jump to navigation

True Nobility May 13, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in politics.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

Meagher4sThe speech below was given by a man named Thomas Meagher on October 22, 1848, after being sentenced to death by hanging, beheading, and dismemberment for high treason against England.  Meagher was a popular Irish confederate, joined with many others in the struggle to free impoverished, starving Ireland from the haphazard rule of the English.  I think this speech is a prime illustration of what real patriotism is, and conveys an attitude that, if this country continues much farther down its current path, may be necessary on the side of conservatism once again.

“To the efforts I have made, in a just and noble cause, I ascribe no vain importance, nor do I claim for those efforts any high reward.  But it so happens, and it will ever happen so, that they who have tried to serve their country, no matter how weak the efforts may have been, are sure to receive the thanks and blessings of its people.  I am here to regret nothing I have already done, to retract nothing I have already said.  I am here to crave, with no lying lip, the life I consecrate to the liberty of my country … To lift this island up — to make her a benefactor to humanity instead of being the meanest beggar in the world — to restore to her her native powers and her ancient constitution, this has been my ambition, and this ambition has been my crime.  Judged by the law of England I know this crime entails the penalty of death; but the history of Ireland explains this crime, and justifies it … I hope to be able with a pure heart and perfect composure to appear before a higher tribunal — a tribunal where a Judge of infinite goodness, as well as of justice, will preside, and where, my Lords, many — many of the judgments of this court will be reversed.”

pg. 179, The Great Shame by Thomas Keneally

Ayn Rand on Money, Part III April 8, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in Culture, Economy.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

ayn-randOne thing to point out in this third and final part of Ayn Rand’s take on money is the bold implication in the final paragraph that “money is the root of all good.”  As in the second excerpt, this seems to follow from the book’s lack of any religious conviction, whereas Christians hold the Lord God to be the root of all good (the root of everything, really).  Money is, as she implies, the key tangible tool to relations between men, but not, in the opinion of this reader, anywhere near the root of everything good.  Still, the foresight and almost eerily precise prognosis she presents is obvious again:

“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood — money.  You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities.  Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor.  That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves — slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries.  So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer.  Yet through all the centures of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers — as industralists.

To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money — and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement.  For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being — the self-made man — the American industrialist.

If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose — because it contains all the others –  the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’  No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity — to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor.  Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.  The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.

Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents.  Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt.  The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide — as, I think, he will.

Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction.  When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.  Blood, whips and guns — or dollars.  Take your choice — there is no other — and your time is running out.”

Atlas Shrugged, pp. 384-385

Ayn Rand on Money, Part II April 2, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in Culture, Economy.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

money2Take note that, in this second excerpt especially, Rand is obviously missing one key aspect when describing the “moral society,” that being the spiritual aspect.  A true Utopia would focus on the Lord first (look what happened to the Israelites when they failed to put Him first), followed secondly by a commitment to fair trade and honest economics.  That aside, though, the prophetic nature of her writing is again clearly evident.  Continued from last time…

“Money is your means of survival.  The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life.  If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence.  Did you get your money by fraud?  By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity?  By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves?  By lowering your standards?  By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn?  If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy.  Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame.  Then you’ll scream that money is evil.  Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect?  Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity?  Is this the root of your hatred for money?

Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause.  Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices.  Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit.  Is this the root of your hatred for money?

Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil?  To love a thing is to know and love its nature.  To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men.  It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money — and he has good reason to hate it.  The lovers of money are willing to work for it.  They know they are able to deserve it.

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil.  That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.  So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another — their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it.  Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich — will not remain rich for long.  They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth.  They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt — and of his life, as he deserves.

Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard — the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money — the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue.  In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them.  But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law — men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims — then money becomes its creators’ avenger.  Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them.  But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it.  Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality.  When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket.  And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

Do you wish to know whether that day is coming?  Watch money.  Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue.  When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.  Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality.  It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence.  Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper.  This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values.  Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced.  Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it.  Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims.  Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: ‘Account overdrawn.’

When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.  Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral.  Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded.  Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world?’  You are.”

Atlas Shrugged, pp. 382-384

The third and final part to follow shortly…

Ayn Rand on Money, Part I March 25, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in Culture, Economy.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

money1A while back I had the idea of writing a series of posts on the eerie similarities between Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged and what is happening to our country right now.  Almost right after I had the idea, however, the media started discussing that very thing, so I nixed it for fear of appearing plagiaristic.  The following monologue, though, was too profound and prophetic to not pass on.  It’s quite lengthy, so I’ve broken it up into multiple posts.  It begins after a man, in the story, makes the “socially conscious” comment to one of the world’s wealthiest businessmen that “money is the root of all evil.”

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?…Have you ever asked what is the root of money?  Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them.  Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.  Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force.  Money is made possible only by the men who produce.  Is this what you consider evil?

When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others.  It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money.  Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow.  Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce.  Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money.  Is this what you consider evil?

Have you ever looked for the root of production?  Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes.  Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time.  Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak?  What strength do you mean?  It is not the strength of guns or muscles.  Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think.  Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it?  Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools?  By the able at the expense of the incompetent?  By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy?  Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability.  An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.

To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will.  Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort.  Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return.  Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more.  Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders.  Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods.  Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find.  And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward.  This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money.  Is this what you consider evil?

But money is only a tool.  It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver.  It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires.  Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek.  Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent.  The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors.  The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money.  Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth–the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started.  If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.  But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him.  Did it?  Or did he corrupt his money?  Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it.  Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune.  Money is a living power that dies without its root.  Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.  Is this the reason why you call it evil?”

Atlas Shrugged, pp. 380-382

To be continued…

Change of Life March 21, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in Uncategorized.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

A quick apology for the lack of posts recently (as if a couple weeks is even a significant gap for me), but I’ve been on my honeymoon this past week!  I got married last Saturday to the most wonderful woman in the world (see link to her blog on the sidebar), and we’re currently in the process of getting back from the honeymoon/moving her into my apartment.  Hopefully another post will be showing up before too long!wedding

More Proof March 9, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in politics.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

hypocrisyJust to reinforce the comments in my last post about the hypocrisies of the Democratic party, read the following short article detailing a poll taken on President Bush in 2006.  You’ll find that many of the things about which the current administration is throwing childish fits are the same things they did and said about Bush in the past:

Rush Limbaugh took a lot of heat for saying he wants President Obama to fail — but a lot of Democrats felt the same way about former President George W. Bush during his second term.

An August 2006 poll conducted by FOX News/Opinion Dynamics showed 51 percent of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed. Thirty-four percent of independents also did not want Bush to succeed.

By comparison, 90 percent of Republicans said at the time that they wanted Bush to succeed, and 40 percent of Democrats said the same.

Conservative radio talk show host Limbaugh says he doesn’t want the economy to fail — just Obama’s policies. But his comments last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference drew sharp criticism from the White House.

After CPAC, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that Limbaugh’s stance was the “wrong philosophy for America.”

Point made.

References: Fox News

Don’t Press the Secretary March 4, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in politics.
Tags: , ,
2 comments

robert-gibbsHas anyone noticed the most obvious difference between new White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and former secretary Dana Perino?  Well, okay, the most obvious difference is that Mrs. Perino is quite attractive while Gibbs…well…to put it nicely, is not.  Other than that, however, there’s been one thing that’s stood out to me thus far: Considering all the critisicm (much of it deservedly so), bashing, name calling, and verbal persecution Bush endured during his tenure, Perino handled herself very gracefully and honorably throughout.  I don’t ever remember her getting worked up or lashing out at the media for speaking badly of her boss.  Gibbs, however, is a different story.  As illustrated in this article, Gibbs has developed quite a habit of snapping back at those who criticize Obama; and not only at personalities that hold heavy influence like Rush Limbaugh.

“You know, I’d like to think, and I think most people would like to think, that we can put aside our differences and get things done for the American people. We’ll say, in watching a few cable clips of Mr. Limbaugh’s speech, his notion of presidential failures seemed to be quite popular in the room in which he spoke,” he said.

So now, not only is it wrong for anyone of any influence to speak negatively of the President, but it’s also wrong for the American people to have their own opinions about him (*coughSocialismcough*).

The bottom line here is that, yet again, we see another example of Democrats being perfectly willing to dish out the trash while being unable to take it without lashing back.  Mr. Gibbs, President Obama, and the entire administration need to understand that not everyone is going to agree with them all the time, and some people may just flat out dislike them.  The entire Democratic party should be very familiar with that concept, seeing as how they were on the other side for the past eight years.  Now that the tables have turned, if Gibbs gets his panties in a wad every time someone criticizes the President, it will be, as Donald Rieck says in the article, “an awfully long tenure for Gibbs, because there’s a way to let this roll off your shoulders.”

The Greatest Sensation February 21, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in Christianity.
Tags: , ,
2 comments

bridge“It was the greatest sensation of existence: not to trust, but to know.”  –Ayn Rand

Trust: reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.

Know: to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty.

The difference between the two may be subtle, but the gap between them is colossal.

Trust vs. know…confidence vs. certainty…

Do I trust that this chair will hold me, or do I know that this chair will hold me?

Do I trust God, or do I know God?

Do I trust that through God I can appropriate, or do I know that through God I can appropriate?

How does one bridge the gap?  Is it even bridgeable for a sinful human, or is the other side simply an ideal to which we aspire futilely?

Lord, be my bridge…

Inaugural Benediction January 21, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in Culture.
Tags: , ,
4 comments

loweryPerhaps I’m being overly sensitive, but I think, every once in a while, “white” has a right to be a little more sensitive than we’re typically given room to be.  I’m referring to this line in Joseph Lowery’s benediction during the presidential inauguration yesterday:

“Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.”

Embrace what is right?  That sounds like something that might be said in 1861.  It’s as if he’s implying that all whites are still racist, and that the inhuman and hideous treatment of blacks that existed up until 40-50 years ago is still present.  Obviously there are radicals here and there that could still qualify as white supremecists, but there are also African Americans here and there who despise whitey and everything about him.  This is just another example of how, it seems, whites are scrutinized for anything they say that could even be twisted and exaggerated to make it seem like a race-inspired comment, yet blacks aren’t held accountable for what they say about whites.  If that had been a white man yesterday saying something along the same lines about “black,” the media would be quick to condemn him and whatever name he had for himself would quickly become besmirched.

Letter From the Boss January 14, 2009

Posted by danielmorgan17 in Economy.
Tags: ,
4 comments

42-17776051The following is an e-mail written by a friend of mine, Jonathan Felts (felts2@uiuc.edu), copied with his permission here.  I promise, one day soon, I will get back to posting original material. :)

This post below is a great look into the viewpoint of your boss.

http://www.theconservativeunderground.org/blog/2009/01/07/you-dont-see-the-back-story/

In general, there are producers, customers, and consumers.  The producers, obviously, produce.  They’re the ones generating the wealth, and this link above is a good reminder that it takes sacrifice and hard work.  You can’t wake up one day and just conjure up a large house and fancy car on a whim (unless, of course, you do so fraudulently or deceptively with an unsustainable model, see: lenders and investors).  Read the link above.  Success takes effort!

An engineering PhD alone is enough to make most people cringe.  Hell, most of the people I knew at GA Tech couldn’t wait to get out after 4 grueling years of work to get their undergrad degree.  For those of us that made the haphazard decision to continue on to a PhD, well, we were less than halfway done when we walked across the stage and grabbed our BS degrees. It takes roughly a decade to get to the end.  By then, that’s a 3rd of your life.  After that?  work work work.  The result? New discoveries, inventions, patents, and products.  These products make the standard of living cheaper, and make people safer and healthier.  Look at most houses today.  Even broke people have televisions, cellular phones, central heating and air, running water on command, light on command, etc.  To make these things ubiquitous in society took untold amounts of research and collaboration.  Honestly, it’s hard to grasp the magnitude of how much work went into even just the ability for people to go to a store anywhere in America and purchase a light bulb for a couple dollars.

Next we have customers.  Usually a customer is a distributor, but they are also producers who include outside products in their final product assembly.  The most important thing to remember is that you and I are NOT customers.  An example of a customer is Lowe’s or Home Depot.  They purchase products from Whirlpool, LG, etc. to sell to people.  They do not use most of the products that they buy.

Finally we have the consumer.  The consumer consumes.  That is its only function.  It does not create new products.  It is a leech.  It requires substantially less work to consume something than it does to make the product being consumed.  It takes at least all morning to make a thanksgiving feast, some of it being started at least a day before.  20 minutes after it’s on the table, the consumers of that feast have already finished consuming it and are on the couch watching football.  True, the dinner wouldn’t have been prepared if no one wanted to consume it, making the consumer a vital part of the chain, but they didn’t supply the work to make the dinner.

So where do you fit into this?  You guessed it, you consume.  Yes, you do play the role of the producer when you are at work.  Some people make the choice to not produce anything, but only consume.  Some people that do produce decided not to put in the effort for high school,college, or graduate degree, so what they produce is of relatively little value to the economy.  Some people also choose to limit their value by refusing to work more than 40 hours a week.  Some people have skill sets that are too common, making their personal contribution unnecessary, and thus, undesirable.  Despite all of these factors, outside of work you are a consumer and are considered such by most product making companies.

So now imagine that there is a huge electric generator at the center of the US, probably around, say, Missouri.  Now imagine on the map that there are lines reaching out of the generator to all of the houses that use electricity.  Now watch the electricity flowing from the generator, through the lines, and ending at the houses.  To make that electricity requires power, and lots of it.  And the more people that want electricity, the more power is required.  You pump more power into the generator, you get more electricity.  Simple enough?  Now when that electricity gets to a home, it is consumed.  Gone.  To make more electricity, you have to get more power from somewhere outside of this chain.  If you take away some of the power from the generator, the generator either needs to become more efficient to meet demand, or reduce the number of houses it can sustain.

Yeah yeah, you got me.  The generator isn’t really a generator at all.  It’s a business.  A business that supplies you with things that you need, or more importantly, things that other countries need.  It’s a very simple concept: If you take away money from the company, you take away their ability to deliver products.  The result?  You start sucking the well dry.  Yes, you get a personal benefit in the short term, but products start coming out slower and becoming more scarce.  Things begin to slow.  To make it worse, this money is being laundered through the US Government, which is a veritable black hole rife with inefficiencies, scandal, and detrimental social engineering practices.  Meanwhile, the businesses in other countries start picking up the slack and meeting our unflagging demands.  Eventually, they start crowding out the businesses in the US, and suddenly our country is getting its lively hood from other countries.  Soon, the well goes too dry to sustain the growth of government and the increased welfare.  The solution?  More loans from other countries!

So where does that leave us?  I think there’s a similar analogy that just happened recently in America where people got loans that they had no way of paying back…something about mortgages or some nonsense.  I might be remembering this incorrectly, but I think it was a pleasant story through and through with a feel good ending.  Oh, never mind, the news is saying that it’s causing economic crisis.  Hey, you don’t think that’s what’s going to happen to the US, do you?  Probably not.  I’m sure we can keep this up at least till we all die, so then the next generation can deal with it.  Let’s tax the filthy rich producers some more!  Some of them on Wall Street are scumbags, so obviously they all are!

The long and short of it: Thank your boss for their sacrifice on monday, and at least feel a little guilty if you voted for any elected official that thinks that taking money from producers and giving it to consumers is a good idea.