Liberal Vs. Conservative, the play on words to enslave a nation, Part 4a

(click here to view parts 1-3)
By Harry Felker

The New Face of Statism

We are witnessing a new Statism on the rise, the American variety, and in true American tradition, it is a melting pot of other varieties past and present. It has become a blatant statement in the past two decades, but this is a long running theme of American politics, larger government. There are many whom argue the case for the government, whom argue that the government is necessary, and it must have some girth in order to be effective. These are the arguments that create the liberty vs. security debate in all orders and functions, as giving leeway to size in government is a form of security and always comes as a price to the liberty of the people. To further elaborate, let us take a look at who is arguing this case, the majority of the government is not fighting over liberty vs. security, but rather what form the security takes. The government leaves the debate to the people, in order to polarize them, so their creeping assault on the liberty can continue swaying from social to enforcement security. I intend to show the debate as the people see it, as the government sees it, and how it truly is, furthermore provide the basis of the argument for my new Statist regime theory.

Ben Franklin understood the dangers in the Constitution he took part in, he had made such public by his quote, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” He knew full well, those who were sworn to protect it would attack the republic outlined in the Constitution, and it was the people that would have to maintain it. With this inherent flaw from the beginning, our founders believed the goodness of men would persevere over the will of the elected officials, and though many tried, the force given to the republic was found to be too much. Alas, hindsight is 20/20, and so, we are left with picking up the pieces of centuries of a failed experiment in liberty, beset on two fronts, by government and those that support it blindly.

A little from the left, a little from the right

The real question that should be burning in the forefront in your mind is, “What is this new Statism?” It is not so easy to explain, though it is a simplistic concept, I am certain that the evidence of this phenomenon cannot elude everyone. It is based on the design of Divide and Conquer, that is, divide the people in order to create the regime, with whoever takes office. Take the most sensitive issues of people, make them government business and that is it, once the government plays a hand in any sensitive personal issue, it becomes a great debate among the people.

While the people are bickering between each other over the grand debate of what the government solution should be, there is always a small faction of people these are rational people, who state the government is not the answer. These people, wholly committed to the liberty side of the debate are usually ignored, painted as enemies of both right and left (I have personal experience in this). The majority of the people, in contrast, passionately debate what government solution is best, how the government can intervene in the personal lives of the people to make the situation better. This is the cue for the politicians, where to line up in the debate, and as right and left take sides, the majority has already spoken, more government is the answer.

This new Statism falls between communism and fascism; it has the collective tone of shared responsibility and duty to the less fortunate along with the nationalist tone of superiority. One need only look at the actions of the presidents in the last two decades, we see a blurring of the lines between left and right, tax and spend republicans along with corporatist democrats, all justifying their positions by the talking points proper to their factions. What the majority of people do not realize is the only progression the government takes in these issues is the enlargement of the government itself, these politicians are wholly committed to the security portion of the debate, and not to liberty. The answer from the government is the positive obligation on the people to give up property for the needs of others; this is welfare.

I will coin a term, Welfarism, to describe what this new Statism is, because that is its main feature, welfare, or the creation of a welfare state. I know many assign this tag to the left wing of politics, but I assure you, it is prevalent on both ends of the political spectrum. Welfare is a security issue, it is the obligation of the people to pay for the security of all others, be it financial or physical, and this is an important factor of welfare, it is not only securing the finances, it is securing the persons. Welfare is every aspect of government action and every aspect of government expansionism; it is providing something for people that they cannot provide for themselves.

This is best understood when one understands the nature of government, that is, what government does naturally, it makes itself necessary, and in this necessity it is allowed the excesses that create the welfare state. Have no illusion; the military, police and all other enforcement services are just as much welfare as entitlement checks, free health care and all social benefits. If one looks at the left arguments for social welfare and follows them to the cause, one will find that government intervention in business, championed by the left under “worker’s rights” and “equality”. Just as when one examines the right arguments for enforcement welfare and follows them to the cause, one finds government intervention on the private individual, championed by the right under “morality” and “patriotism”.

Welfarism, in total, is a theory of positive obligation, using the state as the holder of positive rights in the name of the majority; it is the inherent tyranny of democracy in the name of the majority the government dictates the lives of others. The focus of the obligation varies, but it is present in all forms of government, that is left, right and current “mainstream” Libertarianism. The left supposes that you have to give up something for the benefit of others in the process of taxation for social benefit, the right for enforcement protection, and “mainstream” Libertarianism (in an insidious variation of this ideology) for the liberty they cling to as their focus, the people are obligated to, for lack of a better term, baby sit government. As plainly as can be put, all factors of any government in America are inherently linked to this ideology of Welfarism, that is, they imply a positive obligation on the people, or giving up liberty, in exchange for a degree of security.

VIEW ENTIRE ARTICLE COLLECTION

Taxed Enough, I am not too sure

Taxed Enough, I am not too sure

By Harry Felker

On this 4th of July, there has been much saber rattling about more T.E.A. Parties across these United States, and although I do appreciate the people involved taking the time out to speak up against the government, I have a nagging thought.  Now all this protesting is good, it lets the people know that taxation is not consented, but it only goes so far, exactly what else are you doing?  What are you changing about your own life in order to get from under the Statist boot of taxation?

I am sitting here, puffing my pipe, awaiting tobacco seeds, this is my form of protest, among others I have planned in order to show the government that I do not appreciate the tax and overspend policies.  To show the monopoly government I do not want them involved in my life, there is only one way to do so without violence, to cut their funding, whether you advocate true Libertarianism (Anarchism) or limited government (Minarchism) you cannot escape this logic.  The government does not have to listen to your groups of people on the side of the street, waving their signs that were assembled from taxed goods, they are still getting their taxes.  If you are claiming that you are “Taxed Enough Already” why are you not seeking methods to get out from under taxation?

The MSM machine already played its hand, it marginalized the tax protests, with absolute success, and the monopoly in the United States followed suit, it became much ado about nothing, and opened ridicule in the name of “tea bagging”.  Is this the success you were hoping for, to have Rachel Maddow have a segment that basically equates anyone involved in the protests with an act that involves testicles being dipped into things?  If this was the case, you all might as well have signs that state, “I’m going to dip my balls in it!”  This is not what you wanted, I am certain, and with this failure to really get anything that you did want, that is, lowering of taxation and spending or cessation of more taxation in the least, the fallacy of this tactic is blearing.

So what can you do, when shouting from your soapbox will not have an effect, what do you do when you shout in the face of a deaf adversary?  Gandhi had done something, in the midst of all the protesting, he had urged his people to not buy the goods from Britain, therefore undermining the monetary grasp that English men had on India.  Why are you not doing anything of the like, many of us do not want to come to blows with our fellow Americans, so why not retract the means for the government to spend?

We could be seeking ways to sidestep taxation, of course I am suggesting within the legal confines, in order to send a real message to the monopoly government, let them know by decreased revenue.  Stop spending, this is the simplest explanation, your dog is biting the hand that feeds him, do not feed him any longer, I am not suggesting that you go on a hunger strike or curb your habits to not give the government money, but rather, use an untaxed means to live your life unchanged.  You can grow your own food, now I do understand that not all food consumption can be easily grown, but why not do what you can, every little bit is less the government can rake you for.  Drying and preserving home grown food makes them available when they cannot be grown, this solves the issue of seasonal growth.  I am preparing to grow my own tobacco, if you are a smoker, this is absolutely a valid form of protest, and in light of the current imperial sway it is $1000/yr (only calculating the increase) they are losing from me alone.  Cut your energy and gas consumption, most of the price on energy and gas goes directly to the federal government, despite the people who blame the oil companies, it is tax that increases the price of energy.  I would suggest solar power, but I know this is an expensive option, so I do leave it off the list for now.

I understand that all this may be an inconvenience, but it is convenience that enslaves you, so in contradiction, the inconvenience may be the road to freedom, are you worth your salt?  Are you willing to do what is necessary to let the government know, you have had enough?  Are you going to, instead of becoming more parody fuel for propagandist media, send a striking message to the government, in the only way they will feel it?  If you wish to let the government know you have been taxed enough already, STOP SPENDING, STOP FEEDING THE LIBERTY EATING MONSTER, turn your back on him, and let him starve.

I would like to add that I am very disappointed that I do have to say this, that this is not the standard by this point among the tax protesters, that they will go to Walmart to buy supplies and drive to a street to scream at traffic, but they will not bother to make the necessary adjustments in their lives to send a message that cannot be ignored.  I envision an America that is not so weak as to allow themselves to be subjugated by their possessions, by convenience, we have passed the time to step up to the plate.  Will you be a bench warmer, or will you hit your message out of the park?

There is a poll too….
http://www.sodahead.com/question/472894/are-you-sure-you-are-taxed-enough-please-read/

Equality, the Right of Liberty

By Harry Felker

The motto for equality should be, “Let there be Liberty for all who choose it” as every individual has an equal right to freedom so long as they choose to achieve, maintain and live by Liberty.  It is easy to morally justify equality; similarly it is easy to misdirect this notion of equality into enslaving others.  Moral equality is the equality of rights and nothing else; all concepts of wealth redistribution and legislation are in fact amoral or immoral applications of the notion of equality.  Equality exists only in regard to ones rights before the society, not in equality of finance or opportunity, as individuals are not equal, only share equal rights.

Equal Rights vs. Equal Shares

The idea that all individuals deserve the equal reward regardless of effort put into such is immoral in the eyes of equality.  The notion of equal shares punishes the most productive to benefit the least, basically granting greater rights to the less productive.  The value of the productive is injured in respect to the non-productive when the same reward is gained for different levels of effort.  In respect to equal rights we must demand that compensation should only reflect ability, and no man should be forced to work for another man’s compensation.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” is the most evil phrase I can conjure in any human language.  This phrase has two overwhelming issues that cannot be resolved morally: who judges ability and need?  The ability issue arises when those who produce more realize that receiving the same reward as those who are unproductive cheats them.  The need issue is the question of who decides what is justly needed, and ensure that equal distribution is sufficient to survive?  In historical example we see this unravel time and time again, always leading to a decline in the society until there is collapse.  In this system, the workers life becomes not only logically but practically a race for the least productive, as just compensation for labor can only be realized when they work as their inferiors do.  All the while this occurs, the authority in charge of distribution must handle special requests that arise (emergencies and such, not including the corruption), and is then burdened by the loss of production, and loss of quality in production, which results in reduced compensation.  This becomes a vicious cycle, depreciating production leads to depreciating compensation, until the budgetary needs are no longer met, and the system fails.  No one should be surprised by the reaction of the productive in this system, they are being treated as slaves, and this is the natural reaction to a violation of the basic right of equality.

The Fundamental Hypocrisy of Equality Legislation

Every special interest group looks to advance themselves over the rest of society through equality legislation; this is legislation that targets benefit to one demographic.  This is truly abhorrent to Liberty as it creates a fundamental inequality among the people; ability is trumped by demographic interest.  Often times these types of legislation are not as beneficial to the particular demographic as broad Liberty based legislation would be, that is lifting government restrictions on everyone, that maybe a particular demographic has a high percentage of (drug possession/usage comes to mind).  Not only are the benefits limited, but this legislation also breeds tension within the population, it causes “class tension” that members outside the beneficiary demographic feel as though they are treated less equal.

All of the government’s efforts use to compensate equality are solely counter productive to anything of the sort, they either demoralize the society or they complicate the issue of inter demographic relations.  Economic inequality, which is unjust compensation upon the basis of equal shares, is not only deleterious to the morale of the society, but to the economy as a whole, as growth does not occur under this system.  Individuals are left in an attitude of separatism from other demographics simply because they are not justly compensated with equal effort for equal pay or are not granted equal protection under the law.

For equality to be applied justly and morally, the government cannot legislate morality, it must come from the individuals, and the individual must hold ability as the virtue which decisions are made in regard to other individuals, not arbitrary demographics.

Individualism, the Moral Anchor of Liberty

By Harry Felker

When one considers Liberty to be the morally correct state of mankind, one must first base this argument on the individual liberty. As the individual is the smallest minority, a minority of one, his rights must become the center of such a moral stance. The majority may make all decisions, but the individual must be respected in all cases, to insure that no one is injured by such a decision. Despite acting toward a common goal, the individual is key to do his part, and takes personal responsibility for his failure as well as reaping just reward for the effort provided.

The individual finds himself the target of many attacks, specifically for the sole reason that he is an individual, and he should yield his moral code to a collective or a nationalist movement.

Individual Respect

Most cases of eroding individual liberty can be attributed to the lack of respect for the individual, the majority has no respect for his rights to live as he sees fit, and demands that he conform to the collective’s way of life. Often times an individual lives his life well within society, as an individual, he chooses what is right for him and moves on, it is only when a majority decision which does not respect his rights that one can tell he is an individual. This breeds contention between a majority and all individuals, as people who respect others individual rights understand the outrage faced by the affected people, even when not directly affected. Morally, the respect of individuals works both ways, as a society we must respect the individual rights of everyone and as individuals we must respect the rights of each other.

The other hand of the respect is self-respect; it is impossible to respect the individual if one does not have respect for oneself. When one does not give oneself the respect one offers to other individuals, he allows others to violate his individual liberty. How can one morally justify respecting other people’s liberty without demanding the same respect back, and why would other people respect a man’s liberty if one does not value oneself. The reality is, it is impossible, the respect a man demands for himself from others is the value he gives himself, as is the respect he offers others.

The Balance of Respect must be adhered to; if the respect is out of balance the result is the amoral or immoral applications. When a man values himself and demands more respect than he is willing to offer others you have arrogance and tyranny. When a man gives all respect to other people, but demands none for himself, which indicates he has no value of himself, you have servitude and slavery. So only in balance does one witness the true moral application of respect, individual liberty is possible only when this equilibrium is realized.

Individual Responsibility

To the individual, the moral responsibility rests alone on his shoulders; no one else is responsible for his life, as he is not responsible for anyone else’s. There is a quote from Atlas Shrugged that I think perfectly represents individual responsibility:

“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

This perfectly defines the responsibility of the individual, which one cannot be responsible for anyone other than himself and no one can be responsible for him. This is both in regard for punishment and reward, there is no way other than this, one cannot expect full just reward for effort without taking responsibility for it, just as one cannot expect to escape punishment for actions one is personally responsible for. This notion of individual responsibility allows one to live for oneself and to choose voluntarily any other engagements without regard to anything but one’s own liberty.

The absolute morality of the actions of individuals, tempered by respect and responsibility, is the strongest Pillar of Liberty, as this is connected to all other Pillars. When we have respect for and give responsibility to the individuals to live their lives as they see fit, we witness the birth of liberty. Individualism is the soil in which we plant the seeds of liberty, where we allow it to take root, and once it springs forth we can see in the fruits of it all other moral actions that support Liberty. When we start from mindful, individual action, done without compulsion, with regard to the rights of others and tempered with the responsibility for those actions, we not only find the strongest support for Liberty, but the mortar for all moral aspects of Liberty.

Pillars Of Liberty

By Harry Felker

Liberty, as a true virtue of humanity, rests on specific moral principles, or as I like to call them pillars, and undermining any of these causes a failure in the virtue.  As the ultimate state of a virtuous human society, Liberty stands alone in moral justification and fragility, while in defense of Liberty one is always just, but always fighting at a disadvantage.  There are five Pillars of Liberty; individualism, justice, equality, compassion and capitalism, for a society to be free all must be present and in good moral standing.  In a free society that truly embraces Liberty, each individual must be on guard perpetually, from the attacks of majority policy, biased media and the aggressive nature of government.

Moral individual action, specifically as a voluntary process, is by far the strongest pillar on which Liberty rests.  This is the pillar that all others are tied to and so much more as it creates a moral basis for Liberty to all people, as they are all individuals.  In the individual we can test the true moral action through the voluntary process, meanwhile accountability and responsibility for amoral or immoral action only serves to strengthen Liberty.

Moral justice is a two-fold pillar; accountability and responsibility, each are fundamental to a just and free society.  In a free society, all individuals must be granted equal protection under the law; neither status nor any other arbitrary quality can undermine accountability.  On the other hand the individual must have the personal responsibility to accept the consequences of his actions.

The very basis of the inalienable rights of man is where each human individual is equal; this is the moral pillar of equality.  Equality does not recognize race, gender, nationality or lifestyle, if one is equal it is because one is self-aware, “a thinking thing that thinks” (Descartes).  Respect of other’s equal claim to Liberty is required by moral equality; one should never use their rights in order to deny another theirs.

Compassion in true moral form is not only providing for the less fortunate, but also securing the right of property to the productive.  When a man gives to a charity through compulsion to the point of needing said charity to survive, then the charity is not compassionate to their benefactor.  This brings about a failure to the charity, an all too common circumstance with government charity, also known as welfare or entitlement programs.

Capitalistic Morality is by far the most attacked Pillar of Liberty; it is most often subject to misrepresentation, blamed for economic turmoil when capitalism is not truly present.  True moral capitalism, laissez faire capitalism, bears the wealth of a country upon the individuals, where it justly belongs.  It places the best products to reach the market for the least price, which allows for an increase in competition in the world marketplace for a country’s goods.

These Pillars of Liberty make the foundation of a free society when enacted morally, but when misrepresented or used amorally or immorally they are disastrous to Liberty.  Every member of a free society has the responsibility to guard against corruption of these principles.  A mindful population, honest and objective media, and limited government are all part of the recipe for Liberty.

This is my goal; this is my purpose, to restore the formula for a free society, to rebuild from the ashes that our society has descended into, and to rise again like a phoenix.

Harry Felker’s One Value

My Answer to the Division of the People Or
Harry Felker’s One Value

By Harry Felker

I cannot help but hear all the talk about how the people are so divided, how will we ever succeed without being united, and my favorite the politicians keep us polarized…

Well my friends, it is time for a personal address from your truly to tell you why you are all wrong, how we can all be united, under one banner, to know that our banner is just and all those who refuse to unite are truly the enemy of the people of the United States of America.

Harry Felker Presents The One Value

I have drawn a line in the sand on many things, this is a little different, for this I am carving a canyon, this is the one value I will never compromise, this is the one value that I will lose my life over if need be. Unlike the 9/12 plan, there is no multiple choice answer, you can only agree or disagree with my one value, this represents you as friend or foe, there is no middle, there is only a no man’s land between those that agree or disagree with this one value. I had one major contention with Glenn Beck’s 9/12, and that it sought to unite the people like they were the day after 9/11, I am sorry if you are insulted, but this is masquerading nationalism as patriotism, and this does not produce the results that I wish to seek.

The one value is Liberty, or the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights, these rights are granted to us, just for being human, they are not privileges that can be given or taken away. In Liberty, we see what the best man can offer, as he can offer it only by volition, it does not impede his right to property. In Liberty, the effort of the mind can be freely shared without social or political reprisal against the profit gained, as it is profit earned. In Liberty, trade is done on an equal value basis, regulated only by those involved in the act of trading at the time, the voluntary action of each trader dictates that the trade was well regulated by itself.

So, I ask you, is Liberty what you really want, is Liberty the least you will accept, are you willing to allow Liberty to all people, are you willing to let go of your dogmatic claims that others are not free to do as they choose simply because you do not like it? What side of the canyon do you wish to be on, one side has what we have now, and far worse, the other side has me, the Ideal of Liberty, the right to live your life as you see fit, so long as you do not restrict the life or Liberty of another?

Can we keep the Republic?

As Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, on September 18, 1787, a certain Mrs. Powel shouted out to him: “Well, doctor, what have we got?” and Franklin responded: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

The question is can we keep the Republic, or is it a wasted experiment, was the blood spilled in the revolution for naught, or will that blood debt be the impetus to bring forth a second revolution, to breathe life back to the representative Republic of our founding? Are we to believe that we are to lay down our Liberty to the majority rule; are we to believe that the Republic is justly falling to social tyranny and that it is patriotic to accept it? I am sorry I cannot, I will not, and I am wagering that if you have any predisposition to Liberty, the slightest notion to this is not only an insult to your reason, but to your moral character.

I made the comparison to Beck’s 9/12 before, and there is good reason as to why, I feel that scrolling back to 9/12, when we were prone to making emotional responses due to the vulnerability of the moment is not good at all. I think that this was a moment of weakness in the character of America; it was a moment that we would trade all liberty for any measure of safety, a wholly unacceptable state of being, the state of fear. I intend to scroll us back to September 18, 1787, Day One, a time when America was strong and true to her character, a time when this was the Land of Liberty, this was the land of the free and home of the brave. Individually each of us is a force to be reckoned with, united we are an irresistible force.