Regulated Profits

It's sickening.  That's the only word I have for this proposal from a group of Democratic Congressmen this week.  Their proposal is to establish a maximum profit level for Energy companies, and impose punishing taxes for any profits over those levels.  The war on profit continues.  Success is punished to pay for those who will never try to succeed.  Do you see the problems with this idea?

Problem Number 1 is the practical impact, instead of wasting capacity for profit making or lowering prices to reduce profits, companies will spread the profits amongst various subsidiaries, or move their profit making units overseas, where they may be heavily taxed, but not punished.  This results in a reduction of our countries importance and influence in the world and a reduction in jobs domestically.  What this does not do is increase tax revenue.  Ultimately it also increases costs for energy to consumers.  With companies cutting domestic production to avoid the punitive taxes, supplies of energy will be reduced.  Without equally reduced demand, prices will rise steadily.  When those prices rise, the consumer has less funds available to spend elsewhere, further damaging the economy.  The ripples spread rapidly, don't they?

Problem Number 2, and most important in my mind, is this further erodes the false notion we have in this country of a right to private property.  Nevermind that our country was founded on private property rights, that they were crucial to the writing of the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights, private property has been under dramatic assault by the Federal Government for decades. 

Does this bill have a chance of passing.  Not right now, but neither did the Patriot Act when it was first written years before 9/11.  But as was proved then, catastrophe can help us make devastatingly stupid choices.

So Called Christian Conservatives

I'm tired.  I'm sick and I'm tired.  I'm sick that our country has devolved politically so far that people have segregated their political views so far from their purported religious views.  The so-called Christian Conservatives, that make up such a large part of the Republican base are turning my stomach.  They go to churches all over the US on Sundays, praising the Prince of Peace.  They praise the man that urged us to turn the other cheek and to do unto others as we would have them do unto ourselves.  Then for the remainder of their lives, they cheer on aggressive foreign policy, pre-emptive wars, rampant militarism.  They worship the God who gave us Free Will and then seek to use the coercive power of the State to take that free will away from us. 

I'm a Christian and I am a conservative, but never lump me in with those who support war over diplomacy or the Government over liberty.

The Virtue of Selfishness (I love me some me)

All too often we decry selfishness as being something awful.  We are told that we must think of others, that we must sacrifice for our fellow man.  We are told that there is no I in team and that only through cooperation with others can we succeed.  While there are times and situations where these idioms hold truth, they have begun to be applied to all aspects of life.  The president preaches of what we must rally together to do for this country, of the sacrifices this group or that group must make for the benefit of the collective.  He says that America wasn't made great by a single individual.

Well, he's right about that last.  America wasn't made great by a single individual.  America also wasn't made great by a collective.  In fact, the collective that we are becoming is what is destroying us now.  No, America was made great by not one individual, but many individuals, selfishly striving to be their individual best.

So, let's go back to talk about this Collective-Think and what it means.  Collectivism is the idea that only through sacrificing the self and doing for the benefit of others can you succeed.  This idea that no man is an island, that no man's success is his own accomplishment, but instead the accomplishment of all of society.  This leads to the conclusion that the man who succeeds owes a debt to society that can only be claimed by the government on behalf of society.  Society then lays the groundwork for your next success and the success of your neighbor.  Does this sound good to you?  It's terrifying.  It's terrifying as much for the justification it provides for the government to reap the rewards of your success as it is for it's power to discourage the individual efforts required to actually achieve success.

Meanwhile the word selfish is being cast as this great evil.  Selfishness is connected with dishonesty, theft, corner cutting, and vice.  So, when people hear that I am encouraging selfishness they wonder about the safety of those around me.  I can't want to be selfish except that I must take advantage of those around me.  You see, that's how this game is played.  First, you poison what you oppose, then you turn what you support into a virtue.  No longer. 

Selfishness is the virtue I support.  If my seeking to create the best life for myself benefits you, good for you, but I didn't do it for you.  I do for me, for my happiness.  Selfishness does not mean that I will cheat you, only that I will bargain hard and try for the best results for myself.  Selfishness does not mean I will not support private charity.  I enjoy the warmth and satisfaction that providing this gives to me.  Selfishness does not mean that I am a miser and am not "generous" with friends and family.  I value my friends and my family.  I value their happiness and satisfaction.  These are worthwhile considerations for me.  Selfishness is what makes an individual strive for success.  Selfishness, in it's virtuous best, is the heart of individualism.

Tyranny Is Often Met With Applause

Over the past few months, president obama has time and again used the tag/applause line We Can't Wait.  What this means is that the country needs help that only the government can provide (a fallacy) and the Republicans in Congress are obstructing this, therefore, he must do what he can to bypass Congress ie, rule by executive decree. 

This week he has decided that despite the Senate's refusal to approve his appointment of his head for the Consumer Finance Protection Board (a misleading name for this Soviet-style Bureau) he will force the appointment by a process known as Recess Appointments.  This is a process created in the last 50 years for Presidents too uncompromising to nominate candidates who can achieve bi-partisan support.  While this process did not receive Constitutional Scrutiny from the Supreme Court (as it should have) it has become legal by default, for lack of challenge and as "accepted practice." 

The problem with this week's action is simply this.  The Senate is not recessed.  Essentially, Obama is installing his man in his post and daring the Senate to do something about it.  Turning an approval process into a "do something to stop me" process. 

I hope and pray that someone does just that.  This president did not start this fire of unconstitutional rule, but he has added jet fuel to the fires of tyrrany.  Meanwhile, as he announced his plans to bypass Congress, to bypass Constitutional requirements and the Separation of Powers, the audience cheered.

NEWSFLASH!

MORDOR (Potomac) - January 4, 2012

John "Gollum" McCain announced today that he would be giving his "Precious" endorsement to former opponent Mitt[ens] RomneyCare. 

Tea Party Hobbitses could not be reached as they were on the slopes of Mount Doom, where they are being held indefinitely as Terrorists due to their propensity to horde food and disrupt the comfortable delusions of the ruling elite.

Disappointed

I've been a little disappointed with some of my "conservative" and "republican" friends lately.  I'm extremely disappointed with last night's results in Iowa.  Yes, the candidate I support came in a close 3rd place.  Ahead of him, however, was a man supported by the "Evangelical Christians" of that state because he is a stolid opponent of aborting unborn children.  That's great.  Valuing the sanctity of life is a wonderful attribute in a Presidential Candidate...except....well, why does he value unborn children more than a 19 year old Marine?  Why does he value that unborn child more than an Iranian child?  You see, these candidates who say they support the sanctity of life are all too ready to start dropping bombs and completely unwilling to sit down and talk to their potential combatants beforehand. 

The "winner" of last night's caucus is a man who supports Statist solutions to problems caused or escalated by none other than the State.  He has been branded as the one candidate who can beat the current disaster.  I can't honestly say that he wouldn't be at least as much of a disaster...so, what's the point?  Why bother changing out one Statist for another? 

I would rather dare to strive for something great and fail than settle for shuffling the deck and playing the same game we've been playing for the past decade.