Appropriate Placard Slogans for the Objectivist "Wing" of the Tea Party Movement

[ValueChaser]

If I ever attend a demonstration of the Tea Party Movement, I would go on condition that I distinguish myself from the conservative-minded attendees.

I was happy when I recently saw on the news a huge placard with a photograph of Ayn Rand's face displayed at a Tea Party demonstration. But a picture is not enough to those who know nothing about Ayn Rand, as well as those who may know something about her, but not her political theory. I would only attend if I carried a placard that clearly differentiated my views from the conservatives; indeed, I would intend to inflame those conservatives with the following slogans (and then leave it up to them to ask me to explain):

Free our children from government-mandated education!

I don't steal from you to spread my atheism, so stop taxing me to spread your Christianity!

Religious conservatives as a whole do not understand that the government must absolutely not forcibly impose any philosophy or religion. Whether they know it or not, they aim for a society where the government is an aid to the institutionalization of the religious mindset.

(Begin Rant)

Fiscal conservatives as a whole do not understand that a society of egoists, living by means of trade, will do just fine in the absence of the so-called benign forms of statism (public libraries, public schools, etc.) On a practical, survivalist level, it appears inconceivable to me that no private party would rise to privatize an area of production or service that would meet a legitimate need. Perhaps the conservatives do not understand this, so they do not protest when force is used to "benefit society." They surfaced after Obama's election en masse to oppose health care reform and Obama's liberal policies. But they are satisfied with other forms of "lily-white", status-quo collectivism, aren't they? It's not just about being unfairly taxed by a few or ten or 15 percentage points. It is about understanding that human relationships are relationships between egoists trading value for equal value, and getting on track to eliminating the government gun per se. The fact that there was no Tea Party movement in all the years of public libraries, public postal service, public this-and-that, shows that these conservative folks just don't understand (or just are evading) that the U.S. does not need forced taxation in order to thrive.

--John

[Selene]

If I ever attend a demonstration of the Tea Party Movement, I would go on condition that I distinguish myself from the conservative-minded attendees.

I was happy when I recently saw on the news a huge placard with a photograph of Ayn Rand's face displayed at a Tea Party demonstration. But a picture is not enough to those who know nothing about Ayn Rand, as well as those who may know something about her, but not her political theory. I would only attend if I carried a placard that clearly differentiated my views from the conservatives; indeed, I would intend to inflame those conservatives with the following slogans (and then leave it up to them to ask me to explain):

Free our children from government-mandated education!

I don't steal from you to spread my atheism, so stop taxing me to spread your Christianity!

Religious conservatives as a whole do not understand that the government must absolutely not forcibly impose any philosophy or religion. Whether they know it or not, they aim for a society where the government is an aid to the institutionalization of the religious mindset.

(Begin Rant)

Fiscal conservatives as a whole do not understand that a society of egoists, living by means of trade, will do just fine in the absence of the so-called benign forms of statism (public libraries, public schools, etc.) On a practical, survivalist level, it appears inconceivable to me that no private party would rise to privatize an area of production or service that would meet a legitimate need. Perhaps the conservatives do not understand this, so they do not protest when force is used to "benefit society." They surfaced after Obama's election en masse to oppose health care reform and Obama's liberal policies. But they are satisfied with other forms of "lily-white", status-quo collectivism, aren't they? It's not just about being unfairly taxed by a few or ten or 15 percentage points. It is about understanding that human relationships are relationships between egoists trading value for equal value, and getting on track to eliminating the government gun per se. The fact that there was no Tea Party movement in all the years of public libraries, public postal service, public this-and-that, shows that these conservative folks just don't understand (or just are evading) that the U.S. does not need forced taxation in order to thrive.

--John

First, define conservativism please.

Second, the religious conservatives in the home school movement would completely agree with your school sign.

I believe your big bad mental image of religious conservatives would not stand up to muster. I would love you to sit down with some of

the ones I have worked with.

The red sections are just not true as stated.

The other color is more than likely untrue.

I don't steal from you to spread my atheism, so stop taxing me to spread your Christianity! [can you explain this one?]

Adam

[ValueChaser]

1. Fiscal Conservatism is the attempt to lower taxes on individuals by a fraction, for the purpose of reducing some welfare state programs, while maintaing taxes that support other welfare state programs of their own pragmatic preference.

2. I know they would agree with that sign. But the alternative between home school and public school is not the only potential choice. We could have privatized schooling, or no k-10 schooling at all.

3. What are faith-based initiatives but government cash given to support religion? There are no reason-based initiatives whose leaders "steal" through taxes in order to foster paganism, so the religious leaders who want the govt. to give them funds can't claim reparations.

[Selene]

1. Fiscal Conservatism is the attempt to lower taxes on individuals by a fraction, for the purpose of reducing some welfare state programs, while maintaing taxes that support other welfare state programs of their own pragmatic preference.

2. I know they would agree with that sign. But the alternative between home school and public school is not the only potential choice. We could have privatized schooling, or no k-10 schooling at all.

3. What are faith-based initiatives but government cash given to support religion? There are no reason-based initiatives whose leaders "steal" through taxes in order to foster paganism, so the religious leaders who want the govt. to give them funds can't claim reparations.

1. Fiscal conservatives that I know are primarily libertarian and would never hold that position. Military, defense, courts and police the exception.

Therefore, my label for what you label as "fiscal conservatism" is hypocrite.

2. The home schoolers that I know and work with would have no problem with an open competitive school industry at all.

3. Faith based initiatives are very bad and foolish ways for some of these constituent groups to get a piece of what is stolen from them. However, the one factor that you either are not aware of or refuse to believe is true, is that faith based programs, are, statistically, significantly more efficient, by far, from any government program attempting to accomplish the same end.

I just would prefer to convince you to expend your energy in positive advocacy than in reactive attacks of these bogeymen.

Adam

[ValueChaser]

Okay.

I would find it hard to come up with slogans that reflect positive advocacy at a Tea Party demonstration if someone was holding up a placard that compared Obama with Hitler. Have such people been weeded out yet?

Anyway, if I didn't feel the need to counter such emotionalism, I would just put affirming ethical quotes by Rand on my placard! I couldn't say it better than her.

By the way, I did counter-demonstrate at an abortion rally around here. The anti-abortionists were holding placards of fetuses (or was it an aborted fetus?) in order to prove that they are human. I quoted the name of one of Peikoff's radio shows: "A picture is not an argument." and I gave credit. Underneath that I wrote something to the effect of "Keep a woman's right to abortion legal. Uphold HER right." I got my picture in the newspaper holding the placard, all its words clearly in the photo. Oh my. . .Peikoff's lawyer is sure to be at my door tomorrow serving me with a subpoena for copyright infringment [shivers!].

Anyway, I actually took the time to get into a more-or-less tolerant conversation with the religionists who were protesting there. One man said, "You should be on our side." I ended up holding hands with the Christians as they prayed, as a way of sharing in basic human solidarity. I wouldn't do that now, but that petty gesture sure as hell didn't make me a hypocrite then. I just thought you'd find this anecdote amusing and interesting, Adam.

[ValueChaser]

1. Fiscal Conservatism is the attempt to lower taxes on individuals by a fraction, for the purpose of reducing some welfare state programs, while maintaing taxes that support other welfare state programs of their own pragmatic preference.

2. I know they would agree with that sign. But the alternative between home school and public school is not the only potential choice. We could have privatized schooling, or no k-10 schooling at all.

3. What are faith-based initiatives but government cash given to support religion? There are no reason-based initiatives whose leaders "steal" through taxes in order to foster paganism, so the religious leaders who want the govt. to give them funds can't claim reparations.

1. Fiscal conservatives that I know are primarily libertarian and would never hold that position. Military, defense, courts and police the exception.

Do they think it is moral to tax people to maintain the military, courts, and police? A passing thought occurred to me recently. I would hesitate to advocate taxes to finance the domestic police force, on the grounds that abrogaters of individual rights cause the very concept of "law" to arise in the first place. They should pay for the very system that would correct them, no? When they break objective law, they should be fined. In turn the fines would finance the police dept, the courts, etc. A criminal was about to steal from me. Then a police officer saw it and intervened. Am I responsible to pay the officer who protected me? If I could afford it I would pay. But What if I could not afford it? In either case, one may argue that since evasion/ignorance of the concept of rights is the precondition of objectively defined crime, the criminals are responsible for financing their own removal from society--or financing the people that are forcibly acting in their own best interests. In a word, there is philosophical evidence to suggest that they pay for the improvement of their own moral character, i.e., their own egoism.

--John

[ValueChaser]

sorry--duplicate post

Edited February 16, 2010 by ValueChaser

[Selene]

Okay.

I would find it hard to come up with slogans that reflect positive advocacy at a Tea Party demonstration if someone was holding up a placard that compared Obama with Hitler. Have such people been weeded out yet?

Anyway, I actually took the time to get into a more-or-less tolerant conversation with the religionists who were protesting there. One man said, "You should be on our side." I ended up holding hands with the Christians as they prayed, as a way of sharing in basic human solidarity. I wouldn't do that now, but that petty gesture sure as hell didn't make me a hypocrite then. I just thought you'd find this anecdote amusing and interesting, Adam.

John:

As to the quote in purple. The beauty of freedom is that someone that you might consider an asshole with that type of sign is the person that I would do my best to protect if folks began to harass him.

I could also understand it if some Jewish folks that I have known walked up to him and decked him.

The Tea Party Movement is a rare and dangerous movement. I am using dangerous in a positive manner.

Step back, see the forest, walk by the stunted tree with the dumb sign. Get involved in that movement, it has value and many of those values are shared by almost all of us on this forum.

As to the anecdote, I find it very interesting. Walking on a path with a person who you may not agree with on one issue, but you both agree on the one you are "praying" on in this case is never petty. Nor is it in any way hypocritical.

What I found amusing, is that you were received quite well by those folks correct?

I always love Dennis Miller's logic about prejudice. He said that it makes no sense to be prejudiced because you will find more than enough about most people when you get to know them to really hate them.

Adam

Adam

[studiodekadent]

I have to agree with Selene, most people that call themselves "Fiscal Conservatives" do so in order to differentiate themselves from Social Conservatives (aka. Jesus Fascists). Fiscal Conservatives are generally socially liberal or socially moderate. They are usually moderate libertarians (ideologically).

I admit, I despise the fact that the most dynamic, revolutionary, anti-traditionalist and anti-authoritarian economic system ever (Capitalism) is labelled "Conservative". But this label is joint work of both the leftists AND the "conservatives." For one, its the best weapon the left have; it an instant defamation against market economics if they can link it with militarism, homophobia, religionism, sexism and tradition-worship. And the left never shy from using it; "if you don't support Obamacare, YOU HATE GAY PEOPLE!!!"

Even if all the moderate libertarians started calling themselves that instead of "fiscal conservative," the mainstream media would still avoid "using the L-word" because if there was some way to be economically literate AND socially tolerant, then the best weapon the leftist media has instantly disintegrates.

[ValueChaser]

I have to agree with Selene, most people that call themselves "Fiscal Conservatives" do so in order to differentiate themselves from Social Conservatives (aka. Jesus Fascists). Fiscal Conservatives are generally socially liberal or socially moderate. They are usually moderate libertarians (ideologically).

I admit, I despise the fact that the most dynamic, revolutionary, anti-traditionalist and anti-authoritarian economic system ever (Capitalism) is labelled "Conservative". But this label is joint work of both the leftists AND the "conservatives." For one, its the best weapon the left have; it an instant defamation against market economics if they can link it with militarism, homophobia, religionism, sexism and tradition-worship. And the left never shy from using it; "if you don't support Obamacare, YOU HATE GAY PEOPLE!!!"

Even if all the moderate libertarians started calling themselves that instead of "fiscal conservative," the mainstream media would still avoid "using the L-word" because if there was some way to be economically literate AND socially tolerant, then the best weapon the leftist media has instantly disintegrates.

Then I wonder if Ayn Rand loathed the "fiscal conservatives" (as you define the phrase) for their method, but not for their goals.

[ValueChaser]

Okay.

I would find it hard to come up with slogans that reflect positive advocacy at a Tea Party demonstration if someone was holding up a placard that compared Obama with Hitler. Have such people been weeded out yet?

Anyway, I actually took the time to get into a more-or-less tolerant conversation with the religionists who were protesting there. One man said, "You should be on our side." I ended up holding hands with the Christians as they prayed, as a way of sharing in basic human solidarity. I wouldn't do that now, but that petty gesture sure as hell didn't make me a hypocrite then. I just thought you'd find this anecdote amusing and interesting, Adam.

John:

As to the quote in purple. The beauty of freedom is that someone that you might consider an asshole with that type of sign is the person that I would do my best to protect if folks began to harass him.

I could also understand it if some Jewish folks that I have known walked up to him and decked him.

The Tea Party Movement is a rare and dangerous movement. I am using dangerous in a positive manner.

Step back, see the forest, walk by the stunted tree with the dumb sign. Get involved in that movement, it has value and many of those values are shared by almost all of us on this forum.

As to the anecdote, I find it very interesting. Walking on a path with a person who you may not agree with on one issue, but you both agree on the one you are "praying" on in this case is never petty. Nor is it in any way hypocritical.

What I found amusing, is that you were received quite well by those folks correct?

I always love Dennis Miller's logic about prejudice. He said that it makes no sense to be prejudiced because you will find more than enough about most people when you get to know them to really hate them.

Adam

Adam

Thank you for the straightforward and outgoing reply, Adam.

Yes, those folks did receive me extremely tolerantly--and at best, they treated me very warmly. Perhaps this is because I (generally) treated the ones with whom I debated with a sense of fairplay. At best, one gentleman did state, "You should be on our side." (He meant the anti-abortion side.) And I doubt they would have invited me to pray with them if I was cruel to them.

[ValueChaser]

Okay.

I would find it hard to come up with slogans that reflect positive advocacy at a Tea Party demonstration if someone was holding up a placard that compared Obama with Hitler. Have such people been weeded out yet?

Anyway, I actually took the time to get into a more-or-less tolerant conversation with the religionists who were protesting there. One man said, "You should be on our side." I ended up holding hands with the Christians as they prayed, as a way of sharing in basic human solidarity. I wouldn't do that now, but that petty gesture sure as hell didn't make me a hypocrite then. I just thought you'd find this anecdote amusing and interesting, Adam.

John:

As to the quote in purple. The beauty of freedom is that someone that you might consider an asshole with that type of sign is the person that I would do my best to protect if folks began to harass him.

I could also understand it if some Jewish folks that I have known walked up to him and decked him.

The Tea Party Movement is a rare and dangerous movement. I am using dangerous in a positive manner.

Step back, see the forest, walk by the stunted tree with the dumb sign. Get involved in that movement, it has value and many of those values are shared by almost all of us on this forum.

As to the anecdote, I find it very interesting. Walking on a path with a person who you may not agree with on one issue, but you both agree on the one you are "praying" on in this case is never petty. Nor is it in any way hypocritical.

What I found amusing, is that you were received quite well by those folks correct?

I always love Dennis Miller's logic about prejudice. He said that it makes no sense to be prejudiced because you will find more than enough about most people when you get to know them to really hate them.

Adam

Adam

Thank you for the straightforward and outgoing reply, Adam.

Yes, those folks did receive me extremely tolerantly--and at best, they treated me very warmly. Perhaps this is because I (generally) treated the ones with whom I debated with a sense of fairplay. At best, one gentleman did state, "You should be on our side." (He meant the anti-abortion side.) And I doubt they would have invited me to pray with them if I was cruel to them.

[BaalChatzaf]

, shows that these conservative folks just don't understand (or just are evading) that the U.S. does not need forced taxation in order to thrive.

--John

How do you expect to maintain a first class military complete with ICBM's, nuclear weapons, intercontinental bombers, aircraft carriers, intercontinental missiles without some kind of taxation?

Historical note: At the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. ranked 17-th in the world in the arming and manning of its land forces. Germany ranked one in land forces and air forces. Except for the U-boats its sea force was not first rate.

It took us years of build up and lots of taxes (how else were the war bonds to be repayed?) to defeat the fascists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

The smears have begun. They won't just be from the State Run Media but from blogs and dirt bags like Bill O'Reilly. There will surely be planted signs from now on showing the support of the Grand Kleagle of the KKK for the Tea Party movement.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Does 'tea party' populism verge into extremism?

By Patrik Jonsson Patrik Jonsson Wed Feb 17, 3:25 pm ET

Atlanta – Evidence of growing ties between the quasi-libertarian “tea party” movement and supremacist “patriot” groups has the blogosphere all-a-Twitter after The New York Times ran a long story on the topic Tuesday, datelined rural Idaho. Judging by scorn heaped on the article from both the right and the left, NYT investigative reporter David Barstow may well have hit the issue pretty squarely on the head. “The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent, a force in Republican politics for revival … ut it is also about the profound private transformation of … people who not long ago were not especially interested in politics, yet now say they are bracing for tyranny,” Mr. Barstow wrote.

Hints of racism and extremism

While painting the tea party movement as embodying angst and displeasure at Washington, the story also hints at charges of racism and extremism that trouble – and, frankly, scare – some Americans. The article gives rise to questions about the true nature of the movement: Is it racist? Violent? Xenophobic?

At the end of the day, the philosophical diversity of the tea party movement makes those questions nearly impossible to pin down, many political experts say. Fox News host Bill O’Reilly flatly called some tea partiers “nuts,” “crazy” and “just loons,” before putting the number of extremists in the movement at 10 percent. But, Mr. O’Reilly pointed out, “Every group has that.”

Largely a middle-class movement

The fact is, most of those who have been to actual tea party protests report that it’s largely a decentralized, middle-class movement focused chiefly on taxes, deficits, and the nature of representation in Washington. (A new CNN poll finds that tea party activists tend to be male, rural, upscale, and overwhelmingly conservative.)

“We have traditionally been the people that pay the bills and vote on Election Day but have sat back and been involved in other things rather than politics,” activist Phillip Dennis told the Texas Tribune recently.

To be sure, many in the movement take the bad with the good.

“Yes, the feelings, thoughts, and opinions of Tea Party patriots are all over the place,” writes tea party activist Lloyd Marcus at American Thinker. “What a mess! Well, I say, how wonderful!"

Despite recent successes, the tea party movement is likely to suffer if middle America sees it as a violent rebellion looming in the wings.

Can activists identify rogue elements?

One test is whether tea party activists are willing, or able, to identify rogue elements. That won’t be easy to do given the decentralized nature of the movement. But reports like Barstow’s in The New York Times also run the risk of making it too easy for Democrats to make the same mistake they made before Scott Brown’s election to the US Senate in Massachusetts: discounting, dismissing, or even ridiculing the power of a populist movement that, though it may be confounding to national observers, is working quietly in local and state elections to vet and support Constitution-minded politicians. “With ordinary Americans setting out to reclaim the political process, it’s likely to be a bumpy ride for incumbents of both parties,” writes Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds in a recent Wall Street Journal column. “I suspect the Founding Fathers would approve.”

[Selene]

Peter:

Are you kidding? In what way does any voluntary movement have to "police" their non violent members? Even bigots have individual rights Peter! They have rights that you served in the military to protect. I would risk my life to protect those individual rights to be, peacefully, a bigot.

One test is whether tea party activists are willing, or able, to identify rogue elements. That won't be easy to do given the decentralized nature of the movement. But reports like Barstow's in The New York Times also run the risk of making it too easy for Democrats to make the same mistake they made before Scott Brown's election to the US Senate in Massachusetts: discounting, dismissing, or even ridiculing the power of a populist movement that, though it may be confounding to national observers, is working quietly in local and state elections to vet and support Constitution-minded politicians. "With ordinary Americans setting out to reclaim the political process, it's likely to be a bumpy ride for incumbents of both parties," writes Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds in a recent Wall Street Journal column. "I suspect the Founding Fathers would approve."

Adam

[Peter]

*Administrative fiat stealing power from the legislature* might be a bit long as a placard slogan. *Revive the 10th Amendment*?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From Robert Tracinski in The Intellectual Activist Daily Feb 16.

Story 2-"Agency Rule-Making"

The New York Times officially notes what I've been expecting. If 2009 was the year of Obama's legislative onslaught against liberty, 2010 will see a renewed regulatory onslaught, in which the president compensates for the neutralization of the Democratic Congress by relying on the vast unilateral powers of the modern presidency.

The story here is not really about Obama. It is about the sheer scope of the power that the legislature has unconstitutionally abdicated to the executive branch, so that the president can now threaten to impose sweeping regulations on every aspect of the economy—which is what EPA carbon dioxide controls would amount to—through "agency rule-making" and "administrative fiat."

That phrase, "agency rule-making," really captures the way in which the modern regulatory state overthrows the basic structure of American government. There is a technical term for "rule-making"; it's called "legislation," and Article I of the Constitution gives that power to Congress, not the executive branch.

If the Republicans are looking for long-term reforms that will reign in the power of government, they ought to consider taking back the "rule-making" authority that Congress has given up.

Story 4-The Tenth Amendment Revival

The public's rejection of the agenda of the president and the Democratic Congress is even manifesting itself in a kind of weird revival of "states' rights" and the Tenth Amendment.

Actually, those two are being lumped together, but they are not exactly the same thing, and it's important to keep them straight. The term "states' rights" tends to emphasize the granting of power to the state governments—and it has an unpleasant history, having been used as the main rationale for the "right" of the southern states to preserve and defend the institution of slavery.

The basic message of the Tenth Amendment, by contrast, is a limitation on the power of the federal government, which is told that it may not go beyond the powers given to it in the constitution, and that it is limited by the rights of the people.

This is a more accurate description of what is behind the current state-level rebellion against federal power.

The current measures include, for example, a Virginia statute—which I believe just passed the General Assembly—which declares that no federal law can infringe a Virginia resident's freedom to purchase any health care plan he wishes, or to purchase no plan at all. This is an attempt to preemptively invalidate the central provisions of Obamacare: the government-run insurance exchange and the individual mandate.

Notice the form this takes: invoking the state government as a protector of its citizens' liberty against an oppressive federal government.

And it's not just health care. Utah has introduced a resolution threatening to block enforcement of EPA regulations on carbon dioxide, while the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a petition on behalf of Virginia today asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people. The petition asks the EPA to reconvene the regulatory process and allow the public to comment on "newly available information" [read: Climategate], according to a brief media advisory that Cuccinelli's office put out this afternoon.

Which is precisely why our Founding Fathers created a government in which political power was divided between state and federal institutions—so that they could compete over who is better at protecting our rights.

"59% Favor Letting States Opt Out of Federal Programs," Rasmussen Reports, February 15

Voters strongly believe that a state should have the right to avoid federal programs it doesn't like, but they draw the line at states seceding from the union.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely voters say states should have the right to opt out of federal government programs they don't agree with. Just 25% disagree, while another 15% are not sure.

When asked about a specific program in late December, however, only 47% said states should have the right to opt out of the national health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats if it is passed into law. Nearly as many (40%) disagreed and opposed an opt-out clause for individual states.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters also think states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs if the federal government doesn't help pay for them….

But despite the rise of so-called "Tea Party" anti-federal government sentiment around the country, there's no second Civil War at hand. Only 14% of voters think individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country. Seventy-two percent (72%) do not believe states have this right, and 13% more are undecided.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party say states should have the right to opt out of federal programs with which they don't agree.

Just 37% of Democrats agree….

n a three-way congressional contest with a Tea Party candidate on the ballot, the Democrat earns 36% support. The GOP candidate comes in second with 25% of the vote, while the Tea Party candidate picks up 17%. In early December, the Tea Party candidate came in second, and the Republican finished third.

"Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power," Peter Baker, New York Times, February 12

n the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign.

Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat….

His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.

In an effort to demonstrate forward momentum, the White House is also drawing more attention to the sorts of actions taken regularly by cabinet departments without much fanfare. The White House heavily promoted an export initiative announced by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke last week and nearly $1 billion in health care technology grants announced on Friday by Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, and Hilda L. Solis, the labor secretary.

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Are you kidding? In what way does any voluntary movement have to "police" their non violent members? Even bigots have individual rights Peter! They have rights that you served in the military to protect. I would risk my life to protect those individual rights to be, peacefully, a bigot.

End quote

I agree that bigots have individual rights. But the “planting” of placards at a Tea Party rally by Liberals, is a political dirty trick worthy of Nixon’s nemesis, Dick Tuck. There is, as yet, no *definition* of the Tea Party Movement. Do you want them to define you?

It is an Obama/Fascist attempt to smear your movement, Adam. We may see stealth placards that represent no one truly in the movement, not just phony racist placards, but also Wacko in Waco sentiments, and “fascist militias armed to the teeth to overthrow Republican Government and put in its place der fuhrer,” placards.

I would be happy to cast away names that type cast, like fiscal conservative, or libertarian conservative. I would be happy to drop the conservative entirely, but a drawn out explanation is too tedious to repeat over and over.

I want the *Tea Party* to become my *Party.* we need to define the movement.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Value Chasing John wrote:

Do they think it is moral to tax people to maintain the military, courts, and police? A passing thought occurred to me recently. I would hesitate to advocate taxes to finance the domestic police force, on the grounds that abrogaters of individual rights cause the very concept of "law" to arise in the first place. They should pay for the very system that would correct them, no? . . . Then I wonder if Ayn Rand loathed the "fiscal conservatives" (as you define the phrase) for their method, but not for their goals.

End quote

Back to the chain gangs, John, free contract labor (well the Warden gets his taste, as in “Cool Hand Luke”) and making license plates at the state pen, to pay for their crimes? Is that slavery? Is it barbarism? I agree with you. Eff ‘em.

However, it should be semi-voluntary. If you want out of this rat hole prison for a few hours, you can volunteer to work on the county roads, prison shops, or the wardens 450 acre truck farm 8-)

Most people say there was a DE- radical shift in Ayn Rand as she aged, that she became less Laissez Faire and more Conservative. I completely disagree. She became wiser. She moved from "hard to actualize" radical rhetoric to practical reality. A is A. I have included the definition of *Taxation* from the Ayn Rand Lexicon at the end of this letter.

The excerpt I will examine is:

“ . . . the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance . . . Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

End quote

I think that as Ayn matured her thinking may not have been as creative and elastic, but it did *mature.* She describes the advisability of completely voluntary taxation as “Would/Should”, and “in the distant future.” Somewhere else, to paraphrase, she said voluntary taxation would be one of the last things implemented during a Randian Government.

Generally, we of the Tea Party Movement do not suggest a negation of the power-to-tax clause of article 1 section 2), because "government" as such might not be possible. Voluntary taxation would not have led to the defeat of Hitler or The Soviet Union. However, war bonds, savings bonds, paying for services, and a national lottery, could keep mandatory taxation to a minimum.

I also have a hard time imagining a system where city, county, state, and federal police are paid for, by a “paying for services” system. How would a local cop know you had paid and were entitled to his services when you are being mugged?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter TaylorFrom the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.

Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved.

The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing.

[Selene]

Adam wrote:

Are you kidding? In what way does any voluntary movement have to "police" their non violent members? Even bigots have individual rights Peter! They have rights that you served in the military to protect. I would risk my life to protect those individual rights to be, peacefully, a bigot.

End quote

I agree that bigots have individual rights. But the "planting" of placards at a Tea Party rally by Liberals, is a political dirty trick worthy of Nixon's nemesis, Dick Tuck. There is, as yet, no *definition* of the Tea Party Movement. Do you want them to define you?

It is an Obama/Fascist attempt to smear your movement, Adam. We may see stealth placards that represent no one truly in the movement, not just phony racist placards, but also Wacko in Waco sentiments, and "fascist militias armed to the teeth to overthrow Republican Government and put in its place der fuhrer," placards.

I would be happy to cast away names that type cast, like fiscal conservative, or libertarian conservative. I would be happy to drop the conservative entirely, but a drawn out explanation is too tedious to repeat over and over.

I want the *Tea Party* to become my *Party.* we need to define the movement.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter:

Thanks for the answer. OK we agree on the individual rights.

We disagree on the strategy and tactics, or as the left used to say, "stractics and tatergy".

My theory and practice is that you turn the negative into a positive. You refuse to be defined by your enemy.

By responding to a plant or imbecile in your ranks, my view is that:

1. it is wasteful of precious movement energy and time to invest in empowering a negative;

2. you turn a negative into a positive, for example, a response to a direct question about the "placard" would be

...a chuckle while explaining that this just shows the power and the beauty of the freedom movement we represent;

3. you then get right back on message by saying that what we stand for is 1,2,3 you hit your three positive messages; and

4. you then jump off to the fact that since this is a movement of individual citizens, we have no leader, we do not need one, unless you want to say we are led by

common sense that the money government "takes" and spends, is generated by us the producers. Therefore, common sense tells you that government never

produces anything in and of itself. Common sense, our leader, establishes that our government must have our consent because it is OUR money,

I could go on, but do you understand that we are have a debate about the way to proceed.

Good post.

Adam

[Peter]

Charles Krauthammer on Fox just said Rational Exuberance is the feeling we should have about the Tea Party Movement. He thinks the relationship between the Republican Party and the Tea Pary Movement will be harmonious.

We need your help to win. Read the following from Robert.

Peter

TIA Daily • February 18, 2010

COMMENTARY

The Tea Party Debates

TIA Daily readers will have noticed that my schedule has been a bit erratic recently. I'm only a few editions short, in terms of normal production—since the beginning of February, there have been 14 weekdays (not counting President's Day), and I've put out 12 editions, counting this one—but they've come out in fits and starts. The reason for the delay was a new and very timely project that I'm now ready to unveil.

On January 22, I moderated a Tea Party-sponsored debate for six candidates for the Republican nomination in Virginia's fifth congressional district. In response to that event, I got multiple inquiries from people who wanted to sponsor similar events elsewhere. The idea of hosting candidates' debates as the next step for the Tea Party movement is definitely catching on, and I expect soon to be able to announce several new debates in other congressional districts where I will also be serving as moderator.

Sensing the opportunity to help push the Tea Party movement in this direction, I decided to create an organization to be a resource center and national coordinator for Tea Party-sponsored debates. I'm calling it The Tea Party Debates, or just

TeaPartyDebates.org.

The website features a how-to guide for hosting debates, based on the experience of our local Tea Party organizers; video, audio, and reports on the debates; and a few articles on the Tea Party movement and the philosophy of individual rights and limited government.

So far, I have the site functioning and looking mostly the way I want it, and I have the most important content up—the how-to guide, and material from the VA-5 debate. I'll be adding more articles soon, as well as announcements on other upcoming debates. I've also put together some additional materials that will not be on the site but which will be available on request for Tea Party organizers, such as a master list of questions to ask candidates. (The reason not to make this information public is two-fold; I don't want to make it too easy for candidates to figure out which questions they might get asked, and I want debate organizers to have an incentive to contact us and get on our mailing list.)

Here is the purpose of the organization, as described on the site:

"The Tea Party Debates was created to serve as a resource to help local Tea Party organizations host forums or debates for political candidates, particularly in the primaries.

"Rather than settling for whatever candidate the two main political parties happen to offer us, we would like to help the parties select candidates who are truly dedicated to the principles of limited government—so that we can vote for something better than the lesser of two evils.

"The Tea Party Debates will not endorse any particular candidates. That decision is up to the viewers of the debates and the local Tea Party organization. Our goal is simply to get them to answer our questions—questions about limited government, free markets, individual rights, and strong national defense—so that we know where they stand and can cast our votes for the most effective advocates of Tea Party ideas.

"Why a national Tea Party debates organization? Hosting a candidates’ forum or debate is a complex job that involves a lot of work—and most Tea Party organizers are, thankfully, volunteers with full-time jobs. A national organization can draw on our members’ experience in hosting their own debates, which allows us to offer good advice and organizational resources that make the task easier for local Tea Party hosts.

"The Tea Party Debates also has the advantage of being neutral and of never endorsing any candidates. Our view is that local Tea Party groups should not endorse a candidate until after they have sponsored a debate. We should give all of the candidates an opportunity—and an incentive—to answer our questions and make their case to us before we decide who we support.

"But we know that some local tea party groups have already endorsed a candidate, which will make other candidates reluctant to participate in a debate, even if they are not hostile to the Tea Party movement itself. In those cases, a national organization which never endorses any candidate—The Tea Party Debates—can serve as a neutral sponsor that all of the candidates will accept.

"Finally, a national Tea Party debates organization is a way to build a true grass-roots national voice for the Tea Party movement. There are a lot of people who are attempting to set themselves up as a 'national' Tea Party organization—appointed to that position by nobody but themselves. By contrast, the base of our organization will be actual local tea party groups that have sponsored actual debates. This gives us the credibility to represent the genuine Tea Party grassroots and serve as the sponsor for future Tea Party debates on a larger scale."

As for what "future Tea Party debates on a larger scale" means, I'll leave that for the reader to figure out. I'll also mention that I do have plans for what to do with this organization after the primaries and between national elections—which I will announce when we reach that point.

For now, I'd like to ask your help in building this organization. I've seen some discussion recently among Objectivists about the meaning of the Tea Party movement and what its long-term impact will be. But why speculate about this question when we can help influence the outcome? A good way to start is literally by influencing the debate within the Republican Party and within the Tea Party movement.

So I am asking two things of my readers. First, I want to get The Tea Party Debates involved with as many congressional candidates' debates as possible. (I am focusing, of course, on the Republican primaries; The Tea Party Debates is non-partisan, but for now I expect that only one party is going to want to have anything to do with us.) If you are in a district with a competitive primary race, let me know, and help put me in contact with your local Tea Party group. Tea Party groups are right to be wary of outside groups trying to jump on their bandwagon, so an introduction from a local would go a long way.

I am particularly interested in getting involved in Senate primaries, which would involve state-wide coordination between local Tea Party groups. Could we get a Tea Party-sponsored debate for Rubio and Crist in Florida? I'll give John McCain credit for one thing: he has courage. Does he have enough to confront JD Hayworth at a Tea Party-sponsored event? And how about the California Senate primary? If the Tea Party movement can have an impact on the Massachusetts senate race, why not California, too? I'll be pursuing all of these ideas, but your contacts with local Tea Party groups would be enormously helpful.

You can contact me by replying to any edition of TIA Daily, or at robert@teapartydebates.org.

The second way you can help is with financial support. So far, this organization has been created with a little bit of money from TIA and a fair bit of my time. I'm looking to raise some money to finish up the incorporation process for The Tea Party Debates, including tax-deductible 501©3 status. This means that your donations may be convertible later into tax-deductible donations—but I can't promise anything yet until we get all of the legal issues worked out and make sure we're not running afoul of some obscure election or campaign finance laws. And we may need some money to help with logistics on debates that we co-sponsor.

Help support this cause by going to www.tiadaily.com/support, and make sure to include a line earmarking your donation for The Tea Party Debates.

I was very grateful to everyone who supported TIA's activism on the health-care debate, and the result of that contest was so razor-close that I am certain your contributions made a difference to the outcome. Now the grave danger of the past year has turned into an unprecedented opportunity to advance the cause of liberty. Please help out with your support.—RWT

[Peter]

FINAL PUSH FOR OBAMACARE IS COMING....

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

As the story below indicates, our prediction of a month ago is, unfortunately, coming true: Obama is planning one final push to pass healthcare with no Republican support. Disguising his true intentions behind a health care summit which is designed to fail, he will try to pass the Senate bill in the House and send it to the White House to become law. Then, he will use the reconciliation procedure (which lets him pass budget related bills in the Senate with only 51 votes) to push through additional legislation which modifies the bill to suit House and Senate liberals (probably including a public option).

We need to rally one last time to STOP him!

Obama will probably get the House liberals to go along with passing the Senate bill as long as reconcilation looms in the future. He will also have no trouble getting the 51 votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate.

The only way to stop him is to deny Pelosi the support of conservative Democrats in the House who are scared to death following the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. When we first figured out what the White House was up to, we prepared ads to run in each of the districts of the swing conservative Democrats who voted for the original health care bill.

As you may remember, health care passed in the House by only 220-115. Thirty-eight Democrats voted no. But about twenty-three conservative Democrats voted in favor of Obamacare. They are all vulnerable to defeat this year. We need to advertise in their districts to persuade them that voting for Obamacare would mean likely political defeat. We need your funds to make these ads possible. We need $1 million for this final push.

Click here to see the ad we propose to run in one such typical district. We have eleven others which we have already produced and are in the can, waiting to go. We will produce and run in more districts as our funding level increases.

PLEASE HELP US WIN THIS FIGHT! Even if you have given before -- even if you have given several times before -- please give again. This is the final round. Remember what Obama says: "we are on the five yard line with health care reform." He is indeed in our red zone with the bill having passed both Houses in different forms already. We need a tough, strong goal line stand to block this disastrous piece of legislation from passing.

Please support the League of American Voters in their efforts to stop Obama -- Go Here Now.

A contrary view:

Good Afternoon,

A lot of people think that health insurance reform doesn't matter to them because they already have coverage. And it's easy to understand why some Americans might resist changing the insurance system for fear that significant reform would threaten what they have now.

There is a threat to health care coverage in the country, but it isn't reform: it's doing nothing. Rising costs of insurance premiums are pushing more and more people into the ranks of the uninsured.

The President discusses all of this in his Weekly Address this morning:

At a time when health insurance companies are fighting as hard as ever to stop health reform, their actions couldn't show more clearly why we need it.

In California, beneficiaries recently received letters from Anthem Blue Cross announcing their rates would go up as high as 39 percent. Elsewhere, in the last year alone, large insurers have requested premium increases of 56 percent in Michigan, 24 percent in Connecticut, 23 percent in Maine and 20 percent in Oregon.

If we don't pass reform, premiums will continue to rise and Americans will continue to be at the mercy of the worst insurance company practices and abuses.

We’re closer than ever to making reform a reality. We can't let up now.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Sebelius

Secretary of Health and Human Services

P.S. Don't forget to come back to WhiteHouse.gov on Thursday, when the President will meet with members of Congress from both parties to discuss reform and the path ahead. For now though, don't miss this week’s address and share it with your friends and family.

[Peter]

Democrat Congressman Kucinich is speaking on Fox. His proposal sounds intriguing. What flaws do you see in his reasoning?

70 percent of the people are electing to retire early at age 62. Open a window for six months for people to voluntarily retire at age 60, which could free up 4 million jobs for younger people to get back to work. The driving force of our economic policy must be jobs, jobs, jobs. The volunteers would receive the same benefits that they would receive if they retired at age 62.

End of paraphrase

Is it fair to say the early retirees would be 4 million new *Government jobs* or simply retirees getting back what they paid into Social Security?

What of the four million job openings created by early retirees? I think that when people retire in a bad economy, the companies *make do* with the remaining employees. What if the four million openings only result in one million “replacement” jobs? Is there a net gain? The million might be coming off workman’s compensation, so the state’s burdens would be lessened.

Other news:

Cpac vote results for Republican Presidential Nominee: 31% Ron Paul. 22% Mitt Romney. 7% Sarah Palin.

Does Iran have zero, one, two, or three bombs? If we strike militarily it would be a third war front. Will Israel be involved? Will the other Arab states be involved?

The Canadian Press reports the Quebec council of gays and lesbians is going to make a complaint about French-language RDS, whose commentators Alain Goldberg and Claude Mailhot decided to go for the gold for trading in stale Johnny Weir jokes.

The pair called Weir "a bad example" and also suggested he go through gender testing, like the runner Caster Semenya. After all, in no way is the latter a touchy subject.

RDS' apology addressed "tactless comments on the appearance and manner of a figure skater." The crux of the grievance, though, was the comparison to Semenya.

Gender testing because a male balletic skater was too feminine and therefore had an unfair advantage? From all this, he does has a good book title though: “Too pretty to skate!”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

I am providing you with a bucket to put all of your interminably disjointed and disconnected bullshit into while you look at your reflection in the mirror.

What is your post supposed to have us focus on?

Adam

[ValueChaser]

Most people say there was a DE- radical shift in Ayn Rand as she aged, that she became less Laissez Faire and more Conservative. I completely disagree. She became wiser. She moved from "hard to actualize" radical rhetoric to practical reality. A is A. I have included the definition of *Taxation* from the Ayn Rand Lexicon at the end of this letter.

I have drawn some implications from what I beleive you mean by this, but before I post them, I want to make sure I understand their basis. Would you give an example or definition of Rand's "'hard to actualize' radical rhetoric" and her mature "practical reality"? (I am taking your context as: the privatization of moral governmental functions is what she first regarded as "hard to actualize," before she spoke of it in terms of "practical reality")

Oh--he he, if you wrote "Value Chasing John" because you were confused about how to address me--a simple "John" would suffice!

--John

P.S. The "insurance" method of privatizing government is a great solution. But, as you mentioned, how will a policeman about to intervene in a crime know if the potential victim is "insured?" This scenario is not like an automotive collision where an insurance company may reimburse only its subscribers. Today, insurance companies do not use funds to prevent or protect the destruction of property, they use funds to repair the destruction of property. But a government should be able in some cases to protect the individual from force before the force occurs How does this happen in cases of swift physical force? The swift time it takes to mug someone does not leave a policeman able to check if he has been paid for intervening in the mugging.

That is why I am thinking that a system of volutary insurance PLUS compulsory taxation of a thief, mugger, or any one of a bevy of rights-abrogators should be forced to "insure" (in proportionate measure) the very police system that the victim chose not to pay for. To be sure, that is a double penalization: one for the attempted crime (given for now that "attempts" at crime are objectively criminal), one to finance the intervention of an imminent crime. I have a slight aversion to such double penalization, yet not an outright indignity about it. We need to punish individuals who attempt crimes for the crime, so that any one of us might not be placed in a situation like the crime (via deterring the individual criminal and other would-be criminals). Fair enough. And, we need to finance an agency that prevents imminent crimes.

It all boils down to: Is an imminent offender responsible for his own policing, and if so, what if he does not have the money to finance his own policing?

I think the offender is responsible for his own policing because, in addition to the debt he owes to his imminent victim, he also owes a debt to pay the police officer--for indirectly causing the would-be victim to "solicit" the policeman's services. The issue is what if the wrong doer cannot afford to pay? Well, a certain percentages of wrongdoers will be able to pay. To those who can't pay (including those whom we cannot be sure ever will), who will finance police intervention (in cases of swift force) when the police have no way of knowing whether the imminent victim is insured (which he does not "have" to be, given that insurance must be voluntary)?

This is a case that would seem to be rare; a very small percentage of cases would involve BOTH a poor criminal AND an uninsured, would-be victim. In such cases, I beleive a legal argument could be made that the police have the right to indebt the uninsured person for a particular case of such intervention, but I do not know how to make such a case consistent with the would-be victims egoism right now.

I vaguely recall that Rand, in her article "Government Financing in a Free Society," said something to the effect that those who do not pay for insurance of the kind that affords protection by the government, will receive a free ride in this area from those who do pay, given that the latter will create a type of surplus? I don't have a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal at my disposal, so a follow-up post that checks this viewpoint would be very much appreciated.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ValueChaser

[ValueChaser]

I deleted this post because it was a duplicate--gotta try harder to prevent duplicating! My apologies.

--John

Edited February 23, 2010 by ValueChaser