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.

I received this in an email and found some food for thought. I think others may too.

BODY OF EMAIL TEXT

The numbers I checked out are okay except I can’t verify the $1 Billion to run the program. I suspect that is way off base. There was an article that said there were 3 agencies involved in the program but the government does not specify if these were existing employees or new hires or a combination of both but that 79 employees were brought in to assist in the program. If only 80 employees were involved I estimated their wages at $91,000 annually (with 30% fringe benefits) or $45,500 for six months for a total cost $3.6 million. If you throw congress and their staff into the equation you are talking, for three months, about $27 million.

Sorry about the lengthy follow up. I just wanted to be sure I was comfortable with the numbers.

What is clear is we are throwing money at a problem without reasonable numbers to determine the game plan results.

A good example of how our Federal Government uses your tax dollars to fund one of their money/earth saving programs and then announces how successful it was!!!!

· A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

· A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

· So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons a year.

· They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that’s 224 million gallons a year.

· That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

· 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day’s US oil consumption.

· And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $375 million dollars at $75/bbl.

· So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

. I billion of the package was for the Dept. of Transportation to administer the program.

. You don’t need to provide citizenship information, SS# etc. to qualify and Canadians and Mexicans can cross the border to cash in.

Edmonds (a highly thought of on line auto retailer, auto comparison web site.

Edmunds.com estimates that the average cost to the taxpayer will be about $20,000 per vehicle.

If all buyers have qualified for the higher $4,500 rebate, the “cash for clunkers” program will mean a marginal increase in car sales of 22,000 this quarter. $1 billion divided by 22,000 means a net cost to the government of $45,354 per car. (This is a cost estimate for the first $1 billion and does not consider the additional $2 billion.)

. Some clunker deals are being rejected by the government because they don’t meet all of the program’s specifications. For example, the trade-in must have been continuously insured for the 12 months prior to the clunkers transaction.

Car & Driver

. if you’re trading in a car that’s worth $3000, your net gain is only $500. Although if your car is worth $100, CFC couldn’t come at a better time.

people driving cheap old beaters are probably doing so because they can’t afford a new car. And $3500 doesn’t go far when the average transaction price of new cars hovers around $24K. The vouchers don’t apply toward the purchase of used cars, for which the majority of old beaters are traded in.

However, we hope these legislators don’t expect it to meaningfully help the domestic automakers. Many of the automobiles with fuel-economy ratings high enough to qualify for the vouchers come from Japan and Korea

Washington Post

Cash for clunkers’ effect on pollution? A blip (The article has been pulled from the post. This was the the title of the article.)

Wall Street Journal-Auto Repair Association comments.

The automotive after-market, a $250 billion industry that employs about 4.6 million people, could be among the biggest losers in the clunkers program, said Kathleen Schmatz, head of the Automotive After-market Industry Association: “It’s everybody from the Fortune 500 parts manufacturer all the way through the supply chain to the independent repair shop.

On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years.

U.S. News and World Report

Cash for Clunkers may have cut our oil consumption by less than 0.2 percent per year. It didn’t even save us a day’s worth of gas. (The numbers in this report are a little different

than the numbers I received in red above but are very close).

What’s more, some analysts wonder if Cash for Clunkers really created any new sales at all. It’s possible that the program simply caused some people to buy cars earlier than they otherwise would have. What good comes from adding to August sales if we subtract from future sales to do it?

Even if it brought in new buyers, that scenario might create its own economic problems. The program led hundreds of thousands of Americans, for instance, to take on new debt in the midst of a recession and an uncertain job market.

President Obama on January 29,2009 signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Bill and made remarks that included “…..it’s bad for business to pay somebody less because of their gender or their age or their race or their ethnicity, religion or disability; and that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory, or footnote in a casebook. It’s about how our laws affect the daily lives and the daily realities of people: their ability to make a living and care for their families and achieve their goal.”

I don’t know a lot about this bill, I don’t know Lilly Ledbetter, and I don’t know why this legislation was passed, but I still have some thoughts I’d like to share.

All people working for the same person, doing the same job – same duties, same shifts, etc. – should be paid the same hourly wage.

I believe that for the most part, that is done. Everyone knows that two people don’t do anything identically, including their jobs. The person who does his job well and to the best of his ability is of greater value to the company than is a less dedicated employee, and I believe that most “discrimination” results from raises given to some, bonuses given to some, and some not receiving either . If that is the case, and discrimination raises its ugly head, the issue should get a really good inspection, and if it is found that the worker getting more was a more valuable employee, I think it should be the company’s decision to reward the more valuable employee without fear of any reprisal whatsoever. Was this bill truly the result of widespread discrimination against women, or was it a feel-good piece of legislation for the government to be able to toot its own horn at the expense of private businesses?

Let’s address the handicapped and employment. There are some jobs certain handicaps preclude their victims from doing, and this is not the fault of the business. If a handicapped person can handle the job as well as the next person without causing extra cost or stress in the workplace, he should be hired, if the employer wants him, at full pay, whatever it may be. There is no justification for paying less. If the employee sees he cannot adequately do the job, he should approach the business manager and ask about being placed somewhere else, and if not, he probably should resign and look for work he in fact can do. If the owner learns after hiring the handicapped person that he is not capable of doing the job, he is, in my opinion, well within his rights to fire the person or demote him as he didn’t live up to the agreement made at the time of hiring.

Let it be known I am NOT an employer, nor am I an employee. I feel that employers have for many years been treated terribly bad by their own government. Their government bows to unions in order to get votes while stabbing employers in the back. In addition to that , in order to get the minority vote, the handicapped vote, the women’s vote, the poor vote, our dear politicians have enacted some of the most convoluted self-serving “laws” imaginable hence, everything has become so politically incorrect that an employer probably has to carry a check list with him at all times to not offend this employee, that employee, etc.

We have had bad governments before, several times, but the one that exists today cannot be beaten when it comes to sleaze, pork, theft of public funds, irresponsible legislation that defies the US Constitution, and that ridicules and chastises the citizens of this country for expressing their views.

Let me close by just saying that I will be forever grateful that I am not an employer, not an entrepreneur, not in big business. Not because they are not noble, but because their government has incited so much hatred directed at them for no purpose other than to get a dirty, bloody vote that were I they, I’d do an Ayn Rand on them.

Ten Planks of the Populist Party of America
Regarding the United States Federal Government

“I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.”
- H.L. Mencken

• Liberty. Your liberty is our goal; governmental form is simply a method to protect it.
• Non-Aggression. We oppose the initiation of force, or the threat of such force, to solve problems either domestically or abroad.  We hold that a peaceful society is both more free and more prosperous.
• Right of Action. Property rights encompass a person’s right of ownership over their own body, as well as specific physical objects and spaces.  Ownership means the exclusive control of this property as well as the right of free contract and transfer which form a part of such rights of ownership.  We hold that a society based on clearly-defined and strongly-defended property rights in these three areas will be a society where liberty flourishes.
• Equality under the law. We hold that each person has the fundamental right to be politically equal with all other people.
• Free Entry. We oppose the maintenance or creation of monopolies, which are defined as a grant of special privilege that reserves a certain function, or area of production, to one particular individual, corporation, or group.  In a monopoly situation, entry into the field is prohibited to others by the use of force or by its explicit or implicit threat.  Once an institution obtains such supreme force, it is probably utopian to expect its powers to be limited in any way over time, and therefore, the power to create such force must be limited.
• Limited, Decentralized government. We hold that a government with clearly limited powers and clearly defined functions is more conducive to liberty than any other form.  Anything other than this would make government tend towards arbitrary, and arbitrary governments are most prone to despotism.  When government is local, the most important issues will be decided by you, your family and your neighbors – in your community only.  You’ll always have the ability to vote with your feet, and move to areas not affected by laws you don’t agree with.  For example, if Stalin had ruled only Moscow, Napoleon only Paris, and Mao had only ruled Beijing, the effects of their devastating rule would have had a much greater chance of being contained.  This is a simple concept; that evil people find it much harder to violate the rights of people outside their sphere of jurisdiction.
• Citizen Sovereignty. We hold that people have the fundamental right to be their own sovereign masters, including the democratic and direct election of all of their public servant representatives.  We support nationwide double-majorities to enact Constitutionally-approved federal laws, citizen-initiated legislation, and the recall of public servants in the employ of the people. We hold that the people have the fundamental right to remove any appointed or elected government employee, for cause and under due process, without interference from government.
• Accountability and Responsibility. We advocate a society where people are held responsible for the direct outcome of their actions.  A person should never be prosecuted for what they think, for what they own, for what they eat, for what they smoke, for what they drink, or for what they put in their body in any way. People should only be prosecuted for the harm they do to others.  We hold that people in government must be held to the same standards of accountability as every other person outside of government.  We support a Constitutional Amendment which will create sanctions and/or criminal liability on politicians who violate the Constitution while in office.
• Free Union of States. We advocate a federal union of states that is a free association between the states and the federal government.  Any party, for cause and under due process, may withdraw from this association at any time.  We hold that such a free union would act as an additional check on overextensions of power in both state and federal governments.
• The Constitution. We consider the United States Constitution to be written under the principle of “positive grant.” Under this axiom, the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it by the Constitution, and nothing more.  Any requests for power outside this scope must be accompanied by an amendment to the Constitution, authorizing this additional power.  From nearly the creation of the Republic, the federal government has increasingly ignored this principle to the point where it no longer exists today.  Governments that don’t follow their own rules are illegitimate, and as stated so clearly in the Declaration of Independence, when such a government arises, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”   Thus, while we continue to advocate adherence to the current Constitution as a tool to call attention to the many criminalities of the federal government, and until such time that a better one can be formed, we recognize that it has not succeeded in securing liberty in this country.
• As 19th Century philosopher Lysander Spooner pointed out, “Whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

What with the Obama Administration’s frantic push for socialized medicine, a lot of people have come up with some unique ideas to justify its passage.  One unique idea that strikes me is the old canard:  The federal government is responsible for the “General Welfare” of its citizens, and having the government provide for the health care is in keeping with that responsibility.

I am in perfect harmony with our Constitution, and, yes, it does charge the federal government to insure its citizens “General Welfare”.    BUT…..

I accessed the CONSTITUTIONAL DICTIONARY
(see  http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html)

I searched for ‘General Welfare’, and here are the results of that search:

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

NOTE: (according to the Constitutional Dictionary)
Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is NOT the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think people do not understand much about our government because our politicians have denigrated and misused words and meanings so often and so vocally that they have created a populace that is totally confused.  The sad part is that, in many cases, the politicians’ misuse of words is NOT deliberate, and this leads me to believe we elect some very, very dumb people to represent us and write laws for us, all of which deny us liberties we would otherwise be enjoying.  Please do not misunderstand when I say dumb.  I am not referring to education – I am referring mostly to character and sincerity which will lead anyone running for public office to learn the Constitution backwards and forwards.

This is #3 in a series of upcoming articles resting upon our root page “Morality“, which clearly shows how everything must rest upon a moral foundation  Having found the plateau of morality, everything built atop a solid foundation become crystal clear.  Moral philosophy is not complicated, nor does it demand a lifetime of contemplation and argument.

We supposedly have the Right to Life, yet today we observe campaigns for Sacrifice at every turn.  Every incident of involuntary Sacrifice steals something from your natural right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  So consider today the “virtue” (or not) of sacrifice.

A voluntary sacrifice to support someone within your circle of family/friends is not sacrifice.  You have chosen to help those within your “circle”, your family, friends and business associates who hold value toward the enhancement of your personal life.  These are all those certain persons who are deserving, important and valuable to you in some substantial way.  This is not true of unknowns whom exist somewhere in outer space.  Again, helping those within your circle is not sacrifice, because these are individuals of some positive value to you,your ideals and your life.  You trust that those within your circle will reciprocate in some appropriate way and will assist when you yourself need their support.

Some of the false “virtue of sacrifice” came from religion, but today we are seeing a deluge of calls for sacrifice.  These come, not from religion, but from those who would and do claim that you have some nebulous obligation to support unknown causes for unknown people in unknown places, whether those be towns, counties, states or even other countries. Those are people about whom you know nothing about their value as human beings,

Such blind sacrifices to the unknown are never voluntary.  The concept of Sacrifice “for the greater good” cannot survive by the grace of charity.  Rather, the proponents of such shams con you with guilt-trips into handing them the privilege of using the Force of governments.  Governments are the tool used to tax/steal your money/property (Your Life) to redistribute to unknown others whose only “virtue” is being poor and/or incompetent and/or irresponsible, much too often by their own choice. You forgo your right to decide for yourself who is deserving, and how much you will “contribute” to their welfare.  You are expected to cede your mind and  your decisions to some again-unknown politician or bureaucrat whom you pay to represent you but who cannot and does not.  Remember that representative is also representing your enemies — those who would deny your Right to Life..

Because using such Force is immoral and illegal in the real world, where you have recourse against acts of force, government’s are created and improvised as necessary to become the “tool” used to make your choices for you.  They steal via taxation your very own money, in order to further the cause and objective of those whom you have unwittingly hired to impose   immoral sacrifice upon yourself.  Most of us cannot afford this, and even if we could, are we not still entitled to choice?

Morality does it for me, but we will be needed many more to understand if humanity is to come out of the ongoing collapse.

Consider this a subpage or sequel to our basic philosophy of liberty, recommended aid in understanding Force, defined as:

• (private sector) The non-consensual act of taking or harming one’s life or property, whether murder, rape, theft or …, such acts being both immoral and unlawful.
  

(governments) Compel, constrain, or oblige (someone) to do something.

Consider some basic differences between business and government.

Businesses produce goods and services to fulfill the needs and desires as chosen by the individual.  Therefore businesses earn income which is recycled to continue that fulfillment.  If the business is successful, it grows to provide more benefits to more people.  If the business makes profits it may invent new goods and services which provide new benefits to the people.  If the business is not successful and profitable, it will eventually cease to exist, having lost it’s customers to competitors or to goods and services which offer better benefits or more value.  In a truly free market all transactions are of mutual benefit to both business and customer, and resulting from either consumer acceptance of a vendor’s price and terms, or from negotiation between parties.

Even though governments pretend to function as businesses, they are not.  Governments produce nothing and have no income, funded only by only whatever they steal, by Force, from You and from all it’s subjects.  Anything done by government can be accomplished only by stealing (taking by Force) the money, the property, and finally the life, of it’s citizens.  Governments survive only via theft by taxation or by creating pseudo-businesses which sell “licenses” or “permits”, or by leasing or selling land and rights to land, or by selling privileges which are merely an extension of rights which are the inate natural belongings of all men.  Government claims ownership of all these things, but all were in fact taken by Force from the private sector under one guise or another.  Government acts to “legitimize” their actions are called “laws”.

In the private sector, Force is illegal and subject to criminal penalties. Force is always the tool of criminals.  Yes, I said Force, stealing, wrongful taking, and extortion.

But in the “public” arena, called government, Force is always declared “legal” — how can that be?  How can Force be immoral and illegal only when between private persons and entities, yet is perfectly “legal” if government does it to you?  This renders virtally all government criminal!  Why is that?  Why do the people allow it?

All this has vast implications far beyond being just a drunken block party.  Those are seen every minute of every day, it is the Force of governments at every level, whether town or nation or even the whole world.  These are always “made legal” by passing a “law” or “regulation” or some-such nonsense.  Because they are “the law” every citizen is supposed to obey and accept that item of Force because “it is writ”.  Nonsense!

If you believe that we all own government, try asking them for your fair share, try selling your share when you have not even a piece of paper representing your share.  Whatever they have stolen from you will never never be seen again.

If you don’t begin to “get it” by now, best read more about Morality, because you’re not close to ready for the big-time.  Understand that every cent the government spends must first be STOLEN from YOU.  The more schemes government enacts, the more it will cost you.  This is not theft, it is armed robbery, it is taken by Force.  You are not asked, you are TOLD, and if you don’t obey your Ruler will surely send someone to your door, with a gun, and authorized to use deadly Force to ensure your compliance.  Go back to Morality and check to see if that fits with your Right to Life.

In the real world of life and the living, society has come to agree that Force is wrong, and has made laws declaring that Force is illegal and has set force penalties for using Force, heavier for murder than for burgling your neighbor’s flowerbed in the night, but always there are penalties.  How then can this same society elect governments of Force, when the only difference of that Force is that government force is somehow “legal”.  Even worse, governments are delegated to have more power, more Force, by a simple majority of it’s congress and a swipe of the President’s pen.  No approval of the citizens is necessary.  No protection for any person being of any minority which has reason to disagree.

A government of collectivists which gives lip service to liberty but rejects liberty at every turn may not intend to kill you, but as surely as they are killing America, so are they killing you.

Those who reject Force and practice the morality of liberty must prevail; death is your only alternative.  If you continue to pay taxes or support government in any way, you abandon, compromise and forfeit your right to Life.  You must refuse; you must withdraw; you must have the courage to spread the word; at the very least to tell those within your circle why they should do likewise.  You will find many more ears as we continue the slide into the abyss of economic collapse.

If you cannot accept Liberty, then you are party to the loss of America.  Beyond that, if we appreciate Liberty but fail to insist upon it, we lose a bit more each time.  Because each encroachment upon our Right to Life endangers everyone, we must reject it or lose some part of our lives.  When you have finally lost too much of your life, you are …  what?  … oh no, not DEAD!  Really?

Political Force is wholly intentional, and we who tolerate Force must be the stupid ones!

This Morality webpage should have been the very first, but it was long delayed by secondary considerations which I have allowed to distract me.  Even today, expect that I shall continue to enhance and fine-tune this page.

To myself, morality is very simple, but the objective of helping others to grasp, contemplate, accept and adopt as the principles by which one may have and build a life with happiness and prosperity — that requires example and elaboration.

“Morality” and “Philosophy” seem hugely daunting and intimidating words, but true morality is neither intricate nor complex, despite that the subject has inspired the penning of countless books, billions of words, has consumed the entire lifetimes of some and the never-ending diatribe of many, seeming to demand far more time and effort than most humans care to endure.

From our USA Declaration of Independence, which states … “All men [have] certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These few words contain the essence of true Morality. Your rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are absolutes — they are not negotiable.  For You to compromise even any small part of those rights is immoral unto yourself, and unto your world.

Contrary to common belief, the above words are NOT contained within our Constitution. The Constitutional Amendments serve to partially correct that amazing oversight, but the sum of those Amendments fails to encompass the full meaning, and some contradict the meaning of that original phrase within the Declaration of Independence. Anyway, while the essence of morality is contained within that simple phrase, it seems that far too many do not bother to consider those words and thus cannot relate those to lives of true freedom.

Your RIGHT TO LIFE is an entirely personal and individual right, which cannot exist except that each person OWNS their life and all, which is necessary and thus proper, to sustain and enhance Life.  “Life” necessarily encompasses the entire spectrum of the components of Humanity.

Far beyond the basics of merely continuing to breathe, of having a beating heart, Human Life means not only the instincts necessary for survival, which are merely characteristics of all animals. Only Human life necessarily includes the the Mind and the ability to apply the human capability to Reason based upon all that is observable by one’s Senses, and to use one’s Reason to abstract and conceive of things beyond — innovation, improvement, expansion, and creation.

The only valid Morality is necessarily based upon our knowledge of that which Exists — those things which are known and knowable — which therefore can be perceived by our senses of vision, hearing, touch, taste and smell. Our senses proved our means of perceiving that which exists, and our mind can consider, expand upon and organize those perceptions, and by use of Reason can draw conclusions which necessarily conform to the knowable Existence, and/or provable by logical and scientific process.  Animals cannot Reason.  Reasoning is the unique, special and most precious characteristic of Humanity.

• Your life belongs only to YOU, which means… it does NOT belong to anyone else.
• Who has the right to your life? Only YOU!
• Who has the right to control or manipulate your Life? Only YOU!
• Who determines the level of quality of your Life? Only YOU!
• Who then is Responsible for your Life?  Hmmm, would that be YOU?
• Further, you are also responsible for the family which you have chosen, but no others.
• And in return your family is equally responsible for you.You may Choose to assume responsibility for others whom you value, but…
• The extent and longevity of responsibility for those others is strictly your Personal Choice.

Right to Life: Of course you have the right to life and therefore that life belongs to You.  If anyone else were to take your life, You would not exist, having neither Life nor any need or even desire for Life.  It sounds so elementary, doesn’t it?  Therefore, each of us must have our personal right to life.  To sustain and enhance that life is our primary duty to ourselves, for without life we are nothing.  Did I say something wrong here?  I think not,

which brings us to Your…
Right to Liberty: Most of us seldom think deeply about Liberty or Freedom – it’s just a word, something we’re supposed to have, and if “They” tell us we have Liberty, we tend to take “Them” at their word.  We truly do need to think about Liberty, each and every time we make choices affecting our Lives,  We need th consider whether we are truly Free to make those choices, or whether “They” have already made or limited those choices without your consent.

How is your Life sustained and enhanced?  With Your…
Property: — which is everything you own, hopefully because you earned it!  Property  includes your money, your income, your home, your earned assets, , your investments, even your wristwatch, your food and clothing.  But most importantly, Life includes Your Mind,  all Your Mind creates and does to enable your continuing survival and gain happiness and comfort for yourselves and your personal Circle.  Would you allow others to steal your property?  Of course not, for earning and accumulating and using your property is necessary to sustain and enhance your Life!  If you cannot and do not sustain your life, and if you fail to insist up your Right to do so, you die.  Being dead, you are unable to help your family, your friends, or your freely chosen charitable choices.  Once dead, how do you accumulate property to sustain and enhance the life of yourself and your loved ones?

Might you use your…
Mind? Would you use your mind to weigh the pros and cons of your every move, to make the best decisions toward your better Life?  Or would you cede your Mind for such  decisions over to someone else?  Who knows better than you what will be the best choices for your personal Life?  Would you turn your choices over to your neighbor, or to the criminal on another street, or to your mayor and council, or your governor, or your congressman, or your president?  Who can know better than you what is best for your personal life?  Who knows best of your circumstances, your desires, and your abilities?  Whose mind is really superior to Yours?

Which leads right into the necessity of having…
Personal Choice: Our choices are ours alone to make.  We can make good choices and reap the rewards, or we can make poor choices for which we will pay the price of decreased prosperity and happiness, or even cause loss of  Your Life.  If You turn your personal choices over to someone else, will that someone somehow care less about their own life, or will they be too busy making their own personal choices?  Can you really trust them to somehow make better choices for You than you can make for yourself?  This is not a rhetorical question!  If You will cede your Mind to another, then are you Human, or are you merely an animal, an entity without the unique  human ability to Reason?

Pursuit of Happiness. So long as you are alive and able, your property is yours with which to pursue the happiness you have earned, for yourself, your family and your chosen friends.  Happiness is not given, it is earned by your effort and your virtue.  It is to be treasured, and is not to be diminished by being stolen from you by neighbors, or governments or other criminals.  Happiness may be enhanced by sharing with those you treasure.  Even your charity via gift or effort may increase your happiness.

In furthering your Morality, realize that You are entirely responsible for your own Life.  You are also equally responsible allowing all others the same equal Right to Life.

This same post is always available as a Page.  With this present theme it always shows in the top header.
Thank you for your visit and any comments you might make.  If a comment  box is not showing, just click the Title, which gets to this page as a stand-alone with comment box.  You’ll need to login or register to comment.