Lesson of the Scandal: Tyranny is an Essential Feature of Socialism

I recently heard a television pundit lament the likely outcome of his own prediction that the liberally biased media, after a temporary fit of outrage over the egregious scandals engulfing the Obama administration, will return to its sycophantic posture just in time for the next election cycle. While I agree with this prediction, the more important question is why? Why is it unlikely that these scandals will transform the American political landscape in some meaningful way? Is there a more fundamental lesson to be drawn from these scandals that could change the political system?

The reason that the American left will continue supporting Obama and his ilk is that the liberal media, along with the vast majority of modern intellectuals, make no connection between the scandals erupting in Washington and the political ideology that they support. In other words, they might object to the Obama administration's seeming corruption or ineptness in managing the executive branch, but they do not object to the policies that he supports. As always, the left will observe corruption and tyranny associated with socialism but will simply hope that the next regime do better. They will conclude that while not always good in practice, socialism is good in theory, and urge the crusade to continue. If this is the lesson broadly accepted, then nothing in America will fundamentally change.

The lesson that should be drawn from these scandals is that socialism is bad in theory and therefore bad in practice. Tyranny and corruption are an essential feature of socialism, and whether it is Obama, Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong-il, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, or Hitler - statism requires force to be initiated against innocent people and only misery, oppression, and stagnation can result. The power to seize control of industry, tax and redistribute the income of producers, control prices, inflate the money supply and stifle dissent by controlling the media, thwarting the ability to assemble or preventing the ability to flee the borders necessitates the threat of violence.

Is it surprising to anyone that an administration that upholds an ideology that calls for coercion and violence against innocent individuals would commit acts of coercion and violence against innocent people?

America was founded upon the principle that the proper role of government in a free society is the protection of individual rights, that is, the protection of individual life and property from the initiation of physical force by criminals or foreign enemies. A government confined to this function leads to a society based on voluntary trade and cooperation where individuals selfishly pursue their own happiness while respecting the rights of other to do the same. When a government goes beyond this function and seeks to redistribute wealth or regulate the actions of individuals in the name of altruism and sacrifice, it must, by definition, use the threat of physical violence (fines and/or imprisonment) to coerce individuals to act against their own independent judgement. Once the principle of individual rights is abandoned and the government is enabled to initiate force against its own citizens, the only question becomes the degree of violence the state is willing to perpetrate.

Historically, the American government has been relatively constrained whereas other countries have taken socialism much more seriously - the degree of horror being directly proportional to the level of statist controls. While America does not yet have only one state media-propaganda outlet and a system of gulags to imprison and torture dissenters, the level of government control sought by the Obama administration has been a giant leap in that direction.

In a free society, the president would have very little to do, except in times of war, and elections at the local level would be far more significant to the every day lives of individuals. Under socialism, the executive and legislative central planners have the power of life and death over everyone in the country. This is one reason why national elections have taken on a preposterously distorted significance in our lives. In fact, tax and regulatory policies do affect critical areas of our lives from our income to our health care. For this reason, re-election of the regime (if they even bother holding an election) is vital, and central planners make careers in government serving their masters under the infamous credo: "the ends justifies the means." The recent scandals serve as excellent examples.

The Obama administration used the IRS as a means to attack and stymie its political opposition. The very person in charge of the exemption policies, Sarah Hall Ingram, was given bonuses and then promoted to an even more powerful position as the new head of the IRS enforcement wing of Obamacare - yet another program with life and death power.  But the IRS itself is an agency designated with the task of enforcing the legalized theft of income from every American citizen.  It is assigned the task of pouring through the minutia of every person's life, to "wait upon ladies at their toilett," to exact tolls for the very act of earning a living.  Is anyone shocked that such an agency would be used for "political" purposes?  

The Benghazi cover-up was necessary to protect the president before the election in two ways. First, it was necessary to cover-up the incompetence of the administration in protecting our consulate or for even having one that area in the first place. Second, the presence of Al Qaeda contradicted Obama's entire fantasy-land narrative surrounding Islamic terrorism. According to Obama, we are not at war with an ideology we are at war with a handful of "terrorists" who have hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion. The supposed killing of Bid Laden was equivalent to catching a bank robber - problem solved. The presence of a pre-meditated attack by a group motivated by Islam contradicts this premise, and so the idea of a spontaneous eruption of violence was crafted to fool the American public.

The broad usage of phone taps on the AP, all supposedly to find a national security "leak," is part of a pattern of press intimidation under this administration from day one designed to chill any opposition to its political programs.

While these scandals are egregious examples of a federal government run amok, Americans must understand that the abuse of government power will continue as long as we give the government the power to abuse. More fundamentally, we must reject the tragically flawed idea that socialism and the morality of self-sacrifice upon which it is based is somehow "good in theory." 

Dems Warn Climate Change Could Drive Women to Prostitution

According to The Hill: "Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to 'transactional sex' for survival."

But, actually, that's good.  Recall the shortage of prostitutes in Bulgarian brothels that was blamed on climate change.  If these Democrats are right, climate change could help alleviate it!    

Bloomberg: Give Up Freedom To Protect Us From Those Who Would Take Our Freedom

Mayor Bloomberg says that the interpretation of the Constitution will ‘have to change’ after Boston bombing:

“But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

“...Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms." 

He is right about one thing.  There are people who want to take away our freedoms.

A Theory is Not Invalid Because It Is a Conspiracy Theory, Part 1

Say a government official, Mr. X, gets assassinated.  The official government investigation determines the murder was committed by crazed individual in a temporary moment of insanity.  However, eyewitnesses come forward and claim their testimony was ignored by the investigators and left out of the final report.  These witnesses tell other journalists they saw multiple people firing guns. A grainy video of the shooting emerges seeming to show gun shots fired from several locations.  Two of these five eyewitnesses suddenly die in separate car accidents within a week.  The government won't release an autopsy of Mr. X and it is learned that the body was cremated 24 hours after the murder.  Oddly enough, the person who took over for the murdered politician, Mr. Z, has a history of having his political rivals die under mysterious circumstances.  Furthermore, several aides to Mr. Z claim they witnessed him meeting with people in the days leading up to the event that are later identified as possible shooters in the video.  A theory emerges (theory #1) that Mr. Z conspired to murder his rival and cover up his guilt.    

At the same time, another "theory" of these events emerges on the internet (theory #2).  A website claims that pink lizard creatures from Jupiter have carried out the assassination as a prelude to an alien takeover of the earth.  No evidence is provided for this theory, but the author assures you that anyone who denies the story is part of the alien conspiracy.

Those concerned with these events push journalists to continue to investigate the story.  Others in the media dismiss these concerns as the ravings of "conspiracy theorists."  Press agents for the politician ridicule all of these conspiracy theories as the mad speculations of tinfoil hat wearing kooks on the internet.  After all, the government performed an investigation and determined the truth.

Note that both theory #1 and theory #2 are "conspiracy" theories in that they postulate that individuals (or aliens) secretly plotted and carried out a covert criminal act and then engaged in a cover up of the crime. But are theory #1 and theory #2 equally valid? Should we be equally suspicious of both theories because they are so-called conspiracy theories?  

Of course, theory #1 is a valid theory.  Although there is no "smoking gun" such as a confession from the perpetrator, actual evidence has been put forward that casts doubt on the official story that would lead any reasonable person to question the official narrative and at least be cause for further investigation.  Theory #2 is not a valid theory.  No evidence is put forward at all to substantiate the claims, the basic premise is at odds with known scientific facts, and the theory fails to account for the actual known facts of the case in any substantive way.  It should be dismissed.  

I have created this rather obvious example to demonstrate the point that conspiracy theories should not be disregarded merely because they are conspiracy theories.  They should be disregarded if they are bad theories or not a theory at all.  Of course, in reality, there is a spectrum of credibility as it relates to conspiracy theories ranging from very plausible to outright insane, but I believe there is a trend towards discrediting those who postulate alternative explanations of events merely because they postulate alternative explanations.  To many, the concept of a conspiracy theory has now become almost equivalent to "crazy idea" regardless of the merits of the proposed theory.

To maintain the integrity of government in a free society, serious violations of the law by government officials must be exposed and those involved brought to justice. If  legitimate theories about conspiracies are automatically dismissed because they are considered part of some class of automatically invalidated knowledge ("those crazy conspiracy theories") it creates a dangerous climate where anyone who questions the government is regarded as a nut or worse (as we shall see in Part 2). Conversely, if every theory, regardless of its merits, is considered something worth investigating, it not only results in a waste of time, but it tends to decrease the enthusiasm and support for legitimate investigations.

In Part 2, I will analyze a paper written by our old nemesis, Cass Sunstein, on the topic of conspiracy theories.  Sunstein as usual has some subtly scary ideas about what to do with all of these conspiracy theorists.

American Education Is Broken, Here Is How to Start Fixing It

I recently was made aware of an effort to produce a crucial documentary film, The School That Never Was. Quoting the kickstarter campaign website:

"We've seen the statistics and read the stories. If you're a parent, you live with it every day. Public education is broken. And no one seems to know how to fix it. It wasn't supposed to be like this. The American education system was once the envy of the world. Once. No more. 

The School That Never Was documentary will show how education got this way and what we can do to fix it."

The film will be produced by Chris Mortensen, an award winning writer, producer, and director who has created more than 100 hours of documentary and reality programming in the last fifteen years. His programs have appeared on History Channel, A&E, Discovery, TLC, BET, VH-1, ESPN, Travel Channel, and other channels. Most recently he completed a feature length documentary on the resurgent interest in Ayn Rand’s controversial novel Atlas Shrugged and the validity of its dire prediction for America.

What impresses me about this project is that it will not try to convince people that the current education system is flawed - everyone knows that. Instead, it will examine the development of American education by looking at the ideas that brought us to where we are today. In other words, it will take an approach virtually unheard of today, because it will consider solutions by first examining and identifying the causes of the problem! Again quoting the site:

The School That Never Was will identify and examine the fateful decisions that brought us to the low point we're at today. Then we'll navigate the road not taken to discover the school system that might have been but never was. 

Along the way it is our hope to answer such fundamental questions as:
- What are schools for?
- Who should teach?
- Who should be taught?
- What should they learn?
- Who should administer the schools?
- Who should pay for it?
- What role—if any—should the government have in educating our children?

According to the producers, the film will examine many viewpoints for how to improve American education--including radical positions often ignored by other media, but it will not be a polemic for any one position. Their goal is to be the first step in an education revolution by questioning every fundamental premise and rethinking every assumption underlying American education.  In my view, nothing short will do.  

If you want to be a part of the effort or contribute to the film's production or just watch the trailer, here's the link.

Hear me on the "You Know I'm Right" Podcast!

I recently was a guest on Sunny Lohmann's podcast "You Know I'm Right" to discuss NYC and the Nanny State.

Check it out!

And check out her great blog at House of Sunny.

Concierge Medicine, The Antidote to Socialized Medicine

In 2009, I discussed an essay by Lin Zinser and Dr. Paul Hsieh in which they detailed the history of government intervention in the health care market and demonstrated how government, not the free market, is to blame for the state of health care today.  In that same post, I suggested that given the political reality of dramatic government intervention in health care, akin to the throwing of gasoline on a fire, doctors should simply refuse to contract with insurance companies or the government by setting up "concierge" practices that do not accept insurance or medicare but actually ask their patients to pay for the service (gasp).  

To follow up, I link to a current Forbes piece by Dr. Hsieh titled, Is Concierge Medicine Right For You?, in which he discusses alternative practice models being developed to respond to the phase in of Obamacare.  In the wake of an impending physician shortage due to a "silent exodus" from the profession and declining reimbursements, doctors "are establishing “concierge” or “direct pay” practices, where patients pay a monthly or annual fee for enhanced services, including same day appointments, 24/7 access to their doctor, e-mail consultations, and longer appointment times."  He goes on to discuss some key considerations and points out that you will likely face a choice:

Over the next decade, we will likely see the evolution of primary care delivery into two tracks. Some patients receive high-quality care from happy, motivated concierge doctors, whereas others will have to make do with rushed “assembly line” care from overworked providers trying to get their patients in and out the door as quickly as possible.

He concludes that "if you don’t choose, the choice will be made for you."

Michael Moore, Jim Carey, Bad Thinking, and Why "The Balance of Power is the Scale of Peace"

Once again, celebrity intellectuals give us an opportunity to case study bad thinking methods. First, Michael Moore recently "ranted against the Senate majority leader after Reid removed Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposal to prohibit military-style weapons from the bill because they wouldn’t have the votes."   Moore said:

“If a man with an assault weapon goes into the school where Harry Reid’s grandchildren go to school tomorrow and kills his grandchildren, would he stand in front of that microphone at five o’clock and say, ‘I know how Dianne [Feinstein] had to witness the mayor getting murdered, but my grandchildren just got killed today, but, you know, we can’t get it passed because we just don’t have the votes,’” 

In other words, according to Moore, if Reid were to have personally experienced the death of his grandchildren at the hands of a crazed gunman, he would be more likely to pass an assault weapons ban.  By this logic, Moore would have to argue that if Reid's grandchildren were killed by a knife wielding maniac, he would be more prone to ban knives.  Or, if his grandchildren drown, he would argue that Reid would be inclined to ban water.  Perhaps Reid would move to ban alcohol and automobiles if his grandchildren were killed by a drunk driver. 

Moore urges us to completely drop the wider context of individual rights, specifically gun rights, and focus on one concrete instance in which guns were used to murder.  Like the examples above demonstrate, if one were to consistently think this way, any instrument or device indirectly involved in a death could be used as a justification for banning that instrument.  

Not to be outdone in the bad thinking category, Jim Carey has launched his own attack on gun rights.  He is releasing a song titled "Cold Dead Hand" which he described on Twitter as follows:

‘Cold Dead Hand’ is abt u heartless motherf%ckers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.Sorry if you’re offended by the word safety! ;^}

The implication of his tweet is that the only thing standing in the way of children being safe is the drive of the "heartless" gun owner to satisfy his own selfish desire to own guns.  According to Carey, millions of law abiding gun owners do not mind seeing innocent children slaughtered by crazed killers, because they have no feelings.  Evidently, if they would only "bend", i.e., give up their right to own a gun, then the children would all be safe.  According to Carey, so evil are these gun owners that their lives are not even worth protecting.  

Ironically, the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding people who understand the practical limitations of police protection and possess weapons to prevent the slaughter of their own children.  Yet, Carey's solution to protect "our kids" is, um, to disarm these very people since they are the only ones who are likely to abide by laws restricting firearms!    

Obama made a similar emotional appeal, discussed in a previous post, in which he cited letters, not from legal scholars but from school children, urging passage of gun control legislation.  Like Moore, both Carey and Obama urge us to disregard the concepts of individual rights and self-defense along with the historical justification for the Second Amendment and instead focus on a primitive analysis of the following type:  

Man used gun to murder
If man didn't have gun, he wouldn't have murdered
Therefore, government should ban gun        

Arguments of this type provide great insight into the "thinking" of modern leftist intellectuals not just in this case but in every other as well.  Just as Moore and Carey make appeals to emotion, drop context, and fail to consider the unintended consequences of their ideas, modern liberal economists commit the same fallacies.  Moore and Carey see people murdered with guns and urge us to ban guns, just as their comrade economists see that the country is broke and tell us just to print money!  

In opposition to the Moore-Carey method, consider the context in which the Second Amendment was passed and focus on arguments made by great thinkers.  Fresh from fighting the War of Independence against a despotic monarch, the Founding Fathers rightly considered private gun ownership to be an essential deterrent to tyranny.  This web page lists many excellent quotes related to the Second Amendment such as the following from Thomas Paine: 

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."

In other words, it would be really neat if no one had any guns, because we would all be equal, but because criminals and tyrants will not surrender their arms, it is necessary for individuals to possess arms in order not to fall "prey to the strong."  Consider another "heartless motherf cker", George Washington, in his address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

Here is James Madison, from "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared," 46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29, 1788:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Finally, consider this succinct quote from Noah Webster, 1787: 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

What these quotes unequivocally demonstrate is that the Second Amendment was not enacted just to protect the hunting of squirrels.  The right to bear arms was considered essential in order for the people to protect themselves from tyranny - a concept fresh in the minds of those who fought the American Revolution.  Naturally, Feinstein et al. don't even consider the arguments of this type instead dismissing the concerns of millions of law abiding gun owners as petty politics. Said Feinstein:

“That’s the problem with this place. The gun lobby is inordinately powerful.”

No, Diane, that's not a "problem," because the gun lobby represents millions of people who believe the ideas upon which this country was founded are still inordinately powerful.  

Chavez is Dead, But His Evil Ideas Live On

In celebration of the death of Chavez, here is a link to all the posts I have written about his evil regime. I think my posts are still relevant because the theme of each is generally not political but rather philosophical.  So although I briefly analyze the evil of price controls and socialized medicine, the failure of public education, the stifling of free speech, the nationalization of major industries, etc. in the context of Venezuela, these specific policies should all be seen as instances of a broader philosophical movement - a movement which is haunting us today. It's important to explain and analyze the underlying philosophy of a dictator, otherwise, another one will quickly take his place.  In this context, I think some of the posts are more relevant than ever.  My favorite is this post which relates the philosophical premises of Chavez, Obama, and Van Jones and explains why they are similar focusing on the tragically flawed notion that socialists have "good intentions." This is my second favorite.    

A Government Cut Should Be Called a Taxpayer Keep

Say a group of criminals shakes down local merchants every week.  One week, the merchants bravely ask the leader of the gang to take a little less.  The criminal scoffs.  "Don't you realize," the criminal says, "if we steal less from you, it will mean I have to lay off one of my crew, and we will each have to drink one less shot of whiskey per night.  That's not fair to us." Of course, such a response on the part of the criminals is preposterous.  It is not their money to begin with so how could they interpret the proposed cut as an injustice?

Yet, this is exactly the position of the Obama administration with respect to the sequester cuts.  According to them, if the mandated budget cuts go through, a vast injustice will be committed upon the poor souls in Washington D.C., and fire and brimstone will pour down upon the nation as the mad run riot in the post-sequester apocalypse.

But does the sequester actually cut anything?    

In his post, Earth to New York Times: Please Show Us these “Deep Spending Cuts” You Keep Writing About, blogger Dan Mitchell shows that the budget cuts mandated by the so-called sequester are actually not cuts at all.  In fact, based on CBO projections, these cuts merely impede the increase in growth of government spending - by a tiny amount.  In other words, these "savage" cuts are just a tiny cut in the rate of increase, not even an actual cut!  Senator Rand Paul has called out the Obama administration on its "doom mongering" and "histrionics" over these supposed cuts and introduced his own bill to cut the amount of mandated spending without any layoffs.  

But let's say these were real cuts and let's assume that, gasp, actual federal bureaucrats got laid off as a result of said cuts.  As was the case in the criminal example, when the government spends money, it is spending someone else's money.  The government ultimately can only fund itself through taxation, that is, through the expropriation of one person's earnings for the unearned benefit of another.  In what sense is it a "cut" when all this means is that the government will stop stealing a little bit of money for awhile and pissing it down the federal government budget toilet?  For this reason, a "cut" should be thought of and referred to as a taxpayer "gain" or to be more accurate a taxpayer "keep."

Remember, when Obama castigates spending cuts he is really criticizing your just demand to keep what you earn. So don't feel so bad.