U.S. Deficit Spending is Institutionalized Generational Slavery

 

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” George Orwell

One generation is born into debt slavery, continue the same reckless spending practices of their forebears, and effectively enslaves the next generation–in this perverse, self-perpetuating chain of injustice. Let the clownish academic economists and other establishment “experts” prattle on about why the U.S. fiscal/monetary situation is economically feasible; none of their lecturing can alter the reality that no nation, no company, no household has ever made a sustainable practice of continually spending in excess of revenue.

Yet this is precisely what the U.S. government has done for close to half a century. Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. Once new spending is introduced, it can be virtually impossible to ever curtail these expenditures. Wasteful bureaucracies are created or expanded to administer & manage each new spending initiative, which further exacerbates the whole unholy cycle. Elected leaders lack the political courage & will to cut programs when it means putting large numbers of people directly out of the job. They dare not risk the political capital it would cost them to scale back entitlement programs currently benefiting many of their constituents. Apparently it’s difficult to get elected by promising to take things away; sadly, we get the government we deserve.

A willingness to make the hard, even unpopular, decisions when it comes to contracting the size & scope of gov’t–this is the most important quality an elected official can have, moving forward. It’s the first criterion by which to gauge a potential candidate’s fitness for leadership, in this late hour. We must be the generation that reverses the trend of deficit spending, because the future livelihood of this once-great nation hangs in the balance (and most of us don’t really have any place else to go).

Referring back to a previous post, to the extent that responsible leaders find themselves having to defend their positions re: downsizing gov’t, I think they can get the moral (and rhetorical) upper-hand by advancing something like the following narrative:

“I question your moral compass if you think it’s ethical for us to take on spending with no real intention (or hope) of repaying what we’ve borrowed, knowing full well that these debts will be transferred to our own flesh-and-blood, for them to deal with after we’re gone.”

True, we found ourselves in the same position that we risk putting our descendants in, with the debt passed on to us by our forebears–that doesn’t mean we’re free from any moral obligation not to do the same. If someone’s molested, it doesn’t grant them license to later go and molest other innocent people. Extending this analogy: suppose someone who is molested then goes on to molest as a result of having been molested. But suppose he or she didn’t find new innocent victims to molest, and instead only went back and molested the same person they were previously molested by…we could call it morally just, since the former wronger is now the one being wronged. Note the cyclical way in which the two wrongs cancel each other out, in terms of the overall amount of moral injustice they introduce into the world–one adds more injustice, but then the other “completes” it, cancelling it out and restoring a neutral state in the “moral equilibrium” of the universe.

Now contrast this ‘cyclical’ manner in which moral injustices can function, with the moral injustice introduced when deficit spending results in burdening subsequent generations with one’s own financial burdens. In the latter case, we see a linear, perverse, self-perpetuating spread of moral wrongdoing. Each generation further enslaves the next, similar to the molestation victim going on to molest only other innocent victims (who do the same, ad nauseam).

So again, we must be the generation that breaks that pattern. We’re too late to right this ship painlessly, but every day we continue to sweep the problem under the rug & pretend it doesn’t exist, is another day spent inflating a bubble that must inevitably burst. At stake is only the future of the greatest civilization in known history, and the only home many of us have ever known.

Advertisements

On a Possible “Bush v. Clinton” Presidential Election

I’m curious to see what will happen if–and heaven forbid it–we end up with another Bush/Clinton presidential election (vis a vis, Jeb and Hillary). I’m quite confident that–if not a majority–a sizable segment of the population does not want this, and this demographic is growing & making its presence felt more and more, as knowledge spreads and people continue to wake up to what’s going on (such as, the corruption & takeover of our governmental system by int’l banksters, corporate elite, globalist forces, etc.) If we really were to find ourselves looking at another election between these 2 names, it would be easier than ever for us to get the attention of those who haven’t quite woken up yet–since at that point many will probably have some kind of vague sense that something isn’t right here. So at least we would get the chance of having more people than ever receptive to our message, and an explanation of why we find our choices limited to one of those same 2 familiar names, can easily become an explanation of the whole bankster war machine & fiat money scam…you could pretty much go as far down the rabbit hole as circumstances allow for (gotta remember that certain people can only take so many blows to their worldview in one sitting, before they begin to disregard everything you say; can’t always force-feed them the red pill!), but it’d be a helpful doorway down that path, without it having to feel like you’re springing all this shit on them out of the blue.

Attacking The Left Where They Are Vulnerable

A note on the psychology of modern liberalism vs. that of libertarianism–and a suggestion regarding “winning the argument” moving forward…

I’ve found that for many on the left, their thinking is heavily funneled through their feelings, leading to decisions & beliefs that are overly based on emotion. This often presents a stumbling block to the libertarian mindset, which (while capable of being idealistic about certain things) has a much harder time, say, simply dismissing manifest realities for the sake of other beliefs one holds dear.

For example, I have no qualms with holding up the ideal of the non-aggression principle (NAP), which declares the initiation of force (unsolicited aggression against person or property) to be morally unjust. So this makes a morally normative claim on how the world ought to be (how people ought to behave), rather than how it is. Idealistic? Perhaps, but the NAP is based specifically on the principle of self-ownership, which the libertarian interprets not as a principle/ideal about how the world ought to be, but a fact about how the world is.

My suggestion is that we apply such brute principles to emotionally-driven arguments that will be coming from the left (if not the right) during the upcoming election season. When politicians decry spending cuts & entitlement reform by appealing to the plight of their beneficiaries, we might counter by appealing to the plight of our posterity whom we’re saddling with debts they cannot repay (and shouldn’t have to).

So far as pro-liberty candidates find themselves having to defend their positions on cutting spending, contracting the size of gov’t, etc.–they should go on offense. Aggressively challenge more defecit spending on moral grounds, and paint the opponent as the proponents of a gross moral hazard (which they are). Say, “It is unjustifiable to continue doing this.” Ask, “Have you NO CONCERN AT ALL with transferring our debts to our innocent children?”

Lay the responsibility at their feet, noting what it reveals about their moral character.

“I question your moral compass, senator, if you think it’s ethical for us to take on spending with no real intention (or hope) of repaying what we’ve borrowed, knowing full well that these debts will be transferred to our own flesh-and-blood, for them to deal with after we’re gone.”

It Has Come To This

Taking a stand against tyranny. At a certain point we must be willing to stare down the barrels of their guns, and cede not an inch–when the cause is right. This particular battle may not be over; I’m just glad to see that there’s a fight. The power-brokers of this ever-expanding monstrosity known as the federal gov’t will continue to use intimidation tactics and try to strong-arm us into submission.

Today we stood firm. Call it a win for the good guys.

Marvel at the Prophetic Words of Aldous Huxley

Huxley juxtaposes dictatorships of the past (which ruled with physical violence) with how he envisions dictatorships of the future…

HUXLEY: But, if you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled, and this they will do partly by drugs as I foresaw in “Brave New World,” partly by these new techniques of propaganda.

They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so, making him actually love his slavery.

I mean, I think, this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn’t to be happy.

Link – full text & video of entire interview.