~PCCapitalist
The Charlotte Tea Party Speech by John Lewis (April 20, 2009)
The article(speech) of the day comes from Capitalism Magazine:
This is a slightly revised version by Dr. Lewis for printed publication. Permission is given to read this in full, wherever defenders of liberty may gather.
It is high time for a tea party in America! But to do this right, we need to understand what it means. So I want to think back for a moment to what happened over 200 years ago, at the time of the original Boston Tea Party. The Founders of this nation brought forth a radical idea. It was truly radical, practiced nowhere before this time. This idea was the Rights of Man.The Founders saw each of us as endowed with certain inalienable rights, rights that may not be separated from our nature as autonomous beings.
These inalienable rights are: · The Right to Life–the right to live your own life, to choose your own goals, and to preserve your own independent existence. · The Right to Liberty, which is the right to act to achieve your goals, without coercion by other men. · The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, to act to achieve your own success, your own prosperity, and your own happiness, for your own sake. · And the Right to Property—the right to gain, keep, and enjoy, the material products of your efforts.
Unless I’m mistaken I don’t see anything here about a right to happiness. I see a right to the pursuit of happiness: the right to take the actions needed to attain one’s own happiness. Nor do I see any rights to things at all—no rights to food, clothing, healthcare or diapers. There is only a right to act to achieve those things. This is called freedom. These rights to act—the rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness—are founded on a certain view of man. Each of us is an individual, autonomous, moral being, with the right to choose his own values and capable of directing his own life. Look at the person next to you, and look in the mirror—do you see the individual sovereign human being, existing for his own sake, with the right to live, to love, and to act?
This idea—the Founders’ idea of the individual Rights of Man—led to a radical view of government. Government was not to be inherited by the force of an entrenched aristocracy as in Europe, imposed by the divine right of kings through generations of oppression, or enforced by the force of a club. Government in America was to be designed and instituted by thinking men, for a single purpose: to protect and defend the Rights of Man. This is what the American Declaration of Independence says: “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Thinking men, armed with the idea of rights, created a government limited to the protection of individual rights. (more…)
Deferring Risk and Taking Names by Justin Williams
The article of the Day is from a website I contribute to called Liberty Movement HQ:
Deferring risk is attempting to take a risky action that may bring a big benefit and putting the costs upon others. Those who may read this site are probably thinking about our current government bailouts, but I would like to look deeper into this problem. In particular, regulations that defers costs. One example of this is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures a certain amount of a bank holder’s account. This is what I call the consumer bailout of 1933 as their website says that they were created because of thousands of bank failures during this time. Regardless of why you think the banks failed, this was a bailout for consumers in order to defer the costs upon the taxpayers.
This one regulation changed the way that people looked at banking forever. Like the way Medicaid recipients think of health care, people now think of their checking and savings accounts as a right. They believe that the bank should always be a safe place for them to put their money because they are insured. When you go to a barber, you exchange money for a haircut. You are exchanging your property (money) for a service (haircut). This should be no different than a bank. There may be chance that when you get your haircut, that they could do it wrong or cut you. This will not happen 99% of the time, but there is still a chance just like there is a chance the bank will fail. One way you avoid this is by developing a relationship with your bank and your barber. The other way is people like lawyers offer their services to prosecute in case of problem and there are insurance companies that offer insurance to the barber at a fee. All voluntary but important functions. This goes to show you that even without the FDIC there will probably be an insurance system, but banks will not be forced to join and the risk will not be deferred to the taxpayer.
Taking names is the after effect. It is when you feel harmed and you try to find who was responsible. When the barber cuts your ear, you know who is responsible. When your bank fails, it seems to the public that it is more than just the bank responsibility. They blame Capitalism, not the bank but they should. Banks are businesses! They are not some sacred invincible being that you park your money at. Now with the FDIC’s “protection” nobody cares about the business practices of their bank. If you knew that your barber cut off every other persons ear, you would not go. If you knew that your bank was making bad loans and losing money, you would not go.
So now who is to blame? The people who gave the first government bailout, also known as the New Deal. They distorted the market and reduced the incentive for consumers to check what their bank is doing. They basically gave out $100,000 dollar blank checks for every account to every bank and expected prudence. This is like handing a teenager a new car and expecting him/her to not drive it.
People will never see this because they would rather blame the “unknown,” Capitalism.
Something to look forward in our journey towards Socialism
From Reuters:
“A Berlin cashier who was sacked from a supermarket after 31 years of service because her employer accused her of stealing 1.30 euros ($1.65) has become a flash point of a debate about unchecked capitalism in Germany.
Leaders of Germany’s major political parties criticized the supermarket’s decision to fire Barbara Emme, especially because the 50-year-old who has become a German cause celebre denies the charges that she kept bottle deposit receipts worth 1.30 euros.
Wolfgang Thierse, vice president of parliament and member of the Social Democrats, on Thursday called a court decision on Tuesday that upheld the cashier’s sacking “barbaric” and warned cases like this “destroy people’s confidence in democracy.”
Horst Seehofer, leader of the Christian Social Union, said the case raised questions about capitalism, which has come under attack in Germany in the wake of the global financial crisis.
“I don’t understand how a cashier can be fired because of 1.30 euros while managers who lose billions of euros can keep their jobs,” Seehofer told a rally in Bavaria on Wednesday.”
This is the socialist nanny-state at it’s best. First, we have people getting upset about someone getting fired. Like it is any of their business. Second, the cashier got fired for stealing but that person is being defended because the managers of corporations are losing money. We are not saying it is social justice to steal from your employer. If America continues the policy of bailing people out and believing that it is your right to a house, car, job, healthcare, retirement insurance etc. this is where we will end up.
~Marxsevelt
Senator Jim DeMint on Bailouts and Inflation
Via NetRightNation Jim Demint at CPAC mentions the upcoming inflation around 2:30:
~PCCapitalist
The Public Choice Capitalist 