Is "Institutionalized Racism" the Problem in the Black Community? Part 1: The Family

I now would like to address the contention that black & minority socioeconomic problems are due to "Racism" and that the Criminal Justice System is "Racist". 

When one blames Racism (white supremacy) for the issues in the black and minority community such as poverty, crime, poor education, high incarceration rates, one implies several things:

1) One is taking away moral agency for an entire group of peoples and the fact that people make choices because of Free Will, which implies that blacks and minorities are unable to suceed by their own merits

2) It ignores other massive influential factors and imputs into an extremely complicated socioeconomic issue such as single parent homes and an epidemic of fatherlessness.

3) The fact that unjust laws (not racist laws) such as prohibition create abusive enforcers and incentivize arrests and imprisonment for every citizen.  The War on Drugs is not inherently "racist". 

First, I am going to address problems with the Family and fatherlessness. 

Virtually every major social pathology, violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, and teen pregnancy is strongly associated with fatherlessness.  A majority of prisoners, juvenile deliquents, high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [1] The prevalency of deliquency among children from broken homes is 10-15% higher. [2]  An estimated 70 percent of the juveniles in state reform institutions, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 60 percent of America's rapists grew up without fathers.[3] These statistics apply for all races. The connection of social pathologies with fatherless homes is so strong that some researchers have concluded that the likelihood of children's involvement in crime is determined by the extent of both parents' involvement in their children's lives, rather than income or race. [4]

To address the black community specifically, "Unfortunately, many in the black community embraced the liberal/progressive social scientist view, that all the aforementioned negative outcomes are results of external factors, like systematic racism, discriminatory laws, an unjust criminal justice system, and glass ceilings in the marketplace to name a few.

While those factors would have been undeniable in our Nations’ not too distant past, and I cannot deny that they still exist in some small pockets of our society. Never the less; to zero in on them in our post-civil rights era with complete disregard of the glaring internal factors (family breakdown) is socially dishonest and scientifically lazy." [5]

According to government statistics, 72 percent of African-American children are born to unmarried mothers.  Compared with 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008. Nearly 5 million black children, or 54 per cent, live in a one-parent, matriarchal family.

"A report from the Institute for American Values Center for Marriage and Families notes that over the past 50 years, “the percentage of black families headed by married couples declined from 78 percent to 34 percent.”

In the 30 years from 1950 to 1980, households headed by black women who never married jumped from 3.8 per thousand to 69.7 per thousand." [6] 

Linda Chavez, the former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission argues that the “chief cause of poverty today among blacks is no longer racism: it is the breakdown of the traditional family.” Many studies have shown that single parent households are more likely to be in poverty or close to it because of the splitting of incomes to 2 households instead of 1 family household. 

Juan Williams, often accused of “blaming the poor” states: “They say this answer puts pressure on the poor. They say this with a straight face, even though nearly 70 percent of black children are born to single women, damning a high number of them to poverty, bad schools, and bad influences. They say this knowing that in 1964, in a far more hostile and racist America, 82 per cent of black households had both parents in place and close to half of those households owned a business.” [7]

Distinguised black economist Walter Williams said, "It does the poor no favors to blame their problems on racism, which has been diminishing as the pathologies got worse. In 1940, the black illegitimacy rate was around 14 percent. Now, it’s 75 percent. In 1870, right after slavery, 70 to 80 percent of black families were intact. Now only 30 percent of black kids live in two-parent families. Some 51 percent of homicide victims are black, as are 95 percent of their killers. You can’t blame this on white people. The rotten schools black kids attend are mostly in cities where black adults are in control and spending a lot of taxpayers’ money on those schools.” [8]

Faced with these sobering facts it is disingenious to deny the effect of fatherlessness and illegitimacy on the black community and it does more harm than good to ignore these facts because of "Policital Correctness".  I will continue this essay in a subsequent email.

For further research and reading on fatherlessness:

1. http://www.fathersforlife.org/fatherhood/fatherlessness_table_contents.htm

2. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st267?pg=3

References: 

1. Father Facts (Lancaster, Pennsylvania: National Fatherhood Initiative, 1996); Cynthia Daniels, ed., Lost Fathers: The Politics of Fatherlessness in America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998).

2. L. Edward Wells and Joseph H. Rankin, “Families and Delinquence: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Broken Homes,” Social Problems, vol. 38, no. 1 (1991).

3. Allen Beck, Susan Kline and Lawrence Greenfield, Survey of Youth in Custody 1987 (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 1988; Dewey Cornell et al., “Characteristics of Adolescents Charged with Homicide,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law, vol. 5, 1987, pages 11-23; Nicholas Davidson, “Life Without Father,” Policy Review, 1990.

4. Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and William Galston, Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s, 1990, Progressive Policy Institute.

5. http://thyblackman.com/2012/06/16/fatherlessness-the-disease-thats-decimated-the-black-community-now-threatens-the-whole-nation/

6. http://www.reengageinc.org/research/IAV_Brief6.pdf

7. "Studies reflect the Damage of the One Parent Fatherless Family", http://www.commdiginews.com/life/studies-reflect-the-damage-of-the-one-parent-fatherless-family-17573/

8. "Walter Williams", http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/vita.html

Cultural Marxism: Converting "Dissidents"

"We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn towards those that disagree with us." - Lenin

[http://rlv.zcache.com/thought_police_poster-rdc71cfdb00c2442489eeb8f5a2eb68b6_vpoez_8byvr_512.jpg]

Robert Jay Lifton, studied the dynamics of POW brainwashing in the Korean War and in Chinese camps. He identified a sequence of 10 factors that would reliably break down the personality and rebuild it in the image of the brain washers (Cultural Marxists, today). As a thought experiment, think about the idea of supposed "White Guilt" and "Institutionalized Racism" that is being pushed right now as a "fact".

1. Assault on identity - It's wrong for whites to have any white "pride" or be proud of European heritage because of capitalism, slavery, and colonialism. All positive accomplishments are negated.
2. Guilt - Constantly remind whites about the horrors perpetrated by the colonialists & slave owners in America's past and blame them for poverty and crime in minority communities.
3. Self-betrayal - The person begins to accept the guilt from being constantly reminded of it and surrounded by others who have already confessed.
4. Breaking point - The person finally succumbs to the mental assault and horrible feelings of guilt. They will do and say anything to relieve the pain.
5. Leniency - Now the person has suffered and agonized long enough, they deserve a short reprieve. A reward for suffering.
6. The compulsion to confess - The person is supported by the community to "come out" and "own" his/her "guilt" and be accepted.
7. The channeling of guilt - It's "noble" to admit guilt and now they see it in others.
8. Re-education, logical dishonoring - The person is now taught Critical Race Theory as fact, and embrace the illogical education they previously rejected.
9.  Progress and Harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth 

I don't believe it can be any clearer than that.  We can now use this model to examine the way Progressive Cultural Marxists have pushed "Sexism", "Islamophobia", "Homophobia", "Xenophobia" and "Racism" as mental and psychological disorders.  Now, we all know there are small percentages of people who do truly hate, but it's ridiculous to claim it as a country-wide and world-wide psychological problem.

If you dare to dissent and deny that these problems exist as endemic, you WILL be labeled as a thought criminal and mentally ill by the Cultural Marxists.  They will lie, ridicule, slander, insult, and scorn you until your courage wanes and your dissident spirit is broken. Then they will attempt to use the 10 brainwashing tactics to reform you, because they believe you to be pathologically deranged.

We have to know that these, along with Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and the Cloward-Piven strategy are being used at every single point, every aspect in life by these insane Marxists that want to "Fundamentally Change" America as we know it.  Once you see how they do it, and see behind their "tolerance" and "diversity" double-speak, you will understand this is a fight for the very soul of America and its people.  We must continue to be mentally strong and resilient in the face on non-stop attempts to break our spirit and relinquish our core virtues, values, and morals (even the Law & Constitution).

To a logical Libertarian conservative or just a regular person who values personal freedom, wants to be left alone, respects others choices and doesn't want to "change" anyone's belief system and thus is not in the thrall of the "progressive" mindset, this mentality is frightening and dangerous.  To us, we think, "Who in their right mind could want to police peoples' very thoughts? Who desires more control over peoples lives? How can they not just see and understand the facts I'm presenting"  Below is a review of the book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

"For years I have tried to discuss rationally with liberals/socialists. The only result I could get was to doubt my arguments, no matter how solid they were, because reason didn't seem powerful enough to move them. I could see that the liberal agenda was economically unsound and even against the basic facts of human nature. Just when I was giving up any possibility of ever understanding the liberal mind and its irrational assaults on reason and human nature, I came across Dr. Rossiter's book.
For the first time I could confirm a long held impression that liberals have some problem in their way of thinking. The Liberal Mind convincingly states that what appears to be just normal people worried about real social and political problems is in fact a neurosis which manifests itself in trying to manipulate those who just want to live their lives autonomously and cooperatively by attacking their freedom. Dr. Rossiter gives a complete description of signs, symptoms and causes of this neurosis. And a didactical one, for he emphasizes and repeats key concepts all through the book, so that when introducing new concepts the fundamentals are never out of sight.

Anyone who still understands man as an autonomous and cooperative being must read this book. The Liberal Mind is a wonderful guide through the sophisms the liberal neurosis creates in the mind of those affected by it, even if the liberal agenda has already dominated the mentality of almost a whole country. "

These are people who literally want to control what you choose to think and do, while at the same time claiming they are the "tolerant" ones, fighting for the freedoms of the oppressed, poor, and minorities.

The Liberal Mind is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains. [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD]

[Relevant Links]

Obama's new 'domestic extremism' czar teams up with leftist front group to persecute conservatives and libertarians
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis (Cloward-Piven)
Canadian Man Gets 18 months in Jail & Probation for Saying Islam is Evil
Conservatism as a Mental Illness

Lower Taxes = Higher Revenue (No, really!): The Laffer Curve

Fact: People change their behavior based on actions.

So, what really happens when taxes are lowered? Based on the propaganda from the "Left" and "Progressives", you would think that raising taxes significantly would generate more revenue and that would be the logical step in a stagnant economy and a large deficit.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.  The Laffer Curve is a simple economic model with proven positive historical economic results. 

1) The basic premise is: Less (Average) Taxes = More Output  > More Output = More Revenue

According to the Laffer Curve, there is a "sweet spot" to maximize revenue (see graph).  Raising taxes too much penalizes participation in taxed activities (working, starting a business, investing, spending, etc.) and increases the need for expenditures (unemployment, medicare, social services, etc.)

2) A high tax rate on a small tax base, the top 10% percentile, (and what progressive democratic "socialists" label the evil 1%) generates LESS revenue.
A lower tax rate on a large tax base generates MORE revenue.

"Supply-side economics was never just about slashing tax rates. As Laffer told me in a recent interview: “We also emphasized sound money, free trade and deregulation. It was a package of reforms to clear away the obstacles to increased economic output.” [2]

Lets give a few examples.

A) The Harding-Coolidge tax cuts in 1920. This cut the tax rate on the highest-income bracket through to the lowest-income bracket. This increased the GDP, unemployment decreased thus putting more workers in the tax-base, and improved everyone's general quality of life significantly.

[http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2004/bg1765/figure5.ashx]

B) Kennedy tax cuts in 1964. In the 4 years following JFK's tax cuts, the top tax bracket went from 94% > 70%, as well as lowering taxes for all other brackets as well.  The government revenue increased 9% annually and at a faster rate. 

[http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2004/bg1765/figure7.ashx]

C) Regan tax cuts.  During the 1980's the country was suffering from Stagflation, which is high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment.  Reducing income taxes and capital gains taxes in 1981 helped launch what we now appreciate as one of the greatest and longest periods of wealth creation in world history.

"Prior to the tax cut, the economy was choking on high inflation, high Interest rates, and high unemployment. All three of these economic bellwethers dropped sharply after the tax cuts. The unemployment rate, which peaked at 9.7 percent in 1982, began a steady decline, reaching 7.0 percent by 1986 and 5.3 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989.

Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually.

The most controversial portion of Reagan's tax revolution was reducing the highest marginal income tax rate from 70 percent (when he took office in 1981) to 28 percent in 1988. However, Internal Revenue Service data reveal that tax collections from the wealthy, as measured by personal income taxes paid by top percentile earners, increased between 1980 and 1988--despite significantly lower tax rates."

Reducing capital gains taxes in 1997 further increased asset values, productivity, and private sector capital investments than in the previous decade starting in 1987.

During periods of tax increases, budget offices consistently over-estimate revenues because they fail to consider economic feedback effects incorporated in the Laffer Curve. 

"Seldom in economics does real life conform so conveniently to theory as this capital gains example does to the Laffer Curve. Lower tax rates change people's economic behavior and stimulate economic growth, which can create more--not less--tax revenues."

 Sources:
1. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-laffer-curve-at-40-still-looks-good/2014/12/26/4cded164-853d-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html
3.  Supply-Side Economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Socratic Dialogue: Socialism is Theft

A: I believe in Socialism and equality, yes! We need to make Wall Street and greedy corporations pay their Fair Share so the majority of the population doesn't suffer while the 1% have basically all the wealth in America. It's completely unfair!

Q: So, as an example, you believe it is acceptable to approach a rich stranger and force them to give you an amount of money you deem "fair" so you can spread it around to people who you think deserve it? Even if they don't work or produce anything of value? Just because they are unequal in wealth?

A: I've always loved Robin Hood, so yes, I agree. It's a morally grey area.  Morality is relative, it's my personal opinion.

A: I wouldn't personally steal from you!  I would actually help you, you're my friend. You're also not a millionaire or a billionaire! There is no reason to take your stuff, you're not the 1%.

Q: But theft is wrong. Stealing from me isn't any different than stealing from anyone else.

A: Most people think stealing is always wrong.  I think it's usually wrong but it all depends on the circumstances.

Q: So if we make up the rules as we go along, murder, rape, theft; all can be justified depending on the circumstances at the time.

A: No! Murder is always wrong! Rape is always wrong! It's never OK to harm another person, but theft isn't as bad as murder or rape.

Q: What if the outcome of a theft caused death or bodily harm?

A: Well, I guess you wouldn't be able to know the final outcome until it actually occurred.

Q: So, knowing the outcome of theft is uncertain, would it not be correct to say that it is always wrong?

A: I guess you are right. We don't know with one hundred percent certainty what the consequences of our actions will be.

-------------------------------------------------------

Q: The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions.

A: But I think we need to transcend the idea of right and wrong.  People make their own choices.

Q: But if you want to live in a functioning society, not chaos, isn't it true people need to agree on "principles" and "rules" in how to go about their daily lives?

A: Following your line of reasoning, correct.

Q: Otherwise there would be no "civilization".

A: Yes, I guess it would be quite messy, actually. You can't really call chaos or hunter gatherer groups "civilization" in the modern sense.

Q: So if you believe in the Golden Rule, you logically have to agree that stealing is wrong, otherwise you disagree with the Golden Rule (do unto others).

A: Yes, I see.

Q: You can agree that in order for large societies to function there must be an agreement on some kind of Ethics that everyone *should* abide by. Otherwise you will be punished for disobeying the cultural agreements of The Golden Rule and Private Property Rights.

A: Logically you are making sense. I am following you.

Q: The other side of the coin is chaos and no civilization, where no one can agree on any Ethics or Moral code. So, to take the argument further, is there any circumstance where it is allowed to take someone else's property? As an example, if a person borrowed money and entered into a voluntary contract with another person or entity and never paid it back, then yes, it would be allowed because they violated the contract.

A: How about certain circumstances? What is a person was starving to death and needed to steal food from someone  or a store in order survive?

Q: Ethically, the person who is starving and on the verge of death is functioning at the basest level of existence, so he is compelled to act unethically in order to survive.  This, however, does not change the definition of said ethics and morals.

A: Ok, that makes sense.

Q: So the next question is how do we compromise and find solutions in a society that are ethical and moral?

A: I'm unsure. Laws?

Q: We know from our conversation that stealing is wrong.  It does not matter if the person is rich or poor.  The ethics don't change from person to person.

A: Based on your line of reasoning...yes.

Q: So, we must come up with solutions that do not violate these principles.  Saying "Take all the money from rich people and give it to the poor" isn't ethical or logical.  And when you accept that then there are no vague arguments for generalized redistribution of wealth based on subjective ethics or morality. So, to reiterate, 1) stealing is wrong, and 2) ethics do not change from person to person or situation to situation.  That is true equality because everyone is treated equally, or they are not.  And also, based on reasoning we can now come to an agreement on what laws are "just" and "unjust".

A: Yes.

Q: The world is a complicated place, we both agree.  The next logical step is how does a society deal with people who violate these principles and violate the Golden Rule?

A: Not sure.

Q: We can now discuss further, since we have both agreed on what these concepts are.

A: Yes.

Q: You stated earlier that you were a socialist and also that you believed stealing was justified in certain circumstances. So, based on these principles, if you agree with them, you can not believe in a socialist government because it is based on redistribution of wealth and property by force (theft).

A: Ok, but based on your argument isn't it also wrong to let people die from health complications because they can not afford health care?

Q: Hold on, we're not quite there yet!  So, how does a society take care of the indigent in an ethical way?  If we both agree on the Golden Rule, the solution can not be taking a wealthy person's money by force just because they happen to be wealthy.  If we believe in equality, we must treat everyone the same.  And this is where we get problems because society at present is not working in an ethical or equal way.

A:  Based on your argument, yes.  Based on my feelings, I think the wealthy need to pay more than they currently do, and I have wealthy friends and family.

Q: Ok, but those are your feelings, not logic.

A: Ok, right!  But some people starve and some people are so rich! There is no equilibrium!

Q:  This is where the conversation begins about equality. What is equality? Can people in society ever really be equal?  The answer is no. So if you look at equality, we start with some very simple examples.  Some people are born beautiful and they have that advantage and become models or actors. Some people are tall and athletic and have advantages in sports or physical pursuits.  Some people are born with high IQ's, or blind, deaf, poor, short, disabled, etc.

A: Sure, sure!

Q:  So we know that humanity in the most simplistic sense is not equal in advantages and traits and circumstance.  Some are at the top percentile, like geniuses, the majority of us are just average, and the small percentage at the bottom are more disadvantaged for whatever reason.

A:  True, we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Q:  So, would it be fair and ethical to take the eyes from someone and give them to a blind person just because you wanted everyone to be equal?  It's a yes or no question.

A:  That would not be ethical, no.

Q:  So if we follow the same logic, would it be fair to take the wealth and property of someone like Bill Gates, who in the top percentile invented amazing products that have value, and give it to people who happen to have less just for the sake of equality?

A:  I see what you are saying, ok.

Q:  So I take it that your answer is no, it's not ethical to do that.  So, it's unethical to take someone else's eyes or money or beauty or intelligence and try to redistribute it.  It's ethically wrong and it's also impossible in most cases!  So logically we have concluded that the world and humanity is inherently unfair and not equal, and it's unethical to attempt to make it so by force.

A:  I see now.

Q:  This is where we have a fundamental misunderstanding at present with one group of people who believe it is "right" to take from others by force and give it to the rest.  And another group who, when faced with these dilemmas know it's unethical.  So we have come to the conclusion that we live in an unfair world.  Now how do we deal with this?

A:  Not sure! But I follow you.

Q:  So, ethically we now know socialism, at its core, and with all the emotional rhetoric is inherently unethical in its foundational principles.

A:  Yes, based on our conversation, yes!  I guess I don't really identify as a socialist, I just like some of the ideas.  The idea of taking care of everyone is a very good idea.

Q: Yes, the basis of socialism is what I said previously, you just like the rhetoric and the emotional aspect of altruism, not the logic.  The "idea" of taking care of each other is a great and noble desire.

A:  Right, so how do we go about taking care of one another? By force, or not?

Q:  Before I continue I must say that the majority of people who are against socialism know the ethical arguments, even if they can't articulate it like I just did.  They just know it's wrong and unfair.  They aren't "right wing nut jobs who hate the poor". They understand that their beliefs and the socialist model are not compatible, even if they can't articulate it in economic jargon.

A: Yeah.

Q: Ok, so for the most part, the majority of Christians are not socialist because they believe in the Golden Rule and the 10 Commandments so they are not crazy zealots either, like a lot of the progressive "left" would have everyone believe.  This is a huge misunderstanding and a reason why the two camps fight and don't philosophically get along.  The are diametrically opposed like magnets.

A: Yep.

Q:  So you can't have a cohesive society when the people can't agree on basic right and wrong.  It will eventually self-destruct from within.  We can discuss economics and corporations next time.

A: Goodnight!

Bernie Sanders: Reading Past the Campaign Slogans (Part 3)

"All power struggles need to create a "bad guy" to justify retaining their positions of power."

[Image source: http://bluestarchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Occupy_Wall_Street.jpg]

In the "us-vs-them" mentality, especially in politics, Right-vs-Left, Democrat-vs-Republican, Rich-vs-Poor, the disagreements and anger serve as a tool to divide and incite mistrust, and treats the public (you) as a means to and end: votes for political and ideological power.  As Kant rightly said, "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only".  This moral philosophy seems to fall on deaf ears in our current political climate, rife with identity politics and corruption.

Bernard Sanders is using you, preying on your hatred for the "Rich 1 Percent" in order to secure your vote and legislate via his numerous "Acts" a socialist ideology in place of what should be a free market with limited government, otherwise called a Constitutional Republic.  Continuing with the sentiments and frustration that spurred Occupy Wallstreet, Sanders' main campaign platform calls for the Rich 1% and Wall Street to pay their "Fair Share".  But what does this actually mean? Calling things by their proper names is the beginning of wisdom.

Sanders said, "The fairest way to reduce wealth inequality and to rebuild the disappearing middle class, preserve our democracy, is to enact a progressive estate tax on multi-millionaires and billionaires," and "Our nation cannot survive morally or economically when so few have so much and so many have so little. We need a tax system which asks the business class to pay it's fair share of taxes." 

At face value, these statements seem perfectly logical and hit a nerve with the majority of Americans.  But: What is fair? What is equality? Logically we all know nobody is exactly equal to another.  Some people have greater intelligence, or greater beauty.  Some people are born extremely tall or athletic, giving them advantages in sports.  Some people are geniuses who invent amazing and profitable inventions.  We know that not everyone can be exceptional, and in reality the majority of us are destined to be perfectly average. For the in depth scientific study on this topic, see The Bell Curve. 

This rhetoric implies that the rich are evil.  It implies the rich and business class prey upon the lower and middle class by cheating, lying, and stealing to create their wealth.  This is pure propaganda created to incite anger, resentment, frustration, and indignation at a group of people in America that for the most part, created their wealth by hard work, ingenuity, delayed gratification, intelligence, smart investments, and creating products and services that have value.  Now, if a wealthy person makes money but doesn't produce anything of value that is stealing.  You have to ask yourself, did all the people in the say, top richest 10% of society make all their money by stealing it from the bottom 90%? No! They created value and provided services that the market and consumers demanded.  Communism preyed on the hatred and resentment of the rich Bourgeoisie, which is the class of people or the "other" that you are allowed to hate and despise.  So why not just steal from the Bourgeoisie to reduce inequality if all they do is steal from us? The faulty logic says, "I am poor because someone else is rich." This is a ridiculous zero-sum argument and lacks basic economic understanding of how markets and government actually function.  Politicians like Sanders promise to take rich peoples' money and redistribute it to the "underclass" - this is simply a bribe for your vote.  So when people say Sanders is a Communist, even though they are technically incorrect, they're not far off. 

"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." - F.A. Hayek. For further reading: The Road to Serfdom - Hayek

On Liberty

Reading my philosophy book, I came across this great passage from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", written in 1859. 

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mindkind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty or action of any of their number, is self-protection.  That the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised ove any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.   His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right.  These are good reasons for remostrating with him or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.  To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else.  The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

The man who wrote this (a white, British, male!) also wrote another work, a century ahead of its time , "The Subjection of Women" (1869), for women's emancipation and continued to extend his argument in "On Liberty" to include women.

John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham were "Utilitarian". The principe of utility maintains that there is only one way to determine whether something is right or wrong, good or bad, and that is by considering its usefulness or "utility" in bringing about pleasant results.  An action is right if it brings about more happiness than any other possible action; it is wrong if some other possible action could have produced more happiness.  Utilitarianism is a "teleological theory", that is, any theory that evaluates the rightness and wrongness of an action by the consequences likey to result from it.

Moral & Intellectual Virtues

Moral Virtues

This is the case with the other moral qualities.  They are, in the main, means or point of balance between two extremes, each extreme being a vice either of excess or defect.  Modesty is thus the mean between pride (resulting from too much vanity) and humility (resulting from too little); ambition, between greed (excess) and sloth (defect); and so forth. 

It is in the nature of moral qualities that they are destroyed by deficiency and excess, just as we can see (since we have to use the evidence of visible facts to throw light on what is invisible) in the case of bodil health and strength.  For both excessive and insufficient exercise destroy one's health, and both eating and drinking too much or too little destroy health, whereas the right quanitiy produces, increases and preserves it.  So it is the same with temperance, courage and the other virtues.  The man who shuns and fears everything and stands up to nothing becomes a coward; the man who is afraid of nothing at all, but marches up to every danger, becomes foolhardy.  Similarly, the man who indulges in every pleasure and refrains from none becomes licentious; but if a man behaves like a boor and turns his back on every pleasure, he is a case of insensibility.  Thus temperance and courage are destroyed by excess and deficiency and preserved by the mean. (Book II, ii)

We have now said enough to show that moral virtue is a mean, and in what sense it is so: that it is a mean between two vices, one of excess and the other of deficiency, and that it is such because it aims at hitting the mean point in feelings and actions.  For this reason it is a difficult business to be good; because in any given case it is difficult to find the mid-point--for instance, not everyone can find the center of a circle; only the man who knows how. So too it is easy to get angry--anyone can do that--or to give and spend money; but to feel or act towards the right person to the right extent at the right time for the right reason in the right way-- that is NOT easy, and it is not everyone that can do it.  Hence to do these things well is a rare, laudable and fine achievement. (Book II, ix). --Aristotle (Ethics).   

Although much of the Nicomachean Ethics is dvoted to the analysis of this docrine of the "golden mean" (as it has come to be called), Aristotle's most memorable illustration of it is to be found not in the Nicomachean Ethics but in his Rhetoric, in the description of the three main stages of life as represented in the Youthful Man, The Man in His Prime, and the Elderly Man.  In terms of major virtues, the Youthful Man represents excess, The Main in His Prime represents the mean, and the Elderly Man the defect. 

Intellectual Virtues

If the mean is a relative thing that differs for different people (and even for the same people in different situations), so that no precise rules can be laid down as to what it might be at any one time, how does one go about determining it? Aristotle replies that it requires knowledge and wisdom, and thus to attain happiness we need to attend not only to the moral virtues but to the intellectual virtues (prudence, foresight, wisdom).

However, what Aristotle now says about the attainment of these intellectual virtues is discouraging, for it soon becomes apparent that if he is right, only few of us can hope to achieve true happiness.  For the perfection of the intellectual virtues, although indispensable in keeping the passions in check, is described as having a value and purpose all its own. The goodness of intellect that makes possible the goodness of character, which brings happiness, is itself, intrinsically finer and higher than anything else available to us. 

*Does this mean the "good life" is only available to the very few? (those who have intellect, health, family, wealth)

*Does this mean there is only one true road to happiness?

*Doesn't a carpenter, a reformer, a teacher, a clerk, a farmer deserve to attain true happiness?

Apparently, the happiness the virtuous man is to seek is not anyone else's but his own.  I am obliged, says Aristotle, to look after only myself.  Aristotle does indeed instruct us in altruistic virtues such as honesty, generosity, friendship, etc. but their justification is not that they will increase the general happiness but that these things are desirable for the individual to have.

Yet we can see that if it is true that in order to attain happiness one must cultivate and realize certain potentialities, then such happiness can only be obtained by attending to oneself.  And if such happiness if realized, society could not help but benefit.

Whose good ought I choose in case of conflict?