September 26, 2009 
Locutus of The Borg Collective
Yes, you read that title right. For those of you that do not follow the Star Trek universe, the Borg is an empire of cybernetic (part alive, part machine) organisms that travel the galaxy “assimilating” other societies (against their will) to benefit the Borg collective. In the process, they strip each person of their individuality in favor of the “good of the collective” which makes the knowledge, and technology, of that society part of the Borg collective. They now think as one giant organism instead of individuals. The loss of individuals, or “drones”, is insignificant, unless it significantly endangers the collective. The individual just becomes a number, a drone without self thought, and operates (and lives) at the mercy of the collective. In the Star Trek universe, the Borg are the Federation’s (and Earth’s) greatest threat and enemy. The Borg show no mercy, and adapt quickly to all resistance to their weaponry and advances. The Borg does not negotiate. They come in and take, and consider you insignificant. They are the living realization of Bill Maher’s philosophy “…He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this…” The Borg consider themselves “progressive perfection” and everyone else insignificant. The Borg usually have a lot of success and insignificant hurdles (resistance) with assimilating other societies. Humans, however, are proving to be quite difficult to assimilate. Their typical tactics haven’t worked against the humans’ ingenuity and tenacity. So the Borg realize that some psychological warfare is going to be necessary to achieve their goals. So they capture the Federation’s most trusted (and famous) officer, the Captain of their flagship called “Enterprise”. They assimilate him and give him a new name, quite unusual for the Borg to appoint a drone an individual role. The picture you see, is him. His new name is “Locutus” and he is now “ambassador” to the humans, except he isn’t negotiating. His role is to demoralize the humans, and to use his knowledge of humans, and technology, against the humans. He knows about weaponry, battle tactics, secret codes, etc.
So, how the heck does all of this relate to the title of this article? The United States of America was a new idea. For centuries, the common thought was that the “good of the crown” or the “good of the people” or “the good of the nation” etc. was placed above the individual. There was always a small group of “elites” that thought themselves greater and smarter than the populace, and ruled as such, usually with a disregard for that populace. With a few minor exceptions and spurts here and there, the world remained stagnant, and without much significant advancement. The occasional “spurts,” as I mentioned before, happened during times of governmental experiments, which gave individuals rights, and the ability to improve themselves. This happened with the Greeks, the Romans, and the Anglo Saxons. These societies became great because people were not only encouraged to have good ideas, but were allowed to profit from them. Citizens had representatives they had elected to determine the law. Sure, these societies were flawed, but they had the distinction of recognizing the individual. Rome fell for two reasons, both related. The people kept expecting more “free” handouts from the government, because their representatives became more corrupt, by learning that if they promised free stuff, they would get elected. This free-loading got so bad, that it was very easy for someone desiring power to gain it as emperor, by promising he’d “fix” everything and give people more. Well, what really happened, was people lost their individuality and their freedom. Only a select elite around the new emperor got all the riches and everyone else worked hard to support their opulent lifestyle. Citizens eventually lost everything that made them unique from non-citizens. The government couldn’t support itself as the “rich” were now generally just government officials (or those paying them off), and the people had no more incentive to support them. Rome fell under its own weight.
I see this happening right now in the USA. The new idea of the individual becoming the most important thing, pulled the world out of perpetual stagnation. In a little over 200 years, the world went from horses and buggies, outhouses, bad hygene, etc. to cars, cell phones, computers, landing on the moon etc. All because of a new idea that made each person important, and that you can profit from your ideas, which had the side effect of making society better.
Now we have a group of Borg, with their own Locutus (Obama, except he’s a willing participant) wanting to assimilate everyone into the Marxist collective. When you think you can help the individual by disregarding it, then you’re fooling yourself. The United States Constitution, what it says, how it says it, and those that wrote it, changed the world for the better. The so-called “Progressive Movement” is a lie. There is nothing “progressive” about Marxism or so-called “collectivism”. All it has ever brought a people and nation is stagnation and misery. Sure, everyone (except government officials) are equal … equally poor. Nobody has an incentive to invent or to improve themselves. Why? The government will just confiscate it, and pat them on the head, or give them a medal. They will still be living in their generic one bedroom apartment like everyone else.
Why do people keep getting suckered into Marxism? Don’t they understand that human beings are naturally freedom loving and competitive? Don’t they understand that individuals are not equal? Some are smarter, some are prettier, some are more athletic, some are artistic and creative, some are great thinkers and inventers, etc. The notion of “equal” is preposterous! The US Declaration of Independence said instead that people have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, equal amount of God-given rights, and that they have the responsibility to take care of and support themselves, and not allow some bureaucrat to dictate their lives. Is this so hard to grasp?? This isn’t something that is “living and breathing” as progressives will claim. This is a concrete truth and fact. The truth being: society benefits the most when the individual is its most important asset. This isn’t something that changes or morphs over the years; it is concrete and steadfast. Martin Luther King Junior understood and appreciated this too, as his speeches were full of such ideas that everyone had the right to better themselves, everyone had the right to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Frederick Douglass, a former slave, said the same.
Any structural engineer will tell you that the most important “floor” of any building is the foundation. It supports the whole building. If you disregard the importance of the foundation, the whole building will collapse. The foundation here, is the individual, the building is society, and the top floor is government. Marxism concentrates on the building and disregards the individual floors and the foundation. It makes the strongest floor the top floor by putting equal stress and weight on all of the floors. A collapse is inevitable as it has no foundation.
I love how the trumpeters of Marxism don’t actually practice it themselves. Hollywood elites fly around in jets, living a life of opulence, catered to by maids and butlers, eating the best foods, driving the best cars, the ultimate examples of croney capitalism, yet decrying the very thing that gives them their riches in favor of a tyrant like Mao Se Tung, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Chez Guevara, or even Josef Stalin! Some will even say if Hitler hadn’t been psychotic by massacring millions of Jews, his government was perfect! Noting that “Nazi” meant “Nationalsozialist” (or “National Socialist” in English, it’s not an acronym but an abbreviation) a member of the “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (or “National Socialist German Workers Party” in English), the ultimate example of Fascism and socialism.
This pontification and claims of being smarter than the little people (Bill Maher said “…Americans are stupid…”) is what the world lived with for centuries. The “new” ideas the USA brought to the world of personal responsibility and opportunity made it better. The ideas of Marxism, spreading the wealth, having the government take care of you, etc. are the same old song and dance of those wanting POWER over the centuries. It’s just been repackaged and given a new name. Today, it has been given the new name of “Hope and Change”. Which is ironically not related to those words.
People, don’t you realize what you are doing? What those in our government are trying to do to this nation will have only one effect, and it will not be the improvement of society. It will set us back hundreds of years. There will be another period of stagnation the world has seen before.
You cannot benefit society by rendering the individual insignificant. Society benefits when the individual is free to live as he or she chooses to live it. The United States of America is PROOF of this. The former USSR and many nations of history, is proof of the flawed design of society first or the intellectual knows best ideas.
These Marxist, socialist, pro-Mao, pro-Chavez, pro-Castro people living in mansions, going on expensive vacations, wearing expensive clothes saying “you need to sacrifice more and pay more taxes”, “spread the wealth around”, and pay for someone else’s mistakes have no thoughts nor cares for you. They think they are better than you. They think you need them, when you only need yourself. Do you realize how much money capitalism has made for Michael Moore and Sean Penn, yet they constantly put down the very system that makes them filthy rich?! Hypocrites! You have the likes of Michelle and Barack Obama, Van Jones, Dick Durbin, Rohm Emmanuel etc. saying you need to spread the wealth around, yet they live in the lap of luxury! Hey! You first!
The problem is not capitalism. It’s greed and corruption. Capitalism worked quite well for the past 250 years. Greed and corruption of our government has caused the natural balances of the market to become blocked. Isn’t it ironic that the very group of people that brought our economy to this dire position have the balls to claim they know how to fix it? These people should be in jail, not in the halls of government. What the Obama administration and his supporters in government are doing are treason, plain and simple. Their plan is to collapse the US economy so they can replace it with a global Marxist economy, a “Utopia” in their eyes. The so-called “stimulus” was written by a Marxist lobbying group called the “Apollo Group”. You know, the thing nobody read before they voted on it. How can a Marxist group possibly want to write anything to rescue a free economy? How can anyone quadruple our national debt in mere days and not want our economy to collapse? It’s called “assimilation” and they think resistance is futile.
So, how’s that “Hope and Change” going for you right now? What happens when there is no more wealth to spread around? Who will pay for your social programs then?
Here’s a thought:
- Be responsible for your own life
- Earn your own living
- Be responsible for your own medical care. You’ll find medicine was a lot cheaper before insurance, medicare, and lawsuit happy greedy lawyers. Doctors actually made house-calls.
- Understand you have a right to succeed
- Understand you have a right to fail
- Be charitable and give a hand up not a hand out. Pull people out of the mud and don’t just pay them enough so they don’t sink under it (like welfare programs do).
- If you don’t speak the language, learn it. Success requires communication and not your refusal to learn or laziness to be catered to.
- Protect yourself, your family and your friends. Do not rely on the government.
- Understand that what your neighbor owns he earned. Stop comparing yourself to someone else, either positively or negatively. Instead of taking away what someone else earned, how about making your success greater than theirs?
- Understand that “equal” means equal opportunity, not equal results.
- Judge people by their abilities, talents, and content of their character. Understand it’s the differences in people that make them special and unique.
- Be prepared in all things. Do not expect the government to baby you.
- The government is there to protect you from enemies and criminals (where you can’t), to ensure free economic trade, and to make sure your freedom and liberties are never infringed upon. Yes, that is what it says in the Constitution, nothing else.
- Understand that EVERY SINGLE RACE HAS BEEN IN BONDAGE AND SLAVERY throughout human history (even whites, study “Rome” and “Egypt” for a start). No single race has the right to claim they are special, and deserve special treatment in being “former slaves”. Understand that YOU are not a slave, and have every right and capability to succeed. Understand that those continually labeling you the victim are modern day slave owners.
- Understand that actions have consequences, either good or bad. Justice requires a punishment, even if the offender is “reformed”. A truly “reformed” offender would understand this. Compassion makes sure justice is accurate for the crime itself and not anything after. Forgiving someone does not mean denying justice. The crime was still committed, and the punishment must be served.
- Understand it is the individual that makes the nation great, literally. People with freedom and money tend to travel and spend. People recognizing this, will make goods and services to spend it on, by hiring people to do it…. and so it builds. People without such incentives, do nothing, as they are not allowed to, and if they do, government will just take it away.
- Understand that the world under repressive rule remained stagnant for thousands of years, and that progress only happened when the people were given freedom. The greatest example of how liberty and freedom given to the individual works and is best for society is by the United States Constitution, and in a little over 200 years brought the world from horses and huts to computers and automobiles. Grand advances are made when the individual is free from tyranny.
- Anyone telling you that you deserve someone else’s money, property, house, whatever, is lying to you, and wants yours as well as the other guy’s. Power is their only concern. Your poverty is your responsibility to irradicate, and freedom allows this.
- Understand that Karl Marx was a bitter lonely man, that literally had no friends, nor social life. How in the hell can anyone like that possibly know how to make people’s lives better, if all he ever did was bitterly hate people and blame others for his problems? Read his biography, quotes from those that knew him, his own writings! Ronald Reagan once said, “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” Karl Marx was quite literally a whining, tantrum throwing, baby who bitched and moaned because he never got what he wanted. Amazing that those that follow him end up being similar in actions.
SuperSparky's Land of Common Sense 
I admit it might be a mistake to enter into a tangential debate on these historical issues (be they important). I did, nonetheless, put something together. (It is in my nature.) And, since it is your blog, of course you will get the last word. I am happy you are in good spirits with me when it comes to conversation. But my goal, really, has been to provoke thought on how to end this giant government we have today (besides just adding some corrective analysis on fascism). If men accept centralizers like Lincoln, there is little hope. If conservatives don’t reject the welfare-warfare state of the Democrats and Republicans, there is little hope. If conservatives don’t reject empire, there is little hope.By no stretch of the imagination can anyone say we have a free-market or a limited government. It is not as if mainstream conservatism has had nothing to do with this development. (Do you say otherwise?)***Even if everything you say is principally correct on Lincoln and the war, sir, it sill, in my opinion, does not justify an invasion of the South. By definition, it was against federalist principles and thereby solidified a nationalistic state. Each of the states, before this event, was fully, not partially, free, sovereign and independent. None of the states (which obviously had slavery at the time) would have agreed to a Constitution if they thought they were ultimately loosing this right. The Federalist was at pains to say that this sort of thing was not happening. (E.g., one of the classic left-liberal misunderstandings is on the separation of church and state. There were ratifying states that had official religions. This idea that the states became a slave to a unifying cleanser is just wrong.) There was thus zero perfidiousness by the South in this sense. The war was additionally unconstitutional since Abraham Lincoln did not begin the war with the consent of Congress. Either the Constitution is a guide or it is not, one cannot have it both ways, at the same time. Furthermore, promoting classically liberal values through a central state is self-defeating in the long-run. It’s a contradiction in terms to advance liberty by centralizing it (i.e., “governmentalizing” it). A key, and very important, aspect of traditional conservatism has always understood the left-wing fallacies of “liberating” individuals (“victimized” or not) via the central state. This is a neoconservative fallacy and gives impetus to the idea of “liberty” via dictatorial central planning.The War Between the States transformed the federal government to a national one. The upshot was the destruction of the Old Republic and the creation of a caldron against liberty. (It is not technically a civil war because the South was not fighting for central control.) Thinking the central state can be a great protector of minorities ignores that a central state, being a colossal monopolist, is actually more dangerous than local governments. (What do you find wrong in my above economic analysis about centralism versus decentralism? We can deduce that one, ceteris paribus, promotes free economic integration and the other the reverse.) It also ignores the times when states’ rights have been used against slavery and other minority abuses. Plus, solving problems through the central state helped to open the door to our modern U.S. national government. We either accept “solving” problems via nationalism (and internationalism) or we do not—-and lip service is not enough.It is no surprise that from Marx to Hitler, key statists all have hailed the Union victory as a triumph. Opposite of them, however, being men such as Lord Acton. And it was not because he was a big supporter of slavery. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson opposed slavery. (Thomas Woods in The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History quotes Ulysses S. Grant, a slave-holder until it was ended, in saying that “If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side.” I hate to break it to anyone, but most northern whites would not sacrifice their lives just for freeing blacks.) Many other southerners were likewise (not all, of course) and fought for self-determination. This, too, is a conservative (and American) principle. I already mentioned the late Bradford, but others can be mentioned. The prominent National Review “fusionist” F.S. Meyer is another example. (This just comes to show that some politically incorrect thought was welcomed in NR at one time. This is how far it has moved to the left, from historical debates to more modern debates on civil “rights.”)You say that Lincoln’s mission was to end slavery (even though, e.g., he originated and supported an “express and irrevocable” slavery forever constitutional amendment) and that his words provide ample demonstration of this (even though one can very easily find quotes that contradict what you say). What’s more, this suggests that Lincoln was a racial “egalitarian” in a political-sense (even though, e.g., he was a big advocate of black colonization, and even in the White House was actively pushing it, and hence in modern terminology would be called a white supremacist). No one, though, can naively justify his actions as having the objective of X just by looking at Lincoln’s, a politician’s, words. If a politician said one thing, it does not follow that his words clear-up matters. Actually, a politician’s words should be viewed with deep suspicion. And, because one can find many, many counterexamples (e.g., he said “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”), this therefore suggests that this cannot be the basis of an argument. (It ignores, too, that Congress officially announced the goals of the war. Slavery per se was not a part of it from the outset.) Moreover, this of course begs questions of his inactions over fugitive slave laws (the federal government—with Lincoln—even blocked state attempts not to enforce it) and his actions and inactions in Illinois (blacks were certainly not “equal” there—he even voiced his support for IL. policies).It is not correct to say that the South was entirely dependent on slavery. Things are not so simple (either way). This is just bad (anti-market) economics. In Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, J. Hummel deduces that slavery was doomed. Not only does he look at the South directly, he looked at examples in places like Cuba and Brazil. A long-run consequence of having slavery is that it makes the masters poorer. The market, as many scholars have tried to show, was naturally pushing for increased liberalization, and it was starting to happen. This downward trend, though, was offset by interventionism. It was the interventionist government that, in large part, promoted it—-and, yes, this included the federal government. The federal government
socialized
the costs of being a slave-owner. Walter Williams, a good conservative columnist, has noted that all other Western Nations ended slavery peacefully, and that there were other options that Lincoln did not (surprise, surprise) pursue. Neither was Lincoln a fan to some true abolitionists, e.g., Lysander Spooner.By all standards it is not a stretch to call Lincoln a dictator. (I don’t think that’s Constitutional.) (I’m not sure why saying these things or thinking about these things is forbidden.) Besides some of the abuses already mentioned in my above reply, 100s of northern newspapers were shutdown because of him; he violated the Second Amendment; did such things as issue arrest warrants to politicians (in particular, Roger B. Taney) who disagreed with him on suspending habeas corpus; etc. Not to mention, the conduct of the war on the South was not up to moral standards. (Traditional conservatism stood for just war theory and believed that war must be fought with chivalry.) Lincoln was a great centralizer and statist. He was a follower of Henry Clay and his “American System.” Accordingly, he was a pusher of corporate welfare, protectionism, central banking, and a powerful executive and central government. Put in another way, he wanted to bring British mercantilism here. And, sadly, he was successful. (Please note, none of this is to say that slavery was not an issue in the war; obviously, I did not imply that. In government schools, the problem is, all you get is a black-and-white picture. Things are a bit more complex than that. [That you are closer to left-liberals on this issue than the Old Right should give you pause.])To come to a connected topic (and perhaps this is most important), if you believe that the Constitution is Holy, so to speak, how can one logically examine it? (Empirical “proof” of America being great with the Constitution is beside the point and proves nothing. Only analysis—-I’m not saying here you are right or wrong—-can reason if it was because or despite this paper.) Do you trust national politicians with a monopoly over it—who can monopolistically decide—-when secession is OK or not OK? You imply they do, based on your analysis. This, it seems to me, misunderstands human nature. Giving all of the guns to a central agency and then simply saying “limit” yourself is utopian. Why don’t they have a general incentive not to “interpret” it (and “interpret” secession) in a way that benefits them?Not all leading figures supported it, contrary to what you almost suggested. And some had far grander plans. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation were more propitious towards limiting government. (What was wrong with them?) After secession from the British Empire, plenty of Americans realized that while it is one thing to be a subject of an empire, it is another thing to be in control of one. Hamilton was one of those Americans. At the (secretly held!) Constitutional Convention of 1787, he went so far as proposing a permanent president and senate, where all governors would be appointed by the central government. His dream was a national government with all power and authority. (It is hence not surprising that a politician such as Newt Gingrich labels Hamilton a personal hero.)In any case, I wish in your response you elaborated your views on foreign policy and conservatism (or central banking, for that matter). (You can still be closer to Hannity than Napolitano, and in some relative sense you must be. Not that I’m making an ethical judgment on that here per se. I was just trying to canvass your thoughts.) But, to reiterate, the thing I want to push is a rethinking of the mainstream conservative movement. It has failed. This is why I want conservatives (who are genuinely concerned with the growth of the State, such as yourself) to explore more traditional and Old Right conservative ideas. Read modern scholars like Paul Gottfried and Thomas Woods, and read past scholars like Felix Morley.
I promise I’ll give this the attention you request, but I cannot at the moment. However, a few things caught my eye whist I did a cursory view of your response.I do not believe the Constitution is “Holy”. I do believe God inspired those men to write it. Nevertheless, I do not think it is perfect. Had it been prefect, we would not be having the troubles were are having now as it would have covered all bases etc. It is not Holy nor scriptural, nor “canon”. However, I hold it above standard literature and below scriptural. Nevertheless, I do not give it an “apocryphal” label either. I consider it a unique document.The ten commandments, Mosaic Law, and Gospel Law (Jesus’ teachings) came from God, word for word, whether it was through a servant/prophet it doesn’t matter, it’s God’s words. Nevertheless, the Constitution is inspired. I would not venture to say how God did it, but perhaps it involved not only opening these men’s minds and hearts, but also softening their hearts, expanding their intelligence and wisdom would be a good guess. These men were imperfect, but I believe they came up with a document all human being could enjoy liberty with, despite their personal beliefs and views. That alone, is miraculous in my mind. The fact many men were involved, also protected it from one man’s grandiose plan, regardless of what it was. I honestly believe a Republic was the only thing they could agree upon, despite the governmentalists (now progressives). I believe Benjamin Franklin was their biggest voice of reason and practicality to cause it to happen.As to the South, I can only be brief, I will elaborate more later, but I must remind you that the South fired first. Also, I do think the Southerners convinced themselves they had a right to own human’s as property and thus were treated unfairly. Nevertheless, I also know Lincoln had a unique set of moral values, and I believe that governed his actions. Not necessarily “religious” based, but what he thought to be right and wrong. The Civil War is far too complex, I do believe it was simple for the South, but I do not think you could attach a simple reason to the North and Lincoln.I think a lot of factors were there. Should the nation be divided, I think Lincoln believed neither one would survive for long, without the need of “assistance” from another nation. I honestly believe the Confederation of the South would never have survived for very long had it been merely secession. I also believe the North, the USA proper, would have lost much of its strategic strengths that allowed both halves to grow.I’m running out of time, but that’s sufficient for the moment.One final thing, while I enjoy listening to Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck on a regular basis, I must say I think I can relate more to Glenn Beck than the others, even Rush. I believe he has the same perspective of liberty as I do. Hannity seems too wishy washy and unwilling to put a firm foot on the ground. I think he gives people far too much of a benefit of the doubt. He’s obviously a very kind and patriotic man. I just do not think he’s a good debater, nor able to articulate an issue very well.Gotta go, I’ll give your comment a better read when I can.
[this is good] Very cogent regarding Lincoln. I can’t add anything except concurrence.Bruce Catton’s Civil War makes the politics of abolition in the Civil War abundantly clear. As Paleo outlined, Lincoln explicitly stated that the goals of the war were not related to slavery since he did not wish to offend the interests in the North vested in slavery as he drummed up support for the enterprise — one he promised would be over very quickly.At the two year mark, after Lee had consistently beaten the Yankees time and again and it looked like the war would not end in favor of the Union — and particularly, as various European powers (the British and French, as I recall) began to line up on the side of the South (to destroy the Union), Lincoln announced that the war was indeed about slavery. As best I recall, it was at this juncture also that he issued (Jan 1, 1863) the Proclamation of Emancipation of slaves in the Confederate states only. As a result of this, neither Britain nor France dared further consider intervening on the side of the Confederates.This particularly cynical action by a desperate Lincoln turned the tide of the war.”Politician”; how aptly accused.
(Catton’s book is very well worth reading!)
OK, I have read your comment, and you’re not going to like my answer. First, I want the comments to my articles centered on the article. The discussion has some how morphed into a civil war discussion. It’s not.Here’s my answer to the complexity that is the US Civil War. Both sides made mistakes. We need to learn from them about what works and what doesn’t work. The original point to my article is that individual choice and responsibility works. What the US Constitution did for the world worked. In my view, the South’s complaints were oxymoronic, their trumpeting of their rights being violated was clearly hypocritical in a very obvious sense.As to the intricacies of the varying scholarly definitions of liberalism, conservatism, etc. I find those arguments irrelevant. Why? I simply say that regardless of a man’s beliefs on politics, I firmly believe that when a proper amount of law and justice is applied to protect life and property, and the rest left to the individual, that government is in its proper place. Anything more is tyranny and, frankly, against God. Even God gave us a specific set of laws designed for our happiness and safety, and then left us to live our lives through our own choices. I don’t think any man has a right to rule over another, nor to tell them how to live. That is fascism and is wrong. I could care less which man (or woman) it is.There’s a lot of things people have done, in the name of this nation, I know have blackened the reputation of this nation. I also believe it was done because the Constitution was either ignored, or twisted with sleazy explanations trying to justify it, but not because of the Constitution itself. It is because of straying from it the shameful stuff happens.Our nation isn’t in the mess it is in now because our leaders obeyed and honored the Constitution. It is because they arrogantly thought they knew better. It is my firm belief that the ideas of men will always fail. It is only when those ideas are inspired of God that success can take root. When one person thinks they have a right, or even a duty, to force (“force” being key here) another to live according to their direction, then it is tyranny, no matter how learned or “smart” they esteem themselves to be.History is full of the failures and successes of the past. It has shown that tyranny, especially in the name of “the common good” is destined to failure and the misery of those people no matter what the “good intentions” of the tyrant may be. When people are given liberty, society prospers. We saw that with Rome. Rome prospered when they gave their citizens freedom and liberty. Aqueducts, central plumbing, etc. were a result of this. However, when the oligarchy and emperors took over, improvement ceased, and misery was its replacement.Our own society is on this insane precipice like societies of old. What is unique about ours is that our Constitution declared that personal liberty and freedom was a natural or God given gift given to everyone and that the government had no authority to take it away. It was unprecedented. Even the Magna Charta wasn’t so grandiose as it was the sovereign giving the liberty in that document. The US Constitution made the bold claim that mankind was born with these liberties as being unalienable.Be it Communism, Fascism, Democratic Socialism, or an evil monarchy, it’s all the same thing. It’s one group of people exercising authority over another to dictate how they live their lives. In reality, regardless of the claims of the oligarchy of doing it “for the good of the people”, it never is, nor can it be. It’s always to benefit the oligarchy and power.The simple difference between all forms of government, whether it’s going to be successful or not, is how it treats the individual. If the individual is treated as society’s most important asset, and gives that individual the freedom to live and be who they wish, then society benefits more in the end. When society thinks it can run better by thinking for the group as a whole instead of the individuals that make it up, then in the long run the group suffers and does so equally. A person just becomes another insignificant drone. The truth that the individual is most important can be applied successfully to economics as well. Reagan saw this obvious truth and knew the best way to bring a nation out of a recession is to get out of the way of the individual. This always works. The Obama ideas of the society over the individual don’t work. It’s a vain attempt at treating the symptoms of a problem over the cause. The arrogant idea government solves problems has always shown to not only fail, but to just make matters worse. Stop and just get out of the way, and the power of liberty fixes all problems.That is the point of my article. What I label myself or others as, is irrelevant. What others were thinking in the past is only relevant to learn from their successes and failures and not try the failures again and again thinking “we can do it right this time”, which is always the way today’s Marxist thinks. It’s insanity to think in such a way ignoring what has been successful.I love how people attempt to apply Karl Marx’s views of poverty and the rich in a society of classes enforced by a stagnant monarchy to the completely different case in a free society, which never truly existed in the life experience of Karl Marx. The USA is a unique case that cannot be applied to Marx’s model. You see, in the USA the “poor” had the liberty to become rich, and the “rich” had every opportunity to fail and become “poor”. Classes in the USA, are not fixed unless the government, through its interference and so-called “welfare” makes it that way. “Welfare” happens to be a socialist idea. Charity, on the other hand, is a person and free thing that benefits the currently poor much better, as the help is intended to be a hand up and not a hand out.Everyone in the USA has opportunity. Whether they capitalize on it is their own free choice. It takes hard work, and thus not everyone becomes rich. Being “equal” only means having “equal” opportunity.It is this very truth that people espousing liberty and freedom understand how it helps society, than a scholar of Marx, who just doesn’t get it. Like Reagan said, the only people that truly understand Marxism are those that know it doesn’t work, no matter what the good intentions of the Marxist may be. The insanity of insisting that “this time we can do it right” is the very definition of “insane”. The current excuse today is that we need a global enforcement of socialism to make it work. Now, that’s just going to lead to a whole world of miserable people pissed off at those in charge. True peace can only come when the people (all of them) are able to live freely with liberty. When a group wants power, you can be assured war will follow.
One more important thing. Anarchy, is also anti-liberty just as much as an oligarchy is. So do not misunderstand my positions to law and justice. Every free society needs a means of protecting the people and property. It needs a basic set of enforceable laws.It’s easiest to explain with the individual being a kite, and the string being the law and government. The only way that kite is ablet to reach soaring heights is with a strong but light string to keep it anchored in safety and protection from other kites etc. In anarchy you cut the string, the kite flounders and falls. Put too heavy a string on (big government) and it can’t fly very high, nor very well. Stick a rope on it, and it becomes just like the rest of the kites with rope. They can’t fly at all, and are equally flightless and miserable, so they just sit on the ground.
As this conversation is at a conclusion, let me emphasize that a general theme in my comments were arguments on how to turn America away from “Borg” collectivism. They were directed against any kind of socialism and against any society where some men rule over other men. That men are imperfect, I always take, as a given. Perfectibility is impossible. (Hence, I am for law enforcement. Justice, moreover, requires law.) Some institutional and associational arrangements, however, increase problems in society.Moving back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans is not going to turn around “Obama-style” socialism. The problem of centralization and collectivism can only be defeated via its opposite. That’s why I applied my original economic analysis to history. President Obama is an evil man, but I only see him more evil than Bush in degree.Thank you, sir, for taking the time to have a chat with me.
We seem to have a similar point of view, just different ways of articulating them.As to political party games, you can thank the progressive movement of the early 1900’s for a majority of our modern problems. Hitler an Mussolini took their ideas of propaganda and fascism from the US progressive movement, mostly parroted by Woodrow Wilson, but perpetuated by the Roosevelt’s. This whole idea of government centric rule is obviously not new, but the progressives thought it was in of the fact they thought they can do a better job than the people themselves. Like a cancer this movement grew (as you know) and infiltrated both parties. The only differences between them are the degree and speed of which they wish to make their Progressive Utopian changes.Their ideas aren’t new, just repackaged old failures. The same goes for Marxism. All Karl Marx did was put down in writing a governing philosophy tried time and time again under varying names throughout history, all failures.Keep up the good work Paleo. You seem to me to be honorable.