This literally left me in tears.

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)

“A system predicated upon fraud isn’t sustainable. A clearing and settlement system that facilitates counterfeiting and fraud, and is accountable to nobody, isn’t a clearing and settlement system. A media that only touts the party line isn’t a free press. A private cartel of banks, writing trillions of dollars of taxpayer-funded checks while refusing to tell anyone who is receiving the loot isn’t a sustainable banking system. A government that allows all the above to become the status quo, and which twists statistics in order to lie to its own citizenry as well as the rest of the world, isn’t a sustainable government.” - Neo-Feudal Casino-Gulag Plantation-Economy Minion #43G_02101976_73

All taxation is theft. Taking the property of one individual by initiated force, regardless of purpose, contradicts the fundamental role of Government by violating individual rights to property. Any and every tax expenditure is immoral and unjust.

That being said, some expenditures, however, are so blatantly inappropriate that they stand out as especially vile amongst a sea of evil. Below are only a few that demand our attention and were found in a matter of seconds @ Grants.gov.

You can search for hundreds of terms that will score an abundance of “opportunities”. Keep in mind that for each “opportunity” there are larges wads of looted wealth waiting to be handed out - most in the tens or hundreds of thousands, many in the tens or hundreds of millions. Keep these in mind as you, friends and family face the financial hurdles in the coming years - hurdles caused by Government intervention in the economy. The purpose of the intervention is to tap into your productivity precisely for the purposes of handing out money in order to buy votes and satiate altruistic political ambitions. Enjoy.

• We need the toads…

- A crumbling nation must maintain its priorities.

• 10 Million for Cambodian Education

- Since we’ve essentially given up on our own, $10,000,000 to another country…

• 30 Million for Tanzanian AIDS Counseling

- I’m so glad I could help out….

• 40 Million for Uganda’s ‘Right‘ to Essential Medicine

- I didn’t realize any supposed right of a Ugandan citizen (or any citizen to any thing for that matter) granted them access to a portion of my income…

These examples represent the filthy ends of the tentacles strangling America. How long can it go on like this?

• The Gold Bull Market and the Fed It Rode In On -
  “I thought that as part of the new Mogambo Program To Stop Freaking Out (MPTSFO) and maybe get some sleep that is not disturbed by screaming at nightmares of the horrors of inflation and economic ruin that are the just desserts of an America that has now embraced ignorance, stupidity and sloth as virtues, I had turned off the alarms in the Mogambo Bunker (the MoBu) that were connected to the circuits monitoring the creation of bank credit by the Federal Reserve.”
• Is Your Portfolio Ready for Hyperinflation?
• The Simple Solution
• Northwestern Mutual Makes First Gold Buy in 152 Years
• IRS Weighs New Rules on Tax Preparers - Yay! Just what a limping economy needs - more rules!

• Reiterating the fact that a dollar can only be spent once, i.e., that A is A, the current staff of lords announced the shocking revelation that their entitlement piggy-bank of looted wealth isn’t immune to the economic disaster they’ve heaved on the world.
• Unions are learning first hand that a business can’t operate at a loss and still make money, i.e., the law of causality, and that even their precious bully friend Uncle Sam will throw them under the bus when he’s desperate.
• Interesting… Our economy is circling the drain, but somehow there’s still enough loot to fund research into homosexual activity in Argentina and teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly. I’m sure these funds were selflessly donated from the salaries of our esteemed members of congress.
• Importing far more than Chinese goods, Puritan Statists in Minnesota found a new way to tackle online gambling.
• The anointed have discovered that Soda Taxes would fulfill paternalistic nanny-state cravings and fund socialized medicine. What a crafty bunch!