Why the Liberals are Wrong

"They will acknowledge the roots of our nation, sing praises to the power of self-reliance and hard work, call it important because it is important to others, not to them. They will, instead, talk more enthusiastically about the freedom to "sacrifice" and the right "to give to others" in a true "bait and switch." Imagine what they would be saying if the ideas of freedom and rugged individualism had never been "famous." I'm sure you know, they'd be talking about the "famous" idea of "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.""

American liberals have said much about the U.S. economy and understood so little. They do not yet know that economics is not the complex monster that they and the economists of big government persuasion are peddling. With all the talk about economics, with all the verbiage about this theory and that, the liberals have not explained much about the basic economic theories that drive their policies and recommended programs.

Indeed, the liberal press has for decades failed to ask the fundamental questions that would convince Americans that a socialist system is right for them – for it is socialism that the liberals advocate. Questions like: What justifies taking the money of one person and giving it to another? Is using government to “solve” social problems the constitutional thing to do? What happens to the people whose dollars are taken away? How does that affect their standard of living and is it right for them to suffer so that others may enjoy the luxury of not caring for themselves? Are there better non-coercive ways for people to solve their "social" problems? What gives the government the right to confiscate the hard earned money of citizens? What about all the waste and corruption? How are these lost funds going to be recovered and why is no one making an effort to recover them? Name one government program that has been successful? Why isn’t the media making an issue of all the waste and corruption? That no one is asking these questions is a scandal bigger than any - it has the makings of draining our ability to fight some real dangers - terrorism for one.

Indeed, the so-called great liberal economists continue to talk about an economy as if it were some sort of gadget, a machine that must be primed (inflation) and pumped (taxes) and oiled and fueled (gas) and moved (automobiles), to such an extent that they have failed to mention or realize that the machine is made up of parts--living human parts. Their blindness on this issue has led them to complaining about unemployment but advocating policies that have and will create more unemployment.

In fact, the liberals really don’t have a socialist ideology today. Their advocacy of socialism is a veiled effort to buy votes, and to accept force as a valid means of dealing with people. After all, who is it that the planners are going to plan? Behind their figures and charts they have yet to find the people who make this economy what it is - in spite of the fact that they claim to champion the ignored middle class.

Government planning means planning lives, and no life is productive which has no individual incentive. What is the contradiction in a planned economy? It is man's basic nature as a rational being that makes economic planning impossible. No planner can replace his thinking for the thinking of millions of people in the hundreds of decisions each of them has to make in every day of their lives. The apathy many people feel about government comes from government taking an increasingly more commanding role in peoples' lives. Don't blame that apathy on people, blame it on government coercion.

Planning does not mean a benevolent judgment based upon the sophisticated opinion of highly skilled economists. It means a gun that backs up a law, regulation, or economic adjustment that the American citizen will have to comply with whether he likes it or not. It was an American who said, "Give me Liberty of give me death." It is time for a modern American to say, "Give me a free economy and I'll produce my own standard of living, thank you."

We've come a long way since the founding of this country. American technology has given us a high standard of living, and we should be proud of America's productive capacity. We should not forget, however, that freedom means economic freedom too, that in order for some men to have bread, other men must be free to have caviar, or to go to space, that we all, especially the poor, benefit from the riches accumulated by those far-sighted men who are able to bring those riches into being--by means of making all our lives easier. We should remember that freedom means economic freedom, and not bureaucratic freedom--and yes--a businessman has rights too. We should remember that hatred of the rich for being rich will not bring electricity, or television, or frozen foods into our houses, that envy never made any man rich or happy.

Decline and malaise are the results of government planning. Yet supposedly distinguished professors all over our country, who have spent years of study of economic issues, are somehow convinced that if we plan things correctly we can be prosperous.

Let us not make the mistake that our esteemed professors are trying to push into us; that of absentmindedly rejecting the system which is responsible for practically all the advantages that Americans share. Free enterprise is the only system compatible with man, his needs, and his method of survival (reason). When socialist (liberal) professors and liberal politicians talk of planning, when their ambiguities seem persuasive only to the extent of the smile upon their faces, let us remind them that it is our freedom they are talking about. When they smile again and tell us that planning has been proven to work, that any number of statistics can be summoned in its favor, let us remind them that statistics can be manipulated to favor any viewpoint, and finally let us manipulate one statistic of our own: the number of people in their classrooms and the number of votes they win.

Indeed, in spite of their meaningless platitudes at their convention, the liberals today are truly uncomfortable standing for the individual. The 2004 Democratic Convention has shown that their dedication to individual rights is now limited merely to the right to an abortion. They have forgotten the individual in all other areas and when they start using the language of individualism, as they did at the convention, it only proves that individualism is the real movement in our country that they have hated to watch - it is represented by George Bush (in their minds).

The undercurrent that is moving toward more freedom in our country is the last thing the liberals want and the one thing they must prevent...by gaining power. So they will use the language of freedom and patriotism to gain power in order that they can later take that freedom away in a morass of social responsibility and the coercive imposition of socialism. That they are uncomfortable with the language of freedom shows how far they have gone and how radicalized they have become. They are unfit to lead because they have no connection to the practical aspects of leadership. They are a bunch of radicals who have been out of the mainstream in a practical sense for decades and have never actually led...which was a problem for the Clintons as well...and why they lost power. They did not lead. Today, liberals can only educate in our schools and they do a poor job of that because they don't teach skills but instead brainwash children and college students with "socially responsible" ideology. Look at the results.

That Obama called individualism "famous" during his convention speech is the point where the mask drops. Since it is "famous" it must be acknowledged, but for a liberal, individualism is an uncomfortable, almost dirty idea. It reeks of egoism and "can do" rugged self-alienation...they would feel so uncomfortable around people like that. So they will call it "famous," but that's all they will say that is good about it. That it is "famous" means that it is a factor to be acknowledged and dealt with. Those for whom it is "famous" must be pandered to and fooled into believing that the liberals are really just good ole Americans living the American dream. Don't be fooled; their American dream is at the expense of hard-working Americans and on behalf of the "chosen" few.

They will acknowledge the roots of our nation, sing praises to the power of self-reliance and hard work, call it important because it is important to others, not to them. They will, instead, talk more enthusiastically about the freedom to "sacrifice" and the right to "give to others" in a true "bait and switch." Imagine what they would be saying if the ideas of freedom and rugged individualism had never been "famous." I'm sure you know, they'd be talking about the "famous" idea of "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability." We would not have listen to them defending themselves against "false" accusations that they are communists. They would be what they are: communists.

This is the very reason they will lose in a landslide. I had thought they had a chance but now I see, they are totally bankrupt ideologically and it is obvious now, the only way they will win is through a coup of lawyers or rifles. The people are not stupid...as Michael Moore believes. They fooled us once with Clinton and Gore. The defeat of the liberals will mean that there will have to be an entirely new ideology for the future, an emerging paradigm shift and I like the "ownership" idea of Bush that may mean a start toward real freedom...at least economically. We can work on stopping the theocracy threat after the election of Bush.

See below for a selection of my works available for sale:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------