Posts Tagged ‘communist’
Sunday, July 25th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the environmentalists always look at everything as a zero sum game. They couch every choice as an either-or. In doing so they always overlook alternatives that would enhance both sides. Instead of destroying the interests of landowners in the name of the environment. In doing so they ensure the destruction of that which they seek to save.
When the market system was first being debated. Some argued that it would smooth out the differences among men and lower their disposition to violence. As I have said before, the guy who sells sofas doesn’t care what color your skin is… all he cares about is the color of the money. Hobbes and Voltaire was of this persuasion. Others argued that some lost while others gained. Rousseau took this side. The argument has raged from then to now. It lands in our laps with Rousseau’s side ceding some ground.
Most educated people realize that the market system is not a zero sum game. When people are involved in the market system their wealth is much higher then if they participated in some other system. The caste system, Where distributed justice says that the goods of society are distributed to those according to caste. Or the feudal system where the goods of society are distributed depending on patronage and parentage. Or still the communist system where the goods of society are distributed by one’s political power. All these other systems have one thing in common. Their version of distributive justice has, at it’s core, that the goods of society go to those with power. And from those that produce. This sets up a pernicious incentive that feeds back and lowers the economic output of every person. While the market system distributes to those with, at least, an eye to their production.
This analogy can be applied to environmental science as well. It is becoming obvious that economic prosperity and a healthy ecosystem can go hand in hand. It is also historical truth that countries that have overly powerful Elite have a very poor track record with the environment. When a small percent of the people make all of the decisions they can simply order environmental disasters be created far from their homes. They have economic incentive to disregard environmental concerns and little incentive to protect the environment of their slaves.
But all the means the environmentalists propose move power from those that live near to those who live far away. From the people to the Elite. They claim if so and so project goes through an owl, ent or sage grouse will cease to exist.
There is a controversy of just this nature going on in the US Midwest. It is over wind towers to produce clean energy or a sage grouse that is loosing the ecosystem it needs to survive. The environmentalists are arguing that the sage grouse must be protected and the BLM land should be “protected” exclusively for them.
To me the obvious answer is to place as many towers as possible. Then replant sage brush around them leaving only access roads to the towers for maintenance. The more land that is taken by towers and replanted with perfect habitat for sage grouse that more you ensure the survival of the sage grouse. In perpetuity. The economic value of the towers will ensure the protection of the land.
The environmentalists way forces land to be “protected.” But they never think about the consequences. ( Or maybe they do). The incentive is set up for the locals to, at best, ignore the interests of the sage grouse. But people being people, when our interests are subdued for the interests of others, we resent it. Especially people who are used to being free. Outright hostility may even be shown. No matter the best or the worst the interests of the sage grouse will hurt under the benevolent “protection” of the overly powerful State. Just like family farms have languished under the benevolent “protection” of the State.
Eventually the “protected” land will be put to some other important use and the sage grouse will go extinct. By putting people in charge who have less and less direct impact from the consequences of their decisions, give them less and less oversight and, you have a recipe for environmental degradation… down the road.
The very policies of the environmentalists will destroy that which they seek to protect… Because the benevolent protection of the State is neither benevolent nor protection.
Tags: capitalist, clean energy, communist, Distributive Justice, elite, environment, Envornmentalism, government, habitat, interests, International Capitalist Party, midwest, progressive, regulation, sage grouse, society
Posted in Law, economy, philosophy | No Comments »
Sunday, July 18th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the time of the progressives, socialists and communists is coming to a close. With the wide dissemination of the internet and the dramatically enhanced access to information it offers people will increasingly be lifted from the ignorance enforced by the progressives, socialists and communists. Light will shine on their philosophy.
Today the power of that faction appears to be at it’s apex. The US is controlled almost exclusively by progressives. The President and both houses of Congress have sizable majorities of progressives. Most are democrat but some are republican. The Supreme Court is at the tipping point. A few more hard leftists and the job will be done there too.
But the power of progressives, socialists and communists lays in ignorance. Not of reading writing or arithmetic but in history, economics and current events. These are the ideas that undermine progressivism. People who have not been steeped in the tea of communism and the “benefits” to mankind that it offers see the world differently.
We have our eyes open. We are pragmatic not dogmatic. Progressives, socialists and communists are dogmatic. Even as they point the finger of dogmatism at every one who disagrees with them. But they fail to see their own dogmatism.
To follow a political philosophy that has at it’s core the fact that when it gains control millions of people will have to be murdered to “protect” the revolution requires quite a bit of faith. Those egoists, people who refuse to follow the tenets of social justice and communal salvation, will have to go. They have all done it. From Vladimir Ulanoff to Pol Pot. Moreover they will always to do it when ever they get power. It is ignorance of this fact that feeds the left. Ignorance of the atrocities that they have done and pledge to do if they ever get power.
But the ignorance that feeds progressivism, communism and socialism doesn’t stop there. Every modern event must be couched in just the right terms and in the right way. Until recently the progressives have controlled the unbiased media. The have controlled the horizontal, the vertical, they have controlled what we have seen. Welcome to the outer reaches of the progressive limits. (There are none).
US collages have a plurality of progressive, socialist and communist professors. They aim at convincing every student to follow their pernicious philosophy. The fact that most don’t is a testament to common sense. But it is also a testament to the power of knowledge. Those who know the history of progressivism in the US and it’s ties to Fascist socialism will recognize the parallels today. People who understand the difference between rhetoric and truth will see through the veil of half truths the unbiased media place in front of us. Folks that have access to the information to dull the blade of ignorance are less liable to be misled. Too many of us will refuse to sit in the cave and watch pretty shadows dance on the wall.
That is why it is imperative the progressive, communists and socialists control the internet. They must keep us ignorant, angry and dependent. Their power depend on it. The Elite that run the show on the left know this. If people knew the truth they would loose their power in a heart beat.
Fortunately people are waking up. The actions of the progressives are enlightening the people to the reality of who they are. The mask has been lifted a little. It should be totally removed. Then the people would recoil in horror at who they have voted for and supported in the past.
When that happens the progressives will have breathed their last breath, The socialists will have disheartened the last soul and the tyranny of communism will evaporate from the Earth. All this good from one thing… Light shining on reality.
Didn’t someone else say that evil grows in darkness and withers in the light?
Tags: capitalist, communist, constitution, corruption, education, elite, evil, good, government, group, information, International Capitalist Party, internet, light of truth, Socrates
Posted in Group Politics, International Power, media, philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, July 15th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the Progressive Elite want to force the people of the world to reset our way living. They believe that we must move out of our large homes that require us to have cars and move into high density apartments. Within walking distance to amenities. In that way, even if we are too stupid to do it ourselves, we can just be pushed to it. How do I know this… they are saying it on WSJR today, Sunday July 11, 2010.
By using government to drive up costs for energy, housing, transportation, etc… forces people to move closer together… to cut down on those costs. Taxing carbon is one way to artificially force up the cost of energy. Regulating the economy of cars (CAFE standards) is a way to drive up the cost of basic transportation. Government policies that create high unemployment rates drive people to accept dependence on government. There are many ways government can force society to this “more sustainable” way of living. The key is enough government power and the right people in charge.
The American Constitution forbids such power in the hands of our elected leaders… but today the Constitution is a “living breathing document.” If five people on the Supreme court agree… Voila, the Constitution is re-interpreted. The barn wall probably needed repainted again. The people in charge are critical…
People who are willing to move society away from independence and comfort to discomfort and dependence. People who, if it is needed, would eliminate those that would stand in the way of the revolution (fundamental change). People who have no squeamish qualms about the means. A cabal with only the goal in sight. The progressive Elite.
The progressive Elite constantly remind us that it is not possible for everyone on the planet to live as Americans do… Comfortably. Lower class Americans live better than middle class Europeans. Europeans know it and are resentful. But are not willing to give up dependence on the State. They are willing to give up personal independence and personal comfort for the support of the State. For them it is a good trade. But when they see the positive effects of the other side of the equation they are resentful.
Resentment is a tool to the progressive Elite. They make people resent the wealth of the capitalist. But keep the people ignorant of the avarice of government in both money and power. “After all comrade, would you deny a pig a place for his head?” People who are resentful are in a fog. Overwhelming emotions have that effect on us. People in a fog are easy to herd and then marshal into an army.
Like the Brown Shirts. They were resentful of the wealth of the Jews. (Wealth the Jews earned from being Capitalists).The National Socialist Party turned that resentment into hate and used the hate to herd the whole of Germany into one camp. Then the faction that controlled the camp marshaled the Germen people into a killing machine that visited great sorrow on humanity. Hate and resentment are bread and butter to progressives, communists and socialists.
But today capitalists are called racists, haters, bigots and everything that is an anathema to a capitalist. The progressive Elite tell us we should hate the greedy racist capitalist. While to be a true capitalist is to be the exact opposite of a bigot. Bigotry is bad for business. Bigotry is a luxury that is reserved for progressives, socialists and communists. When you sell a guy a sofa you don’t care about the color of his face… only the color of his money. The market system is the greatest eliminator of racism there has ever been.
The progressive Elite like to use bigotry to “fight” bigotry. After all, isn’t “affirmative action” a form of State sponsored bigotry? The means taints the ends. The progressive Elite don’t care if it does. The ends are so glittering. They are certain they are right… “So personal is their knowledge.“
Isn’t that the definition of a zealot though? Someone who looks at the end and disregards the means. The means being subservient to the end. And the end is total power… Thrasymachus would applaud.
Tags: bigot, capitalist, communist, elite, government, incentive, International Capitalist Party, poverty, progressive, racism, racist, reset, standard of living, Thrasymachus
Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »
Sunday, July 11th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that government is one third of a structure that we live our lives in. (The other two being tradition and modernity). The form of government determines the real and potential standard of living of the people that live under it. Historically the more oppressive – the lower the potential. But no matter the form it has great influence on the structure.
That is one of the reasons I am so amazed by anarchists. They seek to destroy the structure. No matter it’s form. Never thinking for a moment, regardless how effectively they destroy the structure, that another will quickly rise to replace it. Most probably in the form of a tyranny (as a reaction to the chaos). Setting them back in their goal of total liberty.
The reason the structure will rise so rapidly is that, as Socrates said through Plato, we are social by our nature. It is our sociability that provide us the goods we need. In his day the division of labor was simple. There was a {warrior (and farming) division and a religious class}- Citizens, and a slave class. Slavery kept labor costs vary low. Very low labor cost meant little division of labor. That kept innovation low and prices for commodities high. But although there was a simple division of labor the benefit of society was an improved standard of living. Socrates and his fellows didn’t have the philosophical framework to understand that an economy is not a zero sum game. But they did recognize the value of our social natures. They didn’t realize that economies are dynamic. Like living organisms. They thrive when watered, aired and fed. They dry up and shrivel when they are not properly cared for. Economies rise and fall with innovation. To the ancient philosophers economies were static.
Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth Of Nations” was an innovation in the way people thought about markets and trade. Of course he didn’t produce his work in a vacuum. But he articulated his ideas well enough to start a new area of scientific enquiry.
This book, The Wealth of Nations, hints at an underlying law in human societal structure. One of the great energy sources of all human societal structure is our want to get ahead. (Greed). Every one wants better. When the governmental structure was such that it quashed this part of human nature. It was, and always will be, to protect the power of the Elite. The Elite always want a structure that ensures them their “rightful” power.
The irony of the ancient societal myth is never mentioned in anything I have read. That is, To be a citizen one must have means. But to want means is to have avarice. (And that) The labors of society rightfully belong to the Aristocracy. Anything they allow the peasants to keep is magnanimous (big in the soul). The producers of those goods had no right to the products of their labors. For them to want to keep their own products was greedy. But to want what one did not produce or help to produce was not.
Just like the rhetoric coming from the socialists, progressives and communists. The products of a person’s labor rightfully belong to the Elite. For those that labor to want a share is for producers to be greedy. If the State needs the funds, to buy votes for the ruling faction, it is the States right.
Communists, socialists and progressives want to bind society their leadership. They know, (if not explicitly), that to do that they must bring back the structure that was lost by embracing markets. Markets are natural levelers of men. As buyers you and I don’t care about the seller’s race, creed, ethnicity, tattoos, etc… all you care about is the price and the quality of a good or service. [ala Hume and Voltair] That is why the Statist Elite want to get off the market system. Markets have lowered sovereignty too low. (As far as they are concerned). Far be it… from wanting “Progress,” in truth they want an Retreat. They want to move humanity back to a time when the Elite were kings and the people were slaves. They long to move us back to that halcyon time.
The trick is to make the people believe that Elite are on their side. Just as Julius Caesar did to destroy the Republic and create the Empire. He took Roman societal structure back from republican rule to the arbitrary rule of tyrants. He made the people love him by giving out money, forcing the forgiving of debts and enacting some much needed reform. (No one is totally evil or totally good). In doing so he earned the absolute and blind following of the Roman people. He then used that following to make himself emperor. Fundamentally changing Roman societal structure. Today, history is repeating itself and, our historians are silent.
It all boils down to one fact… What kind of structure do you want your children and their children living in?
Tags: communist, elite, hume, International Capitalist Party, politicians, Societal Myth, society, voltair
Posted in Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, July 8th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the stance of the Federal government as stated by Eric Holder is idiotic. To say that state authorities have no ability to arrest people found to be in violation of federal law opens a whole can of worms.
Is this a blanket statement? If it is then what about machine gun laws? They are federal. If a local law enforcement officer comes across a person brandishing a machine gun, that officer wouldn’t be allowed to even notify federal law enforcement about it… according to Holder. Let alone arrest him or her for it. Does this make sense to you?
If it is not a blanket statement then why the constitutional carve out for illegal immigrants? What legal basis could there be for it? So, if Mr. Holder claims that there is a carve out of federal law for illegal aliens, then is it because, there is a clear need for them in the US. One that is so important that it outweighs the mass of legal precedent. Legal precedent that is… all people are equal, under the law. Or has it changed to… all groups, are equal. There are some that are more equal then others. Illegal Aliens for example…
But if the administration is right, that local and State law enforcement cannot enforce Federal law, then I expect people will be getting out their printing presses and printing up $100 dollar bills. Only the FBI can enforce Federal law under the Holder leadership. A person could knowingly pass a printed counterfeit $20.00 bill and the Federal government would frown on a local police officer taking notice.
Slavery is another example. Does it make sense for local and State officials to turn a blind eye to a slavery ring operating in the US? Say…Trafficking in young girls? Under Holders assertion local and State police would be barred from reporting Human traffickers to federal authorities. To do so would make it less likely that people would report crime to the police. Using Holder’s logic.
What if Local police came across a treason plot that was about to be hatched? Holder would argue that it isn’t local police authority to intervene. If the government was overthrown and a communist regime set up, that then murdered twenty five million Americans, according to Eric Holder, that would be the price for liberty…. Or something. All to overturn a law Mr. Holder has not read.
No… Holder and the administrations want to use illegal immigration as a lever. A lever to use to move the American people to accept “comprehensive” reform. The law, as it is written, is “unsustainable.”
The definition of “comprehensive” is making all the illegal immigrants citizens… again. It had such a negative effect on illegal immigration the last few times it was tried it should definitely be tried again, and again, and again… Government loves to re-try things that have failed in the past. The bigger the failure the more it must try again.
The definition of “unsustainable” is anything the government wants to take over and control. If the government wants to take over and control health care they call it unsustainable. A word that, I am sure, has been thoroughly polled and tested… for it’s public palatability.
The real issue is that a faction of the American political Elite see an opportunity. They believe, if they make millions of poorly educated people who can’t speak English citizens, then the new citizens will reward that faction with their political support. It is not totally unfounded. Most of the poor and uneducated in South America vote reliably for communist governments. The faction of the American Elite that want to make them citizens agree with communist philosophy… they just call it progressivism. Their (illegal immigrants and the Elite’s) interests seem to be aligned.
Of course this would make a true underclass in the USA. Something the progressives have wanted for years. Real inequality… Not the ginned up, pretend variety they have been claiming is in the US. Real poverty, enforced by a language barrier and an education ceiling. Trapped in poverty and ignorance the Elite believe the Latinos will keep them in office forever…
Forever trapping the “undocumented workers” in poverty. Because to ever let them get up would undermine the power of the Elite… And if the power of the Elite is ever threatened… The Elite become dangerous even to their old allies.
Tags: arizona, Arizona law, communist, constitution, elite, government, health care, illegal immigration, immigration, incentive, International Capitalist Party, jobs, politicians, poverty, progressive, socialist
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »
Sunday, May 16th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the way our children are taught has a great influence on them in their adult lives. Education is a means to not only teach children to read, write and do arithmetic but is a means to civilize them.
American schools today have taken a new path. They have eschewed teaching reading, writing, arithmetic and logic and have replaced them with progressive propaganda. Anti American adjectives like imperialism are often used to describe the USA. These are definitions taken directly from the Manifesto of the Communist Party and anti American Soviet handbooks. The schools teach homosexuality and the mechanics of it. They teach that God is dead. One of their favorite lessons today is that the American Constitution is a living breathing document. What do all these new evil societal myths have in common?
They serve to demean the children. They all serve to make children believe that simply the color of their skin determines if they are good or evil. This is not a very inclusive philosophy. But it has always been the philosophy of the progressives. Propaganda to the contrary aside…
I watched a show on PBS today, Need To Know. The show had a long segment about the Texas school board’s revue of new textbooks. The thrust of the piece was that a few members are wrong and bad by trying to force their conservative view of society on the whole country. Because Texas buys so many textbooks that the whole industry caters to their needs and wants. The news story never mentioned if California or New York have a similar effect on the textbook industry… At least that angle was never explored. I wonder… Would California drag the industry further to the right or the radical left… And if that had any bearing on the coverage of California’s effect on textbook slant.
Of course a hit piece on a conservative in the unbiased media is proof of their lack of bias. The show, Need To Know, also talked about the Texas Freedom Network, an organization that monitors the right’s effect on school curriculum. Amazingly this progressive organization agrees with the unbiased PBS and thinks America should be characterized as imperialist. PBS didn’t mention if there are any organizations that monitor the left… Why would there be?
The unbiased media today use evolution as a straw man argument. They constantly hammer that people of faith are bad because they deny evolution. They equate evolution deniers to holocaust deniers. The argument is used to as a means to disqualify any argument made by the right whether or not evolution is brought up. If I argue that The United States has liberated almost as many people in the twentieth century as the communists have murdered… The left argues that I deny evolution. The unbiased media agree. And the argument is changed to whether or not I believe in evolution. It has become a tool of the progressives to change the argument.
Changing the subject is a underhanded way to keep an opponent in a debate off his feet. It is the job of a good moderator to keep arguers on point. But unfortunately with the media being so unbiased only the right is kept on point the left is given free reign to move the debate as they see fit.
What is the inevitable outcome of this? The lowering of debate. Which leads to keeping the people in the dark. Which leads to the lowering of the quality of decisions made by the American people. (Exemplified in the last election). Which leads to the lowering of the lot of the American people. Which leads to the lowering of the lot of all Mankind. Because, in this World, we are all economically connected .
As long as the progressives control, the media, education and both political parties, our fortunes will continue to go down. Only until we have a media that is actually unbiased instead of pretending to be unbiased will the cancer that is progressivism be exposed by the light…
Only foul things grow in the dark… Progressivism withers in the light…
Tags: capitalist, communist, constitution, curriculum, education, elite, eschew teaching, evil, evolution, good, International Capitalist Party, media, political parties, redistribution, school, socialist, society, sophist, straw man, unbiased
Posted in Group Politics, Societal Myth, media, philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, May 6th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me, that there are three parts to a human being, Physical, Mental and Spiritual. These three attributes make up a human being. A brute animal, as far as we know, has no spirituality. A brute animal has physical and mental attributes though. So we can say that one of the things that differentiates humans from animals is human spirituality.
We all know on some level that when one part is ignored it becomes wasted. Lack of exercise makes muscles weak. Lack of mental exercise makes one dumb and a lack of religion makes a person susceptible to all sorts of negative ideas. Like moon worship or some other foolish idea. Out of the very human need for spirituality comes a worship of the created instead of the Creator.
These three attributes make up the person. Weakness in any lowering the sum total of the person. We all know someone who ignores one or more of these important attributes. And by this we see what the consequences are.
But as we have said above it is spirituality that separates human beings from the brute animals. So if that is the case we can also say that spirituality is, if not the most important of the three, at least no lesser then any of the others. If being human is the goal.
A person could theoretically evolve into a brain in a glass case. Only thinking great thoughts. But would this be a human end? Of course not. Another could devolve into a beast to rival the strength Hercules. But to regress to the beasts is not a human end either. What about spirituality? What if a person developed his or her spirituality to the point that they became a spirit. They would be an angel.
Which of the three outcomes seems to you to be the best for the actor? We can apply William James philosophy of pragmatism to glean the correct answer.
So why is it that spirituality is the most ignored? Our churches in many cases are full. We (Americans) have traditionally been a strongly religious people. But we seem to be moving the way of Europe. In Europe the most exquisite churches in the world are empty on Sunday morning. I wonder how many Europeans pray daily? I hope many but I fear there are few. Americans seem to be following the European example in more than just economics.
Part of the problem is that States have established State religions. Uniformly in the West the State religion is atheism. The Progressives in the USA have argued for generations, “separation of church and State.” They cannot abide the traditional, “freedom of religion.” Because if they can change the societal myth just enough they can legally codify atheism as the State religion.
Popular culture demeans Religion. Today it is popular, when asked, to claim to be spiritual but not religious. To say that is like saying “I eat… but not food.” It fails logically. But it sounds smart. All popular culture is, is foolishness that sounds smart… but if you think about it…
Of course the Communist Manifesto claims that religion is the opium of the people. Communists, and progressives more than socialists want people to revert to beasts. Beasts are easily herded, bridled and made into beasts of burden for their masters. Remove religion and you have removed that which separates us from the animals. Lowering us to the status of animal. What rights does a guinea pig have?
Probably the most insidious trouble that comes from lack of following an established religion is the threat of some mind bender like Jim Jones. The people who followed Jim Jones and drank the coolaid were people who disavowed established religion and followed a false prophet. There have been many false prophets and there will be many more. They seek to channel good intentions into bad actions. That is the surest way to spot a false prophet.
All these problems and potential problems as well as many more come from lack of religion. It is no more enlightened to be anti religious than it is enlightened to be anti science. Enlightenment involves looking at the world as it is… not as we want it to be.
Tags: communist, elite, evil, good, human, humanity, mental, physical, progressive, religion, socialist, Sophistry, spiritual
Posted in Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »
Sunday, March 21st, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the congenital nature of government is evil. But before we can consider that government is evil we must first consider what definition of evil we will use.
In this instance we are not arguing that government is demonic. Or that it is controlled by some supernatural malevolent force. In this instance we are using secular definitions of evil only. The malevolent force is human.
Hsun Ching argued the congenital nature of Man is evil. His definition of evil was that evil is chiefly characterized by profound selfishness and self centeredness. He went on in his logic to claim the goodness in us is a learned trait. His definition will work quite well for our usage. In the case of the congenital nature of government we will define evil as pure self centeredness. Without regard to others.
How is government born? Almost every government that has ever come into existence has done so by violent means. Non violent revolutions are very infrequent and often are short lived before some strong man takes over… violently. People not used to liberty quickly vote it away for mere baubles.
Government is born of violence and government exists by violence. That creational violence is always followed by reprisals for past violence. Government uses violence so much we don’t even notice. Every police action is violent at it’s soul. Government sponsored violence. Violence done to the individual for some perceived societal good. Seldom are other enticements offered by government. Violence is the main tool in government’s tool box.
What if you or I refuse to pay taxes? If we are adamant about it we will have our homes assaulted in the middle of the night by armed government agents. Like in New Hampshire. Violent means will be used on our person to extract money for government to use to some other evil end. Committing violence on some people on the other side of the world.
Even when government seems to be benign… it is evil. Government will “help” this or that group that the Elite want to garner political favor. How does government do this? By violently taking the property of one and giving it to another.
If it is wrong for an individual to put a gun in my face and force me to give money or property… why is it good for government to do worse? One black dot being seen as black but many black dots seen as white. Are our collective eyesights that bad?
Those that advocate for total government, progressives, communists and socialists, always want a draft. They love the idea of coerced servitude to government in the form of military service. They decry a volunteer force. Because a general requirement for military service gives them colossal powers. Power to defer politically connected sons and daughters from service (to political ends). Power to threaten anyone with forcing their son or daughter into military service if they don’t do as ordered. There is no end to the mischief that can be done when the Elite have a general draft.
Moreover I never understood and still don’t, how a person can have a pitifully low opinion of his fellow man. Such that they believe that he should not be trusted with arms. His free speech should be limited by a fairness doctrine, his decisions should be made for him by government, and that he is so corrupt he cannot be trusted in any way without government oversight… can possibly believe that people in government can be trusted at all? How does that jibe? If all people are corrupt, stupid and menacing, how can you believe that people can be trusted with unlimited power in government? These people always protect the caprice of power. They defend corruption in government but decry it in the private sector.
Government holds others to a much higher standard then it does itself… in every way. Not only in outright corruption but in personal behavior as well. Politicians daily get away with personal conduct that would land you or I in jail. Running a prostitution ring from one’s apartment for example. Ignorance is no excuse under the law… unless you write that law.
What is more selfish than holding others to a much higher standard than oneself? Therefore, what, is more evil?
Tags: communist, Congenital Nature of Government, elite, evil, government, group, Hsun Ching, International Capitalist Party, progressive, socialist
Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that if the American Republican party wants to know why they are no longer in power in Washington they need look no further than Diedre Scozzafava. The republican Elite chose her to run in a very conservative district. She is, as has been proven by history, far to the left of the constituents in the area. So much so that the people felt they must make a stand. So they put up Doug Hoffman as an independent.
It would be like an extremely liberal community having a very conservative democrat and a conservative republican running. Regardless of their vote they would be sending a conservative to congress from a liberal community. The congressman or woman wouldn’t reflect the views of their constituents. In this case liberals would certainly put up another candidate to run against the two conservatives… as would be their right.
So in the end the republican Elite chose, that the people of a conservative district, must have a socialist (democrat) or a progressive (republican). This reflects the purpose of the republican Elite. If they had at their core values smaller government, less intrusive regulation, lower taxes or even conservative family values, they would have chosen someone who more accurately reflected the people of the district and theirs. They didn’t.
Further proof of the point is that, after Diedre Scozzafava backed out of the race, she backed the democrat! (I wonder how many of the republican Elite do too). I recall Newt Gingrich backed Diedre Scozzafava. Do you think he still agrees with her point of view now? There are even rumors in upstate New York that she was going to change her affiliation to democrat.
We know the leaders of the American democratic party are communists, progressives, and socialists. Now we have further proof that the American republican party is led by the same type of people. (At least people who have the same aim). So why vote for a wannabe democrat? Why not vote for the real thing? If both parties of a dual party republic, like the US, are headed by exactly the same people, what is the difference from China? Single party rule.
But the Leftists in the unbiased media declaim that republicans should stand for anything. (Goaded by the republican elite). They circle hawkishly over conservative lawmakers while turning a blind eye to their friends minor infractions, like, trading postal vouchers for money to buy drugs with, lawmakers caught taking bribes, tax evasion, DUI death resulting, sex with pages, and on and on. If you look at who has the get out of jail free cards in our society you will see who the real Elite are.
Republicans (who should stand for nothing) must accept all points of view under their tent else they are a small tent party. This sophistry is promulgated constantly in the unbiased media. Of course the democrat party is never called to include. People who are right to life are prevented from giving speeches in the democratic convention. People that disagree with any plank of the democrat platform are shouted down.
Is it a good idea to take advice from those that want to see you dead? Sane people argue no. So why does the republican Elite agree with the unbiased media that they need to include people that disagree with every plank of the republican party? Like Diedre Scozzafava… Because they share the same goals!
Popcorn; If I say I like popcorn yet act like I don’t… The actions of the republican Elite show they don’t have the best interests of the USA and the World in mind…. Regardless of their talk. They don’t want to divest the National government of power. They want to increase the power and role of government in the lives of the people… just like the democrats. So, given these two choices, how do the American people vote? For the (Communist, Progressive, Socialist) candidate or the (Communist, Progressive, Socialist) candidate? Is it any wonder that the American people are frustrated at their government?
Tags: capitalist, communist, democrat, Diedre Scozzafava, hoffman, progressive, republican, socialist
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Monday, October 12th, 2009
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that there are two arguments about distributive justice.
One is that the goods of society should be distributed equally to equals. All those that are citizens of a society should share equally in it’s goods. This is characteristic of progressives, socialists and communists. They argue that, if all people are equal, then all people deserve equal distribution of the goods of society. To do otherwise is morally wrong.
The other is that people are not equal. We cannot be. I am different than you. It is the way it is. So if that is the case, to take from one who produces, lowering his or her standard of living, and give to one who does not produce is morally wrong… Just as stealing is wrong.
Our inequality can be summed up like this. You may be able to ski very well. I cannot ski well at all. The only way to make us equal, in skiing, is to disable you. Bring you down to my level. Then we can share equally in the joys of skiing. This lowers not elevates.
The one seeks to cut a pie equally, the other seeks to give to him who produces his or her share. Empirical evidence shows us that when you cut a pie up equally the pie grows ever smaller and smaller. Eventually getting so small the people are reduced to starvation. Examples include China and North Korea among others.
When the pie is distributed by what is produced the pie grows and grows. As the pie grows all people can have their standard of living raised. As long as distribution is according to production. If workers are being underpaid for their labor growth will be stunted. If labor is overpaid jobs will be lost. But when labor is rewarded for their labor correctly the pie will grow. I’m sure there is some bell curve that could be produced equating labor’s getting some percentage of the value of the labor they produce. Percent of labor’s cost relating to it’s production to growth curve.
But distributive justice goes even deeper. To take the libertarian point too far would be to say that if a person was starving to death… It would be morally wrong for him or her to steal food. I would argue that it would not be morally wrong. Provided there was no other means at hand to procure food and the person stolen from has more than sufficient food. Why not morally wrong?
Because of the absolute right to life. All other rights and sovereignty is subservient to this truth. God, Earth, the heavens or whatever provides for all. No matter who plants a seed… the seed will grow. No matter the hand that plants it, if the conditions are good, the seed will produce. Who we are is not relevant. What we are is not relevant. The relevant fact is that no matter who plants a seed God, Earth, the heavens or whatever will produce form our labor. God grants to all what they have produced. Mankind redistributes the fruits of labor. So if this is the case and someone takes the products of someone else’s labor, to give to someone who the taker feels is more deserving, the taker assumes the role of God.
From this it is plain to see that to redistribute is morally wrong… no matter the good intentions. The answer is always… to pay labor fairly and give to him/her that which he/she produces that does him/her and society the most good. Nothing else is morally correct.
Tags: communist, Distributive Justice, libertarian, progressive, socialist
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »