The Paradigm Shift: The Moral Case for Capitalism (Video)

I’m Duane Lester and this is the Paradigm Shift.

I want to start off with a short story about women’s panties.

Not long ago there was a store owner who was always looking for better deals for his customers. He drove all over, looking for what he called “off beat suppliers and sources” to get special buys below what he was already paying.

He found a guy who would sell him women’s panties for two dollars a dozen. His current supplier could only give him women’s panties for two fifty a dozen. At that price, he could sell them at three for a dollar, but the new supplier made it possible for him to sell them for a quarter each, or four for a dollar.

He noted that he didn’t make as much profit per pair of panties, but because he sold three times the amount, “the overall profit was much greater.”

The store owner would take this lesson and apply it over the life of his career, eventually building the largest retail chain in the world. The store owner’s name was Sam Walton.

Now let’s walk back through this entire process. What do you find?

People acting in their own self-interest.

The supplier of the panties won, because he was able to sell his product for the price he wanted to Sam Walton.

Sam Walton won, because he was able make a profit by selling his product to his customers.

The customers won, because they were able to purchase a product for less than they could before.

What is consistent in all of those things?

First off, each party placed a value on what they were buying and selling. The value wasn’t intrinsic. Each member looked for the objective best value. The supplier felt two dollars was worth more than a dozen panties, but the panties were worth more to Walton. He felt a dollar was worth more than four pair, even though the customer valued the panties more than the dollar.

Meanwhile, other customers might value the dollar more, so they don’t buy anything. Each participant placed their own value on what they were trading based on what they rationally felt was best for them.

This is possible because there is an absence of force. Not one person was forced to buy anything for more than they wanted, and not one person was forced to sell anything for less than they wanted.

In other words, every step is voluntary. It’s just.

This absence of force show a respect for individual rights. Each person owns their property and can enter into trades based on their own self interest.

No one is exploited. They can’t be because no rational person accepts a deal that does them harm. Everyone gains or they don’t take the deal. They are free to walk away at any time.

This is what capitalism looks like: it’s a socio-economic system where individual rights are respected and because of that respect, no force is possible. Under capitalism, property trades are made because they are mutually beneficial.

I know what you’re thinking. This didn’t happen in a capitalist system, and you’re right. This occurred in what Ayn Rand referred to as “a mixed economy,” meaning there was “a mixture, in varying degrees, of freedom and controls, of voluntary choice and government coercion, of capitalism and statism.” Of all the mixed economies in history, America’s has been the freest, and has seen the greatest success.

Let me tell you another story relating to this, a personal story that I think is kind of cool.

I bought a gallon of milk.

Now this all started when I went to my refrigerator and noticed we were out. I got in my car, drove to the store and went inside. Now mind you, this is in a town of about fifteen hundred people. Small town Missouri.

The store layout has the milk as far away from the door as possible. This is because people have studied what people come to the store for and the store placed those products so that a customer has to walk past a lot of other stuff to get what they need. This increases overall sales, but doesn’t force anyone to buy anything.

So in this small store in a town of fifteen hundred, I have to walk past rows of canned goods. Fruits and vegetables on one side. On the other are cans of chili, jars of spaghetti sauce and bags of pasta.

Turning the corner, there’s a cooler filled with different meats. Ground beef, ground pork, t-bone steaks, Angus beef, cured hams. Just stocked with different cuts of meat. Further still, I come to another cooler filled with different cheeses. Colby, pepper jack, extra sharp cheddar, processed slices and bags of shredded cheese. There are even take and bake pizzas and soft taco shells here.

Finally, I make it to the milk case. There’s quarts, half gallons, gallons, whole milk, 2 percent, skim. There’s milk that’s 100% lactose free. There’s almond milk. There’s fat free milk, half and half along with heavy whipping cream. And there are different brands.

Think about that. Different brands offering the same products, but asking more money because the quality might be higher.

All this in a town of fifteen hundred. This isn’t even a major city.

Why do I think something so routine like buying a gallon of milk is something so cool?

I think it’s cool because it’s so routine. It’s amazing what we take for granted in this country.

For years, milk shortages have plagued socialist Venezuela, but I can find more milk than I can possibly drink in small town America.

How is this possible?

Simple. Self-interest and voluntary trades create abundance.

The dairy farmer buys a cow, not because he feels a responsibility to provide milk for society, but because he wants to make money. He sells it to the market, who buys it because the manager intends to sell it. Not for some feeling of social good. Those sales create a profit large enough to feed his family and pay his mortgage.

The only way this can happen is if customers, like me, voluntarily trade their property for something they value more.

As I mentioned before, Wal-Mart and the grocery industry were built and exist today in a mixed economy. This use of force did more harm than good.

For example, the cotton used in making underwear was most likely subsidized. Taxpayers were looted by the government to pay the farmers because the market price is lower than they can produce the cotton for.

Statists love this, pointing to the farmers who are able to keep their farms at the expense of the tribe. But they are committing the most common economic fallacies there are, as highlighted by Henry Hazlitt.

While the immediate effects of subsidies look good for farmers, they aren’t good for taxpayers, who are propping up an industry that can’t support itself. The long term effects are the unseen losses taxpayers bear, not only in money, but in quality of life. The money taken from them and given to farmers could have been used to buy nicer clothes or higher quality food. Instead, they couldn’t buy those things because of a collectivist belief that the farmer is more important and needed their money more than they did.

That isn’t moral. And that’s in the freest economy in history.

Now consider the one of the least free in history.

In China, between 1958 and 1961, historians estimate almost 45 million Chinese starved to death. The Chinese government admits 15 million. Because of the starvation, it’s estimated another 40 million Chinese weren’t born. That’s 76 million lives ended because of the allegedly moral superiority of the collectivist philosophy.

This is what’s known as the “Great Chinese Famine.” It’s one of many famines in collectivist countries. All the world’s worst famines during the 20th century occurred in communist countries.

There is no historic record of a famine caused due to capitalism.

Since we are talking about China, let me finish with one final story that might give an idea of what happened when the producers returned following The Strike in Atlas Shrugged.

In 1978, a meeting was held in a small Chinese village called Xiaogang (See ow gong.) This was at the height of communism in China, so there was no personal property in this village. To get an understanding of the collectivist mindset at the time, at a previous public meeting with communist officials, a farmer asked if he owned the teeth in his head. He was told no, that they belonged to the collective.

The meeting in this story was secret. The farmers gathered that night were there to sign a secret contract that could result in their execution. But their situation was bleak so they were willing to risk it.

Year after year, the village found itself short of food and the farmers often turned to begging the neighboring villages to help. Finally, they had enough. They decided that rather than farm as a collective, each family would get its own plot. If that family grew a surplus, they could keep it.

It was an introduction of personal property and self-interest, albeit extremely limited and secret.

The farmers there say that before the contract, they would drag themselves out to the fields only when the village whistle blew. After the contract, they were working before dawn.

By the end of the season, they harvested more than the previous five seasons combined.

This got the attention of Communist party officials, who dragged the author of the contract before them. Rather than being executed, he was interviewed. Within a few years, farms across China adopted the capitalist principles laid out in that mud hut. Since 1978, 500 million Chinese have risen out of poverty.

It wasn’t stricter adherence to altruism that did that. It was self-interest and respect of individual rights.

Today, that secret contract is in a museum.

Which brings us to today’s paradigm shift.

While leftists will tell you capitalism is immoral, the stories I shared today prove that capitalism is the only moral socio-economic system.

Where capitalism respects individual rights, collectivism destroys them.

Where capitalism accepts self-interest, tribalism demonizes it.

Where capitalism creates abundance, altrusim creates famine.

Capitalism permits survival. Collectivism kills.

Mankind using their mind, what Ayn Rand called man’s greatest natural resource, to turn raw materials into property is glorious. Trading that property with others in a voluntary agreement creates wealth, and wealth creates a better life. It creates abundance.

Abundance allows life to flourish.

How could a system all that does that be anything but moral?

That’s the paradigm shift. I’m Duane Lester.

June 3rd, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: , |0 Comments

The Show-Me Report: June 2, 2015

Missouri Business Alert: Push for Uber, Lyft picks up steam in St. Louis

Missouri Business Alert: Missouri bringing back dental care for Medicaid recipients

Show-Me Daily: Missouri’s Bridges: Are They Falling Apart?

The Missouri Times: Schmitt pushes for disability legislation

Post-Dispatch: Blunt one of 17 senators voting no on NSA surveillance overhaul

Show-Me Daily: The Value of Union Elections

The Missouri Times: Conservation Commission unveils mural, revokes hundreds of outdoor priviledges

Show-Me Daily: Kansas City’s Reverse Robin Hood

Post-Dispatch: Chesterfield police establish ‘safe zone’ for Craigslist transactions

News-Tribune: South Carolina governor will speak at Hanaway fundraiser

The Missouri Times: A Race to Watch: State Treasurer

Missourinet: Normandy District’s state rep. wants transfer veto, special session (GOOGLE HANGOUT)

June 2nd, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: |0 Comments

Republican State Representative Mark Parkinson Announces Candidacy for State Senate

Contributes $50,000 to start campaign war chest

Representative Mark Parkinson, a lifelong and fourth-generation resident of Saint Charles County, today announced his candidacy for the Missouri Senate (District 23) in 2016.

“After much prayer and many conversations with my family, friends, and neighbors about Missouri’s future, I am officially seeking to represent Saint Charles County in the Missouri State Senate, and bring the voice of our community directly to the Senate chamber.”

When elected, Parkinson would continue a record of service that began in 2000, serving as Deputy District Office Director for former U.S. Senator Kit Bond.  In a 2008 special election, Saint Charles County citizens elected Mark in to fill the seat vacated by Carl Bearden.  Parkinson has been re-elected on 4 occasions, giving him 9 years of service and making him the senior-most member of the Missouri House of Representatives.

“The people of Saint Charles County deserve principled conservative representation, from someone with a proven record of supporting life, lower taxes, economic freedom, and Second Amendment liberties,” said Parkinson.  “As the only candidate with a proven conservative track record, I look forward to talking to people over the next 18 months about my accomplishments, my voting record, and about what we can do for the families and people of Saint Charles County.”

During his tenure in the House, Parkinson has sponsored several bills designed to shelter citizens from invasive governmental regulations and statutes, and co-authored legislation to curb illegal immigration in Missouri, regarded as one of the toughest and most effective measures in the nation.  In 2015, Parkinson filed legislation to eliminate quota-based ticketing, shield college students and parents from unauthorized health insurance purchases, and implement stronger protections for small businesses, taxpayers and senior citizens.

“Over the course of this campaign, my team and I will develop and share what I believe will be a clear and dramatic contrast between myself and my opponent.  I am confident that the voters of Saint Charles County will see that we need a true, experienced, conservative in the state Senate, and that I plan to continue to represent Saint Charles County’s conservative values in the Senate.”

Parkinson is a 1991 graduate of Francis Howell High School and received his bachelor’s degree from Saint Louis University.  He resides in the College Station neighborhood with his wife, Brigit, and their two dogs, who were both rescued from shelters.

June 1st, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: |0 Comments

The Hardest Working Man in the Missouri House

And he wants to be a Congressman:

June 1st, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: |0 Comments

New Auditor Hires Former Progress Missouri Staffer for Comms Staff

Missouri’s new appointed auditor announced two new hires for her office:

Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway, CPA, today announced the hiring of her communications staff. Gena Terlizzi joins the State Auditor’s office as director of communications and Rebecca Gorley will serve as public information officer.

Gorley has a very interesting resume:

Gorley has worked as the deputy communications director for Progress Missouri.

That’s perfect.  I was just thinking the other day, “You know what the auditor’s office needs?  A strong progressive voice.”

But I’m sure the office will be completely unbiased, or something.



June 1st, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: |0 Comments

Source: Bill Eigel To Run for Missouri State Senate in District 23

Today I learned from a trusted source that a new player will soon announce for the District 23 seat being vacated by Sen. Tom Dempsey:  Missouri small businessman Bill Eigel, owner of St. Louis Skylights.


Eigel was reportedly recruited by Carl Bearden and is being helped by him, along with Missouri Alliance for Freedom’s Ryan Johnson and former Sen. Jim Lembke.

Rep. Paul Curtman is reported to also be in Camp Eigel. (I reached out to Curtman for comment, but as of yet, received no reply.)

Eigel has no political experience, which some see as a feature, not a glitch.

Rep. Mark Parkinson is already running for the seat, recently giving his campaign $50,000.

Rep. Anne Zerr, statist Republican, is sitting on over $100,000 and expected to run for the seat as well. Torch readers probably remember the statist Zerr as the one Progress Missouri propped up last year at their pro-union love-fest, “Rally for Missouri’s Middle Class.”

Zerr told the assembled crowd of union loyalists and far left activists:

“Don’t forget the people who stood by you all these years, are the Democrats. Don’t forget them.”

As I wrote then, is this really the type of Republican we need in the Senate?

The obvious answer is no.


Carl Bearden says he wasn’t the one who recruited Eigel.

June 1st, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: |0 Comments

What is the Proper Role of A Limited, Moral and Just Government?


What is the proper role of government?

Every think about that? Why does government exist?

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear. It says, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

What rights? “certain unalienable Rights.”

Natural rights.

I included another part of the Declaration, because it’s important to my premise. What did they mean when they wrote, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?”

Frederic Bastiat explains:

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Bastiat is explaining that we, the people, cannot give the government power we do not have. And we do not have the power to “destroy the equal rights of our brothers,” meaning we, as individuals, cannot use force to deny the property rights of our neighbors. We cannot tell them what they can and can’t do with the product of their applied faculties to natural resources, or their property.

We cannot take from one person and give to another, simply because one person has a need and we feel the other has an abundance and therefore, an obligation.

It’s a violation of their natural rights, therefore, it’s immoral and unjust.

If we can’t do it, how is it possible that the government can and be just and moral? It isn’t.

The limits on a government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed are the same as the limits placed on each of us. We can use force to defend our person, our liberty and our property. We can use force to secure our natural rights.

Government’s limited role is the same.

June 1st, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: , |1 Comment

The Show-Me Report: June 1, 2015

Show-Me Daily: A Private School That’s Out of This World

Show-Me Daily: Senator Proposes Transparency for Government Unions

Show-Me Daily: Nobody Benefits from School Buildings Sitting Vacant

Show-Me Daily: How Will the Convention Hotel Help Taxpayers?

The Missouri Times: Dogan led legislative fight for Mizanskey freedom

Post-Dispatch: Judge will hear critic of Darren Wilson grand jury

St. Joseph Post: Judge defers ruling on probe into handling of Ferguson case

Breitbart: “Ferguson Effect”: America’s New Crime Wave Is All Part Of The Plan

KPLR: Police tase 2 protesters during march in downtown St. Louis

Kansas City Star: Steve Kraske: New study shows that isolated capitals like Jefferson City tend to be more corrupt

Post-Dispatch: Poor adults in Missouri may get better access to health care

Connect Mid-Missouri: Jefferson City contractor still waiting for Mamtek compensation

Post-Dispatch: Push to get Uber, Lyft in St. Louis picking up steam again

Jefferson County Penknife: JeffCo’s Top Corruptocrat Spreads His Tentacles to Crestwood

Connect Mid-Missouri: Governor Nixon’s Capitol Campout

Hennessy’s View: Activist Ron Calzone Sues Missouri Over Omnibus Bill

Fox 2: Federal report: Branson hospital to repay $123K

Kirksville Daily Express: Nixon, lawmakers slash public library support by more than 50 percent

The Eagle: Bernskoetter: No Medicaid expansion

The Eagle: Missouri unemployment benefits cut…maybe

June 1st, 2015|Categories: The Blog, The Show-Me Report|Tags: |0 Comments

On Nano Breweries, Uber And Property Rights


Sometimes I read a headline and just get irritated.

This is one of those times:


What set me off is the word “allows.”

These people who want to start a business need to go before a council and ask permission to open it on a certain piece of property. The government doesn’t own the property. The council doesn’t own the property.

Why do they have a say in what is done with it? Why should a free person need their permission to enter into an agreement with the owner to use it for their business?

Because we’ve surrendered our power, willingly, to the state.

Here’s how it should work. You own a piece of property. You want to build a building on it, you build a building on it. You want to operate a business on it, you operate a business on it.

You don’t have to ask the city, county or state for permission. Why?

Because they don’t own the property. If you own it, you control it. No one else does.

But, what about the neighbors? Do they get a say?

The neighbors have rights and until the property owner does something to violate those rights, they can work with the property owner, but ultimately, they should have no say.

Will there be conflicts? Of course, but that’s the nature of things. It’s better if those conflicts are sorted out between property owners, even if it results in a court battle.

But the government has no authority to dictate to a property owner what they can do on their own property as long as they aren’t violating the rights of anyone else.

And that property isn’t exclusive to small little nano breweries. It includes personal automobiles.

Under no circumstances should the government have a say in whether you choose to give someone a ride in your personal car in exchange for a few dollars, nor should the government have a say in whether you agree to take a ride in someone’s car. If the ride were free, they wouldn’t say anything, but as soon as money is involved, they get in the middle of it.


Because the cab industry has an interest in limiting the competition. They use violence, i.e. the city government, to make it difficult or impossible for another business like Uber or Lyft to come into their are and start offering better, less expensive rides. If there were limited government and respect for individual rights, Uber would be stealing customers from Kansas City and St. Louis cab companies.

Instead, they left, which is a shame. Everywhere I go, if I take an Uber, and I often do, I ask the driver how they like it.

I have yet to have one say they didn’t like it. Most of these drivers drive in their spare time, making a few extra dollars. This allows them to increase their standard of living by providing higher quality service at a lower price, which helps me increase my standard of living because I’m not shelling out more loot for a taxi.

One key thing makes this possible: individual rights, including property rights.

We need to get back to respecting those. When we do that, most of our problems with government will disappear.

May 29th, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: , , |0 Comments

The Confused Logic of the Republican Statist, Starring Sen. Mike Parson

A statist is someone who believes that a man’s work and life belong to the state, “to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”

Does that sound like a Republican to you?

What if I told you there were many statist Republicans in the Missouri Legislature? Would you find that hard to swallow?

For some, it would be a given; for others, a bridge too far.

Let’s look at the recent Legislative Column by Sen. Mike Parson, who is running for Governor on the “I’m not from St. Louis” ticket.

Parson’s title for the column is “Protecting Agriculture in Missouri.” Now understand this: the only role government has in a free country is securing the rights of the individual. That’s it. Therefore, it follows that the only way a non-statist government could protect agriculture in Missouri is to protect the rights of individuals, including their right to property.

What does Parson say they did?

The agriculture industry in Missouri was strengthened this year with the passage of Senate Bill 12. The measure was signed by the governor and increases weight limits for trucks hauling livestock and grains during harvest, adds livestock to the equine liability waiver, and allows Missouri beef producers more control of the state’s Beef Checkoff program. The governor also signed House Bill 259, a measure known as the “Dairy Revitalization Act.” The legislation aids dairy producers with Federal Margin Insurance Premium payments; gives eighty $5,000 scholarships for students who want to return to the dairy industry; and requires an annual report by the University of Missouri on innovations for the dairy industry.

Not one of those things is a function of government.

Not one.  It is a statist mind that accepts government imposing a weight limit on trucks.  Why shouldn’t a farmer be allowed to haul heavy loads on public highways?  Because it’s dangerous?  Then isn’t the state absolving the farmer of any responsibility if something goes wrong?  “Well, it was within the limits set by the state.”  In a free country, the farmer loads his truck as he sees fit, and if his actions end up violating the rights of another citizen, then the state has a role.  The state shouldn’t be in the business of using force to tell a person how much they can haul.

It is the statist mind that accepts that government can say that the liability of an employee’s death or injury during “livestock activities” is waived for “livestock activity sponsors.”  Who defines what the “inherent risks” are?  The “livestock owners” or the estate of the dead or their family?  Or a bureaucrat completely divorced from the situation?  It seems this is something best left individuals and to the courts.  The court decides whether a person is liable, not a group of legislators.  And there are insurance companies out there willing to insure against such liabilities.

It is the statist mind that accepts government even being involved in a “Beef Checkoff program.”  But who would inspect the meat if the government wasn’t involved?  This question exposes the mind influenced by leftism.  It assumes that beef producers would willingly and knowingly sell products they know to be unsafe.  I don’t believe that.  Instead of making meat safer or of higher quality, it absolves Missouri Beef producers from having to protect the one thing that would make or break them:  their reputation.

Alan Greenspan wrote about this back in 1963:

What collectivists refuse to recognize is that it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.  Since the market value of a going business is measured by its money-making potential, reputation or “good-will” is as much an asset as its physical plan and equipment.

He continued:

Government regulation is not an alternative means of protecting the consumer.  it does not build quality into goods, or accuracy into information.  Its sole “contribution” is to substitute for and fear for incentive as the “protector” of the consumer.

What are the results?  To paraphrase Gresham’s Law:  bad “protection” drives out the good.  The attempt to protect the consumer by force undercuts the protection he gets from incentive.  First, it undercuts the value of reputation by placing the reputable company on the same basis  as the unknown, the newcomer or the fly-by-nighter.  It declares, in effect, that all are equally suspect and that years of evidence to the contrary do not free a man from that suspicion.

If the cattlemen of Missouri want to get together and create a standard, a Beef Checkoff, that doesn’t require the use of force to implement, go for it.  But the idea that government’s involvement will somehow result in higher quality is statist thinking.

The one think present in all of these things is the rejection of a person’s individual rights, including property rights.

You can buy that truck if you want, but the state will tell you how much you can put on it.

You can work that job if you want, but the state will build a wall to protect the businessman, should you die.

You can own cattle if you want, but the state will decide if they are good enough for market, not the buyers and certainly not you.

Remember, the role of government is to secure rights.  The statist mind rejects individual rights, replacing them with obligations to the tribe and actions by the state.

What’s even more revealing is the second paragraph in Parson’s column.  It’s all about the EPA’s overreach in the “Waters of the U.S.” regulation.  Parson’s doesn’t like the idea of the EPA writing regulations that affect “virtually any wet—or occasionally wet—spot in the country, including ditches, drains, seasonal puddle-like depressions, intermittent streams, ponds, impoundments, prairie potholes, and large “buffer areas” of land adjacent to every waterway.”

And he shouldn’t.  No where does the federal government have the power to do any of that.  But what Parson misses, or worse, accepts, is that the EPA is the embodiment of tyranny.

From the pen of James Madison in The Federalist No. 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

The EPA writes regulations with the force of law. In other words, they have legislative power.

They enforce the regulations. In other words, they have executive power.

And if they so decree, they can decide that you’ve violated their orders. In other words, they have judiciary power.

This is tyranny.

And while Parson’s is right to reject the EPA’s overreach, he ignores one simple fact: it’s all overreach. He shouldn’t be protesting the EPA’s actions. He should be protesting the EPA’s existence. Furthermore, he’s complaining about one illegitimate use of force by the federal government while bragging about being a part of multiple illegitimate uses of force on the state level.

This is the importance of principles. You can’t kind of be for individual rights. You either understand the purpose of government and limit it to securing the rights of the people, or you reject individual rights and justify the occasional use of force to violate them. “Oh, I’m all for using the state to do this, but those guys using the state to do that is bad.”

That shows a lack of principles and a misunderstanding of the role of government.

It is an example of the confused logic of the Republican statist.

May 29th, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: |0 Comments