may disapprove of. A person should be free (from coercive interference) to do what he pleases with his own life and property, as long as he does not violate (through coercive interference) the same right of other peaceful persons to do what they want with their lives and properties. (The second clause is logically implied in the first.) Libertarians do not oppose non-coercive persuasion, educational efforts, private advertising campaigns, organized boycotts, or even social ostracism as means of trying to effect changes in the private behavior of others. (Many people have stopped smoking tobacco in recent years partly as a result of education and persuasion by friends and family members.) What libertarians do oppose is the attempt by anyone (individuals or government officials) to impose their own views of “fairness” or personal morality on others through the initiation of the use of coercion, by either personal violence or political legislation and governmental action. This principled position sets libertarians apart from conservatives as well as other non-libertarians. Libertarians Are Not Welfare-State “Liberals” Libertarians are not to be confused with the so-called “civil libertarians” which typify the membership and leadership of the American Civil Liberties Union. It is true that the ACLU has come to the defense of freedom of speech for certain minorities (e.g., nazis, communists, and anarchists) and this is commendable – but the podium has often been at taxpayers’ expense, which is a “no-no” from the real libertarian perspective. Many “civil libertarians” believe that some people have a “right” to violate the rights of others; they claim there is a “right to a job” or a “right” to welfare payments or a “right” to “free education” or a “right” to free child care – all at the expense of the people (usually the taxpayers) who are forced to pay for these so-called “rights.” Real libertarians are for true freedom, not “freedom” at the forced expense of others. The only obligation that true rights impose on persons is of a negative kind: not to interfere with the rights of other people – i.e., to refrain from the initiation of the use of coercion. This is the core principle of libertarianism and is sometimes called the ‘Non-Aggression Axiom’. Welfare-state “liberals” and “civil libertarians” speak of “rights” of people as members of specially privileged groups, such as “women’s rights” or “gay rights” or “rights of the handicapped” or even so-called “animal rights”! Real libertarians know that there are only individual rights, not group rights. There is no such thing as “gay rights” or “black rights” or “white rights” or left-handed Martian rights. Government must not be used to dish out special privileges to any group for any reason, since government cannot give anyone anything unless it takes it away from others by force, thereby violating their rights. There can be no such thing as a “right” to violate the rights of others. No doubt there are some well-intentioned ACLU members who do promote true civil liberties and uphold human rights; however, the ACLU has not come to the defense of the rights of school children whose freedom is being violated daily by compulsory attendance laws and the tyranny of Federally-ordered forced busing. Nor do I know of any case in which the ACLU has defended the constitutional rights of businessmen who are being harassed by OSHA agents and other bureaucrats, or hounded by such arbitrary and subjective laws as the antitrust acts. Indeed, many “civil libertarians” seem callously insensitive to the victims of crime and legal plunder – while they defend known criminals from justice. Because of their consistent adherence to the principle of individual rights, libertarians are the only true defenders of liberty — civil or otherwise. Real libertarians understand that freedom of speech and other civil liberties depend on the sanctity of private property – not its violation by anti-discrimination laws and other forms of government intervention. Libertarians Are Not for Unlimited Majority Rule Libertarians are not democrats. While majority rule may or may not be as good as any other mechanism for selecting the men and women who administer the offices of government, libertarians deny that anyone or any group has a right to rule over other peaceful (non-coercive) citizens – whether they are in the majority or minority at any given time. If stealing is wrong for an individual to do, it is still wrong when conducted by a large group or by a majority vote. The number of people involved in an act does not change the rightness or wrongness of the act. There is no magic number that turns an individual wrong into a collective right. In a libertarian republic, the basic policy of government (i.e., laissez faire) is set by reference to fundamental principle — the principle of individual rights — and not determined by a show of hands. Libertarians uphold the right of the peaceful individual to self-ownership and private property against any who would violate this right – even a majority. Libertarians Are Not Anarchists Libertarians are not anarchists. While it is true that some individuals favor a political system of competing vigilante committees, and refer to this position as “anarcho-capitalism” (a view formerly held by libertarian economist Murray Rothbard), this is a confusing misnomer based on an apparent failure to clearly distinguish between the nature of market institutions (which do not involve the use of coercion at all, either initiatory or retaliatory) and the nature of coercive entities (criminal or legal). Actually, libertarianism rests on the concepts of individualism, self-ownership, private property, & voluntary (market) exchange. Classical anarchism not only opposed the political state, but also some voluntary organizations of which it disapproved. Most importantly, true anarchists opposed private property – without which no voluntary relationships are possible. Today’s libertarians are in the classical liberal tradition of Algernon Sidney, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Edmund Burke, Herbert Spencer, and Frederic Bastiat – not the anarchist tradition of Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin. Libertarians Are Not Pragmatists Libertarians do not advocate freedom or the free-market economy merely because “it works” (which it does better than any other system); they support it as the only non-coercive and just system – the system in which people are free to deal with one another on a voluntary basis as traders (exchangers of goods and services) instead of as masters and slaves – or as privileged class and exploited host. Others advocate government by whim. Libertarians adhere to certain principles, and without the guidance of principles and standards, all that is left is pragmatic expediency and the tyranny of government by whim. One might say that libertarians are “idealists” in the popular sense of that word; after all, libertarians stand for certain ideals – goals to strive for (e.g., less government intervention, more individual freedom and moral responsibility, free markets, etc.). Because libertarianism is based on man’s nature and the nature of reality, it is the most practicable social system. Libertarians are practical idealists.

Nation of Fools?

michaelrbaer — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:18:26 +0000

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out. “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Independence Day

michaelrbaer — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:27:53 +0000

Celebrate America’s independence safely, enthusiastically, and patriotically. America is an exceptional country!

America–Still Great

michaelrbaer — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:29:13 +0000

From Tom Peters’ blog– Happy Birthday U.S.A. And 3 Throaty Cheers! – The Tom Peters Weblog by Tom Peters on Jul 2, 2010 5:22 PM There is a great deal of soul-searching going on in the United States as our 234th birthday arrives. Though nowhere near the soul-searching that loomed in Independence Hall 234 years ago today. We fret about deficits. We fret, on the other side of the coin, about a slowing recovery that desperately needs more stimulation—the message of 1937′s halt to recovery looms. We fret about immigrants—too many of the undocumented sort; but not enough of those educated at our research universities sticking around. We fret about education in general—too many boys dropping out early, in a world where a college degree is almost a requirement for many jobs. We fret about China’s amazing economy. And Osama’s plans for us. We fret about the Supreme Court becoming to conservative—maybe cap “C” Conservative rather than a lower-case “c” conservative; and we worry about Ms. Kagan’s being too liberal—Liberal with an upper case “L.” We fret about the Gulf spill; and we fret about the screaming need for energy independence. And yet … And yet we still lead the world in pretty much everything. Despite, or thanks to, our 234th consecutive year of political vitriol, our cap “D” Democracy is as strong or stronger than ever. (Incidentally, the political rancor was much worse then than now—and much, much worse in beloved Philly 11 years after the Declaration, in the muggy summer of 1787 when the Constitutional Convention was in full swing—by the by, the grandees of Philly ’87 took a long break to celebrate the Declaration of Independence.) Our education system is not ready for the coming economy—but neither is anybody else’s. This transition is causing everyone to scramble. And our university system, despite budget woes of the first order, is waaaaay ahead of the pack in terms of research produced and at or near the head of the pack in share of population nabbing college degrees. We still have a ways to go, but we are utilizing the one half+ of the population labeled female more productively than others. Our entrepreneurs, though a little short of new cash are still, as they should be, the envy of the world—and now our women entrepreneurs are as vigorous as their male counterparts. (That is, the “other half”-plus is in the game with verve.) Our small businesses by the million are still the rock upon which we stand. Afghanistan is a godawful mess, but our defense in general is powerful beyond measure. And others’ soldiers are surely brave, but we have nothing but thanks to aim at our soldiers and sailors and airmen (and “airwomen”!) and marines and coast-guarders, and our reserves and their sacrifices. God bless those in uniform one and all. And in the world at large there’s good news to balance the bad. While the papers feature the bad news, the good goes under-reported. The solid Democracies in Europe (cash flow issues not withstanding) and Japan and India and dozens of other places are more or less solid as a rock. Though we worry about China, China has a worry list to match us—the growing pains accompanying growth, and the hundreds of millions left behind, are enormous problems. The emergence of the likes of Brazil is nothing but good news—and even our brothers and sisters in Africa may be beginning their long march to less worse economically—and perhaps solid growth. There’s enough bad news about which to fret to keep us occupied. And enough good news to, frankly, bring a pretty broad smile, as we get ready for #234. We do not rule the world unchallenged as we foolishly, for 10 minutes, thought we did when the Cold War came to its 4-decade close. But we are in pretty damn good shape over all. I speak as an American with 67 years of experience when I say I sure as hell wouldn’t trade places with anybody, respect the others as I do. The U.S.A.? Works for me! Happy birthday, old girl. We’re having one hell of a run!

Better or Worse?

michaelrbaer — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:51:48 +0000

Ronald Reagan (who I truly miss!) asked as he challenged Obama–I mean Carter, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The answer was a resounding “NO!” and the Carter economic malaise was thrown out in favor of a free enterprise, pro-business era that lasted from 1980 until 2009 and included Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. As a coach to entrepreneurs and small business owners and an executive in the employment industry, I now look around and believe we need to be asking Reagan’s Question again. In terms of your career, earnings, discretionary money, taxes, security, and freedom to start or grow your business–are you better off than you were 2 years ago when an anti-business President joined forces with an anti-business Congress? We are facing a critical election and the need to elect pro-business, limited government, free enterprise representatives in November or face a decade or more of this Carteresque economic malaise.

Pelosi Wins– Small Business Loses

michaelrbaer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:26:51 +0000

One chamber has chosen (by a majority of 5) to force substandard healthcare and its associated costs on America–especially the already struggling, job engine of small business. It’s time to think about strategies to deal with this burden and its cost. One near term solution is to n migrate from traditional employment to independent contractors and contingent (temporary) workers.