Tag Archives: Statism

Elizabeth Warren: It’s a Rigged Playing Field!

And Warren and her cronies are rigging it!

Elizabeth Warren, the statist de jour, has been out promoting her recent book, a memoir “A Fighting Chance”.  She and her media friends have been working for years to position her as an advocate for the middle class.  And recently the buzz surrounding Ms. Warren has been centered on a run for the white house (more intently centered on her “denials” for a run for the white house in 2016).

In an interview on The CBS Morning News Elizabeth Warren claimed that “it’s a rigged playing field”.  We should believe her.  After all she is well educated and came from a middle class family.  And most importantly she is popular.  Game over in the world of politics.

So let’s accept her statement at face value: it is a rigged playing field.  So the solution, of course, would be to “un-rig” the game.  And Warren and all politicians (possibly with the exception of Ron Paul) have been working to un-rig the game for how many years and with countless pieces of legislation?  And by their own admission, wealth and power are more concentrated than ever.  So how does their track record look to you?  (This, by the way, is not the case against statism.)

Does “a rigged playing field” as Warren claims support the need for ever more regulation (oversight, restrictions, standards, policies, bureaucracy, fines and the like)?  And does this never ending cycle of regulation (and so-called reform) create the desired outcomes?  Why is it that shortly after reform is enacted, the clamor for reform is repeated?  Is this not sufficient evidence alone and on the “playing field” that these “reforms” simply do not create the desired outcome (emphasis for sarcasm).

Warren and the rest of the statists are in fact rigging the game.  

Let’s take a look at a portion of the exchange between Rose and Warren in a CBS This Morning interview that took place on April 22, 2014 that indicates the failures of prior legislation.  On the topic of a banking system that has prospered at the expense of the citizenry and that has grown ever more powerful and prosperous (even in the face of legislation) the following exchange ensued.
ROSE: Did Dodd-Frank take care of that or not?
WARREN: So watch what happened. We bailed them out. We got some financial reforms in place. But look where we are today. Those CEOs of the largest financial institutions still strut around Washington. Those big banks still push back on the regulators and block real change. Today, those large financial institutions are 38% bigger than they were when we bailed them out. And they break the law and nobody goes to jail. That’s not a level playing field. That’s not a fair system. They get richer, everybody else –
ROSE: Are more regulations or tax reforms the answer?
WARREN: Yes and yes.

The interventions Ms. Warren and her ilk seek are what further rigs the game.  This is by design.  They seek to use the legalized initiation of force to favor their friends, personal and political.  These actions will further concentrate wealth and power.

If you cannot get yourself to see these facts, the historical record of 100% percent failure should provide motivation to seek an alternative to the use of aggressive force.  And that alternative (and the only sustainable approach) is liberty.  Until the individual takes it upon himself to break the cycle of statism, it will continue.  The loss of liberty will continue to accelerate and society will continue to destabilize.

As expected, Nora O’Donnell beamed at how Ms. Warren advocates for the middle class.  One should come to expect this from statists; considering the only option available to their thinking…the threat of the use of force, the use of force and the use of additional force.  (Advocating for any class is not in and of itself disingenuous, but it is to do so at the expense of another as Warren supports).  I am not blaming the media in full here, only in part, as almost everything the media does is intended to supply the audience with what it demands.  Don’t kid yourself here, the media business is well understood to exist in a hampered market, not a free market as they are the recipient themselves of government favors and intend to cater to get unique access as is necessary to gain an edge on the competition.

Again, the individual must take it upon himself to break the cycle of the propaganda to understand the nature of man.  And it is the individual alone that is capable and responsible for breaking the cycle.  Libertarianism, the only coherent philosophy, is of course, based on the individual and is therefore the antidote to the ills that face society.

Many see the free market as “survival of the fittest”.  It is nothing more than the result of a cooperative society; a summary of voluntary exchanges.  The burden is on those that support the use of force in what is otherwise peaceful to justify interventions.  And it is simply not possible to justify the use of force against an innocent.  These interventions only serve to further “rig the playing field” as Elizabeth Warren and her cronies seek.  The only proper course of action is to remove the prior interventions and to allow and promote voluntary interactions.

The full interview is available here http://www.wtsp.com/video/3495619454001/1/CBS-This-Morning-interview-with-Sen-Elizabeth-Warren.  Listen carefully to the exchange in its entirety and decide for yourself what Warren and her cronies support.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Nelson Mandela the Incoherent Ender of Apartheid

Nelson Mandela passed today, December 5th 2013 at the age of 95.  As a youth he opposed the use of force against himself and his supporters on seemingly principled grounds.  He opposed the oppression of the citizenry by the state.  As president, however, he supported the use of force against innocents to organize society according to his vision.  Like all statists, he did not recognize or choose to recognize, the incoherence of his position.

Most people remember that he had been incarcerated for 27 years.  Most are likely unaware, however, that according to Wikipedia and other news reports, Mandela was jailed resulting from a conviction on sabotage and conspiracy charges stemming from a bombing campaign targeting the government.  Mandela was accused of leading that campaign.  He denied the charges.  He was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment and was released in 1990 after an international campaign lobbied on his behalf.

Born into a royal family, Mandela attended the Fort Hare University and the University of Witwatersrand, where he studied law. While living in Johannesburg, he became involved in anti-colonial politics, joining the African National Congress (ANC) and becoming a founding member of its Youth League.  He studied the writings of Karl Marx aligning and associating himself with communists.

Upon his release from prison he worked to end apartheid which occurred in 1994.  His visits after his release included Cuba and Fidel Castro whom he long emulated.  His “ascent” to the presidency was as a democratic socialist.  He then, as a matter of policy, systematically used the force of government to reshape the South African society.  In 1994 he implemented “Obamacare”, “free” healthcare for pregnant women and children under six years of age and a slew of other social programs.  Mandela’s administration instituted collective bargaining and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 which created enforcement mechanisms while extending a “floor” of rights to all workers, while the Employment Equity Act of 1998 was passed to put an end to discrimination and ensure the implementation of affirmative action in the workplace.

Mandela received criticism for failing to sufficiently combat crime, South Africa having one of the world’s highest crime rates.  750,000 whites who emigrated in the late 1990s cited the crime rate as the reason for leaving.  Much of that crime was black on black.  Mandela’s administration was mired in corruption scandals.

Upon Mandela’s death, most are unaware of the contradictions of his life.  They will fail to evaluate his life in full context.  They will hail him as a good man.  One who endured severe hardship and  ended apartheid.  I can support only his actions which were in concert with justice.

The only principled legacy is that of peace.  And peace is a result of the respect for the non-aggression axiom and property rights stemming from self ownership.  Nelson Mandela respected neither with consistency.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Claim “Obamacare Will Get Fixed”

Many of the supporters of Obamacare claim that it will get “fixed”.  The website issues will be addressed.  (The cost of which will not be seriously considered).  Enrollment in the plan will expand.

The plan that caused many existing health insurance policies to be cancelled will be modified to become politically more palatable.  The insurance companies will continue to be vilified for canceling existing customer’s policies regardless of the reasons for doing so.  The disrespect of economic realities (hard to cover the costs of insurance when a provider cannot deny those with preexisting conditions) will not be discussed in any meaningful way.  Unfortunately, it is likely that the government propaganda machine will, over time, win out over the people and with the people’s support or at least because of the peoples’ complacency.

Undoubtedly the website will become operable.  Complaints will become less frequent.  Supporters of Obamacare will claim the naysayers were wrong.  The statists will be vindicated (sarcasm warning).

Make no mistake.  Obamacare will not be “fixed”.  It may run temporarily (due to additional funding taken from other sources).  It may leave the headlines for a time.  The fervor will temper as the next battle comes to the fore.  But Obamacare will not be “fixed” only because it cannot be fixed.  The underlying reason for this is that the use of aggressive force and disrespect for property rights is not sustainable.  And this is what Obamacare is at its core.  It is the redistribution of wealth by threat of force.  It is theft.  It is the destruction of wealth.

It will be necessarily “fixed” again and again and again.  It will be an ongoing battle.  I have seen this before.  See campaign finance reform.  See social security.  See Medicare.  It is an inescapable truth that these programs, like the state itself are doomed to fail.  The battle of rhetoric may subside as politicians find it no longer politically expedient to continue the argument against Obamacare.  But the fate of all of these programs and the state are undeniable.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized