Sorry to sound like I’m on a political tirade. I’m just worried sick about our country. I’d love to hear your views on where our country is headed. Then maybe I wouldn’t feel so alone. When I talk with other people, I realize that although their ideas seem at first glance widely different from my own, they are often very similar but from different perspectives. I’ll try not to sound so negative. I don’t hate Obama. When I use words like “black Hitler” I am not trying to use such words to inspire hatred. I’m just trying to evoke alarm bells ringing in people’s heads about what the massive implications of his alarmingly socialist actions are. I’m proud that America is a place where anyone can rise to be president, regardless of race or background. However am I offensive in trying to warn against someone whose ideology is anathema to our traditional American values? As a kid I remember reading about and being fascinated by war, power and the rapid technological changes involved in such political struggles. As a more mature individual I am struck with the thoughts that maybe the past isn’t so distant and unreal. If we had lived under Hitler might we not have loved him until it was too late? I have had many lunch time discussions with an older lady at work, a Canadian who although she has different political views than mine (she thinks that universal health care is the best thing since sliced bread) that I have enjoyed. It’s fun to debate with other people as long as you both realize that there are no hard feelings. She told me once how she heard a story about a man, a Jew who had lived through the as a young boy who had just come out of a college lecture sobbing. It was a lecture that discussed Hitler and used audio of some of his speeches. The man told a colleague that he was sobbing because he had come to the realization that he knew that if he had been older when Hitler had come to power that he would have been swept up in the same emotions as the masses then, that he would have believed in this cause that later became associated with a mad man. The cunning flattery and good spokesmanship of Hitler conned the world for a dangerously long time. It wasn’t till it was too late that people began to fight back for their very freedom. When I compare Obama to Hitler it is only in the light of fear rather than hate that I am trying to evoke. I fear that he is trying to quelch our rights under the guise of an emergency. He made an infamous speech on Chicago Public Radio in 2001 mentioning how the civil rights movement hadn’t gone far enough, that the bounds set up by framework of the that our Founding Fathers established were too restrictive and needed to be broken in order to establish economic justice (i.e. socialism by thwarting the Constitutional safeguards for our liberty). I have studied much about the past history of the Progressive party, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and the hauntingly similar repetition of the past’s mistakes scares me. It isn’t too far a stretch to even think that maybe the war in heaven was similarly waged. Maybe Lucifer said such things as “What is more important than your salvation?! This man over here is willing to put something above it! He wants only the fittest to be exalted…”
I’m extremely worried about the implications of the latest 70 billion Congress is putting forward in trying to keep people from losing their mortgages. I say this in light of having read the book “The Mystery of Capitalism” by , an excellent book on how property rights evolved in the western world. This book asks the question of why capitalism, though introduced in many countries in the post-cold-war era, only had real success in a few. The answer was astonishing — it had to do with the legal framework of property rights that allow such intangible assets as mortgages to represent more than simply and become the potential energy of an engine that harnesses the flow of energy between potential and kinetic energy forms like a pendulum. The author did a study of how easy it was to obtain legal property and/or mortgages in countries like , and some South American countries. Legal property was hard to obtain in such countries — often taking excessive red tape and 10-15 years to obtain titles legally. The result was a degraded form of capitalism in which most of the capital was “dead”, i.e. couldn’t be harnessed like it can be in truly free countries with a better framework of property rights and their free market exchange. Interesting too it was noted that in such countries where capital was “dead”, land property was often locked in legal situations where people couldn’t lose their land. It is kind of like how things are heading here in the U.S. Politicians are trying to make it harder for people to lose their homes. Yet our country’s success has relied on the very fact that entrepreneurs have been able to mortgage their homes in order to start their own businesses. The real value of their mortgage is taken away if the government creates a situation where no one can no longer lose their home to foreclosure or bankruptcy.
On a positive note, there is still much hope to hold onto when one considers how the free market has held on despite all the attacks by government and special interest groups (often from industry leaders themselves seeking special protections and priviledges). This is conveyed in such great articles as the following
or in books like “” by that outline how when people interact in the free market via voluntary cooperation, everyone benefits. Life really isn’t a zero-sum game with a fixed pie where being rich necessitates others being poor. Wealth is the byproduct of work. If everyone produces more, everyone can have more. Money is simply a means of exchanging wealth, but not wealth itself. Income in the real world is far more flexible and astronomically more growth capable than the fixed allowance type systems of marxist style socialism (sadly some people never grow out of thinking of income to be like an allowance from daddy).