Morality101.net

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.

Where is Liberty?

Given that every instance of collectivism…

Requires the Force of Government to initiate, regulate and administer; and

Eliiminates all rights of all individuals to determine and act in whatever they perceive as being in their individual best interest, and steals from the citizens whatever monies government, not the individual, deems necessary and appropriate, and

Eliminates the natural benefits of competition and choices always best provided by a truly free market, and

Sacrifices and removes all individual alternatives and incentives toward maximizing one’s life, then

Insist on an answer to this one Question:

How does this enhance or preserve our natural rights to
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

The above was my reply to a TownHall post in Digg this morning, listing 10 questions to ask those who are pushing for, in this instance, Obamacare.  The questions were great, designed to show any collectivist all the fallacies in this ruse but, as usual, missed the main point.

I have become simply exhausted and exasperated with every debate over so-called health-care or any other collectivist program deteriorating into a debate over

• whether it’s fascism or socialism or communism or….,  and
• The pro’s and con’s of each and every item in a 14-pound 1,500-page new proposal which is intended to distract everyone from the real truth, which is that…
  
• every word within such “debate” is naught but a different approach to enacting still another, still more, intrusion upon our liberty.
• This is exactly the same distraction as the “numbers game” of yore, which was ‘don’t address the issue, instead, declare that a challenged number renders the entire point void.
  

For many moons now, I have been writing about Morality, and more lately expanding to discussion of the Force and Sacrifice, as these are the basis of all governments, which have nothing to “give” except that which they steal from their citizens.  This morality is not about some high-faluting worship of some lord or allah.  It is simply our natural rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This is clear and concise in our Declaration of Independence, yet so dispised and distorted and shredded within our Constitution.  Over these 230 years, the collectivist / communist set have diligently set out to subvert these basic principles into a pity-pity society in which moral free market capitalism is said to be the villan, and that individual heights are to be subordinated to some nebulous “greater good”, productivity and self-reliance are less important than sloth, and the supreme “moral” value is to sacrifice one’s own life to anyone from anywhere merely because they hold out their hands and say “oh, pity me”.

According to the collectivists, each man, having his own mind and the unique human characteristic of being able to THINK, is now somehow to be denied that treasured characteristic and his mind deferred to any unknown other, who cannot prove and is not required to prove any superiority of Mind over You, the individual.

The brainless immoral collectivist “ethic” has now gained the foothold sought for at least the last century, and has set America on it’s long winding path to economic and moral devastation.  America is leading the path to worldwide self-destruction, to such extent that we must question now whether humanity can survive.

You wonder why life has become poorer and holds little but nonsense and drudgery?  You wonder why “Atlas Shrugged”?  Well, at least we’ve got you wondering — the rest us up to You!

This began with my writing this comment at Digg about Obama’s refusal to disclose his real birth certificate:

The original article posted here on Digg was poorly written, obviously Lily Gordon didn’t grasp the basis for Major Cook’s stance. Therefore the Digg blindfolders went wild and the thread quickly deteriorated into a plethora of racist and homosexual denigration which had nothing to do with Obama’s continuing evasion.

Nothing changed; America still hasn’t seen a real B.C. The courts sidestep the issue time after time on the basis that nobody has “standing”, etc, etc, ………… leaving little but a game for the lawyers to play. The paradox is that nobody, including SCOTUS, can order Kenya to open it’s vault.

The Constitution has failed to protect America on this and on everything which has ensued. As a result, America is being overrun with unconstitutional and immoral collectivism via the “president” who isn’t. Obama and his lackeys will never cooperate by disclosing the real B.C. This is simply a crime against humanity.

Therefore, that which has been forced upon the American people can be set aside from the abyss of the progressing economic collapse which may include government collapse. With the people then finding it necessary to rethink everything, finally reinstate the morality of liberty, and restart with a clean sheet of paper, perhaps humanity can survive and be all it could be.

This does not mean I am giving up on the push for the real BC, but this mountain may be impossible to climb, and the death of America is then inevitable.

There can be only one reason that Obama & Co. has not, and will never, reveal Obama’s true and real birth certificate.  That only possible reason is that whatever and wherever it exists would serve only to prove that he is not a “natural born citizen”. To make this available to the citizens would result in Obama’s immediate removal from office, open him to charges of malfeasance and treason, and render his every action as president null and void.  This will most certainly be called a Constitutional crisis, but less harmful than what this fraudulent communist has already done toward the destruction of America.

If we “birthers” were wrong about this, it would have been easy to prove us wrong by simply laying that real piece of paper out where the citizens could see it.  All the time which has passed serves as incontrovertible fact that Obama is not a “natural born citizen”, which renders his cohorts as partners in crime.

The only way out of this dilemma might be if some court actually orders Obama to produce his true BC, which will eventually be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which will then finally hear this matter, but SCOTUS seems most unlikely to uphold such an order due to some reason of “standing” or else-wise.  Once again the people will realize that our Founders, who did their utmost to write a solid Constitution, left too many gaps which have come to be exploited over these 230 years of “legal” nitpicking.

Now, after these many moons of avoidance, if any such BC were to magically appear, it would be subject to great distrust, the reasonable expectation being that Obama & Co managed to bribe a and hire a very few persons to create a forged BC along with related indexes and such.  This would trigger the need for placing such BC under the microscope of scrutiny, and eventually the real truth would become the subject of infinitely more debate.  That would be a no-win never-win situation for our entire nation.

My expectation is that our divided nation will eventually find itself in revolution pitting the “Obamabots” against the “Wingers”.  Nothing will be resolved, but many gallons of blood will be shed.in a horrible exercise of futility.  History must then conclude that all of this could have been avoided by Obama simply disclosing the truth, thus Obama will be deemed responsible for such disastrous events regardless of the outcome.  Most assuredly some historians, those more interested in “Change” than in Truth, will attempt to reach other conclusions.

While I could continue this for many pages, I choose to close this here, and return with one or more articles on where we go from here.  Hopefully those will be published very soon.

Triggered by post/article at

http://digg.com/politics/Obama_birth_status_story_sparks_storm_of_Web_traffic

Published also to

http://digg.com/d1xHuO

Facebook and Twitter

.

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.

The complete ignorance of collectivists who constantly promote Force and Sacrifice on Digg has finally gotten my goat.  I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna TAKE IT anymore!

powerlineblog.com — The Democrats aretrying to rush their health care “reform” bill through Congress before anyone understands what is in it. The bill is intended to be the precursor of socialized medicine, the “single payer,” national health system that Great Britain, Canada and many other countries have tried, with uniformly awful results.  [entire Digg thread}

Extracted from 53 Comments, the communists/collectivists are in pinko:

tasine

…the issue for many of us truly isn’t solely about “health care” though we do defend the fine system we have in the states. What I believe is a bigger issue is that we want smaller, less intrusive government. Our government has grown FAR too large, dealing with things not in their realm of responsibility, things that belong to the private sector or state. The more it grows, the less efficient it is, and the less control we as a free people have. Many of us believe that is true in all countries that usurp private enterprise, including Canada. Many of us in the states resent creeping socialism, communism, marxism, and all other isms that eventually lead to tyranny. Why keep adding to that when there is no need whatsoever?

@tasine

“we do defend the fine system we have in the states.”

You mean the fine system that left my mother with no way to buy health insurance after she had cancer because my family had lost our health insurance plan due to a life threatening latex allergy that forced my father to stop practicing dentistry? The fine system that will allow a child to die if his parents make too much money to qualify for assistance (which I’m guessing you don’t want tax dollars to pay for anyway), but not enough money to pay for life saving treatment? The system that causes my grandparents endless worry about being a burden to the family when they can’t afford necessary medications?

If it’s worked well for you, that’s great. Despite my family’s problems, it has worked well for me, too, though I’ve only had one hospitalization and surgery. There are plenty of people who are doing everything right, but who get thrown off a cliff. Not that I’d expect you to show much compassion for them. You know, you can be a ridiculously partisan republican who will hate any health plan that comes out of a democratic administration, and yet still admit that we’ve got a problem with health care in this country.

tasine

EIR, I’m sorry for your family’s difficulties. Yes, people do fall through the cracks with our system and with all systems and I’m sure all of us regret that. I would never make light of your family’s problems. I’m not trying to be nasty, but what makes you believe that had we had universal health care the same things wouldn’t have happened – or worse?

“You know, you can be a ridiculously partisan republican who will hate any health plan that comes out of a democratic administration, and yet still admit that we’ve got a problem with health care in this country.”

That would be a funny comment were it not so silly. I WILL HATE ANY HEALTH PLAN THAT COMES OUT OF ANY US ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE HEALTH CARE IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS AND THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. I do NOT WANT socialized medical care. I do not want anything socialized. Am I partisan? Yes, to the same degree most on Digg are. However, just so you know, I have resigned the Republican Party because they are so wimpy. I will carefully follow everything Obama does because I don’t trust him, I don’t like him, I don’t like his policies, I don’t like his philosophies – and it has nothing to do with the fact I was a Republican and he is a socialist. It has to do with my understanding what socialism is and what it will become eventually, NOT because I am smart, but because I know some history, I have a healthy skepticism, I follow no guru whatsoever, and I am a realist – NO health care system is perfect, and what we have as we speak, is the best in the world and I don’t want politicians trying to get votes by pandering mucking around with it. The primary problem we have in the health care industry is not a health care problem – it is a legal problem and for that reason will NEVER be solved. That problem is runaway lawsuits with no merit. What we NEED is NOT health care reform, but TORT REFORM. Know any lawyers or “legislators” willing to take a knife to that monster called ambulance chasing lotto? No, you don’t, and neither do I.

eir574

“I’m not trying to be nasty, but what makes you believe that had we had universal health care the same things wouldn’t have happened – or worse?”

Being entitled to health care is a big step forward for someone who couldn’t afford it at all. People complain about having the government decide what care you can and cannot receive, but this seems to be no worse, and perhaps better, than having an insurance company whose only motivation is profit decide what care you can and cannot receive. At least the government is technically responsible to the people. The insurance company is responsible to its shareholders. I have a better sense of what goes on in those companies since the only thing my father could do after losing his dental practice was to work in insurance.

“NO health care system is perfect, and what we have as we speak, is the best in the world”

It may be the best in the world for those who have access. If you don’t have much access to it, then it’s most certainly not the best in the world. Some like to paint those who don’t have access to good health care as lazy fools who aren’t motivated enough to provide for themselves. I wouldn’t call my parents lazy, though — just victims of circumstances that occur all the time in this country.

Did you know that a 2007 study showed that we rank 41st in maternal mortality among 171 nations studied (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/335391_maternal1 … )? One in 4800 women die from pregnancy complications, which ties us with Belarus and just barely edges out Serbia. Ireland came in first, with only one death in 47,6000. And that doesn’t even include other types of bad outcomes. Is that really such a fine health care system? Perhaps for the women who don’t die in childbirth.

The cost of lawsuits is a problem, of course, but you can’t get rid of them completely as some of them are quite valid. My sister once had complications after a surgical procedure to place a metal plate in her head, and the surgeon who went in to fix things up said he would support a malpractice claim. There were muscles that had been cut and hadn’t been sutured properly, there was a thumb print on the plate (??), and there were various other problems. Some claims are indeed valid. But, even if tort reform lowers the cost of health care, there will always be people who can’t afford the care they need for themselves and their families, and it will not always be the case that they’re simply lazy fools who would prefer to do nothing while someone else supports them.

Striker101

Everyone, that is, who works and can write a check, can choose to buy health care.

Those who don’t work are not entitled to have someone else pay for it. That is what our private property rights are all about. Survival of the fittest is supreme natural law.

eir574

“Everyone, that is, who works and can write a check, can choose to buy health care. ”

Patently untrue. Did you not read my post above? After my mother had cancer, insurance companies no longer wanted her business. But, you’d probably say she deserves to die after having had cancer.

_____________.

Oh, maybe I get it. You think that once my mother became virtually uninsurable at nearly any price, she should just have become a high powered CEO or something so that she could afford health care out of pocket. Does the same go for children?

i cannot believe that people can be so easily duped into thinking that they don’t want free health care…I realize a lot of money is being spent to confuse people but seriously, how feeble minded do you have to be to believe that we are better off with out the same health care system that every other civilized nation gives to their citizens? Meanwhile we have the highest mortality rate of any of the first world nations…go figure.

Hate to tell you, sweetie, but there is no such thing as free health care. Even if it is a free clinic, a free ward, a free health fair, etc. IT IS NOT FREE. SOMEONE pays for it. If you work you will pay for it with taxes. If you don’t work you probably get your health care ‘free’ anyway, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Don’t believe for one second that any nation “gives” free health care to their citizens. Governments do not have any money except that which they extract from people’s pockets which they can then give to others and that buys them votes in the next election.

Is there some particular reason you believe it is more fair for me to pay for your health care than it is for you to pay for your health care? Inquiring minds want to know why so many Americans feel no responsibility for themselves. Have we wimped out this far? Maybe our wimpiness is what has resulted in what you call the “highest mortality rate of any of the first world nations.”

BillE3

Considering how poorly the government has done with running its own affairs, I can not fathom how congress is going to do a better job of running healthcare. What I can fore see is how the bureaucracy will eat up a lot of the money allotted for healthcare. Government payroll will take precedent over actual medical treatment. A government run system is going to be top heavy with administrations and administrators which will be paid for before any money goes to patient care. The same amount of care and quality of care are a matter of time and the government is going to make it go so slow, it will not be good. I guess to offset the problems of providing care, congress can pass a national suicide assist law and give us all an option.

Striker101

Not to be buried in 3rd-level response where most of my effort would be lost in the fog.

@eir574 “Oh, maybe I get it. You think…” You have no clue what I think, and you cannot frame any argument based upon whatever you think that I think.

Other than that you are “A 31 year-old person who joined Digg on May 21st, 2007″, who looks like a cat in a box, and who has written 6322 comments to date but has never submitted an article. Your comments are rarely if ever on top-level, your “thing” is stalking and attacking others for your Collectivist cause — a reactionary, IOW don’t act, react.

So next you move to “oh pity me” “…my mother became virtually uninsurable…” which is to be blamed on the fact that you don’t qualify to be some “high powered CEO”? What really happened — your folks didn’t read the policy, or didn’t pay the premiums, and became “virtually uninsurable”? So that justifies shifting the blame and responsibility shifts to that “fine system”, which would mean that millions of other citizens (including myself and everyone else here on Digg) should be FORCED to SACRIFICE their property, and thus perhaps their lives, for your family, while letting their own family go without or even die? Are your parents somehow more important than mine, or your neighbor’s, or your mechanic’s?

Now I will TELL you what I think — I think that all of your whining is disgustingly immoral and evil. So before you start sticking labels on me, know that I am not Republican or Democrat, left or right, conservative nor liberal, because such labels cannot be clearly defined. I was not poured from a mold; I am ME; I insist upon individual sanctity. I think for myself and I am responsible for my own life and for the results of my own mistakes. I have no health insurance, but that’s not your problem. I refuse to be responsible for you, make that your problem.

http://morality101.net/blog/morality

Okay, that’s all for this one, you either get it or you don’t!

I have wasted most of this past 13 months on Digg.com, in futile jousting with immoral collectivists who do not and will not understand the morality of the personal right to life of each individual on this planet, who seek to use the Force of government to negate our right to property, and don’t give one rip about the objective of happiness.  Our right to property is now diverted from sustaining our life and enhancing our happiness, and is now instead being ripped from our hands (stolen) toward furthering the immoral goals of collectivism via Force.

Much time was simply wasted, trying to avoid reading trivia completely irrelevant to the ongoing economic collapse, and even more trivia wading thru irrelevant comments often nothing more than ignorant abusive blurbs consisting of nothing more than FU, FTW.  While we still hang onto the thread of freedom of speech, having to deal with such ignorance wastes everyone’s time and energy for naught.

During this period we have been clobbered by the burst housing bubble, bailouts serving only to increase the national debt, to the election of a non-citizen communist who now purports to be the president of this new USSA, to an infinitely broad “stimulus bill” which we have now seen serving only to increase the already impossible mountain of national debt.  This cannot be funded because the Federal Reserve cannot find buyers for the T-bills and T-bonds, thus Government cannot pay it’s bills nor even fund the bailouts and stimulus.  This is a GOOD thing, although we doubt the liberals and socialists and collectivists will not understand this just yet!

So what has this to do with Digg?  Well, just yesterday Digg ended it’s Shout feature, which was the way we could pass good articles to our friends.  Digg now suggests Facebook and Twitter be used to compensate.  Now I don’t know that you feel this way, but having to play KissyFace and Tweeting is not my idea of useful productive time on the internet, so you’ll not find me there.  If someone knows an equally active social website devoted to active and serious discussion of philosophical political issues and ideas, PLEASE comment and let me know.

But worse with Digg is it’s now blatant attempts to promote bleeding heart crap and to conceal or even delete anything relevant to true Liberty and the current actions of Government seeking to destroy that last vestage of Freedom. For that reason alone, I am done with Digg.com.  I may submit more (of Morality101) articles to Digg, but will not be otherwise participating.  I see no compelling reason that Digg will survive these fatal mistakes.  Leave that to the collectivists to have a mutual admiration society and continue to scheme how to gain more powers to Force.

I hope to convert this blogger into THE major forum for the serious ongoing discussion mentioned.  I wlll need your help to accomplish this, there is too much for me to learn about doing this and so I need the collaboration of others.  I barely know how to “Submit” an article here via WordPress, much less to set up the tools for good interaction between us.

So, requested action(s)

• My email address is available only  to my Friends who know me as Striker101 on Digg.  If you are one of those, please either use your Digg handle or else email me so I know who you are.  You will be authorized as Authors and thus allowed to Post and to Submit.
• To others, you will find my eaddy at the root website of http://morality101.net.
• ONLY to those who understand the foundations of Objectivist or Libertarian philosophy, REGISTER here at  Morality101 so that you can participate, and then DO participate.
• We are not here to argue with collectivists, who are wholly without virtue.  We are here to expand upon the likes of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises.  We are here to destroy collectivism before it destroys Capitalism, the free market and Liberty.

Leave your comments HERE, don’t even bother with Digg anymore.

Quoting Dr Leonard Peikoff: “…it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice.”

Objectivist thinking clears up muddy waters.  This is fine thinking, clear and concise.

read more | digg story