Surprise, Surprise—Hollywood Fails Capitalism 101

In deciding what movie to see this weekend, I decided to go with The Wolverine over Elysium (basically because all I’ve heard about this movie is that it’s a socialist propaganda film) and save myself a headache. But leave it to Hollywood to turn any movie into an anti-capitalist manifesto. Karl Marx would be so proud.

I’ll get right to my issue with this film: The villain of the movie, known as Viper, describes herself as “a chemist, a nihilist, a capitalist….” Now, aside from the fact that such an attack on capitalism is expected from Hollywood (how many movies have been produced within the last decade alone where the villain is not a businessman or some profiteer out for blood?), what really had my eyes rolling is the fact that nihilism is packaged in with capitalism. They could not be more opposite.

Nihilism is basically the rejection of truth and reality and the embrace of destruction for the sake of destruction. It’s a creed held by the envious who believe they cannot lift themselves up so they find solace in tearing people down. The nihilists seek to destroy value wherever it exists because they are incapable of producing value themselves, even when that value produced by others benefits them. Nihilism is lose-lose.

Capitalism is the socio-economic system that rewards those who create value and trade value for value via the marketplace for personal profit. Success and prosperity goes to the best producer of value for their customers. Capitalism is win-win.

Packaging such premises together is just plain ignorant and dumb and just goes to show how egregious Hollywood can be in pushing an anti-capitalist agenda (no wonder they are such ardent supporters of President Obama).

Obama Declares Liberty A ‘Bumper-Sticker Theory That Doesn’t Work’

“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.” -Ayn Rand, 1975

The above quote from Ayn Rand was not meant to be a prophecy, but a warning. With the recent attack on liberty, individual rights, and free markets by President Barack Obama, it makes me wonder if it is now too late to heed that warning. 

Back on September 8, 2011, I wrote “Pres. Obama: ‘Rights, What Are They Good For?’” In this post, I highlighted a chilling quote from the President’s jobs speech to a joint session of Congress that really spoke for itself in terms of the tyrannical views Obama holds regarding the relationship between government and man. Well, he’s at it again:

The first issue I take with Obama’s speech is when he says free markets/liberty “doesn’t work” and that “it has never worked.” How so? By what standard? If we are to take “works” to mean benefits, then surely, there is no system that “works” for 100% of the people. Capitalism does not “work” for thieves, murderers, and other rights-violators. Communism doesn’t “work” for the businessman, the inventive genius, the productive class. Serfdom doesn’t “work” for the peasant. Obama seems to have set up a false standard and then singles out the only true hope for mankind, the only system based on man’s rights.

The second issue I take with his speech is that he associates free markets with “the last decade.” This could not be further from the truth. George W. Bush was not the free market president many on the left paint him to be. Between all of the interventionist laws and regulations (Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Prescription Drug Plan D for senior citizens, the corporate bailouts, and the incandescent lightbulb ban just to name a few), it absolutely amazes me that people actually believe we had anything that even remotely resembled a free market under Bush. What is even more shocking is the actual number of new regulations added to the Federal Register during his presidency. According to an analysis done by Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, from 2001 to 2007, a net 13,652 pages were added to the Federal Register¹ (If you do the math, it averages to approximately 6 pages of added regulations EVERY DAY!). A Heritage Foundation report “Red Tape Rising: Regulatory Trends in the Bush Years,” also affirms those conclusions. So much for deregulation! 

Now, aside from ignoring history, Obama is also ignoring objective morality (although in his defense, he seemingly doesn’t know any better). What is evident is that he is embracing a rather mystical governing philosophy not grounded in reality (sort of like the absolute monarchs back in the day who claimed their power came directly from God himself). When Obama states that the free market “doesn’t work” and “has never worked,” he is saying that tyranny and oppression do. He is saying the mechanism of VOLUNTARY association must be thrown out and replaced. He is saying that governments must initiate FORCE against individuals, and hence, thwart their rights, in order to arrive at some end that he believes will be beneficial to everyone. Do you see the circular logic in that argument? The violating of an individual’s rights does not benefit him...EVER! It does, in fact, do the exact opposite. When governments are empowered to violate the rights of their citizens, it most certainly ends in absolute tyranny. History provides many examples of this, be it Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or even modern day North Korea and Iran. 

The sad truth is that President Obama does not believe in liberty. Not yours, not mine, not anybody’s. The only thing he does believe in is the government’s power over you. It should be no surprise now that even the left is beginning to criticize Obama and call him out on his despotic policies: 

On a final note, remember all that “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” mantra we heard from Obama during his 2008 campaign? Well I got one for him: Mr. President, you can put a suit and tie on a tyrant, but he’s still a tyrant!

______________________________________________________________________

Endnotes
¹http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off

OWS & Constitution Day- These Truths Are Self-Evident

“[I] would come down on the left of center... I'm on the left because I think there [should be] a little more attention to human needs than to property rights.” -George Carlin

Let me be the first to say I fully respect and recognize the rights of the people to assemble and to protest—peacefully. After all, these rights were specifically recognized in the First Amendment of our Constitution. That's not my issue with the Occupy Wall Street protesters at all (and to be honest, it's about time Americans pay attention to what is going on).

With that said, I'd be remiss if I did not draw some obvious conclusions about the fundamental nature of this movement. As we all know, the OWS uprising started on September 17th—the day we as Americans celebrate the signing of our Constitution. Has anyone wondered why? Out of the 365 days in the year, why that day? 

Well, it's important to understand two very important facts:

1. The Constitution is the very document that limits the power of the federal government in the interest and protection of everyone’s Individual Rights (that among these are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness).

2. Capitalism is the predominant economic system of the US and is synonymous with our freedoms because it is the system of individual rights. 

It’s quite clear, from much of the signage I have witnessed with my own eyes and the chants I have heard with my own ears, that the OWS crowd as a whole has a problem with these two concepts. It is quite evident to me that they chose to hijack Constitution Day for one reason and one reason only: because it was symbolic to their mission of undermining individual rights (specifically, those of the "rich"). 

If not a system of individual rights, then what? 

Again, look no further than what the aggregate of OWS is championing: Human Rights. 

What's the difference?

As George Carlin so plainly pointed out in the quote above, some would rather have a system where human needs trump property rights of an individual. In a previous posting entitled "Objectivism in Practice- JPMC Donates 'Unprecedented' $4.6M to the NYPD; OWS Suggests Nefarious Motive," I questioned the sanity of the uprising calling for government force to redistribute wealth while simultaneously calling for "Human Rights." Their motives and "logic" have become more clear to me now. OWS's idea of human "rights" is different from individual rights in that it separates property out of the realm of “rights,” doing so by perverting the very concept of “rights” and treating property as a need-based entitlement to be redistributed from the haves to the have-nots, and in this case, to do so via mob rule (yes, this is what Democracy looks like!). If the people of OWS had it their way, citizens would have the “right” to vote on tax rates of a particular group of people, say, millionaires (is this beginning to add up to you, too?). Those “Human Rights NOW!”, “Tax the Millionaires!”, “People Before Profits!” and “Robin Hood Was Right!” signs are starting to make sense now. For what it's worth, here’s a link to the OWS website somewhat describing their vision (though it is not very substantive or rational): Replace Capitalism With Democracy

What is odd, and what the OWS crowd doesn't seem to understand is that you cannot have one without the other; no human rights without property rights fully respected. As Ayn Rand noted in The Virtue of Selfishness:

There is no such dichotomy as "human rights" versus "property rights." No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the "right" to "redistribute" the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat human beings as chattel.

And that's exactly how the OWS crowd would like to treat that top 1% they like to denigrate—like chattel. Going back to the “majority rule” aspect of property redistribution, it’s no wonder they like to call themselves the “99%” (although the numbers hardly add up); they propagandize this notion that they are an overwhelming majority in order to seek legitimacy and authority to justify their calls for theft.

(As a side note, to further tie this to reality, we also saw this false human rights/property rights dichotomy with the healthcare overhaul. Remember the "healthcare is a human right!" mantra we heard from the Democrats and leftist organizations not too long ago? Somehow, the product of the effort of others becomes a “right” to be seized and redistributed, because of course, that’s the humane thing to do. Yes, according to this philosophy, its humane to treat people like slaves.) 

It is this very notion of human “rights” that is so detrimental to the future sustainability of our Republic. What we need desperately in this country is to have the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of the 100% upheld, respected, and reinstated fully. That will not happen until property rights are respected absolutely!

Whenever you hear someone make this false dichotomy between human "rights" and property rights, you can try to get through to them using a personal mantra of mine: Property Rights are Human Rights are Individual Rights are Absolute!

Objectivism in Practice- JPMC Donates 'Unprecedented' $4.6M to the NYPD; OWS Suggests Nefarious Motive

The "Occupy Wall Street" protest, now in its third week, has recently brought to light (que the sarcasm!) a disgraceful act committed by banking giant J.P. Morgan Chase: Charity! $4.6 million to be exact, donated to New York City’s finest. 

While OWS suggests on its website a causal link between the anti-capitalist uprising and the generosity extended on behalf of JPMC, with one supporter commenting, “wow, good catch. so now we know the cops are literally bought and paid for in this,” it is clear from the facts that this is nothing less than a benevolent act of a successful business self-interestedly investing into the security of our city. Although OWS would like you to believe that JPMC donated those funds as a bribe for protection against demonstrators, with some going so far as to say the banking giant directly funded the arrests of more than 700 on the Brooklyn Bridge, it took no less than 2 seconds worth of research to pull up an article dating back to June 4, 2011 that describes this exact donation in question being made, months prior to the beginning of the protest on Wall Street. According to JPMC’s website:

JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops, as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD's main data center.

This begs the question, how could JPMC’s intentions have been easily misconstrued to be something more sinister? To understand how a charitable act could be misinterpreted, it’s important to understand the mindset of the statist. Statists believe that people are inherently bad, and thus, must be coerced to do good (if they did not fundamentally believe this, there would be no point to their support for the use of force). Therefore, they believe that an act of charity (possible thanks to Capitalism), as evidenced by OWS and many of their supporters on the blogosphere, must be accompanied by a nefarious agenda. Their solution is State control, as evidenced by the protesters' signs calling for wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor via government force. Ironic, and inconsistent, with other signs amongst the group proclaiming to be in support of “Human Rights.” How can anyone take this group seriously?

It’s simply illogical to believe that JPMC’s donation was a bribe to police for an upcoming protest that was not even being planned or discussed at the time of the donation. Is there a time-machine nobody know’s about? It stands to reason that if JPMC did in fact feel threatened by OWS, they would have hired a private security firm to protect their property (as most businesses do anyway). But what strikes me most is that this accusation is not so much of harm to JPMC as it is to the integrity of the officers that are on the streets protecting the rights of all citizens. This is nothing less than an act of vengeance against an entire department for the potential (pending an investigation) misconduct towards a few demonstrators by a few officers. 

On a final note, the generosity exhibited by JPMC is nothing less than a simple demonstration of objectivism in practice, and goes to show a government solely limited to it's moral role of protecting individual rights could in fact be funded (contrary to the statist’s beliefs) in a non-coercive, voluntary way, especially by the rich and successful. The reality of the situation is, we all benefit from what JPMC has done. The NYPD now has more resources to combat crime and protect all of our rights. This act deserves nothing less than gratitude and commendation. 

(With that said, I want to extend my deepest apologies to the past, the present, and the future generations of this great nation and of this world, on behalf of my generation for its part in the OWS uprising. We, the ‘gimme’ generation who have had it so easy, who have been handed so much, instead of giving thanks, we demand more. We have now grown to be an insatiable parasite. May we one day be forgiven.) 

The Answer to Regulations

The Problem:

Regulations, at best, are a zero-sum game, creating win-lose scenarios and relationships; the "winners" being the public that are perceived to "benefit" from the regulations, and the losers being the businesses that are forced to expend valuable resources in order to comply.

Regulations, contrary to what current and past presidential administrations believe, are anti-free market. They hurt competition and make the business environment difficult for entrepreneurs and start-ups to get a foot-hold in the market, resulting in many of them closing their doors. In many instances larger companies are ready willing and able to absorb the losses imposed by regulations and actually collude with politicians to get them passed in Congress, knowing full-well smaller companies would find it difficult to survive, and thus, suppressing and preventing competition.

The Solution:

The answer to the problem of regulations is quite simple, but requires an understanding of history and philosophy.

First, a historical context of the Commerce Clause is needed. The government claims to get its authority to regulate from the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) in the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the right "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The word “regulate” is the keyword in the aforementioned clause. As many of us know, language changes and evolves over time, as do definitions of words. The power that the Framers intended to give to Congress was the power to keep trade and commerce REGULAR, that is, to tear down trade barriers and restrictions to trade, not to enforce them! Today, the word regulate has taken on a much different meaning with the exact opposite of its intention. Thus, regulations, as we know them today, are unconstitutional and illegal.   

Second, the philosophy of self-interest must be understood. We as a society must embrace and acknowledge the idea of one acting in one’s own self-interest and selfishness as something good. Our society today has a warped view of what self-interest is all about. It gets wrongly cast aside as a philosophy of self-destruction and has gone from being a virtue to a vice. Self-interest is one acting not just for one’s short-term gain, but long-term gain as well. The only way to successfully achieve long-term gain when dealing with others is through the creation of win-win relationships. One might believe that businesses who act to purposely defraud their customers are acting in their own self-interest for a quick short-term gain, but actually they are working for their own long-term destruction, whether they realize it or not, because eventually word-of-mouth spreads and consumers will eventually stop shopping at their place of business. A business truly acting in their self-interest would have a long-term mindset and create relationships with their customers that are positive, thus assuring their business’ success in the future.

We do not need regulations but an enforcement of our Constitutional individual rights. Laws to protect those rights from infringement from rogue companies and individuals are what is truly needed, not regulations, to protect us in the marketplace. There is absolutely no reason why the government should be creating win-lose scenarios. All it creates is an untrusting society. A change in philosophy to the promotion and understanding of what self-interest really means is vital to changing course in this country to get us back on the road to prosperity. What we need is a separation of state and economics; a truly unrestricted laissez-faire capitalist system to stop collusion from coercively preventing competition in the marketplace and to allow businesses to do what they do best.