| re: NJC: Congratulations to Barack Obama! | |
|
Posted by: |
Vin 06:06 pm UTC 11/10/08 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: Congratulations to Barack Obama! - John_Galt 02:15 am UTC 11/08/08 |
| Whoa, John G. This is me tapping out. You've taken it way over my head. Like I said, I'm not well brushed-up on my principles of Socialism, and am in no way prepared to continue this discussion at this level. Which is probably for the best, this being a Jim-Steinman board and all. I will just say, though, that the extremes of Socialism you detail so well, and the resulting negatives, is exactly what I think PE Obama is miles away from advocating. The guy is a little Left; so what? We've been more than a little right under Pres. Bush for awhile now. I'll now go try to find some half-decent lyrics to post. Just as soon as I google the Negative Income Tax and do some homework... > 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! - John_Galt 02:15 am UTC 11/08/08 |
| Next: | re: NJC: Congratulations to Barack Obama! - Pudding 07:53 am UTC 11/08/08 |
| Thread: | |