Slave by Ira Gelb of flickr

Arguments to justify Obamacare are the same as those used to justify slavery

The fight against the ideology of President Obama and his flagship legislation, the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare, is waged by people with the same principles and morality as those who waged the fight against slavery in the United States decades ago.  This is evident when one considers the arguments made to justify Obamacare and those to justify slavery.

Upon examination, the two arguments are morally and ethically the same:

health care is a right by United Workers of FlickrArgument 1:  Health care, as concluded by slavery advocates to justify slavery, is a “right” . . .

The supposed moral premise of the Affordable Care Act and slavery are both predicated upon a supposed “right” to the life and property of others.

The book American Slavery explains that the concept of rights was redefined after the American Revolution; whereby the concept matured.  The idea of ‘rights’ started with the irrational consideration that rights only extended from specific liberties enjoyed by certain groups of people.  Later, the concept of rights evolved into a more matured concept–one that necessitates an understanding of the idea in which, by definition, a right cannot be a right unless it  extends to all people.  The author explains, “Although the Revolution fostered an abstracted sense of Rights – specific ‘liberties,’ enjoyed by specific groups, became a generalized ‘liberty’ belonging to all – many Southerners continued to use the term in the older sense.”

This is to say, prior to the American Revolution, to outlaw slavery would be to remove the slave owners’ right to own slaves and therefore a violation of their liberty.  The American experiment recognized the logical error in this reasoning over time and evolved the understanding of rights to the reality that the only way a right can truly exist, it must be applicable to all people and applied to everyone in the same way. Read more

Objectivists: the term ‘corporatism’ is not a package deal

This article is an analysis of the concept of corporatism contrasted with the very important and keen in sights outlined in Peter Schwartz’s discussion titled Clarity in Conceptualization: The Art of Identifying “Package-Deals”.  This lecture is recommended by the author and is found here.

worship wall-street
Defending capitalism is not the same as worshiping corporations.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first known use of the word ‘corporatism’ was in 1890 and defined as, “the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction.” Although this concept is not new, it is ignored by both those who champion government power as well as those who despise it.

It is imperative this concept be re-injected into modern society for no other reason than to accurately describe how and why the United States’ future is nothing unless citizens stand up and fight this real and hidden evil.

Read more

Today, “better access” to education, health care, etc. really means “easier looting”

Today, “better access” to education, health care, etc. really means “easier looting”

poptartexo mafiaWhen politicians state they wish to increase access to just about anything – health care, medications, education or whatever, they do not really mean “access” they mean a transfer of property from those who have earned it to those who have not.  In other words, they want to take property from one person or group for the benefit of themselves and/or to buy the votes of people associated with a special interest.  This is the common sleight of hand we see so often today when it comes to vernacular.

According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, the dictionary for the origin of American English and definitions of words prior to being tainted by modern distortion and political correctness, access is defined as a “[m]eans of approach; liberty to approach; implying previous obstacles.”

In order to truly understand what this meaning implies, it is appropriate to look at the words that comprise it: Read more