Category Archives: Individualism Vs. Collectivism

Vagina-Centric, Tax-Sponsored, Monument To Republican Mindlessness

Constitution, Feminism, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Republicans, Taxation

Forget about upholding the Constitution, Republicans can’t even uphold the interests of their primary constituency. Instead, they insist on stalking and courting identity groups—women, for one—that can’t stand the Grand Old Party.

As deficient as it is, there is no warrant in the Constitution for stealing from taxpayers in order to aggrandize women. But leave it to House Republicans to plot a vote “this year on legislation promoting construction of a National Women’s History Museum.”

Perhaps they’ll get the women’s vote? Forget about it. “Sisters love Uncle Sam,” and while Republicans do too, sisters don’t perceive the GOP to be as statist as they’d like.

… The move lends enormous momentum to the years-long push to establish a memorial to women’s history near the National Mall — a proposal that’s lingered in Congress for nearly two decades without ever reaching the president’s desk.

Congressional supporters from both parties have been working behind the scenes to rally backing and pressure leaders to stage a vote on the bill this year, even as Congress’s shift into campaign mode has left little appetite for most non-essential legislation ahead of November’s midterms.

Cantor spokeswoman Megan Whittemore said the congressman supports the bill and intends to bring it to the floor.

Museum supporters wasted no time praising the announcement, with Rep. Carolyn Maloney — a New York Democrat who’s been working on the proposal since 1998 — saying she’s “thrilled” by Cantor’s move. With top House Democrats already behind the proposal, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), Maloney predicted it will sail through the lower chamber.

“This is a huge boost to our efforts,” said Maloney, the bill’s lead sponsor. “Leadership from both parties in the House has now come out in favor of this bill, and I’m hopeful we can secure a large, bipartisan vote in favor of its passage. …”

THE HILL.

A society founded on individualism does not promote individuals based on their sexual or racial identity. If private companies wish to promote females purely because they are women, and often at the expense of better males—that’s the prerogative of private property. Sensible sorts can shun these establishments. However, politicians have no right to steal from one group (taxpayers) for the benefit of another (females), in the course of increasing their own sphere of influence.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Conservatives Adopting Lefty Language About ‘Income Inequality’

Business, Capitalism, Conservatism, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Private Property, The State

A more meaningful index than “income inequality”—it implies that income equality is the thing to strive for, heaven help us!—would be the correlation between the increasing balance sheets of the central banks of the world and so-called increasing wealth discrepancies.

Conservatives rarely argue the morality of capitalism and individual liberty. If they do debate, it is about the utility of freedom to the common good. The entire impetus of Republican-Party operatives is to keep up with the issues the Democrats introduce to distract from the destructive effects of galloping statism. So if the latter decry “income inequality,” the former affirm that they too worry themselves sick over whatever it is the Democrats are droning on about.

Today, Fox News reported gravely that the “World’s richest 85 people have as much as bottom half the population.” Similarly, this Townhall.com writer assures his readers that “Inequality is a Conservative Issue.”

“The Capitalist Professor” George Reisman is having none of it. He writes “In Defense of Business Fortunes and the Destructive Effects of Imposing Economic Equality,” at www.twitter.com, @GGReisman:

1. A fortune is accumulated by means of earning a high rate of profit on capital and heavily saving and reinvesting it year after year.

2. The high rate of profit is achieved by introducing newer, better products or producing existing products at a lower cost.

3. Sooner or later, competition brings down a high rate of profit to the general level. To go on earning it, further innovation is necessary.

4. For example, to maintain its high rate of profit, Apple has had to repeatedly improve its products and introduce several major new ones.

5. Had Apple stood still, its initially very profitable products, made obsolete by competition, would now be selling at huge losses.

6. The high profits are generally invested in the means of producing the very kind of products in which the innovations take place.

7. For example, Apple’s profits are invested in the expanded and improved production of Apple’s products.

8. Thus, business fortunes under capitalism represent ever better, less expensive products produced with capital constituted by those fortunes.

9. The fortunes originate in profits and are used as capital. Both ways they serve the general buying public. They also pay wages and salaries.

10. The existence of fortunes under capitalism benefits everyone in his capacity both as a buyer of products and seller of labor.

11. Imposing economic equality requires the confiscation of high profits. It would abort the earning of fortunes and stifle economic progress.

12. Advocates of economic equality know nothing about profits, innovation, or capital. They believe that wealth is a pile of consumers’ goods.

13. The capitalists, whom they depict as fat men, allegedly have too much of this pile. Some of it must be given to the starving masses.

14. Thus, imposing economic equality is also a policy of seizing capital in order to consume it—eating the seed corn and being impoverished.

15. Advocates of economic equality are wilfully ignorant of economics. They are fueled by envy and resentment, biting the hands that feed them.

16. Socialism/Communism is their philosophy. Stalin and Mao are their heroes. Famine, slave labor camps, and mass death are their legacy.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Über Alec, Barking-Mad Bashir, Death-Defying Libertarians

Ann Coulter, English, Family, Feminism, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Objectivism, Political Correctness

“Über Alec, Barking-Mad Bashir & The Death-Defying Libertarians” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

…. BLACKOUT. “Phony panic” and “urban myth” is how the “prestige press” is characterizing widespread reports of en masse, black-on-white Knock-Out attacks. “Boys behaving badly,” noodled one jocular Democratic strategist about the sucker-punching to death of a few people, so far.

The mischief-makers must be laughing. They couldn’t care a fig. In fact, the rhetorical reprisals the perpetrators deploy to define their crimes are as precise as the blows they land on their pale victims: “polarbearing,” Jew hunting, and so on.

But some libertarians were having none of it, insisting à la the left, that to frame the felons in anything but race-neutral terms is collectivist and racist.

In the face of such dogged denial, I worry that libertarians who reject reality may be doomed to extinction.

Picture this: You walk past a feral gang of black youths, like the ones depicted in all these terrifying YouTube clips. You grin bravely, place honky hands on ears and hum loudly as you saunter by, until… you are coshed on the head by a black youth. Then another. And another.

As you fall to your knees near death, you congratulate yourself on cleaving not to reality, but to a noble “theory” instead. You die a happy, theoretically pious libertarian.

It must be abundantly clear to any thinking man that this is idiotic, not individualistic.

Those who’re derided as apostles of intolerance—”collectivists”—for cleaving to reality will likely outlive the self-sacrificing, self-styled individualists, sacrificed to an idea that has no basis in objective reality. …

The complete column is “Über Alec, Barking-Mad Bashir & The Death-Defying Libertarians.” Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

Happy Private-Property Day.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

‘Blackout': Are Reality Defying Libertarians Doomed To Extinction?

Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Intelligence, libertarianism, Objectivism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Correctness, Race

Some simple-minded, lite libertarians feel (for they do not think) that describing race reality is a feature of a collectivist habit of mind. Crimes described by their perpetrators as “polarbearing” or Jew hunting, these libertarians refuse to frame in anything but race-neutral terms.

Oh Buddha!

Imagine. You walk past a feral gang of black youths, like the ones depicted in all these terrifying YouTube clips. You smile bravely, place hands on honky ears and hum loudly as you walk by, until… you are coshed on the head by a black youth. Then another. And another.

As you fall to your knees near death, you congratulate yourself on cleaving not to reality, but to a dumb “theory” instead. You die a happy person, redeemed by piety.

These self-styled individualists—it must be clear that such left-libertarians are genuine idiots, not real individualists—may be doomed to extinction. Those derided as “collectivists”—as in a person who cleaves to reality—will likely outlive the self-sacrificing individualists among us. Sacrificed to an idea that has no basis in reality.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE II: Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag (Ditto In Conservative Clothing)

Elections, Homosexuality, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Liberty, Racism

“Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

… True to type, Robert Sarvis’ same-sex marriage sanctimony is not only pious, but specious. By Wikipedia’s telling [the libertarian lite, third-party candidate in the Virginia gubernatorial race] “supports same sex marriage and says it is a personal issue for him because his own marriage, which is biracial, was illegal in Virginia 50 years ago.” (By the same token, why not support affirmative action, on the ground that it, too, wasn’t the law “in Virginia 50 years ago”?)

True libertarians toil to keep the state out of marriage altogether. In furtherance of liberty, Uncle Sam’s purview must be curtailed, not expanded. On this score, let our gay friends and family members lead the way. Let them solemnize their commitment in contract and through church, synagogue and mosque (that will be the day!). Once interesting and iconoclastic, gays have become colossal bores who crave nothing more than the state’s seal of approval. Go back to the days of the Stonewall Riots, when the police’s violations of privacy and private property were the object of gay anger and activism.

Invariably deployed to encroach on private property and police subversives, the political construct that is “discrimination” (“sexism, racism, blah, blah”) ought to be opposed by the party of individualism. So long as the individual keeps his paws to himself, let him think, speak, associate and dissociate at will. …”

The complete column is “Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag”. Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

UPDATE I: CNN’s chief national correspondent, John King, offers the “nitwork’s” analysis of Terry McAuliffe’s victory in Virginia, as he segues into an analysis of the New Jersey race, where, he contends, the same variables are at work.

JOHN KING: Chris, this one will be studied because this race was so close. Virginia is the governor’s race and Virginia is a tug of war evenly divided on the big major issues. Let’s take a closer look at Terry McAuliffe’s win. Start by looking at all this red. If you glanced at this map, you would think the Republican won, right? Look at all that red across Virginia.

Terry McAuliffe owes his victory right there, just like President Obama in 2008 and 2012, the more populous Washington suburbs. It’s the fastest growing part of the state, more moderate voters, younger voters, a rising Latino population. That is why Terry McAuliffe has his narrow win, all due to big support in the Washington, D.C. suburbs.

Let’s take a closer look at how he did it. I’ll explain what I mean about that tug of war. Look at this, the electorate, almost evenly divided, 51 percent women, 49 percent men. Women were the majority of the electorate and a majority of those women just barely went for Terry McAuliffe. Higher number in the suburbs, this mattered hugely, a slight gender gap, but enough to help Terry McAuliffe.

Helping him despite this, look at this, here’s one thing that’s changing in Virginia. We used to think of this as reliably red, a conservative southern state, 44 percent of the electorate described themselves as moderate. It is not the conservative state it used to be. Support among moderates and liberals put Terry McAuliffe just barely over the top.

Chris, over the top despite very strong opposition to the president’s health care plan, 53 percent oppose Obamacare in the state of Virginia. This is what kept Ken Cuccinelli close at the end. Look at this, 81 percent of Obamacare opponents supported the Republican for governor. This is what kept this so close, closer than most of the late polls. The recent opposition to Obamacare hurting the Democratic candidate, the president is under water in Virginia and yet the Democrat won just barely, the president’s disapproval rating.

Here’s how. Terry McAuliffe told the people of Virginia that Ken Cuccinelli was part of the Tea Party crowd that shutdown the government. Virginia voters blamed the Republicans more than the president. Those who blamed Republicans for shutting down the government, remember how close, especially Northern Virginia is to Washington, D.C. a big factor there.

Lastly, Terry McAuliffe made the point, not just on Tea Party issues, but controversial issues like gay rights, abortion. Half of the electorate thought Ken Cuccinelli was too conservative for the state of Virginia. Of those voters, look at that. That’s your margin of victory. Push them on the Tea Party, the social issues, get turnout in the Northern Virginia suburbs.

That’s why Terry McAuliffe narrowly will be the next governor of Virginia. People will study the exit polls looking ahead to 2014 and especially 2016 where Virginia is still important when it comes to presidential politics.

CUOMO: Very interesting. Seems to reflect they had the right issue with Obamacare, but didn’t go about it the right way. Let’s go to Jersey where it’s very different there. It’s really all about the man. How did you see what it means for Governor Chris Christie?

KING: Look, he is now the premier brand in Republican politics. You can say that just flat out. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, some of the Tea Party guys are with the Republican base. The way you validate yourself in politics is you win elections. Look at that. This has been one of the bluest of blue states in America especially in presidential politics. Chris Christie filling in everything except urban Newark with red so Chris Christie will carry this forward.

I’m sure this will hang on his wall somewhere and mail this to Republican activists all around the country saying look what I did in my state. Let’s move over to the New Jersey exit polls, a sweep. He’s running against a female Democratic candidate, Chris Christie not only wins men, he wins women and both big.

Of course., Chris Christie Republicans tend to win the white vote but remember, Chris, what happened to John McCain among African-Americans and Latinos in 2008, what happened to Mitt Romney among those same constituencies. Let’s look at this. Now Barbara Buono did win African-Americans, but Chris Christie will brag about this.

Look at this number here, 21 percent of African-Americans voted for their Republican governor to re-elect him. Not only did he get 21 percent, he more than doubled his take from four years ago. So Chris Christie can make the case, I can broaden the Republican base. Have you seen that in a long time? That’s red.

The Latino vote, 9 percent of the vote in New Jersey is colored red because Chris Christie actually carried the Latino vote by five, six points there, 51 percent. Remember what happened to Romney and McCain in places like Florida, Nevada, New Mexico. This a powerful message for Chris Christie that I can put the swing states back into play.

If you move over and look at little bit more. It’s clear the people of New Jersey like their governor, but you want to talk about 2016. I’m going to leave that one for you. Superstorm Sandy 84 percent — 84 percent of the people said he handled Sandy well. That was a big personal factor for him. Now we go to 2016 to see if Chris Christie can make the case as he travels the country.

CUOMO: Here’s the segue way. You showed the numbers there. Last night, the governor won with women, which was surprising, showed strength, but however when we talk about the woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the story changes even though a man named John King told me to listen for what you don’t hear said. What do we see?

KING: It’s a close race. The state hasn’t gone Republican for president since 1984. It’s a close race. Hillary Clinton is still ahead by four points. Chris Christie’s message to Republicans can be I can guarantee New Jersey, but if he’s competitive in New Jersey he’s probably competitive in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio as well.

These are the races up in 2014 Republican governors. Iowa, that’s up. There’s a place called Ohio that’s up. There’s a place called South Carolina that’s up. You know where I’m going here. He’ll get a chance to test his appeal in the states that matter most when we pick presidents.

UPDATE II: Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag And In Conservative’s Clothing. Via Mr. Buchanan:

According to Chuck Todd of NBC, though heading for a blowout, Christie rebuffed a desperate plea to come down to Virginia for a few hours to help Ken Cuccinelli, whose late surge almost won the state.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Libertarian Party: Party of Isms, Not Individualism

Gender, IMMIGRATION, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Race, Ron Paul, States' Rights

When it comes to playing manipulative politics with social issues—matters of “racism,” “sexism” (blah, blah), with which government should not concern itself—there’s no daylight between left-liberals and left-libertarians.

The loser Libertarian Party is running a gubernatorial candidate (Robert Sarvis?) against one of the most libertarian attorneys general a state has had: Virginia’s Ken Cuccinelli. The latter has an impressive record of achievements and has taken principled positions on the issues.

For instance, Attorney General Cuccinelli’s attempts to nullify federal health insurance mandates in Virgina go as far back as March of 2010, when he launched a legal challenge to “shield Virginians from paying any penalties for not purchasing federally-approved health care.”

By Wikipedia’s telling, the Libertarian Party’s challenger, Sarvis, “supports same sex marriage and says it is a personal issue for him because his own marriage, which is biracial, was illegal in Virginia 50 years ago.”

By the same token, why not support affirmative action, on the ground that it wasn’t the law “in Virginia 50 years ago”?

Left-liberal argumentation! Sanctimonious too.

As one who believes that the state should stay out of marriage altogether, I cringe when so-called liberty lovers join Hollywood dimwits to place this issue at the forefront of the fight for freedom and beat people about the head with it. If you care about liberty, keep the state out of marriage; don’t expand its purview. Go to an attorney and solemnize your marriage through contract law.

Unsurprisingly, this Libertarian Party candidate is for open borders, framing the matter by using more sly, liberal illogic. (Here: I know immigrants, therefore immigration should proceed unfettered.)

Remember that immigration has pitted governors like Arizona’s against the Feds in a heroic fight for the right of state representatives to protect their statesmen from trespass. On immigration, left-libertarians come down foursquare on the side of the federales. You can be sure that the latest Immigration Bill will be Sarvis’s dream-come-true.

Cuccinelli, on the other hand, has ruled that “state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of anyone ‘stopped or arrested.'” According to FoxNews, Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion … “extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona.”

Most telling, Ron Paul has endorsed … Cuccinelli.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint