When politicians decide to make something “free”, what that really means is they pass the typical cost on to others who don’t directly benefit from the goods or services being provided. Those folks in turn make adjustments to make up for their loss by alleviating this cost via something else – their customers, their charities, their investments. When people are made to pay, repeatedly and significantly, for something from which they did not benefit, the ripple effect of passing the buck continues until it gets back to the people to whom the benefit was originally given. Have you spotted the problem?
And when the patient, in this case, finds themselves in harder circumstances than before, they request more government assistance again. If the government agrees, they push the additional costs to a group of people who again gain no benefit, and the cycle continues. This is why everything “socialized”, from medicine to groceries to electricity, continues to rise in price until no one can afford the basics, and the government must step in and actively set price and wage controls on everything. And that’s when the real havoc begins. See Venezuela and South Africa for the latest in a long line examples of this. Regardless of the motivation, whether it’s compensation for perceived past injustices, or a simple moral impulse to make something “free”, when government intervenes too far into individuals’ freedom to transact for goods and services with a provider of their own choice, without coercion, really bad things start to happen.
Continue reading “Waving our Hands and Saying “Make it Free!” Doesn’t Make It Free”
Reggae Hawaiian band “The Green” said it aptly in their song “Power in the Words”: words can come out of us so easily – positive or negative – if we don’t think first, and words have power. Power to heal and power to hurt. What we saw in the Senate Judiciary committee the last few weeks has been all about words, mostly words intended to hurt. Judge Brett Kavanaugh was subjected to one of the most vicious character assassination attempts of any presidential nominee in our history. Despite the committee’s ranking Democrat having possession of the “evidence” of Kavanaugh’s supposed malfeasance in hand since July 30, she would not share the contents of the letter with anyone or even address the claims made in the letter until the 11th hour.
What followed was an absolute circus that made a mockery of the presumption of innocence by attempting to use innuendo, rumor, guilt by association, and every other rhetorical device of demagoguery to cast Judge Kavanaugh into such a despicable light that he would either be defeated in committee or withdraw from consideration. In the end it was a left-leaning woman, Sen. Susan Collins, who decided she’d had enough, said she did not believe Kavanaugh’s accuser, and voted to confirm him despite phenomenal pressure against her. So Brett Kavanaugh will be sworn in as a supreme court justice. But the words used to destroyed him will undoubtedly linger a long time for him and his family.
Continue reading “The Power in the Words Won’t Go Away: But Kavanaugh Prevailed”
As David Horowitz has said, the Left itself is a totalitarian movement. At first we didn’t understand specifically what he meant by that. Most leftists (i.e. “liberals”, “progressives”, the politically correct) we knew or knew of didn’t appear in any way to be totalitarians themselves. And many leftist organizations I’ve known over the years were mostly democratic in their operation. But over time we’ve learned more fully what Horowitz was getting at, and in stating this observation he was echoing the same viewpoint Austrian economist Friedrich A. Hayek had expressed in the mid-20th century: “Socialism can be put into practice only by methods of which most socialists disapprove”.
A similar way to phrase the idea is, Leftist movements tend over time towards totalitarian governing models. Hayek arrived at this realization from an economic perspective in early 20th century Central Europe. Horowitz arrived at the same conclusion through his activism as a political leftist in 1960s and ’70s America. The concept has been clear to some for many decades. For others it’s becoming clearer by the week in these more turbulent times of western politics and culture, namely: that leftist organizations, as if by some irresistible gravitational force, slowly but steadily repudiate the basic principles of free society, with Freedom of Speech being the usual first casualty.
Continue reading “As Students Stop Learning History, They Stop Recognizing Tyranny”
Has anyone noticed how much “governing” Presidents Trump and Obama have done via Executive Orders instead of the proper way, via legislation initiated and approved by Congress? The scope of executive orders, unilateral presidential decrees over which Congress has no say, has been steadily growing the last two decades. Many people love it when their guy is in office and simply bypasses Congress by issuing an executive order when he can’t get them to do what he wants. But is that really the way a democratic republic works? Sounds more like rule by the whim of one man.
Such orders are only operative while the president who issued them is in office. They can sometimes be stopped or delayed by court actions, but that’s about where any arguments that favor them end. Not only are these proclamations the unfettered rule of a single man over a supposedly democratic nation, they can have a massive effect on the economic, cultural, military, educational, and legal landscape. And they can be completely reversed by the next president. All this makes for potentially rapid, unpredictable change for the entire country and uncertainty about the longevity of policy.
NBC news ran a worthwhile editorial early this year arguing that while executive orders by Our Guy feel good, they are a tool of tyranny. Quartz wrote a similarly insightful article last year, identifying the danger as “the use of these orders as a work-around in policy areas where the president wants to do something, but only Congress has the authority to act”. What one might ask now is: with a president in office today who is less popular with his Congress than possibly all other recent presidents, why doesn’t Congress take advantage of this situation to strip or at least limit the presidency with regard to this gross abuse of executive power? Brandon Weichert explains how the founding fathers attempted in the constitution to diffuse power across multiple people, bodies, and branches for the very purpose of preventing the rule of the One Man.
Continue reading “The U.S. Presidency has too much power – no matter who’s in the White House”
Two or ten years ago, depicting the execution of your own president in the U.S. and broadcasting that to the world was a super inappropriate thing to do, let alone openly inciting others to violence against his person or family. Even the extremists of those times never went that far. But apparently all that’s changed now. “You can trace a line from Occupy Wall Street in 2011 through Black Lives Matter in 2013 through Bernie Sanders in 2016 through the Women’s March a year later, Tom Steyer’s and Maxine Waters’s impeachment campaigns, the growing prominence of Democratic Socialists of America, and the movement to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement today.
But despite the insane furore in America, even a year and a half later, over the election of someone as unlikely as Donald Trump, the collapse of the Center-Left is not just or even primarily an American phenomenon. Have a look at this article by a Cambridge leftist about how throughout Europe the mainstream left is losing consistently for the first time since the Second World War. The moderate left, the democratic socialists or “soft socialists” who have been mostly in power since the late ’40s, are completely falling apart: losing adherents to the Far-Left and the Middle-Right. What’s the cause of this completely new, unprecedented, and unpredicted trend?
Continue reading “The Collapse of the Center-Left in America”
by the Editor [American Infrasound] * 20 March, 2018
It was spontaneous. A natural, inevitable groundswell of popular discontent. Kids across America were just fed up – with the fear, the shootings, even The System. They banded together across the land, with no professional political organizers’ help or funding, to take the courageous risk of walking out of school during class hours on March 14 for seventeen minutes – to honor the 17 students murdered in Parkland, Florida by a twisted, rage-filled gunman. They risked everything to speak their minds freely, to not be silenced by the authorities, to #NeverForget.
At least that’s the way it was portrayed by a media practically salivating onto their microphones, solemn-faced school authorities, and many politicians. But the “Enough! Walkout” was not all it was pre-announced to be. First of all it wasn’t a walkout at all but a formally sanctioned event in the school day, highly advertised in advance, and blessed and encouraged by school authorities. (Like many principals across the country, my daughter’s principal sent out a pleasant email to parents the day before the event describing it as non-political, optional, and highly approved by the administration.) It wasn’t exactly required to walk out, but there was definitely something riskier about being one of the few choosing to remain in the classroom than the bravery of the vast majority of the student body walking out, led by their teachers and administrators.
Continue reading “School Administrators Across U.S. Pre-Announce, Honor “Student Walkout” by Woke Revolutionaries Risking It All”