President Obama is now asking for authority to shutdown businesses using AIG as the "poster child" for such authority. Meanwhile, his Treasury Secretary is asking for authority for government to take over (nationalize) companies such as AIG.
Which is it that the Obama administration wants to do? Shut them down or take them over? In either case, what the President and the Treasury Secretary are requesting is even more arbitrary power to interfere in the market. If Obama really wanted AIG "shutdown" all he had to do was to stop bailing out the company! AIG would have gone bankrupt. Instead, AIG was too value to keep operating as the shell company by which our government has pumped billions of dollars into other companies via the contracts they had with AIG. That has kept those companies from failing or their investors from losing as much on their investments.
As for nationalizing banks and insurance companies, do we really want to allow the same people that gave us Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Amtrak and the Postal Service running even more businesses? After all, won't they already be plenty busy running GM and Chrysler? Politicians are not CEOs. They have proven that they cannot establish a proper monetary or fiscal policy. They cannot be trusted to run real businesses either.
We have an established legal process for handling these situations. It is called bankruptcy. Let them fail so the economy can being to recover.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Regulated Speech
McCain-Feingold is arguably the worse government intrusion on individual rights that the U.S. has ever passed into law. In fact, it is because of this law that I was unable to support McCain for president.
The consequences of McCain-Feingold being passed by Congress, approved by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional has been to create a significant chill in the free exchange of political ideas during elections. It has led to repeated attempts to circumvent the law by relying on American tradition of free speech. The latest example was the creation of documentary films of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the last election cycle by Republican partisans (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_clinton_movie). The Federal Election Commission ruled that ads promoting the film were political advocacy ads and not film marketing ads and prohibited them from being aired. The film production company (Citizens United) took the case to court. Federal courts have upheld the FEC's ruling. The case now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Freedom of speech is the most fundamental individual right. As long as freedom of speech is protected, then one can argue and lobby peacefully for the restoration and protection of other individual rights even if they are currently being abrogated by the government. When free speech is not an option, then force is the only alternative remaining to protect your rights from a government that fails to recognize and protect them. It is time the U.S. Supreme Court overturned McCain-Feingold and restored our constitutional right to free speech (the constitution contains no qualifiers stating you have the right for speak freely except ...).
Side note: McCain-Feingold came into being as a response to concerns that money is corrupting politics. The expenditure of money to promote or defeat a candidate or initiative is the exercise of free speech. Money in politics is not the problem. The reason that there is so much money in politics today is because our government has strayed from its strictly limited responsibilities to be intimately entangled in economics and taxation. To put it bluntly, there are trillions of dollars at stake. Much of the money being spent on the outcome of elections is viewed as the required bribe or tithe to ensure that an appropriate percentage of the spoils of government taxation and economic regulation are turned towards the person making the political contribution. There is only one way to reduce the amount of money in politics: Reduce the role of government.
The consequences of McCain-Feingold being passed by Congress, approved by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional has been to create a significant chill in the free exchange of political ideas during elections. It has led to repeated attempts to circumvent the law by relying on American tradition of free speech. The latest example was the creation of documentary films of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the last election cycle by Republican partisans (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_clinton_movie). The Federal Election Commission ruled that ads promoting the film were political advocacy ads and not film marketing ads and prohibited them from being aired. The film production company (Citizens United) took the case to court. Federal courts have upheld the FEC's ruling. The case now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Freedom of speech is the most fundamental individual right. As long as freedom of speech is protected, then one can argue and lobby peacefully for the restoration and protection of other individual rights even if they are currently being abrogated by the government. When free speech is not an option, then force is the only alternative remaining to protect your rights from a government that fails to recognize and protect them. It is time the U.S. Supreme Court overturned McCain-Feingold and restored our constitutional right to free speech (the constitution contains no qualifiers stating you have the right for speak freely except ...).
Side note: McCain-Feingold came into being as a response to concerns that money is corrupting politics. The expenditure of money to promote or defeat a candidate or initiative is the exercise of free speech. Money in politics is not the problem. The reason that there is so much money in politics today is because our government has strayed from its strictly limited responsibilities to be intimately entangled in economics and taxation. To put it bluntly, there are trillions of dollars at stake. Much of the money being spent on the outcome of elections is viewed as the required bribe or tithe to ensure that an appropriate percentage of the spoils of government taxation and economic regulation are turned towards the person making the political contribution. There is only one way to reduce the amount of money in politics: Reduce the role of government.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Political Grand Slam -- Paying for Veteran's Service-Related Health Care
Could any single issue more blatantly expose President Obama's raw and unabashed promotion of his political philosophy than his proposal to force private health insurers to pay the cost of veteran's service-related health care needs? Politically, here's what this proposal accomplishes:
1. By pushing an unfunded cost onto private insurance, he ensures that the cost of private health insurance will increase exacerbating the existing affordability issues that have already been created by government interference in health care. Make no mistake, it is the President's objective to destroy private health insurance and leave nationalized health care as the only alternative. If Congress should pass this into law, he and the Democrats will be one step closer to accomplishing their goals.
2. This proposal clearly communicates to the world the contempt that the President holds for the U.S. military. This leaves no doubt that anyone volunteering to serve in the U.S. military will be serving a President who holds their service in contempt and from whom they can never expect to receive any acknowledgement of respect. Why else would he want to deny the U.S. has any responsibility whatsoever for health issues arising from a veteran's service to his country? President Obama is stating that that service was not honorable and therefore not deserving of the government's care.
3. The volunteer service is a racist or, at least, a form of economic repression in the eyes of many Democrats and liberals. By holding the U.S. military in contempt, the President will discourage volunteers from joining the military. This will create a crisis in recruiting which will be used as justification for re-instituting the draft. Whatever problems there may be with a volunteer military force, does that justify forcing young adults into involuntary servitude?
There is no justification for President Obama's proposed abandonment of our veterans. President Obama does not care about reducing the deficit. The proposed $500M savings is peanuts compared to the budgetary increases he proposes elsewhere. The President has disgraced his office and the United States by making such a proposal. To shame both for so shallow political purposes makes any honorable person want to vomit.
1. By pushing an unfunded cost onto private insurance, he ensures that the cost of private health insurance will increase exacerbating the existing affordability issues that have already been created by government interference in health care. Make no mistake, it is the President's objective to destroy private health insurance and leave nationalized health care as the only alternative. If Congress should pass this into law, he and the Democrats will be one step closer to accomplishing their goals.
2. This proposal clearly communicates to the world the contempt that the President holds for the U.S. military. This leaves no doubt that anyone volunteering to serve in the U.S. military will be serving a President who holds their service in contempt and from whom they can never expect to receive any acknowledgement of respect. Why else would he want to deny the U.S. has any responsibility whatsoever for health issues arising from a veteran's service to his country? President Obama is stating that that service was not honorable and therefore not deserving of the government's care.
3. The volunteer service is a racist or, at least, a form of economic repression in the eyes of many Democrats and liberals. By holding the U.S. military in contempt, the President will discourage volunteers from joining the military. This will create a crisis in recruiting which will be used as justification for re-instituting the draft. Whatever problems there may be with a volunteer military force, does that justify forcing young adults into involuntary servitude?
There is no justification for President Obama's proposed abandonment of our veterans. President Obama does not care about reducing the deficit. The proposed $500M savings is peanuts compared to the budgetary increases he proposes elsewhere. The President has disgraced his office and the United States by making such a proposal. To shame both for so shallow political purposes makes any honorable person want to vomit.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Enslavement by "Social Contract"
The "social contract" is often used as a sledgehammer to bludgeon anyone who argues against advances in authoritarianism (also known as socialism or the welfare state).
What is a social contract? www.dictionary.com defines it as: "the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members."
The key parts of this definition are "voluntary agreement" and "individuals." As with any contract, a social contract is entered willfully by all parties. If you are forced to abide by some set of terms to which you had not willingly consented, then that is no longer a contract. To the extent that those terms require you to do something, anything for someone else, then it is a form of slavery (whether sanctioned by law or not). A properly constituted government would never force its citizens into servitude for others. It would only prevent them from taking actions that would cause harm to others.
The United States has unfortunately evolved to the point where all residents and citizens are said to be under many social contracts. For example, Social Security is a social contract to ensure everyone has a minimum retirement income. How can it be that anyone born after 14 August 1935 (when the Social Security Act became active), voluntarily agreed to participate in this contract? I know that when I started working and for every job I have had since, no one has ever asked for my consent to participate in Social Security. The same is true for unemployment insurance, medicare, medicaid and all other forms of welfare.
The other key part to the definition of a social contract is "individuals." What this means is that even though I'm a member of an organization, that organization cannot obligate me to participate in a contract without my consent. For example, I belong to the IEEE which often argues for stricter limits on immigrant visas for high technology workers. The IEEE cannot obligate me to participate in citizen patrols along the border with Mexico or to donate to Pat Buchanan's or Tom Tancredo's next political initiative. Similarly, just because a majority of the voters awarded Obama the presidency and Democrats control of Congress does not give them the right to obligate me, or even people that voted for them, to any social contract without their individual consent. The founders of the United States understand quite well the dangers of Democracy. That is why the U.S. was founded as a Constitutional Republic that protected the rights of all individuals.
So, the next time someone tells you that we are all bound together by this social contract or that social contract, simply tell them that you never signed your name providing your consent to be a party to that contract (and most likely, they never did either). Remind them the difference between a voluntary contract and involuntary servitude.
What is a social contract? www.dictionary.com defines it as: "the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members."
The key parts of this definition are "voluntary agreement" and "individuals." As with any contract, a social contract is entered willfully by all parties. If you are forced to abide by some set of terms to which you had not willingly consented, then that is no longer a contract. To the extent that those terms require you to do something, anything for someone else, then it is a form of slavery (whether sanctioned by law or not). A properly constituted government would never force its citizens into servitude for others. It would only prevent them from taking actions that would cause harm to others.
The United States has unfortunately evolved to the point where all residents and citizens are said to be under many social contracts. For example, Social Security is a social contract to ensure everyone has a minimum retirement income. How can it be that anyone born after 14 August 1935 (when the Social Security Act became active), voluntarily agreed to participate in this contract? I know that when I started working and for every job I have had since, no one has ever asked for my consent to participate in Social Security. The same is true for unemployment insurance, medicare, medicaid and all other forms of welfare.
The other key part to the definition of a social contract is "individuals." What this means is that even though I'm a member of an organization, that organization cannot obligate me to participate in a contract without my consent. For example, I belong to the IEEE which often argues for stricter limits on immigrant visas for high technology workers. The IEEE cannot obligate me to participate in citizen patrols along the border with Mexico or to donate to Pat Buchanan's or Tom Tancredo's next political initiative. Similarly, just because a majority of the voters awarded Obama the presidency and Democrats control of Congress does not give them the right to obligate me, or even people that voted for them, to any social contract without their individual consent. The founders of the United States understand quite well the dangers of Democracy. That is why the U.S. was founded as a Constitutional Republic that protected the rights of all individuals.
So, the next time someone tells you that we are all bound together by this social contract or that social contract, simply tell them that you never signed your name providing your consent to be a party to that contract (and most likely, they never did either). Remind them the difference between a voluntary contract and involuntary servitude.
Obama Bribes CEOs
On Thursday (12 Mar 09), President Obama offered a bribe to the 65 CEOs from the Business Roundtable:
Support Obama's agenda of dramatically deepening government control over the health, energy and education industries and the President will support cutting the corporate tax rate.
The President is searching for any and all CEOs that are short-sighted and weak on fundamental political and economic principles. He needs backing by some CEOs (a majority is not required, only a handful) in order to use their backing against the arguments against broader control of these 3 key economic segments.
Any CEO that is contemplating the compromising of their positions on this matter need to reconsider what this bribe entails. It is extremely difficult to roll back government intervention in any sector of the economy. Every government disruption in the free contracting of services and product (health care, energy and education are products or services just like food, cars and cable television are products and services) inevitably results in further crisis due to the inefficient displacements within that economic segment that result from governmental interference. Those disruptions are used, by those who believe in government control, to justify further government intrusion into the economy. Therefore, supporting Obama's agenda will lead to an ever deepening cycle of problems and increasing government control of health care, energy and education.
Although the CEOs may see short-term benefit by shifting the cost of health care and, perhaps education, from direct entries on their books to the government, those costs will be more than offset by the increase in costs in taxes, regulation and an increasing less efficient economy overall.
What do they get in exchange? A token reduction in corporate tax rates. Since the corporate tax rate remains, they continue to concede the principle that the government should tax corporations (which ignores the fact that only living, breathing human beings that produce anything of economic value actually pay taxes, not fictitious entities such as corporations, more on that some other time). They are only negotiating the current rate of taxation of corporations. How long will it take before the government once again increases the rate at which corporations are taxed? It won't take long as the Obama plan will significantly increase the cost of government. If the President insists on directly raising taxes only on the top 3% or so of the population, then he will be forced to indirectly tax the population through higher corporate taxes.
The Obama CEO bribe is transparent. Its consequences obvious. The decision for the CEOs of the Business Roundtable is easy.
Support Obama's agenda of dramatically deepening government control over the health, energy and education industries and the President will support cutting the corporate tax rate.
The President is searching for any and all CEOs that are short-sighted and weak on fundamental political and economic principles. He needs backing by some CEOs (a majority is not required, only a handful) in order to use their backing against the arguments against broader control of these 3 key economic segments.
Any CEO that is contemplating the compromising of their positions on this matter need to reconsider what this bribe entails. It is extremely difficult to roll back government intervention in any sector of the economy. Every government disruption in the free contracting of services and product (health care, energy and education are products or services just like food, cars and cable television are products and services) inevitably results in further crisis due to the inefficient displacements within that economic segment that result from governmental interference. Those disruptions are used, by those who believe in government control, to justify further government intrusion into the economy. Therefore, supporting Obama's agenda will lead to an ever deepening cycle of problems and increasing government control of health care, energy and education.
Although the CEOs may see short-term benefit by shifting the cost of health care and, perhaps education, from direct entries on their books to the government, those costs will be more than offset by the increase in costs in taxes, regulation and an increasing less efficient economy overall.
What do they get in exchange? A token reduction in corporate tax rates. Since the corporate tax rate remains, they continue to concede the principle that the government should tax corporations (which ignores the fact that only living, breathing human beings that produce anything of economic value actually pay taxes, not fictitious entities such as corporations, more on that some other time). They are only negotiating the current rate of taxation of corporations. How long will it take before the government once again increases the rate at which corporations are taxed? It won't take long as the Obama plan will significantly increase the cost of government. If the President insists on directly raising taxes only on the top 3% or so of the population, then he will be forced to indirectly tax the population through higher corporate taxes.
The Obama CEO bribe is transparent. Its consequences obvious. The decision for the CEOs of the Business Roundtable is easy.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Logical Limit to the Amount of Stimulus?
Now that the Obama administration is lobbying for the G-20 countries to join the U.S. in massive deficit stimulus spending (National Economic Council Director Larry Summers "The right macro-economic focus for the G20 is on global demand and the world needs more global demand") and there is talk in Washington that a second stimulus package is needed for the U.S., then the question is:
How much government spending is enough to stimulate the economy?
Let's follow the logic. If the $830 billion U.S. stimulus package is good for the economy because it will save or create 3 or 4 million jobs (hard to keep track of the claims being made), then by what logic did Congress and Obama restrain the stimulus package to just $830 billion? According to the Labor Department (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), there are 12.5 million people unemployed.
Hmmm, logic dictates that if at least 3 million jobs are saved or created by the government spending $830 billion it does not have, then the next stimulus package should be enacted immediately and it should spend at least $2.49 Trillion as that would surely save or create the 9.5 million jobs needed to put every unemployed American back to work!
So, why isn't President Obama or Congress proposing that the government spend $3.32 Trillion to achieve the goal of full employment? Even if you don't explicitly know the answer, you implicitly understand why it won't work. Why the politicians don't propose and enact it is quite simple: It will be all too obvious that they were wrong when we aren't living in full employment nirvana 2 years from now.
We cannot borrow $3 trillion (or even $830 billion -- not to mention the trillions more spent to prop up failed companies) to spend today and have that $3 trillion tomorrow to spend and invest. Of course, the government need not borrow the money. The President and Congress could increase taxes by $3 trillion from those who are working and transfer it to those who are not. What do you think would happen if $3 trillion is removed from the economy today? If you think times are tough now, .... Of course, the politicians recognize this. That is why no one attempts to pay for the stimulus spending with current tax dollars.
Borrowing the money does not change the outcome. It only spreads the impact over many years instead of hitting the economy and taxpayers all at once. Who pays? We all do. The politicians are simply betting that you won't recognize how good you could have had it 5 years from now if they hadn't spent all that money today! The burden on the economy will be felt for a long time. It will delay the recovery and make it shallower than it otherwise would have been.
What makes it unethical is the fact that we are burdening those who are not yet working and those not yet born with the cost of fixing our problem today. That's a burden they did not choose but for which we are obligating them.
Of course, what applies to our national economy is true for the world's economy. Deficit stimulus spending by the rest of the G20 countries will only make matters worse as we could not rely on stronger economic conditions outside the U.S. to help our own recovery. Deficit spending by the entire G20 would impoverish our international economic competitors to roughly the same extent we are impoverishing ourselves. Does it make you feel better if everyone around you suffers as much as you?
How much government spending is enough to stimulate the economy?
Let's follow the logic. If the $830 billion U.S. stimulus package is good for the economy because it will save or create 3 or 4 million jobs (hard to keep track of the claims being made), then by what logic did Congress and Obama restrain the stimulus package to just $830 billion? According to the Labor Department (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), there are 12.5 million people unemployed.
Hmmm, logic dictates that if at least 3 million jobs are saved or created by the government spending $830 billion it does not have, then the next stimulus package should be enacted immediately and it should spend at least $2.49 Trillion as that would surely save or create the 9.5 million jobs needed to put every unemployed American back to work!
So, why isn't President Obama or Congress proposing that the government spend $3.32 Trillion to achieve the goal of full employment? Even if you don't explicitly know the answer, you implicitly understand why it won't work. Why the politicians don't propose and enact it is quite simple: It will be all too obvious that they were wrong when we aren't living in full employment nirvana 2 years from now.
We cannot borrow $3 trillion (or even $830 billion -- not to mention the trillions more spent to prop up failed companies) to spend today and have that $3 trillion tomorrow to spend and invest. Of course, the government need not borrow the money. The President and Congress could increase taxes by $3 trillion from those who are working and transfer it to those who are not. What do you think would happen if $3 trillion is removed from the economy today? If you think times are tough now, .... Of course, the politicians recognize this. That is why no one attempts to pay for the stimulus spending with current tax dollars.
Borrowing the money does not change the outcome. It only spreads the impact over many years instead of hitting the economy and taxpayers all at once. Who pays? We all do. The politicians are simply betting that you won't recognize how good you could have had it 5 years from now if they hadn't spent all that money today! The burden on the economy will be felt for a long time. It will delay the recovery and make it shallower than it otherwise would have been.
What makes it unethical is the fact that we are burdening those who are not yet working and those not yet born with the cost of fixing our problem today. That's a burden they did not choose but for which we are obligating them.
Of course, what applies to our national economy is true for the world's economy. Deficit stimulus spending by the rest of the G20 countries will only make matters worse as we could not rely on stronger economic conditions outside the U.S. to help our own recovery. Deficit spending by the entire G20 would impoverish our international economic competitors to roughly the same extent we are impoverishing ourselves. Does it make you feel better if everyone around you suffers as much as you?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Fallacies in Political Arguments
Recently I attended the Design & Verification Conference (DVCon) in San Jose, CA. At the conference, I encountered a long time acquaintance, in fact a person who years ago had hired me at a previous employer. This person is well known in the EDA as one of the freelance journalists covering the industry. Our discussion quickly turned to politics and it very quickly became obvious we were in complete disagreement. The result of the discussion was quite disappointing to me as I lost all respect that I once had for this person.
Why did I lose my respect? Regardless of his intellect and regardless of his education and past accomplishments, this person failed to argue his political position logically and persuasively. Instead, he resorted to a collection of logical fallacies in the following order:
Example 1: I have a business degree. I know your education and you do not.
Fallacy: Appeal to authority.
Instead of arguing the logical truth of his position, he attempted to assert their truth through the fact that by attending some class at some time in the past that led to the awarding of some degree that that somehow made his position true and mine false.
Factual Aside: While this person certainly knew that I have a BS and MS in Computer Science as that information was relevant to him hiring me, he has no knowledge of the Finance, Economics, Philosophy and other courses I have taken in my life nor the extent or depth of my independent reading and study in any of these areas.
Example 2: You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Fallacy: Guilt by association.
Instead of arguing based on the falsity or logical contradiction of my position, he attempted to discredit them by implying that my ideas were the same or similar to those of someone else (Rush Limbaugh in this case) that at least some people despise.
Factual Aside: I never once mentioned Rush Limbaugh in the conversation. The positions I presented and defended I have held for about 30 years, long before I had ever heard of Rush Limbaugh. The greatest influence in the development of my positions is Ayn Rand, not Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who knows both Rand and Limbaugh knows that there are areas of agreement but that there are also areas of disagreement which indicates that the foundation of their philosophical thought have important differences.
Example 3: You are a fascist!
Fallacy: Ad hominem.
Instead of debating the veracity of ideas, he indicated he willingly choose not to function in the realm of ideas by terminating the discussion by calling me names. This is the lowest that anyone can stoop in the discourse of ideas as it nakedly discards ideas for the sake of dealing in raw emotions.
Factual Aside: I was deeply offended by his name calling and deeply disappointed that someone that I had once respected had proven himself so unworthy of my respect. He physically confirmed his desire to leave the realm of ideas by walking away from the discussion while repeating multiple times that I was a fascist.
Of course, fascism is a form a socialism and both are forms of government in which the state owns the means of production, the results of production or both. In fact, fascism and socialism are the polar opposite of laissez-faire capitalism which is the form of government that I advocate and was advocating in this discussion.
Since this former acquaintance has acknowledged that he does not wish to exist in the realm of ideas, truth and falsity, I will never waste a minute of my life on him again.
Why did I lose my respect? Regardless of his intellect and regardless of his education and past accomplishments, this person failed to argue his political position logically and persuasively. Instead, he resorted to a collection of logical fallacies in the following order:
Example 1: I have a business degree. I know your education and you do not.
Fallacy: Appeal to authority.
Instead of arguing the logical truth of his position, he attempted to assert their truth through the fact that by attending some class at some time in the past that led to the awarding of some degree that that somehow made his position true and mine false.
Factual Aside: While this person certainly knew that I have a BS and MS in Computer Science as that information was relevant to him hiring me, he has no knowledge of the Finance, Economics, Philosophy and other courses I have taken in my life nor the extent or depth of my independent reading and study in any of these areas.
Example 2: You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Fallacy: Guilt by association.
Instead of arguing based on the falsity or logical contradiction of my position, he attempted to discredit them by implying that my ideas were the same or similar to those of someone else (Rush Limbaugh in this case) that at least some people despise.
Factual Aside: I never once mentioned Rush Limbaugh in the conversation. The positions I presented and defended I have held for about 30 years, long before I had ever heard of Rush Limbaugh. The greatest influence in the development of my positions is Ayn Rand, not Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who knows both Rand and Limbaugh knows that there are areas of agreement but that there are also areas of disagreement which indicates that the foundation of their philosophical thought have important differences.
Example 3: You are a fascist!
Fallacy: Ad hominem.
Instead of debating the veracity of ideas, he indicated he willingly choose not to function in the realm of ideas by terminating the discussion by calling me names. This is the lowest that anyone can stoop in the discourse of ideas as it nakedly discards ideas for the sake of dealing in raw emotions.
Factual Aside: I was deeply offended by his name calling and deeply disappointed that someone that I had once respected had proven himself so unworthy of my respect. He physically confirmed his desire to leave the realm of ideas by walking away from the discussion while repeating multiple times that I was a fascist.
Of course, fascism is a form a socialism and both are forms of government in which the state owns the means of production, the results of production or both. In fact, fascism and socialism are the polar opposite of laissez-faire capitalism which is the form of government that I advocate and was advocating in this discussion.
Since this former acquaintance has acknowledged that he does not wish to exist in the realm of ideas, truth and falsity, I will never waste a minute of my life on him again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)