Archive

Category Archives for "Factions"

Special interests, political parties, and other factions.

Who are Democrats and Republicans?

The newly formed Republican party wanted to abolish slavery; whereas, the already existing Democratic Party wanted to promote slavery. Therefore, we see that the rhetoric of both parties is consistent with their history. The Republicans have always claimed that no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor; whereas, the Democrats have always promised the fruits of other men’s labor to whoever would vote for them. A majority of those who want something for nothing will thus prefer the Democratic Party.

The mainstream media, academia, and the government actively promote the Democratic Party, and actively oppose the Republican Party. A majority of those who do not think for themselves will thus prefer the Democratic Party.

Of course, those who think for themselves and who take the time to investigate, know that, regardless of which party is in power, the overall trend of government is higher taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more corruption, more wealth redistribution, more violation of the Constitution, more propaganda, more political factions, more fear, more hate, and more regulation of your life and your business.

It is almost as if both parties were merely front men for the same elite interests, and for some issues one is the good cop and the other is the bad cop; whereas, for other issues, it is the reverse. It is almost as if most politics, news media, and academic studies were never intended to find or solve real problems, but were actually intended to incite fear of each other, fear of nature, and fear of the unknown, so that we will empower them to control others, control nature, and control the unknown.

What politicians really need is not just fear, but conflict, and fear leads to hate, and hate leads to anger, and anger leads to action, which is why politicians prefer to motivate us directly by inciting hate instead of fear. Of course, it is very difficult for politicians to sell themselves as the solution to the very hate that they themselves are fomenting, and some politicians, such as Bill Clinton, are almost that skilled, but even such a master politician must choose the faction that controls the media, so that the media will give him the cover he needs. Democrats are thus able to promote the New Hate because they have sufficient cover from the media.

Let’s look at a recent example.

NBC, the Democrats, and Obama used Trayvon Martin’s death to propagate the New Hate.

The media and the Democrats incited hatred in the black community and in the politically correct community while suppressing dissent, which resulted in more votes for the Democratic Party.

17

A Progressive Platform

We cannot truly understand the nature of progressivism in all its flavors, and especially self-proclaimed American progressives, unless we examine some critical elements that have been missing from the discussion. We will consider a real and to-the-point party platform that is free of spin, free of sound bites, and whose ideas are consistent with self-proclaimed American progressives, and then we’ll read a concise tract from a philosopher.

Now these folks didn’t literally identify themselves as “progressives,” but these are my favorite examples of progressivism because their ideas should be acceptable as examples of progressivism to both self-proclaimed American progressives and their critics alike, and also because these folks were honest about their intentions.

Let’s first look at my favorite example of a real party platform that I have genericized by making a few word substitutions so as not to distract the reader with parochial or temporal idiosyncrasies. (I was careful to keep the ideas themselves intact, and I provided a link to the original.) It includes one or two planks that progressives will deny in mixed company, but consider that it was written by progressives who were bold, angry, and frustrated about their oppression and exploitation (think Occupy Wall Street or Michael Moore.)

The Program of the Progressives Workers’ Party is a program for our time. The leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.

1. We demand the uniting of all progressives in all nations into one Greater Progressive Nation because it is our right.

2. We demand equal rights for the progressive people of all nations and annulment of any existing treaties or agreements that contradict this demand.

3. We demand resources from those who have more than they need in order to feed our people and provide for our excess population.

4. Only those currently among the most progressive 95% shall be Citizens of the State. People of any religion may be citizens.

5. Any person who is not a citizen will be able to live in our country only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for aliens.

6. Only a citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the state. We therefore demand that only citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state, or local office.

7. We demand that the state make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the state, then non-citizens are to be expelled.

8. Any further immigration of non-progressives is to be prevented. We demand that all non-progressives who entered after this declaration be forced to leave without delay.

9. All citizens must have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.

We therefore demand:

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.

Breaking the Servitude of Interest

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the Nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the Nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension plans.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard of religion or race.

19. We demand the replacement of traditional law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by Progressive Law.

20. In order to make higher education—and thereby entry into leading positions—available to every able and industrious Progressive, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latter’s position or occupation.

21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievement of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.

22. We support a national army.

23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a Progressive press, we demand:

a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers must be Progressives;

b) non-Progressive newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication.

c) any financial participation in a newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Progressives and the penalty for any breech of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion of the non-Progressives involved. Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our collective life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the Progressive concepts of decency and ethics. The Party as such stands for positive spirituality, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our collective people can be achieved only from within, on the basis of:

Public Interest before Private Interest.

25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the land. Unquestioned authority by the federal government over the entire land and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the federal laws in the individual states.

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points.

Well! That was refreshingly to-the-point!

Clearly, two or three statements in this platform are a little too extreme for the more sophisticated progressives to openly endorse – you know, those Americans who praise Germany and hate bankers. It is not that the authors of this platform were unconcerned about their image, it is just that they were a little bold, a lot self-righteous, and really frustrated – kind of like progressives such as Occupy Wall Street, Michael Moore, MSNBC, Huffington Post, George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc., but we all know that pretty much all progressives would like the sound of this platform in its entirety – if they were being honest.

I trust that anyone who is thinking for themselves and who has talked with enough progressives will agree, but for everyone else, consider that I was able to articulate the thinking of progressives  months before it was affirmed by Chris Matthews. This and thousands of other affirmations make me pretty confident about what progressives think.

Now let’s look at my favorite statement of Progressive philosophy by a philosopher.

Economic initiatives cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of private, individual interests. Open competition, if not wisely directed and restricted, actually destroys wealth instead of creating it.… The proper function of the State in the Progressive system is that of supervising, regulating and arbitrating the relationships of capital and labor, employers and employees, individuals and associations, private interests and national interests.… Private wealth belongs not only to the individual, but, in a symbolic sense, to the State as well.

Surely no progressive would argue with any of this statement of progressive philosophy.

Now, you should be thinking that if neither progressives nor their critics have serious disagreements with the representative accuracy of this party platform or this statement of progressive philosophy, then we haven’t really learned anything.

You are about to learn more than you bargained for.
You are about to experience the End of Innocence.
You are about to experience the Promise of Reality.

First, did you know that libertarians like myself disagree with every last bit of the party platform as well as the statement of philosophy?

Now consider that the actual quote is this:

Economic initiatives cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of private, individual interests. Open competition, if not wisely directed and restricted, actually destroys wealth instead of creating it.… The proper function of the State in the Fascist system is that of supervising, regulating and arbitrating the relationships of capital and labor, employers and employees, individuals and associations, private interests and national interests.… Private wealth belongs not only to the individual, but, in a symbolic sense, to the State as well. — The Philosophy of Fascism (Mario Palmieri, 1936):

Oh My! That sounded sooo progressive, but in fact it was fascism! How can that be? It is almost as if progressivism and fascism were practically the same thing, which would imply that they might lead to the same awful destination.

If you think that was enlightening, consider that the title of the genericized Progressive Party Platform, which is from Munich (1920), is actually:

THE PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL-SOCIALIST (NAZI) GERMAN WORKERS’ PARTY

Daaamn!!!

This was the platform that attracted the young Adolf Hitler to the Nazi Party, and it was in place when he became its leader soon thereafter.

How could replacing references to “Germans” with references to “Progressives”, and replacing references to Jews and other non-Germans with references to “non-Progressives”, make this 1920 Nazi platform so compatible with modern American progressives?

Clearly, the Nazi’s really were socialists just as their name says, and of course, given the issues of their day, they were also Nationalists – just like their names says, and just like any pragmatic progressive would have been under the circumstances. Germans at that time were experiencing chronic unemployment and massive debt forced upon them by other nations after WWI, and they also resented being exploited by rich Jewish bankers – just like the Occupy Wall Street progressives complain about on YouTube today.

The reality is that progressives agree with the party platform and philosophy of German and Italian Fascists – yeah, those Fascists – a.k.a. Nazis.

The reality is that progressivism and fascism are pretty much the same thing.

The reality is that Progressivism = Liberalism + Fascism.
Progressivism is Liberal Fascism. More specifically liberalism is the pretense, fascism is the motivation, and interventionism is the policy. Every idea from American progressives can be described as interventionist. Therefore, the reality is that

American Progressivism = Liberal Pretense + Fascist Motivation + Interventionist Policy

Whereas,

American Libertarianism = No Pretense + Liberal Motivation + Non-interventionist policy.

Now that you know the reality of American progressivism, your innocence is at an end, but now you are free to embrace the soul of your humanity and instantly become the person you’ve always wanted to be.

Freedom is the Promise of Reality.

4

The Prince

Who is dividing us against each other?

If you just thought of some group made up of ordinary people like Southerners, blacks, conservatives, immigrants, union workers, gays, “Evangelicals”, Muslims, Jews, liberals, Tea Partiers, environmentalists, red states, blue states, etc.

STOP IT.

Otherwise, you are just another useful idiot for those who are dividing us.

The front men are easy to identify, but who are their backers? What may seem like the most harmless divisiveness is actually serving as an effective distraction while they perpetrate wars, financial fraud/bailouts, etc. When the divisiveness itself is more than a distraction, it can manipulate enough voters to manufacture a majority for candidates or policies that reduce our wealth and our freedom.

America’s Founders made a great leap forward when they founded America on the liberal principles of tolerance, individual freedom, small government, and equal application of the law … I know … These principles don’t sound anything like the bullies in academia, the media, and government today who call themselves liberals, but let’s not get sidetracked. The liberal principles on which America was founded would logically and inevitably someday include all races, nationalities, religions, genders, etc. It should thus be no surprise that America is the least Racist country in the world. Therefore, it is difficult to divide us.

I know … there have been very big and very real issues dividing Americans since before the Revolution, but that is similar to the history of every country. What is different about America is that by 1970, these issues were pretty much dealt with, and it was then just a matter of healing – but those who profit from divisiveness won’t let us heal. In fact, they manufacture new divisiveness – and most of us are useful idiots for them.

Part of the new divisiveness is the way the original divisiveness was resolved – as if were intentionally designed to foment new divisiveness. Examples are Title IX and racial quotas. Nevertheless, we could easily overcome these new attempts to divide us if we were only allowed to discuss it – but debate is not allowed.

Whenever I try to debate such issues, within seconds, I am branded a racist. Whenever some movement, like the Tea Parties, tries to break out of the cage, the entirety of academia, the media, and government are mobilized to neutralize them. It is even worse for those individuals who are the putative beneficiaries of government action – like blacks, women, or gays who are conservatives or libertarians. Such brave independent-thinking rebels must be neutralized on an individual basis at the earliest opportunity, or else just one of them could bring down the whole charade.

What is unusual about the front men who have been trying to divide us since roughly the 1960’s is that they are trying to gain power over their own people by dividing their own people against each other in a manner very similar to that which Machiavelli prescribed for how a Prince could gain power over a foreign people. A Prince would not divide his own people because that would weaken his own kingdom and make him vulnerable to the influence of foreign Princes taking advantage of the division among his own people.

To summarize Machiavelli in his 1513 treatise “The Prince”: To emulate the most successful kind of Prince, you should find a disgruntled minority in a population and offer to champion them against the majority, and that minority will then recognize your authority over them and over those they hate. They will invite you into their fight. They will invite you into their land – even if you come from another land, and even if they have less in common with you than with those they hate, and by siding with you, an outsider, against their own people … then their own people, the majority in their land, will be demoralized and defensive. Then you must unite the people you just conquered, both with each other and with those you already rule. After consolidating your power by uniting the people, you can then find another people to divide and conquer.

Some of the earliest division in 20th century America was sewn by an assortment of fascist and communist sympathizers. Some liked all flavors of collectivism, while others liked a particular flavor of collectivism. Some were working for the USSR, some were just sympathetic to the USSR, some were just sympathetic to communist or fascist ideas, some were just useful idiots who resented the success of others, and no doubt some of these would-be Princes were just posers who liked how they could apply Machiavelli to get political power for themselves at the expense of the whole nation, but they had the one common characteristic – they applied Machiavellian principles to divide the American people.

Around 1913, the majority of collectivists (communists, fascists, socialists, and progressives) in America were actually pro-American and wanted to unite America. It was then that these collectivists took over the Democratic Party.

In the 1930’s, the collectivists in Europe, such as Mussolini and Hitler,  were rapidly losing admirers in America. Then, of course, there was WWII, after which the original collectivists of Europe had lost all credibility.

In the 1970’s the collectivists in the uber-fascist USSR and China had lost all credibility. Also, the communist flavor of fascism had also lost all credibility. Therefore, in America, we were left with just those posers who had begun trying since the 1960’s to divide us for own their personal benefit. The 1960’s also saw a resurgence of the various forms of fascism (other than communism), such as socialism and progressivism, all of which we just called “big government” – so they didn’t know they were fascists – because we didn’t call them that.

Until the 1960’s, the majority of true believers in collectivism were actually pro-American and wanted to unite Americans, who would then take over the rest of the world through Machiavellian principles, thus leading to a world government – a New World Order. The true believers in collectivism who were trying to divide America also wanted a world government – a New World Order. They just didn’t want America at the top of it.

In the 1960’s, the collectivists trying to divide America took over the Democratic party, and the displaced pro-American collectivists, the FDR type collectivists, took over the Republican Party. Both Republicans and Democrats have been championing fascism/socialism/progressivism, whether they realized it or not, and they didn’t care too much which –ism resonated with the people because all of them were forms of collectivism, which we now call big government.

Since the 1990’s America has been the only superpower, so the political class feels there is little chance of a foreign power gaining control in America by dividing our people, so today, even the putatively pro-American collectivists – the Republicans, are also reaping the personal fruits that come from dividing the people. The Republicans are always behind, aren’t they? By playing the pro-American angle; however, the Republicans have been forced by our liberal founding principles to appear less collectivist as well as to appear more pro-American

To both parties, ideally, the individual would be nothing and the government would be everything. Conformity for the benefits of conformity are paramount. The government is the obvious solution to every problem. Of course, we the people now know that government is more likely to be the cause of every problem, and that brings us to the one true divide.

The only important divide in America; The only true divide in America, is WE THE PEOPLE vs. THE PRINCE.

The only important divide in America; The only true divide in America, is WE THE PEOPLE vs. THE POLITICAL CLASS.

With today’s advanced media, it is possible for the Prince to make two leaps beyond Machiavelli. Today, the Prince can use the media to actually manufacture animosity among a people and turn them against each other. With today’s advanced media, the Prince has even convinced us that he is in fact – the people! Only by thinking for ourselves, can we see beyond the Prince’s deceptions.

In a world of princes and peoples, the central government is not the people. The central government is – The Prince.

The political class is The Prince.

Can our liberal founding principles save us? Is there anything in our history that we got right? Is there anything we can learn from our history that could help us fix America?

According to the political class, the answer is – NO! They don’t want to you to go there. If you go there, the political class and their useful idiots will call you a racist, as a little bit of spittle runs from the corner of their mouth. Therefore, we must be on to something!

Prior to 1913, the kind Princes we have today – the banal bureaucrats who aspire to get all up in our business – were non-existent. Prior to 1913, if you wanted to be a Prince in America, you had to be an entrepreneur. You had to provide a product or service for which the people would voluntarily trade you the fruits of their labor.

Before the “Progressive” era, there was simply no opportunity for the Bill Clintons and the JFK’s. They would have been selling snake oil from a trailer as they moved from town to town, and they would have loved it, as they moved from town to town impregnating and abandoning the women.

Before the Progressive era, America was a time and place unlike any before or since. The more honest among those-who-would-be-prince, basically minded their own business because they and any other entrepreneurial white male could acquire power that was transparently and obviously commensurate with their talent by simply competing in a free market. They were entirely free to compete to provide a product or service for which the people would voluntarily trade the fruits of their labor. Imagine the healthy self esteem that comes from such honest success, and contrast that with the transparently obvious shame that would come from any other means of success.

After 1913, government was becoming an alternative opportunity for the Bill Clintons and JFK’s, but it was organized crime that offered the biggest success for the dishonest majority of Princes.

In the years around 1913, under President Woodrow Wilson, government itself was becoming a kind of organized crime, and so government corruption of the free market had begun. For example, Prohibition not only created organized crime, but also, the advent of the Federal Reserve, government regulation of business, and the income tax, had begun to transform the mainstream business world into a kind of organized crime as well. (We call it crony capitalism today). Both government and mainstream business were not only transforming into a kind of organized crime, but the the whole economy – the whole American system – had been fatally infected.

Then FDR transformed government into the preeminent opportunity for the Bill Clintons and JFK’s. On top of hidden Ponzi schemes like the Federal Reserve, he added more explicit Ponzi schemes like Social Security and Fannie Mae. He even confiscated our gold so that we could not protect ourselves from government Ponzi schemes. FDR and the Federal Reserve turned an ordinary stock market crash into The Great Depression – sound familiar?

The Supreme Court struck down most of FDR’s schemes, which prompted him to try to expand the size of the court and then fill the new seats with justices guaranteed to pass his schemes. However, at the last minute, one of the justices started changing his votes and began upholding the rest of FDR’s schemes – almost as if his life depended on it.

By the 1960’s, the dishonest Princes had nearly exhausted the possibilities of gaining power through the traditional Machiavellian means of uniting the people while dividing and exploiting foreign peoples. In the 1960’s, under JFK and Lyndon Johnson, the political party of Wilson and FDR began furiously dividing the people against each other and making us as dependent as possible on government – all as a means to expand government as an opportunity for the dishonest Princes.

Around 1913, the dishonest Princes began transforming the whole American system into a kind of organized crime and a kind of Ponzi scheme, but America was lucky because our competitors were destroyed in WWI and WWII, and some continued to destroy themselves with communism.

America’s luck has run out.

By the 1980’s the political Party of Wilson, FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton and Obama, had fully transformed the whole American system into a kind of organized crime and a kind of Ponzi scheme – which is crashing now.

Thanks to our founding principles, it is some consolation that women and minorities are allowed to participate in The Great Ponzi.

Some have described this century of progressivism (a.k.a. fascism) as “Emancipating Slaves – Enslaving Free Men.”

2

Gay Marriage

I would like to see the government out of the marriage business entirely, and thus I propose the Freedom of Marriage Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of marriage, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of parents, or of procreation; or the right of the people to peaceably engage in sexual activity.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, the Freedom of Marriage Amendment is not the law, and so the government is all up in our business about marriage – and everything else. Therefore, we have many government laws about marriage; and thus we have gay marriage advocates claiming that equality under the law demands those laws apply equally to gay marriage because they claim gay marriage is the same as hetero marriage in every way that is relevant to the government.

Does equality under the law really apply? If only straight people could own slaves, would it also be necessary to allow gay people to own slaves? If only straight people could be slaves, would it also be necessary to allow gay people to be slaves? If government is all up in our business about hetero marriage, would it also be necessary for government to be all up in gay people’s business about marriage? If everyone must be forced to subsidize hetero marriage, then would it also be necessary to force everyone to also subsidize gay marriage? If only some gays wanted marriage laws to apply to them, would it also be necessary to force those laws on all gays?

Government has a monopoly on making laws, so from government’s perspective, is gay marriage the same as hetero marriage in every way that is relevant to government?

  • It is not traditional. Even polygamy is more traditional and more natural than gay marriage.
  • Homosexuality is unlikely to have evolved naturally. Evolution occurs by random genetic mutations, but a random genetic mutation causing homosexuality would not survive long in the gene pool.
  • Most religions oppose homosexuality.
  • Gays do not have as much interest in raising children. Gay sex does not produce children. Gay sex does not produce more soldiers or tax payers – hence less benefit to government.
  • Although love is a beautiful thing, anal sex is not a particularly beautiful thing. There’s poo in there.
  • Vaginal sex is far less likely than anal sex to transmit AIDS, thus making a desire for anal sex unlikely to have evolved naturally.
  • If gay love is the same, then why can’t Hollywood produce a convincing heterosexual romance? Why must they rely on focus groups and copy the work of past successes in order to create just an adequate romance?
  • Heterosexual men who do not get married are far more likely to get into trouble, meaning they are far more likely to initiate force and fraud or overreact to an initiation of force or fraud, and thus hetero marriage has more of a stabilizing effect.

Libertarians like myself do not consider the differences between hetero marriage and gay marriage to be very relevant. If gay people say they want to get married, then that is a good enough reason to change the definition of marriage. Whereas, progressive advocates (usually not gay themselves) violently resist all of the evidence of differences, and they use the full force of their dominance in academia, media, and government to dishonestly suppress these points and advance fallacies.

Do you remember in 1987 when Oprah was one of many voices who were spreading alarmist propaganda? She said that AIDS would kill one-fifth!
… of the hetero-sexual population!
… by 1990!

Progressives would be apoplectic if the army forced men and women to shower together because naked people cannot relax when other naked people are sizing them up sexually and also looking for an opportunity to initiate a sexual encounter, and yet, progressives are determined to force straight men to shower with gay men.

Have you ever noticed how the media absolutely refuse to acknowledge how homosexuality is a factor when men rape boys in Catholicism, Judaism, athletics, charities, etc.

Have you noticed how the media absolutely refuse to acknowledge any evidence that Obama is gay?

Why do progressives feel the need to take away the tax-exempt status of churches whose doctrine will not allow them to perform gay marriages? Why are progressives so obsessed in their desire to force others to conform? Why can’t progressives ever mind their own business?

The repulsive hypocrisy, dishonesty, and fascism of progressives is unnecessary because …

Now we know there is another group of people who genuinely want marriage law to apply to them too.

… and their claim is sufficient.

To deny marriage to gays would just be mean.

To summarize, libertarian advocacy is fundamentally different than progressive advocacy. Whereas, libertarians say the law should apply the same, progressives also want to create new fascist laws, such as punishing churches who refuse to perform gay marriages. Whereas, libertarians embrace reality and tolerance; progressives are evasive, hypocritical, and fascist.

Test Yourself – Polygamy vs. Gay Marriage

Whenever any progressive advocate asks me if I support gay marriage, I say, “I’ll support your right to marry another man if you support my right to marry more than one woman.”

Now, any principled and honest advocate for gay marriage would respond, “Hmm… Well, yes of course. That is only fair. After all, the law must apply equally to all marriages. Thank, you for enlightening me.” However, not one progressive advocate for gay marriage has ever responded anything like that, although two have reluctantly kind-of sort-of agreed after a few minutes of arguing.

The typical progressive advocate for gay marriage gets angry, and the typical responses I get from progressive advocates are:

“No!”
“What is your real agenda?”
“You are a threat to the institution of marriage.”
“Marriage is between a person and another person.”
“Polygamy is unnatural.”

Now compare those responses from progressives to the responses I get from conservatives when I ask them to support gay marriage:

“No!”
“What is your real agenda?”
“You are a threat to the institution of marriage.”
“Marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“Gay marriage is unnatural.”

Note how …

Progressive advocates and conservative opponents sure do sound a lot alike.

I expected as much from progressives given how the media promotes and celebrates gay marriage while disparaging polygamy. What would their so called “liberal” friends think if they didn’t conform!?

At least conservatives are not being hypocritical. They are just being consistent with their instincts and with pretty much every major religion.

Libertarians, and in some ways conservatives, are more liberal than liberals.

The Factions

As we learned from the issue of polygamy vs. gay marriage, we can learn so much more beyond the legal questions on gay marriage by comparing the various factions themselves.

Everyone agrees that gay marriages claim to be partnerships between consenting adults who expect from each other a lifetime of exclusivity, sex, cohabitation, income sharing, etc.

Libertarians agree with conservatives that gay marriage is different in some ways, but libertarians disagree with conservatives that we can’t redefine marriage. Libertarians also disagree with progressives who claim that marriage has always included gay marriage.

Libertarians know the world is the result of our individual choices, and the future is limitless.

Libertarians disagree with progressives, who want to create additional laws to force everyone to promote homosexuality and gay marriage. For example, forcing churches to perform gay marriages is pure fascism.

Many libertarians disagree with both conservatives and progressives who claim that gay marriage has been illegal in recent decades:

Polygamy has been illegal – Gay marriage has not.

For a long time before Obama was president, gays have been allowed to form marriages just like hetero couples. What gays have not been allowed to do is use the government to force others to react to both marriages identically.

Libertarians agree with conservatives who have noted progressive hypocrisy where progressives thought it helped their agenda to claim that homosexuality was a choice, and then progressives decided that it helped their agenda to claim that homosexuality was predetermined. Why did progressives flip flop on whether homosexuality is a choice vs. predetermination? Although predetermined homosexuality elicits more sympathy from others, it also invites others to find a “cure.”

Whereas, many gays would have actually welcomed a cure (before they were conditioned by the media to conform to the progressive agenda) most progressives would block development of such a cure because they would lose some of their political base. Progressives care more about political power over those they hate than they care about gay people.

Endgame

The Elites (a.k.a. The Prince) behind both progressives and neocons (Republican progressives) want to divide us against each other in order to keep us distracted, to keep us weak, and to gain more power. The Prince wants greater division until its power is permanent. Then the prince will want greater conformity – including a cure for homosexuality. The Prince cares nothing about gay people.

4

Progressivism Leads to Genocide

Progressives are all about good ideas and change – to implement their good ideas – for the good of their people and for future generations.

More specifically, progressives are all about enforcing good ideas and change.

Progressives believe that government can do anything they think it needs to do … but only for a good reason – of course. For example, we are “all in this together,” and “it takes a village,” so your every word and action affects others, who thus have the right to regulate your words and actions – whenever it’s a good idea.

Progressives believe that government should never restrict free speech … without a good reason – of course. For example, progressives obviously can’t tolerate any speech that undermines progress – whether that speech is in the workplace, or the schools and universities, or in the media.

Free speech is a concept that refers to absolute free speech for everyone, and thus, anyone who would restrict free speech – for a good reason – doesn’t believe in free speech at all. If you don’t believe in free speech for everyone, then you don’t believe in free speech at all.

The progressive position is no different – in principle – than that of every authoritarian government in history. Every authoritarian government says it needs the power to implement any good ideas for the benefit of the people and for future generations, and that it would only restrict freedom for a good reason.

Of course, progressives point out how they are not as oppressive – in practice – as those authoritarian governments – but that is my whole point. In practice, they are not as oppressive …

yet.

Progressives are different than the most oppressive regimes because they don’t have that much power yet, but progressives already scapegoat others and express hate regularly. Progressives also commit as many atrocities, both directly and indirectly, as their power allows.

The story of David Reimer is one of countless direct atrocities. Whereas, the poverty, crime, and disease resulting from government dependence in the African American community is tantamount to millions of indirect atrocities. But let’s not get sidetracked.

If progressives don’t really believe in free speech – the most important of all freedoms – then progressives certainly don’t really believe in any other freedoms. Therefore, under progressivism, government power can only grow, until eventually, nearly everything imaginable is either prohibited or mandated … and every opponent has been neutralized – for the good of the people and for future generations … of course.

Therefore, progressivism, like any form of fascism, champions unlimited government power.

However, as progressive government inevitably fails, it has the incentive to find a scapegoat, and more importantly, it has the power to find a scapegoat.

When a government with unlimited power needs a scapegoat, we are talking about genocide. The most famous example is the progressive movement led by Adolf Hitler, which tried to clean the gene pool by removing “inferior” Jewish genes. Consider the confessions of those progressives who were the hands-on perpetrators of genocide itself. The executioners understood that they were monsters, but they had selflessly made the personal decision to sacrifice their own humanity for the good of their people and for future generations, and thus they felt they were perhaps the most noble of all progressives.

The eugenics (cleaning of the gene pool) by the progressives in the Third Reich is not some aberration. Progressives in the US, such as George Bernard Shaw and Margaret Sanger, were open advocates of eugenics. I am still not sure why Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton said during her 2008 Presidential campaign that she was a progressive modeled after Margaret Sanger, but now we know why Hillary always did make our skin crawl.

To be fair, any form of unlimited government would only reluctantly engage in genocide. For example, the progressives of the Third Reich first tried relocation, and the progressives under Chairman Mao first tried reeducation camps. The progressives in the US first tried lobotomies and sterilization, and today they are first resorting to forced psychotherapy and forced medication.

In the future, if progressives have both the necessary power and technology to enforce gene therapy, then their final solution will no longer be traditional genocide. In the future, the final solution of progressives will be compassionate genocide. Progressives will first remove our “reactionary” genes, like those that cause independent thought, skepticism, and self-esteem, and then they will remove those genes that make men and women different and those genes that make black and white people different … and then they will be done.

The ultimate goal of progressivism is to kill the soul of humanity, but make no mistake, if progressives cannot kill the soul of humanity, they will kill those individuals who carry the soul of humanity.

I submit that genocide is the worst thing imaginable, and therefore, unlimited government, whether it is progressivism or any other form of fascism, is the worst thing imaginable.

Perhaps you think genocide is worse than unlimited government, but sooner or later, genocide and every atrocity imaginable, is guaranteed with unlimited government. Therefore, unlimited government results in genocide as well as every other atrocity imaginable, and thus I further submit that whatever you think is worse than unlimited government, is itself guaranteed with unlimited government.

Once we understand the reality of unlimited government, we understand that freedom is always better.

The Promise of Reality is Freedom.

Progressives vs. CEOs

Those who tend view government as the solution rather than the problem, – those who call themselves liberals, socialists, or progressives – claim we are experiencing far greater economic exploitation and suffering than at any time since the advent of progressivism under Woodrow Wilson.

Modern progressives tend to blame national and global economic problems on greed – especially the greed of CEOs. However, we’ve always had greed. More specifically, our genetic predisposition towards greed is no different than at any other time in recorded history. So greed explains nothing.

For every problem, there is always an explanation that is simple, and obvious – and wrong.

Clearly, greed is not the problem. We’ve always had greed, so what’s different today (assuming things really are worse than before)?

Let’s first consider whether CEOs are really making too much money.

If socialists are correct, and a CEO is way overcompensated because he is really just “one guy who barely contributes to an organization,” then why would the owners (the major stockholders) pay the CEO so much if he is not really increasing the value of their stock by more than they are paying him? Why wouldn’t they just fire him and hire someone who would do it for less. Why wouldn’t they have just hired someone who would work for less in the first place, and if no one would do it for less, then why have a CEO at all (if he barely contributes)?

For every problem, there is always an explanation that is simple, and obvious – and wrong.

Clearly, CEOs are not overpaid (unless there is a variable we are not considering). Perhaps the variable we are not considering is government itself.

Maybe CEOs are worth so much to a company because they can get so many advantages from government over their main competitors, and maybe the most valuable CEOs can even get their friends in government to thwart potential new competitors. Maybe such crony capitalists are able to outcompete honest capitalists with some help from their friends in government. Maybe the CEOs we see today are mostly the creation of government. Maybe if they weren’t installed directly by government, then they were chosen over competing and more honest CEOs because of perverse incentives created by government.

Now let’s look at the progressive solution.

The well known progressive solution to greedy CEOs (and just about everything) is for government to take at least 90% of the wealth from the rich and for the government to then directly provide everyone with food, employment, college education, top health care, larger payments to the unemployed, disabled, retired, and strikers; more benefits to women and racial minorities, more power to unions, more government control over the education of our children, and more control over our access to “unhealthy” information, food, energy, etc. The solution is trillions of dollars of taxes and spending. Perhaps the most favorite progressivist solution is regulation of business – millions of pages of regulation.

Now let’s consider what has changed since the 1960’s, which was the most progressive decade and thus the last good decade according to progressives. Let’s first consider the two non progressive changes: lower taxes and lower union membership.

Taxes are lower today, but tax revenues actually went up after tax cuts, so lower taxes didn’t hurt anyone, and in fact lower taxes must have helped the economy if a lower tax rate yielded larger tax revenues to the government.

Union membership is lower today, but not as a result of legislation or any other anti-union efforts. In fact, until 2008, unions continued to be more successful in the form of better contracts and new legal advantages. For example, some states, like my home state of Kentucky, required all state contracts to go to unionized companies. That’s a dirty bit of cheatin, but of course, it’s now obvious that unions were too successful – killing off the companies they exploited and thus reducing union membership. Unions most recently killed GM, until Obama gave GM – or more specifically, GM’s union – a bailout, paid for by robbing GM investors and the tax paying public. I will never buy another GM product – ever.

The only other things that changed are that we have new progressive policies and that existing progressive policies have been in place longer and have grown larger – much larger.

Progressives programs that existed in the 60’s a and have continued to grow are: the department of defense, BATF, government housing, gun control, Fannie Mae, the postal service, the federal reserve, thousands of pages of regulations, the IRS, Medicare, the SEC, and Social Security.

We also have new progressive policies such as welfare, OSHA, Medicaid, the CRA, affirmative action, political correctness, sexual harassment, Title IX, Sarbanes Oxley, the department of energy, the department of education, and millions of pages of new regulations.

In addition to all of the new and growing progressive programs, consider that the largest progressive program is a Ponzi scheme. That’s right. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Now consider that everything has been going pretty well until 2008 – almost as if a Ponzi scheme is collapsing.

The progressives claim we desperately need their programs to save us from greed, but when we abandon simple minded explanations like greed, and look deeper, we see that it is in fact the progressive programs themselves that have created the problems we face today.

Progressivism is a problem masquerading as it’s own cure.
Government is a problem masquerading as it’s own cure.
Progressivism is the con of the century.

Progressives know that the people like getting free stuff from the government, so progressives wonder why even poor people are often afraid to vote for progressives, but we know why. Whereas, progressives think they know about greed – and … well … everything, we the people know about progressives.

We have listed a sampling of progressive policies known to the people, but we left out the one policy (a strategy really) that liberals, progressives, and socialists like most. We left out a progressive strategy that we have all experienced first hand.

We must shine a light on the one thing that Progressives know with more certainty than how they know that greed is the cause of all of our problems. We must expose the fact that progressives know that anyone who disagrees with them is a racist.

Progressives also know there is a racist under every rock and behind every tree, which is why the people know that progressives are the purveyors of the New Hate.

We the people are smarter than progressives think we are.

Choose the Form of the Destructor

If given only the following two choices, would you rather the most powerful people be those who want to control your beliefs and lifestyle, and your access to guns, information, and voting; or would you rather the most power people be those who want to get rich by beating their competitors and who don’t care at all about your beliefs and lifestyle, or your access to guns, information, and voting?

The current reality is your other choice. It is where government has given advantages to those businessmen who are willing to support the government’s goals of controlling your beliefs and lifestyle, and your access to guns, information, and voting.

In a free market, the extent to which a business tried to control your beliefs and lifestyle, and your access to guns, information, and voting is the extent to which that business would lose to its more focused competitors, but government has thoroughly corrupted our free market. Now, those businesses willing to support the government’s goals of controlling your beliefs and lifestyle, and your access to guns, information, and voting are able to outcompete any business that tries to compete without government support – any business that has not been corrupted by government.

Government makes GE, British Petroleum, and Goldman Sachs bigger than their competitors through regulations that help them but hurt their competitors, and then government bails them out because they are too big to fail! The most recent example is the bullying of Forest Labs.

But isn’t government interference a necessary evil to control the profit motive? Doesn’t the fee market allow an unfettered profit motive as well as theoretically unlimited profit to those who earn it?

It is true that profit is the only motive of a business decision, and the extent to which business decisions are not intended to directly or indirectly maximize profit is the extent to which the business is not a pure business. However, the profit earned by others is none of our business, and the profit earned by others does not hurt us; whereas, government’s attempts to control the profit motive hurts us a lot – and not just by government corrupting individual companies.

The profit motive makes countries great, and removing it destroys them.

America became great with a relatively unfettered profit motive, and so the whole world is moving towards the profit motive while America inexplicably moves away from it. The extent to which China has allowed the profit motive, is the extent to which China has excelled. In some ways, China allows the profit motive even more than the US.

Removing the profit motive destroys society. Everyone knows about the USSR, the Warsaw Pact, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, but did you know the Axis leaders of WWII also disliked capitalism?

Do we really need a strong government like these to protect us from the profit motive? Would you be willing to live in any of those places?

These strong governments that protected a billion people from the profit motive, did so through purges, reprogramming, expansionism, militarism, conformism, genocide, etc. So, who would protect us from these powerful people who claim to protect us from other powerful people? Who would protect us from the protectors?

I would prefer the most power people be those who want to get rich by beating their competitors and who don’t care at all about our beliefs and lifestyle, or our access to guns, information, and voting.

Appeals to Authority – A Growing Threat

Who will win the future?

Appeals to authority touch the Soul of Animals (hierarchy and conformism); whereas, science touches the Soul of Humanity (integrity, open mindedness, tolerance, responsibility, curiosity, courage, honesty, peace, nobility, progress).

Let’s start with the fundamentals. A logical argument consists of facts, and it has a conclusion that can be logically derived from those facts. Of course, facts can be wrong, and logic can be flawed.

An increasing number of  arguments simply do not contain those facts or logic sufficient to actually prove their conclusion, but that’s OK, some facts and logic are more helpful than none. Of course, we all know that bias commonly motivates many people to cheat by leaving out inconvenient facts and/or logic. However, such familiar trickery is really just the tip of the iceberg because an increasing number of arguments also contain logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies are common argument techniques (first identified by Aristotle) that sound logical but actually prove nothing. However, logical fallacies are far easier to construct than to refute. Therefore, some exposure to the known logical fallacies will help us to identify them more quickly and make them less common.

An increasingly common logical fallacy is the appeal to authority, which is where the speaker claims that we should accept his argument because some “expert” agrees with it.

To a natural skeptic like myself, an appeal to authority usually fails immediately. Whether one is an expert or not, one must conform to the same criteria, if one expects me to be persuaded by an appeal to authority.

Although an appeal to authority can never prove a conclusion, it can be a strong argument if it has met a sufficient set of criteria. Until I have confirmed the following sets of criteria, I will doubt the claims of even the most exalted expert. The first set of criteria apply to the claim itself:

  1. Is the claim simple and not unusually complex?
  2. Is the claim trying to explain what has already happened, or is it trying to predict the future?
  3. Is the claim falsifiable?
  4. Is the claim free of social pressure?
  5. Is the claim free of professional pressure?
  6. Is the claim free of financial pressure?
  7. Is the claim free of emotional pressure?
  8. Do competing sources agree with the claim?
  9. Is the claim entirely transparent?
  10. Is the claim compatible with my experience, or does it contradict my experience?
  11. Is the claim directly from the authority, or has it been communicated through a medium that could have distorted it?
  12. In the context of the claim, if it is wrong, would the consequence be minimal damage or maximum damage?

The next set of criteria apply to the source of the claim:

  1. Is the source free of bias?
  2. How often has the source been wrong before?
  3. Has the source ever tried to intentionally deceive anyone?
  4. Has the source successfully explained many similar examples before?
  5. Does the source have sufficient background (training, independent research, etc.) to make the claim?
  6. Is the source entirely transparent?

The next set of criteria apply to the receiver of the claim:

  1. Have I observed that the claims by that authority proved to be true in the past?
  2. Have I observed that the claims by that authority matched my experience in past?
  3. Do other people I trust, trust that authority?

Clearly, it would be so difficult for an appeal to authority to meet sufficient criteria to be persuasive that it would be easier to just make a logical argument that contains sufficient facts and logic to stand on its own. Hence, why would anyone bother to make an appeal to authority if they weren’t trying to deceive?

About the only time an appeal to authority meets sufficient criteria is when an authority like a doctor or mechanic, who was recommended by friends,  transparently substantiates a common and easily verified diagnosis that offers him little financial incentive.

Examples

One of my favorite abuses was when the politically motivated authorities at the Nobel committee used their authority to bestow authority on Al Gore and then on Barack Obama by granting them the Nobel Prize.

My other favorite example is Anthropogenic Global Warming,  which is a very complex web of claims, but at the highest level, the claim of Global Warming believers (led by authorities who are proven frauds like Al Gore, NASA “scientist” James Hansen, and British “scientist” Thomas Mann) is that human production of CO2 will cause imminent, extreme, and global catastrophe; and that to prevent their catastrophic predictions, governments must control most human activity and the middle class must make extreme sacrifices. Hence, Global Warming appeals to a broad spectrum of progressives, socialists, and fascists.

I was able to generate most of my list of criteria by which I judge an appeal to authority by simply thinking about Global Warming, which violates all but one of them. Global Warming is the biggest and best example of appeals to authority I have ever seen.

To be fair, deep within the claims of Global Warming believers one can find appeals to authority that even a skeptic like myself would accept as fact because they are similar to our example of when we believe doctors and mechanics. For example, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing at a rate of 2 parts per million per year. I don’t doubt this claim.

Curiously, the increase of 2ppm per year is simple and not very alarming and thus is often suppressed. Most believers I meet on the street have not heard of it and become more skeptical of Global Warming when they learn of it.

Even the simple claim of an increase of 2ppm/year is not as simple as it seems because it does not tell us whether this increase occurs in the lower or upper atmosphere, and it does not tell us where Global Warming theory predicts the increase should occur. It turns out that this is one of many examples where the facts contradict the theory, but Global Warming believers won’t tell you that either, but of course, most of them don’t know about this contradiction anyway.

Clearly, an appeal to authority is always suspect in a political or religious context – and yet is increasingly common.

The Future

Those who are increasingly targets of appeals to authority are of course those who are most vulnerable to appeals to authority, and those who are most vulnerable to appeals to authority are – our children.

Those who want to control the future are using appeals to authority to indoctrinate our children because in government schools, our children are routinely taught to shut up, sit down, listen up, and conform. In other words, in government schools, our children are conditioned to accept authority, believe authority, obey authority, and pressure others to conform to authority. All any faction has to do with such a vulnerable audience is include their propaganda while they’re forcing our children to listen.

So who are the factions indoctrinating our children?

The factions who are increasingly using appeals to authority are of course those who claim to manufacture and possess authority, which are government and academia; as well as those who actually propagate appeals to that authority, which are the media.

The factions who increasingly manufacture and propagate appeals to authority – those who are indoctrinating our children – can be described as an assortment of progressives, socialists, fascists, communists, and Marxists.

Schools coerce our children into watching socialist propaganda.
Yeah. That’s not creepy.
Don’t schools know that Al Gore and his documentary are proven frauds?
Teachers caught saying we need to promote the ideas of Marxism in the classroom. WTF!?
A brave liberal democrat disagrees with the indoctrination of school kids by leftists!
6

Atlas Shrugged – Makers vs. Takers

Humanity at our best and our worst.

Two of the last noble captains of industry fall in love and try to save the world while their ungrateful friends, relatives, and government heap insult and injury upon them. Therefore …

Atlas Shrugged is a dangerous movie. It exposes and subverts the dominant struggle of recorded history, which is the war of the takers against the makers.

In the war of the takers against the makers, Atlas Shrugged champions the makers. In the war of style over substance, Atlas Shrugged champions substance. In the war of hype over reality, Atlas Shrugged champions reality. In the war of authority over the individual, Atlas Shrugged Champions the individual. In the war of corruption vs. integrity, Atlas Shrugged champions integrity.

Most people won’t get Atlas Shrugged because we have been programmed to see the world the way the Takers want us to see it; therefore, you’re supposed to hate this movie, but see it anyway and let the healing begin. If you weren’t choking back tears when they crossed the bridge, then your soul is definitely sick.

The technique is perfect. It makes hundreds of points by simply letting us watch the lives of the characters, and the characters don’t bore us with pedantic words like “capitalism” or “socialism”. I don’t even recall them using the word “government” – how refreshing.

The main point is how those who simply pursue their own self interest with honesty, boldness, and confidence help the world immensely; whereas, those socialists and crony capitalists who claim they want to help the world by forcing others to provide that help are causing the world more harm than good. This is not to say that all socialists are takers, many socialists are makers who serve as useful idiots for the takers, thus working against their own self interest.

Atlas Shrugged exposes the reality of government vs. the Free Market:
Government is a zero sum game; whereas, the free market is a win-win.
Government redistributes wealth – the Free Market creates wealth.
Government redistributes the same pie – the Free Market makes a bigger pie.
Government retards innovation – the Free Market maximizes innovation.
Government rewards failure – the Free Market rewards success.
Government authority is force – Free Market authority is reputation.
Government is a monopoly – the Free Market is unlimited competition.
Government is out of control – the Free Market is self regulating.

For all of recorded history, the takers have ruled the makers, but since 1776 the makers abruptly had the takers back on their heels for the first time in history. A majority understood that they owned themselves and thus had a right to keep or trade the fruits of their own labor. A majority understood that government was a not-so-necessary evil that burdened our innovation and corrupted our character. As a result, many among the wealthy acquired their wealth through the fruits of their own labor for the first time in history.

Of course, style, hype, corruption, authority, and hence, the takers, have been enjoying a resurgence for at least 100 years. As a result, the makers have been so corrupted by government that one now finds the makers hard to distinguish from the takers. Another result of the Taker resurgence is that few today have the background or the critical thinking skills to understand Atlas Shrugged.

Baby Boomers and Generation Y seem lost already – hence the election of Barack Obama. Perhaps 10% of them will get it, but I suspect that more like 70% of Generation X will get it. Hence there is reason for those individuals of substance and integrity – those makers in touch with reality – to hope for change.

The Takers Strike Back

The media are dominated by useful idiots for the Takers, so it is not too surprising that the critics hate this movie and that they are so out of sync with the people.

image

Of course, this feeble attack by the critics was only the first of many. As soon as the media and the leaders of special interests learn more about this movie, expect to see more backlash. Imagine what will happen to the people’s side of this poll when Obamatons start getting chain emails with links to help them stuff the ballot box. Perhaps at the moment, the Takers don’t want to draw the attention of their Obamatons to this movie for fear they may actually watch it – and that could be dangerous.

Each day after I wrote my prediction that the Obamatons would try to stuff the ballot box, I have noticed that the number of “User Ratings” has remained frozen at 7,431. Perhaps the web site detected that Obamatons (a.k.a. useful idiots) had begun their campaign to stuff the ballot box on the same day as I predicted they would.

Freedom of Education

I know that education could be a lot better for less cost and I will explain how to get there, but many people just can’t get their head around such innovation, so let’s start with what everyone believes, and then look at some analysis that everyone can immediately recognize has a ring of truth, and then we’ll explore a solution that a majority will instantly recognize as superior to the status quo.

Everyone agrees that education could be a lot better for a little more cost, and everyone agrees that it could be at least somewhat better without increasing the cost; but somehow, education never gets better. Somehow, innovation has been suppressed.

The obvious reason for a lack of innovation in education is that parents and children have no meaningful choice, and the obvious reason that parents have no meaningful choice is because there is no meaningful competition in the education industry, and the reason there is no meaningful competition in the education industry is because the education industry is a monopoly.

The reason the education industry is a monopoly is because it has only one customer – government, and for education, government has only one customer – unions, and unions have only one customer – teachers.

Unions represent teachers – not parents or kids. Unions are about power.

Apparently, government and union leaders think that parents and children need to just shut up and sit down.

A friend of mine, let’s call him François, disagrees – vehemently. François knows that parents have lots of choice because he has studied the issue and talked with some teachers. François says that he understands education much better than me even though I have three children in school and he has no children at all (because he doesn’t want to increase his carbon footprint)!

I asked François to give me his best example of how he knows that we parents have so much control over our children’s education, and he explained that the parents on his street go to PTA meetings where they forced the government to raise their taxes and to hire more teachers! FORCED?! Higher taxes and more union members are exactly what politicians and union leaders want!

Smaller class size may sound like a good idea, but it is an idea that has been proven false. Smaller class size has minimal educational benefit. The only ones who benefit significantly from smaller class sizes are government and unions.

Those poor parents … they were so desperate to help their children … They probably thought it was their idea, but clearly it was the union’s idea. There was probably one guy who was thinking for himself a little bit and expressed doubt, and those poor desperate parents probably insinuated (in that passive-aggressive left coast way) that he might not be one of them, at which point, he would be terrified that some of them might be thinking he was a closet right-wing, teacher-hating lunatic who watches Glenn Beck. Then those poor desperate parents proceeded to jump through every hoop as the union played them like a piano.

Imagine if education were about the kids instead of political power.
Imagine if education were about the future instead of political power.

In the near future, I will explain a solution that I think the majority who care about the children will agree with.

—–

I’ll have more to add to this article soon, but for the rest of it, I’m just going to throw out compelling information as I find it, and then I will develop solutions.

College cost inflation has increased much faster than general inflation.

TuitionInflation

It seems like College is becoming a scam. Surely the internet, video lecturers, recorded lectures, and other innovations could cut college costs by about 90%.

What about K – 12? Consider that Jimmy Carter and Congress created the Department of Education in 1977, and that inflation adjusted costs per student have doubled since then; whereas, results have gone down.