Detailed Abstractions

For more than 20 years now, with legislation leading back almost 40 years, the United States government has been pushing the idea that every citizen should have a home.

Based upon several studies showing high correlations with positive societal behavior for homeowners, politicians, leaders, non-profits, lots of people pushed for easier access to affordable housing.  In a Federal Reserve report published in 1999, they state:

A number of recent studies attempt to measure whether there are nontraditional benefits to homeownership, such as increases in the success of children (Green and White [5]), citizenship (DiPasquale and Glaeser [3]), and a variety of family outcomes and attitudes (Rossi and Weber [11])….

This is only 1/2 the story of course.  What these studies, our politicians, our leaders, & the rest of them  can’t conclude from this data is whether home ownership actually affects any of these additional traits.  The study itself hints at this:

…Because of the preferential tax treatment accorded homeowners, particularly low-income homeowners, and the large degree of wealth accumulated in housing, these authors argue that it is important to know the full range of homeownership benefits and costs. However, given the difficulty of credibly assigning causality to housing externalities, it is not surprising that such factors have been previously ignored.

In one such paper, Green and White [5] find a strong statistical correlation between homeownership and the likelihood of dropping out of school or becoming pregnant. Yet a reasonable interpretation of their result is that of omitted variable bias. Clearly, homeowners are different from renters along a variety of dimensions. As a result, those factors that are latent in their work, such as parental skills, interest in the educational process, wealth, and family stability, potentially bias upward any homeownership effect….

In other studies, they show correlations between home ownership & wealth accumulation, to help give more force to the “everyone needs a home” meme (study dated 2004):

For many years the federal government has promoted homeownership as an important goal for low-income families. A primary motivation of this policy goal is the concept that owner-occupied housing can be an important means of wealth accumulation, particularly for those lower-income and minority families that are able to purchase homes….

They as well admit the difficulty with this assessment:

…However, very little has been done in the housing literature to determine the importance of housing and non-housing sources of wealth accumulation. This determination has been difficult to address for three reasons. First, detailed wealth information on families is seldom available on a consistent basis. Second, such information on wealth is even less likely to be available over time so that changes in wealth can be observed. Third, the process of housing wealth accumulation is dynamic. Housing wealth accumulation depends critically on how soon a family that is renting becomes a homeowner, whether or not the family graduates to more highly valued owned units over time, or becomes a renter again and never regains homeownership….

With the current practice of press & political standards however, you might be hard pressed to find any evidence that assigning non-traditional benefits to home ownership is anything but an unqualified good.  The majority of reports dealing with low income housing stimulus are positive  (here & here).

In some cases, overly emotional logic is used (here):

After business dried up in May, Jodi Morris’ employer, an insurance agent, stopped sending paychecks.

Since then, the 43-year-old single mother has had to sell almost all of her furniture – her kitchen table and chairs, bed frames, dresser and armoire, and living room set – to pay the bills.  Morris and her 7-year-old daughter, Karly, now sleep on mattresses on the floor of their two-bedroom Ahwatukee apartment. And with no table, the two eat dinner on their cream-colored couch.

An eviction notice that arrived this month threatened to put Morris and Karly out on the street.  But Morris could be the first Phoenix resident to receive a lifeline from the federal government that seeks to rescue those on the verge of homelessness….

& without exception, our government is not immune.  The US government is right now, before the housing crisis even fully contracts (I wrote about it here), spending money to help low income families purchase homes.

Even before the housing crisis though, economists, experts, non-profits, were asking whether home ownership should be considered an unqualified good.  Unfortunately, reports questioning these basic assumptions are a very low percentage compared to the constant noise.

In some cases, even questioning the wisdom of subsidizing low income home ownership has resulted in kill the messenger attacks from non-profit groups, community leads, and even Democratic leadership, by leveling charges of racism.  With a simple misdirection trick, questioning the basic assumptions is anti-low income & since low-income households are generally minorities, questioning these assumptions must be due to institutional racism.   Politicians and leaders everywhere have a grand ole time setting up straw men in a fields of hay while standing by with gasoline and matches, but we should expect more.  We should expect to be able to ask all relevant questions we can and to get answers to as many questions as possible.  Lastly, we should let the data lead to its natural conclusion.

Assuming we truly want the best answers we can get and the best progress we can have, we must be willing to ask tough questions and live with the answers reality presents.

Anything less is little better than just allowing random superficial rhetoric to control policy.  It’s almost like we never moved away from the world Richard Feynman spoke about in 1974:

…But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.

Over at the Huffington Post, Keli Goff wrote an interesting, yet disturbingly short sighted piece about particular health care costs which exist in large part due to personal private choices.

She begins the piece titled Mad at Greedy Insurers for This Health Care Mess? Then Why Aren’t You Mad at Your Greedy Neighbors discussing the government’s bail out of private businesses:

Raise your hand if you are still filled with anger when you hear the name AIG and picture the more than $100 million of your tax dollars that were delegated–without your consent–for employee bonuses there.

Now raise your hand if you were angry when you learned that Citigroup (which has received so much bailout money that American taxpayers have been dubbed “its major stockholder”) was planning to spend $50 million of your money on a luxury jet….

Even though the numbers she sights are a far cry from the actual tax dollars given to private business, she uses the anger over the bail outs to compare with the lack of anger of health care costs related to personal choice:

…There is something inherently distasteful about being expected to foot the tax bill for someone else’s personal choices–particularly bad ones–and not being given any choice of your own in the matter. Which is why I am so surprised that there has been so little anger expressed by leaders on either side of the health care debate when it comes to the issue of personal choice and responsibility in health care…

…According to the Centers for Disease Control, “obesity costs our nation as much as $147 billion per year in direct health care costs and lost productivity.” And according to the nation’s oldest anti-smoking organization smoking costs taxpayers a whopping $300 billion dollars annually, or 1,000 times the amount of the AIG bonuses….

Utilizing this ratio of anger levels contrasted with actual dollars, she follows through by discussing the trait both costs have in common, personal responsibility:

…Some health care reform advocates will argue these costs would be lower if there were government subsidized health care, but my question is why should the government, specifically taxpayers, subsidize health care costs for conditions that are not only preventable but essentially chosen by the patient? With all of the anger surrounding the health care debate, at town halls, in the House and Senate, where is the anger about personal responsibility?…

Like many before her, she perfectly frames the clear distinction between individual actions which don’t harm others and societal responsibility.  She uses our innate disgust of having to foot the bill for the negative consequences of others and sees the fundamental issue of both problems.

If only she had stopped there.  If only she understood clearly that when I hurt myself, I should be the only one liable for the resolution, we’d be in total agreement.  Instead, she illogically assumes that individual responsibility is shared among all citizens:

…To be clear, personal responsibility is not only up to consumers.  Mayor Bloomberg’s success in curbing smoking in New York is due to a multi-pronged strategy of aggressively fining bars and restaurants that allow patrons to flout the anti-smoking ban and raising the cost of cigarettes, in essence targeting the dealer as much as the addict….

Not only is responsibility shared in her view, but government force is also the solution.  Therefore since targeting these “bad smoking” behaviors has coincided with a decrease in the number of smokers , why not continue these policies to control other “bad” behaviors?

…A similar strategy should be undertaken federally against fatty foods and drinks (including many of the ones I love).  But as long as groups like the AFL-CIO oppose efforts to hold Americans financially accountable for their personal health choices, so that the system can afford to treat those who do not choose to be sick…

Thinking more critically though, this turns out to be very short sighted thinking devoid of any historical context and antithetical to fundamental human behavior.  Indeed, I think most people agree with her that when people make bad decisions that affect only themselves, they should be solely responsible for the consequences.

Where she fails is in properly analyzing government as the solution.  If one fully analyzes her solution, the lack of follow through in her thinking becomes easily spotted.

First, we know that human behaviors are heavily influenced by incentives.  It’s natural and obvious; we do things that benefit us.  For those willing to see reality for what it is, examples are all around us.  We can see it in the use of commission programs for corporate sales force.  We see it in TV commercials and marketing campaigns.  We even see it in the tax code.   Through denial or lack of contemplation though, some fail to see that this same fundamental human behavior also affects our decisions as they relate to health care.

In fact, one of the reasons for rising health care costs and bad personal choices is individual consumers have been moved further and further away from the actual cost.   In the US, part of rise in health care costs can be attributed to  government incentives which pushed health care plans away from individuals and towards employers.  For the same reason, others countries with socialized medicine also see rapidly rising costs of health care.

Second, we also know that historically, when governments are given the power continue to assume more and more control over individual lives, it ends in tyranny.  As we allow government to assume more responsibility for individual actions, we necessitate their ability to control those actions.

Assuming we still believe in a free society, one of the prices we pay is having the responsibility for the negative consequences brought about by our choices.

For instance, if you smoke – society doesn’t owe you CHEMO.  If I you eat 30K calories a day – society doesn’t owe you gastric bypass surgery.  If you drink a bottle of whiskey a day – society doesn’t owe you a liver.

However, by not of following the logic of her solutions and ignoring historical contexts, she can safely and happily assume government control is the answer:

…So the next time you are reminded of how angry you are at AIG or any other institution that was “bailed out” with your money, just remember that AIG may have mugged you once, but McDonald’s and your neighbor keeping them in business (and whoever invented the doughnut, bacon cheeseburger), will be sucking your wallet dry for decades to come….

Which only leaves us in the end with nothing more than a false dichotomy as if we only have two choices:  either we pay for it or we control it.

Really, due to faulty logic, she has unwittingly made a very cogent argument against government provided health care.  IE – we don’t need to control that behavior if we are not paying for it.

But I don’t know if she understands that by continuing to promote societal responsibility for individual choices, she is also logically promoting less freedom and more government intrusion.  I don’t know if she even believes in the value and morality of freedom.  I also don’t know that she doesn’t fully understands all of this, but due to value differences only, still believes government control to be the answer to health care problems.  And I really don’t know which is worse – being wrong based upon ignorance or understanding the full ramifications of increased government control, but not caring.

The truly concerning part should be that it doesn’t matter which is worse as the results are always the same.   For as long as we have enough people with these types of beliefs, we will continue to lose more and more individual freedoms.

As Hayek stated:

“We must show that liberty is not merely one particular value but that it is the source and condition of most moral values. What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free.”

Gun advocates have long contended the anti-gun lobby is only using guns as a stepping stone to slowly remove other freedoms.  Like the saying, “They first came for the communists, but I wasn’t a communist.”  Indeed, this is truism that writers have told us for centuries: freedom is precious and must be protected.  As Hayek stated:

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”

Well, not to be ones to go against a historical truth nor stop our descent into statism,  statists moved from guns, to smoking, to obesity.   We’ve seen smoking bans in most states, some so restrictive that it makes illegal smoking in tractor trailers as they are assumed to be a “place of business”, banning handguns in major cities,  to the banning of actual cooking ingredients such as transfats.

It never seems to dawn on any of the proponents, that each of these laws removes one additional freedom.  Nor do statists seem to understand that humans will find ways to behave exactly as they wish regardless.  This is especially true of economic regulations, but also of business regulations meant to influence individual behavior.

For instance, during the recent concentrated attacks on America’s obesity “problem”, many local and state governments have looked into legislating calorie counts and nutritional value be available on the menu itself.  Apparently, having to ask for the nutritional value which is already available was too difficult, hence the reason to further regulate.

It matters little that giving nutritional value by request or forcing it on the menu doesn’t to change behavior.  Than proposed bans on food advertising will have little effect:

George Mason University’s Todd Zywicki noted at a forum last summer that the average American child actually watches less TV than he did 15 years ago. What’s more, children face less exposure to food ads now than they did then, for a variety of reasons. The remote control has made ad-watching optional over the last 20 years, and more recent technology like TiVo may make traditional commercials completely obsolete…

Indeed, the reason also has little to do with good business, such as McDonald’s excelling by giving clients good tasting food at relatively cheap prices very quickly.  Research has shown:

…The economist Tomas Philipson and I have written about the economics of obesity. We have pointed out that the decline in the price of fatty foods, along with the rise in the opportunity cost of physical activity (work is more sedentary than it used to be, so one has to invest extra time to get exercise, and television and video games have increased the utility that people derive from sedentary leisure pursuits), explains the dramatic long-term increase in the percentage of Americans who are seriously overweight….

Same with gun control advocates.  They don’t seem to worry about inconvenient facts like banning handguns in very high crime areas does little to prevent crime, but does a lot in preventing citizens from exercising their freedom to self-defense.  In Chicago:

Far more of the guns seized at crime scenes in Illinois come from Illinois than any other state.

It doesn’t even matter that we can see the slippery slope happening right in front of us.  For instance,  if we can ban smoking in private business establishments, why not private vehicles?  Crazy you say?  It’s already happening in limited fashion as we speak for child custody cases.

No, proponents everywhere of using government force for your own good, don’t seem to be able to see any consequences other than their pet project.  All that seems to matter today, is that enough people think the action is bad and are willing to use government coercion as a means to an end.

For a country with a history of trying to prevent the exploitation of minority groups by the majority, and indeed a Constitution to enshrine that very ideal, we’re moving quickly into tyrannical rule by the majority.  Let’s all remember, that we are a Constitutional Republic, because true Democracy is nothing more than allowing 51% of the population to enslave 49% of the population by simple majority vote.

Unless you were lucky enough to be traveling or otherwise unavailable on Sunday, you were likely deluged with Mr. Obama’s media storm to sell not only health care, but apparently many other items as well.

First, it should be noted that this WH is above all, extremely insecure.  The President could be seen on 5 Sunday news shows: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Univision.   But he didn’t have time for Fox, the number one rated Sunday news show…

Regardless of the WH being extremely petty and worrying more about perceived injustices than an honest discussion with those who might disagree, what he actually said is far more serious.

When asked if a health care mandate was a tax increase on ABC’s this week, the President responded:

…”I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said….

“What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore,” said Obama. “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance . Nobody considers that a tax increase.”…

Using flawed logic is nothing new for Presidents, but this one isn’t even close.  Hhe’s analogizing the privilege of driving with the “privilege” of being a citizen.

The difference of course as that by my very birth, I have a “right” to be a citizen, whereas driving has always remained a privilege with constraints.  You see, I can forgo auto insurance, so long as I don’t drive.  There are many ways around without a car in this day and age, but if I “choose” to drive, then constraints can be placed on me.

Health care on the other hand would be required simply because I existed and no other reason.  & If the government says, “You have to buy this” – it is a tax increase as not paying it can land you in very serious legal troubles.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, with an omnipotent sense of when health care, our fearless leader goes further:

…Obama put his support behind the idea of taxing employers that offer high-cost insurance plans.

“I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don’t make people healthier is part of the way that we’re going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”…

Even ignoring the fact that this goes against his basic premise that more people need more health care, one wonders if there is anything our President doesn’t know.  So far, he’s taken over banks, car companies, told car companies with whom to merge, who to hire, who to fire, what to build… and now we find out he knows how much health care is too much.

But let’s not stop there.  Not only is our community organizer one of the smartest men in America when it comes to economics and health care, he’s also a brilliant strategist with respects to Afghanistan:

…”What I’m not also gonna do, though, is put the resource question before the strategy question,” Obama told NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press.” “Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy I’m not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there- beyond what we already have.”…

I’m not sure exactly what happens to man to think he has the answers to every single last question. Maybe it’s just arrogance and ignorance, as Hayek stated:

If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this.

Whatever the reason he believes so strongly in his ability to decide what’s best for our own good, history shows us without question where this inevitably leads.  Hayek again:

To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.

Let’s hope we begin to understand the value of humility before we do too much damage.

Unintended consequences.  An often used phrase for almost every piece of legislation pushed our politicians.  Whether it’s McCain-Feingold’s chilling effect on free political speech or whether bailing out banks which are “too big to fail” has actually decreased our long term viability instead of supporting it; the term seems to connote any consequence which wasn’t expressly mentioned by proponents of the bill.

Technically, that’s correct.  The definition of unintended consequences does not require the consequences to be unforeseen, though in common language we generally use the base meaning of “intention”.   Therefore the phrase has come to mean those consequences which were neither  intended nor unforeseen.

I submit however, that we should start changing our language and call known consequences intended consequences, because like the citizens in the face of the law our politicians should be held to the same standard: ignorance is not a defense.

Regardless of the human failing that pushes people to believe they, or their elected leaders, can ultimately control behavior which is already constrained by the marketplace, acting as if the results weren’t readily understood is disingenuous.

Looking more closely @ McCain-Feingold effects, we see the chilling of free-speech (here), where citizens can’t create a documentary on their beliefs about Hillary Clinton without it being subject to regulation:

…The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated over whether a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton could be classified as an “electioneering communication” subject to regulation.

The FEC contended it was, and that its sponsor, a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United, was barred from promoting the film. While nonprofits can be exempt from campaign-finance regulations if they limit their fund-raising to donations from individuals, Citizens United fell under McCain-Feingold because it accepts business contributions….

Now.  I haven’t seen the movie nor do I care to, but when individuals get together to use their own money, their own resources, to produce their own political speech, the government has absolutely no right to be involved.  In the marketplace of political ideas, that whole “congress shall make no law” thingy, seemed pretty straight forward.

Regardless of your reading of the 1st Amendment, some will contend this is an unintended consequence.  I contend it was a known consequence and therefore must have been intended.

I will even go further and say this was like a consequence well enough known by politicians who voted for the bill, that they had incentive to pass restrictions on others as this would help them secure the current balance of power.

Using banks too big to fail (here):

…Increased concentration is vexing for regulators. Because systemically important firms can borrow more cheaply thanks to implicit state backing, small and medium-sized banks struggle to compete. A recent Fed study put big banks’ funding advantage at more than 30 basis points. That leads to another possible problem: indiscipline. Private firms with a low cost of funds and the taxpayer behind them are prone to recklessness: just look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. America’s leading banks were too big to fail before the crisis. Now they are bigger still….

This was not only easy to foresee, but libertarians, conservatives, small business groups, think tanks, economists, literally, tens of thousands of people wrote and discussed that this is exactly what would happen.

Once you’ve effectively told the market that they will not be responsible for their failures, you’ve written them a blank check to become much more reckless than they would have otherwise.

Not only this, but that action, more reckless businesses, will have it’s own well understood consequence.  The banks will continue to make stupid decisions due to a perceived lack of risk.  As long as people allow it, the government will continue to bail them out until it becomes just too expensive.  Then during that emergency, we will see much greater regulation and control of the financial industry which might include a government takeover.

As Hayek stated and history has shown:

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

Maybe it’s time to start holding our politicians & leaders accountable for the known consequences & not just the stated ones.

Wow.  I went to bed last night and woke up this morning contemplating what to write about the “fishy email” BS that recently came out from the WH.  After reading several articles on various websites, it seemed that the story was actually written correctly.  Most citizens interested in freedom, don’t like the idea of the government collecting data on what they deem “disinformation.”

But I forgot that I apparently live in some bubble where rational thought is allowed, as some journalists believe the only problem with the government seeking citizens to spy on other citizens, is the GOPs paranoia (here):

…However, opponents of reform have seized upon the request as a means to heighten the paranoia that has become their favorite weapon in this debate.

In a letter to the White House, GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas portrays it as program “asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed “fishy” or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests.” He raises the spectre of a White House “data collection program” by which it can assemble “the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens” opposed to reform. In other words, an enemies list. He also demands to know “what action … you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in ‘fishy’ speech?”

It’s a ludicrous suggestion, but it’s perfectly in line with the GOP strategy to use emotion, anger and fear as means to drown out debate, discussion and facts. It is the telling behavior of a movement that knows it will lose the debate on those grounds.

I’m not even sure how to effectively dissect this without including all kinds or personal sounding attacks about the author’s intellect, but I’ll see what I can do.

First, it should be plainly obvious that the author, and anyone who agrees with him that the WH is doing the right thing, has very little historical knowledge as to what typically comes after these types of requests.

It’s frightening to believe that anyone with a passing, cursory glance, at history can’t see the danger in sending political speech deemed “fishy” to the government for review.

Secondly, when anyone decides to disagree with a specific opponent, usually the strength of their hand can be gauged by their reaction.

For instance, if I engage an opponent on slavery, where I think it’s wrong and someone else thinks its right, my hand is so strong that I barely give much thought or strenuous objections.  I’m more likely to laugh at the logic twists someone would have to go through to attempt to prove slavery is necessary.  (assuming of course my opponent didn’t have power to implement their changes)

If however,  my hand is extremely weak… say for instance I think it’s a good idea for citizens to tell the government when they disagree with their fellow citizens about a political issue, I might have to start name calling and attacking the messenger.  Because surely attacking my opponents in this case on any rational level would lead only to my embarrassment.

Third, but very important – fear based motivations in politics is not new and not limited to any one given party.  Even in this very debate, both sides are using fear.  One side is claiming that without immediate change, more people will be left to die of treatable illnesses.  The other claiming that a government run health care system is more dangerous to your health than the current state of affairs.

Indeed, fear is almost always used these days.

Smoking bans gained traction?  Fear of health care costs to employees

Patriot Act?  Terrorists are everywhere and coming to get you

Gun bans?  You’re neighbor might be the crazy one with a gun.

TV sex/violence?  It’s going to lead us all to become homicidal rapists.

Cap & trade?  Our entire planet and the human race are at stake

Most religions?  Our entire planet and the race are at stake

Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at University of Kent, has done some great work on the politics of fear and our fear based culture.  His website contains his writings which are well worth the read for anyone interested in the repercussions of this fear based approach to legislation.

However, the mere fact someone is using fear based politics honestly does not tell you whether the fear is real.  Simply because someone tells you something might happen that might scare you, doesn’t mean what they are telling you is wrong.

It’s only used here by Mr. Jay Bookman to marginalize his opposition into a single, coherent group of irrational crazies.

It’s much easier for him to pretend the other side is simply paranoid and completely wrong.  It stops all the cognitive dissonance he has built up when he hears clear objections to that which he obviously cherishes.

As Voltiare said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”  Maybe Mr. Bookman is too simply weak to deal with doubt?

On this 4th of July, during this particular time of constant change, I think it a good thing for us to look to one of our founding fathers, Thomas Paine.

During that first winter of the revolutionary war, December 1776, all seemed lost.  The General George Washington was losing every battle he engaged in, he was losing the command respect of his officers, he was losing the morale of his soldiers and many were leaving when terms of enlistment were up, others were simply deserting.  They had little food, little clothing, little training, and many challenges such as rampant dysentery.  This ragtag group was made up of mostly young men, 15, 16, 17 year olds fighting for this young country.

When the British soldiers first gazed upon this untrained, unkempt, young army, they laughed at the idea that these people thought they could win this war.

With the Declaration of Independence, signed just 5 months early, it looked as if it would go down in history as a treasonous action by those who will be punished once the war concludes with an easy British victory.  As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately.”

Thomas Paine, then a war correspondent, could see the state of the revolution waning and saw this as a pivotal time where failure could be near.  He must do something, so he went back home and started writing a new series of pamphlets he would hope would help garner support for this revolution towards freedom.  He titled the it The American Crisis.

Almost one full year earlier, he helped foment the seeds of the revolution through his pamphlet titled Common Sense.  Laying out a very powerful argument for Independence in January of 1776, he published it anonymously signing it only as “written by an Englishman”.

While Common Sense carried the colonies through the signing of the Declaration of Independence, so too would The American Crisis, help give strength to the revolution at one of its lowest points.

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

For anyone interested in the history of the American revolution and celebrating this Independence Day, would do well to look at Thomas Paine’s advice still today.

‘Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before.

For it’s still true today; fear, panic, desperation, are all fleeting emotions, or at least should be, when the price that is being paid is laid at the altar of freedom.

Just a great quote I ran across recently posted without comment:

“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer.  War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.  When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.  A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration.  A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.  As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”