Reading The Tea Party's Tea Leaves

I still haven't been able to figure out why Republicans are giddy with excitement. I don't see any Republican approvals in Obama and Congressional approval numbers declining. Here's a very interesting article form Library of Economics and Liberty called Public Choice by William F. Shughart II, which analyzes the statistical calculations and constituency building that goes into the political system and results in some ways the very 'rational' behavior of the average citizen to be ill informed and tuned out. "Legislative catering to the interests of the minority at the expense of the majority is reinforced by the logic of collective action. Small, homogeneous groups with strong communities of interest tend to be more effective suppliers of political pressure and political support (votes, campaign contributions, and the like) than larger groups whose interests are more diffuse. The members of smaller groups have greater individual stakes in favorable policy decisions, can organize at lower cost, and can more successfully control the free riding that otherwise would undermine the achievement of their collective goals. Because the vote motive provides reelection-seeking politicians with strong incentives to respond to the demands of small, well-organized groups, representative democracy frequently leads to a tyranny of the minority." You can find the complete article at: http://www.econlib.com/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html

The bottom line is Republicans do 'Politics' as well as Democrats and both parties are collectivist in nature, each pulling the private resources of the citizen for the public good of whatever each party deems important. Citizens are rejecting both parties, I think most would even agree to that. This then begs the question a third party (or replacement of either party) or transformation of either the Democrat or Republican parties? At the end of the article Shughart gave his most prescient advice, which is to first narrow the public domain, or limit government. The message that Washington has heard time and time again but continues to fall on deaf ears.

While the message of the Tea Party has been maligned in progressive circles as 'extremist rants' or far right Republican Party antics it has been equally maligned by conservatives who claim the movement as a reaction to Obama's and Democratic Party's policies. For those of us who've attended a Tea Party gathering and have had the chance to speak with those in attendance have found that there were people from both the right and the left there, those who are socially concerned about education and poverty as well as those concerned about free enterprise and particularly local business. The message of the Tea Party and other movements that are growing around the country as a grass-roots movement - kitchen table phenomena is about individual freedom and concerns of a federal government that is growing like the 'Blob' and absorbing those freedoms in its wake. If either party came out with a platform that provided the maximum amount of Individual freedom balanced by government powers that protected those freedoms and did little else - leaving to the people (society) to address social injustices; I submit THAT party would win in a landslide. But not only that party - the people would win in a landslide. Unfortunately, if you read the article above, you'll see why neither parties would come up with such a platform. So, that leaves you and I.

What the meaning of `IS' is

One of the greatest issues that we face as a nation and that’s facing our society (churches, etc) is to borrow a phrase from President Clinton, ‘…what the meaning of ‘IS’ is. What I mean by that is the relationship between the Individual and the State (Government). Holism is a term that describes the relationship between individual units and its dependence on the total. Plato and many subsequent philosophers like Hegel and Marx believed that man is identified by the whole of mankind and depends in a large part on his society and how he relates to it. So in a platonic society governments are planned with the individual being a lower case ‘i’ and the STATE being an upper case ‘S’ to influence and control behavior. Both the Progressive and Conservative movements of both major parties do that. That’s why to the average person the Iraq/Afghanistan war and the Health Care bill are so frustrating. We hear politicians throwing terms around like, `For the greater good’ and you and I relate the decisions more personally and how they impact our own lives. So most Americans (at least those who live outside the Beltway) think in terms of upper case `I’ for Individual and lower case `s’ for the state, but our politicians make decisions by running percentages and forecasting in measuring the lives of individuals; they manage policy decisions based on what could benefit the greatest amount of individuals (skeptically the classes that voted for them). Unfortunately it doesn’t work. In a book I mention below, “The Black Swan” by Nassim Taleb, he proposes an experiment where he places a ball in a cylinder that all variables are controlled and constant. He says that physics can tell you based on taking into account all outside variables where the ball would land within the smallest calibration. He said if you put a variable inside the ball (like a human being) that could move and influence the outcome, that you couldn’t tell where the ball would land in the room. Therein lies the problem of social planning on a large scale. George Soros actually weighed in on a variation that explains some progressive ideology. He suggests in a book, “The New Paradigm For Financial Markets”, that it’s true because of the human element you can’t exactly predict outcome (like in the ball experiment) but if you restrict or control behavior somewhat you can narrow down possible outcomes. This is the new paradigm in Public Policy Planning in both parties, that through Federal and State laws you can heavily influence or control behavior like in health care, employment and environmental issues. Churches do this to, for the greater good we uphold tradition and dogma; for the greater good, we try and control behavior. IMHO – I believe the greatest moral law is Individual Freedom. Now Individuals in seeking their freedom can attempt to violate the freedom of another individual and that is where government function is legitimate.

Equality, Justice, Freedom, Rights and many other concepts have different meaning depending upon if you are emphasizing the Individual or the State (upper case ‘I’ or `S’). So when a progressive or conservative speaks in terms of social justice or morality, they are looking at the impact from a macro view based on their own ideology, rather than at the street level of the individual based upon whether they have been denied the same rights as others (equal, under the law). Their social engineering is done with a broad stroke, attempting short term or ‘one size fits all’ solutions, that have unintended consequences and many times impact the personal freedoms of others.

I’ve pasted two mission statements off of Progressive and Conservative websites (Center for American Progress and Conservative Party USA) and while there are some differences you tell me if they don’t look pretty similar. In addition, there is ‘code’ in each sentence that can be interpreted differently:

“As progressives, we believe America is a land of boundless opportunity, where people can better themselves, their children, their families, and their communities through education, hard work, and the freedom to climb the ladder of economic mobility. We believe an open and effective government can champion the common good over narrow self-interest, harness the strength of our diversity, and secure the rights and safety of its people. And we believe our nation must always be a beacon of hope and strength to the rest of the world. Progressives are often described as idealistic enough to believe change is possible and practical enough to make it happen.”

“I believe that all people are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain irrevocable rights: Life from conception to natural death; Liberty to act according to one's will without threat from any authority; and the Pursuit of Happiness in any lawful business or vocation not in conflict with the rights of others. I believe that Government is instituted by people to secure and protect their rights, and to provide for the common good either by law or tradition, or both, and all rights other than those powers specifically given to Government remain with the people.”

Like in the movie ‘The Matrix’, “You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” We have a choice we can say who cares and take the proverbial blue pill or we can question and be a part of changing our society and government. IMHO, I don’t believe it starts with ‘arguing down’ others (nasty habit I have) but rather with a critical self analysis of our own beliefs by carefully and rationally (scientific method) testing them and throwing out those which though might have been handed down from our parents or culture are still in error. That takes uncomfortable courage.

Lessons From The Moral Majority

So where is the Christian Moral Majority movement today? What started out thirty years ago as a crusade to drive Christian morality into politics and thus into the laws of our nation and statehoods, has ended not with a bang but in a puff of vapor. Its leadership is gone or faded into the social background and where as political parties desperately courted the movement, today there’s a definite disassociation. So what happened and what has it left behind in its wake? I would suggest that the antithesis of the Moral Majority is the Progressive Movement that now shepherds universal health care, environmental legislation and redistributive policies designed (in their minds) to bring about social justice and equality. Being a part of the Moral Majority Movement in the 1980s and 1990s, and reflecting on what the movement was trying to accomplish, I unfortunately today realize it was misdirected. Some of it might even seem obvious now: ‘The majority forcing its will on a minority’ (like censorship) or ‘limit personal freedoms for the greater good’ (homosexuality). The gospel message starts small like a seed and grows; it changes the life of an individual who then can effect change in his family and community. Christianity to be effective changes mankind one individual at a time, and individuals change society. With a wind at its back and a great candidate in Ronald Reagan, the Moral Majority tried to use its political capital to enforce its moral will on American Society through the use of State powers and it was ugly and shameful. Through the gospel we preached and tried to demonstrate love in our personal relationships, but in our political affiliations and support of heavy handed ‘Pro-Christian’ legislation we demonstrated intolerance for personal freedoms under the law. Our motives might have been for the well being of the ‘sinner’ but in our disregard for the US Constitution and personal freedoms we hardened more hearts than we helped and in my opinion helped to mobilize the progressive movement in opposition.

While the progressive movement dates as far back as Plato and Aristotle and the modern movement from Hegel, Marx and Stuart in response to the Industrial Revolution which embodied itself in US politics with Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR’s ‘New Deal’; it had become dormant in the 1970s, but revived partly in opposition to the Moral Majority Movement in the 1980s, you can read the history of the progressive movement that I wrote on my blog at (http://ambidextrouscivicdiscourse.blogspot.com/2009/09/progressive-movement-individual.html  for some additional insight. While the philosophies of the Progressive and Moral Majority movements may be different, their delivery system is very similar. The Moral Majority starts out from the perspective, ‘God is not fairly represented in society’, while the Progressive Movement says, ‘There are inequities and abuses in society’. The Moral Majority and Progressive movements are Collectivists in their approach to ideas and in using government, by identifying groups or classes in society. Collectivism is grounded in Holism which believes that the individual is part of a system and inseparable, so in Collectivism the state is emphasized over the individual – ‘the greater good’. Both the Moral Majority and Progressive movements believe that the government was to be used to carry out their policy agendas. The government would use its power to force the will of the many onto the will of the few. Neither one of the movements has shown success at accomplishing their goals; the prohibition movement of the 1920s was a disaster (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017 ) as are drug laws today at promoting morality, and many of the wealth redistribution and government social programs from FDR’s New Deal have produced unintended consequences and huge deficits.

So, the Progressive Movement which unlike the Moral Majority movement has some political capital left in its arsenal. The question is, will it go the way of the Moral Majority and other socio-political movements of the past, which gain power and try to force its will on its subjects only to be eventually rebuffed? Or will it (where I believe the Moral Majority failed) try to protect all freedoms (left and right) and encourage social change (as Moral Majority should have) through society privately with government as a ‘defender’ of freedoms instead of playing an `offensive’ role as a provider. There’s an old idiom, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”, that could be upgraded to “You can lead a horse to water but not only can you not make it drink but you can make it hate water and you as well.” Social movements that use state control and force, even those well intended and containing admirable goals will create more unintended consequences, raise suspicions of the state with possible overreactions and eventually will be turned away by the people in the end.

FORWARD TO HUMAN ACTION BY LUDWIG VON MISES

Mises’ contribution was very simple, yet at the same time extremely
profound. He pointed out that the whole economy is the result of what
individuals do. Individuals act, choose, cooperate, compete, and trade
with one another. In this way Mises explained how complex market
phenomena develop. Mises did not simply describe economic phenomena
— prices, wages, interest rates, money, monopoly and even the trade
cycle — he explained them as the outcomes of countless conscious,
purposive actions, choices, and preferences of individuals, each of whom
was trying as best as he or she could under the circumstances to attain
various wants and ends and to avoid undesired consequences. Hence the
title Mises chose for his economic treatise, Human Action. Thus also, in
Mises’ view, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” was explainable on the
basis of logic and utilitarian principles as the outcome of the countless
actions of individuals.

Sprinkled throughout Mises’ scholarly and erudite explanations of market
operations are many colorful descriptions of economic phenomena. For
instance, on the difference between economic and political power: “A
’chocolate king’ has no power over the consumers, his patrons. He provides
them with chocolate of the best quality and at the cheapest price. He does
not rule the consumers, he serves them. The consumers ... are free to stop
patronizing his shops. He loses his ’kingdom’ if the consumers prefer to
spend their pennies elsewhere.” (p. 272) On why people trade: “The inhabitants
of the Swiss Jura prefer to manufacture watches instead of growing
wheat. Watchmaking is for them the cheapest way to acquire wheat. On the
other hand the growing of wheat is the cheapest way for the Canadian farmer
to acquire watches.” (p. 395) For Mises a price is a ratio arrived at on the
market by the competitive bids of consumers for money on the one hand and
some particular good or service on the other. A government may issue
decrees, but “A government can no more determine prices than a goose can
lay hen’s eggs.” (p. 397)

In Mises’ view, the inequality of men was the beginning of peaceful
interpersonal social cooperation and the source of all the advantages
it brings: “The liberal champions of equality under the law were fully
aware of the fact that men are born unequal and that it is precisely
their inequality that generates social cooperation and civilization. Equality
under the law was in their opinion not designed to correct they
inexorable facts of the universe and to make natural inequality disappear.
It was, on the contrary, the device to secure for the whole of mankind the
maximum of benefits it can derive from it. . . . Equality under the law is in
their eyes good because it best serves the interests of all. It leaves it to the
voters to decide who should hold public office and to the consumers to
decide who should direct production activities.” (pp. 841-842)
Mises’ 1949 comments on Social Security and government debt read as
if they had been written yesterday: “Paul in the year 1940 saves by paying
one hundred dollars to the national social security institution. He receives
in exchange a claim which is virtually an unconditional government IOU.
If the government spends the hundred dollars for current expenditures, no
additional capital comes into existence, and no increase in the productivity
of labor results. The government’s IOU is a check drawn upon the future
taxpayer. In 1970 a certain Peter may have to fulfill the government’s
promise although he himself does not derive any benefit from the fact that.
Paul in 1940 saved one hundred dollars.... The trumpery argument that the
public debt is no burden because ’we owe it to ourselves’ is delusive. The
Pauls of 1940 do not owe it to themselves. It is the Peters of 1970 who owe
it to the Pauls of 1940.... The statesmen of 1940 solve their problems by
shifting them to the statesmen of 1970. On that date the statesmen of 1940
will be either dead or elder statesmen glorying in their wonderful achievement,
social security.”(pp. 847- 848)

Bettina Bien Greaves
Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

The Progressive Movement: Individual Regressivism

Understanding the underlying issues of health care, employment, Afghanistan, the financial crisis and so many other issues facing us as a nation goes deeper to understanding the philosophy of a political movement that took shape in our nation in the late 19th century but goes back even further to the social philosophies of early philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. These philosophies define the individual and the state; terms like Justice, Truth and Equality can have very different meanings depending upon the philosophical prism that these terms are viewed through.

While working in a fresh fruit and vegetable store in the mid 1970s I had a chance to work in a community that was predominately made up of one particular religious sect. I was ‘warned’ by the owner of the store ahead of time that the members of this sect would lie to you and could take advantage of you in their financial dealings. From time to time I would make drop offs at their homes and came to know some of them. One particular older man I came to know pretty well, and felt comfortable enough to ask him why that many on the ‘outside’ of his religion felt that at times his group would lie to the public. His answer was revealing and helps me understand today why many times we misunderstand each other and more particularly leadership and political and social movements and how their ideas and thoughts influence the meaning and intent of their conversations. It’s why one would say, ‘You lie’ and another would agree with the messenger and message. The older gentleman started to explain to me that in his sect of people it wasn’t lying if you didn’t tell the truth to a ‘non-believer’ because the greater good was the outcome of their cause. So that when they looked at Justice, Good or Equity, it was in terms of the goals of their religion. Justice was what produced ‘justice’ for their cause, and ‘good’ was defined in terms of what was ‘good’ in bringing about their cause. Even regarding individuals and their sect, he explained individuals were ‘means’ to an ‘end’ in the goals of their cause; so that the ‘individual’ was expendable for the greater good of their sect (the state).
So when today’s modern American Progressives including, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Charles Schumer and most of DC speak in terms of the Individual, Justice and Equality when addressing issues like: health care, jobs and housing it is important to know the philosophy and value system from which they are speaking.

Progressivism has roots in Plato and the Platonic Society. Plato believed that in the beginning the world was handed down as unchanging Form or Ideas that are the ‘original’ and that from the Form or Ideas comes copies or ‘sensible things’. The original (Forms or Ideas) are perfect and incorruptible, while the copies (Sensible Things) are corruptible and that societies like nature deteriorate over time. The more closely the Sensible Things (copies) resemble the original Form or Ideas the less corruptible it is. Plato’s answer is to ‘arrest change’ by slowing the process of corruption through perpetuating the Form or Ideas in a society through social planning or engineering. Plato believed this could be done best by dividing society into three classes: The Rulers or Philosopher Kings, Warriors or Guardians and The Worker Class. The Rulers or Philosopher Kings were the class that was entrusted with keeping society ‘plumbed’ to the Forms and Ideas (that which what was original and perfect) this was to be an elite class with special education and privilege. The second class (lower than the ruling class) was the Warrior or Guardian class which was entrusted with protecting and enforcing the ideals set forth by the Ruler Class. Lastly were the Workers who were the producers and laborers of society. They had no hand in developing, or implementing or enforcing social policies but they had a responsibility to work and live by the laws which was good, just and right. Plato stressed the importance of harmony within class groups, particularly within the Ruler Class. He felt it was important that the groups for the most part didn’t interact. Equality, Justice, Freedom was defined in terms of society as a whole and more particularly as how they and the individual fit into the State as designed by the Ruler class. So you could see where individual choices at times could be construed as unethical, unjust or against the law as they pertain to the State.

Socrates, who was a mentor to Plato, was a proponent of Individualism and believed freedom best rested with individuals rather than controlled by the state. In fact he was put on trial as a ‘Sophist’ (meaning wisdom, but used in a derogatory way as a ‘false teacher’) who was a threat to the Athens city-state government at the time and was later executed.

In a book by Karl Popper, ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’, Popper draws very important differences between the Mentor, Socrates and the Student, Plato. Popper points out, “The term ‘individualism’ can be used (Oxford Dictionary) in two different ways: (a. in opposition to collectivism, and (b. in opposition to altruism (pursuit of interest or welfare of others). There is no other way to express the former meaning but several synonyms for the latter, for example ‘egoism’ or ‘selfishness’.” Popper shows that Socrates was an individualist in the former sense, opposing collectivism and that his individualism didn’t contradict at the same time being altruistic and taking personal responsibility in caring for his fellow man. Popper further points out that Socrates unlike his pupil Plato believed in Equalitarianism (the equal distribution of justice under the law and in society). On the other hand Popper points out that Plat believed in Holism (the individual should subserve the interests of the whole) and in fact that was the key to arresting the development of decay in a society. In order for society to maintain the ‘original’ Form and Ideas it must control the behavior of the individual. To emphasize once more, Plato believed that just as nature deteriorates and decays so do social structures from their original Form and Ideas and that while we can never stop the process, with proper social planning it can impede or arrest (Plato’s term) the process. This is done by creating social structures by which individuals are governed or managed to.

Plato’s philosophies have had a major impact on modern social sciences and many philosophers, political scientists and sociologists have been influenced by his ideas, including: Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, and Mills. The Progressive Movement was revived during the Industrial Revolution when issues of labor (child labor and workplace safety), suffrage, and slavery were at the forefront of public concern. Politicians like: Williams Jennings Bryant, Robert LaFollette, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson presented government solutions for these problems and ran campaigns of ‘reform’, promising bigger, better government that was more responsive to the needs of the people. Even issues like universal health care, financial regulation and war/peace movements were debated back then.

It is very important to understand the Progressive Movement today; there are many similarities to Plato’s class system. The Ruling Class today consists of a network of Academia, Think Tanks, Financiers and Politicians that for the most part come from a handful of selective universities that indoctrinate future rulers into the workings and design of the social system (Plato’s Form and Ideas). Here concepts and ideologies are learned and unlearned. These schools are protective of their ideologies, and critical of classical social, political and economic ideas that contradict them. The Warrior Class consists of attorneys, judges, (police and military on higher levels), that implement and enforce societal standards. Finally, there are most of us who are the Worker Class. It is our job to fit into societies plan and be productive like worker bees. There are some differences between Plato’s progressivism and today’s, Plato stressed the importance of class separation and not allowing the progression of lower classes up and class harmony, particularly in the ruling class; while today’s progressivism encourages or uses interclass strife as a means for more government control. Also, while for the most part today’s classes are separate, due to modern communications (internet) it is almost impossible to keep a clear separation. Years past, there was a vast difference in the level of education and the ability to obtain information between classes, while today you can attend college online and information and ideas can be exchanged in online chat rooms. There is also romanticism to the progressive movement today as celebrities like Chevy Chase, Michael Moore and Ben Affleck tie strong emotions to the progressive ideals of social justice, government education, racial tolerance and universal health care. But don’t forget these ideals are not defined in terms of the individual (like you and I would define them) but in terms of the goals of the social plan for society. Here’s a quote from Center for American Progress’ website, ` Our work builds upon progressive ideals put forth by such leaders as Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, and Martin Luther King. We draw from the great social movements of the 20th century—from labor rights and worker safety, to civil rights and women's suffrage. We translate those values into new ideas and action firmly rooted in the economic and political realities of the 21st century.’ These goals at face value might seem fine but we need to dig down into their meaning and also to find out what their impact would be on individual freedoms.

Finally, centralization (collectivism, progressivism) of resources concentrates power into fewer hands (Ruling Class) creating the possibility of a rapid and powerful progression that can change society arguably for the better or worse. Socrates chose to emphasize the individual as best to meet his own needs and the individual as an altruist to meet the needs of his fellow man (Did you know over 80% of charitable resources comes from private sector). Plato and the Progressive Movement in its focus on the Form and Ideas of a utopian (perfect) society manages the behavior of the individual (the means) in order to create and maintain a better world (the end). Our Constitution does as good a job if not better than any to lay out a form of government that collects a minimum amount of freedoms from the individual in order to maintain a system that protects all freedoms. This is a time to return to the original intent and integrity of the Constitution

Standards

‘The Gold Standard is the best Governor that can be devised for a world that is still human rather than divine.’ Montagu Norman (1924)

This was a quote by Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England (Britain’s equivalent of Bernanke today) to Winston Churchill after WW1 and the need to go back to gold after England inflated its currency in order to finance the cost of war. He also warned Churchill that to return to gold he might be ‘abused by the ignorant, the gamblers and the antiquated Industrialists’, but if he were to choose against it, he ‘will be abused by the instructed and by posterity.’

Posterity will judge Bernanke and present day bankers for their behavior in our current crisis and what has lead up to it over the past several years. But they won’t judge as we in the moment and in the midst of the crisis judge, reason skewed by intense short term (immediate) economic pain and self interest but by the long term impact of monetary and economic policies on individual freedoms.

“‘The level of the Franc is going to be settled, not by speculation of the balance of trade, or even the outcome of the Ruhr adventure, but by the proportion of his earned income which the French taxpayer will permit to be taken from him to pay the claims of the French Rentier.’ The higher the Bank of France let the franc rise, the higher would be the value of the government debt, the better for the French Rentier and the worse for the taxpayer. “ This quote and narrative are from a book I’m finishing called Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke The World; the quote is actually from John Maynard Keynes, who is recognized as the architect of today’s mainstream economic and monetary theories. Here Keynes recognizes as Norman does in his quote above, that Central Bank policies choose winners and losers. If you inflate currency you devalue it to the benefit of those who are in debt but at the expense of their creditor. Today, when the Federal Reserve issues or refinances Treasury notes, the greatest beneficiaries are still those who are in debt (for a homeowner, initially prices go up and the mortgage remains the same, so they feel wealthier and even benefit further as monthly payments fall in real terms), but the greatest beneficiary of all is our Federal Government who finances its deficit at the expense of its creditors: Its taxpayers, bond holders (domestic/foreign).

As in Government, so in Monetary Policy, when there is no governor (measuring line) then there is the permission of much mischief. A government unrestrained by a Constitution then benefits one group of people at the expense of others. A currency unrestrained by some mechanism to tie it to value, will benefit one group of individuals over others. Oddly enough Keynes in the early part of the twentieth century was a gold proponent but changed as he developed ‘new theories’ of philosophical thought and economic policies and was rewarded handsomely for the books, seminars and government positions he held.

It is because men are corruptible that we must only allow the concentration of the least amount of power and resources. Our Constitution defines the state and not the individual, in some ways it is a document of defined collectivism. It nails down what limited powers we as a people have given to our federal government to conduct its affairs on our collective behalf. Through the years men have chipped away at this document or even worse ignored it in the name of charity, brotherly love, justice and equality. Men, who knew better suffering the pains of financial failure, unemployment or abuse have agreed to unconstitutional powers to the state in order to receive short term temporary benefits at the expense of long term changes to our Union and the detriment of its Wards.

I’ll say it again. MAN IS CORRUPTIBLE! MAN IS CORRUPTIBLE! Isn’t it ironic they we call the keepers of our state and our money: Governors?

So, unless you can convince me of better commodities than Gold or The Constitution, the Constitution keeps men and institutions honest and gold keeps our money honest; then my rally cry: To the future: The Constitution and Gold!

THE GREATER GOOD: LOWER CASE, NOT UPPER CASE

Recently President Obama scolded the Hedge Funds that held secured credit positions against Chrysler assets as being ‘speculators’ and not making ‘sacrifices’ for the greater cause of saving American jobs. In President Obama’s speeches on health care reform again he brings up the ‘Greater Good’ theme in that as Americans we need to sacrifice for the greater good of our society for those who don’t have health care.
The term the ‘Greater or Common Good’ is a term that has been used more and more in recent history as a way to justify the deemphasizing of individual rights/freedoms for the good of society as a whole. "the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of individuals". In the best case scenario, the "greatest possible number of individuals" would mean all sentient beings. This definition of the common good presents it as a quality which is convertible, or reducible, to the sum total of all the private interests of the individual members of a society and interchangeable with them”. (Anonymous)
Utilitarians, Progressives and Socialists have pushed the idea that the sum of the parts is greater than each part throughout the history of our nation and that self interest (and as a byproduct, self determination) is of a lesser value. Even Bible verses like, ‘Greater love has no man than he who lays down his life for another’ or even the concept of Jesus giving His life to save the world; are concepts and imagery used to persuade the many to forfeit freedoms for a more noble cause. Now it is important to distinguish between people who voluntarily give of their own resources and time in order to help another person in need. The verse ‘Greater love has no man…’ is a voluntary act of that individual or even group of individuals using their own resources and time freely. Even the concept of the Son of God laying His life down for all of humanity, when studied in context and in relationship to His Father is not forced or manipulated but lays His life down freely and willingly.
So the ‘Greater or Common Good’ concept used in ‘lower case’ (made by individuals using their own resources voluntarily) verses ‘Upper case’ (made by Government or State officials who take away resources from individuals involuntarily through manipulation, guilt or appeals to personal self interest or greed, like the health care, stimulus and tax schemes) is an important distinction. If President Obama’s administration is anything like past administrations that have fought wars (hundreds of thousands of deaths), enslaved classes of people in social welfare programs (thousands impoverished) and jimmy rigged a banking system of fiat money that inflates every Friday (FOMC) to monetize government debt as the average worker’s earning power goes down (which is theft), then there’s real trouble ahead as our freedoms are at risk and each of our personal financial health teeters with health of our currency.
While the Democrats have traction with President Obama’s popularity, they are moving a very aggressive socialistic agenda of nationalizing banks, industry and health care, (digressing, the hypocrisy of Obama’s chastisement of the Hedge Funds in the Chrysler deal was that while he praised the banks, Fiat (that’s an appropriate name) and UAW, they were all getting bailed out but not the Hedge Funds). Meanwhile the Republicans are in the woods trying to figure out who they are and looking for a leader. In the meantime IMHO most Americans while not connected to the politics of Washington are fed up with the system and waking up to the realization that something is wrong. There needs to be a clarion voice(s) in the wilderness harkening us back to the Constitution to as Jefferson would say, ‘Bind the strong man down’ and prevent the hijacking of individual freedoms by the Federal Government in the name of ‘The Greater or Common Good’.