Paul's Passing Thoughts

Tweet Tweet…

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on January 21, 2017

The Protestant Ruse, Donald Trump, Death, and Taxes

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 9, 2016

ppt-jpeg41Is it possible that the vast Protestant industrial complex is one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on mankind? It’s not only possible; it’s a fact. And it’s not because people are stupid—stupidity is actually a human anomaly—people are logic-driven and the logic that drives their behavior and beliefs often poses as stupidity. Moreover, the accusation of stupidity is often an analytical shortcut.

However, this does not exclude lazy thinking. While the genocidal plight of the masses is truly tragic and criminal those who occupy the mass graves of human history bear some responsibility; they weren’t paying attention. And as they kneel on the side of the hole with the bulldozer parked at one end peering down at their peers at the bottom, some still writhing, they always wonder how they got there because they didn’t know. One always bears some responsibility for not knowing because nothing happens in a vacuum.

Due to the fact that it is trending, and won’t stop, one example among the myriads has posed itself for a post continually…so I type. Yes: this whole thing about corporate fat cats like Donald Trump not paying taxes and thus skirting their civic duty while expecting the little people to pay all of the taxes. The only way this nonsense can be sold to the public is via our low information society. And Americans are very guilty of assuming that these residual issues and their rhetoric do not ultimately lead to the use of bulldozers to dig mass graves.

Now we must interpret “low information.” This by no means—means that information is not available because we are in the Information Age. It means that willing intake and critical thinking is at an all-time low. And again, historically, this is what fills up the mass graves.

So, back to our prime example at hand; this whole idea that corporate fat cats can use legal loopholes to avoid paying all taxes. That’s impossible. A: in business, there are many taxes that are mandatory and have no exemptions, and B: that obviously comes out of what a company owner or corporate officer would normally take as income. One example of this would be Social Security taxes that businesses must match. Businesses MUST also pay into things like workers compensation and Medicare. These are set tax fees that are unavoidable and have NO exemptions. Businesses, by law, must also collect taxes for the government via payroll deductions which means companies must hire administrators for such purposes. And depending on what kind of business we are talking about, the profit margin may not be there after taxes and regulations.

Federal income taxes are one example of where business owners can get relief, and as Trump pointed out in the last debate a business owner would be stupid in not taking advantage of such exemptions. Hillary Clinton then seized upon the opportunity to make Trump look like someone who thinks all of the burdens of taxation should be on the little people and worse yet for things that benefit society as a whole. This is Hillary knowingly exploiting a low information public. But for what purpose?

With that said, Trump is either a very poor communicator or knows the American public doesn’t have the informational wherewithal to understand a rebuttable on such matters. Either way, it is now time for us to examine how such examples lead to societal mass death in religious and secular venues.

I work in the caregiver industry. America spends massive amounts of energy and money to assist millions with the activities of daily living (what we call “ADL”). This money comes almost completely from the mandatory taxation of American businesses. An improper balance of taxation and regulation will positively leave millions without care and people will die. In other words, few Americans can afford things like dialysis and breathing treatments out of pocket, but even for those who can, without a healthy business culture the medical infrastructure would not be there anyway. And in additional words, political positions on business taxation and regulation are a matter of life and death…literally.

And in even more words, high unemployment should cause people who depend on Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare for activities of daily living to have the following experience: their whole lives should be flashing before their eyes because it is.

Such people, those who I serve, cannot afford to be ill-informed on these matters, and if they vote according to the presuppositions of others they eventually do so to their own detriment. The present system has the money to be over-the-top generous; even with the waste and corruption. According to my firsthand experience, disabled clients get just about everything they ask for whether newer medical beds or a plethora of other medical and ADL devices not to mention assisted care and long-term care facilities.

There is one reason and one reason only that America takes care of it’s disabled better than any other country in the world ever has: capitalism…period. Yes, capitalism is a very powerful concept. The overall unique American experience is not historical happenstance and you cannot separate capitalism from American fundamentals—they go hand in hand.

Sorry, now we have to define capitalism. Yes, I know, time for thinking and that is hard. Most Americans do not know how to define capitalism, and most Americans also vote. This is also a cardinal illustration.

“Capitalism: a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government.”

~ Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

Now perhaps we come to the crux of the post. Any proposal that one is pro healthcare while demonizing mythical corporate tycoons who pay no taxes is a stunning contradiction. This is a lie deliberately told to people known to be ill-informed. And buyer beware because any idea that government should run businesses goes hand in hand with what we call “socialism” which was the historical norm until America came along.

“Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.”

~Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

And further apologies because although I am going to keep this simple, we are now going to discuss why people would think commerce should be controlled by the government. It all boils down to the ability versus inability of mankind. Man is either able or unable…that is…to do good. It’s basically a moral question. And, the latter requires a social stratum or moral class who should rule over the great unwashed masses. Don’t get lost here, no need to, this is simple math. If man is morally unable, the only hope is that something good can guide him through the dark morass of reality. So let’s have a conversation.

“Ok, so how would the difference between the masses and the needed guides be calculated? How should the ruling class be defined and determined?” Answer: historically, this is defined by KNOWLEDGE; specifically, a theoretical grasp of reality. It has always varied from culture to culture, but the family lineage one is born into can determine it or one who has shown himself or herself as an apt knower of things regarding reality according to whatever the system is that determines such. But all in all, we are talking about a social class stratum that determines who rules over whom. Social strata is always a result of presuppositions concerning mankind with the linchpin being ability or inability.

In capitalism, social strata are earned and determined by individual accomplishment. In socialism, social strata are predetermined by authority—usually via miseducation and conquest if necessary…for humanity’s own good of course. Now let’s have another conversation.

“But Paul, why would anybody jeopardize the care of the disabled by being anti-capitalistic?” Answer: because the disabled are limited in how they can contribute to the government’s ability to rule over others not to mention their limited contribution to society as a whole. Socialism sees them as takers and not givers. Their elimination becomes a moral obligation for the sake of the collective good. I would point to a cursory observation of history, but few Americans have such.

America was the first nation predicated on mankind’s ability, and the historical results plainly speak for themselves if you know history. And there is only one group better than socialists at rewriting history; Protestants.

Breakpoint: if man is unable, his only hope is an elite ruling class who must control the masses for their own good. Their access to information and resources of any kind must be limited. Any empowerment of the individual endangers humanity as a whole. Again, the metaphysical math is pretty simple, and the Bible does strike a balance in all of this, but what the Bible states in regard to all of this is not the subject of this post.

Hence, all class warfare evolves from the ability/inability of man question; government either protects the individual’s right to pursue happiness or assumes mankind is only happy when his evil desires are satisfied. America has forced socialism to change its tactics because straightforward open conquest of the individual by pain of death has been eliminated. The new strategy is to be voted into power by creating class warfare; ie., “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” etc. Teach those greedy cooperate bastards a lesson by voting us into power and we will make them pay their fair share of taxes, your education, and a fair wage.

Um, the real goal is to put American business out of business because it’s capitalism predicated on individualism and not socialism.

And, religion has always been socialism’s collaborator in this endeavor with Protestantism being no little example. Sure, shortly after the American Revolution Protestantism became a hybrid of European tradition and individualism, but Protestantism is now returning to its European roots and utter rejection of individualism. As the renowned evangelical John MacArthur Jr. recently stated, Protestantism is indeed predicated on the inability of man. This is why pro-Americanism is presently only taking place in churches that are still confused, but those churches are quickly diminishing in number. Let me point out that before America, Protestant history was defined by the burning stake, wars, the renaming of treason as “martyrdom,” and doctrines written in blood. In fact, incidents like the Salem witch trials provoked the American Revolution. Protestantism has always been about the inability of man contrary to anything Americana.

This is where I must submit that even though Americans are dumbed down by design, they may understand some things that are apparent and this might explain the Trump phenomenon. In my book, the guy is not someone who I would want to hang out with, but to some degree, do Americans understand the critical role that business plays in our societal wellbeing? Asked another way: do Americans understand capitalism more than I give them credit for? Trump’s ridiculous character aside, does the bottom line follow: he is perceived to be a successful capitalist and his followers think successful capitalism is critical to saving America? They may not know enough to verbalize it that way, but is it otherwise apparent?

Finally, as born again Christians whose nation yet remains in heaven along with our king, should our vote be moral or practical? I only pose the question and it is far from being rhetorical…because a vote for Trump may not be a vote for Trump the man, but a vote for capitalism…

…which is a matter of life and death for many.

paul

Government Is Not a Business

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on August 1, 2016

In the interest of full disclosure, I do not believe Donald Trump would be a good President.

With that being said, that does not mean I will vote for Hillary. I believe it goes without saying that Hillary Clinton should at most be doing time in prison or at the very least be disqualified as a presidential candidate. However…

In the interest of full disclosure, I believe Trump is just as dangerous as Hillary.

In fact, he may be even more so. At least with Hillary we know what we’re getting. But my own observations have led me to conclude that Trump is a pretender; someone who presents himself to be something he’s not. The Trojan Horse comes to mind (and history shows us just how well that worked out for Troy).

donald-trump-funny-faceNevertheless, I know that there are plenty of people who consider themselves “conservatives” who think that Trump is the answer to our nation’s woes. My aim here is not to convince those people otherwise (although by the end of this article you might be). One factor that people often point to with regard to Trump is this notion that he is a successful businessman. The merits of such a statement are subject to speculation, especially when one considers Trump’s four bankruptcies, his pending litigation with regard to Trump University, his failed business ventures like Trump Steaks, and the fact that he refuses to open his tax records for public scrutiny. But the topic I would like for you to consider is the question of, does being a successful businessman mean you will be a successful President? Or asked another way, should you run a government like you run a business? (Please notice I said “should” and not “can”)

As a small business owner, I am often amazed by the assumptions most people have when it comes to private business. Probably the greatest fallacy that people have is this idea that a business, any business, exists for the sole purpose of providing them (the consumer) with something they need or want. While this is ultimately an end result of business, it is only a secondary purpose at best.

You must first understand that a business is an independent entity. It exists for the sole purpose of providing for the needs and desires of the OWNER, who is also an independent entity. The reason most people don’t get this is because most of us have been conditioned to think that selfishness is evil. But that is not the case. Believe it or not, the Bible even presents selfishness in a positive manner.

“… Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” ~ Matthew 22:39

“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” ~ Galatians 5:14

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it…” ~ Ephesians 5:29

You will notice that the Bible doesn’t tell us to love ourselves LESS than others. It tells us to love others AS MUCH AS we love ourselves. Loving oneself is intrinsic to who we are as individuals. It is not evil to love oneself. It is in fact a necessary part of survival and self-preservation. We are wired in such a way to instinctively seek out those things that will help further our own existence. Ayn Rand called this the “virtue of selfishness”.

In the quest for furthering one’s existence, some people will discover that they are particularly adept at some skill and will then use that skill to produce those things they need to sustain life; farming, building, making clothes, etc. Those who are especially adept discover that they end up with a surplus of production. Rather than letting the surplus go to waste, they seek out others who may have a surplus of their own production – something they the deem necessary for their own existence – and enter into a fair exchange with another individual, value for value. Trade is nothing more than two individuals, each with a surplus of production, entering into a fair exchange of value. And thus, a business enterprise is born.

So you see, any individual engaging in a business venture is doing so in order to meet his own perceived needs. Therefore, those things produced by a business are a product of the business owner; the individual. A business therefore is a representation of the individual; his “self”. It belongs to him because he produced it. And so, because it belongs to him, it is up to the business owner and him alone to decide how to dispose of it, according to that which will best help him to further his means of sustaining his own existence.

A mutual exchange of value for value is the key to every inter-personal relationship throughout the course of our lives. And it is up to each individual to determine what constitutes “fair and equitable”, and if one party does not consider the exchange to be fair, then he is under no obligation to engage in it.

This mutual exchange extends to employees. When the means of production have become too overwhelming for the business owner to handle by himself, rather than reduce production, he may deem it desirable to hire a labor force to expedite production. This brings up another false assumption that people have about business – that businesses exist to create jobs. My response to this is a resounding NO! Businesses are not in the business of producing jobs, they are in the business of production for the benefit of the business owner alone! But when labor becomes necessary to the success of the owner in achieving his ends, he determines wages based on what he decides to be the value of the TASK, NOT the value of the worker. A potential worker can then decide if he wishes to engage in such an exchange (his labor for agreed-upon wages). But it is important to note that neither party compels the other to engage in an exchange that is not deemed mutually beneficial by both.

Because the business owner is motivated by moral self-interest, any power he has is self-appointed. In other words, he can take whatever steps necessary to achieve his ends, which is rooted in furthering his own existence. The only restraint to his power is another self-actualizing individual. His power ends where another begins. His power cannot violate another individual from furthering his existence. One “self” cannot violate another “self”.

From a certain aspect, the individual/business is much like a tyrant. He makes the rules to benefit himself. He has the liberty to dispose of his resources as he sees fit because he is the owner of them (yes, even labor because remember that labor has been “purchased” in exchanged for something of value that has been mutually agreed upon) because he produced them. They are a representation of “self”. He is free to take whatever action he thinks is necessary to achieve his ends of furthering his ability to exist. But such tyranny and pragmatism is tempered by the morality of mutual exchange of value.

These same characteristics apply even if the business is a corporation. While a corporation is in reality a “collective” that consists of a CEO, board of directors, and shareholders, it is technically considered to be a individual entity, much like a “body” is made up of individual “parts” that function as a whole. Therefore, the same truisms that apply to an individual business owner also hold true for a corporation.

But a government (and for argument’s sake, let us assume the U.S. federal government as prescribed by the Constitution) is not a business. A government does not exist for the benefit of itself. A government exists to secure and preserve the RIGHTS of the individual. The “Founding Fathers” understood this when they penned these words in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

If there can be said to be any moral justification for government, it is here. We acknowledge that the rights of the individual are endowed to them by virtue of them being individual “self”. That “self” has the right to seek out those things which further its own existence. That government is practical in helping to ensure that such rights are not violated.

So first and foremost, government is not a business because government is not a “self”. If anything, it is a collective appointed by many “selfs” for the express benefit of those “selfs”. Said another way, government is not self-actualizing and it does not exist to serve its own interest, it exists for the express purpose of serving another.

And this brings us to another point, that government only exists by consent. It cannot wield any power without that power first being loaned to it by the consent of those of whom it is to govern.   A business needs no consent to exist or wield power any more than an individual needs consent to exercise his power to live. Without consent, however, ANY government is immoral because it presumes to usurp for itself that which does not belong to it.

A third point to consider is that government produces nothing. Let me say that again. Government is a producer of nothing! For government to be a producer it would have to have something of value to offer as a representation “self”, and we have already established that government is not a “self”. And since it is not a “self” and produces nothing, it has nothing to offer in an exchange of value. Unless of course it first confiscates what someone else has produced. Before government can “give” you anything it must first take it from someone else, most often by force. This is the definition of theft.

For these very reasons, by definition and by the proper and moral usage of government, government MUST NOT be run like a business. Any government that attempts to run as such ultimately ends up tyrannical and becomes destructive of the rights of the individual.

Therefore, since government is not a business, the notion that someone would make a good president because he was a good businessman should not even be offered for consideration. I would submit that our federal government has been already been operating like a business (granted, a poorly run business) for far too long. It has been operating for the benefit of itself and those in its collective body instead of operating for the purpose of securing individual rights.   Government does not need a different CEO, it needs to operate within the constraints placed upon it by consent of the governed as enumerated by the Constitution.

Is Donald Trump a good businessman? Perhaps. How does he function as a businessman? He spends other people’s money (investors) and then goes bankrupt leaving those investors out to dry. He engages in business ventures that lure in consumers with bait-and-switch tactics. He oversteps the bounds of law in order to achieve his own desired benefit for his business at the expense of others. He uses power, money, and influence to coerce others to do what he wants. Could not the same be said of Hillary? Trump claims he is not a politician, but haven’t politicians engaged in these very same behaviors for decades?

In the end, the argument doesn’t come down to Hillary vs. Trump or whether or not you think Trump is a good businessman or whether or not you think he’s a politician. The argument is first and foremost about the proper role and use of government. The argument is about finding a leader who will be willing to operate under constraint.

Andy

%d bloggers like this: