Take Back Control ...

An Open Letter to The Democratic Party: Take Back Control, stop being ELECTION DENIERS.

If Democrats want to get back into the game, they should stop being ELECTION DENIERS:

Newly elected President Donald J. Trump won a mandate against you Democrats who attempted a Marxist coup in America but failed.

Give it up. Stop denying it.

Then reinvent yourselves.

Reinvent yourselves to become the Party that wants to perfect Capitalism by making it and us Thee Capitalism System of the world that Ayn Rand’s Objectivism says is correct—what it should be.

Below is some background to get you started on a new, sustainable path.

I know that given our political history the Republicans will manage to somehow screw up their Mandate. But this time around, since you guys did such a thorough job messing things up, the CINO Republicans have taken full control over the Commonsense Lane in politics and it could be 10 years or more before they screw up.

So, you might be wondering, just what Capitalism—The Known Ideal—should be you can fully research via Ayn Rand’s writings.

For a quickie kind of cheat sheet to help you get going I offer the following as what I—qua super-duper Objectivist Sympathizer--advocated for here (from my legacy website: first footnote “... then it is prohibited. * “capitifn1.htm, 3/28/1999, 2:17am):

From Deering’s Legacy Stuff located in the interface between the

2^nd and 3^rd Millennium—including a little bit of overlap from each.

The Capitalist Party (or its equivalent if there ever is one) is for 100% Laissez-faire capitalism and its mission is to convince the United States of America to adopt it first and then let the rest of the world follow suit. If some other country does it first they will be a direct threat to the U.S.'s future. This threat will be on three main fronts: brain drain as the good intellectuals will be the first to head for maximum freedom, second will be loss of economic competitiveness as the more perfect the free market the more efficient the productive efforts, and thirdly there'ul be a severe lack of motivation in those remaining so that eventually chaos will reign.

The Capitalist Party's Principles are (should be) these:

1. Separation of Economics and State to achieve a 100% Laissez-faire capitalist system (separation of church and state is good and so is this).

2. 10% flat, Flat tax - tithing was good enough for the church so it should be good enough for the state (flat Flat means no exemptions, none, nada, zero). This could be starting point for a new tax system and future political aspirants could run on tickets of reducing it to 9% (since per Constitution II it can't exceed 10%...ever, just like now it can't exceed 100%...ever). And if they --the wanting-to-get-elected-politicians-- want to get into a competition with their running opponents like somekind of warfare at the gas pumps to reduce it even further, then so be it. It will be up to the people then to decide if such promised reductions are realistic and in their best, individual, long-term self-interest.

3. If not a Flat tax type system, then perhaps a Consumption tax type is better. Up until now we have taxed production (almost to the point of making producers an endangered spicies) and now maybe we should try taxing consumption as a potentially fairer way and as a stepping stone to 100% voluntary taxation or to some yet unknown form of taxation to be discovered in the next item.

4. One Top Priority Goal: Answer the question: What is the proper way for a free society to pay for obtaining and maintaining its political values?

5. Property rights should be explicitly identified as the Individuals 2nd Primary right, that is as 2nd ONLY to the Individuals basic, inalienable "source of all rights" right-to-life.

6. Individual rights require two things, a correct definition and a delimiter. The correct definition is, individual rights are ..."conditions of existence required by man --the rational animal-- for his proper survival".

Individual Rights (Appendix: Man's Rights, by Ayn Rand) also are a moral sanction to individual actions in a group context. Essentially there are only two possibilities available to the individual-to-group relationship: freedom or totalitarianism.

The group (as pointed out by Dr. Branden in a Q & A session in one of the early Objectivist writings, the group) in a FREE society pays homage to the idea that All human action is permissible except X,Y,Z actions. These are prohibited because they violate legitimate individual rights.

In a TOTALITARIAN society the opposite prevails (continues Dr. Branden as I recall it since I can’t find the exact Q & A). The group agrees and/or is ultimately forced by the dictator's group to accept the idea that All human action is prohibited, except A,B,C. These are permitted because the dictator's group says so and, to repeat, per the totalitarian mentality if something isn't explicitly permitted, then it is prohibited.*

Whereas for freedom worshipping people the principle is: if something isn't explicitly prohibited by the group then it is permitted as far as the group is concerned. And "permitted" in this context does not mean, condoned (it actually means: "NOT prohibited"). It means that the legalized used of retaliatory force --i.e. the government will not be used to prevent you from engaging in a particular action, even though a lot of people, even the majority of people, may hold that the particular action is not good for you. Democrats notwithstanding, government is not your parent. Nor is it your moral teacher. For example, stealing and murder are prohibited in a free society and speaking and writing against freedom are "permitted", i.e. freedom worshippers don't legally penalize those who hold erroneous ideas. That is, you can think it is ok to commit murder if your god tells you to and you won't be penalized for the thought but if you commit the act of murder, you will face --as you should-- the full extent of the laws punishment.

The delimiter to a properly defined concept of individual rights, is: individual rights cannot contain --in any wave, shape or form-- the concept of..."the right to violate rights", because such is a contradiction and contradictions do not exist and do not work as nature amply demonstrates by not having any.

7. Domestic policy is based on the principle that Selfishness is primary and Altruism is secondary and that politically everyones selfish interest is best served by a government that is committed to protecting legitimate individual rights, the most important of which is protecting me from you initiating force against me and vice versa.

8. Foreign policy is based on the principle that the United States' selfish interests will never be sacraficed to her altruistic interests. To assume some people will never ever have "altruistic interests" is impractical, hence the need to deal with it exists and will not go away. The reason is that humans are born tabula rasa and developmentally it is too easy for the human capacity for compassion to be led astray by the purveyors of altruism. The altruism purveyors do not make their intentions explicit and so developing minds are suceptible to this and numerous other sidetracks that a volitional consciousness is vulnerable to. (For more on this see Yes. (Is BiO Spiritualism the answer?), Chapters 4 and 5 in general and Chapter 5, page 37, footnote 24 in particular for a very simple way to deal with this.)

9. We accept the fact that the United States Constitution will probably have to be re-written but we would like to see at least a 50 year debate --a public/oral debate as well as private/written-- on the various arguments, before a Convention is convened. (it would be exciting if the timing were such that July 4, 2076 were the signing and accepting of the new Constitution, but this may be too long a time and can't be arbitraily mandated).

10. 100% laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral polical system for mankind.

11. Consequently:

12. Privatize everything except that which is proper government function, because

13. It ultimately is the only way to prevent the political class from rising to the top. Or bubbling to the top if you prefer metaphors. Bubbling to the top, that is, in the witch's brew as she stirs it to concoct a potion that will keep all men and women of productive age from removing the wool pulled over their eyes by those whose primary desire and motivation is, to rule. To rule those who think the witch's brew is harmless. When she throws in the tail of coat of a famous politician and chants:

Precision of thot
Nothing but rot.
As those we rule
Are easy to fool.

Or for those of you who prefer live metaphors, maybe you want to wait and see how they and the 3rd party movement in this country does.

Afterall, the Reform party in Minnesota did score a significant victory (Jesse V. was elected gov) as I was drafting this piece.⁸

So...stop. Halt. Investigate the Reform Party to see what they have to offer and hopefully it will be more and better than the Libertarians. And if possible, use them as an outlet for your political frustrations for now.

If so, great. (If so, great what? Great if...they manage to make significant changes towards more freedom and more respect for individual rights, then great.)

If not, if they a one-shot deal and/or if they get absorbed into the Republican party ... then...maybe another Political Poem (see Politics Venn) and/or...

...then, back here and take up the charge for The Capitalists....

(ECONOMICS/The Capitalists OR BACK)

______________________________________

* If by this point you are thinking that this is way too abstract to be pertinent to your daily life and/or that totalartarianism will never be a concept applicable to the United States...think again.

My youngest daughter and I were talking the other day trying to remember Ayn Rands 4 things that are the sign of a dictatorship. We've had this discussion before and I always have a hard time, like a mental block against being able to recall the fourth thing (plus I can't remember which article/book its in to look it up in and I can't remember it here either so I can't tell you where to go look for it. It is there somewhere). Anyway as part of this discussion she said a few years back when she was a student at the University (of Minnesota) she saw a traffic sign over by there that made her do a double take and she said the person who designed that sign has a totalitarian mentality. I asked what the sign was and she said it was a sign at a stop light that didn't say NO TURN ON RED (in Minnesota, turning right on red is a permissible exception to the prohibited: thou shalt not go on red, be it right, left or straight ahead) but rather it said:
RIGHT TURN ONLY
ON GREEN OR
ON GREEN ARROW.

I had to think about this for a second to understand it, plus I've never in my entire life seen such a sign and she reassured me that yes, it was for real, she had seen it. And I had to concurr: given the choice between a simple 'No Turn On Red' and the significantly wordier version "they" used, I have to conclude that that traffic sign was designed (even if somebody tries to blame it on a computer, some-person some where had to make a judgement that resulted in selecting the sign) by a person with a Totalitarian mentality.

An ex-Minnestota State Legislator acquaintance of mine when presented with this scenario and challenged to make sense out of it said he really couldn't think of anything except, maybe since it was over by the University that maybe they were trying, testing something out. He didn't mean what I'm currently thinking...even I am not going to be that paranoid...(it wasn't a trial balloon by the "shadow" university...was it?)

____________________________________________________

⁸ And yes, I did vote for him because the ruling elite in this country are just that, elite. They are becoming a threat to individual freedom to such a degree that the average citizen has to do something about it sooner rather than later least they turn us back into a pre-revolutionary state that was ruled by (English) Royalty.

That this is "only" a feeling of mine may or may not be a problem (those of you who know Objectivism know it is wrong to act on feelings without thinking about them, but...I have thought about it and this is what I think...) as I was saying this may be a problem and if it is I guess it will manifest itself in the kind of trouble Jesse V gets us into. But, be that as it may, compared to the two Royalty seeking opponents he ran against, Jesse's got a heroic soul and I can't not be for him and I wish him well. Since I have my own Web Site as outlet for my political frustrations I'm not too worried about the possibility of Jesse doing more harm than good. The only real harm he can do is to disillusion those who can't articulate their feelings as well as I can.

I watched the Republicans and Democrats spend the best part of a year in-fighting over the religious view of character: "their" view is that moral character is synonomous with sexual mores, which is to say: To the religious mind, moral = sexual behavior (how else do you explain the (alledged) fact that --per my University of Nortre Dame trained-in-Catholic-philosophy/epistemology friend who told me-- Catholics hold it to be true that "homosexuality" is worse than "murder"!?!?!?!?).

The fact that I am disappointed in my government (I'm not that disappointed in my ex-religion, at least "they" are consistent enough so that you can figure them out) in that I thought we'd have colonies on the moon by now and possibly even Mars is not really relevant in its particulars but it is in its generality: everybody in this country has come to think of the government as the provider of all our wants...and when I say everybody I mean, even me. I am embarrassed, but I will vote for Jesse V. or anybody else who carries the promise of making our government be the one and only thing it should be: PROTECTOR of the individuals right to his or her own life.

Scratch pad thinking...

HYPOTHESIS NUMBERED ....H_o8:

H_o8: This country is in danger of being taken over by a ruling elite and if we don't do something about it sooner rather than later there will be no later in which to do something about it.

The average citizen, me included, does not have the political self-confidence to counter those who argue "we" don't know what we are doing and we'd better let those who do, do it and take care of us naieve (don't know how to spell) citizens. That this kind of argument works is a backhanded complement to the average American: it shows he still respects the idea that knowledge is some-thing and it comes about by work and effort. And it also works because we don't want to be accused of having a Russian mentality, that is, of having a view of the world that pits the "proletariat/worker/blue collar" people against the "bourgeois/ruler elites/intellengentia" because we are not that kind of a people. The Russians are that way, we aren't. So how does one not succuum to such a wrong subdivision of the world of people?

I don't know.

It is more than "rich" against "poor", though this is part of the "wool".

Actually, it has to be a form of racism which is a form of collectivism which is a form of attempting to maintain a contradiction in a universe that does not allow them.**

__________________________________

** The contradiction here is that pseudo self-esteem = authentic self-esteem and that you can get authentic self esteem from a comparison to others standard. That is, to "feel" that you can make your self be better by making yourself feel better, superior, good if only you can find someone to compare yourself to who (in your own mind at least and/or in the "minds" of your subgroup) is bad, inferior, evil and if you can't readily find them, then create 'em.

For more about "Pseudo-Self Esteem" see the chapter by the same name in The Psychology of Self-Esteem

© February 5, 2025, Gary Dean Deering

Minnesota, USA