Tim Wise's essay

In response to Tim Wise's "Open Letter to the White Right...." et al
I am white. And considering that I've attended a Tea Party rally and am part of the Pittsburgh Tea Party meetup.com group, you would label me as one of the Right. So be it. Being, therefore, one of the people you addressed your letter to, allow me to respond to your bit of absurdity.
I'm quite sure there are racist people involved in the Tea Party movement and in the Republican party. But then I'm pretty sure there are racist people in the liberal camp and the Democratic Party, too. So the fact that racism exists is not even really worth mentioning. It is what it is, there will always be people who are incapable of seeing past others' external appearance before judging their character. Fine. I don't care what those people think, and nobody else should either. They have forfeited their right to be heard as rational people by judging others in an irrational manner.
So here's my point: I can't speak for everyone who supports the Tea Party movement, but I am one that does support it. And I, as well as the people I know personally who have attended rallies and meetings, am not racist. This election upheaval had absolutely nothing to do with minorities, or a secret desire to take things back to the 1950s. Where did that idea even come from?!? Everything I've heard, including your arch-nemeses' radio shows (Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck) is pretty straight forward and obvious with regards to the goal of 'taking our country back'.
We want to take it back to the days of pride and responsibility. We want to take it back to when the Constitution was actually respected by our president, instead of being ignored. We want American citizens to be legal citizens, and people willing to work for their wages and benefits. WE DON'T WANT THE HEALTH CARE BILL. Know why? Not because we hate poor people or handicapped people, but because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The federal government has no business telling us what we are required to buy.
And that's just a start. I, personally think we need to majorly downsize the federal government. I've talked about that in previous posts though, so I'm not going to repeat myself here. I'd like to see politicians that I can respect, people that go to work for the citizens, not in spite of them. There are lots of things that I'd like to see, but mostly I'd like to see someone in office (at any level) who understands the concept of doing things in a responsible manner. Because we DO need to take the long view, as Mr. Wise says. But he's got it wrong, by removing government meddling, we're doing more for all those underdog citizens out there than any socialist program ever could.
So, Mr. Wise...in conclusion, I'd just like to say this: Be more careful how you address your open letters. Yours was clearly written at irrational racist people, not white Conservatives. The two are not the same thing, and if you can't see that, then you are just as guilty of making irrational judgments as racist people are. Try making arguments based on fact and deductive reasoning next time, instead of broad generalities. Remember, there's always an exception to every rule.

Smaller is Better?

I've been working on the Series 2 post, and it's a little overwhelming. Given my insane to-do list for my business and the fact that I'm moving soon, doing a series of posts going through the entire Constitution and its amendments may be a little more than I can do right now.
SO. I do, however, want to continue discussion about the role of government in our lives. LP's comments on the last post made me think a little more about what CAN be changed. Because she's right, there are lots of people out there who think it's our job as humans to help take care of each other. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I'm relieved that at least there's someone else out there who doesn't feel comfortable sitting back and letting someone else "shoulder our burdens".
You *could* make the argument that any kind of socialism *is* letting others' shoulder their burdens whether you want them to or not. You are allowing the government to decide how, where and when to help people.
Wouldn't it make more sense for those sorts of 'helping' organizations to be at the VERY biggest, a state issue? I think they should be entirely private (there is evidence [Charles Murray, "The Tendrils of Community"] that private orgs are both more efficient and garner better funding). But if you really think that all citizens should contribute willingly or no, (therefore by taxation) then I think a local or state organization is FAR better than a federal one. How can it not be?
Firstly, it's right there, in the location that needs the help. Secondly, since it's covering a smaller area, it's bound to be a smaller group of employees/volunteers, which significantly lowers the risk of both corruption and inefficiency.
I mean, honestly...in theory this is a change that could be effected tomorrow. Every Federal Org could be split into smaller orgs for each state. Their focuses would be clearer and surely they would accomplish more, therefore helping best those who need it most.
OK, that's enough food for thought today. Please comment and share your thoughts with me, I would really like to hear what you think.

Food for thought

I'd like to share with you a few quotes from Henry Cabot Lodge, in his book "The Democracy of the Constitution". I was startled when I was reading this last night to see how much his comments relate to current events. This book was published in 1915.

"[The Constitution] has disappointed the expectations of those who opposed it, convinced those who doubted, and won a success beyond the most glowing hopes of those who put faith in it. Such a work is not to be lightly cast down or set aside, or, which would be still worse, remade by crude thinkers and by men who live only to serve and flatter in their own interest the emotion of the moment."

In my opinion, this describes exactly the efforts of the Congress to expand Federal powers. Talk about the emotion of the moment!

"It is the fashion...to speak of socialism as if it were something new, a radiant discovery of our own time which is to wipe away all tears. The truth is that it is very old, as old in essence as human nature, for it appeals to the strong desire in every man to get something for nothing, and to have someone else bear his burdens and do his work for him."

I have nothing to add to that. How can I put it more clearly than he? Last quote, and my personal favorite:

"To argue from results seems just now out of fashion. Actual accomplishment, it would appear, is nothing. According to the new dispensation our decision must be made on what is promised for the future, not on what has been done in the past. Under this novel doctrine, as I have observed it, we are to be guided chiefly by envy and discontent and are to act on the general principle that whatever is is wrong." (emphasis added by me)

So there you have it. People today are caught up in the belief that change for change's sake must be good. These days, as in 1915, socialism seems a new answer...that the government can fix everything. But history (and even recent experiences!) have proven that adding layers of bureaucratic control does nothing but complicate programs, and open them to corruption. How could making anything more complicated also reduce costs? Think about that for a minute.
The logic behind keeping government out of as much business as possible is a basic capitalist principle, but Ayn Rand does a fantastic job of explaining the morality and the philosophy behind allowing men to think and work for themselves. Give this interview of hers a read if you'd like to learn more about her argument. It changed my life and my perception of the world around me--gave me confidence in my own ability and purpose.
http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html
[Editor's note: I just read through that particular version of her interview, it must be the full one, so it covers a LOT more of her philosophy as a whole, not just the political part of it that I read in "The Libertarian Reader". It's still great, it's just a lot longer and a lot more to take in all at once. So try not to be overwhelmed, haha]

Stay tuned for the Series post #2...

Health Care Is Not a Right

This is a fabulous speech I read about a year ago that Leonard Peikoff gave in 1993. It is in my opinion, the best analysis and explanation for why the government should have no hand in health care. It covers the dangers of the entitlement mentality, why the government cannot dole out new "rights" without infringing on our actual ones, and the specifics of what happens when meddling bureaucrats get in the way of a free market.
It's not very long (about 3.5 pages when printed out), so please give it a read, it may give you some fodder for rational arguments with people who think this health care takeover is well-intentioned, if poorly executed.
http://www.westandfirm.org/Peikoff-01.html
Series post #2 is in the works and coming soon!

Intro/ Series 1

I intend to do a series of blog posts about the role of government in America and I hope to be able to get some people to start thinking things through a little more. I freely admit, as a product of American schools I know very little about history. If I am mistaken about anything, please comment and let me know. If possible, direct me to a publication that can tell me what I got wrong. Also, I'd love feedback and direction, if there's anything you are specifically interested in learning more about.
My goal is partly to educate and partly to encourage people to think logically about the situation around them. These posts may seem skimpy to some of you, but I intend to keep it that way to try to ensure people actually read them. So my apologies to those of you who want more meat, but perhaps that will come in time.
All that being said, here's post numero uno. Let's start with the basic founding principles.

Some people would say that our country was founded on Christian principles. While in a sense this is true, they are hardly the same sort we consider Christian principles to be today. Our founding fathers were considered radicals at the time--they believed in individual rights and limited government in a time of monarchies and authoritarian government. Yes, they were all Christians, but they had their own ideas about what that meant, and most importantly, they considered it a God-given right to hold their own opinions and practice religion as each individual saw fit. The purpose of the separation of church and state was to ensure that no government could regulate the practice of any religion. If you are able, take a step back and think about it this way: in the end, your religion is your opinion on how life began and what happens when it ends. Thus, the founders' point was that the government should have no control over the opinions you form, as long as your actions do not interfere with the rights of others.
Rights, they believed, are only given by God. The government's job is to protect our ability to take advantage of our rights, NOT to provide us with them. We are all born with the same rights. We may not be born equal (there will always be children born into wealth, people that are healthier, smarter, or stronger than others), but we all have the chance to better ourselves, and no government should be able to limit in what way you better yourself. Opportunity for education, freedom to move and make a new start, freedom to experiment with different religions, politics--all of that! It's all about expanding your mind, and having the chance to learn new ideas. The founding fathers believed every person should have that chance, and that no governing power should be able to limit it. The world around them at the time was full of restrictions. Only aristocratic families could attend certain schools, patronize certain shops, etc. They believed that your blood should have nothing to do with who you are, or who you could be.
This intense respect for privacy and individualism greatly influenced the principles of government they aspired to maintain as they framed the Constitution. Because of their respect for individual rights, the most important tenet they held was that the federal government should be severely limited, particularly the power of the president. The real power and day-to-day governing was meant to be left to local and state governments--the federal government's job was solely to protect the rights and properties of its citizens.

My next post will go over the Constitution as it was originally written, and then we'll get into the amendments that have passed over the years.