| re: NJC: Congratulations to Barack Obama! | |
|
Posted by: |
John_Galt (g_brandon_martin@ureach.com) 02:15 am UTC 11/08/08 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: Congratulations to Barack Obama! - Vin 02:32 pm UTC 11/07/08 |
| Vin, Next time instead of writing long-tomes about politics, I'm going to coax you into writing some more of those kick-ass hilarious lyrics you used to post. If I could do that, I'd never write about politics. But, I can't so... I agree that there is socialism or statism in the status-quo, and sadly, I agree that many people aren't ready to do away with it. I've even been attracted to Ropke's "third way" as a kind of dirty night out on the town as a younger man, but in the end I can't agree that a little socialism is a good thing. A little socialism is better than a lot of socialism, but a little socialism is still a little immoral and a lot ineffective. I'm not sure if Obama is a socialist or someone for just a little socialism. Nevertheless, I'll propose the negative income tax, which is what he should have proposed if he were not a big socialist, but was for change. It's a proposal for a reduced socialism by a noble-prize winning economist to create a massive security blanket and limit the amount of liberty lost and dignity deprived by socialism in our society. It is the type of radical "change" that John McCain or another mixed-economy Republican should also have countered with during this election cycle. Obama has merely taken Ted Kennedy's 1980 platform of failed tax-and-spend handouts to his party's base and renamed it "change." I hope you'll agree that the NIT would help the poor more, especially if you increase the amount allocated to $15,000 or $20,000 per capita given the increased budget outlays since the idea was proposed. You'll still come in far less than entitlements under GWB or BHO as we head into the aged years of our boomers. See: http://www.perc.org/articles/article1088.php But, since I'm a purist, here are a couple of reasons why even a little socialism sucks: Socialism is immoral because, like slavery, it uses people by denying them the dignity of choosing what to do with their own money, the product of their own work and time. I don't like to think of it this way, but when you work for months out of the year and someone else gets to decide what is done with your paycheck, you are effectively being used by a group of people called the "state" or their beneficiaries, the privileged or poor recipients of what is leftover after the state has gobbled its share. Maybe the "state" knows better than you do how you should spend your money and serve your community, but even if those folks are right, it's still immoral of them to use you for their purposes. Similarly, you'll also find in socialistic societies the more you demand to take control of how you live and what you'd like to do, the more you'll need to learn to ask permission from other people, who feel empowered to control your actions even if they don't know much about your situation. It doesn't matter that much if you just do the typical stuff that you're expected to do and that government planners anticipate you'll do, but meaningful projects become a bitch. I'm a land use attorney, so I make a living helping people who want to do something with their land get permission from local, state, and federal governments. To build a master-planned community it can take thousands of pages of environmental reports, numerous public hearings, development impact fees, conditions and changes demanded by agencies you've never heard of, and years and years to work through the process. And there's *always* some compromise that will have to be made to accomodate someone else's thoughts or some interest group's pontificating -- good or bad, but most often inane -- about what your project should look like or whether another might be better or if risk can be reduced. It kills anything creative or different and often the best thing people can do is disobey the law. Most of the great creative and innovative acheivments in our history have come from free minds and private financing because its just too damn hard to get permission in a socialistic society to do anything that isn't typical and already contemplated by regulations. Socialism means the priviliged get more control over our lives and more veto power over our dreams. The big capper on this is that socialism almost never works like free markets do, anyway -- it merely redistributes the pie. Worse, the little dictators who decide who gets what or who needs what don't even really understand the desires or intentions of either the haves or the have nots, so everyone gets screwed. It's not that these little dictators are ill-intentioned or evil, its that no one can know these things because there are millions of variables. Let's say that the government decided to entitle everyone to a pair of Nike shoes. The little dictator in D.C. may not realize that wearing Nike shoes is a brand of shame in San Francisco because of Nike's alleged relationship with slave labor camps in China. They, also, can't possibly know the subjective tastes and preferences of millions of people for sandles in the hot summer months after they see a celebrity wearing the sandles. Or they can't know that somebody just had an idea about how to make the soles of shoes so much more comfortable and lightweight because that someone hasn't even told anyone, yet, and Reebok hasn't even bought the technology, yet. In the end, the government takes money from you or me and ends up distributing millions of shoes somebody thinks we need, but that we many of us don't want or need. Freedom is a much more effecient means of providing happiness. Finally, socialism isn't about helping the poor, it's about power for elites to govern our lives. I believe that a better safety net could be provided by religious organizations and non-profits voluntarily - particularly if you limit the question to only those who are truly in need. One advantage to this is that without entitlements people have to work with other people, form communities, and voluntarily give or change their dumbass behavior instead of just demanding that the government make me hand them some change. People are happier and better off after they've reconnected with they neighbors or they've learned how to be productive or helped through a hard time by friends, family, or people who care. Charity unlike what socialists offer is free and consensual. But, that's my utopia, I suppose. -=John Galt=- > John, > > I've gotta fess up that I haven't brushed up on my > textbook Socialism in many years, but I do recall that I > was never convinced that all aspects of Socialism were bad > (as opposed to Communism, which I recall determining at an > early age pretty much sucked outright. Don't tell me my > Nintendo belongs to every kid in the neighborhood, man.) > > As we seem to agree, there are elements of Socialism in > our society that many folks probably wouldn't want to > change. Most welfare programs, for example: unemployment, > social security, medicare, etc. And we all want the state > to fix the potholes, right? I mean, I'm certainly not > going to fix my own damn potholes. > > I think I don't mind a little socialism in my capitalism; > any civilized, compassionate society needs to ask itself: > how low do we want to let the failures fall? And in pure > Capitalism, it is inherent that there will be "failures": > which includes hard-working, intelligent, honest people > who just couldn't manage to start their own successful > business or score one of the relatively scarce six-figure > jobs (possibly because they couldn't afford the education > to begin with.) It also includes degenerate, lazy > fuck-ups. > > At the same time, guys like Bill Gates, Steve Forbes and > Michael Jordan ought to be able to reap the riches from > their innovation and talents, as well. > > Its a balancing act, but I don't believe Obama will bring > this country nearly as far left as many people, yourself > and Smeg included, believe he will. The Democrats in > Congress still have constituents to answer to, who aren't > as far Left as all that. > > I take largest issue with your comment about the > "lovefest" Obama has received from "anti-american > totalitarian socialists," somehow justifying GOP concerns > about Obama. He's also received plenty of love from the > leaders of Britain, Canada, France (France! The REAL > Sarkozy.), Japan, Australia and others. Honestly, the > whole freaking world has seemingly been longing for the > end of the Bush administration, and it would be an act of > flagrant denial if any American, and especially > Republicans, didn't take a long, hard look in the mirror > and wonder why, before jumping to the conclusion that the > world just hated Bush because he was awesome and he made > America even more awesome than it was before. > > Its been a given that the GOP would use the "bad guys want > the Democrat to win" tactic since 2004, when they used it > against John Kerry. Bush started a war with no good > reason; Obama suggests he would prefer to actually sit > down and talk with opposing heads of state (and that's > what these guys are, whether we like it or not; they won't > go away if we close our eyes and pretend they aren't > there.) before deciding to fight them. I don't see that > as cause for alarm; it strikes me more as the course of > action that a reasonable leader takes, especially in this > day and age. > > Obama seems to see the U.S. as one piece of the global > community, and that's exactly what it is now. Bush could > not accept that; he was stuck in the outdated model of the > U.S. being the biggest fish in the pond, happy to work in > conjunction with the smaller fish, unless the smaller fish > disagreed. In that case, Fuck the Smaller Fish. The Bush > administration's policies of "Cowboy Diplomacy" and > unilateral taking of action outside of America's borders > turned the world off; the equivalent of the class bully > taking your lunch because He was hungry. He doesn't need > any other justification, right? > > In fairness to Bush, I believe he meant well, and his > administration was completely highjacked by 9/11. I never > thought he was the right guy for the Presidency, but he > was COMPLETELY not prepared to guide the ship through the > turbulent seas set before him. > > It may turn out that Obama is not up to the task either. > I freely admit that. But I favor letting a young guy with > intellect and vision, with two little girls to think of > with every decision he makes, take a crack at it, as > opposed to a well-intentioned old man who is guided by the > past, with a certifiable Right Wing Evangelical Crackpot > (who can see Russia form her house!) as his Number Two. > > > Vin, > > > > You are correct that the progressive income tax is > > socialistic and that stimulus plans designed to stimulate > > consumer spending are probably socialistic in their > > effect. Both are immoral and ineffective, and both have > > been going on here for a long time. > > > > The difference between a socialist like Obama and a > > weakling like Bush is that the former approves of these > > longstanding mistakes while the later is just too weak to > > prevent them from continuing. I worked on the Hill in > > 2001 and there was still some dwindling hope that > > Republicans would replace the progressive income tax with > > either a Flat Tax or a National Sales Tax. Even with a > > majority in the House, such dreams of change were anathema > > to just about any Democrats. Last year's stimulus checks > > were undoubtedly not Bush's preferred result, either. If > > the Republicans couldn't get what they wanted done with a > > small, but significant, advantage in the House during the > > early years of the century, Bush would have no chance of > > legislation in the form he'd like to see landing on his > > desk in the last two years with Democratic majorities in > > both houses. Remember, the Constitution will not allow > > the President to present himself with legislation to > > approve and execute. > > > > Most of the Left in the House love power more than they > > believe that more beauracracy and redistrition will help > > the poor. The failures of programs they believed in their > > youth would bring about a better world has tempered their > > Socialist glee. They preach class warfare, but understand > > there are realistic limitations to state action. I'm not > > sure what Obama believes because the primary candidate and > > the general election candidate don't resemble each other > > much and before that he was barely a legislator and never > > had a landmark legislative acheivment. But, when > > Republicans talk about Obama being a "socialist," I think > > what they mean is that unlike Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, > > Obama is a true believer in the superiority of the state > > to human liberty in almost every sphere. Judging from the > > lovefest anti-american totalitarian socialists like Hugo > > Chavez and Fidel Castro have been showing Obama, > > Republicans may have been justified in their concerns. > > > > -=John Galt=- > > > > > Obama may have some socialist leanings, but not for his > > > tax policy proposals. Or "spreading the wealth." > > > > > > The U.S. already has a graduated income tax system under > > > which people who make more money pay higher tax rates. If > > > that is a socialist principle then it is one that has been > > > in place here for a long time. Obama is proposing a > > > difference in degree, not in principle. > > > > > > And oddly enough, what was the Republican's big economic > > > booster plan this past year? Stimulus checks? They gave > > > an extra tax refund to people under the theory that, if > > > they had more money in their pockets, they would spend it > > > and that would help boost the economy. Oh, and if you > > > made over a certain amount of money, you did not get a > > > stimulus check. Sounds a bit like "spreading the wealth" > > > to middle and lower class citizens, doesn't it? As a > > > Republican-espoused economic panacea, no less. And I > > > didn't notice any complaints about it being a "Socialist" > > > tactic, either. > > > > > > > > > > So which is it? Socialism or communism? Not that it > > > > matters, since he doesn't want either. In fact, the > > > > socialism that Bush has been giving us is the very thing > > > > that got him elected! > > > > > > > > > What will happen is that in 6-12 months you will all see > > > > > all the socialist policies he has tried to implement, that > > > > > our economy will worsen if he implements his plans and > > > > > that his foreign policies will be dangerous. And the poor > > > > > welfare people who voted for him because "I won't have to > > > > > worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage > > > > > because he'll take care of me." will be surprised that > > > > > communism doesn't work in the US any better than it did in > > > > > the rest of the world. You'll all see... and just like > > > > > Jim you'll all say "Everything that Smeg said was the > > > > > truth." | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: NJC: Congratulations to Barack Obama! - Vin 02:32 pm UTC 11/07/08 |
| Next: | re: NJC: Congratulations to Barack Obama! - Vin 06:06 pm UTC 11/10/08 |
| Thread: |
|