About theartfuldilettante

The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.

How Markets Make the Common Good Possible

Of all the divisions splintering the American right these days, disagreements about economic policy are among the deepest. They are also central to understanding those conservatives who invoke the phrase “the common good” to explain why they believe more state intervention in the economy is necessary. For too long, such conservatives contend, the prioritization of free market policies has inhibited necessary government action to realize social and foreign policy goals essential for America’s general welfare.

In some cases, invocation of the common good by these conservatives refers to the need for state economic action to secure certain goals. A good example is employing tariffs to try to protect American manufacturing jobs from foreign competition. Such policies, it is argued, promote broader ends like preventing particular communities in parts of America from descending further into social dysfunctionalism. On other occasions, reference to the common good is about rehabilitating a long tradition of thought about the ends of politics which goes back to Aristotle.

To my mind, renewed attention to the common good—especially the political common good as understood by the natural law tradition—is a worthy enterprise. Not only does it provide a more coherent framework for thinking through the foundations of politics than alternatives like utilitarianism, Rawlsian liberalism, and social democracy. Attention to the political common good also helps identify principled limits to government power.

Unfortunately, much of the present agenda associated with those conservatives calling for more activist economic roles for the state would, I’d suggest, significantly damage the economic dimension of the sum total of conditions that allow individuals and groups to pursue human flourishing freely. But, just as significantly, it is also obscuring clear thinking about the state’s economic role in societies that believe liberty and justice matter.

Reinventing Broken Wheels

One feature of the economic policies advocated by common good conservatives is their piecemeal character. They are not arguing for something as sweeping as LBJ’s Great Society. Instead, the picture is one of selective application of industrial policies, regulations, tariffs, etc., to parts of the economy with the aim of producing better results in different sectors than would otherwise be delivered, they believe, by markets.

Sometimes the policies are narrowly targeted. A recent American Affairs article argued for entrusting “a federal agency with the power to decide how the votes associated with index fund shares are cast” in shareholder meetings of publicly traded companies. Other proposed policies have a broader scope. A good example is the advocacy of European-style corporatist arrangements whereby unions who represent workers in specific industries would negotiate wages, conditions, productivity goals, etc. with trade associations that represent employers.

But the area which animates many conservatives who favor more interventionist positions in the name of the common good is trade. In articles like “Make America Autarkic Again” and in policies like the Trump Administration’s imposition of 25 percent levies on imported steel and aluminum, free trade is presented as often (if not usually) inimical to America’s general well-being or downright harmful to specific American communities and industries.

In responding to these arguments, free traders have not made life easier for themselves by exaggerating trade liberalization’s benefits (there is, in fact, no strong correlation between free trade and peace) or by letting themselves become associated with Davos Man imagery and rhetoric. Many were also slow to acknowledge that China’s compliance record with WTO rules has been poor and that Beijing has, if anything, deepened its commitment to neo-mercantilist policies.

Notwithstanding these failures, there is a formidable amount of empirical and historical evidence that highlights protectionism’s negative effects upon countries adopting such policies. And these harms often fall on the particular groups they are intended to help. Consider, for instance, the aforementioned steel and aluminum tariffs.

The trade economist Douglas A. Irwin points out that the costs of these tariffs were borne by American consumers. They ended up paying “more either directly for imported consumer goods or indirectly for imported intermediate inputs that increase production costs and ended up raising consumer prices.” As far as those who work in manufacturing are concerned, Irwin writes, “the steel and aluminum tariffs reduced overall employment in manufacturing by 75,000 workers.” These tariffs imposed higher costs on those American companies which extensively use steel, thereby “harming their competitive position in domestic and foreign markets.” That translates into fewer jobs as a way of reducing costs and improving their market position.

The tragedy is that this was very predictable. The long-term damaging economic effects of tariffs and related policies are clear. This is not a matter of spouting libertarian ideology. It’s a question of the steady accumulation of empirical evidence and the development of sound theory over a long period of time. At a minimum, anyone who claims to be concerned about the common good should take all this into account.

What about Justice?

But, some conservatives may counter, the common good goes beyond economics. Surely economic life is as much about the provision of work as lower prices for consumers. After all, work is something good in itself and lends itself to all sorts of morally and culturally beneficial behavior. Perhaps, the argument goes, every American should be willing to pay an extra 20 dollars a year to help keep manufacturing workers—their fellow Americans—in particular parts of America employed.

Should the state really be prioritizing the interests of one segment of the employment market over the overall well-being of 330 million American consumers?

One difficulty with this position is that it downplays the ways in which tariffs damage the common good by facilitating cronyism, incentivizing rent-seeking, discouraging adaptation to wider economic and technological changes, and promoting the highly-questionable proposition that technocrats can outguess markets. As far as jobs are concerned, tariffs cannot protect an industry and those it employs over the long-term if that industry’s comparative advantages are fading. Government intervention is a costly and generally ineffective way of trying to impede or reverse such changes and thus an ineffectual way of trying to save jobs. Indeed, if we really care about employment, we should question the wisdom of using government to indirectly encourage people to enter occupations that aren’t going to be there in ten years or that won’t be available in the same quantities.

Then there are issues of fairness. These are illustrated by the same manufacturing industry example. If the goal is to use the state to promote work as something good in itself, what is it about low-skill manufacturing jobs that merits special treatment compared to, say, work in low-skill retail?

Or, to approach the fairness issue from another angle, should the state really be prioritizing the interests of one segment of the employment market over the overall well-being of 330 million American consumers? As Richard M. Reinsch observes, “We are all consumers, but we are not all manufacturing workers.” One of Adam Smith’s crucial insights was that it is through meeting consumer demand that economies grow and adjust as humans are incentivized to specialize and exercise their creativity in light of people’s changing needs and wants.

An important side-effect of this process is that employment markets develop and mature over time. This not only provides more and different types of work for people with varying talents, needs, and wants. It also helps ensure that someone who grows up in, for instance, a manufacturing town in Ohio may have many other job possibilities if they decide, like millions of other Americans, they want to follow a different line of work than that of their parents and grandparents. That is just one way in which markets indirectly contribute to the realization of goods like work.

What Should Government Do?

For all the weaknesses of conservative proposals for particular state economic intervention to protect the common good, the subsequent debate has created space for conservatives to consider a related question: what can governments do to advance the economic dimension of a society’s common good in ways that avoid the problems detailed above?

One way to think through this question is to consider what government institutions must do if markets are going to meet consumer demand and thereby create wealth, jobs, etc. Some immediate responsibilities that come to mind, and which were spelled out with varying degrees of explicitness in Book V of Smith’s Wealth of Nations, include: upholding the rule of law; protecting property rights; maintaining monetary stability; adjudicating contractual disputes; providing public works; establishing law and order; and securing national defense. To this list, some would add a minimal welfare safety net (hardly a minor or inexpensive undertaking) and enforcing basic health and safety standards.

Some might view this as rather minimalist. Yet none of these are small, simple, or inexpensive tasks. Determining the particular rights and obligations of all parties embroiled in contractual disputes requires courts and the development of a body of law that helps judges to make just rulings. Establishing conditions that help protect us from criminals and enable us to go to work every day requires police forces. Protecting America and its economy from hostile powers necessitates a military and national security apparatus.

Truth be told, the present involvement of federal, state, and local governments in the U.S. economy goes way beyond all the tasks listed above. Just over the past three years, government spending has averaged 38.1 percent of America’s GDP while government welfare and healthcare spending has increased. The number of pages in the Federal Code of Regulations has been growing for decades. Nor can anyone claim that there is a shortage of industrial policies in America.

Put bluntly, this is not limited government. Nor should we forget that much of this is funded by public debt. Even before the coronavirus, public debt as a percentage of domestic GDP amounted to 106.68% in the last quarter of 2019.

If we truly want to promote the economic dimension of America’s common good, perhaps we should ask ourselves the following question: how would this aspect of the common good be enhanced by even more government intervention than we already have, even if it is of the selective, targeted type being suggested by some conservatives? Would it not be better to think about how to focus government on those tasks that it is uniquely able to address instead of steadily expanding its potential to produce sub-optimal outcomes or, worse, make serious mistakes?

The ways in which such reflection would cash out in terms of specific policies wouldn’t resolve intra-conservative policy debates. What, for example, qualifies as public works in the early 21st century? Or consider the challenges involved in trying to resolve real conflicts between good but not always compatible options, such as the demands of national security versus commercial freedoms. Adam Smith’s dictum was that “defense . . . is of much more importance than opulence.” Few conservatives (or, I suspect, classical liberals) would disagree. But how do we determine what constitutes a genuine national security imperative, especially given many businesses’ proclivity to seek government protection from competitors—including American competitors—by asking for national security exceptions on flimsy grounds?

Such are the inexactitudes with which political leaders must grapple every day. Yet focusing on those objectives that only the state can accomplish, I’d argue, would produce a far more constructive discussion about the role of politics vis-à-vis markets and the common good than the arguments currently preoccupying many conservatives. It is also a debate that is long overdue.

Samuel Gregg, Law and Liberty


“Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man’s well-being is not their goal.” — AYN RAND, “Theory and Practice,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 136

‘Poverty is not a justification to rob “the rich.”

What about the poor under capitalism? The question accepts the collectivist premise that wealth is a static quantity owned by that amorphous super-organism, the “collective” to be looted from those individuals who create it. The other side of that question is: what about those who are not poor? What of them? Let us not forget that the “rich” are people too with an equal right to their life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that one is poor is no justification for robbing someone who is less poor than you. That a man does not have riches, and another does, is no excuse for the first to steal from the latter — neither is it a moral justification for the state to rob the first for the benefit of the latter.

Riches obtained through economic production vs. political plunder

By “rich,” I do not mean cronies who gained their fortunes by political pull, by having the government grant them favors and franchises at the expense of their fellow-men. By “rich,” in this context, I refer to businessmen who achieved their fortunes by economic means — through production and trade.

The poor, like the rich, need economic freedom under a rule of law

As for poverty, under capitalism, no poor man is prohibited from creating a fortune.

Observe that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth-century America how hundreds of poor immigrants came to America and within a generation were America’s newest elite. Even today, in semi-free America, many such immigrants come here starting with nothing and create fortunes — despite the volumes of irrational regulations that punish those who have an urgent need to accumulate capital (the poor).

The “poor” don’t need government handouts — they need government off their backs and off the backs of those who can help them — the “rich.”

“The real problem of poverty is not a problem of ‘distribution’ but of production. The poor are poor not because something is being withheld from them but because, for whatever reason, they are not producing enough.” — Henry Hazlitt

Who is the poor man better off under Mother Teresa or Bill Gates? A Mother Teresa who hands them bowls of slop every day, so they can barely exist — or a genius like Bill Gates who creates a fortune for himself by helping others to create fortunes for themselves, i.e., “where the first feed them for a day, the second helps them feed themselves.” Observe that it is the Bill Gates of the world (until recently) who are not allowed to exist in India — and the Mother Teresas who are.

To answer the question, “What about the poor under capitalism?” one must first answer, “Why are there poor people in the first place?” The source of all poverty is the lack of wealth, which must be produced. The source of production (and thus wealth) is man’s mind, which politically has only one requirement: freedom. Politically, this is the single cause of mass poverty: the lack of freedom. Observe the poorest countries are those where freedom is lacking.

Capitalism did not create absolute poverty, but it inherited it from pre-capitalist systems

Far from being a cause of absolute poverty, laissez-faire capitalism is the only solution to solving it. Observe that the freedom that a rich man needs to maintain and add to his wealth, is the same freedom a poor man needs to create his wealth — and the creation of wealth for both has the same root — reason.

The only requirement of reason from the state is entirely singular in principle: freedom, that is, the banishment of the initiation of force from all social relationships. This is precisely the freedom that the “humanitarians” oppose, since this “right” to freedom and liberty, can only come at the expense of the alleged humanitarian’s “might.” Since all men are free to create wealth under capitalism, no one is forced into poverty, as in non-capitalist countries.

Keep in mind that the moral justification of capitalism is not that it serves the “needs of the many,” but that it protects the rights of every individual — in particular, it protects the individual from the “many” (majority). Capitalism is not egalitarianism ideal of “social justice”; capitalism is for justice.

Capitalism is the best — the ideal — theory, because to the extent that it is allowed to work, it works in practice.


Charity vs. Welfare

Welfare is the forcible transfer of wealth by the government from those who produced the wealth to other individuals who “need” that wealth.

Welfare is the forcible transfer of wealth (usually by taxes) by the government from those who produced the wealth to another individual (or group of individuals).

Where private charity is voluntary, the “paternalism” of government welfare is involuntary.

The alleged justification for welfare is altruism: sacrifice of one’s interests for others.

The justification for this expropriation of funds is that those who are receiving the wealth (handouts) “need” it, and those who do not voluntarily give their money have “greed” so their money must be forcibly taken from them.

At the root of the claim that the creators of wealth owe the non-creators is the ethical code of altruism — self-sacrifice of one’s own life for others (‘altru’ meaning other). In Marxist jargon, this means that wealth is plundered “from each according to his ability” and distributed “to each according to his needs.” The producer has the ability, i.e., “greed”—the welfare recipient has a need—the inalienable rights of the producer be damned.

Welfare renders the producers slaves and the “humanitarian” middle-men as their masters. Whether the thief is wearing a ski mask or is a dressed in a pinstripe suit of a congressman, does not change the nature of their actions in principle: both are looters as both are initiators of force. With one exception, the man wearing the ski mask is more honest: he is not a big enough hypocrite to tell the citizen he is robbing him of his hard-earned wealth “for his good,” or “for the good of the people.”

The Voice of Capitalism

The Real Racial Supremacists Are on the Left

Notice what leftists are doing: They have equated “white supremacy” with individual rights, the Bill of Rights and economic freedom, including the right to private property and free speech. In other words, unless you support total ownership of life and property by the omnipotent state (and its henchpersons in media), they say you are a white supremacist. Their intent, so far hugely successful, is to intimidate people who are not REMOTELY racist, but who support the Constitution and Bill of Rights, into defensiveness, helplessness and silence. Leftists who support Communism and fascism are smug and arrogant as they escalate their attempts to literally enslave (“transform”) a previously free people into submission.

What they refuse to acknowledge: By equating nonwhite races with totalitarianism and the white race with freedom, they imply that nonwhite races are not up to the job of freedom. Unless you are white, they imply with vicious falsehood, you cannot survive under economic freedom. The ACTUAL white supremacists would agree with them on this. The ACTUAL non-racists voted for President Trump twice, and support the cause of equal freedom for all races. The sick joke is on the tyrants who brand ALL dissension against socialism or fascism as “white supremacy”, since they have argued on the very same premise as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Party of Hitler. We live in morally and intellectually inverted times. All I know is such insanity will not sustain itself.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Stop the Steal

There’s something about the title of this article that really rubs Democrat socialists the wrong way. It incites a level of anger and irrational behavior not seen since the MAGA clothing line hit the shelves. For the Democrat party and their media acolytes, this catchphrase has been stretched thin to wrap around the recent violent and unlawful breach of the U.S. Capitol, now used as the black swan event to drive a stake through the heart of Trump conservatives (Omitting Republicans here is deliberate, as the backbone and fealty of the Grand Old Party has been compromised in ways that are difficult to understand and painful to watch).
“Stop the Steal” is not a call to violence, nor does it narrow upon a disputed election that will put the worst possible nominee of any presidential race in American history behind the Resolute Desk. It represents a civil but firm opposition to a Democrat policy platform that seeks to wrench the foundations of democracy out from under our feet.
In the past year, the crawl of socialism in this country has become a full-out sprint acted out in anarchistic nightly displays on our city streets. Political scientists and Marxist apologists assuage concerns with claims that socialism can coexist with capitalism. At what price and for how long? Our schools, language, media, and workplaces have already willfully or unwittingly permitted this Orwellian drift to greater government control over our lives. Standing athwart complete capitulation is our Bill of Rights, against which beltway Democrats and blue state governors, hiding behind the pandemic, have leveled a crippling broadside.
American Thinker readers are smarter than most who claim familiarity with the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers that brought them to life. Notwithstanding, here’s a pared-down version of the top ten. The First Amendment is speech and religion, Second is right to bear arms, Third is civilian authority over the military, Fourth is search and seizure, Fifth is due process, Sixth is criminal prosecutions, Seventh is jury trial, Eighth is cruel and unusual punishment, Ninth is rights retained by the people, and Tenth is state’s rights, to include calling and holding elections.

With the help of the courts, the left has whittled away at these amendments for decades, although with less malevolence than we’ve seen in the last four years of the Trump administration. There is now more than a whiff of smoke to show that each of these fundamental rights has been diminished, tossed aside, or outright trampled in an effort to paper them over with a socialist model of government, advance one-party rule, and to wield authority in perpetuity.
Campus-coddled academics and the media writ large have taken pains to soften the realities of life under socialism and indoctrinated generations of students. How else could Bernie Sanders, the Senate’s longstanding Bolshevik who has functioned outside the two-party mainstream for thirty years and has seen the passage of only three of his more than 400 sponsored bills — two of them naming post offices — suddenly become the sweetheart of the country’s youngest voters? Sanders’ second-place finish in a field of twenty-seven primary candidates was a warning shot that academia had effectively ripped the bloom of democracy off the rose and that socialism was a new force to be reckoned with in American politics.
The problem for Democrats is that a huge swath of the population are content with the Constitution and won’t gently yield the right to free elections. A plurality of voters, to include more than three-quarters of Republicans, thirty percent of Democrats and quarter of all Independents, now have little to no faith that the recent presidential election was legitimate. Prima facie voter fraud on an epic scale coupled with a cold shoulder from several high courts to eschew examination of the hard evidence suggests dirty tricks to deprive the fundamental right of the people to choose their own leader. Chicanery at this height of federal and state government, if allowed to stand, is an open invitation to even greater levels of political misconduct.
Would the American government have accepted the legitimacy of a foreign election so contaminated? When Nicolas Maduro won by a landslide against a massive populist movement, the United States and European Union said no. Venezuela’s election irregularities bear semblance to our own, to include the omission of observers, and the manipulation of results.

The Democrats’ pyrrhic victory and seizure of power has now salted appetites for vengeance. A highly disputed presidential election, coupled with Republican reticence, has put every Trump conservative at risk of hostility and persecution. An ascendant Democrat party, strengthened by Republican hibernation, is now aligned in ideology and practice to cancel a conservative movement first articulated by Edmund Burke in 1790, brought to influence in American politics by William F. Buckley, Jr., in the early 1960s, and advanced by the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
Using the Capitol breach as a pretense to censure all Trump supporters as insurgents, social media outlets are suspending or canceling the accounts of conservatives. Deplatformed users are given anemic justifications that ironically overlook the existing accounts of the world’s most brutal regimes and thousands of their propaganda posts. Rebooting a plot line from Revenge of the Nerds, the CEOs and their algorithm wizards at Facebook and Twitter are hard at work giving online wedgies to anyone who dares to question a Biden presidential victory. Alternative blogging sites, such as Parler and Gab, are demonized as havens for right-wing miscreants and Amazon Web Services has shown a willingness to sever connections to sites that offer sanctuary to such views. Gone is all debate over partisan perceptions of hate speech.
After an election decided by hook and by crook, this is no longer just about power. Eliminating conservative opposition through dogmatism is on full display. While the president, all of his White House staff, Republican congressional representatives, and hundreds of thousands of Save America rally attendees have been harassed and blamed for the actions of a unlawful mob, there has been no atonement by Democrats and media pundits who have condoned, openly supported, or called for the year-long sacking of American cities and the murder of police officers.
Florida Congressman Brian Mast is a former Army explosives technician who lost both his legs in Afghanistan. Last week, he exercised the powers given to him by oath to vote against the second impeachment of President Trump. That got under the skin of CNN anchor Jake Tapper, who maligned Mast and his military service by suggesting that the Bronze Star vet had left his commitment to democracy on foreign soil.
Josh Hawley, U.S. senator from Missouri, is a well-spoken political voice whose strength of conviction makes him a Republican standout. His presence also puts him in the crosshairs of Democrats bent on denying conservatives any hope of an ideological leader in the wake of Donald Trump. The cancel culture has therefore mounted a full-throttled campaign against him in the media and corporate world. Simon & Schuster has refused to publish the book they, in fact, paid him to write. Loews hotel management canceled a fundraiser scheduled for Hawley. If Benny Thompson, Democrat chair of the House Homeland Security Committee had his way, Hawley and other Republicans would be on the no-fly list.
The Democrats and their social media axis are also squaring off against conservative firebrands Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz. Pages of results on popular internet search engines feature articles that put them in a bad light. The sycophants at Google are far more flattering to queries of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
The endgame for Democratic socialism will appear in the guise of political “reform” that will prey upon the careers and livelihoods of every conservative legislator, writer, commentator, and blogsite. Trump conservatives will increasingly become expats from their own government while a Republican apostasy goes the way of the Whigs

Rick Fuentes, American Thinker

The New Regime Takes Over

For the first time in this country, American’s voices are silenced, our enterprises taken down if we dare to oppose government. Twitter and other social media giants banned the President of the United states from their sites. Cities and businesses are ending contracts with the President. Trump supporters are losing their jobs and their businesses. Its all-out war on millions of American citizens for our political views.

Example: Parler founder, John Matze, built a social media site to rival Twitter. But there’s one major difference; Parler offers free speech.

There are going to be no fact checkers, says Matz . You’re not going to be told what to think and what to say. A police officer isn’t going to arrest you if you say the wrong opinion.”

The site exploded when Twitter booted President Trump. But Twitter is king of social media and you don’t outdo the king. So Twitter’s comrade, Jeff Bezos, kicked Parler off their Amazon servers, took them off-line.

From Amazon’s notice to Parler:

“Amazon Web Service (AWS) “cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,”

In other words, uncensored sites aren’t welcome in the new Regime. This clampdown on free speech comes on the heels of a successful coup d’état that cancelled free elections. President Trump was elected in 2016 to bring back jobs, remove job-killing regulations, and defend our Constitutional rights. He did that and so much more which is why Americans re-elected him in a landslide.

But Democrats pushed a mail-in ballot scheme to process counterfeit ballots, kept election monitors at bay, and disregarded ballot verification in order to rig the election. The President’s team scrambled to prove the fraud but governors, secretaries of state, and judges blocked every move until it was too late.

On Jan 6th, Congress met to certify the election. Outside hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered to protest the illegal certification.

The Regime knew in advance that massive numbers of protestors would be at the Capitol. They set up a false flag event, a violent attack on the Capitol purportedly by Trump supporters. A false flag” is an operation conducted by one party or government and made to appear as though it were sponsored by another party or government”.

This false flag event was then used to smear the President and his supporters. Nancy Pelosi explains the ‘smear’ and tells how the ‘wrap-up smear’ is deployed.

“You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it. And then you (media) write it, and then they say, ‘See, it’s reported in the press that this, this, this, and this.’ So they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called the ‘wrap-up smear.’”

So the falsehood of this smear is that there was a patriot mob, an insurrection, and that President Trump incited the violence. This particular smear accomplishes three objectives: Changed the subject, Biden was certified without discussion, without proof of fraud broadcast on national television. Fake news is able to use the smear to damage President Trump, impeach him and potentially strip him of his Presidency. The Regime and their media use the smear to label Trump supporters/patriots as dangerous terrorists.

As a bonus, government’s able to use the threat of violence to make the Capitol an impenetrable fortress and to justify deployment of national guard, state patrols, even SWAT teams around state capitols. These forces are there to apprehend and arrest dangerous protestors aka citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Dr. Martin Luther King called out this kind of clampdown on our Constitutional rights.

“All we say to America is, ‘Be true to what you said on paper.’ If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country. . . But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The Regime’s end goal is to own the United States outright, to rule the people, take our wealth as their own, and wield or leverage our massive power. The Regime is accomplishing this takeover using the lie that Joe Biden won the election. And too many who are convinced of the lie will stand with the usurpers.

The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion”’ – Edmund Burke

But such tyranny is exactly why the Founders declared our independence over 200 years ago. They themselves suffered oppression under the iron-fisted rule of King George. To break free of the abuse, they wrote and signed The Declaration of Independence knowing that under British law they were committing high treason.

Yet these glorious words were penned:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

The Declaration doesn’t guarantee us life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. But it does guarantee that we have God-given inalienable rights meaning those rights cannot be taken away.

But we must defend those rights. The men who gave us a government by the people paid a high price for daring to proclaim independence

“Nine of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured as traitors, then died. Two had sons serving in the Revolutionary Army who died.”

Others who had been wealthy had their property seized, burned, and looted. Some had to live out the remainder of their lives moving their family from place to place to avoid capture. Many died in poverty.

These men sacrificed all not for themselves but for those who would come after, for us. It’s now our duty to pay it forward, to defend American’s rights for future generations.

This coup is an open attack on the United States of America to usurp our President. We must defend our Constitution. We must protest, peacefully as we always have, in massive numbers as we always have. We must recall the complicit governors, secretaries of state, and judges who facilitated the coup. Then we must restore free elections in our cities and state. But time is of the essence. Every day the Regime tightens their grip on our people.

In Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” address, he stressed the “fierce urgency of Now”. He warned that now is not the time to “engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. . Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission.” – George Washington.

Peggy Ryan, Canada Free Press

Ayn Rand on the Tyranny of the “Common Good”

The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.

“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.

“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?

It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.

When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.

If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations.

The Wisdom of Richard Henry Lee

THE recent explosion in the reach of federal government has made limits on federal power once again the central political issue. Unfortunately, ignorance of our founding severely impoverishes that discussion. A good example is Richard Henry Lee.

Lee made the motion calling for the colonies’ independence. He was a leader in the Continental Congresses, including as president. He was elected senator from Virginia, despite opposing the Constitution’s ratification for lacking “a better bill of rights.” Particularly important were Lee’s Letters from the Federal Farmer, an important impetus to the Bill of Rights.

Today, when what the federal government is permitted to do is again central, his arguments merit reconsideration. I can consent to no government, which … is not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men. A free and enlightened people … will not resign all their rights to those who govern, and they will fix limits to their legislators and rulers…[who] will know they cannot be passed.

[Hope] cannot justify the impropriety of giving powers, the exercise of which prudent men will not attempt, and imprudent men will … exercise only in a manner destructive of free government. Why … unnecessarily leave a door open to improper regulations?

We cannot form a general government in which all power can be safely lodged. Should the general government…[employ] a system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws … props for its own support.

Vast powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in a government … would be … abused by imprudent and designing men.

We ought not … commit the many to the mercy, prudence, and moderation of the few. National laws ought to yield to inalienable or fundamental rights—and … should extend only to a few national objects.

Men who govern will … construe laws and constitutions most favorably for increasing their own powers; all wise and prudent people … have drawn the line, and carefully described the powers parted with and the powers reserved … what rights are established as fundamental, and must not be infringed upon. Our countrymen are entitled … to a government of laws and not of men … if the constitution … be vague and unguarded, then we depend wholly on the prudence, wisdom and moderation of those who manage the affairs of government… uncertain and precarious.

Liberty, in its genuine sense, is security to enjoy the effects of our honest industry and labors, in a free and mild government. The people have a right to hold and enjoy their property according to known standing laws, and which cannot be taken from them without their consent.

In free governments, the people … follow their own private pursuits, and enjoy the fruits of their labor with very small deductions for the public use. Our true object is … to render force as little necessary as possible.

The powers delegated to the government must be precisely defined… that, by no reasonable construction, they can be made to invade the rights and prerogatives intended to be left in the people.

While Free Speech is Possibly Still Free, My Take on Where We Stand

Democrat liberals have neither the ability to be gracious losers or winners. The media and liberal, radical, progressive never Trumpers are bullies, liars, cheaters, frauds, and humorless mentally ill.

These are the PC police, demanding we all conform or die. They are for gun free zones and refuse to allow us to protect our children with armed security in schools. Thank Joe for that!

They are the ones that don’t allow kids a childhood where they can learn to fail and succeed, expand their imagination, fall off their bikes, play outside, get dirty, be mad, have best friends, scrape their knees, get in trouble, hug each other and their teachers, and solve problems on their own.

They’re the weasels who invade our privacy, yet demand theirs. They lack respect and manners and look for things to be offended about every waking moment. They reject the concept of a sovereign nation with protected borders while living behind private walls. They work on taking away our second amendment rights while enjoying armed security for themselves.

They erase and alter our history. They are our nation’s very own version of the Taliban, silencing our music, editing our words, exalting violence in their entertainment, are pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. They demean our virtues, tear down our monuments, teach our children their mantra – not how to evaluate ideas, emasculate and feminize our men. These are the assassins of joy, humor, laughter, and fun.

The same bunch who told us PWJBC using his position of power to have oral sex with a young woman who worked for him, and shove cigars up her hoohaw in the Oval Office, and then wagged his finger at us saying he did not have sex with her, was a private matter and okay. They are the same moral authorities who said it was just about sex, and wail at the idea of PDJT possibly having extra-marital sex. The only one who might have an opinion about that is his wife.

This crew of know it alls are the ones who are all inclusive and tell us what words we can use, what food we can eat, what to think, believe, dislike, etc. Unless we disagree. Then we are shut down, banned, fired, and told to shut up, accept everything they say or be ruined.

They are the pompom girls for the 4% of the population that are gay or sexually confused. They have elevated that group to the norm, and ridiculed the rest of us who don’t practice that lifestyle.

They are the champions of criminals, murderers of babies, malevolent monitors and managers of the American people, arbiters and silencers of speech.

These regulators of toilet paper have never had the misfortune of two-ply failure and touching their own excrement when using the dictated one sheet.

These are the death to religion: mocking and squashing Christians, Jews, and Buddhists, while exalting the religion that vows it will erase all non believers, and regularly maims, tortures, and kills its own. They despise our culture, our Constitution, our anthem, our history, our flag. It’s never about ideas or how to do the best things for America. Instead it is denigrating the opposition personally.

They run as conservatives to win elections and then vote as liberals, arriving with little and once in power, pocket fortunes. They claim to be the saviors of the planet, saying we must do without, while their private limos, yachts, and jets idle air conditioned.

These are the idiots who don’t want anyone to ever lose, and are unable to accept that, by the rules of the game, PDJT won, and they lost. They lost! Their answer to losing is cheating their way to the White House, Congress, and the Senate.

PDJT has pretty much accomplished his promises save those he needed to have Congress to achieve. The next four years are going to be painful, but maybe necessary to gain back the House and Senate by margins that are unbreakable with real Constitutionalists. So, if the American people can make politicians bring honesty of any measure to the voting booth, perhaps there is hope. If not, America is over. The sand is in the hourglass, and time is running out.

Trump said and did what he said he would do. Name one other politician who has ever done that. President Trump is America’s William Wallace. The man who stood for us all and refused to back down. They will hound him and his family to the ends of the earth. We owe him more than we could ever repay.

They are also the backstabbers. They will take down their own at the drop of the wrong word. It’s going to be a very unpleasant four years, my friends. And unless their liberal followers are seriously dipped in cash, maybe enough will wake up to turn things around.

Until then, 86 all things 46. 2022 and 2024 are our last hope and salvation.

The Five Pillars of Capitalism

Capitalism. It’s something you’ve heard of, but do you truly know what it is? In simple terms, capitalism is an economic system where a country’s production and means of operation are controlled by private owners for profit. Most countries nowadays, such as the US, France, and Ireland, practice a form of capitalism that is a combination of free markets and government intervention, called mixed economies. These capitalist economies operate on the pillars of private property, supply and demand, competition, freedom, and incentive. Today we will explore what these entail when it comes to capitalism.

Private Property

Private property allows people to own tangible and intangible assets, with examples of the former being land and houses, the latter stocks and bonds. By having a private property, efficiency in the economy is promoted since owners of resources will be given incentives to maximize property value. Their incentive may be money or any form of profit deemed worthy when an individual exchanges their private property in a mutually beneficial transaction.

Supply and Demand

Supply and demand determine the prices of goods and services. If the good or service you are selling is in high demand, it is worth more. For example, if you want to buy land in the middle of nowhere, it won’t cost that much because it is not close to the best schools, jobs, nor the best places for goods and services. If there is a high supply of land but low demand, you can buy a lot of land for a lot less than, say, land in an area that offers great schools, jobs, and services. Overall, if you would like to purchase land where supply is lower and demand is greater, then the cost of buying that land will also be higher.


Competition is at the heart of a capitalist system. Competition drives businesses to work at maximum efficiency and offer their products at the best prices with high quality to avoid getting beaten out by competitors that have better prices, efficiency, and quality. Having competition creates more productivity and innovation in the workplace, as each company aims to improve in order to make more desirable / cheaper goods and services for consumers.


Freedom in a capitalist economy means that no one can tell you what to do in order to earn money, and no one can tell you how to spend it. Everything is ultimately up to you. You can make your own choices, whether you want to go to college, go straight to the workforce, or become an electrician or lawyer. It’s entirely up to you and what you plan to do with your life.


An incentive in economics is the financial motivation for people to take certain actions. It allows businesses to become more creative and inventive, as everyone competes to have products or services that are better than their competitors. As a result, more desirable or cheaper products and services are formed, which is ultimately better for the consumers. Therefore, this is your incentive to make more money than your competitors.

While no country operates on a pure, or “laissez-faire” capitalist economy, the many mixed economies of today’s world rely on these five pillars to drive their markets. Together, we have explored the basics of a system that is very broad, with both good things and drawbacks.

Sharon Lee, Voices of Capitalism