I will start out by saying that I agree in principle with the Standard Objectivist Position On Immigration. The central solution to most current problems is to reform immigration law and abolish quotas so that the black market is removed, much like the whole war on drugs mess.

However.

I think that the way I most often see this position presented is, at best inaccurate or oversimplified and at worst naive or suicidal. I will call this presentation, “Open Immigration” because that is what its presenters call it and also because that name highlights the key point of what is wrong with it.

First of all, many fail to make the very much necessary distinction between legal residence and citizenship. Most readers will take the position of “Open Immigration” to be “Open Citizenship,” and while, yes, you could say that’s their problem, I think it’s counterproductive to do anything but cut that thing off at the pass. This is a good example of many of the right approaches to not only this point, but of how to frame the case in general. Or a good start, at least.

With that out of the way, comes a few questions which I believe are the best way for me to lay bare what my issue is with the policy name and proposed policy of so-called “Open Immigration.”

1) Is your proposed policy that anyone professing or admitting to the Moslem faith is de facto an enemy of the US government, its citizens, and its constitution and therefore may be barred entry?

If so, how can you accurately characterize your position as “Open Immigration?” If not, then we may indeed have deeper disagreements and I believe your proposal may amount to not only a misunderstanding of the principles involved, but also a suicidal self-sacrifice on the part of America.

(As a follow up to that question, what is your position on That Mosque, and if you agree it should be demolished but don’t agree with the above point, how do you square those two things?)

2) Would your proposed immigration policy bar members of Mexican drug gangs, Chinese Communists, and other assorted members of murderous organizations and open enemies of the U.S.?

If not, again, that is suicide as above. If so, again whence the term “Open.” But perhaps more importantly:

3) Do you not realize that most of the countries which currently represent immigration problems exist under a near or total breakdown of law and order such that it would in most cases be relatively impossible to determine whether entrants were in fact in the above categories? That records from such countries are often either nonexistent, notoriously unreliable, or maliciously deceptive? And furthermore that this is before one even beings to consider the fact that such entrants would be lost in a deluge of millions, such that we would go bankrupt in any attempt to employ enough investigators to determine so many cases?

And that in turn leads to my final question,

5) Given that it is impossible in the case of many countries to determine the danger or harmlessness of applicants, do you believe that the burden of proof in such cases are that the non-citizen applicant is responsible for proving his harmlessness to the citizens and government of America or that the burden of proof rests on America such that if we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an entrant is malicious that we must By Right let him into our midst?

I would answer that the duty of our government is to protect the rights of its citizens first, and the rights of foreigners as a second. And I have yet to hear a convincing (or even non-tautological) argument as to why entry to a governmental jurisdiction for a non-citizen (who, by definition, does not own any claim to such territory) is, as such, a right.

So yes, I suppose one could, in a very technical sense, characterize the proper position on immigration as “Open,” given that, absent any of the aforementioned factors, yes we should let anyone who wants it, in.

But at this point, the whole characterization is just inaccurate. And if they’re using it as a stand on principle, I’d fear that we’re dealing with a wrong or misunderstood principle, or at the very least a poorly-worded position that makes us look bad in front of non-philosophical people who have the good sense to know how impracticable anything with the title “Open Immigration” is in today’s context – i.e. just the sort of people we’re trying to get this message out to.

Perhaps worst of all, it allows the conservatives, of all people, to gain ground on us with those same people. Conservatives. I’ll just let that last one sink in for a bit.

-Inspector

The only good thing about the prospect of automakers going into bankruptcy was that it was a chance for the government to un-do the damage it did by coercing them to meet the unsustainable terms of the auto unions. They could have removed the debts to the unions and called it a day.

Instead, they pretty much did the opposite, which neatly sums up what this administration is all about. Everyone but the unions was left holding the ball, and the government took over with their fascist “car czars.”

As you can see, with Chrylser it is going down in exactly the same way.

The automaker’s current majority owner, Cerberus Capital Management, is relinquishing its entire stake in the company.

The new majority owner will be Chrysler’s union retiree health fund, which would receive a 55 percent stake in the new company. Fiat would get a 20 percent stake, with its share potentially rising to 35 percent over time based on performance. The United States would take 8 percent, while the Canadian government, which is also providing financing, would receive 2 percent.

Chief executive Robert L. Nardelli, who was installed by former owner Cerberus, is stepping down, and Fiat’s leadership will take over. Chrysler’s board will include four representatives named by the U.S. government, three by Fiat, one by the union’s health trust fund, and one by Canada.

The unions are given the spoils, allowed to keep their unreasonable terms of operation, and the government is given seats on the board. And they didn’t even need to take a pesky vote on the matter – these days the bankruptcy courts can simply declare major corporations to be under the control of the government.

Mussolini would be proud. Welcome to the New America.

But was Toyota’s success because they produced small cars and hybrids like the Prius, or was it in spite of that fact?

A caller to the, increasingly interesting, Rush Limbaugh Show points out the inconvenient truth:

[bold mine]

So Toyota actually loses money on each hybrid they sell, which they only make up for by selling their trucks and SUV’s. Those very same trucks and SUV’s which were supposedly the cause of Detroit’s failure.

The standard line we’re fed is that the Japanese are forward-thinkers for making hybrids while Detroit is going under for their mistake of making large and “gas guzzling” vehicles. This is completely false. As far as profits are concerned, hybrids are boat anchors driving their otherwise successful manufacturers down. Toyota lost money on them, even despite the fact that the government subsidized their sales. (Consider that for a moment: if the government weren’t grabbing our money to fund this boondoggle, the results would have been even worse) If Detroit had caved into political pressure to build these rolling mistakes, they would have ended up even worse off than today.

Congress, the Media, and the Left are demanding (and now mandating by law) that American auto manufacturers imitate Toyota’s failures. And they’re doing it by means of the popular mythology that they created in which hybrids are a business success.

This is, of course, one of many such myths that the Left has created in order to impoverish us and control our lives. In the past, I’d found it difficult to criticize hybrids on the fact of their money-loss because people who even partially bought into other such Leftist myths weren’t always willing to consider unprofitability a deal-breaker if the car served a “green” agenda. (“Well, that loss does worry me… but they’re saving the planet!”)

But in this economic climate where people are starting to appreciate the value of a profit (or at least, the problems of a lack thereof), and with the twist of Detroit’s business failure being blamed on their non-pursuit of hybrids, I think there is an opportunity here to cut into this lie.

So I recommend calling shenanigans on this one where you can.

-Inspector

(PS, if you’re interested in reading more on this subject, check out my November, 2008 post.)

Given the gravity of the moment, we at TNC decided to collect our thoughts on the speeches as a panel discussion.

Bill Brown

Bobby Jindal mentioned that the GOP failed to live up to its principles but almost immediately repudiated those principles by arguing that we need to “increase conservation and energy efficiency” and that the Republicans stand for “universal access to affordable health care coverage” and need to “make sure every child in America gets the best possible education.”

It’s becoming painfully clear that the Republicans have no idea what they stand for: a perfect illustration of a definitional issue. They’re all genus but no differentia.

Chuck

Unfortunately, I didn’t see the speech. All politicians nauseate me so badly I simply can’t watch them give an extended speech.

Bill Brown

It was tough to watch them, that’s for sure. My wife and I were hooting and hollering. Reading the transcripts was a much more sedate affair.

Myrhaf

If you want to see a good example of how not to write, check out this leftist’s reaction to Jindal’s response. Leftists seem to think that hyperbolic ad hominem ranting is political analysis.

Chuck

Good Lord. What is it with the Left and their compulsion to call their opponents “Liars”? I haven’t read the speeches yet, and I’m sure Jindal had plenty of bad ideas, but were they lies? Is anything in opposition to Leftist ideas automatically a lie? What a childish mentality that knee jerk reaction reveals. Political analysis reduced to the playground chant: Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Chuck

“Many of you listening tonight have lost jobs. Others have seen your college and retirement savings dwindle. Many of you are worried about losing your health care and your homes. And you are looking to your elected leaders in Washington for solutions.”

Once upon a time there would have been no question which politician would make such a statement – the Democrat. But, it was Jindal who said it.

The biggest laugher of either speech was this statement by Obama:

“As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t.”

The implication seemed to be that he is only proposing these things because of the current crisis. So will they all be dismantled and abolished once the crisis is over? No more public education? No more Medicaid or Medicare? No more government funded energy programs? No more government funded electric or maglev railways? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Obama said exactly the kind of things you would expect a central planner to say, up to and including blaming the free market for the problems caused by the government. Which is why I can’t stand listening to these speeches – I already know what they are going to say, and it’s all bad.

Jindal also stayed on script for the modern conservative Republican, with we’re-not-as-statist-as-they-are proposals. Nothing new anywhere in either speech. Just further steps down the road to a completely controlled economy.

Bill Brown

While the tone and substance of this speech wasn’t anything new, did it strike anyone else as more ominous than ever before? The litany of government controls and dire statistics was bad, to be sure, but the real shocker for me was the part lauded as his “hopeful” section wherein he lays out his plan to “build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.”

Seeking to replace our existing energy supply with “renewable” energy by making it the “profitable kind of energy” is going to undermine an already beleaguered electric system. It will produce distortions that could seriously sabotage a system ravaged by government interventions as it is.

Setting us on the path towards universal health care by stating that “no American should have to worry about losing their health coverage—period” is going to undermine the last private medical system in the world. (Oops, that quote was from Jindal.) This is a matter of life and death; it’s also a “rights-violating road to disaster,” as one commentator put it.

Given the public education system’s dismal failure to educate and its increasing role as a liberal indoctrination camp, his promise to “ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive—from the day they are born to the day they begin a career” scares me enormously. His commitment to raising educational quality doesn’t help because I question whose idea of quality he is championing.

Taken separately, these are nothing new. Cumulatively, however, they represent a wholesale assault on freedom and individual rights the likes of which we’ve never seen—not even FDR was so bold.

Chuck

There is no doubt that everything Obama plans to do would make things worse. And since no one is writing any legislation that will improve things, undoubtedly things will in fact get worse.

But, Presidents always lay out grandiose schemes about what they are going to achieve in the State of the Union addresses, and similar speeches, most of which never actually comes to fruition. I think the same will be true here.

Which is not to say that I’m happy with how things are going. Things are getting worse, at a faster pace than usual. And Obama has a compliant Congress on his side. It’s hard to see how things could be much worse. But did anyone expect anything different?

Mike N

President Obama said in part:

“Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”

His refusal not to mention any culpability of government entities like Fannie and Freddie, the CRA, FHA, The Fed and so on demonstrate an ability for massive evasion of reality that is truly frightening. If his economic stimulus plans don’t work, if they result in massive inflation or collapse the economy causing untold poverty, I have no doubt that he will not hesitate to call an end to freedom in America and establish the socialist dictatorship he and the Democratic Party so earnestly desire.

Every dictator that has ever lived has declared one way or another that he needed more power in order solve problems, restore order and create prosperity. President Obama is following the same path to a planned economy. I don’t think for a minute that he is just badly misinformed, doesn’t know about Austrian economics and would see the light if he would only read von Mises and Hayek. He knows of these economic and political principles but chooses to look the other way, to ignore them and cling to Keynesian principles for the same reasons the Congress, Academia and the Press cling to them: Keynesian philosophy allowes them to exercise the power of force over the market which means all citizens. Some of these people like, even relish this opportunity while others just don’t see any other way to deal with their fellow man except by force. But they will not question their core principles no matter how much destruction they cause.

I don’t see any evidence that Mr. Obama would check his premises if they resulted in wide spread disaster and suffering. He clearly thinks force is the solution to all problems.

“Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.”

He used the word ‘force’ twice in that paragraph. He likes this new power of his. I really would like to be wrong on this but I don’t think I am. Thoughts to the contrary anyone?

Myrhaf

“As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t.”

This from a man who is creating a massive budget deficit by increasing government spending through the roof. Every proposal in this speech contradicts the notion that Obama does not believe in bigger government.

The worst thing about having a President Keating is that he does not understand that his words should have some relation to the facts of reality. His primary concern is what people think, not what are the facts. He sensed that it would be useful if people think he is not for bigger government, so he said it.

His explanation of why we are in our current mess also has no relation to reality:

“A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.”

The meaning of those three sentences is, “The crisis happened because of greed. People are naturally greedy, which is why government must regulate the economy.”

In fact, the problem was not because we did not have enough government regulation of private greed. It was in fact the opposite: government intervention caused the crisis. It was not just a matter of short-minded buyers and predatory lenders, both so blinded by greed that they could not see that what they were doing was wrong. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 mandated that banks lend to people they otherwise would have judged as bad risks. The problem happened because if lenders had not pushed those bad loans, they would have been thrown in jail.

Also, notice that Obama outrageously characterizes what I assume is Bush’s tax cut as “an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.” Because the wealthy were allowed to keep more of their money – because the government was thwarted from taking that money – it was not invested in our future. In fact, only private individuals can invest in our future. Government spending only consumes wealth; it never saves capital to be invested in the future.

Everything Obama proposes in the rest of the speech is more government intervention in the economy. Left to themselves, people get into a mess by following greed. It follows from that premise that we must have ever bigger and bigger government control to save individuals from themselves.

“As for our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad decision-making and a global recession have pushed our automakers to the brink.”

Again, Obama misreads the problem, which was government regulations and government backed unions. Decades ago I read that carmakers are penalized by government regulations if they make the big, long cars America used to make. Government charges them something like $1,000 for every foot of car length past a certain point. This regulation, inspired by the environmentalist desire to have smaller cars, was got around by producing SUV’s to satisfy consumer demand for larger vehicles. If government would get out of the automobile industry and let manufacturers meet consumer demand with their own judgment, there would not be any problem.

All Obama’s plans will do is increase government intervention. When the next crisis happens, doubtless, the next president will blame greedy capitalists and call for even more government control of every aspect of our lives. For statists, the solution is always more chains, bigger chains and better chains to keep those selfish, greedy capitalists in their place.

One note on the foreign policy section. Obama says, “To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend – because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America.”

Are we now in the Global War Against Extremism? And what balderdash, “no force in the world more powerful than the example of America.” The example of America will not stop Islamic militants from waging war on America. In war, an example is not a force; only force is a force. Obama seems to think war is a counseling session or something.

Let’s hope President Keating is capable enough of seeing reality to learn – and learn soon – that the enemy wants to kill us. Pious preening about how we shut down Guantanamo Bay will do nothing to stop them from killing us, and will actually do the opposite and encourage them to continue their jihad against the West.

The essence of Jindal’s response is these two paragraphs:

“Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It’s irresponsible. And it’s no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.

“In Louisiana, we took a different approach. Since I became governor, we cut more than 250 earmarks from our state budget. To create jobs for our citizens, we cut taxes six times — including the largest income tax cut in the history of our state. We passed those tax cuts with bipartisan majorities. Republicans and Democrats put aside their differences — we worked together to make sure our people could keep more of what they earn. If it can be done in Baton Rouge, surely it can be done in Washington, D.C.”

The Governor says cutting taxes will stimulate the economy more than increasing spending will. He is right.

It’s too bad that the Republicans will probably support spending increases anyway, just not as big as the Democrats want. Under either party, government continues to grow.

Mike N

I have a pet theory I’ve been working on about the psycho-epistemology of a pure pragmatist. I call it stoke and evoke. He knows that feelings motivate him and thinks everyone else is also so motivated. Ideas? They don’t exist or at least don’t count. Or more precisely, ideas exist only to evoke feelings.

The method is to say something general that might have a chance to evoke positive feelings. If it does, then continue with more of the same. If a hostile response is forthcoming then follow up with words of conciliation or moderation to assuage fears. This is why you are right when you said that Obama “… sensed that it would be useful if people think he is not for bigger government, so he said it.” Your word ’sensed’ is right on the money. It’s how his mind works. If he gets the nodding heads and smiling faces of a large enough majority in the press and Congress, then all is right with the world. He will say to himself, “I have said what they wanted me to say.”

I don’t think he will always be committed to pure pragmatism. He believes in the principles of statism, collectivism, and altruism which he denies are principles but considers as just practical behavior. The way in which he will use words to stoke and evoke feelings in the future will be interesting to watch I do think.

Myrhaf

You’re onto something there, Mike.

If the media ever turn on Obama, it will be especially devastating to him because of his social metaphysics.

The Inspector

I could only read to this point:

“A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.”

And was then too disgusted to continue. I can see from Myrhaf’s comment that I didn’t really have to read any further. It was clearly the essence of the speech.

The thing is cookie-cutter leftism designed to blame the problem on everything but government. Even though he starts out by saying the government was part of the problem, he goes on to say that their only sin was not regulating enough. He can appear to take some blame while really only advancing his agenda.

Bleh.

Bill Brown

This speech is an excellent example of pragmatism at work. By severing his ideas from both reality and principles, the pragmatist inevitably contradicts himself and shackles his thoughts to concretes.

In Obama’s estimation, the problem at the root of the crisis was the over-leveraging of the housing market by greedy banks followed by their reluctance to promiscuously lend after that market retracted. The solution? To encourage the banks to lend to homeowners who can’t afford the houses.

To the non-pragmatist, this is contradictory and akin to the “hair of the dog that bit you.” But Obama et al. would argue that before the banks were lending out of greed but now “it’s not about helping banks—it’s about helping people.”

Similarly, much hay has been made about the experience of Japan during its prolonged recession in the 90s—the so-called “Lost Decade.” But to the pragmatist, concrete-bound as he is, that has no bearing on “whatever works” because that was in a different country, with a different economy, and in a different time period.

This pragmatism, far from the common usage of “being practical, commonsensical, and grounded,” is quite literally living (or governing, in this case) by trial and error. But it is a trial and error with a potato sack over your head. We need only look at FDR’s experimentation to confirm what a disastrous approach such foundering represents.

Our credit markets are already paralyzed from the indecisive, unprincipled actions of Paulson, Bush, Obama, Summers, and Bernanke. They are unwilling to lend any money or make any investments because they literally cannot know where they stand in the long term, much less “beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.”

They are sitting on the gobs of cash that the administrations have been heaping on them. This hoarding has put off the inflationary effects of the federal government’s action, but some day the banks are going to mete out that money and we will finally experience the severe inflation that has thus far eluded us.

Stewart had this Republican on the ropes because he was able to control the language of their discussion and this hapless Republican didn’t recognize what was going on. Stewart criticized him for being “pro-free market” while at the same time being in favor of “regulation” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Showing how much we can trust Republicans, the man’s only response was that he was in fact in favor of “regulation.”

Peeling back this dishonest language, the plain fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities. (The former congressman even said as much earlier in the discussion!) They are most emphatically NOT representative of “the free market,” and a desire to reign in the government’s entities – Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – is absolutely not in any way a “regulation of the free market.” It is entirely the opposite.

But this utterly despicable Orwellian switcheroo of terms went completely unopposed. Therefore, “regulation of the free market” was allowed to be framed as the agreed solution to the crisis, and concurrently, the problem was implicitly allowed to be blamed on an “unregulated free market.” This is, again, a complete and utter lie, as both men knew that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were the government and not the free market.

Jon Stewart is far from alone in his use of this deception. I’ve heard it used by congressmen, newsmen, and even ordinary people since the beginning of this latest mortgage brouhaha. But it is incorrect, backwards, and, for those who know better, dishonest.

The truth is the exact opposite of what the “regulation” cheerleaders would have us believe: the crisis was caused by overbearing government entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which distorted the markets and went wild dumping billions into foolishness. The failure was of these government entities and not in any way a “free market.” What the government failed to “regulate” was not “free markets,” but rather, itself. But because the term “regulate” is traditionally used to refer to government controls, these shysters are playing a shell game of words in which they “solve” a failure of government entities by calling for more government controls on private business.

So if you ever hear anyone use the term “regulation” in this way, be sure to set them straight. Because with it, they can control – and completely reverse – the entire meaning of recent events.

-Inspector

This shouldn’t be as hard as it is. The central ideas of all these movements are essentially disastrous and in complete opposition to the individual rights that formed the basis of what America was founded on. It isn’t just that respect for individual rights is fading from our culture in the face of the onslaught of the aforementioned movements and their kin. Granted, this is a factor, but it doesn’t account for the systematic dismissal I’ve observed of any attempt at opposition. People have been disarmed against judgment of any movement by its fundamental meaning. The unspoken yet widely pernicious cultural view I’ve seen is that differences of simple degree and consistency should be allowed to excuse things which are fundamentally alike.

I’ve come to understand that this failure represents a form of systematic denial – one that has far-reaching consequences to any effort to save our country from the disintegration of individual rights that these movements are foisting upon us.

***

To illustrate what this denial means, consider the example of the difference between a petty thief and a murderer.

Every petty thief accepts in his soul the same basic premises as a mass murderer. In both cases, it is only cowardice and self-deception that keeps the pikers small; not any difference in kind. That is, the self-deception to believe that one’s premises don’t lead to the horrible ends that they actually do, and the cowardice to not face that fact. Meanwhile, they act on their premises, walking in small steps toward that end which they refuse to believe is there.

A petty thief may never murder anyone – but he nevertheless acts on the premise of Death, destroying men’s lives in smaller and more spread out, but no less real, ways. Every thief murders his victims in part because by taking their property, he takes the life and effort that were spent to make the things he takes. Concurrently, a murderer is a thief that takes the whole thing, irreplaceably. Because a thief doesn’t take quite so much, however, he can try to deny to himself the evil that he does.

Although the degree of punishment that the law places on murder and theft differs, (mostly because the damage of theft can at least partly be replaced) both acts are nevertheless universally recognized as crime; as an attack on not just the direct victims, but also on the rights of all men – and as such as an assault on civilization itself. Yet the same cannot be said for the so-called “moderates” in movements, even where the radicals are generally recognized as threatening.

***

Just as petty thieves deny or refuse to see that they act on the premise of murder, so the petty Statists (“moderate” Environmentalists, Muslims, Marxists, and so on) and their various apologists are self-blinded to the final and inevitable conclusions of the movements that they support and/or acquiesce to. (Welfare Statism to Communism, the mingling of church and state to theocracy, and Environmentalism to Ludditism if not outright human extinction – though the full enumeration of these is beyond the scope of this article.)

In both examples, there is a common philosophical force driving the ignorance – or refusal to see – the lack of fundamental difference between the “moderates” and the more consistent practitioners.

This source is Pragmatism: the refusal to look at matters in principle. Philosopher Leonard Peikoff explains,

By itself, as a distinctive theory, the pragmatist ethics is contentless. It urges men to pursue “practicality,” but refrains from specifying any “rigid” set of values that could serve to define the concept. As a result, pragmatists—despite their repudiation of all systems of morality—are compelled, if they are to implement their ethical approach at all, to rely on value codes formulated by other, non-pragmatist moralists. As a rule the pragmatist appropriates these codes without acknowledging them; he accepts them by a process of osmosis, eclectically absorbing the cultural deposits left by the moral theories of his predecessors—and protesting all the while the futility of these theories.

The dominant, virtually the only, moral code advocated by modern intellectuals in Europe and in America is some variant of altruism. This, accordingly, is what most American pragmatists routinely preach . . .

In politics, also, pragmatism presents itself as opposed to “rigidity,” to “dogma,” to “extremes” of any kind (whether capitalist or socialist); it avows that it is relativist, “moderate,” “experimental.” As in ethics, however, so here: the pragmatist is compelled to employ some kind of standard to evaluate the results of his social experiments, a standard which, given his own self-imposed default, he necessarily absorbs from other, non-pragmatist trend-setters . . . When Dewey wrote, the political principle imported from Germany and proliferating in all directions, was collectivism.

The thief may be acting on the principle of murder, but he can get away with it in his own mind because, as a Pragmatist, he doesn’t concern himself with principles. If confronted with the consequences of his actions, a Pragmatist – just like the thief that ends up killing a man in the course of a robbery – will scream that he didn’t mean it, and he couldn’t have foreseen that things would come to this. He’s right, in a twisted way: without principles, he can’t foresee what anything he does will come to.

In their blind terror, the only thing Pragmatists can do is to run screaming from any consistency at all. They know, deep down, that the only difference between themselves – the thieves – and the bloody murderers of the world is that the latter are consistent. The problem is that virtuous, principled men are consistent, also. But the pragmatist makes no distinction between the two. Without principles, he is incapable of such distinctions – he knows only that consistency, for him, is the road to a dark place he dare not visit. He is thus trapped – his only defense mechanism is also the very thing that pulls him constantly toward, and work in the service of, what he knows on some level to be evil.

And so they simply deny the whole thing – as with any principle, they refuse to see it; they refuse to think of the consequences. They look only to the immediate moment – to expediency, to action, to “what works.” (and without principles, they have no real way to measure “working” as opposed to failure)

Enabling this denial is the unfortunate fact that government adds a layer of abstraction: men have the power to do, by proxy of the government, things that their consciences would never permit them to do personally. The same man who voted for the politician who platformed on the expansion of welfare might never break into the house of his neighbor and take his money at gunpoint. But it is, of course, the same thing: both morally and in results. Men of principle know this because they can see it. Concrete-bound Pragmatists, however, can fail or refuse to see it.

The thief can merely pretend that his crimes don’t take men’s lives (in part). But he still has to accept that he robs them. Acting through the state takes this one step further: since men don’t personally take the actions they vote into place, they can pretend that no crimes happen at all. They can hide behind vagaries like “progressive income taxes,” “carbon trading programs” and “universal healthcare.” All of the above mean only one thing: plain, naked, jackbooted force, but they happen out of sight and so it is easier for the Pragmatist to push them into law, or at least fail to resist them.

And Politics, of course, acts on a scale that makes the petty Statist much more dangerous than any petty thief.

Most Americans are not Communists. Nevertheless, America did passively allow such men as Franklin D Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and now George W Bush to implement and then massively grow a welfare state which has gone most of the way to implementing the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. It was Pragmatism which stopped men from opposing this transformation on principle. It was Pragmatism which said, “well maybe just a little bit,” while the bits added up to trillions. In precisely the same way as the thief’s Pragmatism says, “I won’t kill men… I’ll just rob them a ‘little bit.’”

Like every Pragmatist accomplice to the mass-murderers of history, today’s apologists refuse to take the movements they support at face value. Most citizens of Nazi Germany did not advocate the extermination of the Jews. They simply refused to believe that their leaders really meant what they said and would carry through to the end the premises that they advocated. They believed that the more consistent men they supported would stop short for some reason. And so they continued to feed and support their movement and put it into power, where it did everything that it had promised.

This will be the direction of Environmentalism, Islamism, and the encroaching growth of state control of the economy if they are not stopped. Not “reformed,” mind you, any more than one could ask to reform the Nazis, but stopped and stopped not only at the “extreme,” but also at the supposedly “moderate” level.

And the major obstacle to this won’t be Environmentalism, Islam, ideological Marxism, or similar. It was Pragmatism which has brought the culture and the country to the point where they are today, with the success of each movement possible only because of the philosophic disarmament that the near universal spread of Pragmatism has enacted.

If we are to find success in restoring individual rights and ousting those movements which are assaulting them, Pragmatism will have to be addressed. We will have to learn its sources and its workings, and present an opposition to Pragmatism as systematic as the ones needed for any of the individual movements that it has enabled.

-Inspector