Anti-contextual

"Every day... I can greedily, rightfully, seize every ticking moment, and never give one of them back."




"I don't live to live through anyone, ever."

On the surface these commercials are great. There is no equivocation, the sense of life is individualistic and unapologetic. They are classy and they appeal to the kind of strength of character that accepts such ideals... On the surface.

But context is important and in this case the context includes the fact that this company just received one of the most massive bailouts in history. That this is the second such bailout for this company in the last 30 years.

I don't think that these rather Objectivist appeals to individualism are an accident either. Atlas Shrugged is poised to have its best selling year to date, Tea Parties protesting the largest expansion of the welfare state in the US since the "New Deal" were held across the country.

The company is most definitely trying to appeal to that backlash, and it is just as fervently hoping that you and I and all the rest of the people out there don't notice their hypocrisy. They are counting on their audience being as anti-contextual as they are.

"Shhhhhhhhhhhh," they say... "forget the bailout... Forget the fact that your choices made us unable to survive on our own so we told the government to force you to support us. Forget that this already happened in 1979, forget that to us the ideas in these commercials are just a crass advertising ploy"... Yes, forget all that...

But then maybe that is the point, and part and parcel of their problem. As long as this company, and others like it remain anti-contextual themselves, as long as individualism, self reliance and rational self interest are only marketing gimmicks to them, then they are doomed to be moochers, looters, scavengers and thugs, taking the money they are not worthy of earning by force and denying us our freedom and choice through the barrel of a government gun.

Peace? Order?? Good Government!?!?

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." Ayn Rand

This travesty stems directly from a pragmatic (and cowardly) approach to law enforcement.

The fact that a massive operation would have to be undertaken by police to secure the Brown's rights and that native bands across the country would respond with force and violence means that the Browns are left without any rights.

That is the compromise here, a festering standoff, masquerading as "peace" for the rights of an innocent family.

Disgusting.

Climate Panic

Hmmm...

Eh?

You can almost taste the panic, and it has nothing to do with Arctic Ice, Polar Bears, the eventual disappearance of the Maldives, the Amazonian rain forest, at risk species or environmental disaster.

Cap and Enslave

This is Liberals threatening to do what Liberals(socialists) do best...

Take your hard earned money and give it to people who haven't earned it. This plan makes a virtual slave of the Canadian economy and Canadian business. For the sake of what... Global warming, something that is either a natural cyclic occurrence or a big fat lie.

Cap and Trade = Wealth redistribution. The liberals want us to count on buying carbon credits from third world dictators and despots, so that we Canadians can continue to produce goods and services in order to live in the manner that we work for, which in turn makes this country the envy of every single one of those third world thugs. This is the actualization of the punishment of the good for being good. Our productivity is what is being paid for here, not global warming. AGW is a theory at best, and as pointed out elsewhere in this post it may in fact be a complete fabrication.

The fact that this plan to screw the Canadian economy (and Canadian business) comes out the same week as Climategate is astounding.

News today is that PM Harper will be going to Copenhagen for the climate summit. I hope he's there to deliver this...

Scandal, Evasion and Distraction: A Flow Chart of Modern Government.

What is it that leads governments to believe that they can hide, evade or deny their actions and the scandals they create?

Take this ridiculous example. Everyone, EVERYONE! knows there are people being tortured in Afghanistan, indeed it would be much more newsworthy to have a headline that read; "No Afghan Prisoners Have Been Tortured", and to have it be true.

The level of evasion necessary for the PMO and the government to claim that they "didn't know" is Herculean, but only slightly more so than that required by the opposition parties, the press' talking heads and us dumb voters to act surprised and outraged by it.

But this story is a mere blip on the radar. Much more important is the question why Governments think that they can hide things like this? What are they hoping to do? I believe there is a pattern here... scandal, evade, distract, (repeat if necessary).

Here's my theory...

All governments start off like the Hollywood starlet with the good girl image, and we voters are like smitten fans, happy (for the most part) with the choice we have made in the aftermath of an election.

But this electoral honeymoon is short lived. It doesn't take long before our sweetheart is rumored to be less than pure, and sure enough the sex tape emerges.

Our governments in scandal are just like that starlet. They divorce their actions from any possible repercussions. Then even when they are discovered on all fours taking it like a pro (metaphorically speaking) they deny even the possibility that they have done anything wrong.

We, voters (fans) are left either sputtering in disbelief, or cynically nodding our heads in disgust, but only for so long, only until the next political porn, a fiasco, another boondoggle, some scandal, heaven forbid there be a somethingorother-gate.

Then, not unlike the pathetic guy watching that starlet's home video, we are distracted by the next outrage, more outrageous than the last outrage.

So we go, from scandal to scandal, but rarely do we do anything other than bitch about it over coffee, because...

"did you hear...???"

Lies, Damn Lies and AGW

Ok, a show of hands...

Who's surprised?

The Bowing Chicken - a Parable

By Richard Gleaves

Once upon a time in a small white farm on the edge of the frontier, a chicken was voted leader of the barnyard. She was a particularly fine chicken: robust and cheerful, with smooth orange and white feathers. Her sharp little beak was particularly adept at pecking small seeds out of the dust, and she was well liked and admired by both the other chickens and her fellow animals.

The old dog that had previously been barnyard leader took her aside on her first day.

"Chicken," he said, "the most important job in this barnyard is to protect yer fellow animals from predators. The farmer built a nice fence around the property, but now 'n then some varmint'll get in and try to make off with one of the young 'uns. I figgered the best thing was to set a watch every night. The horse took the first shift, and the cows the second and..."

"Cluck cluck cluck!" said the chicken. "You're not the leader anymore, dog. Elections have consequences. I'll be making the decisions from now on. If varmints are attacking us, I'll know how to deal with them!"

"How, then?" asked the dog.

"Reason, of course! Just like when the pigs wanted to eat Horse's corn! I reasoned with them. And now everything is fine."

"It ain't the same! A fox ain't a pig. And a wolf ain't a horse. They don't live on a farm with reasons and rules. They're wild beasts!"

"Cluck cluck cluck" said the hen, "Go back to your doghouse and let someone smart run things!"

The dog wagged his head sorrowfully, his jowls flapping, and loped off to his little doghouse to chew an old bone.

The chicken skittered about the yard, giving orders. "Cluck cluck cluck!" she sang, "Everybody work! Make your eggs and cheese! So say I: the barnyard ruler. I do what I please!"

And the little farm obeyed.

The sun sank low on the frontier plains. The animals climbed under their straw and went to bed. The chicken flew to her roost at the tippest-top of the old white barn and tucked her head under her wing.

"Baa!" came a sudden bleat, just as the moon cleared the farmhouse roof. "Thief! Thief!"

"Cluck cluck cluck!" cried the chicken, and she flew down to the sheep corral. "Why are you bleating, you foolish sheep?"

"There! There! By the bushes! A baa-baa-burglar!!"

The chicken trundled over to the bushes and, in the moonlight, saw a raccoon attempting to climb back through the fence. His arms were full of cabbages and carrots, and he was having difficulty.

"Halt, thief!" she said "You will drop those things now!"

"Who says?" said the raccoon, his beady little eyes narrowing behind his mask.

"I, the ruler of the barnyard!". She tried to sound impressive.

"I don't wanna. I got twenty hungry babies in a log by the river. We got nothin'. Why should you guys get dese lettuces? We're starving. We need these carrots more den youse do! I'm taking dese carrots and dese lettuces."

The chicken cocked her head. "That sounds reasonable." She said. "Oh, noble raccoon. Let me apologize for the farmer's greed. We need to share with our fellows and redistribute the barnyard's bounty. My apologies for our selfishness". And then, with an impressive flourish of her wing, she bowed low before the raccoon.

Then she raised her head. The raccoon the carrots and the lettuce were gone.

"You shouldn't a' done that. Now the farmer will have to sell our eggs and milk."

The chicken turned to see the old dog frowning at her. He turned about and loped into the night.

The next day, the chicken strutted about the barnyard.

"Cluck, cluck cluck!" she sang. "Everybody work! Make your eggs and cheese! So say I: the barnyard ruler. I do what I please!"

And another day passed on the farm.

That night she was dreaming of sunflower seeds when "Neigh!" a deafening cry broke the night!

"Cluck cluck cluck!" She cried, and flew to the stable. "What has happened?" she asked the horse.

"A fox! A fox has been in the henhouse! And he's been drinking the milk!" the old nag whinnied.

She turned and saw a red-tailed fox scurrying through the window, his arms full of eggs.

"Halt, thief!" she cried "You will drop those babies now!"

"Who says?" said the fox, his tail curling into a question mark.

"I, the ruler of the barnyard!". She tried to sound dangerous. She puffed up the feathers on her chest.

"But I was ruler first!" said the fox, wiping a milk mustache from his upper lip. "This was once an open field where the foxes played in the grass. We were at one with nature. Until the evil farmer kicked us off our own lands! These eggs are reparations, until we are given the right of return!"

The chicken cocked her head. "That sounds reasonable." said the chicken. "Oh handsome fox, let me extend my apology for the suffering the evil farmer has inflicted upon you. Take our eggs and milk with my blessing!" She raised a wing and bowed low to the ground. When she raised her eyes, the Fox and the eggs were gone.

"Foolish chicken!"

She turned to see the old dog in the stable doorway.

"Now the farmer will have no lettuce, no carrots, no milk and no eggs. He will have to kill one of us and send us to market."

And the old dog loped away.

The next day was chaos on the farm. Raccoons came and went, taking everything they could. The foxes were nesting in the old hound's doghouse. Worst of all, two little piglets had been taken for slaughter.

The smell of blood hung thickly in the air. The chicken perched high on a fence post, and called an impromptu press conference.

"Cluck cluck cluck!" she sang. "Everything is bad! Work hard just the same! I inherited this mess. So the dog is to blame!"

The animals mobbed the old hound, picking him up and carrying him away.

"You're making a mistake!" He barked. "There's blood in the air! Something will smell it! Something bad will come tonight!"

The animals heaved and– with a yip!– they threw the dog over the fence. He was never to return.

And a crimson sunset descended on the tiny farm.

In her perch high above, the pompous little chicken tried to sleep. She thought about the warning of the old dog. Was she being foolish? Should she put a watch on the farm? Was there really a danger? She couldn't imagine how the world could be all that dangerous. She had lived all her life in a neat little barnyard. She'd been pampered and spoiled. She'd never faced hardship or battle. The dog and horse and the cow and the other strong animals were just dumb brutes. They chose force when reason was obviously the better alternative.

She wondered now, might the world be wild after all- somewhere beyond the furrowed fields and neat little hogpens- a wild, wild world?

She put her head under her wing and drifted to sleep.

Sometime after midnight, cries erupted all around the barnyard! Animals were bleating and running, scurrying and leaping! They honked and snorted and mooed!

"Wolves!" they cried! "Wolves!"

The little chicken didn't know what to do. She fluttered down, jumping from place to place, wings over her eyes. She caught a glimpse of grey fur, saw hulking forms pouncing on defenseless creatures. She saw a sheep stamping her hooves in terror as she was devoured.

The night was full of growls.

"Cluck cluck cluck!" she dithered. "Oh dear, oh dear!" she hid in an overturned barrel, peeking out through the slats. She trembled as a long grey snout appeared at the opening, and feral eyes glinted in the moonlight. She was about to be eaten!

Then she heard a moo from above and she saw a hoof flash out- knocking the wolf aside! Through slats in the barrel she saw cows and horses forming a defensive ring around the other animals. She heard the blast of the farmer's shotgun.

She heard the voice of the old dog!

"They're on the run! Everybody stick together. Watch the young 'uns! Those wolves can't get us now! No thanks to that stupid, stupid chicken!"

Her feathers on end, she scrambled out of the barrel and perched on top.

"This isn't MY fault!" She cried. "The dog has brought the wolves upon us! He is staging a coup!"

"A coop?" asked the dog.

"A coup! A rebellion. A mutiny! The dog is a radical extremist! This is a plot to take over our barnyard! You– You just don't like chickens!"

"This has nothin' to do with likin' chickens! This is yer fault! Don't you get it? You stupid piece of unplucked poultry! You can't negotiate with wild things!"

"You can so!" Said the chicken. "Watch!" and she fluttered over the fence and out of the barnyard.

As she landed on the other side, the chicken stopped and looked around. She'd never been off the farm before! The world outside was dark, gloomy. The moon shone down on tangled weeds and muddy ditches, on thorny brambles and gnarled branches that reached down as if to snatch her away. Yellow eyes peered from the dark.

"Cluck cluck cluck!" she murmured to herself. She didn't like the world one bit!

Then the Great Wolf appeared.

He padded from the shadows towards her, stopping a foot away. He was muscular, immense, grey, scarred and ragged. She could feel his hot breath.

The chicken cocked her head.

He looked reasonable.

"Oh, noble wolf!" she said, ignoring his rows of teeth. "I am here to apologize for offending you. Too long has the farm shut out your great people. Too long have we been selfish and stubborn– never seeing the wolf's side of things! Let us open a dialog in hopes of reaching a mutual agreement to mutual interest. All animals are brothers and it is my greatest wish that we live together in peace and friendship!"

And, with a flourish of her wing, she bowed low before the Great Wolf.

The last thing the chicken ever knew was the sensation of teeth on the back of her neck...

© Richard Gleaves 2009-11-17

Many thanks to Richard for allowing me repost this...

America Emasculated.

Can you pick out the simpering toady in these pictures...

Canada's transformation into a Republic

An American Republic at that.

Canada will probably become a Republic sometime in the mid century through a combination of demographic and economic forces.

Short version of the argument: while Canada erodes with a very sub replacement birthrate (aprox 1.4 children per couple), the United States is continuing to expand, with the population expected to be between 500 and 550 million. At the same time, Canada will be suffering acute labour shortages due to the demographic "bust" of the 2020's.

Large numbers of Americans can be expected to immigrate to Canada seeking the higher pay employers will be forced to offer to get workers, and they will also import their values. As they become more numerous and politically active, they will become the driving force behind many social and institutional changes in Canada.

Remember too that it is the "Red State" Americans who have large families, not "Blue State" Americans, and the generations leading up to 2040 will have seen Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid go bankrupt (along with many US municipalities and even some States like California, Michigan and New York). Come to think of it, most Canadians will be around to see American entitlement programs go bust (some estimates put the entitlement programs into net deficit as soon as 2016), so there will be at least two generations of Americans who will not be disposed towards unsustainable entitlements, and certainly will work hard to see these things do not happen in their new home.

Canadians will also have witnessed their own social programs like "Public Health Care", CPP and OAS go bust as well in the late 2020's as Boomers drawing on taxpayer funded benefits begin to outnumber and overwhelm the actual number of taxpayers. A large segment of Canadian voters will also have become adverse to socialist ideology, given they were put through severe hardship to pay for these Ponzi schemes, combined with a generation of young, politically active American immigrants with similar life experience should provide a large voter base to carry out political change.

This should be a topic that everyone should consider regardless of political orientation; how will you prepare yourself and your family and loved ones for the coming demographic changes, and what will you do to ensure the change is positive and peaceful for most Canadians?

Doomed to Repeat it...

*

"With interest rates at zero, monetary engines humming as never before, and a self-proclaimed Keynesian government, we are back again embracing the brave new era of government-sponsored prosperity and debt. And, more than ever, the system is piling uncertainties on top of uncertainties, turning an otherwise resilient economy into a brittle one."

Acting Surprised

Why is this a surprise?

We have built a system where we expect our politicians to hand out money for everything from road construction to health care, where the electorate's call to action sounds more like the old refrain "what have you done for me lately" and then suddenly when our politicians spend the money we give them to buy our votes like we asked them to during their campaigns we claim it is violating some sacred trust?

What hypocrites we are.

This problem is easily solved though, limit government to one task, the protection of inalienable rights; life, liberty and property.

Take away the power of politicians, the ability to engage in influence peddling, to stifle business and to legislate on a whim. Take away the power of the politician to declare illegality for anything other than the initiation of force or fraud and remove their ability to manipulate the market in any way shape of form.

But don't stop there, you can't stop there...

Educate the electorate to the point where it consistently and rightly realizes, that the power to tax is the power to enslave. So that they look to business to provide solutions not the tyrannical hand of government. Where they realize the truth in the old adage that to be free themselves they must allow others to be free, where the only thing rightly viewed as anyones else's business is the initiation of force or fraud upon another human being.

Until this happens, all of you out there bitching about some peoples ability to be more equal than others, the signatures on cheques, the crass politicization of economic panic, the buyouts and bailouts should just stop acting surprised, because the system is working exactly the way you designed it to work.

Resist...

Thanks to avgleandt

That's it.

I'm going to save the planet.

I'm going to train my dog to eat environmentalists...

They Have No Right(s)

It ought to be called "The Canadian Charter of Desires and Permissions" because Rights and Freedoms don't enter into the equation...

"The court acknowledges that the law violates the rights of parents and children. The court acknowledges that if the law is read as written any attempts to achieve the same result as the offending law will violate those same rights. The court says, we won’t read the law that way next time if you change the wording to something nicer. "

read the whole thing

No, Really? Seriously?!?

*

"She criticized the media's portrait of Mexico as nothing more than a society of illegal migration, drugs and violence, and she said her fellow citizens found it amazing that Mexican asylum seekers in Canada were claiming their government couldn't protect them from the drug wars and corrupt and abusive security forces."

I know that as a politician she is required to paint a somewhat skewed picture of her nation but seriously, Mexico is currently embroiled in an all out Drug war with more than 8,463 dead and counting. Hell, the war even has its own Wiki page.

*

"In five minutes, without shooting a bullet, a 20-man armed commando unit burst into a prison in the Mexican state of Zacatecas and freed 53 prisoners – all of them connected with the Gulf Cartel. The lightning speed of the operation and the crisp Federal Police uniforms worn by the gunmen was the work of the Zetas, the Gulf Cartel’s armed wing."

With all due respect to Senator Rosario Green Macias, her humiliation is a direct result of her own country's inability to stem both the flow of drugs and the flow of people away from the violence and the drugs.

Senator, don't look at Canada and claim that relations will get better with a new Prime Minister, look to Mexico and fix the problems there.

Watch This

There's a lot of noise about the PM not watching Canadian news...

Three points.
1. Do people honestly believe that anything that the PM needs to know isn't briefed to him by people a lot more in the know than the Canadian press?
2. Perhaps the Canadian media should be examining just how poorly they deliver their product when it's not even watched by the leader of the country.
3. With Canadian news as partisan as it is (on both sides) do you really blame the PM for wanting a somewhat removed perspective on it?

Right for all the Wrong reasons

Bob Hepburn is right for all the wrong reasons.

Everything "Lord" Moran said about Canadians seems to me to be pretty close to the mark. We tend to overly praise even just the competent members of our society, and should someone reach critical acclaim outside of Canada, well Lord Moran's quip about the Order of Canada is not far from the mark.

Similarly Mr Hepburn is not wrong in asserting that it is high time that Canada cut the umbilical and ended the sham of constitutional monarchy. The Queen and her representative, the Governor General are a waste of time and money. We do not need a royal marionette or even the puppeteer herself to give the actions of our government and its elected officials sanction.

What do you suppose would be the response by Canada and Canadians if the GG on the recommendation of the Queen, or the Queen herself decided to refuse to sign some piece of legislation into law?

If you guessed the end of the monarchy in Canada you would be right.

This begs the question that if the Queen/GG would never contemplate disallowing a Canadian law or a proclamation from Canada's parliament what use are they anyway?

Was Lord Moran being a pompous arrogant wind-bag when he wrote that letter all those years ago? Most likely, but Mr. Hepburn's pulverized feelings aside, the Stars writer hasn't done a very good job of proving the Brit wrong when his article stands on the premise of digging for hurt feelings from a 25 year old letter.

The Nature of Governments

We’ve heard it all before… “Government is a necessary evil.” Well, that is a lie, and a dangerous lie at that.

By implication the statement seems to say that if we dumb humans could only get it right we could exist in a society free of government. This is the anarchist dream, but even they recognize the need for the protection of rights, for national and personal security. However, their solution is not governmental but private. They say that a society let a man hire a company to protect his rights that he could be safe, that he would be protected.

Of course that all falls disastrously apart when Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith each having hired different security forces both maintain their rights have been violated and each attempts to have the other arrested for the transgression. Protection Company “A” plus Protection Company “B” minus the stability of a single government equals bloodbath.

Alternatively such anarchy panders to the far too human tendency toward the principal that might makes right and gangs, private armies and warlords turn the anarchist utopia into a Hobbesian life, cruel, brutish and short.

On the other side of the coin is the belief that Government, (still as a necessary evil) is what makes a society, that it is an end in itself, that it is more important than any one man. The socialist and communist while promising that someday the state will “whither away” still believe in it indeed they make it the causus beli of their society.

In following the false notion of collective rights, they come to believe that in order to provide what is “good” to “all” it is necessary to destroy the concept and meaning of the individual. “You” as an entity do not exist. You are a cog in the wheel, insignificant when measured against the needs of others. What others? The others. What need? Their need. Who is the “all” that they are working so hard for? Why it’s anyone but you, the individual.

So where does this leave us? Well, to be honest, metaphysically it leaves us way, way back before government and politics and society ever enter into the picture, but that is a subject for another day so let me just make a “simple” assertions here.

The previous two extremes attempted, or claimed to protect mans rights. What essential right is it that the Anarchist and the Socialist seek to protect? Mans right to life.

Life is the right from which all other rights spring, be they true rights like liberty and property or false printing press rights like the right to healthcare or to a job.

Can one sell a right, or hire it out? Certainly not.

Who has a life worthy of the term right? Society, a nation, some group, government or gang? No.

Only an individual can possess rights and no individual can ever hold his rights higher than the rights of another. And it is that principle that brings us to the nature, purpose and necessity of government.

Government is necessary to protect the rights of individuals, to ensure that their rights are held on par with all other individuals. No mans position, strength, wealth, need or wants can ever place his rights above the rights of another man. That assurance is the sole function of government, it is not evil, it is just and proper and rational.

How a government approaches the defence of individual rights defines its nature. The anarchist disallows government as the arbiter of disputes and consequently the protector of rights, so rights are destroyed.

The socialist perverts the concept of rights and applies it to some nameless, faceless undefined collective making slaves of all.

The welfare statist attempts to make rights out of needs consequentially following the socialists path to hell.

And finally religionists of whatever political persuasion subverts mans right to live his own life for the commandments of some supernatural fairy tale and the promise of something better when he is dead..

So the next time you hear someone say that government is a necessary evil ask him to name which evil he prefers more, slavery, servitude or death.

Ironic isn't it

One of the charges made against the Objectivist, and Objectivism by both the socialists and the religious conservative right is that the philosophy is elitist.

This assumption is made through superficial readings of Ayn Rands books, where no deeper meaning is never sought out, and the mind is sequestered from the possibility of contamination by contradictory principals. In reading Atlas Shrugged they ignore the characters like Eddy Willers, Sheryl Gallant, the young brakeman. In The Fountainhead "Mike" the construction worker is forgotten. So because of their selective understanding, intellectual dishonesty and evasion they label Objectivism elitist. But is it?

Objectivism holds that anyone can strive for perfection in anything they do. That every man has it within his own being and his own reasons for being to be happy on his own terms, to be successful on his own terms, to be his own ideal.

The socialist on the other hand believes that some men will never amount to anything unless those who are better off (smarter, richer, healthier) give him, or more rightly force others to give him that which he could surely never achieve on his own.

The right wing fundamentalist believes that some men need to be shown the error of their ways, even that they must be forced toward "the good" (as defined in their scripture) through laws and prohibitions so that they might be able to reach the lofty heights of heaven.

Which one of these philosophies was the one labelled as elitist?

Yup, Objectivism, the philosophy of man and the only one of the three that says anyone can achieve, anyone can be moral and anyone can be happy by being the best he can be, by living his life for himself.

Ironic isn't it. The socialists and the right wing mystics tell you you're not good enough to achieve "it" on your own, but it is Objectivism, that tells you, you can and are, that gets labelled as being elitist

Getting away from it all; why we really need to find Galt's Gulch

The real problem is we are constrained. No matter where you go, you will always be in the reach of others, most of who are determined to make sure you pay your fair share of their entitlements. The siren call of living off the means of others continues to be the number one enemy of freedom, and indeed, there is little that can be done, since it is a rational choice for an individual to attempt to shift their burdens onto someone else.  It is also rational to attempt to dominate others by force if you wish to take their wealth for yourself; Socialism and Warlords are really just different facets of the same thing.

Personal "Galt's Gulches" are quite possible, and I have blogged on this subject in the past. A virtual "New Atlantis" based on Internet connectivity may also be possible, especially if the medium of exchange is something mutually agreed upon by the members (trading useful information and barter may not be as efficient as cash, but is certainly less accessible to the agents of the State).

No, the solution must involve escaping entirely from the clutches of the State, but also in leaving a beacon for like-minded people to follow. In the present day and age, we have a destination: space.

Since the 1980’s, a large and growing body of science and literature has been devoted to the problems of settling in the environment of outer space. Much of this is actually recycled, amazingly, thinkers like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky were writing on the subject as early as 1903. Most of the ideas have simply been refined with the addition of a century of scientific and technological development. Today we are on the threshold of actually achieving inexpensive spaceflight. Private companies like “Virgin Galactic” have working prototypes of commercial spacecraft that can bring people to the edge of space, and developments like IEC Fusion (being developed by EMC2 Energy) will bring cheap energy which can be harnessed for propulsion beyond Earth Orbit.

So, what's the problem? A society with access to cheap energy (which can be generated in theory by low cost devices that determined individuals or small companies can produce) would seem to be the definition of an Earthly paradise. The real problem is that while the powers of the individual could be increased, the power of the State could increase overwhelmingly. As well, vast increases in available luxury and wealth would be used to bribe the "sheeple" and keep them quiet in the face of an ever increasing "soft tyranny". 

New horizons are needed to draw the best out of people, and inspire those who by accident or design are unable to follow. The end of the middle ages in Europe came not when the New World was discovered (for the nth time) but when it was publicized: (Via Instapundit)

HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY: Many in the West will demonstrate their fierce originality and intellectual independence today by condemning Christopher Columbus using the same shopworn cliches they used last year. For those of a different bent, I recommend Samuel Eliot Morison’s Admiral of the Ocean Sea : A Life of Christopher Columbus, which takes a somewhat different position. Here’s an excerpt:

At the end of 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through studying the pagan past. . . .

Yet, even as the chroniclers of Nuremberg were correcting their proofs from Koberger’s press, a Spanish caravel named Nina scudded before a winter gale into Lisbon with news of a discovery that was to give old Europe another chance. In a few years we find the mental picture completely changed. Strong monarchs are stamping out privy conspiracy and rebellion; the Church, purged and chastened by the Protestant Reformation, puts her house in order; new ideas flare up throughout Italy, France, Germany and the northern nations; faith in God revives and the human spirit is renewed. The change is complete and startling: “A new envisagement of the world has begun, and men are no longer sighing after the imaginary golden age that lay in the distant past, but speculating as to the golden age that might possibly lie in the oncoming future.”

Christopher Columbus belonged to an age that was past, yet he became the sign and symbol of this new age of hope, glory and accomplishment. His medieval faith impelled him to a modern solution: Expansion.

A community of people who are fully engaged in bringing new worlds to life will certainly develop a much different view of life and society than indolent masses who are being kept like fattened sheep in a pen. Where every hand at the wheel is important, the habits of hard work, thrift and planning become paramount, much like frontier society during the colonization of North America between the 1500’s and the closing of the frontier in the 1870’s. Even today, much of the difference between cultural conservatives and liberals can be traced to the environment: conservatives tend to live in small towns and rural environments, while liberals tend to live in cities. Far less surplus wealth exists in the countryside to feed populations of moochers, and those who do live that lifestyle often do so at the expense of family and friends who agree to provide support.

There are fewer extremes of wealth as well in such environments, allowing people to deal with each other as equals, rather than as masters and servants. While ideas like an “elect” might never die out, the ability to constantly expand to new environments and harvest new resources will provide an endless counterbalance:

Morison’s book is superb, and I recommend it highly as an antidote to the simplistic anti-occidental prejudice of today — which, as Jim Bennett has noted, has roots that might surprise its proponents:

This is primarily an effect of the Calvinist Puritan roots of American progressivism. Just as Calvinists believed in the centrality of the depravity of man, with the exception of a minuscule contingent of the Elect of God, their secularized descendants believe in the depravity and cursedness of Western civilization, with their own enlightened selves in the role of the Elect.