I do not question the patriotism of those who seek to end this war. After all, war is NOT the natural state of a free, productive people. Despite the Dr. Strangelovian caricature of Americans in some movies and cartoons, we are not a belligerent lot! We spend most of our time working hard, creating a wealth of products & services for ourselves - and for a sometimes ungrateful world.

In SHARP contrast to other ideologies, capitalism does not rely on conquest for its growth. Think about that, and you will grasp the nature of this fight.

Our past enemy, the Soviet Union, required a constant succession of conquests. Militant Islam also seeks to conquer (restore, by their way of thinking) an empire. Going back somewhat in history, feudal systems also grew only by conquest. Note that all of these ideologies are bankrupt in their ability to foster productive economies; their parasitic nature demands a periodic supply of new victims - hence their need for conquest and subjugation.

Capitalism grows by trade, which involves mutual consent of both parties. No sacrificial victims are required!

As tempting as it is to be 'for peace' (and who isn't?) there is a reality that must be confronted. Even if we concede that the US has made many mistakes in this conflict, we STAND ALONE in this fight, against an enemy who uses our desire for peace against us.

In the past, America was a giant, unified in its purpose and with unmatched intellect.

Unfortunately, that time has long gone!

America today finds itself:

* disunited and divided

* lacking moral clarity

Political dissent, always a welcome commodity in America's freewheeling debates, has sunk to the level of treason.

The 'opposition', once meant to provide a differing viewpoint - or, even to play devil's advocate - now seeks political gain from America's missteps.

ON THE PLUS SIDE: We're lucky that our current enemies are mired in the mystical muck of the 7th century! It is telling that we are unable to muster a united front against these cave dwellers. If they had HALF A BRAIN, we would be in real trouble ..

ON THE OTHER HAND: The current enemy - while intellectually and morally bankrupt - has time (and demographics) on its side.

If you have doubts about the long-term danger of militant Islam, or if you want to educate yourself about the demographics - read the book titled: America Alone - by Mark Steyn.

If you don't have the time (or the inclination) to read a book on the subject, at the very least read an article that Steyn wrote in the Wall Street Journal - Opinion Journal; his article lays out the main thesis, which is presented in more detail in the book:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
Please click on the above link for this 'must read' article.

After all, Judeo-Christian belief systems (and almost all religions) view altruism as a virtue.

So, if Religion is good, a system that is based on altruism must also be good. How can Religious people remain consistent and object to a selfless economic system?

Observe that you will often hear well-meaning people say that "Communism is good as an ideal, but it just wasn't properly implemented in Soviet Russia".

And this is exactly why socialism finds a fertile soil in Religious countries. It isn't surprising that America has a large percentage of socialists - we usually call them liberals.

Religious Conservatives have to use the "but, it doesn't work" argument against socialism. And, they're right! Socialism DOESN'T work.

But that is a weaker argument based on pragmatism - and it lacks moral conviction.

So, some religious conservatives (who can't shake off the intuitive feeling that their argument is without moral strength) attempt to say that they are FOR altruism, but they are for Capitalism (not socialism) because it's success provides benefits to their fellow man.

That's when they have to come up with pretzel-like contortions like "Compassionate Conservatism".

A liberal might say the following (imagine these words from a moist-eyed Bill Clinton, upper lip fully a-quiver during a SOTU speech):

A) Excise that 'feel good' gene, and replace it with the 'thinking' gene.

Apply this liberally (may be even literally) to:

* the minimum wage bill

* college loan bill

* almost any other tax-increase or entitlement

Rinse and repeat!

Jokes aside, folks - how do we bring 'reason' back into our electorate?

We have to throw out the mooching faith-healers (on both sides of the aisle) who know that we're on to the real motives behind their noble sounding, teary eyed, lip quivering, smarmy rhetoric.

The alternative is that America, a giant among countries, will succumb to a slow death by a thousand sound-bites.

==============

On the subject of college loans, some TH readers may want to look up Charles Murray's three-part article that appeared recently in the WSJ-Opinion Journal.

BTW, these are not 'feel-good' articles, but written by someone who has researched the subject at considerable length.

Adopt a different model to our foreign policy. Offer the 'failed' states of the world the opportunity to temporarily become the Nth state of the US.

If a majority of people in a country accept this, that country will adopt our Constitution and our system of laws for 5 years.

During that period, the US will provide security and law-and-order. The new 'citizens' will live and work as 'Americans' for 5 years, and see if laissez-faire capitalism and individual freedom make sense. At the end of 5 years, have a referendum on the type of system to follow for the future.

PS: we could try this in Iraq. If successful, people in other countries will compete with each other to try the same experiment!

2) eBAY IN IRAQ vs AL QAIDA IN IRAQ

Imagine this: a well guarded Fort Knox-style Bank in downtown Baghdad (and other major Iraqi cities), built around oil revenue credits and voluntary (not tax coerced) funds by American citizens, Iraqis and anyone else who wants to invest in the Iraqi experiment.

The Bank lends money at market-determined rates to Iraqis (and others) that have credible business plans and decent credit. Borrowers lacking credit histories would begin with 'micro' loans and establish themselves gradually, monitored eBay-style, via feedback from previous transactions! People with criminal records - or those who violate laws, are automatically 'dinged' on their credit scores!

Yes, it is the eBay model!

In addition to such a private bank, it would be necessary to have a Government that provides law-and-order, defense & the protection of property rights (but not much else). Yes, this is easier said than done - but it is an improving capitalist economy that provides the 'carrots', while the Govt (as the sole initiator of force) provides the 'sticks' for those who do not comply.

To be sure there will be some circumstances that may seem anomalous to Westerners, e.g. Militias transformed into private security forces, funded by insurance companies! However, market forces will determine their success or failure.

The idea is to infuse a capitalist mentality into a region that has not benefited from such practices as saving money, investment capital, free trade, etc. Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds who are trading goods and services with each other are not as likely to shoot at each other, when they are too busy working hard and getting ahead.

People who are investing for their own future are more likely to step up and oppose the violent few who create problems. If an increase in violence causes risk-averse investors to change their investment terms (higher interest rates, for example), the Iraqi beneficiaries of such investments would take to the streets and unite against the violence.

A free country and a free labor force (aren’t the terms synonymous?) would accept such immoral actions on the part of Big Labor Unions if the results were positive. Let’s examine those results:

For the companies:

• Higher labor costs without increased productivity
• Higher costs translate to higher prices without a competitive advantage
• Antagonistic work force
• Mediocrity instead of a meritocracy

For workers:

So who exactly benefits from all this? In the long run, nobody benefits. But there is a seductive appeal in Unions, one that the bosses exploit. Its not unlike the seductive appeal of socialism to those who believe that you can have your cake and eat it, too.

Some people report their own positive personal experiences with their unions as a justification for maintaining Unions in general.

However, we have to consider the role of Unions in a macroeconomic sense.

For example, there are no doubt some great teachers in our public education system - and a few high-performing schools. That doesn't take away from the fact that in a 'macro' sense, public education in the US is a failure.

What should worry all of us about Unions is that their purported benefits have always come at the cost of less productivity, because Unions constitute an anti-market force. And, they are coercive (both to workers and companies), since they squeeze on both ends of the balloon simultaneously.

In the past, the US could get away with anything, being the world leader in almost all markets. The additional costs caused by anti-productive, feel-good policies could be buried in the profit margins. With globalization comes more competition, leading to shrinking margins. Our well-intentioned mistakes can now make the difference between profit and loss. Previously profitable companies become marginal - and that costs all of us our standard of living.

Observe the mess in which companies like Ford (and some of the major airlines) find themselves. Policies that were framed decades ago are now killing the company. The balloon that is being squeezed on both ends (employers and workers) is about to pop!

Can Unions help restore productivity to these companies? Only if they stop squeezing - and by going the way of the dinosaurs!

Most advocates of 'single payer healthcare' (a euphemism for Nationalized Health Insurance) tout the Medicare model.

That takes a particular brand of brass-balled chutzpah!

Before Medicare, most medical care in America was the old-fashioned kind. You went to the doctor when needed, s/he treated you, you paid for the services.

Medicare - which was introduced in the 1960s with much fanfare - relieved a significant portion of the population (age 65+) of the burden of worrying about paying for health care.

Although it was well-intentioned, here are the unintended consequences:

* More demand for health care - after all, why NOT visit your doctor when you have the sniffles? There's no cost involved (to the patient)?

* Higher prices for those who are not eligible for Medicare

Here is an interesting analogy that someone used to describe the harmful effects of such 'feel-good' policies - note, this isn't original, I read it in a published essay!

Imagine a law, that allows everyone with last names beginning A-D to send their restaurant bills to Uncle Sam.

If your name is Donald Duck, life is great! You eat all you want, at the best restaurants. Caviar, pate foie gras and filet mignon - no worries, just send the bill to Uncle Sam!

If you are a restaurant owner, great! Keep raising prices, inventing new exotic dishes - life is good, because you have a guaranteed demand, and a good, creditworthy customer.

Prices go up - but, why should you care, if your name is Donald Duck, or if you own a restaurant?

The increased prices impact those with last names beginning E-Z.

In the Medicare application of this analogy, everyone EVENTUALLY gets to partake of the free feast - and that is why it has such appeal.

But, it does raise the cost of healthcare. So, what do the proponents of Medicare suggest - more of the same! Medicare for EVERYONE!

Many suggest that this type of policy will reduce prices. They forget that the prices will actually be driven higher by the laws of supply and demand. However, Nationalized Health Care can keep prices under check ONLY by reducing the quality of services!

Racism is a form of Collectivism.

A racist doesn't see an individual, but sees his/her 'group', and infers that the individual must possess the characteristics (real or perceived) of the group (or collective).

Racism (and all other forms of collectivism) are incompatible with American concepts of individual freedom. However, one can't deny that it exists.

Does affirmative action help eliminate racism? No, it actually increases racism - as seen in some well-intentioned (but racist sounding) posts on this site, written by people that have suffered 'reverse' discrimination.

How do we eliminate racism? Not by using unfair and weakness-inspiring practices like affirmative action, but by using the 'strength' of our laissez faire C A P I T A L I S M.

Here are some steps that can be contemplated:

* eliminate welfare

* eliminate affirmative action

* privatize education

* drastically reduce the employment sectors in which ABILITY is no longer the criterion. Examples include Govt employment, unionized labor etc.

Racism is inconsistent with the concept of 'individual rights' that is the philosophical basis of Capitalism. If the US were to adopt a truly Capitalist model (sans affirmative action, welfare, public education, bloated public sector etc), racism would die out after a few generations.