The Hypocritical Case Against Donald Trump

My social media feed is full of Trump criticisms by Obama supporters that criticize Trump for the things Obama does. Melania Trump copies Michelle speech. Okay, Obama, on numerous occasions, plagiarized sections of other people’s speeches. Others criticize Trump for being narcissistic and continually referring to himself. Has anyone ever actually listened to an Obama speech? Others are complaining about the benediction for Trump and the GOP convention being theologically incorrect. Did everyone miss the DNC’s savior-of-the-world theme going into the 2008 election?

These are all good points to make against Trump. I agree with each one. My point is simply if you have been an Obama supporter this whole time, and now you are making these complaints against Trump, you are self-deluded. The reason why the GOP is better than the DNC, is that when a narcissistic, self-important, pseudo-intellectual, religious demagogue gets nominated as the GOP candidate, you get the #NeverTrump movement from the GOP themselves. For the DNC, it is just the same as any other candidate they ever run.

The only real difference is that the DNC is usually subtler than the GOP. Personally, if someone is going to do wrong, I prefer that they do it loudly and openly than having to tease apart their statements – it makes life easier. If you wish for the subtlety of the DNC candidates, you only wish for the opportunity to deceive yourself by long words, and can’t stand to hear the lies you tell yourself spoken forthrightly.

Again, I’m not defending Trump, I am just completely amazed at the number of people who obviously don’t know how to look into a mirror.

Why Trump will Win in November

Here’s my prediction – Trump will be our next president. Possibly by a long shot. I don’t say this because I’m happy about it. Frankly, I’m not happy with any possible result at this point. But I think the cultural shifts in our country are going to get Donald Trump elected. Here’s why:

The People of America are Narcissists

Everyone wants to feel good about what they are doing without actually having to do good. Everyone wants to be “on the right side of history” (whatever that means) but this rarely actually means caring for their neighbor. Actually caring for your neighbor involves both helping them when they need help, and confronting them when they are being self-destructive. Simple slogans and using other people’s money to help people out is not caring for others, it is caring for your own self-image. Let’s look at the list of things which people do to pretend that they are better than others which don’t require them to actually do anything:

  1. Global warming. There’s literally nothing you can do. So, if you are part of the global warming bandwagon, you get to feel good about helping the environment while doing jack squat.
  2. Obamacare. If you support Obamacare you don’t actually have to care for the sick. Someone else takes care of that now.
  3. Gay Marriage. Nope, that didn’t require anything from you, either. You just had to put an equal sign on your Facebook page and it was just like you were in the Martin Luther King marches.
  4. Evolution. You don’t actually have to know anything about science. You don’t have to know any biochemistry, physics, cosmology. But if you use the e-word and are against the creationists and call ID’ers “Creationists in a cheap tuxedo”, then congratulations, you are on the side of science with a scientific worldview, battling the eeevil ignoramuses. You’ve never cracked open a science textbook, but you are sure that every scientist who is a creationist must be stupid.
  5. Feminism and BLM. Really, this one just involves either (a) getting mad if you are an oppressed group, or (b) “checking your privilege” otherwise. No actual thought or work required.

There are others. but as you can see, we have exchanged actual thought and action for simple signals that tell other people that we are on the “right” side without actually having to do the work. Each of these positions which is gaining by leaps and bounds culturally allows a person to feel better about themselves without actually doing anything.

The one with the most uniform social impact, gay marriage, is a special case in point. Never do the proponents of gay marriage stop even for a second to ask themselves what marriage is about, or why it might historically have been between a man and a woman. That would be asking too much. To actually have a conversation would be beyond the pale. No, if you are not already in agreement with them, then you are a bigot, and an actual conversation about the issue would just be too much. The actual work of building a society pales in comparison to whether or not we all celebrate someone’s personal fetish.

This brings me to point number 2.

Hillary is an Ideologue and Trump is a Narcissist

I’m not against ideologues per se, but Hillary happens to be an ideologue for a bad ideology. Trump, however, is a narcissist. The country doesn’t care about ideologies, it cares about feeling good and not getting its own feelings hurt. The country is narcissistic, not really leftist ideologues. The current platform of the left caters to narcissists, but there is a difference between those who really believe (i.e., Hillary), and those that are just along for whatever makes them look better to themselves (i.e., Trump).

This brings us to our conclusion:

Trump will Win because He’s a Narcissist Like the Country

Yep, that’s about it.

But, as usual, there is something you can do about it. It’s simple.

Rise above it. Create value that cannot be taken away – value in relationships, in people, in knowledge, etc. Store away wealth in ways that cannot be taxed or inflated away. Do business with the people around you and build up the economy right where you live. Restructure your life so that you can give all of them the finger and just keep on going. If we all do that, then their power will evaporate on its own. We will have no need of them.

But, as far as who will win the election. I’m fairly certain of my conclusions. It is just basic human nature. I’m just not going to let it get to me.

Why I am Against the Sovereignty of the Individual

There are many aspects of Libertarianism which are very compelling, such as their desire to remove waste, to acknowledge the power of government to do evil, and to show the power that freedom gives people to overcome their problems. However, when taken too far, Libertarianism tends to denigrate humans, and what it means to be human. The pushing of contract law as the only rational type of law points to a flawed misunderstanding of people. The restriction of the definition of “harm” to “physical harm” misunderstands the breadth of humanity – moral harm is possibly worse than physical harm, but Libertarianism doesn’t allow for that.

In a similar vein is the doctrine of the “sovereignty of the individual.” It sounds good – we all want to be our own masters, don’t we? What does this, specifically, state? It says, according to G. A. Cohen, “each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply.” The problem is that we do owe services, and maybe products, to others that we have not contracted to supply.

The big question is this: can you be bound – both morally and legally – to obligations duties that you did not agree to? My answer is a strong, definitive, “yes.” In fact, life is mostly about fulfilling obligations that we did not choose.

Family is the place where this is most obvious, but it applies elsewhere, too. We all have an obligation to our parents. The 10 commandments, in addition to telling us not to murder and steal, also tells us we have a basic duty to our parents. We also have a basic duty to our children, whether or not we specifically chose to have them. Abortion in all cases where the life of the mother is not also at risk is wrong, because of the duties and obligations we owe to our children, even if they were conceived in violence against our will. If a stranger drops a baby on my doorstep, I have a moral obligation to that baby to at least make sure it makes its way to another’s hands, or, if none other will take it, the obligation becomes mine. If someone is drowning next to you, and crying out for help, and you decide not to help them, you are liable for their death, and rightly so. You have obligations to others which you do not choose, and the government has a rightful role to enforce at least some of these.

Therefore, I am against the sovereignty of the individual as a general concept. However, I do think there are ideas which serve similar purposes which are not as problematic. For instance, it is problematic for the government to serve as mediator in most of these obligations. That is, if someone drops a baby on my doorstep, I am morally required to help it out. If I do not, I should be held liable. What I shouldn’t have to do is to contact the government at any point in the process as long as I am fulfilling my moral duties. The government should only invoke action if they have a legitimate reason to think that I am failing to do one of my moral obligations. So, as long as I am fulfilling my moral obligations, there is no reason for the government to mediate the operation. This gets rid of a lot of the busy-bodying that government does, without weakening the morality of the law. In addition, I would also agree that all governances should be exercise extreme caution when legislating a duty or service that we have not contracted to supply.

This is part of what I call the diminishing return of laws in MicroSecession. Part of what law does is help teach us the standards and morals of society. When that list becomes large, then the effect of each law becomes less. There are so many laws about so many things that all law is now viewed as a burden. Law can be a gift, but when done in excess it becomes a burden. Part of this is a failure to recognize the larger moral obligations to God and each other, which Libertarians usually want to get rid of. But, as G. K. Chesterton warns, “When you break the big laws, you do not get liberty; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.” The overabundance of rules that we have is because we have forgotten the big laws, and now must be ruled by a tyranny of small laws.

In any case, while the “sovereignty of the individual” can sometimes serve as a decent heuristic, it falls flat as a general theory of governance.

The Feds are Running Out of Options

In the last few years, the only real buyer of government bonds has been the federal reserve. Historically, the federal reserve was not even allowed to purchase government bonds. In addition, it certainly wouldn’t have been able to become the primary purchaser without quantitative easing. However, the federal reserve is planning on backing off of quantitative easing, and that spells trouble for the government, and they know it.

Two policy changes this year indicate that the federal government knows that it is in trouble. The first is the myRA account announced at the State of the Union speech. This is a special retirement account being sold to lower-income Americans that can only contain *one* investment type. You guessed it – government bonds. The goal of this program is not to help poor people get retirement accounts. The goal is to sucker the poorest Americans into financing the government’s debts. Why? Because we can’t find anyone else to do it.

The second policy change is the increase in the Social Security Administration to pursue old debts, and take the money from relatives of the debtor. In some cases, they are withholding tax returns from people because the social security administration overpaid a relative of theirs 30 years ago. So, not your debts, but a relative’s debts. And not a recent debt, but one 30 years ago. This means that as quantitative easing starts to fade, the federal government is going to start doing increasingly panicked measures to increase their cash, because they have run out of people to finance their borrowing.

No, just to point out, I think that removing quantitative easing is a good thing. The problem is that it will reveal just how poorly managed our country and our economy have been, and it will hurt bad. It’s a necessary step for healing, but the transition is going to be a ride that no one will ever forget.

Hood Conservatives: Because Conservative Ideas Help Everyone

Strong communities help everyone, and are an essential part of MicroSecession. Building our own communities stronger is one of the key aspects to becoming independent.

A new organization is launching, called Hood Conservatives, with the goal of reaching the inner city with conservative values and ideas. The fact is, if done right, this will probably do more to help the inner city than all of the government programs combined. They have a five-part plan, and I think it is great:

  1. Gun Education and Training
  2. Entrepreneurship
  3. Education
  4. Financial Independence
  5. Rebuilding the Family

The only thing I would add is that they must first rebuild the spiritual and moral foundations if this is to work properly.

Is Globalization the Best Thing Since Sliced Bread?

This article makes a stunning claim that globalization is the best thing society has going for us. I agree that free trade reduces poverty in general. I don’t mind some forms of globalism, but I’m not sure that it is unequivocally good. Free trade and globalization are both negative when done by immoral people, and I have trouble thinking that the present set of globalists are influencing societies for improved morality. Nonetheless, it is interesting information worth noting.

Ranking the Best Options Forward on the US Debt

If you find yourself in a hole, stop diggingThe First Rule of Holes

The problem with the US Debt crisis is that it is hard to talk to people about what the options are without people getting confused. Here is a normal conversation:

Someone Else (SE): “We need to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default”

Me: “I agree we need to avoid a default. That’s why we should cut spending drastically.”

SE: “Well, we can’t cut spending – they are all for critical services, so we need to increase the debt limit.”

Me: “I am against raising the debt limit”

SE: “What if we default?”

Me: “If that’s the only option, I’ll take it”

SE: “You just contradicted yourself.”

This sort of thing drives me crazy, so here I will lay out, in the order of preference, the various options on the debt default.
Continue reading

Myths and Truths on the US Debt Default

One of the goals of MicroSecession is to remove ourselves enough from the monetary system so that the idiocy that we see on TV doesn’t adversely affect us. Nonetheless, good governance is still better than bad governance. In that spirit, I want to devote a few posts to the possible pending US Debt default. This first post will be to dispel some common myths about the potential debt default.
Continue reading