Jb's Blog

views on current events

Archive for the ‘Arguments against Socialism’ Category

Repost: Degeneration of Democracy

leave a comment »

Repost of an insightful article by Thomas Sowell, here:

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president’s poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP’s oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.” If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion– or $50 billion or $100 billion– then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.” Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in Constitutional government. And, without Constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a “crisis”– which, as the president’s chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to “go to waste” as an opportunity to expand the government’s power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country’s wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard’s restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law “for the relief of the German people.” That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people– indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP’s money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed “czars” controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power– versus the rule of law and the preservation of freedom– are the “useful idiots” of our time. But useful to whom?


So let me get this straight…

leave a comment »

On Friday, President Obama announced his proposal for a new tax on banks. He is indignant that the banks which took bailout funds (which his administration forced many of them to accept, by the way) have not paid back the government but yet are paying bonuses to some of their executives.

“We want our money back, and we’re going to get it,” he said in his announcement. But wait… most of the banks have returned the money they borrowed, and Obama said that was “good news.” “But as far as I’m concerned, it’s not good enough,” he said. “We want the taxpayers’ money back, and we’re going to collect every dime.”

He’s upset that “every dime” has not been paid back, and he’s determined to recover all of it (for the benefit of the taxpayers, of course). So he proposes a tax on the banks to collect. But you must note that there is an exemption in his proposal for certain specific recipients of the bailout funds, most notably two which were the biggest recipients who also happen to be two of those which were probably most responsible for the crisis which brought about the need for the whole bailout in the first place – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And those institutions are among those which have NOT paid back the funds they received.

So let me get this straight…

  • he proposes a tax to recover the funds which have not been repaid
  • many of the banks which have already repaid the funds they received will be taxed in order to recover funds which have yet to be repaid by other institutions
  • while he exempts specific institutions which have NOT paid back the funds they received.

So, the funds which have not been repaid are going to be ‘confiscated’ from institutions which have already repaid their share, while other institutions get to skate on their responsibility? How is that ‘American?’

Does any of this make sense? No. Not a bit. Until you realize that this isn’t about a feigned indignation over the fact that the taxpayers’ investment has not been repaid. If it were, the plan would go after those who have failed to pay back what they received. What’s it about then? It’s about a bold, up-front Administration-wide agenda to redistribute wealth… it has to be. Remember the interchange between the Candidate and Joe the Plumber? Candidate Obama was pretty clear that this would be his agenda once elected, and ‘we’ elected him anyway, so this should come as no real surprise. This entire goofy proposal makes that abundantly clear to anyone who will take an objective look at it.

Written by jb

January 16, 2010 at 9:31 am

The Law

with 2 comments

One of my best friends for many years was a man named Jackie Street. Jackie was one of those rare and unique people who made everyone he met feel that they were his best friend. I’ve never known anyone who had more respect and love for the U.S. Constitution than Jackie. He spent long hours studying The Constitution and the writings of those who gave it to us in an effort to understand their intentions and the reasons why they formed our Government in the way they did. Years ago, he brought my attention to a short book by Frederic Bastiat, a French economist and statesman, called The Law. Jackie felt that this was such an important book that he bought a number of copies and handed them out to people he felt would benefit from reading it.

First published in 1850, The Law was written during a period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. Bastiat laid out in a common sense way the argument(s) against the move toward Socialism in his political environment, and his explanations and arguments are — word for word — equally valid when applied to our situation in the United States today.

The Law is available for reading on-line, and I highly recommend that people do just that. The issues we now face in this country are critical ones for our future, and this book, even though it was written more than one hundred and fifty years ago, is extremely helpful in clarifying our understanding of the real purpose of Government and Law, and in helping to shape our views of what we should expect from them.

Do yourself a favor and read this short book. I pulled it out recently, and realized just how applicable it is to our current situation. Even though Jackie Street is no longer with us, I’m sure he’d be glad you did.