You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘individual initiative’ tag.

Whenever you are talking to someone about politics, pay attention to what they mean – not what they say.

Modern day liberals claim to want people to have equal opportunities as everyone else, but typically they want to use the power of government to make this come about. Government by it’s nature is force. Why do you need to use force to give everyone opportunity?

One reason is because one person (Person A) is in a position to deny another person (Person B) to take advantage of opportunity. That is all well and good, but unless A actually denies B his liberty, then A has done nothing wrong. To bring sanction against A preemptively is an over-reach of force (government). If A actively denies B of his liberties, then A should be stopped and punitively damaged so as to set precedent to discourage similar future acts by A and anyone else who decides that what A did was a good idea. Otherwise, let people have freedom of association and deal with each other on the merits of their own situation. Punish the bad guys who do bad things, but leave the good guys alone. Also, assume everybody is a good guy until they prove themselves otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, and all, ya know.
The modern day liberal is against this idea. The modern day liberal wants to convict you because of where you ARE, ignoring what you did to get there. Because of what you HAVE, ignoring how you got it. Because of what you take, ignoring what you give.

If you have more than they think you should have, they want to use force to take it and transfer it to those who have less. Forget all the physical or mental work you did to get it, there are people out there who need it and you have more than what they determine you need. Bring in the guys with the guns.

If you have plenty, should you, by some moral compass, decide you should give to those who don’t? Sure, but YOU are the one who knows what you need and what you want to give and who you want to give it to. The modern liberal doesn’t trust YOU to do with what you have earned what they want you to do with it. They only trust the people who can lie well enough to the requisite number of people in order to get the sanction of the populace to use force to hopefully do what they want. See, a modern liberal DEPENDS on forcing others to do what they want done. They’ll condemn you for not “giving to the less-fortunate” then take your money so you can’t. They depend on force; not freedom, not choice not compassion. They want you to do what THEY want, not what you or somebody else wants. So they co-opt the only legal use of force available – government.

Many modern day conservatives do the same thing. Where the liberal wants the state to enforce his fluid definition of right and wrong, the theological conservative thinks he has God on his side and wants the state to enforce his idea of what God says is right and wrong. Both sides have lost sight of the fact that it is not a legitimate function of government to determine morality. The only legitimate function of force is to prevent or punish illegitimate force. In other words, government is supposed to protect the citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and property.

Determining who a citizen freely gives property to is not a protection of liberties. Determining if one citizen owes another property by contract IS a protection of liberties. By the way, Property = Time, Labor, Money, Goods, and/or Services.

Determining what one citizen charges another for goods or services provided is not a protection of liberties. But making sure one person delivers what they promised for what they charged IS a protection of liberties.

Telling one citizen that he cannot freely choose who he associates with in commerce or trade is NOT a protection of the freedom of association. Making sure one or more people do not interfere with the ability of someone else to freely associate with whom they choose, IS a protection of the freedom of association.

Preventing a person from expressing religious beliefs or mandating that religious beliefs be expressed is not a protection of religious freedom. Preventing someone from mandating or suppressing the free expression of religious beliefs IS a protection of religious freedom.

Mandating who one person can or cannot marry just flies in the face of freedom on every level. I have no idea what the anti-gay marriage folks think they’re doing to further freedom by trying to prevent two people who want to get married from getting married. That being said, it shouldn’t matter to the government whether you are married or not. In a legitimate government, what business of theirs is it if you claim to be married or not?

Mandating what a person chooses to ingest, drink, smoke, or whatever is not a protection of freedom. Preventing an intoxicated person from presenting an unreasonable risk to others IS an protection of freedom.  Also, determining which days or times a person may purchase or indulge in those behaviors falls right in there with the rest of it.

It is natural to want to prevent people from doing what you think is wrong. But before you get on some bandwagon and start calling for a use of force against that person for their choices, ask yourself, “Does his choice present an unreasonable danger to the rights of anyone else? Is he engaging in a fraud that will cost someone else their time, labor, or property without some agreed upon recompense?” If the answer is “No”, then feel free to speak out against what that person is doing. Criticize him and ostracize him if you will, but don’t fall back on the use of force to stop him.

Because pretty soon, he and a bunch of like minded people could possibly gain political power and bring sanction against you for doing things you do that doesn’t hurt anyone but that they don’t like. And they will use the precedent YOU set against you.



  • : rac·ism
  • Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm alsoˌshi-\
  • Function: noun
  • Date: 1933
  • 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

OK, I looked up racist and it gave me the definition of “racism”, fine. It follows, that a racist is one who adheres to the belief described in the above definition. Now, let us look into that a little.

It is very easy to find people of the same race on polar opposites of any sociological, political, or behavioral spectrum. With white people, you have Billy Graham and Adolf Hitler, Asians have Indira Ghandi to Pol Pot, Black people have Martin Luther King and John Muhammed. We could go on all day. Now, the thing we see in these comparisons is that although two people share a common race, they could be mass murders or people of peace. So, it follows that while a man’s CULTURE may be a primary determinant of that man’s traits, his race is not.  Even culture is not an absolute determinant as we see stories of people growing up in crime infested neighborhoods every day that go on to be police, preachers, philanthropists, CEO’s, etc.  While culture arguably has a much bigger influence than race on a person’s intelligence and moral compass than race, it is still subservient to individual initiative.

I believe the hierarchy of the primary determinant of a person’s traits and capacities is, going from most influential to least (in part) as follows:

  • Personal initiative
  • Cultural influence
  • A WHOLE lot of other stuff
  • Race

It follows from this that if one believes the above list to be upside down, they are irrational. Furthermore, this would indicate that racists are irrational.

Now, here’s a funny thing about irrational people – They can’t be reasoned with. In order to “reason” with someone, both parties have to respect “reason” or logic. Let’s look at the definition of irrational (Again,

(1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason

If our chain of logic holds, then a racist is an irrational person and an irrational person is lacking mental clarity and is not governed by reason. My postulate is that if you TRULY  believe someone to be a racist, you are wasting your time trying to argue with them about anything. You may as well try and convince a fence post to agree with you because without a capacity for reason and logic, neither the fence post nor the racist can be swayed.

OK, why this little diatribe? Simply because the liberals are living up to their old tricks they’ve used with various effectiveness in the past – they disagree with someone so they attribute it to “Racism”. This automatically brands their target as irrational and dismissible. The problem is, if they really believed that, they would just dismiss all those that are racists and go about their business. But they don’t…

The left has always thought that just branding someone a racist would cause that person to shut up. It worked in the past. Someone would oppose a social program based on philosophy and the left would couch their argument until it looked like the opposition’s purpose was primarily to keep a minority race from being “helped” and the opponent of the program would be silenced because anything he said just looked like a justification to keep from giving entitlements to minorities. This worked so well in fact, that along with the Republican Party’s effort in the late 80’s and beyond to become a “Big Tent” party, that many so-called “conservatives” actually subscribed to this thought process. All the sudden, a policy initiative or proposed program could not be debated in terms of legitimate government function or enhancement or degradation of individual freedom, the primary concern was ‘who stood to get what’. ‘Who it came from’ was of no concern (unless it came from a protected class) and whether it was Constitutional or a legitimate function of government was immaterial. If you opposed a program even from the supply side, you were painted as opposing it on the demand side.

Example: Senator A proposes a program to give all poor children shoes in the US. He wants to pay for this program by taxing all families making over $50,000 a year in the amount of $75.00. Senator B opposes the plan because he believes it is not a legitimate function of government to take money through threat of force from one family to give that money (or other property that money is converted to) to another family. Senator A would claim that Senator B just wants to keep poor children from having shoes. Senator B would argue that his problem with the program is Constitutional and philosophical. Senator A would equate “poor” with “minority” and call Senator B a racist because more people making over $50,000 per year are white and a higher percentage of poor children are minority. Senator B, being a member of a spineless, weak-kneed, “Big Tent” party would lose support for his position from both sides of the aisle and would cave. Besides, it’s only $75 per family and “The Rich” spend more than that on country club memberships, anyway.

See how well that works? And it gets better. Let’s suppose that eventually a somewhat reasonable majority is attained in the House and Senate and some people look at that program and realize it was a bad idea. They vote to cancel the program. The left goes apoplectic and holds it up as a racist cut to entitlements AND a tax cut for “The Rich”. So, they would say the congress wanted to take shoes away from minority kids so that “The Rich” could have an extra latte from Starbucks everyday. In this way, just the mere proposal of a program can be the “gift that keeps on giving” in that if you oppose it to begin with, you are racist, and if you try to stop it afterward, you are racist AND in the pocket of “The Rich”.

Back to where we started from. If you are one who TRULY believes that people who oppose the plans of the current Congress and Administration are racists, then you are obligated to completely ignore the opposition. No sense in arguing – we’re irrational. It’s not that I think that the government taking over our health care system is wrong philosophically or Constitutionally, it is because a black man is in the White House. You would have to believe, then, that if we had a white president, I would just be peachy keen to turning over my health care and 1/6 of the American economy to government; That I would be thrilled to see the government pumping trillions into failed banks, car companies, and financial institutions; That I would be positively giddy to see the unions payed off with huge chunks of private enterprise and with laws such as the EFCA. If only  a white guy were president, there would be no opposition to those things at all.

If you believe that, you should have quit reading this a long, long time ago.


Typical blog format - chronologically, bottom to top. You are welcome to comment, but read "Da Rulez" first.

Back Then

The Way-Back Widget

May 2018
« Jul