THINK YOU ARE "ENTITLED" TO SOCIAL SECURITY?

In reality, there is no legal right to Social Security benefits, no matter how much you have paid into it. The government encourages this myth by referring to Social Security taxes as "contributions."  In the 1937 Supreme Court case, Helvering v. Davis, the Court ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way."  In the 1960 case of Flemming v. Nestor the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.  In other words, Social Security is simply another payroll tax that has been collected by the government and spent as the money came in.  When there are not enough young people to continue this Ponzi scheme, it will come crashing down and we, who have paid into the system for the last (in my case 45) years will lose the benefits under the guise of “means testing” which means only those people who have lived off the government for decades and have not prepared for their retirement will collect it. 

Capitalism, serving others…Political Force, enslaving others.

“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.” (Walter E. Williams).  For the past 70 years, the Federal political/bureaucracy class has increasingly looted, plundered and enslaved the rest of America under the guise of serving us.  Today, we must obtain their permission to do just about anything we want to do.  Capitalism is dependent on voluntary transactions between parties.  The politicians/bureaucrats use force to take our money, control our property and our actions, and decide how to redistribute our wealth to create a dependent class who will keep them in power.  And, sadly, we have allowed them to do it, by sending politicians to Washington who choose to ignore the Constitution.

UNDERSTANDING THE COLLECTIVIST MIND

I have tried over many years to understand the mind-set of individuals who live off the riches of free enterprise while at the same time condemning free enterprise.  Instead they appear to seek to destroy free enterprise and replace it with what might be called collectivism, whereby we have a utopia in which all wealth goes into a common pot and we are ladled out our portion by some “fair” method (the method yet to be determined).  I recently read a quote by Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, from “The Revolt of the Masses” (1929), who watched Spain veer from Monarchy to Socialism to Civil War to Dictatorship.  This is the best explanation I have seen to explain the mind-set of those who would replace free enterprise.  I have taken the liberty of rewriting his quote to make it a little easier to understand.  His original quote follows my rewrite. 

My thesis, therefore, is this: the very efficiency with which goods and services are delivered to the masses cause the masses to not only take the goods and services for granted, but to consider the highly organized structure that delivers them as a natural system, rather than a cooperative system of voluntary transactions, largely free from government interference. Thus is explained the absurd state of mind revealed by these masses; while concerned only with their own well-being, they remain clueless to the cause of that well-being. They do not see what is behind the wealth of goods and services from which they benefit. Instead, they demand these benefits peremptorily, as if they were natural rights and will always be there, no matter how many restrictions they place on those who voluntarily create and deliver these goods and services. A scarcity of food results in the mob going in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the system of free enterprise by which they are supported.

The original quote:  Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, “The Revolt of the Masses” (1929):

My thesis, therefore, is this: the very perfection with which the 19th century gave an organization to certain orders of existence has caused the masses benefited thereby to consider it, not as an organized, but as a natural system. Thus is explained and defined the absurd state of mind revealed by these masses; they are only concerned with their own well-being, and at the same time they remain alien to the cause of that well-being. As they do not see, behind the benefits of civilization, marvels of invention and construction which can only be maintained by great effort and foresight, they imagine that their role is limited to demanding these benefits peremptorily, as if they were natural rights.

In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported.

Consumers Are The Ultimate Polluters

Those of you who complain about industrial pollution continue to drive your cars far more than necessary, continue to purchase clothes when you have a closet full of clothes, continue to air condition your homes when you could live without air conditioning (I grew up in a non-air conditioned house), continue to take unnecessary vacations, continue to consume fruits and vegetables shipped from around the world, use the internet (a data center for handling, storing and processing internet data can consume 250 megawatts of power), and enjoy a thousand other luxuries that you could live without.  Then, you complain that the ones who produce those goods and services, solely for your consumption, are the ones guilty of “polluting” the earth.  Consumers are the problem…producers simply respond to the demands of the billions of individuals who consume the goods and services they produce.   Without consumption there would be no production.

Resolution to Rename the Statue of Liberty, July 4, 2013

Resolution:  On this day, July 4, 2013, we resolve to rename the “Statue of Liberty” the “Statue of Equality,” on order to reflect the new enlightened common wisdom, which is not reflected in the current name of the Statue or in our outdated Constitution.   We also resolve that the poem on the base of the Statue of Equality shall be changed from “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” to “All are welcome who believe that each should contribute according to his ability, and each should receive an equal reward.”

The outdated thinking, as envisioned by our forefathers, was for Government to limit itself to creating the peaceful conditions within which the people are free to secure their own well-being, with an emphasis on freedom of the individual.  Any enlightened person will realize that this will lead to unequal outcomes, with some citizens having more than others.  Our collective wisdom now leads us to dictate that our Government should take responsibility for securing the welfare of all the people, and not just provide a structure under which they seek their own selfish, greedy individual well-being.  Thus, we collectively must provide retirement security, medical care, education, food, shelter, cell phones, and income security.  To accomplish this requires that the Federal Government organize massive transfer payments from the “haves” to the “have nots.” Of course, this will entail enormous handling fees and inefficiencies generated by bureaucracies, political politicking, and cronyism, but this is a small price to pay to the ensuing “equality” that we as a society so desire. 

From Freedom to Following Rules

For most of the USA’s history, transactions occurred based on pragmatic experience.  Society was shaped by countless voluntary transactions based on the accumulated knowledge gained through experience, largely free from government interference. Frederick Hayek stated “all the famous early law-givers did not intend to create new law but merely to state what law was and had always been.”  For example, for decades, experience had shown that to remain strong, banks needed a certain capital base, and to lend money to buy a house, banks required that the recipient of the loan have a 10 percent down payment (so they would have a vested interest in the property, and to show they had the self-discipline to manage a budget to save up the down payment) and that payments not to exceed 30 percent of income.  This kept foreclosures at a minimum.   “New” law was written requiring banks to change their policies, not based on what worked, but to make the housing market more “fair” and to increase home ownership, and this new law did not take into account what experience had shown to be successful, but instead was based on how bureaucrats envisioned how things “should” be.  The result was the real estate bubble that ended with the financial meltdown of 2007. The “Affordable Health Care Act” is the latest huge law written by our ruling elite which will replace largely voluntary transactions between doctors and patients with detailed laws that all caregivers and patients must follow…forget voluntary transactions based on years of experience.  More and more, voluntary transactions, based on knowledge gained through experience, are being replaced by very detailed, specific laws, written and implemented by an elite few who think that their limited knowledge can construct a society of rules that is superior to a free society.  We are quickly turning away from what has made the USA prosperous, and so far, the results are not favorable.

To receive future posts by email, enter your email in the space provided on the right column.

Berating Corporations… biting the hand that feeds you

I saw a post today from the “Seniors for a Democratic Society” Facebook page, where Sen. Bernie Sanders said “if you want to start going after someone for closing the deficit, start with these greedy corporations!”  I would comment on their Facebook page, but they blocked my comments after one post I made on their page that was counter to their philosophy, which seems to be that the rest of the world exists to provide them with the good life.  Had I been able to comment on this post, here is what I would have said.  What are corporations?  Legal entities set up by one or more people who want to invest their money to produce a good or service to offer for sale to others.  Their objective is to receive a reasonable return on their investment, and they only do that if what they offer is voluntarily purchased by someone who values it, and if their cost to produce it (plus the added costs of the government’s take) is less than the cost to provide it.  That is how we have pacemakers, cars, food, stints, entertainment, houses, televisions, gasoline, phones, and everything else we consume.  Somehow, those who post on Seniors for a Democratic Society seem to think that corporations, who only provide what consumers voluntarily purchase, are evil, yet, they want all the goods and services the corporations produce.  This seems to me to be the epitome of “biting the hand that feeds you.”

What makes politicians successful?

Politicians who represent special interests are successful.  Politicians who uphold the Constitution and represent the average citizen are not successful.  Why?  Those who want something from the government band together to elect politicians who will deliver what they want.  Those of us who just want to be left alone and who want political power dispersed as defined in our Constitution, don’t take the time to organize into a “special interest” group, so our voices go unrepresented.

Benjamin Franklin on Welfare

"To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike, but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as proper punishmets for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence and to interfere with government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good. " Benjamin Franklin (In Smyth, writings of Benjamin Franklin, 3:135)

Franklin D Roosevelt on Government Regulation and Legislation

“The doctrine of regulation and legislation by ‘master minds,’ in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington…Were it possible to find ‘master minds’ so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost godlike in their ability to hold the scales of justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interests of the country; but there are none such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1930, when he was still governor of New York.

Ways to Spend Money

Milton and Rose Friedman, in their book Free to Choose, showed that there are only four ways in which money can be spent.  First, your money can be spent on yourself. When you spend your money on yourself, you try your best to get what you want at the least cost. Second, you can spend your money on other people. Again, you try to get the best price you can although you may not be as concerned about getting exactly what you want.  Third, you can spend other people’s money on yourself. Here, you don’t care how much is spent and you try to get all you can (this is how special interests use government to get other people’s money). Fourth, you spend other people’s money on other people. You didn’t have to earn the money and you get credit for all the “good” you do with the money (along with the power to decide who gets the money).  Number four is the way all government programs work.

An Entitlement Equals an Obligation

Every entitlement given to any individual by the government is matched by a corresponding obligation which the government must impose on another individual to provide the entitlement.  This holds not only for entitlements to individuals, but also to support which the government gives to companies, schools, and groups of any kind.  For example the government’s investment of over 500 million dollars in the solar panel company Solyndra, required the government to collect $1,000. from over 500,000 households.  Think about that every time you hear about another government program, no matter how laudable you think the intentions.

Tyranny of the Majority

Once we depart from the original understanding of the principles of the Constitution, the majority assumes absolute rule through their elected officials, who are more than happy to promise them anything in return for political power.  This absolute power combined with a lack of understanding and appreciation for the reason behind the separation of powers contained in the historic Constitution paves the road to tyranny by an all-powerful government with no protection of individual rights.  You may think this is all fine as long as the government is doing what you think is “fair” and “right” but what happens when that power falls into the hands of those who use that power counter to your interests and you have no longer have a Constitution to protect you?

Allocation of health care

If a chemical were discovered that gave lifetime  immunity to cancer (but would not treat existing cancer), and that chemical required huge amounts of raw material and processing costs and could only be produced in limited quantities, at a cost per individual treated of ten million dollars, who should receive the limited quantity of immunization and who should pay for it?

Government is our servant?

Ronald Reagan, in his second inaugural address, spoke about when the USA was “created two centuries ago when, for the first time in history, government, the people said, was not our master, it is our servant; its only power that which we the people allow it to have.  That system has never failed us, but, for a time, we failed the system. We asked things of government that government was not equipped to give. We yielded authority to the National Government that properly belonged to States or to local governments or to the people themselves.”  Think of how much further along we are today on that road to complete National Government control over our lives and property.

An interesting fact regarding mass killings

“With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. Had some citizens been armed, they might have been able to stop the killings before the police got to the scene. In the Newtown attack, it took police 20 minutes to arrive at the school after the first calls for help.”  JOHN R. LOTT JR. The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime The Wall Street Journal January 18, 2013

Do elected officials defend the Constitution?

When he spoke of his presidential oath in his public letter to Albert G. Hodges, Abraham Lincoln said: "It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using that power."  Do our current Federal elected officials “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” or do they “take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using that power?" 

Do-Gooders

The voice of reason is so often drowned  out by the cries the of do-gooders who do not  think beyond their opinion of what is “right” or “fair” and do not think beyond the present moment and circumstances,  not understanding or thinking through the future implications of their demands.  Their demands generally consist of insisting on government coercion to impose their accepted way of behavior on others.

A Drop In The Bucket?

During the debate on the proposed 60 Billion dollar Sandy relief bill, it was said by many (both Congressional members and others) that this is only a drop in the bucket in the national budget.  Put on your thinking cap and realize that this would require taxing 6,000,000. households $10,000. each.  If that is a drop in the bucket, perhaps the bucket has gotten too big.