Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Posts Tagged ‘freedom’

Obama’s Education Policy and Death Panels

In Opinion on January 27, 2012 at 10:23 am

Today, in a campaign speech at the University of Michigan, the President will tell educators to get in line or lose federal support.  In a NY Times Preview of the speech he said: “Let me put colleges and universities on notice:  If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down.” Reminds me of his speech to the business communities’ lobbyists, The US Chamber of Commerce, a few months ago, which I critique HERE.    Maybe a little ominous?

This does not bode well for anyone.  Remember, the feds took over (outlawed) the private student loan business a while ago.  Soon, strings will be attached to student loans and limits placed on tuition.  Where that leads, most likely, is a two-tiered tuition system. Pay with government loan dollars, your tuition is $X. Pay with your own money, it will be $2X.  Somebody’s gotta make up for the subsidy; might as well be the “rich.”

Costs will spiral out of control, limits will be placed on education costs, the government will have to step in to ‘solve’ the problem it caused, and Education Panels (No-Soup-For-You! or Death Panels) will be created to determine who gets a shot at President of the Law Review at Harvard and who attends Piedmont Community College (no offense intended).

And then it will be interesting to see Harvard’s and Univ of Texas’s Boards of Regents, mostly staunch BHO supporters, squirm and whine, as they fight to keep their enormous university endowments from being raided by the feds to help bridge the gap.  I can hear the sound bites now:

“Why should that poor, unemployed graduate have to pay off his student loan with his hard earned dollars when you have billions and billions to spare?  Give up your piggy-bank endowments for the benefit of the poor.”

“Why should all that endowment money be invested in hedge funds, off-shore accounts and real estate ventures.  You MUST INVEST it to prepare our kids for the future?!”

They’re blurring the meaning between ‘spend’ and ‘invest’ – the second one doesn’t mean what they think it means.

You’ve been warned.

Advertisements

Obama (Finally) Admits Support of Theft

In Opinion, Political Critique on January 26, 2012 at 7:44 pm

Earlier today in Las Vegas, after cracking wise about the wealth of Bill Gates, President Obama told us his views about ‘fairness’ in the tax code and in the fiscal policies of the USA.

This has nothing to do with envy.  It has everything to do with math.  It’s what I talked about earlier.  We’ve got to make choices.  Americans understand if I get a tax break I don’t need and a tax break the country can’t afford, then one of two things are going to happen.  Either it’s going to add to our deficit or somebody else is going to have to make up the difference.  [Or the government could spend less money?  Nah, no need to consider that.]

A senior suddenly is going to have to start paying more for their Medicare, or a student is going to have to pay more for their student loan, or a family that’s trying to get by, they’re going to have to do with less.  And that’s not right.  That’s not who we are.  Each of us is only here because somebody somewhere felt a responsibility to each other and to our country and helped to create all this incredible opportunity that we call the United States of America.

I guess he thinks it’s cute to personalize it (and remind us that he makes millions of dollars) but his policy agenda will affect more than Barack and Michelle Obama’s tax return.  Furthermore, I’m not sure, but I think that if the president told the Treasury to stop sending his $400,000 per year salary to him, they’d stop – just think how many people $400,000 of food stamps could feed, Mr. President.

But, here’s the point.  Look at his words.  He plainly, boldly and proudly admits that purpose of increasing taxes on ‘the rich’ is to give their money to other people.  Usually Democrats talk about taking money from the rich to fund a ‘program’ or to fulfill some laudatory objective (to provide relief, fund research or cure a disease).  Now they’re unafraid to be explicit about it.  See the bolded words above which are followed by: “And that’s not right.

Really?

Then, to top it off, he tells us the big lie that America is only here because of that way of thinking – ‘somebody somewhere felt a responsibility to each other . . .”  If there is any truth in that statement, it is only to the extent that free men and women decided of their own volition to work together for their mutual benefit.  American’s successes, America’s greatness, is not the result of the government acting as the arbiter of the right or fair amount of money one person is allowed to make before he’s informed that, as a matter of law, he must give 30% of the next dollar to the tax-man so the agent of fairness can determine which lucky third person should be rewarded by the gift of someone else’s money.

Frederic Bastiat warned us of legal plunder in 1850. *

But how is this legal plunder to be identified?  Quite simply.  See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.  See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals.  If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

Some have accused Mr. Obama and his supporters of being socialists, and they scream “NO WE’RE NOT!”  Some accuse them of “class warfare” with the same result.  His defenders are correct; this is neither socialism nor class warfare.  It is theft and plunder.  That the crimes are carried out by the government and is ‘legal’ does not make them just or right.  And, it has become a ‘system’ and it perverts the law.  That systematic, sanctioned plunder has pitted Americans against one another just as Bastiat predicted.  It has created two America’s – the looters and the producers, with the government purporting to be the arbiter of fairness between the two.

This cancer must be excised from our lives or our nation will soon collapse under the weight of so-called entitlements, something more accurately called, in Mr. Obama’s words “spreading the wealth” by stealing from one man for the benefit of another.

* See HERE for Frederic Bastiat’s The Law for more on legalized plunder.

You want civility? Just let me be free.

In Everyday Life, Opinion on December 28, 2011 at 11:56 am

WINNERS AND LOSERS

IT SHOULDN’T REALLY MATTER SO MUCH, RACHEL MADDOW

– OR –

WHY SMALL GOVERNMENT MATTERS

– OR –

LEAVE ANDREW AND HENRY ALONE, PLEASE

Why is it that Democrats and liberals are sometimes enthralled by majority rule and occasionally supportive of certain minority “rights?”  It seems that it is the case only when two conditions exist simultaneously.  That is, the Democrats are so inclined only when (1) Democrats hold a majority in Congress, and (2) the minority in question is a group whose power they can arrogate for their own use.  They buy constituencies with promises to [ab]use the powers of a democratically-elected government to take other people’s money and freedom, presumably making their constituents’ lives ‘better.’

However, when a minority is made up of rich, white, fat-cat bankers, black conservative judges, evangelical Christians, southerners who speak with a twang, women who think that abortion is not a constitutional right, or people who voted for Christine O’Donnell, that minority is open season for hate, derision, and ridicule and doomed to a life of being told how to live and think.

That’s just fine, except for the doomed life part, that is.  I don’t object to Rachel Maddow having those opinions and getting paid by MSNBC to entertain her audience by making fun of Rick Santorum’s religious views, John Boehner’s tan, Dick Cheney’s shooting skills, John Ensign’s personal foibles and George Bush’s swagger.  However, I do object to Rachel’s favored politicians having the political power to turn her occasionally more substantive opinions into government policy, thereby nullifying my unalienable right to experience and pursue, on my own terms, the best and worst of a life made possible by my essential freedoms.  Voting for the loser in an election should not make a man a second-class citizen, should it?

Our government has become so untethered from the rule of law that elections are now, unfortunately, winner-take-all contests.  “We won, the election is over” has become a statement of policy, a statement of destiny and power that cannot and must not be challenged.  In Blair House, the summer of 2010, when Barack Obama said as much to John McCain, no one blinked – they simply nodded.  Even the stronger Republicans in the room sort of slouched and looked away as a decorated war hero and five-term senator looked down at his lap, put in his place by a former community organizer wielding the power of a tyrannical majority.

In that sphere, where that tone is the norm, compromise is neither possible nor desirable; there is no compromise between truth and lies.  And the solutions that spring from that level of power, corrupting power, are so far reaching as to effect voters’ daily lives in ways not contemplated by the Constitution and in ways that are not conducive to productive, fulfilling, happy lives, untainted and undisturbed by political bile and vitriol.

That’s why modern political discourse has become so divisive, derisive, personal, destructive and ugly.  The stakes are too high; the stakes are ‘live your life my way, it’s the law now!’  In my America, that’s the same as ‘life or death,’ because Americans know freedom is our birthright, that our rights are inalienable, of our essence, and being deprived of them is tantamount to being executed.  For freedom and civility to reign again in America, we must reduce the stakes.  We must reduce the reach of government so that the loser in a political battle might continue to live his life without the tyranny of the majority forcing him and his supporters to surrender their money and freedom of thought, and live thenceforth according to the demands of the next Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner . . . until the next destabilizing, fight-to-the-death election, of course.

Rachel, Michele and Barack, you can have it your way, really.  Just keep ‘your way’ inside of your lives – let me live my life, raise my children, pursue happiness and dispose of my property as I prefer, pretty please, with sugar on top.  You possess the same freedoms; they’re never going to be threatened by me or mine, I promise, cross my heart and hope to die.

You see, only when government power is so omnipresent (recall ‘Big Brother’ of 1984) that it is omnipotent, does what it does really matter.  If, and only if, we can tame the political class’s ambition and reach, put the government back in its Constitutional cage, will we get along more peacefully.  Otherwise – more food fights and screaming matches will ensue, enormous sums of money will be spent seeking to buy control of Congress and the White House, instead of flowing into private invention and innovation that would make life more bearable, peaceful and healthy for Rachel, Larry O’Donnell, and Chris Matthews, and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Juan Williams and Glenn Beck (well, maybe not Chris and Glenn) and they could move on to doing something more pleasant and productive than shouting at one another about whose mother smells like army boots.

OH, and that money would flow into innovation that would make life more promising and fulfilling for my two sons – after all, they’re the only reasons I give a damn about any of this.  What, pray tell, are your reasons, Rachel and Barack; why does it matter so much to you?  Why won’t you let me and my sons be free?  Why do we have to agree with you or go to jail for not paying the tax that supports the social program you prefer?  I care for the poor as much as you do, I just think government helping the poor is an oxymoron.  Why won’t you help the poor and fund medical research the old fashioned way – by convincing people your way will work, and I’ll do exactly the same thing.  No guns, no laws, no IRS involvement.  Deal?

More on “Reagan” on HBO

In Opinion, Recommended Reading on December 24, 2011 at 3:00 pm

Michael Reagan stands up for his father’s legacy in a piece on FoxNews.com.

Link Here

What the media is doing to the memory of Ronald Reagan is at best a disservice to the consumers of their propaganda and at worst an offense to the truth.  He was not the great compromiser or the great communicator.  He was a thoughtful, intelligent man who knew that the essence of America was its promise of freedom to individual men and women.  He knew that the battle with the Soviet Union was a battle for men’s souls and that the battles he waged against Tip O’Neill were about how much of a free man’s life the government could take from him.

To portray Ronald Reagan as just another clever politician is a lie.  To tell that lie speaks volumes about the liar’s misunderstanding of history and his ignorance.

Who will benefit from YOUR life?

In Opinion on October 26, 2011 at 11:37 am

A couple standard-issue policy statements – things 95% of people who opposed, say, Ronald Reagan would support – could be summarized as follows.

1.  Abortion is a choice.

2.  We should save our natural resources and preserve the bounty and beauty of our planet for the benefit of future generations by reducing or eliminating our ‘carbon footprint’ by making use of alternative forms of energy.

Rephrasing #1: A woman should have the right to ‘terminate her pregnancy’ at any time, including and up until the point the ‘fetus’ is far enough out of the birth canal that its head is within reach of a surgeon’s scalpel or drill bit.  (They don’t like that last part – a.k.a., a partial-birth abortion* – being said out loud, but they want the law to allow for that procedure.)

Regarding #2, it follows that 100s of millions of living people in southeast Asia, China and sub-Saharan Africa must starve and do without, say, indoor plumbing for the indefinite future.  You see, they have to wait for Al Gore and the scientists of the world to invent a [fill-in-the-blank-renewable-fuel]-burning machine that is as powerful as carbon-emitting, internal combustion, fossil-fuel burning engines of modern-day earth-movers, cranes and trucks.  Those bad machines are the only ones we know of today that can build those starving Indonesians or Afghans any schools, roads, abortion clinics, voting booths, internet cafes or water-filtration systems.

If I’m to search for a philosophical basis, a rationale that underpins and supports both of those policy statements, I have to address this riddle along the way:

Why is it that:

(a) after conception and until birth, a human life is dispensable, like the waste product of a pregnant woman’s body;

(b) after birth, one’s life and comforts are subordinate to some future being’s life and comfort;

AND

(c) pre-conception beings comprising future generations are important enough to be the beneficiaries of the sacrifices of a starving Afghan and will enjoy all things that liberals think are noble and worthy, but only after we invent that new, all-powerful alternative fuel engine in Al Gore’s basement?

That philosophy, that idea that life is dispensable and/or a means to others’ comfort, enervates the human spirit and demeans our essence and our purpose.  It places no value on the here and now, no value on the life of every man as an end unto itself.  To endorse this inhumane philosophy of the liberals and progressives, one must posit that men’s lives are but a means to some ill-defined end, a route to some nether land, the ‘way forward’ to some unknowable yet somehow better, more ‘fair’ version of society.

I immediately and emphatically reject that philosophy, as it is, as a moral and practical matter, due no consideration beyond hearing it.   If a philosophical line of thinking requires me to conclude that my life is of no value except as another person’s means to achieve still another person’s future comfort, I vow to never pursue that line of thinking again.  I pledge to do all that I can to steer all men away from such a dismal, dark dead-end.

_______________________

* From Wikipedia, a description of the partial birth abortion procedure:

“Under the Intact Dilation and Extraction (ID&X) method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.  First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is partially pulled out, starting with the feet, as far as the neck. Fourth, the brain and material inside the skull is evacuated, so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus can be delivered via the vagina.

Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxycotin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus’s leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as ‘partial birth’ of the fetus.  [perhaps it’s referred to that way because that’s a perfectly accurate description.] The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the [fetus’s, not the doctor’s or the nurse’s] skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening, and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. [thus, easing the pain for the “mom,” we surmise] The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.”

That new little baby: Mouth or Mind?

In Economics, Opinion on October 25, 2011 at 12:47 pm

 

 

And Baby Makes Seven Billion – WSJ.com.

Is a newborn an asset or a liability to his fellow man?  Your answer will reveal all we need to know about your world view.  Mr. McGurn of the Wall Street Journal says the newborn is a mind that will feed itself and others, not a mouth to be fed.

I say he’s correct and add that it depends on whether you let him be free.

Humans, free to use their minds, produce more than they consume.  Modern life is proof.

Humans, dependent on others, merely consume and learn to feel entitled – they’re not born that way.

A free man produces until he can produce no more.  He accumulates knowledge and wealth for himself and his posterity.  He and his billions of co-workers do things for YOU that you’d never accomplish on your own.  Think of the thousands of men who made the pencil you used to take your SAT or the one man, Steve Jobs, who created things you never imagined but seemingly can’t live without.

A slave produces just enough to subsist and escape punishment.  He makes it through today so he might breathe tomorrow.

Free newborns are assets.  Let’s hope there are more of those born today.

Let freedom ring anew with every birth.  The more the merrier!

Money, Politics & Corruption . . . or Chickens & Eggs

In Economics on October 13, 2011 at 11:22 am

A Note to “Occupy Wall Street” crowds

It appears that one thing motivating and energizing your ‘movement’ is the seldom questioned belief that money corrupts politics.  I suggest you have it inside-out and upside down.

Money is the way we accumulate, store and then trade the value of our having lived and worked, first, for things that sustain life and, then, for other luxuries – iPads, thongs, tattoos, bottled water, private jets, Jack Daniels, and deodorant, just to name a few.  Voluntary trading and bargaining between and among men with money precludes force from being the coin of the realm.

Un-touched by political favoritism and other forms of fraud, money never lies and is never corrupt.  Only in the hands of the corrupted man can money do harm.

Money corrupts politics?  NOPE!  That is exactly backwards.  Politics corrupts money.

You will never eliminate avarice or greed from human endeavors, but if you limit the power of the state, you will eliminate the power of avarice and thereby elevate, indeed make paramount, the powers of merit and accomplishment.  And that results in freedom for everyone – no exceptions.

Do we live in a free country?

In Opinion, Political Critique on October 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm

Many Republicans believe that Mitt Romney is ‘good enough’ and that at least he’s not Obama and he’ll steer us clear of more of his disastrous policies.  The GOP and we conservatives had similar thoughts about George W Bush in 2000.  His conservative convictions were deeper than are Mr. Romney’s, yet even Dubya could not defeat the monster that is devouring our nation.  That monster can’t be tamed, it must be caged – that was, as I see it, the primary objective of our founders in drafting the Constitution – to restrain the powers granted to a federal government, to keep it subordinate to the sovereignty of the individual.

No serious surveyor of what is now referred to as the ‘US government’ can conclude that it is the product of the US Constitution, properly administered.  Rather, it is clearly the product of its occupants.  For starters, if a government is to be the subject of its people, for it to govern and not rule, it must be chosen by a process that is independent of itself, no?  For evidence that is not the case, one need only peruse the Federal Election Commission’s rules and regulations that dictate how a person can mount a campaign for federal office.

The entire FEC rule book is, essentially, a non-compete agreement that, by severely restricting the financing activities of any nascent political ‘party,’ grants the Democratic and Republican parties a monopoly on political activity.  The parties’ sole purpose is to elect government officials from among their inside-crowd membership.  From such an anti-constitutional starting point, there is no hope that the resulting ‘government’ will find itself bound by the Constitution.  Consequently, we are stuck with an over-weening, omni-present, omnipotent monster that is controlled by the political class and that feeds and empowers itself by dispensing favors to powerful interests – when a people gives a government more power, it will use it to perpetuate itself and it’s enablers; there can be and has never been any other outcome.  It follows that moneyed interests will buy protection from that power, and the two (power and money) are increasingly concentrated in a smaller and smaller cadre – exactly the outcome our founding fathers meant to prevent.

The “Romney-wing” of the GOP is no different from the McCain- or Dole- or Ford- or Rockefeller- wings were.  They all exist for the perpetuation of government power.  Most of its inhabitants are men/women who would last not one week outside of the cocoon they have created for themselves in Washington, DC.  Just look at Rep. Paul Ryan – his supposedly “radical” reform budget proposed spending ONLY $3.5 Trillion, as opposed to that spendthrift Obama/Reid budget which would total $3.6 Trillion.  Really, $100 billion, a whopping 2.7% difference is the GOP’s attempt at radical reform?  That won’t help our country survive.  It will merely delay the inevitable a couple weeks or so.

I wish I could share the more sanguine point of view of the Romney supporters.  I’m in the prime of my life; I’m hungry for freedom – freedom for me and, as importantly, for every man who therewith will make his life better and, while he’s at it, make MY and my 2 sons’ world better.  I don’t think any grant-giving or loan-guaranteeing government bureaucrat (Dem or Rep) would have ‘found’ Steve Jobs in 1975 and had the foresight to tell him “here’s $538,000,000 [see Solyndra]; now go be creative and change the world.”  He had to be free to take risks, along with the millions of others who succeed and fail day after day.  Each step we take, every tax dollar confiscated along the government path makes someone less free.  ZERO government is, of course, not the answer, but there has to be a limit, and it seems clear to me that the political class stepped over that line some many years ago.

Is there a level of spending between $3.6 trillion and $0 that is acceptable?   Is our government too small or too big.  In the language that most people use the word big to describe the government they mean to describe a government that commandeers >25% of the economic output of the country pursuant to a 70,000 page tax-code, a legal code that exceeds 200,000 pages and rules and regulations that consume millions of pages.  Big is an entity that commandeers $3.6 trillions dollars from the private sector and spends it the way 536 men and women want it spent.

That’s not a free country.  We need radical change, and Mr. Romney will not deliver anything of the sort.

Coffee, Tea or Freedom

In Opinion on August 3, 2011 at 12:06 pm

What are they serving at the Tea Party?

Freedom.  The right to be left alone.  The part of the American populace that is attracted to the Tea Party is ALL of it excepting only those who are part of or beholden to the vast and expanding political class.

You see, the human race, particularly Americans, are acquisitive, expansionist by nature.  In a word, innovators.  Want proof – look around.  Every thing you see, touch, hear, feel or otherwise experience that was not put here by “nature” is here because someone at some point wanted or needed more of something.  And that is man’s nature.  It isn’t taught or learned or implanted.  It is inborn.

And for centuries and generations, fear of that nature is what motivated entrenched powers to write rules to keep that natural urge in check.  Kings, lords, czars, popes, emperors,  – – – – they all wrote laws that enshrined themselves and kept men in chains.  The fruit of a man’s labor belonged to the collective, and since the king or lord or  . . .  was the embodiment of the collective and held a monopoly on power (see rules above) men were slaves or servants of the state.  Men toiled, mostly in misery, so the rulers could live in luxury.

Until America; until an ocean separated a group of men from their putative rulers; and when the cat’s far away, the imaginative mice play, with freedom.  America was out of the reach of the king, and we declared independence, we did not declare war.  Yet, victory in bloody battles brought to our shores by that king enabled the seeds of freedom to take root.  A country ruled by laws made and administered by free men, a nation not ruled by men, was envisioned and founded by wise men who had gathered in New England, and within, say 100 years, the strongest, most affluent nation in all of history had blossomed and spread across a continent.

That country’s two foundational documents were ingenious and revolutionary.  They contained concepts about organizing life in ways that had never been tested.  They resulted in the synchronization of humanity’s intellectual power with capitalism, freedom, individual rights and democracy – and consequently, the the most powerful force we know, the power of compounding, was applied to human endeavors like never before and human progress never looked back.

But, now – – – there is a sense, a strong one, that the rules are being written by a political class in a manner that weakens the people’s hold on the government.  The political class is nourished by one thing – taking freedom.  There is no better way of thinking of the tax and spend habits of Washington than to look at it in its most simple terms – taking money from one man and giving it to another, and asking the recipient to give thanks and pay homage to the mediator, not to the creator of the wealth.  The political class lives off of that homage – they produce nothing.  They merely TAKE.   And to survive, they have to take more and more, especially as that class gets bigger and bigger.  It has to, literally, feed itself, so it takes as much as it can get.

Producers frighten those parasitic rule-makers, so the political class is in a panic over the Tea Party.  The free men who are producing resent the takers now that they see the takers are not spending their tax money on roads, armies, bridges or other public accommodations or needs (the “general welfare”).  More than 75% of what the government does with tax money is merely a transfer of it to another person.  And they are re-writing the rules to make that theft legal and to entrench themselves in power.

That will destroy the productive spirit in man.  It will kill this great republic, and THAT is what the Tea Party folks can’t bear.  You can watch the reaction from the political class to see how right the Tea Party is.  The politicians are frightened and are doing everything they can to kill, vilify, lampoon, intimidate and otherwise marginalize the Tea Party.  It threatens their whole world and this may be a fight to the death.

We have to eliminate – figuratively – that class of people who attempt to rule rather than govern this nation.  It will be violent if, and only if, the ruling class does not cede its power peacefully.

Though it never has happened thusly, may it happen peacefully, just this one time.

Freedom – Can you bottle it?

In Opinion on June 2, 2011 at 11:19 am

In every battle over government spending, the left shouts “any new budget deal will benefit only the rich and powerful” and I say “Of course.” That is a fact of power politics. In a struggle of any kind, who wins – the weakest or the most powerful?

That is the essence of the argument for a small government with limited-powers – the more powerful the ruling entity is the more power the powerful have. DUH. Sounds simplistic and redundant – it’s neither. It’s the reason our founders drafted a Constitution that imposed strict limits on what their government could do. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. There are some things a government must not do – distribute fairness is one of them, and that’s true even if it had not been written down in 1789.

Do you want more civility, do you want better politics, more peace and prosperity, the powerful to be less so in government affairs? There is one and only one way to do that:  Lower the stakes – put government back in its cage and let free men and women live productive lives, interacting voluntarily without the government looking over their shoulders.

There is no such thing as a government budget or plan that “reflects the true values and views of the American people” as I hear those same commentators and politicians (Dems and Reps alike) suggest. American values and views are by definition not able to be encapsulated in a government program. They are too diverse and disparate to be written in a statute or law. Those views and values belong to individuals and cannot be distilled into some collective, group-think formula.

You can’t bottle the American Dream and give it away as a government program. You can only live it as a free man or woman, unaided by government.