Author: Papa Giorgio

The Bigger the Government the Smaller the Individual (PragerU)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Video description) In every society throughout human history the following relationship has held true: as government grows, human freedom and happiness shrinks. Best selling author, Dennis Prager puts it this way: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” This has been true in Europe for decades and is becoming ever more so in the United States. But it’s not the kind of nation, the Founding Fathers had in mind. Can we get back to the principles of liberty and individual responsibility? It’s a big challenge. But first we have to recognize the problem.

Big government leads to lobbyist and special interest groups… Larry Elder points out that if you dislike these controlling and influencing aspects on our body-politic, you would want to diminish it by diminishing the size of government. But these ills the left loves to harp on will only increase as government increases in size and scope. Likewise, Milton Friedman points out that monopolies are ONLY possible with big government intervention.

And from an article via Dennis Prager:

Rational People Fear Big Government, Not Big Business

You cannot understand the left if you do not understand that Leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some Left-wing Christians’ and Jews’ claims notwithstanding), but otherwise it has every characteristic of a religion. The most blatant of those characteristics is dogma. People who believe in Leftism have as many dogmas as the most fundamentalist Christian.

One of them is material equality as the preeminent moral goal. Another is the villainy of corporations. The bigger the corporation, the greater the villainy. Thus, instead of the devil, the left has Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the “military-industrial complex,” and the like. Meanwhile, Big Labor, Big Trial Lawyers, and, of course, Big Government are leftwing angels. And why is that? Why, to be specific, does the left fear big corporations but not big government? The answer is dogma — a belief system that transcends reason. No rational person can deny that big governments have caused almost all the great evils of the last century, arguably the bloodiest in history. Who killed the 20-30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago — big government or big business? Hint: There were no private businesses in the Soviet Union. Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death — big government or big business? Hint: See previous hint. Did Coca Cola kill five million Ukrainians? Did Big Oil slaughter a quarter of the Cambodian population? Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state?

Whatever bad big corporations have done is dwarfed by the monstrous crimes — the mass enslavement of people, the deprivation of the most basic human rights, not to mention the mass murder and torture and genocide — committed by big governments.

How can anyone who thinks rationally believe that big corporations rather than big governments pose the greatest threat to humanity? The answer is that it takes a mind distorted by leftist dogma. If there is another explanation, I do not know what it is.

Religious Christians and Jews also have some irrational beliefs, but their irrationality is overwhelmingly confined to theological matters; and these theological irrationalities have no deleterious impact on religious Jews’ and Christians’ ability to see the world rationally and morally. Few religious Jews or Christians believe that big corporations are in any way analogous to big government in terms of evil done. And the few who do are leftists.

That the Left demonizes “Big Pharma,” for instance, is an example of leftwing thinking. America’s pharmaceutical companies have saved millions of lives, including millions of leftists’ lives. And I do not doubt that in order to increase profits, they have not always played by the rules. But to demonize big pharmaceutical companies while lionizing big government, big labor unions and big trial law firms, is to stand morality on its head.

There is yet another reason to fear big government far more than big corporations. ExxonMobil has no police force, no IRS, no ability to arrest you, no ability to shut you up, and certainly no ability to kill you. ExxonMobil can’t knock on your door in the middle of the night and legally take you away. Apple Computer cannot take your money away without your consent, and it runs no prisons. The government does all of these things.

Of course, the left will respond that government also does good and that corporations and capitalists are, by their very nature, “greedy.”

To which the rational response is that, of course, government also does good. But so do the vast majority of corporations, private citizens, church groups, and myriad voluntary associations. On the other hand, only big government can do anything approaching the monstrous evils of the last century.

As for greed: Between hunger for money and hunger for power, the latter is incomparably more frightening. It is noteworthy that none of the twentieth century’s monsters — Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao — were preoccupied with material gain. They loved power much more than money.

And that is why the left is much more frightening than the right. It craves power.

Black Rain Ordnance Has Produced a N.Y Compliant AR-15

Published by Papa Giorgio

A thumb in the eye to leftists:

(The Blaze) A Missouri-based gun manufacturer announced this week that it will release a line of “New York Compliant” rifles, a market-based response to the Empire State’s strict new gun laws.

“With the continual trampling of the 2nd Amendment in New York, Black Rain Ordnance is proud to announce their ‘New York Compliant’ rifles,” the group said in a statement on its website. “These rifles feature all of the quality and craftsmanship of the standard BRO-lines, but with the added features that allow for legal possession.”

Features that make Black Rain Ordnance’s new rifles compliant with New York’s guns laws include: No pistol grip, a non-threaded muzzle fixed stock, 10-round low capacity approved magazine and a Lo-Pro gas block “without the evil bayonet lug.”

And the Free Patriot mentions the thumb-in-the-eye:

A little more than a year ago, the state of New York passed the Safe Act, making them the harshest state in the union when it comes to gun control. Authorities in the state were still patting each other on the back for such stringent new laws such as requiring magazines possess no more than seven rounds, and no more pistol grips or adjustable stocks on rifles. Pistol grips and adjustable stocks make guns look too mean.

Well, they’ve stopped patting themselves on the back and are livid now that a new AR 15 model has been designed which falls into regulation with the Safe Act laws….

Free Patriot then quotes Guns ‘n Freedom:

Although the gun may look a little different, it shoots the same .223 rounds and still retains semi-automatic capabilities.  A few state troopers have already shown interest in buying some of the prototypes.

New York gun shops are simply trying to fill a void in the market that the new unconstitutional Safe Act left behind.  And although gun owners will still be restricted to the 7 round limit in their magazines, there is hope that this will be overturned as more realize how ridiculous this restriction is.  After all, 12-16 round magazines in handguns are the norm across the US.

47.1 Million Uninsured To Go ~ The 7.1 Million Number Examined

Published by Papa Giorgio

Ben Shapiro does a good job in highlighting 5 issues that throw a HUGE monkey wrench into the “success” presser Obama had yesterday. This is truly “cooking the books,” and one should note that over 6-million (so-far… lots more coming) have lost their health coverage. Only a million previously uninsured have signed up… the rest are people who had insurance, the bulk of which O-Care cancelled. Destroying healthcare for less than a million people is the definition of success in the liberal mind. Dumb.

“If those numbers hold, the actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298,” the Daily Mail reports. (Via The Blaze)

  1. It Doesn’t Measure How Many People Have Actually Paid. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted yesterday that of the 6 million people who had signed up for Obamacare at the time, “What we know from insurance companies…tell us that, for their initial customers, it’s somewhere between 80, 85, some say as high as 90 percent, have paid so far.” In other words, about five million people were signed up. As Aaron Blake of the Washington Post points out, “If between 80 and 90 percent of the six million have paid premiums, the number who are fully enrolled would be closer to five million than to six million.” With the increased number of sign-ups in the last days, that percentage number has likely dropped. This is not an unimportant distinction; insurance will not cover those who don’t pay.
  2. 7.1 Million Enrollees in the Private Exchanges Doesn’t Mean 7.1 Million Who Were Previously Uninsured. Some five million Americans saw their policies cancelled thanks to Obamacare. Those Americans were forced into the Obamacare exchanges by the government. According to a RAND Corporation study, only 858,000 previously uninsured Americans had actually joined Obamacare. That’s a far cry from 7.1 million. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in March 2010 that 37.3% of all uninsured Americans would gain insurance thanks to Obamacare in 2014. That estimate rose to 38.9% in March 2011. In February 2014, the CBO suggested that in 2014, 22.8% would gain insurance through Obamacare. The actual statistic: 12.5%. In other words, the original estimates were off by approximately 66%.
  3. The Chief Beneficiaries of Obamacare Have Been Medicaid Recipients and 26-Year-Old Basement Dwellers. There are approximately 6.1 million people who have gained coverage through Obamacare’s non-private exchange program. 4.5 million were beneficiaries of Medicaid expansion, and another 1.6 million 26-year-old “children” were forced onto their parents’ policies. That far outweighs any supposed gains in the private insurance market. As Chris Conover of Forbes writes, “At the end of the day, we appear to have covered 1 in 8 uninsured, but to get to this point, we have disrupted coverage for millions, increased premiums for tens of millions more and amplified the pain even further with a blizzard of new taxes and fees that will end up cost even the lowest income families nearly $7,000 over a decade.”
  4. The Huge Majority of Those Signing Up Are Getting Subsidies – and Even Those Who Are Subsidized Aren’t Signing Up. In order for Obamacare’s cost structure to work, millions of Americans must sign up to pay inflated prices; that would help pay for the subsidies to cover insurance company costs on those with pre-existing conditions. In March, the Obama administration reported that 83% of those who had signed up were eligible for subsidies. As Robert Laszewski estimates, in the end, just 27% of those who are eligible for Obamacare subsidies nationwide have signed up.
  5. How Much Will The Numbers Drop? These are all preliminary statistics. We now know that somewhere between 2% and 5% of people who paid their insurance bills in January did not do so in February, to go along with the high percentage of people who signed up and never paid at all (that number in Obamacare success story Washington state, for example, was 39% as of early February).

…read more…

The Hammer Reigns!

(The Corner) As GOP looks to regain the Senate this fall, and Charles Krauthammer said they should be “picking through the wreckage that is Obamacare.”

“You cover people with pre-existing conditions, young people up to 26, you are not going to cancel the insurance of the assumed million to a million and a half who have signed up, and you work around that and you do good reforms to be Republican and conservative reforms,” said Krauthammer. If Obama wants to veto those reforms, then he will carry the Democrats into 2016 “in really terrible shape,” Krauthammer explained. 

With just under two million people newly insured, Krauthammer questions if the cost of Obamacare was worth it. “The whole idea was about insuring the uninsured, so that’s going to leave about 40 million uninsured,” said Krauthammer.

Six million policies were canceled under Obamacare and millions of people have lost their doctors and hospitals. “The price of this overturning, uprooting, and revolutionizing 1/6th of the economy, the ecosystem of Medicare is staggering, for a million and a half uninsured. Is that the way it should have been done?”

(The above AND below is with a h/t to Daniel over at GP) Not only did Krauthammer go after the White House’s numbers, but Jennifer Rubin over at Right Turn, had this awesome piece:

….According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 48 million individuals in the United States were uninsured at the end of 2012. The actual number was 47.9 million total uninsured individuals; 9.5 million were non-citizens who are ineligible for Obamacare. This results in a net number of 38.4 million uninsured citizens, 35.1 million native-born and 3.3 million naturalized citizens. . . . It is estimated that nearly three million individuals have signed up for Medicaid for the first time. Let’s assume that all of these individuals gained coverage because of the newly expanded Medicaid program.

McKinsey & Co. conducted a study on enrollment through Healthcare.gov and the state insurance exchanges using data as of Feb. 1. At that time, 3.3 million had enrolled. McKinsey concluded that only 14 percent, or about 500,000 individuals, were “actual uninsured who have actually gained health coverage.” An additional 13 percent of uninsured individuals had signed up for Obamacare but had not paid the premium. Of those who had signed up by that time, 73 percent either had insurance and preferred to choose a plan on the exchange or enrolled because their individual plans were canceled.

On Thursday, the Obama administration announced that enrollment had reached six million. Using McKinsey’s findings of 14 percent gaining new coverage, only 900,000 previously uninsured individuals will have acquired insurance as a result of the exchanges.

In other words, all Republicans have to do is cover 900,000 new people in a cheaper and less disruptive fashion than Obamacare does and they’ve met the challenge. Heck, you could just give the 900,000 their own doctors and you’d have done the job.

The administration, with much help from the media, has tried a sleight of hand, making the goal of 7 million sign-ups the target. In fact, the goal was to significantly reduce the 30 million number and to make health care more affordable and accessible. And let’s not forget the promise was to do all that while allowing you to keep your plan and your doctor. Surely the GOP can do better, right?

Ouch… when this becomes public knowledge, thee will be hell to pay… just too late.

A Sad Day, a Sadder Day[s] for Noel Shappard’s Family (RIP-Prayers)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I was/am out of the loop. I was seeing stuff pop up about Noel Sheppard, and glossed over it. But then my mind started seeing a theme… I am saddened to find he passed. I used a lot of his stuff over the years, and I pray for the family and loved ones he left behind. Although I didn’t “know” him, I knew him. God’s Speed. And keep his “greatest hits” alive.

(PJ Media) Noel Sheppard, prominent conservative media critic and one of the founding contributors and editors at Newsbusters, died of cancer March 28. He was 53 years old.

Newsbusters publisher Brent Bozell posted a short, elegant tribute to his friend and colleague:

Our Noel Sheppard passed away yesterday (Friday) morning at about 5:00 AM. Say a prayer for the soul of a man we’ll all miss professionally, and many, many of us will miss personally as well. Noel was not just a force of nature, he was a very good man.

How quickly this all happened. Just two months ago, Noel wrote about suddenly getting cancer at 53 called “Cancer’s Ray of Hope.” Nine days ago, he wrote us and said he was interested in writing about his “progress” — and he put “progress” in quotes. We were all wishing for better news, and really couldn’t imagine this was a battle that would end this way.

Noel joined us and was introduced to us by Matt Sheffield at the founding of NewsBusters in 2005, and he became our Associate Editor. It must be said that no blogger here was more prolific and more popular.

…read more…

Noel’s 2nd to last Tweet:

“I was very pleased to log onto Twitter this morning and not find out I had died.”

(March 16th)

Noel's Twitter

See more goodby’s via Twitchy. The below video is via Newsmax’s YouTube. It is from 5-months ago right before-or-after his diagnosis on the Steve Malzberg Show:

Brent Bozell goes on the Malzberg Show to talk about the quick loss of his friend:

Not related, but something Noel would approve of surely, is how the Left responds to these matter ~ the TOLERANT, CARING LEFT... the most recent attack on conservatives… or those that buck the “narrative.” If you do not know Julie Boonstra’s story, I am not surprised… the legacy media does not report on Obama-Care horror stories:

I am sure some “nice things” will be said about Noel via the TOLERANT, CARING LEFT, and I may post them… but remember Tony Snow’s passing… and how HAPPY the Left was? To remind us, I reach back to a WND post:

Moments after White House Press Secretary Tony Snow’s new personal battle against cancer became public yesterday, a vicious assault was launched at left-leaning websites, with some message posters hoping for a swift death for the presidential spokesman.

  • “Under the heading of ‘What goes around comes around’, the cancer in Tony Snow is removing the cancer of Tony Snow from the national scene,” wrote TDoff on the D.C. gossip site Wonkette.com.
  • Omnilation wrote, “Dear Tony, I hate you. -God.”
  • A contributor called homofascist stated, “It is a bitch that I wouldn’t wish upon even a smarmy, evil f—face liar like Snow. Because really, isn’t he OUR smarmy, evil f—face liar?”

Sick!

It’s Official, Veterans Like Bush MUCH More Than Obama

Published by Papa Giorgio

Libertarian Republican reports on the recent poll that shows Bush hold sway over veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Duh.

It’s not even close. Bush destroys Obama by 33 points.

From RCP, “Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans Give Obama Poor Grades”:

Just 32 percent of military veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, according to a new poll from the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In a related question, only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believe Obama is a “good commander-in-chief of the military.” Forty eight percent said he is not.

Veterans were asked a similar question about former President George W. Bush. Sixty-five percent said they felt he was a good commander-in-chief, while 28 percent responded he was not.

[….]

Editor’s comment – Can anyone picture Obama visiting with military troops after he leaves office? Participating in bike marathons with Iraq or Afghanistan war veterans? Visiting military hospitals? Not a chance. He’ll be just as bad of an ex-president, as he is as current occupant of the White House.

Who’s the Fairest of Them All? The Laffer Curve Tells Us

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Video description) Should Taxes Be Higher? It’s the million dollar question! Up? Down? No change? Where in the world should taxes go? In election years, the question of tax rates fills the airwaves. In non-election years, the question of tax rates, again, fills the airwaves. So what’s the answer? UCLA Professor of Economics Tim Groseclose explains his research on the topic. Basically, there’s a certain point at which higher tax rates actually reduce the amount of revenue the government collects. What’s that point? When are tax rates too high? Learn a valuable lesson in economics, and public policy.

Video Description:

President Obama has declared that the standard by which all policies and policy outcomes are judged is fairness. This video explores what it means for our economic system and our economic results to be “fair.” Does it mean that everyone has a fair shot? Does it mean that everyone gets the same? Does it mean the government is supposed to play the role of Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor? The surprising answer: Nations with free market systems that allow ALL people to get ahead are the fairest of them all.

Learn more in Who’s the Fairest of Them All? The Truth about Taxes, Opportunity, and Wealth in America by Stephen Moore:

http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/whos-the-fairest-of-them-all/

“When I Give A Damn, I’ll Let You Know” ~ Stephen A. Smith

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via The Blaze:

ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith on Friday defended Kobe Bryant’s recent remarks on the Trayvon Martin case — and openly admitted his stance would “upset” a lot of black people.

Bryant recently told The New Yorker that he wasn’t entirely comfortable with the way several Miami Heat players wore hoodies in support of Martin following the shooting. He said he doesn’t react emotionally just because a certain case involves an African-American. Instead, he explained, people should relax and wait for all the facts to come out before rushing to judgement.

As TV host Arsenio Hall pointed out during his interview with Smith, the comments sent “black Twitter” into a frenzy. Bryant later said he felt Martin was “wronged” and justice wasn’t served.

“You can’t turn around and assume or think that people from other races are gonna ever to be fair to you if you aren’t willing to exercise fairness yourself. Lay back, listen to the facts, and then accord justice where it should be served,” Smith said, explaining Bryant’s comments. “Me personally, I definitely think [Bryant] was right on point with that.”

“I know a lot of black people are going to be upset about that,” he added. “Like I’ve told you, when I give a damn, I’ll let you know.”

Referencing the infamous Tawana Brawley case, Hall admitted he “went hook, line, and sinker with an opinion” before all the facts came out.

“You have to understand, when you make the mistake of jumping to emotional conclusions and being factually incorrect, your cachet diminishes,” Smith agreed. “As a result, once you make that mistake, you don’t get to come back from that.”

And let’s talk about the narrative (here and here) Stephen Smith and Kobe Bryant are speaking about:

I found this story very interesting. This is via Moonbattery, and is a truncated versions of these two posts:

Here is Moonbat’s post:

We know that Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system on the night he tried to kill George Zimmerman, and had been suspended from school for using marijuana. Some believe he was a drug dealer. You might assume his famous mission to acquire Skittles candies and Arizona iced tea (actually watermelon juice, but the media is only good at narratives, not factual details) was a classic example of a pothead with the munchies. Here’s another theory…. (links above)

The “Sage from South Central” dismantles myth of the “angelic kid” other wise known as Trayvon Martin. Couple this with Bill Whittle’s destruction of the media myth (http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls)… and you have a recipe for truth to come out. See also my blog post on the matter: http://tinyurl.com/knp3sxd

For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/

Are People Born Good? This View Animates Conservatism (PragerU)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is one of two of the largest divides between the foundations of left/right philosophies.

(Video Description) In our universities, newspapers, and television shows, it is a given that external forces are the cause of crime. If not for poverty, murder and rape would be much lower. If not for racism, America’s inner cities would be far wealthier. So on and so on. At the core of this belief is that people are basically good, and it is society that makes them bad. This notion is simply not true. As Dennis Prager explains in this video, human nature is not basically good. It is not, though, basically bad. People are born more or less neutral. And it is incumbent upon parents, teachers, and yes, society, to turn children into good adults. It doesn’t happen on its own.

While Prager’s and my own theology differs a bit, ultimately the Judeo-Christian understanding of where we start is similar:

(4GospelTruth [now defunct, sadly]) ….We will examine several verses that prove that each and every human being born into this world has the same sinful nature, that we all inherited that sinful nature from Adam and Eve.  We are also going to discover what it actually means to be a sinner and how God describes our sinfulness.  This is VERY important because if we do not understand what God means when He tells us that we are sinners, we will not understand what God means when He tells us that we must repent of our sin.

Psalm 51:5

  • Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (KJV)
  • Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (ESV)
  • I was brought forth in [a state of] wickedness; In sin my mother conceived me [and from my beginning I, too, was sinful]. (Amplified)
  • Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me. (HSB)
  • I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born. (CEV)
  • Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. (NET)

These are the words of David, who was a man “after God’s own heart” – this means that he was pleasing to God.  Yet, David tells us, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that he was shapen (formed in the womb) in iniquity–already IN sin, and that he was a sinner from the moment he was first conceived.  Surely, his fallen condition could NOT be worse than our own. Surely it could not be any different from our own.  The fact is, the fallen, human nature of David is the same fallen nature of EVERY other fallen human being.  This verse tells us WHEN we, as sinners, inherit the sin nature. We see from this verse that we inherit the sin nature from the MOMENT we are first conceived. This means that we never have even a moment of innocence in this life.  All of the innocence of man passed from the scene the moment man fell in the garden, and EVERY sinner born into the world subsequent to that fateful event, inherits a fallen, sinful nature, from the moment of his conception.  This verse tells us WHEN we inherit the sin nature, and the following Bible verses tell us that all human beings DO inherit the sin nature:  “For as by one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:19).  This verse tells us that Adam’s sin was passed on to us.   For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (I Corinthians 15:22).  This verse tells us that our spiritual death, our fallen state of sinfulness, is the RESULT of Adam’s sin.  We became sinners THROUGH Adam. …

Read more on this topic at Gospel for Life.

This idea under-girds the philosophy of conservatism. In a section I added to the first chapter of my book, I note the strong underlying commitment in conservative philosophy (dare I say theology) by quoting Thomas Sowell, as found on my QUOTES page:

Christianity is closely tied to the success of capitalism,[1] as it is the only possible ethic behind such an enterprise.  How can such a thing be said?  The famed economist/sociologist/historian of our day, Thomas Sowell, speaks to this in his book A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. He whittles down the many economic views into just two categories, the constrained view and the unconstrained view.

The constrained vision is a tragic vision of the human condition. The unconstrained vision is a moral vision of human intentions, which are viewed as ultimately decisive. The unconstrained vision promotes pursuit of the highest ideals and the best solutions. By contrast, the constrained vision sees the best as the enemy of the good— a vain attempt to reach the unattainable being seen as not only futile but often counterproductive, while the same efforts could have produced a more viable and beneficial trade-off. Adam Smith applied this reasoning not only to economics but also to morality and politics: The prudent reformer, according to Smith, will respect “the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people,” and when he cannot establish what is right, “he will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong.” His goal is not to create the ideal but to “establish the best that the people can bear.”[2]

Dr. Sowell goes on to point out that while not “all social thinkers fit this schematic dichotomy…. the conflict of visions is no less real because everyone has not chosen sides or irrevocably committed themselves.” Continuing he points out:

Despite necessary caveats, it remains an important and remarkable phenomenon that how human nature is conceived at the outset is highly correlated with the whole conception of knowledge, morality, power, time, rationality, war, freedom, and law which defines a social vision…. The dichotomy between constrained and unconstrained visions is based on whether or not inherent limitations of man are among the key elements included in the vision.[3]

The contribution of the nature of man by the Judeo-Christian ethic is key in this respect. One can almost say, then, that the Christian worldview demands a particular position to be taken in the socio-economic realm.* You can almost liken the constrained view of man in economics and conservatism as the Calvinist position.  Pulitzer prize winning political commentator, Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), makes the above point well:

At the core of every moral code there is a picture of human nature, a map of the universe, and a version of history. To human nature (of the sort conceived), in a universe (of the kind imagined), after a history (so understood), the rules of the code apply.[4]

A free market, then, is typically viewed through the lenses of the Christian worldview with its concrete view of the reality of man balanced with love for your neighbor;

Sean Giordano (AKA. Papa Giorgio), Worldviews: A Click Away from Binary Collisions (Religio-Political Apologetics), found in the introductive chapter, “Technology Junkies”

[1] See for instance: R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2000 [originally 1926]); Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003 [originally 1904]); Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (New York, NY: Random House, 2005); Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005).

[2] Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (New York, NY: basic Books, 2007), 27.

[3] Ibid., 33, 34.

[4] Walter lippmann, Public Opinion (New York, NY: Freee Press, 1965), 80.

BONUS:

  • According to Adam Smith, it is when the businessman “intends only his own gain” that he contributes— via the process of competition— to promote the social good “more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” Smith added: “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (New York, NY: basic Books, 2007), 27.

  •  “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 292.

The above drives or animates conservatives, and causes us to ask fundamental questions that those on the left may ask in their household — but not in society [writ large]. It is why conservatism, while not the Gospel, will always be closer to reality in it’s cures and responses to man’s societal ills than any other viewpoint:

(Originally posted Oct 2013)

(EXTENDED VIDEO)

1) compared to what?
2) at what cost?
3) what hard-evidence do you have?

(MORE HERE)

MODERN MAN’S MORES

Politics & The Modern Liberal Contradiction

Arbitrary Values / Relativism

In many cases, “modern liberal” positions are based on the idea of tolerance, the freedom of the individual to do as he or she pleases.  This in turn is based on moral relativism, the idea that morality is relative to the individual and the situation (which distinguishes it from “classical liberalism”).  Again, what is right or wrong for you may not be right or wrong for others.  As a result, you cannot tell others not to have an abortion, not to look at or publish pornography, or not to live by an “alternative lifestyle.”  Educational environments must be “value free,” there must be no restrictions on sexual and artistic freedom, and according to some, even activities such as recreational drug use should be decriminalized.  Because there are no absolute values, each person must discover his own morality, a process taught in our schools as “values clarification.”

The liberal contradiction lies in the fact that every liberal position claims to be morally correct and objectively true.  It is right to allow abortions and wrong to oppose them.  Tolerance (in its modern definition) is good, intolerance is bad.  Children should be allowed to grow up in a value-free environment; parents should not impose their own values.  Modern liberalism takes a moral stance on every issue, but it undermines its own foundation by claiming that there is no moral absolute or guide to adhere to.

To put it into simple terms, yet once more, when a liberal tells you that you cannot tell other people what to do, he or she is contradicting himself by telling you what to do!  And there is another side to the liberal contradiction.  While many liberal positions are based on tolerance and complete individual freedom, other liberal positions are based on strict authoritarianism.

According to contemporary liberalism, the common good (what Rousseau called “the general will”) necessitates the suppression of individual rights when it comes to “saving” the environment, creating a more “equitable distribution” of wealth, achieving “equality” between races and sexes in all walks of life, and enforcing a strict separation of church and state.  Paradoxically, that same “common good” takes a back seat to individual freedoms when it comes to the detrimental effects of: pornography and sexual freedom, reduced police power and criminal punishment, or drug use, or firearm mandates, etc..

Let me hasten to add that I too am for tolerance, equal rights, and ending unjust discrimination.  I too am for freedom of speech, artistic freedom, academic freedom, and the separation of church and state.  I too am for protecting the environment and helping the underprivileged.  But I am for these things because I believe in the tenants of the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, not because I reject these absolutes.

If I were to reject the idea of moral truths, what possible motivation (moral duty) could I have to champion these or any other causes?  More important, on what basis could I hope to persuade others of the importance of these causes?  It is inconsistent to claim to be concerned about rights while rejecting the moral foundation from which rights are derived.

The rejection of one’s own moral foundation leads one to be not only immoral, but also illogical.  It leads to positions that are inconsistent with themselves and each other (self-deleting).  It leads to outcomes that directly counter one’s original intention and that threaten one’s own goals.  It is unfortunate for the liberal agenda, but the liberal contradiction poses just such a threat.  And it is not a threat from “conservatives” or from any outside source – it is a threat from within.  Because of the rejection of the moral foundation for liberalism, liberalism is failing to protect the rights it claims to cherish.  “What is is?”  Please Mr. President!

…read more…

A couple more recommended resources for a quick overview of this internal/foundational battle “for the soul” are as follows (the first being mine):

The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left (video below)