Republican Presidential Primary Candidates

We have received hundreds of emails from different organizations over the last few months about the Republican Presidential Candidates. We have heard about The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. As for the GOOD, the candidates have had over 18 debates and forums that have been well publicized and primarily concentrated on what they have to offer. For the BAD and the UGLY, the links below will show you some of the negative attributes that each candidate has as presented to us by some of our members.  Please remember that GTP does not endorse any candidate and is presenting this information for your analysis.

Click the names below for the information-

Newt Gingrich

Rick Santorum

Mitt Romney

Ron Paul

 

Last Saturdays Meeting

Repost of yesterdays Email- Thanks to everyone who attended our general meeting on Saturday. I want to also thank you for your donations as it paid for the room. About 3/4 of you participated in our Rep Presidential Primary Straw Poll and the results are as follows-  

                                                Newt Gingrich won with 52%

                                                Ron Paul-                       27%

                                                Rick Santorum-             12%

                                                Mitt Romney-                 09%

Ken Hazen, the speaker for Big Voices Media (BVM) was gratefull for your
attendance and your interest.  As promised, I will describe below how to check
your internet speed to ensure that you are able to maximize what BVM has to offer.

Open the link below and you will go to the  SPEAK EASY web site.

http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/

Once you are there, click on the ATLANTA or NEW YORK button. After a few seconds it will show you what your DOWNLOAD and UPLOAD speeds are. To take advantage of the high definition and video streaming that BVM has to offer your DOWNLOAD speed should be faster that 1.8 mbps (1.8 mega bits per second).  The telephone provider I have at my house in the country side is Windstream which only offers 1.0 mbps.  I will sign up with BVM and will let you know if I encounter any problems with a slower connection. I also have a smart phone with 3G speed and will let you know how it compares.

Stay tuned for more updates.

Thanks,

Rod    rod@gainesvilleteaparty.org

Attend Our General Meeting Tomorrow

Attend This Saturday’s Monthly Meeting To Learn About A New Media Platform-

 

 

 No longer will the only reporting available be what is spoon fed to the public through a filter controlled by the mainstream media and elite paid political consultants from both parties, all deciding what they want the public to hear.  The voices “of the people, by the people, and for the people” will be heard through B!G Voices Media, our media.

Big Voices Media’s, Ken Hazen, will give a presentation about the new  platform, a la Glenn Beck, and answer any questions you may have.  This could be just the tool we have all been waiting on. Imagine, not having to relying on the liberal media or on WordpRess, Facebook or YouTube censoring our information.  Might we even end up with a GTP channel?????

So attend our monthly meeting this Saturday Jan 21st at 10AM and bring a friend and family member. We look forward to seeing you there!

NOTE: NEW LOCATION!!!  The American Legion Hall, Post 16,  located in Gainesville at 4701 NW 6th Street (near the intersection of  NW 13th Street (441 north) and NW 6th St, next to the old “Rancher” building.

Best Access: Off NW 6th St at the merge with Hwy 441 (also NW 13 St).  Turn into drive used previously for the (now closed)Rancher store.

GTP General Meeting Rescheduled

 

 

We are sorry to announce that due to a scheduling conflict we are unable to hold our General Meeting this Saturday January 7th.

We have been able to reschedule with the American Legion hall for Saturday January 21 at 10AM.

We hope to see you all on January 21st.

Sorry for any inconvenience!

GTP

 

2012 Florida Senate Race

 Click on this article by Rick Moran in American Thinker for some polling about next years Florida Senatorial race.  Even though many of you are concentrating on the Presidential Primary, we cannot forget the importance of replacing our own liberal Senator Nelson in November.

Click here for the American Thinker Article:

Click here for the  Questionaire used for the polling.

Presidential Candidate Comparison

Great Matrix forwarded to GTP by the Tea Party Network:  Republican Presidential Candidate Comparison compiled by Southern New Hampshire 9.12 Project. Includes 13 pages of issues with multiple links documenting  eight candidate’s position on each question. Truly an excellent job of compiling the information. As of yet the Herman Cain column has not been deleted.

Click on the link below and a PDF file will appear. You should be able to then click on all the links for supporting data for the Candidates answers.

http://www.southernnh912.com/sites/default/files/PresidentialCandidatePositions_20111203.pdf

U.S. Citizens Targeted? Senate Bill – 1867

Wow!  What a difference it makes when the electorate AND the politicians actually read a bill.  The concerns about Senate Bill 1867 and ALL its potential ammendments justifiably give one pause and concern.  As with most of the legislation that is passed nowadays, the legal language makes it virtually impossible to understand the true ramifications of the bill.

Please click the two links below to see why opponents of the bill are concerned, followed by some current language in the bill which states that PRESENTLY U.S. Citizens cannot be targeted. We all know however, that any definition is subject to change and as such this should concern you. Keeping law enforcement local has worked for decades but more and more that falls under the reach of the Federal government.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195889-sens-paul-mccain-clash-over-terrorist-detainee-amendment-

http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-bill-to-be-voted-on-today-would-allow-the-military-to-sweep-up-us-citizens-at-home-or-abroad-2011-11

http://www.infowars.com/yes-americans-will-be-targeted-as-terrorists-under-the-ndaa/

Defenders of the bill state that if you read the bill closely one can see that all the concerns are unfounded.

 Two of the Sections most worrisome are printed below and do state that U.S Citizens are not to be included in the COVERED PERSONS definition.

Subtitle D–Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

Republican Congressman Justin Amash told the The Grand Rapids Press today, the language of the bill is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

“Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

“The controversy over whether or not the text of the bill suggests the legislation applies to U.S. citizens is largely inconsequential given the fact that every piece of anti-terror legislation passed since 9/11 has been used against Americans, both at home and abroad.

The Patriot Act was passed in the name of giving federal authorities the tools to catch terrorists, but it has been used in hundreds of cases against American citizens.”

Please contact your Senators and express your concerns and ask WHY we need this bill. We also have a link to an explanation from Senator Rubio’s office.

Senator Marco Rubio (R)
Telephone: 202-224-3041
Email Link: http://rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Click here for Senator Rubio’s Office comments-Senator Rubio Office

Senator Bill Nelson (D)
Telephone: 202-224-5274
 Email Link: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Embrace The Joy Of Failure

Please read the following article about the Super Committee  by Wayne Root posted in Andrew Breitbart’s BIG GOVERNMENT -

The Congressional “Super Committee” tasked with cutting the debt has failed. Good. Embrace the joy of failure. Sometimes failure works out for the best. Because in this case “failure” leads to the Holy Grail: $1.2 Trillion in forced spending cuts. That’s the best thing that could have ever come out of this unconstitutional “Super Committee.”

Congress is now forced to accept automatic across the board cuts to spending- including defense spending. This is what the GOP should have been aiming for from day one. Play out the clock and force $1.2 Trillion in spending cuts.

But our GOP friends never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They are scared, spineless weaklings. They are actually panicking because there wasn’t a compromise that raised taxes. Could they possibly be this dumb?

The GOP had the perfect campaign message tailor-made for a 2012 landslide. “The GOP stands for smaller government, lower taxes, less spending. Obama is for bigger government, higher taxes, more spending.” The same simple clear contrast that led to a historic Tea Party landslide in 2010. All they had to do was play out the clock and let the spending cuts take effect.

Instead the GOP “super committee” members were so scared of actually forcing real, honest-to-goodness, spending cuts that they desperately tried all last week to compromise with Democrats. They practically begged Democrats to increase taxes on the wealthy (by taking away deductions). The GOP was anxious to sell out every small business owner, homeowner, and GOP contributor in America. Listen carefully- it was the GOP who offered a deal based on Obama’s philosophy to punish successful Americans for their hard work, sacrifice, and financial risk-taking.

Republicans offered a deal to Democrats that included only slightly larger spending cuts versus tax increases. And guess where all the tax increases were aimed- at wealthy taxpayers. Even as GOP Presidential contenders lied to our faces during televised debates, all agreeing they would not even accept a deal of 10-to-1 spending cuts versus tax increases, the GOP Super Committee members attempted to sell out the entire conservative base for close to 1-to-1.

That is the reason I left the GOP during the Bush reign. Republicans talk a good Tea Party game about smaller government, tax cuts and spending cuts. But as far as actually carrying it out? Not so much. No sooner than the super committee fell apart, the GOP was screaming from the highest rooftops that they will block the automatic defense cuts. They have obviously received too many calls from defense contractor contributors.

This could be one of the most self-destructive game plans in political history. First, we need across-the-board spending cuts to save America from a fate like Greece or Italy. There is no way to cut the debt and avert an economic tragedy without cutting from every department of government- including defense.

Second, these “automatic spending cuts” aren’t really even cuts. Not a dollar of today’s defense spending will be cut. Not one General or Admiral will lose their job. All that’s being cut is future increases in defense spending. If we can’t agree on that, America is doomed.

Third, U.S. voters are looking for someone to show they have courage. If the GOP won’t cut one dollar of future increases in defense spending, despite the pending insolvency of America, than how can we ever shame the Democrats into cutting domestic spending Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

Lastly, how could the GOP be so ignorant of history? By compromising on taxes to get spending cuts, they would be cutting their own throats. Ask Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Both were lied to and fooled by Democrats who promised future spending cuts in return for tax increases, but never delivered. Worse, Reagan and Bush were forever more called “tax raisers” by Democrats. No conservative can ever win by raising taxes, stupid.

Are Republicans really that tone deaf? Don’t they realize the key to winning next November is to stand firm against any tax increases? Don’t they realize the “enthusiasm gap” in favor of Republicans is now as large as the Grand Canyon? All because of the Tea Party and the excitement of conservative anti-tax activists.

If the GOP members of the Super Committee had voted for not only “revenue increases”…but increases designed as punishment for wealthy taxpayers, the enthusiasm gap simply vanishes. By limiting the deductions of upper income taxpayers, you are raising taxes and punishing your own supporters and contributors- exactly what Obama wants you to do. Divide, demoralize, and conquer.

Has anyone in the GOP noticed what is happening in Europe? Greece and Italy are insolvent. Yet they have among the highest tax rates in the world. Higher taxes don’t save the economy. High taxes don’t lower debt. High taxes have destroyed the European economy. We need spending cuts, not “revenue increases.”

Here’s my message- from a Tea Party American and small business job creator. Embrace the failure of the unconstitutional super committee. Accept the automatic across the board spending cuts as a Christmas gift from the heavens. Stop considering compromises over taxes with Obama. If you accept the notion that the rich should be punished, stop calling Obama a socialist…because you’re no better than Obama. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Compromising with Obama to wreck the finances of your own supporters is only going to kill the enthusiasm of your own base, and get you defeated just like George H.W. Bush.

One last message to the GOP- Grow a spine.

Wayne Root

Saturday Meeting – Occupy Best Western

Our meeting tomorrow at the Best Western Gateway Grand is presented by Americans for Prosperity and their nationally known speakers.  Please attend and bring a friend or two, and spend the morning learning about how to counter the leftist machine.

So in the spirit of the times, “let’s OCCUPY THE BEST WESTERN”, you will be glad you did!

There is no admission charge and coffee and treats will be served.

 

Four-Way Republican Dead Heat in Iowa

Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in a dead heat as the top choices for Iowans likely to attend the Jan. 3 Republican presidential caucuses.

A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.

Economic issues such as jobs, taxes and government spending are driving voter sentiment, rather than such social issues as abortion and gay marriage, the poll finds. Only about a quarter of likely caucus-goers say social or constitutional issues are more important to them, compared with 71 percent who say fiscal concerns.

The poll reflects the race’s fluidity, with 60 percent of respondents saying they still could be persuaded to back someone other than their top choice, and 10 percent undecided. Paul’s support is more solidified than his rivals, while Cain’s is softer. All of the major contenders have issue challenges to address.

Click link below for rest of article by John McCormick in Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-15/romney-two-way-race-is-now-four-way-republican-dead-heat-in-iowa-caucuses.html

Here are the candidates websites so you can do a little research.

In alphabetical order-

     Herman Cain                 http://www.hermancain.com

     Michele Bachmann       http://www.michelebachmann.com/

     Newt Gingrich               http://www.newt.org/

     John Huntsman             http://www.jon2012.com/

     Gary Johnson               http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

     Ron Paul                        http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

     Rick Perry                      http://www.rickperry.org/

     Mitt Romney                 http://www.mittromney.com/     

      Rick Santorum             http://www.ricksantorum.com/index.php

And let’s not forget the incumbent-

President Barack Obama   http://www.barackobama.com

CRONY DRUG DEAL

“What do you get when you mix Democratic fat-cat donations, Big Labor favors, pharmaceutical lobbying and Beltway business as usual? Answer: another toxic half-billion-dollar Barack Obama-approved crony deal. Move over, Solyndra.  Here comes Siga-Gate.” Please click on this link to read Michelle Malkin’s newest article.

http://michellemalkin.com/

GOP Presidential Pageant

From a fellow Alachua county resident Lloyd Bailey – Have Americans completely forgotten the other two branches of our Republic?  You would think we had a monarchy, with all the daily discussion of the president, and the people are going to be fooled again, if they do not study and learn the constitution. Following is a short article that I hope you will enjoy and share.

GOP Presidential Pageant

While many citizens are captivated by the ongoing GOP Presidential Pageant, the congress is ignored and not held accountable for the debt limit increase which was recently passed by a neoconservative republican congress. The founding fathers understood man’s nature by creating a constitutional republic with checks and balances. They granted the greatest power to the legislative branch. The Senators were given six year terms to represent the states, and the House of Representatives was granted two year terms to represent the people. The more powerful House was limited by two year terms and granted the sole power of impeachment and appropriations. According to original intent, the president was to be elected by the state’s Electoral College.

Of the original 91 electoral positions, 26 electors (28.5%) were granted to the small and large states for the Senate and all electors were representatives of the states. A popular democratic presidential election was never intended. The founders understood that democracy was dangerous and that the people could be easily fooled by misleading demagogic rhetoric. This concern has been validated in past US elections. The balance of powers has been egregiously modified by the pernicious Seventeenth Amendment and partisan tampering with the state’s Electoral College.

Today there is another attack on our constitution, called the National Popular Vote, which if passed by the states will violate Article I, Section 10 of the constitution and will further disenfranchise the states. All of the electors will be usurped by the national popular vote. Rural areas will be ignored while candidates will focus on large population centers that have been known for voter fraud. The presidential popularity contest will choose an audience that can be easily manipulated.

Further understanding can be gleaned by reading Federalist #10, on the flaws of Democracy, and Federalist # 68, on the importance of the Electoral College.

Lloyd W. Bailey, Jr.

HELP Repeal Gasoline Ethanol Requirment

FROM THE TEA PARTY NETWORK-

We need your help in voicing your opinion to our state officials about Ethanol.

Ethanol is form of alcohol that is made from plants that is added to gasoline as a result of a Florida state mandate. Ethanol does not burn as efficiently as gasoline and costs each of us 1-2 miles per gallon. It also causes problems in older engines that have not been designed to burn ethanol. Most ethanol is made from corn and its production is subsidized by the federal government. As a result, world ethanol production has tripled between 2000 and 2007. This has driven up the cost of corn and other grains resulting in increased food prices. SB238 will repeal the requirement to put ethanol in gasoline in Florida.

Issue: “Renewable Fuel Standard Act Repeal” SB238

Facts:

SB238 is a bill sponsored by Senator Greg Evers repealing the “Renewable Fuel Standard Act” which relates to Ethanol in your gas.
Bill will be heard in committee on Weds November 2, 2011 from 11:00am-1:00pm .
We need to let Senator Evers know that we are there supporting this bill. There is a companion bill in the House that is sponsored by Representative Matt Gaetz.
Action Step:
Contact the below committee members in Tallahassee today and or Wednesday before 11:00am, ask them to support this bill. The Senator’s phone numbers are listed if you wish to call.       If you prefer to email, see below.

Chair
Senator Andy Gardiner (R) 850) 487-5047,
Vice Chair:
Senator Christopher L. “Chris” Smith (D) 850) 487-5112
·Senator Thad Altman (R) 850) 487-5053
·Senator Lizbeth Benacquisto (R) (850) 487-5356
·Senator Ellyn Setnor Bogdanoff (R) (850) 487-5100
·Senator Oscar Braynon, II (D) (850) 487-5116
·Senator Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (R) (850) 487-5109
·Senator Greg Evers (R) (850) 487-5000 (Just let him know we are supporting this bill)
·Senator Mike Fasano (R) (850) 487-5062
·Senator Anitere Flores (R) 850) 487-5130
·Senator Arthenia L. Joyner (D) (850) 487-5059
·Senator Evelyn J. Lynn (R) (850) 487-5033
·Senator Gwen Margolis (D) 850) 487-5121
·Senator Joe Negron (R) 850) 487-5088
·Senator Maria Lorts Sachs (D) (850) 487-5091

 EMAILS-   To make your life easier, just copy and paste the senator emails below into your outgoing email.  A text as simple as “support SB238 as we do not need Ethanol.”  is all you need.  If you do have more to say, by all means let them know.

gardiner.andy.web@flsenate.gov,
smith.chris.web@flsenate.gov,
altman.thad.web@flsenate.gov,
benacquisto.lizbeth.web@flsenate.gov,
bogdanoff.ellyn.web@flsenate.gov,
braynon.oscar.web@flsenate.gov,
portilla.miguel.web@flsenate.gov,
evers.greg.web@flsenate.gov,
fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov,
flores.anitere.web@flsenate.gov,
joyner.arthenia.web@flsenate.gov,
lynn.evelyn.web@flsenate.gov,
margolis.gwen.web@flsenate.gov,
negron.joe.web@flsenate.gov,
sachs.maria.web@flsenate.gov
Thanks,

Gainesville Tea Party

Crucify Political Correctness on the Altar of Freedom of Speech

The reason it must be eliminated is because Political Correctness is a Trojan horse for Marxism, which always destroys everything it touches. PC is a curse which must be denounced before it mangles its host society, especially since it is the very opposite of Free Speech. More importantly, individual responsibility is eliminated by PC standards which make irrelevant personal morality. This is the subject of this essay.

Please read this good article by Kelly O’Connell in Canada Free Press-
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41585

Capitalism and the Moral High Ground

Please read this article by Craig Biddle which is very pertinent as President Obama continues to push for Class Warfare and as Occupy Wall Street and other locations gain momentum.

Economists from Adam Smith to Ludwig von Mises to Henry Hazlitt to Thomas Sowell have elucidated the general mechanics of a free market and demonstrated the unassailable practicality of capitalism. They have shown how freer markets provide better and cheaper health care, cleaner air and water, safer automobiles and airplanes, ample food and energy, better and cheaper schools, and so on. But their arguments have not convinced the world to embrace capitalism. On the contrary, people today are condemning the system of private property as loudly as ever.
How do so-called advocates of capitalism respond to accusations of its inherent selfishness? Some, such as George Gilder, simply deny it. Selfishness is not the essence of capitalism, writes Gilder, “Altruism is the essence of capitalism. . . . Capitalism begins with giving. . . . The deepest truths of capitalism are faith, hope, and love.” This, of course, is ridiculous. Capitalism begins not with giving but with producing—and then moves on to keeping, using, and trading the product of one’s efforts for other values in the marketplace. Nor is capitalism based on faith or hope; rather, it is based on reason and long-term planning, which are the means by which businessmen succeed and grow rich. And although love is certainly essential to capitalism, the relevant object of love in this context is money. Capitalism is the system of the selfish pursuit of profit, and to deny this, as Gilder does, is to abuse the meaning of words.
The practicality of capitalism is insufficient grounds for its defense against those who assert its immorality. We who wish to advocate capitalism must do so on moral grounds. The moral grounds on which we must advocate capitalism, however, are not those of conventional wisdom. Capitalism enables everyone to act in a consistently self-interested manner. Rather than shying away from this unassailable fact, we must embrace and emphasize it. We must do so not on the pragmatic grounds that doing so will work to defend capitalism (which it will), but on the principled grounds that the selfishness-enabling characteristic of capitalism is, in fact, what makes it the only moral social system on earth.
To see why this is so, let us begin by observing how capitalism enables economic selfishness and what this means in practice.
Under genuine capitalism—not the mongrel system operative in America today, but pure, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism—the government prohibits citizens from using physical force against each other, and the Constitution prohibits the government from using force against citizens except in retaliation against those who initiate its use. Thus everyone is fully free to act on his own judgment for his own sake.
Consider the activities of a bank under capitalism. If an individual or corporation chooses to create a bank, he or it is free to establish the policy that the bank will offer loans only to individuals and businesses the bank regards as creditworthy. The government may not force the bank to lend money to those it regards as unable to repay a loan or as too risky for business. Nor may the government dictate or limit the interest rates or other terms or conditions that the bank chooses to offer. The government may not force the bank to do anything, because under capitalism, the government is forbidden to initiate force against citizens or businesses.
The bank owner or owners are free to decide how they will run their business at every step and turn; free to open new branches, to purchase other banks, to purchase insurance companies, and to expand or diversify their bank in countless other ways. They are free to maximize their profits and to grow and thrive and prosper to the best of their ability. The only thing they are not free to do is to use physical force or fraud (indirect force) against people, because, under capitalism, physical force is banned from social relationships.
If the bank employs rational policies and succeeds, its success is good for the bank, good for its owners, and good for its customers. If the bank engages in irrational policies—if, for instance, its risk-assessment procedures are such that it regularly lends money to people who cannot repay their loans—the bank suffers negative financial consequences. If its policies lead the bank to failure, it may not seek a bailout from the government; nor may the government offer to “rescue” the bank. Under capitalism, bankers and banks, like all individuals and businesses, are responsible for the consequences of their decisions, whether good or bad, profitable or not.
Consequently, under capitalism, if a bank fails, it files bankruptcy or offers itself for sale on the cheap or goes out of business; its owners suffer losses; and its customers find other means through which to save or borrow money. Under capitalism, everyone is free to benefit from his rational choices and actions, and no one may force others to suffer the consequences of his irrational decisions.
Capitalism encourages rationality in the marketplace. Those who act in a rationally self-interested manner tend to succeed, and those who do succeed are free to enjoy the fruits of their rationality.
Consider the case of an automaker. Under capitalism, an automaker is free to manufacture and market cars in whatever way it sees fit, and the company is free to succeed or to fail accordingly. The government may not force the company to sell a particular kind of car, nor force it to pay its employees a particular minimum or maximum wage, nor force it to contract with a particular vendor, nor a union, nor anyone else. The automaker is free to make all such decisions according to its own judgment (i.e., the judgment of its owners). If the automaker uses good judgment and succeeds, it is free to keep, use, and dispose of its profits. If it uses poor judgment and fails—or if its competitors outperform it such that it cannot remain profitable—the automaker may file for bankruptcy or offer itself for sale or close its doors. But it may not seek a bailout from the government. Under capitalism, individuals and corporations legally own not only their profits but also their problems, and the government is prohibited from intervening in the marketplace.
As to unions, under capitalism, individuals are free to band together and to stipulate that members of their group will work only on certain terms and under certain conditions. But such groups may not force others to contract with them, nor may the government employ such force on their behalf. Under capitalism, everyone is free to set his own terms and conditions of contract; no one may infringe on the freedom of others to set theirs; everyone is equally free to be fully selfish.
Capitalism is the system of mutual self-interest and mutual non-interference. Everyone who wishes to live well and prosper is free to do so to the best of his effort and ability; no one may stop another from pursuing his values or goals. Capitalism is the system of private property and voluntary exchange. Those who are willing to interact peacefully with others are free to produce, trade, and prosper accordingly. Those who wish to use force against their fellow men are precluded from doing so—and punished if they try. Under capitalism, the initiation of physical force is barred from human relationships; citizens delegate the use of retaliatory force to the government, which may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; and those who initiate force against others are met with force by the law. This arrangement leaves everyone free to act on his own judgment for his own sake as a matter of principle. This is what makes capitalism the system of selfishness—and this is what distinguishes capitalism from all other social systems.
Consider the alternative systems in this regard. Under communism, the government forces individuals and businesses to act against their judgment for the sake of the “workers” or the “community”; hence the term “communism” (e.g., the USSR). Under socialism, the government forces individuals and businesses to act against their judgment for the sake of the “collective” or “society”; hence the term “socialism” (e.g., present-day Sweden). Under theocracy, the government forces individuals and businesses to act against their judgment in obedience to “God’s will”—or whatever His earthly “representatives” deem His will to be; hence the term “theocracy,” which means literally “rule by God” (e.g., present-day Iran). Under fascism, the government forces individuals and businesses to act against their judgment for the sake of the “nation,” the “race,” the “people,” the “elderly,” the “poor,” or some other “group”; hence the term “fascism,” which means literally “group-ism” (e.g., Mussolini’s Italy).
America today is a motley mixture of all of the above. Our federal, state, and local governments force citizens to act against their judgment in myriad ways. Despite all this force, however, Americans are, in some respects, still free to act on their judgment for their own sake.
If human beings are to act on their rational judgment, they must be free to act on it. Capitalism is the social system that recognizes this fact and upholds the principle of individual rights. But according to the dominant morality today, altruism, the individual does not and cannot have a right to act on his own judgment for his own sake, because the individual has a “duty” to sacrifice his judgment and thus his life for the sake of others.
Altruism holds that being moral consists not in being selfish but in being selfless, not in self-interestedly pursuing and protecting one’s life-serving values but in self-sacrificially serving others. (“Alter” is Latin for “other”; “altruism” means “other-ism.”) And because pushers of altruism frequently equivocate on the meaning of the concept of “service,” it is crucial for advocates of capitalism to grasp the actual meaning of this concept as it relates to altruism.
Altruism does not call merely for “serving” others; it calls for self-sacrificially serving others. Otherwise, Michael Dell would have to be considered more altruistic than Mother Teresa. Why? Because Michael Dell serves millions more people than Mother Teresa ever did. The difference, of course, is in the way he serves people. Whereas Mother Teresa “served” people by exchanging her time and effort for nothing, Michael Dell serves people by trading with them—by exchanging value for value to mutual advantage—an exchange in which both sides gain.
Trading value for value is not the same thing as giving up values for nothing. There is a black-and-white difference between pursuing values and giving them up, between achieving values and relinquishing them, between exchanging a lesser value for a greater one and vice versa. Life requires that we regularly forgo lesser values for the sake of greater ones. But these are gains, not sacrifices. A sacrifice consists in giving up something that is more important to one’s life for the sake of something that is less important (or non-important) to one’s life. A sacrifice results in a personal loss.
Altruism, the morality that forbids people to act in a self-interested manner, is entirely incompatible with capitalism, the system that enables and encourages everyone to act in a consistently self-interested manner. Acceptance of the altruistic premise that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others is what gives rise to and supports the various forms of statism—communism, socialism, theocracy, fascism—and it is what is driving America toward tyranny today.
The good news for lovers of liberty is that altruism is false. There are no facts that give rise to the notion that one should self-sacrificially serve others, which is why no one has ever presented such facts. Consequently, adherence to altruism is irrational. There is no reason to sacrifice, which is why no one has ever given a reason.
As the politics of self-interest, capitalism cannot be defended with the ethics of self-sacrifice—nor can it be defended apart from a moral foundation (e.g., via libertarianism or mere economics). We who wish to advocate capitalism must advocate it explicitly on moral grounds. We must unabashedly explain to our allies and potential allies (i.e., people who are willing to think) that human life requires rationally self-interested action; that each individual has a moral right to act on his own judgment for his own sake, so long as he does not violate the same rights of others; that capitalism is moral because it enables everyone to act in a rationally self-interested manner; and that a mixed economy—in which no one’s rights are fully protected, and everyone’s rights are partially violated—is immoral because it precludes people from acting fully as human life requires.
Craig Biddle is the editor of The Objective Standard and the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It.

Next Page »