VOTED THE WORLD'S NUMBER ONE WEBSITE FOR "NO-SPIN" MEXICAN LAKES INFORMATION
  Hugo-15+ Pound Sugar Lake Hog    Dr. Pitch Scores Again!   Rene-18+ Pounds! Lake Baccarac!   

 

 

 

 

 
 

Robert Ringer's
A Voice of Sanity
in an
Insane World!

QUOTE OF A LIFETIME:

"A LARGE IMPROVEMENT
CAN RESULT FROM A SMALL CHANGE!"


ORDER YOUR COPIES TODAY!

 

 


"It Feels So Good"

One Step at a Time

 

By Robert Ringer
11-5-2008

In response to my ongoing discussion of a deflationary depression versus an inflationary depression, some readers have asked if a "soft landing" might still be possible. I guess the answer to that question depends upon how you define soft landing.

If by soft landing you mean that we will somehow muddle through, things will calm down on their own, and we will not experience a great deal of pain, the answer is no. (For a detailed explanation of this, see my article "Is It Too Late, Part VI.") But if your definition of soft landing is an economy that declines one step at a time, without a great deal of anarchy and violence, I would say that such a scenario is possible.

There are a number of complex factors at play here, but let's begin with the most obvious one: human nature. Was it Groucho Marx who first told that old joke about a man standing on the street corner, hitting himself over the head with a hammer? When asked why in the world he would inflict such pain on himself, the guy answered, "Because it feels so good when I stop."

Yes, it's silly, but it reminds me of just how adaptable human beings are. Metaphorically speaking, we, as a people, hit ourselves over the head with a hammer quite often, but we have become immune to the pain. We seem to have the uncanny ability to get used to bad circumstances.

Which is why, in the past, most producers continued to create wealth even when their taxes rose to draconian levels. During World War II, the top tax rate reached 94 percent, and it remained at 91 percent until 1964. With such astronomical tax rates in effect, it's amazing that we survived. However, I believe that the fact that we were involved in three wars during that time (WW II, Korea, and Vietnam) had a lot to do with producers staying the course.

But even without having war as a rationale, I believe people will get used to a lower standard of living once resignation sets in — provided the drop isn't too fast. What we've had recently is a very big drop in many areas of our economy in a very short period of time — especially in the stock market — so, right now, folks are in somewhat of a state of shock.

Many are talking about postponing retirement — or not retiring at all. Cutting back on, or completely eliminating, vacations will follow. Then, the four nights of entertainment a week they've been enjoying will go by the wayside ... followed by high-priced tickets to sporting events ... and so on.

It all depends on how fast and how far government pushes the socialist envelope — one step at a time. Every new bailout, every new regulation, every new tax will cause a tectonic downward shift in the stock and bond markets, the marketplace in general, and the standard of living of most Americans. One step at a time, government intervention will drag our economy downward.

But to the extent major government interference and blunders are spread over a longer period of time, Americans will adapt to a progressively lower standard of living. It's not really muddling through; it's muddling downward — in stages — one step at a time, and giving people a chance to catch their collective breath and adapt to the next lowest level.

If you're thinking gradualism, you're right. It has worked like magic for the U.S. Government for at least a hundred years, and it could once again protect politicians against outright rebellion. By contrast, a quick and total deflationary collapse would not be peaceful, because, unlike 1929, a huge percentage of today's population has a deeply ingrained entitlement mindset.

But what about producers? Won't they quit producing? You probably never thought you'd hear me say this, but I believe they will keep producing even if they have to share ever-larger pieces of their pie with non-producers. At some point, however — and no one knows exactly what that point is — producers will escape to Galt's Gulch. It may not be a physical place, as in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, but, one by one, they will simply stop producing. And if things get too bad, many will simply expatriate.

The truth be known, Americans have adjusted to a gradual shift toward Marxism for decades ... arguably since at least 1913. But we have been oblivious to it, because the rest of the world has been subsidizing our false standard of living. And here at home, Barney Fraud & Pals got most of the public to indulge in the fantasy that everyone should own a home — even if they couldn't afford to.

In any event, as perverse as it may sound, a gradual lowering of the living standards of most Americans will be more harmful over the long term than a rapid and complete collapse of the U.S. economy. As an analogy, remember that immediately after 9/11, a vast majority of Americans were fighting mad and the general tone was patriotic.

The radical Islamic threat is far greater today than it was after 9/11, but because there have been no further major attacks on U.S. soil, "the war on terrorism" is no longer a high priority. Americans have gotten used to the idea that terrorists are spread throughout the country, pretending to be everyday citizens.

The point is that everything, no matter how damaging it may be to our well-being, becomes normal to us over time. An abused woman comes to believe her situation is normal. A kid who is bullied in school comes to believe his situation is normal.

I'm afraid that if we keep hitting ourselves over the head with the hammer of a staggered collapse of our economy, Americans, one step at a time, will get used to a lower standard of living, the result being that they will come to think of each new level as normal. Which is why, if it's important to you for your children and grandchildren to live better than you're living today, you should pray for things to unravel quickly — followed by a successful Liberty-Education Revolution.

Without the latter, it goes without saying that the final curtain will come down on America's Grand Experiment in Freedom.

If you have thoughts to share regarding this article:

http://www.robertringer.com/image-files/comment.jpg

 


ROBERT RINGER'S
Voice of Sanity
Feedback Forum

AMERICA
ELECTION DAY 2008
11-4-2008

You make the statement in your article that it is not the government's constitutional role or responsibility to shore up and help those who have lost their jobs though no fault of their own.  Who will help them?  You?  I doubt that!  I don't believe the government should bail out any business, but I do firmly believe that the government should help those people in their time of need.  Not forever, but long enough to get them going again. 

Only a few are capable of doing what you did.  You should be proud.  Would you rather that those in need commit crimes against perhaps you or yours than receive honest help?   Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  You, sir, need to do some soul searching as to what is really important in life. - John M.

RR note:  Who has the omnipotence and moral authority to decide which people have lost jobs "through no fault of their own?"  Who has the omnipotence and moral authority to decide which people are "in need?"  Who has the omnipotence and moral authority to decide what is a "long enough" time to "get them going again?" 

Is the only choice to give people what they want or accept the reality that they will commit crimes against you?  If so, we have, indeed, become a banana republic.  And, by the way, what in the world is "honest help?"  It seems to me there are only two kinds of help:  force-induced help and voluntary help, and the former certainly could not be considered "honest."

One last thing:  I would never be so presumptuous as to suggest that you do some "soul searching" about what is really important in life.  I know what is important in my life, and I assume that you know what is important in your life.  What causes problems is when one group of people want to decide what they believe should be important in the lives of others.  Coercion is not compatible with freedom.

______________________________

Several months ago, I awakened with a funny thought.  I thought, "What would it be if Obama were elected?"  An Obamanation!  The book came out by the same name about two months later.  Then, I had a very sobering thing happen the other day.  As I was driving around for work, I saw a bumper sticker that said Obama-Biden.  In my area, that is not uncommon, but looking at it with just a glance, what I saw and what my mind thought were totally different.  The thought that went through my head read it as Obama Binladen.  God help us all. - Christine R. 

RR note: Shame on you, Christine.  Many would feel that it's sacrilegious to speak of The Chosen One in such jocular terms.

______________________________

A couple days ago, I saw a feature on Fox News in which a lady stated that Richard Nixon said that a politician can survive being a bastard but he cannot survive laughter and ridicule.  This well explains all the mocking, laughing, and ridicule poked at Sarah Palin.  I think most of the men who criticize her do so simply because she is blocking what they want politically. 

But I think there is real hatred in some of the women who go after her so viciously, and I think this is about jealousy.  These women have it backwards, i.e., Sarah is not a vacuous, empty-headed fake leading a useless life.  The people for whom this applies are those who criticize her. - Glenn E. 

RR note:  Whether you love or hate her political views, Sarah Palin is anything but empty-headed.  She is a smart, tough, aggressive individual with strong convictions.  And it is these very qualities that the far left so fears.  If she ever achieves high office, her detractors will be in a perpetual state of hysteria.  Even if she sells out on some of her convictions - and all politicians do - she could still become the strongest political figure of our time.  Talk about mocking, laughing, and ridicule, imagine what that would do to the once admired Peggy Noonan. 

______________________________

We are living a modern-day Atlas Shrugged.  Those who have will be enslaved by posh-living Marxist politicians and populist pundits.  This world makes me sick.  I have been laughing through most of this financial collapse - mostly at all the chicken-little fools in Washington and state houses across America.  (They have finally caught up to the socialist/communist capitols across Europe and around the world.)

Financial crises are not funny in themselves.  One cannot simply laugh in the face of people's losses.  Think of victims of catastrophes such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods and volcanoes.  Disaster sucks!  I laugh at the reactions of the people who have witnessed everything that has happened - pointing fingers, looking for someone to blame for some horrible injustice.

But just as natural disasters are not an injustice, neither is a business cycle.  We have had unprecedented control over the economy since the late seventies and early eighties.  But the bubble has finally burst.  Correction is necessary, and correction will happen.  The GAVEC
(guiltism, angerism, villainism, envyism, covetism) crowd is not now, nor will it ever, be ready to face the reasons why.  Let's face it - a "Who is John Galt?" speech would fall on deaf ears in today's society, a society equally as deaf as the one imagined by Ayn Rand.

My first thought to help fix society today is to broadcast the thoughts that you have presented and expounded upon over the past years to an eager and hungry crowd of Americans and fellow human travelers in this life.  But, no ... it's not worth it.  For my family, I will forge ahead and protect myself - and join with anyone and everyone out there wanting to do the same.  For everyone else, I say to the last person leaving the Magic Kingdom:  Please shut out the lights! - Andrew F. 

 

RR note:  Spoken like a true Randian.  But don't give up on a John Galt speech.  You're right when you say it would fall on deaf ears right now, but as the frequency and intensity of crises increase, I believe more and more people will be willing to listen to common sense.  At some point, the Royal Family (Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Schumer, et al.) could be facing the heady prospect of a date with the guillotine.  Probably only figuratively ... but, who knows?  If they continue to push the Gall Envelope, literally is not totally out of the question. 

______________________________

Loved the article, once again.  One small point:  I believe many people are dismayed at the UNETHICAL disparity between rich and poor.  If all people who are rich amassed their wealth by virtue of their superior intelligence, work ethic, cleverness, etc., I'd have no problem.  However, a very unethical system has allowed the non-productive to amass great wealth and many of the very productive to remain poor. 

The way out of this is, of course, is to operate outside the system, which is certainly what I would recommend.  Unfortunately, most people don't think, and they spend their lives deciding between [what is ] "legal" and "illegal" as opposed to [what is] "ethical" and "unethical."

Victim mentality and spiritual laziness go hand in hand.  They, coupled with fear, allow fascists to encroach with impunity.  Whatever the Demopublicans do now, we're in for a real rollercoaster ride.  I can hear the clanking of the chain as we're hauled to the top of the first crest. - Ian T. 

 

RR note:  I think we've already reached the first crest, and the current financial crisis is the first trip down.  But each crest on the rollercoaster will be higher than the previous one, and the succeeding drop will be more scary than the previous one. 

I know it's tempting to jump into the rich-versus-poor trap, but I urge you to rise above it.  That there are dishonest people who game the system to become wealthy is a given.  But that's what we have laws for.  Some get convicted, some don't.  That's life.  It's also true that many productive people remain poor.  That, too, is life.  Some people are good at art; some are good at sports; and some are good at making money.  Again, that's life. 

To the extent government uses force to try to change such realities of life, each of us will become more enslaved.  Thanks, but no thanks.  Government's attempts to socially engineer our world is the reason people are stifled by laws that have nothing to do with protecting their lives and property. 

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

 


Is It Too Late For America?
Part X

Time Is Running Out

By Robert Ringer
11-3-2008

While a 1930s style deflationary depression is possible, the odds are against it. It is far more likely that the lethal combination of GAVEC (guiltism, angerism, villainism, envyism, covetism) and political expediency will result in a runaway inflation and, hence, a total breakdown of law and order. But time is running out.

Unless the general public is well educated in both morality and economics, they may very well follow a socialist demagogue down the road to collectivist enslavement. Let us never forget the words of Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

 

Which is why we must begin implementing the Liberty-Education Solution now. When the final breakdown of our society is evident to all, it will be important for as many people as possible to have the knowledge and understanding necessary to reject solutions that will lead to the loss of their remaining liberties.

Readers who recognize that time is running out often ask me what they can do to help. The short answer is: "A lot." More specifically, you can make a major contribution to the cause of freedom in many ways. For example:

1.    Begin reading the classic works on liberty and laissez faire capitalism that have been written by such authors as Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason), Lysander Spooner (No Treason), Henry Hazlitt (The Conquest of Poverty), Rose Wilder Lane (Give Me Liberty), Murray Rothbard (For A New Liberty), Ludwig von Mises (The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality), Friedrich A. Hayek (The Road to Serfdom) ... the list is endless. Thanks to the Internet, you can easily find more books in this genre than you can hope to read in your lifetime.

2.    Give copies of such works to as many friends and associates as possible. If you can't afford to give away books, pass along articles about freedom and capitalism via the Internet. (The Internet has become the most powerful tool for spreading the truth that the world has ever known.)

3.    Encourage others to do the same.

4.    Get the basics down pat so you do not become stymied by the false-premise arguments of collectivists and their mesmerized stooges. Get it clear in your mind why freedom and free markets are moral, and why they are the best systems possible for all people of goodwill. Then, take advantage of every opportunity to discuss these concepts with others. Remember, at its heart, freedom is a simple issue. But, initially, most people have to be led by the hand to be able to comprehend why the socialists' Compassion Trap is not only immoral but harmful to the very people they claim to be concerned about.

Having said this, I feel compelled to warn you that when soliciting others to help with a mass education program, you should be prepared for a great deal of frustration. Not only are most people apathetic, but even those who believe in freedom and free enterprise are often unwilling to back up their beliefs with either time or money.

I know of several billionaires who clearly believe in the morality and efficacy of libertarianism, but none of them have shown a willingness to put up the kind of money needed to compete with the Demopublican Party's monopoly. I'm talking about nothing less than an investment of several hundred million dollars in the cause of freedom, which would be less than what these people earn in a single year from their tax-free government bonds.

If you doubt how effective such an investment might be, remember that Ross Perot got 19 percent of the vote by investing a lot less than that in his presidential campaign - and he wasn't a very attractive candidate. He was smart, pithy, and gutsy, but, unfortunately, he came across as a kook to many people. What liberty advocates need is a more charismatic version of Harry Browne, backed by a king's ransom.

You might be thinking that a billionaire is under no obligation to spend his money on a campaign to educate the public on the morality and benefits of liberty and laissez-faire capitalism. If so, just know that I totally agree with you. Even if I had the power to do so, I would not force a multibillionaire to invest one dollar in such an endeavor.

But if I were an advisor to such a person, I would encourage him to make the investment because it would be in his own best interest to do so. I would try hard to make the case that if Marxism prevailed, he would likely lose everything — which would make the kind of investment I'm talking about seem like pocket change to him. In addition, I would remind him that if Marxism prevailed, his children and grandchildren would live under a collectivist dictatorship.

In simple terms, what I'm saying here is that if wealthy capitalists are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are, the case for freedom and free enterprise will be lost by default — unless everyday people like you and me are willing to engage in a grass-roots effort to carry the freedom torch to every corner of our nation.

Bottom line: We can't count on billionaires to save us. Each of us has to do our share to help a majority of people rediscover the morals, ethics, and values that once served as the foundation of Western Civilization. Joe the Plumber has shown us just how effective an ordinary citizen can be.

A word of caution: The Liberty-Education Solution requires more from you than just a few months of concentrated, enthusiastic effort. At this late stage of the game, there can be no letup. Time is running out — and quickly. And keep in mind that it is crucial to emphasize the morality of liberty. The schmoozey J. McBama stuff doesn't work.

Also, practice the art of keeping your explanations simple. It's the only way to educate the masses. Those who are intent on taking away our freedom have become adept at the art of keeping things simple. That's why they have been able to win over voters with meaningless slogans such as "Change we can believe in," "I can create shared prosperity," and "I'll create wealth and prosperity for all Americans." It's rubbish, but people eat it up because it doesn't require them to think.

I will end this series with the question posed in its title: Is it too late? I think the best way to answer that question is to ponder another question: Will evil triumph because good men did nothing? The Jews in Germany found out the answer to that one in the 1930s and 40s.

Let's not wait until it's too late for the Liberty-Education Solution to work. Time is running out — especially if socialists end up controlling all three branches of the government. Let's start preparing for 2012 now.

Previous Article: Is It Too Late?, Part IX: The Only Hope

If you have thoughts to share regarding this article:

http://www.robertringer.com/image-files/comment.jpg

 

 

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:

http://www.robertringer.com/image-files/comment.jpg

 


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

 


Is It Too Late For America?
Part VIII

Capitalism and the Rights of Individuals

By Robert Ringer
10-29-2008

To my way of thinking, there is only one solution that speaks to the very heart of how to resuscitate Western civilization without violating anyone's rights. I refer to it as:

The Liberty Education Solution

Since the true cause of the disintegration of Western culture was a moral revolution, it seems logical to assume that the rise of another Western style civilization can be brought about only through another moral revolution. Such a revolution, of course, would have to be diametrically opposed to the notion that a person is entitled to anything he desires — but not necessarily to capitalism.

Nathaniel Branden underscores this point in his book Judgment Day: My Years With Ayn Rand when he quotes the late and very liberal Bennett Cerf, one-time president of Random House Inc.: "You have to throw welfare programs at people — like throwing meat to a pack of wolves — even if the programs don't accomplish their alleged purpose and even if they're morally wrong." When Branden asked Cerf why he felt this way, he purportedly whispered, "Because otherwise they'll kill you. The masses. They hate intelligence. They're envious of ability. They resent wealth. You've got to throw them something, so they'll let us live."

This from a hard-core liberal, an icon in the New York book-publishing establishment! And you wonder why people adore candidates who promise to "spread the wealth"? Raw meat is now out. Today's politicians promise to deliver the meat cooked to your liking — from rare to well done.

Bennett Cerf's comments to Nathaniel Branden are precisely why I believe that nothing short of a massive undertaking to educate the public about the sanctity of individual rights is necessary. The fact is that morals are not genetically inherited. They are acquired through learning — especially learning by example. Unfortunately, most of the moral examples to which children are exposed are found in their schools. And that presents a huge challenge.

To rediscover the morals, ethics, and values that once served as the foundation of Western civilization, the majority of people in our society must be reeducated. They must be taught to reject the belief that it is moral to violate the rights of others simply by outvoting them. Which means they must learn to challenge the currently unchallenged premise that anything a majority decides is automatically moral.

They must be taught that no matter how compassionate a person may believe himself to be, it does not give him the right to use force against others to achieve his ends. On the contrary, they must be taught that individual sovereignty is the most sacred right of every human being.

This will not be an easy task. For decades, collectivists have given teeth to the moral revolution by translating their immoral objectives into law. And along with this clever inversion of morals, people have been taught to believe that something is moral just because it is "legal" — and have been continually admonished to be "law abiding" citizens. The result is that plunder is accepted as moral simply because it is officially decreed and sanctioned by law.

Through the deployment of gradualism, the egalitarian philosophy has been so ingrained in our thinking that it subtly pervades every area of our lives. And nowhere is it more prevalent than in movies and television. I was never a Star Trek fan, but, years ago, I did happen to see the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. To this day, what sticks in my mind about that film are Dr. Spock's dying words: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few — or the one."

This kind of brainwashing enjoys such widespread acceptance today that if one refuses to conform, he does so at the risk of being ostracized by friends and associates. What kind of morals, ethics, and values can a youngster be expected to have when he grows up hearing such communal blather day in and day out?

The subtle erosion of our once sound moral structure has been so successful that it has caused an even greater problem than the mental contamination of the masses: It has soiled the minds of high-profile individuals whose very successes were achieved as a result of our free market foundations.

This, in turn, exacerbates the problem of educating the masses, because the freedom and free market advocates most visible to them tend to base their arguments on a status quo foundation. In other words, they ignore the moral issues. A good example is when supposed conservatives try to defend capitalism by arguing that capitalists are motivated by altruism; i.e., that a capitalist's real desire is to help others, and, as a by product, he, too, ends up benefiting financially.

In truth, it's the other way around: In order to achieve his financial objectives, a smart businessperson knows that he must create value for others. Thus, others benefit as a result of his pursuit of his own financial objectives. Adam Smith referred to this phenomenon as the "unintended consequences" of capitalism. Trying to claim that a true capitalist is altruistic insults the intelligence of the average person. Of course the masses do not believe such nonsense, which makes them easy prey for socialist crusaders.

While it is true that capitalism works best for the greatest number of people, that is not a moral justification for it. The moral justification for capitalism is that all men, no matter how rich or how poor, have a right to pursue their own economic well-being and enjoy all the fruits of their labor.

Specifically, all people have a right to trade their goods, services, and labor for any price they can secure in a free market, without interference from the government or anyone else. Freedom from all forms of coercion is a moral objective, regardless of whether or not it helps others.

Put more bluntly, what you earn and what you own is nobody else's business, including and especially the government's! That is what individual sovereignty is all about. People must learn that privacy is a moral objective.

As Stephen Rinehart says in Freedom or Altruism: "Civilization is the process toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." Based on Rinehart's words, it seems clear that we are rapidly becoming a savage society.

More to come in Part IX ...

Previous Article: Is It Too Late?, Part VII - Are We Headed for a Dictatorship?

Next Article: Is It Too Late?, Part IX - The Only Hope

If you have thoughts to share regarding this article:

http://www.robertringer.com/image-files/comment.jpg

 


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

 

Home | About | Email List | Search | Contact Us | Periodicals | Articles | Games & Fun

 


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

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

ELECTION 2008

Is It Too Late For America?
Part VII

Are We Headed for a Dictatorship?

By Robert Ringer
Voice of Sanity
10-27-2008

In Part VI of this article, I discussed the Muddle Through Solution with regard to the question: Is it too late for Western civilization to be saved from the onset of a dictatorship? The conclusion I arrived at is that muddling through is not really a solution at all, but, rather, an escape from reality. So let's take a look at two more possibilities:

The High Tech Solution:

When the High Tech Solution emerged years ago, the theory behind it was that mankind was on the threshold of scientific and technological advances so enormous in scope that the producers of the Western world would soon be able to fulfill the desires of even the most GAVEC-prone non producers.

 

Geniuses in electronics, medicine, ocean floor farming, and many other cutting-edge technologies were (and still are) hard at work on projects that had the potential to dramatically upgrade our way of life. Ultimately, the theory went, there would be such an abundance of food, housing, medicines, and even the luxuries of life that they could be made available to everyone — including non-producers.

While such talk is capable of fostering hope in the most pessimistic of minds, experience tempts me to refer to the High Tech Solution as the High Tech Pollyanna Solution. I have the utmost faith in science and technology, but it's human nature that dampens my optimism.

The success or failure of this alternative boils down to the answers to two questions:

  1. Will the everything-for-everybody world arrive before the onset of a dictatorship, a dictatorship that would drastically retard the rate of scientific and technological advancement?
  2. Human nature being what it is, will non-producers ever be satisfied, regardless of how many inexpensive (or free) goods and services they receive as a result of widespread technology? (The hopeful side of me wants to answer yes, but my knowledge of history and first-hand experience with human nature tells me otherwise.)

As with the Muddle Through Solution, the High Tech Solution skirts the central issue, because it promises only to be a super buy off of the masses. It does nothing whatsoever to help forge a new and sound moral structure for Western civilization. On the contrary, it merely whets the appetite for unlimited wealth without work.

The Selfish Gene Solution:

The Selfish Gene Solution is discussed only behind closed doors. Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, explains why, from an evolutionary point of view, the socialist's fantasy of achieving a truly altruistic society is futile.

Basing his argument on the science of genetics, he dissects the reason why it is literally impossible for any living organism to act altruistically. Benevolent rhetoric aside, the fact is that the process of natural selection assures that an organism is programmed to act "selfishly" in order to survive. (Yes, that includes noble individuals such as Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa, but that's another article for another time.)

This does not mean that the organism must harm others in the process (although most living creatures do so). It does, however, mean that every living thing will act in its own best interest at all times. Fortunately, it is possible for the most advanced living organism — Homo sapiens — to do this without committing aggression.

Without realizing it, I believe that many people are relying on the human "selfish gene" to save Western civilization. I say that because I have heard so many statements like, "When things get out of control, the power structure, no matter how liberal its public rhetoric may be, will come down on the side of law and order, property rights, and a free market."

The belief is that when push comes to shove, the masses will be repressed instead of bribed, because the financial power structure will never allow a left wing dictatorship to be implemented. At the moment of truth, so such thinking goes, they will do whatever is necessary to assure their own survival.

In fairness to those who believe in this "solution," one must admit that there have been a handful of right wing dictatorships that have worked out reasonably well for producers — but not so well for dissenters. Which is why I, and I believe most Americans, would not favor any kind of dictatorship, be it from the right or the left.

Aside from the obvious immorality of dictatorial repression, the Selfish Gene Solution, like the Muddle-Through Solution and the High-Tech Solution, does nothing to resolve the destructive and immoral desires and emotions of the masses. It merely represses their feelings, allowing them to quietly smolder and await a charismatic leader to come along and exploit them in an effort to gain power. Hello: Is anyone listening?

In Part VIII of this series, we'll take a look at what I believe to be the only real solution to the continuing demise of Western civilization.

If you have thoughts to share regarding this article:


 

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:

http://www.robertringer.com/image-files/comment.jpg
 

ROBERT RINGER'S
Voice of Sanity
Feedback Forum
10-25-2008

I just had to respond to John M.'s (Australia) comments in the 10/21 Reader Feedback.

First, what in the world has he been smoking? Asia doesn't respect America because America doesn't respect its citizens? I guess I just never realized Asia was the hotbed of governments committed to the "well being" and "respect" of their citizens. I'll be sure and make my representatives aware of the fine role models we have out there in this regard.

Spending billions on the military? Yes, we do that, partially for self-preservation, but mostly because we grew up as a nation having to fight for most of what we had, and that is a trait that runs deep in our nation. Right? Wrong? Who can really say, but certainly we have reaped many, many unintended advances because of the technology originally designed for the military (GPS, as an example).

How can the richest country in the world have homeless? Easy. Homeless problems will never be solved with money alone. Homelessness is a symptom of a far bigger problem than its name implies. The best any country can do is strive to create an environment that allows individuals to have choices and options other than homelessness, but those choices all require effort on the part of the individual.

I realize there are people who truly need help, and there are organizations for that. If the government would just get out of our pockets, there would be much more available from churches, charities, and such. Free lunches should be avoided and would bankrupt even the richest country, a logical conclusion anyone can follow. I admit we are not perfect, but we can hold our heads as high as any - and higher than most - in this regard.

I'm somewhat tired of hearing how another nation doesn't "like" what we are doing. Frankly, I don't give a rat's patootie whether other nations like us or not. This isn't a popularity contest. I'm far from the smartest person around, but I don't lead my life trying to please all around me. That is a fool's errand.

I try to be fair, honest, and loving, as appropriate, to my acquaintances, friends, and family, and let the chips fall where they may - and I assume most other folks do the same. I've noticed that a fair amount of these "nations" that don't like our policies have no problem asking for, taking, and even expecting our money in the form of cash, tech, materials, or help.

I do agree with John that we have our problems with how our government functions, but what country doesn't? All in all, the good ol' U.S.A. is still one of the best, if not the best, places to live in the world. How that will change in the future, I don't know. But I do know there are a lot of good, decent people in this country, and they prefer to mind their own business, tend to their own affairs, and be left alone. God help the politician who thinks he/she can change that into something Karl Marx envisioned not so long ago. - Dan P.

RR note:  Spoken by an obvious patriot. Now, help spread the word. You might start by stirring up the "good, decent people in this country who prefer to mind their own business, tend to their own affairs, and be left alone."

______________________________

A couple of thoughts. The reason we have homeless and poor people is because there will always be some who simply don't live responsibly, or who grow up in families where their parents didn't live responsibly. (And there are a few who simply don't have the ability to take care of themselves, because of some medical condition.)

There are a number of ways we can encourage responsibility, and we should implement these. The first is to stop taxing people to death. This kills incentive. The second is to do our best to get as many people off the dole as possible. The third is to hold people accountable. It would be wrong for us to make it easy for people to self-destruct.

We need to teach kids ethics in school, and we need to spend some major effort training kids to see the long-term consequences of their actions. We need to teach children enlightened self-interest instead of hedonism. The best way to do this is to shut down the public-school system over time. Public schools don't work in a pluralistic society. We also need to go after those who peddle the means of self-destruction to other people.

People who are needy or who self-destruct should be helped by churches and private charity. To facilitate this, people should be able to take a 100% tax credit for every dollar donated to charity. We have a system like that here for scholarships (up through high school). There is every reason to extend it to other methods of helping. This would start to privatize the system, and that's what needs to happen. Private charities tend to be able to screen out malingerers.

Two other solutions often proposed include helping people through government aid or neglecting them and letting them die in the streets. Neither is acceptable to a liberty-loving person. Keep in mind that many people WANT to live in the street and panhandle. People make a lot of money panhandling. They have few expenses. They like the freedom. I have talked to a number of street people who have made that clear. If it's a personal choice, the nation should not be held responsible.

Australia has a lot of really independent and self-sufficient people because of the situation there and how the nation was established. It wouldn't be fair for a bloke from Australia to condemn our nation under the circumstances. We could just as easily condemn people from Oz for having social practices that result in people drinking each other under the table. It's best not to condemn societies we don't truly understand.

Wealth isn't the issue. Character is. - Pat G.

RR note:  As always, very well said. You and Dan P. have made my job easy today. The most important issue you mentioned is public education. It's probably our toughest challenge, because people like you and I want to get government completely out of the education business (which is where all of the wrong-headed thinking begins), but most politicians want to increase government's involvement in education.

Just as I've never heard any politician talk about completely eliminating an entitlement program, nor have I heard one say that he/she would like to abolish the public school system. On the contrary, following the lead of California, look for the teachers' unions to try to abolish home schooling in more and more states in the coming years.

One last thing: You made a simple but powerful statement when you said "Wealth isn't the issue. Character is." If everyone understood that, and acted accordingly, the U.S. would still be that shining city upon a hill.

______________________________

I read a lot of your stuff, and even pass it on to some of my friends here in the office. I usually think that your comments are very well thought out and usually pretty fair. I had to write to say that the most current feedback I received had an answer from you that totally surprised me:

"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."

Don't you feel that your response is giving in to all the media propaganda that has not been proven? Do you really believe that someone could be elected president who is not a U.S. citizen? Do you really think that if Hillary could not uncover information to prove any of these claims that they could possibly be true? Hillary would have tried everything in her power to prove anything that would have disqualified him as a candidate.

Have you looked any of this up on factcheck.org? You have always been, in my opinion, a source where I can see both sides of issues. With this you seem to be falling into all of the urban legends like ACORN, citizenship, etc. that have pulled this election down. Just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. You just truly surprised me with this one. - Teri M.

RR note:  Thanks for giving me your thoughts in a straightforward manner. First, keep in mind that I said B. McBama "is most likely not even a U.S. citizen." I'm not trying to be clever, just honest. And I honestly don't know for a fact that he isn't a citizen, but, from what I do know, my best guess is that he is not. I admit I could be wrong.

But you do make a good point about the Clintons. They are awesome when it comes to checking out your intestines to find out what you had for dinner last night. Having said that, I really believe that the HillBillys were caught totally off guard by the mystery boy from Hawaii/Indonesia/Kansas/New York/Chicago. I don't believe they took him seriously until it was too late. Once they did begin to take him seriously, Hillary nearly caught him.

As to whether or not I believe someone could be elected president of the United States without proof of citizenship, until this election I would not have believed it would be possible. Now, however, I would believe anything. In all my decades of watching elections, I've never seen anything as blatant as what B. McBama supporters (including and especially the mainstream media) are doing to get him elected.

Everything is brushed aside as a mere "distraction." This includes his sealed college papers and records, his twenty-year relationship with Reverend Wright, his involvement with Bill Ayers (in far more than just one project), calling him a socialist when he says that his goal is to "spread the wealth around," his wife's pronouncement about having to give up some of your pie ... it goes on, and on, and on.

In any event, I don't really give a hoot if B. McBama is a citizen or not, nor do I care what ABC, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC say. What I base my judgments on is that B. McBama himself - through his own words - makes it clear that he believes in the idea of a handful of government thugs telling you and I what to do and how much of the fruits of our labor we must give to others. He is just the latest in a long line of Marxist thinkers to preach this anti-liberty message. It's a very old, very tired message - but a very dangerous message that GAVEC-prone people are always anxious to hear lines. 


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

 

 

I don't care who you are or what you believe in, this is funny.

GET-R-DONE

cid:1.2097406945@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com

 Barack Obama, the lead Presidential Democratic Party candidate, is for banning all guns in America.  He is considered by those who have dealt with him as a bit more than just a little self-righteous.

 At a recent rural elementary school assembly in East Texas, he asked the audience for total quiet.  Then, in the silence, he started to slowly clap his hands once every few seconds, holding the audience in total silence.

Then he said into the microphone, 'Children, every time I clap my hands together, a child in America dies from gun violence.'

Then, little Richard Earl, with a proud East Texas drawl, pierced the quiet and said:  ''Well, dumb-ass, stop clapping!'

 

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

To read past Voice of Sanity articles Click Here

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

 

 

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.