Is It Too Late For America?
Part IX

The Only Hope

By Robert Ringer
10-31-2008

In Part VIII of this series, I introduced what I believe to be the only hope to turn America around and prevent it from becoming another Marxist nation-state — the Liberty Education Solution. The essence of such a revolution would be to teach people that only voluntary compassion is moral. Compulsory compassion is coercion, and coercion is always immoral.

Liberals insist that anyone who is against government handouts lacks compassion. But the fact is that one thing has nothing to do with the other. The most compassionate people I know are strictly opposed to the use of force (including the use of force for the purported purpose of helping the "truly needy").

While the needs and desires of certain individuals may be a legitimate concern for many people, they nonetheless fall outside the scope of man's natural rights. This does not mean that a person should not be concerned about others. It does not mean that a person should not be sympathetic toward others. It does not mean that a person should not be helpful to others. It does not mean that a person should not be charitable toward others.

What it does mean is that no person has a right to force others to be concerned, sympathetic, helpful, or charitable toward others. As Frederic Bastiat put it, "The purpose of the law is not to be philanthropic; it is to protect people's property." How dare some arrogant politician tell us that he wants to spread our wealth around? Why doesn't he just spread his wealth around?

Decades of socialist brainwashing have made the task ahead of us enormous. And the first step in that task is to understand that the only hope for a solution to the economic disaster Americans are now facing is to start asking the right questions. Because of the success of the socialists' moral revolution, virtually everyone now bases his arguments on false premises that are now considered sacrosanct.

To turn things around, people must be taught to let go of those false premises. That is the only way they can be intellectually free to ask the right questions.

For example:

·         They would have to be taught to ask not "Is majority rule best for the greatest number of people?" but "Is majority rule, as it is now practiced, moral?"

·         They would have to be taught to ask not "Does the present tax structure really help the people it is intended to help?" but "Is the present tax structure moral?"

·         They would have to be taught to ask not "Is enough effort being put forth to cut waste from federal programs?" but "Why must there be federal programs at all?''

·         They would have to be taught to ask not "What should the government do to solve people's problems?" but "Why should the government be involved in solving people's problems in the first place?"

If mass education on the subject of morality is to succeed, high-profile libertarians and conservatives must have the courage to tell Americans publicly: "You, my friends, are entitled to nothing. You are not entitled to a car; you are not entitled to a job; you are not entitled to medical care; you are not entitled to a roof over your head; you are not even entitled to three meals a day. What you are entitled to is exactly what you can earn in a free market — or what others are voluntarily willing to give you."

I say this not because I'm a cold-hearted person, but because I believe in the sovereignty of the individual. Individual sovereignty and compassion are not mutually exclusive objectives. Socialists have quite cleverly and successfully tied the two together, but they are, in fact, unrelated. I believe in individual sovereignty, but I also consider myself to be a compassionate person. Change that: I know I'm a compassionate person. That's why I believe so strongly in private charity.

It won't be easy for freedom advocates to be brutally frank about this issue, because the sad reality is that the vast majority of people want more benefits, not less. Worse, they have absolutely no understanding of the moral ramifications of their actions — and only now are starting to see the economic consequences of the socialist polices of the past sixty years. At the same time, their minds are being scrambled by a new wave of younger, slicker socialists who are masters at appealing to the GAVEC in people to convince them that greedy corporations, greedy Wall Streeters, and greedy rich folks are the culprits.

"But," you may ask, "what's the use of becoming involved in a mass education program when you've already assured me that financial catastrophe for the U.S. is virtually impossible to avoid?" It's true that it's a virtual certainty that America's fiscal suicide will have to be carried to its final conclusion before people will even consider listening to "radical" solutions.

What is not certain, however, is which radical solutions they will listen to. This will be the deciding factor when it comes to America's future, because one set of solutions will lead to slavery, the other to a police state. The only hope?

More on that in Part X of this series.

Previous Article: Is It Too Late?, Part VIII - Capitalism and the Rights of Individuals

If you have thoughts to share regarding this article:

ROBERT RINGER'S
Voice of Sanity
Feedback Forum

 10-30-2008

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah ... take my breath away. You, sir, gave her five "10s" (not 10 high fives - ah, what's the difference): looks, charisma, wit, speaking and style! Not even a token mention of competence and trust? - David B.

RR note:  On the contrary, I said that all politicians lie and are hypocritical, but from what I've seen and heard about Sarah Palin, I'd have to guess she's not as corrupt as most of them. She's certainly not in a league with Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, et al. Of course, she's not quite as pure as Michelle the Malevolent ... but, hey, give her a break.

______________________________

Thanks for your commitment to accurate thinking and providing an open forum for reasoning people of goodwill. As you are probably aware, a lawsuit currently in federal court in Pennsylvania challenges Barack Obama to prove his citizenship. One procedure in lawsuits is called a "Request For Admissions", and it works like this: I say "you have always hated wearing pink ties." If you don't provide contrary evidence in 30 days, what I said will be considered proven.

In the Pennsylvania lawsuit, there was a Request For Admission that Mr. Obama was, as his grandmother has asserted, born in Kenya and therefore not a natural-born U.S. citizen as all U.S. presidents must be.

More than 30 days have passed since this request was made, and the judge has rejected Obama's request to dismiss the lawsuit. Last May, under the new federal Deficit Reduction Act (gotta love these labels!) U.S. citizens who seek Medicaid must show an ORIGINAL document proving their citizenship. It would appear that, at least in the minds of Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee (also a defendant in the lawsuit), that it is easier to ignore a Constitutional requirement for the presidency than to get free health insurance. - David A.

RR note:  As I have said before, if I were B. McBama's and knew I was born in the U.S., I would be anxious to show my birth certificate to the world. The fact that he refuses to do so, and that the Democratic governor of Hawaii has sealed all of his birth information, speaks for itself. Unless I'm missing something, it is virtually de facto proof that he is ineligible to serve as president. But it doesn't matter, because no one in a position of power (like, say, J. McBama) seems to care enough to make an issue of it. We have become a banana republic whose elections can be bought and manipulated by the thugs that have the most money.

______________________________

I agree, David B. makes a poor case against Sarah Palin. The reason I support her, despite her lack of experience, is because I feel her gut instincts will always steer her right. Her common sense trumps education, experience and political connections. You either have it or you don't, and Sarah Palin has it. - Martha G.

RR note: I'm with you on the experience issue. If B. McBama were not so flawed in so many other ways, I'd give him a pass on being the most inexperienced presidential candidate in history. I don't think politicians should have to be experienced. On the contrary, I think they should come from the private sector - untarnished by Washington.

I totally agree with you that common sense trumps education, experience, and political connections. With B. McBama, you have to argue either that he is criminally intent on overthrowing America's democratic form of government or that his common sense is that of an eight-year-old (with bad upbringing).
______________________________

As much as I love your books (particularly Looking out for #1), I must say that I really don't think history proves your point. It was Herbert Hoover who believed like you. He did nothing to stop the uncontrolled speculation on Wall Street. His attitude was, "Let the market work it out." Well, the market didn't, and we had the Great Depression.

The parallels here are unmistakable. The infrastructure of government makes business possible. When Roosevelt created the SEC, it made Wall Street better, more honest, and more fair. There is a place for good government. Look at the prosperity of the Clinton era for some evidence. Again, a proper infrastructure of laws and effective regulation is crucial for business to operate. Surely, you can't disagree with that? - Robert L.

RR note: Sorry to disappoint you, but I totally disagree with that. Too much to go into here, but I suggest you read Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression. Many other books with the same viewpoint have been written since his, and all of them explain, in logical detail, why FDR's interference in the marketplace probably prolonged the Great Depression by at least five years. And, by the way, Hoover did interfere in the marketplace, so he drew first blood. You need to do some more reading.

If the SEC "made Wall Street better, more honest, and more fair," why are the pros still shafting the average investor? If Wall Street operated free of regulation, honest firms would attract the most clients. Dishonest firms would lose clients and go out of business. Once you let government become involved, it's an invitation to corruption.

Your contention that "a proper infrastructure of laws and effective regulation is crucial for business to operate" is an a priori argument. You are stating your conclusion as a fact. Business can operate just fine - in fact, much better - without politicians being involved. I have great faith in the ability of the marketplace to reward those who create value for others and punish those who defraud their clients. Let us not forget that fraud was already illegal before the SEC existed.

BTW, could we at least stipulate that "good government" is an oxymoron?
______________________________

I would like to respond to one of the misconceptions in M. Rothman's email: "Everyone can't be as successful as you."

I believe this is a false premise preached by the redistribution-of-wealth crowd. Anyone can be as successful as Mr. Ringer if they have a goal, are willing to put it all on the line to succeed, put in long hours for many years (while receiving little compensation for their time), willing to fail - multiple times - and learn from their failures.

There are a lot of unsuccessful people in this world. They (we) are unsuccessful for two main reasons: 1) Our wonderful public (re)education system has told us from an early age that we cannot succeed and should prepare to work as a burger flipper (would you like fries with that?) or a store greeter (Welcome to Wallyworld!). 2) They (we) are lazy and expect success to fall into our lap. After all, we shouldn't have to work to become successful, should we? And if people won't help them, then the government should!

They (we) would be better off helping ourselves by working hard and finding ways to cut expenses (cable or satellite TV, cell phones, PDA's, SUV's, big-screen TV's etc. are NOT necessities!). I prefer having my hand on the plow, putting in a garden to cut grocery expenses than holding my hand out hoping B. McBama will fill it with goodies. And many of us would be willing to help others more if the government wasn't extracting so much of what we earn through taxes and the hidden tax (inflation), used mostly to buy votes and keep us, the great unwashed, quiet. Also, where in our Constitution does it say this is a function of the federal government?

I use "we" above, as I have been unsuccessful in life, too. In the last several years, I have been reading books by successful people and now realize why I have been unsuccessful. I'm in my mid 50s and am starting on that journey to success. I know the path to success will be difficult, but I would rather die trying than waiting for some politrickster to fill my upturned hands with stolen goodies. - Kenneth O.

RR note: Based on your e-mail, especially your last paragraph, I'd wager that you will be very successful in the not-too-distant future. Just stay your course when things get tough, because that's the point at which so many people decide that redistribution-of-the-wealth is a good thing.

And, of course, it goes without saying that most of what our government does today is not spelled out in the Constitution.
______________________________

I really don't see why you give Sarah Palin such a pass. Because she is a little bit better and less hypocritical than the others? Give her time! Sure, she's nice looking and all, but I think you are deluded. She's like all the others (including Pelosi), only she's newer at the game. She might denounce socialism now, but will join the march toward communism once she is in office. She will continue to sell out like all the others. The only difference is the color of the lipstick. I think you should stop drinking the Palin Kool-Aid. Otherwise, I love your stuff. Thanks for all your work. - John P.

RR note: Darn it, John. I hate to admit it, but the odds are that you'll be proven right about S.P. once she becomes entrenched in D.C. But cut me a break ... I'm a sucker when it comes to a pretty face and a cute personality. It could be worse. I could be dwelling on her husband's good looks. Hmm ... come to think of it, he is movie-star handsome.

Seriously, though, Governor Palin may not even get back on the national ticket again, with Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee waiting in the wings. But if she should decide to run for the Senate in the coming years, you're right ... she'll probably sell out. If she doesn't, she had better be prepared to join Ron Paul in the Leper's Section of the Congressional Dining Room.agree, David B. makes a poor case against Sarah Palin. The reason I support her, despite her lack of experience, is because I feel her gut instincts will always steer her right. Her common sense trumps education, experience and political connections. You either have it or you don't, and Sarah Palin has it.

 
If you would like to speak up about the topic of this article, send your comments to: questions@robertringer.com. (Remember to keep your comments pithy and double spaced for easy reading.)

To read past articles from the Money and Power Series Click Here

To read past articles from The Cho Factor Click Here

Subscribe free to A Voice of Sanity at www.RobertRinger.com

In Praise of Bankruptcy

Daily Article by Henry Thompson | Posted on 10/28/2008

An MP3 audio version of this article, read by Dr. Floy Lilley, is available here.

In one word, the market approach to the financial problem is bankruptcy. Firms go bankrupt when they do not have enough revenue to pay their bills. Banks make money by borrowing from lenders at a low interest rate and lending to borrowers at a higher interest rate. If banks make bad loans and borrowers quit repaying, banks go bankrupt.

Insurance firms help people avoid risk, collecting premiums to pay those who suffer bad luck. If the premiums collected by an insurance firm are less than what it has to pay, it goes bankrupt. AIG sold insurance policies to stockholders that banks and other firms would not go bankrupt and could not pay the policies when that happened.

Bankruptcy is a normal part of economic life, covered by laws that guarantee stockholders will be compensated as much as possible. More efficient firms move in to take over what is left of bankrupt firms, buying what can be put to productive use. There is no crime in bankruptcy and, if handled quickly, little economic harm. When the largest US energy company Enron went bankrupt a few years ago, there was not even a ripple in the energy markets, much less the economy. Bankruptcy is not criminal and should not be a surprise, but it can be unnerving if large, well-known firms go bankrupt.

Banks and insurance firms are careful when lending or selling policies because they want to ensure their revenue will pay their bills. Government involvement, however, provides a cushion for failure and allows banks and insurance firms to be careless. This carelessness occurred with the government-sponsored mortgage bank, the Federal National Mortgage Association.

Fannie Mae provides backing to mortgage banks, more or less encouraging them to make bad loans. Fannie Mae makes subsidized loans to mortgage companies when they are short of cash. Freddie Mac is a government mortgage bank that sells mortgages without the usual worry of making a profit, given its taxpayer backing. The government has taken over these two losing mortgage banks, and losses will be paid by taxpayers.

The government provides subsidized mortgage insurance in case home buyers cannot pay. This insurance lets commercial mortgage banks relax and make loans to people who might not be able to pay. Government support for people wanting to buy a house elevated demand for houses and pushed up prices. Rising prices made home buyers confident they could buy a house they could not afford and sell it soon for a profit, counting on a "greater fool" to come along. Realistically, people should only buy a house when they plan to live in it and can actually pay for it. Greater fools do not always come along.

The result of government meddling in the mortgage market is that people have bought houses they cannot afford. When prices quit going up, people were left owing more on their house than it was worth in the market. With their subsidized mortgage insurance and little penalty, people defaulted on their mortgages. The mortgage banks are left without income. This mortgage mess is the root cause of the present financial crisis.

One part of the evolving financial bailout is the government using taxpayer money to help people who have not been able to pay their mortgage. The government is taxing those who have paid their mortgages and transferring the money to those who have not. It is not a good idea to reward inefficiency.

The government is also giving money to select financial and insurance firms, rewarding their poor performance with taxpayer money. Better advice is, "Don't throw good money after bad." The failed firms should go bankrupt.

Another part of the bailout plan is that the Treasury will actually buy houses with defaulted mortgages that the failing banks are holding — the overpriced mortgages that people quit paying. The Treasury has become a realty speculator, hoping to sell these overpriced houses sometime in the future for an even higher price. It is much more likely that taxpayers will pay the losses. The bailout money will purchase 6% of the houses in the United States — not such a large amount and only a very small part of the total real-estate market. The bailout money, as large as it is, will have little effect on the aggregate housing market.

As another part of the bailout, the Federal Reserve will make short-term loans to troubled banks and insurance companies to meet their payroll or other bills. The Fed's job is to make loans to banks and buy or sell bonds to control the money supply. Certainly the bankrupt firms will be first in line to borrow such short-term funds. These loans are likely to go unpaid and be written off at taxpayer expense. It is easy for the Fed to make loans since it is in charge of the money supply.

In the bailout, the Treasury also plans to buy a stake in the failed firms, using taxpayer money to become part owner of second-rate mortgage banks and insurance firms — your tax dollars at work.

The underlying goal of the financial bailout is not to keep the economy "healthy" but to keep a few Wall Street firms, mortgage banks, and insurance firms in business. Never mind that most mortgage and insurance firms in the country are profitable; the government wants to support the inefficient, large, high-profile firms. If these firms were allowed to go bankrupt, the economy would recover quickly. Other firms, not necessarily with an address on Wall Street, would step in and buy them out. Wall Street is much less important now than in the past, due to national and global financial competition

Profit motives in business are clear, but governments have no profit motive and are able to collect taxes, print money, and borrow against future taxpayer money to pay their bills. Mortgage and other financial-market firms will wait to see what the government agencies do in the market and then generally do the opposite, playing against taxpayer money. The rules are changing with more government involvement, but competition will continue. The situation would be like the government making delivery of packages less than 5 pounds illegal except by the US Post Office.

The present financial problems would disappear quickly if the government let the markets operate and let inefficient firms go bankrupt. The irony is that the government is stepping in to solve the problems it created. The solution might "work," but the underlying disincentives in the mortgage and insurance markets will persist. Increased government meddling in the financial markets will only make the financial problems linger.

[VIEW THIS ARTICLE ONLINE]

________________________

Henry Thompson teaches economics at Auburn University. Comment on the blog.

Join the Mises Institute Mises.org Store

ROBERT RINGER'S
Voice of Sanity
Feedback Forum
10-28-2008

I am a Canadian. When I first saw Sarah Palin perform on television I was blown away! Here was this poised, wide-eyed, open-faced, appealing person speaking with authority about how she was "gonna do it right." I was amazed and impressed!

My curiosity got the better of me, and I began spending about an hour in the evening reading and listening to whatever I could about this individual (about 35 hours to date and, at last tally, 42 different news sources, published sources, and reports through my personal network that extends to Alaska). Not since Pierre Trudeau (former Prime Minister of Canada) did a candidate captivate me like this.

The last major source I read contained the conclusions (Sarah Palin abused her power as governor and did not provide e-mails and other information when requested to do so) from the report under the guidance of Stephen Branchflower that received unanimous (yes unanimous) support from a bipartisan panel and was voted on by the Alaska Legislature to be released.

I was truly ashamed of myself for being so readily influenced by my first impression of her on TV, but I also realize that intuitively I felt something about her was out of whack - hence my research into her background. I became deeply, deeply disappointed. I really wanted to believe that she could do it! I am now so disgusted by the words that come out of her mouth that I have stopped cross-checking their validity. It seems that eight or nine times out of ten, what she says borders on fabrication and misrepresentation. The cavern dividing Sarah Palin's version of events and most other peoples' versions of those same events is so wide that she has bludgeoned her credibility.

I do not want this to sound mean, but Sarah Palin truly defines hypocrisy, and exercises some of the poorest judgment I have ever witnessed. (Or is McCain the one with appalling judgment?) From what I have seen, I do not believe that Sarah Palin can be trusted to do what she says she can do, nor do I believe she has the competence to do it. You need to find and support a way better candidate.
I seem to have read on your site that you are in favor of Ms. Palin because she supports your political views (?), so I have some doubts that you will publish the thoughts of this Canadian. - David B.

RR note: If your case against Sarah Palin is what you've stated above, you're not going to convince many people that she's done anything wrong. It sounds like the $150,000 wardrobe story all over again. Who in the world cares about a report "under the guidance of Stephen Branchflower that received unanimous support from a bipartisan panel and was voted on by the Alaska Legislature to be released?"

This is what convinced you that Sarah Palin is a dishonest woman? Hmm ... I guess we should ignore the fact that her actual constituents give her a higher approval rating than any other governor in the country, right? All that matters is that she didn't please Stephen Branchflower (whomever he might be). Nancy Pelosi and comrades have around a 10 percent approval rating from their constitutents!

But, you're probably right about her hypocrisy, changing her stories, etc. As the good Rev. Jeremiah Wright would say, she's a politician, and that's what politicians do for a living. Even so, it's a matter of degree and frequency. There are politicians who lie and engage in hypocrisy as a way life. There are some who do it often. And there are some who do it only from time to time. I don't know a lot about Sarah Palin, but from what I've seen and heard, I'd have to guess she's in the latter category.

I suggest you go back and reread my two-part series on Sarah Palin - "Make Way for Annie Oakley" - which ran on September 8 and September 10. I've never said that I am "in favor of Ms. Palin because she supports [my] political views." But I definitely am impressed by her courage to stand up against the most vicious, petty onslaught of personal attacks I have ever witnessed - even in the unseemly world of politics. I am especially impressed by her courage to exclaim, loudly and clearly, that what her opponents are proposing is socialism.

Had Mushy J. McBama's inept campaign managers turned her loose from the outset of this campaign and allowed her be Sarah Palin, she would have had the left-wing media even more apoplectic than they already are. She has the far-left tinkling down their legs with fear - the fear that she could be the spark that ignites a backlash against them and sets them back to where they were before Ronald Reagan came along.

I give her a 10 on looks, a 10 on charisma, a 10 on wit, a 10 as a speaker, and a 10 on style. So, even if she were as crooked as Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, or B. McBama, who would you rather watch and listen to? And if she decides to hang around on the national political scene for another twenty-five years or so, she might even surprise you by not being nearly as hypocritical and dishonest as the vast majority of her colleagues are.
______________________________

I applaud your position, and we need to do the same thing in Canada. Our prosperity has been built on a mountain of debt. I read that the accumulated U.S. Government debt could reach 65% to 70% of GNP in 2009 - or 12 to 13 trillion dollars. UNBELIEVABLE! Keep up the good work by spreading your wisdom and common sense. - Peter C.

RR note: I take it that you and fellow-Canadian David B. (above) don't socialize much up there. The truth be known, I don't think anyone knows for sure just what the U.S. debt is, but you're on pretty safe ground when you say UNBELIEVABLE!
______________________________

In reading a plethora of your reader Feedback Forums, I have noticed persons from other places on our shrinking planet, such as Australia and parts of Europe, making the same comments about their governments as we make about ours. If we are becoming global - and I see a pattern - are we headed for a "global counsel" that will rule all? And is that what all the Marxist/socialist "ideals" B.S. is about? That could get real ugly later down the line.

I read a story about how "Nations will come together and the whore of nations will be despised." It goes on to talk about a beast (which sounds like nuclear war to me). Should our voices be silenced and our ability to think for ourselves be labeled as anti-government, may I say I will think of you always and miss hearing the wisdom from a man I never met yet greatly respected and admired. - Jackie N.

RR note: Wow - you make it sound like a funeral, Jackie. Let's at least give the Liberty-Education Revolution a try before saying our goodbyes. But, yes, we probably are headed toward a global government of some kind, held together by the chains of Marxism. Such a worldwide monopoly would fail over the long term, however, because nation-states will always try to tilt the game in their favor.

By the way, I've always believed that nuclear war is inevitable, simply because of the law of averages - too many weapons in too many bad people's hands. But better to put it off for a hundred years or so than to have it happen in our lifetime. The big boys (China, Russia, and possibly India) are not likely to pull the trigger, because their economies are too tied to the U.S. The nut jobs like Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran are the problem. (And, unfortunately, the country Pakistan would most like to nuke is India.)
______________________________

Frankly, I am depressed as hell. I am the common guy who has lived within his means all his life. I have always paid my bills and worked long hours for little pay. I have never asked the government for any handouts. I have never complained about paying taxes, because I feel that I live in the greatest country in the world. Not many frills in my life ... I eat out about once a month at Wendy's.

Even now, when my 401k and IRA's have lost 40% of their value and the dream of ever being able to retire is gone, I am not asking for a handout from the government. Now it seems that the government is throwing money at everything that moves. I am not the brightest candle in the box, but I'm smart enough to know that the government can't spend itself out of this mess. I know that every time they print another dollar, the dollar in my wallet is worth less.

Is the government emulating the people who live beyond their means or are those people emulating the government? I am a common man who is caught up in an uncommon world, where reason and sanity are gone. Still, I will not bitch. I will, however, shed a tear when no one is looking, because the America I love is going down in flames. - Jerry T.

RR note: People like you are the backbone of what made America great. You say you're not the brightest candle in the box, but, let me tell you, it sounds like you know a lot more about economics than Ben Bernanke or Henry Paulson - and especially Alan Greenspan. I know it can be frustrating to be a "common man" living in an insane world, but try not to despair. There are hundreds of millions of sane people on this planet who think very much like you. And there really is strength in numbers.
______________________________

Mike Huckabee ... OK.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal ... OK.

Sarah Palin ... YOU - ARE - NUTS!

Best is to know - and know that you know.
Next best is to know that you don't know.
Third best is knowing, but not realizing it.
Worst is not to know that you don't know.

- Nick L.

RR note: Two out of three ... not bad. In any event, if there's a presidential election in 2008, it will be interesting to see whose on the Republican Wing ticket - and whether they will have the courage to break ranks with the Demopublican Party's vote-buying platform and tell voters that they intend to eliminate government programs. Not cut waste, but eliminate programs. 

If you would like to speak up about the topic of this article, send your comments to: questions@robertringer.com. (Remember to keep your comments pithy and double spaced for easy reading.)

To read past articles from the Money and Power Series Click Here

To read past articles from The Cho Factor Click Here

ELECTION 2008

Is It Too Late For America?
Part VI
Voice of Sanity
The Moral Issue

By: Robert Ringer
10-25-2008
 

 
Through the power of gradualism, the desires are rights mentality has become solidly entrenched in the American brain. As a result, the bribery approach has worked well for politicians, and they are not about to stop using it to their advantage. Long term, however, bribery does not work in a society founded on a political democracy, because people's desires are infinite.

On the surface, this appears to be a pragmatic problem. At its heart, however, it is a moral issue — which is why political solutions won't work. By moral issue, I'm talking about the broad acceptance of the absurd notion that if a person desires something, he has a moral right to it. Not one politician, not one media commentator, not one public figure has dared to attack this outrageous premise.

Politicians continue to fan the fires of class warfare, and our political democracy continues to mushroom into out of control buy off programs. We were reminded of this yet again when the usually smooth B. McBama made a slip of the tongue when talking to Joe the Plumber. To the horror of his handlers, he came right out and said that he wants to "spread the wealth around."

We hadn't heard anything that blatant since his pit-bull-with-lipstick partner came out with "Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." Don't they make a darling couple? A newer, darker version of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

No one ever defined Marxism as simply and accurately as the B. McBamas did in those two statements. Now, of course, "Barry" is masterfully backtracking on his words, while Mad Mama remains pretty well muzzled by her husband's win-at-all-costs handlers.

Still, as I said, this kind of "spread-the-wealth" bribery cannot work long term. What happens is that GAVEC (guiltism, angerism, villainism, envyism, covetism) ultimately destroys a nation's wealth producing capacity.

Thus, in light of today's political realities, the question remains: Is it too late for Western civilization to be saved? Or, more to the point, can we, as a people, rediscover the morals, ethics, and values that once served as the foundation of Western civilization?

To answer this question, let's examine a few possible solutions.

The Muddle Through Solution

If you've ever had the experience of listening to an otherwise rational person insist that he is optimistic about the future of America, without giving any concrete reasons for his optimism, you were probably listening to someone who, perhaps unknowingly, believes in the Muddle Through Solution.

The Muddle Through Solution transcends fact and logic simply by maintaining that Western man will somehow find a way to work out his problems and muddle through. Times may get terrible ... inflation may destroy currencies ... there may be rioting and bloodshed in the streets. But, through it all, resilient Western man will manage to patch up the cracks and preserve his world intact.

I used to be tempted to take the easy way out and turn to the Muddle Through Solution for solace. What's attractive about it is that it enables you to rid your mind of the multitude of seemingly insurmountable obstacles that presently point to a police state environment, without taking the pains to analyze their causes.

Whenever I find myself starting to believe that we might just manage to "muddle through," I ask myself a one word question that most prefer to ignore: How? And the answer to that question is that there is no way to return to a moral society without taking specific action.

The problem with the idea of muddling through is that it's a no action solution, which means it ignores the manifold egalitarian realities that are already firmly entrenched in our society. To be sure, life will go on if we muddle through, but not in the manner to which we have become accustomed.

For three decades, I have expressed my belief that, as our system continues to disintegrate, millions of people who have come to believe that their handouts are "entitlements" are going to become very upset, to put it mildly. To put it not so mildly, many of them will become violent, and a dictatorship is the preferred way of handling out-of-control violence. So called democracies are simply too inefficient to suppress nationwide uprisings.

Unfortunately, a majority of the population believes in redistribution of income and assets, thus the demagogue most likely to succeed in grabbing the reins of police state power will be an FDR type — i.e., a committed left winger whose eloquence makes his redistribution promises sound irresistible. And, guess what? A man who fits this description appears on your television screen nightly!

But the reality is that people do not "muddle through" under left wing dictatorships. Wherever you look for an example — the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba — dictatorships that were cleverly masked as "people's revolutions" have been eminently successful at keeping people under both mental and physical lock and key.

The attempt to muddle through will only mean more and more stopgap measures to prevent the thousands of government giveaway programs from collapsing. It will mean an increase in the phenomenon of GAVEC and the reliance of non producers on the effectiveness of lynch mob rule.

Charades like the recent bailouts, periodic announcements that "Social Security must be reformed in order to preserve it," increases or decreases in the federal discount rate, government buying into banks, and increasing taxes on "the wealthy" will not only continue to fail, but will make matters worse. The reason for this is that none of them address the real problem.

Again, they all avoid the moral issue. They do nothing to abate the envy and covetousness of the masses. Instead, they rely on ever increasing doses of bribery — and, since the productive capacity of those who continue to produce is limited, they are destined to fail.

If a majority of people continue to believe that it is possible to muddle through forever, the United States is headed for a modern-day version of the Dark Ages. In truth, the Muddle Through Solution is not a solution at all. Rather, it's an escape from reality. It is nothing more than a mindset of denial.

Next: The High-Tech Solution ... and more.

If you have thoughts to share regarding this article:


 

ROBERT RINGER'S
Voice of Sanity
Feedback Forum

10-23-2008

You know what is really scary? If and when this Muslim-coddling Marxist wins the election, millions of people like myself will absolutely stop participating in political dialogue forums such as yours. My credo is about to become: "Be silent, or the Un-American Gestapo will come after me - via the IRS, or the cops, or any number of other flagrant forms of harassment and punishment to whip me into submission and intimidate me for being a right-winger in this age of Global Marxist domination."

Can't wait to seasonally rotate between living in Sweden and Australia, but anticipate problems in just renewing my passport, such is the vindictiveness of our internal adversaries. - Rob B.

RR note:  Harassment is coming, for sure ... punishment, maybe. Anyway, if you do the rotation thing, I'd suggest you make it Australia from about October through March and Sweden from April through September. Sweden, of course, is socialist through and through, but, like the Kiwis in New Zealand, they're nice, harmless people ... just a bit confused about antiquated concepts such as the sanctity of private property.

______________________________

I take it as a given that B. McBama will win in the coming election and, within three years, attempt to institute his plan to become Dictator of the People for Life. My only question is, at what point do we take action?

I hear lots of people say that they know where this country is going. While I can understand the idea of an education revolution to counteract GAVEC, I fear we may be too far gone for that now. Much as I hate to say it, I fear the only way out is a civil war. I am an optimist, and I would LOVE to be wrong about this, but I see few real alternatives. The only question is, when do we finally say enough is enough? - Josh C.

RR note:  We say enough is enough NOW! We take action NOW - every day, in every way that we can. That's what I - and many others - do through our writings. The civil war has already begun. The country is split between those who want to overthrow the American way of life (i.e., liberty) and those whose brains are saturated with GAVEC.

But we must get to that 30 percent or so in the middle - those na?ve souls who want to believe so badly that all is well in the American Empire that they simply ignore the facts. This includes supposedly sophisticated media people such as Bill O'Reilly, who never tires of spewing out drivel like, "I don't believe for a second that Senator Obama agrees with Reverend Wright's views." Sure, Bill. Based on his connections to communists such as his childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, I would guess that B. McBama had scores of one-on-one meetings with Reverend Wright about long-term plans to overthrow white America.

What I'm saying here is that, above all else, what we have to fight against is naivete. It's absurd that every comment about B. McBama's Marxist ties is quickly swept aside as a "smear tactic." Even Sarah Palin, when she was asked by Glenn Beck if she believed B. McBama is a socialist, hesitated, then carefully assured him that she wouldn't go so far as to say he is a socialist - even though she had just finished saying that his policies reflect socialism!

This kind of self-intimidation must stop. If J. McBama loses the election, it will be because of his "reach-across-the-aisle" mentality. Had he stood up loud and clear for capitalism from day one, and explained loud and clear why B. McBama is a Marxist (not just a socialist!), I believe he would have won the election by ten points.

______________________________

Why is it that they keep calling Sarah Palin "stupid?" Not ignorant, not naive, but "stupid." Most recently it was Chevy Chase, that paragon of intellect, that thought leader of edification. They called Ronald Reagan stupid as well, if I recall. So, Sarah is in good company. I'd rather be stupid like Reagan than smart like Chevy Chase. - Lara F.

RR note:  Chevy Chase is a has-been whom I never thought was very funny even at his peak. Love her or hate her (as many loved and hated Ronald Reagan), Sarah Palin is the biggest threat to those trying turn the U.S. into a Marxist country in my lifetime - much more so even than Reagan. What the beautiful governor did was break down the facade of groups like NOW, exposing them not as defenders of women's rights, but as defenders of the far left's agenda.

It was to Gov. Palin's misfortune that she broke into the big time as a sidekick to the stand-for-nothing J. McBama. Though they have tried to make a joke of her, if she's as tough as I think she is, she'll come back in 2012 as her own person - either challenging for the presidency or running alongside Mike Huckabee or Bobby Jindal. The Fuhrer from Hawaii (by way of Indonesia) would have his hands full against either of those tickets, especially if people are standing in soup lines. 

______________________________

In Australia loves to copy America. That is why we now eat so many pretzels and put an obnoxious laugh tracks behind every poorly produced TV program. In keeping with this world shift to remove free enterprise, our left-wing Senator Bob Brown has proposed a so called "Fat Cat" Tax. The proposal is quite simple:

People earning $1 million per year would be taxed at 50%.

People earning $2 million per year would be taxed at 60%.

It is being sold to the Australian people as fitting in with the prime minister's "concern about the greed excesses of capitalism."

The proposal is disgraceful for obvious reasons, but worse are the comments and talkback from a large section of the public. They speak of the rich with utter disdain, and use terms of intense hatred in their responses. They can, without reproach, state "I hate the rich." I am no millionaire, but if I dared say, "I hate the poor with their potato chip-laden shopping carts and donut-accompanied visits to Medicare," I would be soundly beaten.

It is frightening how little understanding we as a nation have. Perhaps our laid-back approach to life has allowed us to let basic communist thinking be taught by our unionized education department. It gets forced into our minds from birth, and we are raised to be held down.

Thank you for your voice of sanity. I just hope I can preach it to enough people in time to save our skin. - Mark G. (Australia).

RR note:  Wow - the "greed excesses of capitalism!" That's almost as bad as the greed excesses of communist oligarchies. Guys like Kim Jong Il just can't get enough of things like good Scotch and porn movies.

I don't mean to be unkind, but I have to admit that I chuckled at your description of "potato chip-laden shopping carts and donut-accompanied visits to Medicare." Forget about spreading the wealth. Why don't we start by just educating people of lesser means about healthy eating habits.

______________________________

I want to thank you for your commentaries and insights. Your writings have pulled me out of many dark places and revived my sagging spirit. The country is in deep trouble, and only a massive "correction," for want of a better word, will right the wrongs created by massive oversight of the financial markets. The behavior displayed by those responsible spell their demise. Let us hope the vote this time is an "honest" one. I fear any type of "irregularity" will push the ox over the cliff. No one is happy. - Dwight K.

RR note:  I can give you my personal guarantee that the vote will not be honest. The U.S., once a shining city on a hill, now operates like a banana republic. Government is for sale. Acorns roam the countryside without fear. Elections are bought - and, if necessary, stolen.

Rest assured that there will be a massive correction in the economy. In fact, it's already begun. How long it will take before it reaches bottom, and whether it will be a deflationary or inflationary depression, remains to be seen. Let's just hope that those responsible will ultimately have to face the music.

If you would like to speak up about the topic of this article, send your comments to: questions@robertringer.com. (Remember to keep your comments pithy and double spaced for easy reading.)

To read past articles from the Money and Power Series Click Here

To read past articles from The Cho Factor Click Here

Subscribe free to A Voice of Sanity at www.RobertRinger.com

Changing Perceptions

 By: Robert Ringer
10-21-2008

Perception is a topic that has always fascinated me. When a person is revered, the reverence quickly disappears if something happens that changes the public's perception of that individual. If, for example, the person on the receiving end of the adulation is exposed as a fraud or falls into disgrace, admiration soon turns to contempt.

I thought about this while watching a show about Roman Emperor Caligula (A.D. 37-41) on The History Channel. Caligula's given name was Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. When he was a little boy, his father, Germanicus, dressed him in the military uniform of the day, including sandals called "caliga." As a result, the troops nicknamed him Caligula ("Little Boots").

Germanicus was the JFK of his time, a charismatic figure who was loved by the Roman citizenry. Emperor Tiberius, fearful of his popularity, sent him off to Asia to kick some butt for the Empire, and he later died in Syria under rather mysterious circumstances that many assumed had been engineered by Tiberius.

Ultimately, Tiberius had Caligula's mother and two brothers put to death, and, after years of torment and being shuffled from one relative to another, Caligula was brought to live at the emperor's palace. For reasons that still puzzle me, Tiberius named him as co-heir, along with his cousin Tiberius Gemellus.

After Tiberius's death, because of their fond memories of his father, the Roman people were wildly excited when Caligula ascended to power. It was the way a large percentage of Americans might have felt had John F. Kennedy Jr. been elected president.

Shortly after becoming emperor, Caligula had his joint-heir, Tiberius Gemellus, "eliminated." But no one seemed to see this as a sign of things to come. Probably the main reason it was ignored was that he lavished money and other goodies on the people of Rome - and, much like today's free-lunch recipients, they adored him for his "generosity." It was a veritable love fest.

Then, suddenly, Caligula shifted into a different mode and began a reign of cruelty and depravity that was extreme even by Roman standards. As a result, the people soon came to fear and hate him. Ultimately, after less than four years in power, his own guards stabbed him to death.

Did something happen that caused Caligula to suddenly go insane? There has been much speculation about it over the centuries, but no one will ever know for certain. Regardless, when the perception of the man changed, adoration for him was replaced by hatred.

Does the story of Caligula strike a chord with you? How many people can you think of who lost their goodwill when their actions caused them to fall from grace? How about Mike Nifong, who was perceived as a no-nonsense prosecutor in Durham, North Carolina, a man who was willing to step up to the plate and defend a woman of color who had been raped by three rich white kids.

But, suddenly, the truth descended upon him with a vengeance. At some point in his investigation, Nifong became aware that the three Duke lacrosse players were not guilty of the rape, yet he moved relentlessly forward with the case - notwithstanding the fact that convictions could have sent those young men to prison for life. If one believes in the concept of evil, this is about as close to it as a human being can get. What is your perception of Mike Nifong today?

For more than two decades, O.J. Simpson was a great role model - congenial and beloved by millions. A mutual friend once introduced me to him, and I recall thinking what a really nice guy he was. But since it became clear that he savagely butchered two innocent people, he has been reviled by all but the most racist and brain-dead among us.

According to those who know him best, O.J. was always the O.J. we know today - a narcissistic, violent person with no sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. But now the public's perception of that smile is that it was a way of thumbing his nose at the law and at the families of his victims. Now that he finally appears to be headed for many years in prison, what is your perception of O.J. Simpson today?

Mark McGwire was the Paul Bunyan of baseball, hitting an unfathomable seventy homeruns in 1998 to shatter Roger Maris's record of sixty-one. But what made him such a legendary figure was his nice-guy image. Who can forget his climbing into the stands to hug Maris's children after breaking their father's record?

But when McGwire testified before the House Government Reform Committee as part of the Congressional investigation of steroids in sports, he was so evasive that people saw it as a de facto admission of his guilt. McGwire came across as a sullen, weak man, far from the strong, pleasant persona of his playing days. What is your perception of Mark McGwire today? And, of course, ditto Barry Bonds.

Unfortunately, no matter how hard we try, our perceptions about people will be misguided a significant percentage of the time. Of course, it's one thing to be off target occasionally but quite another to be consistently wrong. That's because the foundational principle of all other success principles is having an accurate perception of reality. Which means that great achievements are virtually impossible if one's perception of reality is perpetually faulty.

The best antidote to this potentially fatal condition is to pay more attention to what people say than to who they seem to be. In other words, don't be taken in by credentials, demeanor, or reputation. Hey, you can't get much better credentials than being emperor of Rome, and just about everyone got misled on that one.

Likewise, just because someone doesn't have great credentials doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. Some of the best insights I've heard over the years have come from "no name" people.

There is no magic way to sort out worthwhile information from junk. The truth of the matter is that it's up to you to weigh the content of people's words and make good decisions about them. And to do that, you have to be vigilant about not becoming mesmerized by appearances. It's especially true in today's world of criminal government.

In the words of Buddha, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." If he were alive today, my guess is that he would add the words, "especially when it comes to government."

It's definitely something to ponder as you go about trying to deal with the delusions that are being fed to us daily by politicians and their talking heads in the media.

If you would like to speak up about the topic of this article, send your comments to: questions@robertringer.com. (Remember to keep your comments pithy and double spaced for easy reading.)

To read past articles from the Money and Power Series Click Here

To read past articles from The Cho Factor Click Here

Voice of Sanity
Feedback Forum

By: Robert Ringer
10-18-2008 

I am at present stuck in that black hole called "college." In fact, a few months ago B. McBama spoke at my school. The timing was interesting, as I had just turned in a nine-page paper in my English class titled "Into the Darkness," in which I basically described how and why this country was about to descend into communism and how B. McBama's own website confirms that that is his plan.

When I received the paper back a few days later, it was deemed unacceptable and I was forced to rewrite it because, according to the teacher, redistribution of wealth, desires-as-needs, and universal healthcare have nothing to do with communism. (Which apparently it doesn't; it's just socialism, according to the teacher).

The most interesting people in that class were three immigrants - one from England, one from Germany, and one from Bosnia. All three of them, after reading my paper, said they, too, see what's coming, and of the whole class, they were the only ones to back me up. Interesting how those who know what communism is seem to think it's coming, huh? - Josh C.

RR note: I've heard this same story over and over again through the years. Students have often tried to write papers about Ayn Rand as a great philosopher, but their professors usually refuse to accept them. They simply proclaim that they consider her to be a right-wing quack. Today, the fact that her books foretold precisely what is now happening to the U.S. is conveniently forgotten by those in academia.

In all communist revolutions, universities have played a major role. Ivory-tower professors, who dream of a world of equality where "the rich" are beheaded and "the workers" are handed their ill-gotten gains, are relentless in their drive to twist the fertile, na?ve minds of students.

Three cheers to you and your three foreign classmates who refuse to succumb to such brainwashing. In the end, it will be up to young people like you and your classmates to rebuild a society where liberty reigns above all other objectives - including "compassion." The fact is that liberty is the most compassionate concept ever conceived.

P.S. A pox on your professor's house.
______________________________

I've been reading your posts with equal parts of admiration and horror. I admit that I am nowhere near as well read as you, nor have I studied economics at a level any deeper than my undergrad college courses. My business sense comes from grinding through our system as an entrepreneur for the past 25 years.

My admiration comes from the extremely passionate and well thought out approach you bring to your email missives (debates?). My horror comes from your belief that a truly unfettered market, with federal government regulations only relating to safety and security measures, would actually work in reality rather than theory.

Your assertion that our government's regulations are not really protecting us financially are probably true in many, many cases. However, history shows that entirely unregulated markets/societies are always ruled by true con artists who steal with reckless abandon. I know you're thinking that that's what our Demopublicans have been doing anyway, but I shudder to think what would happen if there were no financial/banking regulations at all. I don't believe for a second that the average investor would ever know enough to protect himself from the truly greedy con men who will always stay ahead of them.

I've always been a conservative voter. I agree that capitalism is the best of the imperfect systems we are faced with, but I don't share your faith that a truly free market would be able to police and ferret out the greedy con men. - Dan K.

RR note: I respect your opinion and understand your skepticism about a laissez-faire economy. No question that there would be corruption, theft, and worse - just as there is now! The difference is that the regulations government imposes deceive the public and lull investors into a false sense of security. Are you not paying attention to the "bailouts" that are taking place - under the guise of "rescue plans" - which you are paying for?

Yes, unregulated markets/societies are always filled with con artists who steal with reckless abandon. And so are regulated markets! What we need are honest people with the guts to prosecute those who are guilty - starting with the scoundrels in Washington who make it all possible and personally benefit from it.

If B. McBama gets in via voter fraud, mainstream-media cheerleading, and by managing to keep endless truths about him suppressed (beginning with the fact that he is most likely not even a U.S. citizen!), you will get more of the regulation you believe is so good for America. Experience it for a year or two, then send me another e-mail and let me know how much you like it.
______________________________

The way of the true American Freedom is to find opportunity in adversity. Our growth pains will be excruciating, but out of them may be born a new fervor for self-determination. Yes, we will suffer food shortages, oil, and perhaps natural-gas shortages. Yes, there will be rioting and bloodshed. These are the hallmarks of any revolutionary process. Not pretty, but necessary for people who finally wake up and try to save themselves and their children's lives, and who do so with a sense of a better future. It's what we do as Americans. It's genetic. It's also the best opportunity for real libertarianism to emerge from the ashes of what is left when individuals would rather suffer death than live devoid of liberty. - Kathy K.

RR note: Well said ... very well said. But it's important to begin now to spread the truth about liberty vs Marxism so we are not overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who prefer servitude to making it on their own.
______________________________

That last article Robert ... better be careful. Be watchful of eyes peering out from paintings. (Isn't that the latest CIA tech?). Interestingly, I had almost (almost) considered stopping reading your stuff because ... well ... frankly, it was depressing me. But this last post actually gives me some hope. Watched the debates for about 20 minutes tonight, and just wished that you were the moderator. Wouldn't THAT be fun? Yes, I can hold out until 2012 if that's what it takes. What the heck, I haven't even begun to really build that much to lose just yet. - Dr. Fred B.

RR note: Nothing to be depressed about. Good always triumphs over evil. Unfortunately, it doesn't always do it as fast as we'd like it to. Example: It took seventy years for communism to collapse in the Soviet Union.

If you watched the debate for a fully twenty minutes, you must have a strong stomach. I don't think the McBamas would have taken kindly to me as the moderator. I would have spent the whole ninety minutes dragging them back to the question: "What programs, precisely, would you cut?" I would not have allowed them to get away with ignoring the question and instead spewing out totally unrelated blather.

I would have held their feet to the fire and exposed the fact that neither are willing to make any serious cuts of any kind, which is what guarantees the financial demise of the U.S. No one on television seems to get this ... or, if they do, they're keeping it to themselves.

Actually, I also would have set aside a full ten minutes to wrap the "Joe the Plumber" story tightly around B. McBama's neck. Through both the primaries and the presidential campaign, he has always been allowed to escape without serious challenge. It would have been child's play for me to have had him sweating bullets and looking like the Marxist fool that he is. Instead, both Bob Schieffer and the stand-for-nothing J. McBama let him off the hook.
______________________________

As yet, I have heard no one refer to the Fed's "investing" in our banking system as national socialism, more popularly referred to as Nazism or Fascism. Why not? Big central government now controls every aspect of our lives. God, how the Left must be delirious with joy. Talk about the Apocalypse of Capitalism, we are living it.

And how happy all the Feminists are that a WOMAN will not be second in command. A conservative woman, that is. They sure pick their spots. Just think, they actually adore Bill Clinton and detest Sarah Palin. And they don't care if that Acorn-American destroys what is left of America, they will celebrate that, too, such is the magnitude of their neurosis. - Rob B.

RR note: Just for the record, Glenn Beck has had plenty to say about the government's "investment" in banks as a major move toward communism. But government does not yet control every aspect of our lives. That's at least a year or more away - and then only if we, the people, act like obedient sheep and allow it to happen.

As to the far left being delirious with joy, it might be more accurate to say they're having a mental organism. After all, their wildest dreams are coming true. This includes the euphemistically named "feminists." As former NOW activist Tammy Bruce has repeatedly pointed out, the National Organization for Women hates all women who disagree with their left-wing agenda. Which is why they love a man noted for sexually abusing women and hate a woman who symbolizes the strength of women to succeed on their own merits.
Prejudice, and the foundationless rhetoric of others. 

If you would like to speak up about the topic of this article, send your comments to: questions@robertringer.com. (Remember to keep your comments pithy and double spaced for easy reading.)

To read past articles from the Money and Power Series Click Here

To read past articles from The Cho Factor Click Here

Subscribe free to A Voice of Sanity at www.RobertRinger.com

Voice of Sanity
Feedback Forum
 

Robert Ringer
10-16-2008

Please note: Your e-mails are much more likely to be read, and possibly printed, if you write short paragraphs and double-space between paragraphs. Thanks.
_____________________________

You are 100% right about inequality gaps being the natural way of the human race. I'm listening to a great book on CD right now, The Lessons of History, by Will Durant. I know you're a history buff, so you may have read it, but one point he makes is that inequality and freedom go hand-in-hand. The more freedom people have within a civilization, the greater the inequality between people.

And he mentions it as a struggle throughout history, as the "have-nots" - or, really, "lesser haves" - as you point out (they are better off than they would be, but don't care), cast an envious eye at their more successful brethren. How do you pacify the ignorant masses before they rise up, as they are always greater in number? All I ask is that before you flee to Galt's Gulch permanently, please leave behind some directions on how to get there! - Brett O.

RR note: The Lessons of History is a classic. For the record, Will Durant's exact words were: "Freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.'' Most people, especially politicians, cannot accept this reality. It does not fit in with their GAVEC world. In their convoluted minds, money is the root of all evil, yet they want "the poor" to have more of it. Go figure.

The so-called masses are merely a useful tool - generation after generation - that power seekers use to achieve their ends. In a democracy or a republic, a large percentage of the masses can be artificially elevated into the "middle class" through legislation that violates the rights of producers. But, as we are now seeing in the United States, it is only a matter of time until such an artificial situation is overwhelmed by universal law.

As to my leaving behind directions on how to get to Galt's Gulch, let me give that some thought. I may do something dramatic - like burying them by a tree as Tim Robbins (What an ironic example!) did in The Shawshank Redemption.
______________________________

My fellow Americans, I'm angry and upset, but not because I'm losing my money. I'm no rich Senator's son, rather I'm angry because I know "we the people" are losing something of far greater value. We are losing our freedom and liberty!
We have to stand up to this. "We the People" are being robbed by our own government. Every member of Congress, every judge, every elected official - whether local, state, or federal - has taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and they have broken this solemn oath.

We only have one shot now, and that is on election day, November 4, 2008. We must vote for a new party, a party that is not connected to what should be clear to every American citizen - that the Democratic and the Republican parties are nothing more than organized criminal gangs. We need a third party that can come in, appoint a special prosecutor, and begin to bring all of these criminals to justice. When Enron and WorldCom went bust, the people responsible were arrested, charged, and put in prison. Who is being charged for our current situation?

But what will the voters do? Will they vote for the same guys again? Obama? McCain? If you want change, you will have to change your vote - NO Democrats, NO Republicans, and, most of all, NO INCUMBANTS WHO VOTED FOR WALL STREET OVER THE AMERICAN CITIZEN! - Charles S.

RR note: Hard to disagree with what you say. However, it's too late to turn out the Demopublican Party in the upcoming election. If we start the Liberty Revolution now - a concerted effort to spread the truth about this country's march toward Marxism - coming up with a viable candidate in 2012 is possible. The odds are that by that time the country will be in a deep inflationary or deflationary depression, so people will be far more angry than they are now.

Keep in mind that, compared to what's coming, today's economic problems are mild. Right now, shortsighted, simple-minded voters are simply open to the highest bidder. But as the crushing weight of Marxism begins to affect the way they live their day-to-day lives, they will be more open to becoming educated on the evils of Big Government and why laissez-faire capitalism is in their best interests.
______________________________

Well, is it too late? Obama has described this crisis as being the worst since 1929. Does that mean we're going to start seeing stocks plunging and people jumping off sky scrapers? It seems to me a little more complex then that. What is different is that global trade has made this disease spread much quicker across nations, with China being the most infected. This means that if no one can borrow from their homeland anymore, they'll borrow from outside. At the end of the chain, however, somewhere, someone will be owed a ridiculous some of money, and on the other end of the spectrum someone else will be reluctant to pay it back. The result? Is it war? Hmm, I'm feeling deja-vu all over again! - June

RR note: War is inevitable, but it will probably be over religion and culture rather than economics. As you so rightly point out, we have a global economy now. The U.S. can never repay China, and by this time I'm sure China realizes that. Which means they sold us all those junky clock radios and lead toys for nothing.

But, not so fast. Just because we don't have real money with which to repay China and other countries, our politicians are still the slickest flakes in the game. In all probability, they will come up with a number of now-you-see-it-now-you-don't plans that will cancel the debt. Who knows, maybe China will take San Francisco as payment in full? Given that the City of Tea and Croissants has the country's largest Chinatown, it would be a win-win situation: China would add Chinatown to its Hong Kong and Tibet collection, and the U.S. would be rid of its Marxist capitol.

While no one knows how all this will play out, a safe bet would be to have your kids learn Chinese. Who would've thunk it, huh?
______________________________
As you detail so well on a consistent basis, our "leaders" are in the tank to serve only their self-interests, primarily reelection. Unfortunately, this has been going on since Carter, almost uninterrupted. With the Liberal Dogma that there is no right or wrong, every personal failure is a "disease," and ONLY government cares about the "poor," our country is now in the hands of at least 55% of the population that drinks socialist Kool-Aid.

The remaining 45% that still accept self-responsibility and pay 90% of all federal income taxes are now watching these slackers DEMAND FREE EVERYTHING - and watch Bush, Frank, Dodd, McBama and company pander to them.

Fortunately, I have been a successful entrepreneur and insured the next two generations financially (even though currently suffering a 25% loss for September), but I am at a point where I have cut back on charitable giving and am thoroughly disgusted with the disaster our politicians have created. At age 70, I still work, try my best to teach and train, but the loss of family structure and the horrendous public schools make most young people feel that I am just a crazy old coot.

Keep up the great work, and I will keep reading and working to make a REAL change. -Michael M.

RR note: If there's one thing I love, it's a crazy old coot. You are, of course, correct when you say that in today's world, there is no right or wrong. The soul of Woodstock 1969 has become the soul of everyday America 2008. It took 200 years in America, but Rousseau has finally triumphed: There are no certitudes - everything is relative!

If you drill down very, very deep, you will realize that it is actually the triumph of relativism that has brought America to its financial knees. When the B. McBama camp waves aside Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Acorn as irrelevant because "people are focused on the economy," it's a clever way of distracting them from the truth. Voters don't understand that B. McBama's tight - make that, very tight - association with the far left is precisely what guides his own voting record, the most liberal voting record in the Senate!

Values matter. Associations matter. And actions matter most of all. Any crazy old coot can figure this out. No problem there. My concern is that brainwashed, brain-dead college kids and recent college graduates cannot. Which is why it is our duty to reeducate the young after they get their college "education" out of the way.