A recent story from Michigan depicts an egregious attempt by the state to regulate babysitting which leads to an unavoidable question: To what extent will America condone state involvement in parenting?

The victims in this particular scenario seem only to be concerned with the specific limitations of how the state can regulate child care, but the far more important question is, should the state have any say in the matter of private child-care arrangements?

When you fail to argue on principles, in favor of quibbling over superficial details of implementation, then the possibility of any objective determination of where to draw the line is discarded. Once you throw out the map, there’s no telling where you’ll end up – especially when all passengers compete for their turn to steer the car.

This is yet another symptom of America’s suicidal march into the bowels of socialized education. Once the principle (that the state has a right to our children) is conceded, there is no way to decide the proper extent. If it’s proper for Government to establish compulsory education according to their standards, why start at age 5? Why not pre-school? Why not daycare?

If parents are incapable of adequately providing intellectual guidance according to the state, why not regulate all supervision? Why allow any parental involvement? Why not seize the child just after weaning and just have the parents send in a monthly check?

Better yet, socialize it by calling it free and make it a mandatory element of payroll tax for everyone.

This Orwellian nightmare shouldn’t sound far-fetched considering it’s based on the exact premises of public education - only applied consistently. If America continues to tolerate Public Schools in principle, we should expect more and more of the above.

Children are not property of the state. In a free society, individuals properly have the right to enter into voluntary contractual agreements for child care according to their own wishes, and according to their own financial capabilities. Child care providers, like all other market entities, stand to erect or erode a positive reputation for quality care based on objective standards – those of the parent (the customer). That reputation vouches for their service record objectively.

Conversely, when the state oversees and regulates child care, that objective reputation is replaced with the subjective approval of the state, an artificial facade of quality based on subjective standards that are potentially incompatible with those of the parent.

Many parents unwittingly assume that “state approval must vouch for something!” Yes, parents should consider the conditions for childcare diligently regardless of the state, but phony state approval urges them to shortcut the process under the premise that government is looking out for them.

I’m aware of countless horrifying examples of Daycare establishments, which bear the state approved mark of acceptability, where the conditions are such that I wouldn’t leave my dog in their care. Children wander around in waste-soiled clothing, snot running from their nose, essentially unsupervised by mindless sloths chatting on their iPhone is a common sight in supposedly state-regulated facilities. Very few offer security measures which could prevent any motivated scoundrel from walking off with a child. Just like in other markets, the state regulation has destroyed the notion of an objective reputation that only a free-market can provide, and should be considered irrelevant as metrics of quality or value.

This type of intrusion should be opposed on the basis of individual rights - specifically, a parent’s right to control the education, care and upbringing of their children.

By what right can the state tell a parent or caregiver how many children they can manage effectively? Such terms are properly agreed upon by parents and the caregiver. So long as the terms of service are properly disclosed and adhered to, that agreement is sovereign.

An individual has the right to choose who, where, and on what terms their child can be cared for. The state has no moral, logical, or economical base for involvement the matter.

The role of government is to protect individual rights through the enforcement of objectively defined criminal law. In For the state to be involved with any other aspect of childcare, commercial or private, is beyond the proper scope of government.

I found noteworthy this passage from Leonard Peikoff’s chapter ‘Medicine: The Death of a Profession’ in The Voice Of Reason:

“The DRG administrator will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don’t—and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO, favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can’t afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won’t authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital—and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can’t get a specialist’s advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn’t even take this patient, he’s so sick—after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges…”

Meanwhile, the patient (maybe you or your loved one) dies…

This hypothetical, but factually warranted, scenario was from a lecture given back in 1985, so imagine if we adjust the cognitive and ethical nightmare presented above to accommodate an additional 25 years of cancerous government involvement. Consider how much worse it will be when the few remaining slivers of freedom are completely ground into the muck of full government control.

Keep in mind the scenario portrayed above, along with the highlighted acronyms, when you next hear some righteous idiot condemn the “free” health care market.

In a free market of healthcare, the only relevant decisions are amongst the physician and the patient to determine the most appropriate course of action available in accordance with the rational judgment and financial means of both parties. Freedom, efficiency, objectivity and justice are the guiding principles one needs when his life is on the line, not subjective deliberation, bureaucratic pandering, systemic injustice and economic dysfunction.

• A Potential Spark of Economic Intelligence In Government
• Real Economic Stimulus
• End The Fed (A Great Idea)
• Fed Adds 25K+ Units Of Dead Weight

Lyrics
========
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

Just a harmless class jingle respecting the office of the president? Not if considered in full context.

This type of occurrence is not exclusive to this president, this political party, this country, or even this century. The historical record of every socialized nation reveals that government seizure of the educational apparatus is inevitable. However, America wasn’t founded as a Socialist, Fascist, or Communist nation, it was founded as a Constitutional Republic based on the principles of individual rights - on such principles no justification for socialization of any market can be logically based. There certainly is no justification either morally or practically for Government to involve itself in the field of ideas.

When Government assumes control over a country’s education, it must assume the management of the funding for such a system. If it controls the funding, it must also control the subject matter being taught. When a government controls the subject matter being taught, they are, in effect, dictating ideology by force - a student cannot pass without compliance with the established curriculum. Wrangling the ideological essence of a population by force is a crucial component to directing the herd. This power was precisely why the 10th condition for transition in the Communist Manifesto was “free public education”.

We must take this very seriously.

Progressive, socialized education is not only systematically destroying our youth’s ability to think conceptually across all subject matter, it also effectively facilitates the level of indoctrination necessary to destroy America.

For America to survive, public education should be adamantly opposed on moral and (obvious) practical grounds. So long as the system remains, we don’t have a chance. Public schools will be the death knell of this country. This is not about optimism vs. pessimism - this is a logical fact drawn from just the numbers.

Rational, self-reliant, individualist minded people, the type of individuals who founded America, i.e., Capitalists, will simply be outnumbered by the irrational, collectivist sheep-like types that socialized education breeds. The ideas and cognitive guidance that a child is exposed to in its formative years ingrain ideals that after years of reinforcement are very hard to think out of. Our government has hijacked our children, by force, throughout those crucial years. The ideas being cast on our youth today bear faint resemblance to any of the founding principles of this country. The work and thought of the patriots of the American Revolution, as well as all the scientific, and creative ingenuity of the 19th century is being tactfully undermined by modern (anti) philosophy and by the dysfunction and incompetence of our socialized system of education.

Before any might take offense, let me clarify one notion; there are good people in our schools - I know because I am married to (a former) one and I know many others - but in a bureaucratic system essentially immune to fundamental economic laws (their customers can’t say no), the most competent and passionate educator doesn’t stand a chance in a non-objective system ruled by the whim of political engineering.

The proper role of Government is to protect individual rights - period. There is no rational, logical or economical justification for socialization of education.

The best thing we as parents can do for our children, and the only chance for America is throw aside the yolk of public education to the extent that we can. The very nature of the system is intended (on egalitarian grounds) to prevent citizens from any other options, and for many that is the unfortunate reality. If a man is taxed for education funding beyond his choice, he very well may not be able to afford to fork out even more of his hard-earned money for opting out of the system. This is the hidden sinister nature of public education - it all but eliminates feasible competition for the vast majority of citizens.

Once the moral sanction is granted, they’ve got us. They can take our children, by force… they can bus them across the county for racist social engineering… by force, and they can then proceed to teach (indoctrinate) them any ideals (regardless of how offensive or irrational those ideals may be) by force.

Take a moment to consider the reality of that last paragraph. For those who can, get your children out of public schools and into private (rationally guided) or home based schooling - schooling that enforces the principles and ideals that you hold sacred. Do whatever you can within your means, adjust your finances, move to a different area, consider home-schooling, but don’t sanction the hideous violation of your rights by doing (or saying) nothing.

If nothing else, and more importantly, understand the principles at hand and vocally oppose socialized education at every opportunity. This is a critical time.

When children are exposed to irrational, collectivist ideals from age five to twenty-five, they’re much easier to rouse by any leftist leader to support any collectivist cause. Socialized medicine, environmentalism, progressive taxation, “net-neutrality”, and the perpetuation of all other anti-capitalist, anti-man, anti-life bad ideas, past and present, are now fueled by voters thoroughly brainwashed in public schools. As the indoctrination continues to intensify, the scope of power afforded to our collectivist rulers will approach free-reign - we’re almost already there.

The best thing we can do for ourselves, our children, our country and the entire world is to fight public education in America as passionately, articulately and as loudly as we can, by every means available, on the basis that man has the right to exist for his own sake, and the the proper role of government is to protect individual rights - not violate them by forcing men to pay, neither for himself nor others, into an inherently corrupt system that spreads ideas contrary to his convictions as well as the founding principles of America.

I won’t grant it the benefit of linking to it, but I must comment that the mock “PSA” recently produced by moveon.org, featuring a gaggle of hollywood drones, is one of the most superficial, outrageously fallacious, and economically ignorant displays of human stupidity that I’ve seen in some time - a message which accurately reflects the de facto ideological debris surfacing from the bowels of American pop culture.

It’s chock-full of mostly shopworn rhetoric, but there are a few exceptionally erroneous humdingers - the most stunning of which is this sarcastic mind-bender:

“…what’s so American about competition?”

He’s partially correct, there is nothing American about what he refers to as “competition”, i.e., nationalizing an industry, but referring to such as competition is an (intentionally) obscene misuse of the word.

His incredibly distorted implication is that competition is American, and the healthcare market is lacking competition (which it is only to the extent that government intervention has facilitated). His sarcastic portrayal of a stereotypically “greedy” insurance exec (a supposed free-market advocate) dismissing the need for increased competition is intended to A) condemn businessmen as exploitative predators, B) highlight the supposedly un-American essence of the “free-market” as represented by the greedy exec, and C) suggest that anyone who doesn’t advocate “reform” is un-American.

These conniving insinuations are united by condescending sarcasm in order to justify the need of (even more) Government intervention. Let’s unpack this irrational nonsense.

Competition is a vital economic aspect that can exist only to the extent that a market is free of coercion. Government intervention, i.e, reduction of freedom, can only decrease competition. There is no way to legislate competition. Competition is a dynamic which reflects a sum of individual choices. Those choices present an unyielding potential for the loss or gain of market share, if the market is free, i.e., void of unnatural barriers to entry for new competition. If an insurance company had rates that were unnecessarily high, or coverage that customers deemed inadequate, then another firm could seize the opportunity to earn the business of any customers who unsatisfied with their insurance coverage. The only way that a company can escape acknowledging that constant threat of competition is through some barrier to market entry. The only entity that can legally pose such a barrier is Government - the only entity which can regulate and tax businesses by force.

The greedy insurance executive portrayed has no control over competition short of leveraging government force in some manner. So, if there is any lack of legitimate competition, it can only be as a result of government acting beyond its proper scope - protecting individual rights.

In fact, the market is not free, and that is the exact cause for its dysfunctional state today.

The second, more ridiculous fallacy presented is the implication that further government intervention can remedy the claimed lack of competition. This absurd contradiction suggests using illogical means to achieve fallacious ends. There is no conceivable scenario where socializing a market could possibly incite more competition than completely de-regulating the same market. Competition is driven by the sum of consumer choices. Socializing, by definition, spends consumers money apart from their discretion. Socializing a market is the antithetical destroyer of competition - just as we see in the stagnant debacle known as our “public” schools - which can hardly be described as a competitive market. How could there be any substantive competition when “customers” (as the IRS likes to refer to taxpayers) are forced to pay into the government system. In order for would-be competitors to even exist, much less compete, they’d have to stay afloat considering both a forced, artificial decrease in demand since the “customer” has already been persuaded at gunpoint to choose another vendor, as well as the main “competitor” they’re up against (government) is effectively immune to market influence, i.e., can operate at a loss, since his customers are guaranteed and his funding is the unlimited virtual piggy-bank known as the treasury. How can one compete with an entity which holds the power to legally force customers to unconditionally pay for services and can arbitrarily charge as little or as much as they want?

Forcing consumers to pay for services from a “producer” immune to customer satisfaction - this is what Turk, as a perfect caricature of pragmatic, collectivist ignorance, means by competition.

Free-market competition is American - the enslavement and looting of an entire nation is not.

How can one distinguish such similar manifestations of irrationality?

Our media has yet again dug up the wearisome bastion of pragmatist irrationality to enlighten us with more of his wholly predictable socio-political analysis.

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American,” Carter told “NBC Nightly News.” “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shares the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.”

“That racism inclination still exists, and I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people — not just in the South but around the country — that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply,” Carter said.

Being as collectivist as they come, Carter cannot begin to grasp the abstract concept that some people don’t view man in terms of groups - let alone on such a crudely obtuse metric of assessment as a man’s race. We have no way of knowing if Carter’s racist charge is an honest (yet debilitated) assessment, or if he merely intends to obfuscate and undermine any opposition with the time-tested art of smearing.

” He grouped Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” during Obama’s speech in that category, according to AP. “I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president,” he said.

According to whom? Or is this just Carter’s projected hunch? There may be a sliver of mindless brutes who’d utter such nonsense, but I’d be shocked if a staunch, charismatic republican who happened to be black would not have received the same percentage of the country’s vote as did McCain.

This conflict is predominately about ideals, not skin color. Granted the ideals in opposition are seldom to be explicitly defined, the lingering sense-of-life rooted in freedom and rights, retained by a portion of Americans, is what’s fueling this rebellion. I think it goes without saying I’d vote for a candidate who promoted Capitalist ideals regardless of his race, sex, religion, age, where he was born, how many wives he has, how many cats he has, how many guns he has, where he lives, where he wants to live, what he drinks, what he smokes, what he snorts, or any other imaginable attribute - so long as he understood individual rights and the proper role of Government, he’ll have my adamant financial and ideological support.

It’s an insult to all Americans for Carter to insinuate that they’re incapable of separating a candidate’s genetic lineage from his political philosophy.

Again, is this the honest opinion of a senile collectivist, or an argument from intimidation?

Next, we get this inspiring bromide from Jimmy.

“The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect.”

I suppose Carter would also prescribe Jewish citizens being hauled off to Nazi gas chambers by the Gestapo afford Hitler the same respect?

Respect is a form of esteem granted to another individual based on shared values and in appreciation of his character and integrity, not a automatic and causeless emotion granted by hierarchy of command, and certainly not a permanent emotional blank check immune to continual scrutiny, and covering any tyrannical whim. Respect and obedience are two entirely different concepts. Respect is earned. Obedience is volitional.

The other noteworthy tidbit in this piece is this quote by Michael Steele, chair of the Republican National Committee (whom the group-think author very quickly identifies racially).

“Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn’t create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation,”

For some reason, I’m guessing the solutions Steele alludes to don’t include complete deregulation of health care, abolishing the welfare state, and establishing a strict separation of Government from our economy as a whole. When one party’s play of the “race” card is met with the other playing the “create jobs” card, we’re in bad shape.

Related Reads:
Is Disagreement with Obama Racism?

(edited 09.29.09 to add related links)

Here’s an excellent piece by Stephen Bourque.

When Republicans pursue the policies of a bloated, paternalistic state, as they have for decades, their failures are blamed on freedom. When Republicans expand the federal regulatory grip with ever-increasing rules and restrictions, the inevitable failures are blamed absurdly on “deregulation” and the “free” market. Republicans have outspent Democrats for almost half a century; they dealt the killing blow to the gold standard, imposed price controls, meddled ceaselessly with the monetary system, and expanded the welfare state. It is primarily Republicans who have ushered religion into government affairs and legislation. Republicans are behind compulsory health insurance, corporate bailouts, TARP, funding of religious groups, and the prescription drug bill. Republicans have prosecuted a weak and sacrificial war, putting our fathers and sons in harm’s way not to crush an enemy but to hand out food. With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

His sentiments express precisely why the Republican party is no more an ally of freedom and individualism than the Democrats. In fact, they are in many ways more threatening because they operate under a facade of “freedom” and portray themselves as proponents of Capitalism. When their statist policies fail, the ideals they profess to champion are then held accountable by the left.

For decades, Republicans and Democrats alike have been the active enemies of freedom. Thanks to the Republicans alone, freedom has taken the blame.

Until a political movement based on the fundamentals of Capitalism emerges, America can only deviate amongst varying degrees of economic destruction on a path bound for dictatorship.

Becoming a parent brought focus to many new perspectives of my view of man, life, love and human joy. So many common misconceptions about the human mind, learning, knowledge and human nature are revealed as wholly fallacious when you witness first-first hand a child’s transition from the clean-slate of infancy to an individual driven by an insatiable quest to understand and master the world around him.

The expression which I find most endearing, and symbolic of man’s purpose, is that of my son grasping knowledge. The passage below eloquently identifies that expression as well as its significance in a much wider context.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal : Ch. 24 - Requiem For Man

I will ask you to project the look on a child’s face when he grasps the answer to some problem he has been striving to understand. It is a radiant look of joy, of liberation, almost of triumph, which is unself-conscious, yet self-assertive, and its radiance seems to spread in two directions: outward, as an illumination of the world—inward, as the first spark of what is to become the fire of an earned pride. If you have seen this look, or experienced it, you know that if there is such a concept as “sacred” - meaning: the best, the highest possible to man - this look is the sacred, the not-to-be-betrayed, the not-to-be-sacrificed for anything or anyone.

This look is not confined to children. Comic-strip artists are in the habit of representing it by means of a light-bulb flashing on, above the head of a character who has suddenly grasped an idea. In simple, primitive terms, this is an appropriate symbol: an idea is a light turned on in a man’s soul.

It is the steady, confident reflection of that light that you look for in the faces of adults - particularly of those to whom you entrust your most precious values. You look for it in the eyes of a surgeon performing an operation on the body of a loved one; you look for it in the face of a pilot at the controls of the plane in which you are flying; and, if you are consistent, you look for it in the person of the man or woman you marry.

That light-bulb look is the flash of a human intelligence in action; it is the outward manifestation of man’s rational faculty; it is the signal and symbol of man’s mind. And, to the extent of your humanity, it is involved in everything you seek, enjoy, value, or love. [emphasis mine]

It is precisely that spark of light that is misunderstood, neglected, and under assault from every cultural front today. That spark is what life is all about. That spark keeps a man alive. Man can benefit tremendously from human relationships, but his core existence is driven from and towards that spark. Meaningful relationships, i.e., ones based on explicitly identified common values, are only possible as derivative manifestations of that spark.

Not only have those who evade, ignore or are oblivious to “the look” missed what I consider the most valuable thread of life, they’re also the ones leading the assault, either directly or by ignorant default, against man, against man’s mind, against joy, against life.

It’s those who, never knowing the spark or all that it leads to, resort to force when dealing with others - uncivilized misfits stuck in a civilized society.

When men hold differing opinions, effective communication of rational ideas is a civilized form of persuasion, whereas an anonymous late-night call threatening my 8-month pregnant wife that her husband should “watch what he writes on the internet” is not.

History illustrates it is precisely those individuals who resort to the latter that have always endeavored to destroy those embodied by the former - and despite centuries of human progress, it’s obvious there are still those who’ve failed to rise above a barbarians view of existence.

For me to abandon usage of the only proper tool of persuasion available to a civilized man - rational communication - would constitute a betrayal of my principles, a surrender my values, and a failure to protect myself and my loved ones from cultural (and inevitably physical) assault.

Given our present course, there will likely be a time where brute force will suppress opposing ideals; and when that time comes, if keeping my views to myself might enable our escape then I’ll do so - but as long as there’s still a chance to escape that desperate reality; I’ll continue to foster the spark in man, I’ll continue to speak, I’ll continue to clown ignorance and those who enable it, I’ll stand by every word, and I’ll defend myself and my family by any means necessary.

…was apparently let out of the bag.

Obama’s racist/marxist Green Jobs thug seemed to fit the administration’s statist mold in all but one aspect - he’s too honest. Recognizing the potential for Jones to undermine their dictatorial yearnings by being a a bit too open about his ideals, the Obama administration decided he should go.

Too bad - the last thing we need is more statist politicians in office who effectively conceal their destructive wishes for America. I wish more bureaucrats would explicitly verbalize their ideals - perhaps that would arouse more serious dialogue amongst our intellectually lethargic culture.

If nothing else, at least Van Jones is honest and doesn’t betray his ideals on stage - for that I applaud him.