VOIGHT: My concerns for America (Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people)
We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.
Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.
The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. If Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.
The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.
Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.
Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.
If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.
Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.
This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.
* From Washington Times article by John Voight of July 28th, 2008.
**Jon Voight is an Academy Award-winning actor who is well-known for his humanitarian work.
- Red_Wing's diary
- Login or register to post comments

Comments :
A silly little rant
worthy of the Moonie rag that printed it.
Sic semper tyrannis
Silly?
...How about true, and how people feel.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
So those
who feel that way find it true - others find the speculations based on these feelings silly. What else is new?
Sic semper tyrannis
I hear the same thing all the time
From people who insist that the government has put implants into their brain to read their thoughts.
Advice....
Grow up.
all taxes equal wealth redistribution which is according to the right propagandists akin to socialism or communism.
Have you seen Obama's new ad, 'Hands'. I think it's more communist than socialist, don't you?
If ever the world needs a united strong America.......
Make sense of this
The Carlyle Group agreed on Tuesday to sell, a US manufacturer of steel pipes to Russian steelmaker Novolipetsk Steel.
That would be, yesterday, the same day that Russia announced it's ceasefire, the US business class decided to allow Russia to take over an American company. for $35bn.
Does this sell off of America represent socialism, communism, fascism... the glorious free market at work.
As McCain plays cowboy politics and talks tough on Russia, the US agrees to do billion dollar deals to let Russia buy our manufacturing.
Taxes make our country stronger, because they actually support the US.
It is the economy, stupid.
No, all taxes are not "Wealth Re-Distribution" per say...
...I don't know if this will resonate with you, because it is based on the United States Constitution.
But taxes are credible when they are applied to 3 areas of expenditure. I'll let you look them up, maybe you'll learn something.
Taxes are considered "Wealth Re-Distribution" when they are directly related to the taking of property from one citizen, and said property is then given to another.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Now why
would redistribution be bad?
Without redistribution you have those with money trending to gather more and more money and power which, for probably obvious reasons, distorts both democracy and free enterprise, as well as threatens the stability of the whole state.
In other words a system that does not redistribute is like a patient with cancer- some parts of the victims body are determined to grow and grow no matter the damage done to their neighbors or to the body as a whole. Wealth redistribution, in whatever form, is a means of keeping the body healthy.
We need far far more of it, and will until the gap between rich and poor starts to narrow instead of continuing to widen.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Here's what I'd suggest
Your argument relies upon an assumption that socialist = bad. While that statement is an accepted axiom on the right I think you'll find most on the left and even in the center just shrug. I know I don't find the term to be particularly frightening.
So if you want this kind of argument to do anything but "preach to the choir" you need to establish why exactly socialism is a bad thing. Distinguishing between socialism and communism would be good.
Why not write a diary about why you feel socialism is a real threat to america's future, ethics, nature or whatever?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It didn't even argue that Obama is a socialist
I didn't see anything in there suggesting that Obama is a socialist, except that he has associated with some people who are interested in "social justice" and "lifting up the poor". Some of them may be internationalists, but Farrakhan definitely isn't.
Not only would it be good to distinguish between socialism and communism, but it would be good to distinguish between socialism and liberalism and progressivism.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
LOL! Well thtas is econ 101, but ok, I will.
What I'm finding here is there are very few Democrats on this site. Many who will vote Democrat because the party is now moving closer to what they believe, and is no longer what is purports itself to be.
Most of you are left wing ideolog's.
I have to run a few errands but will post the diary you asked about later.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Socialism...
Socialism is defined as, “systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” The idea under socialism is that everyone pays taxes and the government provides its citizens with the things that they need. While appealing to many people, socialism is wrong. As famed French economist Frederic Bastiat put it, “The [socialist] state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” Socialism is bad because it is condescending, inefficient, and immoral.
To begin, socialism is bad because it is condescending. When people work and produce they have the means to buy what they wish. (Monetary payments for work are merely a means of exchange for people to trade goods and services.) If you provide a good or service that few people value you are paid less. Conversely, people who provide goods and services that are highly valued are paid more. The more that one produces the more they are entitled to the production of others. As people spend their earnings they automatically fulfill their highest order wants first. How does socialism fit in? Let’s look at it. Pretend someone wishes to spend their earnings on food, clothing, shelter, music, and alcohol (from highest order to lowest). Under a socialist regime, this may be impossible. After taxes, the individual may only be able to afford food, clothing, and shelter – while being provided with government transportation, healthcare, and a public park (all of which our person may or may not use). Socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money; it presupposes you are not smart enough to decide what you need. Your income was yours, now it is the government’s and it will provide for you what it thinks you need.
Further, socialism is inefficient because it makes economic calculation impossible. This fact is really common sense (thanks to an economist named Ludwig von Mises). With a central government owning all (or any) means of production and distribution there can be no competition, profits, losses, market prices, or market, for that matter. However, profits, losses, and prices serve to guide scarce resources to their most highly valued means. The fact that socialism is inefficient, compared to free-market capitalism, is really the answer to an empirical question. Clearly, this question has been answered by history. Nations such as the former USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea are great examples (these nations were not communist – communism, by its own definition, has never existed).
Finally, socialism is bad because it is immoral. Others can make this point better than I. Frederic Bastiat said it best, “It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder…. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” This amounts to nothing more than compulsory servitude. Economist Walter Williams takes it a step further, “Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people).
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
you butchered the definition of socialism
No. No no no no no no no no no.
I agree that you have cited a common definition of socialism, but while paraphrasing that definition in the next sentence you radically changed the meaning. In a socialist economy (as defined here), there is no need for taxes because the government owns all of the corporations, and could therefore derive revenues from their profits. Moreover, in this socialist economy, the state would be the monopoly purchaser of labor and the monopoly provider of goods -- so it could set prices/wages at whatever it wanted and confiscate all wealth in that manner.
To sum it up: there are no taxes in a socialist system.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Call it what you will, witholding, contribution, levy, etc...?
"In a socialist economy (as defined here), there is no need for taxes because the government owns all of the corporations, and could therefore derive revenues from their profits. Moreover, in this socialist economy, the state would be the monopoly purchaser of labor and the monopoly provider of goods -- so it could set prices/wages at whatever it wanted and confiscate all wealth in that manner."
You understand very little about economics, or socialism if you believe what you wrote in the above.
Often there is no profit to "confiscate". Workers are debited, regardless what nomenclature you put on it.
In essence, when a government goes from being a protector of private property to a plunderer of it, it places itself on a course of chaos, economic ruin and its own ultimate self-destruction.
Socialism is the mechanism which transforms government from its noble role as a protector into a predator and, since many of the citizens of our fine country seem determined to plow through socialism to its bitter end, we should examine the territory through which these sad steps lead. The core result of socialism is the destruction of private property and wealth.
All socialist countries follow the same miserable path. The U.S. doesn’t have to go down this path, but it seems determines to do so.
One of the great dangers of any government by the people is that sooner or later their politicians discover they can vote largess from the public trust. Their first experiment at this bold new adventure invariably revolves around social programs enacted in the name of morality and the public good or even solving some current crisis. Who could oppose that? “After all,” it will be argued, “don’t you care about people, or the welfare of the country, or the environment?”
The lure of this argument has been absolutely irresistible from the Roman Empire to the French and Bolshevik revolutions to the Democratic socialist driven adgenda party in the America of today.
The moral argument that we can finally solve poverty, pain, sickness, and hunger with “free” money seems just to good to be true. It usually is but it sells to the public. To fund these allegedly moral programs, the assets of the gentle citizens must be quietly taxed in the name of the public good.
Protesters are portrayed as selfish “bigots, "racists", or some other disparaging epitaph blocking the road to the perfect society. After all, how could something so noble do anything bad to the country?
At first the rich are the only ones asked to pay more of their “fair share.” In the U.S. income tax originally only affected upper-bracket individuals. In this early stage, few complain and everyone seems happy, except for those nagging voices still warning of dire consequences ahead; the ones the gentle legislators wish would just shut up. Other than that they have little to fear because the gentle legislators appear to be heroes placing our feet firmly on the road to utopia. Soon they promise all the have-nots will have and those who do have, will have just a little less. After all, as we said, it’s just their “fair share.”
Ah but time rumbles onward, and the number of people dependent upon these programs swells along with the number of “free” government programs. Free things do sell, and that’s what politicians want to do: sell their programs.
As the programs swell, they become unwieldy, requiring large bloated bureaucracies to administer them to ward off the inevitable fraud and corruption that is attracted to "free things", consuming an ever greater part of the tax booty and servicing less to the originally intended recipients. In order to control the chaos of a large group of people cueing up to get something for nothing, large volumes of laws and regulations have to be written to control who gets what and where and when and who the givers and who the takers are. Now, the bureaucrats who administer these programs are also dependent on them for their livelihoods. This entrenches the program and assures its progression.
The food source (tax burden) shifts rapidly downward into the middle class, as the gentle politicians coo that only the rich are being soaked. Concomitant with the increase of taxation, the miracle of hidden taxation through monetary inflation is discovered as central banks print more and more money to allow the good times to continue over and above what direct taxation will allow.
This process of monetary inflation results in debasement of the currency, causing the citizens to work harder and harder and run faster and faster to keep up with the loss of their currency’s value and the concomitant rise of prices. It’s slow at first but accelerates along an insidious exponential path. Ultimately it destroys everything the middle class works for.
Additional “revenue streams” are created. More fees, fines, “mitigation payments” and permits are required to do almost anything, driving the cost of doing everything upwards. Coupled with this is a bewildering array of regulation and laws making the business of life more and more difficult to accomplish.
It’s a blurry transition through never-never land when the politicians still claim to be gentle but the people sense that they have gone from being protectors of the public good and private property to a plunderers of it; from morality to immorality.
The “Bastiat” transition doesn’t take place all at once but, one by one, members of the working class realize they’re toiling like mad and getting no where. What they do make is confiscated in taxes or destroyed in inflation. They have little left over and their life’s savings are being destroyed while the politicians tell them all is just fine, creating cognitive dissonance between the hardship workers experience and the good times the politicians promise.
But those friends of the dragon on the dole still insist their intentions are moral, even if its methods are not. As tax rates push ever higher into confiscatory ranges, self-preservation kicks in and the people take defensive action against what they no longer perceive as moral duty but legally-sanctioned plunder.
The rich catch on and move their assets offshore and sometimes themselves out of the reach of the dragon; they expatriate. They have the means to structure their finances in such as way as preserve wealth.
Unfortunately, the middle class doesn’t have this option, so it fights by engaging in evasive maneuvers. Citizens cheat on taxes, and seek to conceal taxable assets.
As the ravages of taxation and inflation eat out the middle class’s substance, a vibrant underground economy springs up, utilizing barter, cash, foreign currencies, precious metals or other means to conceal taxable activity. Regulatory laws are flouted as people try to “see what they can get away with.” Often times this underground economy has an organized crime component vis a vis the former Soviet Union.
But politicians are more than happy to be seen as dragon slayers, and create a series of scapegoats for the problem, transferring blame for the mess and enacting a new series of programs to supposedly fix the problem. In reality, they just delay the pain.
As it becomes ever more difficult for small businesses to function in the poisoned atmosphere of taxes, fees, fines, regulations and prosecutions, more of the middle class throws up its hands and goes elsewhere or becomes part of the the dependent poor. Small business goes out of business or operates illegally. As inflation devours life savings, people are wiped out. Retirees have a difficult time getting on as their lifetime achievements are destroyed. Most of the middle class slides inexorably down the slope into poverty.
This enables pretexts for seizing the assets of citizens. Businesses are nationalized. Wage and price controls are instituted. Property ownership is forcibly transferred from those who oppose the dragon to those who support it. Retirement plans are brought under the “protection” of government and their owners left with government-issued IOUs.
As the security of property ownership declines, investments flee and the economic environment becomes unstable, no one wants to invest where earnings will be heavily taxed, or even the possibility of direct confiscation on the allegation of having violated a plethora of unknowable, unobservable laws. Doing business is just too dangerous.
As doing business becomes dangerous, investments die, jobs go out of existence, increasing the pain of the working lower and middle classes. Small business is always the primary creator of employment and it is the most abused. In the end, the rich are never soaked, the middle class is destroyed and the poor finally discover that... there is no free lunch.
Faith in government dissolves along with faith in the currency. Widespread flouting of law is common and tax payments quit. If it gets bad enough, crime flourishes, both organized and random. The domestic economy collapses into a depression and the currency just collapses.
By this time there are several violently outraged groups of people: the first group consists of those who have been dependent on the government for their free programs, and once it reneges on its promises to provide these, they are outraged at the violation of their imagined rights to a free lunch.
The second group is the middle class, who have been beaten to death to feed the needs of the government. They have lost all their livelihood and property. This is the point where many revolutions occur. Sometimes the revolutions are non-bloody and occur only at the voting booths; sometimes they are bloody and violent. It is a dangerous time because the chaos caused by the breakdown of economic and political order coupled with the collapse of morality often requires brute force to restore order, and brute force is the fertile ground for dictators and the destruction of rights.
One of the great ironies of history is that those who started the mess and benefitted greatly from it are rarely ever called to pay for the crimes and carnage they caused. The George Soros' of the world.
No country trapped in socialism goes through all the events described above, which is a composite of past histories. It can turn itself at any time providing it is prepared to discipline itself the undergo the pain required to get off the public dole, much like coming off an addiction. Few societies ever want to face that, so they condemn themselves to all these stages. And the longer they wait to enact the necessary changes, the worse the pain becomes.
From currency, to energy, to property rights, issues today are clouded with so much static and partisan bickering that the average person has little real comprehension of what is happening. Frequently Democrats (Left wing ideologs) blame the moral right and fiddle while Rome burns.
America is truly at an economic and moral crossroad, having already started down the sad road to socialism.
Therefore, it is up to what actions are moral, legal and necessary to see us, our families and friends safely through the tempest. But as a ray of hope, it is here where Americans in times past have always shown themselves most noble.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
One quick nit to pick
I don't think you can support this historically given that private property (in the sense you mean) is mostly a modern invention, while the longest lasting nations are ancient (think Egypt and China).
Well if it puts on the path to being like Sweden then I'm having trouble seeing the downside, personally. YMMV.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You might want to...
...think that one
through too.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Is there something wrong
with a mixed economy?
It has worked decently well so far. At least until George W Bush, got a hold of the US Treasury.
The folks who are benefiting the most from being on the public dole, as you put it seem to be folks like private contractors in Iraq who get paid with tax payer dollars without having to answer to the tax payers for producing nothing. That's not socialism, it's theft.
Or credit institutions and banks with unethical lending and investment practices that summarily get bailed out because they are 'too big to fail'. Those are enormous institutions, whose executive officers get paid millions, while the shareholders get shafted, and the tax payers get to foot the bill.
It is the economy, stupid.
Miss L, you can't have your cake and eat it too...
It has worked decently well so far. At least until George W Bush, got a hold of the US Treasury.
2 years ago, under Bush, America had the highest rate of home ownership in history, we had the lowest interest rates in history, we had record job growth, low unemployment, and proserity and abundance galore.
The folks who are benefiting the most from being on the public dole, as you put it seem to be folks like private contractors in Iraq who get paid with tax payer dollars without having to answer to the tax payers for producing nothing. That's not socialism, it's theft.
Sure, coruption is bad. But its not a Bush thing, or a Republican thing, or a thing that is relevant to this conversation.
Or credit institutions and banks with unethical lending and investment practices that summarily get bailed out because they are 'too big to fail'. Those are enormous institutions, whose executive officers get paid millions, while the shareholders get shafted, and the tax payers get to foot the bill.
Who pressed for the lending criteria to be broadened Miss L? Who pressured for making loans available to the less advantaged, the down trodden, and those that had no appearant means of repayment? Look into it. Lenders were not being "predatory", they were doing what they were being asked to do.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
It was ignoring the laws
revoking the regulations, and easing interest on loans that tempted human nature all around.
You say socialism is to be feared. Look what happens when capitalism is allowed to go unrestrained........ ! Billions and billions in write downs with a tax payer bail out that I didn't even get to vote on!
That is why capitalism is to be feared and needs some reasonable regulations that can be enforced.
It is the economy, stupid.
What a joke...
That's so condescending.
It's actually liberal racism.
Don't take advantage of poor Blacks and Hispanics cause they are not smart enough to know the difference!
They are so poor and uneducated, and they don't realize they need to pay back loans!
We should not bail anyone out!
We should prosecute those who stole hundreds of thousands of dollars only to claim BK and walk away, having lived high on other peoples money for the interim.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
?
I'd say that the pay day lending business had equal footing in all concentrated poor areas [ I say so because the almost all white towns around me have had/have them], but if you think of blacks and Hispanics when "poor people" are brought up, go ahead.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Research the issue...
...and let me know if you come up with a different conclusion.
The rates of mortgage default amongst Black and Latino borrowers is significantly higher.
I'm not saying it is there fault, I'm saying they should never have been given the "Ninja" loans to begin with!
And to directly address your surreptitious comment, though I realize there are struggles for people of all races with poverty, are you proposing to say that the problem is not concentrated in Black and Latino urban areas?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I learned what "surreptitious" means today.
At least in my immediate area, there are an inordinate number of fairly cheap rental properties, including a good number of houses with 3+ beds, 2+ baths and the like. I'm guessing the number of affordable rental properties makes it less likely in North Central Ohio for foreclosures to happen. That would skew the data coming from at least from NCO, since slightly higher than the national percentage is white.
I think the housing bust and the its higher impact on Blacks and Latinos has more to due with geography and medium income by race.
[page 99 has "% of a given race living in urban areas]
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The 'problem'
is concentrated in areas where loose lending terms were allowed.
While you characterize 'the poor' as blacks and hispanics there were some rich folks who refinanced with bad terms and got stuck like over fed pigs (my porsche, I can't give up my porsche) with payments they couldn't afford.
Subprime lending casts a wide net.
Steve Tripoli takes us through different types of subprime loans and the areas where lenders set up shop — and not just the poor communities are targeted.
Note that 'alarmists' were sending out red flags that the tempting shiny apple of ownership had a hollow core for years before the rot started to stink up the financial markets around the globe, as the silent protest of those who couldn't pay started to filter through the system.
The irony is that Greenspan (a Rand groupie) was looking to cut down the Federal monies provided to the states, (centralized control) by shifting wealth to the states (self reliance) due to an increase in state revenues from property taxes.
Greenspan's fear of Sovietworldthink led him to a grand plan to shrink the Federal government. Only it completely backfired as we see the vast amount of dollars the Fed has been printing to rescue the very institutions that were practicing his dreamy utopian vision of unregulated free market capitalism.
It is the economy, stupid.
you're changing the terms of the argument
First, you present a critique of an extreme definition of socialism, then you pretend that this critique is applicable to anything with the slightest resemblence to socialism.
Unfortunately, everything has some resemblemce to socialism.You'd call Hayek a socialist
because he supported a social safety net:
In effect, you and the author of this original critique are making the same egocentric fallacy--you are treating everything that you disagree with as though it were the same thing.
This is no different than when anything supported by Republicans is branded as racism. It's all BS.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
LOL, When you can't make a point...
....throw your hands up and poo hoo the whole idea... ;-)
Of course I am, socialism is a economic disease.
It perverts full expression of the individual, and usurps ones sole opportunity to live this life in its fullest form.
Don't make me break out the "heard of deer" analogy, of course I think that is an extreme illustration, however there is a line in the other direction in which government should not cross.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Its a sliding scale as well
Is the US a socialist country? We have old age and health insurance for the elderly.
The most socialist country in the world would probably be DPRK (N. Korea). I don't know enough about them to understand any of the personal or economic liberties enjoyed there.
The least socialist country in the world is probably Ethiopia or possibly a few of the failed states in Africa or Asia. Any place where the central government has little to no political control one would assume they have no control over the factors of production.
Whenever someone says that universal health care is socialism, they're right. It is. So are publicly owned roads and sidewalks. Since universal health care is practiced by a large majority of the first world, I'd make the case that socialism is popular and is in good shape around the world.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Yikes, you couldn'r be further from the truth...
Socialism is strangling itself in the countries that have embraced it!
Look at the northern European countries, they are suffocating under the highest tax burdens on the planet.
And as for health care, socialized medicine is notoriously substandard.
Talk to a Canadian
for some input?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Suffocate me!
They aren't suffocating from where I'm standing. As Tlaloc mentioned, if living as people do in Sweden is suffocating, then put a pillow over my face. By my subjective standards, Swedes have it better than we do here. In fact, most of Europe does. Free market dogmatists would have you believe that the implementation of such tax burdens like those found in Scandinavia would grind the economy to a screeching halt. Unemployment would be somewhere around 50%. Somehow those European economies are doing A-OK.
For whom? It's substandard if you can afford to pay for better care, but it certainly isn't substandard compared to the care I and others who are poor currently get...which is absolutely none at all.
I certainly understand if you don't agree with my preferences. We just have different ideas on what we expect from government. I'm more than willing to wait several months for non-emergency surgery. You probably aren't. You have different priorities for health care than I do. Neither of us are wrong, just different.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
This is the perfect example
of unethical business practices.
Is Business Week
a socialist rag? I think not.
The Poverty Business:
Inside U.S. companies' audacious drive to extract more profits from the nation's working poor
Unethical capitalism at it's worst, and it's infiltrated everywhere from sub-prime mortages, to student loans, to car loans, to loans to get your teeth worked on, to the care plan you sign on to while your spouse is dying in the hospital.
It is the economy, stupid.
If you do not see what you just said, I'm not going to tell you.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I guess to some the grass always looks greener...
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Canada's not perfect
IIRC, there are no private insurers and I'm not even sure there are hospitals or doctors in Canada that will see someone on a cash basis. That's not a good idea.
The UK plan is a lot better. If you don't want to wait on your NHS doctor, then you can always find a private doctor (or even buy private insurance) to get serviced more quickly.
I don't mind people with the means to get better care. I do demand basic minimums of care for everyone of any means. We give our prisoners free health care. Why shouldn't law abiding citizens get at least that much?
To stray a bit from the original topic, every citizen should be guaranteed at the very least what the government is obligated to give a prisoner: air, food, water, shelter, and medical care. In fact, all I want is for the government to guarantee those four things to every US citizen in terms of welfare. I don't expect the food to be tasty, the water to be anything but from the tap, the shelter to be comfortable, or the medical care to be anything but the bare minimum to keep the person alive, but I do expect the government (preferably at the state-level) to provide these things to anyone who requires them.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well I have no problem with that...
...the people of any state should be able to do that if they so choose. Basic 10th amendment stuff there.
I think we already do what you describe though.
It is the way I think it should be, provided by the private sector in terms of food and shelter, the salvation army, etc. and anyone with a medical problem can be seen at a county hospital?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
We don't
Has any US citizen died because they did not have the proper nourishment, proper medical care, or proper shelter? If so, then we don't guarantee anything.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Are you saying
pure unfettered capitalism, that you proclaim as the only moral system, isn't your version of utopia?
It is the economy, stupid.
Didn't I say
a mixed economy has worked well?
I just on the whole generally disagree with you and your extreme fear of socialist tendencies. The US is not socialist, nor will it ever be.
You just don't get that the US has been moving in the direction of privatizing the profits and socializing the risks as in my above example, which you summarily ignored. I think that leans more towards fascism than socialism.
If you look at health care it has turned into a tax payer funded cashcow for many private businesses.
It is the economy, stupid.
the law has always been an instrument of plunder
Do you think that monarchs earned the massive wealth that they and their cronies had? Do you think that American slaveholding wasn't theft (please don't tell me that it was "socialism")? Do you think that 19th century industrialists had the government raise tariffs for any reason other than to steal from their agrarian countrymen?
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
You are out of line...
...What do American slave holding, the monarchs, or 19th century industrialists have to do with this?
We are talking systems of governments, not the anomalies that occurred in them, of which there have been many.
All you prove by your retort is to give even more reasoning to defend the Constitution and advance Capitalism in its purest form.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
we're talking about changes in real socities, not your utopia
Well, here's the full quote from Bastiat:
If societies have always been based on plunder, then this is not a change. Plunder is not an anomaly--it is fundamental to real human political structures throughout recorded history.
Sure, it would be nice to eliminate pluder, but no mainstream politician is proposing to do this. Opposition to pluder does not distinguish Obama from McCain, nor the left from the right.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Getting a little too philosophical
I've made the case that capitalism is both the most efficient base for an economy yet immoral.
Moral is ensuring there is no difference of wealth from one person to another. It's incredibly inefficient, and it's not even good, but it is right. I'd never advocate this type of society because it is not good for us. It doesn't work according to theory.
Capitalism happens to be one of the (if not the) most immoral ways to organize an economy. It also happens to be the best one we've come up with.
Coming back to the original topic. If you believe Obama is a socialist, you must also believe he wishes to literally nationalize the entire economy. No reasonable person can believe Barack Obama wishes to nationalize the oil industry, much less the entire economy of the United States.
If you believe Obama advocates some socialist policies you are completely right. So does John McCain. So does Bob Barr for that matter.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
According to the philosopher
According to the philosopher Ayn Rand in her essay “What is Capitalism?,” capitalism is “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”
Rand continues:
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e.., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.
It is the basic, metaphysical fact of man's nature—the connection between his survival and his use of reason—that capitalism recognizes and protects.
Capitalism is the only moral social system.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Ack! *sigh*
It is the economy, stupid.
I suppose when you die...
...you'll expect all of us to die a little too, huh?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
What magnificent hackery
So fraud, not being physical force, but deception, is outside of the scope of government? In capitalism, using force to recover property or arrest a forger, either by the government or by the aggrieved, is out of bounds?
That's an interesting update to the rules of capitalism.
Don't bring up Rand
To put it as nicely as I can, Ayn Rand makes me wish there was a hell so people like her could go to it.
Only a loon like her could argue with a straight face that altruism is not only a bad idea, but wholly immoral.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
As I am not an expert on Rand...
...I will not try to defend her here and now, except to say that yes, altruism is not the virtue you may think it, at least in terms of it being the practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others. I think beneficence, charity, goodwill, grace, kindness, and philanthropy are all good things, but before you jump to conclusions, look more deeply at the context she uses it, you may not agree, but you won't have that same reaction.
In an effort of expediency, I chose poorly in the passage I selected, my intent however was to show the purity and simplicity of capitalism, which I think I captured better in my post "Socialism" in this thread by contrasting the two.
Let me consider how best to illustrate my point, and I will come back to this.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I'd hope you'd agree
that our country has succeeded despite our "ventures" into some socialist policies. Our "mixed" economy is the best policy I think.
You may ding me for this, but I do believe we need some protections (like Social Security, Medicare and the like) because not everyone is a rational thinker. I like capitalism and I think it's a superior system over socialism because it provides the most opportunity to people to succeed.
There is a cable war going on here in NYC and I'm glad because a little competition is what Time Warner (damn them), Comcast, and Optimum need right now. Verizon has entered their market, and is delivering services using fiber-to-the home. Verizon is offering a lower price point of $95, which is far cheaper than what I pay ($123 simply for cable/internet).
The cable companies are running scared now--I saw something weird--the cable companies did a joint commercial, offering their three-in-one packages (no price was mentioned but still).
I would also agree that socialism doesn't work because our government isn't exactly the best and most efficient deliverer of even basic services--they don't have the incentive to innovate, often following the private sector. (Look how long it took USPS to get tracking services on packages.)
That being said, our mixed economy does (and should) provide a safety net, but the idea is that it's a safety net, not a hammock. This is what upsets those who detest socialism. It tempts those to simply let the government do everything, but the government has other priorities. I get it. But we still need to have some measure to protect our citizens who may not have the drive that some of our more successful capitalists do.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
I didn't read it
Nothing she says is remotely close to being considered a rational thought.
The world would have been much better off without her or her poisonous philosophy.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
what is captialism? It's liberalism
We had a term for that long before Rand...it was called "liberalism". Rand provided no service when she redefined words and consequently muddled our discourse.
There was already extensive writings about the relationship between capitalism and liberalism.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Interesting take
on the subject.
I don't get how you do courts, as privately owned though, or public parks.
Surely a justice system can not be privately owned.
It is the economy, stupid.
Adam, I'm sorry, but what a foolish...
...thing to say. Like her or not she has contributed a philosophy that has greatly affected the modern world.
She also wrote one of the worlds greatest novels, and her writings are quite diverse regarding her philosophy, not limited to "capitalism" per say.
How absurd for you to suggest because there existed previously published literature on capitalism, or any subject, no more is worth while? Dimwitted!
And Miss L, of course leave it to you to appreciate one of the most asinine posts I have encountered since regularly visiting here?
Why don't you read a book sometime, anything besides the D/Kos and the liberal internet blogs, pick up a book by Ayn before you talk trash about her.
You want to know about Parks and Courts, find out, find out what she says about it, then make a decision, add a comment, and champion someone's ignorant post.
At least then you'll know WTF you're talking about.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Lets leave the details of Rand aside for moment.
Adam is absolutely correct in what he says about "liberalism".
From the wiki entry of Liberalism
, we see what Adam was referring to:
A century before Rand ever wrote her novels, Frederic Bastiat
was writing all about property, freedom of association, freedom of contract and against state meddling in the economic affairs of free people.
In this sense, yes, Rand merely redefined all this under a different label and took it off on a moral tangent.
John, you have not been present ...
...to follow, but I have posted several posts regarding Bastiat, one such post was "Socialism" in the "VOIGHT" thread, if you're interested.
Rand's work's differ considerably from those of Bastiat in many ways.
However, the idea that there is no question but that self preservation is the mainspring of human nature is certainly a common thread.
His book "The Law" was undoubtedly influential on Rand, just as it was on Mises, and so many economists.
.
Thank you for sharing him with me though! ;-)
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
one is a "legend", the other "a god"
I don't think that any Democrats have actually referred to Obama as "a god". I don't think they've even indicated that he is a legend. For the most part, they seem to treat him as a engaging speaker, who aggrees with them and can win an election.
Sure there's that talk about "unity" and "bridging divides" -- but that's no different than any other politician (Regan and Bush come to mind).
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --