You have been neutered by the political elite

"The real work is just beginning."

The political elite has rewritten the rules so that all the trains, all the money and power runs through their system, and in their way. It has devalued local rights, in favor of national powers. It has devalued individual rights, in favor of government rights. At every turn it has empowered government, while disempowering the people. And it has gone mostly unchecked, because even the few ideological battles that have been fought, have rarely been over whether there should be government powers over individual rights, but rather over who should be in control of deciding what rights there still are.

All the Trains Run Through Washington D.C.

Why "the public interest" is an immoral idea

"The public interest" is an immoral idea.

As Rand put it elsewhere: "Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others. . ."

The lesson? Anytime anyone calls for economic policies to promote "the public interest," he's calling for evil — the sacrifice of individuals who've earned something to those who haven't.

What's the alternative to the tyranny of "the public interest"? Each individual's pursuit of his private interests — in Jefferson's words, the pursuit of happiness.

The result is a nonsacrificial society , in which government is stripped of the power to concoct schemes to promote "the public interest" and is solely focused on protecting each individual's rights, including his property rights. . .

Unless we recapture this quintessentially American spirit, this independent, individualistic ethic — and discover the words fully to name it, to understand it, to defend it and to implement it — we've no right to expect the freedom and progress that earlier Americans achieved.

This is one of timeless themes of "Atlas Shrugged."

Atlas Shrugged's Timeless Moral: Profit-Making Is Virtue, Not Vice

ATLAS SHRUGGED

Matthew 25:

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

In the ever-expanding state that the left creates, the vast majority of individuals lose significance in that they are simply less needed as the state takes over many of their roles...as the state expands further into health care, the same will happen to doctors as power and prestige are transferred from them to the heads of dozens of new government health regulatory agencies. Over time, neither you nor your doctor will fully decide your treatment...

...you will be needed essentially for one thing: to finance the one thing that is truly needed -- the state.

Read the whole thing

Make it clear: Freedom vs. Slavery; Individualism vs. Socialism

Sultan Knish states that "in 2010 and 2012, the battle will be joined:"

A Slaveholding economy or a Socialist economy cannot co-exist for long with a free system. They must naturally consume and expand to survive. And Socialism, the modern day slavery, is quickly expanding across America. And we cannot long survive as a mix of free states and slave states.

Obama's election is a decisive wake up call in that regard. A statement that America is to be a slave nation, its population taxed into poverty, its corporations turned into corrupt government fiefdoms, its freedoms tightly regulated and curtailed. The contest for the future depends on making clear the choice between Freedom and Slavery, between Individualism and Socialism. The fate of America and the future depends on it.

Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently—forever—half slave, and half free? --Abraham Lincoln, 1855

Why liberals attack individualism

INDIVIDUALISM AND ACCEPTANCE
Written by Dr. Joel Wade
Friday, 23 May 2008

One of the things that I noticed over the years working as a psychotherapist, is how so many of my colleagues who were so compassionate and caring on certain levels, could be so rigid and judgmental when it came to differing political ideas.

Most of my colleagues have been politically to the left to one degree or another, and I often found it odd and irritating how harshly critical they could be of conservatives, while holding a stance of unconditional acceptance toward their clients in general.

I have not found the same dynamic to the same degree with people on the right. Sure people have strong opinions, and sometimes the discussions or arguments can get heated, and I have certainly seen examples of rude and spiteful behavior from a few conservatives here and there, but this is not usually conservative style.

From the right, in general, there is usually a more respectful tone than from the left. How come?

There are many reasons, of course. Conservatives tend to more often attend church, give personally of their time and money (rather than working to have the government give of other people's time and money on their behalf), and to have families. They also tend to be happier than liberals. This all reflects and encourages a more generous spirit.

It may be that it is not conservatism that makes a person more accepting, but that more accepting people tend to become conservatives. (In an interview years ago, the drummer for the rock group Van Halen, Alex Van Halen was asked about the group's wild behavior. He replied: "We're not like this because we're a rock band, we're a rock band because we're like this.")

Whichever may be the case, there is one quality in particular that I want to focus on, that is central to the relative benevolence of conservatives. I want to focus on it because it is often the object of attack on the part of those on the left, and because I believe that it is a fundamental dynamic in the lives of most conservatives:

Individualism.

Those on the left attack individualism, claiming that it promotes selfishness, greed, inequality, lacks compassion and rests on a kind of dog-eat-dog social Darwinism. (Though dogs generally do not eat dogs, and social Darwinism was in fact a progressive fascist idea - See Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism)

Individualism breeds compassion and acceptance of our differences, because the individualist reveres his or her own unique qualities, and cannot, without mind-bending hypocrisy, or pathological narcissism, avoid doing the same with respect to others.

For a collectivist, compassion involves social justice - making sure that everyone gets stuff, and as much as possible an equal allotment of stuff. The stuff in question may be food, shelter, clothing, money, health care, social security, or self-esteem. But it tends to boil down to who gets how much of the imaginary pie.

This means in practice that the collectivist believes that there is an ideal way to be. I have heard people on the left assert that nobody should earn more than $100,000 a year. Others claim that everyone should have a certain amount of psychotherapy (these would be therapists calling for this, of course), and an obvious example of such leveling is in the movement for politically correct speech.

Talk to a leftist, and you will likely find within them an ideal, a mental image of how we all should be - which means in practice that they would like to force you to be the way they would like you to be.

For an individualist, on the other hand, there is an inherent contradiction to such a stance. An individualist knows that we are all different. In fact, an individualist loves the idea that we are all different. That is the big idea, after all. There would be no individualism without our differences.

It is this fundamental premise that requires the individualist, even a grumpy and judgmental individualist, even an idealistic individualist, to be more accepting of the differences he or she sees in others. It is a structural necessity.

An idealistic individualist has to struggle with the contradictions and conflicts between his or her ideal, and the premise of individualism. There are limits to how un-accepting of differences an individualist can be.

Notice that I do not use the word tolerance here. Tolerance means putting up with something that is repugnant or antithetical to one's values. A conservative is not likely to be tolerant of a terrorist, or a traitor, or a criminal. But a conservative is likely to be more accepting of the wide range of behavior that human nature propagates, for better or worse.

An individualist does not need the world to conform to his or her image in order to be happy. An individualist knows that individuals grow and change at their own pace, and in ways that are unique, and that the course of a life is a creative process - often a very messy creative process.

For an individualist, society is not a singular phenomenon that can be shaped and molded by men into some optimally functioning whole. Society is a group of individuals being sociable with each other. When done with grace and a sense of self-responsibility, this can be a nice thing; when done with rudeness and a sense of entitlement, not so nice.

An individualist does not particularly care about "the poor", or "blacks", or "gays", or "farmers", or "teachers" - because these are categories; groupings of ideas. These categories work for the collectivist who seeks to mold society into a particular configuration: "You blacks, over there, we will help you in this way; teachers, over there, this is the help that you will receive..." etc.

These categories are not real people, they are diagrams on a flow chart. They are the core of Democrat Identity Politics - over which Hillary and Obama are tearing each other to shreds. He is not an individual man running for president on his own character, vision, and experience, he is The Black Candidate; she is not an individual woman running for president on her own character, vision, and experience, she is The Female Candidate.

The compassion and acceptance of the individualist is toward the real people in his or her life, and the real people toward whom he seeks to engage with or help. And when he or she does seek to help someone, it is more personal.

The great strength of heart of the conservative is that, as an individual, caring for other individuals, he or she is caring for actual human beings. People are not an abstraction, they are real flesh and blood; as different as can be, but with qualities that we can recognize in ourselves.

The individualist is more accepting, more compassionate, more forgiving, because humanity is not a concept; it is the living, breathing person right there. And that person has a unique value all his own.


p.s. Do you want to make the most of your life? Order your copy of Mastering Happiness at Dr. Wade's products page and receive a free download of your book, so you can get started right away... http://www.drjoelwade.com/products.html

p.p.s. You can learn the skills of optimism with a new e-course on Learning Optimism, at http://www.drjoelwade.com/products.html

p.p.p.s. To get free concise - and realistic - tips on living a happier life, sign up at... www.drjoelwade.com