Sunday 19 October 2014

Our Reflection, Washington, D.C.

How do you title what you know will be a much larger work than you anticipated, much larger, much broader than anything you expected to layout when the entire point of what we disdain in the District of Columbia is that it is us, our values as they are at the time, that we elected into office (this includes “voter fraud” because we'd stop it if we valued its contamination as strongly as we say we do, so as it continues to be done we show we value it as an accepted part of the election process, that we accept being powerless to do anything about it).

Some may take issue with our onus, that we vote in our values, on the idea “they are professional politicians,” yet these same people will meet up with me on twitter and carry on the passing around of propaganda pieces that support their theories without ever looking at the principle(s) behind them.

I do not know any American who would disagree with this statement: I own my car because I paid for it. Sure, we can interchange the car for house, and though the person may have outstanding debt used to buy the house originally, that they are making timely payments maintains their possession of the title, a form of institution of legal right, because no other claim is able to supersede their own. Yet few Americans realize this ownership of one’s own property, the idea of private property rights that are only subject to forfeit upon probable cause showing the property was unlawfully gained, is the fundamental necessity of Individual Rights, and a moral imperative to Freedom.

If we could not own our own property we'd be feeding our families by either stealing from others, or in the true essence of collectivist statism, having the government steal from others, and give us a portion of what they claimed by the same ancient principle of slavery and subject servitude stated as, “the divine right of kings,” while their “divination” is mere corruption, the government keeps for itself the larger portion of what it took from those slaves and subjects who work and produce. This is what the Feudal Guild System, a State, carried on until shortly after the establishment of America as a nation by the Declaration of Independence; a nation that would later found a government to assure the unalienable Rights and Freedom of each individual by Written Constitutional Liberty (our written and binding document specifying the objects and limited powers of our republican (representative) form of government (the administrative manual for magistrates of an administrative body) ratified by We the People – a necessary demonstrable “consent of the governed” that alone established our government's legitimacy, the 1789 ratification the very act that brought the government of America into existence to serve the nation). Proven, it is, that 13 individual States, where one alone could veto what the remaining 12 desired, is not governance of a nation, and instead is a certainty the minority rules, a moving minority due to disunity, mistrust, jealousy, which devolves the entire legislative process into meaningless, yet destructive, tit-for-tat oneupsmanship games for pride's sake and little, if anything, more.

Could you imagine building a business and having property while you live under one State, that once you sell it all and move under another State, the new State claims and treats you as their subject, to be ruled no differently than the very Crowned heads of Europe managed our original 13 Colonies, taking your property at the pleasure of the new state's government? This begs the question: What was the point of a Declaration, where the signers express therein their pledge and risk of losing, “Our lives, our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor” if only to copy the very political system, values, and iron fisted oppression the Declaration was written to declare our separation from?

Yet, here we are today, many, many “conservatives” and even “libertarians” denouncing wealth (the single word denoting “owned private property”) and disparaging those with wealth whose views we don't agree with for using their wealth to promote their views. “Hypocrisy” is the description of this as an atrocity to logic, but this word doesn't address the passionate, stubborn, and unmistakable mimicry of Collectivist and Statist desires we're pushing by promotion of undermining any other American’s Private Property Rights to save our Private Property Rights. How better to perfect and hand government more evidence of our incompetence in governing ourselves than to eradicate this fundamental principle of Freedom, Private Property Ownership as an Individual Right, that makes Capitalism the solely moral economic system on the planet? Capitalism alone recognizes Private Property Rights as inseparable from Individual Rights – a consistency of the components of the most cherished principle that is an absolute necessity for mankind to thrive: Freedom!

If this principle and the certain epistemology of the irrefutably used terms evidencing their relation is something you can't appreciate as said here then you should consider deep, long, hard reflection as to who owns your property, and what collective you are granting power over you, to answer to, so you can establish your immediate readiness to surrender everything in your possession as rentals you've used solely at their pleasure. That is the very thing you ask of others whose use of their private property you so strongly disagree, that you believe in, fabricate, and promote the use of government's coercive power to control these “wealthy” and punish them for their private property use oblivious to this as admitting a belief in government having the power to take private property based on use, aiding the Progressive assault on Freedom.

I'll leave you with more Ayn Rand that I hope aids in reflecting on American Principles as opposed to what we presume true and pridefully tout to others as necessary to understand, others we condemn if they don't see it our way (in perfect emulation of the way our unionized teachers taught us):

“In my article, ''Extremism,' or the Art of Smearing,'' I discussed the subject of 'anti-concepts' – i.e. artificial, unnecessary, undefined and (rationally) unusable terms intended to replace and obliterate certain legitimate concepts in people's minds.

“I said that the 'liberals' are coining and spreading 'anti-concepts' in order to smuggle this country into statism by an imperceptible process – and that the primary target marked for obliteration is the concept of 'capitalism,' which, if lost, would carry away with it the knowledge that a free society can and did exist.

“But there is something much less attractive (and, politically, much more disastrous), than capitalism's enemies: its alleged defenders – some of whom are muscling in on the game of manufacturing 'anti-concepts' of their own.

“Have you ever felt a peculiar kind of embarrassment when witnessing a grossly inappropriate human performance, such as the antics of an unfunny comedian? It is a depersonalized, almost metaphysical embarrassment at having to witness so undignified a behavior on the part of a member of the human species.

“That is what I felt at having to hear the following statement of Governor [George, Mitt's father] Romney, which was his alleged answer to the communists' boast that they would bury capitalism:

“'But what they do not understand – and what we have failed to tell the world – is that Americans buried capitalism long ago, and move on to consumerism.'

“The implications of such a statement are too sickeningly obvious. The best comment on it came from The Richardson Digest (Richardson, Texas, April 28, 1965), from the column 'Lively Comments' by Earl Lively, who wrote: 'Afraid to stand alone, even on his knees, Romney then tells the rest of us that we do not know the definition of capitalism, we do not understand our economic principles, and we'd be better off if we quit going around defending such an unpopular concept as capitalism...'

“No 'anti-concept' launched by the 'liberals' goes so far so crudely as the tag 'consumerism.' It implies loudly and clearly that the status of 'consumer' is separate from and superior to the status of 'producer'; it suggests a social system dedicated to the service of a new aristocracy which is distinguished by the ability to 'consume' and vested with a special claim on the caste of serfs marked by the ability to produce. If taken seriously, such a tag would lead to the ultimate absurdity of the communists proclaiming: 'Who does not toil, shall not eat' – and the alleged representatives of capitalism replying: 'Oh yes, he shall!” and if the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution propounds such a moral obscenity as 'the right to consume' – who inspired it, Karl Marx or Governor Romney?

“It is true that we are not a capitalist system any longer: we are a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of capitalism and statism, of freedom and controls. A mixed economy is a country in the process of disintegration, a civil war of pressure-groups looting and devouring one another. In this sense, 'consumerism' might be the appropriate name for it.” -- The Objectivist Newsletter 1965.

This quotation of Ayn Rand was written almost 50 years ago and, though this is merely an excerpt, it's as though the Objectivist Newsletter, from where it came, was published today. And I must be completely out of my mind to be citing and quoting Ayn Rand knowing full well by the state of things today that nothing was done, that Ayn Rand was ignored then, that all but a handful of people in the GOP, the so-called “conservative party” sound just like Governor George Romney sounded almost 50 years ago -- the “moderate” method of appeasement in “slow” obliteration of capitalism (and Freedom) marched on without missing a step.

But hey, the principles of Freedom, by Private Property Rights (i.e. Capitalism) don't need defending, these last 50 years have been the most free we've ever experienced and it’s just getting better...Right? And, of course, this has nothing to do with government and its sole capacity of coercive power, of the use of force, physically or by imprisonment (threatened or by conviction). No, this is all the fault of a bunch of private property owners, irrespective of these private property owners' lack of government's coercive power. Of course, to continue this paragraph’s sarcasm to illustrate our delusions, it helps to turn a blind eye to the fact the payments of these “wealthy” into campaigns etc., are due to government's coercive power, to even invalidate a corporation's charters, to seize “their” property by claims of some tax and/or fine owed, that government is the least scrupulous and has no hesitation at blackmailing compliance of the producer, the entrepreneurial, the capitalist, who was once known as “the Free and self-governing American.”

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this article,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

News Categories