Morality101.net

Who Is Compassionate?

Like everyone else I have been thinking a lot about the health insurance problem in America – how so many apparently don’t have coverage, how so many are dropped from insurance roles, how the government should step in and with tax dollars cover ‘everybody’, how our economy is in the tank, how so many are unemployed, how unfair people are, how cruel some are, how compassionate some are, how government takeover of healthcare is a either a terrible idea or the only solution.

I may have a non-governmental solution.  One person commenting on Propeller told me the issue is too big for individuals to solve and that it should be given to government to solve.   Another told me how heartless I was to have NO compassion for the poor, the needy, the insured, etc.  I will credit these people with giving me the inspiration for this article.

All of us know that virtually none of us is heartless, without compassion.  So what would be the answer for:
1) the needy,  2) the liberals, and 3) the conservatives?

Answer:  Private coverage.  Private assistance.

Insurance is expensive.  Let’s work on lowering it.  In the meanwhile, each of us who can afford to might like to “adopt” a family who simply cannot afford health insurance.  Those of us who cannot afford it alone could go into the “adoption” with other people helping with the expense. I have great faith in the American people, much more so than in the federal government.

This could also be done with the truly poor, with poor starving children which I am told exist in America – though I don’t really believe it, with the unemployed, etc.  It would be completely voluntary.  If we can adopt a mile of highway for maintenance, why can’t we adopt a family?  No government involvement whatsoever.  Hence, no tax dollars going to these social programs that we cannot afford any longer.

People helping people.  Not a new concept.  But for all the talk about compassion, how compassionate are we really?  We can solve all of the aforementioned problem in this manner to everyone’s satisfaction.  Are we truly compassionate? Or do we prefer a socialist government?  If we must argue, let’s argue about the actual arguing point, not “compassion”.

If you disagree, that’s O.K., but please do not do it on the basis of “it can’t be done” because I do not understand those words – they are not in my vocabulary and I will not argue them.  Nor will I give them any credence.

I have been posting articles and comments on Propeller.  It is a great site for communicating, but it does have some flaws that I really wish they would work out.  As I see it, it is partly Propeller regs and partly its members.

Recently there have been several articles grounded, which I am told is automatic, within the software, and set to algorithms, and if so, that’s understandable.  However, in one way this is a disincentive to debates.  I, or some other conservative will post a comment or submit an article.  Immediately that article is swarmed with people who proceed to immediately bury it.  So far, so good.  No particular complaints so far.  However, this is not right.  Things need to be changed to ENCOURAGE debate, not cut it off.

I recommend Propeller do this:

1.  Re-set algorithms to NOT ground before 12 hours are up to enable more people to read and comment on articles – some people work at jobs to pay taxes and have ideas about various topics, yet are disallowed to comment on an article if it is grounded within an hour or so of posting.

2.  Do not allow any drops from individuals who have not read the article.  This is becoming more a popularity contest than a discussion and news resource.  Who can get the most votes?  Who can say the most outrageous thing?  But primarily who can ground a story before it is read is particularly insidious and distasteful.  This is a juvenile display of ……. I don’t know what to call it.  I’ve never known this type of behavior before.

This is would allow no one any special rights, and no one’s rights would be infringed upon.  But some of us don’t care for the game of “ground the other guy” and don’t have the amount of time to “neg” as do some others.  I would like to see Propeller make these two changes, please.  What do others think?

by Russell Longcore at DumpDC.com

I’m sure by now you’ve noticed that the various governmental bodies with whom you come into contact on a daily basis are not serving you. You could say that they are leeches and you are the host.

But the rapacious behavior of many forms of government is more than you see in a leech. You usually have to go into the leech’s environment to come into contact with them. Leeches don’t hunt you. They don’t lie in wait to try to catch you. They don’t set traps for you.

But government does. Our government is government of wolves. A single wolf will hunt you alone, and wolves will also hunt you in packs. That sounds just like some of the government agencies that roam American streets looking for prey.

Allow me to illustrate with some examples:

Federal Government – in general, they can arrest you without cause, perform an extraordinary rendition of your person to an unknown location and hold you indefinitely…don’t forget torture. They can do warrantless searches of your person, property, your computer and your emails. They can follow you using your cell phone signal, and can turn on the cell phone remotely and listen to your conversations.

IRS – With these guys, you are guilty until you prove your innocence. They seem to revel in audits, fines, penalties and intimidation. They will send one IRS agent, multiple agents, auditors, tax attorneys and even sent in heavily armed IRS SWAT teams to storm into your home or office to arrest you.

FBI – same modus operandi as the IRS. They might start with one agent, but they are very willing to escalate the aggression.

Local, city, county, and state police – radar speed traps and DUI checkpoints are otherwise known as “taxation by citation.” Cops hiding behind signs and bushes, around corners and at the bottom of hills and driving unmarked police cars are looking to catch you in the act of…whatever it is you’re doing. And if you resist…even verbally…you can end up tasered, in jail or dead. Don’t forget SWAT teams that regularly invade the wrong addresses.

Municipalities – red light cameras at busy intersections are primarily a method of easy revenue. Red light cameras can each generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in traffic fines annually. The fact that their legality is questionable is not considered. Then consider all of the traffic cameras that watch you all over the highways.

Property tax assessors – The local assessors will jack up your assessed evaluation and charge you more taxes. If you don’t pay your taxes, they will eventually own your property.

Inspectors – health inspectors, EPA inspectors, OSHA inspectors, USDA inspectors and building code inspectors will come to your home or business and look for “violations” for which they can cite you and fine you.

Social services/child protective services – these paragons of virtue will swoop in and snatch your children into foster care upon an unsubstantiated, anonymous tip. Then you will have to prove your innocence, just like with the IRS.

Judges – improper rulings based upon precedents pile one on top of another, violating the spirit and intent of many laws. In addition, you risk imprisonment if you even mention the concept of jury nullification to a seated jury.

I’m sure there are many more examples, but I think I’ve made my point about the predatory behavior of the governmental bodies in our neighborhoods.

In a scenario of state secession, most of these issues would vanish. A state forming itself into a new nation would have the chance to start with a clean sheet of paper onto which it could craft new laws. A state that began its new life without property taxes, and only collected a national sales tax, would bring welcome relief to all its citizens. The criminal and civil legal systems would start over. There would be no American overarching Federal government…gone overnight.

Just imagine what it will be like when some state secedes. It will be much like waking from a bad dream, covered in perspiration, and breathing the oxygen of liberty again…for the first time.

Secession is the hope for mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Visit http://dumpdc.com

Over the past few months, I established website No-Ruler.net with Blogger.

We have seen ever-increasing collectivism using the immoral Force of government to bring upon America an totalitarian government which has proceeded to set aside our Constitution.  This is nothing new, but we have passed all possibility of return.

The collapse we have been writing about here on Morality101 for a couple of years remains largely ahead of us.  The more government manipulates with TARP and “Stimulus”, the real effects are delayed but building up to cause this “recession” to become the deep dark abyss of the Greatest Depression this world has ever known.  It will result in bankruptcy of the U.S.A. and of most or all other countries; a collapse not only of the monetary system but of the governments as well.

Please visit our article http://no-ruler.net/blog/secession/.   As we anticipate that this work will take most of our attention over the next several months, we could certainly use comments, feedback, and related articles there.  So please also register so that you can participate!

If you are in tune with us here, the biggest help you might be is simply forwarding the No-Ruler article to everyone you know!  The more quickly we can spread the word, the better our chances will be of avoiding the battles of revolution.

And since it’s that time, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

It’s wonderful to be able to address a group of people who are conservative thinkers! This group can accomplish a lot if we don’t hang ourselves. One thing I love about conservatives is that they know what they think and aren’t wishy-washy. That said, if we want to succeed in pursuing the agenda of taking back America, we must take tender care of each other. With conservatives that shouldn’t be difficult. Not all conservatives agree on everything, and it is those areas that can, if we allow it to, stand in the way of unity.

RELIGION
I would suggest we keep it toned down a bit. Those of us who believe cannot be harmed by those who do not, and we are not about to harm others. Religion is NOT an issue we must all agree on, even in a candidate.

ABORTION
Related to religion. Some see it as evil. Some see it as a privacy issue. Some see it as amoral and/or murder. Some see no harm in it. If you are like me, your feelings are strong and you won’t give up those feelings. BUT we must not allow our differences in this issue to separate us from our goal. We each retain our beliefs, but we don’t really need to attack each other, right?

WAR
Another area of disagreement. Not every candidate is going to satisfy all of us – can we not agree that if we see the candidate as a decent, honest person with integrity, we can tolerate him as an official? Vote the way you wish, but maybe we can refrain from bashing each other in the head as we go along? ;-)

MIDDLE EAST
Ditto the above

FREEDOM, LIBERTY
Do we all agree on the definitions? Do we not all want total freedom? We have to be careful on this one if one looks at abortion. The “my body is mine” thing? Some feel the unborn baby’s body is his, not his mother’s. For me personally this one is a really sticky one as I understand where the other side comes from, but disagree. We must think about HOW we disagree publicly and still maintain unity.

I am sure there are other hot button issues you can, and hopefully will provide. My suggestions are just that – suggestions. I am open to everyone’s suggestions.

I write this because I am pretty sure that’s how we lose honest elections: we allow single issues to rule our senses, whereas we possibly would all be better off if we CONSERVATIVES could coalesce instead of divide ourselves.

Please let me know what you think?

This began as a response to a fellow commenter on Propeller, but it got longer than I had anticipated, so decided to do it this way.  The question he had posed to me was “What would you do to make America better and stronger?” Below is my answer, but always open to improvement and additions.

I am a citizen of America, one who staunchly defends it (not its government always).  I admire the independence on which our country was founded.  It disturbs me we (individuals and government) no longer depict that independence.  Our forefathers’ big concern was “freedom”, and they warned against a government that became too strong, too large, too threatening.  They knew the nature of man and vice.

That said, what would I do to make America better and stronger?

I would start with removing bunches of the laws we now exist under.  Many are in fact unconstitutional, or so I believe.  Many are impossible to adhere to in any meaningful way.  Most are a waste of the trees cut down to provide the paper they are written on.  Our Congress is totally and completely incompetent.

I would push for term limits.  I would push for actual vetting of all candidates and that vetting would be displayed in advance of elections for all to see before they have to vote on a person.  I am not just talking about Obama.  I am talking about everyone who wants to hold public office and write our laws.  They should be squeaky clean, and we know for a fact they are not.  I would weed out duplicate programs.  We don’t need multiple agencies fiddling with everything.  I would eliminate all agencies that are not constitutional.  I would eliminate the word and effect of “czars”, a term begun years ago and which gets more bizarre as time goes on.  I would push for community unity, NOT party unity.

I would eliminate income taxes.  I would put out a lean and mean annual budget and advise the people that that which  isn’t paid for will not be done – asking for donations.  Make your donations however and whenever you choose, in any amount you choose and signify where you want each dollar to go.  If it is for environment, say so.  If it is for welfare, say so.  If it is for military, say so.  And I would audit that agency collecting the money monthly – and every infraction would land someone on an unemployment line.  All vat’s would be eliminated.  All sales taxes would be eliminated.

Support of the “national need” would be totally and completely voluntary.  Elected officials and the bureaucracy would be paid along the same lines as private industry = and the people would expect the same level of competence.

I would expel the UN from American soil and I would discontinue supporting them with tax dollars.  People who want their tax dollars to go there, could send it directly there.

There would be a totally free and open market and anyone could trade with anyone.  I would call off the drug war which everyone should have known could not be won before it was even passed.  Let any adult buy any drug he chooses whenever he wants it.  It would get drug dealers off the street, it would eliminate a lot of violent crime, and probably would be no more harmful than alcohol.  I would fire the first federal employee approaching people and telling them how to live.  It is NONE of government’s business.
I would bring home all military people and (I owe this statement to poster, slate) task them with routing out terrorists who are currently in the United States.  I would want a fine missile system in lieu of spies and/or military in foreign countries.

I would quit advising other countries what to do, what not to do.  I’d let them do as they pleased, but it would be without our dollars, and if America became threatened, we would deal with it in a fashion costly to them.

There would be no Medicaid or Medicare programs.  People could buy health insurance or not, and if needing help to offset catastrophic illness or injury costs, provide it – case by case.  And I would have to see if the claim was truly legitimate.

There would be no “welfare” programs.  Many new businesses could be formed to keep tabs on jobs available and notify those needing jobs.  Turn a job related to your field down 3 times and you receive no welfare.  Until a job is found, person would be entitled to a monthly stipend that would be sufficient to live on, and in exchange for that, he would perform meaningful public service.

There’s a lot more that I could find to do,  but time and space prevent my putting all of it down.  I, too, contact my representative and senators on a fairly regular basis.  Mostly that seems to be a waste of time, but who knows?  One of them may one day listen.

I am sure you will find some of my thinking too draconian for today’s world, and given so many have gotten so soft and weak, it probably is, but it’s fiscally sound, it gets the job done, and it makes people independent, NOT dependent on government.

I am always in favor of helping anyone who needs help.  I am in favor of supporting them until they can get on their feet.  I would prefer this were done privately whereby it would be voluntary giving out of love rather than by force of law.  But even I, a person who opposes big government, have no problem with the NEEDY receiving the help they need, from whatever source until they are able to make it on their own.  And they must be allowed to try to make it on their own.

I have been accused of being cold-hearted, mean-spirited, selfish, self-centered, spiteful, heartless because I call for the government to clean itself up and fly right.  The issue in question last time I was accused related to the welfare programs, the feel good programs.
I find myself hard-pressed to explain a concept that is so natural for me to someone who has never thought along the same lines, but I do it anyway, albeit rather poorly.

Our government has been explanding, probably since time for it began, but has exploded in scope in the last 50 years to the extent it bears little resemblence to my younger days.  Some of that expansion may have been good, but I perceive most of it as bad.

I contend that many people who initially get on welfare do so illegally – I’ve had social workers say they’ve had mothers borrow children from a neighbor to show how many kids she had, I’ve known some who have scammed the system, and I know it is done regularly.  I have no reason to think government actually tries to get anyone off welfare because to do so loses a certain degree of control it will then have over that person.  Welfare is a two headed monster.  It serves both the recipient and the politician.  The victim will, if he votes at all, definitely vote and defend the politician who promised him the moon, especially if he delivers on the promise.  The politician will always promise the moon in order to get the votes.   I’ve heard others tell about when bird food is made available, the birds flock around, and once the bird food is gone, the birds leave too.  As long as it’s there, the birds will stay and eat rather than look for more.
There are people who milk the system, and some believe that is rare.  I don’t. I think  it is horribly abused – and I correctly translate that into abuse of the taxpayer who provides the money to take care of those people.  It isn’t just the “welfare system” – it is all the other “feel good” programs designed to create dependency on government, such as subsidized transit, meals on wheels, senior citizen discounts, Medicare, Medicaid, free clinics, etc.

One example.  I once was director for the senior citizen centers, meals on wheels, and transit for my county.  One woman had been having meals delivered to her home at taxpayer expense for months and one day ran into the center to tell me not to have that day’s meal delivered because she was “going shopping with the girls”.  She ran up the 5 steps to the front door rather than take the ramp.  I stopped her delivered meals that same day as she was obviously not qualified to receive home delivered meals.   She was scamming the system, and everyone who knew it was helping her scam the system.  She is one example of many, many I could list.  If the government could bring itself to actually clean house and straighten out things once in a while I would not be so antagonistic, but that has never been done and will never be done.  Someone somewhere must draw the line – otherwise the scammers and cheaters will destroy the system and people who champiion these government handouts will be sorely upset.

I have to ask myself, as possibly you do, how needy is a person who walks around with ipods and cell phones?  How needy is a person who swills booze all day?  How needy is a person who always seems to have cigarettes?  How needy is a person who drives an expensive car?  How needy is a person who goes to the shop for manicures?  How needy is a person who takes illegal drugs?  How needy is a person who uses the money to have her ears (and other parts) pierced, to have fake nails put on, etc?  How needy is a person who has 3 TVs in their home?  How needy is a person who is so important that they wear a pager?  How needy is a person who wears designer jeans?  How needy is a person who gets free medical care, but ignores the medical advice?

I don’t blame the poor person nearly as much as I blame the government.  Maybe not all citizens, but certainly legislators should understand that tax dollars are finite.  What is so hard to understand about one family going without something so that the their taxes will pay for the exact same thing for some other family?  Do people not understand that when a person works and earns a day’s pay, that pay is HIS, NOT the government’s, and not anyone else’s.  If it is HIS money, how does government have the legal right to FORCE him to give whatever percentage of it the government deems necessary?  This constitutes neither caring nor compassion – this constitutes force to steal from one to give to another, primarily for votes.

Our government is becoming increasingly socialist, to the point that some even ask what is so bad about socialism.  Our government schools aren’t doing such a hot job with education if civics and real history are no longer being taught.  Maybe they are still being taught, but slow students get a passing grade so as to not be made to feel badly.

To those who question conservative’s compassion and caring, I tell them the truth about what I do – hours and hours of volunteering at nursing homes and churches for senior citizens, fund raising for Child Protective Services, financially support 4-H, the high school band, food baskets for Christmas, donations to local charities, churches, and schools.  Perhaps this doesn’t impress the critics, but it isn’t meant to.  Do they assume if there was no government help and I found a family in need that I would cheerfully watch it starve to death?  What goes on in these people’s minds?  Anything?

Am I perfect?  Goodness, NO, I am NOT.  Is the critic perfect?  NO, he is not.

I feel I am compassionate.  Stupid, I am NOT.  Wasteful, I am NOT.  Naive, I am NOT.
I will do anything, go to almost any limit to help someone help himself, but when he expects me to do it all for him, I assume I am being scammed.

from the Dharma Press:  http://thedharmapress.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/objectivist-morality/

[This fits in nicely with our 3 pages: Morality, Force, Sacrifice.]

November 25, 2009 by alively87 at Dharma Press

Many people disagree with Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy, especially when it comes to the issue of morality. How can there be only one true moral code, when people have such different values? The answer is through reason.

As rational human beings, we can all agree that it is immoral to kill and to steal. Why? Not because our parents told us it was wrong, or because religion threatens us with punishment for these acts. It is immoral because we are depriving someone else of their natural right to “life, liberty, and property.” Through reason, we strive to achieve our own happiness (a selfish act which Ayn Rand labeled as a virtue) without hindering that of others. Killing and stealing clearly violate this principle, and can therefore be regarded as immoral.

It may not be so black and white when it comes to other situations: making the right moral choice falls between a few shades of gray, and the decision becomes harder. Ayn Rand argued that through reason, and by staying true to reality, we can follow the universal moral code and clearly distinguish between right and wrong (or black and white). Happiness is attainable through honesty and truth.

Let’s take the example of drinking excessively and/or using drugs. According to objectivists, drug abuse is immoral because: 1) it is an artificial “happiness” 2) it hinders one’s sense of reason. Some people don’t think twice about it and just go along with the crowd. These “irrationals” have not given any thought as to whether or not using drugs is moral. The rest of those who consciously choose to abuse drugs are looking for a quick fix for their happiness. They are aware of the long-term consequences and deliberately ignore them. They have made a rational decision to act “immorally.”

The moral code is supposed to be a path to true inner happiness. Sacrifices are essential in the short term (studying, working, etc.), but the path is a successful one. Although drugs merely offer an “escape” from reality, the reality continues. The escape is only temporary, and the instant gratification from these external substances elicits diminishing marginal returns. As time goes on, one must increase the doses to get less and less of the original effect, making it harder to embrace reality and become truly happy.  Integrity has been compromised for a few instances of artificial happiness.

Now that we have established the immorality of substance abuse through reason, it is important to note that Ayn Rand was a fervent individualist. It is not anyone’s duty to monitor adherence of the universal code. This is up to the individual, as it should only be followed willingly. Unless it is endangering the lives of others (i.e. while driving), it is no one’s job but your own to decide whether or not you live a moral life.

Ayn Rand, contrary to popular belief, was not telling the world to live a certain way of life. She merely stated that there is right and wrong, which can be explained through reason. Sometimes when faced with making a decision, we fail to see all that is around us, making us “irrational.” In order to achieve happiness, the objectivist principle advocates staying true to ourselves and aware of the reality around us. Happiness is the ultimate goal of humankind which can be attained by following moral values. We are only human, but we can strive to become, what Ayn Rand calls, the “ideal” person.

by Murray N. Rothbard published at Lew Rockwell

Originally published in Dissent on Keynes: A Critical Appraisal of Keynesian Economics, edited by Mark Skousen. New York: Praeger (1992). Pp. 171–198.

John Maynard Keynes, the man – his character, his writings, and his actions throughout life – was composed of three guiding and interacting elements. The first was his overweening egotism, which assured him that he could handle all intellectual problems quickly and accurately and led him to scorn any general principles that might curb his unbridled ego. The second was his strong sense that he was born into, and destined to be a leader of, Great Britain’s ruling elite.

Both of these traits led Keynes to deal with people as well as nations from a self-perceived position of power and dominance. The third element was his deep hatred and contempt for the values and virtues of the bourgeoisie, for conventional morality, for savings and thrift, and for the basic institutions of family life.

Born to the Purple

Keynes was born under special circumstances, an heir to the ruling circles not only of Britain but of the British economics profession as well. His father, John Neville Keynes, was a close friend and former student of Alfred Marshall, Cambridge professor and unchallenged lion of British economics for half a century. Neville Keynes had disappointed Marshall by failing to live up to his early scholarly promise, producing only a bland treatise on the methodology of economics, a subject disdained as profoundly "un-English" (J. N. Keynes [1891] 1955).

The classic refuge for a failed academic has long been university administration, and so Neville happily buried himself in the controllership and other powerful positions in Cambridge University administration. Marshall’s psyche compelled him to feel a moral obligation toward Neville that went beyond the pure loyalty of friendship, and that sense of obligation was carried over to Neville’s beloved son Maynard. Consequently, when Maynard eventually decided to pursue a career as an economist at Cambridge, two extremely powerful figures at that university – his father and Alfred Marshall – were more than ready to lend him a helping hand.

This is a long and thorough article – read the entire article

The young Keynes displayed no interest whatsoever in economics; his dominant interest was philosophy. In fact, he completed an undergraduate degree at Cambridge without taking a single economics course. Not only did he never take a degree in the subject, but the only economics course Keynes ever took was a single-term graduate course under Alfred Marshall.