The War Room

Who are the real anarchist today?  Is it the Libertarians, Objectivists, independents, and liberty Republicans?  Are those who are creating the problems the same people who want to limit the power of government and eliminate any injection of political influence on all honest and voluntary interactions?  Or is it the Establishment Democrats and Republicans, as well as socialist and Greens who believe they can attain order in society by imposing regulations and rules to guide people’s decision making?

In this day and age when the meaning of words are distorted by those looking to cloak their true efforts under the guise of linguistic deceit, it is necessary to secure proper vernacular to limit confusion and secure a clear debate.  This is no less true in regard to the word anarchy.  Objective individuals who advocate for a society based upon freedom and liberty, a society unregulated by the whims of the majority or politicians, are sometimes misclassified as anarchist.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The absence of control by government is not Anarchy.  Read more →

Both politicians and big business desire monopoly.  Obamacare over time, being one of the largest transfers of power from elected officials to a few select corporate entities, will narrow the field of competition among health care providers to a select and politically connected few.

This is desirable by politicians because as citizens become more beholden to the state for an essential service such as health care, the more people can be controlled.  Big business equally desires this outcome because larger organizations tend to be slow to react to market changes, while smaller businesses are far more agile.  This small-business advantage is removed when a market is driven by political influence and not the will of consumers.  Such influence can only be bought and sold by those entities with vast and expendable resources.  This is the real advantage of being a large corporation, therefore such companies use this to their advantage and most politicians are more than willing to oblige.

This is obviously the intent and result of Obamacare.  According to Fortune.com, part of the Time Magazine network:

Based on current demographic trends alone, today’s dearth of primary care practitioners is destined to get far worse.  As a result, prices are rising, and competition is falling, as big hospital groups rush to hire all the primary care doctors they can find.  Once one or two big chains control most of the family doctors and general internists in their markets, rivals can’t find the troops to challenge them.  That’s creating oligopolies in markets across the nation.

Read more →

The goal of politicians and political parties is to prey on the apathy and ignorance of the public in order to achieve its primary mission: acquiring more power and money.  In any scenario in which organizations are in competition for the attention and resources of people, it benefits those vying for such attention to ensure their audience has as few options as possible. This is true for all organizations, and political groups are no different.

If there must be competition among those who deal in power and control, limiting the field to only two groups is obviously the optimal number.

This is a benefit to political entities because the fewer the parties or teams, the more chance a particular organization has to recruit more people.  For example, consider a scenario in which there were only two baseball teams in the entire country; one from the East and another from the West.  What are the odds that those who live on the East will purchase the souvenirs, team shirts, playing cards, and the nearly infinite number products of the team on their Coast?  Quite likely close to 100%.  Maybe some people who live on the border, or those that migrate from one coast to another will not, but without question the money to be made and the fan base to amass will be much larger when the market for fans is limited to either X or Y and no other. Read more →

Many, if not most, large corporations do not desire free markets; in fact they desire regulated and government controlled business climates.  This is evident the moment a person honestly removes the rhetoric and emotion from nearly all arguments to the contrary, by simply recognizing the facts.

Free markets mean:

·  More competition

·  Easier advancement of smaller businesses

·  Quicker declines of industry leaders

·  Zero political favoritism

Those who advocate for government regulations are in fact fighting for those corporations that desire a monopoly, or at a minimum an oligopoly, so they may impose their will upon Americans and ever increasingly over our children’s lives.

Free Markets Mean More Competition

Free markets are exactly that:  Markets absent of any attempts to initiate coercion upon consumers or competitors. There are no dues, no forced joining of groups, and easy entry and exit to and from the marketplace. 

One may ask, ‘Without government regulation, who will ensure products are safe?’ Read more →

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:

Argument 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 →

When 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 →