Distilling Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy"

Rush disparaged RP's foreign policy once again today.  So I'm compelled to make a follow up post. 

Foreign Policy is just a deliberately intimidating phrase some numbskull in Washington came up with. It simply refers to a way of dealing with people.  So let's get over it and begin to think for ourselves instead of listening to those who project themselves as way smarter than we are.  I mean journalists, talk show hosts and other pundits and talking heads.

Ron Paul says our actions led to the attacks against us on 9/11.  This is not to excuse or justify the murders of our fellow Americans that took place that day.  What he means is, we did some things they didn't like so in response they committed some horrific, evil acts.

Let's distill this down to the local level to make it more understandable.  Let's say I live on your block in your neighborhood.  The neighborhood consists mostly of small abodes, some of them barely inhabitable shacks.  You live in one of those shacks; yours happens to be on the corner.  I live in the middle of the block in a huge mansion.  I'm rich and powerful.  You're not.  I figure there's a chance that thieves, rapists and murderers will try to enter the neighborhood.  Since you're on the corner, I figure that's a strategic spot to set up some neighborhood defenses; say, a small bunker with a machine gun.  You're not happy about it, but I elbow my way into your yard.  After all, it makes you and me safer, right?  Well, you make it clear you want me off of your property.  I won't leave.  So you blow up my house, killing part of my family.  It's obvious that your crime of murder is much more heinous than my crime of trespassing.  But it's hard to argue against the fact that my actions led you to yours.  You're not excused or justified.  But, in hindsight, I can see that maybe it wasn't right for me to violate your individual inalienable (read: God-given) right to private property.

Here's another example:  The mayor of an affluent, neighboring town disagrees with what we allow to go on in our town.  The women are too immodest, too many people own guns, the church is teaching false doctrine, the divorce laws are too lax.  The neighboring town sends its police over and they capture and kill our mayor.  And install a new mayor of their choosing.  Are we okay with that?

What if China invaded us, out of concern for our underprivileged working class, and they imposed communism?  Yea!  They saved us from ourselves!  Thanks, China! 

To repeat: even when you're right, it's wrong to force others to do what you think is right. 

Evil dictators and regimes murder their people overseas.  It's terrible.  But they're adults.  They have to solve their own problems.  It's not possible for us to police the world.  And HELLO, look at the disastrous results when we try.  Vietnam, anyone?  How are things in Egypt?  "Palestine?"  Libya?  Korea?  Iraq?  Afghanistan?  We take out one evil regime, only to see it replaced by another, often worse evil regime.  If you watched the video in my last post, you know we've done this several times in Iran.  What are we, Mrs. Kravitz?  Let's get our noses out of other people's business.

Ron Paul just wants us to bring our troops home from Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, etc. and strengthen our home defenses.  Let's make America an impenetrable fortress and let those other sleeping dogs lie.  Besides, we can't afford it.

This is why I'll vote Ron Paul again in 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPFQaLh-ycM

Please, please click the above link and watch the video.

Many are with Ron Paul domestically but not when it comes to foreign policy.  This has become the "conventional wisdom."  The "cool kids" are all down with the idea that, as Rush put it today, RP's foreign policy ideas are, "tin hat."  From Rush to Hannity to Glenn Beck to Michelle Malkin et. al. that's their view of Ron Paul.

Well, watch the video and decide for yourself.  Then continue your research of RP and let's restore this country to its constitutional roots.

I voted for him in 2008 because I couldn't countenance McCain.  I now understand him even better and he may be the last hope for the Republic.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating.  Romney and his buds are the equivalent of turning the reins over to someone who will slightly slow our career toward the cliff, but still take us into the abyss.  We MUST do a 180 and run back toward the constitution.  RP will do that.  THAT'S what's brought this country to its unprecedented prosperity: the FREEDOM protected by the constitution.

My siblings, force doesn't work.  Freedom works.  Force is evil.  It's the essence of unrighteous dominion.  God forces no one.  Even if you are right, it's wrong to force anyone to do what is right.  That goes for individuals as well as countries.

Do I wish for more handouts for the poor, free healthcare, education, citizenship, food, $million/year jobs for everyone?  Do I feel like we all should be giving more, as the Savior would have us do?  Of course!  Where Dr. Paul and I differ from the rest of you and your candidates is that we know that you can't put a gun to anyone's head and force him to give, to do those things.

Well, that's what America has become.  The government points a gun at those who earn money, takes it from them via taxes, and proceeds to give it to those who didn't earn it.  I'm all for giving to the poor, but let me be free to choose to do it; and let me also be free not to do it, if I so choose.  THAT is God's way.  And that way brings blessings to the giver as well as the receiver.  Come on. You don't really think He blesses legalized government mugging, do you?

It's called freedom.  And it's our only hope.  It's the only thing that makes America different from the dictatorships of the world, whether they be socialist, communist, fascist or monarchist.  Instead of trying to be like the "cool kids" here or around the world, let's be ourselves.  Let's be Americans.  And freedom is what makes us uniquely Americans.

Childishness and All-Too-Willing Parentishness

I remember, from my college study of psychology, transactional analysis from Eric Berne.  His theory mirrors Freud with his id, ego and super-ego.  Berne uses the terms 'child', 'adult' and 'parent' to describe people's interactions with each other.  The 'child' is immature, weak, self-centered, the ultimate victim.  The 'adult' is reason-based and mature. The 'parent' is judgmental, condescending, has a knee-jerk answer to every problem and is always full of unsolicited advice.  The 'child' and 'parent' are emotion driven while the 'adult' is thoughtful and deliberate.

In America today, we find ourselves surrounded by (grown-up) 'children' (think: occupy wall st) with a government ever ready to step in and be everyone's 'parent.'  Many outside of government also react to problems as a 'parent' with the underlying assumption that, "Well, I know I can do it, but other people can't seem to do it, so they need help."  And they vote with that mindset.  So the government has become the means by which the 'parents' in society help the 'children.'  But, just as it's wrong for real parents to force kids to do right, it's wrong for voters, acting from the perspective of Berne's 'parent' are wrong to force the rest of us to do right; right being defined here as helping those in need.  As a side note, the 'parent' treats everyone like a child regardless of his perspective.

It's easily understood from the perspective of Berne's rational 'adult' that it's wrong to forcibly take from some to give to others.  And that's why those who willfully take us in the direction of socialism do so from the all-knowing, enabling perspective of Berne's 'parent.'

One shining example of this phenomenon is society's ('parent's') treatment of any and all "at-risk minorities."  Minorities are labeled as victims and unfortunately, for them, they embrace victimhood and allow things to be done for them which they could do for themselves.  It's easy to see the childishness in their behavior.  It's also easy to relate.  We all allow others to do things for us we could do ourselves.  But certainly the government shouldn't encourage this behavior by compelling us to be each others' 'parent.'

Another example of 'parenting' with disastrous consequences is the state of our public schools.  Over the past 150 years we've gone from educating kids using the Bible, classical literature, the constitution, history, geography and the hard sciences to institutional schooling where attendance is mandatory, the Bible is banned, the constitution is unknown, hard science often has been replaced by social science and history is now called social studies.  The kids are conditioned to depend on an all-knowing 'parent' (the teacher,) the nuclear family is de-emphasized and political-correctness reigns supreme.  But don't worry, it's "free."  Although, to have accepted the status quo, we 'adults' have had to come to see things from the 'child's' perspective. That is, we've abdicated our responsibility to educate our kids.  For an insiders perspective on the last 150 years of the history of schooling, see John Taylor Gatto's "Dumbing Us Down' and "The Underground History of American Education."  Mr. Gatto taught Jr. High for 30 years.



Each of us must find himself in the role of the 'adult'.  And from there we must act.  Over the past 100 years, we've sunk evermore into Berne's other two perspectives and doing so, we've lost freedom.  Only the 'adult' merits freedom and indeed, only the 'adult' can cope with freedom's eternal companion, responsibility.  The real trick is to trust that others, if we allow them to do so, CAN cope with the freedom and responsibility we crave and which we know is man's birthright.  Please, my friends, let's do what it takes to preserve that freedom.

Pro-discrimination

Discrimination and prejudice have been given a bad name.  The political-correctness nazis have succeeded, or, better said, we've stood by and allowed them to succeed in painting us into a corner when it comes to our freedoms of association and exchange. 

I have the right to be/deal with whomever I wish.  If I own a business and I don't want to serve black people or Mexicans or whomever, for whatever reason, I don't have to serve them, period.  Now, I didn't say it was legal not to serve certain people or that I wouldn't get into trouble.  But remember, rights aren't granted by the government or even by the constitution.  Rights are granted by God.

Now, you may say that it would be wrong for me to refuse to serve certain people.  And I might be inclined to agree with you.  But, is it right that I should be forced by the government to associate or exchange with people with whom, if I were free, I wouldn't choose to associate/exchange?

Who gets to decide what's appropriate or good, if not me?  Who gets to draw that line?  Most would say, for instance, that it's ok for me to discriminate against one customer who offers to pay less than another customer, all other factors being equal.  So, is that the line in the sand?  Do we just all agree on it and then abide by it.  Is there no individuality?  No individual inalienable right to free association.exchange?

Let me see if I can bring this closer to home, literally.  Part of the recent debate on the subject also holds that, for instance, if you own a duplex, you can't "discriminate" against potential renters.  Really?  So, what's the rule?  First come, first serve?  You suspend reason and judgement and randomly draw a name out of a hat?  Or is there a rational way to meet with each potential renter and select whom you think is the best one?  Remember, whatever your selection, you are discriminating against each and every one of the other hopefuls.  You prejudiced crumb!  Oh, wait, I get it.  It's ok to discriminate against all of those other potential renters, as long as the person you selected is a member of a protected minority, right?  Or as long as you can somehow prove that you used no untoward criteria in your decision, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation (certainly you couldn't turn away a cagey looking group of twenty something Muslim men.  Please, can we please start profiling...but, I digress.) etc., etc.  Well, let me see.  Let's say someone shows up on your doorstep one night.  You don't know him.  You have a bad feeling about him.  You see no reason to trust him.  Too bad.  You have to let him in.  You can't discriminate against him by turning him away.  Oh, I forgot to mention, he's a minority.  Yep- mi casa su casa, come on in.  How long will you be staying?  Am I, as a white male, allowed to stay while you're here?  No?  Oh well.  At least I can find solace in the fact that I'm not a  _____ist.

This is illustrating absurdity by being absurd.  Read that last sentence back to yourself.  Yes, it's absurd to deny even white, rich males their rights of free association/exchange.  And it's self-defeating.  It looks pretty good when the rich white guy loses his rights, but what will you do when they come and take yours?

Now, am I stupid if I don't serve certain people, say, black people, in my business?  Is it wrong?  Well, I'd say yes.  But I maintain that I have that right.

And Walter E. Williams, a black man, agrees with me, as illustrated in his column, "The Right to Discriminate."

Casey Anthony and Big Guys vs. Little Guys

Let's get racial for a minute.  There is some similarity between this recent acquittal and the acquittal of the police who were accused of brutalizing Rodney King.  There is a group of people, I might argue- mostly white people, who are just as upset today as black people were in 1992.

Well, my question is, why didn't we see riots, looting and violence, in reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict, like we saw in L.A. back then?

I believe the answer may lie in this false enmity that, unfortunately, is still felt by the little guy for the big guy; the minority for the majority; this hatred for "the man."

When you've convinced yourself you're picked on, a victim, powerless, it's easy to rationalize bad behavior.  Maybe this is why people of color commit, as a percentage of the entire population, such a disproportionate number of the crimes.

Well, life has progressively become more challenging for white males as we have been discriminated against in recent decades.  And, again, we haven't seen an uptick in violence or crime from our population.

You can call a white man any number of names: cracker, honkey; but I'm afraid to even properly spell ni66er on my blog for fear of being shut down.  You can make TV shows or movies where the white guy is routinely stereotyped as the dork or the bad guy.  We all know white men can't jump or sing or dance and that they have no rhythm.  Yet we don't care.  Go ahead and call names, portray us however you want.  As Rush says, you can't live for other people.  You have to be you.  No one will know whether he likes you if you're not you.  Who cares what anybody thinks?

Why do none of these portrayals or name calling bother white guys?  Maybe it's because we don't have racial advocates working day and night to make sure we retain our victim status and to make sure others are held back so we can advance because we can't do it for ourselves.  And to make sure we always have an excuse, a scapegoat if we don't succeed.

Well, people of color, women, gay people, you can have your victim status.  I want nothing to do with it.  No thanks.  I can do it on my own.  But you know what?  So can you.  Wake up.  There was a time when you were oppressed.  In some ways you're still oppressed.  But you're being done no favors by all of the advocates and politically correct crap that's out there.  You're better than that.

And the degree to which you allow your way, your pain to be eased is the degree to which you weaken yourself.  "No pain, no gain" isn't just for weightlifters.  And, enough with the crime already.  It hurts you more than anyone else and gains you nothing.  You, too, are God's sons and daughters.  We all need to live up to that.

Limp-wristed Voters and Candidates

In Utah, it seems to me that we have a problem.  We're considered a "conservative" state.  But conservatism often relies heavily on social issues for its definition.  Fine.  We're against gay marriage and abortion and we're pro-gun.  Now what?  Well, it's the fiscal side where it breaks down.  Most wouldn't argue against the idea that it's wrong to mug someone, even if you give all of the "proceeds" from said mugging to the poor.  But at the same time, many are ok with the idea of a social safety net, that is to say, with government welfare.

There may have been a time when we could afford to make these fiscal errors in judgement, but now is not that time.  Our problems have progressed past the point where the same old, lame old politics and politicians will do.  The "change," to borrow a word from a previous election cycle, needs to be more radical than has been offered in previous elections.

With that in mind, our two Mormon candidates for president have something in common with the lackadaisical Utah politics I described above.  They're ok guys; better than Obama, but not good enough.  They strike me as the same old republicans of  yesteryear.  There may be something to be said for their electability over some others in the race. But I disagree.  I think the republicans can win with any of the candidates currently running.  I also happen to think Sarah Palin could win.

The point I'm trying to make is that we need to do more than just slow our descent into socialism.  We need to do an about face and return to the constitution.  When a candidate is pro cap and trade or has socialistic healthcare in his past, which he refuses to even denounce as a mistake, that's a problem.  Again, it's the constitution that has made this country great.  Not all ideas are equal.  Some paths aren't just different, they're wrong.  And when you have a candidate who, at this early stage in the game is already trying to curry favor with those who have us ignoring the constitution, that should be a red flag.  The oath of office is to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution;" not to preserve, protect and defend each individual's or special interest group's feelings.  When a politician leaves the realm of adherence to the constitution- the law of the land, he immediately enters a place where his subjective, highly limited perspective takes over and he begins to force people to do what he feels is best.  That would be fine, "if men were angels,"  but they're not.  

On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't endorse the idea of a third party candidate because I think that hand delivers victory for Obama.  I'm not certain where the line is between standing for principle and compromising for victory, but our compromises, our concessions to the left, our attempts to reach across the aisle haven't borne the best of fruit.  Again, we've ended up with outcomes which are not quite as bad as pure socialism, but not that great, either.  I actually think I'd almost rather lose with someone I can fully support than win with either of these go-along-to-get-along types. 

Shortfalls of Human Arrogance

While charity is a good exchange in which I engage with Father, capitalism has clothed more, fed more, helped more individuals and families in all ways than charity ever has, not to mention than tax dollars at work.  Why?  Capitalism requires no faith.
    Regarding faith, it is belief in things which are not seen which are true. Are there not scientific theories, parts of which must be taken in faith? What about inter-species evolution? Where is the proof? There may be evidence that leads us to certain conclusions, but such is the evidence of God’s existence. Neither science nor religion gives us all of the answers, all of the explanations. To make a blanket statement like, “Nature is all that there is;” is true, from a certain point of view. But the way some appear to use such statements is that there is nothing knowable but it is known to us humans. All things in the universe, in “Nature” including God are knowable. It’s just that much is yet to be revealed. Again, when you “lean unto your own understanding” you sound like a teenager who already knows everything, so why listen to dad? Words like universe and nature are merely man’s attempt to feel as if he understands, knows everything. The truth is, God is just a guy. Heaven is just a place. I’ve never been to New Zealand or met Peter Jackson. Should I doubt their existence or claim I know more about directing movies than he?
Life goes on after death. It just does. Prove it doesn’t. Yet I can’t prove it does. What, then is the purpose of life? It ends at death? Really? I’m supposed to fully express my potential, produce, etc. and it all lasts only a tiny fraction of the time scientists believe the earth has lasted? There’s really no truth beyond what has already been discovered?
    “The laws of identity, causality and non-contradiction are not rationally debatable.” Agreed. But check your premises. Is man really aware of the totality of each of these laws? “These laws are self-evident, immutable and absolute.” They are…as far as we know. Does God have more reason than we? Does anyone?
    Is space travel possible, beyond what we’ve achieved? How about this: is there life on other planets and if so, are those people more advanced than we? Is anybody more advanced, does anybody know more than we?

The Reconciliation of Altruism and Productivity

As to altruism; again, I’m with those who deride it. But isn’t it interesting that one of the fruits of Reardon’s labor is the fact that his invention can be sold to others? I believe one of life’s goals ought to be to learn to love others as we love ourselves, our spouses and our kids. That love comes through service and I believe it’s a key to happiness. In addition to the value exchanged, represented by money, the joy from that love, which love we learn through further exchanges, feeds upon itself, making production and exchange (service to others) truly the key to happiness. Reardon loved Francisco and the other producers because of their expressions of life, their progression, their achievements, their character. And as we serve others, we come to know these same qualities in them; some more latently than others; nevertheless, we come to appreciate them, to really see them as they are, as God sees them, and we rejoice together. As long as there’s no coercion or deception, who could argue against such joyous exchanges? Surely you see these qualities in yourself, as I see them in me. It logically follows that they exist in all of our brothers and sisters. Each is trying to express them, with varying levels of success, based on his familiarity with true principles/natural law/eternal truth.

Pain is Enlightening/Educational

  Some speak of the moral obligation to do God’s will and the spiritual and physical pain involved. They say we must (once again, where is the coercive force?) obey, “regardless of the difficulties or consequences involved.” There is no pain; there are no difficulties or consequences that don’t lead to more joy. This, I would say, may not necessarily be His doing. I believe it to simply be natural law. Didn’t Hank Reardon go through pain, difficulties and consequences during his rise to the top and the bringing to market of Reardon metal? And he initially conquered and had joy in his triumph, due to obedience to natural law. And it is precisely this protection against failure (or pain/consequences) against which I would argue as our government rushes in to save corporation and individual alike from failure, when failure is what would have been best for all involved. As Robert Frost said, “The best way round is always through.” God’s requirements agree with these notions and they lead to triumph, now and later.
    So, atheists, is it that the Lord knew the natural laws with which you are now acquainted before you did, is that the problem you have with Him?  Or is it just the flawed adherence to those laws you see in your fellow mortals that you blame on God? They shouldn’t be allowed to be ignorant?

What Is Heaven and How Do I Get There

I see Heaven as a place where we eventually belong or not. This notion that we can simply say, “I believe” and be saved by grace regardless of our actions, too is a fantasy. Seemingly, it quarrels with the opposing notion that we can never “merit” heaven. The truth is a combination of the two. An NBA player gets to play on that level because he can. He belongs. I, for instance, do not belong in the NBA. My eternal presence in Heaven will be due to the fact that I will “fit in.” Someone’s earthly perspective may be that I could never earn “all that the Father hath,” but that’s none of his business. It is up to the Father, what He gives and why. In like manner, my kids may not seem to deserve all I give them, but it’s mine to give/mine to decide. Returning to the point, in Heaven, I will either be able to “play” at that level or I won’t, now or then.

Loving Life and Talents

My life is an end, in itself; my eternal life, of which, this mortal life is just a blink of an eye. And John Galt seeking and loving his life is no different than the eternal life I seek. Again, obedience affects how happy I am now and later. “Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” (Luke 17:33) I believe this scripture refers to losing ourselves in the service of others. That is, sacrificing leisure and other lower pleasures for production. And I believe the scripture indicates that through production, one preserves, seeks, expands and comes to love his life. This is an excellent example of a suggestion or “commandment” given, and the reward immediately mentioned. It speaks of a goal we all have and tells us how to achieve it. I know of no “sacrifice” suggested where no reward is provided.

The word “save” used in the scripture reminds me of the parable of the talents (Mat. 25:14-30). In brief summary, a rich guy needed to travel, so he left some money with each of three guys who worked for him, to produce as they would and should. The two were productive and doubled his money and were allowed to keep it all and were given stewardship over even more. The other of the three buried his in the ground out of fear of his boss, claiming the boss gained from the production of his employees. The money entrusted to him was taken away from him and given to the most productive employee and he who was fearful and covetous was fired, showing that stewards who productively possess, (that is, are aware of, thankful for and productive with blessings) and make capitalistic exchanges with what they have, receive more. To me, the servant who buried the talent given him by the lord sought to “save” it.

Our talents aren’t ours alone to consume. We have them “on loan from God” as Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying. They are meant to be shared, to be used in the service of others to our own gain, our own reward. And when we do so, we retain stewardship over what we have, what we have gained with it and more. This is salvation and life, a life one can love; and it’s true, few there be that achieve it via either subjectivism or religion (including mine); and I would add to that list, atheism. I submit that you and I are both a work in progress when it comes to our shared goals for ourselves.

From Original Sin to Masturbation

As to the whole question of Adam, original sin, etc., my understanding is that He or at least Eve figured out that they needed to leave the Lord’s presence (the garden) to be tested. Suffering from the natural consequences of our mistakes (sins) is part of the test. But the Lord provided a Savior to pay the price for and overcome sin in a different garden, Gethsemane, as well as on the cross, where He also overcame death, paving the way for our return to Heaven, according to our voluntary obedience to eternal law. How is it done? I don’t know. How (and why) did my son grow inside his mother from the union of a couple of our cells? Don’t know that either. It just is. And when, in our ignorance, we undertake to whine about our interpretation of our Superiors’ actions, it comes off very childishly, indeed.  It's akin to some guy working at the 7 eleven counter trying to armchair quarterback what the CEO of a major corporation should do.
   

One thing we must learn in this life is to subdue our passions.  A man may choose to masturbate.  A former president and prophet of my church, Spencer W. Kimball, in his book, “The Miracle of Forgiveness” said it is wrong to masturbate. Let’s look at that logically. I would never argue that a man is not free to masturbate, but is it truly “selfish,” as defined by Rand, to do so? I don’t think so. I believe, as the prophet suggested, that it leads a man to slavery to that particular passion. And it could lead him to even more destructive behavior. Clearly, such a man is not a “man of the mind.” And every moment spent uselessly is wasted productive time.

I believe that the scripture about it being impossible to “serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24) has application here. This passion could grow to crowd out all other desires and then service to God can’t take place. And remember that you can’t serve God (or anyone) without serving yourself; or perhaps better put, you can’t serve yourself; you can’t be selfish -again, as Rand defines it -without serving God. Even if what you’ve done is somehow good only for you, you unwittingly serve His purpose, that is, your happiness. Your highest and best desires for yourself are the same as His desires for you. The childish man sees the “commandment” not to masturbate as harsh, limiting, etc., just as the child can’t understand why his dad won’t let him play video games 24/7. Bounds must be set to benefit the child, just as the Lord has set bounds for sex. Again, the following of commandments is not a “suspension of judgment,” it’s only an exercise in humility where we put off reinventing the wheel, at least until we give what is suggested a try.

Allying Faith in God and Objectivism

Regarding what some people term self sacrifice, human sacrifice and selflessness; I would say again, those who fumble around ignorantly, thinking such things, taken to the extreme, will lead to happiness are misled and misinterpret scripture. The type of sacrifice that is good is when we give up something good (e.g. TV) for something better (e.g. reading). Again, the absence of force of any kind is crucial. Each is free to choose, for instance, a lower kind of pleasure over a type of activity that would bring true joy.
    The definition of sin has application here. Sin is where we act truly selfishly (which is to say childishly, ignorantly, etc.) in distinction from when we act with enlightened self-interest. Sin, where we transgress, disobey natural law, wounds our spirits, our minds, the eternal in us. It impedes our love of self and life, our growth, our eternal progression. It is not so much that we get punished as it is that we fail to be who we are- “men of the mind,” higher, eternal beings with limitless eternal potential. “Selfless service” is the quickest way to get us back on track. It helps us re-focus and rebound. That we benefit most from that service and that the fact of that service’s beneficence to us is lost on many is of little consequence. Our progression toward greater happiness is what is important. The rest can be learned as we go. And that is one reason the scriptures so harp on faith and humility.  It is impossible for mortal man to be all-knowing, just as it is impossible for the child not to be at least somewhat more ignorant than his father; so it’s wise to listen to the Exalted Man; the ultimate, perfected Objectivist, who is our Father in heaven. And to worship Him (and His Son) is but to follow the grave suggestions of a loving Father whose profit in the exchange with us is simply his joy in our happiness and our return to His presence. Yet when I get there, now and later, I(’ll) absolutely feel that I got the better part of the deal, as I do in any bit of intercourse into which I freely enter. Therefore, whenever I “sacrifice,” and serve someone else (Him or His kids), whether I like it or not, whether I’m aware of it or not, I get the better part of the deal, whether my profit be money, happiness or some other value, received now or later.
    Have you ever “felt” the joy of being in the service of your fellow man? I feel it whether I’m being paid in money or not. It is the joy experienced by Dagny, et al in production. The full expression of one’s powers, enjoyed by Rand’s heroes can only be achieved through service. That is, that level of production can’t not yield fruit that is valuable to others. And even absent the joy of service, good luck getting rich without serving/creating value for others. Service/work is an eternal principle of truth and it’s impossible to not be compensated in kind or better, now or later (see Napoleon Hill’s “Law of Success” and “Think and Grow Rich”).
    While I’m recommending books (beyond the Book of Mormon which is objectivism historicized, just as objectivism is the Gospel applied temporally), “Mormon Scientist” by Henry Eyring springs to mind, written about his granddad, the famous chemist; also, “The Science of Getting Rich” by Wallace Wattles, more temporal application of spiritual, eternal laws applied to a quest for abundance. The point is, it all agrees, again, “All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.” See also, freecapitalist.com (local radio show host’s site who turned me onto “Atlas”).

Atheism and the Law of Chastity

One objection I have to “Atlas Shrugged” (by Ayn Rand) is Dagny’s, Francisco’s and Galt’s fornication, along with Reardon’s Adultery, both of which are against God's laws. I’m all in with Rand’s explanation of sex being a celebration of life and with her basis for choosing a partner (seriously, read the book, if you haven’t). Where it breaks down for me is where it breaks with reality. It is a work of fiction, but I believe the portrayal accurately represents Rand’s views on the matter, and reflects her atheism. However, I believe it does break with reality. No one is as perfect as these characters. I believe you would be hard pressed to convince me that, statistically, it turns out well to break the law of chastity and sleep with whomever one wishes without first making the commitment of marriage (marriage being the ultimate example of the responsibility which ever accompanies freedom and leads to happiness.) Both partners being highly imperfect, unlike Dagny, would very likely find naught but sorrow (referring here to much more than just “guilt”) behind such transgressions, as many could and would attest who have been there and done that. So, I argue that it isn’t truly in one’s self interest to fornicate or commit adultery. I contend it’s best to listen to “Dad” and wait until marriage and then be faithful.
    They’re called commandments, but there is no enforcement, only natural consequences. The commandments simply amount to a map which leads us back to Him and hence, to happiness (now and later.) Therefore, my argument isn’t for trying to force anyone to obey, just as our Father refrain’s from force. He holds freedom in absolutely the highest regard. When He chose Jehovah over Lucifer as a Savior, in favor of agency over coercion, Lucifer rebelled and was cast out. One third of those present (those intended to be sent to this earth) chose to follow Lucifer and were cast out of Heaven. So, in preservation of our freedom, our individual, inalienable rights, our Heavenly Father lost millions of His children.
    This is the trouble “the government” gets into as they try to force us to do what they think is right. It doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong. Only freedom matters.  Remember that it was Lucifer, now known as Satan, who wanted to force us to do what is right and therefore guarantee our return to Father’s presence. And whenever the government seeks to ”play God,” they’re really playing Satan.
    My elemental argument, as I’ve said is that one’s enlightened self-interest is one and the same with God’s will and His self-interest. Like any father, He desires His kids’ happiness and their return to Him. A child, lacking sufficient light, isn’t acting selfishly (as Rand defines it) or in his own self-interest as, in accordance with his own will, he runs out into traffic against his father’s “commandment.” This truly is the way to look at our relationship with God. We are arrogant and wrong if we believe we know enough to always choose what is precisely in our own best self-interest. We learn scientifically by trial and error. But, if we choose, we can learn from Others who have experienced all we are going through or will go through. We can learn from Their mistakes. It is childish to think we have to learn everything by trial and error. Is it best for the child to run out into traffic and see and feel and know exactly what happens to his body when it engages a car? Or should he just take dad’s word for it until he can see and reason for himself?

Illogical Atheism

Here begins a series of posts, mostly taken from my letter to the columnist/author at theobjectivestandard.com. 

Remember that movie, "Brewster's Millions?"  Briefly, Richard Prior is surprised to find he's heir to $100,000,000.  In a video, his formerly unknown grandfather lays out the rules of a game he must play to get his inheritance.  To get the $100 million, he must first spend $10 million in a few weeks, account for every penny and have nothing to show for it when it's over.  There is also a "wimp clause" where he can walk away with $1 million and save himself the trouble of playing the game.  It's a great movie and it's pretty funny to watch as he runs into all sorts of unexpected problems spending all of that money.  It's not easy for him.

This illustrates an important part of my logical (apart from spiritual) basis for my belief in God.  Imagine your dad sent you away from him before you were born.  He left you a map to find your way back to him, along with bits of advice and small treasures along the way.  If you make it back to him; if you find him, his untold, unimaginable (all that he has) wealth will be yours.  You can communicate with him via email, but his answers are often vague, untimely and seemingly undesirable.  He just keeps asking you to trust him.  You try following some of his advice and directions and find they indeed lead you to where he said they would.  The path along which the map leads you isn't easy and it's easy to get lost but you find that another study of the map gets you back on course, if a challenging course.  Along the way, you're led to unexpected places, through unexpected areas, to experience unexpected things.  But so far, things seem to work out ok for you at the end of even the darkest times and you find you're happier the more you follow his advice.  Sometimes it's great.  Sometimes you just want to give up.  But you just keep putting one foot in front of the other and you're not dead, yet.  Though sometimes you have to check your pulse just to make sure.

That's our relationship with God, our Father in heaven.  His directions and advice are often unique.  We have the choice to follow them or not.  If we logically, rationally look at the results we experience as we follow him, we'll see he's a good dad, he tells the truth, he can be trusted.  Often it seems the hardest thing to do, but it works out for our best.  And what if it really does lead us to heaven?  Bonus!

Gay Marriage

Let me begin by expressing sympathy to our gay friends.  Indeed, under God's law, as most of us see it, they have no sexual recourse.

But that doesn't stop me from speaking out against gay behavior.  My two points are these:  1.  Gay relationships can't produce children, our most precious commodity.  2.  To sanction those relationships by allowing them to marry is another step, a big step, toward further acceptance of this behavior by our society.  As it gains more acceptance, more people will consider it as an optional lifestyle, resulting in fewer heterosexual marriages and making it ever rarer that children are born into families where there is both a mother and a father, which children need and deserve.

So, both of my arguments revolve around children and their best interest.  There are very good reasons it takes a man and a woman to make a baby.  And it takes both of them to raise the child, optimally.

On Abortion

Just as the only arguments worth considering on atheism come from rational objectivism, so the only pro-abortion arguments worth refuting come from the same source.

A different columnist at theobjectivestandard.com argues that pregnant women, just like the rest of us, must be "free to act on...the judgement of (their) own mind(s)" and "An individual (has a) fundamental need to act on his own judgement to further his life and happiness."  I agree.  I just consider a baby, whether in its mother's uterus or not, to be an individual with the same inalienable rights as the rest of us, even though he can't yet "act on the judgement of his own mind to further his life and happiness."

The argument goes, "but an embryo/fetus isn't a person and it is utterly dependent on (it's mother)"  Well, so is a newborn infant.  The only difference between an embryo/fetus and a newborn infant is a thin layer of muscle, fat and skin.  You're not allowed to kill it on the outside if that layer of tissue, why should you be allowed to kill it on the inside?

 I realize that pregnancy is sometimes an unwanted consequence, like an unwanted guest in your home.  I fully acknowledge the private property issue here.  But let's say the proverbial newborn baby showed up on the doorstep of your home.  And let's say you're snowed in for the winter and can't get out for nine months.  Is it permissible to murder that baby?  Of course not.  You care for it for nine months and then take it to the authorities.  And so it is with unwanted pregnancy.  You can give it up for adoption in nine months.  It's extremely inconvenient, but, hey, so are you sometimes and we put up with you.

Illegal Aliens

Years ago I read a column at theobjectivestandard.com that affected my views permanently, when it comes to illegal aliens.  I welcome our friends from other countries, including Mexico.  I think they should be allowed to stay, with a few conditions.  First, go back the border and submit to a background check for past criminal activity in our country or any country.  Easier said than done, but if you have a record, you're not welcome.  Also, they must submit to medical screening for communicable diseases.  Under these conditions and perhaps others, I'm willing to let them in initially; not as citizens, but as guest workers.  I also consider them ineligible for state or federal welfare, free healthcare, free school, not to mention in-state tuition rates.  A path to citizenship for those here illegally might be considered through military service and, of course, through existing legal channels, which should include English and cultural (civic/constitutional) proficiency.   I'm not interested in a bunch of "Little Mexicos" dotting the landscape.  If you don't know our language and aren't well-versed in our capitalistic society, you're only hurting yourself.

As a side note, I'm FOR racial or any other type of profiling.  It's necessary, under what I've proposed above, to drive them through legal channels.  But more importantly, me MUST profile middle-eastern types in all situations.  This is in the interest of preserving our very lives.  We've got to stop denying the reality that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, nearly all terrorists are Muslim.

Ayn Rand and Atheism

There is a political ad out there right now indicting Ayn Rand, author of, "Atlas Shrugged" and several other fiction and nonfiction books.  It indicts her for her atheism and assigns guilt by association to anyone who, like me, has endorsed her.

As to her Atheism, that is where I part ways with her.  Years ago, I entered into correspondence with one of the column writers at the Ayn Rand site, theobjectivestandard.com.  That is to say, I wrote a letter where I refuted the columnists atheistic claims point by point.  I'll be excerpting or summarizing that letter in the future, here on my blog.

Anyway, briefly, in reaction to the aforementioned political ad:  It is just another attempt to divide us.  They'd divide us "rich" from "poor," fiscal conservative from social conservative and now, religionist from atheist.  Well, let me restate that we all have much more in common with each other than not.  This all goes back to looking for the good in others rather than refusing to see past the bad.  It's illustrated out on the streets every day as we become enraged at someone who cuts us off with his car, and then, sometimes moments later, the same thing happens, but we don't even notice because this time, we're the cutter-off-er.

Even a brief study of Ayn Rand reveals that there is very little of her philosophy to disdain and much more to endorse.  What leads her to atheism is her perspective that all religions teach that the pursuit of happiness is selfish and evil; that the definition of sacrifice is that you give all and get nothing.  That is, you make yourself miserable while making others happy.  She somehow missed the fact that, in the scriptures, whenever a commandment is mentioned, the blessings of obedience to that commandment are also mentioned.  Sacrifice is giving up something good for something better, not giving up everything and getting nothing.

She logically jumps in her assumption from God to the government.  The government expects us to be as productive as possible even as it hampers our ability to produce and takes many of the fruits of our labors.  She fails to notice the distinction between God and government when it comes to force.  The government forces us to do what it says and give what it wants.  God does not.  His commandments  are grave suggestions rather than enforced edicts.

Cut Spending, but not Because We Don't Have any more Money

These days, it's easy to see the spending problem in the federal government and elsewhere.  We're out of money.  We've been out of money for some time.  Deficit spending has become he norm.  There are things we want, so let's just borrow more and more money to get everything we want.  We don't have enough income for the lifestyle we're used to, so the answer is, borrow more?  Anyone can see that this kind of thinking is wrong headed.  It's easy to see that what goes on in Washington wouldn't work in a real world business or household.

We've got no money, so we've got to spend less.  But that's not why we should make spending cuts.  We should make spending cuts because it's wrong to take someone's money, at the point of a gun, and give it to someone else.  "Thou shalt not steal" applies to legalized stealing, too.  "But people need the money they get from the government and those richie richertons would never give it voluntarily."  Step back into that dark alley I previously described, point the gun at the rich man and take his money.  And once again, just because you're giving it to that poor family you know, you're still a criminal.  What you've done is wrong.  It is not charitable to give money you stole from someone else.

An Excuse for Weiner

I've heard all over the airwaves today about how Anthony Weaner is "sick."  Because of his sickness, this married man was compelled to send naked pictures of himself to that twenty something girl.  He couldn't help himself.  Frankly, I heard both Hannity and Michael Savage, both of whose opinions I respect, say things along those lines.

As part of our desire to evade responsibility, we've bought into this idea that all bad behavior is caused by "sickness."  "I'm sick and that sickness drove me to (fill in the blank,) for which I bear no responsibility because, as I mentioned, I'm sick." 

I reject this notion outright.  We are responsible for our actions.  Weiner is responsible for his.  His grandmother would slap his face; ours would slap our faces if we tried to use the sickness excuse.

The Failure of Government Schools

We spend the most money per student of any other country in the world.  Yet our results, our test scores aren't as good , as high as many other countries who spend much less.  Washington D.C. schools spend the most money per student in our country but their results and test scores are the worst, the lowest in the country.  We, here in Utah spend the least and our results are the best.  Throwing more money at the problem isn't a solution.

Parental involvement is a big part of the solution.  And that's where government control of schools fails.  We parents are supposed to be responsible for our kids' education.  But we've abdicated that responsibility.  With all a parent has to do each day for his kids, any help with the burden is welcome.  "Oh.  Ok.  You teachers and principals have got the education thing covered, right?  Whew!  What a relief.  Alright, I'll be over here keeping these other 57, 492 balls in the air."

Well, that arrangement hasn't worked out.  Parents have no skin in the game because it's "free."  They feel no motivation to get their money's worth.  No one has full control of the situation.  Some parents would like to take more control and to choose, to a greater degree, the direction of their kids' education.  But they're not paying for it.  When they gave up their responsibility, they also lost freedom, power and control.  The schools don't have absolute control (yet) because, well, these aren't their kids.

 Solution?  Get the government out of the schools, beginning with the federal government.  Introduce school choice through vouchers.  Get parents back squarely in charge of, responsible for their kids' education, including at least part of it's funding.  This can be accomplished gradually by degrees.  In addition to the elimination of the federal department of education, states could opt to stop all state funding of higher education.  Some of that money could be temporarily funneled to K-12; but education spending could stand cuts in spending across the board; cut school lunch, cut all coursework except math, reading, writing, HARD sciences and history, cut most, if not all staff who aren't classroom teachers from admin. up and down. 

The schools have succeeded in assuaging parents' concerns about low test scores in primary subjects by offering all manner of useless subjects like P.E., social studies, character ed., music, art, etc.  All of this serves to camouflage the fact that they're failing to teach the three Rs.  This is the equivalent of my showing up at your house to do some drywall work, doing a crappy job- the walls look all lumpy and you can see every seam, and putting a vase full of flowers in front of every wall, hoping you won't notice my incompetence.

Americanism: A Talent A Stewardship

Remember the parable of the talents?  I believe it has reference beyond just the money, gifts and abilities that come to mind naturally as we think about it.  Our circumstances as Americans are a gift.  The constitution is a gift.  Freedom is a gift.

Viewed that way, what are we doing with our uniquely American gifts?  The master is away and he expects us to create increase with the talents he gave us.  Think of that responsibility.  For the most part, we haven't actively pursued our stewardship.  We've allowed much of our gift of freedom to be taken and ruined.  Our talents have decreased considerably since our founding.

The good news is, we can still change.  We can still repent and set things aright.  But we've got to act.  The ignorance, laziness, evasion of responsibility and apathy that have plagued us must be abandoned in favor of educated, organized activity.

We have hired a bunch of people to act for us, politically.  But just as in the case of hiring someone for any work you need done, the less you know about it, the more vulnerable you are to being ripped off.  Most Americans haven't read the constitution since school days.  Most pay no attention to what's going on in Washington or even locally.  We hired these people.  And when the cat's away, the mice will play.  They've been playing.  They've grown from mice to rats.  They've made a rat's nest of our government.

  But it's not enough to throw them out of office and begin again.  They need supervision.  Evidently, they need micro-management.  In my business, I tend to be a hands off manager.  My guys know what to do and they do it.  Usually this works fine, but sometimes I have to step in and oversee things.  I don't really enjoy it.  But it has to be done.  I'm responsible.  It's my name out there.  The same goes for you as a sovereign citizen.  You're responsible.  But keep in mind, everything we do as we see to our responsibilities as overseers of the government will lead to huge payoffs.  Freedom, power, happiness and money await us as we clean our political house and then are constantly vigilant against the enemies of freedom.

The (Empty) Victory of Affirmative Action

Did you ever let someone win?  For instance, has there been a time when you were playing, say, basketball with a kid and you went easy on him?  This is one of those areas of raising kids or just dealing  with kids, where we adults have to walk a thin line between help and hindrance.  Maybe sometimes it's ok to let a kid win.  But at least sometimes it doesn't work out.  Especially if the kid finds out; it's a completely empty victory.  This is another area where our desire to shield him from pain can backfire.

Another issue for parents is when to lose the training wheels on your kid's bike.  They help the kid to keep from tipping over, right?  Up to a point; but beyond that, the training wheels can actually cause him to tip over if he takes a corner too fast.

The point is, at some point, the kid is ready to lose the training wheels and it's no longer necessary or healthy to let him experience unearned victories.  As he gets older and begins to experience the adult world, he learns that any coddling he experienced in his early life will not be replicated in adult life.  He sees that only hard earned victories are meaningful to him.  He discovers his strengths and develops his talents and rejects unneeded assistance.  He can; he wants to do it by himself.

Well, many elements in our culture and society have worked hard to stifle those feelings of independence, self reliance and capability.  If you can be made to feel a part of some under privileged minority, you've been convinced that you can't do it without special help.  The system, the machine has now made it possible for you to win a major bike race with training wheels on your bike and with officials holding everyone else back.  I'm referring, of course, to affirmative action.  They've so succeeded in killing people's pride and "can do" attitude that people are to blind to the facts that, number one, they don't need training wheels, number two, their victory is ridiculous if others were held back to make that victory possible.  They should be mortified and outraged.  But they blithely cross the finish line and hold out their hand for the prize.

Those who invented and who seek to perpetuate this system are the racists, sexists, etc.  And we all, especially those "helped" by the system, must reject it.  It is just another example of being treated like a kid when you're an adult.  You don't need special treatment and if you reached the position you now occupy because of any special treatment, you should feel ashamed.  All you've done is the equivalent of win the aforementioned bike race.  You need to go back, lose the training wheels and make sure no one is held back to give you an empty, unearned victory.

No Trespassing Against Private Property

The entire concept that is America is founded upon the idea of private property.  Yet we're riddled with laws, ordinances and restrictions when it comes to our private property.  Just look at all of the zoning laws, etc.

A couple of years ago, my father in law sold his father's land.  The city wanted to preserve open spaces in this rural area.  I can empathize with this sentiment.  But the city's feelings and mine have nothing to do with someone's private property.  Conditional to the city "allowing" the sale of the property, my father in law had to gift a portion of the land to the city and the buyer was restricted in subdividing it to large lots.  The city didn't want the lots to be too small.  All of this unnaturally lowered the value of the land.

Let me reiterate that I understand and share the desire for open spaces.  But regardless of how the rest of us may feel about it, the property belongs to the owner and its sale has nothing to do with us.  In fact, I'm free to purchase the property myself and do whatever I want with it, open spaces or otherwise.

If I don't like the particular shirt you're wearing today, can I walk up to you on the street and force you to change it?  Gee, your hair looks funny.  Let me drag you to the barber and fix it.  Hey, that guy you paid to do your lawn didn't do it my way; you have to fix that.  You can't sell your car until you paint it a color I like better than that ugly white.  We don't like you, so we took a vote and we're going to hang you.

The absurdity is easily illustrated in smaller things, but some line is crossed when it comes to land and suddenly we, who are the city, can trample someone's property rights.  And we actually feel good about ourselves.  After all , we're preserving open spaces.  Well, your hanging creates open space, too.  Everyone knows we're overpopulated.

Big and Rich = Bad?

The media and pop culture have succeeded in convincing us that since America's the biggest kid on the playground, and the richest, we're bad; we should feel guilty.  It's not "fair."  We also translate this notion to an individual level.  "The big guy's got it out for the little guy."  "Small businesses we may be able to tolerate, but big businesses (Michael Medved makes the case for big business in his book, "The 10 big lies about America") are evil."  I believe some individuals of means in our country actually feel bad about having more than others; as if having what they have takes something away from someone who has less.

We've been conditioned to root for the little guy.  On one hand, it's inspiring to see someone struggle from rags to riches.  On the other hand, too often, the bad guy in a given movie, against whom the hero must struggle from rags to riches, is almost always someone hugely successful- big and rich.  One example of this in a movie is Secretariat.  I love the movie.  I willingly root for the underdog against the big, established companies.  I'm just saying it gives me pause the way the big and rich are portrayed in much of our media.

This leads me to another observation.  How do you know if someone's good; if someone's done any good in the world?  What evidence of good deeds is detectable in a man?

Two things come to mind: happiness and money.  And money is more objectively, more easily observed.  Remember, a rich man got his money the same way you get yours; by serving others.  The more and better you serve others and the greater the number of others you serve, the more money you make.  Yet these great servants are looked upon as pariahs, as "the man," as the bad guy who must be beaten in order for the little gut to succeed.

These accepted notions are also applied to America.  "America is imperialistic."  Well, America has done more in the world and been paid less for it than any nation in history.  We don't go around taking over other countries, though we could.  We're the big kid on the playground, but instead of being a bully ourselves, we're the world's bodyguard against the world's bullies.  But as the big and rich, we're hated instead of thanked.

I'm dedicated to the idea of reuniting the "rich" and the "poor" in our great nation.  Evil, conspiring men have long sought to divide and conquer us.  But don't you see?  We're the same.  We've both earned what we have.  Maybe the rich have has more opportunities.  But let's preserve (restore) those opportunities for everyone, rather than taking them away from anyone.  There is "enough and to spare."  That someone has more takes nothing away from you; just as the fact that you have more than many people takes nothing away from them.

Speaking of big and rich, the biggest and richest guy I know created this earth.

If You Hate America, Leave

This is a sentiment I certainly share.  But it's unrealistic.  The reason the enemies of liberty won't leave is because all of the money and power are here.  This is where it's "at."  We all want and need this golden goose.  It's just that some want to take or get rather than earn the money and power available here.  It goes back to greed- the desire for the unearned.  This is the desire that drives people to buy lottery tickets.  It also happens to be behind the idea that businessmen and CEOs are just corporate fatcats with golden parachutes, etc.  If your underlying supposition is that wealth is a matter of luck, this leads you to believe that those who have it didn't earn it; they were just in the right place at the right time and stumbled backwards into a huge salary.  If that's what you think, no wonder you have no more respect for those who have earned wealth than you do for a lottery winner.  Wealth is one of the only objective measures of value creation.  "Potential" is nothing until it's realized.  It's true that some people inherit money or a large company.  But that's the exception, not the rule (read "The Millionaire Next Door.")  It is the height of ignorance to armchair quarterback these major CEOs and owners of big corporations and oil magnates.  Look, this is America.  If these guys did nothing to earn what they have and it's so easy to do what they do, why haven't you done it?  In America, your opportunity is staring you right in the face.  Mom used to say you couldn't judge a man until you walked a mile in his moccasins.  Well, get walking!

The other thing that occurs to me is in this vein of earned vs. unearned wealth has to do with actors, pop stars and professional athletes.  By way of disclaimer, I'm against legislating lower salaries for these people.

To start a company and see it through to profitability takes years of toil, disappointment, failure, loss of money, time and more.  There is growth that takes place in an individual who undertakes this path.  In this way, he grows into his money. 

Francisco D'anconia said, "A man can never be smaller than his money."  With that in mind, and in full knowledge that I tread precariously on the thin ice of contradicting myself, I submit that actors et al do not earn what they have in the same way a businessman does.  The evidence for this is the crime committing, drugs taking, etc. lifestyle of this odd group of people.  It's ironic that most of us probably don't approve of this lifestyle, yet we financially support it.

Big Business Men vs. Big Government Men

Many distrust the former in favor of the latter.  Well, they both want your money.  The difference is, a business man must persuade you to give him your money by offering you something of value for it.  He must make it worth your while.  He can't force you.  He can't just take your money at the point of a gun.  And there it is.  The fact is, the big government man CAN forcefully confiscate your money and he does so, via taxes.

Why, then do we instinctively put more trust in the government man than in the business man?  Is it because the business man is only in it for the money?  Do you work for free?  Or do you collect a paycheck?  I guess you, too, are only in it for the money.  Again, you're just like that big business man.  You wouldn't show up at work if not for the paycheck.  Why shouldn't a business man be paid for his work, as well?  Is it all in the size of the paycheck?  You get to say how much is too much for one man to make?  By what right?  By the same right that allows someone somewhere who makes less than you to say YOU make too much?

My question becomes, if the big government men aren't motivated by money, what motivates them?  Is it that they're above the rest of us; they're as clean and pure as the wind driven snow?  They do whatever it is they do for us because they love us? 

I certainly don't know anyone as "virtuous" as that.  Or is it these bureaucrat's and politician's desire for power that drives them?  That seems a little more likely, doesn't it?  Well, then the two groups of men share common desires.  But again, there is legitimate power and then there is illegitimate power, as explained in Ayn Rand's "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal."

With the business man's earned money comes power; the power to buy things he wants, the power to hire people to do things, etc.  You, at your level enjoy some of that legitimate power.  Big government men enjoy illegitimate power we've allowed them to usurp from us.  They're only supposed to act in defense of liberty; to react to threats and violations of our liberty.  They're to do nothing until those threats and /or violations are present.  In fact, they've got a lot to undo, to unfetter us, the people.  And it's we the people who must force them to give up their unconstitutional power.  They won't do it on their own.  They like forcing us to do what they think we should do.  And so that is what we must do: go to that caucus meeting, contact that congressman, attend that tea party event, get involved with "freedom works."  We allowed these problems to occur, but we can fix them.

Selfishness and the Pusuit of Happiness

Is it selfish to pursue happiness?  Joseph Smith said, "Happiness is the object and design of our existence."  The scriptures say, "...men are that they might have joy." 

Ayn Ran wrote a nonfiction book called, "The Virtue of Selfishness."  I know it's a shocking title.  I think that was on e of her points, but she makes a good case.

I believe that one of the most, maybe THE most selfish thing you can do is to go out of your way to serve others; to run around going multiple extra miles and doing as much as possible for as many people as possible.  Am I insane?  Maybe it will help if I refer to "enlightened self-interest" instead.  Think about it.   Who benefits most when you serve?  You do!  There's that instant sensation of well-being that translates to enduring joy.  Often there are other blessings that pop up out of nowhere.  Often we're paid based on our level of excellence in service.  And ultimately, heaven awaits him who loses himself in service to others.  Add it up.  Service is a great gig.  Can anyone really argue that this pursuit of happiness is evil?  When my route to happiness serves so many so well, how can it be bad, even though it led my self to happiness, and I wanted that happiness for myself.

God wants us, his children to make it home.  This will make him happy, just as I will be happy when my kids grow up if they make it home to see me periodically.  Is this a selfish (in the accepted, bad way) God, as he seeks to do all he can to get us back to make him happy?

The Fallacy of "Fairness"

I remember being in church once and the guy at the pulpit said, "Life's not fair.  If it were, I'd have had to beat the girls off with a stick when I was in school."  I was about 10 years old but it stuck with me.  I can see the truth there.  However, it seems to clash with the idea that "all men are created equal."   Or does it?  The way I interpret that phrase in the Declaration of Independence is that each of us has an equally fair shot at heaven and happiness.  Again, it's all relative.

It's our childish notions of fairness that get us into trouble.  We seek to level the playing field.  One arena where we've yet to seek to equalize outcomes via a leveling of the playing field is the literal playing field.  I love football.  I've never played except with my friends for fun.  But what if, in the name of fairness, I were able to force the NFL to let me play and to level the playing field by bringing the rest of the players down to my level.  They would have to play with one leg and at least one arm tied behind heir backs to make it fair; in order for me to be able to compete with them.  Many of them would have to lose a lot of weight, etc. so I could play.  Sound good?  No?  You wouldn't pay to see that game?  No.  There wouldn't be an NFL.  I would've effectively ruined it.

We're not all the same.  We have different abilities.  I'm excellent at some things.  I suck at others.  You're the same way.  Some people are great at making money.  Many of us aren't.  That's how it is.  To deny it is to deny reality, to ignore the truth.  Think of your talents.  Should you be punished for being better at something than I am?

But, see, that's why people hate Capitalism.  Some people win more than others.  But it's the system in which we all win the maximum amount possible, as evidenced by our standard of living.  It doesn't/hasn't/won't help to try to cut the top people down to a "fair" level.  That just make losers of us all.  And if we continue to try to cut people down there won't be an America.  We will have effectively ruined it.  America is the goose that lays golden eggs.  The "rich" are major layers of golden eggs.  If we kill that goose, no more eggs.  Just a dead goose.

Who's Rich?

The guy who's rich has quite a story to tell.  He's likely been through many years of blood, sweat and tears.  He's been through hell.  You've experienced this yourself to one degree or another.  You've accomplished a lot but not without your share of challenges.

The way money is made is:  some guy has an idea.  But instead of sitting around dreaming about it, he springs into action and makes it happen.  After years of toil and pain and failure and trial and error, he "suddenly" finds himself with a service or product so great, so in demand, he needs help getting it to everyone who wants it.  So, he has to hire people to help him.  He then becomes "rich" or, to be more accurate, richer, since everything is relative.

At this point, the phrase the rest of us, whether rich or poor, ought to be searching for is, "thank you."  Thanks for the great service or product. Thanks for the job.  Instead, we denigrate and enslave him.

The thing he's done isn't easy to do, as each of us knows well, based on our own attempts at success.  We have so much more in common with "the rich" than we have to fear from them or than we have reason to knock them down a peg or two.  For one thing, we share a desire for, and are engaged in diligent effort for the kind of success we see them realizing.  To hurt them is to hurt our own chances at success.

A great example of this is Hank Reardon, a character in Ayn Rand's book, "Atlas Shrugged."  Hank started at a tender age, working in mines and mills.  He worked his way up and eventually owned his own mills and mines.  Not all of us have his energy and ambition, but why should we jealously try and hamper his progress?  Anyway, he worked for ten years, trying to invent an alloy better and cheaper than steel.  After ten years, he finally did it!  And yes, he was rich.  Eventually, the government took his metal away from him.  That's why it's called Atlas Shrugged.  Hank is one Atlas, with the weight of the world  resting on his shoulders.  His metal is extremely useful and valuable to everyone.  But he didn't do it for everyone else.  He did it for the joy of accomplishment; because he wanted to show himself he could.  Profit, too, is a motive; but more-so, he just enjoyed shaping the elements of the earth to his will, he loved making something wonderful, of expressing the keen agility of his mind.  His riches extend far beyond just dollars.

Greed

Greed is definitely not the desire for the fruits of your labor.  I see it more as the desire for the unearned.  Profit, too, has become ill defined, ill understood.  Profit is just the given name of  a guy's earnings in a particular business deal.  It's exactly the same as your earnings in your paycheck.  I guess I could sit here and accuse you of being worth less than you earn but it's none of my business. By the same token, it's none of your business what some business owner earns.  The only difference is that his is called profit and yours is called a wage or a salary.  See, you're a greedy capitalist, too!  Unless you're willing to give up some of your paycheck.

Regulation?

The constitution authorizes the government to "regulate interstate commerce." Well, what in the world does that mean?  The word "regulate" seems to come from the word regular.  So, to regulate something, I would define as making it regular, normal, unfettered, free to operate optimally.  But our bureaucrats and politicians heartily disagree.  They are in the game of protecting us from each other and ourselves.  Now, I agree that the government should step in if someone's individual inalienable rights are violated.  If I'm being mugged, I want the cops to help me.  If a terrorist is about to blow himself up near me or near anyone else, I want soldiers to shoot him.  But the government goes way beyond that.

Maybe this example will illustrate:
Let's say you go into McDonald's and order your meal deal.  Just as you're about to pay, some guy appears out of nowhere beside you at the counter and tells you you're paying too little or that you ordered something he doesn't approve of or he turns to the McDonald's guy and tells him he's charging too much and that he'll have to take less than you were willing to pay, etc.  Does that sound right to you?  Do you need that guy to intervene for you?  No?  Well, neither does anyone else.

The Marriage of Freedom and Responsibility

We all want freedom.  I see it as a synonym of happiness of power.  They all go together.  But we have to realize that, with freedom, comes responsibility.  In fact, I'd say that one path to freedom is to take responsibility.  And one reason we allow freedom to be taken from us is our natural laziness which leads to a tendency to evade responsibility.  Not to mention the fact that we see others (the less fortunate, less educated, etc.) as victims and as unable to take responsibility; so it becomes ok to burden the achievers, the producers, the rich, with government "regulation" in order to protect the less fortunate from the more fortunate; which is to protect the irresponsible from the responsible.  The trouble with evasion of responsibility is, when we avoid it, when we run from it, when we lose it, we also lose freedom.

For example, I'm a drywall contractor.  Under our (formerly) capitalist society, a given homeowner and I find ourselves fully competent and able to take the responsibility and the consequences of freely trading with each other.  The homeowner feels confident in his ability to judge whether he should hire me at the agreed price and I feel confident in my ability to judge whether it's worth it to me.  We are agreed.  He may get other bids or haggle with me or strike some obscure bargain.  It's up to the 2 of us.  He's free to hire me or not.  I'm free to charge whatever I want.  But he may not hire me if my price is too high.  On the other hand, if I charge too little, I make no money.  Over 10 years of contracting this has happened several times and I've even ended up paying money out of pocket a couple of times for the privilege of doing a particular job.  I've also periodically had a very high profit margin.  It's all on a job by job basis and there is definitely risk involved.  But neither of us wants or needs some government bureaucrat or politician stepping in to set the price or conditions or anything else.  We're good. 

Most people can relate to this, and are willing and confident about taking either role.  But the bill of goods we've been sold and, unfortunately, far too many of us have bought into is that there are people who aren't competent, who lack the savvy to deal in such a way.  And that's how we end up signing off on the idea of "regulating" the big guy (me) to protect the little guy (the homeowner...wait, HE'S hiring ME.  How's that make him the little guy?)

Well, here's the hidden truth: the little guy IS competent and savvy, just like you.  He'll figure it out just as you would.  And if he's just beginning his learning curve, who are we to step in and trip him up?  Mistakes, failures are life's way of teaching him, of making him better.

The trouble is, we want to treat people like children.  The hardest thing about raising kids is knowing when to step in and intervene, control, protect.  Part of the process is forcing ourselves as parents to hold back and let them make their mistakes and pick themselves up and learn by doing.  We can't do it for them.  They learn by trying, much more than they learn by us doing it for them, in an effort to protect them from pain and embarrassment. 

The same goes for our fellow adults out in the world.  It's nice to have concern for them, but we owe them the respect of treating them as our equals.  They have the potential to be as great as we are or as we see ourselves to be, even if they have to make some mistakes and experience some pain along the way.

You see, each man wants freedom.  And we all must get out of the way and get the government out of the way and let each other take the responsibility that is inseparably attached to that freedom.  Remember, "The stronger the wind, the tougher the trees."

Reclaiming the defifniton of Patriotism

To state the obvious, patriotism is love of country.  And, Mrs. Clinton, no one said it was unpatriotic to criticize the government.  What needs defining is the country.  What is America?  Think about it.  What is the one thing that sets us apart?  Is it apple pie?  The hamburger?  Baseball?  Chevrolet?  Rock and Roll?  I give credit to Rush Limbaugh for shining the light on this one for me.  It's freedom!  It's capitalism!  Let's not confuse it with anarchy.  We're a republic. We live under the rule of law.  In fact, I argue that this is what makes America great: our constitution, our laws and the freedom they protect.  Every nation has great people.  Only in America has that greatness been released to such a large extent.  This is why we're the greatest, wealthiest nation ever.  Freedom: the ability to associate and trade with each other unencumbered; without anyone else's sanction, permission, oversight, licensing, regulation, etc.  That's what the Fathers founded.  That's what's been so great.  That's what we've spent 100 years hindering or allowing to be hindered.  And it's time we brought it back.

How do we fix America?

The short answer is: by restoring the constitution.  Freedom is THE answer.  It's what made America great to begin with.  Yet we've sought to destroy it, almost from our founding.  More on that, later.  Anyway, the fix is in.  And, sorry, it's not sexy.  It's more of a statement of the obvious.  And it involves a lot of work.  It's you.  Yeah.  You're a sovereign citizen of the greatest nation ever.  Sovereign means you're  king (or queen.)  You're in charge.  The bad news is, it's your fault.  It's my fault.  Each of us as individuals is responsible for the state of the union.  We're their bosses.  We run the government, through our elected representatives.  So, it's time we, via the tea party, freedomworks.com, letters to congress, our vote, etc. retake the wheel; step back up to the plate and start swinging.  We got busy with life and trusted the wrong people to drive the bus/win the game.  And now the bus is half way over the cliff and we're way behind in the count.  It will be hard, but we can restore America.  We must.

In a word, what's going wrong in America?

The word is covetousness.  The 10th commandment is, "Thou shalt not covet...anything that is thy neighbor's."  To covet is to desire.  This is the true definition of greed: the desire for the unearned.  It's this desire, this envy/jealousy that plagues America and, really, the world.

There is always someone who has more.  And we wish we had more; so it becomes ok to tax "the rich" because they have way more than they need.

Well, guess what.  Just as there's always someone who has more, there's also always someone who has less than you.  I lived in Brazil for 2 years and the vast, vast majority or people there would look, in fact, do look, upon our poorest here with envy.  It's all relative.

It's only a matter of time before they come after "poor" you and your money because compared to most of the world, you have way more than you need.  Actually, they've already come for you indirectly.  How do you think those "fatcats" in our country pay their taxes?  They add it to the price of the goods and services you're buying from them.  You're also paying for it via lost job opportunities because of the crippling effect high taxes and "regulation" have on the job creators.  You literally gain nothing from their suffering.  You only lose.  Unless you count what's taken from them through taxes and given to you as welfare.  But I don't think anyone would argue that the welfare life is better than the life you provide for yourself at a good job.

A Heavenly Banner

Our American Constitution has been called a Heavenly banner.  What does that mean?  Well, the Star Spangled Banner is the symbol of our country; our republic.  It represents America. 


The Constitution, then, is a symbol of  Heaven.  It represents Heaven.  I would go as far as to say that the Constitution is the closest thing to an establishment of heaven on earth.


Agency is enshrined in God's plan.  It is protected by the constitution.  Protected from what?  From whom?  The government.  Which is to say, from force; or as Ayn Rand put it, from the "initiation of force" (see "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal")  The government can only act by force.  Its only legitimate role is to step in when someone's individual inalienable rights are being violated (such as being mugged or being attacked by a foreign power) and force the violator to stop, via the police or the military.  In that case, the violator initiated force and the government stepped in to protect the freedom of him whose rights were violated.


Unfortunately, in our times and really for the past 100 years or so, the government has stepped into the role of initiating force. That is, they force you to give up your money or to conduct your business in a certain way; their way.  And that isn't heavenly at all.  When's the last time God forced you to do things His way?

Charity vs. Legalized Mugging

The central premise of my philosophy is best illustrated by the following:

Let's say I happen to know a family that's in desperate need of food, healthcare, clothing, shelter, etc.  I also happen to know you and that you're considerably better off than that family.  Is it ok for me to mug you in some dark alley, if I give everything I take from you to that family?  Most people would say no.  But how is this different from the government taking our money by force through taxes?  Where does freedom or agency enter that equation?  Stealing is still stealing whether it's legal or not.  There may be merit to the idea that, we the American people allow it, or at least we're not doing much to change it, so we must want it, so it's ok.  But what about individuals, like me, who don't want it?

I believe in the holy mandate of charity.  I believe we're blessed for it; so much so that, when we give, it's a gain, not a loss to the giver; both because of the eternal rewards and the immediate happiness that accompanies such giving.  But I don't believe those blessings are available to us when the government acts in our stead; when it forces us to do right.  In fact, I think it's Satanic, not to mention unconstitutional.