Give us your energetic and talented: Immigration nonsense

by Charles Novitsky

Give us your tired and poor, or give us your energetic and talented.

It is oft quoted in media and social circles, that America's uniqueness is that it is the home of the worlds tired, and poor immigrants. Yet, few know where that concept originates, and know if it is a powerful mandate, or not. Some even assume it came from our Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Before we get to discussing the history of this so possible mandate. Lets talk about common sense. If I had a home, especially where my children or other loved ones lived, and shelter themselves, I would be very careful and selective of those that I let live in my home. Perhaps I have some responsibility of compassion for my live-in guests, but my primary responsibility, as a parent, or guardian is TO THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF MY FAMILY. Anything less than this is negligence to my loved ones.

Likewise, if I were a landlord, and my task was to find new tenants to move in the apartments, I have even more responsibilities. One is, I must consider tenants that will responsibly care and maintain their apartments and the common grounds. They must also be financially responsible to pay rent on time, since any rent loss can force me to raise the rent for other responsible tenants. If I go bankrupt due to inadequate rent collections, all tenements will suffer, and possibly end up on the street. Furthermore, I have a responsibility to pick tenants that a free from criminal records or sexual crimes. If I do not keep my tenants safe by screening applicants, again I am negligent, both morally, and in the court of law.

One might say, if I wished to build a happy apartment building, I might screen for the best, the brightest, the most accomplished. This does not necessitate the richest, so lets skip that straw man argument that progressives might accuse the writer of this article of.

Let's use another scenario to this argument: a self sufficient small island. Assuming the island belonged to the people, and not some King, or rich politician, we might want the happiest peaceful island possible. It is likely, that in order to keep this island working well, each of us would have to chip in with various skills and duties. Therefore, it would be in our best interest, to make sure that all newcomers are capable to contribute to our survival. It would be advantageous to screen tenants that wish to move to this little self governing island. We might wish to allow those that have the most talent (skills & knowledge) to contribute to our survival, and those that are energetic ( IE hard working). This affords the whole would be stronger than the parts. To let in the tired and the poor not only makes no sense, it is irresponsible, and possibly selfish if the leaders did so.

And less I get accused of cruelty for favoring the strong and talented and healthy, please note that I do not advocate throwing old people out of the village, or their huts. They will stay where there are, and in this scenario, that is likely a different island, their native island.
Another way, possibly even fairer, is for the new island inhabitants to have their own vote on immigration. Tyranny is when only the King, or political leaders believe that have the privilege to decide what its citizen inhabitants should want. If there are 1000 inhabitants on this island, each inhabitant theoretically owns 1/1000th of the island. They may even decide to end immigration entirely, and put an end to land giveaways, once the island has reached a peak or comfortable number. One thing for sure, it should not be up to the politicians to decide for them, for then they are only acting as autocratic tribal chieftains. Likewise, Washington DC, somehow euphorically believes they have the right to give away the land owned by Americans to other immigrants. that decision should be up to the peoples, and the States.

Even worse, if an immigration quota is utilized, to favor the tired and the poor is reverse bias For politicians to have the chutzpa to not let in the best tenants and applicants is yet a moral crime on top of another crime. Currently, the Federal Government favors immigration form certain counties and yet denies talented engineers or workers with skills and or education. A great many from Europe are denied, possibly because of reverse bias. These talented immigrants can apply for a special visa, that in a normal world would get them the first in line, called and H1B visa. This make absolutely NO SENSE!.

Historically, the motto of “Give me your tired, your poor,” is nowhere written in our Declaration of Independence, no where written in the Constitution, nor in the Bill of Rights, nor any amendment, nor any state constitution. So where does it come from? It was written by a socialist poet, Emma Lazarus and placed on The Statue of Liberty in 1903. Clearly, 1903 is a recent period in history, and has little to do with the founding of our nation. Also, we as a nation cannot take much credit for this art at it was a gift by the French. The same French that threw off their monarchy in the French revolution, but went far beyond necessity, with a head chopping pogrom of vengeance, killing many innocent citizens for their different thoughts, or wealth and success, but that's a different topic. Either way, this is the origination of this phrase.

From a historical and legal perspective, the concept of letting in the worlds “tired and poor”, is therefore not a mandate ( ie, a rule), it's not even American. We have an duty to populate America, when populating is even necessary, with the worlds best in terms of talents and ethic of hard work. Only this objective can elevate the entire society. This even helps the very poorest, because poverty is in part, mostly a symptom of the lack of jobs. A lack of jobs is mostly a symptom of a lack of employers. This cold approach to immigration standards, as some would argue, would help our economy, and its poor, in the way that letting in the “wretched” Miss Lazarus quotes in her poem, cannot.

Even in the early 20^th century, we not let in “the tired and poor”. The immigrants at Ellis Island, of which my grandfather and grandmother were included went through a screening process. They had to be healthy and able bodied, pass a health inspection, and have a job sponsor, who in effect, warranted the then existing citizens, that this newcomer would not drain the society, would find a job, and contribute to the nations prosperity. By contrast, these days, it is politically incorrect to bar even those with some communicable diseases. Regardless of traditions of the past, the question is what of the future in America? What should our future policy be on immigration, and even how much should take place. Pivotal to this question is who is allowed to decide these issues for America: the politicians or the Americans themselves, via an express annual vote. With a population of about 315 million, theoretically, each of us own 1/315 millionth. No politician or government has a moral right to decide how much of our land and wealth to give away, that should only be up to us, the citizens.

In closing this topic, one can only be sadly amused how ironic it, that the statue representing freedom in our nation was encumbered with a socialist poem, for socialism by necessity, according to Hayek, always creates some degree of tyranny.

The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus 1883

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The Constitution Does Not Primarily Apply to the States!

Before the 14^th amendment, the constitution did not PRIMARILY apply to states, except for about 6 issues (diplomacy, post office, army, interstate trade barriers, gold & silver coin standards, patents).

Information from http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/did-the-14th-amendment-really-incorporate-the-bill-of-rights/

The Myth The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level. This granted the Supreme Court the power to strike down any State and local law it feels violates the Bill of Rights. The Truth It is only possible to make the case that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level if you distort the plain meaning of the amendment as understood by those that wrote it and ratified it. This distortion must be so great that it violates many of the fundamental philosophies the Constitutional was based on . The Supreme Court has been engaging in exactly this level and type of distortion ever since the 1940s when it began implementing the doctrine of incorporation. Through this doctrine of incorporation the nine unelected justices that make up the Supreme Court have completely re-written the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have done this by distorting the meaning of these documents so much they now mean nearly the opposite now than they did when written and ratified. The Facts James Madison was the only author of the Bill of Rights that wanted any of those amendments to apply to the States. His draft of the First Amendment specifically restrained the States but this version was struck down by the senate. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States when the final version was passed by both houses of congress and was ratified by the States. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and ratified. The Bill of Rights now applies to the States because the Supreme Court distorted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment many decades after it was ratified.

So, what exactly IS prohibited from the States??

Lastly, bear in mind, that Bill Of Rights #9 and #10 PROHIBIT the Feds from any power not enumerated to it in Article 1, AND PRESERVE everything not prohibited for The Peoples and The States.

More reading

http://constitutions.vlex.com/vid/section-powers-denied-to-the-states-295833

Political Divide on Political Diversity

By Charles Novitsky

 
Some believe that the definition of "political diversity" excludes "Old White Men", but I will try to prove that is a narrow conclusion, and narrow view.

To me, "political diversity is not defined by my lack of a vagina, nor deficiency of skin pigment. I broaden the definition of political diversity to be able to include some of the democratic concepts AND republican concepts, that a great many San Diegans believe and respect. By encompassing what we may share in common, bring some of these diverse peoples and political perspectives into our libertarian flock, to make a stronger and larger Libertarian Community.

A great many surveys show that when questioned in the proper way, even Republicans and Democrats have much in common, and as an example, are not in favor of government waste, and fat-cat politicians making regulations that help themselves and their friends.

Another example that may be common to both sides of our political chasm, is how to reduce poverty, and/or help the poor in out society be better off. For example, how can the poor be helped according to liberal ideologues, yet the tax payers not be forcefully taxed. There is a solution that can accomplish BOTH: voluntarism. Voluntary charity has existed within mankind since the dawn of time. In the 1800's to the early 1900's we had Mutual Aid Groups, and voluntary Benefit Society groups. These forms of charity, for the most part, no longer exist, and were sadly regulated out of existence by nanny government assuming the role of welfarism.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory) / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_society )

Another example of incorporating political diversity is our mutual desire to have a well run and orderly society. Both liberals and conservatives have that goal in common. The difference is that many disagree on how to achieve that balance of order so it does not evolve into autocracy or fascistic order. The answer perhaps, is for the audience to understand that government is only best adept at protecting rights, and yet, by naively giving politicians and government any power above this, is becomes dangerous. Dangerous because they will eventually use this very same power against us. If we give the government a gun to protect us, we must be weary that they can also therefore use this same gun against us. It can happen not only in the future, but some may recall it has already happened in the past. The Kent State Massacre, where 67 bullets were fired into a group of non-violent protesters.Thirteen unarmed teenagers and young adults where shot by The National Guard, and four of them died.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)

In conclusion, this expanded definition of political diversity may not be conventional, but it is a worthy, important message. And indeed this is the very basis of our Nolan quiz. This quiz is available on our website link (top right called worlds smallest quiz), and helps people discover that their diversity may have more in common with freedom and libertarianism, than they would have assumed. We may be politically diverse democrats or republicans, but a great many of us are also Libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_(politics)
http://www.sdlp.org/quiz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Charles Novitsky

The False Charity of Governmentism

By Charles Novitsky

The following is a letter prompted by a an interesting discussion with a friend, on the nature of charity in a society and the role of government force, versus private philanthropy. The question was, if a society can or cannot depend upon the good nature of men to voluntarily help others. The alternative some propose, is the system we now have of government force to tax, and thus accomplish certain social tasks.

(here's my letter to him)
Dear John:
I understand your assertion that voluntarism cannot be depended upon in a society, and we must depend on governments to accomplish these those tasks. But, some would disagree with your conclusion, myself included. History also backs me up, for in pre-1960's America, there were many Jewish and Christian and Samaritan charities for all sorts good causes. The Red Cross, the Salvation Army are only two well known examples of century old, non-government charity. Almost all hospitals in 1800's-1900's NY were originally charities funded by the caring and by the wealthy, without government help and without stealing. Currently there are millions of voluntary charities in USA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charitable_foundation ).

If people like myself, and you, who say we care about any given issue or cause, do nothing of ourselves, or on our own, with our own wallets, then maybe thats hypocritical of us. If we demand of others (directly, or via the force of government and politicians), we are in effect forcing others to support our personal ideals. Furthermore, if we ask or force others to help our pet projects, without first digging from the well of our own pockets, or use our own sweat, then I assert , that reveals us to to be lazy , ambivalent, or uncreative. Without this missing ingredient (demands without self contribution), we become less successful in helping others. 

Actual support of charity, I argue, requires my financial, physical or mental investment. If there is an important charitable cause that I believe in, I should promote it on media, and YouTube, and place posters around town. I will sweat to get on the 6 o'clock News and announce it to the locality. I will call all my friends and contacts, and coax them to contribute time or money to this issue. 

If for example, John Doe truly cares to have a wheelchair ramp built in his mothers subsidized apartment building, he will call up Home-Depot, and try to convince them to help build the ramp. Or he may use some of his own money, and find others to chip in. You may believe its impossible, but motivated people come up with solutions. For example, my business creativity and passion would motivate me to use the advertising business approach, to solve the problem without force. I would try to persuade Lowes or Home Depot to help, and in return foster profitable "community good will". I would market to them, the bonus is that they can put their name on the ramp, such as: "Donated and Built Courtesy Your Caring Home Depot Center". On the other hand, many people and organizations like The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, do a lot of charitable good, and yet, don't even care about putting their names on it. We are a compassionate species, possibly more so than any other living organism on the planet.

I have two problems with our current government forced charity system...

a) To forcefully take good ( productive ) money from the private talent that generates it, and place it into the hands of incompetent politicians, causes the wheelchair ramp to be more expensive. Also, government has a bad history for misallocating the money into wasteful silly projects (like teaching prostitutes how to drink alcohol-link here). Once the good money created by freedom and entrepreneurship, is in the pockets of government, it can no longer create as many jobs for poor people, and weakens the entire economy, and then even more jobless people need welfare. It is a vicious cycle, and our lame solutions are the cause of this problem. This is why unemployment has been increasing since the social welfare campaign to wipe out poverty started in the 1960's-1970's ( chart here). Studies show government is so inefficient, for every job they create in government, three jobs have been sacrificed from the private sector.(report link here)

It causes me great pain to see America partially destroyed economically, like the once mighty prosperous Detroit has been.  http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/26/charles-krauthammer-how-socialism-killed-detroit/

b) Many people would object to being robbed at gunpoint, even if the money were used for something the robber thought was good and important. I believe that is exactly what happens when government forcefully takes money from me, from Starbucks, from every business that hires people and contributes to our prosperous society. These businesses create jobs, not because business owners need to be kind, and give jobs to the community--but only so the business's customers are satisfied, and come back to patronize the business again. I believe forcefully taking any money is THEFT. I believe it is immoral. I believe it is un-kosher. I believe there is a better way. Encouraging volunteerism for charity in a freer society is the better way, and the moral way.

Yet I don't fool myself to think things will ever be PERFECT. Freedom and capitalism have proven to be imperfect, but they have by far, helped the greatest number of people ever in the history of mankind to succeed, and feed and clothe their families--I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT DESTROYED. I believe any interference with productivity, and the efficiency of the competitive market is poison. Studies suggest this is already happening in America, and many Euro-Socialist countries (link here). History proves a socialist solution will ultimately starve, and kill many, as it already has in USSR, China, Ho Chi Men, North Korea, Cuba.

Please read the economic book called "The Fatal Conceit" by Hayek, and I suspect you will understand and agree with me, or at least be better situated to argue against the facts I have laid out in this letter ( i.e. links included )

PS... According to some early political scientists like Bastiat, the proper role of a just government is only the protection of mans rights, and is limited to a court system for arbitration. It also can include a police force for intrastate enforcement, and a military for protection against raiders and encroachment of invaders. But when a government goes beyond this mission, and lusts to shape the society itself, it will err, and erode the freedom that fair and prosperous nations thrive on. This is because man's rights can be clearly defined, but the desires of utopian shaping are forever nebulous, ever changing and beholden sometime only by the few. Furthermore, any government given the strong powers needed to shape itself, is the strong type of government that is dangerous enough to use that power against man, and against freedom. For this last precise reason, these governments eventually creep toward tyranny and dysfunction. The only uncertain variable being just how long it takes to reach this irreversible abyss.

Regards
Charles

more links

1. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fallacy-government-creates-jobs
2. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/26-million-tax-dollars-spent-to-train-chinese-prostitutes-to-drink-responsibly-on-the-job
3. http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-stupid-things-the-governemnt-is-spending-money-on
4. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/26/charles-krauthammer-how-socialism-killed-detroit/
5. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/how_euro-socialism_set_off_a_fascist_bomb.html
6. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/052610-535508-as-euro-zone-demonstrates-again-socialisms-downfall-is-inevitable.htm

Question: Is there anything more important than food, shelter and healthcare for the poor?

Is there anything more important than food, shelter and healthcare for the poor?

By Charles Novitsky, Director,

Brainuity Strategic Consulting,

A San Diego Think Tank © 2014

“There is nothing more important, than to guarantee to the poor, food, shelter, and healthcare!” This was the statement made by a compassionate, smart, friend of mine, Marty. A friend who doesn’t classify himself as a liberal, nor a neoconservative, he is just a down to earth, average caring person. I’m sure, many of us have read and heard similar statements throughout the press, and various social encounters. His claim, was that as a community, we must gather our shared resources, and government power, to assure these basic needs and rights, to the poor, and unfortunate in America. His logic was, if a society could ever evolve highly enough to supply these basic needs, we will then have reached mankind's destined goal, and achieve utopia.

My answer was short and sweet. I said, “yes Marty, there is something much more important than food, shelter, and healthcare for the poor, and that's the freedom to produce food, shelter, and healthcare—for the poor, and in fact, for all of us.” He opened up a deeper discussion than he realized.

From a society's perspective, without the freedom to produce these basic needs of man, such as medicine and food, they will not exist. For clarification, I’m not including the food that one finds hanging from the trees, or swimming in the oceans, for that will not feed the 7 billion people currently living on planet earth. Natures supply of food would quickly be used up with our large modern populations. But, no matter if you are liberal, socialist, conservative, or statist, without freedom, even food will not be possible. Additionally, all our other arts, desires and hopes for humanity, would cease to be possible. Without freedom, we all suffer—both rich and poor.

As proof of this theorem, submitted for your approval, are these case histories where the pursuit of “food for all” initiatives by society, was thought to be more important than freedom itself. The end result, was neither food, nor freedom. Eventually, the freedom to even grow food vanished.

Case 1: Zimbabwe 1980-present

Zimbabwe, formerly called Rhodesia, was one of the wealthiest nations in Africa. Even more pertinent to our topic of food, it was wealthy with food, being one of the most successful food producers in Africa. It was even nicknamed, “Africa's Breadbasket”¹. The population enjoyed one of the highest employment rates in Africa, and the additional rewards of prosperity, and freedom. The educational system was considered one of the best in the continent². In general everyone was well off. However, as with all things human, nothing is ever perfect. But it was by far, for the vast majority of Zimbabweans, the best system, for the most number of people, they ever experienced in history.

But politicians declared there was still some poverty, and income disparities, when compared to the rich farmers who grew all the food. Even worse, although these farmers hired millions of local workers, and shared the wealth in the form of salaries, this was deemed “not fair enough”. Farmers, some complained, had the audacity to sell their foods grown, instead of giving it away to the poorer Zimbabweans. In pursuit of a more equal society, and eliminating the discrepancy of a small segment of rich and poor, the government went on a campaign to cure poverty, in the late 1990's³. The process started off slowly and almost invisibly, with laws that regulated who could own land, and who could grow the food. “Regulation” is just a polite word, for control of “freedom”, and thus these farming regulations were merely a politically correct way, of taking away the freedom to grow food, ironically, in order to make sure everyone had equal access to food.

But along with these lost freedoms, many other good things were lost in the process. Unemployment soon reached biblical proportions of 95%., the worlds highest. Hunger became so rampant in Zimbabwe, that according to Time Magazine, by 2006, fully 45% of Zimbabweans were suffering⁴. Hunger became the norm for society, and the majority, where it once was the exception. Even their stellar educational system shrank, and suffered. Inflation soon reached 89,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent annually (that’s 89 sextillion with 21 zeros)⁵. But this tale of Zimbabwe’s failure and decent into government induced hunger, is not a new one, and should have been avoided by anyone that knows economics and history, for it is the same story that occurred previously.

Case 2: Russia 1917-1991 (and still recuperating)

During the 1920's, the Russian citizens empowered their government, through Lenin, to shape a new Utopia of equality between the poor, and the rich. The politicians promised a revolution to change things, so now everyone would have a fair share, and everyone would pay their fair share. The new political leaders, Lenin and Trotsky, would now make sure there was abundant food for all. New laws and regulations, called “Decrees”⁶ were passed against some types of property rights, such as factory and farm ownership. Essentially, the people advocated trading some rights and freedoms in return for government goodies. Blue collar, Proletariat workers celebrated, for no longer would the greedy top “one-percenters”, own too much land. Those rich Bourgeois, would now be forced to share their factories output with its workers. Rich Bourgeois farmers would be forced to give back the land wealth, and pay their “fair share”. Taking this away land or property is still technically a tax, for taxation doesn’t have to be limited to taking away someone's money.

The results however, were quite the opposite dreamt of. Devastating hunger eventually afflicted the 66 million Russians. Up to 10 million died a slow tortuous death through starvation by 1922, followed with a second wave of starvation by 1933 with another 10 million dead., and still another million starved to death by 1947⁷. Of course a government made powerful enough to create such devastating hunger, also had the power to cause deaths by other methods. By comparison, many more millions of people who where spared the slow torture of hunger, where killed with fast, merciful, bullets and bayonets. Death was a guarantee for anyone who disagreed with Lenin or Trotsky, and the new world order. But make no mistake, even if some were lucky enough to avoid the grim reaper, NEARLY EVERYONE SUFFERED.

But wait—There's more! Communist China, in the pursuit of more equality and more food for all, starved up to 46 million between 1928 and 1961⁸. There are some people, that dismiss these millions of “death by starvation” as a thing of the past. Sadly, misguided attempts of societies to solve hunger, by a government decree, are still taking place today, in Venezuela, Argentina, and North Korea. According to The Washington Post, and numerous other news sources, starvation is so endemic in North Korea, that there are reports of people eating each other, including their own children. In other words, the suffering of hunger, and starvation is so painful, these people have resorted to cannibalism⁹. But again, this only shows the obvious consequences of utopianists trading freedom away, and giving those powers to politicians. There are other evils and damages, that are a bit harder to measure, count and observe. Such as the loss of possessions, human rights, education, the arts, health, and indeed every form of human dignity and happiness. So much so, that in the past, many East Germans where willing to commit suicide, or risk the certain death of being shot in the back, to regain freedom, by escaping over the “Berlin Wall--Iron Curtain”. This “Iron Curtain” still exists today, to mentally imprison North Koreans from escaping the powerful government they created. Governments are like medicine, the minimum correct dosage can be beneficial, but an overdose is poisonous.

One may ask, how come this pursuit of utopia often backfires so consistently in history, such as past Communist Russia, past Communist China, present day North Korea, present day Venezuela, and Argentina. According to economist and sociologist F.A. Hayek, the answer is clear—any government given the powerful permissions to do good for society, is by de-facto, simultaneously given the power to do equal bad, and evil. Allowing politicians the power to mildly curb freedoms for a good reason or cause, is the very same power that they may use to take away a freedom for some bad reason. Even if the power is not used for a bad purpose, it may be used for a crony or illogical purpose that makes no sense, or one that trades prosperity, job, or property rights, for the protection of a frog, that has never even existed in the area. Government power is THE common thread, not purity of intentions. This is why America's founding fathers created an unheralded set of laws, called The Constitution, to forever keep Washington government too weak to cause damage and tyranny¹⁰. It appears this precautionary intent has been forgotten by present day Americans, many of whom, have not re-read the constitution since grade school. As proof of this lost understanding of the Constitution, one need only ask 10 random acquaintances “How many powers does the Constitution limit Washington DC to. The official answer is located in article 1, section 8, on the first page of the Constitution. Washington's politicians, inclusive of Congress, The Supreme Court, and even The President, have ONLY EIGHTEEN POWERS*. This is officially called the “enumerated powers list”¹¹. The Constitution repeats this twice, again with the “Bill Of Rights” forever forbidding the Federal government from concerning themselves with anything else, not on this list of permitted powers.

Again, according to Hayek, the second reason that trying to engineer a more compassionate society by regulation ( e.g., by rules and laws) backfires on us, is the near infinite possibilities, and complexities, of human society. He asserts, that controlling complex systems like Mother Nature, and its subset, mankind’s economic human behaviors, are far too complex for any one man, or even groups of men, to predict and properly control¹². The results are nearly always catastrophic consequences, and unintended side effects. Due to the limited length of this article, readers seeking to know more about F.A. Hayek's teachings on complex social systems, freedom, politics and economics, should seek out his mind bending book “The Road To Serfdom”, available in most libraries.

###END###

Click here for a downloadable, or printable PDF version

* When numerically tabulated, and some additional scatter permissions are counted, the true approximate total is closer to 35 powers, that the Federal government is restricted to making laws upon, and technically to even discuss.

Bibliography & References

1http://spectator.org/articles/48721/breadbasket-dustbowl

2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe#Education

3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Zimbabwe#1990s

4http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1840034,00.html

5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe#Inflation_rate

6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik_Initial_Decrees#List_of_Soviet_Decrees

7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union

8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

9http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/05/the-cannibals-of-north-korea/

10http://toftc.wikispaces.com/John+Locke,+Thomas+Jefferson+and+the+American+Revolution

11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#The_economic_calculation_problem

Inside The Mind Of The Well Intentioned Liberal

By Charles Novitsky

Inside The Mind Of The Well Intentioned Liberal

Liberals by and large, are well educated. Indeed many of them populate the various academic and teaching professions. They are people that appreciate “reason”, and like to dream of using their marvelous reason “to shape the imperfect world around us”. They are intoxicated with the vision that there exists a managed new humanity possible, called “Humanity Version 2”. So, what's the problem with that? That doesn't sound like such a bad wish, or strategy!

The problem progressives face, is that "Humanity 2.0", doesn’t exist in nature or reality, and that trying to impose some dreamy new set of ideologies and rules for human behavior and social conduct, risks destroying our currently imperfect, but working "Humanity Version 1". Nearly all other previous societies that tried to impose a “New Order by Reasoning”, ended destroying themselves through the use of force and bureaucracy. Examples are: Prussian Germany, Leninist Russia, Maoist China, and ancient Rome. They accidentally destroyed what makes Humanity version 1.0 function—natures perfected rules of social conduct, motivation, and productivity.

According to Friedrich Hayek, Von Misses, and other economic sociologists, our human society is NOT the product of intentional reasoning, or intentional design. Mankind's traits were shaped over time, by the slow process of evolution. But unlike our hands and feet, it is not a physical evolution, but the social evolution of our behaviors, mannerisms, and inner thought processes*. This behavioral evolution makes the cohabitation of 7 billion people on our crowded globe, possible. This eons old evolutionary processes, far beyond our control or comprehension, shaped, and allowed mankind to cooperate enough to survive, and raise families. These evolutionary mannerisms are the basis for trust, revenge, justice, and all of our social interactions. They even form the basis, and are observable in something as common, as how a man and woman may have sex without rape. How do these two, or more people, control their boundaries, rules, and behaviors on a date. It likewise forms the basis to decide, if your neighbor is trustworthy or not, and what to do about it.

We could go on ad infinitum, but the point is, our miracle society is only possible, through these evolved invisible rules, more commonly known as the “extended order”* of mankind's cooperation. By contrast, put two random chimpanzees, who do not know each other, into the same room, and there is violent chaos. According to animal behaviorists, two unfamiliar chimpanzees in the same room, will quickly devolve into a violent fight. There is no polite conversation, or exchange of ideas possible. Mankind may have arguably started off like the chimpanzees, but eons ago, the majority of those peoples, or tribes, whose actions failed to allow the development of the extended cooperation needed for a large society, died out. In other words they failed to benefit from the extra food and resources possible in a cooperative society. They failed to survive, and thus failed to create children and offspring. This is how evolutionary processes work, they shape those traits, physical or behavioral, that allow the best survival and outcome, by erasing out the least beneficial of the infinite possibilities. This is why Man, (and Woman), is exactly who we are, why we are, and what we are—a truly marvelous socially cooperating animal. If you need any proof, witness how I am now writing this marvelous article for you—and just as marvelous, you are cooperatively reading my thoughts on paper, or screen. Thanks ;-)

Back to the word, and ideology of liberalism, which ironically in the 1800's meant the opposite of what it does today. Back then, when our founding fathers were called liberalists, it was closer in meaning, to what some might today, use the word “conservative”, or perhaps “libertarian”—then, it meant less government, more freedom, and praise of personal responsibility. Modern Liberals, like to believe that mankind has evolved so high, that we can simply use our minds, and reason to reshape society. After all, reason is quite useful to achieve, or plan for a great many of our needs, such as getting a good job, or a college degree. We certainly need to employ reason even for basic things, such as protecting and raising a family. Reason is an essential human tool. But reason is not infallible, for it can be shaped by mankind's weakness to use imperfect logic. But, what utopian wishers (i.e progressive liberals) fail to understand, is, that misusing reason to control and shape society is both dangerous, and a fools errand. Our complex society is beyond directed control and wishful shaping. Yes, we can indeed make laws and regulations, and this may control some bad behaviors with the threat of prison, but it does not cure our social ills. For example, while we do give welfare to our poorer section of society, sadly, counter to our intuition and desired results, we see it doesn't cure poverty, nor crime. Disappointingly, some sociologists assert, our welfare funding simply entraps these least successful people, onto a conveyor belt of failure*. The unintended result, is that those who least likely have the will, skills, or mental focus, to get out of welfare, are thus trapped in it, to become addicted to it, perhaps for the rest of their lives. Some further argue, that the next generation of children in a failed welfare family, learn the misproductive habits of their welfare parents, to perpetuate a multigenerational malady of failure in American society. Perhaps this is why, even though our modern welfare society has tampered with social values since the 1960's, it has failed to achieve the promised cure for poverty, and social disenfranchisement. Perhaps even worse, it appears to concentrate over periods of time, people with the same lack of fortune. The concept, and solution of public housing, and public schooling, essentially become storage houses, to create entire communities of failure—villages of the damned.

This is the predicted outcome to “well intentioned” interference, with complex mechanisms. A horrible example of which is Australia’s poisonous cane toad infestation*. This cat sized toad was introduced, to help solve the sugar cane problem, of beetles eating the crops, in the 1930's. The lesson, as many ecologists will tell you, is that it’s dangerous to tamper with something you don't fully understand. Precisely because it is too complex, with thousands of counter consequences, nature has that nasty habit of biting us back—when we meddle with it, or try to plan it, or reason with it. The dangerous outcome, usually is a bit similar to what happens, when you call the beloved “Three Stooges”, to solve a problem. Well intentioned, and motivated the Stooges may be, but their lack of understanding, ends up causing unintended catastrophe.

Welfare, just like any other recipe, can create something good, or something bad--depending on what ingredients are used, and how exactly baked. Evolutionary behaviorists studies of ancient societies show us, that kindness and rescue for our fellow villager or neighbor did take place, but only between known peoples and villages. It was never arbitrary, nor unlimited. Furthermore there was a personal satisfaction reward from the act of giving and helping. There was perhaps a level of guilt arising inside these recipients to succeed and better themselves without handouts. In these original societies, the rules of extended cooperation were unconsciously followed, and obeyed. This kind of voluntary, and supervised assistance, can be called the good type of welfare. Utopianists, by contrast, do not follow this exact recipe, they have devised a conscious "reasoning" recipe, that unfortunately violates many of our hidden social evolutionary rules. It would be futile to even try to classify them, or know them all--they are hidden in our psyche, and DNA. So, this article does not advocate a welfare-less, or uncompassionate society. It only claims government politicians, and pro-government intervention liberals, do not have the proper recipe, and thus cause more damage than they solve. Both Republican, and Democratic progressives, naively try to imitate a good social process, with the artificial act of "forcing compassion", and "forcing charity". A better tactic would be for all collectivists to try to bring awareness of a cause, and convince their friends and neighbors for voluntary donations, and support. A society where charity is voluntary would be a far wiser, and far more effective in too many ways for social scientists to yet understand. A smart example of using voluntary community based awareness for charity, were the 1980s concerts for Bangladesh, Haiti, and others*.

So in conclusion, Liberals, sometimes also called Utopianists, Progressives, Collectivists, Socialists, or Communists, don't understand the foundation of our hidden evolved rules, underpinning the success this extended order of mankind—the reason why we are all here today, and not in our original tropical jungle. “Reason”, tricks them with the audacity to believe they know better than God, or natures, nearly perfect behavioral evolutionary process. Thus they naively believe solving poverty, is as simple as taking money from our employers, and hard working taxpayers, and giving it away to the poor, e.g: those with a lack of fortune. After all, it does sound reasonable. But many of them, sorely lacking any economic understanding, or economic training, fail to see exactly how, that has caused a “cane toad sized” side effect—the loss of jobs in America. And without enough “well paying” jobs, we lose prosperity, and everything else, including our food, and civility.

###end###

References

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_behavioral_ecology

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_order

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap

* wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia

* wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concert_for_Bangladesh

Crazy Thoughts: Maybe 9/11 Happened Because Washington Disobeyed The Constitution?

by Charles Novitsky

 

Let My Constitution Go!

Perhaps the alternative to being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, is a 9/11 accuser. Whereas there is no shortage of theories as to why 9/11 happened, and how it happened, here is yet another angle to debate—The World Trade Center fell because Washington D.C. disobeyed the Constitution. Before you laugh and report me to the NSA, allow me to make my point.

According to one rumor that I cannot substantiate, 73 percent of congress would fail a written test on comprehension of the constitution. Of course, comprehension is a step above being able to simply recall the 7 constitutional articles, and 10 "Bill of Rights", but even simply reciting might be too much of a challenge, to expect from our Washington politicians. The Constitution is rarely remembered by most Americans once they graduate school, and I am sure few readers would actually be able to use its cleverly crafted rules in a persuasive argument, or conversation. The fact remains, the document called The Constitution is a contract with the States, and the Peoples, telling Washington what they are NOT allowed to do, by only giving permission for 18 tasks, or responsibilities. This was so important, our forefathers purposely wrote these 18 limitations in simple English, for anyone to understand, in the first part of the Constitution (article 1, section 8). This is known as “the enumerated powers” list. Enumerated in this case, simply means "numbered". The reason behind this enumerated limitation is Washington was created to be a sort of club organizer for the needs of the various States, but was not desired, nor intended for it to become the master of the States. In fact even the word “foederal”, the original spelling of our word “federal”, means a "league or club". The federal club, was only therefore meant to organize these few powers assigned to Washington. The limited powers that our statesmen believed the states could not as coherently organize for themselves. Here is the list (but you may want to skip these details for now)......

The eighteen permissions for Washington DC 

The Constitution can be rather dry and boring without proper commentary and context, and we will skip going into this list. A great book to read for context is, “The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution”, by Gutzman. 

Now that I am older, and perhaps wiser, I will argue that the Constitution is more than a set of rules for Washington—it is actually a game strategy designed to keep the United States forever free. It was designed so America could never become tyrannic, like 1700's England, or France, or Europe. Some may argue that Europe is still somewhat tyrannic, and the new European Union will make it even more so. In England, there is no right to free speech, and You can get arrested for doing so. huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/05/american-preacher-arreste_n_3549537.html 

This difference in the concept and definition of freedom, between Europe and the USA, needs to be pointed out. Some Americans use Europe as their desired example of good government. They point out the assumed utopian success of European healthcare, gun control, or other similar government powers. In effect, because European governments do it, America must copy them. But here is a controversial shocker: America is NOT Europe, and that's exactly what is good about us. Furthermore, we at least have a written constitution telling government their job, and what they cannot do—England, by contrast, doesn't even have a written constitution. Furthermore, there is no European nation where the politicians and government were so purposely limited by a similar constitution, as The United States. No other nation was ever similarly constrained in their permitted powers and tasks as The USA, to forever preserve individual freedom to the "people". One cannot compare, or wish the USA to be more like Europe, any more than one can wish New York to be more like Florida. If one desires palm trees and warm weather, then one's destination should be to live where that is part of the climate.


But back to the issue of blame. Lets historically retrace Washingtons past disobedience of the Constitution, and how that may have led to the 9/11 catastrophe. These will only be summaries, and those interested in knowing more than a superficial introduction, should investigate the facts for themselves, in further detail.

1) Washington & CIA Poke Sticks Into Middle East Beehive!

If anyone could believe this AJAX-CIA meddling was in USA's peace benefit, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn, for sale.

In 1953, Washington unconstitutionally poked a stick in the middle east beehive. Washington created a coup to overthrow Iran's President (i.e. Prime Minister), and put in his place, a tyrant called "Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi". The Shah created a backwards  dictatorship, which oppressed his own people. This pushed the then, almost modern Iran, back into the economic and social dark ages. This secret operation was called "Operation Ajax". Iran was not even an enemy at the time. According to Wikipedia, Washington interfered with this country's government, because England asked for help to maintain their oil supplies, and contracts in Iran. 

Where does it say in the Constitution, that Washington was authorized by us, to provoke these aggressive acts with other countries. In fact, the wording in the Constitution more or less says, Washington was created to defend the States, not to put our safety at risk. Instigating arguments and battles around the globe is most certainly a risk. Poking a stick in a beehive often has consequences, or blow-back, as the CIA calls it. In effect, Americas bad reputation in the Middle East, and elsewhere was then created, and we became perceived as The Great Satan. Fortunately, no terrorist sought revenge against us back in the 1950's, but the seeds of hate were perhaps planted way back then in the past. An unconstitutional action came back to haunt future Americans.

2) Washington & CIA Forget Who They Work For!

Children should not play with matches.

 In 1979, Washington unconstitutionally aided and trained the Afghan rebels. Any thesaurus defines “rebel”, as another name for “terrorist”. These rebels the CIA trained (the Mujaheddin), later evolved to become Osama bin Laden's Taliban. We trained them in torture and resistance techniques, as well as bombing and terror tactics. Sadly, the joke was on Washington, because these resistance fighters would eventually use the same terror techniques on us in September 11, 2001, and elsewhere. The price Americans have paid for Washington's straying outside of their constitutional mandate was not only the terror of 9/11, and the sad loss of thousands of lives, it was the destruction of our economy. This also fueled the need and growth of the NSA, and created the birth of the Homeland Security Agency, and its invasion of our privacy. I am not actually criticizing the current need or benefit of an NSA-DHS, but only commenting on the sad consequence of our past and present international meddling, for it eventually brought about their controversial necessity. This unconstitutional international meddling is at the root of these expensive wars. Wars that are bankrupting the nation, and killing our young men, or crippling them. Since 9/11, the fabric of our country has been unrecognizably changed—the no fly lists—the need to remove our shoes and belts at airports—snooping on nearly every cellphone, and email. The list of consequences is a very long one.





 

Was the justification for training those Afghan terrorists, (to fight the invading Russians), constitutionally sufficient? Many clearly say “NO”, the Constitution does not empower Washington to legally poke a stick in someone else's war, in some other part of the world. Not even if it makes the world safer. The constitution does not give permission for Washington to make the world safer, though that may be a pretty thought, and a nice humanitarian gesture. The constitution was not designed to protect humanitarian goals. It was designed to protect Americans, and more specifically, the freedom of Americans. The federal government was enabled to protect the States from real enemies, those that take guns and weapons to our shores. Not imagined enemies. Russia was a loud mouth aggressive and annoying adversary, but was no such enemy at the time. One might argue, the entire Cold War, was just some philosophical argument among government tyrants and bureaucrats, on how they best could rule the world—democracy versus socialism. If only our political leaders could practice true democracy, as well as they preach it. And so, we now kill in the name of spreading our strange definition of democracy, perhaps just like the Crusaders killed, in the name of spreading God's word. Washington's presence and interference in 1979 Afghanistan was clearly outside of the wording, and design, and intent of Our Constitution. Again, I invite readers to see where the Constitution allows Washington to disturb and risk our peace here, on the shores of America, by instigating fights in other neighborhoods. These fights do not promote our peace, as the constitution demands, but quite the opposite, risk our peace. The constitution specifies only the duty of “defense”, whereas these war games are all offensive actions. In a court of law, I cannot legally attack my crazy neighbor just because I am concerned his actions may someday harm me in my own house. That is not defense, it is a blatant offense, and I would be arrested, and charged with a crime. However, no one is advising that we should be wimps, for the moment this crazed neighbor knocks on my door to harm me, all hell and fury should be unleashed.

Another issue with these war games, is the permissible use of our tax dollars. Since aiding other countries for their defense, or even humanitarian reasons, is compassionate, but unconstitutional, the use of even a single penny of the citizens money for this agenda is equally unconstitutional. In other words, there are not just one or two constitutional crimes taking place in Washington, but multiple violations. To those that believe American citizens should support the humanitarian goals for other nations, there is a way to do that without violating the constitution. That method would be for Washington politicians to get on their pulpits and ask Americans to voluntarily chip in and help. Or, the people can do it themselves, like we did in the 1990's with through the newspaper articles and music concerts for Bangladesh. As a further stretch of the imagination, congress could even allow people to be volunteer fighters overseas, provided its not against the USA's diplomatic interest, or our national safety, and as long as no federal funds are used. Thus, there are constitutional ways to achieve some international humanitarian goals, but as is often the case, doing things the right way, may take more effort than shortcuts. Currently Washington has convinced itself that it can legally, and morally, take away $50 billion dollars from its hard working people, and give it away as a gift to aid almost 180 nations around the planet. wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid

These are just two examples of how straying from the law, and constitution, have had negative consequences, and there are many many more. Part of the problem is caused by the confusion, and debate, on what the constitution means, and how to interpret it. Fortunately, there is available concrete proof, in writing, on exactly what our forefathers intended, and meant in the constitution. Many argue that this documented evidence is so strong, and so obvious, there should be almost no room for debate. One such area of confusion is the myth our constitution was intended to be a breathing, living, flexible document. In fact, this errant constitutional interpretation, was only conjured up recently, in the 1900's, by Justices Holmes and Brandeis, soon after Americas socialist "populist" phase. There is nowhere in the constitution this is written, nor even implied. By contrast, the proof our constitution means what is written on its four pages, is clearly observed in the many preserved writings and statements of our constitutional framers. These are recorded statements and writings that actually took place during passage of the constitution, by the people that were actually present, and not imaginations of some novelist like Mr Howard Lee McBain, who Wikipedia claims dreamt up the romantic idea of a "Living Document". Furthermore, nowhere in any of the 170 published explanatory articles from the time, called The Federalist, and Anti-Federalist papers, does it say or imply the constitution is transmutable, living, or breathing. Finally, the Constitution is a legal contract, and like all written contracts once agreed to and signed, it is not subject to arbitrary "living-breathing" re-interpretation. Likewise, the written contractual terms of my auto lease, and apartment lease, mean exactly just what they say, nothing else is permitted. 


Whenever Washington DC politicians go astray from the permissions of the constitution, America seems to suffer. There are currently several hundred alphabet agencies created by Washington, and misdirecting our country. There are so many, it is becoming hard to even keep track ( wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_agencies ). With each of these unconstitutional agencies and departments, there seems to be a curse created, sort of a catch-22, where violating the oath to our founding fathers, backfires in some unintended way.

And we are suffering some of the consequences and payback now. American students are lowest on international PISA scores for the top 30 nations. Education is yet another power forbidden from Washington by the Constitution. We have 2.5 million prisoners, of which 65 percent is possession of drugs, and cumulatively have arrested since Washingtons 1960's "war on drugs" over 40 million people. Alcohol, and drug legislation is absolutely forbidden for Congress. The list of constitution transgressions goes on, and on, but few are placing the blame where it possibly belongs. Yes, we blame it on middle east unrest, we blame it on the terrorists, we blame it on the economy, some blame it on Wall Street—but perhaps we need to look deeper, and see ourselves in the mirror. I'm not looking to vilify and blame ourselves as much as I am looking to find the source of the problem—Washington's disobedience to the law of the constitution. Here is one suggestion--visit the library and start reading the constitution again, you may be very surprised how well it was written, and provided strategies that would have prevented many of our current problems.
 

### END ###

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution#cite_note-Bain1927-2