The Proper View of Capitalism

"Radical-in-Chief"

I'm reading the above book by Stanley Kurtz. I am enjoying it because it goes into the socialist movement in the US and Obama's relation to it. The great thing about the book is that it places you in that world such that it is possible to see why Obama is so beholden to his agenda and the philosophy behind it. It actually is his world - the world he grew up in and began to take specific shape during his college years, specifically in New York City, when he discovered he wanted to be a Community Organizer.

One also gets how this entire movement is driven by "hatred of being a victim of the system" which begets "There is something wrong here. We must fix it."

And they just know they are right about this. The speeches I'm getting pieces of were delivered in the early 1980s. There is no responsibility for how they sought and got passed President Johnson's welfare program which trapped many blacks in permanent poverty and began to unravel the black family because it made monetary sense to do that.

I contrast that with the liberty oriented person who sees all people as fundamentally the same with different expressions of their being human and thus accepts and honors/dishonors people as they are. No one is metaphysically a victim of the system unless he makes it up that he is and no one is perfectible except as he takes on his own perfection. The liberty oriented person seeks the values a person offers and trades value for value if he chooses. It is constantly integrating itself into a whole where real agreements bind people together.

At this point in the book, I'm quite aware that the socialists want political power and it is exciting (and maddening) to learn their strategies and justifications for gaining that power. Although Obama was raised with socialist and anti-capitalists, he began budding for the "flower" he is today (not a flower I care to display in my home, by the way, but a flower none the less) in a big way during his years at Columbia in the early 80s. This set up his being a Community Organizer, another name for a socialist activist.

I have a lot yet to read, but already I get the value of getting into O's world if one wants to understand him at all; and, if one wants to see America's future if his view is left to dominate. Also it is good to get beyond the outer interpretations of socialism and get into what motivates the actors in the socialism camp. Whereas I judge socialism by its fundamentals, this book presents you with the people and their words and actions which assume socialism is good and morally justified.

Already capitalism = racism in their book. So now I get the connection. Everyone who is a non-believer in O, a socialist, is a capitalist and therefore a racist. There is no alternative to this view - in their world. There is no possibility that property is nothing more than a designation of real stuff that a person is using for the values he seeks to create in this world. A person (even a socialist) needs to own property of some kind for him to survive but what socialism does not recognize is that this is a value. (Socialist states are always attacking hoarding, the activity where a man seeks to hold on to his property - the property he needs to survive.) Man to live depends on creating values which entails property and yet in a socialist system that is all considered bad. This justifies its confiscation of property.

So far I've not read anything about when this racism will stop. I'm clear from everything I've read about socialism that it never stops because the socialist must keep the fire hot under that pot forever to keep people socialists. Where socialism dominates, every man becomes suspicious of every other man's loyalties since it is a society founded on predation. For a socialist system to survive, it must have producers and then it must take the product of the producers. Ultimately property, even the property of one's body, means nothing in a socialist world. There is no working to sustain one's own life. Hello! This is the re-institution of slavery - of all to all - and permanent war - of all against all.

I will say more about this book when I complete it.

Where Did You Come Up With the Idea?

"Where did you come up with the idea that being elected President meant you could do whatever you want? We are not your subjects, you are not a god, and we won’t accept your efforts to turn us into slaves, no matter how much Michelle says you are going to require of us." -- Robert Villegas, Jr., Tea Party Journal.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Reflecting

Today President Obama told us he would be reflecting on the meaning of yesterday’s election defeat. I don’t know if anyone noticed the irony in that promise. One would have thought that a man of his education and intelligence, particularly a constitutional scholar, would already know the limits of his office before he decided to run for it.

Is he really just learning on the job? Did he really think the oceans would fall and the skies would open when he became President? Does it take an election defeat to teach him a lesson that he should have already known? Why didn't he know that it is his job to protect American citizens not confiscate their earnings? He should certainly have known that free people do not like being treated like draft animals.

Well, if we must educate our President on the job, we have certainly made a mistake in electing him. How could so many educated citizens, who certainly know their own limitations, elect to the highest office in the world a person who does not know his own limitations?

Read the rest here.

When I heard Obama's Aunt Zeituni, who lives in the US illegally, from her own righteous lips say she had no compunction about living off the American people because everything belongs to God, I understood the problem of the 3rd world. She does not understand the legal concept of private property. She does not understand that property is a concept that is essential if a person's work, involving real things including land and tools, to live his life is to be observed by all others as his right to his life which means the right to live his life. It does not belong to God nor to anyone who ascribes his authority to God. It belongs to the individual man.

In western civilization, this identification of property came into being in the Magna Carta in 1215 AD and was the beginning of property in law which later led to the industrial revolution and all the things she is now enjoying. The fact that we have what we have and third world countries do not is dependent upon the establishment in law of this concept more than any other. This is why Americans would be angered by Zeituni's sense of entitlement since her assumption of property requires that whoever created it had to give it up and since it was a government project she lived in, the people who gave it up, gave it up by force. Remember, if you don't pay your taxes, you may end up in jail. Her sense of entitlement is really saying that you and I have no right to our lives since she doesn't grant you the basis upon which you can erect an independent life.

Of course that would make people mad. And Obama suffers from the same sense of entitlement and the same ignorance. In a civilized country which means a country grounded in the property right and based on laws applying equally to all men, a person can obtain property, but he has to observe certain "honorable" procedures, the primary one being that he must honor the person who owns the property right now or he must create it from raw nature that is presently unowned. Theft and fraud are not acceptable. But in a society where property is not a basic concept honored in law, he must obtain property however he can. And, a man cannot live without property - even if it is a banana. Is this why Obama is so loose about taking our money? He's got the power so it is his right as in the divine right of a king, another 3rd world idea.

Add to this sitting in Reverend Wright's church where you listen to your right to everything the white man owns (Black Liberation Theology) and pretty soon, you cannot honor all men equally under the law. And, this is where Obama is and why his words and actions continuously offend those of us who do grant this basic right to own property to every man.