Capitalism is a philosophy for man as an organic, mortal soul -- for life on earth. Within a capitalist society, if a man wants to personally undercut this vision by embracing an altruistic religion, that is his own choice, not to be forced upon others via a political party or law. (Nov17,03) ... with the sole exception of capitalism, the grain of all other philosophies run one way -- altruism. The sheer historical momentum of altruism, accepted by people and cultures for millennia as ideal. It is no surprise to me that the battle for capitalism -- i.e., individual rights -- and all that entails (including free trade), is bound to be marked by misunderstanding, as well as scathing and violent opposition. (Nov20,03)
"If one man makes money, he must be taking it away from someone else" -- this idea causes a great deal of misunderstanding. In the economic system prior to capitalism, mercantilism, men saw a limited amount of wealth on earth that they had to compete for. The birth of capitalism swept away this conception, for wealth is created by thinking and bringing into existence ideas-tools-services that did not exist before. Thus, under capitalism, wealth creation is infinite. The more thoughtful individuals are, the more wealth that is capable of being created. (Nov17,03)
Picture, if you can, a man who has never seen the achievements of Western civilization before. A man who has lived his life in a primitive, altruistic society, where the tribe is emphasized over individuality. Upon introduction to a city of the West he would fall to his knees, awed by the power of this people's God. For the dazzling, seemingly miraculous technologies and skyscraping temples before him would relfect this God's power and insight. This man would be shocked to his core to find out this God's name: the individual. (Nov14,03)
Individual empowerment, give the power back to individuals. It is obscene to suggest that government monitor every single transaction between all individuals of a society -- because this is what socialist programs attempt to do. The cost and beaurocracy is enormous. However, let millions of buyers find their own millions of sellers and the majority of these transactions would be processed smoothly. Those transactions where buyer or seller find fault or shortcoming, then they turn to the courts -- the proper realm of government -- to settle their dispute. ... Socialization is the monitoring of buyers and sellers. The government as middleman presumes in its all-mighty knowing that it can better match buyers and sellers than the latter can match themselves. Instead of individuals being able to personally tailor the transaction according to their own unique selves, the government hands out a stifling one-solution for all transaction at the subsidized cost of a fraction of the free-market price. But oh! Don't look behind you, for the government takes the rest of the money out of your back pocket via involuntary taxation. Thus, you get shitty service that does not satisfy, and because a government middleman is involved, the cost of the transaction is actually more than you could have paid for it directly in a free marketplace. ... There is your so-called beautiful socialism, immoral and inefficient from every angle. (Nov14,03)
Socialism is immoral: Property rights are an extension of individual rights. A socialist government separates property from individuals through taxation under threat of force. With the liberty of an individual already diluted, further wrong must be thrown upon him/her to buy into the blatantly inefficient services monitored and encouraged by government subsidization. Not only does the individal have his/her property forcefully taken, but he/she gets doubly shafted by the lame subsidized services the goverment looks upon as ideal. (Nov14,03)
As painful as a capitalist environment may be sometimes, it is still by far the most responsive and compassionate to human needs, for it is a philosophy founded on the individual's right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Remember the alternatives: altruistic slavery via religion or a variant of a centrally planned, secularized philosophy. Judging by the incredible suffering and blood spilled by altruism's so-called 'good works,' I choose liberty. ... Criticize if you will, fear the 'dogma' of capitalist belief if you want to, but that very notion is a contradiction. For capitalism is about individual liberty. In other words, I desire neither to rule or be ruled, but to enjoy what little time on earth I have, to explore, to adventure, to marvel, to create. The only 'dogma' of capitalism, if you can possibly call it that, is: be free, be happy. Live for yourself. Live to the fullest extent possible. Seize the day. Plan for tomorrow. In other words, do whatever you want. Just earn it with your own two hands, your own intelligence, your own resources. Stop advocating the slavery of some for the benefit of others. (Nov11,03)
There is another inequality in the marketplace that needs to be adjusted: the priviledges enjoyed by religion. Constitutionally, all mention of a God should be removed. From a secularized base, until government is properly restrained, religion should be made to pay taxes like all other individuals and businesses. Religion is a parasite that feeds on the abundance created by individualism, and it uses its gained resources to then openly attack and condemn the virtues of the very lifeblood it feeds upon. If placed on a level playing field, without priviledge, it would be kicked down a few notches of prestige. It would be forced to begin liquidating its vast properties in order to support its overbloated, dinosaur existence. The business of selling God would have to compete like any other, its success according to its degree of rationality and/or the creativity of its marketing department. Whatever the outcome, religion would be forced to evolve and compete for market share like all other businesses and cultures in the world. (Nov9,03)
Thomas Jefferson, notes: Peace is our passion. ... That government is best which governs least. ... The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction. ... Commerce with all nations, alliance with none. ... Jefferson was for government simple and frugal, he would have no standing army in time of peace, and only such naval forces as were essential to protect coasts and harbours. ... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take form the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. ... Commerce is the great engine by which we are to coerce them, and not war. ... the power of the economic weapon, especially for a nation which neither possessed nor needed significant military power. (Sep,03)
The problem with socialism: one man's rights are another man's jail sentence. (Dec9,02)
How capitalism will save life on earth: demand and supply. As a natural resource become scarce, its price will rise, which will cause capital to be shifted toward an alternative(s), research and development, innovation, substitution. The scarce resource will be priced so high that it would be preposterously inefficient to continue using it; a substitute is developed and introduced. The use of that natural resource is phased out altogether. Reason prevails. (Oct27,02)
What a socialist government does best: taxation. This is what it specializes in so it can do everything else poorly. (Sep20,02)
The socialist law I seek to undo: for every action there is an equal and opposite government program.
It is said capitalism destroys, exploits. I say capitalism maximizes the earth's resources, and scarcity motivates change / innovation / creation. (Apr14,02)
2001 Questions & Answers
What is the main theme of the July 2000 Letter?
The letter focuses on human cultural evolution and identifies the root of this change: reason and rationality. After a decade of thought and observation, the letter is an outline of my worldview and philosophy -- answering outstanding questions from my past and extrapolating ideas into the future. It is a roadmap of where I have been and where I want to go.
As my choice of political philosophy, I view laissez-faire capitalism as an extension of reason and rationality, not some political theory void of man and his nature. In this light, I view capitalism as the best system of government designed to accomodate human peace and prosperity.
I did have to cap the letter at a certain length so -- while concentrating specifically on building a macro-world picture -- I only briefly mentioned some of the underlying human-orientated principles of a capitalist philosophy (see Individualism paragraph of the July 2000 Letter V2.0).
From the 19th to 20th century why didn't government stay out of business?
"Largely as a result of the 'emergency measures' the governments of free nations took to 'right' the wrongs of previous market interference (The New Deal/The Great Depression), to fight the aggressors of two World Wars and then under the 'immanent threat' of a prolonged Cold War ..."
In addition, Nathaniel Branden provides some valuable insight --
"Ironically, it was the very success of the American system that made this development possible. As our society became wealthier, it began to be argued that people were "entitled" to all sorts of things that would have been unthinkable earlier. Eighty years ago, few would have suggested that everyone had a "right" to "adequate housing" or "the best available health care." It was understood that housing and health care were economic goods and, like all economic goods, had to be produced by someone. They were not free gifts of nature and did not exist in unlimited supply.
Now, however, at the sight of our growing prosperity, intellectuals and politicians credited not freedom but the government with the new wealth. And they began to declare that government could do more than merely guarantee the protection of rights and establish a more or less level playing field, which was the original American idea but which now seemed too modest a goal. Government could become an agency for achieving any social goal thought to be desirable. In the growing enthusiasm for government regulation, planning, and expanded "services," especially since the nineteen-thirties, it was not a long step from "it would be desirable" to "people are entitled." Desires thus became rights." (A Culture of Accountability, C.1996).
Effective Law Enforcement
Government's energies are largely being tied up in what I consider to be non-essential services. By doing more than it should in society, it is improperly managing its resources and workforce. If we can streamline the government, a more effective and efficient law-making and law-enforcement will result. If one is concerned about industry waste and pollution, for example, all the more reason to rally for a laissez-faire (limited) government and get it back to doing what it should: protecting individual rights -- and as one aspect of this, protecting the environment individuals live in.
Downsizing the government also will also decrease crime. With two million Americans in prison, I'd say many branches of the current government system and particular laws are in business to create criminals, not protect individuals. With a tangled legal system contributing to injustice, frustrations rise, corrupt law fuels greater angst and alienation, greater and more violent crimes. By cleaning up an over-inflated government, I think the many symptoms of such faulty vision and practice will ease as well.
Capital Punishment
The proper role of a government is to protect people, not execute them. That is, in principle and practice a government is to defend individuals from acts of force and fraud, not initiate acts of force against them. Therefore, I disagree with capital punishment. The best deterrent for reducing violent crime, I think, is to have a limited, focused and disciplined government.
Overpopulation
As weird as it may sound to some, I don't think the earth is overpopulated. Russia, about 11% of earth's total land surface, is for the most part empty. As is Canada and Australia, two other huge land masses (plus Greenland & Antarctica).
In places that have a lot of people, like India-Pakistan, the extreme effects of their population are largely a result of using an ancient philosophy -- they utilize resources inefficiently, they direct their energies unwisely, harming themselves and their environment (which again harms themselves). By contrast, with the freedom to exercise their minds (and rational foundation) the Chinese have proven intelligently able to feed and take care of themselves -- and will only get more efficient as time goes on. India, like other cultures, will have to embrace a huge conceptual revolution before such poverty is undone and the environmental effects of their population are brought under control.
My Thoughts On Environment & Natural Resources
As my introduction and guiding ideal, to quote the European scientist and thinker Francis Bacon: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
I once had an interview with an engineering firm that asked me for my views on the environment. I replied by saying that people have to learn to distinguish between what changes the environment and what destroys the environment. I am okay with the former, but against the latter. For many people, however, change means destruction. That is, they are anti-change. And I disagree with this view.
I see myself as an animal of this earth. I understand that the health of this earth's biosphere is inextricably related to, and the foundation of, my own health. To leave the land 'as is' indefinitely is the equivalent of wanting to throw all of humanity back to a subsistence culture, living day by day, hand to mouth existence. This is not an option. I have more respect for mankind and our potential than that. On the flip side of this same coin, to strip the land, water and sky of all its life forms and life potential -- leaving nothing but ashes, corpses and poison gas in its place -- is also not an option.
Here I am going to stop. For I don't have the specific answers to each and every environmental issue. This is much too large a topic to cover in one email (or one lifetime). But from these basic principles one can extrapolate how I want to proceed in my life in future years. I do think there is a feasible way to sustain an advanced civilization and, at the same time, sustain the health of the earth. The individuals to successfully find such high ground will be those that choose to think.
Part of the beauty about globalization is that idea-product-service creation and innovation are going to speed up. As an increased number of individuals from around the world come into the individualist-capitalist fold, increased competition is going to be the equivalent of switching from a horse and buggy to a jet engine, to take our thoughts 'to where no man has gone before'. Including, but not limited to, energy substitutes and ecological repair.
To provide an example of the way I see an accelerated creation and innovation in the future, in the past I have little hesitated to express my admiration of the Orientals. As some 90% of their numbers are still in catch-up mode, building the infrastructure and environment necessary to accommodate and cultivate individuality, I think the impact of the Orientals as a whole has not even begun to be felt upon the world. When it comes to 1.3 billion (largely atheistic and earth-focused) Chinese, what aptly sums up my sentiment, in the context of an intellectual and cultural force in/on humanity, is: " You ain't seen nothing yet ! "
In many regards, including when it comes to countering the ideas and influence of Islamic-Christian-Indian religion, I view the Chinese as indispensable allies to a much improved, more beautiful and natural humanity.
The Extinction of Animal Life
For the most part, I don't see good things ahead for the other (non-human) animals of the earth, at least in the near term. In more or less point form, the essence of my vision is --
To build a picture of life on earth and its extinction, since the beginning of the Cambrian period 600 million years ago there is a paleontology (fossil) record of five great extinctions (and other smaller ones). In the late Ordovician period, about 438 million years ago, some 61% of the genera disappeared and 85% of species. In the late Devonian, 367 million years ago, 55% of genera and 82% of species died out. In the Permian-Triassic, 245 million years ago, 84% of genera and 96% (yes, ninety-six!) of species went extinct. In the Triassic-Jurassic period, 208 million years ago, 47% of genera and 76% of species died. And the most famous of the extinctions, the Cretaceous-Tertiary, some 65 million years ago, sent 47% of genera and 76% of earth's species into extinction, among them the dinosaurs.
Though a proper context is difficult to ascertain, statistics and predictions abound saying we are currently in a sixth period of great extinction of life on earth. The difference between the present day situation and that of previous extinctions is this one is said to be caused solely by the human animal.
My shift away from God and creationism, towards atheism and evolution, has been to question prevailing ideas and beliefs.
Now don't get me wrong here. I am not advocating the extinction of animals, but I do think an extinction of animal life will continue to happen as humanity consolidates for much of the 21st century.
I also have to honestly admit I am not running out and directly endorsing animal survival. I choose to endorse "reason" instead, which I view as the fundamental issue and -- through its absence and inconsistent application -- problem for all life forms on earth. To save any creature(s) on this earth, humanity has to be fixed first. Otherwise I'll end up spending my energies on a symptom of the real problem, accomplish little, and perhaps end up viewing the extinction of my own species (as well as the animals I tried to save).
The core of my argument looks like this: reason endorsed today will take time to be learned, the extinction of animals will continue. In the future, mankind consolidated (at a higher level than today), reason applied, we can rebuild.
In the meantime, to challenge creationism and the notion that all life on earth is of "God's Divine purpose", human beings can continue to exist without many of the earth's animals. (I am not saying this would be desirable, but I do think it true.) It is when the various forms of vegetation, plants and trees come to be threatened on a wide scale that we, as an animal species ourselves, start to get into trouble.
This is why I say at the end of Part I of the July 2000 letter:
"Forward Thoughts on Evolution -- In 1994, while in Istanbul, I remember an American youth saying, "Evolution is finished, at least from a biological point of view." In the year 2000 I reply, "Quite the opposite, evolution on this earth has not slowed down or stopped, but sped up a million fold on all fronts -- especially cultural and biological (genetically manipulated plants and animals) evolution -- with biology posing to surpass physics as the spectacular science of the 21st century."
"[End of Part I. Continuing with the idea of evolution, I view it as imperative that reason-individualism-capitalism is accepted by humanity worldwide -- and the sooner the better. In the future I am going to venture into the consequences of (1) a delayed cultural consolidation of mankind, and (2) a consolidated mankind -- exploring what each means for other life forms on earth and the earth itself as a biosphere. Within the framework of the latter, a consolidated mankind, I will extend my vision of man (a creator) and humanity (a civilization of messiahs) into my concept of a naturalistic universe.]"
To delay a cultural consolidation of mankind means to delay the advance of reason, which means ancient perspectives and practices will continue to be used that are no longer good to use on a mass scale. Perhaps when the human species consisted of a 1+ million people worldwide -- sure. But not with 6+ billion people and growing.
With increased population old philosophies no longer work, the formula-dynamics of existence-survival and the conditions for prosperity have changed dramatically. If we delay any longer, or hold a "status quo" and drift sideways, then I think we will become extinct ourselves. But if we push ahead under the umbrella of a reason-based individualist-capitalist system, pressuring other human cultures to contribute and adapt -- in effect, altering the philosophical foundation and outlook of humanity as a whole -- what we use as natural resources today may not be used at all in the future. We'll use water and helium (as two possible examples). And I will forecast, perhaps in a 'dreamy air' to some, that many of the animals we lose today will be "invented" or "re-invented" in the future.
(I notice the idea of collecting DNA samples from endangered animals is gaining in popularity -- and controversy -- these days, so humanity has them in storage should the knowledge and technology come about for us to successfully "re-create" them in the future. Sort of like organizing and building a modern day 'Noah's Ark,' helping humanity and the animal kingdom weather a protracted tempest.)
In short, I can't say exactly how humanity is going to tackle the problems we now face and will face in the near future. But I do understand how we can best solve those problems -- through reason. And individualism-capitalism are the ethical and political extensions of reason.
Further Comments on Multiculturalism & the July 2000 Letter
Other cultures existing are fine by me. To each their ability. Continuing --
"For it is my conviction that in the presence of reason, capitalist culture (i.e., freedom) and globalization the days of people getting by with practices and perspectives that are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years old -- at the expense of reason and rationality -- are numbered."
This sentence contains two swords. First, under the influence -- and pressure -- of thinkers around the globe, a continuous stream of new ideas and new valuation systems are going to reason with and try to convince people to change their ways for the better, leaving behind inefficient practices and fragmented perspectives.
For those cultures that are anti-reason and anti-human at core, incapable of being reasoned with and knowing only violence as a course of action, I expect the dominant-rational-humanistic cultures to defend themselves and wage war in return, in the name of reason and the cause of freedom.
Second, I think it is wrong to use force on one individual-business/industry-culture to support another. With socialism, under threat of physical coercion, I am forced to hand over my property to the government. For example, if I publicly declare I oppose certain government programs and in protest I don't pay my taxes the authorities come to forcefully arrest and imprison me.
My point: to hold a gun to a man's head and demand his property-wages, the rewards of his own effort, to help someone else is not moral no matter what the "good cause" proclaimed at the end of it. Voluntary contributions are fine, even honorable, to whoever or whatever I may want to donate to -- but forced contributions are immoral.
If certain cultures in Canada and the United States are to survive I think they should do so on their own effort, in a free society. In a free-rational society good elements will remain and the oppressive and bad elements will disappear.
To sum up this section, I think it is in everyone's best interests -- all life forms on earth -- to motivate people to think. To do this, we have to put a stop to allowing certain individuals, businesses and cultures to charge the expenses of their lifestyle, inefficiency, ignorance, and/or laziness to the accounts of the more thoughtful and productive. For not only does it encourage unproductive behavior from those receiving a subsidy of some kind, but -- through seemingly endless taxation and siphoning of resources -- it limits-strangles the flexibility-creativity of the thoughtful and productive.
For these reasons -- and for the future of man and life on earth -- I think an individual, a business-industry, a culture, should not have the right to live at the expense of another. It is in this context I applaud the global rise of reason, individual freedom and laissez-faire capitalism.
The Nature of Labor & Trade Between The West And China
In the drive to be more efficient and more profitable, companies search for the least expensive means to deliver their product(s). Part of this, as the world opens up to freer international trade, has to do with reducing labor costs. The mathematical side of the equation is simple: why pay someone in Canada a wage of $20 an hour to insert four screws in the back of an alarm clock when you can pay someone in another country to do it for a couple of dollars (or less). It's practical and common sense -- companies profit, shareholders {who are individuals & families} enjoy a higher return on their investment, clients and customers save.
The commonly perceived notion with companies moving their factories to countries where cheaper labor exists is that Canadians lose jobs. At first glance, when the pink slips are handed out, this may appear true. But I think the big picture reveals something different. By reducing labor costs companies utilize their monetary resources more efficiently. Which, in turn, means companies have more money to research and develop other profitable ideas, services and products. Which, in turn, creates more industry, more jobs. Wealth creates more wealth.
By moving older and established forms of industry to places of reduced labor cost, I think what really causes many Canadians to groan and bellyache is the 'task' of upgrading and learning new skills in an ever-changing marketplace and society. Such folks would rather not have to think and act beyond the comfortable safety and 'status quo' they are familiar with (note the "anti-change" bias again).
[Side note: another variation of the 'anti-change' bias is the idea that new machines and technologies put people out of work, a perception that has been strongly voiced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. If such a notion were really true, then some 130-150 years after the Industrial Revolution, upon widespread usage and adaptation of computer technology and the Internet, developed countries should probably be experiencing some 95% unemployment by now.
Instead, technology-abled countries are the productive powerhouses of the world, and the citizens of these countries are the wealthiest of humanity. Using the United States as example, one of the most machine-technology-orientated countries on earth, unemployment is at its lowest point in decades (as of 2001), with some 94-96% of working aged individuals employed.]
Moving to the other side of the ocean. Say we put a stop to foreign companies moving their factories and assembly plants into China and hiring cheaper labor. What does this mean for the Chinese? As one consequence, it means widespread unemployment. For these companies have and are creating thousands of jobs for the Chinese where no such specialized industrial and assembly work existed before. What's the alternative? Mass unemployment, continued ignorance and probable starvation (in the end, civil war). For the government of China can't create work and money out of nothing to distribute freely to its people (the communist governments of the 20th century have shown this well enough).
It is here I should add that most foreign companies doing business in China are joint ventures. That is, foreign companies are encouraged to select a Chinese-partner company (from within China) and they attempt to do business together. Just as China – a 'Third World country' -- needs to be taught how to think and build life-enhancing services and technologies, foreign nationals and companies of the 'First World' are in serious need of learning how to do business in China. Without this partnership and 'bridge-building' many Western companies wouldn't have a chance of surviving here.
That said, are all the present-day workplaces of the Chinese ideal? No, but the Chinese are doing an admirable job of rising to the challenge to better themselves. Wishing and asking for the ideal doesn't make it real, people have to think and work for it. Be it an individual or a country, part of maturing is about going through a period of 'growing pains'. Just as the British had to go through this same kind of industrial phase in the early 1800s, where factory workers had to put up with less than ideal conditions, so too is China. Through this thought and labor wealth comes to be created. And this wealth will slowly filter through Chinese society -- especially to those who are not hesitant to think and work -- to improve living and workplace standards. In the same manner as it did in Western nations.
If an individual is desirous to pay for the product(s) of a company that only hires Canadian employees in Canada to produce it, they are free to do as they choose. However, if there is a company that hires Chinese employees to manufacture the same kind of (quality) product in China they will probably be paying more than I will. I'll be more efficient in the use of my resources. And I'll also be putting $$$ into the pockets of the Chinese, creating new opportunities for them, raising their standard of life, etc.
This is not to say I am anti-Canada. If Canada has certain products which only Canadian employees are trained to manufacture-assemble-install-operate, I will vote for Canada with my dollars -- because I value their product/service and there is no competitive alternative (quality/price), … yet.
I do admire China's 'increasing economy'. But going deeper, whatever the faults and discrepancies of a developing and progressive China, there is a reason I admire the Chinese more than many other countries and cultures in the world. I admire and applaud the human-based values and earth-focus that these 'economic changes' represent. Through continued exercise of reason this culture has enough depth and character that it will adapt and advance whereas others cultures will not (to face assimilation/extinction).
As for 'child labor' and 'sweat shops', no doubt it exists somewhere in China. The current reform policies are radically altering Chinese society at every level. But even without hard evidence of how widespread such activity is (or is not) -- if it exists it is a temporary consequence of a tremendous and necessary cultural and social restructuring. The current climate of intense change within China will not continue indefinitely. Following intense times of growth are periods of consolidation. Such periods will allow the Chinese to adequately refine their laws and justice system to better protect individuals.
In a brief summary, I view doing business in China not only as a means for making money for Western companies and myself. Nor is it only teaching the Chinese to build things they did not know how to previously and to raise their standard of life. But through this intercourse and exchange of ideas and resources comes a greater and loftier ideal: bringing two admirable cultures – and thus humanity -- together. (End 2001 Questions & Answers)
Of socialism: okay, let me get this straight. You want to disable the able so you can help the disabled? (Aug14,99) ... Let me put it this way: if you think it is immoral that able and prosperous men do not support a minority of disabled through a policy of government taxation and program, I think to disable able men through threat of physical force -- i.e., taxation and the use of guns and imprisonment to collect that taxation -- is doubly immoral, if there was such a thing. (Nov8,00)
Hong Kong. The death of a free society is the implement of taxation. With taxation, all of a sudden capital is not free to flow; it must be all be monitored by the government. Freedom to move one's capital becomes a task, a process of bureaucratic irrationality. It becomes a crime if not properly documented, thus stifling trade and movement. Hong Kong, with its minimal taxation and relaxed capital movement policies, has shown me this. The all-pervasive access to capital, the freedom to trade, has resulted in Hong Kong being a storage place, a haven, an excess, of capital worth. It thrives. (Apr13,99)
Take care of the creators first and forement; through their work all lesser creatures (of ability) will be aided as a secondary consideration. Freedom for the expression of ideas and their practical manifestations: product trade. (Apr9,99) ... There are creators today making easy to learn and use tools which will raise humanity's ability to grasp higher abstractions.
The power of trade: to rebaptize mankind. Open up the trade routes and the ideas will follow. Concrete trading leads to abstract trading eventually, and Individualism is born as a result. (Apr 6,99)
Do you doubt your self that one day you will be able to refute socialism as effectively and cleanly as you have refuted and exposed religion? Don't. Because the latter has been done. The next stage is but a matter of time and study. I will do to socialism what I have done to 'God'. (Jan15,98)
"If men feel they are faced with a choice between the moral and the practical," she said, "then proving to them that capitalism is practical will never motivate them. Men have always been willing to fight, and to die if necessary, for moral principles; they will not fight and die for economic principles. They will choose morality over practicality, whatever the cost. In order to turn the country to capitalism, one must first demonstrate the morality of capitalism." (Ayn Rand, quoted by Barbara Branden)
If democracy is "an arena in which one shrewd thought devours another," then the capitalist marketplace is the ultimate form of democracy. A man has an idea, markets it, and people vote on it (with their dollars). If the idea is of benefit to individuals, it survives. If there is something better, it fades or is innovated. At any point, if your desire is not met in the marketplace, then you have the option of creating a product/service/idea to satiate it. ... the only way a monopoly can be maintained in a laissez-faire capitalist system is if you vote it there. (Aug24,97)
The Affirmative Action Policy -- "hire native before white" -- these so-called treaty advantages are a disgrace. For what they translate to is degrading: "You aren't good enough to deal with the white man -- and all other races for that matter -- by yourself. Therefore, we, the citizens of Canada, will have pity on your inferiority, and help you to stand on an equal level to us. We know you cannot think and perform like we do, so here -- have some bonuses at our expense -- advantages to bring you up to our level." (Mar19,97)
Relief to the poor encourages their idleness. (Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography, P244)
Against socialism: the more decision making you give up, the closer you are to serfdom.
Laissez-faire capitalism is decentralization: more power to individuals, less power to the government.
The Federal Reserve causes boom and bust cycles. Inflation caused by an over-printing/distribution of money supply.
Legalize the drug trade. Quality of drug production will skyrocket due to competition.
If you could take my life, cut it up into little pieces, you would get dollars. $$$$ = liquid soul. (Oct 12,96) Each purchase I make, every gadget or accessory I buy, I give a piece of my soul to purchase it. An exchange of soul, an exchange of life. The ultimate tribute from one man to another. Thank you. Thank you for living, for working, for cultivating this service-product-idea. You make my life easier with this, and thus here is the equivalent for your time, your life, your soul. I agree to pay this equivalent. I think this is a just exchange. I am willing to exchange some of my life´s work for some of yours (Oct 13,96) Money, to me, is liquid soul. A medium of exchange of one man´s soul for another (one man´s work for another´s) (Feb9,97)
If technology is time-saving -- and therefore, life-saving -- then a man is able to do more with his life-span. A product / service is of value in the market to the degree of its life-saving / time-saving ability. ... The ability to compress more into a single lifespan; to manipulate not only years, months and weeks -- but to move into days, hours, minutes, seconds ... (Mar17,97)
You want the ultimate voting system? You want men who can provide insight, vision, to lead you? Then capitalism is the only system that can accomodate you and this desire. It is responsive to your every desire, your every need. The men who can lead you: they are the creators. The products and services they create are put on display so that you may purchase and thus, in turn, vote for their vision. The whole idea of voting a new government into power to 'provide the country with direction' is absurd. To vote a handful of men into Ottawa (or Washington) and have them run the whole country efficiently, creatively, cleanly is more than absurd, it is stupidity. the only person who can provide humanity with direction is called the individual. The individual, not the government, is king. (Mar8,97) ... this old conception of government as leader must be abolished. (Mar10,97)
This afternoon Steve (of PWGSC) said "He doesn't play by our rules." After eight months, he gets it. (Mar11,97)
This resignation from Public Works & Goverment Services Canada (PWGSC) is a significant milestone in my life: it is the first time I have acted on my political convictions. (Mar7,97)
It is said to me, "Communism, Marxism, noble ideas, but impractical to implement. Their end, their striving, is noble, but their means are impractical."
Comment: I disagree. You can't separate a philosophy's means from its ends. The core of any philosophy is defined by its means; if you sutract the means, you have nothing but a superficial, unrealistic pipe dream. (Dec7,96)
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a commentary, edited by Walter S. Tarnopolsky & Gerald A. Beaudoin, 1982, Carswell, Page 264.
The United States says: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Canada says: the right to life, liberty and the security of the person.
The Law Reform Commission defines "security" thus: "Security of the person means not only protection of one's physical integrity but the provision of necessaries for its support." This notion of security corresponds to the W.H.O.'s definition of health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being." The right to security understood in this sense is defined by article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: "Every one has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
If one accepts this concept of security of the person one concludes, as the Law Reform Commission did, that "Those general terms of wide public use have ethical, social and political implications and their reach extends to every element of human happiness."
My comments on the above: in all this one must ask -- the right to security of the person -- at whose expense??
Canada's contradiction: the first two rights of man are undone by the third. The right to life and liberty are undone by "security of the person."
I am not free if I must work and be taxed for the well-being of other men, their "security," happiness, etc. (Aug3,96)
Every totalitarian system is its own nemesis, to the very degree that the system is closed and self-sealed -- incapable of self-criticism and self-correction. (Mumford, The Pentagon of Power)
"The genius of republics (they say) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord." (excerpt from The Federalist Papers)
The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behaviour; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, which were either not known at all or imperfectly known to the ancients. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. (excerpt from The Federalist Papers)
... a political understanding develops ... (June5,96)