·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Salute America's Heroes, support Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Global Warming theory, oppose Al Gore, support milblogs, support Michael Yon, support Pat Dollard, support BlackFive, support MilBlogs, support MilBlogging, support Mudville Gazette, support HotAir.Com, support JawaReport, support PajamasMedia, support VictoryCaucus, support VetsForFreedom, support FreedomsWatch, support DayByDayCartoon, support Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, support polisatDOTcom video, Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support http://PoliSat.Com, support http://WrennCom.Com, oppose Clinton Library, support Clinton Liebrary, support http://ClintonLiebrary.Com, support http://ClintonLiebraryBook.Com, support ICANN, oppose terrorism, oppose jihadists, oppose energyandcapital.com, oppose justforeignpolicy.org . http://PoliSat.Com

Freedom of Speech and Labor..

    The Declaration of Independence proclaimed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to be inalienable rights, but the Bill of Rights changed the phrase to "life, liberty and property." 1 The intrinsic, emotional desirability of the pursuit of happiness virtually guaranteed its widespread acceptance as a goal of the revolution and enhanced the slogan's motivational effect. In contrast, a common-sense understanding of property as an essential element of "liberty" required rational analysis making it unlikely for such concept to gain widespread understanding. Including "pursuit of happiness" in the revolutionary slogan was redundant but useful, and omitting it from the Bill of Rights subtracted nothing from the concept of "liberty."  Inclusion of "property" in the revolutionary slogan was not necessary, nor would it have inspired revolutionary fervor, but the absence of a widespread common-sense understanding of it as an essential component of "liberty" made its inclusion in the Rill of Rights necessary.  (.back to top.)
    The purposes of the Declaration of Independence were to articulate moral justifications for the revolution and inspire emotional support for it.  The goals of the Constitution were "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."  See footnote 2.
    The Constitution's design of government accomplished all those goals except that it failed to "secure ... Liberty"  3  until adoption of the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments, which secured the "Liberty" by explicitly identifying individual rights not to be infringed by government, explicitly including property as a right not to be infringed absent "due process of law"  4 and not to be "taken for public use without just compensation,"  5 and explicitly stating that its "enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  6.  (.back to top.)
    The pursuit-of- happiness phrase increased the revolutionary slogan's motivational power because its emotional desirability made it intrinsically acceptable without need for rational analysis or ideological explanation.  In contrast, property was a legal concept not likely to have been understood to be an essential component of "liberty" without rational analysis.  Gaining widespread acceptance of an idea is easy when it's an emotionally desirable one but difficult when it's an intellectual concept requiring rational analysis to be understood.  This distinction illustrates a truth about human nature, understanding of which is essential to devise effective means to impart widespread understanding of private enterprise as a human-rights concept rather than merely as an economic-efficiency concept.  (.back to top.)
    Ignorance about private enterprise is so widespread because we who do understand it have failed to motivate those who don't to do the common-sense thinking necessary to understand its nature as a human-rights concept.  Paradoxically, the same proliferation of means of communication and entertainment which offers unprecedented opportunities for us to disseminate such knowledge on a widespread basis also makes such task more difficult because the pervasive availability of entertainment diminishes people's willingness to forego leisure in favor of mental work.  (.back to top.)
    A desire for relief from emotional discomfort stimulates rational analysis to discover and obtain relief. This process continues until the brain obtains relief or concludes that none exists. When the brain passively receives relief (such as an external stimulus or spontaneous ending of discomfort) without having to perform any significant degree of rational analysis, it merely associates memories of the sources of discomfort and relief.  When it actively procures relief (or concludes that none exists) through rational analysis, it associates such rational analysis and conclusion with its memory of the source of discomfort.  (.back to top.)
    The brain simply doesn't bother to perform rational analysis absent an emotional incentive to seek relief, comfort or pleasure.  Although few of us may have consciously drawn this common-sense conclusion, we intuitively understand it from our everyday experiences.  A fleeting, mild pain in the arm usually doesn't stimulate rational analysis, but a severe one will almost certainly start a rational-analysis search for relief until the brain finds a remedy, concludes that none exists (or that the problem is merely temporary), or passively receives relief.  Our learning that a stranger died in a traffic accident may cause momentary discomfort but is not likely to stimulate rational analysis absent additional information making it self-evident that circumstances contributing to that accident pose a risk to us.  Such perception of personal risk gives us an emotional incentive for rational analysis seeking ways to eliminate, avoid or reduce such risk.  (.back to top.)
    None of us is inclined to engage in an extensive rational-analysis search for a solution to someone else's problem absent an emotional incentive to do so.  For example, the discomfort we experience when we personally encounter an accident involving someone else stimulates our rational-analysis search for ways to be helpful.  The comfort we derive from our pride in feeling helpful motivates us to do so.  If we were to devise a way to help a victim stay alive until the arrival of medical assistance, we would thereby learn a solution we'd never forget.  In contrast, when we encounter an accident with medical assistants already at the scene, our belief in their expertise relieves our discomfort enough to prevent us from feeling obligated to be helpful.  (.back to top.)
    The same phenomena govern our responses to our perceptions of social problems.  A description of an apparent social problem creates emotional discomfort stimulating a desire for the comfort of feeling that we're willing to try to be helpful.  Such desire to be helpful stimulates rational analysis to determine how to do so, but when a solution proposed by someone we perceive as having expertise accompanies or immediately follows the description of the problem, our belief that someone else has determined a solution diminishes our discomfort enough to terminate rational analysis (unless, of course, the proposed solution is obviously illogical).  This process short-circuits our evaluation of the problem by substituting the comfort of believing someone else is solving it for the discomfort from recognizing it.  (.back to top.)
    Acceptance of emotionally desirable goals occurs effortlessly but comprehension of intellectual concepts requires mental work. If all Americans were asked to complete the phrase, "America stands for life, liberty and ___," the vast majority would say "pursuit of happiness."  Few would say "property," because few understand property to be the Constitution's description of a human-rights concept essential to liberty from oppressive government.  (.back to top.)
    Almost everyone considers property to be a thing (such as a physical object, money or stock) rather than the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits.  It's easy to understand why this misconception is so widespread-- it's simply more convenient to use the word describing the thing over which the law of property gives us rights of control.  For example, nearly everyone thinks a tangible thing (such as a table, money or stock) is property rather than understanding it to be an exchangeable representation of property (i.e., of human labor).  (.back to top.)
    The vast majority of people would consider a tree on an undiscovered, uninhabited island to be property (and most environmental activists would consider it to be nature's property).  They'd consider an explorer's discovery of the tree to be a discovery of property rather than understanding the act of discovery to be the creation of property (i.e., rights created by the labor of discovery). They'd consider cutting-down the tree to be a taking (or destruction) of nature's property rather than understanding such act to be the creation of additional property (i.e., creation of additional rights by additional labor).  Such prevailing view of property stands the concept on its head by viewing natural resources as "property" having intrinsic "rights" not to be "exploited" by human labor.  This neo-pantheistic philosophy views humans as servants or slaves of nature rather than as beings with inalienable rights to create property by human-labor alteration of nature.  (.back to top.)
    Common sense suggests that the concept of property as an inherent, individual right evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.  Surely a prehistoric man believed he was entitled to control an uninhabited cave he found, an animal he killed or captured, or anything he built or created.  The Ten Commandments recognized the pre-existing state of the concept of property by simply stating "Thou shall not steal."  In the evolution of human society, the increasing concentration of governmental power enabled governmental authorities to assert ownership of, or the "right" to control, the fruits of their subjects' labors.  Feudalism was but one of many examples of governmental power being used to assert governmental ownership of the fruits of labor by individuals subservient to such power. Consequently, ordinary people gradually acquired the erroneous belief that the government was entitled to the fruits of their labor.  (.back to top.)
    One of the goals of the American Revolution's intellectual leaders was to reassert individual rights intuitively understood at the dawn of human civilization.  One of the goals of the revolution's constitutional finale was to formally articulate those rights and create permanent, constitutional barriers against repetition of the historically demonstrated, inherent, tendency of government to limit, usurp, or destroy them.  During the revolutionary stage, virtually all colonists had a strong intuitive understanding of property because colonial society still retained enough of a pioneer/explorer spirit to view their own efforts, rather than government, as the source of their rights.  However, only the few who had studied philosophy had acquired an intellectual understanding of property as a legally recognized, exchangeable representation of the inherent human right to control the fruits of one's own labor.  (.back to top.)
    Even though English common law was gradually extending legal recognition to the dawn-of-civilization, intuitive concept of property as an inherently individual right, most Englishmen (including the colonists) still considered "property" as something apart from the individual who created it -- i.e., they would have considered a table to be "property" rather than intellectually understanding it to be a legally-exchangeable representation of human labor.  Despite such progress under common law and the brilliance of Eighteenth Century philosophers, the re-evolution of the pre-historic, intuitive understanding of property as a human right would have progressed slowly and episodically absent the American Revolution because it was the American colonists' pioneer/explorer culture and English heritage that gave them a unique combination of an intuitive understanding of the value of freedom forged from the necessity of self-reliance and an allegiance to the limited-government philosophy which had been steadily evolving in English law since the Magna Carter.  (.back to top.)
    The absence of such unique combination doomed the French Revolution to failure because the slogan, "liberty, fraternity, equality" failed to mature into an understanding of property as a human right.  Viewing property as static thing rather than understanding it as an exchangeable, dynamic representation of human labor led the French revolutionaries to view "equality" through the lens of results rather than opportunity.  Such static view of property and the consequent result-oriented view of equality foreshadowed collectivist philosophies that emerged in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries such as socialism and communism.  (.back to top.)
    The static view of property widespread among people today makes them susceptible to propagandistic, collectivists, class-warfare arguments that the "distribution" of property is "unfair." The now widespread use of statistical analyses to provide socio-political theories with a scientific imprimatur has further obscured the meaning of property as a result of casual, un-defined use of the statistical term "distribution" to describe patterns of economic achievements.  This leads people unfamiliar with the statistical meaning of "distribution" to wrongly believe that control of a large percentage of total wealth by a small percentage of individuals is evidence of some hidden, sinister mechanism to unfairly "distribute" wealth to a few at the expense of the many.  In contrast, anyone understanding property to be a legally-recognized exchangeable representation of human labor would know that such wide disparities in wealth simply reflect wide disparities in human labor, creativity and risk-taking.  (.back to top.)
    It's difficult to identify a particular point in American history when the static view of property gained widespread acceptance.  At least through the end of the American frontier, most individuals perceived themselves as being in control of their own destinies and responsible for their own fates, and such perceptions reinforced their intuitive, common-sense understanding of property as a dynamic process.  By the end of the New Deal, a static view of property based on an expectation of governmental responsibility for, and a belief its ability to provide for, the material well-being of individuals had completely supplanted the frontier-era belief in self-responsibility. Each incremental increase in the government's role as provider necessarily reduced the need for Americans to perceive themselves as being primarily responsible for their own destinies.  Now, as we near the end of the Twentieth Century, the political belief that part of government's responsibility is to "distribute" property "fairly" has become widespread while government leaders pay lip service to the principles of a "market economy."  (.back to top.)
    The current trend is discouraging, to say the least.  If we who understand private enterprise are to reverse this accelerating trend, we must disseminate educational information in a form and manner creating an emotional incentive for the consumer of the information to engage in rational analysis of the information.  It's been easy for those with a collectivist, static-property mindset to gain widespread acceptance of their philosophical viewpoint because such acceptance merely requires that their ideas have emotional desirability.  The challenge for those of us who understand private enterprise as a human-rights concept is to create effective emotional incentives for people to apply their common-sense, rational-analysis capabilities in analyzing problems and proposals for solutions.  (.back to top.)
    We who understand the human-rights nature of private enterprise tend to believe that people ought to be motivated to rationally analyze social problems and proposals for solutions. From that premise, most of us are inclined to believe that we are more "rational" and less "emotional" than those who don't understand the principles that seem so clear to us.  We think "they" don't understand because they're just "too lazy" to exert the mental effort to learn what we've learned. These are incorrect views of ourselves as well as of them.  (.back to top.)
    What motivated us to learn the truths we understand?  Emotions motivated us to do so-- e.g., the emotional satisfaction of feeling that we're responsible citizens, the fun of mental combat with opponents, the emotional satisfaction of problem-solving, pride in being willing and able to analyze complex issues, pride in perceiving ourselves as realists making decisions based on objective logic rather than emotionalism.  (.back to top.)
    What could motivate "them" to learn these truths?  Emotions, of course.  If we're really able to be realists, we must accept the fact that emotions motivated us to learn what we know and that if we're really as smart as we think we are, we should be able to determine how to furnish educational information to the pubic in ways that provide emotional incentives for "them" to apply rational analysis to the same issues.  If we were to do that, their own common sense would do the rest.  (.back to top.)
    The remainder of this paper presents my opinions about the kinds of methods of persuasion proven to be effective and recommendations for a general plan of action to implement, recommend, and support adoption of such methods to effectively convey to the public at large a common-sense understanding of private enterprise.  (.back to top.)

A. Demonstrably effective methods of persuasion.
Several demonstrably effective methods of persuasion serve as examples of methods that could be used in, or adapted to, broader contexts to effectively convey to the public at large a common-sense understanding of private enterprise:

1. Universally understood analogies, metaphors or similes. Several years ago, I attended a seminar in Richmond by Walter Williams.  He delivered the most brilliant explanation of the inherent advantages of private enterprise over governmental control I've ever heard.  Of course, those attending his seminar were already believers, so he was essentially "preaching to the choir," but his presentation demonstrated superior insight into how to use emotional incentives (humor and entertainment) to induce listeners to rationally analyze information. His presentation used sex as an analogy for economic activity.  He demonstrated that private enterprise is analogous to consensual sex and governmental control is analogous to rape.  In private enterprise, as in consensual sex, each person consensually enters into the activity on the condition that each one's goal is to satisfy the other one's needs or desires -- i.e., each one says to the other, "If you'll make me feel good, I'll make you feel good."  Under governmental control, as in rape, the government's threat of harm to the citizen is what coerces the citizen into compliance with the government's wishes -- i.e., like a rapist, the government says, "If you don't make me feel good, I'm going to make you feel bad."  (.back to top.)
    By using a universally understood aspect of human behavior as an analogy, Williams accomplished several important educational goals:  First, even though each of us attending the seminar already agreed with his contention that private enterprise is inherently superior to socialistic activity, his analogy made each of us better understand why;  Second, his entertaining metaphor kept everyone's attention; Third, the aptness of his metaphor made the lesson unforgettable; and Fourth, I'm sure that everyone else who attended the seminar has, as have I, repeatedly used that analogy with persuasive effect in subsequent discussions with friends who don't understand private enterprise.  (.back to top.)
..
2. Satire and parody. One of the main reasons for the unprecedented success of a controversial radio talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh, is that he uses satire and parody as emotional incentives to attract and keep listeners.  Although I'm sure most of his regular listeners agree with much of his political philosophy, I'm equally sure that surveys of his listeners would show that people who disagree with many aspects of his philosophy comprise a substantial percentage of his regular listeners.  Many in this latter category are attracted by his use of satire and parody (especially the musical parodies) for the same reasons they enjoy watching "Saturday Night Live."  Common sense warrants an assumption that his program causes some of those listeners to undergo at least some degree of philosophical change towards his philosophy.  It's my personal opinion that most other radio talk-shows are less successful because they're less entertaining, and most of them (regardless of whether they're "liberals" or "conservatives") are merely "preaching to the choir" rather than attracting listeners with opposing political viewpoints.  (.back to top.)
..
3. Commercials generally. Virtually all business who advertise understandably limit their advertising goal to that of persuading consumers to purchase their products or services.  Few businesses perceive their general interest in conveying the principles of private enterprise to be directly beneficial enough to expend any significant portion of their advertising budgets to support advertising that illustrates the superiority of private enterprise over collectivist/socialist activity. Occasionally, virtually all businesses in a particular industry have conducted successful public-education campaigns generically explaining the superiority of private enterprise in that industry or the dangers in increasing the government's regulatory control over it.  That's how the medical-insurance industry created grass-roots opposition to Hillary Clinton's health-care proposals. This should have taught us that lobbying the public can be much more effective than lobbying legislators and that lobbying the public, unlike lobbying legislators, is less susceptible to mischaracterization by class-warfare propagandists as a sinister plot by the rich against the poor.  (.back to top.)
..
4. Entertainment generally. One of the most successful capitalist industries in history is the American entertainment industry, which, paradoxically, has now become the most ubiquitous source of anti-capitalist philosophy since the Bolshevik revolution.   Also paradoxically, despite the anti-capitalist and anti American-culture  7 attitudes permeating American movies and television programs exported throughout the world, American culture (including its capitalistic nature) is the most popular culture in the world.  These paradoxes lead to a third one: the obvious fact that the high-rewards-for-high-risks aspect of capitalism is the foundation of the financial success of those in the entertainment industry who use the platform created by that success to promote socialistic ideas rather than free-market ideas.  Apparently, although they certainly understand that the prospect of high rewards is a major factor in motivating them to take high risks, they arrogantly support political "reforms" that have the effect of limiting the reward-for-risk incentive for what they condescendingly consider to "unwashed masses."  Most of them will probably never shed such arrogant view or even understand its inherently contradictory nature because they have an insatiable desire to believe that their success is solely the product of their extraordinary talent rather than understanding that absent the principles of capitalism, their talents probably would have remained undiscovered forever.  (.back to top.)
    Believing it's extremely unlikely that they will ever outgrow such arrogant, condescending, self-important views unless and until a pro-capitalism/anti-socialism view were to become fashionable, I think that those of us who do understand capitalism must take responsibility to find a way to make a pro-capitalism/anti-socialism view fashionable.   If that were to occur, it would change their attitudes almost overnight.  (.back to top.)
..
5. Politics generally. Throughout most of the Cold War, the American intellectuals perceived the probable outcome of the struggle between capitalism and socialism to be a "democratic" form of socialism exemplified by activist-government philosophy of John Kenneth Galbraith.  Ronald Reagan, a non-intellectual with the gift of extraordinary common sense, single-handedly defeated this philosophy at home and socialism abroad by uttering a few simple truths in an emotionally appealing, non-condescending way.  He said the Soviet Union was an "evil empire"; that collectivism would "end up on the ash heap of history" and that the way to reduce nuclear arms was to demonstrate to the Soviets that we had the ability and will to out-build them.  Although Hollywood never understood these common-sense principles, the American people did, and it was Reagan's infectious optimism about the American people that provided the emotional incentive for them to consider, understand, and accept the common-sense nature of his proposals.  Probably it was his entertainment-industry understanding of the need to first appeal to people on an emotional level in order to attract and hold their attention in order to motivate them to apply rational analysis to reach common-sense conclusions.  Therefore, we who understand private enterprise must devise ways to utilize the entertainment industry and their techniques to motivate people to apply common sense to social, economic and political issues.  (.back to top.)
..
6. The "Do-Gooder" image. In recent decades, the public's natural respect, admiration and support towards charitable activities has morphed into almost reflexive respect, admiration and support towards any activity or organization described as being "non-profit."  This is because the collectivist, anti-capitalist attitude prevalent in the entertainment and news media (now merged into the "infotainment" media) has convinced people that "profit" is bad and, therefore, non-profit motives are intrinsically good.  The only way to combat this is for those who understand capitalism to wage an unrelenting campaign to expose as often as possible the almost countless instances in which political agendas rather than genuinely "do good" motives are the driving forces behind so many of the "do-gooder" organizations.  (.back to top.)
..
7. Politicization of science.  When I attended college in the '60's, "political science" meant the academic (i.e., "scientific") study of politics, but few, if any, envisioned the mixture of politics and science prevalent today.  Those with a pantheistic, collectivist agenda have succeeded in distorting scientific methodology and terminology for political, propagandistic purposes.  For example, they have duped the media into uncritically accepting and propagating an unscientific meaning of the word "cause" by using the word "cause" to describe statistically acceptable inferences of probability from "scientific studies."  Such uncritical, thoughtless and inappropriate usage of the term "cause" has effectively destroyed it's specific, unique meaning as a scientific term and allows those with a pantheistic, collectivist agenda to use the media to convey their opinions to the public with an imprimatur of scientific validity.  Marx and Lenin similarly tried to disguise their political views as being the product of a "scientific" understanding of human society.  (.back to top.)
    Commencement of the political war against smoking marked the beginning of this gradual re-definition of the scientific meaning of words such as "cause."  It's should be easy to illustrate the fallacy in the now-prevalent understanding of the meaning of the word "cause."  If a drug manufacturer were to market a product by claiming that it would "cause" hair to grow and base such claim on statistical studies that 10% of those using it experience hair-growth, the Federal Trade Commission would (rightly) challenge such advertising as fraudulent.  However, on a subject such as smoking, those claiming to be "scientists" rationalize that the nobleness of their goal justifies their characterization of smoking as a "cause" of cancer rather than merely accurately stating that the cancer rate is a given percentage higher among smokers than among non-smokers.  For those who have anti-smoking views, this may seem unimportant.  However, political mis-use of scientific terminology leads to Orwellian results.  For example, even though the habit of smoking cigarettes does not fit the scientific, medical definition of "addiction," the anti-smoking legislators in Congress felt free to characterize as "perjury" the sworn statements by tobacco-company executives that they did not consider nicotine to be addictive. This type of political misuse of terminology can easily lead to witch hunts.  (.back to top.)
    Such deliberate misuse of scientific terminology coupled with the inclination of media representatives who uncritically disseminate such information due to their scientific ignorance or political sympathy with the agendas of various activist groups promoting themselves as the protectors of the public, the environment, animals, etc. has produced a widespread misunderstanding of the scientific method and the scientific meaning of words such as "cause." Previously, everyone understood that "cause" described an event or circumstance that would invariably produce a particular result.  Lighting a match near gasoline fumes will cause an explosion. Standing on a golf course during a severe thunderstorm may increase the statistical risk of being struck by lightning, but it doesn't "cause" one to be struck by lightning.  The meaning of "cause" is easily understood with common sense.  Unless we devise ways to restore the previous, widespread understanding of "cause," those favoring private enterprise cannot seriously hope to combat the intensifying attacks against it by a wide variety of activists groups who misuse such scientific terminology to convince the public that particular business activities "cause" injury to people, damage to the environment, etc.  (.back to top.)
..
9. Educate the choir to stop being its own worst enemy. Often I've heard successful people bragging about how their (or their accountant's) superior knowledge of the tax code enabled them to have "the government pay for" some legitimately deductible but personally enjoyable activity.  Even though I'm sure most (if not all) those people did not believe their income belonged to the government rather than to them, their egotistical desire to brag about how clever they were was an example of the kind of behavior that provides emotionally attractive, yet invalid, arguments for class-warfare propaganda by those with a collectivist, static-property philosophy who have already convinced the population at large that a tax cut is a "benefit" from the government.  (.back to top.)
..
10. Compete in Academia. Other than in the entertainment industry, academia is probably the sector of society most infected with a faith-in-socialism philosophy viewing capitalism as a wild beast that must be controlled by governmental programs with "good" intentions.  Why?  Because the professorial role appeals to intellectuals who believe they are so much smarter than everyone else and has much less appeal to those of us who understand capitalism.  But, paradoxically, it's their belief that the unwashed masses would not appreciate their wisdom that leads them to seek refuge in academia with the goal of ultimately reaching tenure-heaven.  The best way to reduce the pro-socialistic/anti-capitalistic philosophy prevalent in academia would be for capitalists to do a better job of competing in, and expanding, the now-limited marketplace of ideas in academia. I think those of us favoring capitalism need to persuade large numbers of corporations to start funding professorial positions in academia to be occupied on a rotating basis exclusively by people who've demonstrated success in the business world.  (.back to top.)
..
11. Help the News Media Educate Themselves.  Although many in the news media are attracted to that occupation by the same craving for recognition that most strongly motivates most in the entertainment industry, there are enough people in the news media not permanently wedded to the anti-capitalistic/pro-socialistic philosophy that there are genuine grounds for hope that the news media can outgrow that philosophy.  Since they want to believe that they are most strongly motivated to be independent (even though they tend to follow whatever may the fashionable intellectual trend at any given time), I think the best way help them outgrow their current philosophy would be for those of us who understand capitalism to fund, and then not interfere with, an independent media think-tank on whether capitalism or statism has been, is being, or will be, the most effective protector of free speech.  Once they begin giving serious thought to the matter, many of them will readily recognize that capitalism and free speech are inseparable.  (.back to top.)
..
12. Use the Internet. I think most thoughtful people already recognize that the Internet will affect our society and the rest of the world more profoundly than did the invention of television.  It's the electronic version of the printing press except that it will become a printing press for everyone.  As instantaneous worldwide communication becomes a tool easily useable by everyone, it will affect the relationships between the governed and the governors in a profoundly fundamental way.  It will become the ultimate guarantor of free speech.  I think that those of use who understand capitalism should fund a highly-sophisticated, world-wide, internet presence to help disseminate understanding that freedom and capitalism are inseparable and that the narcotic of a belief in the illusion of a benevolent statism is the greatest threat to human liberty.  © 1999.
--Jim Wrenn, Editor 

1. Emphasis added (back to text)
2.. Preamble to the Constitution. Emphasis added. (back to text)
3. Although it imposed limitations on taxation and prohibited laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts" [Article I, Sections 9 and 10], those provisions only impliedly recognized private property.. (back to text)
4. Fifth Amendment  (back to text)
5. Id.  (back to text)
6. Ninth Amendment  (back to text)
7. In using the phrase "anti American-culture" (rather than "anti-American culture") I am referring to what I perceive as an elitist, condescending disapproval of the middle-class-American version of Western culture.  (back to text)