Archive for free market

Nazis Had the Jews; Democrats Have “Big Oil”

Posted in civil rights, Constitution, Economy, Elections, John McCain, News, Obama, politics, taxes with tags , , , on June 18, 2008 by Randy Streu

Yahoo! News reports that 67% of Americans polled wisely believe we should drill domestically.  George W. Bush and John McCain, fortunately, agree.  That’s the good news.

The bad news, from a freedom perspective, is the number of people either seriously considering or already sold on the idea of “nationalizing” (read: socializing) the fuel industry.  When asked the question, “should the government nationalize all the oil companies and run them on a non-profit basis,” a mere 47% of those polled said, “no.”  Even more troubling, to me, is that when asked whether an oil company who discovers an alternative fuel sourceshould be allowed to keep the profit, only 52% said “yes.”  These are the main numbers I want to deal with.  You can view the entire Rasmussen Report here.

For some people, the above numbers will be read as a victory, of sorts, for the “common man.”  Most of those individuals will be voting for Obama.  And it is to those individuals I would like to address my rebuttal.

Gas prices are making people angry.  And, perhaps, rightly so.  Fingers of blame for these prices are pointed in every direction, but as usual, it is not the argument that makes the most sense, but that which is shouted the loudest, that seems to gain credibility.  As a result of the Democrat propaganda machine, the oil industry has been demonized and incorrectly turned into “enemies” of the American people.  I would submit that the poll results listed above reflect not a considered approach to economics, but a response made in anger — a smackdownof the Democrats’ official scapegoats.  The result?  There are now Americans who favor violating the Constitutional rights of those who have made investments into America’s fuel and energy sources.

Let’s focus on this point for a moment.  Let’s forget that, had Bill Clinton agreed to drill ANWR and off-shore when he was asked, we would not right now be dealing with a dependency-based supply-demand crisis.  Let’s forgetthat, thanks largely to Environmentalists and Congressional Democrats, we have not built a single new refinery (including to replace those which have been destroyed by natural disaster) in thirty years.  Let’s forget, in other words, that this is ultimately the government’s fault — that same government to whom people now advocate handing over the reins of oil production.  We’ll touch on the real culprits later. 

First, let’s deal with what’s being advocated by some Americans: the socialization of the oil industry.  History has shown repeatedly that socialization simply doesn’t work.  It creates a bureaucracy that is expensive to taxpayers, and time and time again has caused the necessity for rationing of needed product — which directly negatively impacts the liberty of all Americans.  There are those who suggest that such a necessary item should not be left in the hands of private individuals — that, since oil is so very important to our society, government is its right and proper controller.  Of course, food is also pretty important (more so than oil, even), but I doubt very many of these advocates for oil nationalization would be in favor of the government taking over America’s farms.  Or have we really forgotten that every socialist nation in the world has either failed outright, been relegated to third-world status, or embraced some forms of capitalism in order to stay afloat?

Then you have the simple fact that this approach run counter to the role of government established by our Constitution.  Of course, when it comes to “Big Oil,” the Constitution seems to some Democrats, and at least 29% of those polled by Rasmussen, not to apply.  Though everyone seems to agree that oil companies would do better if they invested in alternative energy (or, for some, that oil companies should do it regardless), only 52% of those polled believe companies should be allowed to keep profits from those discoveries — with 29% saying they should not(!).  What?  Not only is this a horribly naive approach to economics (crossing well past the border into stupidity, actually), but this runs so counter to Freedom and Liberty that these people must choke when they are forced to call themselves “Americans.”

First, nobody is going to invest time, energy or funds to explore alternative fuels without the potential of profit.  This simple fact ought to be a no-brainer.  But evidently those without brains disagree.  Either that, or they simply aren’t suggesting that people “volunteer.”  They are suggesting instead that either companies be forced to invest in alternative fuels without compensation (slavery), or that a government bureaucracy do it (socialism).  And of those who don’t believe outright that these are horrible, horrible ideas, half just aren’t sure.  It’s as if years of history have been either forgotten or ignored.

How does such a thing happen?  Simple.  It’s pretty well-established that in order to succeed, liberals rely on dissatisfaction.  In order to get elected, Democrats need crisis, and they need somebody to blame for it.  They can’t very well point the fingers at themselves, so the National Socialist — oops — I mean, Democrat Party found a class of citizens to blame for society’s ills: the wealthy.  “Big Drug,” “Big Tobacco” and “Big Oil” are the perpetrators of crimes against society, while CEOs and other “Corporate Executives” are the Juden in the Democrats’ little historical pageant.  The creation and prosecution of a scapegoat is the most important element to the success of those who would limit freedom — a scapegoat recognized only by the hero on the white horse, who alone can combat him.  For Germany, it was Hitler.  For us it’s Obama and the Democrat Party.   I am not seeking here to minimalize the horrors visited on European Jews during the Nazi regime — nor to suggest that Obama et al have plans to torture, murder and burn corporate CEOs or oil execs.  Jail, over-tax and strip of basic property rights, sure… but murder is mean, and doesn’t in general get people re-elected.

Advertisements

Should Conservatives Boycott Big Businesses?

Posted in Constitution, Economy, healthcare, politics with tags , , , , on December 29, 2007 by Randy Streu

Like the Democrats, the Republicans have seen their share of special interest groups hijacking the party. 

Most notably recently, we have the SoCons.  Now, I’m not referring here to Republicans who happen to be socially conservative.  In a very real sense, strong moral beliefs have always been part of the Republican Party.  The people to whom I am referring are those who put particular social issues above every other issue in the race — to the extent of sacrificing those issues in order to get exactly what they believe they want on the issues.  So long as a man promises to try to federally outlaw gay marriage and abortion, their candidate of choice could be as fiscally conservative as Hillary Clinton or John Edwards and still get the vote.  Hence, the Mike Huckabee surge.

However, even longer ago than the social conservatives came the corporate hijacking.  For some reason, rather than the party of liberty, lower taxes and smaller government, for many Republicans in government we’ve become the party of Corporate welfare.  We’ve gone from getting government off our backs to allowing ourselves to be run by big business. 

Great.  I’m starting to sound like Ron Paul.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I have no problems whatsoever with big business.  I’m all for it.  But there’s a big difference between free-market conservatism and corporate pandering.  Corporations, combined with big government, have all but crippled the options for the average citizen. 

People are flocking to the liberal socialists’ “universal healthcare” in droves because our choices for health insurance are so limited.  And, often being the only game in town, health insurance providers often have little or no incentive to treat customers with dignity or respect.  There’s one situation, which I’ll be discussing more about in the future (much more) in which a woman who paid her premiums on time and was hit by a truck was sued by her insurance company because she won a suit against the trucking company responsible for the accident.  Legal?  Okay.  Moral and ethical?  Just try and convince me.  And often, given the very limited options in healthcare, we feel like we don’t have an option.

But we do.

Far too many people are beginning to rely on government to keep big business in check.  They don’t like particular ads, or particular business practices, or particular prices — so they want the government to pass more legislation and regulation.  Much of what we see in the regulation category, by the way, is often unconstitionally legislated by non-elected government workers.  Lazy “activism” by people who want to have their cake and eat it too.

The fact is, built within the free market system, is the single most democratic and valuable tool in this whole fight:  the dollar.  We, the people choose when, why and how to spend it.  We the people get to choose where our money goes.  If not directly, as in the case of insurance companies (often) then at least indirectly by going after the companies who force their employees into substandard insurance plans. 

We, the people, have the right, authority and power to change business practices, to enforce a code of ethics and morality within the health and other industries.  We are able to drive down prices on needed goods — and even so-called luxury items.  All without a single government beaurocrat.

Not only is a boycott a good way to enact change, it is the most conservative means of affecting change in business.  It is allowing the market to work.  It is giving both consumers and businesses a choice: I choose to spend my money elsewhere until company A chooses to give in to my demands.

Now, as a fair warning, I’m not typing this in a vacuum.  I believe we have an opportunity, which I will be disclosing further within the next couple of days, to affect change in at least one big business in regard to healthcare.  Why is this important?  Well, for starters, because of simple morality and compassion.  From a political level, though, it’s because now, more than ever, it has become vital to prove the market system can and does work when it comes to healthcare. 

 And you and I can prove it.  No politicians.  No new legislation.  Just by witholding our dollars.  Just with a simple boycott.

Stay tuned.

-Streu-