Monthly Archives: October 2012

Property Rights 101: The Foundation Of Capitalism Explained

October 25, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

The foundation of capitalism is property. Every non-capitalist system requires violating property rights. Socialism steals almost all property, the nanny-state bans some property and regulates others, the welfare system steals and gives away property, and cronyism both steals and regulates property in a way that makes the corrupt rich; all violations of capitalism requires violating property in some way.

This is why it’s fundamental for capitalists to understand why we believe in a system of property rights, why we should defend property, and what property rights do entail. The fundamental debate about capitalism is a debate about property. We can’t lose sight of how important this debate is. As property rights go, so goes capitalism.

Property rights are interesting concepts, because they’re based on the fact that it’s impossible to get everything we want out of life unless we establish a kind of rationing system. Otherwise, we experience the “tragedy of the commons”, and every resource is depleted and every action begins to have little to do with what’s best for the long-term. In the short-term, people starve, and civilization becomes literally impossible. But let’s back up and start from the beginning.

You Can’t Always Get What You Want

“…like the philosopher Jagger once said, ‘You can’t always get what you want.’”
-House MD

At some point in history, two cavemen realized they both wanted the same rock. So they fought over it to the bloody death. At a later point in history, two cavemen realized they both wanted the same deer. So they fought over it to the bloody death. At a later point in history, two cavemen realized they needed a system for deciding who could “own” what without someone having to die. Thus, the idea of property rights was invented.

There’s more to it, of course. There are moral, economic, rationing, and even philosophically axiomatic reasons for believing in property rights. It’s an important discussion, and at the root of the discussion is the answer to anarchy, libertarianism, conservatism, Objectivism, and every other kind of political-ism. If we understand what property is and why we have it, we begin to understand why a social system of capitalism isn’t just good for us — it’s necessary for survival itself.

Definition of Property: What Are Property Rights?

Property rights are when someone has the authority over something. They have the authority to buy, sell, trade, give away, destroy, fix, etc — they have the authority over something.

If a house is your property, you can live in it, sell it, rent it, burn it, fix it, paint it, ignore it, or do anything else you’d like to it. If you own enough land you can even build a new structure entirely.

If you own your body you can sell it (that’s what a job is, and there’s nothing inherently wrong at all with selling time/labor for money), tattoo it, wear makeup, eat brownies, drink beer, etc. Regardless of what happens to you in life, you own your own body and can do what you want — within the confines of the property rights of others.

Why Property Rights Exist

Property rights are vital for the prosperity and opportunity of society. They’re also moral and are directly derived from the principles of justice. Let’s look at the 6 basic arguments for property. There are more, of course, but these are the most common that mix together nicely:

1. The Rationing Case

The tragedy of the commons is one of the most important economic, or “pragmatic”, reasons to accept a system of property rights. The argument is simple: if we don’t divvy up “stuff” on the basis of ownership, then everyone will destroy the “stuff”.

An example of this would be, much to the annoyance of many environmentalists, the lumber industry. Unless we divide up forests according to property rights, then no lumberjack would have any incentive to replant trees and re-harvest them there later. That’s too much work. He’d instead want to move on and cut down trees somewhere else.

If he replanted the trees but didn’t have the exclusive control over them for his own harvesting and profits, then another lumberjack could move in and cut them down without ever having to work to plant trees. This is the “tragedy of the commons”, and is a problem in a world without property rights. People begin consuming without a desire to produce or invest, because they don’t get to reap what they’ve sown.

In a sense, it could be understood that a property-rights system is a response to the tragedy of the commons. If we believe in private property, it’s because we’re rejecting non-ownership and we’re rejecting common ownership. This is why I can claim a spot of land and stop other people from entering it — they can’t own what I own without my permission. It’s my land. It’s my property.

This is an important distinction, because property rights don’t mean that violence is somehow never morally accepted — it means that there is a time and a place for when violence is accepted, and that context is always in relation to a property owner defending what is rightfully his/hers.

Property rights, in a sense, aren’t just about “stuff”. They’re about when we have the right to use violence.

2. The Economic Case

The economic case for property rights is a kind of derivative of the rationing case. If people own their own stuff, they are more likely to take care of it. But they are also more likely to invest because they’ll want to see the results of their investment.

This idea of being able to reap what is sown is critical to capitalism — in fact, the root word of capitalism is “capital”, and “capital” what happens after we work, produce, and have some left over for savings.

This profit-seeking mentality makes everyone wealthier, so long as it’s facilitated with trade. Without the ability to profit through property rights, people won’t work. If a farmer knows that a crop will be stolen completely by the local mayor, he won’t focus on growing crops. Everyone loses without property rights, except a handful of hunter-gatherers.

This is why it must be understood that property rights are the foundation of civilization. Property must exist in some form for civilization to exist. The only question is in what form they exist. We’re capitalists, and that means we believe private property is easily the best theory and framework possible.

3. The Philosophical Case

The moral case for property rights is simple: man must survive, and the only system which accepts the notion of survival and of civilization is a system of property rights. No other moral system makes sense. The others are contradictory. Socialism is fundamentally irrational. Private property, is, therefore, the logical result of accepting that man should survive and prosper.

As Ayn Rand famously wrote:

“Man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life. Without property rights, no other rights can be practiced.”

4. The Religious Case

Every major religion establishes a concept of property rights. In Christianity, one of the Ten Commandments is, “Thou shalt not steal.” Christ and the Apostle Paul both tell their people that charity must be given freely and voluntarily — not through violence or theft.

In the Old Testament, the Bible is clear about keeping ancient boundaries in tact. In other words, property rights don’t depend on a particular generation or a particular context to be “good”. They transcend culture and time and person — they exist whether we violate them or respect them. Property rights are a fundamental moral principle for civilization.

In Exodus 22, the Bible makes it clear that killing a thief at night was justified, but that one should just detain them if it was during the day:

“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.”

5. The Axiomatic Case

Everyone believes in a type of property. Talk to a Marxist about how you need to take their coat because you need one, and you’ll soon see that “common property” arguments are essentially just complete lies people tell themselves so they can take swings at the only economic system that makes sense.

The same goes with aggression in general. People presuppose that we should deal with one another with reason — and logical consistency leads to respecting this as a universal, natural law system. It’s impossible for someone to not believe that they have control over at least themselves on some level. The only question is the extent of the property rights.

5. The Consistent Case

If I don’t own my body, then I know you don’t either. That is, in a nutshell, the axiomatic “case” for property rights. Whenever someone talks about taking your property, remember that they aren’t getting rid of property — they just want to transfer ownership.

Someone has to control something. This is why socialism collapses — it takes from the rightful owners who produced and earned the property, and gives it to someone else. This violates the moral and economic principles found in natural order, and is a type of rebellion against reality itself. And I can promise you, that’s one rebellion the leftists have never won.

6. The Natural Order/Law Case.

The best philosophy is one which accepts reality and reacts to it in a way to achieve one’s basic, fundamental goals. The most basic goals of all are, generally: survival, prosperity, and offspring. Capitalism, the system of protecting property rights, is easily the best system for this.

It rewards the best in society, punishes the worst, and stops men from violating the rights of others. If someone wants to find happiness, their chances are best under capitalism. If they want to be rich or poor, both are made available.

The universe is harmonious. It sometimes seems almost fine tuned for the prosperity of humanity, if only we would just analyze it and follow through with reason. Economics, natural order, and natural law all work together perfectly in capitalism, and reward the most productive, punish the lazy, and provide for those who can’t earn on their own.

Whether you believe in a God who fined-tuned everything or that man evolved to mix perfectly with all of nature, it should be clear that the rights of man and the principles of economics work perfectly together, and protecting one leads automatically to maximizing the other.

It’s bad economics to violate natural law, which include property rights. It’s immoral to ignore the principles of economics. Life works out. If there’s one thing that has not been emphasized enough, it’s how all the branches of human thought point to private property, natural rights, and the liberty of humanity.

If you want to learn more about the basic principles of property and liberty, check out our article on what capitalism really means, and what libertarianism is all about.

Read More

Rand Paul: Freeze Spending, Cut Taxes, Balance The Budget

October 24, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

Rand Paul is one of the strongest voices for liberty in DC. He has the unique ability of uniting both conservatives and libertarians rather than alienating one group completely. This gives him the great ideas of strong free-market views mixed with the ability to actually make a dent in how things are done.

Here’s a video of Rand Paul talking about what we should do going forward when it comes to budgets, spending and taxes. Freezing spending or cutting spending by 1% a year for 6 years would balance the budget. He’s right when he points out that we don’t just want a balanced budget — we want a smaller budget.

Read More

Rand Paul: Where The [Blank] Were The Marines?

October 22, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

Rand Paul needs to get angry more often, because this is pure gold. I hope more people begin to see that Rand is dead right. Let’s stop the politically correct bullcrap and start asking real questions about our foreign policy, Libya, and eventually Pakistan and Egypt.

My favorite line: “If he says the buck stops here, someone should be fired.”

Read More

The Differences Between Conservatives And Libertarians

October 21, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

I adhere to a very different viewpoint than my conservative friends. But still, we often are in agreement on politics. In fact, since Obama has been in office, most of my attention has been focusing on Obama’s failures, and this has led to more agreement with conservatives than ever — though this could change if a Republican takes office.

Regardless, we both agree that Obama is a tyrant, that spending is out of control, that capitalism is great, that taxes should be cut, that regulations are destroying the country, that the nanny state is out of control, that we should stop foreign aid, that the government is responsible for the financial crisis, and well as plenty of other topics.

In general, if a conservative believes the government is going too far in an area, a libertarian completely agrees. So what’s the difference between the two philosophies? Several actually. Namely, libertarianism just takes the general principles of liberty and follows them all the way through without exception.

What Is Conservatism?

In general, conservatism is rooted in a desire to conserve traditional values. This is why conservatives are generally for traditional marriage, religion, and the general economic system they’ve become used to.

There are many branches of conservatism, with some emphasizing that change should just be slow, to others emphasizing a religious foundation of enforcing a religious standard of right and wrong on others. I’m a strong Christian, and I grew up in a community of religious conservatives.

Conservatism, oddly as it might sound, is a changing philosophy (albeit slowly). Depending on when you live, the “conservatives” believe in entirely different things. Conservatives in Rome would have believed in conquering the world, conservatives in 50 years could be defending Obamacare, and conservatives now often defend what were Democrat ideas from just a few decades ago. Still, there are some fundamental principles that conservatives use — but overall, it’s about keeping things the way they’ve been rather than a specific extreme ideology.

Some conservatives adhere to a philosophy that is almost indiscernible from libertarianism. For example, Ron Paul is often labeled a “paleoconservative”, and several of my friends constantly remind me that not all conservatives believe in a big government. This allows for great discussions comparing the two.

What Is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism is structurally different than other political philosophies. Libertarianism is the philosophy that using force is only justified to protect and/or enforce natural law. In other words, if someone isn’t violating your rights to life, liberty, property, or aren’t violating a contract, then you can’t use violence against them.

Don’t confuse libertarianism with the Libertarian Party. You can be a Republican libertarian. Ron Paul did this for decades, and Rand Paul is doing it now. 

Some libertarians believe in a small, limited government. Other libertarians believe we should abolish government entirely. These two camps argue constantly. There are just as many branches to libertarianism as there are to conservatism — and, of course, every branch claims they’re the “true” libertarians and everyone else is a fraud.

The implications of libertarianism mean that everyone is free, even if we don’t like what they’ll do with their freedom. This means businessmen are free to do businesses without being shut down by angry leftists. It means that if someone wants to smoke pot on their property, that’s perfectly fine so long as they don’t violate the rights of others. The root word of libertarianism is just “liberty”. That’s the philosophy.

Under a libertarian system, wealth becomes more abundant through the sheer lack of taxes and government destruction of the economy. If you saw your taxes drastically cut, would you be better off? Libertarianism applies that philosophy to everything.

Differences Between Conservatism And Libertarianism

The differences between the two groups are that libertarians don’t concede ground when it comes to the rights of the people. For example, conservatives often defend programs they fought against just a few years ago. Medicare, welfare, huge military spending, etc.

Conservatives are also fine with locking people in prison because of fears of a cultural change. Until just recently, it was actually illegal in many states to be an active homesexual. Not just disapproved — it was actually illegal.

Right now, over a quarter of a million people are in jails and prisons because of the war on drugs — the impacts of this is extremely severe, and it has completely failed. Drugs are still plentiful for the reasons guns don’t go away when you ban guns. The only impact to the war on drugs is a rising police state, drugs being even more dangerous and poorly manufactured, and many lives ruined for what could just be an immature phase one goes through.

Libertarians also take the philosophy of capitalism and just run with it. We believe in absolutely no violations of the free market, even if someone thinks it’ll “fix” something. Governments can’t fix markets. It’s economically impossible — the market functions the way it does for a reason, and every violation of it violates the rights of the people involved and destroys wealth over time.

The Case For Libertarianism

Libertarianism begins by looking at a politician and his military, and asking whether they have any special moral ability to hurt our families because of their “political” status. Is it wrong for a soldier to beat up your daughter? Is it wrong for a politician to rape a constituent? Of course. But why?

Some might claim because it doesn’t do the “most good”. But that just begs the question: should we put a spending limit on what people are able to spend, for the sake of channelling money to what government decides is the highest “good”? Should the government regulate your diet to make sure you don’t get obese and unhealthy?

The answer is of course not. All of those violate your basic rights of life, liberty, and property. That’s what libertarianism is. We begin and end our political theory with natural rights. No exceptions.

If natural rights exist, then they exist — they don’t disappear just because someone is gay, rich, or likes junk food. People have natural rights and we should respect those rights. That’s libertarianism.

The Policy Positions Of Libertarians:

The positions of libertarians depend partially on on the branch one adheres to in particular. Still, there’s generally enough common ground that a libertarian essentially always believes:

  • Taxes. Cut them. Some libertarians support a small amount of taxes, while others — like myself — don’t support any at all. Either way, conservatives and libertarians should find common ground when it comes to cutting current taxes. They’re too high no matter what you’re long-term goal is.
  • Regulations. The only time it’s justified to restrict a business activity is when it violates the rights of others. Polluting someone’s land, breaking a contract, falsely claiming your product can do what it can’t, etc.
  • Corporatism. Libertarians are against stealing from anyone to give it to a corporation. This means ending all corporate welfare. All of it — no exceptions. If a corporation is necessary, then the market will reward them justly. No bailouts, ever.
  • Socialism. Libertarians support ending every aspect of the welfare state. Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. Phase them all out into the private sector and make them voluntary.
  • Military. Libertarians debate about this among themselves. Some believe in a small military that is strong and powerful, and others are full-fledged anarchists.
  • Drugs. Legalize them, but if someone violates the rights of others  make them pay for it. Don’t confuse drug users with people who violate the rights of others. The same for alcohol.
  • Nanny state. Abolish it. All of it. The whole thing. Down with Bloomberg and Michelle Obama. We should be able to make our own choices without incompetent psychopaths in Washington dictating the terms of our lives.
  • Foreign Policy. Libertarian foreign policy is extremely misunderstood by the media. We believe that a strong defense is important, but that droning little girls overseas isn’t part of defense. We should only go to war when attacked or when defending ourselves from an immenent attack. This doesn’t mean we have to wait till the bullets are headed towards our faces — it means that we shouldn’t invade countries for reasons that have nothing to do with defending ourselves. This means no Iraq and no “saving” Africa. It means pretty much everything Obama has done has been wrong.

What Libertarianism Doesn’t Mean

Libertarianism is often confused with a libertine philosophy. A libertine philosophy is the idea that nothing is wrong unless it violates the rights of other people. This isn’t what libertarianism is about.

I’m a fundamentalist Christian, and so is the other admin of Capitalism Institute. We both attend church, believe in God, read our Bibles, and have a Christian approach to everything. But this doesn’t mean we think it’s justified to use violence against people just because their actions are sinful.

I might not agree with your life choices, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to make them. That’s libertarianism. That’s just liberty itself.

Are Libertarians And Conservatives Enemies?

In the grand scheme of things, libertarians have more in common with conservatives than libertarians. That’s why Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash are all in the Republican party. That’s where alliances with conservatives are forged.

We do have strong disagreements. When Bush was president, I protested the spending, the regulations, the “compassionate” socialism, the war on drugs, and the war in Iraq. I knew some extreme conservatives who agreed on many of those topics and they protested as well.

But conservatives have more in common with libertarians than leftists. Leftists want the state to regulate everything with a massive state that essentially becomes their God. Conservatives and libertarians both reject this, though libertarians go much further than most conservatives.

Still, occasionally we’ll find alliances in each others’ groups. For example, William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder of The National Review, actually believed in ending the war on marijuana, claiming it failed. This is the kind of common ground that can better off both conservatives and libertarians.

The great late activist Andrew Breitbart was right when he said:

“Conservatives, especially right now, have a hell of a lot more in common with libertarianism than Barack Obama and what the progressive left stand for.”

If you want to learn more, check out the first article I ever read about libertarianism, written in the 1950s. Make sure to also read our article on the definition of capitalism.

Read More

Who Is A Libertarian?

October 11, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

Those of us who favor individual freedom with personal responsibility have been unable to agree upon a generally acceptable name for ourselves and our philosophy of liberty. This would be relatively unimportant except for the fact that the opposition will call us by some name, even though we might not desire to be identified by any name at all. Since this is so, we might better select a name with some logic instead of permitting the opposition to saddle us with an epithet.

Some of us call ourselves “individualists,” but others point out that the opposition often uses that word to describe a heartless person who doesn’t care about the problems and aspirations of other people.

Some of us call ourselves “conservatives,” but that term describes many persons who base their approval of an institution more on its age than on its inherent worth.

Many of us call ourselves “liberals.” And it is true that the word “liberal” once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding.

Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word “libertarian.”

Webster’s New International Dictionary defines a libertarian as “One who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action.”

In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence—legal or illegal—to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today.

A libertarian believes that the government should protect all persons equally against external and internal aggression, but should otherwise generally leave people alone to work out their own problems and aspirations.

While a libertarian expects the government to render equal protection to all persons against outright fraud and misrepresentation, he doesn’t expect the government to protect anyone from the consequences of his own free choices. A libertarian holds that persons who make wise choices are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their wisdom, and that persons who make unwise choices have no right to demand that the government reimburse them for their folly.

A libertarian expects his government to establish, support, and enforce the decisions of impartial courts of justice—courts which do not recognize or refer to a person’s race, religion, or economic status. If justice is to be rendered, the decisions of these courts must be as binding upon government officials and their actions as upon other persons and their actions.

A Libertarian respects the right of every person to use and enjoy his honestly acquired property—to trade it, to sell it, or even to give it away—for he knows that human liberty cannot long endure when that fundamental right is rejected or even seriously impaired.

A libertarian believes that the daily needs of the people can best be satisfied through the voluntary processes of a free and competitive market. And he holds the strong belief that free persons, using their own honestly acquired money, are in the best possible position to understand and aid their fellow men who are in need of help.

A Libertarian favors a strictly limited form of government with many checks and balances—and divisions of authority—to foil the abuses of the fearful power of government. And generally speaking, he is one who sees less, rather than more, need to govern the actions of others.

A libertarian has much faith in himself and other free persons to find maximum happiness and prosperity in a society wherein no person has the authority to force any other peaceful person to conform to his viewpoints or desires in any manner. His way of life is based on respect for himself and for all others.

A Libertarian doesn’t advocate violent rebellion against prevailing governments—except as a last resort before the concentration camps. But when a libertarian sees harm rather than good in certain acts of government, he is obligated to try his best to explain to others who advocate those measures why such compulsory means cannot bring the ends which even they desire.

The libertarian’s goal is friendship and peace with his neighbors at home and abroad.

The article above was written by longtime Foundation for Economic Education staffer Dean Russell. It was published in the book series “Essays on Liberty, Volume III” in 1958. Reprinted with permission. Originally published online here.

Read More

CEO Rants to Employees: If Obama Wins, You Might Get Fired

October 10, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

The following is a message that David Siegel, Founder and CEO of WestGate resorts, sent to his employees. This letter took guts, and it’s true. Obama’s policies will lead to people getting fired. It will be more expensive to hire employees, and that means less will happen. This is economically unavoidable. So good for him to have the guts to actually say it.

I’m a small business owner, my father is a small business owner, and most of my grandparents and uncles were small business owners. Anyone with any kind of background in running a business from start-up to an established agency knows exactly what Siegel is talking about, and I wish it was possible for everyone in America to read it and understand it.

To learn more about what real capitalism is, check our What Is Capitalism? page. We’re here to defend capitalism and not corporatism. To learn more about why “the rich” are being all “mean” about these things, learn more about how Obama is lying about taxes and why we need the 1%. The message from Siegel is below.

Subject: Message from David Siegel

Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)

From: [David Siegel]

To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can’t tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn’t interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn’t eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I’m the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I’ve made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn’t. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don’t pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50 percent of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50 percent of their hard work? Well, that’s what happens to me.

Here is what most people don’t understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore — to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don’t want you to know that the “1%”, as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, “democracy” will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It’s quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn’t? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the “1 percenters” are bad, I’m telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the “1%”; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

Read More

We Should Be Proud To Be Radicals

October 09, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

Just a few minutes ago, someone loudly left our Facebook page, saying we were too “extreme” because we used the phrase “huge issues” when talking about flaws within the GOP. In other words, they thought using those two words was just crossing the line when it comes to the GOP. They believed that being moderate “Republicans” was a better strategy than sticking up for principle.

In a sense, the real dangers of “extremism” are those who are so extremely blinded by party that they’ll defend their candidate no matter what. That’s why we’ve posted refutations of both Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson, though nearly all of our fans support one or the other candidate, and argue daily.

The truth matters more than party politics. Liberty is non-partisan. The people need the truth before they can vote for the “right” candidate. That’s why it’s a tragedy that the news agencies are so biased and are untrustworthy. If we truly care about the issues listed in our platforms, then we should be extremely critical of every word that comes out of “our” candidate’s mouth.

This is why Andrew Jackson was right:

“But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.

Everyone is so worried about the wrong “team” gaining the upper hand, they forget that the truth alone is more than enough to push the people in the right direction. The irony is that this fear of the truth “changing minds” ends up corrupting the entire system, and we end up with a politicized media, an ignorant population, and mindless parties fighting over pointless policies rather than the big issues.

This is one reason we haven’t “endorsed” anyone, and have no plans to do so. Our goal is economic and political literacy — the people can vote on the basis of that. This completely blows the minds of some people — they can’t process economic or political analysis without linking it to a “side”. This is what we have to fight against.

Even then, “extreme” isn’t a bad thing when you’re defending the truth. It’s wonderful. In a sense, it’s a moral duty of any free people to defend it. Barry Goldwater was right:

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!”

Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Madison, Adams — these were extreme men. Travis, Houston, Crockett — these were extreme men. And that’s not an insult — that’s a compliment. So next time someone says you’re too “extreme”, just remind them that you’re in the company of the greatest men in the history of civilization.

So here’s to the “extreme”, non-partisan view that liberty is the highest political value, that capitalism will solve our economic woes, and that justice should trump the socialist value of false “equality”.

Read More

Do You Secretly Hate The Rich?

October 05, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

We’re all just wasting our time until we finally work up the “politically incorrect” courage to say that economic bigotry isn’t something we should tolerate from anyone, whether they’re conservative, liberal, libertarian, or anything else. Economic bigotry is so common, it’s seeped into the rhetoric even of the capitalists who supposedly embrace every economic “class”.

So what is an “economic bigot”? Anyone who thinks it’s fine to steal from the rich but not the middle class. Anyone who thinks the rich should pay a higher rate of taxes than anyone else. Anyone who thinks that “middle class” is somehow a better background than “rich parents”.

Screw that. It’s disgusting, it’s weird, and it’s based on the new infatuation of people to obsess over bending over backwards so the most radical leftists will possibly be more “open” our view. It’s so common and “normal” now that it’s getting difficult for us to even see it happen. Look at any “fire them up” speech, and you’ll see the “middle class” glorified and the “upper class” ignored — at best.

It’s Not Better To Be Non-Rich

I remember one time in church, a visiting pastor gave this sermon that almost had me get up and leave. He glorified poverty for its own sake, and at one point, he said with an arrogant smile, “I don’t mean to brag, but I’m not rich.”

What the heck? Well, I’m glad you weren’t bragging, because that would be just a stupid thing to brag about. If you’re going to brag, at least do it about something you’ve done — not something you aren’t.

And this watering down of rhetoric doesn’t work. You don’t win points in the minds of others because you water down your rhetoric with Marxism and class warfare slogans of “help the middle class”… as though it’s possible to do that without helping the rich as well.

All that happens is that the average folks get used to getting a bizarre, envious narrative of “who cares if they’re rich” added to everything they think about politics, and that hurts everyone in the end. Including, ironically, the middle class. The universe has a sense of humor.

The Rich Get Richer With Capitalism. That’s Good.

It’s fine that the rich get richer with capitalism. That’s awesome. It’s wonderful. It’s also good because other people also are better off. Everyone sees their incomes go up. Everyone. Because remember, whatever is good for the middle class is going to be good for the poor and the rich as well. And that’s GOOD. Being in one income group doesn’t mean you have extra rights. It doesn’t mean you’re more important. That’s absurd.

That’s why we shouldn’t focus only on rhetoric of “well, we need more middle class jobs!” It’s not necessary and it creates invisible “class warfare” narratives in the minds of the listener.

So here’s to capitalism, to EVERYONE it helps, which includes the people with the huge houses, the expensive private schools, the private jets, and the luxurious lifestyles we’re trained to hate — because they have identical natural rights as anyone else.

By playing along with the Marxist word games, we’re just selling the socialists the rope they plan on hanging us with.

So next time someone says something negative about someone because their parents were successful, or they have millions of dollars they can spend on anything they want, or they have a car that is as expensive as some houses, just look them in the eye and say, “I know, isn’t that great? It should be more common.”

Down with every ounce of Marxism, whether in policy or rhetoric. If we don’t stop caving to every new angle of the left, we’re just wasting our time.

Read More

Obama Bribes Defense Companies To BREAK Law

October 03, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

In the past, Obama has flagrantly violated the law and has essentially led a campaign to undermine the constitution. He has ignored congress, passed legislation through executive orders, and has even taken over corporations. But now, he has “accomplished” what is likely the most corrupt scandal so far in his presidency.

He has told defense companies to ignore federal law requiring that they warn people of layoffs within 60 days of layoffs. His reasoning? It’ll hurt his reelection chances in swing states. In other words, he’s asking people to defy federal law for political gain. He wants an illegal advantage in the election.

But that’s not all — there’s more. Obama has promised the companies free legal fees being paid for by taxpayers for when employees sue the companies for breaking the law. I kid you not. He is promising to let corporations break the law and pay for their legal fees — so a bunch of people don’t support another candidate because of unemployment fears.

Investors Business Daily reports:

“When President Obama took the oath of office, he swore to uphold the Constitution and see that the laws of the United States were faithfully executed. He lied, and that lie was exposed in the administration’s weekly document dump last Friday.

It included a memo from the Department of Labor telling defense contractors not to obey the law and that, if they don’t, U.S. taxpayers will foot their legal bills when fired employees sue them for breaking the law.”

Obama is corrupt. His first election had his opponent — in Chicago, no less — bow out after a “scandal”. He came out of nowhere with powerful connections and has led one of the greatest economic heists in the history of man. And apparently, he’s willing to break the law to stay in power, even if that means bribing people with taxpayer money. Disgusting.

Read More

Urgent: Obama’s Angry Race Speech Surfaces

October 03, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

A new video has emerged today revealing what many have claimed all along: Obama is an angry racist who wants to use the redistribution of wealth to fix problems from “300 years ago”. Racial lines are drawn in the speech, and he’s angry. He also speaks with a strong accent that he has carefully deleted when in front of the public. He also then gives a “shout out” to Reverent Wright — the “Goddamn America” preacher. It’s enough to make anyone nauseous.

This is incredible. Imagine, for a moment, if a white candidate did this. Imagine if Rick Perry or Gary Johnson or Mitt Romney was caught giving a speech talking about “our neighborhoods” when he meant white people. Imagine if he was calling for money to be diverted from the ghettos to the “suburbs” while talking in a weirdly deep southern accent. Imagine the outrage. He’d have to resign because he knew exactly what he was doing — stirring up racial divide.

Later in the video, he talks about how we need to stop spending money on transportation for the “suburbs” and spend the money on “minority neighborhoods”, essentially painting the picture that we need to have a redistribution program based on racial preference — more radical leftism that’s amazing to even see him admit in any forum.

Like most angry, bitter elitists who wants to live a life of luxury redistributing the wealth of an entire economy, Obama has some completely weird views about the poor. He says:

“We can’t expect them [the poor] to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.”

Finally, he ended the speech with the claim that black people should be focusing on the past 300 years. He’s encouraging racial divide. He’s encouraging people to look at a white man and to think he must be privileged. He’s encouraging collectivism.

The Federal Government Should Give Money To Fix The Ghettos

Obama’s angry rant about the LA Riots and Katrina’s aftermath was to bash the federal government for not giving enough aid money, and in it he throws a jab at Anderson Cooper for not focusing on black people for long enough after some are done looting. The rant was weird and disgusting.

Perhaps more disgusting, he seems to be making excuses for the violent actions in the LA Riots and in New Orleans, as though it’s only natural for there to be murder and riots and looting and stealing when talking about poor black people. That itself should be insulting to every self-respecting person who is any color. Poverty doesn’t make you a criminal — it’s a choice.

Here’s Obama’s words:

“The federal response after Katrina was similar to the response we saw after the riots in LA. People in Washington, they wake up, they’re surprised: ‘There’s poverty in our midst! Folks are frustrated! Black people angry!’ Then there’s gonna be some panels, and hearings, and there are commissions and there are reports, and then there’s some aid money, although we don’t always know where it’s going — it can’t seem to get to the people who need it — and nothin’ really changes, except the news coverage quiets down and Anderson Cooper is on to something else.”

The federal government can’t fix the ghettos. More welfare won’t fix the plight of the poor. The government can’t change culture that way. Sorry, Obama.

Obama: Bitterness, Racism, Socialism, And The Great Lie

It never ceases to amaze me that Barack Obama ever even became president in the first place. His book “Dreams From My Father” has him openly admitting a radical leftist past of consciously picking Marxist professors, chasing after his father’s socialist view of the world, and looking at the world through the lens of an angry leftist who focuses on race. The book reads like a memoir of a racist communist — not the leader of the United States. How far we’ve fallen.

It’s an angry book by an angry man. And somehow, he softened his tone for an election, and everyone ignored everything about the man and made him president because of that change of tone. He said in his book that he used a “trick” to deal with white people that was “effective”:

“It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved – such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.”

In other words, Obama knows that by changing his behavior, he can exploit white guilt to do what others can’t do. And he’s so bold about it, he literally writes exactly what he’s doing in a book — and nobody seemed to notice or care. Maddening. The video and commentary can be found here or below.

Read More
« Older posts

  • Get The Newsletter:

    The media is trying to hide the truth, but now you can bypass them. Get our newsletter now:


Copyright Capitalism Institute, 2011-present.