Return To Free Market Principles

Michael Fell
November 27, 2011 Posted by Michael Fell mjfell@hotmail.com

If we’re to form conclusions based on the behavior of our elected officials, the United States government being over $15 trillion in debt is a minor concern.

It looks like figuring out how to cut spending is simply too adult a puzzle for ”progressives” in the Senate and the White House. What else can the average American conclude from the recent actions of these overpaid, irresponsible feeders from the public trough? How on God’s green earth can hard working people, many struggling just to make ends meet, expect these elected officials to sacrifice their ruling class prestige, salaries, perks, expense accounts, per deim and oversized, overpaid staff? Clearly, this expectation is presumptuous, outrageous and out of hand.

For America to rebound from the existing economic quagmire, not only must the size, scope and cost of government be dramatically reduced, America needs to reestablish its manufacturing base.  The manufacturing base that allowed America to fight on two fronts in WWII and win.  The last time anyone checked, government manufactures nothing.  Additionally, recent actions strongly reinforces the perception that government is ill suited to engage in capital investment.  The impulse to engage in cronyism is simply far too strong.

America needs elected representatives who will support legislation that repeals unnecessary government meddling in competitive, private markets.  America’s economic strength has always resulted from private market capitalism where free, private Citizens pick winners and losers by how and where they spend their own money.

To those who choose to ignore the call for a return to free market principles, it will be a clear indication that keeping their seat at the banquet table of corruption is more important to them than is their oath of office.

America will be much, much better off after they are gone…for good.

Tags: , ,

10 Responses to Return To Free Market Principles

  1. jim hull on November 27, 2011 at 9:50 am

    does America have a case for impeachment or not? we almost got clinton out and his problem was personal not of the total dismantling of our principles and government and the security of the American people and, no doubt, more of the same to come from this whitehouse gangster. seem like enough for impeachment to me. take a shot before it’s too late.

    • Frank DeMartini on November 28, 2011 at 5:37 pm

      In order to impeach, the President must be found guilty of “high crimes or misdemeanors.” Thus far, as much as I don’t like Obama, there is no evidence of either. Believe me, if there was, then people in government would be calling for his impeachment.

      • Tanner on November 29, 2011 at 5:27 pm

        What about when he murdered a 16 year old American citizen last month? Does that not warrent impeachment discussions?

        http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/18/out-to-dinner-us-assassination-in-yemen-killed-teens/

        • Frank DeMartini on November 30, 2011 at 7:11 am

          I don’t know if you can call acts of war as “high crimes and misdemeanors” under the Constitution whether you agree with the war position or not. They may be war crimes in an international court, but that does not happen until after the war is over. An act or treason, or raping a young girl are “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Remember, only two presidents have been impeached and neither have been convicted and thrown out of office.

          • Tanner on November 30, 2011 at 5:28 pm

            Good point, but I think it’s important to remember that the “war on terror” is a war against a tactic, not another country. As far as I’m aware, Congress gave President Bush the authority to seek justice against the masterminds of 9/11, but there was never a formal declaration of war. Since then, both Bush and Obama have grossly abused their powers as Commanders-in-Chief by instigating a worldwide manhunt for anyone (foreign or domestic) that might fall under their definition as a “threat to national security.” I see this as a very dangerous precident and am weary to yield that kind of power to the Executive Branch. Ultimately though, you’re right; the death of Al Awlaki’s son will never be contested in court because it was supposedly done in the name of fighting terrorism. But I still consider it illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional.

            And on a related note, I don’t think this (or the recent accidental bombing in Pakistan) will be the last we hear about these drone strikes ending in complete failure. The whole idea of “Well, the terrorist MIGHT be there, so lets send in a drone” is very bothersome to me. Every time we misfire, we cultivate more global animosity toward our country.

          • Michael J. Fell on December 1, 2011 at 9:10 am

            America and the rest of western civilization is not engaged in a war on terrorism. That’s an unfortunate misnomer. We’re fighting against Islamofascists who openly desire global domination.

          • Tanner on December 1, 2011 at 2:32 pm

            @ Michael Fell

            That’s an interesting way to look at it, but I think the arguement could be made that WE (the USA) are the ones openly desiring global domination. We’re the ones with 900 military bases scattered amgonst 130 different countries. We’re the ones who bail out foreign banks and push our dollar on the rest of the world by repressing (and even criminalzing) competing currencies. We’re the ones who overthrow goverments and install puppet regimes just to maximize our “best interests.” Don’t get me wrong; Islamofascism is certainly bad. But I don’t think the answer is to fight it with Christian fascism.

          • Michael J. Fell on December 1, 2011 at 3:41 pm

            The USA is not seeking to impose Sharia or any other religion/pseudo religion on itself, much less the rest of the entire globe. We do not seek to subjugate the entire world’s population to a savage 7th century mindset where refusal to convert is met with the penalty of death. The USA does not promote honor killings, beheadings or removal of limbs.

            Sure, we seek to obtain advantage for our national and commercial interests, and to promote western values such as freedom and equality. If you want to willy nilly describe that as Christian fascism you’re pretty much out of touoch with reality…what do you think this is, the Crusades of the Middle Ages? Oh…and many of those military bases around the globe have contributed to relative peace in the world. There are plenty of countries like Russia and China that have been held in check because of America’s military might. With a retreatist, unilateral disarmament foreign policy, the world will not be a safer place.

          • Michael J. Fell on December 1, 2011 at 3:43 pm

            And if you don’t understand that Russia, China, Iran, and other players don’t overthrow governments and install puppet regimes, you obviously are not well versed in geopolitical realities of the 20th and 21st centuries.

  2. Anonymous on November 28, 2011 at 7:55 am

    “America will be much, much better off after they (those who choose to ignore the call for a return to free market principles) are gone…for good.” It is easy to forget that it is this “revolution”, a “Return (again and again) To Free Market Principles “, that “defines” and “refines” “Free market principles.” So should we be so quick to suppress?

    One does applauds this view. If one were to be forced to “choose” sides, this is the one with the most promise.

    But it is fallible! There is no replacement (or existence over time) for a benevolent dictatorship. At the top of every failed “ism” is a corrupt ruling class (those who choose to ignore the call for a return to free market principles).

    “Free Market Capitalism is a competitive market where prices are determined by supply and demand. An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, economic profit, return-on-investment (ROI) is the return to an entrepreneur or a group of entrepreneurs, usually in competitive markets.”

    “These are markets where economic intervention and regulation (required only because of man’s greed and fallibility) by the state is limited, or should be limited (but necessary), to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts.”

    “As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is courage to resist change, a healthy distrust of the new, based on failures in the past.” Is analysis paralysis a problem. It most certainly is that!”

    “The liberal position is based on sentiment, emotion, pandering and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead, occasionally, history reminds us, into disaster.”

    “Every side wants to lay claim to the high ground and the moral upper hand in the struggle against their opposites but what none of them seem to be able to recognize is that none of them are opposites and that ‘their side’ needs the ‘other side.” America needed Jefferson and Adams (The Fallibility of Vision)………..

    http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2011/11/the-fallibility-of-vision-by-anonymous/

    …to see that they were not enemies, they were partners in opposition… and, within the Constitution, a Republic was born, in jeopardy today. [….].”

    Yes, there is time to return to Principled Capitalism. Pleased ponder the word “principled.” The Free Market place is nothing without it.

    Revisit Ayn Rand, Objectivism. “Human beings have a sense perception. The proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest.[…]

    The only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism” and moral individualism.”

    “Human beings have a sense perception. The proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature

Gary Oldman Comes Out Libertarian

In a Playboy interview out this month, Gary Oldman puts political correctness to the test and comes out as a Libertarian.

V.A. Punished Critics on Staff Doctors Assert

The V.A. Scandal is widening. Whistleblower's are now coming out of the woodwork and have suffered as a result. As reported by the NY...