Morality101.net

Morality is Liberty without Force

Browsing Posts tagged morality

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?

VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

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.

By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON Posted 09/29/2009 06:11 PM ET

What’s driving the great health debate of 2009 is not a popular clamor for universal insurance.

“Many Americans are balking again at the prospect of health care reform,” writes pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center.

A new Wall Street Journal poll found 41% of respondents opposed to President Obama’s proposals and 39% in favor (the rest were undecided). The underlying driver is politicians’ psychological quest for glory.

<Read full story>

You’re the First to Know

Dear Friend,

Well, it looks like you have made a difference.

Based upon the unbelievable support that I have receieved from 10,000 supporters like you, I have decided to throw my hat into the ring to challenge Chris Dodd for the honor of representing the state of Connecticut in the United States Senate. I will announce my candidacy on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show on Thursday, September 17 at 8:15am eastern time. Sorry for the short notice, but its important to honor commitments and keep these things under raps until the day the news breaks.

At this time last year I could not have imagined that that I would be making such an announcement today. I had never intended to become a candidate for public office. But these are extraordinary times. Our economy is falling apart in front of our eyes and Washington seems intent on making the wheels come off even faster. At a time when we desperately need adult supervison, the economically illiterate are running the show. As I love my country, it now seems clear that I must  try to do something to help. The emotional and material support I have received from across the country has made the decision much easier.

So today it begins. As I’m sure you are aware, the rules in politics bear only scant resemblance to those which govern polite society. As a result, I am wading into strange waters, and I’m sure strange things will happen. But I promise to maintain my composure and give it my best shot. Based on the support that I have received thus far, I fully expect to be facing down Chris Dodd in the general election just 14 months from now.

As my campaign takes flight, I appreciate the patience and trust that you have shown. To commit time and money to a long shot candidate for high office is a hard choice. I hope to repay that trust with a first class campaign.

I look forward to your feedback and your continued support.

Thanks again,

Peter Schiff


You are receiving this email because you opted in at www.schiffforsenate.com to receive updates, or have made a donation to the campaign.

Unsubscribe striker@morality101.net from this list

Our mailing address is:

Schiff Exploratory Committee

P.O. Box 1134

Weston, CT 06883

Add us to your address book

Copyright (C) 2009 Schiff Exploratory Committee All rights reserved.

CNSNews.com – Chief Treasury Economist Says White House Economic Forecast is ‘Smoother’ than Can Be Expected in Reality.

(entire article reposted here – please comment!)

Alan B. Krueger, U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy


Tuesday, September 08, 2009
By Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) – Alan Krueger, assistant secretary for economic policy and chief economist at the Treasury Department, told reporters that the economic projections used by the White House–which foresee a decade of uninterrupted economic growth ahead–are “smoother” than what can be expected in reality.

Even with this smoother-than-reality economic forecast, the administration is predicting that the federal government will run up an additional $905 billion in deficit spending over the next decade, almost doubling the national debt.

Krueger, speaking to reporters at a Friday briefing, said that while the administration’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth forecasts were largely in line with private estimates, numerous factors could affect and alter those estimates.

“It’s the nature of forecasting that forecasts typically are smoother than the realizations,” he said. “Your hope is that the ups and downs balance out and, on average, are on the forecasted path.”

What Krueger did not mention is that, while the administration’s projections are close to those of private economists, known as the Blue Chip Consensus, those private forecasts only extend through 2010, while the White House’s extend through 2019.

When asked by CNSNews.com if the fragility of the administration’s projections meant higher budget deficits in the future, Krueger said that deficits were inevitable during bad economic times.

“Deficits are inevitable when you’re trying to recover from such a steep recession,” he said.

Krueger also said that, because of that steep recession, it was impossible for the administration to produce a balanced budget in the short term, saying such an idea was not “advisable” for Obama.

“In fact, it wouldn’t be advisable to have a balanced budget at this point or anything close to a balanced budget at this point,” he said.

In the longer run, however, Krueger said that the administration planned to put the budget back on a path toward fiscal responsibility, saying that the country relies far too much on borrowing and not enough on public investment.

“One has to draw a distinction between the short run and the long run,” he said. “Certainly in the longer run the administration plans to put the budget on a path that’s fiscally responsible.”

“In the U.S., I think that we rely too much on borrowing and short-term consumption at the expense of longer-run investment, public infrastructure,” he said. “The president has said that it’s very important that when we emerge from this recession that we build a stronger foundation, one that’s less susceptible to these kinds of boom-and-bust cycles.”

However, the Obama administration’s projected budgets rely on what Krueger criticizes: borrowing to finance short-term consumption.

For example, the Obama administration projects that, as a result of its 2010 budget, the federal government will run a cumulative deficit of $9.05 trillion by the year 2019. In total, the government plans to spend $43 trillion during the next decade while taking in only $34 trillion in tax revenue.

In no year between now and 2019 does the administration plan to balance the budget. In fact, the smallest single-year deficit Obama plans to incur is $739 billion in 2015, after which time the deficit will begin climbing again until it hits nearly $1 trillion ($917 billion) in 2019.

However, Krueger claimed that it was a “very important” part of Obama’s budget to move the country toward “responsible budgeting” and a “more sustainable” path.

“That’s why it’s very important, in the administration’s budget, that we make the critical investments in human capital and physical infrastructure, responsible budgeting, health care reform, clean energy, to move the U.S. to a more sustainable economic path,” he said.

Liberty is Moral

Liberty is Moral

Just a quick announcement here.

We will now be submitting everything from Morality101.net to Propeller.com and have formed a new Propeller Group called Liberty is Moral, in which our friends from Morality101, Digg, Facebook and Twitter can participate and submit their own favorites and articles as well.

Digg.com was our favorite social website for quite a long time, but slid way downhill as a result of eliminating shouts and sharing, shunting those off to Facebook and Twitter.  In our view The workarounds were quite useless, just wasting too much of our time with duplications.  So we’ve moved to Propeller as our “social” site for most future submissions.

This group uses admin approval for membership.  We’ll plan to keep the spammers, personal attackers, and the adamant ObamaBots, No-Birthers and Collectivists out of the loop, but perhaps there will be a few who can engage in open-minded and productive discourse with our basically conservative / libertarian group.

We hope for a forum with real drive for both discussion of, and action toward, the virtues of liberty, capitalism, the free market, and progress toward true freedom.

If the shoe fits, wear it, come join us!

Thanks from Tasine and Striker101

Dean160x

After many years of thinking that I had a pretty good grasp of the English language and definitions, and observing that we have come to never really knowing what people mean when they describe themselves as liberal, conservative, libertarian, republican, democrat, socialist, marxist, etc etc, this morning I became sidetracked with definitions.  So here goes!:

Google search return for “define:liberal”

Definitions of liberal on the Web:

broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant …

  • having political or social views favoring reform and progress
  • tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
  • a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
  • big: given or giving freely; “was a big tipper”; “the bounteous goodness of God”; “bountiful compliments”; “a freehanded host”; “a handsome allowance”; “Saturday’s child is loving and giving”; “a liberal backer of the arts”; “a munificent gift”; “her fond and openhanded grandfather”
  • a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
  • free: not literal; “a loose interpretation of what she had been told”; “a free translation of the poem”
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_(politics)
  • The Liberal magazine is a quarterly literary and political publication “devoted to promoting liberalism around the world”. …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberal
  • The Liberal Party was one of the two major British political parties from the mid 19th century until the rise of the Labour Party in the 1920s …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_(UK)
  • One with liberal views, supporting individual liberty (see Wikipedia on Liberalism for a description of the various and diverging trends of …
    en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liberal
  • Of or relating to the Liberal party, its membership, or its platform, policy, or viewpoint; Liberal Party; A member or supporter of a Liberal Party; A member or supporter of the Liberal Pary of Canada, or its predecessors, or provincial equivalents, or their predecessors; A Liberal Democrat …
    en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Liberal
  • liberally – freely in a nonliteral manner; “he embellished his stories liberally”
  • liberally – in a generous manner; “he gave liberally to several charities”
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • liberalness – liberality: an inclination to favor progress and individual freedom
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Okay, my take on this is that there is no longer any concensus on the definition of “liberal”.  In particular the definitions from Princeton, supposedly an ‘intellectual elite”, which gives us a clear view of at least one which is responsible for doublespeak:

“favoring reform and progress… not bound by authoritarianism… favors laissez-faire and self-regulating markets…”

Reading Princeton’s definitions is a virtual oxymoron, isn’t it?  Today’s “liberals” are largely seen as the Democrats, who are increasingly seeking their versions of progress and reform in totally totalitarian fashion, increasing regulations which serve to impede laissez-faire and free markets, attempting to redefine liberty as “civil liberties”,

Of course I could go on and on, but people, if you consider Princeton as intellectual elite, you join Princeton in being dumber than an overused and worn-out cardboard box.  There is nothing elite about corrupting definitions into doublespeak.

Anyway, we still don’t know what Liberal really means, do we?

Below is copy/paste email correspondence with Digg regarding my recent banning:

Hi from Digg.com.

We have unbanned your account. Please note, however, that your account will remain under review, and any violation of Digg’s Terms of Use (http://digg.com/tou) may result in a permanent ban of your account.

For more information, please see Digg’s FAQ section (http://digg.com/faq) and the Community Guidelines (http://digg.com/guidelines).

Thank you,

Digg Support

Dean Striker wrote:

I disagree that my actions were spam.  I was referring to my own website, to specific articles I had written which were most relevant to the numerous flood of healthcare “diatribe” spamming Digg these days.  As to “spam”, my website does not even carry advertising as Digg does, which is truly spam, although I certainly understand the financial needs to do so.
I know Digg is liberal/collectivist, and I am hardly alone in seeing and reporting how is destroying our country with both force and bankruptcy, and while you may opine my writings as diabribe, they are most certainly not that.  There was no call for you do to resort to such low-life terminology.

In well over a year, I never personally abuse anyone, nor swear, and I normally will not become involved in the many long personal truly diatribal and useless flaming comments which run way off subject.
The person who “reported” me posted that he/she would do so, and it was that digger who was irrelevant and in no way responding to what I had written.

That said, I did re-read your community guidelines and will try to be somewhat more restrained in my activities.  I hope you will restore my good standing, but it’s your show.

Dean Striker

Digg Support wrote:

Thanks for getting in touch with us at Digg.com regarding your account.

Your account was reported to us for abusive activity in comments. Specifically, for spamming the same diatribe nearly a dozen times. [emphasis is mine]

We are willing to unban your account if you agree to comment responsibly. Additionally, please peruse the Community Guidelines (http://digg.com/guidelines), which we encourage users to follow in order to create a positive, friendly and respectful online community.

Please don’t hesitate to contact us should you have any further questions.

Thanks,

- Digg Support Team

Striker wrote:
———————————————————————-

Login: Striker101
Name: Dean Striker
———————————————————————-
Your account is invalid If you have any questions, please contact support@digg.com. for Striker101

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This was triggered by comment by

http://digg.com/users/danj484

Exact same post, including poster’s website, on another article. Buried and reported as spam.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now here is my post(s) which yes I posted to several articles about “healthcare”, to several articles as they appeared in “Upcoming”.  Most had slight differences.
People, battling with the trivial details will result only in modified Force.

Fact:  ANY forced scheme serves only to diminish and destroy Liberty.
Fact:  Every regulation, every tax is theft by Force denying your Mind and your Right to Life.

If you grasp the moral foundation of Liberty it is clear and simple.  Many seem to prefer spending the rest of life arguing on Digg and anywhere else — that is an excercise in futility!

We have reached the crossroad of constitutional crisis — there is no turning back.  It is time to identify our friends of Liberty and our foes of Force.

READ my http://morality101.net/blog/morality/ — plus read header pages /Force/ and /Sacrifice/.  If that makes clear sense to you, for gosh sake register, comment, post and take action!

Then come back here on Digg — American Citizens only — comment and vote simply…  ‘Liberty’ or ‘Force’.  Digg up or digg  down, who cares?  No comment, no count

.

And for the many who won’t bother, here is an exceprt from my Morality webpage, which is the essence of my moral foundation:
  • 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.

Nuff said!

Where is Liberty?

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!