Now we are watching a giant oil spill spread across the Caribbean. All the great proponents of government micromanagement of our lives say this is the great moment when we can pass legislation to “save the planet” with our tax dollars. When and how did we authorize our government to go saving the planet? I must have missed that amendment to our constitution.

One misstep follows another as our President looks for asses to kick, but can’t seem to coordinate a clean up, much less plug the leak.  Oil is now washing up on the shore because nobody is stopping it.

How about President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid save one beach before we let them try to save the planet with our credit card.

I don’t claim to be right.  I say things and try to support them in a reasoned and rational way that people can evaluate and either accept or point out the flaws in my arguments and reject.  I do my best to leash my tongue, so to speak, and not name call or say anything that I can’t support logically.   If you disagree, you can respond, and possibly change my mind.

The more autocratic websites are offering judgment and asking for donations without even a mechanism to question those judgments.    This is  a symptom, I believe, of dictatorial tendencies.  Truth can withstand all criticisms.   In response, I encourage everyone not to contribute to any website that doesn’t have a robust mechanism for feedback.    Nevada Can@gmail.com

There is no such thing as Capitalism. There are only differing degrees of Socialism.

When politicians rail against “American Capitalism and Imperialism” they are using terms which neither they nor their audience understand. We probably shouldn’t let the enemies of freedom define the terms we use because it puts us on the defensive to start with. But since we have the terms, the least we can do is understand them. I searched the title after I wrote it, and I found someone else had already noted this truth (http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2010/04/theres-no-such-thing-as-capitalism.html)

The explanations are a little long, but they are as succinct as I could make them without oversimplifying them. And once you understand the terms, you will have the ability to understand, and defend yourself from, any political advocate. Unlike academic theorists such as Marx or Engels, my purpose here is to edify rather than impress.

Imperialism is a reference both to rule over territory and to the system of government by an emperor. There is no habitable place on earth not ruled by some government. Therefore, objections to American imperialism on Amerrican soil are objections to America and not to imperialism as it is defined. So what is it about America that they are denouncing? We, as in you and I, are the American government. We practice government by the people for the people. America puts the local citizens in the place of the emperor and our highest government officials answer to us as ministers and aides have historically answered to an emperor. This is accomplished by a design that depends upon the concept of rule by law. Theoretically no one person can ignore, change or subvert the written law for any reason. To some degree, all other countries have some class or person who is recognized as above the law. We have the Rockefeller family, but they don’t flaunt their power publicly. So when you object to America, either you are promoting government by an imperial class, an emperor or as it is popularly phrased ‘a strong leader,’ and you are insulting the American citizens as unworthy to govern themselves.

References to American imperialism on foreign soil, such as Iran or North Korea, refer to the influence of wealth.  Commerce is not imperialism.  When a deal is offered by either the government or a business in one country to a group of people in another country, some people in each country will want the deal and others will not.  The deal may benefit either the rulers or the citizens, one group more than the other, and threaten the existing equilibrium between the two groups.  If the performance and subsequent payment is either too beneficial to one group or too detrimental to the other, the deal even if refused can cause strife between the rulers and the citizens.  This effect has been inaccurately referred to as imperialism, when in fact it is a symptom of the disparity in power and the social separation between a country’s government and its people.

Capitalism is not a system. If each individual is allowed to pursue their own interest or happiness, and they interact in a mutually agreeable manner, the activity is called capitalism. If their pursuits involve trespass against others (for example, stealing), that is called anarchy. Free people may choose to delegate some of their legitimate authority by setting up a government. Or, someone may seize power from them and direct in some degree their economic activity. The result in either case of this ’sharing’ of ‘power over private behavior’ is named socialism. If the degree of socialism assigns only the minimum needed power to a government body to perform only those duties that are more efficiently done in unison, such as preventing anarchy leaving private pursuits mostly un-molested, that ‘minimal degree of socialism’ is called capitalism. If the portion of private power shared via a government body increases to a point where individuals ability to pursue their own interests are hampered, that is called socialism.

Some people don’t want to compete in the marketplace, yet they covet the advantages that flow from thrift and industry. Obtaining sustenance without either work, theft or charity can only occur under some degree of socialism. People who rail against ‘capitalism’ are demanding that government take from those who are busy working and give to those too lazy or afraid to do for themselves.

In the light of this understanding of the terms being used, we see that the politicians, who rail against American imperialism and Capitalism, are promoting their preferred brand of imperialism. So who is it that they trumpet as more moral than Americans are? What person or group of people can be better imperialists than we can? Who is more deserving of power, to direct our activities, and of reward than the thrifty and industrious among us? Surprise! Many political organizers in this part of the country are advocating that the Mexican government could better govern us than we do on our own. Americans make what rules we must but mostly we reject what rules others offer, so the Mexican government is an interesting choice. I have been there and seen the results of Mexican imperialism. Looking at the economy of Mexico, no rational person could explain how we would benefit from having Mexico exert its imperialism here. And the same argument goes for every other country on the planet. The only explanation has to be ‘cultural preference,’ or, as it is often better known ‘racism’. They are appealing to the lowest parts of our character – greed and hate. People here have the opportunity to excel despite their skin color, national origin, family history etc., because that is the essence of the capitalism that our self-imperialism allows. But some Americans cheer politicians when they proclaim the wonders of _____(fill in the blank country’s) socialism and its ‘right’ to assert its imperialism over them and us.

So where do we go from here?  Do we still believe that power corrupts?  If so, is it best to limit the influence of that corruption by restricting the use of that power to specific areas as the Constitution does?  If not, what will be the form of government we should favor?

Americans love the Constitution not out of a high or noble faith in either it or the founders and authors, but only because it works.  Because it works, we respect and admire the authors.  Because it works, our freedoms are as bountiful as they are unappreciated.  Because it works, we became the wealthiest nation in history.

Think of all the great kingdoms of history which fell when a bad king came to power.  We avoid that by enshrining all the attributes of righteous rulers into the supreme law of the land and limiting the power of men to change the law for their benefit. The Constitution focuses on what the limits of power are and how people ascend to those limits. By creating and then playing off three branches of government against each other, power is divided and the rule of law is preserved.  Power is further controlled by reserving it to the people with the exception of specific authorities, mostly spelled out in article 3 section 8.

The worst insult in politics during the early years of the Republic was to be called a party man.  One who cared more for a political party than for the good of the people or the country was considered corrupted and without morals.  Now we have two main parties, both of which, in seeking superior position over the other, command loyalty above the demands of good governance. The people are divided against each other and controlled by these parties.  And curiously, both parties seem to answer to the same financial titans.  Governmental power is concentrated in the hands of the unseen wealthy who determine which candidates will run in each party by funding their campaigns.  As governmental power is concentrated into the hands of the elite, the minions of the wealthy work to expand the scope of that power. And corruption becomes ever harder to disguise.

It is time to fight back or be reduced to serfdom, in a kingdom run by bankers and party sycophants. Vote against people who promise to give what is not theirs.  Vote against people who promise what nobody can deliver -equality of outcome, the oxymoron of justice that favors one group, wealth without endeavor, prosperity without toil, privilege without payment.  Vote against people who divide us by our prejudices and cultures with enticements that appeal to the lowest elements of our character.

We need to set aside party and look to the good of our society and ourselves. The Constitution makes no mention of party, and I suspect that if the authors could see what the parties are being used for today, they would have banned them.  Look, as Lincoln said, to the better angels of our nature, and seek advantage in education and toil, not by means of government. We can control our education and toil and thereby control our lives, our wealth and our future if government is restrained from taking it.  If we seek advantage from government we accept the chains of compliance with guidelines and the shackles of proscribed benefits.

The Constitution is only six pages long.  The powers delegated to the federal government or reserved to the states fill less than one of those pages. Vote to keep the powers reserved to us, the people.  Don’t let a corrupt government usurp our authority and attempt to purchase our obedience by doling out what is rightfully ours disguised as benefits and political largess.  Vote for people who understand and respect the practical wisdom of the Constitution, because freedom, though messy, works.