The meaning of what "works"

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

-- The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 to 2005
from the message "Financial Freedom" - #1054
Love Worth Finding Ministries

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

-- William J. H. Boetcker

Class envy is possibly the greatest weapon in politics, because "divide and conquer" has proven to be a profoundly effective tactic. The two quotations above address the failed essence of Marxian ideology - that it is unsustainable and that manufacturing fairness is not fair. But this wisdom does not carry much weight among those who believe fairness is more important than freedom. Those who gladly sacrifice other people's liberty do so because they believe it brings us all closer to a more enlightened goal. Mr. Boetcker and Mr. Rogers were showing that artificially created fairness results in tyranny. Unfortunately the truth of their statements will only penetrate a mind that is willing to hear it.

These two men were addressing the Marxist push in western culture, ushering in greater economic equality at the expense of political and personal freedom. What they were suggesting, and what conservatism itself teaches, is the essence of the search for a political system that "works". But what "works" can mean very different things to different people.

In the Marxian/left wing world view, fairness is one of the ultimate virtues, along with compassion. In this mindset, the freedom of others can justifiably be sacrificed in order to achieve greater fairness, even if it means doing so by force (i.e., greater taxes, speech control, imprisonment, etc.). Coercion and oppression are legitimate tools to achieve these virtues as long as they are motivated by good intentions. Platitudes about fairness and equality are used to deny these oppressive measures are actually oppressive. Fighting for people's right to make their own decisions is problematic, and labeled as uncompassionate. All social problems are to be solved on some government level. When greater equality results with greater diversity of influence the attempts to improve fairness are deemed successful. In the liberal mind, what "works" is what ever makes society more egalitarian, and government must be used to that end.

In the conservative/right wing world view, freedom is one of the ultimate virtues, along with individual responsibility. This responsibility is to be taught on the local level, preferably within the family. Actions that harm others are subject to the law, but intentions by themselves are not (i.e., hate crime legislation is viewed as pandering more than useful). Social problems would ideally be solved on the local level, with local government only if necessary. A system organized to sustain society as long as possible with peace and prosperity is considered successful. This ideal would include a balance between maximum individual liberty and minimal government participation, balanced by respect for others taught at home. In the conservative mind, what "works" is what makes life the most stable for the most people, and no one is better qualified to determine that than individuals themselves.

These philosophies are mutually opposed to one another. But both can be said to be unrealistic or over simplistic. The success of either approach to governing is entirely subjective. To the conservative, confiscating one person's wealth under threat of imprisonment and redistributing it to others (particularly with the government keeping a portion for itself) is considered an injustice. To the leftist, allowing people to keep the fruits of their own labor is considered an injustice if this results in unequal wealth among the population - unequal effort spent is irrelevant. To the right, "earning" something is a major factor - to the left, this, too, is irrelevant.

The attempt to achieve the ideal setting is moot without the means to protect that ideal. To the conservative, preventing oppression is a virtue because this protects freedom. To the leftist, oppression is a necessary tool to achieve equality. Where the leftist would support laws that oppress the people in order to improve economic order or maintain economic standards, they would also typically oppose laws designed to maintain moral order, almost as if moral anarchy were the goal. The conservative sees moral anarchy as ultimately destructive to society, and so moral standards are promoted. At the same time conservatives would prefer less regulation in industry, but greater personal responsibility. Conservatives also prefer laws already written to be enforced so that new laws are not constantly needed. Liberals seem to prefer new legislation and new regulation at the slightest provocation, even to the point of regulating personal opinions (i.e., the precept of the hate crime).

Protecting Family

The traditional family is a prime example of the battle over morality. The conservative sees the traditional family as the primary means of building and sustaining civilization, with marriage being the essential public recognition of that building block. Threats to the traditional family have shifted over the last century from promiscuity and infidelity and divorce to redefining marriage, abandonment of marriage and abortion. The killing of children in the womb is considered a heinous thing in the conservative mindset, but a civil right to the leftist. In the right wing view divorce and abandonment of marriage are considered harmful to the primary building block of society, but a matter of freedom to the leftist, with no regard to the damage they may cause to society as a whole. A collective change in social attitude toward marriage leads to active changes, such as redefining marriage to apply to any two adults rather than one man and one woman. Such a foundational change in the institution of marriage opens the door to any other legal change. Once the fundamental understanding of marriage is altered this naturally leads to eliminating all other safeguards, resulting in the destruction of the primary building block of civilization. Who are we to say 5 people can't all be married to each other? Who are we to say a 52 year old man can't marry a 9 year old child? Or an animal? The requirement that those being married do so volitionally can also be challenged. There is already wide historical precedent for forced marriage, which our society currently frowns upon.

We've seen the damage to society that results from the abandonment of traditional marriage, and this damage has been decades in the making. Problems at home breed problems elsewhere, from school murders to over crowded prisons. Poverty is often blamed (typically by leftists) for society's ills, with almost total disregard for the roll played by degrading morality. When morality degrades criminal activity becomes more frequent and more severe. The elimination of moral safeguards naturally leads to the self-destruction of society, with or without poverty.

In a conservative world view, the stability of the family, where mutual love and respect are the norm, must be protected (with as little government interference as possible) as this is the best means of sustaining a peaceful society. Modern technology creates new possibilities and new situations, which make the traditional biological principles less clear, and again more susceptible to breakdown. Without safeguards for the family American culture is deteriorating at an accelerating rate. Where the right wing philosophy promotes legal moral restrictions (such as indecency laws) but promotes freedom in all other means of personal interaction, it seems the left wing mindset prefers the opposite - promoting freedom regarding sexuality, but regulating all other means of personal interaction.

Protecting Government

The leftist sees the government as the primary means of building civilization, with little to no thought as to the sustainability of society. Since the ultimate virtues of fairness and compassion and diversity can be achieved only by the work of government (in the leftist world view), it is government that must be protected, rather than the family. Government involvement must be encouraged and enforced where ever possible. What "works" is determined by the degree first of economic and then political equality (with some exceptions, since the unborn do not have constitutional rights, neither the right to live). Problems caused by government can be ignored or covered up because of the blinding effect of a desire to be thought of as caring. The recession of 2008/2009 is a conspicuous example of this observation.

In 2008 a recession hit the United States, and eventually spread to become a global problem. An already hurting American economy, slowed by high fuel prices, noticed some relief when it was suddenly struck by the disintegration of the sub-prime mortgage bubble. It turns out lenders were required by federal law to offer bad home loans to people who could not afford to repay them. But that fact was obscured by protectionist reactions from liberals, both in politics and news media. Orson Scott Card, the well known author, had the courage and intellectual integrity to address this egregious propaganda campaign designed to protect Democrats. As Card mentions, it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that pulled the U.S. economy into a recession, not a failure of the private sector. Left wing journalists and Washington liberals circled the wagons to shelter their Marxian philosophy from any blame, and their accusations against the free market are now a pervasive lie bought by many Americans who either value their leftist paradigm more than the truth or who simply don't know what's going on.

A video of various elected politicians was circulated on the internet which shows numerous statements made about an impending danger posed by problems found in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In case you haven't see it, in the video below you'll notice it is Democrats denying there were problems with these government institutions, and that Republican attempts to warn us all about the situation were treated as some sort of right wing political ploy.



These statements and other actions made by liberal Democrats have been utterly ignored by politicians and by the majority of the main stream media. Disregarding this inconvenient history makes it much easier to misconstrue and blame conservative philosophy and policies for the crisis in which we now find ourselves. Subsequently it is also easier to revise history to perpetuate this lie. Even now the official narrative of Democrats is that capitalism caused this recession.

And what is the result of this propaganda campaign blaming the free market for this recession? Marxians now have a crisis in which to demand immediate action, using only their proposals (sometimes with no public review), and they accuse anyone recommending oversight on this federal money of needlessly stalling a solution to the problem. Let me say that again, debating legislation in public view as it is supposed to be and addressing problems and waste amounts to, as President Obama recently said, an "inexcusable and irresponsible" delay of the economic bailout bill Congress passed in February 2009. The president also reiterated the common left wing Misattribution of Blame in rebuking the Bush tax cuts for causing the current recession, which is of course absurd. In the leftist mindset, any government action (meaning spending) in a crisis is the solution, even if harmful, wasteful, and doesn't really do what we the people were promised it would do. There is no need to look closer at leftist claims, either their claims to help or their accusations against right wing philosophy. Any criticism of the those who disagreed with the Bush administration was condemned as anti-American, but apparently it is now perfectly acceptable to question the patriotism of those who disagree with President Obama. You see, patriotism now means blindly believing what ever the government says, because Democrats are in charge, and they care. Apparently, there was no need for members of Congress to even read the bill before voting on it.



The greatest problem with the economic crisis is that the majority party (Democrats) are simply not interested in repairing the economy. Achieving their social policies and returning political favors is what interests them.

What Is Congress Stimulating?
What's most striking is how much "stimulus" money will be spent on the government itself.
A 40-Year Wish List
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.
Dems Blew $500,000 of Taxpayer Money At Lush Resorts
Deal Or No Deal? New Big Box Jobs For Chicago - Chicago again rejects Wal-Mart's offer to build 5 new stores within the city, which would have created thousands of new jobs.
Economists question budget's economic assumptions by MARTIN CRUTSINGER

Some wise history and common sense solutions Democrats flatly rejected:


Stimulus will take a while to work Amid all the anticipation of Obama's stimulus package, Americans should realize that its effects aren't likely to be felt until the economy is already rebounding on its own. by Anthony Karydakis

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul by Stephen Dinan

The Common Sense Fix, promoted by Dave Ramsey. This solution would have given incentives to people with money to invest it into the market - immediately infusing huge sums of money into the economy without having to go $700 billion in tax money (and more) into debt. But it would also have been advantageous for rich people, which automatically means it's dead on arrival with Congressional Democrats, because to them increasing wealth does not increase equality. As shown by their own actions, government influence and redistributing wealth was more important to Democrats than actually fixing a problem.

UCLA Economists: Government Intervention Prolonged Great Depression, by Paul Detrick.

Economic Recovery Act is wiser alternative to massive spending, by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.)

"Congressional Democrats have engaged in a full offensive to convince the American people that another massive dose of borrowing and spending is the solution to our economic tribulations. They talk of an economic near-Armageddon without as much as a trillion dollars in new spending. The rhetoric, in point of fact, sounds remarkably similar to the appeals for their last economic solution, the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The truth is, proven by history, that massive government spending is not a solution. And the American people know there is another way — a real economic solution that empowers our people without mortgaging our future. After a year of bailouts, rebates and taxpayer-funded backstops, we can move toward renewed prosperity by unleashing the potential of and providing economic relief for our real economic growth engines — hard-working Americans and businesses."

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate, by Meg Sullivan

Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth, by Brian M. Riedl

"In a throwback to the 1930s and 1970s, Demo­cratic lawmakers are betting that America's economic ills can be cured by an extraordinary expansion of government. This tired approach has already failed repeatedly in the past year...."

Dr. Faber (predicted '87 crash) Says Obama Plan Doomed, Marc Faber:

"I can tell you that the current crisis, the economic crisis and the financial crisis is a direct consequence of continuous U.S. government intervention into the economy, through fiscal and monetary policies that have been designed to never have a recession and to combat recession. And what has happened is if you never have a recession it's like someone who never sleeps. You need some sleep, a resting period, and then you recover.

It is not a failure of the free market that brought about the crisis, it is continuous intervention by the government, with fiscal and especially monetary measures that have brought the crisis about. And now the same people that brought the crisis about want to solve it with more intervention."

Even in the first quarter of 2009 we are already getting reports of scandal and fraud regarding the bailout money. TARP Bailout Scandal: Taxpayers Shortchanged $78 Billion on Asset Purchases

So what does all this mean? Clearly, the mindset of more government intervention does not solve problems, but that evidently isn't the point. It seems to me Democrats in Congress care more about fairness than they care about people, even to the point of shoving bad legislation down our throats while insisting it is the best solution to this crisis, ignoring ample evidence to the contrary. What "works" in this situation depends entirely on one's paradigm: greater equality or fixing the problem. Both sides of the debate publicly argue fixing the problem is the thing we should do. Yet, the bailout bill of 2009 was rushed through Congress so as to hide the tremendous pork which was never intended to rescue the economy. Any proposals from Republicans were disregarded as simply a matter of foolishness or greed. For some reason we were supposed to believe Democrats had good intentions and that their good intentions and pork spending on bloating government would actually fix the problem. Unfortunately, the real impact of the pork-laden bailout bill Congress approved will have very different results.

Someone needs to ask Congressional Democrats and President Obama when the economic stimulus bill is supposed to have its magical effect on our economy. If our economy's negative momentum doesn't turn around by that time we will surely be told to be patient, as though the government intervention simply needs a little more time to do its work. But if natural market forces cause the recession to fade away it will be the failed government policies that get the credit. And conservatism will still get the blame. No matter what happens, the free market will not be acknowledged by the left as having contributed to any economic recovery. In the leftist mindset only the government can fix economic troubles, and so government must get the credit for our recovery, when ever it actually happens. And the free market must always get blamed for the problems. Liberals don't trust you to make good decisions.

Liberals, Marxists and other leftists don't care that capitalism is the only way yet discovered that can rescue the masses from grinding poverty. But they care a great deal about the fact that wealth is unequally concentrated in a capitalistic society. How should we interpret that opinion? I interpret it like this: leftists care more about equality than they care about people. Results of Marxian failures are ignored, while "failure" of capitalism is construed as a matter of inequality, disregarding the high standard of living ordinary people enjoy in such societies. Fairness, as promoted by modern liberals, does not mean elevating those at the bottom, it means punishing those at the top. Fixing problems is not even a factor for modern liberals, and their platitudes about helping people are nothing more than propaganda.

Tell the government to keep its efforts limited only to what the constitution says (as is required by the 10th Amendment) and let the market do its frelling job. Government interference caused our economic crisis. You have a better idea of what is best for yourself and your loved ones than the government does.

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people..."

-- Adam Smith

Fairness is not fair

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

- Karl Marx

The great significance of Marx's explanation is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, 'concocted' definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism.

- Vladimir Lenin

Why this obsession with fairness? Have we deluded ourselves into believing life can be made fair? Is this delusion the result of modern education and enlightenment? Who defines this agenda for equality? As much as people would like to believe otherwise, public policy does affect the home. There seem to be two main factions in American politics: one pushing toward fairness and one pulling toward freedom.

These are admittedly loaded terms, each carrying a great deal of baggage and political energy. A brief look at these two sides of American politics can also provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of political propaganda. If we unpack these loaded political terms what do we find?

Fairness: compassion, sharing, open mindedness, tolerance, equality, community, giving, progressive, liberating, peace loving, helpful, trustworthy, unity, Democrats

Freedom: greed, selfishness, closed mindedness, intolerance, hatred, inequality, bigotry, discrimination, individualism, taking, backward, oppressive, war mongering, harmful, untrustworthy, divisiveness, Republicans

I did not see this list anywhere; it was simply compiled as a summary of the suggestions and implications and direct statements made living life in the hyper-productive, news and marketing-saturated, politically charged American culture. I have gathered this list from the pool of common knowledge by reading or watching news stories, movies, television programs, listening to politicians or people in my everyday life. What I've noticed is Americans advocating fairness are often associated (implicitly or explicitly) with the terms listed above. Likewise, those advocating individual freedom are typically associated with the terms listed above with that label. The biggest irony about this list, in my opinion, is that it is backwards.

We live in a culture that loves to find a scapegoat for anything bad. We are all victims of something, aren't we? You may have observed that of all the bad things happening in our nation, it is Republicans who get most of the blame, even for bad weather. If there is any reason to think racism or sexism is a factor in any situation garnering public attention, there is typically an implication, if not outright accusation, that Republicans are the problem. Any disapproval of homosexuality is branded as hate speech, and of course it's only those right wing extremists who disapprove of it; therefore it is not worth listening to and no explanation of their objection is permitted. This is the power of propaganda: when one group is criticized often enough and loud enough, implicit and explicit propaganda takes root in a society, while hatred and distrust of the victimized group eventually overpowers logic and common sense. As one example, this happened to the Jews over decades, beginning in the 19th century, and culminated in the mid twentieth century. You can probably think of other examples where the self-proclaimed tolerant and open-minded hypocritically attack those with different opinions.

The same trend has been happening in Western politics for about a generation, this time against conservatives. This time the propaganda is not based on race, but on something more benign: helping people. With just a brief overview of the current political climate one should notice many items on the public agenda for American public policy is motivated (at least publicly) by compassion and the desire to help. From the impetus to redistribute wealth to the insistence that a national health care system is vital to the well being of Americans to the minimum wage to Social Security to publicly funded abortions, American politics is inundated with public programs designed to "help people." But this movement to offer government aid for any and everything has a price, and I'm not just talking about our tax dollars.

When a movement builds sufficient momentum to take hold of the underlying ideology it takes on a life of its own. When the government raises taxes it affects us even if it is not our own taxes that are directly raised. When unpopular opinions become hate crimes it impacts many people who are shocked to find themselves accused of criminality. When home schooling becomes illegal millions of people will be affected, as will millions more when a left-leaning sex education agenda is required learning in public schools, even more so than it is now. These are just a few examples of how a political agenda in Washington D.C. ends up impacting you and me at home.

The minimum wage is another good example. Federal politicians decide to help those earning low income by forcing employers to pay higher compensation. We are told this mandate is designed to help poor families, while ignoring the fact that it is mostly students and ENTRY level workers who earn the minimum wage and that raising the minimum wage also tends to drive up prices, which we call inflation. This inflation drastically reduces the intended effectiveness of artificially raising wages, which leads to the need to raise the minimum wage again. What happens during inflation is that businesses raise their prices for you and me; many businesses would go out of business if they didn't do this, which would increase unemployment. You and I end up paying for wage increases, whether or not we get a pay raise, increasing our burden and making it more difficult to make ends meet. We should not forget that this mandatory wage increase also encourages businesses to migrate jobs over seas. But let us not forget to give politicians credit for caring as they debate increasing the minimum wage yet again.

Whether inflation, higher taxes or a loss of individual strength and resolve, or something else, social policies forced upon us by our legislators eventually encounter the law of unintended consequences, which dictates an unforeseen situation will result from government interference in our lives, and this result is typically unpleasant, causing more harm to society. What is most frustrating to me is that the negative results of this government aid are often entirely ignored by the very people who imposed it upon us. Their good intentions seem to trump any painful results which make life more difficult for everyone else. And what is so good about raising the minimum wage if it doesn't really end up making life easier for the high school and college students who earn it? Well, it's an attempt to make things more fair, of course, and that is worth it.

I think I've noticed a pattern at work here. In the minds of those for whom fairness is an obsession, what determines when government intervention is necessary is when an injustice is observed. But here is how injustice seems to be defined:

inequality = unfairness = injustice

In our minimum wage example, there was economic inequality. Those who learned skills or who employed workers had more wealth than those who had not yet developed employable skills. Thus, in the leftist mindset, an injustice was found justifying the involvement of government elites. If an inequality can be found, no matter how significantly numbers have to be manipulated and no matter how many other factors must be ignored, that inequality is unfair, and therefore unjust. This mentality saturates the political left in western civilization. It is a tragedy that this leftist mindset is becoming common place in the general population as well. However, we should not discount the political element of the situation. Politicians want to get re-elected.

How do politicians keep their jobs? They have to win re-election. How do they accomplish this? They have to win more votes than any of their opponents (assuming the election system actually works properly). How do politicians win votes? By saying things we want to hear. If enough people like what a politician says (or doesn't say, as the case may be) more than another candidate the most popular candidate wins the popularity contest. Keep in mind, this does not qualify politicians to make laws, it merely authorizes them to do so. Winning the job does not automatically mean politicians know what they are doing. The constant cry for government reform (often from politicians themselves) should be evidence enough of that.

It is no coincidence that compulsory government programs (i.e., the seriously problematic Social Security program and the alarming national health care program looming on our political horizon) are discussed as "aid." It is much easier to put shackles on people if they think they need them. This should raise the question as to why journalists so seldom challenge this rhetoric. If one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (as journalists trying to be "fair" tell us) is it not also legitimate to remind us that one man's government aid is another man's government shackles? Try telling the government you don't need their help with retirement, and refuse to pay FICA taxes any longer and let me know how that goes for you.

Politics is not the only realm in western culture where this Marxian obsession with fairness thrives. Academia is renowned for its left wing politics. From classical Marxists, to Socialists, even some admitted communists, my experience and the testimonies of others who survived the college experience tell me higher education is saturated with a left wing mentality (I mention this only because those who subscribe to that leftist tilt do not recognize it as leftist bias. They, of course, think of themselves as "normal" and anyone who disagrees with them are the extremists).

Some friends of mine and I were discussing the 2008 presidential election about a week before election day. The discussion centered on then Senator Barack Obama's redistribution of wealth agenda. One guy revealed he has been successfully taken in by this Marxian Populism. His argument ostensibly was motivated by a sense of community building, unity and fairness. In discussing "who benefits most from what government has to offer" he mentioned three things in particular, one of which will suffice for my long-winded pontificating: interstates.

My friend, whom I will refer to as F, suggested that people who benefit more from government programs should be taxed at a higher rate. Let me unpack the interstate example. The suggestion was that it is unfair that someone use the interstate more than someone else, with the implication that it is most likely rich people who have this greater benefit (they would use it more). Personally, I would think rich people (not being one myself) would be more likely to travel in the air than on the interstate, but my rebuttal was based more on the example of a mutual friend of mine and F's who is an artist. This artist person travels throughout the region from gallery to gallery. From what I can tell he is no more wealthy than F (though I suspect both are more wealthy than I). By F's example, our artist friend should be taxed at a higher rate some how to "compensate" for his "unfair" usage of the interstate. My response concluded it doesn't matter how much someone uses the interstate, it is there for all of us, to what ever degree we may use it.

The problem with F's example is that the worldview behind it filters life through a lens of class envy. If we were all assigned a certain allotment of miles to use on the interstate, and the artist friend of ours used more than his ration, one could make the case that something "unfair" had occurred, and proceed from there to argue this would also be an injustice, requiring some sort of punitive action by the government (such as raising the artist's taxes). However, there is no such rationing of the interstate, or many other government programs, yet F still wanted to see the situation from the perspective of an inequality. I mentioned in the discussion that it does not matter if anyone uses the interstate more than I do, and this inequality is therefore not "unfair." It is irrelevant. I don't know if F would call it this, but I would say his argument stemmed from an attitude of class envy - Populism. This inequality in the use of a government service was a manufactured injustice. I think F genuinely understood this after it was explained. Whether or not he really did, it seemed clear to me he had no idea he was inciting class hatred, which effectively is an attack on unity, something F and I both value. I just don't know if F realized that while injustice can be manufactured, unity cannot, at least not for the long term.

In April of 2008, the American Thinker published an excellent article by Lee Cary titled Obama, CEO Pay, and the Politics of Class Envy. Class envy does not build unity, it is inherently divisive, pitting groups of people against each other. Cary eloquently explains this simple truth using contemporary examples. For instance, Cary writes about Barack Obama's many statements condemning high CEO salaries:

"When a politician bemoans the salary-disparity on the Jay Leno or David Letterman Shows the crowds applaud. Never mind that Jay makes $123,000 and Dave $154,000 for each show - considerably more than the average U.S. worker makes in a year. Entertainers, including sports figures, are exempt from salary comparisons. They have talent. And never mind that Obama has leveraged his support from Oprah Winfrey to gain votes. At an annual income of $260,000,000, The Oprah makes a million dollars per weekday."

One should never assume a news story provides all information necessary to fully understand a situation. In news coverage about CEO compensation, as Cary points out, the outrage is highly selective. Senator Obama is apparently upset about supposedly excessive CEO pay, but has no complaints about the pay of politicians, Oprah, actors, athletes, etc. To promote a more "fair" economic situation, the propaganda line of the day is designed to sow hatred of CEOs, while ignoring the many other aforementioned rich people. That, quite simply, is not fair.

Since so many national level journalists also subscribe to the leftist obsession with fairness the hypocrisy of Senator Obama's argument is not brought to light. How many stories have you heard about CEO pay, versus the number of similar stories criticizing Oprah, or actors, or athletes for their obscene wealth?

As listed in the definition of fairness above, compassion is a major factor. Good intentions can be used to justify almost anything. Emotional impressions last, and that is why emotional appeals are so often used in politics today. For example, there is still a persistent myth that the Bush Administration should be blamed for hurricane Katrina. On September 6 of 2005, George Lakoff wrote an excoriating piece tying the failures of that tragedy to public policy and ideology. Mr. Lakoff relied heavily on emotional pandering in exploiting an opportunity to yet again accuse Republicans, and conservative ideals, of being uncaring. This emotional rhetoric has been so successful that many people even today blame President Bush for the disastrous aftermath of the hurricane. Global warming hysteria has been infused into the situation so often that Bush has even been blamed for the storm itself. Below is an excerpt from Mr. Lakoff's piece on the aftermath of Katrina, showing emotional exploitation, manipulation of "fairness" and distortion of the views he disagrees with:

"The cause was political through and through -- a matter of values and principles. The progressive-liberal values are America's values, and we need to go back to them. The heart of progressive-liberal values is simple: empathy (caring about and for people) and responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy). These values translate into a simple principle: Use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives. In short, promoting the common good is the central role of government."

"The right-wing conservatives now in power have the opposite values and principles. Their main value is Rely on individual discipline and initiative. The central principle: Government has no useful role. The only common good is the sum of individual goods. It's the difference between We're all in this together and You're on your own, buddy. It's the difference between Every citizen is entitled to protection and You're only entitled to what you can afford. It's the difference between connection and separation. It is this difference in moral and political philosophy that lies behind the tragedy of Katrina."

Do you notice Lakoff's mixture of "unity" and divisiveness? Not only is there a plea for greater fairness, but insinuations of greed, a lack of compassion and just plain evilness by those he criticizes. He suggests conservatives never support a helping hand and ignores a common concern: if you rely on the government to take care of you don't be surprised when it does a bad job. While suggesting conservatives rely only on individual discipline and initiative he is also revealing that liberals don't believe you or I have discipline or initiative. That is the result of government's helping hand: the attitude that you and I are incompetent and cannot survive without Democrats taking care of us. Big government is cumbersome by its very nature, so relying on it for social aid is not necessarily a good idea.

To this day Republicans are still accused of racism regarding hurricane Katrina. Such accusations of hatred and intolerance are often made with a hate-filled and intolerant attitude. The hypocrisy of the left can be ignored because of the underlying assumption they care about people, while those they criticize supposedly don't. This labeling of conservatives as uncaring, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted in any way is common place, but to suggest a "moderate" or "progressive" or leftist of any stripe as any of these things is considered an outrage. The fact that leftist policies tend to also cause harm is disregarded, and to publicly mention failed leftist ideas is considered a mean spirited attack.

What matters is not the results of leftist policies, but only their intentions. This is very dangerous. Because all leftist ideas are believed to be motivated by compassion any number of things can be attempted which would never be allowed to meet the light of a committee chamber if a conservative were to suggest them. Ideas like Social Security (a compulsory ponzi scheme decades old), the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance reform (infringing on our right to free speech), and a compulsory national health care system destined to lower medical standards and limit medical care as much as Canada's or (insert European nation name here)'s health care system are all allegedly designed to make life better for ordinary people, yet we have no choice in whether to participate. In my mind, this raises the question of what do our politicians really care about?

I'm sure there are many in Washington to truly care about other people. I'm just not ready to accept the notion that compassion-inspired public policies are genuinely intended to help us the way we have been promised. One thing I have never understood with regard to legislation is the blind acceptance of the intent to help. Yet there seems to be another motive carefully avoided in debate: the idea that fairness is more important than actually helping people. It would not surprise me if it turned out our compassionate politicians would be satisfied if all Americans lived in poverty, as long as we were all on equal economic terms (except themselves, of course). This suggestion is no more extreme or mean spirited than the constant barrage of accusations that conservatives don't care about people.

America's founders wanted a limited government that respected the right of the people to make their own decisions (with enough government in place to help protect us from harming each other). When people make their own decisions (i.e., making good grades, working hard, making wise choices) inequality inevitably results, but this does not automatically mean injustice results. Efforts to make life more fair in our current political climate inevitably bring us closer to communism, exemplified by the brutal and oppressive regime of the former U.S.S.R. Lenin knew this. Our politicians know this, even if they deny that is what is happening.

My favorite example of why economic fairness is not fair is the comparison between a medical doctor and a garbage collector. A medical doctor who rises from the same poor neighborhood as the local garbage collector has not committed an injustice by earning more wealth. But this economic inequality is the only factor most leftists seem to care about. The inconvenient facts that the M.D. had to take on tremendous debt, put in many years of higher education, acquire a license to work, and works possibly twice as many hours in a week as the garbage collector simply have no place in the argument of economic fairness. The medical doctor is considered greedy by the standards of the leftist, and should be taxed at a higher percentage rate than the garbage collector because our government has the right to do anything it deems necessary.

Possibly the best example of fairness turning on itself and becoming utterly unfair was given to us during the 2008 election season by Congressman Jim Moran, (D - VA). The Weekly Standard has a video of his comments at a forum in Virginia, in which he challenged the Simplistic Notion That People With Wealth Are Entitled To Keep It. Congressman Moran's sense of fairness makes him believe government is entitled to take what ever it wants from whom ever it wants, and do what ever it wants. If government can take your wealth which you earned and you have no recourse for this action, how do we stop such a government from doing anything else? Congressman Moran's philosophy is the same mentality of the former Soviet Union. It is the opposite mentality of a nation of free people.

Populism is pitting groups of people against each other. But there should be a distinction between a people and their government. America's founders had an innate distrust of government, and we should maintain that attitude. The warning of our founders against factionism should also be heeded, though we obviously have ignored it for 200 years. It would do us well to trust people by default, but to distrust government. Ironically, leftists choose the opposite attitude, even when they claim to distrust government they prefer giving it more power while distrusting the people to make good decisions on their own.

America's founders warned posterity of this devolution into despotism.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. (from a speech by Ron Paul, in 2000.

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it.

- Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan

“The goal of socialism is communism.”

“It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed”

“We need the real, nation-wide terror which reinvigorates the country and through which the Great French Revolution achieved glory”

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”

-- Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Lenin confirmed these warnings by his own example in forming what became the USSR. Lenin's propaganda centered on erasing class distinctions, attempting to correct the supposed injustice of having "rich" and "poor." Is this not the same message we hear from our compassionate elitists today? The saddest aspect of all this is that we seem to have only one option at our disposal, to hope for change as our new president takes the big chair. At least, until the next election cycle.

Our Founding Fathers on The Redistribution of Wealth

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

Modern Moral Confusion

On September 12, 2008, Senator John McCain, with his wife Cindy, appeared on ABC's "The View." In discussing McCain's position on abortion and judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court if he were to win the upcoming presidential election, Whoopi Goldberg asked "Should I be worried about being a slave or a return to slavery?"

She may have merely been attempting to be funny, or perhaps she was being flippant to make a point. What ever her reasons, Whoopi seemed to believe that "abortion rights," as it is commonly portrayed, is synonymous with women's rights. She is not alone. Many abortion advocates construe the issue so that any disapproval of the abortion movement is equivalent to attacking all women's rights, as if even questioning abortion were an attack on the Constitution itself.


Clearly, some people have no problem comparing abortion and slavery. I'm one of those people, though I take an entirely different position from Whoopi's. I've even written a short book about that very comparison, which you can find here.

One issue not addressed in my book is the question of supporting evil versus being evil. In our modern "enlightened" culture we are taught that slavery practiced by western culture, including the slave trade and the physical and legal treatment of those slaves, was unequivocally evil. And so it is with Nazism; if someone were to even suggest that a member of the Nazi Party was not an evil person, many would be outraged. What we must not forget is that there is a difference between being an evil person, and supporting others who advocate, promote, or do evil things. I say this in the contemporary context of voting for a supporter of abortion.

So I ask, should the legal murder of millions of people be secondary to another issue in which millions of people are not killed? Let us distinguish between a hypothetical tragedy (such as future predictions of massive death caused by global warming) and reality (i.e., millions of abortions occurring each year worldwide). I suppose any answer to this question could depend on the situation.

Some History

Let me pose a hypothetical scenario. An employee or even a family member of a slave owner may make an effort to improve the lives of the slaves around them, even to the point of helping some slaves escape captivity. Or German citizens in Nazi Germany may help Jews remain hidden or even to leave the country. In both of these situations, those helping the oppressed persons would likely need to maintain an appearance of loyalty to the status quo, while keeping their contrary actions secretive. This sort of activity is quite understandable to our modern enlightened culture, one which acknowledges such compassionate activity as good, and possibly heroic. But what of those who did nothing to oppose the evils of their day, and though they did not personally commit such acts they none-the-less supported those who did?

Imagine an election season in which one political candidate believes much the same as you. That candidate supports the same worthy causes and professes the same ideals as you, except one. That one exception is that this candidate also supports the institution of slavery, or perhaps the Nazi Party, and does so openly. Would you ignore this one issue, or would it give you reason to reconsider voting for the candidate? Now imagine the year is 1856 or 1860, and the Presidential candidate that agrees with you on so many issues also advocates slavery. Or imagine the year is 1933, and your fellow German citizens are considering giving a promising candidate astounding political power in the nation. His future genocidal plans are plainly laid out in his book, Mein Kampf, published years before. If there were merely the one "disagreement" between you and the candidate, would you vote for him? How significant would this issue be to you?

Is abortion the same type of heavy issue? Is there any problem with voting for an abortion supporter who may also espouse compassionate social policies? What about supporting a Nazi who espouses what he calls compassionate social policies, and vows to rescue the country from terrible economic troubles? And what of a slave holder who defends the institution of slavery, but also supports compassionate social policies and vows to protect the ordinary citizen from any threat to their way of life?

I ask these questions because I believe abortion today is just as much a holocaust as the one during the 1930s and 40s and the holocaust that was slavery. When the law of the land deprives a group of people their humanity, permitting them to be legally murdered by the millions, that issue should carry such weight as to be a primary consideration in who we choose to lead our nation. But living among the controversy makes it more difficult to see current events for what they really are. Having the benefit of hindsight, it is easy for us to see the evil of slavery and the Jewish Holocaust. It may be easy to also label as evil those who voted for a pro-slavery candidate or those who favored giving Adolph Hitler such wide powers over Germany.

I acknowledge there is a difference between committing evil acts and voting for those who do or merely support them, but I also suggest this distinction does not amount to much. I can understand that a citizen may be desperate enough to vote for Hitler in the tragic economic times the German people were suffering in the 1920s and 30s. There were many topics Hitler addressed, and many troubles on the minds of the German people, so much that the idea of murdering millions of people could be confidently disregarded as mere political propaganda from Hitler's detractors. And yet, giving him the power to fulfill his plans enabled one of the greatest evils in the history of human civilization. Would we today acknowledge the Nazi's evil for what it truly was if Hitler never decided to attempt conquering the rest of the world as well? How fiercely would Nazism be condemned if World War II never happened? Do we call Nazism evil only because the rest of the world was threatened too? We find ourselves today in a situation where millions of people are legally killed, but many voices express support for it, as if there were nothing to be concerned about.

Confusion

Rather than insist those who supported Hitler's rise to power were also evil I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But what does that mean? The most kind and yet honest assessment I can make is to consider them morally confused. The situation in Germany at the time was admittedly grim, and many of the concerns of the German people were legitimate. However, allowing Hitler to take control and implement his agenda (which was supposedly to help the German people) undoubtedly enabled and spread tremendous evil. Likewise, I acknowledge Americans today who vote for an adamantly pro-abortion candidate are not directly guilty of murdering unborn children. Yet enabling abortion proponents to continue strengthening the abortion movement does spread evil. In our modern holocaust we have witnessed the legal killing of more than 40 million unborn children since 1973.

What do abortion supporters say to this? They essentially claim the fetus is not a person, and so it has no rights, and abortion is not murder. I am left wondering why anyone would defend a position using the same argument the Nazis used to justify their attempted genocide of the Jews. It does not help the situation that there is so much confusion and misinformation thrust upon us:

So-Called Pro-Life Advocates Who Backed Obama Say Banning Abortion Failed
Christian website endorses Obama as pro-life
Do you remember Barack Obama's outrageous and dishonest mock "Pro-Life" websites paid for by George Soros? Yeah, they were all a lie.

Idiocy

We all act like idiots sometimes. None of us knows everything and we all are susceptible to confusion. But when the wizards of smart (thanks to Rush Limbaugh for coining that term) suggest the question of whether a child in its mother's womb is a person is up for debate, we should acknowledge this is the same line of thinking the Nazis used to promote their racist position on what they called the "Jewish question." The Nazis used rhetoric and debate and an already strong anti-semitic attitude to craft laws discriminating against Jews. This legal maneuvering made it easy for the afflicted group to be dehumanized. As a result, more than 6 million of them were exterminated. The reasons used to justify this genocide seem like overt idiocy to me, and that so many Germans embraced this rhetoric baffles me. Another tragedy of the situation is that many people today are suffering the same moral confusion in the context of abortion.

For example, Alan Colmes, formerly of the Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes. An admittedly smart and thoughtful guy, and no doubt someone who acknowledges Nazism as the evil that it truly is, he sounds like an idiot on the issue of abortion. In September 2008, abortion survivor Gianna Jessen appeared on Hannity and Colmes to discuss Senator Barack Obama's position on the issue of children born alive during a failed abortion. Jessen was born during an abortion procedure which failed, and clinic workers had her taken to a hospital to get proper medical care. Jessen, and millions of people around the world, would consider a child born even under these circumstances to be a person, a living infant. As you can see in the interview, Senator Obama voted four separate times against Illinois legislation designed to protect such a child's right to live. I see no legitimate reason to deny a child born like this is a person, entitled to all rights and privileges as you or I. Therefore, children born in this manner and left to die or even put to death is rightly called infanticide. If Senator Obama acknowledges this tragic thing occurs and yet opposes efforts to prevent it why shouldn't people say he supports infanticide? In this interview with Jessen, Alan Colmes can only offer shallow platitudes like "Obama doesn't want to kill babies" and "we disagree on the law." Being asked more than once in the brief interview, Colmes refused to answer Jessen's straight forward question "what would you call it?"



Former registered nurse Jill Stanek appeared on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor in September of 2000, discussing her experience in learning her employer, Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, performed abortions much like that described by Gianna Jessen, where the child is born alive and left to die. This video shows a rare moment in which O'Reilly is speechless.



http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/09/stanek_on_the_o.html

It is a common tactic of abortion proponents to ignore the evidence of the atrocity Stanek describes, such as denying it really happens, and refusing to review the alleged evidence. While avoiding exposing themselves to the reality of what they support, those favoring legalized abortion often evade the issue by retorting with stories of how a woman's life can be ruined by having a child. If you take the time to view the video above, I only ask that you consider whether what is being described is better than allowing the child to live and to be adopted. No one is advocating a pregnant woman be forced into motherhood. If you are someone who would vote for a pro-abortion candidate (even someone who opposes protecting a child born alive during a failed abortion, i.e., Barack Obama) I ask that you watch the short interview and reconsider whether voting for a candidate who supports what is discussed here is something you wish to do in the future.

Many people object to the comparison of abortion and Nazism. If abortion rights supporters would stop using Nazi-like propaganda and reasoning this comparison would likely be made far less frequently. Here is a list of reasons the Nazis used to justify their attempt to annihilate the Jewish race. It is also a list of modern reasons used to justify abortion:

1. Allowing this to happen helps humanity
2. Those of the targeted group are not really people
3. The targeted group does not have the same rights as you or I
4. Killing members of the targeted group is legal, but let's not call it "killing"
5. Preventing this would harm society

Killing people who have committed no crime seems inherently unjust to millions around the world. Denying even that they are people to justify killing them by the millions was considered a crime against humanity when the Nazis did it. Why is our culture so resistant to acknowledging we are doing the same thing to the unborn?

Update

Here is a YouTube video from Planned Parenthood showing what they are thankful for:
A year in Review

Notice a Pattern?

Historical parallels between slavery, the Holocaust and abortion

In October of 2004 Slate.com published an article by Timothy Noah titled Why Bush opposes Dred Scott It’s Code for Roe v. Wade. In a condescending tone Noah mocks President Bush and the Christian right, evidently thinking himself clever for exposing what he thinks a secret tool of propaganda conservatives try to keep hidden among themselves. What he may not realize is that the Pro-Life movement is not trying to hide the comparison between those two cases, but is trying to publicize it. In his research for the article, Noah discovers many references comparing the two Supreme Court cases, but rejects them. He seems to think such comparisons are merely a political ploy, at best. Noah also seems to think the comparison between Roe and Dred Scott (the case in which the Supreme Court denied American citizenship to people of African descent, effectively also denying them human rights) is illegitimate. He is not the only one who thinks this way. Through ignorance, bias and other ailments, “abortion rights” advocates in general seem uninterested in understanding the agenda of the Pro-Life movement or its arguments, and instead prefer to assign a more sinister motive. In lieu of trying to persuade abortion advocates otherwise, the American people in general could benefit from seeing more detailed historical patterns among the Dred Scott case, the Nuremburg Laws of Nazi Germany, and Roe v. Wade.


Most of the information referenced in this essay was gathered in passing over many years, whether in conversations with people or in general reading, such as news stories and the like, with no thought of organizing it until 2008. This lead me to think the similarities between the three Holocausts, as I am calling them, could be common knowledge, at least on an implicit level. I set out to find readily available sources supporting the historical instances mentioned in this writing, and in a very busy culture such as the United States this could be accomplished with the internet. Most of the references here are linked at the bottom of each page to a web-based source, though a few of these are books not currently readable online. Much of what you will read in this essay you likely already know, and yet seeing it all woven together in a broader context may prove surprising.

It is not the intent of this writing to convert those who choose to believe killing an unborn baby is a constitutional right. The purpose of this essay is to change complacent attitudes, to challenge the belief that public policy has no affect on the individual citizen, and for those who already agree an unborn child has a right to live, to remind us to not carelessly accept talking points, analyses, alleged trends and outright falsehoods about the constitutionality of denying a group of people their unalienable human rights. The American people have enough trouble as it is with a government that acts as if it knows best on all things without us enabling that belief by effectively ignoring those who make a living creating laws and spending other people's money.

read the book

excerpts below

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Having to explain why children in the womb are people is as
ridiculous as having to explain why black people are people; no
explanation should be necessary. Why should one have to spell out that
killing a baby is not what America's founders had in mind when they
shaped the language of our constitution?"

"Unless abortion rhetoric is challenged and made to defend itself, the
concept of compassion will continue to mean an act which results in
the death of a child."

"The phrases "a woman's right to choose" and "reproductive rights"
might be considered the modern equivalent of a slave owner defending
"property rights." In each case, an argument for the constitutional
rights of one group inherently denies the human rights of another."

"There are also efforts challenging the physician's right to abstain
from performing or participating in an abortion. The conservative
political action group Concerned Women for America is trying to bring
attention to the fact that abortion groups oppose a doctor's right to
choose not to do abortions."

read the book

Presumptions of Marxism

updated 2011.02.11

One big problem with debating controversial issues is that people tend to misconstrue the positions of the opposition. This is easily and sometimes unwittingly done, by those on any side of an issue. But deliberate distortion seems to be standard procedure when criticizing capitalism. I've noticed 11 general points where Marxians (classical Marxists, Communists, Socialists, liberals, leftists in general) exploit common mental laziness and gloss over the issue to promote their agenda. I'm not suggesting conservatives don't do the same, but let's face it, even when conservatives do this it doesn't reach nearly as big an audience as does left wing propaganda. What should be outrageous to intelligent people or just those who value integrity, misrepresenting someone else's argument is the antithesis of intellectual honesty.

1. Karl Marx's ideas are readily accepted as self-evident, putting capitalism on defense, as if Marxian ideas need not be proved. Marxian theory is presumptuously made the standard by which capitalism should be measured.

2. Any explanation of Marxian theory is portrayed in an ideal setting, whereas capitalism is typically shown in a negative and over-simplified light, promoting the presumption that Marxism is morally superior to capitalism.

3. Marxian theory treats the subjective notion of fairness as a sort of natural law desired by all, but it is only the Marxian definition of fairness that is considered legitimate. Marxian theory presumes life can be made fair, and that unfairness is manufactured only by capitalist mindsets, meaning greed or selfishness. The historically proven fact that manufactured fairness inevitably results in tyranny and oppression must be whitewashed.

4. Capitalist criticism of Marxian societies (i.e., the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.) is dismissed as criticism of illegitimate examples of Marxian theory, because those states are not "pure" or ideal Marxian societies. But when the United States is described by Marxian followers as the preeminent example of a greedy and selfish society, the fact that the U.S. also is not a "pure" capitalist society (because it is heavily influenced by socialist/Marxian ideas) is conveniently neglected. In fact, the failed examples of Marxian nations usually follow the path of failure predicted by Capitalists (i.e., the Soviet Union being run by Stalin naturally devolves into a totalitarian society, because making life "fair" for everyone requires the sacrifice of most freedoms). Similarly, in ignoring the impure capitalism of the United States, Marxians may use a "dog eat dog" metaphor to describe a logical extension of capitalism, while avoiding the "equal misery" reality of Marxian ideals which contaminate American capitalism.

5. Capitalist attitudes are reflexively described as inherently greedy or selfish. The "capitalist mindset" (meaning selfishness) criticized by Marxians may not be a result of capitalism or so-called greed; such attitudes could be the natural state of individuals when allowed to make their own choices. Though a "selfish nature" is sometimes acknowledged, it is improperly attributed to "capitalist mindsets" by Marxians. This selfishness (which indeed exists and is common) may be inherent to humanity itself. Marxian theory prefers the dubious belief that humanity is not naturally selfish, but is made selfish by capitalism or by society in general.

6. Self-interest is unjustly equated with selfishness when criticized by Marxian followers. Marxian theory does not acknowledge the fact that greed can exist in any society, especially one where resources are scarce, which is very common among nations implementing Marxian ideas. For example, Cuba engages in trade with many nations, yet it is still a poverty-stricken nation. This sad fact is often blindly attributed to the trade embargo inflicted upon it by the United States. The possibility that Cuba's widespread poverty may be self inflicted is simply overlooked, because this would suggest Marxian ideals are fundamental flawed.

7. Capitalism is deliberately misunderstood by Marxians, as may be observed by their criticism of it (i.e., a lack of incentive for working one's best is often misconstrued as "a lack of incentive to work at all"). It is seldom (if ever) mentioned by Marxians that Capitalism survives only by serving the community, which is fickle, diverse, and too large and complex to be sufficiently understood by any theory or paradigm, socio-economic or otherwise, a fact Marxians often use to justify their rejection of Capitalism.

8. Marxians tend to discount individualism itself in favor of community. The desire, effort, skill and accomplishment of individuals are rejected to maintain a group mentality. For example, the concept of "earned wealth" is discarded so as to promote the Marxian pillar of class envy. In this manner wealth is not discussed as it actually works (via voluntary exchange), but rather in mythical terms of distribution - as if there were some high governing power deciding who will get an unequal share of available wealth. Likewise, individual charity is ignored to promote group charity (taxation and redistribution of wealth). With Marxian thinking, poverty is not itself a problem, as long as it is equal. It is unequal enjoyment of wealth that is the real injustice.

9. Marxians presume they know what is best for others, and the price required by Marxism (i.e., individualism, freedom, private property, religion and family) is justified for everyone, and should be enforced even by violent means, if necessary. In the Marxian mindset, fairness is valued above freedom, and those who value freedom above fairness are reflexively accused of being "greedy" or lacking compassion. Capitalist examples of compassion are ignored or explained away as something contrary to capitalist mindsets; and religion is certainly not given
credit for compassionate acts.

10. Marxian theory presumes a mythical endless supply of goods and services on one hand, yet a limited amount of collective wealth on the other hand. Capitalism recognizes goods and services must be produced in order to be consumed, but that they are produced only with sufficient incentive. The capitalist focus on liberty permits people to fulfill these needs as they see fit (requiring that individuals serve the community in some way). When people are rewarded with the fruits of their own labor the natural result is abundance (society's economic pie continually grows). The Marxian focus on fairness naturally hinders the incentive to put forth that extra effort, which reduces the total goods and services people are willing to provide, which reduces total available wealth. This results in the use of compulsion and oppression to meet society's needs. Where properly limited freedom tends to breed prosperity, manufactured fairness tends to breed poverty. Prosperity must grow to exist; it must be focused to grow, it does not grow by being arbitrarily redistributed.

11. Marxian theory oversimplifies human history by focusing on and defining it in the limited mindset of class struggle: the "oppressors and the oppressed". Though this perspective is not in itself inaccurate, the insistence that the study of society be approached almost exclusively from this point of view creates a biased and misguided understanding of human experience.