http://mises.org/books/pottage.pdf

The assumptions that are erroneous are these. Groups never wrong other groups. It is always individuals that wrong individuals. Groups don’t kill other people. It is always individuals that kill other individuals. Second, whole groups of people are never wronged. It is always parts of groups that are wronged. All blacks were not slaves in the United States. It was only blacks in the South and then not all blacks were slaves in the South. There were many free blacks in New Orleans. Third, groups that governments come up with, such as white, Asian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, African American, are just arbitrary groups who sole purpose is to exist so that politicians can incite anger and hate within a certain group of people in order to control them. Think about it, what is a white person? Is it someone with white skin? Is it someone who has a white mother and father? What is a black person? Is it someone who is a deep color of black, someone who is brown, or do there mother or father have to come from Africa? And why is a black person considered an African-American and a white person is not considered a European-American? When governments define groups, they do so in order to curry political favor, not to right wrongs. Fourth, those who injured individuals in the past are long gone and dead. Justice requires that those who wrong an individual pay the price of that injury. It makes no moral sense that a descendant of a slave owner pay for an injury that his ancestor committed by forcefully taking money away from him or her and giving it to a descendant of a black man or woman who came from free blacks in the North? It makes no sense. In fact, that is more wrong than the injustice that they are trying to right.

Sadly, though, most Americans don’t take the time to think about who is doing the talking when groups and anger are brought up and they fail to think exactly what do they mean by whatever group they are talking about. The truth is that individuals injure individuals. There is no concept that is morally or ethically true when it comes to group justice or this social justice. Justice can only be applied on an individual basis. The wrongs of the past have been committed in the past. To right those wrongs would require a time machine. Justice requires that we all individually pay for the sins that we commit. To ask someone who never had slaves to pay someone who never was a slave is ridiculous. It is a concept that exists so that politicians can take money from a group of haves and give it to a group of have-nots for the purpose of buying their vote. If I can keep you angry, then I can control you. The end of America as we know it, a land of freedom and opportunity ends when the group of people who believes in this silly concept of social justice outnumbers those who do not.

“The inequality of individuals with regard to wealth and income is an essential feature of the market economy.”
 
“The fact that freedom is incompatible with equality of wealth and income has been stressed by many authors.  There is no need to enter into an examination of the emotional arguments advanced in these writings.  Neither is it necessary to raise the question of whether the renunciation of liberty could in itself guarantee the establishment of equality of wealth and income and whether or not a society could subsists on the basis of such equality.  Our task is merely to describe the role inequality plays in the framework of the market society.”

“In the market society direct compulsion and coercion are practiced only for the sake of preventing acts detrimental to social cooperation.  For the rest individuals are not molested by the police power.  The law-abiding citizen is free from the interference of jailers and hangmen.  What pressure is needed to impel an individual to contribute his share to the cooperative effort of production is exercised by the price structure of the market.  This pressure is indirect.  It puts on each individual’s contribution a premium graduated according to the value which the consumers attach to this contribution.  In rewarding the individual’s efforts according to its value, it leaves to everybody the choice between a more or less complete utilization of his own faculties and abilities.  This method cannot, of course, eliminate the disadvantages of inherent personal inferiority.  But it provides an incentive to everybody to exert his faculties and abilities to the utmost.”

“The only alternative to this financial pressure as exercised by the market is direct pressure and compulsion as exercised by the police power.  The authorities must be entrusted with the task of determining the quantity and quality of work that each individual is bound to perform.  As individuals are unequal with regard to their abilities, this requires an examination of their personalities on the part of the authorities.  The individual becomes an inmate of a penitentiary, as it were, to whom a definite task is assigned.  If he fails to achieve what the authorities have ordered him to do, he is liable to punishment.”

“It is important to realize in what the difference consists between direct pressure exercised for the prevention of crime and that exercised for the extortion of definite performance.  In the former case all that is required from the individual is to avoid a certain mode of conduct, precisely determined by law.  As a rule it is easy to establish whether or not this interdiction has been observed.  In the second case the individual is liable to accomplish a definite task; the law forces him toward an indefinite action, the determination of which is left to the decision of the executive power.  The individual is bound to obey whatever the administration orders him to do.  Whether or not the command is issued by the executive power was adequate to his forces and faculties and whether or not he has complied with it to the best of abilities is extremely difficult to establish.  Every citizen is with regard to all aspects of his personality and with regard to all manifestations of his conduct subject to the decisions of the authorities.  In the market economy in a trial before a penal court the prosecutor is obliged to produce sufficient evidence that the defendant is guilty.  But in matters of the performance of compulsory work it devolves upon the defendant to prove that the task assigned to him was beyond his abilities or that he has done all that can be expected of him.  The administrators combine in their persons the offices of the legislator, the executor of the law, the public prosecutor, and the judge.  The defendants are entirely at their mercy.  This is what people have in mind when speaking of lack of freedom.”

“No system of social division of labor can do without a method that makes individuals responsible for their contributions to the joint productive effort.  If this responsibility is not brought about the price structure of the market and the inequality of wealth and income it begets, it must be enforced by the methods of direct compulsion as practiced by the police.”

Right now I am reading the Communist Manifesto. I thought it would be good to understand the great work that espouses communism and is basically the father of all the great socialist movements since the 1800s and according to Barack Obama. I found this next piece on the web. It is crudely written and perhaps a little too simplistic or one-sided, but I think that it proves its point, which is that Barack Obama, no matter how nice of a gentleman he might be, believes in Marxism and would probably agree very much with the Communist Manifesto.

A comparison of Obama’s Ideas to the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Obama is for more public use of private land by confiscation. Liberals around the country are confiscating private land for new public use. )
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Obama plans to rescind tax cuts and to raise taxes, no matter what he says.).
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. (Obama wants to significantly raise the inheritance tax.)
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (Obama will soon classify you as a rebel, just like his compaign tried to silence a Chicago talk radio show. Why not just make it official, Obama?)
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Obama calling for strict regulations on banks.)
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (Obama just loves the Chinese ports, trains, etc. That’s because he wants the government to take over this function.)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Obama wants to penalize factories which want to move some operations offshore to participate in the global economy. What are his plans, confiscation)?
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Obama is calling for a new “national commitment to service”. What Obama is not telling you is that it is compulsory.)
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. (Obama wants several functions to be turned over to the government. For instance, Obama says he’s against the “fairness doctrine,” but he is for severly limiting ownership in the media as a way to control “conservative talk radio.)
10. Free education for all children in public schools. (Obama is for free education, but Obama is really for compulsory indoctrination of children in public schools by fighting school vouchers. You see, if you tax a family to death, then they can’t afford any school by a government school.)

According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism.

And here’s an interesting article that will at least get you to think.  If Barack Obama really believes Alinsky’s writings and spent the primary part of his career implementing those things, then is he also a fan of Lucifer as well and his work…  Obama and Alinsky

Oh and if you want to read a great article about the economy, here it is from Bill Bonner. http://dailyreckoning.com/read-between-the-decimals/

• http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/08/18/whose_medical_decisions
• http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/08/19/whose_medical_decisions_part_ii
• http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/08/20/whose_medical_decisions_part_iii
• http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/08/21/whose_medical_decisions_part_iv
• http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/2009/08/14/health-care-reform-full-article/

And now a great video that I found by Milton Friedman… He sure knew a lot and understood how to deconstruct the silly arguments of socialists and their many lies they use to take away freedoms for their power consumption.  What arrogant folks socialist leaders are.  Enjoy the video here.  (Milton Friedman)