Social Philosophy » Gress... Has Issues

Who Refuses to Govern America?

First Principles, Government, Rule of Law, Social Philosophy

Feb 042011

Do we really want self-rule?

Self-government Avoidance

In the absence of the willingness to self-govern, or to have a conversation about how to be more effective at the little self-governing we actually do, is it fair to look at failing American states and cities as anomalous? Is it reasonable to suppose that they are, at bottom, that much different than Haiti, or Zimbabwe, Argentina or Venezuela? If Democracy is just used as an excuse to use an ignorant, disengaged populace as a path to power, isn’t the inevitable default to a kleptocracy? Were America’s founders wrong, in the end, in misjudging the willingness of enough people to engage in governance to make the American experiment work? If we abandon our responsibility to be informed and engaged enough to monitor and direct those we elect to public office, is a prosperous life under free-market capitalism sustainable?

Chicago Pharaoh

In other words, is the Chicago model of token democracy the default, the natural mode of a society too preoccupied individually to care that they are electing people whose sole incentive is to loot the government and divert the public purse to themselves and their necessary allies (e.g., unions)? Are Ayn Rand’s looters (of the treasury and the productive sector) not necessarily a spiral towards collapse, but a form of stagnation that is sustainable as long as you have enough employers who won’t go John Galt and either drop out or limit their own productivity?

After all, Chicago can hollow out its public services with patronage, extravagant contracts, exuberant pensions and sell-offs of public assets. In return, the citizens of that fair city get fifty years of one-party rule and a minimum of actual public service: Poor schools, transport, education and safety – but not poor enough to create demand for change.

Just wondering, because it appears that while American constitutional principles are scalable to any population size, the 1787 system designed for their implementation is not. It’s too easy, in a massive population, for the weak and corrupt to hide from citizen scrutiny. It’s too easy for the corrupt to manipulate parts of a large system to defraud the taxpayer and transfer decision making power from the taxpayer to the government. It’s then a small step in what is nominally a democracy for the elected to slip the bonds of “the consent of the governed” and with the most reasonable of explanations at each step, to require the governed to silently assent to any proposal or demand whatever.

If done gradually, and it usually is, the befuddled and the discontented adjust to the new paradigm. If this is done well – by the “enlightened” leaders – the new paradigm will look enough like the old paradigm to allow each citizen to feel free and independent. Instead of the old tyrannical, authoritarian paradigm wherein citizens are told lies that they either swallow or ignore (think cynical Russians in the former USSR), it will be more common to have the Edward Bernaysian propaganda model wherein the government creates a psychological environment that allows you to think your newfound loss of freedom is your own idea. (Currently, we get both: The big lie, repeated by leftist propagandists until it morphs into accepted truth, and the more modern propaganda model that forms your opinion by altering your environment.)

But I digress. The question before us is whether kleptocracy – a systematic looting by elected officials and their minions – and arbitrary rule of the masses (us) by the elites is the natural default position for governance of our species, and the arrangement most comfortable and convenient to all. Especially following the informal collapse, overthrow or degradation of democracy. If so, it – and not a quest for individual freedom and responsibility – will become (or remain) the model for planet Earth. Maybe urging people to engage in active self-governance in order to see their lives improve is a fools errand – every bit as quixotic as the socialist yearning for a workers’ utopia. In the end, the ugly truth may very well be that we are too lazy, self-involved, shallow and opportunistic to desire more than the ability to satisfy basic needs. We barely want to govern ourselves, let alone a society.

When Good Men do Nothing

Some might think it odd that we live in an age of unlimited communication; unlimited access to information (except state secrets and hidden agendas), yet can’t derive enough information from our reading to conclude that deferring all societal decision to a handful of folks at the head of a humongous government structure is suicidal, both to our founding principles and our personal well-being. It is peculiarly shallow to think that “letting someone else take care of that stuff” is without consequence.

What has become increasingly clear is that casting an occasional vote is no longer an adequate discharge of our responsibility to self-govern. Nothing less than full-bore engagement is required in order to cope with the size of our society and its increasing complexity. Smaller units of (self-organized?) engagement, with routine participation by all, appears to be essential.

So, the answer to “Who Refuses to Govern America?” is: We do.

Opinion: Comunismo y Socialismo

First Principles, Government, Social Philosophy

Dec 072010

por Armando P. Ribas

For our Spanish-speakers, here is a provocative essay by the Argentine economic consultant Armando P. Ribas, author of Entre la Libertad y la Servidumbre. This should help clear up some of the confusion between Marxism and Socialism. A very thoughtful piece, contributed to HACER by frequent contributor RCR.

So, with a big hat tip to Eneas Biglione, editor of Hacer (Hispanic-American Center for Economic Research), we are pleased to be able to offer this very thoughtful piece. Incidentally, you can sign up for a Hacer weekly e-mail, and I’m sure that, as a non-profit, they would greatly appreciate any small donation you can manage.

Lastly, if you want to read this in English, just click on the Translate tab at the top of the page.

Enjoy.

Death Spiral

“No Hay diferencia entre comunismo y socialismo, excepto en la manera de conseguir el mismo objetivo final: el comunismo propone esclavizar al hombre mediante la fuerza, el socialismo mediante el voto. Es la misma diferencia que hay entre asesinato y suicidio”.
Ayn Rand

“ El egoísmo bien entendido de los ciudadanos es sólo un vicio para el egoísmo de los gobiernos que personifican a los Estados.”
Juan Bautista Alberdi

La historia reciente del enfrentamiento entre la Rusia Soviética en manos del comunismo, y los Estados Unidos como representante del capitalismo, ha provocado igualmente una confusión en el análisis político ideológico. Conforme a esa alternativa hemos liberado al socialismo de su origen ideológico marxista. Ante tal disyuntiva creo procedente dar honor a quien honor merece y reconocer que fueron Marx y Engels los creadores del socialismo científico.

Ya había escrito Karl Marx en su versión de la dialéctica hegeliana que la historia de la lucha de clases partía de la tesis feudalismo- antítesis – capitalismo y síntesis que fuera el socialismo. La llegada del socialismo habría de producirse a través de la revolución, supuestamente generada por la explotación de los trabajadores por los capitalistas, y su teoría de la alienación. Es decir conforme a Marx y Engels, el capitalismo llevaba en sí mismo la génesis de su destrucción.

Llevada a cabo la revolución socialista, el primer paso hacia el comunismo sería la dictadura del proletariado, en sustitución del Estado, para lograr expropiar a los expropiadores, pues la naturaleza del capitalismo residía en la desigualdad, que tal como ya la había escrito Jean Jacques Rousseau, se debía a la propiedad privada. Cumplida tal misión, de conformidad con Engels y su obra anti-during el Estado desaparecería (will wither away) y así se arribaría al fin de la historia que sería el comunismo. Y recordemos al Sr. Fukuyama que quien predijo el fin de la historia fue Marx y no Hegel, pues ello ocurriría como consecuencia de la desaparición de los antagonismos.

Igualmente Marx consideraba que el origen de la falta de libertad residía en la escasez, y el comunismo sería la etapa en que superada la escasez el estado desaparecería como antes se dijo y sería la “sociedad” la encargada de distribuir los bienes. Así dice Marx, en La Filosofía Alemana: “ ..en la sociedad comunista, donde nadie tiene una esfera exclusiva de actividad pero cada cual puede llevar a cabo cualquier rama que desee, la sociedad regula la producción general y hace posible para mi el hacer una cosa hoy y otra mañana, el cazar en la mañana, pescar al mediodía, arrear ganado en la tarde y criticar después de la cena, tal como yo lo tenga en mente, sin que nunca me convierta en cazador, pescador, pastor o crítico”. Así habría desparecido la división del trabajo. Voy a insistir en este aspecto y así Marx escribió respecto a la división del trabajo: “Este interés común no existe sólo en la imaginación como el interés general, sino principalmente en la realidad, como la interdependencia mutua de los individuos entre los cuales se divide el trabajo…En tanto exista una escisión entre el interés particular y el interés común las acciones del hombre se convierten en un poder ajeno que lo esclaviza”.

Perdón por la longitud de la cita pero la creo imprescindible para conocer la verdadera ideología que sigue apoderada del mundo moderno. No puedo evitar entonces un paréntesis para expresar mi sentimiento de que solo un imbécil o un cínico podría creer tal pretensión utópica y por tanto tal como señalara Karl Popper, la utopía es la madre de la violencia. Y hoy lo seguimos viendo a través del terrorismo ya fuere religioso – musulmanes o racional como las FARC, etc. No obstante esta realidad inconducente, en una encuesta reciente en Europa sobre quien había sido el pensador más grande en la historia, la respuesta fue Karl Marx. No nos podemos extrañar de la crisis europea en manos del estado de bienestar, que cada vez es más malestar. Fue así que cuando Sarkozy pretendió aumentar la edad de jubilación de 60 a 62 años, salieron a la calle tres millones de personas, para protestar por tamaña osadía en contra de los derechos humanos.

Pero volviendo entonces a nuestro tema original, fue Edward Bernstein quien en 1899 publicara “Las Precondiciones del Socialismo” que con la aprobación de los anteriores principios creara la social democracia. Es decir el socialismo sin revolución ni dictadura del proletariado sino democracia mediante. Así en un supuesto original expresó que el socialismo era el heredero legítimo del liberalismo y que no había ningún pensamiento liberal que no perteneciera a los elementos de las ideas del socialismo.(SIC). Nada más falaz que este pensamiento, pues el socialismo surge de la idea ética respecto a la naturaleza humana antitética a la que sustenta el sistema liberal. El liberalismo parte del principio de Hume respecto a que la naturaleza humana es inmodificable y si queremos cambiar los comportamientos debemos cambiar las circunstancias. El socialismo desde Rousseau en adelante y con Kant y sus imperativos categóricos se sustenta en la idea de la creación de un hombre nuevo conforme al deber ser.. Así Bernstein sostenía que no era necesaria la expropiación inmediata sino solo la regulación estatal y de las cooperativas. La nacionalización de las empresas privadas sobrevendría finalmente de motus propio.(SIC)

El socialismo si surgió como un proceso democrático antagónico al presupuesto revolucionario marxista. Fue entonces Lenin quien en contraposición a Bernstein construiría, con la ayuda germana el socialismo en Rusia mediante el partido bolchevique, que se convirtió en el partido comunista. Fue así que en Rusia ocurrió lo que habría sido una sorpresa para Marx, quien creyó que el advenimiento del socialismo como superación del capitalismo, se produciría en los países desarrollados como Inglaterra y no en los países subdesarrollados como Rusia en el año 1917. Aparece entonces ante el mundo la dicotomía del comunismo totalitario y socialismo democrático. Consecuentemente la caída del muro del Berlín hizo desaparecer la realidad del socialismo marxista dejando incólume la utopía socialista, en manos de los defensores de los derechos del pueblo. Y recordemos las palabras de Lamartine respecto a la personalidad de Marat: “Amaba al pueblo y odiaba a los hombres”

No debiéramos olvidar que el origen del fascismo con Hitler y Mussolini a la cabeza surgió de la mente de Lenin, ante su experiencia del proceso económico comunista en Rusia. Fue entonces que escribió la Nueva Económica donde dijo: “Los capitalistas están operando a nuestro lado. Están operando como ladrones; hacen ganancias; pero ellos saben como hacer las cosas”.Entonces, claramente los capitalistas ante la posibilidad de que los nacionalizaran aceptan la colusión con la dictadura democrática, pues no olvidemos que tanto Hitler como Mussolini llegaron al poder por elecciones. Sepamos entonces que donde no se respeten los derechos de propiedad y exista un poder absoluto, la alternativa es la colusión y ésta es la antítesis de la eficiencia capitalista basada precisamente en la competencia. (Adam Smith)

El marxismo está presente, y como bien dijera Alexis de Tocqueville: “El socialismo y la concentración de poder son frutos del mismo suelo” y esta realidad es que enfrentamos en nuestro continente bajo el influjo del socialismo del siglo XXI, y la inspiración de Fidel Castro, hoy felicitado por el Papa por estar a favor de los pobres y de la solidaridad. El socialismo, o sea la demagogia como tergiversación de la democracia es la causa de la crisis europea y del populismo latinoamericano sumido en la pobreza. Debemos aprender definitivamente que el llamado sistema capitalista es el reino del rule of law. Es decir el respeto por los derechos individuales, la eticidad de los intereses particulares y la limitación del poder político. Esa es la esencia de la libertad y la creación de riqueza que es la única alternativa a la superación de la pobreza. No olvidemos que los derechos individuales son éticamente la antítesis a los denominados derechos humanos en los cuales prevalece la demagogia para logra el voto de los pobres. Por tanto puedo decir que el marxismo está presente social democracia mediante después de la caída del Muro de Berlín y la permanencia del Muro del Malecón.

Fuente: HACER

Redistribution is Nonsense

Culture, First Principles, Government, Markets, Social Philosophy

Sep 022010

Economic Fishing Lessons Beat Dependency.... Everytime

It Works!
If our economic system doesn’t “distribute” wealth, how in the world can it be “redistributed?” Yet that’s what our happy fisher for tax dollars says he – with the complicity of a ‘Progressive’ Congress – wants to do. In fact, it’s well under way, with gobs more in the planning. Was there a “national conversation” about this?
The national conversation about race that Democrats, in particular, seem insistent that we should have…has been incessant for the last thirty years or so. It seems we never tire of talking about race, and the proliferation of communication technologies has exacerbated the exercise. But my concern is not about race, right now, but rather the priorities in our national conversation (whatever that is). We don’t have an honest discussion about the real causes of poverty, or the slow disintegration of our governing institutions. We have just elected an administration that is intent on the redistribution of wealth, but without a conversation about what that means, and to whom, for how long, and with what general consequence. The point of the adage about teaching a person to fish, rather than just giving them a fish, is that – once the fish is gone – the recipient of the fish-charity is right back where they started. The notion of resourcefulness starts with the assumption that you can create or find your own resources, rather than relying on someone else who then has to create resources for both of you. This is why the welfare system failed so badly. Public housing meant to house folks who were temporarily in distress became a multi-generational trap for it occupants. No skills, no incentives, no memory of having to work like their fellow Americans in order to share in the national work ethic; in order to give meaning and dignity to a life enhanced by personal accomplishment. And, following an insanely belated reform, numerous individuals interviewed by the press were elated that their lives had changed in a positive way. So how does redistribution differ from the old welfare trap? Ask any Russian how it feels to be dependent on the government for everything. Look at the Indian Reservations. Prior to the casino boondoggle, wall to wall poverty and hopelessness. After independence, India copied their former colonizers in adopting Socialism as their economic model. Nearly destroyed India; they finally changed to a free market economy and are swiftly developing, thanks to the education and enterprise of their professional class. The rest are slowly coming along, but at the mercy of an entrenched government bureaucracy who has to slowly leave their socialist corruption behind in order to properly serve the common man and facilitate free enterprise. Isn’t it evident that distributing limited resources in a race to the bottom is not a benefit to someone who has to live a long human life-span, often responsible for themselves and other family members? As a safety net for the temporarily disadvantaged and those unable to fend for themselves, sure, but for an able person who simply lacks skills, nothing could be more cruel. And the society that adopts such a policy is shortsightedly destructive. Unfortunately, these societies are often led by trained professionals with good hearts who simply won’t look at where such policies inevitably lead. So, money and other largesse doesn’t work. But there is, I think, a form of redistribution that does: Education. Education is, in fact, a redistribution of knowledge, of skills. That’s right: Teach people to fish. And how an economy works. And the history of their civilization. And how to run a business. And how to manage money. And the unique value of their heritage as a country; the genius and sacrifice they are heirs to.

The difference between “earned” and “distributed.” How to think; not what to think. Knowing which “national conversations” are important.

Redistribute that.

Who Will Rule America Next?

Culture, First Principles, Gangs, Government, International Relations, Rule of Law, Social Philosophy

Jul 272010

Collectivists, Gangsters & Jihadis are the Best Candidates

When this supposedly dysfunctional, imperialist nation founded by profiteering, white male slave-owners is finally – however gradually – converted to a truly ‘just society’ that allows all Americans (if that term is still to be used) to live in dignity and comfort — who will be its masters? Who will rule Post-American America? Will it be Transnational Collectivists, Muslim Extremists, or Organized Criminals?

Why bother to speculate on something that is unthinkable for a country as strong and resilient as the U.S? We’ll glance at that later; but first, let’s look at our most likely inheritors. And no, it is very unlikely that, as in the good old days, a nation-state will try to overtly invade the US; stealth is back in style, and subversion – on a naïve population – works like any good lie in history.

COLLECTIVISTS.

America's Largest Socialist Organization

Save the Planet! Destroy Capitalism!

'Revolution' Sponsor George Soros

We’ve all gotten used to the idea that at every international government or corporate meeting of any supposed consequence, there will be staged demonstrations by the world’s Leftist organizations. Many months of planning will go into the ‘spontaneous’ demonstrations, and pledges of peaceful marching and non-violence will be made to the local government officials.

The police will come out with batons and shields and water guns, tear-gas and rubber bullets. The ‘peaceful’ demonstrators will smash retailers’ windows, throw molotov cocktails, taunt the police into reacting violently before the cameras in order to prove to the world that the demonstrators are ‘oppressed,’ and, occasionally, someone will die.

They are ‘oppressed’ by Western Civilization, in general, and the United States (Leader of the Free World) in particular. They think of themselves as ‘revolutionaries’ and think that if they get the ‘change’ they seek, it will look something like the Galactic Republic depicted in Star Wars: planets represented at council, rather than (the archaic, destructive idea of) nations.’

Your Fellow Americans

They generally refer to themselves as “the movement’ – even though they comprise many distinct movements joined to fight a common foe — Us. They do not feel obliged to respect the voting ‘masses’ they say they are fighting to liberate, and they only like elections – not, mind you, the idea of elections – that result in an outcome they can rig, both before and after.

Foregoing any candor regarding their goal of achieving power by whatever means necessary, they have cheated and bullied their way into control of large portions of the planet. And due to Democrats’ embrace of movement principles — and Republicans who believe Global Warming/Climate Change is actually about the climate — they are winning nearly everywhere. They have the numbers and the resources; there seems to be no reason why they won’t continue to prevail.

GANGSTERS.

Who's Behind the Curtain?

We’ve also all gotten used to the gangbangers and the drug cartels, and the casual violence that ensues from their various illegal activities. The notion that free money in the form of drug profits destroys society’s institutions from within, and its citizens from without seems to bore folks who have the luxury of keeping the bribery and executions at a distance, even as they use the ‘recreational drugs’ that are aggressively sold by the perps.

Having gangs larger and better-armed than most police departments, and some armies, is not much different than acknowledging the existence of various sports teams. The violence occurs elsewhere, while we attend church, smug in our ‘drug-free’ world. Who could possibly blame us for all the crap that happens to drug dealers and addicts, somewhere else.

And what part of the Western brain lights up when we hear the phrase “Failed State?” Do we think “Oh my God, the criminals are stronger than those governments, and our drug laws caused it, and it could happen to us if we don’t change our laws?” Of course not. That would mean changing our fondest beliefs. It would also damage everyone who is legally profiting from these wickedly destructive laws, whether through employment, or votes gained, or prestige, or personal virtue. Even the liquor industry, to avoid competing drugs.

Random Citizens are Next

What often happens is that the organized criminals have boodles of cash to spend on government servants, and they are willing to murder said servant and family in the absence of cooperation. This results in an unannounced partnership. The public no longer knows who to trust, and taxpayers, like spider’s prey, are kept alive for the next fresh feeding.

Organized crime has been international for a long time, and our government’s cowardice and pandering in not dealing with this has allowed the free drug money to finance expansion into multiple rackets (slavery, extortion, kidnapping, counterfeiting, piracy, and legitimate business fronts) such that it may be too late to turn the situation around through legislation, or law enforcement, or military action.

Offering to kill you or those you care about, or bribe you (an offer you can’t refuse) is an effective strategy that is not going away. And if your response is “I would just call the police,” you need to know that this brand of corruption will make that a mistake – perhaps your last.

MUSLIM EXTREMISTS. -aka Jihadis

This Freedom Can be Yours

PHOTO NOTE: There is no intention to imply that the ladies pictured above are anything other than normal, devout Muslims – certainly not Jihadis or Muslim Extremists. I grabbed the photo with the intent of reminding Western ladies that they would lose their accustomed freedoms under Muslim rule.

The third thing we’ve also all gotten used to is the “terrorist threat.” I call it that because, while my fellow Americans know we are at war in the Mideast, many prefer to think we went into Iraq under false pretenses (they assume it was to get oil), while Afghanistan is just a mistake incident to our hunt for (the criminal) Osama bin Laden and his cronies.

The Executive Branch of the United States government will not utter the word “Jihadi.” (The President finally said the phrase “Radical Islam,” presumably to at least acknowledge that some of the people killing American soldiers and civilians are doing so out of religious conviction.) The Leftists we talked about earlier admire the Jihadis as “Freedom Fighters” and are their natural allies because of their mutual antipathy toward the West, with Israel and the U.S. as prime targets.

Palestinians are the poster children for U.S. ‘imperialism.’ Since it is repulsive to most Americans to consider anyone an enemy because of their religious beliefs, and since we fear a backlash against Muslims in America because of the wars, the Administration has placed many Muslims in prominent positions in our government (Muslim Affirmative Action?).

Those who take the Jihadis’ word that they are, indeed, at war with us, whether we acknowledge it or not, see the Muslim religion as one of conquest and subjugation, whose primary ‘Religion of Peace’ goal is to force the Muslim religion on the entire human population, killing or subjugating all who refuse to cooperate, including other Muslims. If you listen to the Koranic scholars and understand that there is no possibility of the separation of church and state, or of this religious mission being abandoned, you will conclude that they are the enemy they say they are. The rest is willful blindness.

In the event, there are over a billion of them, and they have been attacking Western Civilization – the heir to what was once known as “Christendom,” off and on for about 1,200 years. We forget that; they don’t. Our society’s dominant philosophy is that we can only have enemies through actions or misunderstandings we ourselves created; diplomacy will work it out. But diplomacy has no effect when there is nothing the other party wants from you except either your demise, or submission to their rule. What is the likely outcome in a conflict between one party who always has an enemy and another who never has an enemy?

SPIRALING DOWN.

But why – you ask – the quasi-paranoid gloom? Well, the non-violent revolutions always take time, and are necessarily cheered-on by a significant portion of the populace; Hugo Chavez’ slow replacement of a free-market democracy plagued by corruption with an explicitly Communist dictatorship is a prime example.

But then, all the Socialists worldwide have caught on to the use of Democratic procedures and gestures to smother dissenting views and interests and gain control over whatever parts of the society are the best leverage for control. The rest, they’ve learned, can remain untouched, including Capitalist taxpayers and voting citizens. The Capitalists that matter will either be ‘captives” of the government – earning their profits from the ‘special relationship’ – or regulated into total cooperation with the government’s aims.

We’ve seen this movie before. The last time, it was titled Fascism, this time probably some variation of The Green Economy. Tyranny, after all, is such a small price to pay for supposedly ‘saving the planet.’ And no one need be uncomfortable, because the tyrants will look just like the Congress you already have, and (rigged) elections with carefully selected candidates will still be held, and everyone will still have the liberty to attend free universities for indoctrination and training for government-approved businesses.

Every one who belongs to a union will have a job, whether the employer needs that person or not. Better yet, those most loyal to the beloved government and its ‘Dear Leader” will be rewarded with the homes and accouterments of the former ruling class. All property will be distributed by degree of cooperation. Years of the drip, drip, drip of leaking liberty, until the roof finally collapses. You see, it can happen here.

Noted syndicated columnist and TV Pundit Charles Krauthammer recently opined that the Obama Administration is interested in control of Health Care, Education and Energy. He thought that the Auto companies and financial industry were just windfalls (I disagree, if he means that they don’t want control of the auto companies in order to preserve union jobs and churn out green cars the government –but not necessarily the people — wants, or that the government doesn’t relish the idea of controlling salary and credit levels through bullying financial regs and administrators.)

Does that necessarily mean that the administration is conducting a slow-motion revolution? No, but remember that if you’re wrong, it’s the founding vision of this country – and all it’s subsequent success — that you’re betting against. Regardless, a huge number of citizens are online, expressing their concern, and voicing their outrage over collectivist policies aimed at replacing a free-market constitutional Republic with a “Just Society.”

I think we already have a “Just Society” in the sense that, if you work within the system, it is still possible to address economic and social issues for which there’s a constituency. It’s admittedly gotten harder as Washington has been gamed by nearly all participants, but that’s a topic for another day.

"You Have a Republic if You Can Keep It"

What I’m concerned about now is, what happens to the United States, it’s founding principles, and its citizens if the eighteenth-century old-white-guy system is dismantled before something coherent is available to replace it? The adage There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip can mean millions of American corpses if society collapses, a la Cambodia – where real people’s lives were made to submit to a radical theory about how a ‘fair’ society should be organized, and the result was millions of dead Cambodians.

Same in Russia. Same in China. The National Socialist Party was mimicking the above behavior in Germany before its own “Dear Leader” decided to commit the nation’s resources to conquest and genocide based on old national grudges. The Italians, who invented Fascism, were much admired for inventing a “Third Way” between Capitalism and Socialism.” Then they wrecked the country by jumping on the NAZI bandwagon. England, after fighting Socialist governments throughout WWII, turned Socialist after the war. Beguiled by their intellectuals into an economic death spiral. We have intellectuals, too. They’re in charge of indoctrination and propaganda.

Well, even if your worst scenario occurs, Gress, who — of the above candidates — do you think would be our new masters? And why?

Can’t know, of course, but running a thought experiment for at least one scenario can’t hurt; might jump-start you into trying out your own. Do that, and you might start looking even harder at what various parts of our government are up to, why, and possible outcomes. Here goes:

POSSIBLE END GAME FOR THE WEST.

As noted above, the Collectivists of all stripes are on a tear, all over the globe. Short term, I think they will definitely erode, then ultimately banish Capitalism as we know it, keeping alive the industries that will play ball and support the government tax programs. Because the Collectivists see Jihadis as US victims, and therefore natural allies, they will initially have many Muslim partners, as both private and National actors. The Muslims will play along as long as their numbers are small and their resources weak.

Must be Allah's Will

The gangsters will take control over many aspects of (formerly) American life from the ground up — through the control of cities. The control will not be overt, just as it is not overt in many world cities now. But the politicians who play ball will prosper, and those that don’t will meet with violent reprisal. The terrified average citizen will not know who is in charge, and will be too scared to express public concern. Journalists who report anything that could possibly offend a capo will meet their maker.

The Federal government, meanwhile, will be in a slightly lesser, but nevertheless real partnership with crime elements until the Muslim numbers are large enough to demand whatever they want from the remaining Collectivists. The Muslims will then kill or enslave the Leftists and go to war with the criminals, a war they will eventually win. Game, Set, Match for Allah. (See Jihadi-improved map of Europe, at right.)

CAVEAT:

This scenario is only the battle for Western Civilization. Once won, there will be a standoff between the Muslims and the Chinese. War will eventuate, and Asians will probably emerge triumphant due to their greater numbers and education levels. After the fall of the West, India will probably have no choice but to either join, or be conquered by, China. Russia has the potential for evolving into a nuclear-armed crime syndicate.

CONCLUSION:

Teach your kids Chinese; leave the Western Hemisphere. We’ve already blown it (but don’t hurry — this stuff all takes time).

Apotheosis

Socialists of the World – Disperse!

Culture, Government, Social Philosophy

Feb 172010

Capitalism Improves on Socialism; Not the Reverse

The Socialists are Coming!!

Honestly, folks – this is just a really huge misunderstanding. I’ve known it for years, but so long as you all were just a nattering fringe, why say anything? But now – OMG, it’s like “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Every time I turn around, another perfectly sane-looking fellow American is reciting socialist dogma to me.

I know…I know. What’s the problem? Live and let live; just a different point of view, right? Well, no. It was the most toxic idea in the 20th century, impoverishing whole nations at its mildest and stacking up millions of corpses at its most virulent. Look, I’m an old white guy (the scourge of the earth), so a pretty good chunk of my life was lived in the ‘Cold War,’ while hot wars – almost all caused by some form of socialism – broke out all around me.

So now, thanks to a socialist infestation of our educational system – together with a stupefying drop-out rate – the actual malignant history of this thing goes untaught. Worse, the crucial lessons of our own national founding are ignored in favor of scab-ripping the old wounds of slavery, labor strife and gender discrimination – no progress, no change. nothing left to be proud of. Just us arrogant, selfish American imperialists running amuck in a bewildered world with only an apologetic Obama to rescue what’s left of our national honor.

Fine. We are now a shame-based, guilt-laden tribal society begging forgiveness for practicing free enterprise and rescuing other nations from their own oppressive governments. Sorry. Looks like pretty fertile ground for a new, better social philosophy (like, maybe Progressivism). Or European-style Socialism. Or, Marxism without Stalin; maybe Maoism without you-know-who. Hell, we can’t even observe the destruction of the Cuban people without blaming ourselves. Time for some serious deprogramming.

To that end, why don’t we start and take a hard look at the notion that we are a materialistic, selfish, bigoted society driven by greed and lack of care for those less fortunate. Whole bookshelves are devoted to this, so – this being a blog and all – let’s do the short, incomplete version.

If the founders, for instance, could have started this country and abolished slavery at the same time, many historians feel they would have. George Washington – a slaveholder – wanted that, but knew it couldn’t be done and still hold together the union. He and the others kicked the can down the road for Abraham Lincoln to deal with a little later on.

Capitalism is exploitative, materialistic and selfish (read Milton Friedman). It is chaotic because it’s not directed by anyone but the individual, or groups of individuals cooperating in a competitive marketplace. The exploitation is mutual and dynamic – something it appears Marx didn’t wish to recognize. (Hard to see in his day, in any event.)

The individual who works for wages or salary is seeking security from the risk-taker who employs him. The wage-earner can perpetuate this paradigm, acquiring new skill and experience for modest pay increases – indefinitely, as long as the business survives – or save his money and decide to be a risk taker himself, ‘exploiting’ others who will then emulate his former choices. Very few people who wish to progress stay in the same situation indefinitely. The risk-taker, if successful, may become gradually wealthy, but may then have a change in the market occur that he can’t deal with, causing him to fall down the income ladder (it happens a lot).

The system is driven by individual choice – that’s the selfish part. The much-derided ‘individualism.’ And the scorned ‘ambition’ (that pays the family bills). But what about these other ‘-isms?’ You know – material and consumer. These, my friend, produce jobs and the risk opportunities for your fellow citizens (opportunities, opportunities, opportunities). Prosperity is a celebration of our liberty to do these things. To make our own decisions and strive to succeed. It’ the American Idea, unique in the world, and the basis for our Republic.

Oh, wait! What about caring for “the general welfare” more than for yourself – as Socialism promises. A moral, decent society that cares. Look around you. Selfish, ambitious, money-hungry, materialistic Americans form more cooperative organizations than any collectivist could ever dream of. Free association, with multiple overlaps. We give more to charity and are more religious than any other large, industrialized society. Our fight against poverty is inseparable from capitalism and democracy and has raised millions of people from poverty all over the world (yes, Virginia – globalization!).

Do you really want to throw all that away so that the government can guide you to “Social Justice?” IMHO, we have the best system of social justice ever devised; we just need the utopian socialists and their dupes to get on board (or find a more worthy cause).

Which brings us to:

FREQUENTLY UNASKED QUESTIONS

Is poverty mankind’s historical and geographical default condition – or is it caused by greedy capitalists?
Is it better to have a government that you allow (ours); or one that allows you?
Would the world be a better place without the “selfish ambition” of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?
Is the automobile a polluting disaster, or is it a celebration of American freedom and success?
Do you know a Socialist who is proud of capitalism and our constitutional republic?
Is Socialism too focused on the past; especially the ’30′s?