Posts Tagged ‘Socialism’

My Challenge to Socialists and Supporters of Socialized Medicine

Posted by Troy on 6th October 2013 in Entertainment, Human Nature

It was recently put to me that America needs to get in line with all other modern countries and have a socialized medical system for all of their citizens.  I won’t go into the fact that, in order for America to do that, we will have to seriously downgrade our military and will lead to more wars and the fact that all these other “modern” countries can afford these system due to the fact that we act like their protective older brother who the bullies are afraid of.  Instead, I will deal with the idea that  enacting a socialized medical system is the “moral” thing to do.

Let us pretend than there is a neighborhood.  In this neighborhood, their ancestors set it up where it is ruled by voting.  The charter allows for special assessments to be made for the general welfare of the neighborhood.  The houses were all passed down to the children of the people that lived there originally.  Some of these families had done very well and grew rich.  Others had not and were cash poor.  One day, one of the poorest among them got sick but couldn’t afford treatment.  A clever man proposed the following: “In case of sickness, the top 40% would pay the medical costs of the bottom 60%.”  They took a vote.  Everyone felt sorry for the sick resident.  The bottom 60% all voted in favor of this.  And thus, a socialized medical system was set up for this neighborhood.

Is this moral?

No.  It’s legalized theft.  The bottom 60% are all for it because it won’t cost them a dime.

How is this ANY DIFFERENT at a national level instead of a neighborhood?  Is it only because you don’t know the rich people personally?  It’s the same thing.  It’s legalized theft, and theft is never moral.

Long Live the Constitution!

Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Socialists, and Darwin

Posted by Troy on 24th March 2013 in Political

In the Fountainhead, Ayn Rand refers to Howard Rourke as “Superman.”  This is clearly a reference to Nietzsche’s Superman.  What is interesting is that Nietzsche’s philosophy was instrumental to to Nazism etc and Rand hated all collectivism.  Another hero of the Socialist and those who like socialism is Darwin.  So, why is it that socialism/communism champions these two people?  Why is every bloody campus full of morons that spout Nietzsche and Darwin?

First, I would say that anyone that trumpets these two men probably have not read their work nor have any deeper understanding of what they really said.  People who like Nietzsche like him due to him saying “God is dead.”  What they don’t realize is that he also said that, if he was right, the world would plunge into an utter bloodbath.  They probably also didn’t know that he went insane early in his life and ended his life as a madman, scream Bible verses and having religious visions.  They probably also don’t know that Darwin’s theories were merely to prove the superiority of the white race, which is why he was so popular at the time he was writing.

Second, the concept of the Superman and of evolution is both at odds and at mesh with Socialism.  You see, the leaders under socialism use both Nietzsche and Darwin to do what Marx said “My goal is to kill God.”  The reason that they must kill God is that God is the ultimate authority, and under socialism/communism, the State has to be the ultimate authority.  It is interesting because the concept of a superman would put him above all others.  Darwin would claim that only the strong will survive.  Both of these completely counters the philosophy of “we are all equal” of communism and socialism.  However, as the elite in the Party will tell ya “Some are more equal than others.”  (George Orwell, Animal Farm).

Just like everything else under Socialism/Communism, everything is a lie used draw people in.   It is the perversion of all thought.  They will pervert religion to trick you into accepting socialism.  ”The Bible says to share with the less fortunate, so lets tax the rich and give to the poor!”  Of course, Marx did not believe in God and wanted to kill God, but they will use your religion against you.  They’ll tell the young that they are stronger and better and that they can build a better future.  Of course, their future is to kill the spikes.  To snuff out the light of this world.  They don’t intend to.  The rank and file Party Member believe that offering everyone the same opportunities and sharing the fruit of labor equally will let everyone be spikes.  However, without being able to enjoy the fruit of their labor, no one really tries.  Oh, there will always be a few that must succeed just because they must, but most people are self-interested.  Socialism attempts to water down Communism to a sustainable level whereby the masses become a political power source for their elections, but they can still suck the life from the spikes.  Unfortunately, this is just a spiral.  It takes decades to play out, but more and more people will decide not to try and become wards of the state.  They will demand that their elected officials give them more and more free stuff until the country winds up like Greece or Spain or Portugal or Cyprus or Italy.

Long Live the Constitution!

The Lie: Socialism, Social Justice, Safety Net, and Income Inequality

Posted by Troy on 24th February 2013 in Writing

We are told that we need to have the Safety Net in place and that we need to look at Income Inequality and the unfairness of it all.  This is equated to morality.  In fact, the Godless on the Left would dare invoke Jesus Christ to promote their Socialist ideas and dress it up in the name of Social Justice.

Do not be fooled.  Jesus preached charity and generosity…but he also said that he who does not work shall not eat.

In this modern age, we have televisions, telephones, cell phones, cars, refrigerators, and a whole host of other things which are not necessary to life.  Jesus may wish for us to feed the poor, but I doubt he would command us to buy them cell phones.  In fact, he would probably chastise those who asked another to buy them cell phones.  I would even argue that he would view the voting of politicians that would seek to take from one group to give to another as a form of legalized theft.  Under no circumstance is Socialism in line with Christianity.  The “charity” of government confiscation and redistribution has nothing to do with real charity and has all the effects of destroying charity in the hearts of their populace.  If you don’t believe me, look at the rate of charitable givings from Europeans, those closest to our culture.  It’s pitiful.

Socialism is merely a design of divide and conquer.  Should you have the nerve and resilience to actually read the Communist Manifesto, you can see that all it amounts to is the typical brainwashing technique of demonizing.  It is the preaching of the superiority of the working class.  It is the proclamation that somehow the rich became rich by oppressing the much more numerous poor and tricking them into this schematic.  Every society in history has been more or less triangular.  There is a reason for this.  The superior rise to the top.  This is a mix of genetics, training, character, drive, skill, and a host of everything else (but mostly drive).  As these exceptional individuals rise, they raise others with them.  Imagine that there is a string attached to the middle of a thin rectangle representing the population as a whole.  As that string is pulled, a triangle forms.  As the triangle goes higher and higher, the base of the triangle becomes smaller and smaller.  The higher the ultra-wealthy is in a country, the more middle class you have and the less poor you have.  This is why America enjoyed prosperity like no other country has ever seen before.  This is only the case where free enterprise exists.  You see, when the ultra-rich are created using political power, no one is raised up with them.  This is because the rich in those countries are not made by the sweat of the brow or by genius of thought.  It is formed by confiscation of others, reducing all it touches.  Likewise, those attempts that strive to bring down the ultra-rich out of some sense of “social justice” only accomplish to lower others as well, broadening the base of that triangle and driving more and more people into poverty.  This effect is two fold in the case of socialism as rewarding those who do not work only encourages others not to work as well.  As Benjamin Franklin said, if you make poverty easy, you will have a lot more of it.

Social Justice is just another name for coveting.  It is the denial of immutable laws of right and wrong and serves to allow for theft by conscience.  If a man runs a stop sign and hits a small child, that man is responsible.  He should be the one to pay the costs for the child’s treatment.  It doesn’t matter if the man is a father of five and lives in poverty and the child’s parents are millionaires.  That being said, I am sure that Jesus would look kindly upon those parents if they allowed the other man to go free and covered the costs themselves, but this is an act of charity.  The other is an act of law.  Laws are about justice.  Charity can only be given by those who are in the position to grant it.  It cannot be taken by force from another.  Laws are only useful if they are consistent.  If they are not, then we are not a nation of laws but go groveling before every magistrate begging for their favor.  It’s a type of tyranny.  It is the tyranny of arbitration.

The Tenth Commandment is thou shalt not covet.  When you are concerned about income inequality, you are coveting.  You are justifying your legal theft, and why?  Because someone has it better than you.  You want what they have.  Check out Envy with Jack Black and Ben Stiller.  The middle class in America live better than at least 90% of the world’s population.  Even our poor lives better than the vast majority of the world.  I think we all want to ensure that people have food and shelter, but there are limits.  It is one thing to advocate some sort of homeless shelter which is more like a barracks and soup kitchens.  It is far different to advocate food stamps which can be used on sodas and processed foods and low income housing projects which gets more credits if it is made with niceties like hardwood floors, solar power, or other nifty things.  This is no longer charity.  This is legalized theft due to coveting while justified by the erroneous argument that it is charity.

This leads me to the safety net.  Yes, we all want a safety net to be there.  We would all like to know that we have a few weeks to find a different job if we lose our job.  However, this is a safety net, not a Sterns and Fosters mattress.  It should be terribly uncomfortable so that people would be motivated to find something better.  I can agree with a little while to find a job.  Six weeks maximum.  After that, the benefits should continue to decrease, even if it means that you are forced out of your house and you end up living elsewhere.  These apartments and food subsidies should be only what is required to preserve life and no more.  The food should be nourishing but tasteless.  The living quarters should be cramped without any way to watch television or other source of personal entertainment.  I would argue that all electrical devices should be hard wired so that there are no power outlets where someone can hook up televisions and computers etc.  If the safety net was structured in this format, no one would stay on assistance any longer than absolutely necessary.

And there you have it.  Socialism on moral grounds is a lie.

Long Live the Constitution!

You didn’t do that! – Explaining Obama’s Understanding of Economics

Posted by Troy on 23rd July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Of course, the easiest thing to do would be to say, “He doesn’t understand the economy” or “He thinks that the government is responsible for businesses.”  I could do that, but I won’t.  I’ll be fair, and I will explain what he meant…and then I’ll tear it apart.

He isn’t saying that the entrepreneurs didn’t build their businesses.  What he is saying is that those businesses couldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the fact that roads exist which allow people to buy their goods and services and schools that teach employees and the like.  And he is right.  If we didn’t have schools and roads and things, our modern day society would be impossible.  We would probably still be agrarian.  However, he still doesn’t get it.

Governments do not build roads and schools so that businesses will flourish.  No, what really happens is that societies grow.  They start off as a mere village and progress to a town and then to a city and then to a metropolis.  At every step of the way, more people move in which creates more jobs in the area.  As the population grows, the GDP of that area increases.  As the GDP increases, the tax base increases.  As more taxes are taken in, the government can then decide how to best serve the interests of their neighborhood by spending their tax revenue on public works.  At first, it might be to improve the roads so that more businesses can move in.  It might be to improve the school system so that the quality of jobs will improve.  However, without a growing economy and population, none of these improvements would do anything nor could the improvements be afforded.  At the best of times, the government is a symbiote (a helper organism) for the citizens (and by extension, the economy).  Unfortunately, with the basic needs accounted for, the government may turn to wasting money by building statues, passing unnecessary laws, paying for government parties or spending money to “buy votes” or reward their backers.  When this occurs, the government becomes a parasite.

It is difficult to make this argument (that the businesses come first in this particular chicken or the egg debate) because there is no way to refute it.  Oh wait, there is!  Silly me.  You see, China built these massive, modern day cities.  They had just finished watching Field of Dreams and thought if they “build it, they will come.”  Well, they didn’t, and now they have these massive, expensive ghost cities.  Why?  Because they thought they could central plan growth, and you can’t.  Growth is determined by more factors than the human mind can process.  At best, we can project growth a couple of years in advance.  A city without a population is just a thing.  It’s a collection of buildings, not a society.  As such, who would ever want to move there?  So they remain dormant until the government figures out a way to force people to move where they don’t want to live (which they will eventually…I have full faith in the oppressive nature of the Chinese government).

No one has any problem with using tax dollars to pay for roads and defense and other legitimate functions of government.  Of course, a lot of the things Obama wants to use Federal funds to do should really be left up to the state and local governments to contend with.  Let’s assume though that the Federal government is the one that’s supposed to be in charge of all government spending.  He thinks that we should have the most modern infrastructure in the world.  Since China has high speed rail, we should have high speed rail.  Quick question:  Suppose you are rich, and your spouse is constantly saying, “Well, the Johns have a new car.  We need a new car that’s more expensive than theirs.  Oh, and the Smiths put in a new pool.  We need to put in one with a water slide.  Oh, and the Jacksons just upgraded their kitchen.  We have to buy a new kitchen.  Oh…and that car we bought last month?  The Crews family just bought an even newer one!  We have got to buy a new car or people are going to think we are poor!”  How long do you think it will take you to go broke?  China and India have been buying the newest infrastructure.  It makes sense that, for the moment, their infrastructure will be newer than ours and will probably be in better shape because they are just now getting around to building it.  However, if a bridge will be serviceable for twenty years, what is the logic of tearing it down and building a new one just to compete with China?  Even if the bridge needed to be replaced, it should probably fall to the state to build it, and there would be plenty of money to do it if we stopped wasting the money on crap that the government isn’t supposed to be doing!  Just look at how New Orleans spent money on other projects when they knew the levy needed repairs.

Of course, there is really only one answer for our problems.  We have to learn to say “No, thank you.”  We have to turn down the money that the government is offering us.  We have to say, “I know that I qualify for food stamps, but I don’t really need it.  I will just cut off my cable and not have a cell phone.  If I do that, I will be able to afford the food on my own.”  Will it be hard?  Absolutely.  Will it suck?  You bet.  But only when this mentality is embraced by the majority of Americans do we have any shot of getting out of this mess.  As long as we demand that cuts be made except when it comes to me, then politicians will not have the guts to cut anything at all.  We can still help those who need help, but those who could work must work.  We accept so many things as rights or as a standard of living that are really luxuries (cable, television in general, Coca-cola, etc).

Long Live the Constitution!

Occupy Wall Street is against affecting election

Posted by Troy on 2nd May 2012 in Current Events

Supposedly, Occupy Wall Street has a civil war (the few people who are left in it).  Some people are wanting them to affect the election, and others want to avoid that as they believe it will mean they are only a tool for the Democrats.  Naturally, the Democrats want Occupy Wall Street to be the left wing Tea Party.  However, despite the fact that the Tea Party and OWS are both against corporate cronyism, the similarities end there.

The Tea Party was instantly a political movement.  If you talk to a Tea Party member, they are less excited about the general election.  Instead, they are interested in watching their Senators and Representatives, writing letters, and defeating them in primaries if they act in bad faith or do a bad job.

By fighting becoming a voting block, OWS shows their true colors.  There is only one legitimate way to change things in our system, and that is voting.  How else are they supposed to change things?  Well, that comes back to what I’ve always said about them…they are a revolutionary group.  They wish to overthrow the Constitution.  What they want to have cannot be supported by the Constitution.  They are a youth movement, which means they are being manipulated by the old revolutionaries of the 60′s that failed to overthrow the capitalist system back then.  It appears that the movement is dying out.  If they have the numbers though, they will eventually be given the order to riot.  It’s just common sense.  If you want to change the system and you’re not interest in voting, what does that mean?  Isn’t that as suspicious as people learning how to fly a plane and not being interest in learning how to land?

Long Live the Constitution!

Socialism

Posted by Troy on 4th March 2012 in Human Nature

Many people consider socialism to be morally superior to capitalism.  Under socialism, the have-nots elect politicians who promise to confiscate the wealth of the haves.  The wealth of the haves will be paid out to the have-nots by two means.  The first means is to create programs which are open to all people.  This would include public soup houses, public housing, and public education.  The other means of redistribution is direct “aid” (payments) to the have-nots themselves to spend on whatever they wish.  Of course, this tends to cause more people to leach off the system.  If you allow people to survive without working, there will be plenty of people who will take you up on that offer.  However, I was wondering what people would think if we tried to apply this logic to other areas.

The first place I want to examine is if we applied this logic to grades.  How long do you think it will take for the under performing students to vote for this policy?  How wonderful it will be if the top students shared their success with the under performing students!  It is unfair, after all, that the top students were born with greater intelligence.  It isn’t the lower performer’s fault.  In fact, isn’t it unfair if we don’t help them?  If we don’t share grades, many of the under performing students will drop out and become a drain on our society.  This way, we will ensure that most kids graduate.  I’m sure that a high school diploma will still mean something.  Surely this policy wouldn’t degrade the diploma and make it meaningless to employers, and surely the top students will still try just as hard as they did before this policy.  After all, they will understand that it’s for the greater good.

The second place I want to examine is sex.  Sexual frustration can cause all sorts of psychological problems, particularly with self-esteem.  Perhaps we should allow men to vote for sexual benefits to be bestowed upon them.  It is my understanding that there is a ready supply of sex available.  One could postulate that, if certain people were not so stingy with their reproductive organs, there is plenty of sex to go around.  If certain precautions are taken, there is literally no cost associated with the reallocation of sex.  I am sure that this provision should have close to 50% of the population’s support (mostly men).  The investment of sex hoarders should be minimal, perhaps a few minutes out of their day.

The third place is body parts.  We’re all born with two kidneys.  You only need one!  Why should we all horde our second kidney when there are people out there with no functioning kidneys at all?  Losing a kidney may shorten your life by five years or so, but it could extend someone else’s twenty or more years.  Unitarianism would dictate that the greater good must be chosen.  The needs of the many should exceed the needs of the few, after all.

Of course, these arguments are insane.  As such, why do we think that we can apply the concept of confiscation through voting to money without terrible side effects?  Look at how people lived not even three hundred years ago.  You wouldn’t have had running water, electricity, telephones, cars, computers, Internet, radio, cable TV, antibiotics, and thousands of other items that we take for granted.  Even in these conditions, people raise children to be happy, productive members of society.  People in the intercity live in conditions far greater than anyone had three hundred years ago.  The advantages even the poorest among us have over our forefathers is incredible.  Even our poorest would be rich by most countries’ standards.  Happiness, therefore, cannot be linked to mere possessions.  If happiness depended upon having the latest Air Jordans, then the history of mankind would have been one of misery until Michael Jordan.  Happiness is a matter of choice.  Socialism will inevitably cause a society to spiral down.

Trouble in Paradise – Occupy Wall Street

Posted by Troy on 14th November 2011 in Current Events

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45285979/ns/us_news-life/

This demonstrates the problem with Socialism.  The 99%ers want the rich to pay for their benefits.  Now, within their own group, they expect the 1% of themselves to pay for the other 99%.  Of course, it won’t take long for the 1% of them to have enough to this crap and quit.  Then the 99% that’s left will demand the NEW 1% pay.  And then that 1% will leave. Eventually they’ll wind up with the true dregs of society as all decent people with half a brain got outta there.

I bet the allegory will be lost on 100% of them, however.

Long Live the Constitution!

I Want Your Money

Posted by Troy on 10th June 2011 in Entertainment

I Want Your Money is a documentary about socialism versus capitalism.  It is fairly entertaining.  It centers around the presidencies of Obama and Reagan.  Most of the points they cover are very apt.  I found the cartoon portions to be distracting.  The claymation-esque nature of the animation was just a bit off putting.  The clip of Phil Donahue’s interview of Milton Freedman makes the whole movie worthwhile.  I have never seen such a verbal smackdown in my entire life.  His defense of capitalism was beautiful, eloquent, funny, and absolutely devastating.  I would recommend that everyone watch this movie.  If you are a fan of free enterprise, you will love it.  If you are a fan of centralized planning, maybe it will open your eyes a bit.