THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 2 of 10

 After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:

1. My efforts have been largely futile.
2. Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
3. Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.

In light of these revelations, I’ve decided that my efforts might be better invested in discussing the virtues of conservative thought, as opposed to pointing out the blatant fallacies of liberal thinking. Now, this does not mean that I will refrain from comparison and contrast, it simply means that I will attempt to couch my words in non demeaning ways in my observations. Perhaps my words will capture the attention of a young liberal thinker in his or her journey to a more courageous way of thinking. My discussion will be delivered in 10 parts.This being part 2 of the discussion.

The second virtue is that  the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. Among these customs, conventions and continuity is the long established institution of marriage. Conservatives understand and believe that the re-defining of marriage is a dangerous step toward the break down of the society at large. The arguments that conservatives make are not strictly philosophical. They are indeed practical as well.  Let's analyze the concept of redefining marriage. We must first ask obvious, but surprisingly overlooked questions. Why do we have marriage in the first place?  Where did it start? Who benefits from the custom, convention and continuity of marriage?  If we honestly and accurately answer these questions, we must intellectually arrive at the conclusion that the health of a culture can be largely measured in the resolve of that societies adherence to a strict definition of marriage. Marriage was not, is not, and should not ever be about individuals, but the advancement of a civil and ordered society.

It seems marriage was established in the earliest known forms of civilization, to establish a structure for the rearing of children, to ensure they grow up to be  responsible and productive, and to assist in the daily struggle of survival.  It was families that formed clans, villages and ultimately cultures. If we take the redefinition of marriage to its logical end ... i.e. androgyny, we lose the very fabric of our culture. Maybe that's what some people want. Conservatives think that's not a good idea.  

Last I checked, it takes a male and female to make babies. Most, but not all, babies grow up to be adults who ultimately pay taxes, influence society and contribute to its betterment. So it follows that the society at large benefits from the institution of marriage. You'll have a hard time showing me a culture that has thrived outside of the institution of marriage. To redefine marriage is to dismiss the practical evidence of its importance.

By definition, conservatives wish to maintain those systems, institutions and values that have proven effective. Marriage is at the foundational level of those institutions which conservatives wish to "conserve."  Conservatives can point to history and demonstrate not only the relevance but the necessity for maintaining marriage as a sacred institution. To redefine marriage is to dismiss the wisdom of the ages and pursue a degree of narcissism known only to the most decadent of societies. You see marriage isn't about the needs of the individual ... those can be fulfilled outside of marriage. Marriage is about the needs of society and should be nurtured if that society wishes to survive. Conservatives should stand strong on this issue, for it is foundational to defining our values.

Conservative adhere to custom because it provides a framework for passing along values. Conservative adhere to convention because it provides a structure for making sense of the world, and how best to live within it. Conservative adhere to continuity because it provides the best chance for the survival of the society.  Marriage is the institution that wonderfully exemplifies these three concepts. In the conservative's mind, if you change marriage, you change everything. So, for you liberals who are still reading ... understand we're not going to roll over on this issue. Redefining marriage cannot help our society, so why do it?

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 1 of 10

After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:

1. My efforts have been largely futile.
2. Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
3. Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.

In light of these revelations, I’ve decided that my efforts might be better invested in discussing the virtues of conservative thought, as opposed to pointing out the blatant fallacies of liberal thinking. Now, this does not mean that I will refrain from comparison and contrast, it simply means that I will attempt to couch my words in non demeaning ways in my observations. Perhaps my words will capture the attention of a young liberal thinker in his or her journey to a more courageous way of thinking. My discussion will be delivered in 10 parts. This is part one.

Virtue One

The cornerstone of conservative thought is the belief in moral order … that there are indeed absolutes. In fact, moral order depends upon adherence to and conformity to certain absolutes. These absolutes are readily apparent, but too often ignored by the non-conservative thinker. I’ll list a few of the most obvious here:

1. There are consequences to behavior, and bad behavior will result in bad consequences. We have evidence of this absolute in our day-to-day existence; drug abuse, theft, murder, etc. Adherence to a moral order attempts to define and defy bad behavior and thereby avoid the bad consequences altogether. Conservatives will be quick to point out that individuals are responsible for their choices and behavior. Spending more money than you earn will eventually result in bad consequences. Ordering hot coffee and then spilling it on your pants is not the fault of the company that sold you the hot coffee. It is a decidedly liberal idea that one can sue the company that sold you what you wanted, but which you improperly handled. The 111^th Congress, decidedly liberal, increased the national debt 10 fold in the four years that they held the purse strings. There will be consequences for the out-of-control spending of this liberal group of politicians. Dare I mention abortion; a decidedly liberal doctrine? Killing un-born babies for the last 30 years has certainly had, and will continue to have, an impact on society, whether or not the liberals want to admit it. Behavior has consequences. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

2. Humans will act in ways to insure that their self interests are realized. A moral order is necessary to both restrain their potential indulgences and promote their productivity. Left to their own devices, men would have another man’s property, another man’s money and another man’s wife. It is a moral order that bridals men from engaging in behavior resulting in these outcomes. At the same time a moral order allows men/women to pursue their passions, remain productive and ensure the survival of society. The very rules that inhibit the passions of men are the same rules that promote his productivity and serve to sustain a viable society. Conservatives believe that self determination is superior to communism, where communism forces men to abandon their self interests and work, either in part or in whole, in the interests of others. We will behave in ways that will promote our self interests, This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute. 

3. An inherent sense of justice exists in all rational individuals. A moral order is, in part, a result of men agreeing that individual justice must prevail to ensure a productive society. A sustained and predetermined pattern of injustice corrupts the moral order and can cause men to act irrationally. Conservatives hold that justice is realized when men are rewarded for their honest and forthright use of their time, effort and resources. If a man justly prospers, he should not be penalized for his prosperity. Moral order is violated when men engage in class warfare, embrace racism as a means of advancing personal agendas, or unjustly demonize individuals, organizations or companies. The moral order is violated when governments impose burdensome taxes upon the productive members of its society. The conservative’s interpretation of justice begins with the individual. Social justice is nothing more than a misnomer when the resources of hard working individuals are being confiscated and unwisely distributed. Liberals labeled the TEA party as racists, radicals and bigots, when in truth the members of the movement were simply vocalizing their perception that individual justice was being violated by the Obama administration and the 111^th Congress. A sense of justice exists in all men. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

4. Humans are born consumers and consume until the day they die. This absolute presents the individual three options: 1. Earn the means for consumption. 2. Be gifted the means for consumption. 3. Steal the means for consumption. Conservatives hold that a moral order requires individuals to start earning the means of their consumption at an early date in their personal development. They also understand that children and the handicapped must be gifted their means of their consumption. A moral order also requires punishment for those that would steal their means of consumption. A closer look at this absolute will assist the reader in understanding conservative thinking. In conservative thought, gifting is an individual choice, not one that is imposed upon him. Government has no business determining who is and who is not gifted their means of consumption. If rightly upheld, the moral order will consequently identify those that need gifting and provision for the needy will be rightly administered. Humans are born consumers and consume until the day they die. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.
   
   
5. Humans are born with the desire to explore their individualism. Rob individuals of this sense of uniqueness and you rob them of their souls. Conservatives embrace practices, strategies and behaviors that promote this axiom. For example, conservatives encourage competition at a variety of levels; academically, physically, even socially. Conservatives understand that competition is a mechanism which encourages individuals to excel. Yes, there will be winners and losers, because that's the way the world works.  It is liberal thought that systematically eliminated competition from the school playgrounds and Saturday community activities. Conservatives understand that there are inherent risks associated with the practice of individualism; the risk of failure, the risk of rejection, and the risk of being violated or misunderstood. We are born unique individuals, with the capacity to develop different skills, talents and abilities. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.
   
   

An enduring moral order depends upon societies recognizing and embracing the concept of absolutes. Without absolutes we are left with relativism, which by definition, says that all behavior can be justified.  Conservatives simply adhere to the natural laws that define absolutes, and attempt to live in harmony with them. The liberal thinker does not necessarily reject the existence of absolutes, but will reject their application. For the liberal, equality of outcome is paramount to the success of their agenda. The recognition and adherence to a moral order, defined by absolutes, runs counter to their agenda. In a society ordered by absolutes, some individuals will necessarily be more successful than others. In a society ordered by absolutes, some will necessarily go hungry, remain homeless, be forced to take responsibility for their behavior, and be denied their selfish desires.

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

Evolution - According to Darko Festin

Once upon a time there was nothing. No air, no water, no atmosphere, not even a universe. Then for no apparent reason .. out of this nothingness there occurred a big bang. The big bang made all kinds of things happen, Suddenly, out of nothingness, the universe came into existence; complete with rocks, and dust, and suns, and nebulae and worm holes and all kinds of cosmic stuff that would eventually form into galaxies, solar systems and planets.

Now out of this conglomeration, one solar system formed that was different from all the others. This solar system contained a planet that was truly remarkable throughout the entire universe. This planet was positioned at exactly the right distance from its sun. It was tilted in exactly the right axis to enable seasonal changes. It rotated on its axis at exactly the right speed to allow for it to not over heat or over cool. It rotated around the sun in such an exact manner to assist in seasonal changes. This planet had clouds made of hydrogen, and oxygen. Not only that, these clouds were trapped in an atmosphere containing even more complex components like  Nitrogen (N₂) 78.084%, Argon (Ar) 0.934%, Carbon dioxide (CO₂) 0.0383 %, Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %, Helium (He) 0.000524 %, Methane (CH₄) 0.0001745 %, Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%, and Hydrogen (H₂) 0.000055. Simply amazing… All of these complex gasses out of nothing more than a big bang. 

Now as remarkable as all this is, we’re just getting started. You see what happened next is that these clouds started depositing their gasses, in the form of liquid, upon the rocks of the planet. This happened over billions and billions of years … until at one moment in time there was a lightning strike. Oh, lightning .. well, we will come back to that one at another time. Anyway, this lightning excited the some of the elements on the rocks, causing them to form a cell. Now I might mention that cells are very complex things, requiring a specific ordering of amino acids which form proteins which then determine the function and type of the cell; all controlled by instructions contained in the cell’s DNA. Oh, DNA … well that's another one we will have to come back to, since it’s extremely complicated to understand and explain. Nonetheless it's incredible isn’t it? But wait … there’s more. Cells survive only if they have a means of sustaining themselves. So that very first cell, let’s call him #1, was quite resourceful and eventually found something to eat. Don’t ask me what #1 found, because as far as we know he was all by himself. Now, not only did #1 survive, but he managed to replicate himself by dividing. Of course the food supply, whatever it was, had to be shared with #2. 

Well, this process of cell division continued to occur over billions and billions and billions and billions of years until one day a descendant of #1 decided that he was tired of being a one-celled organism. So he started changing his form, and in fact changed into many different cells which had vastly different functions. For up until this point, the purpose of #1's descendants was strictly to survive. These various cells now joined forces to form an entirely new organism. We'll call him #1.1. Amazing that a one-celled organism could change its DNA in such a way that it could turn into an entirely different organism.  Damn, there’s that pesky DNA again. 

Now, after millions of years of being a new organism, #1.1 eventually faced an ominous decision: To become plant or animal. Now I wasn't there, but my guess is that #1.1 first became a plant, for his descendants would need something to eat after he changed into an animal. Now as I have it figured #1.1 remained a useless conglomeration of cells while his descendants turned themselves into plants ... all kinds of plants ... millions upon millions of species of plants that included grasses, grains, bushes, trees, and cacti.  


 #1.1 got tired of just being a useless conglomeration so he found its way to the ocean, and jumped in. Now the ocean proved to be very hostile, and #1.1 found himself  quite unable to cope. He needed a way to swim, so he decided to form a new set of cells that would form fins. With this accomplished the organism could swim against the current and increase its chance of survival. But as the organism swam around, it kept bumping against rocks and other obstacles. It became apparent that it needed something more than fins. Eyes, maybe? Yes. That’s exactly what it needed. So the organism started producing cells that would form eyes. Of course this was a very complex process and took a lot of energy, necessitating the need to consume more food, so the organism also started producing cells that would form a mouth and throat and stomach and digestive system that would accommodate larger quantities of food. I guess it consumed other organisms that were attempting to do much the same thing. And on a side note, I think it was at this point where competition, and survival of the fittest was introduced.

Jumping ahead now … #1.1 became obsolete at some point and was replaced by a variety of  different fish forms through manipulating their DNA into differing types of devices to allow them to compete with the other fish-like organisms. Amazing how resourceful these organisms were ... possessing the ability to change their own DNA into something entirely different. Anyway, some of them adapted by growing larger teeth, others adapted by increasing their ability to swim faster, still others adapted the ability to camouflage themselves to hide or lay in wait for their prey.  Anyway, thousands upon thousands of different adaptations occurred until one day one of them decided that he didn’t want to compete any longer, so he crawled upon dry land and sprouted himself a set of legs and called himself a reptile. Of course he had to find another creature similar to himself, but different, in that replication among reptiles required two sexes. He was fortunate because he met a creature that was doing the exact same thing he was doing, at exactly the same time with exactly the same intent. Except this creature was a she. Well as soon as he/they accomplished that, some of those fishes he had been competing with decided that they’d do the exact same thing. It wasn’t long after that survival of the fittest and competition was being played out on dry ground, just as it was in the ocean. After several millions of years of adapting and surviving and competing, and sexual reproduction, one of these land-based creatures decided he'd had enough. So, he crawled back into the water and exchanged his legs for fins. So, now he was back to where he started .. sort of.

Meanwhile, back on land, the reptiles were busy adapting into insects, birds and mammals and searching for compatible mates. Incredibly, there were other adaptations taking place at exactly the same time. For instance, while the reptiles were adapting all their cells into monkeys, there were ferns and things adapting all their cells into trees. As it turns out, one of these monkeys really needed that process to occur because it needed a specific type of fruit to survive. Ironically, one of the trees, being adapted from ferns, needed the monkey to eat its fruit, for the only way the tree could replicate was for the monkey to eat the fruit, thereby germinating the seeds inside its digestive system. Now get this: That process was occurring among hundreds of thousands of other organisms at the same time. We call these processes symbiotic: the dependency of two organisms upon each other to survive. Wow ... simultaneous adaptation multiplied by hundreds of thousands. Now, that's simply amazing.

I know this is getting really complicated so let me jump ahead a few million years. The monkeys, already a highly adapted life form, decided that they wanted to take the adaptation process to the ultimate level, so they discarded their tails, and grew larger brains. Not only that but they traded their arms for shorter ones and legs for longer ones, and started walking upright on the longer legs. The earliest creatures of this adaptation were called neanderthals, who adapted into homo sapiens.

Taking into account the fundamental concept of survival of the fittest, it’s amazing that these creatures endured, since they were not nearly as strong as the larger predators, could not run faster than other animals, and their off-spring needed constant care for several years. Nonetheless, they managed to not only survive, but thrive. It took only a few million years before they developed the ability to communicate with words and symbols, and eventually invent the Internet.

Alas .. the process of cells adapting into different organisms  ended, and they had to invent ways to fly without growing wings. They had to find ways to swim without fins and move fast without growing more efficient legs. Finally, they had to find a way to explain the reason of their existence and source of their significance by contriving a religion that dismisses the acknowledgment of a creator.

Darko Festin 

P.S.
Darko: Sir, could I convince you that the Morse code, S.O.S.,came about by itself?

Evolutionist: No. S.O.S is the code for help. It is predicated on a common understanding of a specific language and requires a sender and a receiver to be useful.

Darko: Can I convince you that nobody wrote this computer's operating system?

Evolutionist: No. The OS for computers is very complex. Somebody had to write it.

Darko: Then, could I convince you that the most complex code known to man, the DNA code, somehow exists without being written by someone?

Evolutionist: I think you made your point at S.O.S.

A Look Back

 I look back on this past year, and I'm not very encouraged. I'm not seeing real progress. The parliamentary government, headed by Barak Hussein Obama, has done little to improve our status in the world. They have done little to improve the unemployment rate. They have done much to reduce American's trust in government and have concurrently inflicted great damage to the general psyche of the nation.  Notwithstanding the damage these idiots have inflicted, they have managed to maintain much of the Bush doctrine as it pertains to terrorism. Nonetheless, I've never been more fearful of our nation's economic and security related prospects. I’m not alone. How many people do you know that are singing the praises of the 111th Congress?

Darko Festin

A Reason To Survive

I defer to one of the greatest thinkers of our time, Dennis Prager.

http://visiontoamerica.org/story/a-society-does-not-survive-if-it-does-not-have-a-reason-to-survive.html

If you find his clarity intimidating, you may want to rethink your paradigm.  He is correct in saying America is at a crossroads at what we want our country to look like; the America that has been a force for good in the world, or an America that looks like Western Europe.

I'm sorry, but I'm done with the intellectualizing the choices between democrats and republicans.  I have seen what out of control democrats are capable of doing.  Please, someone ... give me an example of when the republicans, when in charge of both houses and the presidency, screwed things up as badly as this current administration and congress. And please be specific:
Deficit
Debt
Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy
Economy
Energy
Tax burden

Darko Festin

The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals

I saw a political advertisement a few months ago that confused me. The politician running the ad claimed to be a candidate that embraced and supported progressive values. The question came to my mind, what exactly are progressive values? I’m not sure I’ve ever heard them articulated in specific terms. I’ve only heard them expressed in ambiguous terms, often couched in negatively oriented sentences and typically book-ended with name calling. i.e. “Well, the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are stupid, mind-numb robots.” Here’s another one: “Well, he’s a racist.” Then there's the tired cliche of liberal rhetoric during campaign speeches; “We stand for middle America.”  “We want to save our planet for future generations.” “We’re committed to bringing health care to every American, because it’s their right.” Give me a break. I’m a conservative and I stand for middle America. I want to save our planet, and I’m all for helping Americans get affordable health care. Now, I am certain liberals know what goals they want to accomplish, but that’s a lot different than having a firm set of values that guide them in the accomplishment of those goals. So, as I break it down in my mind, there are two possibilities: liberals simply don’t know what they believe, or they are fearful of rejection if what they believe is clearly articulated. I think this assertion helps explain the absence of liberal clarity on the subject and the reason conservatives encounter such demonetization and name calling. Yes, liberals will tell you what their goals are; protect the environment, eliminate world hunger, reduce global warming, economic justice … but they're slow to tell you how they want to reach their goals. Now, I do think liberals believe something, but as intelligent as some of them are, they haven’t considered the consequences or practicality of their beliefs, which brings me to the short list of difference between conservatives and liberals:

1. Conservatives embrace the doctrine of absolutes, and liberals embrace the doctrine of relativism. Now when you think about this, it’s easy to understand why liberals have a hard time telling you what they believe. Relativism, by definition, is ambiguous since it embraces variables in situations, conditions and individuals to explain or justify thought or behavior. It denies, for one thing, the concept of right and wrong, and for another, good and evil. How many times have you heard someone say something like, “Christian fundamentalism is as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism.” That statement betrays a world view of moral relativism, which cannot distinguish good behavior from bad behavior. Here’s another one that I’m hearing a lot these days: “We need to make economic justice a priority in America.” Translation: “We’re going to take money out of your pocket and give it to someone else, because we know better than you how it should be distributed.” Let me tell you that Relativism is a dangerous ideology, for it embraces the concept that the end justifies the means.  We currently have a president and sitting congress that demonstrates this attribute on a regular basis; lie, demonize, steal … as long as we arrive at the end with a good result.

2. Conservatives tend to vote and make decisions based on reason, and liberals tend to vote and make decisions based on emotion. The current debate over the illegal immigration issue is largely divided between the facts and the emotional components of the situation. The initial support of Obama Care was largely based on the emotional/class warfare language used to defend the measure; "fat-cat insurance agencies, big pharmaceutical, millions of uninsured, republicans want you to die …" language designed to appeal to the emotions of the constituency. The facts surrounding Obama Care all pointed to higher health-care costs, the disappearance of quality of health care, shortages of doctors, higher taxes, and the creation of some 120 new government agencies to manage the program. A reasoned response to Obama care would have been to say no, which conservatives did, and then were demonized as … racists, obstructionists, the party of no.

3. Conservatives embrace the concept of individual liberty, and the philosophy of self determination bound to personal responsibility. These three concepts are really parts of the larger concept we call freedom. Liberals have historically adopted collectivist attitudes and behaviors in the application of liberty and responsibility; typically diametrically opposed to the concept of freedom.  Conservatives understand that there is risk involved in the exercise of individual liberty, but are willing to take those risks, because to do otherwise gives someone else the authority to make choices that may not be in their best interests. Liberals supported universal health care, largely because it promised to minimize risk, spread out costs, and equalize the quality of health care. Oops. Never in all of our history have so many people been willing to sacrifice their individual liberty, abdicate their personal responsibility and deny their self determination as they were in their support of Obama Care. Obama Care is just one example. Social security, medicare, food stamps, mortgage assistance programs, and unionization are all examples of the collectivism that is tearing the very fabric of our nation. Now, I’m not saying that all of the above is bad, but please tell me where any of it has been well managed. My point is that you can’t engage in collectivist behavior and expect to keep the freedom the founders intended for you to realize.

4. When debating issues, conservative language is generally characterized by a reasoned line of thought, based on logic, historical precedent, and/or well established facts. Liberal language, when debating issues, is characterized by labeling the opposition, and deflecting weaknesses in their arguments by demonizing the person making the argument. It’s often said that conservatives win in the arena of ideas, because liberal ideas don’t hold up to intellectual scrutiny. To date, I have not heard one liberal offer me a reasoned argument for their animosity toward Sarah Palin. Why is she so hated by the left? Here’s what I hear. “She’s stupid. She’s a whacko fundamentalist Christian that doesn’t believe in evolution. She says she can see Russia from her front porch.”  Excuse me, but I’m having a hard time finding any measure of intellectual honesty in those comments. FYI – Here are some facts to consider: George Washington, along with a lot of other distinguished people in our history were Christian fundamentalists. Evolution is a theory … it cannot be proven, so if you accept it as truth, you do so as an act of faith. For the record, if you believe your great, great, great, great, greatX1000 … grandfather was nothing more than a one celled amoeba, I won’t call you stupid if you can’t prove it. Sarah Palin did not say she could see Russia from her front porch. That was Tina Fey impersonating Sarah Palin. With that said … why do we hear the terms racist, bigot, and homophobes being used almost exclusively from the mouths of liberals?  I’ll tell you why. It’s because they are ambiguous assertions, which normally cannot be proven or dis-proven, emanating from minds that attach an arbitrary meanings to their manifestations. i.e. "If you disagree with me and you are of a different race than me, you're a racist." These emotionally charged terms serve as a means of discrediting the person expressing a point of view in the absence of possessing a credible opposing point of view. Americans are not unaware of this tactic, and I would encourage current and future public figures to avoid the practice of name calling. If you can’t win in the arena of ideas, you should let someone else take your place.

5. Conservatives tend to support limited government. Liberals tend to support bigger government. Sadly, I think the reason liberals support an ever expanding government is that they see government as the answer to all problems. From a historical standpoint you will have a hard time arguing with this assertion. Liberals tend to embrace Utopian philosophy, a philosophy that advances the notion that under the right conditions and with the right people in charge, man can free himself of strife, crime, and the need to work. One problem with Utopian philosophy is that it necessarily demands the sacrifice of individual liberty, personal responsibility and self determination. Another problem with Utopian philosophy is that it ignores the realities of human nature … men will always be greedy, lustful, deceitful and dishonest, no matter who is in charge or what conditions exist. Utopian philosophy needs big government to implement its principles, and ignores all the lessons of human history.

6. Conservatives tend to be capitalists in their behavior. Liberals tend to be socialists in their behavior. The hard facts of our current social and political environment support the above proposition. Look at the actions of the sitting administration and congress … decidedly liberal and decidedly socialistic in the measures they advance and support. Now, the only problem with socialism is that it doesn’t work. With one exception, the kibbutz system in Israel, socialism, as a sustainable economic model, has failed. Not exactly a good track record. People want to look at the current situation in America and call it a failure of capitalism. I would submit that it’s not the capitalistic aspects of our economy that have failed us, but the socialistic aspects; many of which were implemented under the Johnson administration.

Capitalism is the only economic system that embraces and supports the realities of the human condition:

• People will be productive when properly rewarded
• People will prosper in an environment that fosters creative expression, productivity and autonomy
• People want to keep the proceeds of their labor and the freedom to distribute it according to their self interests
• People will resist productivity when not adequately rewarded
• People will resist productivity when rewarded for the labor of another
• Consumption is a matter of survival, and in order to survive one of the following conditions must exist

One must be gifted his/her means of consumption

One must earn the means of his/her consumption

One must steal or take the means of his/her consumption

It only takes a small measure of intellect to realize that socialism ignores all but one of these realities, that some must be gifted their means of consumption. The problem is that in order to give something there must be a giver … someone who has the means to give. As a matter of practice you need more givers than takers. The very nature of socialism eventually erodes this relationship of more givers than takers. Of the three options listed above, only the second one has long term merit, and it happens to conform to the free market system.

I grew up in a middle-class family; a family that promoted hard work, personal responsibility, and respect for others. The schools I attended taught the principles found in the constitution, and encouraged good citizenship. I was exposed to the risks of capitalism and the failings of socialism, and determined early in life that conservative values, some of which I’ve expressed here, would form my world view. I don’t see a broad gap between socialism, communism, Marxism or Statist ideology. They all share the one critical common component: taking the profits from some and redistribute it to others.  I’m unapologetic in my conservative bent and I’ve made it a personal mission to convert as many as I can to a point of view similar to mine. I have many friends who are liberal … yes, friends. I don’t call them names, or belittle them for their opposing views. For one thing, it’s counterproductive and for another, my conservative values forbid it.

I have very real fears about the future of America. I feel that for many Americans, their hopes are anchored in the promises of big government and more social programs. Consequently bigger government necessarily requires a greater degree of taxation, lowering the standard of living for everyone. Capitalism, which served to make America one of the few forces for good in the world, is being devoured by the cancer of progressive thought; environmentalism, universal health care, global governance, and the redistribution of wealth. I think our only hope is to revisit the faith and values of our founding fathers who entrusted us with such a grand experiment; The United States of America.

More Axioms of Human Interaction

Axiom #7. People are generally stupid, but most individuals you meet are pretty smart.

Axiom #8. Smart individuals can do stupid things ... just follow me around for a few days, I'll prove it to you.

Axiom #9. It may take some time to discover how smart someone might be, but stupid shows up within a matter of seconds. 

Axiom #10. People don't know they're stupid. 

Axiom #11. It might seem brutal to tell people they are stupid, but it's downright cruel to let them continue thinking they're smart. 

Axiom #12. Some stupid people are more stupid than others. 

Axiom #13. If you think it's politically incorrect to point out stupidity, you're stupid. 

Axiom #14. To tell someone to their face, or in a blog response, that they are stupid, is stupid. Just saying.