Thursday, January 20, 2011

Mad Rant: Uncommon Sense

Yesterday the President of the United States and the President of the People’s Republic of China held a joint press conference at the White House. Much has been made of the leader of Beijing bandit-government claiming that he ‘could not hear’ the question put to him about the human rights abuses in China. Well, not to worry “comrade”, I am sure President Obama did not hear anything about the need to cut spending and lower the national debt either. This of course concerns the Red Chinese since they hold the biggest chunk of U.S. debt and are probably getting a little worried that they might not be getting their money back. Oh, isn’t the dog and pony show of republican politics fun? Obama talks about human rights and Hu Jintao acts like he cares while Hu talks about Red China being such a good friend of the U.S. and Obama acts like he believes him. What is more frightening is the possibility that Obama actually does. This is, after all, the first time America has ever rolled out the red carpet and given full state honors to communist dictator of the Chinese mainland. Take that all you people who think Obama is a communist! Wait…

I speak in jest of course because, as most know, China has been moving toward a more free economy in recent years while the U.S. (particularly recently) has been moving ever more rapidly in the socialist direction. When it comes to capitalism, I am under no illusions that it is a less than perfect system. I support it only as far as I am an ardent and absolute supporter of private property rights. However, it does not take the greatest powers of observation to see that efforts to impose economic egalitarianism do not work. Communism has been tried and in every case it has failed. Socialism has been tried and we need only look at the world around us, particularly in Europe, to see that it does not work. As things stand now, my biggest problem with capitalism is that it seems to be the only system which can make a nation wealthy enough to think they can afford socialism.

It simply goes against the laws of nature for anyone or anything to thrive in bondage. There should be no great surprise (and yet there is) that when you punish affluence and reward penury the result is a society with fewer wealthy people and more poor people. Why should a person work harder for a little extra money if they can get by just as comfortably doing nothing? Why should a person try to improve their financial situation if the only result is that they are put in a higher tax bracket and have their earnings taken from them? If you can keep more of your money in country or state A than you can in state B, who would not up and move to country or state A and leave B to reap the rewards of their own stupidity? Even those who harp the loudest about the need to punish the rich and help the poor see their actions part company with their words when it comes to themselves or their industry. That is why no one makes movies in Hollywood anymore but instead go to Canada or New Zealand -because making anything in California is far too expensive. Yet, even with such a punishing tax code California is still deep in debt and the North American equivalent of Greece at this point.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Socialism does not work! Even for those more moderate types who advocate it, they can only grasp at straws that have no real impact on the actual overall situation. We have seen this at least since the French Revolution when the agitators of treason stirred up hatred against the monarchy for claiming that Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were living lives of idle luxury in the lavish surroundings of Versailles, indifferent to the suffering of the people. This, of course, was not true but given the predilection of humanity toward greed and envy it worked. Yet, cutting off the heads of the King and Queen and starving the poor little Dauphin to death did not fill the stomach of one peasant. It did not make so much as one penniless French worker a wealthy man. The forces of revolution have never, despite their claims, NEVER lifted up anyone. All they have ever done was to bring a greater share of misery to the entire population.

You can tax the rich into poverty (or tax them into relocating to Singapore) but that will not make the poor rich. Putting royals on bicycles will not enable anyone to afford a Mercedes and taxes and regulations that force aristocratic families to sell their ancestral estates will not give everyone their own manor house. It is as simple as this: trying to impose and enforce absolute equality is a losing game and always will be. The government, no government on earth, no constitution that has or will ever be written can make life “fair” or give anyone so much as one free lunch. The sooner everyone realizes this the better off everyone will be. We need practical solutions that recognize the truth of natural law and the human condition. We do not need political ideologues who think they can create a Utopia anywhere this side of the Kingdom of Heaven. We need to accept that the politician-class does not have all the answers, that independence and freedom are not the same things and that we are entitled absolutely to everything that is our own and nothing that is not. When that happens, the world will be better. Not perfect, but better. However, at current rates, by the time that change comes, I shall most likely be the late…Mad Monarchist.

9 comments:

  1. I can't agree more. I support the idea of strong social benefits but also believe that socialism diminishes personal responsibility.

    On egalitarianism, it is ironic that the Latin American republics had prided themselves on their republicanism, yet were never models of democracy or equality, and have only become democratic and made real efforts at addressing inequities in the last 20 years.

    California is worse than Greece, or potentially so. Didn't they have to borrow money from the Feds to make welfare payments? It seems that Arnie will leave office with a legacy of economic disaster- but the Reagan and Clinton presidencies are fully culpable for their needless deregulation of the financial sector.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Winston Churchill said hat Socialism was the Doctrine of Greed, and was right.

    The big problem is, Socialism and Communism, despite what many Americans, and particularly the Neo-Cons, think, is inherently Democratic. The same philosophical thinking that brought us the French Revolution, and, despite how many would disagree, the American rests on values and ideals that would inevitably lead to these conclusions. If all men truly were created Equal, then any Inequality must be the result of society and is an injustice that must be righted.

    When you value Equality above all else, then you struggle against any difference or advantage anyone else may have, in order to ensure they are all the same.

    Its rather like Harrison Bergeron, in which he live din a world where “At last, all are Equal”, the Strong wore sand bags, the Beautiful wore masks, and the smart wore ear pieces that prevented them from concentrating by shooting noise into their ear every 30 seconds.

    Equality is the Pipe Dream that people hold to to make them feel better, and to explain why they don’t have what they want in life, and the whole of modernity is based on giving in to our base passions, and capitulating to greed, envy, and list. We want everything free and to do anything without repercussion, a world void of morality and dignity, and in which we can be lazy and complacent.

    That s why such dreams are held, and hwy today’s society does what is self evidently nonsensical.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think I made a couple references to that particular quote - "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

    And it was Thomas Sowell who said, "Egalitarians create the most dangerous inequality of all -- inequality of power. Allowing politicians to determine what all other human beings will be allowed to earn is one of the most reckless gambles imaginable. Like the income tax, it may start off being applied only to the rich but it will inevitably reach us all."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another relevant quote is that socialism is the end point of democracy, because once people realise they can vote themselves the tresury, they will vote in the party that gives them the most money back.

    Not only that, but I can testify that only in America is there really a political airing of the idea that big government is a bad thing. Everywhere else, everyone calls for "the government" to do something about whatever ails them.

    Of course, I would suggest they man up and do something themselves, but being responsible and leading by example are things that aren't much valued these days. That's something for governments to do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. True, and they try to dress it up with pretty phrases about compassion and social welfare but in fact it kills all charity and compassion because it makes taking care of everyone the government's responsibility, so no one ever has to be the 'good Samaritan' anymore. Add this to the fact that the government cannot do it well. It's all a scam by the revolutionary/politician/elitist clique. The only equality that they will ever genuinely deliver is making everyone else equally their slaves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The biggest problem I have, touching on what Mr. Wells has said, is in convincing people today that Communism and Socialism are the natural result of Democratic thought. I was told by a Friend recently an argument I get all the time, that Communism and the NAZI’s caused so much problem, and had a sort of Totalitarian government that refused to allow Democracy, much like my own Monarchism.

    Never mind that Monarchism is base don a totally different Theory than Communism or National Socialism, and that both of those forms of Government are Republics base don the same ideals. Heck, the American Revolutionary Fathers can have there writings compared to Lenin, Stalin, and Marx and you see similar, if not Identical ideas being discussed. While I do not deny that there was always more Freedom in America than in the Soviet Union, the reason for this is because of the “Great Failure” of Americas Founders, according to Marx, in that they only issued a “Conservative” Revolution. That is not to say they were Politically Conservative, just that they didn’t go far enough.

    However, read Marx. Read Lenin. Read the ideals of Communists. They don’t believe in “Rule by elites” as opposed to “We, the people”, the whole fundamental concept of Communism is “We, the people”. They cast off the cruel ad oppressive Tzar Nicolas and abolished forever the inequalities of the Tsarist society, in favour of the True Concept of all men being Created Equal, and all power deriving itself from the will of the people, in a True Democracy.

    Communism is, in fact, the Truest Form of Democracy. It is majority rule, with its Slogan “From each according to their Ability, to Each according to their need!” None shall be greater than any other and all things shall be held in Common, with no Lords or Kings above is, and all men being given equality in Title.

    It fails and breeds oppression because in order to create Equality you must fundamentally make everyone the same, and this requires stamping out any deviation from the norm.


    Communism only creates sits Hierarchy and “Rule by Elites” because that is the nature of man, and Nature will be serves. The same is true in America. Everyone says we have no Aristocracy and all men are the same, and now all “People” in “Humankind” are the same.

    But, does anyone really think if President Obama visited their Home Town, he’d be treated just the same as Joe who lives down the Street?

    Even in America the Dream died early, and Hierarchies exist in today’s society, just as in the Soviet Union.

    For this is Mans True Nature, and to deny it will only cause is corruption, not a new man to be born.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I remember reading somewhere that democracy, such as what the United States has, is just a soft form of socialism or communionism. As the U.S. moves closer and closer in that direction (as Europe has been doing for even longer) it makes sense that socialism or communionism are the fully developed form of democracy. As someone raised in a republic, I still find this thought painful to accept, dispite now believing that monarchy is the best form of government

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good article only I was hoping against hope that when I saw the title "uncommon sense" it would be an article against Thomas Pain. YOU really out to make a "enemy of monarchy" post about him. When I heard about him the first time in a historical fiction program he scared me to death. Now that I have read about him...shudder......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He certainly was an enemy of monarchy, no doubt about that and I may have to detail the how and why one day. Right now I would feel like I'm giving him more credit than he deserves as (so far) all the "enemies of monarchy" I have profiled have been leaders of countries (Juarez, Hitler, Cromwell, Pol Pot...).

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...