Whenever we try to spread a belief, we encounter a problem. Other people have their own agendas, and their agendas usually do not coincide with our own. So to sell our belief, we have to convince others that accepting our belief will further their own interests. That tends to be easier said than done.
Once they realize we are trying to proselytize, our targets become automatically skeptical.
Our targets are generally already sold on their own beliefs. When our belief conflicts with their own, we must first convince them they are wrong. Nobody likes to be proved wrong.
People have their own plans and agendas; they do not want to be bothered.
Nonetheless, countless people are converted or sold on various ideas and beliefs every year. Since I want sell people on Conservatism and Christianity, I have spent a little time wondering how the selling of a belief is done. The answer? I still don’t know, but I have been asked (here).
I can tell you about the problems.
Since I am a Conservative, and the Republican Party believes in limited government, I am also a Republican. Unfortunately, while many elected Republican officials talk like Conservatives, very few walk the walk. With almost as much eagerness as Democrats, elected Republicans also tax and spend. That makes the Republican Party a hard sell even to other Conservatives. In fact, many people consider politics such a dirty business, they want no part of it.
I have come to Christianity late in life. A product of the public school system and the corporate mass media, I found it hard to reconcile the teachings of Christianity with the ideas with which the world constantly bombarded me. I did not relent in my agnosticism until I finally took the time to read the Bible. Why did I do that? I saw it worked for other people. Even though I was raised a Christian by Christians, achieving that simple understanding took over fifty years.
I don’t know enough about sales to list all the rules or to teach others how to sell. All I know is that what people need most from each other is honest love and concern. So I think it safe to say that the first thing a successful salesman does is to convince his target that he cares about them. Consider this passage from the Bible.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
The primary selling point of Christianity has always been the practice of Christianity. By being Christians — with our example — we proselytize for Christianity. Christianity sells because we each need to love and be loved. We each need to be part of a community where we believe we are wanted.
People come to church for many reasons, but they stay because the members of that church make each other welcome (See here for a sermon on this subject. The subject is John 12:20-22.). People come to Jesus because we bring each other to Jesus.
Modern Conservatism can succeed only if Conservatives adopt a similar strategy. We must emphasize how Conservatism can and will do a better job of building communities where people can love and care for each other. That is in fact what George W. Bush tried to do when he campaigned as a “compassionate Conservative.” Unfortunately, in the process of proving his compassion, Bush also proved his credentials as an avid tax and spender. What Bush failed to do is show how Conservatism itself provides the basis for compassionate and caring government policies.
Conservatives can begin by pointing to the inevitable result of an overemphasis on government solutions. Each government program creates a huge bureaucracy. Each of these bureaucracies is uncaring of individuals. Each bureaucracy knows us only by our social security number. Within government bureaucracies we become like rats in a labyrinth. With only our wits can we escape with a bit of cheese, a few dollars worth of whatever is dispersed by the denizens of that government institution.
Conservatism must point to Conservatism and explain that Conservatism is about choice. Conservative, limited government allows each citizen to find out for themselves the answer to questions such as these:
Where do I want to belong?
To what cause do I want to dedicate my life?
Socialists or Busybodyists already have their answers to these questions. And with the power that government gives them, they will force their answers on each and every citizen. If we want our rightful choices to be our own, we must each protect our right to choose. How do we begin? We each can begin by exercising our right to make our rightful choices. We can seek the communities where we belong. We can each dedicate our life to a worthwhile cause.
Before we can answer this question, we must do four things.
Properly define socialism.
Acknowledge what we actually need (not want) from government.
Consider the threat.
Pose a solution.
The Definition of Socialism
Consider the definition below.
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn: socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]
We tend to think of socialism and capitalism as polar opposites. Some laud Socialism as being based upon unselfishness whereas capitalism is the economics of selfishness. Others note the inefficiency of socialism. These people also point out a problem with giving the government the ownership of industry. When government owns everything, our too often not so unselfish leaders own us.
In practice we have an economic system that is a compromise between socialism and capitalism. Many suggest that any economic system exists somewhere on the continuum between socialism and capitalism, but that is not exactly true. There are many ways besides ownership for government to exercise control over the economy. Look at our tax code, for example. Federal, state, and local governments use reams of paper to document a tax code that influences where we shop and what we buy. How many people buy instead of rent just for that tax break that allows us to deduct the interest on our mortgage?
As defined, the term socialism simply does adequately describe how government can control property and people. As we shall see, ownership is an unnecessary luxury. Instead of owning our property (or us) outright, government can selectively tax, subsidize, regulate, and indoctrinate. Instead of owning, government can use carrots and sticks, and if that does not work, government can just tell us what to do and punish us when we do not obey.
Without appearing to be as powerful as they actually happen to be, our leaders can exercise enormous power. If all that matters is power and control, ownership is a luxury.
Power and control over others are what some people seek above all else. Since we call such people busybodies, we may as well call their ideology Busybodyism. Can we also cease using the term socialism? No.
What Do We Need From Government?
Our nation’s founders defined what we need from government quite concisely in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,… (from here)
We do not need government to educate us, feed us, provide us medical care, give us money in retirement, protect us from poverty… We do not need government to give us things. We need government to protect our rights. In fact, whenever government gives us things, government has to violate the rights of some of our fellow citizens. When government gives us things, it takes from our fellow citizens. So when we demand that government give us something, we are demanding a government that threatens the rights of our fellow citizens.
What Is The Threat?
We are the threat. We each tend to be a control freak or a busybody, and politicians are most likely the worst amongst us (see here). We want the comfort of an assured solution. We do not like to depend upon the decisions of others. We want to be certain that other people will make the “right decision.” So rather than relying upon our neighbors to decide what is best for themselves, we can be easily tempted to accept the promises of political opportunists (See this post for more on political opportunists.). Instead of doing what is best for the country, political opportunists promise us what we want. We give them more power, and, maybe, we each get some part of what we wanted.
Within republics, subtlety has always been a large part of the art of grasping for power. When Julius Caesar took over the Roman Empire, he did so with obvious intent. His opponents killed him. Because Caesar made it so readily apparent that he would be end of the Roman Republic, his enemies feared him. To avoid posing so obvious a threat, Caesar’s nephew, Octavius (as Augustus), maintained a facade. He formally returned power to the Roman Senate. In theory he relinquished his control of the Roman provinces and their armies. The new Augustus chose to hold onto the strings of power via other less obvious means.
Thus calmed, the citizens of Rome accepted dictatorship. The Augustus quietly assumed the reins, restored order, and skillfully soothed hurt feelings. After all, the new Augustus was only the first amongst equals. With minimal fuss, the Roman Republic quietly died.
In our quest for material things and nice little perks, we easily forget the reasons behind traditions. Remember for a moment the celebration of Christmas, that day less than a month ago. For how many of us has the birth of Christ faded into Santa Claus and Christmas Trees? Just as we too easily forget the reason for the season (and have to be reminded), we also forget the reason we need our government. Then, instead of having a government that protects our Rights, including Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; we end up with a government that gives us things.
So When Is Socialism The Best Moral Choice?
Unfortunately, socialism is sometimes necessary. Sometimes the government must own and operate institutions. Yet whenever we think about government, we must remember that government exists only to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government does not exist just so we can impose our will (or supposed solution) on others. Wherever we use power of government, we should use the minimum amount of government required to get the job done.
Government power is required when an individual’s free choice would unacceptably infringe on the rights of others. For example, we cannot allow bank robbers, or those lawfully accused of bank robbery, their freedom. Because even suspected bank robbers cannot be trusted, in such instances we have no choice except to have appointed public servants restrain the accused. Even so, to keep the power of government officials in check, we have juries. Whenever possible, we defuse power from government leaders.
Look back into our history. At the time of our nation’s founding, all the institutions of government were unavoidably government institutions. What private concern can be trusted to run their own private army, police, court system, or to set up our nation’s currency? Although all these things have existed (and still do). Nevertheless, without firm government regulation, private armies, private police, private court systems, and private currencies can too easily raise havoc.
Government power is also required when no private alternative exists. Efficient commerce requires government regulation, not necessarily government ownership. Without laws against fraud, for example, commerce between strangers becomes extremely difficult. Imagine, for example, being on the road and being stopped to pay tolls on unregulated private roads. Imagine not being able to trust the restaurants. What if you had no idea what was in the food or even whether it was safe to eat?
Because we have the right to travel, we need roads and government exercises powers such as the right of eminent domain. Nonetheless, consider the conundrum we have put ourselves in. We all pay for roads we will never use. Why do citizens in Florida pay for a road in Alaska? The reason is that we have placed no checks on the powers of our leaders. We give them our money and let them freely choose how to spend it. When toll roads were still common, we did not give our leaders our money to spend until we were ready to drive on the road. So the roads went where we needed them to go.
There is no simple straightforward rule that clearly defines in every case when government needs to own and operate, needs to tax, needs to subsidized or needs to indoctrinate. Our Constitution resulted only after years of debate and the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Because we have no clear solution, we will always argue.
Nevertheless, each of us needs to examine carefully our own motives. Are we insisting on a government solution because we are just being busybodies? Are we concerned about our neighbor’s rights or are we just trying to get what we want? If the truth is the latter, then we each need to remember that if we get what we want we will be the poorer for it.
We have always had those noble souls who earnestly concern themselves with the affairs of others.
The victory of President-elect Barack Obama just about assures that judges will institute same-sex marriage in this nation. It is just a matter of time. This will occur in spite of the fact the majority opposes same-sex marriage. Why? How come the opinion of the majority does not count?
The Argument For Same-Sex Marriage
Let’s consider the argument for same-sex marriage.
Marriage is defined as a sexual relationship between two adults who love each other.
Marriage is a civil right.
Denying same-sex couples the “right” to marry denies them their civil rights and the benefits of marriage.
With these arguments we also get a lot of sob stories and the complaint that same-sex couples should be able to have families just like heterosexual couples.
Even though these arguments are foolish, to some they make sense. Some people think government is about giving us what we want. Because a bunch of politicians have discriminated in favor of people who are married and raising children, we are suppose to fix that wrong with another wrong. We are suppose to redefine marriage and families.
Marriage currently exists both as a religious ceremony and as the government’s recognition of the union of a man and woman. The vast majority (I hope.) still concedes that what churches do about marriage is their own business. What the government does about marriage should involve protecting the rights of children, the only parties to a heterosexual union who need such special protection. That makes the government’s motivation for marriage about responsibility, not rights. Since same-sex partners cannot have children, there is no requirement for government to recognize or endorse such sexual relationships.
Of course, the subject of children leads to adoption and artificial insemination. However, what bringing up adoption and artificial insemination actually demonstrates is how far same-sex “marriage” advocates have to go to “prove” their argument. It underlines the simple fact the interests of a child are best served when that child has both a father and a mother. It underlines the fact that same-sex “marriage” does not protect anybody’s rights. Instead, what it shows it that our nation needs families with responsible fathers and mothers. Unfortunately, responsibility gets much less airplay than rights.
Most realize sexual confusion is not a right. Most understand that sexual confusion is simply a condition which makes marriage improbable. Nonetheless, the arguments for same-sex “marriage” are slowly working. Even though redefining marriage makes about as much sense as the way some people have redefined the word “gay,” the arguments for same-sex “marriage” are slowly carrying the day. Even though two wrongs do not make a right and most people understand sexual confusion is not a right, enough people have accepted the arguments for same-sex “marriage.” Enough people voted for Obama and a majority Democratic Party Congress. So homosexual rights activists will get their judges.
The Problem Of Busybodies
How did we get into this mess? Too few people understand the concept of civil rights. A wise and productive person generally wants the right to be left in peace. Such a person wants to go about his business without unnecessary interference. It is enough work to get anything useful done without a bunch of busybodies (see Busybodyism) trying to tell you what to do. Unfortunately, we have become a nation of busybodies.
The United States? A nation of busybodies. Sounds like a joke, right? Look what has happened in the last year. We reached a new threshold. We started spending hundreds of billions to bail out failing banks and business enterprises. We have millions of people making their failures the responsibility and business of others. How did that happen? We are being lead by political opportunists.
Because busybodies delight in self-righteously meddling in the affairs of others, political opportunists need busybodies. Busybodies empower political opportunists. In return for political donations, political opportunists provide elaborate explanations of how this or that is unfair and not right. A political opportunist will happily concoct a grand scheme that “fixes” some perceived unfairness.
With the support of busybodies, political opportunists promote empowered politicians, more laws, more bureaucrats, more law suits, more red tape, more wasted money, more poverty, and more problems. More problems lead, of course, to more political donations and more grand schemes. If you are a political opportunist, you cannot succeed without busybodies. Anybody except a busybody will be more concerned about the conduct of their own affairs.
Supposedly, we do not have government just to make busybodies and political opportunists happy. We have government and laws to protect our rights. Unfortunately, most of us now vote for what we can get out our government, and we have made government a booming growth industry. Our own greed and nosiness condemn us. Our own greed and nosiness permits scalawags and carpetbaggers to buy our votes with whatever grand schemes they can dream up. In time, our own greed and nosiness will make us all poor and the slaves of scalawags and carpetbaggers.
So What Do We Do?
As should be apparent by now, this post is not just about same-sex “marriage.” Some make a great deal about the evils of same-sex “marriage.” How evil same-sex “marriage” is I do not know. I know same-sex “marriage” is not marriage, but I doubt that by itself same-sex “marriage” will be the downfall of our society. What I fear is our inability to restrain even such obvious silliness.
Most of us never give much thought to the ethics of government. Instead we become enthralled by less important matters such as what the sexually confused are doing in their bedrooms. We do complain about corrupt politicians, yet few of us notices that it is our ethics that our leaders practice. It is our demands that our leaders carry out.
Instead of complaining, we need to ask a fundamental question. Where does government get the power to tax? Where does the majority get the right to demand that those who do not wish to pay taxes pay taxes? How do we morally justify throwing someone in jail for refusing to pay taxes? Imagine the citizen who complains: “I do not want to pay taxes so you can “invest” in X, Y, or Z.” Do you have the right to throw that citizen in jail just because he is uninterested in financing a mass transit system he will never use?
Can you even claim the “right” of the majority? Because we all want some goody from government, political opportunists do not need majority support; they just need majority indifference. Look again at the bailouts. Even when the majority disapproves, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars. When so much of this money goes to fund pork and to line the pockets of the corrupt, how can the political opportunists who lead us be so confident of their power?
How? They understand our greed. When government becomes about giving us things — Christmas presents from Uncle Sam — instead of protecting each citizen’s right to be left in peace, they know we have lost control. The political opportunist knows that in return for getting our goodies we will ignore every other porky purchase he makes with our money. So that the old can collect Social Security and Medicare, homeowners can write off their mortgage interest, and parents can get an exemption for each child, a developer will get an Interstate highway interchange, a corporation will get a special tax break, a snooty society matron will get her opera on PBS and NPR, rich homosexual rights activists will get their judges, and so forth.
Before we can reform our government, we each must reform ourselves. In some Christian traditions, there are four cardinal virtues (see here):
Prudence – able to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time
Justice – proper moderation between the self-interest and the rights and needs of others
Restraint or Temperance – practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation
Courage or Fortitude – forbearance, endurance, and ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation
When we demand favors from our government, goodies and special rights, we steal from our neighbors and we burden our children with debt. When we engage in such behavior, we violate every cardinal virtue and risk destroying both ourselves and our nation. If we care for our children, we must stop.
We have also always had those people who sincerely believe their problem is your problem.
Based upon the issues I care about, this post is my effort to evaluate Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s candidate for president. The last section of this post, The Issues, describes those issues.
I have already evaluated the Republican Party’s candidate, John McCain, at this post. For a comparison, please refer to the post on John McCain.
To all intents and purposes, Obama appears to be a decent man. At least, it is not obvious that Obama has engaged in a pattern of bad behavior. Nonetheless, I do not intend to vote for him. I object intensely to his politics. For all practical purposes, what Obama advocates is outright socialism.
In addition, I do not like Obama’s associates. In the last section of this post, Personal Life, I discuss Barack Obama associations. While I do not believe in guilt by association, it makes me extremely nervous when a politician must so often disown so many people and organizations he has formerly praised.
The Candidate on the Issues
Education – Obama unabashedly promises to get the Federal Government fully involved in the education of our children. If Obama fulfills this promise, educational levels will continue their slow decline.
In math and science U.S. 15 year-olds are being outperformed by the majority of their peers around the world according to a recent NCES report Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15 Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context. (from here)
In addition, parents will have less and less control over the values taught to their children.
Consider how Obama defines the problem with the No Child Left Behind Act.
The goal of the law was the right one, but unfulfilled funding promises, inadequate implementation by the Education Department and shortcomings in the design of the law itself have limited its effectiveness and undercut its support. As a result, the law has failed to provide high-quality teachers in every classroom and failed to adequately support and pay those teachers. (from here)
Obama defines the problem as “inadequate implementation”. “Inadequate implementation” is Obama’s euphemism for insufficient funding. That is, Obama wants to spend more of our money. Why? Ostensibly, Obama wants to improve the education system. In practice, Obama is in the service of the most powerful education lobby. Both of the major teacher’s unions (see here and here) endorse Obama.
Because there are so many issues that affect our vote, a powerful minority can hold sway on a single issue. The teachers unions are powerful and they are focused on a single issue, education. The result is that the teacher’s unions, not parents, decide how children are educated.
Consider the irony of this story.
The New York City teachers’ union filed a federal lawsuit on Friday claiming that a policy banning political pins and signs in schools violates teachers’ First Amendment rights by blocking them from political expression.
The lawsuit comes nearly two weeks after the Department of Education sent a memo to principals directing them to enforce the longstanding regulation, which requires that all school staff members show “complete neutrality” while on duty. The policy also prohibits teachers from using school property to promote a candidate. (from here)
You think that a fluke? Consider a story closer to home.
Virginia Republicans are in an uproar after the state teacher’s union sent an e-mail to its members encouraging them to wear blue-colored shirts to school to show their support for Barack Obama.
State Republicans are calling it an undisguised attempt to influence students’ political views.
The Virginia Education Association sponsored “Obama Blue Day” on Tuesday. In an e-mail sent last week, it urged teachers to participate by dressing in blue.
“There are people out there not yet registered. You teach some of them,” the Sept. 25 e-mail reads. “Others, including our members, remain on the fence! Its time for us to come together, voice our unity, because we make a difference!”
“Let’s make Obama Blue Day a day of Action!” the e-mail continues. “Barack the vote!” (from here)
Do you think any teacher’s union would defend bringing religion into the classroom? Of course not. In the blending and homogenizing of a multicultural world, religion just complicates matters. Nonetheless, the teacher’s unions insist upon indoctrinating children in their values and political beliefs.
Let there be no doubt as to why the American educational system frustrates parents. The problem is too much government and not enough parenting. Instead of treating parents and children as the primary customers, our government-run education system treats the teacher’s unions as the primary customers. The result is an administrator top-heavy system that makes teacher’s pay and benefits its primary goal. Instead working to inculcate strong moral values into our children, our government-run education system works to make our nation’s children docile followers of the Democratic Party. If we allow it to continue on this course, our government-run education system will destroy our republican (Note the little “r”.) form of government.
Law – Before anyone votes for Obama, they should do two things.
Read the U. S. Constitution. This document is surprisingly short. Yet it is still the basic Law of our land. Is the Constitution flawless? No. When it was accepted by the people of America, the Constitution recognized the “right” own slaves. Only a great Civil War ended that evil. Yet when we observe and adhere to the Constitution, the document helps us to protect our freedom and our civil rights.
Read Obama’s Issues page on Civil Rights. Like most modern Democrats, Obama fails to appreciate the role government plays in denying us our civil rights. So when he sees what he perceives any disparity in civil rights, he reflexively calls for a Federal Government solution. Because people are imperfect, we will always have disagreements over what forms of discrimination are appropriate. Thus we have Obama’s call for a huge expansion of government busybody agencies (see BUSYBODYISM).
The battle over civil rights traces back to the furor over Jim Crow Laws. The roots of this battle go back to the era of slavery. What many have forgotten is that government made slavery possible. State governments in the Old South legalized and supported the “rights” of slave owners to own other people. This evil chapter in our history ended only after a great war and hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Federal Government used the force of arms to deny the “right” of state governments to enforce slavery.
Nonetheless, Southern Whites stubbornly persisted. When the period we call Reconstruction ended, the Southern States instituted Jim Crow Laws. If anything, the efforts of the Northern States to harshly punish the South and force their own views on the citizens of the Southern States exacerbated the viciousness of the Jim Crow Laws. Had the Northern States been content merely to end slavery and put Blacks and Whites on an equal footing before the Law, the Jim Crow Laws might not have been so strongly supported by vengeful citizens Southern States. No one will ever know, but conventional wisdom suggests that history might have been different if Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated.
Now Obama supports an abusive program of civil rights enforcement. Instead of relying upon existing laws, custom, and the free market to protect our civil rights and differences of opinion, Obama wants us to rely upon his administration and a program of aggressive civil rights enforcement to punish the politically incorrect. Here are some examples.
Rather than rely upon the “judgement” of a free market, Obama would tell us when pay equity between men and women and minorities has been achieved.
Rather than recognize the simple fact that all crimes are hate crimes, Obama would give certain privileged groups (especially those who voted for him) special protection.
Rather rely on state and local governments to run our nation’s polling facilities, Obama would increasingly federalize the process, increasing the possibility of nationwide voter fraud.
Apparently, from Obama’s perspective, every problem is a Federal Problem. Therefore, every problem should be the subject of his intense scrutiny and infinite wisdom.
Obama apparently has great disdain for the Founders’ original intent in the Constitution. His plans certainly leave no doubt he desires to be unfettered by the document. When asked at the Saddleback Civil Forum which of the current judges he would not have appointed to the Supreme Court, he listed conservative judges Thomas and Scalia (see here). He voted against both Roberts and Alito (see here). This (here) CATO Institute article by Robert A. Levy explains how Obama’s judicial vision differs from McCain’s.
National Defense – In his plan for national defense, Obama sums up his approach this way.
As our next president, Barack Obama will:
End the war in Iraq
Reestablish the proper leadership role of the commander in chief for the 21st century
Place ‘people first,’ so our military can recruit and retain the forces it needs and our servicemembers and their families are treated with the respect and appreciation they deserve
Rebuild our National Guard and Reserves, to be better prepared to respond at home and abroad
Focus on adapting and building U.S. military capabilities for current, not Cold War, needs
Restore our global partnerships, to leverage the capabilities of others and win the ‘war of ideas’
Build civilian capacity to promote stability and tackle security challenges with a ‘whole of government’ approach, so that our troops are not alone in the fight
Place our troops before CEOs, reigning in military outsourcing and restoring honesty, openness, and economic good sense to our defense contracting and budgeting processes. (from here)
Obama’s plans sounds nice on the surface, but read his plan. Obama thinks of the military as a social program. When Obama sees the military, he sees a jobs and training program. While Obama talks about making the military work better, all the specifics in his plan are about giving military personnel a softer life.
Obama is buying votes, not a more effective military.
Look at Iraq. With respect to Iraq, ending the war, not victory, has always been Obama’s first priority. Consider how he quotes himself.
“I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.” – Barack Obama, Chicago, October 2, 2007 (from here)
Obama takes great pride in his vote against our invasion of Iraq. He blames the Bush administration, not Saddam Hussein, for starting the war. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge that we have had any successes (something he finally admitted at the Saddleback Civil Forum), and he had to be pressured to extend his call for an immediate withdrawal to 16 months (See here).
What is Obama concerned about? When he talks about Iraq, what is his constant refrain?
Traditionally, foreign policy has been a topic favoring Republicans, while economic issues have tilted toward Democrats, and that seems to be the case again, at least since the pace of American fatalities in Iraq began dropping, said Alec Kirby, associate professor of history and government at UW-Stout in Menomonie.
Obama, however, has tried to tie the two issues together by pointing out that the United States is spending about $10 billion a month in Iraq, money he says could be used instead to provide health care, create jobs and otherwise boost the struggling domestic economy. (from here)
Obama advertises himself as the cool and calm military leader we need. In his world, we only go to war when warfare is absolutely needed. Then he turns on his charm, and all the nations in the world are suppose to wisely follow his leadership. So the war (How could there ever be one?) is instantly over. The enemy acquiesces and apologizes for so rudely disturbing the sacred Obama peace.
In reality, we conduct war in a fog. In reality, because he did not know enough, Obama opposed the surge (see here). In reality, we have a hard time figuring out the minds of enemy. Even when we have good intelligence and when our military operations proceed with greater ease than we expected, peacemaking can be terribly difficult.
So it has been in Iraq. Defeating Iraq’s army turned out to be easy. Pacifying 25 million people traumatized by decades of totalitarian dictatorship and surrounded on all sides by nations hostile to democracy turned out to be extremely difficult. That is a problem few anticipated. What worried everyone is the possibility Saddam Hussein would attack our troops with chemical and biological weapons.
In reality, Obama does not have the will to win against our enemies. Obama too badly wants to spend every cent he can tax on social programs. Obama would like nothing better than to turn the world’s best military into a glorified Peace Corps.
Immigration – Obama has not apologized or backed down from his plans to provide illegal aliens amnesty.
In the most recent immigration debate on the U.S. Senate floor, Obama fought to improve and pass a comprehensive bill. Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together and to revisit a controversial new points system that never received a proper public hearing. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will continue to work for a comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system. (from here)
This is the bill that the Senate refused to pass only after the citizenry spoke up and said NO! Obama clearly has no remorse nor regrets for participating in the crafting of legislation of which the public wants no part (see here). After the failure of the bill he supported, McCain at least recognized that to please us, he has to secure the border first (see here).
Two Conservatives has a good post on this subject that explains the difference between the candidate in terms anyone should be able to understand. See here.
Limited Government – Obama promises that only those making over $250,000 will pay for all his innumerable promises. That is absurd. You need proof? Go to Obama’s website (here) and look at the Issues Pages.
Civil Rights – Do you think even THE ONE can strengthen civil rights enforcement, expand hate crime statutes, cure drug uses, and so forth without hiring cadres of new people? Our nation is already awash with lawyers, and Obama wants to put still more of them to work.
Disabilities – Obama promises those with disabilities everything they need for happiness.
Economy – Obama promises ever more meddling in the economy: tax benefits for small businesses, more clout for unions, windfall profit taxes, government investment in manufacturing, job training, and so forth. Since meddling such as what he proposes fouled up the economy in the first place, …..
Education – See the educaton section above.
Energy – Obama promises government investment. Do we really want the government to own all our businesses?
Family – A Making Work Pay tax credit? Go figure that one out. Obama’s idea for making families work is more government spending — and more government mandates imposed on employers, of course. With idiot meddling like this, why should anyone have to wonder why jobs are leaving our country?
And so forth. Obama has a long list of issues. Even this post is too short to summarize all the ways Obama intends to expand government.
Obama has lots of plans, and his plans will cost us all money. Go read some of Obama’s plans. Then ask yourself a question. Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to spend money on the things Obama want to fund?
When the English Barons decided that they needed to restrain King John, they forced him to sign the Magna Carta. The provisions of the Magna Carta created a Great Council which eventually evolved into Parliament, a body that now controls taxing and spending in the United Kingdom.
It took awhile, but the English eventually figured out how to control their King. They got control of the King’s budget. That lesson still applies. Just as the King’s power arose from his ability to tax and spend, so does the government’s power as a whole. If we want to retain some control over the conduct our lives, we must restrain taxing and spending by government busybodies. That clearly is not the direction THE ONE wants to take us.
The Environment -The environmental rage this year is clean energy. Everybody has a plan to get us off fossil fuels and onto something else. What does Obama propose? He promises to make us all rich with clean energy (see Obama’s plan here). Here is his basic list of clean energy promises.
Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump.
Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. (from here)
Obama promises to make untested technology work economically. That is an outrageous. The tax relief he promises will come from the oil companies. That is stupid. To get this money so that they can pay us back, the oil companies will just raise their prices. So we will just pay our government money to have portion of what we give the oil companies given back to us.
To reduce greenhouse gases, Obama promises to implement a cap and trade program. Obama intends to auction pollution allowances and to use a portion of the funds for environmental projects. He will use the money to:
Invest in a clean energy economy and create five million jobs!
Create a green vet initiative.
Convert manufacturing centers into clean technology centers.
Create new jobs training programs for clean technologies.
Obama’s plan is nothing more than an empty promise, a blatant attempt to buy votes. What Obama intends to put in place will just be a complicated and wasteful government-run mess. The rich will find loopholes, and we will pay. The money we pay will go into the General Fund. That is, our money will just go into the same black hole as the Social Security Trust Fund.
If it is going to be fair, we must use a system we can all understand. If we want people to use alternative energy sources instead of burning fossil fuels, all we need to do is tax pollution (see here). Taxes are something both government and consumers understand.
Why does Obama need to pay private companies to do something they would do anyway? When pollution affects the bottom line, private industry will work as hard as it can to avoid polluting. When private industry already knows perfectly well how to do research, why do we need government officials picking favorites and skewing the outcome?
The rest of Obama’s plan is a bunch of ridiculous mandates — a bunch of do this or the government will punish you. Just because Obama says industry must make more fuel efficient cars does not mean anyone will be able to afford these cars — assuming they can be made.
What Obama is doing is telling us what we want to hear. He is promising to be the Big Daddy who will take care of us. He telling us there is an easy way out when what is required is hard work.
We cannot make somebody else pay for a clean environment. We cannot make big oil and other big corporations pay for a clean environment. The simple truth is that we all have to pay for a clean environment. Those big corporations get their money from us and so does our government.
Welfare & The Economy – When I first start writing this section, I intended to write two sections: Welfare and The Economy. However, when I start writing the section on Welfare, I could not easily extract Obama’s views on welfare from his views on the economy. Because Obama is a socialist, I do not think he sees much difference between welfare and the economy. Consider Obama’s now infamous comment to Joe the Plumber.
Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.
“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” (from here)
Obama apparently advocates “trickle up economics” to manage the “free market” . How this works is a good question. Even wily Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, finds the matter puzzling.
In the recent debate, Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden said the wealthy would gain by paying higher taxes to lift up the middle class. The theory is that a healthy middle class is necessary for the wealthy class to thrive. Let’s call that Trickle Up Economics.
Viewed in that light, the unwealthy are more like an investment opportunity than a tax burden. If you can make the poor and middle class more educated, healthy, and better employed, everyone wins. That makes sense, to a degree. But would the wealthy gain enough financially to make the extra taxes a good investment? I wonder if that has ever been studied. (from here)
Would Obama’s scheme work? As his response to Joe indicates, Obama proposes to take money from the rich and give it to the middle class. However, as Adam observed and as his website indicates (see here), Obama proposes more than just tax breaks and tax rebates. Obama has many different types of “investments” in mind, “investments” that would significantly increase government spending. Let’s just look at some of the investments on Obama’s Economy Issues webpage.
In addition to the investments he plans to Create 5 Million New Green Jobs (see the environment section above), Obama intend to invest in the Manufacturing Sector.
Increase investments in training to “improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth” in the manafacturing sector.
Require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025. That forces the utilities to make an “investment”.
Increase spending on our transportation infrastructure. This includes a scheme to create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank. That means increased Federal involvement in the construction of local roads.
Obama has no trouble expanding the Federal Government’s role into areas where it traditionally and Constitutionally has no business. The problem with such an expansion is that the government makes its decisions based upon politics, not sound economics. Without personal incentives, people waste too much and do not work any harder than they have to. Government, in particular, is notorious for wasting money. That is why socialism does not work.
Consider how Karl Marx summarized the ideal work ethic in a communist state.
From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need. (from here)
Ideally, when given the opportunity, each of us would work as hard and as diligently as we ought without any thought of personal reward, except perhaps the thought we were working for the betterment of society. In practice, that rarely seems to happen. At least, no one can point to a society where such idealism has worked in practice. Even the Pilgrims, when they tried a brief adventure into agarian communism at Plymouth Rock, had to give up on the idea in 1623 (see here, here, and here).
Obama’s emphasis on politics at the expense of good economics also extends to two other areas: free trade and labor unions.
In order to meddle in the affairs of other nations, Obama would hold free trade agreements hostage.
Campaigning in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas, Obama touted his opposition to NAFTA and pledged to “renegotiate” the 1993 treaty between the United States, Mexico, and Canada that established the largest trading bloc in the world. It was, of course, a president from Obama’s party, Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA into law over opposition from trade unions and protectionists in the Democratic Congress. But that was then. During last week’s Democratic presidential debate, Obama went so far as to say that, as president, he would use “the hammer” of a “potential opt-out” to “ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” His opponent, Hillary Clinton, agreed completely. One of her husband’s signal achievements is now just a bag of sand to jettison from her deflating balloon.
Obama claims that NAFTA was “oversold” and vows to “stand firm” against similar agreements that “undermine our economic security.” The American worker deserves nothing less, we are told. But the American worker actually deserves a great deal more: He deserves a forthright explanation of the tangible benefits of free trade. Even Senator Change-We-Can-Believe-In knows these benefits are real. Obama has explained in the past that it is “not realistic to expect to renegotiate NAFTA” and that Americans “benefit enormously from exports and so . . . have an interest in free trade that allows us to move our products overseas.” In a John Kerry-like straddle, he acknowledged in 2005 that a trade deal modeled on NAFTA–the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)–was “probably a net plus for the U.S. economy” . . . before voting against it. (from here)
Obama intends to strenghten labor unions. For example, Obama supports the Employee Free Choice Act. See here and here for opposing views. The Heritage Foundation briefly describes the act this way.
Does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in public better reveal a worker’s true preference about whether to join a union? A private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 800) its highest legislative priority. (from here)
Personal Life – “A man is known by his friends.” Such is an old English proverb (see here). So instead of trying to describe Obama himself, it seems best to consider his friends.
Who did Obama select for his running mate? That man is Senator Joe Biden. This gentleman is notorious for putting his foot into his mouth. Here is an example.
Another friend of Obama is Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist (See here.). Supposedly, Obama’s association with Ayers is of no consequence. Yet even a local Chicago paper recognizes the connection.
The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Obama, who called it “a searing and timely account.” (from here).
Democrats try to brush off the relationship by saying that both merely served on the same board of the same anti-poverty organization, Woods Fund of Chicago. Nonetheless, one wonders what kind of anti-poverty organization would hire an unrepentant terrorist to serve on its board. Moreover, one wonders about the good sense of any organization that would give funds to the now infamous ACORN (see here).
Bernardine Rae Dohrn is still featured on the FBI’s website (see here). Because Dohrn is one of the eight women who have made the FBI Top Ten Wanted List, she has achieved some notoriety. Dohrn was a member of the Weather Underground. Dohrn is Ayers’ spouse. Obama claims he was unaware of the couple’s past. Perhaps, but consider this excerpt from a 2001 article in the Weekly Standard.
POOR BILL AYERS. His timing could not have been worse. Just when his widely publicized memoir of his days as a terrorist was coming out, our nation suffered its worst terrorist assault ever.
Indeed, the very morning of the attack, the New York Times printed a fawning profile of Ayers and his comrade in terror, Bernardine Dohrn. Under the headline “No Regrets for a Love of Explosives,” accompanied by a large color photo of the couple, Ayers boasts that he bombed New York City’s police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972—and proudly adds, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Asked whether he would do it again, he answers, “I don’t want to discount the possibility.” Or, as he puts it in Fugitive Days: A Memoir, “I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.” (from here)
Here a link to the fawning New York Times article.
Starting in the late 1980’s, Jeremiah Wright was Obama’s, pastor, mentor and role model.
The title of Obama’s 2006 memoir, The Audacity of Hope, was inspired by one of Wright’s sermons, which was also a theme of Obama’s 2004 keynote address to the Democratic National Convention. Wright served as both a role model and a spiritual mentor for Obama, and the senator would check with Wright prior to making any bold political moves.According to the Reverend Jim Wallis, who is a leader of the religious left, “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from, just look at Jeremiah Wright. (from here)
At best Obama’s relationship with Wright is ambiguous. Wright teaches Black Liberation Theology. What is that? Since I do not know much about the subject, I am not going to try to recommend a reference or suggest exactly what it is. Nonetheless, Black Liberation Theology undeniably has something to do with both race and politics.
This web page (here) describes Trinty United Church of Christ (Wright’s church) mission, and this web page (here) describes the church’s “Black Value System.” In this video Wright defends himself before Hanity and Combs.
To say the least, most Americans found Wright discomfiting. Eventually, Wright’s own words forced Obama to disown Wright and quit Trinty United Church of Christ (see here).
Tony Rezko is a convict with ties to Obama. Rezko was the first person to make campaign contributions to Obama. More suspicious, however, is the property Rezko sold to Obama.
Much of the criticism has centered on two real estate deals involving Obama’s South Side mansion. In the first, Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price for a doctor’s home, while Rezko’s wife paid the doctor full price for the vacant lot next door. Then — a few months before Rezko was indicted — Obama bought part of that lot from Rezko’s wife. (from here)
Eventually, Obama had to renounce his relationship with Rezko as well.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama expressed regret late Friday for his 2005 land purchase from now-indicted political fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko in a deal that enlarged the senator’s yard.
“I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it,” Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in an exclusive and revealing question-and-answer exchange about the transaction. (from here)
Michael Pfleger has the distinction of being the second minister who has gotten Obama in trouble. Pfleger, a Catholic priest, gave an outrageous speech at Wright’s Trinty United Church of Christ.
The story gained steam as the video circulated around the Internet. Stepping up to the pulpit Sunday as a guest speaker at Trinity United Church of Christ, Pfleger said, “When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine! I’m Bill’s wife, I’m white, and this is mine! …’ “
Pfleger, who is white, continued: “And then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama,’ and she said, ‘Oh, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’ “ (from here)
In response Cardinal Francis George, Pfleger boss, made it clear Pfleger that such politics has no place at the pulpit.
Michelle Obama has taken a lot of heat for a remark she made last February.
Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
Greeted with rousing applause after making the comment in Milwaukee, Obama delivered an amended version of the speech later that day in Madison, Wis.
“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change,” she said. “I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.” (from here)
One other Obama associate is also worthy of mention, ACORN. When considering ACORN, it is easy to get two extremely different points of view. Newsday paints a heroic picture of community organizer Obama (here) whereas National Review acquaints us with a far more devious person (here). What is the truth? There is no question Obama work closely with the organization. In addition, his campaign has given the ACORN hundreds of thousands of dollars (see here). What is disturbing is the simple fact that without question ACORN is a partisan organization. When there is no reason whatsoever for the government to be paying a private agency to engage in vote registeration or consumer advocacy, why is the government giving ACORN money?
Under the guise of “consumer advocacy,” ACORN has lined its pockets. The Department of Housing and Urban Development funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing “anti-poverty” groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million. (from here)
No matter how you spin it, what ACORN does and did is and was blatantly unethical.
Obama has also distanced himself from two more names James Johnson and Franklin Raines, both former heads of Fannie Mae. Johnson served as the head of Obama’s VP search committee. He left Obama’s campaign amid the controversy over the collapse of Fannie Mae. Supposedly, Johnson’s presence sent the wrong message (here). Raines left Fannie Mae under a cloud and $100 million richer (see here, here, and here).
Much of the blame for Fannie Mae’s failure belongs to Raines (see here and here). Fannie Mae increased its holdings of subprime loans during his leadership. Raines is also reputed to be one of Obama’s advisors, but these ties are disputed (here, here, and here). What is beyond dispute is that Obama was one of Fannie Mae’s favorite politicians. Fannie Mae engaged in serious lobbying.
Over the past decade, both Fannie (FNM) and Freddie (FRE) made the list of Washington’s top 20 lobbying spenders. They spent a combined $170 million to cultivate allies during that period, a bit less than the American Medical Association and a bit more than General Electric. At the same time, their executives have consistently led the mortgage-banking sector in campaign giving to members of Congress, contributing a combined $16.2 million since 1997. (from here)
Even though Obama is a first term senator, he was a favorite.
Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate. (from here)
Anyway you look at it, Obama has associated himself with a bunch of dubious characters, retired terrorists, clergy who cannot separate race and politics from religion, convicts, and ACORN. What do all these people have in common? It would appear that they seek power, and some of them are not too concerned about how they get it.
The Issues
Education – Ostensibly, the Federal Government has no role with respect to education. Unfortunately, the lack of constitutional authority does not seem to stop elected officials from spending money and issuing mandates. I want this abuse of authority to stop.
Law – Our president should understand the law and be willing to live within the law. Our president should take the lead in protecting our rights, particularly freedom of religion, the cornerstone of American Law. As a conservative, I also think Supreme Court judges such as Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas have the best understanding of the Constitution. I want more such judges appointed.
National Defense – To deter potential aggressors, it is imperative that we have a strong military and an ethical strategy designed to protect our vital national interests. We cannot cavalierly abandon Iraq.
Immigration – Our nation is being slowly overrun by poor, uneducated, illegal immigrants. Since most of these people come from Spanish speaking nations to the south of us, our nation is being balkanized into different language and economic groups. What that portends for the future is civil strife.
Limited Government – You will not see a balance budget or low taxes in this list. What I am looking for is a candidate who sees all spending as discretionary and that we have too much government. We do not need a candidate who makes promises to hand us other people’s money. As I see it, anybody who will rob Peter to pay Paul cannot be trusted not to rob Tom too.
The Environment – A clean environment is a fundamental right. To protect the environment, we need a strong environmental policy. Such a policy cannot depend on the scientific wisdom of politicians. No human being, not even a politician able to make endless promises, has sufficient brain power to figure out how to build a modern industrial society that does not pollute the environment. What our government can do, however, is punish polluters when they dump pollutants into our environment. Thus I want candidate who understands the difference between stopping polluters and trying to run private industry.
Welfare – The welfare state is a massive scam; welfare is politicians buying us with our own money. Our cradle-to-grave welfare state is also a steadily growing national disaster. Even though the Federal Government has no constitutional authority throw our money into these idiot programs, each year we put a greater percentage of the Federal budget into welfare programs. Eventually, the money must run out.
The Economy – Because none of us know enough to run everybody else’s business, government must have a limited role in the economy. What government can and must do is regulate economic activity. Government encourages economic activity by ensuring that buyers and sellers are honest. In addition, government encourages economic activity by establishing a currency for exchange and standard weights and measures. Government cannot and does not create jobs.
Candidate Website – Any candidate fit to run our nation should be able to set up a decent campaign website. That candidate should also be forthcoming about his record and what he intends to do if he is elected.
Personal Life – Character makes a difference. If we want our nation to strive for high ideals, then the person we select to lead us must honorable and trustworthy. We should not allow a candidate to buy our vote, but people do. By suggesting that those of us who want to vote for a trustworthy politicians are fooling ourselves, some seemingly revel in the fact too many candidates are unworthy of our trust (see here). That makes for a sad state of affairs and says how much we need to pray for our leaders.
How do we explain the predominant ideology of the Democratic Party? Are Democrats communists? Not really. Democrats are not brutally violent. Democrats use “legal” means to achieve their ends. They merely appoint judges to interpret the law the way they think it ought to have been written. Are Democrats socialists? No. Consider how the Social Security System works. The Social Security System is a payroll tax. The system is designed to tax workers, not the rich. In fact, wages above a certain wage limit, about $90,000, are not subject to the Social Security taxes. In practice, Democrats, at least elected Democrats, do not believe in taxing the rich to give to the poor.
So what ideology does unite Democrats? As near as I can tell, the one thing all Democrats have in common is that they are busybodies. Is Busybodyism an ideology? I think so. However, I must admit I could not find the word in dictionary.com. Nonetheless, when I googled it, I got 1,230 hits. So, I decided to go with it.
What is Busybodyism? As the dictionary suggests, Busybodyism is about meddling in the affairs of others, but how does one make that into an ideology? Well, let’s consider the opposite, Classical Liberalism. The classical liberal is content to be allowed to run his own affairs. To achieve such a condition, the classical liberal recognizes the obligation and the need to protect the rights of his neighbors. Nonetheless, the classical liberal sees no need to run the lives of his neighbors. The classical liberal sees government as a tool for protecting everyone’s natural rights, not as a tool for mandating “new rights.”
Democrats like to think of themselves as Progressives or Social Liberals, yet what they propose is often destructive to individual rights. Consider this logical progression. If we assume government exists to protect people’s rights, then for internal threats we need policemen, judges, juries, and jails; and for external threats we need armies, navies and air forces. Since all this protection costs money, we also need taxes. Nonetheless, because each and every citizen benefits by having representation in government and by having their rights protected, we have some justification for extorting money from, or taxing, taxpayers. What happens, however, when we do as Progressives or Social Liberals insist we must? What happens when we tinker with the definition of the term “rights”? What if government gives people a “right” to health care? What if government gives people the right to an education? What if government gives people a right to libraries, recreation centers, stadiums for professional ball players , museums of every kind, welfare programs, public TV and radio, and on and on and on? What happens is that taxpayers start working for the causes of busybodies instead of working for their own causes. As it is, Tax Freedom Day arrived April 23 this year (see here).
What has Busybodyism to do with all this? Consider why anyone would want to be a Progressive or a Social Liberal. How do busybodies behave? If a busybody contributes money to a charity, doesn’t that busybody think you ought to contribute your money to that charity too. So the busybodies get together make a law. If busybodies think their children should watch a particular television show, then they think your child should see that show too. If a busybody believes anything, then that busybody will not rest content until everyone else is doing what that busybody believes they ought to be doing. And they will find excuses. “It is for the children.” “It is for the poor.” “It is for the old.” “It is not fair.” And on and on and on.
What Busybodyism is about is making everyone else do what busybodies think what everyone ought to do. What busybodies cannot figure out is that mature adults do not need to be forced to do the right thing. Instead, it is sufficient to prevent immature and evil people from doing evil and to allow mature adults to set a good example.
Because honest charity benefits the giver and honest good works enlivens the life of the doer, we do not need busybodies to force people to give false charity or to do phony good works. Yet because of Busybodyism, that is the system we are devising.
late 15c., "slave," from M.Fr. serf, from L. servum (nom. servus) "slave" (see serve). Fallen from use in original sense by 18c. Meaning "lowest class of cultivators of the soil in continental European countries" is from 1610s. Use by modern writers with reference to medieval Europeans first recorded 1761 (contemporary Anglo-L. records used nativus, villanus or servus). Serfdom first attested 1850.
If you see a commercial advertisement on this website, please be advised that it is there without my permission. See this post.
GOOGLE’S TRICKS AND INTERNET LIES
Although their political persuasions vary widely, for one reason or another I have found the blogs listed below interesting. Each in its own way attempts to be reasonable. You will have to decide for yourself which succeeds.
Whenever we try to spread a belief, we encounter a problem. Other people have their own agendas, and their agendas usually do not coincide with our own. So to sell our belief, we have to convince others that accepting our belief will further their own interests. That tends to be easier said than done.
Recent Comments