Why Worry About the Gradual Loss of Our Liberties by David L. Wood - HTML preview

Chapter 6 – Conclusion

Never can reconciliation grow, where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.

-- John Milton 1 My purpose in spelling out this material is to clarify the objectives of these two competing systems of societal application: true Capitalism and creeping Socialism. To re-iterate, Capitalism is the system, which provides for the needs and wants of the consumers in the best and most efficient manner and produces private property.

On the other hand, Socialism is the philosophical, esoteric, and unsuccessful societal system based upon central control of the means of production and abrogation of private property. Said more simply, Capitalism creates an economic surplus that always eludes the socialists.

The majority of this country's students in our schools and universities are inculcated with a one-sided presentation of the collectivist societal system at the expense of the importance of the success and value of what has made Western civilization so productive. I have tried to emphasize the value of knowing the two sides of this history in order for students to learn the value of accurate debate. One-sided discourses hardly lead to the ability to think and compare, and therefore to debate. It is important also for our citizenry to understand the basis of this country’s success and the true history of its founding.

In democracy, Capitalism is the impetus to accomplish provision for the wants and needs of consumers in the most efficient manner and to produce private property. Under Capitalism, the phenomenal development of the successful society in the United States has occurred because of its freedom and unimpeded innovation, the sanctity of private property, and the creation of wealth. The magnificent growth, prosperity, and wealth here in the US have happened because of freedom for individuals to maximize their personal efforts for bettering their lives. These  include the freedom to pursue their separate goals of happiness and to enjoy the liberty to exchange freely with others.

The peaceful correctness of the system of unencumbered Capitalism is so convincing that I have presented material and definitions to clarify and promulgate a more accurate understanding of it in order to counter the too-often derelict education that denigrates it in the public schools.

In stark contrast to the positive capitalist system of expansion of societal development is the unsuccessful practice of Socialism, which is propagated by false claims and deception. Under it, personal lives are supervised and controlled to achieve general compliance.

In our country, people with the ‘liberal’ mentality, continually attempt to raise taxes to accomplish their conviction of the need to “redistribute the wealth” and to further the welfare state. In Socialism, individual freedom is subordinated to the wishes of a political ruling class who try to bend market forces to their personal aims. Succinctly, government intervention and ‘management’ hinder Capitalism.

As a belief system, all members of the socialist society are supposed to have no more property than anyone else. This results in lack of initiative, innovation, and self-reliance. The end point is extensive, overall poverty. When the central controls are imposed and maintained by the force of guns, then the same system becomes known as Communism.

Today, there is much impassioned belief in and zealous support for the ‘liberal’ (socialist) point of view by the teachers in our publicly supported colleges and universities and the media.2 The socialists (euphemistically called ‘liberals’) show no tolerance for any societal ideas of conflicting experience or viewpoints, and they are totally unwilling to listen to or try to comprehend any other opinion or belief. Some of them even go so far as to blame the United States for the hatred behind the terrorist act of September 11, 2001.

Also, they allow no room for any dissent regardless of its possible validity. At several New England Universities there are “speech  codes ” which exclude opinions labeled “conservative.” In fact, they attack all those expressing thoughts not in support of their programs. They move to wipe out all opposing ideas by verbal assault, personal criticisms, and often, invidious accusations. Yet, in our system of democracy, with the assurance of free speech, open debate should suffice to achieve acceptance or rejection of viewpoints by using the capability of rational thinking.

The requisite of true debate is for two opposing sides or views of a subject to be presented and discussed. Rational acceptance or rejection can occur using valid thought processes. Such open and honest debate is not in the ‘liberal’ intellectual realm of possibility, and I believe the ‘liberal’-minded adversaries would be glad if all opponents and disputants could be eliminated. They try to eliminate or reduce them by attacking those opponents personally as in elections where all manner of past questionable behaviors of dissenting contenders are “dug up” to try to discredit the persons.

The destruction of opponents by physical elimination doesn’t happen in this country, but it did go on in the Soviet Union and Germany (1933 to 1945) and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and it does now in Cuba, North Korea, various southern African countries, and under almost all dictators everywhere.

How to reintroduce the clarity of the “other side” to the ivy halls of learning will be difficult. Of help would be simply announcing to them why we would send our children to attend institutions that will teach true history, and by refusing endowment contributions to institutions of one-sided teaching. “Money talks,” and recipients of it listen. Thereby I believe changes would occur.

But, a large number of people and a large number of student applicants and families must act in concert for it to be effective.

I firmly believe that this situation must be rectified by the mechanism of free speech and presenting the truth of history. I do not advocate passing “a law” against one-sided  indoctrination because I am convinced that honest and open presentation and debate (the true market mechanism) can achieve lasting success.

There are many ‘liberal’ organizations such as the “the greens,” the ACLU, animal rights activists, and the Sierra Club, to name a  few, who lobby to promote their political agendas. To act with an effective voice, we diversified citizens who wish to pursue happiness in our own way find it difficult to be organized in a politically effective manner. However, acting in concert can be accomplished.

The citizens of California did it on October 7, 2003 by voting the recall of their ineffective governor when his oppressive ‘liberal’ politics, and high taxation blatantly affected them. This happened because talk show hosts and the printed media (in spite of their bias) disseminated the truth of the matter well enough that the citizens had the message of what was really affecting their lives and estates (pocket books). All the more reason for the understanding and dissemination of the material I am presenting.

Still, another means toward changing the present predicament is gradual introduction of teachers who understand and will desire to teach both sides of important issues. Add to that more teachers in the journalism schools who are dedicated to accurate newsgathering and reporting as opposed to the present drive to disseminate a collectivist prejudice that emphasizes, endorses, and promulgates the information that coincides with their partiality.

This is very important but will take years, even if those educators now “in control” work to maintain their fixed political ideas.

Listening to the television interview of former Vice-President Al Gore (whose philosophy is ‘liberal’-Left-wing) on the Fox News Channel’s Hannity and Colmes, on June 18, 2003, I found his indulgent, patronizing remarks about the “conservative nature” of this relatively young news channel to be condescendingly berating. Is he the spokesman for the ‘liberals?’ He totally disregarded the several personalities and guests on the channel who by their pronouncements and perspectives are clearly less than conservative.

What it amounts to is that any news program that dares to present both sides of political views must be ‘conservative’ in its basic policy.

Yet, the tremendous expansion of viewership of the Fox News Channel proves that people want to hear both sides of political and international news, and this confirms the tenuous position of the one-sided presentations by ‘liberalism’ through its voices in the many major news outlets in the visual media.3  Today’s ‘liberalism’ is nothing more than Socialism in sheep’s clothing. It is appalling to see the wide success the advocates of this ‘left-wing’ belief system have achieved in indoctrinating the minds of students and

citizenry over three generations in this country. Their point of view is propagated through our federalized school system in teaching distorted history and maligning the appreciation of the freedoms and liberty afforded by our Constitution and Capitalism. That unilateral point of view is reinforced and propagated daily by the media. And further, teaching that the US commits “imperialism” and “massacres” in third world nations is preposterous, but it has a deep-seated effect on miseducated and believing young minds.

Lenin4 once referred to willing accomplices of the Soviet belief system as “useful idiots.” Those were mindless and miseducated people in the Western democracies who would always find ways to excuse whatever the Soviet Union did. According to Thomas Sowell5, “These useful idiots were not pro-Communist. They were, and still are, anti- American. (Italics mine) They have contempt for the values of the American people and the principles on which this country was founded and built.” Adding disdain for the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America during school instruction affixes disrespect for the sense of pride in our country and system of growth. It is pathetic and downright un-American, and it progressed even to burning of the American flag back in the 1960s. To justify excuses for such action and pronouncements by the weak pretense of exercising “free speech” amounts to major misguidance and ingratitude.

Our Pledge remains a repeated statement of appreciation and loyalty to the greatest nation ever developed in this world.

Thank goodness there are still individual teachers who have their children recite the Pledge in school! As mentioned earlier (Chapter 1, The U.S. Republic), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, in May 2002, ruled that “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance must be eliminated primarily on the agreement with a lawsuit brought by a single individual in Sacramento, California based on his personal atheist belief.

That court action is on appeal to the US Supreme Court.

To continue with observations of destructive political action against the institutions of the United States and its security, is the alarming situation of the present bureaucratic procrastination for the rigorous and careful protection of our borders. This results in the immigration of thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants who cross those borders monthly and are given welfare and medical care at the expense of the legal citizenry. For our security and economic stability, this must be reversed.

Add to that government neglect, the unique brazenness of some illegal aliens’ families who could dare to bring a lawsuit against the Government of the United States for the deaths of their family members who died by unlawfully crossing over the unprotected borders into our deserts, and one beholds an arrogance of thinking that defies reason.

They claim the US did not provide “watering stations” for those who are already breaking

the law in crossing the border. This is occurring now, at the time of this writing. In my opinion it is a perversion for any law-respecting attorney even to consider such representation.

Critics of immigration laws claim that illegal aliens perform much work most Americans won’t do. This has validity, yet there are legal ways to handle the ‘work’ issue, such as issuing green cards.

But what of the high-cost of the welfare and medical care given to those illegal aliens? Also, what about the ease of border entry by terrorist aliens?6 We must remember and keep in focus that the government exists primarily to protect us citizens and our property.

In spite of a few examples of some large corporations caught in questionable accounting practices, many corporate accounting methods arguably are less flagrant or scandalous than methods used in government agencies. The hostile-takeover threat alone was a remarkably effective way of managing corporate accountability in the 1980s. The  recently exposed corporate accounting systems appear to be designed to minimize taxes and to claim exaggerated earnings, but the deceptions found in some private businesses pale in the light of unaccounted-for billions “lost” by several federal departments.

I do not disparage the present legal actions against the illegal, large corporate dishonest manipulations, and I do not make apologies for dishonesty in any form or in any organization.

However, the ‘liberal’ braying about a few (though large) cases of dishonest corporate accounting seems that they wish to imply that Capitalism itself is faulty, and therefore all businesses should be controlled and politically regulated. With that I disagree. It would only add more suppression and huge, unnecessary costs to the proper function of the free market.

To name a few instances of illegal accounting operations on the part of some large corporations or companies to try to illustrate the ‘wrongness’ of the whole capitalist system is as invalid as to claim that the existence of criminals demonstrates that all society is criminal. Dishonesty is not a function of true Capitalism. The unmanipulated system of Capitalism and free enterprise is successful.

Moreover, claims that Capitalism induces companies into “gouging” are also inaccurate because unrestrained market forces remedy “gouging.” To gouge, naturally would bring negative market reaction from the consumers, and the enterprise would suffer, if not go out of business. If Capitalism were the system by which entrepreneurs and business owners could “take advantage of” and “gouge” people, then there simply could not exist the natural market growth with the resultant high standard of living enjoyed in this great nation. Unlawful actions in business can be and are prosecuted, but each example of corporate wrongdoing can be matched by tens of thousands of examples of businesses’ rightdoing.

After studying the aspects of Socialism’s development and application as well as the consequences, it is undeniable that Socialism derives from a misleading but passionate belief structure sustained by subtle, deceitful tactics.

The writer Muravchik observes that Socialism has a religious fervor to it. The emotionality of it holds its adherents strongly with a ‘moral’ conviction. Their certitude of the “injustice” of the capitalist economy requires a dedication to “social justice” (as they  define it) and literal, material “equality of all” except for the ‘liberals’ and the academic intelligentsia who believe that they are “more equal than equal,” (Italics mine) as labeled by author George Orwell in describing the pig leaders in his Animal Farm.7 To illustrate my point, witness Senator Hillary Clinton in a recent interview with Barbara Walters about promoting Mrs. Clinton’s recent book, Living History. During the questioning, Hillary tried to justify her attempt to initiate her system of socialized medicine in 1993 by stating she was merely trying “to provide proper medical care for all.” In reality, that was simply a miscalculation and a blatant but premature attempt to advance her collectivist philosophy onto the whole country through her newly acquired political power. Thankfully, the country was still too well oriented to free enterprise to succumb to such a secretively hatched, ultraexpensive, and ill-conceived program.

 Hillary has always firmly believed in the socialistic redistribution of wealth and collectivist central control (and still believes in it), but she now cleverly masks it with benign-sounding goals of “equality and fairness.” She works to control and redistribute the country’s wealth but certainly not her own. It is Hillary’s socialist belief philosophy that makes her and her fellow ‘liberal’ believers so dangerous to our established system of Capitalism and democracy.

The perpetuation today of the socialist mentality takes the form of plain out-and-out anti- Capitalism with a surprising vehemence that defies rationality and translates to anti-war sentiment and anti-patriotism in America. The anti-war crowd insists that “war is immoral,” and demonstrates an astounding disregard for and non-appreciation of self- defense of our wonderful freedoms. Andrew Galambos calls such people “againsters.” True, war is hard to justify as “moral,” but self-defense is moral, and the dilemma of either a defensive war or being mercilessly attacked is a sad reality of our time.

The dogmatic socialist mentality derives from a belief system, which amounts to a religion without a God. The explanation of the meteoric growth of Socialism is the nature of its religion-like  ardor of propagation among peoples all over the world. The idea of a societal doctrine that would supplant democracy and organized religions with a conviction of how life ought to be lived (‘based on science’) has been astoundingly successful in its promulgation.

In spite of its unparalleled seduction, it not only has been disturbingly difficult to achieve (except with coercion), it has failed to deliver the remedy for want and deprivation. In fact, it makes things worse, and its economic performance has been dismal. Its protagonists have neither observed nor admitted that Socialism goes against human nature and individuality.

It appears that a paradigm can be as difficult to change as a physical addiction. It is so hard to change people’s paradigms because of the confidence they hold in their belief that they are educated correctly.* This might also add to the explanation of why so many intellectuals and ‘liberals’ continue to hold their viewpoints regardless of facts. There are few believers in Socialism who have bothered or been willing to review its history to discover its universal failure.

Earlier in this essay, I pointed out that the primary motivation for the Fabians, and the later US socialist leaders such as Walter Reuther, Lyndon Johnson, Norman Thomas and many others has been the quest for power, and it still is. With power they can further propel their socialist aims onto society. For example, witness the monumental use of power in passing the Medicare-Medicaid Law in 1965 by the socialist-believing President Lyndon B. Johnson and his ally, labor union leader Walter Reuther, despite the fact that half of those over 65 had their own medical insurance back then.8 Observe the degradation of the profession of medicine and the imperious disorder caused since that 1965 Act.

By understanding religious motivation, one can recognize the energetic pursuit of power to spread their ‘religion.’ Some leaders were sincere and earnest, such as Governor Bradford, Robert Owen, Brigham Young, and Clement Attlee, but the failures occurred in spite of their intentions. Successful results are not guar- * This concept is inspired by the unpublished lectures of Jay Stuart Snelson and used with verbal permission.  anteed by good intentions, religious fervency, or complete sincerity.

Evidence suggests, and I am convinced that, the ‘liberals’ are dedicated to the undermining of the superior system of Capitalism and controlling the wealth it produces in order to try to substitute their system of thinking and social structure. Socialism has never been successful, and when the victims of it finally recognize its fraud, the failure of it is hard (witness Robert Owen’s New Harmony in Illinois and Attlee’s England), but its advocates still believe in it. They go to extreme lengths to justify their position and to continue to attack Capitalism with its foundation of individualism and freedom. Nevertheless, to achieve political power is a strong motivation.

Negative criticism and continual opposition to positive programs reveal the socialists’ disdain for Capitalism, its principles, and the concept of loyalty to our country. It points to the fact that they favor weakening the basis of strength of character, morality, and the workings of capitalist growth in order to introduce their system of egalitarianism. That is the only way they have of pushing for and gradually substituting their system to replace what they believe is the “unjust” system of Capitalism.

The supporters of Socialism continually push for the coercive redistribution of the wealth of individuals. The most recent example is the present debate of “rebates of taxes” (in reality welfare awards) to those who do not even pay income taxes. The excuse was “fairness” because of the recent tax cuts awarded to those who do pay income taxes. The philosophy of Socialism relies on the undermining of the stability and intention of responsible, representative government and moral community action that is supported by the Rule of Law and the importance of the individual’s ownership of private property.

One of the most prominent conservative radio commentators complained on February 28, 2003 that he could not find a descriptive word to express the degree of irrational opposition by key Democrats to the conflict of war with Iraq and the support of our troops and of President Bush. It is my opinion that the  proper label for this cadre of Democrats is SOCIALIST, but certain descriptive adjectives should be added for quantitative emphasis such as: shameful, hateful, disgusting, reprehensible, disreputable, and indefensible.

In this work I have presented the history of tactics of the whole socialist thrust to further their collectivist program. When subtle, gradual subterfuge does not accomplish their goal, they then resort to more overt measures, like the pressure of street demonstrations and greater verbal attempts to influence government activities on their behalf. In other words, if citizens do not accept the socialist egalitarian program, the socialists push for bureaucratic influence and force. They just cannot respect the views or positions of anyone who does not agree with them, so they believe it is necessary to try to pressure people to accept what is ‘good’ for them. Their emotionally shrill speeches in front of adoring union and race groups inspire non-thinking “mob” reaction.

In the system of Capitalism, unbridled individual attainment, which contributes to the aggregate accomplishment of free men and women in reaching their individual goals, produces a wonderful sense of satisfaction in achievement and a pride not experienced in Socialism. And that also derives from the accumulation of personal wealth (private property).

 Nonetheless, the problem of the development of wealth in a democracy is the propensity for those in political office to get their authority status by promising to redistribute a percentage of the tax-skimmed-off wealth as “entitlements.” They can thus garner votes to gain that position and to perpetuate it. If unbridled, this can lead to huge budget deficits as noted in the State of California in 2002 into 2003. This condition is produced by unbounded use of tax revenues for social welfare and coercive regulation of businesses and private lives rather than their use for security and maintenance of infrastructure.

The Democrats’ recent negative foreign-policy position is producing support mostly from their narrow constituencies, and they are trying also to gain political success by resorting to frequent  and vituperative verbal attacks on the slow recovery of the economy.

At the same time they oppose true recovery measures such as President Bush’s income tax category reductions and his request for a $750 billion cut in the income tax. Although the Democrats preferred to raise taxes, they could not stop the $350 billion income tax- cut bill that was passed during the last week of May 2003.

Continual one-sided negative news reporting about the help to establish democratic stability in Iraq is resulting in people’s losing confidence in President Bush’s foreign policy, which in the longrun benefits our very security. There they go again; repeat a thing often enough, and many will come to believe it.

The continuous harangue of the socialist indoctrination to mislead students and others, in too many people results in a hatred of anything “capitalist” and establishes a negative, resentful association with the concept of Capitalism, which has to gnaw at the very feeling ability of the person embracing the structure of collectivism.

A continual diet of hearing about the ‘injustice’ of a free society simply must result in a great weight of negative comparison, which displaces all thought of creative inventiveness. It dwells on the shoulds of human activity as defined by the egalitarian sophistry. It thrives on the jealousy of comparison and inspires the bringing down of Capitalism. Jealousy and anger develop in the socialists when the bounties of earned profits from the free market mechanism accrue to the entrepreneurs, the investors, the technicians, and even to the workers.

Furthermore, continual negative criticisms produce consuming cynicism. Such cynicism emerges from the continual claims of the ‘injustice’ of Capitalism. Carrying negative, destructive, even vengeful feelings is harmful to the person who harbors those thoughts. First, negative thoughts displace positive and productive thinking. Second, negative thoughts fester and most usually worsen and lead to negative expressions and actions. Still, thoughts alone are in the mind of the thinker and do not bother or hurt the objects of those sentiments.

On the other hand, offensive actions and spoken, offensive words certainly can and do hurt others, but the point of this observation is to describe the deleterious effect of negative thinking upon the person harboring that thinking. In a word, when Socialism’s worth is propagated through aspersions of individuals and Capitalism, as socialists do by maligning and trying to discredit the system of Capitalism, then Socialism’s weaknesses are masked and are harder to detect, but the results are still negative.

In summary, the main conclusions we should draw and remember are based on the positive features of Capitalism in comparison with the negative features of its competing societal system, Socialism. The following is a list of the important features of each: Positive Features of Capitalism: 

1) It provides for the wants and needs of consumers in the best and most efficient way, 

2) It is based on private ownership of the means of production and the ownership of private property.

3) Under Capitalism, initiative, innovation, and self-reliance develop and thrive.

4) Free people can work and save and with savings, invest.

5) Capitalism develops private property, wealth, and prosperity.

6) It causes business efficiency, growth, and Improvement.

7) It develops “win-win” contracts (based on trust) and voluntary free associations.

8) Capitalism gives rise to free-market economics.

9) Free-market economics require life, liberty, and property.

10) Capitalism demands democracy.

11) Under Capitalism, each individual’s future depends on the efforts of each individual. Negative Hallmarks of Socialism: 1) It is control of society by a central committee or despot.

2) It means central government control of industry (the means of production).

3) It abolishes ownership of private property.

4) It redistributes wealth to cause all people to have the same.

5) Socialism controls lives and reverses liberty.

6) It represses initiative, innovation, and self-reliance.

7) It subjugates the individual to interests of the state.

8) It promotes racial preferences (affirmative action).

9) It promotes class-envy.

10) Socialism subverts moral standards and education.

11) It rewrites history and undermines the US Constitution.

12) Its proponents relentlessly criticize Capitalism, capitalists, and conservatism to try to promote Socialism.

13) Socialism requires coercion and in some countries shutting people up in concentration camps (and even murder).

14) Every societal attempt to institute Socialism has failed.

Knowing the above listed aspects of the two main Western societal systems will develop understanding of freedom versus central control. These features will also help further development of an understanding of coercive subjugation versus personal liberty. One  can then appreciate also the difference between private control and central control of society and the means of production.

Knowing the difference between freedom and coercion, we will recognize the gradual and subtle introductions of socialistic influences and laws, which will negatively affect free men’s lives.

Hopefully this will help in opposing those subtle insertions.

These understandings will affect all our everyday lives and choices.

Moreover, one should ponder the many aspects of the current, crept-in socialistic aspects to our economic system in America; namely, the present welfare state and its hampering effect on individuals, oppressive taxation, inheritance taxes, and the many arbitrary and restrictive interferences with private businesses, like requirements of minimum wages and compulsory liability and medical insurance coverage.

We must also recognize the rewriting of history and the one-sided education of societal systems in our institutions of education.

Furthermore, we must recognize the negative effects of the attacks upon standards of propriety and morality. And it is very important that we must recognize the detrimental attempts to weaken the departments of the armed forces, Homeland Security, the FBI, and the CIA. Is the welfare state more important than the security of the whole country?

Once the vast differences of the two systems are recognized and understood, it is hugely important that we should teach our children about the American democratic and Capitalism way of life.

We must teach the true history of the creation of this great United Stat