The Trouble With Communism

'Capitalism' was a word coined by Karl Marx as a term of derision for free market economies. Knowing this, I refuse to call it capitalism anymore. But I digress. Jordan Peterson explains the fundamental errors in the Communist Manifesto. 

This must have been part of a symposium about forms of government, or political systems. There are two other panel members with very dour looks on their faces, which leads me to believe that they are from a different school of thought from our friend JP.

Important Principles to Reflect on For Independence Day

Read this first: What the Declaration of Independence Said and Meant, by Randy E. Barnett.

This should be required reading for all Republicans and by all school children. Mr. Barnett comments on the text of the Declaration of Independence, which we supposedly celebrate on Independence Day. Maybe. Here's the preamble, in case you forgot:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

How to Perpetrate and Perpetuate Lies

Prologue 

Around the turn of the 20th Century, the industrial revolution was in full swing. Mass production and assembly lines were beginning to develop. Seeing the success in one field, people assumed it would work in other fields, like public schools. Schools that once considered students as customers, under this new vision, began to think of their students as products. They even instituted "quality control" measures, such as standardized tests, to make sure the product was uniformly homogenized.

Labor saving devices and inventions were revolutionizing farming and construction, as well as housework. Simultaneously, other ideas, such as the effects of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto, along with the eugenics movement, were all contributing to the idea that we were 'progressing' into a brave new era of human development. 'Progressivism' was the word given to people who bought into this movement. Of course, it was anything but progress, but political forces like to redefine the language to create buzzwords that will get people to buy into the scheme.

Within a few decades, many of the 'progressive' agenda items were discredited, especially after the real Nazis demonstrated what eugenics and socialism were actually all about. So the 'progressives' renamed themselves 'liberals', and partially eschewed eugenics, but socialism and communism thrived in their minds (the brutality of actual communist implementations, like the USSR, North Vietnam, Red China, etc., drove communism underground for a while, but it's having a mainstream resurgence these days).

About the Buzzwords

The word 'liberal' means of, or pertaining to liberty. But the dictionary actually lists "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." as the first definition! Liberty isn't mentioned at all! The word 'progressive' means of, or pertaining to progress. But the dictionary actually lists "(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas." How does this happen? Deliberately! Someone picked a word and started using it for their movement, until the old context was drowned out. The deception was complete!

I understand that words and the language evolve, and words can take on nearly opposite meanings from what they once were. It's just important that we understand that the new meaning is based on a lie, and that the subliminal message is deliberate.

Epilogue

Consider the following: Let's say that in 1913, people of the Republican Party decided to call themselves 'beneficials', on the grounds that ideas like limited government, free markets, equal justice, personal freedom, personal responsibility and charity are beneficial to society, and are superior to any alternatives. After 75 years or so, the first definition for the word 'beneficial' might be "(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing limited government, free markets, equal justice, personal freedom, personal responsibility and charity." Hey, maybe we Classical Liberals should start calling ourselves 'beneficials'!

A Better Pledge of Allegiance

I have always objected to the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. A flag is a graven image. It represents something, but it doesn't define anything. I think the Constitution of the United States is the thing that all Americans, not just politicians, in their all too soon forgotten oath of office, should be pledging allegiance to, and pledging to uphold and defend. We can still stand and salute the flag while we're saying it, but here's what I think we should say:

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America. And to the republic, which it defines: One nation, with individual liberty, natural rights, and equal justice for all.

I deliberately omitted the words "indivisible" and "under God".

I omitted indivisible, because the Constitution does not deny states the right to secede if they believe the federal republic is destructive to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness (including property rights) of the citizens of those states.

I omitted "under God" in favor of "natural rights", which has the same meaning to everyone, regardless of faith. Natural rights come from nature, or nature's God, and not from government. Government cannot grant rights; it can only protect them. Government cannot create new rights; they already exist. They're natural. "Under God" means "natural rights" to Christians, but not everyone else "gets it".

Also notice that I changed "justice for all" to "equal justice for all", to distinguish it from "social justice". Social justice is a form of social engineering that uses the government to redistribute wealth according to how a select few think it should be distributed. Equal justice means everyone is treated the same under the law, and it is up to individual citizens to decide how best to care for one another.

The Constitution cannot uphold and defend itself. We the People must demand it. Repeating the pledge of allegiance to the Constitution at every public gathering would go a long way towards reminding people to demand it, and our public servants to heed it.

Protesting the Exception; Neglecting the Rule

I object to the protests and die-ins all over the United States about Garner and Brown. They're promoting a false narrative, with weak minds -- tools -- jumping on the bandwagon in order to feel good about themselves. Talked into protesting to promote an agenda.

"Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" and "I CANT BREATHE" [sic] are provably false narratives, with the intent to make people draw false conclusions. False narratives have us trying to fix non-existent problems, while we ignore the real problems.

It is easy to slice and dice the population into grievance subsets. Usually these statistics are misleading when taken out of their original context. Usually there is more to the story than the raw data. If blacks are over-represented in our prisons, or if blacks are over-represented in the arrest records, what is the real reason for it? Racism is too easy an answer. It is much more likely that the real answer lies in our government attempts to "help" these people. The welfare state has devastated the black family. It is much more likely that more blacks (and other minorities) tend to congregate in the inner cities, where youth of all colors, having nothing better to do, tend to form feral gangs. The residents of these neighborhoods (also primarily minorities) want the cops to protect them from these roving thugs. It's a Catch-22, isn't it?

The Brown case started out with police following up on a robbery call, and then coincidentally trying to help a person wandering aimlessly in the middle of the street. It escalated when the drug-addled perp started acting randomly and dangerously. In the Garner case, the police were doing their job, enforcing idiotic legislation that makes it illegal to sell loose cigarettes on the street. We should be asking why it is illegal to do that, and many other normal human activities that have been over-criminalized.

The thing is, police misconduct is the exception, not the rule. Police racism is the exception, not the rule. Everyone should question authority, but question the proper authority. Maybe we should be asking why police need MRAP vehicles. Where is this mindset coming from? Higher up, I'll wager. In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama spoke of "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." [as our military]. That doesn't sound good at all. I bet these tools protesters don't realize they're protesting Barack Obama's agenda. Instead of focusing on social justice, we should be focusing on freedom and equal justice for all -- at the institutional level. This is a political problem, not a police problem.