I heard it on…Princess Bride?
October 4, 2008 by Aspen Eggimann · Leave a Comment
“Do you always begin conversations this way?”
The most humorous conversations are peppered with quotes from the classic movie Princess Bride. If you haven’t seen it, stop reading and go watch it. Like any good classic it gets better and more applicable each time seen.
What can we learn from this classic? Let me point out a few lessons that I think fit perfectly with our times.
1. When I hear our presidential candidates use the word “change” every couple of minutes, unfailingly Indigo’s voice comes into my head saying, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Change is not being in Afghanistan versus Iraq, or visa versa. It is getting out of foreign nations we shouldn’t be in.
Change in education is not working on “No Child Left Behind” as was suggested in the VP Debate. Change would be getting the Federal Government out of education and and giving that power back to the parents and states.
2. As for the bailout just passed in Congress;
“Think it will work?”
“It would take a miracle.”
One senator, after changing his vote to yes on the economic bailout, said that the fear on Wall Street was going to affect Main Street.
Maybe it is time that Wall Street be afraid.
As a nation we cannot continue on in our current economic situation. We have become a nation that consumes more than it creates, spends more then it earns, and takes more then it gives.
Wall Street does affect Main Street, so let us start the process of changing our economic strategies as a nation. Having the government there to catch business when it falls only prolongs and extenuates the long range problems we will face.
3. Longfellow said our nation was a “ship of state” and that all humanity hung upon its fate. If that is the case where is the watchmen crying, “Look! The cliffs of insanity!”
4. I always get a funny feeling when I hear someone in government make statements about easing the burdens of the American people, having the government look out for the middle class and defending the common workers of America. For as the Dread Pirate Roberts said, “Life is pain… Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.”
It is human nature to tend to fall into a trap of wanting things to be easier, to not have to think about problems and to let someone else do the dirty work for us. But it is better to do the work then buy up the services of the government and let it run our lives.
In closing, “Let me explain — no there is to much — let me sum up.”
First, understand that the current debates between presidential candidates are not about change in policy; they are about change in approach.
Second, as uncertain as the future of our economy is right now, “bailouts” aren’t going to help. Ronald Reagan once said that you can talk to a child until you’re blue in the face about spending — or you can cut their allowance. Giving more money isn’t going to cure the mismanagement of it. Our $700 billion dollars is only a band aid on a gaping wound.
Third, lets listen to people who are telling us we are headed towards disaster.
Fourth, now is the time to reclaim the responsibility of self-governance and watch over our nation and communities. Lets stop abdicating our responsibility to others in exchange for convenience.
And next time you watch Princess Bride, think about government — I promise you’ll learn a lot.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Fear, Expediency, and the Economy
September 25, 2008 by Mike Wilson · Leave a Comment
So leave everything you know and carry only what you fear.
Daily we face the onslaught from the media. A murder here, a rape there. Illegal immigrants taking your jobs here; globalism outsourcing your job to over there. It is called news. Fundamentally, however, it is fear-mongering — and if succumbed to, it is fatal to our soul.
Both political parties attempt to play on fear, portraying the opposition candidate in the most negative light possible to the point where this campaign has become more immature than a kindergarten shout-down (”My dad can beat up your dad!”). In order to achieve support for means that we know are questionable, those in office instill fear of the unknown or the different. Fundamentalism Muslims are referred to as “Islamo-fascists” (a convenient compounding of any word to denigrate the former term).
Our current economic situation is a result of fear…fear of work, fear of hard times, fear of the housing
market plunging more deeply. This fear will cause us to operate from a position of expediency. Expediency resulting from fear pushes us towards means that seem to be fixes to the fearful problem, but are really methods that will, like termites, slowly eat away at our structural foundation.
In the years of the Roaring 20’s, economists (mainly following the theories of Irving Fisher) were convinced that slowly increasing the money supply would allow for continued expansion of the economy without increasing prices too much or causing any damage to the financial and industrial structures. However, an economist in Austria (Ludwig von Mises) was writing a contrary view, contending that increasing the money supply, thus lowering interest rates and making borrowing cheaper and more attractive than savings, might just pull the rug out from under the glass table on which the economy sat. He felt that “if monetary policy pushed ‘market’ interest rates below the ‘natural’ rate, the central bank could create an unstable business cycle that could lead to financial disaster” (’natural’ rate of interest defined to be “the rate that equalizes the supply and demand for saving based on the social rate of time preference”) [Skousen--The Big Three in Economics].
Mises predictions were ignored and the Federal Reserve in the U.S. continued to increase the money supply and lowered interest rates below the natural rate such that structural imbalances were introduced into the economy, contributing to the Great Depression.
Fast-forward to the 1990’s, a time of great economic growth and increases to the money supply as demonstrated by the decreasing interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve over the last 18 years. What are we facing again? An economy that isn’t saving because the cost of borrowing was cheaper than it should have been is loading the investment market with mortgage-backed that are described as “radioactive toxic waste.” Fear of the economy slowing down during the 90’s and the early 2000’s gave impetus to regulators to adjust the money supply to such a degree that it is likely to have dropped the market rate of interest below the natural rate of interest, leading to the instabilities we’ve seen over the last few months, coming to a head these last ten days.
We know that in order to prosper we need to save. However, we buy into the information spoon-fed to us by a media that is inherently a business and operates on a 24-hour news cycle, thus it is not only subject to fear-mongering, but media is also an objective participant in the generation of economic fear. Politicians also aren’t hesitant to promote fear since our fear gives them greater power as we feel a deeper need for security and every politician will tell us that “changing horses midstream” is a dubious and dangerous proposition.
I started this post with a line from Bruce Springsteen’s ironic warning entitled Magic. We need to listen to the warning voice by holding onto “everything [we] know and [letting go of] what [we] fear”. We must recognize that fear, as described in the following lyrics, is a dangerous thing and if allowed, will turn our heart black and take our God-filled soul and “fill it with devils and dust.”
Now every woman and every man
They want to take a righteous stand
Find the love that God wills
And the faith that He commands
Well I’ve got God on my side
And I’m just trying to survive.
What if what you do to survive
Kills the things you love?
Fear’s a dangerous thing.
It can turn your heart black, you can trust;
It’ll take your God filled soul, fill it with devils and dust.
Decisions based on fear using expediency instead of principles will most often destroy those fundamental principles. Let us be aware of what is seen and unseen and make decisions based on principles and re-establish liberty.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
The Bitter Ironies of September
September 24, 2008 by Rob Benson · 1 Comment
(Guest Contributor)
These days have produced some great ironies. Not the least of which is the current scene on Wall Street: The “free market capitalists” are the ones at the helm when we have the biggest fiasco of the financial system to date, and they are proposing a bail-out? The free marketists created the very system which will result in the biggest regulatory intervention ever: so far $1 trillion proposed to bail out the Wall Street financials.
Ironic that under Bush, the conservatives allow the governmental bail-out in the first place. Furthermore, the RTC (governmental commission to oversee and take in conservatorship of the assets that are upside down) and other heavy-handed governmental regulatory agencies that will come from this are far more heavy-handed than the regulation repealed by the GOP in the 80’s!
Ironic that while the Chinese have worked to “privatize” their biggest banks over the last decade, the US of A has just “nationalized” it’s biggest banks!
Ironic that the American taxpayer will bail out the CEO’s of Wall Street, whose taxes the American taxpayer, through the representatives, voted to decrease!
Ironic that the American taxpayer will bail out the biggest financial giants whose shares are widely held by foreigners!
Ironic that Morgan Stanley, an age-old American financial, is being looked at for purchase by a Chinese bank.
It’s ironic that John McCain who has defended the SEC and the “down-regulate” culture of wall street now calls for Chairman Cox to be “fired!” Further ironic that he was considering Cox for his VP.
Ironic that Bush spent us into uncharted deficit territory, while Obama is vowing to cut spending and cut taxes on the middle class.
Ironic that during the Clinton years, we saw more economic growth, less governmental spending and saw an expansion of global trade activity, while during the Bush years we’ve seen more spending, less growth and a decrease in our ability to expand trade.
It’s ironic that the mean income of the majority of the conservative voting block is “middle class” while the two groups of voters for Obama are “wealthy/upper class” and “lower class/poor” — yet, Obama is proposing a sizable “middle-class tax-cut.”
Furthermore, irony strikes broadly in politics these days: The “family-values” party nominates a man known for NOT being a family man and a woman who chooses to run for the highest office in the land right after having a baby!, while the other party’s two nominees are well known family men.
The party who claims to defend fighting for the rights of women misses the opportunity to nominate the first woman to the highest office. While the other party chooses a woman to run as VP.
The minority nominee is the most educated in the running. The minority nominee has the most statesman-like temperament.
While John McCain accuses Obama of being inexperienced, he chooses a green governor of a small state who’s only other experience is mayor of a town of 7,000 people.
It’s ironic that the man who fought for campaign-finance reform is now being out fund-raised by his counterpart because of his own rules.
Ironic that the party in favor of a “free press” cloisters their VP nominee, Palin, from any exposure to the press.
Ironic that Palin, a staunch opponent of sex education in schools — even if it’s limited to teaching abstinence — has a teenage daughter who is pregnant.
Ironic that McCain calls Obama “elite” while the combined net worth of Obama and Biden is a fraction of the networth of Palin, and Palin’s net worth is a fraction of McCain’s!!
Ironies that may shift the entire political and economic field.
Have something important to say? Light a fire on the Cause of Liberty blog.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
The Rise (and Fall) of the Republicrats
January 24, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · Leave a Comment
Since the presidency of George Washington, the United States has adopted a two-party political system which ensures that all, or nearly all, elected offices are held only by the candidates of the two parties obtaining the highest number of votes. Defenders of the two-party system cite the political stability that it produces and the inherent filter of extremism that it provides.
However, two problems that are becoming increasingly apparent with the evolution of politics in America are the almost indistinguishable character of the two main parties, and the distortion and redefining of long-held and widely-debated political definitions.
The two current parties vying for power are the Democrats and the Republicans, which also are often loosely categorized as liberals and conservatives. Historically the two viewpoints arose from the philosophical differences that existed between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton believed in a strong federal government influence over local governments and individuals, while Jefferson believed strongly in individual rights and a limited federal government.
Democrats seemingly reflect the Hamiltonian perspective and push for more governmental intervention economically and for increased social programs such as welfare, universal health care coverage, and affirmative action. Republicans appear to take Jefferson’s stance and assert individual responsibility and condemn the encroachment of the federal government upon individual liberty.
Catering To the Swing Votes
The U.S. population in the political realm consists of three main groups: liberals, conservatives, and so-called “moderates,” which are also labeled swing voters. Each political party will always have a definite constituency that can be counted on to vote along party lines, and therefore candidates put relatively little effort into campaigning for the votes of their clearly defined base. Instead, hopeful candidates spend the bulk of their time and efforts catering to the vacillating swing voters.
The result of this is that previously defined party lines and definitions are now obscured and concealed behind ambivalent rhetoric, propaganda, and proposals designed to entice voters from all sides.
A perfect example of this is President George W. Bush’s $400 billion proposal for prescription-drug benefits for seniors, which has traditionally been a key Democratic issue. His obvious strategy was to steal the issue from the Democrats in an attempt to entice both swing votes and Democratic votes, knowing full well that even staunch conservatives will still vote to reelect him.
In the current political climate, candidates can use the over-simplified party designation as a simple matter of convenience to further their careers, while hiding disagreeable positions and special-interest affiliations behind the title. Gunnar Myrdal, a contemporary political economist, stated that,
“Political parties . . . have to take up a fighting position at least at election times when they have to stimulate the lazy and undecided voters to vote, and to vote for them. All politicians . . . have, however, an interest in preserving favorable conditions for the normal day-to-day cooperation and collective bargaining among them all.”
He added that,
“We tend to arrive at a situation where there is a large measure of agreement among all the political parties. They sometimes even compete in propagating new and constantly more sweeping redistributional reforms as levels of income rise. In any case, we have seen very few examples, if any, where the coming into power of a more conservative political party has meant a substantial retraction of reforms previously carried through by a party which was further left.”
This general obscuring of issues of principle leaves the voting public with virtually no clear choice and has turned the election process into an arbitrary roll of the dice. Political candidates no longer have defined principles; only general tendencies and ambiguous slogans, and often voters feel an acute sense of being misrepresented and an attitude of futility toward the election process.
The current prevailing strategy among voters seems to be that of “defensive” voting: they vote for the candidate on their side with the highest poll numbers for fear that by voting for another candidate they will “split” the vote, thereby handing the election to their opponent.
Unless the voting public begins to cast their votes in alignment with their conscience and principles, as opposed to choosing the perceived lesser of two evils, the two parties will continue to merge into one, both in theory and in practice, as they compete for the swing votes. Voters must choose candidates who espouse explicit and unequivocal visions and whose political views are reflected in their actions.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Why Vote?
January 24, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · Leave a Comment
On Wikipedia, we find that the basic formula for determining whether someone will vote is:
PB + D > C
P is the probability that one’s vote will affect the outcome of an election, B is the perceived benefit of that person’s favored political party or candidate being elected, while D represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting. C is the time, effort, and cost involved in voting. Simply put, for a person to vote in today’s society, their personal gratification must exceed the effort to vote.
Regardless of personal benefit, the sacred right to vote is accompanied by a sacred duty to vote. The basic reason why many Americans vote today — selfishness — coincides with a general decline in political and civic participation; our desire to find what’s in it for us personally overrides our sense of public virtue. When any society fails to fulfill its duties, it quickly loses its rights.
This election, vote because it is a sacred duty of free individuals and societies and because it is the right thing to do, not simply because of any perceived personal gratification. Don’t vote for personal benefits; vote to protect and maintain freedom.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...