Do you remember in 2008 when the press colluded with their leaders in the Democratic Party to present leftwing politics as a lovefest?
Issues played a back seat to images.
The media was so slick that even the seriously flawed candidate John Edwards appeared a beacon of reason and hope.
America replaced the Democratic majority in Congress with a Democratic supermajority without even a slightest idea of what the supermajority would do.
Many of my friends thought Obama would usher in a new age of reason and social justice with a legislature constrained by hardcore financial acumen and Blue Dog sensibilities.
The Republican primary is the opposite.
The media blows up every minor conflict while beating drums of fear, doom and gloom.
Sadly, ideas still take a back seat to the conflicts. The only really well developed idea to appear in the campaign was Cain's 999 Plan (which wasn't a very good plan).
I like that Ron Paul has been consistent in his defense of the Constitution, but his campaign has failed to give the public any idea about how we will transition from our corrupt centralized government back to a Constitutionally limited one.
I am not pounding the Ron Paul drum because, without a clearly defined path, Dr. Paul will not succeed in the goal of restoring the Constitution. I fear that the Paulistas have underestimated the anti-freedom reaction that will ensue if Paul won.
The people I met at Occupy Wall Street were so overcome with hatred that I actually fear violence if we tried directly restoring the Constitution by reducing the central authority.
I look in dismay at the field of candidates and fear that none of them are positioned to restore the Constitution.
But as I think about the American experiment, I realize that the Founders of the United States really did not intend the president to be as powerful as the president is today.
The Founders of the United States rejected the monarchy. The did not want the presidency to be the source of ideas. They wanted the people, the states and legislatures to be the source of ideas.
In my opinion, the ideal president would be someone who would administer the government while the people were the source of the creative ideas. The thing to avoid is a president with an organization that actively stifles debate.
I really fear the Republican Establishment behind Mitt Romney. Were Romney president, the Republican establishment would bear down and effectly silence and destroy the voices of freedom within the party ... as had happened under George Bush.
As the candidates bash at each other in Iowa, I hope the American people abandon the fantasy that the presidency is the answer.
In the American Experiment, the people, not the government, should be the source of the ideas.
The one and only way for America to restore our freedom is for the members of the freedom movement to break out its shell and start actively discussing real solutions for the afflictions of the day.
A Libertarian who looks toward the presidency to solve our problems is a contradiction in terms. Liberty loving Americans need to find the answers within themselves and not the with the government.
The Iowa caucus has simply re-inforced my opinion that there are no candidates on this planet who I want to have the power currently concentrated in the presidency.
Pages
▼
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Republicans Sell Out the Tea Party
Dick Morris really doesn't like Ron Paul. What is interesting is that Mr. Morris frames Ron Paul as a leftwing radical. The mainstream media frames Dr. Paul as an extreme rightwing radical (The terms "left" and "right" are meaningless).
IMHO: Dr. Paul's positions are closer to the US Founders and the original intent of the American Experiment than any candidate in recent history.
Remember in the days before the passing of ObamaCare when Fox News and the Republican Establishment were encouranging the TeaParty and free market rhetoric?
Now that it is king-making time in the Republican Party, the powers that be have turned full forces against the voices of freedom.
The Democrats play the same game. They launched forth with that bizarre Occupy Wall Street Movement in an off season. They will throw OWS throw it under the bus during the election.
The Dick Morris video shows conclusively that the Republican Party IS NOT a party for freedom. They encourage freedom rhetoric when they are out of power and turn against freedom when they are in power. The modern right is as dialectical and Hegelian as the left.
Mitt Romney will not overturn ObamaCare. At best we will see the corrupt health care exchanges moved from Federal control to State control.
The Tea Party was wrong to put its faith in the Republican Party, for the Republican Party will always sell out freedom when it gets a whiff of power.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Mixed Use Communities
There is a new fad in the development world called "Mixed Use." A mixed use community is developed by a single politically connected developer. The development generally includes office space, shops, condos and apartments.
Cookiecutter mixed-use communities are popping up in towns across the nation.
The big developers popping these communities out of the mold spew forth with reams of progressive dribble about how their new planned society will be so much superior than the failed free market in which residential and commercial space was artificially divided.
The dribble makes me want to scream.
The reason that we have a big separation between residential and commercial space was zoning.
Zoning is not done by the free market. Zoning is a contrivance of anti-market forces.
If you look at the development in pioneer days, it was all mixed use. There were stores generously sprinkled among the houses. It was common for houses to transition from shacks to single family houses to duplexes.
Many stores had living quarters above the store proper.
Zoning was a creation of progressives. The progressives forced an artificial seperation upon our communities.
Salt Lake County is a great example of zoning gone horribly wrong. The zoning boards in Salt Lake made it virtually impossible for people to transition older homes into duplexes or multi-unit apartments. Likewise, it was next to impossible for developments to build high density complexes in the city. The result was that developers bought up farms in unincorporated areas; thus creating a dysfunctional community where low income families in high density housing were isolated from the community and the services they needed.
Progressives like DeeDee Corradini and Rocky Anderson are the ones who created this dysfunctional city where tens of thousands of people are left languishing in food deserts with inadequate access to services.
May the progressives rot.
And what is the progressive solution to the dysfunctional world created by progressives? The progressives now want to create massives planned complexes where the entire community is engineered and owned by a single developer.
The new progressive mixed-communities look pretty in contrast to the overzoned cities of our progressive past ... but they are pits of stagnation. As the pretty little mixed use facilities are own3d by politically connected developers, this brave new planned community will simply stamp out creativity and self expression. A true free market, in contrast, is would a mixed use community that evolves as the local market changes.
A society with no ownership is not a real community. Such a society is really just a guilded concentration camp.
(The food deserts we see are a result of zoning, not the market. If people had the freedom to switch houses to stores, then someone would start selling food to meet local demand).
Cookiecutter mixed-use communities are popping up in towns across the nation.
The big developers popping these communities out of the mold spew forth with reams of progressive dribble about how their new planned society will be so much superior than the failed free market in which residential and commercial space was artificially divided.
The dribble makes me want to scream.
The reason that we have a big separation between residential and commercial space was zoning.
Zoning is not done by the free market. Zoning is a contrivance of anti-market forces.
If you look at the development in pioneer days, it was all mixed use. There were stores generously sprinkled among the houses. It was common for houses to transition from shacks to single family houses to duplexes.
Many stores had living quarters above the store proper.
Zoning was a creation of progressives. The progressives forced an artificial seperation upon our communities.
Salt Lake County is a great example of zoning gone horribly wrong. The zoning boards in Salt Lake made it virtually impossible for people to transition older homes into duplexes or multi-unit apartments. Likewise, it was next to impossible for developments to build high density complexes in the city. The result was that developers bought up farms in unincorporated areas; thus creating a dysfunctional community where low income families in high density housing were isolated from the community and the services they needed.
Progressives like DeeDee Corradini and Rocky Anderson are the ones who created this dysfunctional city where tens of thousands of people are left languishing in food deserts with inadequate access to services.
May the progressives rot.
And what is the progressive solution to the dysfunctional world created by progressives? The progressives now want to create massives planned complexes where the entire community is engineered and owned by a single developer.
The new progressive mixed-communities look pretty in contrast to the overzoned cities of our progressive past ... but they are pits of stagnation. As the pretty little mixed use facilities are own3d by politically connected developers, this brave new planned community will simply stamp out creativity and self expression. A true free market, in contrast, is would a mixed use community that evolves as the local market changes.
A society with no ownership is not a real community. Such a society is really just a guilded concentration camp.
(The food deserts we see are a result of zoning, not the market. If people had the freedom to switch houses to stores, then someone would start selling food to meet local demand).
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Technocrat v. Organization Man
Every presidential election seems to come down to a choice between the bad and the worse.
Both Gingrich and Romney are big government, big business progressives.
When a Libertarian soul is given a choice between progressives, it a matter of choosing the candidate that will do the least harm to our freedom.
Yes, Gingrich has a vision of a corrupt technocracy lording over health care. If Gingrich were president. However, if Gingrich were president, it would be possible to directly attack the technocratic vision.
It is, after all, up to the Congress and states to repeal ObamaCare.
If Gingrich were president, America would launch into an open debate about technocracy v. health freedom.
Like Obama, Romney is an organization man. His goal will be to transfer control of the Health Exchanges from Democratic control to Republican control.
If Romney wins, the Republican Establishment (Fox News Included) will stifle debate about healfh freedom
With both the Republican and Democrat working against freedom, there will be no chance to restore freedom.
The Republican Establishment of Utah slammed an iron boot on the discussion of health freedom to pass its corrupt health exchanges. If Romney wins, both Republicans and Democratics will be united in slamming their boots down and preventing open debate about health freedom.
I am choosing Gingrich over Romney as I see it as the only way to repeal the Health Care Exchanges.
Both Gingrich and Romney are big government, big business progressives.
When a Libertarian soul is given a choice between progressives, it a matter of choosing the candidate that will do the least harm to our freedom.
Yes, Gingrich has a vision of a corrupt technocracy lording over health care. If Gingrich were president. However, if Gingrich were president, it would be possible to directly attack the technocratic vision.
It is, after all, up to the Congress and states to repeal ObamaCare.
If Gingrich were president, America would launch into an open debate about technocracy v. health freedom.
Like Obama, Romney is an organization man. His goal will be to transfer control of the Health Exchanges from Democratic control to Republican control.
If Romney wins, the Republican Establishment (Fox News Included) will stifle debate about healfh freedom
With both the Republican and Democrat working against freedom, there will be no chance to restore freedom.
The Republican Establishment of Utah slammed an iron boot on the discussion of health freedom to pass its corrupt health exchanges. If Romney wins, both Republicans and Democratics will be united in slamming their boots down and preventing open debate about health freedom.
I am choosing Gingrich over Romney as I see it as the only way to repeal the Health Care Exchanges.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Center For Health Transformation
I just visited Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation and I suddenly feel like puking.
It is all the same technocratic that is in Obamacare.
Technology evolves on its own. We don't need a top heavy government to impose technological solutions on the American people.
What we need is a system that is built around the individual, then the technology is more likely to evolve in a way that enhances the patients lives.
The primary problem that the health freedom movement faces is that establishment Republicans want a top heavy technocratic solution.
Of course, the one and only way to restore health freedom would be for patriots to start talking about health freedom.
I wish I could find a group interested in health freedom.
All of the Republican Groups I know from the Sutherland Institute to the Center of Health Transformation are dedicated to top down health care.
Ron Paul is pretty much the only voice that health care starts with individual humans. What we need is health care reform that builds from the individual person upwards ... not from the ruling class downward.
It is all the same technocratic that is in Obamacare.
Technology evolves on its own. We don't need a top heavy government to impose technological solutions on the American people.
What we need is a system that is built around the individual, then the technology is more likely to evolve in a way that enhances the patients lives.
The primary problem that the health freedom movement faces is that establishment Republicans want a top heavy technocratic solution.
Of course, the one and only way to restore health freedom would be for patriots to start talking about health freedom.
I wish I could find a group interested in health freedom.
All of the Republican Groups I know from the Sutherland Institute to the Center of Health Transformation are dedicated to top down health care.
Ron Paul is pretty much the only voice that health care starts with individual humans. What we need is health care reform that builds from the individual person upwards ... not from the ruling class downward.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Making the Medical Savings and Loan Real
What is needed to bring the Medical Savings and Loan into existence?
The first step is to create a non-profit Medical and Loan Association. To do this, you would a group of people (maybe four) to create a board of directors and you need about $1,000 in legal fees.
The association could be created under the umbrella of an existing organization … but needs enough independence so that it could spin off into its own entity.
The first step of the board would be to edit and finalize the primary description of the plan. This could take up a full evening.
The MS&L association would be a coordinating body. The association exists to define the Medical Savings and Loan and to coordinate educational, charitable and business activities related to the concept.
After finalizing the definition, the association would need to coordinate the editing and publishing of a book. This could either involve a person proofreading what I've written or a person who wants to co-author a book by adding their content. We have to get a book out NOW, and I would prefer just the proofreading option.
Self publishing packages range from $500 to $1000.
I've been unwilling to borrow to pay this fee because I fear I wouldn't recap the investment on an unedited book. If I had an editor and a group to help advance the idea, I wouldn't, I would gladly swipe the credit card and pay the fee.
PS: I don't have the money to pay an editor out of pocket, but would be willing to pay an editor a portion of any profits on the book.
Because time is critical, I think I would want to take the path of publishing a short political pamphlet style book followed by a more detailed fact driven book in a year or so.
The second step of the Medical Savings and Loan Association would be to launch an educational effort. This would involve coordinating public speakers to talk about health freedom.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a ready made platform for anyone who wants to play the role of free market pundit during the 2012 election. Something I have no desire to do.
In its first year, the tasks of the Medical Savings and Loan Association are almost all purely educational and political. If the idea takes root, the association will need to transition into more of a professional operation.
In the second phase, The Medical Savings and Loan Association would continue to define the plan and coordinate educational efforts. The MS&L Association would need to coordinate charitable and business activities associated with the plan.
The mantra of the Medical Savings and Loan is "Those who can self-fund their care should do so. Those who cannot should receive assistance."
This second task involves a great deal of actuarial analysis. The members of the association would pour over financial and medical expense data to help the financial advisors determine when their clients need to seek charitable care. The MSLA would need to work with charities to assure they have funds to provide that care.
Since the program has two phases, the association could be set up by anyone, of any background. All it needs is four or five people who can muster up enough money to pay the legal and filing fees to start a non-profit.
If the idea takes hold, it is likely that the first group would get spun off and replaced by professional health care administrators.
I imagine myself being spun out of the picture in the second phase.
My ambition is to expose the insurance-pool model of funding health care as fraudulent and anti-market. I would love to be either the author or co-author of a book on this subject.
I do not believe that the free market is about people living in isolation. Free market business activities, by their nature, are group activities.
If there is no-one in the United States, other than me, willing to discuss health freedom; then all efforts I put into the program are pointless.
I find the idea of writing a book that does not go through any form of peer review abhorrent. Likewise, I am appalled at the idea of trying to promote an idea that only backed up by my personal research.
The correct path is to find a group of people interested in advancing health freedom (ie, restoring America). The group would discuss the issue, the present the subject to the world at large.
The left is going to lampoon the Medical Savings and Loan as a system in which people are forced to stand alone. To avoid this criticism, the program simply must go through peer review and have a group supporting it.
The free market is not about people standing alone. It is a system of exchange that holds the individual in high esteem. The free market gives people control over their body, their mind and their property in order to facilitate exchange within a group.
I have decades worth of work on the issue of health freedom. If a small group of people wanted to spend some time exploring the concept of health freedom in detail, they might be in a position to make a big difference.
But there is absolutely nothing I can do if I am forced to sit here in complete isolation and poverty.
Anyone interested can contact me on Community Color.
The first step is to create a non-profit Medical and Loan Association. To do this, you would a group of people (maybe four) to create a board of directors and you need about $1,000 in legal fees.
The association could be created under the umbrella of an existing organization … but needs enough independence so that it could spin off into its own entity.
The first step of the board would be to edit and finalize the primary description of the plan. This could take up a full evening.
The MS&L association would be a coordinating body. The association exists to define the Medical Savings and Loan and to coordinate educational, charitable and business activities related to the concept.
After finalizing the definition, the association would need to coordinate the editing and publishing of a book. This could either involve a person proofreading what I've written or a person who wants to co-author a book by adding their content. We have to get a book out NOW, and I would prefer just the proofreading option.
Self publishing packages range from $500 to $1000.
I've been unwilling to borrow to pay this fee because I fear I wouldn't recap the investment on an unedited book. If I had an editor and a group to help advance the idea, I wouldn't, I would gladly swipe the credit card and pay the fee.
PS: I don't have the money to pay an editor out of pocket, but would be willing to pay an editor a portion of any profits on the book.
Because time is critical, I think I would want to take the path of publishing a short political pamphlet style book followed by a more detailed fact driven book in a year or so.
The second step of the Medical Savings and Loan Association would be to launch an educational effort. This would involve coordinating public speakers to talk about health freedom.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a ready made platform for anyone who wants to play the role of free market pundit during the 2012 election. Something I have no desire to do.
In its first year, the tasks of the Medical Savings and Loan Association are almost all purely educational and political. If the idea takes root, the association will need to transition into more of a professional operation.
In the second phase, The Medical Savings and Loan Association would continue to define the plan and coordinate educational efforts. The MS&L Association would need to coordinate charitable and business activities associated with the plan.
The mantra of the Medical Savings and Loan is "Those who can self-fund their care should do so. Those who cannot should receive assistance."
This second task involves a great deal of actuarial analysis. The members of the association would pour over financial and medical expense data to help the financial advisors determine when their clients need to seek charitable care. The MSLA would need to work with charities to assure they have funds to provide that care.
Since the program has two phases, the association could be set up by anyone, of any background. All it needs is four or five people who can muster up enough money to pay the legal and filing fees to start a non-profit.
If the idea takes hold, it is likely that the first group would get spun off and replaced by professional health care administrators.
I imagine myself being spun out of the picture in the second phase.
My ambition is to expose the insurance-pool model of funding health care as fraudulent and anti-market. I would love to be either the author or co-author of a book on this subject.
I do not believe that the free market is about people living in isolation. Free market business activities, by their nature, are group activities.
If there is no-one in the United States, other than me, willing to discuss health freedom; then all efforts I put into the program are pointless.
I find the idea of writing a book that does not go through any form of peer review abhorrent. Likewise, I am appalled at the idea of trying to promote an idea that only backed up by my personal research.
The correct path is to find a group of people interested in advancing health freedom (ie, restoring America). The group would discuss the issue, the present the subject to the world at large.
The left is going to lampoon the Medical Savings and Loan as a system in which people are forced to stand alone. To avoid this criticism, the program simply must go through peer review and have a group supporting it.
The free market is not about people standing alone. It is a system of exchange that holds the individual in high esteem. The free market gives people control over their body, their mind and their property in order to facilitate exchange within a group.
I have decades worth of work on the issue of health freedom. If a small group of people wanted to spend some time exploring the concept of health freedom in detail, they might be in a position to make a big difference.
But there is absolutely nothing I can do if I am forced to sit here in complete isolation and poverty.
Anyone interested can contact me on Community Color.
Friday, December 16, 2011
My Take on Candidates
Ron Paul is the only candidate in the field who has a clear vision of where America should be. The problem is that he does not have a plan for getting us from here to there.
You can not free people who've been raised as slaves. The left would hit hard and heavily with loud OWS style diversionary protests, while Paul flounders in conveying the vision of freedom to the people.
Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama, is an organization man. Just as his daddy installed Mitt in influential jobs, I see Mitt installing his cohorts in key political positions ... and we will end up with ObamaCare run by corrupt Republicans instead of ObamaCare run by corrupt Democrats.
A vote for Romney is a vote for the health care exchanges, which the establishment Republicans will force down our gullets while they actively suppress debate.
I had really big hopes for Michele Bachmann, but so far she's come up one "L" short in all the debates.
I fear that Ms. Bachmann has spent too much time attacking Obama and not enough time developing ideas. Ms. Bachmann would probably be a front runner if she came up with bold ideas like Herman Cain did. Instead, all we see are negative attacks.
Much as I dislike Obama's policies, I really hate when people attack the President of the United on a personal level.
Oddly, I am reluctantly falling into the position that the technocrat Newt Gingrich will be the best president.
Oddly, the reason I think Gingrich would do well as a president is that he seems to have the ability to see issues from different sides ... a trait one wants in a president.
Overall, though, I don't see any of the candidates putting America back on the road to freedom.
Of course the only real way to get back on that road would be for patriotic Americans to put the nation back on track.
If there was a strong idea-backed pro-freedom movement in the upcoming years, Gingrich is the one most likely to act on the ideas. The organization man Romney is the least likely to respond to ideas.
So, I am reluctantly putting Gingrich on the top of my Christmas list ... although, deep down in side, the debate left me feeling that the Republicans are coming out with too little, too late. I don't see any of the candidates putting America back onto the track of freedom and prosperity.
Of course, that is not the job of the president. Restoring America is the job of the people. I just hope the Republicans avoid the mistake of nominating a president who will block the path to restoration.
You can not free people who've been raised as slaves. The left would hit hard and heavily with loud OWS style diversionary protests, while Paul flounders in conveying the vision of freedom to the people.
Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama, is an organization man. Just as his daddy installed Mitt in influential jobs, I see Mitt installing his cohorts in key political positions ... and we will end up with ObamaCare run by corrupt Republicans instead of ObamaCare run by corrupt Democrats.
A vote for Romney is a vote for the health care exchanges, which the establishment Republicans will force down our gullets while they actively suppress debate.
I had really big hopes for Michele Bachmann, but so far she's come up one "L" short in all the debates.
I fear that Ms. Bachmann has spent too much time attacking Obama and not enough time developing ideas. Ms. Bachmann would probably be a front runner if she came up with bold ideas like Herman Cain did. Instead, all we see are negative attacks.
Much as I dislike Obama's policies, I really hate when people attack the President of the United on a personal level.
Oddly, I am reluctantly falling into the position that the technocrat Newt Gingrich will be the best president.
Oddly, the reason I think Gingrich would do well as a president is that he seems to have the ability to see issues from different sides ... a trait one wants in a president.
Overall, though, I don't see any of the candidates putting America back on the road to freedom.
Of course the only real way to get back on that road would be for patriotic Americans to put the nation back on track.
If there was a strong idea-backed pro-freedom movement in the upcoming years, Gingrich is the one most likely to act on the ideas. The organization man Romney is the least likely to respond to ideas.
So, I am reluctantly putting Gingrich on the top of my Christmas list ... although, deep down in side, the debate left me feeling that the Republicans are coming out with too little, too late. I don't see any of the candidates putting America back onto the track of freedom and prosperity.
Of course, that is not the job of the president. Restoring America is the job of the people. I just hope the Republicans avoid the mistake of nominating a president who will block the path to restoration.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
End of Internet Shopping Season
Well folks. the end of the Internet shopping season is upon us. If you fail to get your orders in before Friday it is highly unlikely that they will get shipped before Monday.
As a good free marketeer, I took a few stabs at grabbing a piece of the Christmas shopping pie: The page AFountainOfBargains.com has a datafeed with hundreds of thousands of products from top internet stores. You can browse the list or compre prices.
AFoB also lists Daily Deals from select merchants. The site also inclues categorized index of stores in the Community Color Store of the Day program.
My past experience is that December 15th is pretty much the end of the online shopping.
Sadly, this year, I failed to draw traffic into my little online efforts.
Oh well. I now need to figure out what to do next.
I confess. I spent myself into a financial jam trying to drum up interest in the the Medical Savings and Loan project.
I would love to go back to that project. Health freedom is the most important issue of our generation and I have important things to say about the issue.
I've been unable to find anyone to talk with on this important issue.
Anyway, I am in a funk. The Christmas season is ending. I had several hundred thousand visitors to the community color sites, but I failed to get any financial traction, and need to come up with a new plan.
As a good free marketeer, I took a few stabs at grabbing a piece of the Christmas shopping pie: The page AFountainOfBargains.com has a datafeed with hundreds of thousands of products from top internet stores. You can browse the list or compre prices.
AFoB also lists Daily Deals from select merchants. The site also inclues categorized index of stores in the Community Color Store of the Day program.
My past experience is that December 15th is pretty much the end of the online shopping.
Sadly, this year, I failed to draw traffic into my little online efforts.
Oh well. I now need to figure out what to do next.
I confess. I spent myself into a financial jam trying to drum up interest in the the Medical Savings and Loan project.
I would love to go back to that project. Health freedom is the most important issue of our generation and I have important things to say about the issue.
I've been unable to find anyone to talk with on this important issue.
Anyway, I am in a funk. The Christmas season is ending. I had several hundred thousand visitors to the community color sites, but I failed to get any financial traction, and need to come up with a new plan.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Last Online Shopping Days for XMas
Black Friday is not the big day for online shopping. The make it or break it time for ecommerce happens about two weeks before Christmas.
Online shopping is driven by shipping schedules.
If you shop on Friday, there is a good chance the package won't get shipped until Monday ... and a very good chance that the package won't show up before Christmas.
BTW: If you haven't sent out Christmas Cards ... you better get them in the mail before Friday.
Today (12/14) and tomorrow (12/15) are the last two days of the shopping season. Here is a categorized list of the Community Color Stores of the Day.
Online shopping is driven by shipping schedules.
If you shop on Friday, there is a good chance the package won't get shipped until Monday ... and a very good chance that the package won't show up before Christmas.
BTW: If you haven't sent out Christmas Cards ... you better get them in the mail before Friday.
Today (12/14) and tomorrow (12/15) are the last two days of the shopping season. Here is a categorized list of the Community Color Stores of the Day.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Amazed by Stossel
I was delighted to see part of a show by John Stossel, in which he acknowledged that "capitalism" came from Marx.
Thank God! I never thought this day would come.
Unfortunately, I don't think Stossel realizes the full implication of this little twist of philosophic history.
Marx was not an idealist. He was a dialectician. A dialectician gains power by creating conflict. Dialectics is a game in which a rogue promotes paradox at the foundation of reason and conflict at the surface; then rides the whirlwind of confusion into power.
Marx never describe communism beyond vague images of a paradise. His goal was to create a conflict with a belief that conflict would lead to a new stage of evolution.
Marx wanted to destroy the free market. So he created an unstable, top heavy view of the market which he detailed in Das Kapital.
Conservatives, being the greatest dupes in history, vigorously defend Marx's anti-thesis. This anti-thesis creates an oppressive top-down economy that people want to see destroyed.
By defending Marx's distortion of the free market, Conservatives systematically play into the radicals' hands and set up our nation for failure.
Contrary to the ramblings of modern intellectuals, neither Hegelian dialectics nor Marx's thesis/anti-thesis conflict are the foundation of the American experiment in self rule. The US Founders studied classical logic and applied classical logic to the question of liberty (Classical Liberalism).
By defending Marx's capitalism, conservatives surrender the battle field to the enemies of freedom. By accepting Marx's material dialectics as the foundation of society, conservatives set up America for failure.
In the Stossel show, John Stossel pointed out that Hollywood systematically projects false images on business and lamented that the left took the term "liberal" and turned it upside-down. The modern liberal thinks we will find freedom in slavery.
This happened because conservatives let the enemies of freedom define the underlying structure of the debate.
The path to restoring freedom starts by recognizing that Marx was the father of Capitalism and vigorously questioning the false images projected on the free market.
Marx goal was to set up a conflict between the ideals "capitalism" and "communism." We can break this spell by attacking capitalism as creation of the enemies of freedom and engaging in a discussion of capitalism and the free market.
So, I was delighted to hear that Stossel finally recognized that "modern capitalism" was a contrivance of Karl Marx who sought to destroy the Free Market.
Maybe, someday, Stossel will take the next step and realize that the defining conflict of our age is not between capitalism and communism but a conflict between the free market and capitalism (a false image projected on the market by the enemies of freedom).
An even better scenario would involve conservatives realizing that the problem is not "liberalism" but the perversion of liberalism.
The classical liberalism of the founders applied classical logic to the question of liberty. Modern liberals apply Hegelian dialectics to question of liberty and think slavery is freedom. It is a perversion of liberalism.
The Founders of the United States were liberals. They rose to defend liberty in face of the tyranny of monarchy. You can't get more liberal than that. The conservatives of 1776 were the ones defending big government in collusion with big business to the cost of the middle class.
To restore freedom we have to expose the intellectual dishonesty used by the enemies of freedom.
Thank God! I never thought this day would come.
Unfortunately, I don't think Stossel realizes the full implication of this little twist of philosophic history.
Marx was not an idealist. He was a dialectician. A dialectician gains power by creating conflict. Dialectics is a game in which a rogue promotes paradox at the foundation of reason and conflict at the surface; then rides the whirlwind of confusion into power.
Marx never describe communism beyond vague images of a paradise. His goal was to create a conflict with a belief that conflict would lead to a new stage of evolution.
Marx wanted to destroy the free market. So he created an unstable, top heavy view of the market which he detailed in Das Kapital.
Conservatives, being the greatest dupes in history, vigorously defend Marx's anti-thesis. This anti-thesis creates an oppressive top-down economy that people want to see destroyed.
By defending Marx's distortion of the free market, Conservatives systematically play into the radicals' hands and set up our nation for failure.
Contrary to the ramblings of modern intellectuals, neither Hegelian dialectics nor Marx's thesis/anti-thesis conflict are the foundation of the American experiment in self rule. The US Founders studied classical logic and applied classical logic to the question of liberty (Classical Liberalism).
By defending Marx's capitalism, conservatives surrender the battle field to the enemies of freedom. By accepting Marx's material dialectics as the foundation of society, conservatives set up America for failure.
In the Stossel show, John Stossel pointed out that Hollywood systematically projects false images on business and lamented that the left took the term "liberal" and turned it upside-down. The modern liberal thinks we will find freedom in slavery.
This happened because conservatives let the enemies of freedom define the underlying structure of the debate.
The path to restoring freedom starts by recognizing that Marx was the father of Capitalism and vigorously questioning the false images projected on the free market.
Marx goal was to set up a conflict between the ideals "capitalism" and "communism." We can break this spell by attacking capitalism as creation of the enemies of freedom and engaging in a discussion of capitalism and the free market.
So, I was delighted to hear that Stossel finally recognized that "modern capitalism" was a contrivance of Karl Marx who sought to destroy the Free Market.
Maybe, someday, Stossel will take the next step and realize that the defining conflict of our age is not between capitalism and communism but a conflict between the free market and capitalism (a false image projected on the market by the enemies of freedom).
An even better scenario would involve conservatives realizing that the problem is not "liberalism" but the perversion of liberalism.
The classical liberalism of the founders applied classical logic to the question of liberty. Modern liberals apply Hegelian dialectics to question of liberty and think slavery is freedom. It is a perversion of liberalism.
The Founders of the United States were liberals. They rose to defend liberty in face of the tyranny of monarchy. You can't get more liberal than that. The conservatives of 1776 were the ones defending big government in collusion with big business to the cost of the middle class.
To restore freedom we have to expose the intellectual dishonesty used by the enemies of freedom.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Kicking One's Neighbors Down
Contrary to what we learn in school, the free market is not a system in which people try to get to the top by kicking one's neighbors down.
A true free market is a distributed network. People living in a distributed economic system will not feel the need to kick down neighbors.
In such a society, people are more likely to reach out a hand to help a neighbor that to kick out a boot to hurt a neighbor.
It is in a top-down structured social hierarchy of feudalism and socialism that people start feeling the need to kick down one's neighbors in the grub for the limited number of top seated social position.
The American pioneer experience was one in which people were more willing to lend out a hand on a personal level.
The modern dialectical method (Hegel, Marx, Popper, Chomsky, Soros) teaches that one must dominate or perish. When we accept this modern dialectics, we become a base and ugly people.
In the free market envisioned by classical liberals and US Founders, free people had property rights. They would seeking to make the most of their property would do so by finding ways to help others.
Modern capitalism was created by Marx in his tome "Das Kapital." Das Kapital turned the equations upside down. Marx's "Das Kapital" changed the discussion from one about free people owning property rights to one about a ruling elite leveraging the capital system to dominate markets.
Look around at America today!!!! We are clearly not in a free market. There are very few people who are directly engaged in the process of developing their personal property. There is a ruling elite in the financial system.
Above all, America is not longer a strong distributed social network in our communities.
Most American workers are pigeon-holed in jobs with a vertical top-down political network.
I look at the business world in Salt Lake. All I see are mean, nasty people who spend their days kicking each other down.
BTW, I've been working on the Community Color sites for almost ten years. In ten years, there has not been a single person from Utah who's asked what I was doing or why I was doing it.
I've tried going to meetings to bring up the project, and people would get extremely hostile.
I am a mathematician, the goal of this project was to encourage people to think of the local web as a distributed social network. I realized that if people did not actively engage in the Internet as a distributed network that it would devolve into a top down structured network with only a few dominate players at the top and the rest languishing.
A true free market is a distributed network. People living in a distributed economic system will not feel the need to kick down neighbors.
In such a society, people are more likely to reach out a hand to help a neighbor that to kick out a boot to hurt a neighbor.
It is in a top-down structured social hierarchy of feudalism and socialism that people start feeling the need to kick down one's neighbors in the grub for the limited number of top seated social position.
The American pioneer experience was one in which people were more willing to lend out a hand on a personal level.
The modern dialectical method (Hegel, Marx, Popper, Chomsky, Soros) teaches that one must dominate or perish. When we accept this modern dialectics, we become a base and ugly people.
In the free market envisioned by classical liberals and US Founders, free people had property rights. They would seeking to make the most of their property would do so by finding ways to help others.
Modern capitalism was created by Marx in his tome "Das Kapital." Das Kapital turned the equations upside down. Marx's "Das Kapital" changed the discussion from one about free people owning property rights to one about a ruling elite leveraging the capital system to dominate markets.
Look around at America today!!!! We are clearly not in a free market. There are very few people who are directly engaged in the process of developing their personal property. There is a ruling elite in the financial system.
Above all, America is not longer a strong distributed social network in our communities.
Most American workers are pigeon-holed in jobs with a vertical top-down political network.
I look at the business world in Salt Lake. All I see are mean, nasty people who spend their days kicking each other down.
BTW, I've been working on the Community Color sites for almost ten years. In ten years, there has not been a single person from Utah who's asked what I was doing or why I was doing it.
I've tried going to meetings to bring up the project, and people would get extremely hostile.
I am a mathematician, the goal of this project was to encourage people to think of the local web as a distributed social network. I realized that if people did not actively engage in the Internet as a distributed network that it would devolve into a top down structured network with only a few dominate players at the top and the rest languishing.
Monday, December 05, 2011
The Free Market is NOT a Meritocracy
One of the candidates (it may have been Romney) talked about how the United States was a meritocracy, and that the left was wrong for wanting a more just society.
The free market is not a meritocracy.
The foundation of the free market is freedom … not merit.
A meritocracy is a top-down system where the collective dangles out prizes and the best and grubbing for the prize gets the prize.
A free market starts from the bottom up with the free mind of the individual.
In classical liberal thought, this free mind is a gift from God and each free mind has inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Each person has property rights. The most important property right is the right to our body and the fruit of our labor.
We have these rights from God … even though we did nothing to merit them.
Classical liberals sought to avoid paradox. One's freedom stops at one's neighbor's nose. A free person cannot have the freedom to take the freedom of another.
The most important things that exist on this planet (from a human perspective) are the human mind, the human body and our individual labor. We each got these wonderful gifts from God without any special merit.
Because we are free there will be some disparity in outcomes; however, since each of us start with the same fundamental things (our mind and body). The outcomes should not be quite as pronounced as they are in present day America.
This is where conservatives keep getting the debate wrong.
In a true free society, there should not be as pronounced a separation in classes as we see in modern America. This disparity shows that we are not a free society, and that we need to examine the underlying structure of our society which is causing this unnatural disparity.
Unfortunately, instead of thinking, reactionary conservatives tend to run at the mouth and defend the artificial concentration of wealth before examining the causes of the artificial concentration of wealth.
A free society is a bottom up proposition that starts with the individual mind.
A meritocracy is a top-down system in which there is a small number of outsized rewards controlled by a ruling elite.
In a meritocracy, everyone is pitted against each other in a grub for the small number of rewards. Those that are most brutal in the grubbing take all and the rest languish.
Feudalism was a meritocracy. There was a small number of rewards in a top-down structure and everyone battled eachother brutally for those rewards.
A meritocracy is the exact opposite of a free market. In a free market our free minds create the rewards. That means there is an unlimited number of rewards.
The bottom-up ideals of classical liberals were so powerful because they led to a more just society.
As we stray from these ideals of the US founders, America loses its exceptionalism and we fall back into the pattern of a class society.
Conservatives have it completely backwards. Freedom is the path to greater social justice. By straying from freedom, America is devolving into a class society.
The free market is not a meritocracy.
The foundation of the free market is freedom … not merit.
A meritocracy is a top-down system where the collective dangles out prizes and the best and grubbing for the prize gets the prize.
A free market starts from the bottom up with the free mind of the individual.
In classical liberal thought, this free mind is a gift from God and each free mind has inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Each person has property rights. The most important property right is the right to our body and the fruit of our labor.
We have these rights from God … even though we did nothing to merit them.
Classical liberals sought to avoid paradox. One's freedom stops at one's neighbor's nose. A free person cannot have the freedom to take the freedom of another.
The most important things that exist on this planet (from a human perspective) are the human mind, the human body and our individual labor. We each got these wonderful gifts from God without any special merit.
Because we are free there will be some disparity in outcomes; however, since each of us start with the same fundamental things (our mind and body). The outcomes should not be quite as pronounced as they are in present day America.
This is where conservatives keep getting the debate wrong.
In a true free society, there should not be as pronounced a separation in classes as we see in modern America. This disparity shows that we are not a free society, and that we need to examine the underlying structure of our society which is causing this unnatural disparity.
Unfortunately, instead of thinking, reactionary conservatives tend to run at the mouth and defend the artificial concentration of wealth before examining the causes of the artificial concentration of wealth.
A free society is a bottom up proposition that starts with the individual mind.
A meritocracy is a top-down system in which there is a small number of outsized rewards controlled by a ruling elite.
In a meritocracy, everyone is pitted against each other in a grub for the small number of rewards. Those that are most brutal in the grubbing take all and the rest languish.
Feudalism was a meritocracy. There was a small number of rewards in a top-down structure and everyone battled eachother brutally for those rewards.
A meritocracy is the exact opposite of a free market. In a free market our free minds create the rewards. That means there is an unlimited number of rewards.
The bottom-up ideals of classical liberals were so powerful because they led to a more just society.
As we stray from these ideals of the US founders, America loses its exceptionalism and we fall back into the pattern of a class society.
Conservatives have it completely backwards. Freedom is the path to greater social justice. By straying from freedom, America is devolving into a class society.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Congress Passes the Laws
IMHO, presidential candidates spend far too much time talking about the laws they want to see passed.
It really upsets me when candidates start talking about their opinions as if their opinions will be the dictates of the land.
A presidential candidate who really follows the Constitution should understand that it is Congress that passes the laws.
It is okay for a candidate to argue a position; However, I really wish these Republican candidates would step back and emphasize that Congress writes the laws. It is the executive's job to implement the laws passed by Congress.
The president should argue positions, but restoring Constitutional balance means restoring the Congress as the source of laws.
It really upsets me when candidates start talking about their opinions as if their opinions will be the dictates of the land.
A presidential candidate who really follows the Constitution should understand that it is Congress that passes the laws.
It is okay for a candidate to argue a position; However, I really wish these Republican candidates would step back and emphasize that Congress writes the laws. It is the executive's job to implement the laws passed by Congress.
The president should argue positions, but restoring Constitutional balance means restoring the Congress as the source of laws.