Everything You Need To Know About The Benefits of Minimum Wage: And Everything They Want To Evade

(I apologize upfront for the grammar and typo issues that may exist; this needed to be released at the soonest without its usual polishing due to the situation on the Hill.  Please assist me in sending this far and wide with the spirit of urgency that this subject deserves.)

The war drums for the statist’s campaign continues to beat. This week’s battlefield: minimum wage hikes. The argument: “…tell [your Republican representative(s)] it’s time to give politics a rest for a while and do something to help working Americans.”[i] If we allow these feckless tyrants to have it their way, minimum wage would be indexed to inflation[ii] – at a minimum.

This plan sounds good if only first order consequences are considered – government forces companies to raise the limit on lowest wages, and those workers get paid more… period. It’s simple, elegant, and desirable but it’s also false[iii]. One can understand its appeal to childlike minds when exploring this fantasy with childlike forgiveness of inconvenient facts. If raising wages is the only effect, why not raise it? Is it the only effect over time though?

It’s easy to make arbitrary claims, which seem desirable. Not much more is required than a positive attitude. In addition, an estimable bonus goes to the proclaimer since their opponents are at an immediate disadvantage. Whether their opponents neglect to respond or address the issue, the statists have gained tempo.

If their opponents do not respond, the statists appear justified in claiming (to whoever will listen) that their opponents have no responds, which gives them a façade of being right. Uncritical constituents will be pressured to support the statist cause in the presence of the vacuum created by the nonexistent alternative.

If their opponents choose to respond, however, the opponent’s response would require more time and energy producing a lengthy – and if the statists are lucky, boring – response than what it took the statists to make your arbitrary claim (no thought, effort and hardly any time necessary exerted by the statists). This prevents their opponents from being on the offensive in advocating for their ideas, since they are now wasting time addressing mirages.

For the above reasons, I admit up front that I am at a disadvantage. At this point you and I have spent already 1600% more time/energy than the statists[iv] on this issue (and more to go), and I may have failed to make this paper interesting (hello? Are you still there? This is important to understand.). This disadvantage, however, is short-lived unless the statists pass a law before the truth has its day in the sun – this is precisely their Standard Operating Procedure.[v] Given time, the truth is impossible to conceal when readily available and when honest people like yourselves simply take appropriate steps to acquire it. As we will see, an honest attempt to ground the statists’ fantasy in reality shatters its chimera of good outcomes.

I intend to demonstrate that minimum wage is at best not beneficial, and at worse crippling. [vi] I will show: that minimum wage is a special case of general pricing, and therefore, falls under its economic laws; that minimum wage amounts to price fixing and that price fixing falls between the range of not beneficial and harmful.

To begin, I will assert that wage earners have customers. You might be asking who they might be. Perhaps this perspective is not yet sufficiently fashionable to gain popular support, but it is on all accounts accurate as best as I can judge – their customers are their employers.

Consider the general relationship between customers and businesses. Customers seek out desired services from businesses and exchange money for those services. Is this not what employers do when they post available jobs listings, interview candidates, and ultimately hire them? Also, businesses advertise their service(s) to attract customers and exchange services for money. Is this not what a resume, an interview, and accepting a job offer accomplish?

The many forms of employment share this essential relationship: the employee sells a service to their employer. The customer relationship between employee and employer, though a bit unusual in these terms, means that the price of the service in question falls under the province of the same economic law that determines the price of any service – supply and demand. This is evident in the fact that if the demand for a certain type of doctor is high, yet the supply is low, then their salary will be higher than other types of doctors[vii] – even though the duration of their education/training might be the same. Now consider low skilled minimum wage earners that have no chance to rise above that legal minimum. Might that have something to do with the oversupply of unemployed workers[viii] ready to jump into that job at the legal minimum? Wages, if left alone by the law makers, are controlled by supply and demand.

You might be wondering “what’s the big deal with setting a minimum wage” since wage minimums have existed for so long.[ix] Well, first and foremost, it is a form of price fixing and price fixing is harmful. Since wages are a type of pricing, then fixing it at the lower limit is fixing employee services at a lower price limit, is it not? The harmful results of price fixing is best understood by contrasting the complex chain of judgments, decisions and actions that ultimately determine the price of services within a free market, and the devastation that is created by short circuiting this process via price fixing.

Consider your favorite technological gadget for a moment, be it a computer, a smart phone, a movie-streaming device, or something else. What do you imagine went into its creation? How much effort and thought was necessary? How many trades occurred between the first purchases of raw materials (e.g., paying the workers to mine the metal used in your device) and the assembly of the item[x]; Or how many occurred between the purchase of raw materials and the fabrication the special tools necessary to assemble the item, before it was made available for your purchase?

Our economy is such a complex network of services and trade that I doubt any one person can possess all knowledge essential to the creation of such an intricate item, especially since that knowledge changes every minute of every day as the conditions of the market change. Suppose that a circuit company discontinues a component. Or suppose a new component is created that is cheaper (or costlier) and higher performing. Or suppose that any component changes within the chain of production for any production item. Wouldn’t that necessitate an adjustment down the line that reflects the change “upstream”? Many historical examples exist to show that it does, but for a present example, just watch the Wall Street ticker tape to see the “downstream” effect of “upstream” changes.

These constant changes are a life necessity. Life requires that the actions of a living organism produce more value (to life) than what is consumed during the process. Life requires profit. Any action that yields less value than what is consumed is a deadly process – over time only death (i.e., non-existence) with triumph. This principle applies from the simplest action to the most complex chains of interactions – no one part may operate at a loss (forever). The gives rise to a need to keep one’s ear to the ground and remain aware of changes that may affect profit.

It may seem overwhelming that so many lives rely on profit to be generated across the board throughout the economy. Not to worry though, no one person needs to perform the impossible and acquire all knowledge of the on goings. It is sufficient that at every stage, two living persons (at a minimum) are free to exchange money for services to mutual benefit, or walk. The potential for competitors prevents businesses from arbitrarily pricing services too high, and the potential for other customers prevent customers from arbitrarily setting prices too low. One simply needs, for any particular transaction, to be aware of their options (which always include no transaction).

If the price of a service would consistently cause one party on either end of the transaction to function at a loss, then the nature of existence does not permit the price to remain this way long term – either the service eventually stops or customers eventually disappear. Each member of a transaction is charged (by the nature of their being requiring profit) to protect themselves and at the same time to meet the other’s interest (by the nature of the other’s being requiring profit).

With this understanding of the complex chain of judgments and decisions that go into transactions, with each member performing a service for profit, one can appreciate the precariousness introduced when non-interested parties establishes laws not subject to (and contrary to) the laws of economics (and nature). The result is a short-circuiting of the living judgments, decisions and actions that existed prior to such a decree. Regardless of the reality of the situation, price fixing established by law ignores all living considerations related to what that price should be.[xi] The price is set even if it is contrary to the needs of life – i.e., contrary to profit.

The consequence of this short circuit depends on where the arbitrary price falls in relation to the price established by supply and demand – i.e., where it is in reference to the market price. If the arbitrary price of any service is lower than the market price, the service tends to disappear. If the arbitrary price is higher than the market price, the customer tend to thin out. If the arbitrary price is equivalent to the market price, there is no harm (for now), but there is also no benefit.

If people less likely to perform a service in producing an item due to price fixing too low, the observable effect is empty shelves within a store.[xii] Does this not make sense as the only logical outcome to low prices? It means someone (or some group) in the chain of production would have to function at a loss. Picture the extreme – forced to give away a service – to grasp that anywhere on this continuum tends toward empty shelves. It is difficult to say exactly who will bear the burden of this loss, but the burden will likely rest with the most desperate and/or unaware party. It is fairly easy, however, to determine who would benefit from paying less for an item – the customer. This combination between some party absorbing a loss and another receiving a greater value causes these items to be scarce.

If the number of customers diminishes due to price fixing too high, the observable effect would be fuller shelves within a store.¹⁰ Does this not make sense? The combination of benefiting and cost absorbing is different from price fixing too low, so the result is different. The customers avoid paying more than they would have otherwise and tend to buy other items, while businesses prefer to receive a higher than market value for their item, so they stock their shelves with items that customers are less willing to buy.

If the arbitrary price is somehow just right, the result will not differ from the results of market prices. The items on the shelves will be sufficient for regular commerce with no party assuming an undue loss or unnatural benefit. The result will be good, but not better than letting the market set the price. Since current market conditions are constantly a fleeting moment, price fixing has a major drawback. A stationary arbitrary price, which is correct today, will be wrong tomorrow (or eventually) due to the changes in market conditions, resulting in one of the above undesirable outcomes. The market reacts faster than law makers.

Minimum wage is slightly different in effect than ordinary price fixing, in the sense that it applies a fixed price within a limit and not the whole range.[xiii] In this sense, the minimum could be set to zero and essentially there would not be any fixed prices. If the minimum wage was too low, therefore, we would expect that the market would dictate the price of services that fall between that minimum and the maximum.[xiv] The only harm minimum wage could do, would be to be set higher than the lowest paid worker, which would cause those low skilled workers to tend remain on the “shelves,” which is essentially what we have today, is it not?

When statists determine the minimum wage, they are essentially claiming to know better than the millions of people that judge, decide and act in a free market. We see that this is a form of price fixing, and we see that price fixing can only be harmful in the long run and only not beneficial in the short run. Why maintain a minimum wage? Why not abolish it, and any other form of price fixing statists choose to establish? How much more harm are we each willing to take and remain blind to? Isn’t time past due for us to break their drum sticks and send them home?

—————————–

[i] President Barak Hussein Obama, Quoted in Monday April 28, 2014 WSJ article, Wage Boost Seen as Wedge Issue in November

[ii] Plan expected to be voted on in the Senate Wednesday April 30, 2014, set up by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev)

[iii] Fallacy of context dropping

[iv] We are at sentence 16 and Statists use one sentence to say “raising minimum wage puts more money in American’s pockets”

[v] Remember Obamacare (AKA Unaffordable Care Act)

 

[vii] Assuming a law doesn’t exist barring the free exchange in this regard

[viii] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014 (cbo.gov). Estimating 230.4 million working age Americans (census.gov) in 2010, that makes 18.4 million competitors throughout the US.

[ix] “…a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right…” – Thomas Paine

[x] To include hiring employees throughout the production chain, the agreements between subcontractors to perform special tasks, and everything in-between

[xi] Refer back to the number of judgments and decisions going into the production of an item, and at every stage, the life of the members are taken into account (so the life of all its members are taken into account), so just imagine what would happen if one member acted towards loss and death

[xii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWTGsUyv8IE, Observe the comparison on how some shelves are empty while others have a castle of boxes in stock

[xiii] Not considering progressive taxes for a mement

[xiv] All else being equal, but the effects are known to propagate and not to anyone’s benefit – as the cost of the simplest services rise with the minimum wage, so does the cost of the simplest items, which just changed the condition of the market and affects every “downstream” service

Heroes of The Productive Chain Gangs Unite!

The Statists (on both sides of the aisle) have unintentionally awakened a sleeping Hero.  For quite some time, this dormant Hero has misidentified Statists as the caretakers of society (self proclaimed of course).  Statists, after all, claim to be the providers of jobs, health insurance, and general prosperity.  But Statists have recently allowed their proper identification to once again be exposed and discovered by part of the population that was formerly in the deep slumber of their busy, productive lives.

This sect of the population has become aware of an essential fact pertaining to any Statists’ “good” deeds: their deeds, good or otherwise, cannot be accomplished without yoking productive Americans — i.e., without yoking themselves.  For what products can statists redistribute if productive Americans do not produce them?  Yet even in the face of this question Statists are keeping to their mode of existence: throttling the goose to continue to lay golden eggs so they can dolled them out in exchange for gratitude, which may translate into votes come the next election cycle.

While productive Americans, these Heroes, are becoming aware of the game they are involved in, they simply wish to act to secure their right to life, liberty, and property, and live their precious lives.  Statists reject such notions as the existence of any rights (except for those they grant or allow) and proceed to violate them in order to carry out their “good” deeds, and proceed to assume all of the credit.

Let’s give credit where credit is due.  Deed after deed has required more effort from productive Americans in the form of taxes (or debt to eventually be paid for later by taxes) — good job Statists, that credit is rightfully yours.  Way to fleece productive Americans and redistribute it (inefficiently I might add).  The source of the wealth you are dolling out, however, comes from productive Americans and they are becoming tired of their role.

What we have here is a clash of worldviews.  While Statists need to resort to force in order to carry out their political vision, productive Americans simply need to refuse to be their victims to carry our their vision.

The foundation of the Statists worldview depends on it being an injustice for the needs of the needy to go unsatisfied.  They insist and continue to remind us that someone has to fill that void.  It has to be either those who cannot carry anyone’s extra weight let alone their own (the needy) or those who can (the productive).

The Statists’ vision is clear: it is analogous to an expansive world that we are all born into and it is completely flooded.  This world is populated with those who swim and those who drown without help — i.e., producers and moochers/looters.  Their solution to what they see is to chain everyone together in the attempt to force the swimmers to keep everyone else afloat.  (The flood represents obstacles to the existence of life and swimming representing the actions necessary to overcome them).  An observant man would rarely fail to notice that those, who are struggling to barely tread water, would be dragged under by the chains connected to less able.  They then put more pressure on the next ablest who is now dragged under by even more weight from the same chains, who then puts more pressure on the next ablest and so on to the end of the chain.  Anyone with sense realizes that if all are chained, all will drown — the necessary result of egalitarianism.

The foundation of the productive Americans’ world view is that their life is precious to them and the needs of some (or many) does not justify the chains they are forced to bear — those chains are the injustice not the needs of the needy.

Productive Americans have a similar vision and it may also be described as analogous to a flooded expanse populated with those who swim and those who drown without help, except they have a different solution: allow them to be free and productive for the sake of their own lives.  The flood is not their fault; it is the default and nature of life.

Who is right?  Statists offer chain gangs on a course certain to lead towards destruction.  What is it that productive Americans offer?   Not much; only voluntary trade of services to mutual benefit.  This process, however, allows productive Americans to continue to innovate and compete to bring the best products at the best prices to the market place, and consequently continuously raise everyone’s standard of living in the process.  Raising the standard of living reduces the obstacles to life.  This in a sense will allow those who were barely drowning in our previous analogy to now be able to tread water, does it not?  If this process continues, over time more people, who would have drowned otherwise, will be able to tread water.

So, in either case, need, will always exist — that obstacle to life is always present.  However, in the first case you have mutual and equal demise as that obstacle becomes increasingly overbearing even for the ablest, and in the other you have progress that continues to raise everyone up and over that obstacle over time.  You be the judge for which sounds better for your own existence.

Productive Americans’ are beginning to realize their solution to life’s obstacle requires the security of individual rights first and foremost regardless of need.  The moralists within the Statists’ ranks attempt to keep them in check by reminding productive Americans that they should love their fellow man and should be thy brother’s keeper.  The proper response to these moralists is to ask, “What respect or love can men have for one another when their lives are chained and meeting one man’s need necessarily means another must suffer?  How can they not come to hate one another in this environment? Indeed, doesn’t this environment necessarily breed hatred?”

What Statists conveniently overlook time and again is that the cognizance of the need of others has not and will never disappear; it simply must take a back seat to securing individual rights in every corner of the political arena.  What they have not failed to overlooked, however, is that the act of asserting individual rights in this arena threatens their mode of existence and succeeding to secure them will unravel their whole rotten racket of rusted chains; and that is a large source of their fear.  That is the motivation for some of them to continue to rationalize their continued actions.

Of course Statists are not this honest with us, or even necessarily with themselves about the nature of their fears and their mode of existence.  Observe that when one’s mode of existence relies on productive Americans acting against their self-interest, or on them passively accepting others who act to throttle them, deceit becomes an important ally while clarity and transparency become a liability.  Statists don’t necessarily want their victims to become aware of what’s going on.

If you get a chance, ask them, “What right does the needy give you to throttle my life”?  Then observe the sorts of contorted pretzels they twist themselves into to evade this crucial connection: their methods require you to wear chains.

Well, productive Americans are now getting wise to the Statists’ ways and are becoming less interested in the “goods” they’re peddling — their inner Hero has awaken.  A group of people, and productive American’s especially, can only be duped for so long by the same warn out gimmick.

Statists, your game is up!  The era of Heroes, who act to secure their rights, has returned!

Winning The Unwinnable War On “Terror”

This topic is difficult to discuss for many reasons.  The position I represent is not a mainstream idea.  It’s unpopular to most established political figures and news outlets.  In addition, hardly anyone is intimately familiar with this perspective, and most are unaware that it even exists.  My goal here today: to introduce you to the existence of ideas that I believe are necessary to win this unwinnable war.  You be the judge for yourself.

I say unwinnable because that is how this war on terror is approached in action, but not in words.  In words we have redefined winning to the point where one has to take pause and wonder: Winning?  By what standard?

We have established “pro-western” governments in Iraq and Afghanistan at a — and it’s impossible not to under state this — at a colossal expense to ourselves.  Sit down some afternoon and attempt to look-up and measure the total expense in lives and treasure, and the individual rights we’ve agreed to violate here for the sake of these “pro-western” governments.  Anyway, is succeeding in bringing about changes in these countries winning this war on “terror”?

History is helpful in answering this question because of the many cases it offers.  Let’s look at the last American war that resulted in our uncontested victory: WWII.

During this war, were internal security and other inconveniences raised?  They were, remember the Japanese camps here in the US and the rationing for the sake of this war.  Did it stay that way?  No, things returned to normal – and, by that I mean returning to conditions that existed pre-WWII.

During this war the enemy, both the Japanese Imperialists and Nazis, wanted to kill us.  The end of this war was marked by their abandonment of their cause as hopeless — and this is the critical part — this was done in four years counting Pearl Harbor as day one.  This is the only measure of victory that mattered, and only then did things return to normal.

How about today in our current war on “terror”?  If you haven’t considered the parallels between the two wars, let’s do so now.

Were our internal security and other inconveniences raised since 911?  The creation of the Patriot Act, TSA and its policies, and the largest department ever created DHS comes to mind.  The continuing increases in security as terrorist discover ways to circumvent our efforts also comes to mind.  So the answer is obvious, yes.  And by all accounts these security actions are here to stay for our inconvenience, our violated rights, and our security.  Forget about going back to normal.  If you have been paying attention you would have noticed that we are constantly reminded by political figures and news outlets that this is the new normal.

Does our enemy today want to kill us?  I think the answer to this question is equally as obvious, and our enemy shows no sign of getting tired.  They see their cause — and rightfully so up to this point — as achievable.  They have no reason to think their cause is hopeless, so why would they abandon it?  Their cause is as alive today, if not even more so, than it was at 911.

The group that continues to harm us is a speck of dust compared to the two world powers we were facing during WWII.  And just as significant to this equation is the fact that we are more powerful by an immeasurable magnitude than we were during WWII.

So I ask again: by what standard are we winning this war on “terror”?  Certainly not by the standard that brought us victory during WWII.  And that is part of the problem; we have no clear meaningful standard of victory.  We are continuously told that these two wars are so essentially different that you cannot measure them both by the same standard.  I challenge this ridiculous notion and you should too.  If that notion were true then the comparison I just made couldn’t have been made.  But I did make the comparison, which ought to be enough for you to wonder about the validity of that notion.

I am familiar with the greatest objection to making this comparison: we are dealing with an insurgency today and we were dealing with easily identifiable countries during WWII, so our enemy today is essentially different and cannot be defeated in the same way because they are difficult (if not impossible) to identify.  That is part of the problem too; our enemy remains unidentified because we believe him to be these individuals who are practically unidentifiable until they literally blows up in our faces.  Our enemy is more than that.  Have you ever considered the reasons why, in spite of the objection, the enemies of WWII and today are essentially the same and why you should use the standard of victory during WWII for this war?  That’s what I hope to cover today.

So hopefully you are beginning to see the reasons I think — and you should continue to judge for yourselves — why we haven’t demoralized these specks of dust to the point of abandoning their cause allowing us to return to normal. The two obstacles to this total victory can be summed up as us having no meaningful standard of victory and we haven’t identified our enemy beyond its fighters.  This kind of victory is possible once we overcome these obstacles and we don’t have to settle for the results brought forth by 12 years of building “pro-western” nations in the Middle East and the cost associated with it.  This victory is what my topic is about today: winning this unwinnable war.

We have just brushed on the solution to one obstacle that prevents victory: having a standard of victory that is meaningful.  One obstacle remains, however, which is preventing us from completely hurtling over the first obstacle: properly identifying the enemy in terms essentially the same as our enemy during WWII so that we can act in accordance with the standard of victory that brings us back to normalcy.  Most of you are probably wondering at this point, how are we going to properly identify this enemy in such terms?

This subject alone is very difficult to discuss due to the objection I stated earlier, which is deeply embedded into the minds of political figures and news outlets: we’re dealing with an insurgency.   To broach this subject I would like to discuss how not to identify our enemies, to draw out how one does properly identify an enemy.  Then I’d like to use an analogy to show how one goes about properly identifying our current enemy; so bear with me.

To begin, out enemy is not a tactic as most of you are familiar with.  A war on “terror” is one of the worst declarations of wars anyone can make, if defeating the enemy is their goal.  A war on “terror” makes as much sense as declaring a war on “blitzkrieg” — for those who don’t know, it was a German tactic during WWII.  For one thing, a tactic is only a means to an end.  To focus on a means to an outcome without the context of the outcome and those who wish to see it through is meaningless.

If terrorists succeeded in bringing about their ends — achieving world caliphate –without the use of terror tactics, the outcome would be equally as tragic.  Not to mention, some tactics may be of poorer taste than others, but they can be good in the act of achieving something good — e.g., victory over our enemies.  To give a real example, we caused terror to strike the hearts of Germans during the battle of Belleau Wood, to the point where the US Marines received their famous nickname, “Teufelshunde” or “Devil Dog” in English.  Our tactics then were terrifying.  Terror can be good, so declaring a war on something that is amoral until applied to a context is worse than meaningless — it’s confusing.

To consider this in a different light, neither is our enemy solely a group people divorced from their cause resulting in their means of achieving it.  We stopped attacking the Germans and Japanese during WWII once they abandoned their cause, and therefore, also abandoned their means to achieve it.  Why would that be if the Japanese and Germans, as a group of people, were our enemies?  The reason is obvious; people as such are not our enemy.

Some of you may be beating me to the punch, but our enemy, as properly defined, is a group of people whose ends would violate our rights and destroy our way of life.  Regardless of the tactic, or means, they use to bringing about this end, they are still our enemy and we should act to secure our rights through the most efficient means our appointed guardians see fit.  By efficient, I mean the least cost of lives, treasure, and inconveniences possible to secure our rights.  If our enemy wishes simply to spread their goal via words and ideas, then we may simply need to unleash counter arguments proving why they are immoral and wrong.  If they upgrade from dialog to physically achieving their ends, then words are not sufficient anymore in stopping them — we need to act to defend ourselves and speak out against our enemy with moral righteousness.

So lets dive into the analogy in order to help apply this to our enemy in order to help us identify them.  For this analogy there is country X, and a certain group is in power, which we’ll call the Nazis.  Now these Nazis aren’t the Nazis of WWII.  There are a lot of similarities, and a lot of differences between the two groups.

They each have a book that inspires them and we’ll call it, “Mein Kampf” (or “My Struggle” in English).  Now this book in country X has different content than the book that inspired the Nazis during WWII.  Instead of race, this new book targets those who lack a certain set of outlined ideas, and those who hold contradicting ideas.  The old book talked about an Arian race ruling the world in a worldly utopia, the new book talked about a set of ideas ruling the world in a worldly utopia.

The Nazis of Country X support this goal of establishing their worldly utopia by supporting proxy groups representing this interest.  They support them with equipment, money, fighters, training, and most importantly moral sanctioning of their actions.  These Nazis have proxy groups in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.  They now have officials in Iraq who support this interest.  Since the Nazis took power in country X, they have been staunch supporters of Al Qaeda too.  Other groups have since joined their cause who may or may not have any direct connection other than sharing the same goal, but these other groups view Country X as a shining example of how to act.

Country X and all of these groups have identified the United States as one of the biggest obstacles in establishing their utopia.  Relative to their moral standard the US is irredeemable because our mode of government and the values of our culture are incompatible with the rules established in their book, which to them is the most important thing in the world.  For them it’s either/or, either we go and they establish their utopia or we stay and their utopia is frustrated, which is an easy choice for them — we must go.

In their attempt to get us out of the way they have attacked us on multiple occasions: a US Embassy on 20+ occasions in different countries in 1979 x 2, 1983 x 2, 1984 x 2, 1987, 1998 x 2, 2002 x 2, 2004 x 2, 2006, 2008 x 2, 2010, 2012 and 2013; the World Trade Center twice in 1993 and 2001; Our naval ship, the USS Cole, once; countless occasions during our war in Iraq; and many other occasions foreign and domestic.  Needless to say Country X and those they support have been actively making good on their goals.

Given this analogy, identifying our enemy is a no brainer.  Our enemy is this country X.  Their ends are getting rid of us to establishing their world utopia.  Their means are physical via their proxies.  We need to destroy Country X in self-defense and we have the moral high ground to do so.

To now apply this analogy to today Country X is Iran, and their book is not Mein Kampf, but the Koran.

Our officials know the connections Iran has with their proxies and their actions. This information isn’t classified; it’s well know and all over the news over the years.  Even knowing this information, when our President declared war on terror, and threatened to take action against anyone who harbors or supports terrorists, he had the gall to ask Iran to join his coalition in this effort.  Of course they agreed in words, but their actions remain largely unbridled and they continue to become more daring, calling us “a paper tiger.”  To date, this name has been accurate.

We need to target Iran, but they are not the essence of our entire enemy in this war; they are only its biggest member and its symbol, much like we are the shining star of western civilization and its values.  Islam, the ideology driving their actions, is our enemy in the same sense that Nazism and Japanese Imperialism was our enemy in WWII.  I refer you to Robert Spenser’s works in understanding Islam as described by the Koran.

The territory of Iran and its people aren’t our enemy as such for the same reasons the Germans and Japanese and their territory wasn’t our enemy as such during WWII.  Remember, our enemy is people acting on their ideas that harm us.  Once they abandon their ideas and goals, they cease to be our enemy.

Muslims as such aren’t our enemy either because most Muslims’ beliefs are inconsistent with Islam.  I refer to them as non-Muslim Muslims and Bosch Fawstin wrote a good article on this subject, which is easily found using Google.

Muslims who are consistent with Islam, and therefore, wish to establish world caliphate, however, are our enemy because implied in this desire is our destruction.  This is identifying our enemy in essentially the same terms as identifying our enemy during WWII.  Our enemies during WWII were Nazis and Japanese Imperialists who wished to destroy us, and our enemy today is Muslims who wish to destroy us.  Targeting Muslims who consistently follow Islam is not racist, as some mistakenly have argued.  It would be just as racist as targeting the Nazis because Muslims and the Nazis are not a race; they are followers of a certain ideology.

Now that we have properly identified our enemies to be Muslims who are consistent followers of Islam all that remains now is to achieve victory against this enemy using the same standard of victory that we used in WWII.  Again, that standard is the complete demoralization of our enemy to the point where they abandon their cause as hopeless.

You may be wondering or even have some ideas on how this can be accomplished.  Again, refer to history to discover the answer.  Victory has been achieved by all out war resulting in our enemy’s connection of their continued action to their failure and destruction.  That means all we need to do is to make good on Bushes promise to take action against those who support and harbor terrorists (or identified now as consistent followers of Islam).

Here’s an example, when Al Qaeda and the Taliban took refuge in Pakistan, the Pakistani government wouldn’t remove them due to their self-professed “impotence” to control the area and they wouldn’t allow us to remove them either so as not to violate their sovereignty.  Pakistan cannot have their cake and eat it too.  Either they have the ability to maintain control over an area to possess sovereignty or they don’t have sovereignty.  In either case we have a right to destroy our enemies in that area without Pakistan’s approval and they better hope we think they don’t know what the word sovereign means.

The tactics and strategies used in destroying our enemies need to be decided by the leaders of our guardians — military leaders.  Their guiding principle, however, should be this: the most efficient means of achieving victory.

A quick word on collateral damage.  Collateral damage will occur, but the moral responsibility for these tragic outcomes rightfully rests on the group who initiates force, and not on those who are defending themselves against the aggressor.

Some strategists have said that collateral damage will create more enemies than we destroy.  Let’s refer to history to see if this assertion holds true.  We nuked two cities in Japan and the collateral damage was the greatest compared to any other attack in the world, and how many more enemies did we create?  None.  The Japanese today don’t hold any resentment, and if you look at a picture of today’s Nagasaki and Detroit next to each other, you’d begin to wonder which city was previously nuked.

There is a reason this action didn’t create more enemies — the utter demoralization of those who believed in Japanese imperialism and then realizing that their goals are hopeless and will lead to their own destruction.  They realized that the act in trying to achieve their goals had led them to this point; they blamed their goals and then rejected them.  That is the demoralization we need to strike in the hearts of todays enemies.

There is no causal link between collateral damage and the generation of more enemies, especially since the glaring example of the largest collateral damage in history not only didn’t create more enemies, but it eliminated all remaining enemies left on the battle field.  Had we not demoralized the Japanese to the point of abandoning their goal, however, you can bet nuking them would have created more enemies.

For these reasons, our major goal in achieving victory needs to be their complete demoralization of our enemy; not worrying about collateral damage.  Obviously we should not indiscriminately create collateral damage for its own sake.  And again such decisions in how to best demoralize our enemies need to be made by our guardians.

This is how we win the unwinnable war on terror.

Calling Islam “Islam”

By Bosch Fawstin:

I wrote this a few years ago, and I think it’s worth posting again, particularly after the latest jihadist attack in Boston. I noticed, after the attack this week, that a number of people are using more proper terminology to identify this enemy, which is very important in taking on the enemy. I recall watching panel discussions after 9/11, with each panelist using a different term to describe the enemy we face. That annoyed the hell out of me as I think it’s incredibly important to identify the proper terms when speaking about our enemy, and to NEVER create terms, for whatever reason. To me, the only difference between “Islamism” and Islam is three letters. Below I try my best to make the case why we should always call Islam “Islam.”

Continue reading here…

With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral

With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral

The most complete answer to the lefts appeal to statistics against guns.

Barack Obama: And The Philosophy That’s Destroying America (v2)

Fortunately, and yet unfortunately, one man and the philosophy he follows cannot destroy America alone; it is a metaphysical impossibility. This is unfortunate because the body politic of a society, on the other hand, is capable of destroying (or saving) America depending on the general philosophical principles that they hold and act upon. America’s fate is how important this topic and discussion truly is. Americans have a philosophical choice to make and America rests in the balance. Her fate will depend upon the aggregate choices every American makes — making no choice is one option, but that choice will not prevent any undesired or desired consequences. It will simply defer the conscious selection of America’s outcome to those willing and able to make this imperative decision.

To start this discussion, I will outline and describe the four philosophical categories — Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and Politics — that Barack Obama held during his 2008 Presidential campaign, which the body politic supported at that time as they voted him into office. I will then proceed to highlight the contradiction and provide a non-contradictory alternative. I am hoping that this distinction will aid your decision as to which philosophy to follow; for, man has no choice in possessing a philosophy. Man’s only choice regarding his philosophy is whether his philosophy is consciously weighed and rationally selected, or whether it’s a hodge-podge of random assimilations that his experience happens to expose him to.

Obama begins his belief in metaphysics with a reality that is non-objective. For example, he is quoted as saying, “…[W]e live in a… contradictory world.”[1] This seems simple enough, but Obama further complicates his belief when he says, “Citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality (emphasis mine).”[2] If reality is non-objective, then a logical person might ask, “What’s the point of testing ideas against reality”? Obama’s purpose in claiming that we live in a contradictory world seems to be only to describe that sometimes it’s contradictory and other times it’s not. This is convenient when one says contradictory statements and expects others to overlook it.

Obama’s beliefs in metaphysics direct his beliefs in epistemology. If we always lived in a contradictory world, then we could at least be certain about being uncertain, but since the world is sometimes logically consistent, then one cannot even be certain about their uncertainty. Obama says it best himself when he says, “I am robbed even of the certainty of uncertainty — for sometimes absolute truths may well be absolute.”[3] Because Obama believes certainty is not possible, reason must be impotent; therefore, he must reach out for other means to discover truth. It is clear that Obama selects feelings and instincts for discovering truth when he says, “…if I could reach those voters directly, frame the issues as I felt them, explain the choices in as truthful a fashion as I knew how, then the people’s instincts for fair play and common sense would bring them around (Emphasis is mine).”[4]

Obama’s beliefs in epistemology logically ties into his beliefs in ethics. If everyone were uncertain about everything, then how could anyone judge the morality of anybody else or how could anybody judge them? This is the foundational premise for moral relativism, especially when Obama says, “…[I]f… my notions of truth and goodness… are as true and good… as yours — then how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?”[5] This “non-cohering society” is what Thomas Hobbes refers to as the war of all against all.

Obama’s belief in man’s natural state of war of all against all necessarily leads to his conclusions in politics — government intervention and constraint. Since men would naturally be at odds against one another given moral relativism, then the government must exist to settle this natural antagonism between men. Obama stated clearly several times that he wants government to do more and individuals to do less, to the point that it must be common knowledge by now. I am not sure to what extent his desire to grow government goes, but here’s an indicator: “Economies collapse despite the best-laid plans.”[6] That seems like a willingness to go beyond any limit imposed by reality or economics, because this argument suggests that the fault lies with reality and not the “best-laid plans.”

Obama’s contradiction arises from the very root of his beliefs, which undercuts and voids the rest of the philosophical framework that he follows. Contradictions do not and cannot exist. Nothing can be and not be at the same time in the same respect. The fact Obama thinks contradictions exist is simply his admission to the world that there are errors in his thinking. Contradictions may exist in wording, but not in reality nor conceptually. You will never find one in reality or conceptually and this law of non- contradiction holds true for all true principles. This is what binds ideas to reality.

If we live in a non-contradictory world, then we are free to discover it. Our means to discover truthful knowledge is reason, which is the non-contradictory integration of new information that we acquire through our senses with the rest of our knowledge. Just as our senses can never perceive a contradiction in reality because contradictions cannot exist, the integration of this information should not lead to a contradiction. So if we integrate that information correctly, then our knowledge is also non-contradictory.

Man is not infallible, however, for he is a volitional being. Choice is where the possibility of errors arises. Man is capable of selecting what he believes to be true or not and he can choose the method and standard he uses in determining what is true or not. Errors, therefore, can be made in what man considers true because errors can be made in the method he uses for determining truth. Common experience demonstrates this to all honest inquirers. Fortunately the process of obtaining knowledge through reason is self-correcting if an error is indeed made. The method of correcting errors is to identify and then resolve any contradictions in your thinking.

All knowledge is rooted in observation; therefore, one’s knowledge in ethics, if it is to be rationally validated must be rooted in observation. Our observation of reality and the application of reason force us to see that all living entities under normal conditions act in their self-interest. Plants obtain water, nutrients, and sun in the best proportions suitable for their life to the best of their ability. Unreasoning animals seek shelter, water and food in the best proportions suitable for their life to the best of their ability. As soon as their ability isn’t sufficient they die. Once dead no action is possible to them any longer; their body remains, but their life goes out of existence. Man must discover, unlike plants and non-reasoning animals, what is in his self-interest, and his means of discovery is his rational mind. Just as man may make errors in thinking, so he may make errors in what is rationally in his best interest; however, the process is self-correcting for the same reason all false ideas and principle are self- correcting when using reason.

If reality is non-contradictory, if truth is possible to man via reason, and if a rational ethical framework exists, then by life’s standard men can live harmoniously amongst one another so long as they secure their right to act on their rational judgment.

Rights are the proper ethics for man brought into a social/political context. It is their individual requirement of life, but translated into conditions that involve other men. Men act to secure rights because their wellbeing requires that their rights be secured. The means to secure rights is banding together in self-defense — i.e., instituting a government amongst men.

Rights are unalienable and will remain unalienable because man’s interests will always require that they are un-obstructed in a social/political context. The initiation of force against other men works directly against their ability to act in their rational self-interest and it forces them to act or not to act regardless of what their judgment may conclude. Securing rights prevents the initiation of force, thus allowing men to peacefully reason with one another to achieve common goals. This is the natural harmony between rational men.

Men may make errors in thinking and act to violate another’s rights. If this were not the case, then self- defense would have never been conceived in the minds of men. The police exist to neutralize violators of rights domestically, the courts exist bring those who succeed in violating rights to justice, and the military exists to neutralize the violators of their citizen’s rights that reign from foreign forces.

It is important to note at this point, when comparing the two alternatives, that neither set of ideas are original; some of them can be dated as far back as Plato. These philosophical frameworks, however, when assimilated by a society guides that society in a noticeable direction for better or for worse. For example, the classical Greek civilization was driven by Aristotle’s metaphysics (objective reality) and epistemology (reason), which lead to enlightenment and grand achievements in math, science, and art. During the dark ages in Europe, however, Plato’s metaphysics (man’s mind is disconnected from actual reality so who knows what reality truly is) and epistemology (uncertainty or revelation) ruled that society’s beliefs, which lead towards darkness and deterioration. In the 1400s Thomas Aquinas reintroduced Aristotle’s epistemology into European society; it resulted in the renaissance, which I like to think of as the rebirth of reason, and all the natural consequences that go with such a belief — enlightenment and achievement. Our society at present is at this critical juncture again: it’s either going to be Aristotle, the enlightenment and achievement, or Plato, darkness and deterioration.

This brings us back to the main point — America’s fate and the choice you hold. The choice before you, my fellow Americans, lies in this: will you learn from history and move towards enlightenment and achievement or are you willing to surrender the fate of America to those who think that “economies collapse despite the best-laid plans”?
More Obama quotes that supports conclusions reached in this paper regarding the pilosphy he follows can be found here.

———————
[1] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pg. 56
[2] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pg. 92
[3] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pg. 97
[4] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pgs. 17 and 18
[5] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pgs. 86-87
[6] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pg. 36

Barack Obama: And The Philosophy That’s Destroying America

I started reading Barack Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming The American Dream,” (TAoH) and I discovered something I did not expect — a logically consistent philosophy. The foundation of this philosophy, however, is based on a false principle. The nature of false principles is that they logically sprout into false corollaries. So Barack Obama’s philosophical framework may be consistent, but it will be consistently false.

It is not one man and his philosophy that’s destroying America; that’s impossible, which is fortunate for mankind in general if you could picture what the world would be like if it wasn’t impossible. It is never one man that drives a nation toward destruction. Take Adolf Hitler for example, he wasn’t the only one in Germany to believe in what he was saying. As for America’s case, the fact that Barack Obama was voted into public office by a majority of voters indicates that the ideas Barack Obama represents resonates with the majority of Americans. A majority of the population holding false principles, in a consistently false philosophical framework, can and will destroy a nation whether it is German or America. It would destroy any nation.

The purpose of this paper is to challenge those false notions that seem to resonate with the majority of Americans in order to break their appeal and suggest an alternative philosophical framework that is based on a true principle and is also logically consistent throughout its corollaries. The method I will use to accomplish this is to quote Barack Obama’s own words in order to describe his philosophy; then I will prove that the principles are false by highlighting contradictions. Finally I will proceed to provide a non-contradictory alternative.

Let us begin with the basic outline of Barack Obama’s philosophical framework:
Metaphysics: non-objective reality, “…we live in a… contradictory world.” (pg. 56, TAoH)
Epistemology: Uncertainty, “I am robbed even of the certainty of uncertainty…” (pg. 97, TAoH)
Ethics: Relativism, “…my notions of truth and goodness… are as true and good… as yours…” (pg. 87, TAoH)
Politics: Bigger Government, “getting more things done.” (pg. 3, TAoH)

Let us continue with a more detailed breakout of the outline.

Metaphysics:
These are quotes from Obama that supports what I have identified as his metaphysical beliefs:

• “It is precisely the pursuit of ideological purity… that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country.” (pg.40, TAoH) Ideological purity meaning logical consistency in this context; logical meaning non-contradictory.
• “…maturity to balance idealism with realism.” (pg. 42, TAoH) In this context he attempts to divorce ideas with reality. This suggests there can be no logical consistency between ideas and reality.
• “At times our values [of individualism and communal values] collide…” These “tensions arise not because we steered the wrong course, but SIMPLY because we live in a contradictory world. (emphasis mine)” (pg. 55-56, TAoH) This again highlights that ideas cannot be consistent with reality.
• President Obama has this to say about President Lincoln’s hard choice in initiating the civil war: it “was a matter of maintaining within himself the balance between two contradictory ideas…” (pg. 98, TAoH) Again suggesting that contradictions are a part of life and reality.

No sane person explains that we “live in a contradictory world,” without paying lip service to a non-contradictory world.

• “citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality.” (pg. 92, TAoH) What good would any test of reality be if the results were contradictory because of a contradictory world?
• When receiving advice from potential Mentor within the senate, Barack Obama discovers that “Most of the advice [he] found useful; occasionally it was CONTRADICTORY (emphasis mine).” (pg. 73, TAoH) The implicit understanding is that contradictory information is false or useless. So it is clear that Barack Obama understand that the world is not always contradictory and contradictions mean that something is false.

His purpose in claiming that we live in a contradictory world seems to be only to describe that sometimes it’s contradictory and other times it’s not. This line of thinking is useful when one says contradictory statements and expects others to overlook it.

Epistemology:
His beliefs in metaphysics lead to his beliefs in epistemology. If we always lived in a contradictory world, then we could at least be certain about being uncertain, but since the world is sometimes logically consistent, then one cannot even be certain about their uncertainty.

• “I am robbed even of the certainty of uncertainty – for sometimes absolute truths may well be absolute.” (pg. 97, TAoH)
• “…all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side; and yet at times we must act nonetheless, as if we are certain.” (pg. 98, TAoH)
• He is very clear that he doesn’t know, “This isn’t to say that I know exactly how to [change our politics and civic life]. I don’t.” (pg. 9, TAoH) Let us take him at his word, and find somebody who does know.
• “I offer no unifying theory of American government… Instead what I offer is… my own best assessment — based on my experience as a SKEPTIC … (emphasis mine)” (pg. 9, TAoH) Skeptics are historically doubtful of everything. Skepticism is the result of absolute uncertainty.
• “… [the process of making law in America] suggests that both our individual and collective judgments are at once legitimate and highly fallible.” (pg. 93, TAoH) Is it that difficult to see that such reasoning is driven by uncertainty? Barak Obama continues:
  • “…the process of making law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds;” (pg. 93, TAoH) by what standard should we change our minds? None is given or suggested — just doubt yourself.
  • “[the process of making law in America] challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly,” (pg. 93, TAoH) but it does not challenge us to examine the logic within our reasoning?

Because uncertainty is epidemic and reason is helpless to save us, he reaches out for other means to discover the truth. The means he chooses are feelings and instincts:

• “I find myself returning again and again to my mother’s simple principle — ‘how would that make you FEEL?’ — as a guidepost for my politics… Like any value, EMPATHY must be acted upon. (emphasis mine)” (pg. 67-68 TAoH)
• “…if I could reach those voters directly, frame the issues as I FELT them, explain the choices in AS TRUTHFUL a fashion as I knew how, then the people’s INSTINCTS for fair play and common sense would bring them around.” (pgs. 17, 18)
• “the Constitution envisions a road map by which we marry PASSION to reason… (emphasis mine)” (pg. 95, TAoH) Reason is too noble to be influenced and compromise with passion — passion can follow reason, but reason can never follow passion or it ceases to be reason.
• “[Bill Clinton] INSTINCTIVELY understood…(emphasis mine)” (pg. 34, TAoH)

If I believed such tripe, I would be uncertain about everything too, especially if I had no correct method of thought to guide me and I relied on feelings and instincts. Fortunately we do have a correct method: that method is reason as defined as the non-contradictory integration of information provided by our precepts into the whole of our knowledge and experience.

Ethics:
His beliefs in epistemology consistently ties into his beliefs in ethics. If I was uncertain about everything, then who am I to judge the morality of others and who are they to judge me? This is the foundational premise underlying moral relativism:

• “…if… my notions of truth and goodness… are as true and good… as yours — then how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?” (pg. 86-87, TAoH) This is what Thomas Hobbes describes as “the war of all against all,” for which Hobbes proposes a solution — “…men would form governments…” (pg. 87, TAoH) This state of war is the natural state of men, were it not for governments — so says Hobbes (and now Barack Obama).  This belief is the sanction for government’s involvement in all of man’s dealings.

Politics:
His beliefs in ethics consistently lead to his conclusions in politics. Since men would naturally be at odds against one another, then the government must decide. It is fairly clear that Barack Obama wants government to do more and individuals to do less:

• “…[Americans] wanted clean air, clean water… and… they wanted to be able to retire… children should be able to go to college even if their parents aren’t rich”, and “THEY FIGURED GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP (emphasis mine).” “…I knew once again just why I’d gone into politics.” (pg. 7, TAoH)
• “…government spending and regulation could serve as vital ingredients… to market growth, and… could help promote social justice.” (pg. 34, TAoH)
• “…government has a role to play in promoting opportunity and prosperity for all Americans…” (pg. 40, TAoH)
• “Sometimes only the law can fully vindicate our values…” (pg. 62, TAoH)
• “…one of the things that makes me a democrat…” is “this idea that our communal values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity, should express themselves… through our government.” (pg. 63, TAoH)
• “…I also believe that our government can play a role in shaping… culture for the better…” (pg. 63, TAoH)

I do not know for sure that this desire to expand government has a limit, but here’s an indicator:

• “Economies collapse despite the best-laid plans.” (pg. 36, TAoH) That seems like a willingness to go past any limit imposed by reality or economics, because the argument suggests that fault lies with reality and not the “best-laid plans.”

No American politician talks about central planning without paying any lip service to the rights of man — knowing, if not consciously then subconsciously, that central planning requires the violation of rights.

• Obama quotes part of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence (pg.53, TAoH), but stops short of the most essential part, with regard to the purpose men establish government in the first place: “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (DoI)
• Barack Obama claims that the idea of UNALIENABLE rights is the “substance of our common creed.” (pg.53, TAoH) Then he explains that “individual rights are almost entirely SUBJECT to the self-restraint of [government members], (emphasis mine)” (pg. 53, TAoH) thus contradicting our common creed. Rights are either unalienable or not.
• He clearly doesn’t think much about securing rights as the legitimate purpose of government when he states, “The legitimacy of our government… depends on the degree to which [self-reliance, self-improvement, risk-taking, drive, discipline, temperance, hard work, thrift, and personal responsibility] are rewarded.” He uses this standard of legitimacy to smuggle in “equal opportunity” and social justice, which necessarily snuffs out rights. (pg. 54-55, TAoH) The security of rights and organized injustice — i.e., equal opportunity and social justice as Barak Obama defines them — cannot exist within the same government action.
• He then goes on to explain that “…laws constraining liberty…” are legitimate so long as they, “…are uniform, predictable, and transparent…” (pg. 87, TAoH) The germ leading to this conclusion is egalitarianism. Equality of misery will be the only thing this accomplishes.

He succeeded in adhering to a philosophy that pays lip service to unalienable rights, and then proceeds to completely eliminate the idea with contradictions. This is very consistent with his metaphysical beliefs. He proceeds to justify his violation of rights with his understanding, or should I say misunderstanding, of the U.S. Constitution:

• The statement, “…individual liberties… enshrined in our Constitution…” (pg. 86, TAoH), clearly indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of our Constitution. Take a look at the wording within the Constitution yourself; the object under focus is the federal government. The Constitution was designed and built to form and limit the legal activities of the federal government — not its citizens. Do not confound identifying preexisting rights and limiting the government’s legal actions around them, which is clearly written within the Constitution, with establishing new rights for its citizens.
• “I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution — that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in context of an ever-changing world. How could it be otherwise?” (pg.90, TAoH) I’ll answer that. Like most contracts the terms of the agreement are between two or more parties — in this case the People, their States and the proposed Federal Government. These terms cannot change until the contract is changed. There is no living and breathing terms of agreement possible here. Do not confound the amendment process with what Barak Obama is advocating — the former is a process for the different involved parties to adjust the contract and the later is the evasion of identifying any terms within the contract.
• Another error is Barack Obama’s failure to understand why “[the Constitution] provided no protection to those outside the constitutional circle.” (pg. 95, TAoH) The Constitution is a contract between the citizenry, the States and the Federal Government. How can any contract extend beyond its participants? My best guess is that Barack Obama doesn’t know that the Constitution is a contract or he doesn’t understand the use and limits of contracts.
• He gives examples of the Constitutional text “lacking” context and uses that as an excuse to alter the terms within the Constitution: “The constitutional text provides us with general principle that we aren’t subject to unreasonable searches by the government. It can’t tell us the founder’s specific views on the reasonableness of an NSA computer data-mining operation.” (pg.90, TAoH) Yes, yes, the founders we so smart as to create the best form of government the world has ever seen, but they never gave us a standard for reasonableness. How little he must think of them and their work — i.e., the Constitution. I would alter the context of the Constitution too if I thought like he did about our founders’ ineptness. Well if you read the fourth amendment a little further, then you will see what is considered unreasonable: unreasonable is anything without “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (US Constitution) A few qualifiers for a reasonable search are probable cause, which means any evidence to suggest, along with at least one witness to observe the evidence, and a very narrow or specific location to search for the evidence that was seen. Nothing is lacking here.
• Here is another Constitutional text “lacking” context provided by Barack Obama, “The constitutional text tells us that freedom of speech must be protect, but it doesn’t tell us what such freedom means in the CONTEXT of the Internet (emphasis mine)” (pg. 90, TAoH). Besides the blatant falsehood surrounding the idea that “the constitutional text tells us freedom of speech must be protected,” the context involving the medium of speech is irrelevant. The first amendment actually says, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” (US Constitution) The first amendment clearly limits government action rather than calling it to action regarding speech. That being said, it is clear now that any speech being conducted on the Internet doesn’t change a thing with regard to government action — no action is granted or authorized.

I have no degree in constitutional law, and Barack Obama does — what kind of nonsense is being taught to the “experts” if I have to point out the obvious contradictions in their thinking?

I’ve highlighted the philosophy guiding Barack Obama’s thoughts and actions. I even pointed out some of its falsehood by identifying some of the philosophy’s contradictions. Now, I will briefly point out the rest of its errors and offer an alternative.

Metaphysics:
The errors in this category of Barack Obama’s philosophy go without saying. Contradictions do not exist and cannot exist. Nothing can be and not be at the same time in the same respect. The fact he thinks contradictions exist is simply his admitting to the world that there is an error in his thinking.

Contradictions may exist in wording, but not in reality or conceptually. For example I might say a leaf is all red and all green at the same time. The contradiction is obvious; the leaf is green and not green at the same time and red and not red at the same time. The respect in this case is the color. Though it may be said in written or verbal words, it cannot, however, be the case in reality or conceptually. Can you conceptually think of a leaf that is all red and all green at the same time? All honest people will answer no. You will never find one in reality either.

This law of non-contradiction holds true for any true principle. This is what binds ideas to reality.

Epistemology:
Uncertainty arises out of an uncertain reality, but since reality is certain and non-contradictory then so can be your knowledge of reality. Additionally, an appeal to instinct and feelings are not a means to discover knowledge. Can you instinctually determine a coin flip? No? How about while using your feelings? Again, no. There is a certain means, however, of determining a coin flip: using your own eyes to determine for certain if it landed heads or tails. This is the simplest case, but no matter the complexities leading to truthful knowledge the essentials are the same: if an idea is true, then it must be consistent with reality and experience. All truthful ideas can be reduced back to simple observations because observations are our direct connection to reality.

If we live in a non-contradictory world, then we are free to discover it. Our means to discover truthful knowledge is reason, which is the non-contradictory integration of information, that we acquire through our senses, with the rest of our knowledge. Just as our senses cannot ever perceive a contradiction in reality because contradictions cannot exist, the integration of this information should not lead to a contradiction. So if we integrate that information correctly, then our knowledge is also non-contradictory.

We are volitional beings so we have the ability to choose between alternatives where a choice is possible. These choices range from beliefs to actions. This is where the possibility of errors arises. We can select what we believe is true or not. Errors can be made in what we consider true and errors can be made when we attempt to reason. Common experience demonstrates this to all honest inquirers. We have all made a mistake at one point in what we think is true, or at least the less honest among us will agree that we have observed others make that mistake.

Fortunately the process of obtaining knowledge through reason is self-correcting. Humans are fallible, and if we error, the error is in our integration for we accepted a contradiction somewhere in our thinking. The error can never be with reality or our senses because the process that makes our senses work (or don’t work) and reality itself functions independent of our volition; they cannot accept or produce a contradiction. Therefore, if you think you’re facing a contradiction, then check your previously integrated information — i.e., check your premises. One of your integrations will be wrong — i.e., it will be inconsistent with reality.

Ethics:
Our observation of reality and the application of reason force us to see that all living things under normal conditions act in their self-interest. Plants obtain water, nutrients, and sun light in the best proportions suitable for their life to the best of their ability. Unreasoning animals seek shelter, water and food in the best proportions suitable for their life to the best of their ability. As soon as their ability isn’t good enough they die. Once they die, then no actions are possible anymore. Man must discover, unlike plants and non-reasoning animals, what is in his self-interest, and his means of discovery is his rational mind. Just as he may make errors in thinking, so he may make errors in what is rationally good for him; however, the process is self-correcting for the same reason all false ideas and principle are self-correcting when using reason.

This idea, if true, blasts an irrecoverable hole in notion of moral relativism.  It suggests that an objective rational morality exists for man and can be discovered using reason.  This also eliminates the logical consequence of moral relativism: man’s natural state is war.  This notion suggests that there is no conflict of interest between rational men; they can live in harmony.

Politics:
If, as Barak Obama suggests, men are incapable of being certain, moral relativism reigns and constraint is necessary, then I have a few questions (proposed by Frederic Bastiat) for those men who wish to apply for roles within the suggested authoritarian government:

1. Has anyone identified a satisfactory form of constraint?
2. Can that person convince the mass amount of people who give preference to other forms of restraint?
3. Will all men be able to give into that form of constraint, which in theory runs against all individual interests?
4. Assuming that men will allow this new restraint to rule them, what will happen if an inventor discovers a different and better form? Are we to remain consistent, knowing our situation to be more vicious than it has to be, or are we to change our organization every day according to the caprices of fashions and utility that inventors’ brains may dictate.
5. Wouldn’t the rest of the inventors, whose plans were rejected, united together against the one that has been selected? Wouldn’t their success be to the degree that the selected plan ran counter to individual interests?
6. Last of all, does any human force or capability exist that is able to overcome the antagonism between all men that we suppose is natural and the very source of human action?

Frederic Bastiat continues: “Imight multiply such questions ad infinitum, and propose, for example, this difficulty:

“If individual interest is opposed to general interest, where are we to place the active principle of Constraint? Where is the fulcrum of the lever to be placed? Beyond the limits of human society? It must be so if we are to escape the consequence of your law. If we are to entrust some men with arbitrary power, prove first of all that these men are formed of a different clay from the other mortals; that they in their turn will not be acted upon by the fatal principle of self-interest; and that, placed in a situation that excludes the idea of any curb, any effective opposition, their judgments will be exempt from error, their hands from rapacity, and their hearts from covetousness.

“The radical difference between various Socialist schools (I mean here, those which seek the solution of social problems in artificial organization) and the Economist school, does not consist in certain views of detail or of governmental combination. We encounter that difference at the starting point, in a preliminary and pressing question: Are human interests, when left to themselves, antagonistic or harmonious?” (Harmonies of Political-Economics: Book I)

If reality is non-contradictory, reason is possible to all men and a rational ethical framework exists, then, by the standard of life for rational men, men can live harmoniously amongst one another so long as they secure their right to act on their rational judgment.

Man is capable of functioning in isolation and survives quite well. It is rationally in his better interest to work with other men to achieve common values, which would not be possible otherwise; like building structures, achieving technology, or more generally put: division and economy of labor. Man can achieve more values that further his life by dividing up the work load and trading each other’s achievements.

Rights are the proper ethics for man brought into a social/political context. It is their ethical requirement of life, but while living with other men. Men act to secure rights because their life requires that their rights are secured. The means to secure rights is banding together in self-defense — i.e., instituting governments among men.

Rights are unalienable and will remain unalienable because man’s life will always require them in a social/political context. Initiation of force against other men works directly against their ability to act in their rational self-interest and prevents any ethical actions — it forces men to act or not to act against their reasoning and judgment. Securing rights prevents the initiation of force, thus allowing men to peacefully reason with one another to achieve common goals. This is the connection between ethics and politics. This is the natural harmony between rational men.

Men may make errors in thinking and act to violate another’s rights. If this were not the case, then self-defense would have never been conceived in the minds of men. The police exist to prevent violations to rights domestically and the courts bring those who succeed in violating rights to justice. The military exists to prevent the violation of rights from foreign forces.

To sum up our journey, a correct and consistent philosophy is needed to replace Obama’s so that America can avoid destruction. The one that seems most likely to succeed in saving America is as follows:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality: Contradictions do not exist.
Epistemology: Reason: our means to eliminate contradictions in our thinking.
Ethics: Rational Self-Interest: all livings things must act in their self-interest; man must rationally act in his.
Politics: Secure Rights: governments are instituted by men so that man is safe to act in his rational self-interest in harmony amongst other men.

Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society

“But the theory that rights come from God is hopeless. To begin with, there is no evidence for the existence of such a being, much less for the existence of rights that somehow emanate from his will. Whether one believes in God is beside the point here. Either way, the fact remains that there is no evidence for God’s existence, which is why it is supposed to be accepted on faith—in the absence of evidence. Rights in support of which there is no evidence are not rights but fantasies…

“…To say that rights come from God is to say that there is no evidence in support of their existence, that there is no basis for them in perceptual reality, that they are not rationally provable. This is not a sound theory of rights; it cannot serve as a solid foundation on which to advocate or defend liberty…” [Continued]

Hayek Vs. Keynes: 2nd Round

This is an excellent video for those interested in an entertaining break down of the two economic/political ideologies at war in our country today, and has been going on for almost a century. The stakes are high.

End Fractional-Reserve Banking: Part I

(Note from author: I have recently been convinced that fractional-reserve banking, though it’s a bad idea, should not be outlawed.  The government should not outlaw bad ideas unless fraud or another for a violating rights is involved.)

 

The Basics:

Law of Identity: A is A

Law of Excluded Middle: Anything is either A or non-A

Law of Contradiction: Nothing can be both A and non-A at the same time in the same respect

Law of Causality: The relationship between cause and effect

The Problem:

Fractional-reserve banking is a fraudulent process because it violates the law of contradiction. Because it is a fraud it is incompatible with the free-market; therefore, free-market laws should prohibit such frauds and protect individuals from it. Our whole financial system, however, is designed around concealing that fact and it’s designed around sustaining its operation besides. The motive for maintaining this particular contradiction (as far as I can tell) is that there is a ton of money to be earned and because it’s lasted this long thus far (i.e., status quo). It will soon be coming to an end, as most contradictions eventually do, one way or another; either by choice or by the implacability of reality rearing its head — I sincerely hope for the former.

Why fractional-reserve banking is a fraud:

What is fractional-reserve banking? Fractional-reserve banking is what allows banks to lend part of its deposits (AKA assets) while maintaining a small fraction (in this example 10%) in reserve; thus, the term “fractional-reserve banking”. That doesn’t sound so bad, that is until one carries it out to its logical conclusion.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that only $1000 exists in circulation, only one bank exists, and there is only one depositor (so far) at this bank, who deposited the existing $1000. The bank can now lend $900 while maintaining $100 in reserve. That $900 gets spent and then deposited back into the bank. Because banks do not care about the source of their deposits, that $900 is counted as an asset. The bank can now lend 90% of $900 while maintaining 10% in reserve. That lent money gets spend, it’s deposited back into the bank, and it’s counted as an asset which the bank can now lend 90% of again. This cycle can continue until the very last penny. The result being that $1000 is in the reserve (the original $1000), $9000 is on the books as lent out, and $10,000 is on the books for deposits. That should raise a few eyebrows, but it gets worse.

Here in lies the contradiction; that $1000 is claimed to be owned by several people. People will spend their deposit as though they own it. People will assume that their money exists in full. Keep in mind that nothing can be A and non-A at the same time in the same respect – that would be a contradiction. In this case, that $1000 belongs to the first depositor and not to the first depositor at the same time in the same respect — that is a contradiction. Any one or all of its many owners may go the bank to claim “their” money — you better be the first one in line though because only $1000 exists.

——————————————————————————–