A Foreign Philosophy

Vin Suprynowicz has an unusually good rant on, called Please don't call it 'State Socialism' that points out that most of what we have come to think of as American innovations were actually German innovations from a century earlier.

The modern Prussian police state was built by Bismarck and others in the 19th century on a Spartan model, giving the central government vastly greater control over the individual than had ever been considered possible before.

From government control of the schools to health care, the whole idea was to create an obedient populace that would man the factories and produce large and obedient broods for the armies without every questioning the orders of the central authority.

Bismarck’s program centered squarely on insurance programs designed to increase support for the ever larger and more powerful government. The program included health insurance, Workman’s Compensation, disability insurance, and old-age retirement pensions, all innovations at the time.

Starting with the model of Prussian compulsion schooling, American “educators” starting with John Dewey and Edward Thorndike eagerly imported this Prussian model to America.


Trained to accept such state control (and now the new “Green” religion) in the schools for most of the last century, then made dependent on government insurance programs (Social Security, Medicare) as surely as the pimp makes sure his young ladies are dependent on the needle and the fix only he can provide, slavery to the state soon appears inescapable, even ordained by God and nature.

Why, it’s a good thing! In exchange for the possibility of ever becoming truly exceptional, of growing rich based on our own efforts, it rewards us with … “security.”

And so we come to love our chains.

All very good for the Germans. But ours was to be a Constitutional Republic, and we were supposed to be citizens, not subjects. We, the people, do not work for the state, but for ourselves. I have met people, who say to me when I talk about the need to reduce spending "well, just don't touch my social security," then give a little giggle, as if they know their attitude is wrong. When I ask, "But even if it means your children and grand children will be in debt?" they just change the subject. And so we come to love our chains.

Way Up North: Righting the Wrongs

Way Up North: Righting the Wrongs

Let me just say "Hear, hear." Rev. Paul has hit one out of the park. Just read the whole thing. I've got nothing to add.

Nationalizing Businesses to Save Profits

Dan Kennedy has an interesting article today on Townhall.com entitledLet's Outlaw YOUR Business Next. If the "reasoning" that has been publicly expressed for the Government to take over student loans is correct, then the title question is a valid one. The "reasoning" goes like this:

-At each stage of the process that brings consumer goods to the public, there are middlemen who create a market.

-Each middleman siphons a small profit off the transaction.

-If each such middleman could be cut out, why huge amounts of money could be saved by the average consumer.

-We could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya around the camp fire.

Such "reasoning" is actually sophomoric, and one soon learns when one starts into business that so called "middlemen" are the indispensable men in bringing any commodity to market.

Imagine, for a moment, that there are no commodities markets, no packagers, or wholesalers, and that each farmer has to do all of these things himself, and retail his product himself. Let's take a farmer who grows corn. In the real world, he sells his crop before it is planted to a trader on the commodities market, or to a packager as the case may be. The farmer is assured of getting something for his crop, and the buyer ties up the crop at a know price. The farmer could theoretically sell his crop for a higher price if he sold directly to the consumer, but there are risks to doing so that are borne instead by the traders in the commodities market. But in our tale, our farmer instead has to sell directly to the consumer. But what if he doesn't get it all sold before it spoils? Well, so now the farmer has to set up a canning factory to can his corn. Of course, his canning factory will only operate for a month or so out of the year, and sit idle the rest of the year. Does having a little canning factory at each corn farm sound like a good use of funds to you? I could go on, but by now you probably get my point. Each grower of corn would need to have canning factories, warehouses, put up with inspectors from the health department and the agriculture department, and on and on. His invested capital would be enormous.

Middlemen in the system actually make the system more efficient. And profits? Profits are a way of accounting for, or monetizing, the risks each takes even if he performs everything correctly. The bigger the risks, the bigger the profit. But, The One knows better. He is smarter than all the folks who have worked the system out over the centuries. He is smarter than even history, as Kennedy says:

So to the news media, if you get around to noticing this latest nationalization, here’s an obvious for you to pose. (And you should refuse to have it laughed off or shrugged off or dodged by Robert Gibbs or an administration economic advisor or even by The One Himself): If it makes sense to cut out the middlemen by government takeover of one industry, (a) why not do it with every industry? And (b) why is this such an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s tried, here or abroad, in history or at present?

Obama Not In Touch with Reality?

If this analysis of our "Dear Leader" is anywhere near correct, America is in big trouble. Floyd and MaryBeth Brown have penned a piece today at Townhall.com that paints a disturbing picture of Obama Off the Deep End. In it, the Browns point out with specific instances where Obama has shown signs of extreme narcisism (not a new observation), being out of touch with people, not being vary empathetic with people who are suffering. A quote:

In March of last year Obama was on "60 Minutes" with Steve Kroft. Throughout the interview as Kroft questioned about the economic downturn and people losing their life savings, Obama just kept laughing. A one point CBS's Kroft stopped him and asked, "Are you punch drunk?" How will the American people react to seeing their president laugh off their predicament? Obama's inappropriate laughter clearly demonstrated he has lost touch with the pain that people are feeling.

I was surprised that Obama was having $100 per pound steak at a state dinner, but it was early then, and I shrugged it off. I was also surprised when he went to New York with Michelle on that "date night." The extravagence of both items, in light of the recession, seemed to send a "Let them eat cake!" message to the "commoners." Another quote:

Obama is, according to Newt Gingrich, "potentially the most dangerous (president), because he so completely misunderstands reality." Gingrich was referring to Obama's inept and weak stance on missile defense amongst other things. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Obama is an amateur; so much for wowing the world. Obama lives in an alternate universe where he treats our friends poorly and expects our enemies to change and become our friends. Here's hoping that the voters help to connect this president back to reality in November.

Obama's approval rating was recently at an all time low of 43%. More and more people are seeing Obama for who he really is, instead of who he portrayed himself to be during the campaign. But truthfully, even a committed Marxists should not be comfortable with an individual the flawed sitting in the White House.

Parting Company

Walter Williams asks today at Townhall.com whether we have reached the time for Parting Company. Professor Williams points out that there have been several peaceable secessions in history. I agree that it is theoretically possible. But I also have a question. What is to prevent those who are now abrogating the Constitution from infiltrating the Constitutionally governed lands and taking over again? We know going in that these people have an unquenchable thirst to impose their ideas on everyone else, whereas we just want to be left alone. So how do we protect ourselves once we, as Williams puts it, part company?

What ObamaCare was Really About

Byron York, writing in Townhall.com today tells us What Was ObamaCare Really About. It turns out it was really about redistribution of wealth, but then I don't think anyone is too surprised to find that out. York, quoting Sen. Max Baucus:

Health reform is "an income shift," Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. "It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower-income, middle-income Americans."

In his halting, jumbled style, Baucus explained that in recent years, "the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle-income class is left behind." The new healthcare legislation, Baucus promised, "will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."

And why is that Senator? So what if a CEO makes $84 million and I only make $75 thousand. How am I hurt by that? If they earned it legitimately, then I presume that everybody won, and since I have no stake in their game, how am I hurt? And how am I helped by you taking them down a notch or two for me? Will I get more money as a result? No? Didn't think so. So, what's really going on here is a cynical game in which you get enough people envious of what others have, then steal their money and proclaim yourself a hero. I call that crooked and corrupt.

On the other hand, when you and other members of your party bailed out some Wall Street bankers, who then turned around and granted themselves bonuses, now that did hurt me. You see, you took the money I pay in taxes, and you gave it to them. Now, I could have used that money to help my own family. Instead, it was stolen from me at the point of a gun. Now that really riles me up. If the Wall Street bankers needed a bailout to stay afloat, they should have been allowed to fail. In bankruptcy court, many of their burdens could have been reduced or lifted, and some day they might emerge again as healthy companies. But no, you had to bail them out, and hurt all us "lower-income and middle-income Americans" you claim to be helping.

What humbug.

Tea Partiers vs. Progressives

Micheal Barone has an excellent article today at Townhall.com explaining the difference between the TEA Partiers and the Progressives entitled Tea Partiers Embrace Liberty, not Big Government. Precisely. Here's a quote:

The first mention of tea parties came in February 2009 from CNBC's Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, when he asked "if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages. How many of you people want to pay your neighbor's mortgage, that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" Then he called for a Chicago tea party.

This struck a chord. Tea partiers began to dress in 18th century costumes -- political re-enactors -- and brandished the "Don't tread on me" flag. They declared their independence by opposing Progressive policies that encourage dependence on government.

The Progressives have always assumed that people needed safety nets and would welcome dependence on government. The public's clear rejection of the Democratic health care bills has shown that this assumption was unwarranted. Americans today prefer independence to dependence on government, just as they did 200 years ago.

Amazingly, we would rather do it ourselves. Who would have thunk it? It's fun to observe a child growing up. I am amazed when watching my grand daughter, that she wants to do everything herself. That streak of independence never goes away. We'll do it ourselves. If we need help, we'll ask an expert, whom we are more than happy to pay for his services on an as needed basis. But in general, we would rather see to most things ourselves.

TEA Partiers have also read the Constitution, a document that seems much easier to read and more straight forward than the lawyers would like us to believe. In it, We the People granted to the Federal Government a few, defined powers. Note that the Sovereign and independent States created the Federal Government, not the other way around. We remain, not one nation, but a federation of 50 (not 57) Sovereign States. Draw your own conclusions.