Immediately, his campaign created an assortment of paraphernalia you can purchase to celebrate the coming out. By now, I am sure, you can buy your fridge magnet, your bumper sticker, and the coffee mug with a slogan telling us how the rainbow is now complete. His campaign also began to attack Mitt Romney for being a troglodyte for affirming consistently what Obama affirmed till just a few hours ago. But do not worry, the President is a sensitive guy who just pondered things wisely and arrived to a conclusion following his conscience. “Do you dare to accuse him of politicking?”

It ought to be offensive to the sensitivity of any reasonable person to even think that Obama planned things with politics in mind. I am just waiting for Michael Eric Dyson to come on TV with a well-delivered explanation as to why it has to be racism what motivates any criticism of Obama in yet another position of his. Critical Race Theory is always there for the rescue.

If we descend to the world of the living after visiting Olympus where Obama lives, we can then dig and find evidence that our President has been less thoughtful than some think. No, I would not say that he just told us a whopper, nor would I dare say his nose is rapidly growing. He was simply… Well, I cannot come with a better description but you catch my drift.

In 1996 Barak Obama filled out for a questionnaire for Outline, a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper. There, with his signature, Obama came out clearly in favor of same-sex marriage.

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

This is one of two questionnaires where Obama spoke clearly of his support for so-called same-sex marriages. His evolution has been contorted, maybe instead of Lucy it is now Julia the missing link in the convoluted and conniving efforts we are witnessing. It is hard to decide which one is more clever, Barak’s coming out just in time for election season or Nancy Pelosi justifying her support for so-called same-sex marriage on account of her “Catholic” faith:

“My religion has, compels me–and I love it for it–to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that.”

I am sorry to put you through so much pain in reading her buffoonery but it has to be done…

But you told us that was not the case and that those who warned against it were evil droids who wanted to “turn back the clock.” You told us that the welfare state was a healthy and necessary basic community of a modern, sophisticated, and advanced society. Ideas about individual freedom and markets, you told us, were antiquated notions advanced by the elite and by those pesky, uncouth Americans. But us Europeans? We know better, we speak many languages, we are the ones who really recycle and are open-minded, we drink real wine with our food all the time, for crying out loud!

After generational indoctrination in the wonders of socialism you now want us to go out and compete?  You want to reduce my pension? Are you telling me I do not have a guaranteed job and that my boss is going to judge my performance?  Are you nuts? What is wrong with you?! Let us go back to the streets and protest. We need to break something.

Better, let us use democracy to bring in our buddies who will spend more and more and fix this. There is no problem here, just tax the rich more, confiscate it all, “Happy Days Are Here Again!”  Wait, that is American, don’t say that. “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité… or something…”

That a given abstract concept is desirable or eye-catching  cannot guarantee that the processes we put in place are effective in bringing about the goal. As economic and social systems emerge out of the action of many actors, over whose goals we have no control, to create systems based on abstract goals such as equality or justice can be costly.

We have seen in history how systems based on lofty goals have produced hellish conditions to those targeted as beneficiaries and even worse effects on those targeted as culprits. The nature of processes is much more important than the abstract lofty goals we envision.  Hammering a vision into reality often ends up breaking down the pot of society.When we see the goal as the target it is easy to justify whatever means needed to bring the illusion to bear.  Ironically, such approach is often willing to do injustice to accomplish justice and to oppress to bring about equality. The Soviet regime enforced inequality by privileging members of the party who in turn allowed a vanguard to be “more equal” than they were; all for the future goal of equalization. At the bottom remained the great majority of the population who were given a promise for a future that they would never see and could not be brought about.

The Cuban nightmare was based on revolutionary justice willing to confiscate property, kill and deport people, all in the name of the ultimate goal. Those who were able to leave, or were kicked out, with nothing of their own are now the ones sending money to Cuba to try to help the ones left to build the justice of socialism there. Every experiment built on “justice” has ended in disaster, whether religious or revolutionary justice. The mirage has never materialized.

Processes ought to be judged by their effectiveness in accomplishing specific objectives not by the goals attached to them. One of the reasons why the nature of a process is more important than the goal is that process emphasizes on the reality of things. It works out systems based on what is tried and works, channeling energies toward what can be attained and giving people results that incentivize more activity. Even if the result takes trial and error and the returns take time, there is an engagement with reality that fosters action. Those who achieve get effective returns while those in systems based on goals get medals as “heroes of the revolution.” Another reason why results-oriented systems are better is that they are not dependent on definitions. Abstract philosophical discussions are hard to find in systems too busy building things that work. On the other hand, just to define what is “justice” is a daunting and divisive task. To convince those whose definition is different to acquiesce and join the party is difficult enough but even if such task is achieved you still do not have justice in the here and now.

Let us take “social justice.” We  could be here writing for hours to try to define what it is. After all attempts we might have to settle  with accepting that it can only be reduced to the common denominator of an aversion to deep inequalities.  But a reaction against the unattractiveness of a condition still cannot make that condition disappear! Supporters of economic systems as different as those supported by Fidel Castro and Milton Friedman often react with equal disgust at gross inequality but that reaction is just that, an emotion that may open the door to action.[1]  It is in the nature of the economic processes they may support as a remedy that we will find, or not, a positive outcome to attend the need, not in the emotive reaction and the desire to change things for the better by uplifting an abstract goal.

The great difference among those who lament the same condition lies not in the goals (as they might be the same) but in the nature of the systems as systems. There are those who choose to personify “society” and collectivize decision making. Then, invested with power and resources taken from others, they try to plug every whole. The nature of the process is secondary to the attainment of the goal. That is why socialists often tell us that socialism has never been really tried, it remains an enticing goal impervious to reality. Others prefer systems that work by allowing free actors to cooperate naturally and freely as to pursue better results. They see the trade-offs in a process that is tangible, one that advances from reality itself.  And that is why it works…

We have descended into a nominalistic society where universals are said to lack real existence, and this did not happen just yesterday. Words are now given new meaning at the will of a generation that truly did not know learn the basics as we were dormant in our comfort, taking liberty for granted. The new meanings are now placed at the service of ideology or convenience and we don’t like it…Too bad. The reality that can be perceived by the mind has been substituted by the perception of our senses or the taste of our appetites, what a surprise!

We hear now of “my opinion” or “our group’s opinion” as if they equate reality itself. Where were we teaching the constitution or having group discussions years ago, before we felt threatened by Obama? Many of us were simply listening approvingly to the siren sounds of Republicans who were as invested in big government as any socialist is; but they were our Progressives in conservative clothing and we liked it. Yes, admit it! Where was the outrage when Bush began to implement Keynesian economics with his stimulus? Or when he federalized airport employees, as if a Federal badge on them made them suddenly efficient? We were there justifying it. Yes, say it.

The new worldview that is now so strongly built on feelings instead of truth took decades to form and we were basking on the sun of comfort. The man of culture and thought is now shunned as archaic and elitist; out of touch with modernity. Who is now celebrated? One is the barbarian who despises mores and is “true to himself.” Authenticity is his hallmark regardless of the kind of person he is. The barbarian thinks he knows by intuition and perception and is not moved by logic and reason, as the latter are two poles of the same weapon used by the “oppressors.”

So, you can go to Occupy Wall Street and ask simple, basic questions about society or about what they actually believe and they often have no clue of what you are asking. It is for them unimportant to explain, the issue real is feeling things and thrusting forward. Or you can ask an old revolutionary about theory and he replies, “I don’t know, I only know about revolution.” And they push it forward. And now you and I want to stop them? Can reason now prevail against the powerful exertions of appetite? Were we blind then?

The other celebrated species is the degenerate. Deviance propped up by popular demand has become the new “compassion”, always ready to understand and never willing to confront. But the age of alibi formed long ago, justified by foolish research paper after foolish research paper presented to young people in colleges where we sent them. But we were then trying to elect the new Progressive Republican.

Maybe it is that it looks like it is going to finally rain and I am pessimistic or maybe it is just time for us to understand that we can win an election and still lose a country if we do not return to the basics of what liberty is. I am afraid that if the present Administration were to lose the next election many of us will grow complacent by what is seen and forget that the foundations are still eroding. Politics is but a tip of a solid cultural iceberg just beneath the surface and if we only look at the tip, disaster of Titanic proportions still awaits us. To look at Barak Obama as the great evil that needs to be stopped is simply a great mistake we are committing, confusing the effect with the cause.

Because culture is more powerful than politics, pre-rational worldviews are more essential than the present articulated policies we hate. Thus, as we fight for freedom we most move from a fight based on the concept of freedom from certain constraints into a deeper fight based on the idea of freedom for what we hold dear. We better not forget.

You can have full employment and weaker productivity, anyway. In the long run, this is economic folly and produces greater misery for more people. As economist Henry Hazlitt tells us, “Primitive tribes are naked, and wretchedly fed and housed, but they do not suffer from unemployment.”[1]

Why then our President laments that companies try to increase productivity by creating technologies that require less people?  I know that in government they see virtue in having ten union workers go on a trip to fix a light bulb. They see such exercise as placing the person over profits, giving a paycheck to a family man so he can take care of the children. Sounds lofty, sounds charitable; but it is not. As it is economic nonsense, the unintended consequences of the exercise haunt us till they destroy us.

Every time a politician comes and tries to convince you to increase some government budget or raise someone’s taxes because “it is fair”, beware! His economic vision is directed toward the accumulation of power on “wiser hands”, his own. Instead of allowing compassion and love to flow systemically, undirected, they want to impose it because they know better.

When what ought to remain as a means becomes a goal, we end up with less of what we intended to purposely maximize. The easiest thing in the world is to have full employment. Nations have used slavery, serfdom, and central planning to have full employment and the result is often misery, death, violation of rights and less production.  Start a war and recruit everyone to it and you have full employment or control all the means of production and force even the idle to work and you have the same. You can have it!

Again and again, politicians and religionists talk of full employment, minimum wage, better working conditions, more benefits, jobs plans, maternity and paternity leave, free health care, free condoms, shorter weekly hours and longer vacation time. Where is the emphasis on greater output and production? The former are discussed as if they are floating in the sky, things that exist in their own universe and cost nothing to no one, as if there is no relationship between them and production.

That is a good reason why governments crumble and societies rot. But no worries, bailouts are at hand and we will never run short of other people’s money to fix our mistakes…

“Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. … And that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money” to “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. … This is not politics; this is math.”

After doing the math using the numbers of the Joint Committee on Taxation, we see that the Federal government would add between $4 billion to $5 billion a year. Krauthammer goes to real math again and finds that if we were to collect that amount for 250 years we still would not pay for what Obama added to the deficit last year alone! You decide if our President was just doing math or playing politics. Do not put words in my mouth…

This is assuming the absurdity that raising taxes on producers would not have a deleterious long-term effect in the collection of taxes from them. History confirms the opposite, when you lower taxes, revenues increase over time. So, only a “Hail Mary” argument would make those $5 billion dollars per year materialize. Obama’s health care farce alone will cost much more and add much more to the debt in those same ten years to make the Buffett Rule become what it really is, a joke.

What about the argument from fairness? Let us, for a moment, use some logic.  If person X makes more money than person Y but pays a lower tax rate than person Y, does that necessarily mean that person X pays too low of a tax rate? Let us see the logical possibilities here. Maybe,

A. Person X pays enough but person Y pays too much;

Or,

B. Both person X and Person Y pay too little but Person Y still pays more;

Or,

C. Person X pays enough but person Y pays too much;

Or,

D. Person X pays too much and person Y too.

As we see, in purely logical terms it does not follow that if Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary then Warren Buffet pays too little. If we place some context to the logical exercise, we can surely discard alternative B, as I do not think anyone would say that person Y pays too little (although some will argue that person X does).

In terms of fairness, it simply does not follow that the fact that the secretary pays more means that the boss should pay more. When we see the secretary paying a higher tax rate we ought first to examine her tax rate. In fact, altering her tax rate will bring a tangible benefit to her while just moaning about the tax rate of her boss will only satisfy a false sense of anger, revenge, or envy but not justice.

As history tells us, again, that lowering taxes on producers increases tax revenue over time, and that lowering taxes on certain investments help the economy, it makes sense (and justice) to offer incentives to producers as to generate greater revenue.  The state is not unjust in providing such incentives that benefit the economy, and employees such as the secretary. If Buffett wanted to be fair (under his preferred vision of justice) he could abstain from applying for such benefits and pay whatever rate he needs to pay, without incentives (yes, what they call “loop-holes”).

These are not automatic benefits, you actually need to decide to ask for these exemptions. Buffett can tell his cadre of well-paid attorneys and accountants to just forget any exemptions and withdraw any legal actions he is now taking not to pay his “fair share.” To benefit from them and then ask for his hands to be forced to be just is passing the buck of justice to an impersonal entity that is not responsible for his actions; He is! It is preferring compulsion and confiscation to voluntary compassion (again under whatever view of compassion Buffett adheres to). But the state is not being unfair and the tax code is not unjust simply because it offers incentives for the expansion of the economy through benefiting certain investments.

As for me, I think that the answer here is alternative D, but that is another can of worms…

Ironically, those of us who reject comprehensive solutions and prefer the simplicity of freedom are accused of not understanding the complexity of problems. We are admonished that “reality is far more complex than just standing for freedom.” This is paired with the idea that we “should do something” instead of standing on the side.

In fact, those of us who believe in liberty shun comprehensive solutions and economic and social engineering, not from ignorance of complexity but due to its opposite. We realize that life is a mystery and so complex that it cannot be encapsulated. Reality is so complex, so wondrous, that no central planner can capture it and address it. Every time we try, a monster is created, a system that masquerades as a solution. Planners cannot offer a better alternative to organic processes at work in the market and in civil society. Freedom has demonstrated to work and the undirected person has demonstrated to do better than the directed one. This is how countries which once lived in complete poverty were able to raise to unimaginable heights of prosperity.

The problem with universal systems is precisely that they, inadvertently, assume an expansive capacity for the human mind and for comprehensive systems and fail to recognize complexity. We, on the other hand, say that society is an organism that fosters cooperation undirected. It is so complex that the best we can do is to offer space for its functioning. Universal systems assume that society is a machine and that we need then to create the right engine, we know that we can do it. There were multiple influences in the founding of our nation, it was not only the one for freedom. As Dr. Nikolai Wenzel states, “for every libertarian Patrick Henry, there was a corporatist Alexander Hamilton.” But, in the end, it was the freedom impulse the one that triumphed and made America great.

In the end, we refrain from comprehensive solutions because we humbly accept the limits of our human powers and have seen that freedom actually works! At least it works better than central planning. Freedom is not a perfect solution because there is no such thing. Liberty provides the best incentive structure, the best opportunity to gather information, the surest road to wellness, the strongest advocate of virtue. Freedom cannot rescue one soul, and it ought not try.

Liberty is not a “hit and miss” system as some complain. If we were only “do-gooders” who want to rescue people and heal the world, there would be a case for central planning, as in effect we would be just throwing rocks at the ceiling to see which one hits the mark. But we are not! We let freedom reign and allow social life to work systemically, organically. So, our “non-intervention” is in effect intentional. Our refusal to adhere to universal solutions is intentional, as they offend freedom, our best chance for success.

Yes, respond to a crisis (or make one up), inundate Media with calls for action, get politicians involved (and photographed looking either concerned or outraged), notify Al Sharpton if the issue has anything to do with race (well, that means everytime…), demand the creation of more laws (with corresponding budgetary increases), and thus expand government little by little, crisis by crisis, outrage by outrage. Of course, afterwards,  you must know what to do:

1. Suspend debate and shame anyone daring to want to “turn back the clock”;
2. Attack the opposition with government-style economics (that is, increases are always cuts if you don’t get all you want). Remember, the opposition will be too scared to cut funding but you can still accuse them of starving children or what-have-you;
3. Proclaim the problem solved with a nice ribbon cutting at some bureaucratic joint (click, click, more pictures…);
4. Claim that we did not invest enough and that is why things are getting worse instead of better;
5. Sprinkle number four with a “Things would have been even worse if we did not intervene, you know.”  Reminder: That can be used even in the many cases where things were in fact getting better before you intervened.

Now the hoodied masses (yes, I know, I just couldn’t resist to make up the word) of House of Representatives statists  and racialists want to give us laws after the tragic incident in Florida (You know, the one where a Hispanic Democrat  who used to mentor black kids, did not use a racial slur, nor volunteered the race of the young man who was unfortunately killed) Yes, just make it more difficult for honest citizens to own guns and next time maybe only the New Black Panther Party affiliates will have them to intimidate with ransoms.

All the elements are there now to move forward the Great Behemoth and steal one more piece of the pie of liberty to prevent free men to protect themselves. The throngs of busybody rule-makers that fill the Houses of Congress are getting ready to offer more power to the throngs of busybody government bureaucrats and rule-enforcers to constrain our lives even more and leave us at the mercy of those who benefit from government imposition by not caring at all about the next law in the books.

After all, a life taken, is but one more block in the great wall of collectivism. The crisis ought not go to waste.

The social construct of race is but one aspect constituting us as persons, one element in a collection of organic elements forming our being. It must never be allowed to become a totalism giving radical meaning to our reality as persons. When what is partial becomes primary we lose sight of true human dignity and run the risk of commoditizing the person. The person becomes not a being with subjective value but an object in an array of shades of color. This is so evident now in the recent death of a young black man whose subjectivity is slowly descending into the background of race wars. This incident reminds me of a lesson I learn long time ago, one offered to me by my beloved mother.

My bicycle came to a screeching halt causing me to fall. There I was, trying to get up and Migdalia was angry. It is true that I almost hit her but it was just an accident! ‘Oh Boy, it seems that it is going to be one of those days’, I thought. An uncontrollable and angry torrent of words was coming out of her mouth as I laid there with the burning rays of the Caribbean sun bathing my face. Finding myself the target of her discomforts, I was confused.

— ‘Why don’t you look where you are going!’ she blurted.

— ‘I am sorry Migdy, I did not see you,’ I replied.

— ‘Didn’t see me! Anyway, you are just a nigger.’

Puncturing the core of my soul, those words pierced my being. I didn’t know what to say or where to go but I certainly wanted to crawl somewhere. My mouth wide open, I just laid there in agony and in silence. The whole incident could not have been more than a few seconds, a shadow of a moment that strangely felt like an eternity. Suddenly, and coming to my senses, I was angry. My mind filled with confusing thoughts as my body tightened, commanding me to launch at her. But, thank God, at that moment, I remembered. ‘Yes? Well, remember that when you come back asking me to draw something for you!’

Migdy retreated immediately as if in fear or perhaps in shame. She certainly needed my help all the time and I thought that my words truly got to her. Yes, at that very moment I remembered the wisdom of my saintly mother. She always stressed the importance of accomplishment and the need to be studious. She was so proud of me just as I was, as a person. Having only a third grade education, unwillingly abandoned out of the pressing needs of a poor family in the Puerto Rican poverty of the 30s, she always understood how important the books were and what was really important. Loving, protective, and rigorous, her influence on me was considerable. Without knowing it at the time, on that burning sunny day in my beloved island I found the antidote against racialism and the answer to the meaning of my life in its deepest sense.

I felt great! Refusing to become a victim or the enemy, on that day I did not let my race define me in the absolute nor let others define me that way. Without realizing, I reclaimed my life as a free young person from the clutches of race consciousness. All of that happened on that day by an act of free choice baked by prior but unbinding dispositions under the bright Caribbean sun. On that otherwise ordinary moment, the reality of my race took the backseat in my life. My heart sutured and my body relaxed, I went back home to tell my story, one I have never forgotten. The implications no longer escape my gaze as now I can see: I am more than my color, I am a person. My accomplishments and my skills do have a power that transcends the accidents of my birth. Migdy remained a good early-years friend and readily came back for help, which I offered without complaint. I had dignity! I was somebody!

I do not hesitate in avowing the conviction that unless we stop this power grab we are heading for perilous times in America. Freedom as an unbounded independence from truth is not a rosy prospect awaiting us if we destroy the faith of a free people. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote,

“When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the highest portions of the intellect, and half paralyzes all the rest of its powers.”

Confusion is the most effective potion of demagogues who hope to gain by pretending that what they do is all for the good, as some “right” is threatened unless they act. “Just go along, give me the power, and I fix it.”  Fix what?  Where was the outcry for contraception among those working for Catholic institutions?  Where is the compelling purpose behind these unprecedented actions? Why impose a burden on those trying to live their faith according to the dictates of conscience?

What we see now is the unfolding of years of government penetration into the affairs of civil society and generations of weak leadership in our faith community. That is why the demagogues can point toward his or the other dissenting voice and abrogate the right to decide that those voices are the true ones. A unitary vision of the good can easily be imposed when those supposed to object, lay silent or acquiesce.