What could be worse than having Scott Brown as the Senator from Massachusetts? Having Elizabeth Warren as the Senator from Massachusetts.
Warren is a Harvard Professor. In other words, she is somewhat to the left of Karl Marx. Having spent her life in academia and not in the real world, she has no clue how a business or an economy really works.
From CBS News:
An August video of Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren on the campaign trail is heating up on the internet, and some commentators are pointing to the clip - in which Warren makes a case for progressive economic policies - as evidence that the newly minted Democratic candidate could give incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown a run for his money.
In the video (at left), which was filmed at an event in Andover, Mass., Warren rebuts the GOP-touted notion that raising taxes on the wealthy amounts to "class warfare," contending that "there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."
Warren rejects the concept that it is possible for Americans to become wealthy in isolation.
"You built a factory out there? Good for you," she says. "But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."
She continues: "Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
Guess what Elizabeth? That is what local government exist for. Real Americans go out and create real businesses. More and more, real Americans are creating businesses, jobs and wealth in spite of the best efforts of the Obama regime.
What Elizabeth Warren is trying to say is shut up and pay your taxes that we are about to jack up.
Why should we pay more taxes for, well not for police and fire, but so the Obama regime can line the pockets of its supporters? Why should we pay more taxes so we can fund all kinds of nasty regimes across the world, who pocket our money and still hate us? Why should we pay more in taxes so that money can be sent to Acorn and similar groups so they can engage in vote fraud? When the government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year, why are we supposed to just sit back and let them cram more taxes down our throats.
Not only no, but hell no!
Scott Brown is bad. Elizabeth Warren is a nightmare. We need to make certain she is never elected as a United States Senator.
Elizabeth Warren is one of many nightmares.
She and all the others are proof of why we need a complete separation of state and economics. That's essentially what the founding fathers had in mind and what the Constitution (almost) completely mandates.
Slavery was one self-contradiction contained in our nation's founding documents. Our HIGHLY principled Framers knew that, unfortunately, a compromise was necessary ON A PRINCIPLE if they were to get any kind of constitution agreed upon. So . . . we got a near-perfect but not completely perfect document, and that self-contradiction led eventually to a civil war.
Unfortunately, as knowledgeable as the Framers were of basic economics, the topic was a fairly new area of human knowledge and formal intellectual inquiry. All the Ts hadn't yet been crossed, nor all the Is dotted, and this was not completely accomplished until the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises completed his book "Human Action." Because a full understanding of economic laws and their consequences had not yet been attained at the time of our nation's founding, the Framers -- as knowledgeable as they were -- lacked a few bits of knowledge in that area which resulted in a couple of other self-contradictions in the Constitution they gave us.
What the Framers did know was correct, but they didn't know in their lifetimes everything about economics that is available for freedom lovers and individualists to know today.
The Framers' "instincts" were rock-solid, though I hate to use "instincts" since they acted on the basis of reason and rigorously logical thinking. But what they did know, albeit incompletely about the details of economic laws, did give them a means for judging pretty accurately what was best policy in the few little areas where they lacked knowledge. Unfortunately however, they weren't 100% accurate, and did leave the door open for a very few areas where they permitted the federal gov't to interfere in the economy. Like the roads and the Post Office.
The Interstate Commerce clause -- when properly understood and applied -- is NOT an interference in economics any more than laws against shooting people are interference in an individual's right to bear arms. However, even the Interstate Commerce clause has been perverted from its original PROPER intent to rationalize all kinds of gov't interference in the economy. So, given that the Constitution explicitly permits such interference via the roads and Post Office, it is no surprise that the principle of NO gov't interference in the economy has been vulnerable to abrogation. If the anti-Constitutionalists were able to twist a valid provision (Interstate Commerce clause) which actually did NOT permit economic activities by the Federal Gov't into a justification for such activities, naturally it has been a piece of cake for them to tweak a couple of explicit provisions enabling gov't interference into a justfication for still other interferences.
This is just another example of the PRINCIPLE that even the smallest compromises ON a principle can ultimately be fatal for the compromised principle.
Viewpoints such as the one Elizabeth Warren takes are widespread, but they would long ago have been easily demonstrated to be absolutely taboo had the Framers (a) left the postal road system and Post Office to the states or private individuals, and also (b) included explicit language in the Constitution denying the Federal Gov't any authority to go into a business or otherwise interfere in the economy.
If, as, and when real patriots are able to get our nation back on the right track again, it will be ultra important to improve on the brilliance behind our existing Constitution by sealing off the very few little dark corners where it incompletely protects the kind of society the Framers envisioned, and thereby lets the do-badders in under the door.
The phrase "the common welfare" is a related problem for another discussion. It has been taken to mean economic welfare through specific economic actions by the Federal Government by many who do not understand that the meaning of the phrase was quite different when the Framers used it. People equivocate on both words of that phrase, but the more fatal one is the word "common." "Common" has 2 meanings:
The first meaning is "frequently occurring." EG, "The advocacy of low taxes is a commonly held position," or "refrigerators are commonly found in US households," or "Rain is common in tropical climates."
The second meaning is "universal." EG, "A heart and lungs are common to all living mammals" or "the right to bear arms is common to all law-abiding American citizens."
The first meaning intends to allow for some exceptions, while the second does not permit any.
While I've found no explicit reference to this specific semantic or philosophical issue, I think it's clear from the other writings of the Framers about their intentions that in the "common welfare" phrase, they intended the second meaning. The entire gist of the Bill of Rights, for one example, is to state explicitly certain rights that all citizens have in COMMON with each other vis-a-vis the federal gov't. And the principle of "equality before the law" also implies that the law must not be used in a way that benefits some at the expense of others. The Federal Gov't was supposed to be perfectly even-handed toward the rights of every individual, and to restrict itself to actions which NO ONE could claim had violated their rights, the rights which all citizens held equally IN COMMON.
There are other arguments for this view of the Framers' intent, but there's no need to gild the lily here. Unfortunately, not only have I failed to come across this particular discussion of the meaning & intent of "the COMMON welfare" in the Framers' writings, but neither have I found it discussed anywhere else!! Yet I think it is quite clear what was intended, and that the two examples of arguments just given are sufficient by themselves to prove this.
So let's ask WHAT could possibly be in the interest of ALL citizens of the new nation, without exception? What is it which is amongst the government's otherwise legitimate functions, and which does not violate any of the Constitution's other explicit or implicit restrictions on those functions, but which is so fundamental, it is in EVERYONE'S common interest?
The answer is so fundamental it is to be found in the Declaration of Independence. It is: every man's right to his own life, his liberty, and his pursuit of what will make him happy. In short, it is FREEDOM. It is liberty, or freedom, which is a benefit common to all men, as opposed to slavery or partial slavery. Freedom means a pre-existing sanction of ANY action a man chooses to take which does not violate the rights of another man to his freedom. Freedom means freedom FROM SOMETHING, and that something can only be the acts of other men attempting to interfere with his rightful actions.
No one has a right to be free from rain, or cold, or sadness, or high calorie foods, or ignorance, or ... etc. Freedom can only be denied a man by OTHER MEN, which includes the men in the government enforcing its laws. This, I submit, is the common interest of all Americans, FREEDOM. It is the one benefit a government can recognize and protect which "provides for" the welfare of all citizens. One is free only when the unalienable rights he was endowed with are NOT interfered with by others, and THAT is the entire purpose of the Constitution -- to implement this protection of the inherent rights of every individual as they are defined in the Declaration; to create a government for themselves which will give them the one thing that benefits them all, while inflicting harm on no one. Freedom to pursue one's unalienable rights is the ONLY thing a gov't can attempt to ensure which meets this criterion. The achievement of "freedom for all" (another phrase in support of my argument about the meaning of "common" above) can never be a threat to any one. A gov't which were to enable some men to deprive others of their rights, ie of their freedom of action, would not be protecting the rights or the freedom of all, by definition.
It's time we made it very EXPLICITLY clear in our discussions and debates and arguments, that the issue is not what people need for the material improvement of their lives VERSUS their rights. What they all need IN COMMON to further their lives, create abundant wealth and material progress, as well as having a life they own and can enjoy in each one's individually chosen manner, is FREEDOM. We need to argue that YES, in the short run, when you take $1 or a piece of land or other property from a man who owns it and give it to another, the other benefits, and the FINANCIAL "welfare" of the recipient is improved. But this violates the FREEDOM of the first man to pursue his happiness. And once the violation of the principle of "freedom for all" has occurred, no one's freedom is safe. The recipient of the material benefit today, may be the victim of such an act tomorrow. It is most definitely NOT on the list of things "in the COMMON welfare of all," to violate the unalienable rghts of one in order to confer a benefit on another.
The ONLY benefit the gov't can provide that is amongst the things which promote the welfare which all share in COMMON, is: FREEDOM. And the fact is that over the long run freedom does confer all kinds of welfare to people which no system of incomplete freedom can match. When someone therefore points to a fleeting material benefit for one group which must be purchased at the expense of diminishing another group's full freedom, the correct response is to say that the beneficiaries of this largesse don't know what's good for them; they have had their own best welfare compromised and reduced by losing something far FAR more conducive to their genuine and permanent welfare: a society where their own freedom as well as all others' is protected, not violated.
Strange you should bring up "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis", I was just re-reading chapter 7 the other day on "Distribution of Wealth" and everything that Ludwig von Mises pointed out seems to be part of the Democratic parties' goals.
Thank you for your article.
Liz Warren: after you obscure your carpetbag, please recall that industries were at one time fiscally responsible to their base communities. As usual, libs treated them as an ATM, alienating them and forcing relocation or failure.
This, along with other liberal bullying began years ago, in attempt to displace workers and destroy that muddle class treated to feigned worship by BHO et. al.
Scott Brown hasn't always done as wished but voting his return to the Senate is my sworn civic duty.
(I'm resident of Mexichusetts) ~