Obama To Americans: You Don’t Deserve To Be Free

truther 9
Harry Binswanger

President Obama’s Kansas speech is a amazing document. In considering for more govt controls, more taxes, more collectivism, he has two paragraphs that give the show away. Take a look at them.

Obama To Americans You Don't Deserve To Be Free

there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Though not in Washington, I’m in that “certain crowd” that has been saying for decades that the market will take care of everything. It’s not really a crowd, it’s a tiny group of radicals–radicals for capitalism, in Ayn Rand’s well-turned phrase.

The only thing that the market doesn’t take care of is anti-market acts: acts that initiate physical force. That’s why we need government: to wield retaliatory force to defend individual rights.

Radicals for capitalism would, as the Declaration of Independence says, use government only “to secure these rights”–the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (Yes, I added “property” in there–property rights are inseparable from the other three.)

That’s the political philosophy on which Obama is trying to hang the blame for the recent financial crisis and every other social ill. But ask yourself, are we few radical capitalists in charge? Have radical capitalists been in charge at any time in the last, oh, say 100 years?

I pick 100 years deliberately, because it was exactly 100 years ago that a gigantic anti-capitalist measure was put into effect: the Federal Reserve System. For 100 years, government, not the free market, has controlled money and banking. How’s that worked out? How’s the value of the dollar held up since 1913? Is it worth one-fiftieth of its value then or only one-one-hundredth? You be the judge. How did the dollar hold up over the 100 years before this government take-over of money and banking? It actually gained slightly in value.

Laissez-faire hasn’t existed since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. That was the first of a plethora of government crimes against the free market.

Radical capitalists are just beginning to have a slight effect on the Right wing. The overwhelming majority on the Right are eclectic. Which is a nice way of saying inconsistent.

The typical Republican would never, ever say “the market will take care of everything.” He’d say, “the market will take care of most things, and for the other things, we need the regulatory-welfare state.”

They are for individualism–except when they are against it. They are against free markets and individualism not only when they agree with the Left that we must have antitrust laws and the Federal Reserve, but also when they demand immigration controls, government schools, regulatory agencies, Medicare, laws prohibiting abortion, Social Security, “public works” projects, the “social safety net,” laws against insider trading, banking regulation, and the whole system of fiat money.

Obama blames economic woes, some real some manufactured (“inequality”) on a philosophy and policy that was abandoned a century ago. What doesn’t exist is what he says didn’t work.

Obama absurdly suggests that timid, half-hearted, compromisers, like George W. Bush, installed laissez-faire capitalism–on the grounds that they tinkered with one or two regulations (Glass-Steagall) and marginal tax rates–while blanking out the fact that under the Bush administration, government spending ballooned, growing much faster than under Clinton, and 50,000 new regulations were added to the Federal Register.

The philosophy of individualism and the politics of laissez-faire would mean government spending of about one-tenth its present level. It would also mean an end to all regulatory agencies: no SEC, FDA, NLRB, FAA, OSHA, EPA, FTC, ATF, CFTC, FHA, FCC–to name just some of the better known of the 430 agencies listed in the federal register.

Even you, dear reader, are probably wondering how on earth anyone could challenge things like Social Security, government schools, and the FDA. But that’s not the point. The point is: these statist, anti-capitalist programs exist and have existed for about a century. The point is: Obama is pretending that the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society were repealed, so that he can blame the financial crisis on capitalism. He’s pretending that George Bush was George Washington.

We radical capitalists say that it was the regulatory-welfare state that imploded in 2008. You may disagree, but let’s argue that out, rather than engaging in the Big Lie that what failed was laissez-faire and individualism.

The question is: in the messy mixture of government controls and remnants of capitalism, which element caused the Great Depression and the recent financial crisis?

By raising that question, we uncover the fundamental: the meaning of capitalism and the meaning of government controls. Capitalism means freedom. Government means force.

Suddenly, the whole issue comes into focus: Obama is saying that freedom leads to poverty and force leads to wealth. He’s saying: “Look, we tried leaving you free to live your own life, and that didn’t work. You have to be forced, you have to have your earnings seized by the state, you have to work under our directions–under penalty of fines or imprisonment. You don’t deserve to be free.”

As a bit of ugly irony, this is precisely what former white slave-owners said after the Civil War: “The black man can’t handle freedom; we have to force him for his own good.” The innovation of the Left is to extend that viewpoint to all races.

Putting the issue as force vs. freedom shows how the shoe is on the other foot regarding what Obama said. Let me re-write it:

there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The government will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just pile on even more regulations and raise taxes–especially on the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the losers are protected by more social programs and a higher minimum wage, if there is more Quantitative Easing by the Fed, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle up to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle up, well, that’s the price of the social safety net.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our intellectuals’ collectivism and Paul Krugman’s skepticism about freedom. That’s in Harvard’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the Soviet Union. It’s not what led to the incredible booms in India and China. And it didn’t work when Europe tried it during over the last decades. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this statist theory.

How does that sound? That’s blaming an actual, existing condition–government controls and wealth-expropriation–not a condition that ended in the late 19th century.

So which is the path to prosperity and happiness–freedom or force? Remember that force is aimed at preventing you from acting on your rational judgment.

Obama’s real antagonist is Ayn Rand, who made the case that reason is man’s basic means of survival and coercion is anti-reason. Force initiated against free, innocent men is directed at stopping them from acting on their own thinking. It makes them, under threat of fines and imprisonment, act as the government demands rather than as they think their self-interest requires. That’s the whole point of threatening force: to make people act against their own judgment.

The radical, uncompromised, laissez-faire capitalism that Obama pretends was in place in 2008 is exactly what morality demands. Because, as Ayn Rand wrote in 1961: “No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. . . . To claim the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man–the right to compel his agreement by the threat of physical destruction–is to evict oneself automatically from the realm of rights, of morality and of the intellect.”

Obama and his fellow statists have indeed evicted themselves from that realm.

Enter Your Mail Address

Incoming search terms:

Share

Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments

9 Comments »

  1. Dan January 4, 2014 at 9:11 pm - Reply

    Right on Ltpar.

  2. Stan Sikorski January 4, 2014 at 8:59 am - Reply

    1) Remove all jews and appeasers from government, banking, media, entertainment and every other organization or system they infest, and dispose of them properly.

    2) Trash all laws benefiting them. This includes snivel rights, the patriotard act, nfta, etc., and return to the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they stood originally.

    3) End involvement in other country’s affairs and definitely stop sending money to them for nothing. If Isntreal can’t survive on its own then tough shit.

    4) Throw out the beaners and other refuse then close the borders. You want to come here? you do it the right way. Also set immigration quotas at 90% White, 10% mixed and no jews. They can’t be trusted to act right.

    5) Work to build a new America who’s time has come!

    • Ltpar January 4, 2014 at 9:52 am - Reply

      Yea Stan and while we are it, the pure bred Aryan folks could join hands and sing the new National Anthem, “Heil To The Fatherland?” Oops, sorry, I was havng a senior moment and forgot that I wouldn’t be there. My paternal grandmother was one of those beaners you purged. That makes me 25% Mexican. Fortunately, your dreams will only come true in your mind and those of your BFF’s when you slip into the white sheets and long for the long lost days of the Klan. If that is the new America, I for one want no part of it.

  3. 5 War Veteran January 4, 2014 at 4:37 am - Reply

    Just remember the Elite consider themselves Gods. With that thinking they believe that common men own nothing.
    We the “common people” merely infest the world and have no rights whatsoever and those “rights” we believe we have are only “allowed” as an impression by the godly Elite.
    Just remember our society is designed to promote the Sociopath. The go getter, the fellow who will stop at nothing to succeed.
    This has continued this way for centuries, how many “royals” lost their lives to their motivated underlings?

  4. Ltpar January 4, 2014 at 2:36 am - Reply

    Spoken like the true Socialist/Communist Obamma realy is. Hate to break it to Obama but neither the founding fathers nor our Constitution had any intention of “property” being in the same catagories with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No one is entitled to “property” and it is something that must be earned through individual initiative and labor. Of course those who dance along behind the Pied Piper of Chicago, want it without working. In the end, they will get their just due, just as will Comrade in Chief Obama. Their just due is “Nothing.”

    • G January 4, 2014 at 4:39 am - Reply

      I disagree with that notion. Understand that the native americans did for their people, and had no psychotics committing crimes for “property”. Your idea of property may bring imagery of land, or even material goods, but in reality it’s what allows for our pursuit of happiness and liberty in life, because without what we truly need, we lose sight of our real purpose – to ensure the ongoing survival of the planet and pass it on to those who come after us.

      • Ltpar January 4, 2014 at 7:14 am - Reply

        You are going to have to find a better example for your lame rationalization than Native Americans. Brutal warfare between various tribes was commonplace with the stealing of horses, women and other property. They didn’t call the Indians psychotics in those days because the enlightened term had yet to be thought of. It was a survival of the fittest and American culture at it’s worst. In addition your philosophy on “what one truly needs” is part of the problem with this country today. There are too many “truly needs” people who refuse to work and expect the government to hand it to them on a silver platter. To compound the problem, they pass on that attitude to generations of their welfare kids and expectations are imprinted on the brain. Deadbeats are at an all time high in this country today and liberals want to pass it all off as disparity in income. “We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

  5. Anonymous January 4, 2014 at 1:14 am - Reply

    Soo….you re-write a speech and then say that obama is saying “we don’t deserve to be free?”. It’s like smacking your head against the wall repeatedly and then complaining that it hurts and then starting a conspiracy theory about the guy who said “the pain might go away if you stop hitting your head like that” AND rewording what he just said to “If you don’t stop hitting your head like that, it’s the death camp for you”. Just read below if you’re still lost.

    Putting the issue as force vs. freedom shows how the shoe is on the other foot regarding what Obama said. Let me re-write it:

    ” there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune….”

    Let me Re-write it:
    Let me RE-write it:
    Let me RE-Write it:
    Let me RE-WRite it:
    Let me RE-WRIte it:
    Let me RE-WRITe it:
    Let me RE-WRITE it:
    Let me (((RE-WRITE))) it:

    You CAN’T take something that someone said out of text, CHANGE what they said and report it as truth….unless you’re auditioning for a reporter position with one of the major media corps, then it’s all good.

  6. Gaia Sagrada January 3, 2014 at 11:10 pm - Reply

    Yes, i love that one, “make the wealthy even more wealthy so they can trickle down jobs to the rest of us.” I have to say that one always annoyed me.

Leave A Response »