The author of that essay basically shoots himself in the foot in relation to democrats:Cherish? While the constitution maybe a thing to be cherished, the Democrats nor the Republicans respect it. It is an obstacle to their agendas which include growing government and growing control over the people to serve the government's needs. Service to your neighbor was a going theme of both conventions. Obama said this is America's promise, but this promise was not spoken by the founders.
"While they value many personal liberties, they have no great attachment to forms of freedom that involve buying, selling, trading and accumulating. Those, after all, can involve selfishness, and Democrats, like Republicans, don't want to protect selfishness."
That's right. The democrats do cherish the right of the constitution. ALL OF THEM. But they definitely do not think that the market is a right, and don't have to, because they are not rights in the constitution. Instead, the democrats quite rightly associate the buying, trading, and selling of labour as the primary reason for poverty.
Both parties are asking their people to sacrifice their free will to government with the promise their government will take them in the right direction. This, of course, has worked perfectly in the past.
A free market is the consequence of the bill of rights and the protection of individual rights.
Poverty doesn't exist in countries where their governments perform economic intervention? Hardly. Poverty will always exist within society. To have a government working to end this will only be a waste of resources that would be better and more efficiently used in the private sector. Individuals and private organizations are better suited for this because they do it because they want to help. Governments talk about it and run inefficient programs for it to gain votes and to look compassionate.
The unrealistic idealist is the one who believes a socialistic government will evolve to be better and eventually build a utopia where no poverty exists and everyone lives rich, fruitful lives at a cost of following the lead of the government and losing free will. The reality of this is a growing parasitic government that sucks all wealth from society and wastes it through mismanagement and corruption.
The realistic idealist is the one who understands society is as imperfect as the human condition, and a reflection of it. Therefore society will forever be imperfect and all an individual can hope for is to live his/her life the way he/she would like and enjoy the free will given to us at birth. One can only hope to be born in a society that values and protects this free will.
7 comments:
Cherish? While the constitution maybe a thing to be cherished, the Democrats nor the Republicans respect it. It is an obstacle to their agendas which include growing government and growing control over the people to serve the government's needs.
That might be true with the warmongering Republicans, but it is not with the Democrats. The Democrats are interested in bigger government for the social good, not to make the government, as you say, "bigger" or to "serve the government's needs".
Service to your neighbor was a going theme of both conventions. Obama said this is America's promise, but this promise was not spoken by the founders.
Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing, He has flipped on a majority of the campaign promises he has made. He has consistently voted against his stated position. He is Repulicon.
Both parties are asking their people to sacrifice their free will to government with the promise their government will take them in the right direction. This, of course, has worked perfectly in the past.
Both parties have become Republican in philosophy and excusion. Clinton cut more in social spending than Bush senior. The new directive of the democratic party is definitely anti-freedom, but that is because the democratic party has sold out.
A free market is the consequence of the bill of rights and the protection of individual rights.
Nope. Land aquisition has never been a natural right. It has always be conquered and plundered. Therefore, if you want your idea of "rights" to be more than a cherished law, a inherent characteristic, then you will have to explain why it has been trampled upon so much in history. If you can't, then I am in my righ to reject your position as pie-in-the-sky idealism.
Poverty doesn't exist in countries where their governments perform economic intervention? Hardly. Poverty will always exist within society.
Exactly. It will always exist in society, because you believe in the buy and selling of people.
To have a government working to end this will only be a waste of resources that would be better and more efficiently used in the private sector.
Nope.
Individuals and private organizations are better suited for this because they do it because they want to help. Governments talk about it and run inefficient programs for it to gain votes and to look compassionate.
Nope. The 19th century and early twentieth century are littered with charitable organizations that did nothing to increase the the real wage dramatically. The real wage rose dramatically because of unionization, government welfare, and general subsidization. For example, in China, a country that bans unionization because of Walmart, the yearly disposable income per capita has only increased by 300 Chinese dollars in 20 years. THAT is a retarded system.
The unrealistic idealist is the one who believes a socialistic government will evolve to be better and eventually build a utopia where no poverty exists and everyone lives rich, fruitful lives at a cost of following the lead of the government and losing free will. The reality of this is a growing parasitic government that sucks all wealth from society and wastes it through mismanagement and corruption.
The real idealist is the person who believes in fairytale market enrichment, even when all the data points the other way. The real idealist is also the person who doesn't want to see that corruption and parasitism exist in all organizational structures, including business ones. The key is to elminate corruption, not close your eyes and HOPE that the market will make it better. Do so it called market evangelism.
The realistic idealist is the one who understands society is as imperfect as the human condition, and a reflection of it. Therefore society will forever be imperfect and all an individual can hope for is to live his/her life the way he/she would like and enjoy the free will given to us at birth.
Given to us by whom? Free will is not given to us. Cause and effect preclude free will. The only way one can rescue free will is to believe in God.
Also, the ideal is part of the real. There is no such thing as a "real idealist" and "realistic idealist". The welfare state/unionized economy has worked quite nicely for over 60 years. The only reason people want to change it is greed.
One can only hope to be born in a society that values and protects this free will.
Free will is exactly the concept that impoverishes. Freedom to buy and sell slaves; freedom to buy and sell labour; freedom to ignore reality and the ability to change that reality. Your freedom is reflected back at you in history.
Just a note before you say I am contradicting myself:
When I write about "Democrats cherishing the Bill of Rights", I am writing about the democrats that set up the welfare state in the beginning, not the current party officials, who have de-evolved into Republican hacks.
You talk about republicans in the context of the current definition of what a republican is, but you're talking about a democrat in the historical context of what a democrat was. It becomes very confusing.
The mainstream portions of both parties have become Neo-Cons. They both support killing brown people in the middle east and expanding the police state.
Barak Obama:
“government depends not just on the consent of the governed but on the service of citizens. ... That’s what history calls us to do, because loving your country shouldn’t just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.”
John McCain:
"duty, honor and country are values that transcend ideology...National service is a crucial means of making our patriotism real, to the benefit of both ourselves and our country."
Adolph Hitler:
"that above all, the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual"
Anyway...
Land aquisition has never been a natural right? Ownership is not natural to the human condition? I disagree. An individual should certainly have the right to property. All inherent rights have been trampled on through-out history, the doesn't mean we shouldn't still work towards protecting those rights from those that trample on them. The trampling of them in history is the reason the bill of rights was written. Eating is a natural function, but historically people starve.
I do not believe in the buying and selling of people. I believe in trading goods and services.
"Nope."
Name one service the government provides more efficiently than the private sector.
I have no problem with Unions. That is a great example of people organizing in the private sector outside of government and completely in line with my political leanings.
Government welfare and subsidies have caused countries ballooning deficits and national debt. This causes many central banks to print more money and lend more money to the government which results in inflation which lowers the value of the currency and makes poor people much poorer actually taxing their wages without them even knowing it. These do not contribute to increase in wages. Labour markets have because people organize into unions.
In the US, the welfare state is bankrupting their country. You may try to pin that on the wars, but even without the wars the US federal government would still need to tax over 100% of wages over the next 40 years to keep up with entitlements through their welfare programs.
"Freedom to buy and sell slaves"
This completely shows your misunderstanding of the concepts I talk about. Slavery violates the rights of the slaves. How can you use that to support your statement that free will impoverishes if that isn't an example of free will? Freedom has hardly existed in human history. Your socialism is reflected back at you through much of history.
You talk about republicans in the context of the current definition of what a republican is, but you're talking about a democrat in the historical context of what a democrat was. It becomes very confusing.
Yes, I know. My bad. Part of the problem is that I haven't decided if all the Democrats are really Republicon hacks. I know Obama is.
The mainstream portions of both parties have become Neo-Cons. They both support killing brown people in the middle east and expanding the police state.
Not exactly. Many Democrats did not suppor the war in Iraq, but don't want to leave, because they think it would leave Iraq in anarchy/worse than what it was like under Saddam.
I am very angry at the Democrats in their response to the Patriot Act. But since their main goal is to protect social spending and the interests of the working class, I suppose they feel that one is worth more than the other. Either way, they should be fighting it off, not getting in line in the safety train dance.
Barak Obama:
“government depends not just on the consent of the governed but on the service of citizens. ... That’s what history calls us to do, because loving your country shouldn’t just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.”
Yeah, he's a republicon hack. What do you expect? He's a Christian or whatever that is trying to be a non-partisan king. It doesn't work that way. Partisanism is a basic definition of politics.
Adolph Hitler:
"that above all, the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual"
Again, Obama is a Christian or whatever. His values lie in the same sort of nationalism that Hitler's did... minus the racism, of course..
Land aquisition has never been a natural right? Ownership is not natural to the human condition? I disagree. An individual should certainly have the right to property. All inherent rights have been trampled on through-out history, the doesn't mean we shouldn't still work towards protecting those rights from those that trample on them. The trampling of them in history is the reason the bill of rights was written. Eating is a natural function, but historically people starve.
Fair enough, but you are writing about is not realism, but idealism. You said "should" when the "is" and "was" are characterized by the brutal and merciless plundering and stealing of private property. Genghis Kahn, for example. The strong trample the weak, and as such you have to explain why your defense of the market is any different than King's defense of his God given right to rule. In one, there is no political freedom; in the other, if the market is truly free, there is widespread poverty. If you can't justify the system of the King, because it hurts people, I don't see how you can justify the system of the capitalist.
I do not believe in the buying and selling of people. I believe in trading goods and services. Tradin of goods and services IS the trading of people. It is the trading of their labour and the trading of the product of their labour. If labour has now power beyond the market, then it is the trading of wage slaves.
Name one service the government provides more efficiently than the private sector.
Police protection
Fire protection
Health care
Inspection
Natural wilderness protection
Garbage removal
Infrastructural building and maintenance... to name a few..
I have no problem with Unions. That is a great example of people organizing in the private sector outside of government and completely in line with my political leanings.
This is where I say that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't be a market evangelist and a unionist at the same time. The union movement is supported by four pillars: 1) The fact that workers don't have to work to live. The welfare state eliminates this brutal fact of the "free" market and hence drives the average wage up. 2) The threat of revolution. This pillar still exists, but in a much weaker form, and will continue to be such as long as majority of workers continue to toe the neo-conservative line. 3) Violent strikes. Yes, strikes are not always pretty events. 4) Government arbitration.
Now, if you got rid of 1 and 4, assuming that you are an anti-gov nutjob, the unions would lack teeth and hence lose their ability to bargain.
Government welfare and subsidies have caused countries ballooning deficits and national debt. This causes many central banks to print more money and lend more money to the government which results in inflation which lowers the value of the currency and makes poor people much poorer actually taxing their wages without them even knowing it.
Actually, many Western countries do not have national debts. Or have balanced and surplused their budgets. Besides, national debt is no worse than personal debt if it is managed properly.
These do not contribute to increase in wages. Labour markets have because people organize into unions.
If people have to work to live, then employers can drive down their wages. If there are no laws in support of unions and scores against unionization, like there is, then the employer will be able to drive down wages by threat of firing the employees who threaten to strike. It's called the squeeze.
In the US, the welfare state is bankrupting their country. Pish-posh. During the Clinton era the budget was balanced and there was even a surplus. You are just mired in so much neo-con propaganda that you can think straight.
You may try to pin that on the wars, but even without the wars the US federal government would still need to tax over 100% of wages over the next 40 years to keep up with entitlements through their welfare programs.
Again, the federal budget was balanced during the Clinton years. If you subtract the war, which is taking up a whooping 36% of this years budget, then you'd have lots left over to balance the budget and pay for social spending.
"Freedom to buy and sell slaves"
This completely shows your misunderstanding of the concepts I talk about. Slavery violates the rights of the slaves. How can you use that to support your statement that free will impoverishes if that isn't an example of free will? Freedom has hardly existed in human history. Your socialism is reflected back at you through much of history.
Nope. Freedom of the indivdual, if we take it in its purest form, is the freedom of the individual to do what he or she wants. That includes raping, pillaging, warring, conquering, and murdering, all of which have occured at the hands of men who thought they were the only freemen in their Kingdoms: the sovereigns. THEY WERE SOVEREIGN, I.E. FREE.
Your freedom is just as socialistic as mine, but mine is more realistic.
"If you can't justify the system of the King, because it hurts people, I don't see how you can justify the system of the capitalist."
I can't justify the system of the King because it allows one person to trample the free will of anyone, not because its bad for the people. If a free market is bad for the people (not that we know because historically free markets have not had long lives) then it is the fault of the people and they deserve the fate they have created for themselves.
"Tradin of goods and services IS the trading of people. It is the trading of their labour and the trading of the product of their labour. If labour has now power beyond the market, then it is the trading of wage slaves."
I don't understand how you can say my willful action of trading my service for an acceptable wage is the same as someone else forcing me into slavery.
Police protection - Blackwater
Fire protection - AIG is contracting private fire fighters in California
HealthCare - Please read http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
Garbage removal is privatized in even much of Canada. My garbage is removed by a private company.
I do not believe unions should need to have intervention from government to exist. If there is an overall benefit of one group of people (the labours) to perform work for another group of people (the business operators) then a deal will be struck by the two groups. If a deal cannot be struck, then obviously the asking price of the labourers is too high for the business operators to earn a reasonable profit. This is the simple logic between any agreement.
"National debt is no worse than personal debt if it is managed properly."
As an individual, my motivation to keep my personal debt low and manageable is MUCH greater than a politician who wants to give freebies out to get elected.
"If people have to work to live, then employers can drive down their wages. If there are no laws in support of unions and scores against unionization, like there is, then the employer will be able to drive down wages by threat of firing the employees who threaten to strike. It's called the squeeze."
Of course you have to work to live. Thats only natural. If I own a business and you decide to strike, and I can get cheaper elsewhere, it only makes sense that I will hire the cheaper the labour. Maybe your expectations of the value of your job are higher than the market demands. If you want to get out of that cycle, go to school. Its natural motivation to improve yourself and improve the value of your services within the market. Legislating to make sure companies have to pay large salaries to untrained workers is whats causing the manufacturing exodus out of the US, and to a smaller, more gradual rate, Canada and other Western countries.
"During the Clinton era the budget was balanced and there was even a surplus. You are just mired in so much neo-con propaganda that you can think straight."
The republican congress did balance the budget, but what they really need is large surpluses to pay off the debt. Current entitlements will bankrupt the country in 40 years. The rate the economy would need to grow in that time to cover the debt is impossible and every american's income would be needed to pay off the debt.
"Nope. Freedom of the indivdual, if we take it in its purest form, is the freedom of the individual to do what he or she wants. That includes raping, pillaging, warring, conquering, and murdering, all of which have occured at the hands of men who thought they were the only freemen in their Kingdoms: the sovereigns. THEY WERE SOVEREIGN, I.E. FREE."
You talk of societies where the freedom of all people is not protected. An individuals freedom ends where another's begins. These example you give forget that what I talk about is a society where freedom is protected by a government.
"You can't be a market evangelist and a unionist at the same time."
I certainly can. Unions are the result of individual's freedom to organize.
I can't justify the system of the King because it allows one person to trample the free will of anyone, not because its bad for the people. If a free market is bad for the people (not that we know because historically free markets have not had long lives) then it is the fault of the people and they deserve the fate they have created for themselves.
Deserve? Still not getting this language you are using. Are you saying there is some sort of objective ethical system that can be identified?
No. Most people in the market did not choose to have a free market. The opposition to market evangelism is well-documented and still ongoing. Instead, its the people who force the free market on other people and then gooble up the land who are like the king. They deprive the rights other people by hoarding wealth into fewer and fewer hands, thus creating market of poverty. This happened in Europe shortly before the discovery of America.
I don't understand how you can say my willful action of trading my service for an acceptable wage is the same as someone else forcing me into slavery.
It's okay when there are acceptable wages to choose from, but when there are not, and there are no social safety nets, then you would be forced to work or starve.
Police protection - Blackwater
Fire protection - AIG is contracting private fire fighters in California
HealthCare - Please read http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
Garbage removal is privatized in even much of Canada. My garbage is removed by a private company.
I didn't say private companies were not efficient and I would not use America as the only example. The government is just as efficient in the categories I stated. The difference, is that a group of neo-con ideologues have decided that higher wages is the same as inefficiency. Cheaper is better; profits over people. There is no reason to believe that government controlled services are inherently more inefficient. Also, please don't direct me to other pages. If you are too lazy to make the argument yourself, you are probably just as corrupt as the politicians you despise.
I do not believe unions should need to have intervention from government to exist. If there is an overall benefit of one group of people (the labours) to perform work for another group of people (the business operators) then a deal will be struck by the two groups. If a deal cannot be struck, then obviously the asking price of the labourers is too high for the business operators to earn a reasonable profit. This is the simple logic between any agreement.
And this very same SIMPLE logic is the logic that will drive down wages in the absense of government laws and intervention. If capital doesn't have to pay a reasonable wage, it won't. Simple economics.
As an individual, my motivation to keep my personal debt low and manageable is MUCH greater than a politician who wants to give freebies out to get elected.
Freebies? Oh, you mean social spending for the poor.
No, you have not convinced me that the national debt is any different than personal debt. If national debt is such a big problem, then the people need to elect someone who will balance the budget. The Clinton adminstration/Gingrich congress did it, WITH FREEBIES, and there is no reason to think that it can't be done again.
Of course you have to work to live. Thats only natural. If I own a business and you decide to strike, and I can get cheaper elsewhere, it only makes sense that I will hire the cheaper the labour. Maybe your expectations of the value of your job are higher than the market demands. If you want to get out of that cycle, go to school. Its natural motivation to improve yourself and improve the value of your services within the market. Legislating to make sure companies have to pay large salaries to untrained workers is whats causing the manufacturing exodus out of the US, and to a smaller, more gradual rate, Canada and other Western countries.
LOL, you are an idiot. As wages fall, and more and more people go to school, won't there be an ever increasing number of educated labourers in the labour market? Hence DRIVING DOWN the value of the salaries of educated labour? and along with it uneducated labour.
You talk of "natural", but you ignore that government is natural. You igore that the ideal is part of the real. That there is absolutely no reason why humanity has to live like savages just to satisfy the profit directive of some executive or the greed of some small business owner named Cookie.
The republican congress did balance the budget, but what they really need is large surpluses to pay off the debt. Current entitlements will bankrupt the country in 40 years. The rate the economy would need to grow in that time to cover the debt is impossible and every american's income would be needed to pay off the debt.
They had a surplus, as well.
It will bankrupt if current trends continue, you meant.
Anyway, they balanced it with a surplus, with social speding and without war. It can be done again.
You talk of societies where the freedom of all people is not protected. An individuals freedom ends where another's begins. These example you give forget that what I talk about is a society where freedom is protected by a government.
It can't be protected if officals are prone to corruption. You seem to think that the legislature is the only branch of the government that can be bought.
I certainly can. Unions are the result of individual's freedom to organize.
Weak, ineffective unions, you mean.
Post a Comment