Separately…as much as I personally feel badly about the plight of those that are unemployed or underemployed, I really don’t like to hear arguments that jobs should be created (or extended) based upon someone’s “need” for them. That is preposterous. Needs-based giving is the function of charities, churches, neighbors, friends, and families.

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

Over the past century, we’ve seen a systematic dismantling of not only government, but of the entire notion of government itself. The actions of one nation inspire similar actions in other nations, and America has led with the example of a government completely gutted by private interests, the rise of private interests to the highest levels of power, and the subsequent looting of treasury.

Government isn’t just corrupt: it’s now entirely run by criminals; and staffed by the idealistic, the naive, the obtuse, and – most noticeably – opportunists bent on gutting the last remnants and dispensable favors of a once great institution. We don’t lack civility in dialog: there is no dialog; there is only relentless jabber to provide cover for the systematic dismantling truly taking place.

What were once nations are now simply target demographics; what were once governments are now global financial cabals; and, what were once citizens are now merely consumers. We are governed almost exclusively by our own drive to consume, create, spend, and earn – and as long as the system keeps feeding us food, sex, finances, and some semblance of dignity, we’re not going to f*ck with it.

That’s what I think is the stone cold truth. What do you think?

This is a great example of a common misconception regarding the structure of our country. We are commonly bound by the rule of law, not by the rule of the majority (which can also be called the “tyranny of the majority.”) If 99% of the country does not like the abhorrent behavior of the Westboro folks, it doesn’t matter. They still have the same right of free speech.

Another great example is that of the presidential “executive order.” It is a common practice for presidents across all parties, but it does not necessarily adhere to the rule of law (there is no provision for it). A current extension of this is the move by our president to bring war to Libya…without a declaration of war by Congress.

There are a million other examples, too…quite literally. The Code of Law is a 100,000+ page beast, chock full of things that would make great content for 100 more Ad Populum posts.

1. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

2. An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit

3. Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Notice the trend in those definitions? Private owners, individuals, and corporations are the focus, as is PROFIT (that “nasty” word that illustrates the value of a mutually-beneficial transaction). Any collusion between business and government, by definition, is NOT CAPITALISM. (it is actually called “crony capitalism,” and it bears no resemblance to capitalism)

Herbert makes many fine points in his argument, nearly all of which are entirely compatible with a capitalist’s point of view. To quote Ayn Rand on the subject: “The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.”

Fighting unconstitutional wars defies all notions of capitalism. By taking the capital required for these efforts from its rightful owners by force (taxation), it diverts capital from its most productive use. In the ultimate irony, capital taken by force is then used to inflict damage upon others in a “peacekeeping mission.” (or “kinetic military action,” as our president refers to the acts of war that we are bringing upon Libya.

If you are going to take a potshot (another one, as it were), point it in the right direction.