Back to Basics:

For the most part, this blog is my somewhat futile attempt to teach and expound on the founding principals of the United States. I think this "Back to Basics" approach is necessary because of the almost complete ignorance on matters as simple as the difference between Capitalism and Socialism or why the founders declared their independence from the most powerful empire in the world and in little more than 200 years eclipsed that same empire as the premiere power in the world. It is not mere coincidence that a young upstart nation of dubious origins assumed easily outpaced and outclassed other nations with thousands of years of history to back them up. The principal reason for America's success is Freedom. Freedom in all it's forms is central to the America's prosperity, economic, social, political, religious, they combine together to form the pallet upon which the American masterpiece has been painted. Ignorance of this fact is the most expensive thing we pay for in this country, because one can not know right from wrong if he has no knowledge or experience from which to compare it to. That is exactly why I continue to pound away at the need for more education on history and civics.. unfortunately both myself and people like me are often ignored, thus necessitating this blog and editorial pages across the nation. It's a big giant circle.. fun huh? Without much further ado.. let's get the show on the road!

Capitalism vs. Socialism:
At it's core, the battle between capitalism and socialism is the battle between those that wish to achieve much by their own merit, and those that wish to achieve much at the expense of others. The founders of this nation intended for America to be a "Meritocracy," where those that had both the drive and talent can succeed and rise to the top tiers of society; a sharp contrast to the nobility and aristocracy they left behind in England. It has been said that capitalism's inherent flaw is the unequal distribution of blessings and socialism's inherent flaw is the equal distribution of misery. I think Churchill said that beauty, but since I'm lazy, I'll just leave that one as it is. Freedom is a difficult concept to understand, but at it's core, to my mind, freedom is an economic concept. If you are not free to keep the fruit of your labor, or to own private property then you are not free. If the founders were willing to start a revolution because of perceived unfair taxes, or for abuses of private property rights, the idea of communism or it's transitional cousin, socialism should be out of the question for anyone living in America that has any grasp of history.

Let's take a look at what Thomas Jefferson thought about "redistribution of wealth."

Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Thomas Jefferson, again: "Congress has not unlimited power to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." They argued, the Founders argued over this whole inclusion of promote the general welfare, what are people going to think that means? There is evidence galore that they did not ever intend that to be interpreted as redistribution. "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another ... shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

It doesn't sound to me like he was very much in favor of socialism, or anything even remotely resembling it. I could put dozens of quotes up here that would lay clear the stark differences between American rugged individualism and European socialism but despite their eloquence I think their influence wanes with the passage of time. Nonetheless, should you wish to read something truly inspiring; I submit to you President Washington's First Inaugural Address. I can safely say that no one in modern day politics would have the strength of their convictions to deliver such an address, and that perhaps is the most lamentable critique one can offer about the state of America's politics as usual.

It was said that the founders had an inherent distrust and disdain for pure democracy. They called it "mob rule." The reason being, is that if you can get enough people to covet something enough, then you could have the government forcibly take wealth, property, or freedoms from a person or group. That is why America was founded as a democratic republic where representatives were elected by their peers to promote their interests in the government. I bring this up, because a striking parallel can be drawn between socialism and mob rule. In a socialist society, should one person happen to amass any amount of wealth above the rest, it would have be taken away and redistributed amongst the masses. Ultimately it ends right back at the beginning. Capitalism promotes growth, which creates wealth, which is the inspiration for people to come from all around the world to come to America to make their fortune. Socialism promotes mediocrity, which creates economic malaise, which is the reason why no socialist/communist state has ever prospered or succeeded in the history of the world. In the final analysis, we give government a monopoly on force, not to forcibly redistribute the wealth we as private citizens create, but to protect it from just such an action; in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:

This is audio of an interview that Senator Obama did in 2001 on Chicago Public Radio. Remember this is way before he was in the public eye or in line to be the Democrat nominee to be President of the United States. There is honestly enough material in this clip to write a whole blog on, and I may yet do so further along in the week. This is something of a rare moment for a politician, a moment of truth.. though in today's America, is it bad to want the government to forcefully take from one group of people and give it to another? We'll see on Nov. 4th.



I wonder if Senator Obama would recognize this quote, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." For those that don't know, it's the Presidential Oath of Office. For a man that wants the courts to "break free of the constraints of the Constitution;" I don't think he could honestly take this oath.

Random Thoughts:
This may never start,
We could fall apart,
And I'd be your memory..
Lost your sense of fear,
Feelings insincere,
Can I be your memory?

So get back, back, back to where we lasted,
Just like I imagined,
I could never feel this way..
So get back, back, back to the disaster,
My heart's beating faster,
Holding on to feel the same..

Quote of the Entry: "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
-Thomas Sowell (June 30, 1930– ) is an American Economist and Political Commentator