Wednesday, January 28, 2009


After the 08' election results, we on the "right" were "encouraged" to to take the high road and give our new President a chance before making rash judgements about him and his agenda. Ever the "bridge builder", I had every intention of putting myself on "simmer" until President Obama had time to settle into his new digs. This was my plan, even after his cryptic, racist, pro-socialist, cult gathering, otherwise known as the inauguration.
As with many good intentions, my plan was not meant to be. In fact, you could say that our new President didn't even give me a chance to give him a chance.

Before Obama's followers could fully digest the Kool-Aid that that they had so obediently engorged themselves on last Tuesday, the Hope-Meister-in-Chief set out to destroy America. Maybe or maybe not on purpose, but either way, through hateful intentions or simple ignorance, the results are the same.
During his first week in office, Obama used his new executive power in much the same way a toothless hill-billy might use his new fortune (won via lottery ticket). He's making all the wrong decisions and will ultimately be worse off than before his win fall. And his friends will continue to love him so long as they continue to believe that he will be able to "spread the wealth around".

So let's take a look at some of the President's brilliant decisions so far, in no particular order.

1. Closing Gitmo
This is a new level of stupid not yet found on any chart. Closing it is bad enough, but closing it without having a "plan B" is borderline retarded. First, it sends the message to our enemies that we were wrong after all for having the audacity to defend ourselves from terrorists, or to stop Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. Second, giving constitutional rights to foreigners picked up on a foreign battlefield is ironically...unconstitutional. Third, you send the message to our troops that they will be needing a law degree to fight a war. Fourth, you are telling the terrorists that the easiest way to gain access to America is to get picked up on the battlefield. And who better to recruit for your jihadist cause than American prison inmates?

2. Re-instituting abortion funding for people in other countries
Well, if you're into infanticide, I guess this is something you can really get behind. Even better if you're into forcing other people to pay for it.

3. Interview on Arab television
Nothing shows that you understand the Middle East better than going on an Arab TV network and telling them that you are going to continue to support Israel. He probably swatted bees nests for fun when he was a boy too. Nothing shows the strength and resolve of America better than trying to reason with terrorist countries IN PUBLIC in the middle of a war you're allegedly trying to win.

4. Stimulus package
Does this really need an explanation? More money for infrastructure projects that won't see the light of day for years to come, food stamps, unemployment benefits, and hypothetical jobs rooted in technologies that do not yet exist and have yet to gain a market. On top of putting more environmental restrictions on an already ailing auto industry.

At the rate he's going, I'm going to need to hire a staff to keep up with him.


Seane-Anna said...

The Big O is off to a great start, ain't he? Going on Arab tv and boasting of living in a Muslim country and having Muslim relatives must have really struck terror into the Islamofascists' collective heart. We're doomed.

Kofi Bofah said...

I was about to ask about how you felt about the stimulus package.

Well, #4 sums up your thoughts on that.

I will look to tackle that issue in a bit - but I have been writing on the Super Bowl lately and there are only so many hours in the day.

christian said...

Hello my name is christian Peirson. I am currently studying history and political science at Penn State Mont Alto. I am currently reading your book I'm not Hitler and i am enjoying it so far. But i want to post my thesis paper written in november on Barrack Obama's campaign. I give a detailed analysis of who barrack obama really is. I cite information concerning his his political and educational background and conclude with 3 points concerning the workings of the American political system. Thank you for your time.

On November 4, 2008 Barrack Obama made history by defeating John McCain in the general election and became the first African American to be elected president of the United States. This monumental achievement breaks norms never before thought possible. A black man that succeeded by winning the presidency and coming from a displaced family and rough childhood. In this essay I hope to shed light on how Obama won the presidency over Senator John McCain. I will examine Obama’s educational and political background. I will show his career as senator of Illinois and effectively examine his political influence in congress. Finally I will examine the workings of the American political system, how the system has influenced our culture and what has become of our government.
To understand how Obama won the election one must first examine the man’s educational background and how he has applied his education throughout his political career. Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. (Levenson, January 28, 2007, web) Mr. Obama worked as a community organizer in the late 1990’s and practiced as a civil rights attorney. Obama was a junior senator from Illinois 1997-2004 until his resignation as president-elect. Obama studied political science with a specialization in international relations at Columbia University in New York City. He graduated in 1984, with a B.A. from Columbia, then at the start of the following year he worked for at the Business and International Corporation and then at the New York Public Interest Research Group. After four years in New York, he moved to Chicago where he was hired as director of the Developing Communities Project, a church-based community organization. Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. He graduated from Harvard Law in 1991 and returned to Chicago where he led various community projects, worked for law firms and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. He continued to work for until he ran a campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1995. (
In 1996 Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate succeeding state senator Alice Palmer. Once elected, he gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming various ethics and health care laws. Obama sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. . (Levenson, January 28, 2007, web) Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and again in 2002. In 2000, he lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush. Later in 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee. He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained. During his 2004 general election for the U.S. Senate, police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms. . (Wells, April 1, 2007, web) In November of 2004 he resigned from the Illinois Senate following his election. In July 2004, Obama wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts. He described his grandfather’s experiences as a World War II veteran and a beneficiary of the New Deal’s FHA and G.I. Bill programs. He also spoke about changing the United States Government’s economic and social priorities. Obama also questioned the Bush administration’s management of the War in Iraq and highlighted America’s obligations to its soldiers. A total of nine million viewers tuned in to watch Obama’s speech, which was a highlight of the convention and confirmed his status as the Democratic Party’s brightest new star. (
During his time as Senator Barrack Obama sponsored many bills in the United States Senate and has also served on numerous committees. He voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and co-sponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act and later in 2006, he supported the Secure Fence Act. Obama sponsored legislation that would require nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks, but the bill failed to pass in the full Senate after being heavily modified in committee. ( In December of 2006, President Bush signed into law the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act, marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. In January of 2007, Obama introduced a corporate jet provision to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed into law in September 2007. Obama also introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections and later introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation act, neither of which has been signed into law. Later in 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act which would add safeguards for personality disorder military discharges. (Kasak February 07, web) During that time he also supported the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act and sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children’s Health Insurance program. Obama has held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans Affairs through December 2006. In January of 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Obama also became Chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on European Affairs and made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.(
Now that there is clear understanding of Mr. Obama’s education and political background we can begin to understand why he won the presidential election of 2008. First, one must distinguish what were the major issues revolving around the 2008 presidential race and how Obama countered these issues to his opposing candidate. Then generalizations can be drawn after there has been a clear understanding of what has happened throughout the course of this presidential election.
The major issues revolving around this election were the economy, healthcare, the war in Iraq, taxes, education and the environment. The economy was a major concern of the presidential election because of the recent decline of jobs, productivity and the mortgage crisis. Although both candidates may not have the solution to the problems they both present ideas on what they want to do. McCain’s position is nearly the same as George Bush’s. McCain wants to give a $200 Billion dollar tax cut to corporations, including a $4 billion dollar tax break to Oil Companies, leaving over 100 million middle-class Americans with no relief. To counter this position Obama announced he wants to give tax cuts to working family and create a tax credit up to $1000 per working family. He will also provide tax relief for small businesses and he will try to setup a fair trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support American jobs. (
Healthcare is a major issue in this country. People are not covered by insurance companies and according to 47 million people in the United States do not have health care coverage. This became a serious issue when McCain announced that he wants to tax health care benefits for the first time in U.S. History. Obama believes in a universal health care plan that will provide affordable coverage for all Americans. The war in Iraq is another major issue regarding the 2008 election.America has been fighting a war in Iraq for the last 6 years with no real progress, so the country is looking for leadership and change within Washington. From the start of his campaign it wasn’t really clear what his stance on the war on Iraq would be. His views changed over the course of a few years. In 2002 Obama spoke out in opposition to the war but later in 2004 he supported keeping the troops in Iraq. (Stockman, March 8, 2008). Later in 2005 Obama argued in front of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations that the U.S. military should scale down its presence, but “the troops were still part of the solution” in Iraq. Obama then made it clear that he wants to end the war in Iraq and focus on tracking down Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the middle of his campaign. McCain wants to stay in the Iraq, he sees Iraq as the: “Central front on the war on terror”. I believe that McCain stance on the war in Iraq may have substantial amount of votes. Regarding taxes, McCain is giving tax breaks to corporations and oil companies leaving many working class families and the middle class without any tax cuts. Obama believes in giving tax cuts to 95 percent of American workers. According to Obama’s tax relief program will give Amercians three times the tax relief then john McCain’s tax program. (
The last two issues revolved around the environment and education. In a time where there is a strong public concern for global warming, pollution and the outlook for new alternative fuels, both candidates differ on the subject. Obama believes in seeking alternative fuels and he supports a plan to create 5 million new “Green Jobs”. John McCain is opposed to new alternative fuels and wants to begin offshore drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. ( Finally, in regard to education, John McCain supports George Bush‘s No child left Behind Act. Obama wants to reform the No Child Left behind Act and give money to college students in which they can eventually pay back during their college tenure. For college students and high school students this is a major issue because there are so many flaws within the public education system today. It is also harder to get the money to go to college and most college graduates come out with lots of debt.
Now that there is a general understanding about Obama’s educational, political experience and his views on American foreign and domestic policy one can finally begin to understand how Obama won the election. Obama and his coalition won the election through the internet. It is true that both candidates used the internet to their advantage but Obama’s organization used it much more effectively then McCain. Volunteers used Obama's website to organize a thousand phone-banking events in the last week of the race and 150,000 other campaign-related events over the course of the campaign. Supporters created more than 35,000 groups clumped by affinities like geographical proximity and shared pop-cultural interests. By the end of the campaign, chalked up some 1.5 million accounts. And Obama raised a record-breaking $600 million in contributions from more than three million people, many of whom donated through the web. (Stirland November, 4, web) Most of the volunteers had no poetical experience and came together to organize their community. I remember getting many phone calls throughout the election for both parties but mainly from supporters of Obama’s campaign. Obama’s campaign raised most of its money through online support. Throughout the election Obama was able to conjure up 1 billion dollars through private donors, something the American public has never witnessed. He outspent McCain by four to one in some key states. (Toby Harnden, November, 5, web)
After seeing the election process first I see a few things wrong with the American political system. I would I like to point out three different important points. The first, dealing with the media and how they influence public policy, elections and our culture. Second, I want to address that are country is completely divided among the two political parties and raise the question of how 300 million Americans can be effectively governed by a few hundred people. Finally, I want to recognize the fact that democracy is a dying political concept and there is no such thing is freedom or liberty.
Today, 90 percent of all media outlets are owned by corporations or conglomerates. With that being said the question arises: How can we live in a “democracy” when 6 major corporations control the flow of information and news. Perhaps we do not live in a democracy but we may live in a “mediaocracy”. The media distracts people from real issues concerning economic, political, and social controversies and fills the gaps with propaganda which in turn, creates political unrest, racial polarization and social stratification. The media is supposed to check political abuse but instead it is part of the political abuse. The heads of these major corporations are very close to the leaders of government and they have their say on who will get on T.V. and what issues will be on the 9’oclock news. Today, major media corporations have the power to overwhelm all competing voices. So in turn, is it possible they can turn truth into lies? Or vice versa? Two major issues that have affected my life is the selling of the war in Iraq and the election scandal of 2000. It is weird to not that we have extraordinary tools in which can instantly access information as consumers but that does not mean that we are informed. The function of the media is no longer used to inform the general public; they sensationalize and glorify people and objects. Sensationalism is the media. We don’t see questions on the T.V. like: Why with all the growth in technology people work longer hours for lower wages in the U.S? Or why does the richest 1 percent of the U.S. population owning more then the bottom 95 percent of the population? Or the question that arose by the Princeton economist Paul Krugman, Why has the response to rising inequality been a drive to reduce taxes on the rich? The news is no longer reported it is managed. News outlets today are under the same political pressures as other corporations. According to Noam Chomksy, a professor at MIT, “the pressure is to create a stable profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported. This occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized. To minimize the possibilities of lost revenue, therefore, outlets will tend to report news in a tone more favorable to government and business, and giving unfavorable news about government and business less emphasis”. If the media truly followed the scandal of the election of 2000 then Bush/Cheney would not be in the white house. But there was not sufficient coverage and as a consequence there was a power in 2000 presidential election. . It was found later that 175,000 people’s votes were not counted and the BBC reported later that: “5 months before the 2000 election Governor Jeb Bush moved to purge 57,000 people from voting rolls, supposedly ex-felons”. BBC also reported that 1000’s of these people were not felons and that 54 percent of the 57,000 people were black citizens. Vincent Bugliosi, a legal Scholar said: “the 5 members of the United States Supreme court committed one of the biggest and one of the most serious crimes in American history when they stopped the recount in Florida took the election from the american people and handed to George Bush”. But at the time there was no major media coverage of the election of 2000 and we tend to forget about the events of 2000. We have reached a stage in American politics where there is no longer a debate about ideas; the issues are whether ideas matter at all. The same exact thing happened during the war in Iraq. It was later found that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam Huessein had no ties to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I also believe the media is no longer interested in politics the media is only interested in politicians. Majority of Americans heard as a political candidate is through the television before anywhere else. You could visit every town in this country and still not beat your opponent if he or she is out spending in news time. For example, 98% of the congressmen and women that rerun for office get re-elected. Most of these congressmen and women are millionaires. In this election Obama outspent McCain in many states and rose a billion dollars. I believe that the public is at a serious lost when we give rights to these corporations and they turn around, buy politicians and destroy our political system. But in all fairness, it not just the corporations that is the problem here. It is the framework of thought, the mindset of many of these reporters that is the problem. We need reporters that will break away from the tight grips of corporate management and begin to report serious news about social, economic, and political conflict. “We know what to do with someone caught misappropriating funds, but when confronted with evidence of a systematic attempt to undermine the political system itself, we recoil in a general failure of imagination and nerve.” (Gary Sick)
I once asked my history professor in highschool, why is our country divided among two parties, and why can we not come to some agreement on issues? He could not answer this particular question. Today our country is completely spilt. It is apparent in this election because Obama won the election with 52 percent of the popular vote. So in theory this is not a vote of the majority it is the vote of half the people in the nation. Today, the majority of the people in the United States belong to either two parties. You are either considered a democrat or republican. There are other parties but their viewpoints are not widely adopted. During the course of the presidential election, it seems that there is an atmosphere of constant warfare, a battle, with so much distasteful political rhetoric by individuals, the media, and political leaders. The feelings of freedom to speak and democracy are not always present and one may wish to question if they even exist. There seems to be a cry perpetuated by flag waving individuals that anyone who wishes to question the administration or their policies, is not an American. The attitudes are as follows, if you do not comply with what the administration has to offer and the policies it promotes, you support the enemy, and you should leave the country. The real question is where has this attitude come from? Furthermore, what has caused this condition to development in American history and why? Since the dawn of the country there has always been a strong two party system and yet Republicans and Democrats have in most cases had a respect for one another. Presently there is little evidence of this. The leaders of this country have a strong obligation to lead their country and people by example. Their speeches as leaders in power and the press releases they control are the true symbol of their leadership. When a country is united and behind their leaders, it then reveals their true leadership abilities. But right now our country is not united but divided. In order to lead a divided country I think all elected officials must first recognize the division and address and listen to both sides. The alternatives are to ignore the opposition and degrade their views. However, in so doing the division grows deeper and angrier and becomes a threat to the democracy. A concept that all Americans hold and cherish in this country. The answer to this problem and our only hope is for an election that clearly results in a bigger majority, a shorter campaign time with less rhetoric against each candidate but that focuses more about their stance on important issues.
Next I want to address that democracy in America is a dying political concept. The concepts of freedom and liberty are meaningless. To understand why there is no such thing as democracy we must first address what the American government is. The American government defined by Robert Dahl, a political scientist at the university at Yale, defines the government as a polyarchy. The United States government is an elite based form of government where popular participation in the electoral process is confined to leadership choices and managed by competing elites. The founding fathers even believed that the “Wealth of the Nation” should be governed and managed by the most privileged. With that begin said the constitution of the United States does not give you freedom nor does liberty, the document grants privileges and limited rights that can be suspended at anytime. Take criminals for example, once you have committed a crime you can no longer vote, you have no political rights after you have broken the law. In this country you do not have no right to privacy, a women does not have the right to have an abortion. A corporation is defined “as a legal person” that cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property. There are agencies like the CIA, FBI, ATF, and NSA that illegally spy on the American people. Harry S Truman quoted in 1961: “I would have never created the Central Intelligence Agency back in 1947 if I would have known it would turn into an American Gestapo. Some strongly believe that our government is an oligopoly possessed by a small group of dominant men with many special interests and privileges. Consequently, 1 in 4 Americans trust their government; during the 1960’s despite the political outrage 3 and 4 Americans trusted their government. We have become a nation that fights to maintain global capitalism and commercial interests, rather than a country that defends democracy. In America today, there is a political system in which candidates must win elections in order to serve but can do this only with the help of the most powerful individuals within the country. A national candidate must put himself/herself before the voters through extremely costly communications media which are controlled by other wealthy, interested individuals. Transportation, staffing, local offices, media advertising, and professional advisors are all parts of a national campaign. Major candidates are now spending hundreds of millions of dollars just to win primaries. Only great wealth can do this. Thus, the interests that will be served by elected officials are the interests of those who helped them win election. Today, we find that the interested and powerful individuals and corporations support both political parties so that they can own the votes of elected officials no matter whom the people select. The American people have become stupefied by political rhetoric and mindless news that does not focus on real political questions. And we continue to let the power resided in those that are corrupt and serve the interests of companies, and stockholders then the American people themselves. We have become a nation in which we base decisions on whether or not something will be cost effective. People are out of touch with the political process and are concerned with trivial matters rather than focusing their attention to the corrupt policies being implemented in Washington. It is a sad to think, that America with all of its beauty, resources, military and economic power has become one of the most manipulated, diverted societies on the planet. “We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world – no government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.” (Woodrow Wilson)
In essence, the American political system is inherently flawed; there is an unquestionable amount of corruption in the highest seats of power in our country. We have a workforce that works more than any other “democratic nation” in the world and only 1/4 of American citizens trust their government. We no longer live in a nation of individuals; we are a nation of people that conforms. Not many people in this country think for themselves including politicians. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. It is very easy to target the president and blame him for the problems in Washington. Perhaps we should be focusing our attention to the solution rather than the corruption in the United States. After all, we allow corporations to commit crimes, we allow the United States government to police the world, and we allow this corruption to happen with little opposition at all. And we complain and blame others for the problems of the world without giving thought to the root cause of the problems. So what can be done? I believe the solution starts with education. If people start to educate themselves, they will become disillusioned and begin to organize and offer alternatives to this system of corrupt government. In the words of the great Dwight D. Eisenhower: “No where it is written that the American Empire will go on forever.

Roadhouse said...

Thank you for buying a copy of my book. I think I remember you from my signing on Saturday. DeWayne's friend, right?

Also thanks for checking out my blog.

Your post leads me believe that you are being lead down the primrose path of socialism by yet another anti-American poli-sci department at yet another anti-American campus.

Commonly, these schools are operated by tenured professors that are little more than ex-hippies who would love nothing more than see our nation fail and become something resembling the former Soviet Union.
They do not understand the free market, and those few that do have a deep hatred for it because it rewards ambition and motivates people to better themselves. Such concepts cannot stand under socialism, therfore they are considered dangerous.

These schools take advantage of youth as they have not yet learned the lessons of life that would otherwise cause them to reject such a subserviant philosophy as socialism.
Ironically, they see no problem with cashing tuition checks payed by parents who work hard in a free market system such as ours.

Your best bet is to immediately transfer your credits to a college that actually understands the dynamics of capitalism as soon as humanly possible...before they ruin your mind any further.

By all means, call DeWayne and he can tell you how to contact me in person. I can tell you what they don't want you to learn at Mont of charge.

Roadhouse said...

Thank you for buying a copy of my book. I think I remember you from my signing on Saturday. DeWayne's friend, right?

Also thanks for checking out my blog.

Your post leads me believe that you are being lead down the primrose path of socialism by yet another anti-American poli-sci department at yet another anti-American campus.

Commonly, these schools are operated by tenured professors that are little more than ex-hippies who would love nothing more than see our nation fail and become something resembling the former Soviet Union.
They do not understand the free market, and those few that do have a deep hatred for it because it rewards ambition and motivates people to better themselves. Such concepts cannot stand under socialism, therfore they are considered dangerous.

These schools take advantage of youth as they have not yet learned the lessons of life that would otherwise cause them to reject such a subserviant philosophy as socialism.
Ironically, they see no problem with cashing tuition checks payed by parents who work hard in a free market system such as ours.

Your best bet is to immediately transfer your credits to a college that actually understands the dynamics of capitalism as soon as humanly possible...before they ruin your mind any further.

By all means, call DeWayne and he can tell you how to contact me in person. I can tell you what they don't want you to learn at Mont of charge.

christian said...

My friend's name is James Martin.And would love to contact you in person when i get the spare time.

Just to make reference to the teachers at mont alto. I did not develop any of my ideas or philosophy from the teachers at mont alto thus so far. I did however gather information and ideas form world renown authors. One of the major influences in my life would be Noam Chomsky. Although there are others i have taken a liking to this professor because he speaks the truth and has an amazing track record. He gives a detailed analysis of the major agenda setting media in the united states in his book Manufacturing consent. An excellent read i do recommend it. But nonetheless, personalities are subjective and i try to leave character out of the context of debate. With that being said i have a few questions.But i must say i do have a few questions.

First being the most relevant.
How do you define liberalism?

Secondly how exactly do you correlate socialism and anti americanism? To my knowledge the degree in which socialism/communism developed in the soviet union after the death of lennin was not the idea proposed by marx.

christian said...

out of the context of debate

should be:

out of context for the sake of debate.

Sry its rather late.

Roadhouse said...

I could have guessed you had been exposed to Chomsky. He along with Trotsky, Engels and their ilk all have the same thing in common, a lack of understanding of human nature and it's vital role in market dynamics.

My definition of liberalism is explained in my book, it's actually the whole premise of it.

I derive anti-Americanism from socialism because the liberty and freedom cannot possibly co-exist with socialism. They are like oil and water. One ideology promotes entrepeneurism and personal ambition, and one promotes dependance on "the state" for a loaf of bread and a roll of toilet paper. As we see today, socialism is infecting the body politic and people are turning to the government in droves. In short, we are becoming slaves to the master beuracracy and asking for more. When a free man surrenders his fate to the government, he will no longer be a free man at all.

Rather than make suggestions of authors that explain the free market better than I do, though Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams would be a good place to start, I would suggest that you sit down and talk with some entrepeneurs. Ask them how much of their blood sweat and tears they would have been willing to put into their innovations if they knew their inventions would become property of the "state".
Ask them how fair it is that their personal sacrifices and years of labor go to supporting those who are quite comfortable living off of their efforts, rather than getting a job themselves.

The Chomsky crowd always makes the same excuse for the fall of socialism in the Soviet Union..."it didn't have enough time to take hold and blossom".
In reality, man was never meant to be a anyone or anything. Socialism can and maybe even will become popular and socially acceptable in America, but after the death of free speech, after the end of basic liberties, after the inevitable rounding up of those who prefer to think for themselves, after the end of technological advancement, and after people decide they no longer want to have beurocrats make life altering decisions for them, there will be yet another revolution and more blood will need to be spilled in the interest of regaining our God given rights.

Personally, I think it would just be easier to stop socialism before it starts.

Keep this in mind: Under Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Chaves, Guevera or Pot this debate would not be "condoned" I'd be in a gulag for "re-education". My book alone would have probably got my family arrested as well.

Unknown said...

Well to start off. I would like to say I trust the authority of Mr. Chomsky and the work he has done over the last 45 years. He dedicates his life to his work and he is in my opinion the most important intellectual alive.

2) You don’t give a clear cut definition of what liberalism is you basically say you hate it.

3).I Believe strictly in a school of thought called libertarian socialism which in the since recognizes that the concept of property is theft and that in a truly libertarian society you would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalist.(As I have already shown…90 percent of all media outlets are owned by 7 major corporations.) I have any problems with capitalism as long as corporations (private concentrations of power are in check by its workers democratically. I’m sure you are a hard working individual but you have no power to say what goes on in the workplace you are at. gives a good clear cut definition of libertarian socialism and I suggest you take a deep look into the very nature of libertarian thought. Here is a lecture that goes through the classic ideas of libertarian thought and the future of government.

3) If you want to talk about freedom lets take a look at various case studies throughout American history. Lets take a look at what the united states has first done to control its own people and other cultures around the world before making irrational judgments. Then perhaps we can draw conclusions on freedom and equality.

1) Systematic removal of over 7 million Indians from North America.
2) Civil war, hatred towards African Americans. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S constitution gives you a certain degree of privileges but does not grant equality to men or women.
3) Labor rights suppression – From the start of the second industrial revolution in America the state exercised its authority along with the support of various industries and corporations to suppress its workers. In Chicago, the most notable of various case studies, hundreds of workers were being killed for protesting for their labor rights.
4) FBI – (COINTELPRO) Started in 1956 directly suppressed various political left wing movements including the Civil Rights Movement and Feminist Movement. They went as far as incarcerating individuals and to assassinate the leaders of the movements.
5) Voter Suppression Laws - is a form of electoral fraud and refers to the use of governmental power aimed at suppressing the total vote of opposition candidacies instead of attempting to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters. This method is particularly effective if a significant amount of voters are intimidated individually because the voter might not consider his or her single vote important.

The various methods of suppression include: Jim Crow laws, Purging voter rolls, Photo ID laws, Ex-felon disenfranchisement, Inequality in Election Day resources, Partisan election administration and Caging Lists.

7) During the Second World War Japanese American citizens were rounded up and thrown into internment camps. 110,000 people were forced into relocation.

I could go on and on… so let me just post a few examples of coup’s staged by the United states government and atrocities committed by the regimes that were installed.

1)Mohammad Mossadeq overthrown by the CIA in 1954, the US government with the help of Britain installed the shah of Iran which he in turn killed 700,000 of his own people.

2)East Timor in 1975 – supporting the Indonesia army with weapons, the Indonesia government wiped out 2 million people in east Timor.

3)Iran Contra – sold missiles and weapons to Iran in the 1970’s used the money to support regimes in Nicaragua, in turn the regime wiped out 70,000 people.

4)The same goes for Cambodia, Panama, El Salvador, Laos, Romania, Afghanistan, Israel the list goes on and on. If you to have a serious discussion about tyrants, dictators and other evil puppets you might want to do your research and find out who these people are. Who are they supported by. The history of that region etc.

You might find this interesting since you mentioned Chavez..

These are just a few examples if I do the research I can come up with hundreds. Its getting late and I have class in the morning when I have the time I will comment on the rest of your opinions. I strongly encourage you to do research.

There are various documentaries that you can watch on google video when you have the time.

Spilt: A divided America
The Corporation
Why we fight
Manufacturing consent

Anonymous said...

i *dont have any problems with capitalism

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Neither do the ones who use it to exploit the masses.

Some problems associated with capitalism include: unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability. There is an inherent tendency towards oligolopolistic structures when laissez-faire is combined with capitalist private property. An essential aspect of economic freedom is the extension of the freedom to have meaningful decision-making control over productive resources to everyone. Economist Branko Horvat asserts, "it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom." SMU Economics Professor and New York Times #1 best-selling author, Ravi Batra, has long maintained that excessive income and wealth inequalities are a fundamental cause of financial crisis and economic depression in the capitalist economy.

Anonymous said...

You sir, are confusing socialism and communism.... socialism is a system, that if it is incorportated the right way could work. Communism was never going to work.

If you look at our country, alot of things are already in a socialistic system (school, emergancy services, mail, hopefully healthcare soon). Socialism promotes fairness, and you cannot agrue against that

Roadhouse said...

Chomsky has dedicated his life to missing the point for over 45 years, while inviting others to do the same.
As for your examples, I wasn't aware that we were debating man's inhumanity toward man. I am debating liberty/free market capitalism vs. socialism. In any and every form of government (or lack there of), you will see countless examples of man treating man like a personal whipping boy. This has to do with human nature, not social structure or economics. This is one of many tactics that Chomsky has used for decades to distract people...don't fall for it. As for myself, I'm not that easily distracted.

As for my definition of liberalism, I am aware that the definition has changed over the years according to particular periods of time. My definition is the one currently accepted in modern day public discoarse. Liberalism is generally accepted to be the use of government to effect social change.
My book mearly demonstrates the shortcomings of many policies considered to be liberal if not socialist, so don't get hung up on definitions.

As for property being "theft", I can disprove that theory in about three seconds if we meet for coffee someday. Besides, if you truly believed that, you wouldn't be trying to further your education by attending a college, their would be no point in it, you would simply apply for welfare and allow the government to take care of my expense of coarse.

Along with the previously mentioned, another point missed by the Chomsky crowd is that the rich, successful people that are so depised by socialists are citizens too. Many of which started with nothing and made the choice to do something about it rather than whine about inequalities and fairness. Fairness is a myth used by lazy old socialists to recruit lazy new socialists.

"I’m sure you are a hard working individual but you have no power to say what goes on in the workplace you are at."

Actually, I'm not entitled to such power, it's not MY company. If I want such power, I'll start my own trucking company...I have that option in a free market capitalist society. If I don't like the way I'm treated, I can work somewhere else (also my option). If I feel I've been victimized, I can litigate or file charges. If my company gets a reputation for mistreatment, it will not be able to retain employees and it's product/service will suffer, as will it's profit margin. These are but a few dynamics that provide their own system of checks and balances, not found in a socialist/communist system.

Keep in mind that there is no book or Youtube video that will make me forget that I prefer to make my own way in life without the government trying to control my life and the future of my children. There is no name credible enough to make me forget that my destiny is my own and not property of the state.

Anonymous said...

Hey its christian agian, thank god we can have a civilized discussion thus far. Lol lets keep it going.

Any state, government or institution is illegitimate by its nature. We don’t need such institutions in our lives we are self managing creatures. The only reason there hasn’t been a change because the societies that man has created have two thing. One hierarchy and two there is a high degree of scarcities within society. If you want to talk about the next step for a highly industrialized society it would be some degree of libertarian socialism achieved by the workplace. What happens when you get rid of hierarchy and you replace scarcity within society with abundance (we have the technology to do it) the very nature of man will change within this new society. You level the playing field for everyone.

(I would describe liberalism as favoring some degree of reform. some type of progression as you will. My definition of conservative is to resist change.)

I don’t know why you want to be powerless at your work. I mean who really wants to be a powerless worker that follows orders for the rest of there days.

3) I believe that college should be free for anyone to attend. Its bullshit that I have to file for "welfare and allow the government to take care of me". But you can’t really argue that because the state takes care of public school education anyway. Everyone should have the right to go to college to better there education.

4) It doesn’t matter if you are a hard working individual or not, you still should have voice at any work place. In any workplace you part of a community that is working together to achieve a certain level of production. And you get in return a few dollars for your labor. Why should you submit to this amount of labor getting paid lower wages and have no say in what to do in that workplace. Until you go to college take out 10's of thousands of dollars in loans just to make it through and then you have pay them back. I can tell you this right now, you are creating an underclass that will get so pissed one day, and they will rise up and overthrow the existing power structures It is very natural in this society. Once people figure out they can vote themselves money in this society… you will have the fall of this so called democracy

5) In degrees, the very nature of capitalism wouldn’t be so bad if the corporations, businesses and workplaces were democratically controlled. But the people in power don’t want that. They want an obedient apathetic, stupid population in which they can rule over. The very nature of our political system is backward. In being that politicians come into towns and say this is what we are going to do for you. Instead of the people democratically come together and have say in there opinions on various social, political and economic topics.

For Chomsky missing the rich class, well he doesn’t. Their obedience is necessary within the confines of this society. Those people are your managers your administrators, your higher ups at your job. If you didn’t have their consent then you would have to classes of citizens that wouldn’t follow orders. And as you already mentioned about working hard to make something of yourself I would say I am working just like everyone else, but I don’t have to stand for the inconsistencies in our government, state, or workplace. I mean for Christ sake the most corruption takes place at the local level why would anyone want to brush that off. Why don’t people check there government...

Anonymous said...

Your also missing a fundamental point about capitalism and what its implications are in systemically. The system creates a permanent underclass along with 3 other classes all competing against one another. They all have a list of grievances, each of them look out for themselves. The divisions include the poor, the middle class, the rich and the super rich. The poor are trying everyday to survive or try to reach a state that is sustainable for living. The middle class want more but they are usually overextended on credit (a huge systemic risk for the economy, the implications of a credit card crunch is vast and contains many unexpected externalities or what is referred to as unintended consequences. The last two classes are the rich and super rich and the rivalry is obvious and no further explanation is needed.

To a degree you are also implying that you only look out for yourself, for material gain. But this is the very nature of any business or corporation. Why do you think that major corporations outsource jobs to unstable foreign countries? There are two major reasons why this happens. Usually something drastic has happened in that region such as a war or some type of social instability. These countries usually turn to other nations for support or major corporations for loans. These nations or corporations lend money to these countries. Usually vast loans numbering in the billions of dollars, in which the nation cant possibly payback, so what happens. First there is currency devaluation and the people can’t possibly afford a sustainable way of life on that income. Second major corporations come to that region and setup up shop. The reason being is because the government is overextended and needs some way to pay off the loan. These corporations take the resources in the region. This is true in Latin America because of the fruit exports in the region. (The banana republic is what it is referred to)

So you can come to a few conclusions after logically understanding the very nature of capitalism, the business cycle etc. 1) businesses don’t care or at least 97 percent of the time they don’t. If they did they wouldn’t exploit children in third world countries. Like Nike for example that pays you by 1/10,000 of a cent every second so by the end of the day you make a few dollars. I mean for example you drive a truck, lets say you make 50,000 dollars a year, well any business could dump you if someone said they would work for 20,000 dollars. It’s the very nature of business, so you cant begin to say capitalism in any regard is a good thing.

I mean you can only say, possibly it raises the standard of living. But with that being said the standard of living was being raised in slave societies from the period of 1750-1850, does that justify slavery… well of course not. Take another example how about fascist Germany in 1930’s. Hitler brought the German people out of a terrible depression and raised the standard of living, but does that justify slavery. No it does not. So again if you want to talk about the very nature of capitalism your logic has many holes in it. There are different considerations in which you can improve the methods of capitalism but that seems completely outlandish in the world that you want.

I mean you could have at least used a sports analogy and said capitalism is like sports there isn’t going to be enough winners. But any liberal that I know would like to see the playing field at least leveled. Let me give you a few examples. My economics teacher once told me that 1/5 businesses survive in the first 2 years. After that 1/10 survive for the next 5. Then the division happens again. 1/10 of those survive for the next 10 years. So your chances of becoming successful in this day in age are very difficult unless you get into the growing markets like biotechnology, security, or anything dealing with the internet. The problem is you have major corporations and conglomerates and firms already in that market. Also we have reached a point in history where it is possible that technology enables us to use our resources wisely. Every human being can be fed, housed and cared for. We have the technology and resources to do it. But there are existing power structures that do not what that because there is profit to be made.

Roadhouse said...

I've read all of your responses in detail more than once. I have come to the conclusion that you have no understanding of capitalism beyond what you've been been fed by your socialist sources. Your acceptance of their bias assertions have clouded your objectivity.
When you get to a point where you think ownership of something is bad and government of any type is some sort of abomination, then you might well be beyond help and will probably need to experience life under socialism to finally realize what it means to live as a free man.
I hope this is not the case and that your're really just trying to see if I know what I'm talking about. But if you truly believe this silliness...I'll pray for your soul.

Anonymous said...

Well i have taken courses in Macro economics and my teacher was very conservative. I got most of my understanding about free market capitalism and how the system operates by him. And personally nothing is objective everything is subjective in some sense i dont think we need to argue that extent. But im rationally coming to conclusions about the econonmy and the american political system and you seem to still turn a blind eye to the facts. I dont really understand this..I give you plenty of facts, detailed analysis of our economic system and other considerations regarding government and society. I dont need to experience life in any other way to understand the way life is. Agian just because we live in a democratic, highly industrailized state doesnt mean i have to put up with the inconsistencies, how could anyone want to put up with it.

I mean what do you mean by a free man?..Everyman is born free but everyone he is in chains. - Rousseau

Anonymous said...

Roadhouse, you are so ignorant to accept different points of views. you label anything you dont agree with as unamerican. You, sir, are the one that is unamerican.

Roadhouse said...

You have given me few if any facts. You are re-submitting misguided leftist propaganda that is based on opinion and theory, not reality.
In the real world, people have control over their circumstances. They have the option to either excel through personal discipline and by making good decisions, or they can become a slacker and whine about how the government does not wipe their butts for them.

The world you and Chomsky long for can only happen if you remove human nature as a factor. Only after hopes, dreams, ambition, love, humor, laughter, faith, compassion, anger, and/any other human emotion is removed can a socialist utopia be realized.
No man or ideology has the power to do that. Basically, you're chasing a fairy tale. You're yearning for a land where everyone is equal. No such land could ever exist under any circumstance.
In the real world, we are not all equals. There are smart people and stupid people. There are fast people and slow people. Strong and weak, tall and short, nice and mean, caring and inconsiderate, leaders and followers, etc etc. All with different apptitudes, attitudes, opinions and feelings. All with their own individual strengths and weaknesses.
This fact alone demands that there be winners and losers in life. This basic principal is found not only among humans, but in both the animal and plant kingdoms as well.
Even in the world of single celled biological creatures that can only be seen by microscope, there will always be some who make it to the top of the food chain and others who don't.
To think that any social construct or political ideology can somehow break this law of nature is the height of arrogance and futility.

It all boils down to this; Life is not fair, no one ever said it would be. If they did they were pulling your leg.

You speak of my lack of power in the work place as if my lack of power under the thumb of a socialist regime would be much better. Again, at least I can leave, or litigate against my employer if need be. Under socialism, there is no addressing of grievances or litigation against the state. Your choices are 1. Suck it up and take it, 2. Be sent to the gulag for crimes against the state. Don't get me wrong, my boss can be a jerk, but he's not going to be sending me to Siberia anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

Not all the Anonymous comments are not by me.

1) Firstly, the idea of a utopia has to first be realized in the mind so we can move toward bettering society. Without the ideas of a dream or thoughts about making something better you will have no progression or reform whatsoever. I am sure the same thing was said about slavery. People thought that was never going to be abolished. We went from the slavery -> fuedal system -> slavery -> modern states -> ? whats the next transition in human history. Degrees in which you would remove state and social insitutions, is one possibility.

2)Another thing is that i stated was that man has built a society along the lines of two things. Hierarchy and scarcity. The human being acts differently when you remove at least one of those take scarcity for example. This doesnt mean that you are stripped from your individualism or emotion. (In all fariness that is done when you are conditioned in any society) But any human will act differently in a society that has degrees of abudance. For example how about housing the 40 million americans that live in poverty and giving those people education and healthcare. In exchange those people agree "social contract" to help the betterment of his community. This could be done in a social experiment, it has never been tried in a magnitude like that so we can only theorize what would happen we cant indefinitely say this or that. Amother consideration is that Man's needs are different from man's wants. Once you create a society based on these principles perhaps then we can remove degrees of hierarchy. It is obvious that we can reach these means by using technology to our advantage. I mean when i read your comment you are reducing people to dichotomies. That can be to a degree that can be a dangerous because you are saying that you want a society that has two things. the rulers "the strong" and the people that follow orders and remain subjected to their rule, remaining obident and apathetic "the ruled".

Agian this has nothing to do with changing human nature. In many respects if you poll anyone on the street today. I almost guarantee every man has the same universal concerns and feelings towards our existing power structures in society today. Wether that be concerns about education, welfare, healthcare, corportions or anything. We need progression man. -christian

Anonymous said...

I know its easier to disagree sometimes then to find points of agreement so im going agree with you about the hierarchy thing. i do realize most of what your saying. I do think it would be hard to construct the ideal a society on the lines of abudance because man is an evolved creature. We are products of the animal kingdom we lived in a world of scarcity for thousands of years. But now that can come to a end. The question are. How will we do it? And what will happen after we do it? (Its never been done lets try..) We have reached a point in human history where we can change.

Roadhouse said...

There are two possible routes to a successful socialist society:

1. Full frontal lobatomies at birth for all but the ruling class (the state).

2. A real life "Matrix".

As long as man is allowed to think freely, have emotions and have opinions, there can be no successful socialism. Especially after said society has had a taste of freedom and liberty. There is no technology that can change that fact.

Today, socialism is making enroads because it is being slipped in under the radar incrimentally, under the guise of compassion and fairness. It may even take root. But as always, man will tire of having no say in his destiny and have no choice but to revolt. So enjoy it while it lasts, because it won't.

If socialism had any merit, it wouldn't need to be disguised as something else. It wouldn't need to be snuck in through the back door as it is today.

To address your earlier point about my wage vs. someone offering to do it much cheaper.
My job requires a certain amount of skill. My company recognizes that and pays accordingly. In the trucking business, it is easy to see who pays well and who doesn't. Companies that pay well have low turnover, safe equipment, and few accidents. That's because of the old sayings "You get what you pay for" and "Nothing good is cheap and nothing cheap is good".
Sure, they could hire someone for a third less than what I make, but then they would end up with the caliber of driver that commands a low wage. What they save in salary, they would lose in production, time lost, insurance premiums, law suits, and truck repairs. Their company image would suffer as well which would effect customer retention. My wage provides me with the incentive to go the extra mile in my service to the company I work for.

If a truck driver is willing to work for $20,000 a year, it's because he's a rookie, or has a very poor driving record. Niether is a risk that a quality oriented company is willing to take...hence my higher wage. I've paid my dues and then some after nearly two decades behind the wheel without incident (knock on wood).
Under socialism, the wage incentive would be removed and their would be blood all over the highway due to all drivers being paid equally regardless of their apptitude and experience.

That's not "progress".

Anonymous said...

No this isnt a matter of merit when it comes down to these decisions. Lets say a truck driver from mexico comes here and he is driven from his homeland under whatever curcimstance and decides to exchange his labor for 1/3 of the price. It is the right business decision to hire that person.
And agian your taken things to the extreme. I mean i really want to know how you even define socialism because my defintion of socialism is much different. I believe in libertarian socialism. in that I wish to see a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.

I mean where do you get this information from are you a conspiracy theorist or somehting lol? (joking) :) -christian

Anonymous said...

I mean where are you getting these ideas of socialism from. The reason why you didnt see communism or socialism work was because you had a state, a dictator or some form of a socially crippling insitution. You would have to dissolve or work to on dissolving the state to even talk about freedom. I mean how can man even bee free under the our circumstances if we answer to rulers. Its the great pyrimad scheme if you will.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Roadhouse, you've presented an argument against Marxism and authoritarianism. What Christian and I propose is quite a bit different. It's libertarian socialism, something never covered in American classrooms and media. I myself am an Anarcho-Communist. Are you familiar with Anarchist Communism, friend?

Roadhouse said...

Chistian said: "I believe in libertarian socialism. in that I wish to see a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved,"

Again...a fairy tale. Again...Impossible as long as man is allowed to think and feel. Again...defies all laws of nature.

My definition of socialism is the same as pretty much everyone else's I've ever heard; government control of pretty much everything.

Again...the Mexican driver would not be hired at a QUALITY oriented company for the reasons I mentioned before. Case in company. Successful businesses realize that the cheap decision is not always the right decision. Quality and efficiency are major players in the free market...unlike socialist societies. Driven any quality ex-Soviet cars lately?

Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. The two cannot co-exist in practice. They don't even look that great on paper.

Roadhouse said...

Anarcho-communism? If nothing else, you have a great sense of humor.

Anonymous said...

you obviously need to do some research you never even read anything on libertarian socialism or anarcho communism. Both of them are able to be incorporated to our higly industrailized society and they are not a fairy tale. In small degrees the transition has already started. Agian Where do you get this outlandish idea that you would have no "freedom" if you lived in such a society.

Roadhouse said...

Question: "Where do you get this outlandish idea that you would have no "freedom" if you lived in such a society."

Answer: Russia, The former Soviet Union, Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Putin, KGB, East Germany, Berlin Wall, Siberian gulags, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Old Europe, New Europe, Vietnam, Pol Pot, Mao, Kamer Rouge, Tiennen Square, Chernoble, bread lines, North Korea, Pre-WWII Germany, Pre-revolutionary England, Poland, Canada, our Bill of Rights and Constitution, history, common sense, and your inability to demonstrate realistic examples of freedom of thought, expression, commerce, preference, or speech under a socialist government. For starters.

Anonymous said...

I thought you might find this interesting:

I want to easily demonstrate why the capitalist system which the west has adopted will fail as it has already clearly done in some degrees. In many respects I think the system can be improved. Along with the information I have already presented to you in the former. The Quote is taken from an essay written By Albert Einstein which is Titled: Why Socialism?

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

You cannot even begin to mention the atrocities committed by the regimes in Latin America without first mentioning that the United States and Great Britain controlled that part of the world for centuries. Moreover, the United States government has feared social and economic mobility in that part of the world for decades. Now in the 21st century it is becoming apparent with leaders like Chavez that there is going to be social mobility and economic prosperity in that region of the world.. In essence, the reason why we went to Vietnam was to stop social and economic mobility in that part of the world, the United States needs a foothold in that part of the world as it does in other parts.

And I want to rightfully back up my statement with a very good excerpt from a lecture by Noam Chomsky in 1970. Titled: Government in the Future. Here is a link to the source:

Well, at this stage in the discussion one has to mention the specter of communism. What is the threat of communism to this system ? For a clear and cogent answer, one can turn to an extensive study of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation and National Planning Association called the "Political Economy of American Foreign Policy", a very important book. It was compiled by a representative segment of the tiny elite that largely sets public policy for whoever is technically in office. In effect, it's as close as you can come to a manifesto of the American ruling class. Here they define the primary threat of communism as "the economic transformation of the communist powers in ways which reduce their willingness or ability to complement the industrial economies of the West." That is the primary threat of communism. Communism, in short, reduces the willingness and ability of underdeveloped countries to function in the world capitalist economy in the manner of for example the Philippines, which has developed a colonial economy of a classic type after 75 years of American tutelage and domination. It's this doctrine which explains why the British economist Joan Robinson describes the American crusade against communism as a crusade against development.

The cold war ideology and the international communist conspiracy function in an important way, as essentially a propaganda device, to mobilize support at a particular historical moment for this long time imperial enterprise. In fact, I believe that this is probably the main function of cold war. It serves as a useful device for the managers of the American society and their counterparts in the Soviet Union to control their own populations and their own respective imperial systems. I think that the persistence of the cold war can be in part explained by its utility for the managers of the two great world systems.

In proper conjunction with these two statements, and others that i have made in this blog I believe that i have properly demostrated some fundamental points about capitalism, socialism, communism and the proper role of government and social insitutions. I havent herad much by you though. You throw around the same arguements that are easy to refute and you say im wrong. I dont quite understand what your getting at. I mean do you want to see a society in which a degree of socialism and anarchy functioned together as one? I can present at least one example:That of the spanish revolution in 1936. The role of anarchism in the Spanish Revolution or Spanish Civil War of 1936 is too often absent from histories of this struggle against fascism. Alongside the war millions of workers collectivised the land and took over industry to pursue their vision of a new society.

In conclusion i believe that anarchy does work. I have demonstrated at least one example that i know of. That example shows us for the first time a degree of libertarian socialism can be effectively carried out during the direct opposition to a violent political idelogy (facism in the 1930's). But in my opinion this same revolution can be used aganist any form of political, social or economic ideology. -christian

Anonymous said...

Agian i am not proposing a state run socialist society i am proposing a libertarian socialism, which i have already demonstrated is much different. You couldnt give me one example of a full indoctrinated libertarian socialist society that has failed because it has never been done. What you are persuing is the case of a few dictators murdering millions of people and attempting to correlate that with socialism i dont see the point really.

Anonymous said...

What is socialism?

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership.(Not state ownership) This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them.(not one of the countries listed above give that power to the people) These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

Roadhouse said...

Libertarian socialism has never been tried because it's an oxymoron that's flawed in it's conception, as is anarchy.
Both require the abolishing of American soveriegnty, and the one requires survival of the fittest...literally. With a global governing body, a communist system would need to be instituted in order to keep the peace among the many different cultures all claiming superiority. This is why I keep going back to human nature being the fly in the ointment of your utopia.
With anarchy, he who has the most muscle and the least morality will rule the day.
The last time I checked, Spain does not exist under anarchy...I wonder why.

This utopian theory fails to address human nature...try again.

Anonymous said...

In regards to libertarian socialism. Considering the following characterization of revolutionary socialism: "the revolutionary socialist denies that state ownership can end in anything other than a bureaucratic despotism. We have seen why the state cannot democratically control industry. Industry can only be democratically owned and controlled by workers electing, directly from their own ranks, industrial administrative committees. Socialism will be fundamentally an industrial system. Its constituencies will be of an industrial character. Thus, those carrying on the social activity and industries of society will be directly represented in the local and central councils of social administration. In this way the powers of such delegates will flow upwards from those carrying on the work and conversant with the needs of the community. When the central administrative industrial committee meets, it will represent every phase of social activity. Hence the capitalist political or geographical state will be replaced by the industrial administrative committee of socialism. The transition from one social system to the other will be the social revolution. The political state throughout history has meant the government of men by ruling classes. The republic of socialism will be the government of industry, administered on behalf of the whole community. The former meant the economic and political subjection of the many, the latter will mean the economic freedom of all. It will be therefore a true democracy."

Im afraid anarchy did work in spain in 1936 unfortunately the peaceful peace were slaugthered by facist dicators during the second world war.

Human Nature -

Consider the first, that a free society is contrary to human nature. It is often asked: do men really want freedom ? Do they want the responsibility that goes with it ? Or would they prefer to be ruled by a benevolent master ? Consistently, apologists for the existing distribution of power have held to one or another version of the idea of the happy slave. Two hundred years ago, Rousseau denounced the sophistic politicians and intellectuals "who search for ways to obscure the fact," so he maintained, "that the essential and the defining property of man is his freedom. They attribute to man a natural inclination to servitude, without thinking that it is the same for freedom as for innocence and virtue. Their value is felt only as long as one enjoys them oneself, and the taste for them is lost, as soon as one has lost them." As proof of this doctrine he refers to the marvels done by all free peoples to guard themselves from oppression. "True", he says, "those who have abandoned the life of a free man do nothing but boast incessantly of the peace and repose they enjoy in their chains. But when I see the other sacrifice pleasures, repose, wealth, power and life itself for the preservation of this sole good, which is so disdained by those who have lost it, when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword and death to preserve only their independence, I feel it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom." A comment to which we can perhaps give a contemporary interpretation.

Rather similar thoughts were expressed by Kant 40 years later, "he cannot", he says, "accept the proposition that certain people are not right for freedom, for example the serfs of some landlord." "If one accepts this assumption," he writes, "freedom will never be achieved. For one cannot arrive at the maturity for freedom without having already acquired it. One must be free to learn how to make use of ones powers freely and usefully. The first attempts will surely be brutal and will lead to a state of affairs more painful and dangerous than the former condition. Under the dominance but also the protection of an external authority. However, one can achieve reason only through one's own experiences and one must be free to be able to undertake them. To accept the principle that freedom is worthless for those under one's control and that one has the right to refuse it to them forever, is an infringement on the right of God himself, who has created man to be free."

This particular remark is interesting because of its context as well. Kant, in this case, was defending the French revolution during the terror, against those who claimed it showed the masses to be unready for the privilege of freedom. And his remarks too, I think, have obvious contemporary relevance. No rational person will approve of violence and terror, and in particular the terror of the post-revolutionary state, which has fallen into the hands of a grim autocracy, has more than once reached indescribable levels of savagery. At the same time no person of understanding or humanity will too quickly condemn the violence that often occurs, when long subdued masses rise against their oppressors or take their first steps towards liberty and social reconstruction.

Humboldt, just a few years before Kant, had expressed a view very similar to that. He also said that freedom and variety are the preconditions for human self-realization. "Nothing promotes this ripeness for freedom so much as freedom itself. This truth, perhaps, may not be acknowledged by those who have so often used this unripeness as an excuse for continuing repression, but it seems to me to follow unquestionably from the very nature of man. The incapacity for freedom can only arise from a want of moral and intellectual power. To heighten this power is the only way to supply the want, but to do so presupposes the freedom, which awakens spontaneous activity." "Those who do not comprehend this", he says, "may justly be suspected of misunderstanding human nature, and wishing to make men into machines."

Rosa Luxemburg's fraternal, sympathetic critique of Bolshevik ideology and practice was given in very similar terms. Only the active participation of the masses in self-government and social reconstruction could bring about what she described as the complete spiritual transformation in the masses degraded by centuries of bourgeois class rule, just as only their creative experience and spontaneous action can solve the myriad problems of creating a libertarian socialist society. She went on to say that historically the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest central committee, and I think that these remarks can be translated immediately for the somewhat parallel ideology of the soulful corporation, which is now fairly popular among the American academics. For example Karl Casen who writes: "no longer the agent of proprietorship seeking to maximize return on investment, management sees itself as responsible to stock holders, employees, customers, the general public and perhaps most important the firm itself as an institution. There is no display of greed or graspingness, there is no attempt to push off on the workers and the community at large part of the social costs of the enterprise. The modern corporation is a soulful corporation." [laughter] Similarly, the vanguard party is a soulful party, and in both cases those who urge that men submit to the rule of these benevolent autocracies may, I think, justly be accused of wishing to make men into machines.

Now the correctness of the view which is expressed by Rousseau and Kant and Humboldt and Luxemburg and innumerable others, I don't think that the correctness of this is for the moment susceptible to scientific proof. One can only evaluate it in terms of experience and intuition. One can also point out the social consequences of adopting the view that men are born to be free, or that they are born to be ruled by benevolent autocrats.

Anonymous said...

peaceful people * lol

Anonymous said...

so there you have it 4 major philosophers that justify my point. Do i need more?

Roadhouse said...

First, I can tell the difference between cut and paste articles taken from propaganda outlets and a real live blogger's words.

I want YOU to explain how socialism can exist in unison with human beings, without metaphorically pissing all over their desires, personal preferences, hopes, dreams and aspirations.
Break it down, walk me through a day in the life of someone who is under the absolute rule of the state, while having no recourse in the event that they are not "satisfied" with what the state has provided.
Tell me how I would enjoy having little control over my destiny. Sell it to me. Make me want a world where the guy who busts his ass is treated the same as a pot smoking slacker. Explain in simple terms the fairness in that.
Remember that you're talking to a truck driver who eats burgers and drinks beer with his steak on the to me as such. Save the "ivy league" jargain for your professors.

If anarchy worked, Spain would still be anarchist, as would everyone else. Without some sort of organization, you quickly learn that there are others in the world who will gladly step in and take advantage of the in point - Spain. Bringing us right back to human nature yet again.

Roadhouse said...

First, I can tell the difference between cut and paste articles taken from propaganda outlets and a real live blogger's words.

I want YOU to explain how socialism can exist in unison with human beings, without metaphorically pissing all over their desires, personal preferences, hopes, dreams and aspirations.
Break it down, walk me through a day in the life of someone who is under the absolute rule of the state, while having no recourse in the event that they are not "satisfied" with what the state has provided.
Tell me how I would enjoy having little control over my destiny. Sell it to me. Make me want a world where the guy who busts his ass is treated the same as a pot smoking slacker. Explain in simple terms the fairness in that.
Remember that you're talking to a truck driver who eats burgers and drinks beer with his steak on the to me as such. Save the "ivy league" jargain for your professors.

If anarchy worked, Spain would still be anarchist, as would everyone else. Without some sort of organization, you quickly learn that there are others in the world who will gladly step in and take advantage of the in point - Spain. Bringing us right back to human nature yet again.

Anonymous said...

Everyone in this society must work to help the community. People need basic means of production to survive. (clothes, shelter food)The workers are managers, the people elect from there own ranks to democratically control resources and production. The state is dissolved and no furhter elaboration is needed. Obviously the transition would have to be a gradual cultural movement. You cannot just transform 300 million people's mindset into " you have say in what goes on". People have any choice in whatever profession they would like to prosper in, but likewise everyone is bound by a social contract to help the community. So the work that is neccessary for human survival must be shared. But resources would be distrubited, and people will have access to education and public facilities just like we do in this society. Its not like you are going to tear down everything and rebuild. This is merely a transformation of society and insitutions that are in power. And people would be in very organized in this society. Because everything revolves around your community. People would take a active role in democracy unlike we do in our culture. ( I dont think we have to argue on this point) But i will argue that it is redicolus to say that human beings need to be governed. We are self managing creatures. We are extremely intelligent lifeforms, and thatintelligence is supressed at the work enviroment.]

So lets recap. You have no state and people are not ruled over by others or political insitutions. You can do what ever you want. Laws and order is transcended and everyone abides by a social contract. All the people in the communities have ownership over production and resources. Which can be redistrubited for the common good. Sounds fine to me.

Regarding the article above. you wanted to see the workings of human nature regarding a libertarian socialist society. I took a section from a speech and posted it. The work is much more credible, I mean if you want i can paraphase it. I dont think there is any sense in trying to undermine my intelligence, i am not undermining you.

Roadhouse said...

In utopia, I rob you. How do you find justice?
In utopia, you decide that you're tired of carrying your slacker neighbor's ass and decide to slack yourself for a change. Who does the work that you and your neighbor have decided to not do?
In utopia, I've decided that the rest of the community can pound sand. Who's gonna stop me?
In utopia, I take your milkshake. Who's gonna stop me?
In utopia, I am heavily armed and have no moral compass. Who stops me from taking what I want?
In utopia, there's no one to enforce the "social contract", so I'm gonna do as I please. What are you gonna do about it?
In utopia, we are attacked by an outsider nation/s. Who defends us and how?
In utopia, I've decided to set up my own black market/secondary economy with my like minded associates.

You've convinced me. Now let me know where to start with that whole "rid mankind of evil so that this can actually happen" thing.

I'm not undermining your intelligence...just setting some groundrules. The only work credible to me is your's. If I want someone else's, I have that option.

Anonymous said...

I mentioned that all laws and social orders will be transcended this is merely a transformation of society. besides the reason why you have so much conflict and "evi" is because there is not enough to go around. I would rightfully say 60 percent of the crime is committed by the poor. Agian as I have already underlined people react very differently in measures of abudance. And besides I would rightfully say that most people seeks degrees of happiness once all neccesites have been provided you can pursue that want. Finally, if you take any degree of fundamental freedom away from another human being you will have to be removed from that community. For example prositution, you are undermining someone elses freedom by forcing them to have sex. Above all, this is not a utopia there would be many issues, and they will have to be worked out.

Roadhouse said...

You have evil because you have evil...period. There are both rich and poor evil people. There are crimes of passion. There are crimes of jealosy. There are people who are just bat-sh*% crazy. If evil were rooted in economics, there would be no OJ Simpsons, Ted Kennedys, Saddam Husseins or Micheal Vicks. To think that abundance of material wealth via ANY system of government would eliminate man's urges (good or evil) is the height of naivete'.

Now, back to my hypothetical.
Who is going to "remove me from the community"? The police? The Army? A committee? A militia? The Boy Scouts?
In Anarchyville those things do not exist.
Besides, the townspeople would be too busy trying to figure out how to drive to the store for a quart of milk without being hit by other cars, due to a lack of traffic lights and stop signs to figure out how to defend themselves from the likes of me.

"Forcing someone to have sex" is called rape. When two consenting adults willingly contract to have sex, it's called prostitution.

I implied in an earlier post that anarchy has never worked. I was wrong, it works all over the world and has for centuries. It's called the animal kingdom.

Keep chasing that unicorn though.

Anonymous said...

Ok, i think im going to retreat from thisthis discourse. I mentioned all laws and social orders will be transcended. That means majority of all laws will be brought into effect by the standards we have in place. And yes scarcity is the root of social wrong doing. Whether that be lack of education, resources or any other form of primary neccessities. It seems that im not making progress. Whether that be the form that your stating, by which im not providing accurate evidence or whatever. But there is excellent work on these subject matters. In any regard, there is plenty of information regarding these topics I gave you a few sources.

THe reason why you have animals fighting in the animal kingdom is because there is scarcity.

As for the prositution thing, I you are correct. But I was thinking of pimping, you have alot of that in inner cities, where people have no where else to turn but that to feed their family or to get by. Then there are those that go to vegas and have sex for 3000 dollars.

Anonymous said...

To summarize my ideas i would like to end with a few points. The idea of improving our way of life, our communities and the wellbeing of our society is to dream, without that vision man is nothing, there would be no mode of creativity without wanting to see some sort of progression.

With that being said the socio-political system in which we have adopted is not a substainable way of life. It needs to be drastically improved. I have offered alternatives in which I think are the best suiting for a highly industrailized system. Agian, my opinion is subjective, but nonethless the conclusions I reach are part of reality.

Without fixing this system it is prone to 1) economic collapse 2) social revolution (democracy breeds anarchy in the end) 3) the destruction of the planet's resources and biosphere. (pollution) 4) The endangerment of our fellow human beings (wars waged to maintain economic stability and to substain a low level of social mobility in the various regions to maintain positions of power) 5) The corruption of power within the system will be realized by younger generations with the growth of communication and technology. 6)The system will be replaced in the end just like all social and political systems. Whether it be slavery, fuedalism, communism, socalism, or anarchy. (The capitalist system creates a permanent underclass and in conjuction with the other 3 classes that i mentioned before. These classes will grow to resent one another (class warefare) to the extent to which each are prone to revolt.

JMK said...

“Healthcare is a major issue in this country. People are not covered by insurance companies and according to 47 million people in the United States do not have health care coverage. This became a serious issue when McCain announced that he wants to tax health care benefits for the first time in U.S. History. Obama believes in a universal health care plan that will provide affordable coverage for all Americans.

“The war in Iraq is another major issue regarding the 2008 election. America has been fighting a war in Iraq for the last 6 years with no real progress...

“There are agencies like the CIA, FBI, ATF, and NSA that illegally spy on the American people.

“Secondly how exactly do you correlate socialism and anti Americanism?” (Christian)
Actually, the problem with healthcare in America today is NOT access. In FACT, 90% of Americans are covered by their employers. Of the appx. 15% of “Americans” uncovered are an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants and it’s a canard that any form of “universal healthcare would cover anyone here.” The Conservatives in D.C. would insist that the Bill only cover American citizens and the Democrats, looking at bottom-line costs, will be more than happy to comply after a bit of token resistance/grandstanding.

The reality is that it’s Corporate America more than any other group that wants universal healthcare. Right now, 90% of the American people are getting compensation (in the form of employer-driven healthcare) that is not taxed. That cost makes America’s corporations less competitive around the world.

They want that burden shifted to government where the people will pay for the whole nut on their own dime.

In response, government will do what EVERY government that has some form of universal healthcare does – ration care, restrict visits, etc., in order to keep costs down.

The “American way” dictates that there will also be private insurers available to help those who can pay circumvent rationed care and clinic care via that alternative market.

While you’re right that America has been in Iraq for nearly 6 years (6 yrs this March), (1) the war against Saddam’s Iraq ended successfully in three weeks, (2) the surge effectively ended the insurgency and (3) America’s troops have been primarily engaged, since 2004, in rebuilding projects and training Iraq’s military and police forces.

And in fact, there has been tremendous “progress in Iraq.” They’ve just held their third election since 2004 and that government is taking more and more responsibility for its domestic security.

I am heartened to see the Obama administration looking to ratchet UP the war in Afghanistan and go after Islamic radicals in “other hotspots.” A very sound policy.

It’s the NSA that is engaged in an ongoing Surveillance program. Neither CIA, the BATF, nor the FBI “spy on U.S. citizens,” although the FBI does infiltrate suspect groups in country and they do help local law enforcement with various online “stings,” including the ubiquitous “online pedophile stings” – NOTHING at all “illegal” about ANY of that.

The 1979 FISA laws allowed for the NSA to track sans warrants calls/emails FROM “suspect foreign portals” INTO the USA...since 2003, they’ve been allowed to also track “calls/emails TO “suspect foreign portals FROM the USA.”

Again, NOTHING “illegal” about that, as EVERY court (except one and that ruling was overturned by a higher court) has ruled in favor of that. Congress made that a moot point a few months ago when it voted overwhelmingly to renew the NSA Surveillance Programs (Barrack Obama, as a Senator, himself signed onto that) INCLUDING the Telecom Co immunities that SHOULD’VE come as “implied immunities.”

The NSA has NOT been tracking domestic calls within the USA and those Americans who receive communications FROM “suspect foreign portals” or send communications TO “suspect foreign portals” are themselves suspect. Again, there’s nothing at all “illegal” about any of that.

As for, “how exactly do you correlate socialism and anti Americanism,” America is a nation founded on INDIVIDUALSIM and Private Property rights. “Life, happiness and the pursuit of property (as written in the Federalist Papers). True socialism is predicated on the abolition of private property.

There are NO/ZERO “socialist nations” in the industrialized West, not even Sweden, where 90% of the jobs are created by the private sector and companies like Volvo and Erickson are privately owned companies. There are NO industrialized countries with anything close to true socialism. There ARE a few like Venezuela and Zimbabwe that are, at least “socialistic,” but I’d doubt you’d want to claim them to bolster your arguments in favor of socialism.

Anonymous said...

First of all I wouldn’t claim other countries to be socialist I never did. But we do has some forms of socialism in the united States. The healthcare system being Medicaid and Medicare provided coverage for millions of americans. We have public school systems emergency services etc. It is not to the degree of a real socialist state system that you already underlined but that’s not the point I am trying to make.

The cointelpro programs were illegal and there were congressional hearings. I never said anything about modern day Surveillance and i never tried to assert they were illegal. The fbi, atf, nsa all have the authority to carry out Surveillance on the American public. And as you already underlined with the passing of the patriot act people go on a U.S. Terrorist watch list. Currently there are over 1 million Americans on the list.

(Here is an excellent lecture by Michael Ruppert who was a narcotics detective in Los Angeles for more than 20 years. He exposes C.I.A drug trafficking in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

Property rights are different then owning and controlling vast amounts of the worlds resources. I cant remember but i believe it was 395 people on the earth own more resources then the poorest 2 billion. I would say for the sake of common good towards our fellow man it is proper to distribute these resources to starving populaces. I also do realize if you go as far as dismantling a corporation you are risking mass genocide because people depend upon the corporations.

Again about Iraq. Yes we rolled over that country in three weeks. The primary objective was to create a regime that complies with U.S. Interests in that region, U.S. firms and foreign contractors are building a pipe line from the Caspian sea to Asia because India and china are in a oil crisis. About the "democratic" elected leaders if there was someone elected that didn’t comply with our interests he would destroyed in western media outlets it happens all the time. There is plenty case studies to look at mostly in Latin America.

As far as Madison and the federalist papers I outlined in my thesis paper that he mentioned the wealth of the nation should be governed by the most privileged. So you can do with you want but don’t interfere with the systems of power in America or you will be marginalized. I mentioned several examples earlier about the state suppressing leftist movements, labor rights movements etc.

People that don’t have healthcare in the United States

Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available

Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage

Most uninsured Americans are working-class persons whose employers do not provide health insurance, and who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals.

EDNESDAY, Aug. 13 (Health Day News) -- An estimated 25 percent of Hispanics in the United States don't have a regular health care provider to treat their medical needs.

Among the 84.2% with health insurance in 2006, coverage was provided through an employer 59.7%, purchased individually 9.1%, and 27.0% was government funded (Medicare, Medicaid, Military). (There is some overlap in coverage figures.) Source: US Census Bureau

(Regarding the employer healthcare coverage -59.7% sorry get the facts)

Anonymous said...

Regarding the war in Iraq, it is funny that you mention democracy, to say the reason why we went to war was to bring democracy to Iraq, I think that is rather depressing and completely ridiculous you should read up on contemporary foreign policy regarding the middle east.

One source that I can give you is Kevin Phillips book: American Theocracy
There are hundreds of others books, dozens of documentaries and great lectures from professors all over the world regarding this war..

JMK said...

Social and emergency services (Police, Fire, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, etc.) are not the exclusively “socialistic” in any way.

Every “mixed economy”/regulated market-based economy (which includes all of Western Europe, Japan, the USA, Australia, etc.) has those sorts of services and programs to care for those lacking the skills to be able to care for themselves.

Socialism is predicated on “the abolition of private property” which is the abolition of individualism, individual LIBERTY and self-ownership. Without the right to own property, you ARE property.

The fact is “socialism” DOESN’T work. Ironically enough it was Hitler and Mussolini who came the closest to actually making socialism work.

Mussolini had been a leading socialist in Italy before recognizing that fascism is the ONLY way to institute economic socialism.

Hitler famously said, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

(Speech of May 1, 1927)


That program hasn’t been active since 1971!

Moreover, according to FBI reports, 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert "white hate groups," including the Ku Klux Klan and National States' Rights Party. The other 85% of COINTELPRO resources were expended on targets suspected of being subversive, such as communist and socialist organizations, etc..

I think most people support infiltrating and disrupting such domestic terror groups as the KKK, the Aryan nation, the Weather Underground, etc.

I know I do.

You’re probably a young idealistic kid, and I don’t want to tamp down that idealism, it’s good stuff.

Here’s the thing, and we all find this out pretty quickly once we’re out working for a living. Government DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT represent “the people,” especially NOT “the poor people.”

Government exists for the “political class,” who maintain their power and accrue wealth by doing the bidding of the big business. Why’d you think the Pelosi-Reid Congress wrote and passed a Bill (TARP) that handed almost $1 TRILLION to the banks, many of which screwed up by pigging out once the government guaranteed all the bad debt it had mandated?

“I cant remember but i believe it was 395 people on the earth own more resources then the poorest 2 billion. I would say for the sake of common good towards our fellow man it is proper to distribute these resources to starving populaces.” (Christian)

Nah, they tried that in Zimbabwe. Funny story (very FUNNY, so long as you don’t live in Zimbabwe) – they “returned” (took) the farms from the white farmers and, yes, “put them back into the hands of the starving populace”...and guess what???

Yup mass starvation! Food riots, a currency collapse (inflation over 1000%), hundreds of thousands (tens of thousands by “official reports”) dead.

Not such a good idea.

As for Iraq, hell yeah, America is looking out for its own interests, EVERY OTHER country in the world is doing the very same thing, looking out for their own interests without any concern for anyone else’s.

Ironically enough, we sided with the Muslims of Kosovo, who actually were the FIRST to initiate genocide in that reason when they slaughtered 3,000 Christian Serbs in Kosovo. Milocevic responded by slaughtering 10,000 Muslims. WE KNEW that the Serbs had been the initial victims of genocide, but because we NEEDED that Albanian pipeline done, we sided with NATO (which also joined in, in order to get that Albanian pipeline completed) AGAINST the initial victims and on the side of the first to use genocide in that region.

And you know what? All in all, we had interests that superseded the morality of that issue. Sad to say, mayb, but true.

“Actually, the problem with healthcare in America today is NOT access. In FACT, 90% of Americans are covered by their employers.” (JMK)

That SHOULD HAVE READ “employers or government programs” – that’s 90% of America’s citizens.

“Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.” (Christian)

Whoa! It’s 15% NOT 18% - America has a population of slightly over 300 MILLION. And YES, of the appx. 15% of “Americans” uncovered are an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants and it’s a canard that any form of “universal healthcare would cover EVERYONE here.”

FACT: “According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans without health insurance actually DECREASED in 2007, to 15.3 percent, compared to 15.8 percent in 2006.

“The actual number of uninsured dropped TO 45.7 million, (down) from 47 million.

How’d you put that, oh yeah, “sorry get the facts.”

Given that an estimated 20 million of that 45.7 million uninsured are ILLEGAL immigrants, and given that NO “universal healthcare Bill that will pass through Congress will insure non-citizens, universal healthcare will only reduce that 15% to around 8%.

So we’ll always have uninsured.

AGAIN, the prime moving force behind universal or national healthcare is the corporate sector wanting to get out from under that ponderous burden that has made them less profitable globally. The secondary motivating force is government that wants to eradicate all that untaxed compensation.

JMK said...

I never said, nor implied that our purpose in Iraq was to “spread democracy.”

Iraq was invaded because Saddam Hussein had harbored terrorists (Abu Nadal and others), he was cooperating with the al Qaeda-run Ansar al-Islam camps in Northern Iraq against a common enemy, the Iraqi Kurds.

The U.S. government has a sworn duty to protect America’s financial and commercial interests abroad. Exxon-Mobil, for instance, as an entity, probably ranks only behind England, Germany, China and Japan, in terms of its importance to America and America's national security. There are probably four to six such corporate entities in the top 10 most important entities on earth.

So, a few million (if it’s even that many) Americans pleading for “peace at any cost,” against our legitimate and vital global financial and commercial interests...well, the latter’s going to win out every time and RIGHTLY so.

Anonymous said...

Socialism- I am not talking about state socialism nor did I never advocated that system. I advocated Libertarian socialism. The main principles of that social system are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to be friendly and organize democratically. This can coincide with the absence of illegitimate authority. (State systems)

Regarding American globalization I don’t think it is necessary to setup regimes and kill thousands of people to maintain resources in that region of the world. I think you have to be sadistic and I don’t even think you can talk about individualism or liberty if you advocate that it is okay for America to go in slaughter and destroy a whole culture, cover it up, set up a new regime and act like nothing happened. (American bliss) it’s utterly sadistic and wrong. You can’t even talk about the justifications for power without considering the latter.

3) Regarding healthcare it gets so frustrating to hear about statistics and your right i should have read government programs. But the healthcare system is a terrible in America, whether majority of Americans are covered or not. You are older than me and I leave the consideration of experience with the healthcare system on the table for you. I just think it is ridiculous that it costs 9400 dollars for a less than 24 hour stay at the hospital that’s all.

4) Regarding redistribution of resources - I think that is an interesting point that you made but that part of the world is war torn and there are hundreds of people that die of diseases and starvation in that particular region and that part of the world.
But that cultural shift towards redistribution of resources would none the less be tricky and is open to further discourse.

COINTELPRO – Targets – Anything that was considered “New Left” The Black Nationalist program, Communist parties, Socialist workers parties, Students for Democratic Society, even the Feminist movement targeted, they targeted underground newspapers and students protesting at universities. This goes beyond any jurisdiction that the government has it is a serious infringement on the rights of citizens in this country.

Anonymous said...

Good so we don’t have to argue about corporate interests. But the war is costing billions of taxpayers dollars, 1000's of American lives, 10's of thousands of Iraq civilian lives not to mention the whole country was destroyed just to be rebuilt again by u.s. and European defense contractors and we sit back watching, and don’t reap any benefits, but that’s ok because corporations do. To me this gives direct justification for the restructuring of our ideology, mindset and our current way of life. When human life has no value other then profit motivation and incentive you have a problem.

Anonymous said...

when human life is reduced to cost benefit analysis we have a problem.

Roadhouse said...

"when human life is reduced to cost benefit analysis we have a problem."

I'm glad you realize that, because that's exactly what's in Obama's retarded/idiotic stimulus bill.

I'm going to pick up where we had left off regarding anarchy.

You said: "I mentioned all laws and social orders will be transcended."

I want to be there when you tell the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, 18th Street Gang, the Latin Kings, and the Hell's Angels that they will have to "transcend laws and social orders".

Then you said: "That means majority of all laws will be brought into effect by the standards we have in place."

Who is going to "bring them into effect"? Who is going to enforce them? Who is going to judicate them? I thought that "the standards we have in place" were the problem to begin with. Isn't that why America is in such need of anarchy?

Animals do not need to be hungry to fight to the death. They fight over territory, mates, and primal fear of others. They even eat their own young if they feel betreyed by their mate or if they feel it is weak. Scarcity is only one of many things that drive animals to barbarity, and certainly not the primary cause.

I see you've met my man JMK. If you think I'M hard to ain't seen nothing yet. He makes ME look like Larry the Cable guy. You like facts, quotes, and source material? He's the man. Good luck.

Roadhouse said...

I see you've met my new friend Christian/Anonymous. He's helping me set the world record for longest comment section in blog history.

Anonymous said...

Yes i have enjoyed the discourse with him thus far and in the future I hope to maintain my position, learn a few things, and carry on the discussion until we reach a objective conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Regarding law enforcement it would be under community decision and i think it is important to note every effort should be made to the basis for anti-social behavior. Prevention and treatment rather then punishment. (this maybe not subject to murder and other cases but most crimes in this country are drug related, socially crippling and causes murder, theft and other socially unacceptable acts). But largely i think we need to understand and i mentioned this, is that libertarian socialism is not a doctrine, but rather a set of guide lines and principles. And in regard to every detail of crime and law it can only be subject to experience.

Roadhouse said...

Christian said: "Regarding law enforcement it would be under community decision"

Again, under what or who's authority? Under anarchy, there is none.

"Prevention and treatment rather then punishment."
Who would be "preventing" or "treating"? Remember, anarchy has no social structure, standards or authority.

"And in regard to every detail of crime and law it can only be subject to experience."

Crime, law and experience become moot without a viable social structure to enforce the law or utilize the experience.

In any case, if we ever become an anarchist society, I feel pretty good about my chances of survival. I'm well armed, trained in martial arts, and have mad survival skills, along with being raised to be self sufficient.
But do you really want to live in a world where you need to sleep with one eye open in order to stay ahead of the drug gangs and psychopaths that would inevitably take over this utopia you dream of?

Anonymous said...

The libertarian socialist society i am proposing does have social structure, in matter of fact it is very structured because it is community. You have to understand the authority is bottom up not top down. Under those circumstances there would still be law courts and other democratic and social institutions adhering to the responsibilities of power and justice. But the responsibility and action would come directly from most individuals participating in that community, something that we do not adopt in the united states.

Anonymous said...

agian you are focused on a objective insitution or person making the laws and enforcing control and constraint on the population. The average individual would have that decision making power and that democratic right to help maintain harmony within the community, agian something that is not adopted by our western industrailized culture.

Anonymous said...

authority, law, governing, is to say bottom up not top down ? get it :)

Anonymous said...

community based*

JMK said...

Hi interesting comments section.

I've been tied up the last few days, but will be back soon.

I don't like to dampen the idealism of young students, but it's odd that every generation believes they can "re-invent the wheel."

As to one of Christian's tenets, authority doesn't work BOTTOM - UP.

That's why they call it "authority."

Civil authority is NOT strictly "Top-DOWN." The governmment takes both civil and criminal complaints from civilians and processes them and proceeds with them through the court system.

The only other kind of authority is that exercised by employers over their employees, and that IS "Top-DOWN" by design...and it's a design that works!

Most "anti-social behavior" is violent and felonious. The "root cause" of such violence is NOT poverty or deprivation, it's a "will to power by some over others."

That will to power is almost ALWAYS pathological and it is why government itself is so dangerous. In fact America's Founders saw that and tried as best they could to rein in government from abusing its citizens.

The problem facing society today is NOT that poor and "disenfranchised" people have too little power, not at's really that government has and weilds far too much power over the people and often does so in ways that are arbitrary and capricious.

FREEDOM is LIBERTY...which is simply complete SELF-OWNERSHIP and the grinding burden of responsibility that comes with that ownership.

With LIBERTY, a person may have all the "license" (the ability to whatever he/she wants) that person can afford. If Mr X doesn't want to work, he can indulge that want/license only so long as he can maintain his own lifestyle WITHOUT any help from his neighbors or the government. Likewise, under LIBERTY there are no "rights" to commodities." There is no "right" to housing, food, clothing, etc. as they are ALL commodities that we and our neighbors earn our livings off the prioduction and sale thereof.

LIBERTY for ALL works....LICENSE for ALL does NOT.

I don't beliee all dialogues reach an "objective conclusion," if by that, you mean an agreed upon consensus, Christian. In fact, sad to say, that seems rarely to be the result.

Anonymous said...

Again, I don’t know why you are stuck on this idea that authority has to come from the top. It shouldn’t. In the United States there are a small number of oligarchic elite that control and maintain power. This is what I am talking about, I do realize what you are saying about the court system and local authority, and I do think that is a great thing. But I am talking about the real power in this country. I’m talking about people who own major U.S banking firms, the corporate sector of America etc. Furthermore, I'm not sure if it’s a hard concept to accept, I can see the reasons why though. The whole idea of top-down governing has been going on from centuries. In every major government system you have a degree of top down processing. And I want to add that top down governing doesn’t even necessary mean it will be effective. I mean this is the elite we are talking about, and they can afford to go to the top schools in the country and receive the best education. But they can still be very incompetent. The ability to govern sometimes has nothing to do with education or how much money you have. To me we should at least have some form of test to see what these representatives know before coming into office. And if what I underlined is true, we still remain in a large degree, slaves to those in power. Even though in advanced industrialized societies the people have some voice whether effective or not doesn’t mean that I or another individual has to put up with the intolerance I and other see in this nation. And you are correct on the responsibility of individuals, but that responsibility can be eased with the growth of telecommunications and technology.

Regarding anti social behavior I do realize that not ALL behavior comes from poverty or deprivation, but in large respect most people are in jail because of drug related abuse or drug related crimes. That crime not prevented in inner cities and poorer communities, and there are a quite of number of reasons for that. I did a good research project concerning this topic; I have the data if you are interested. As for power, I agree with you completely.

Regarding liberty. The 97 percent of the population cannot do what he or she wants because they do not have the resources or ability to carry out what they want. In industrialized societies it’s a bit easier for middle class families, although money is tight for most (credit card debt, school debt and other debt).As for the rest of the population, I guess its just bad luck. In a free market capitalist system I guess someone is going to get the short end of the stick and is going to have to fight for survival.

Roadhouse said...

I thought we were talking about anarchy...I was. We addressed the libertarian socialism thing a while back. It isn't anymore feasable now than it was then, and for the same reasons you avoided before.

Human nature will not allow socialism (even libartarian socialism) to exist without government controlling the masses with an iron fist.

The idea of the inmates running the asylum seems to be the essence of counter production. Why would anyone advocate for a system that either sees no distinction between the achievers and the slackers, or worse yet purposely puts underacheiving slackers in positions of authority over everyone else (authority from the bottom up)?
In life (every aspect of it), someone will always get the short end of the stick. This will not change under ANY system.

Anonymous said...

I have been talking about libertarian socialism the whole time. Anarcho syndicalism is the same thing as libertarian socialism. YOU HAVE NO STATE under this system. The whole society is self managed by the workers instead of a few. Furthermore Under a system of particaptory economics you wouldnt have that winners or losers. Instead you have solidarity and empthathy for your fellow man. Under the provisions of this system there will be no egoism or undesired anti social behavior (regarding the buyers and sellers).Instead there is cooperation. Agian this system would be hard to realize because it has never been done. You have never had any real power at the workplace before. You have answered to a manager, adminstrator, a boss your whole life. It doesnt have to be any dictatorial ruling in our work enviroment. And agian why do you have such a low standards for your fellow man.

Anonymous said...

here is a great quote from rosa luxemburg

Only the active participation of the masses in self-government and social reconstruction could bring about what she described as the complete spiritual transformation in the masses degraded by centuries of bourgeois class rule, just as only their creative experience and spontaneous action can solve the myriad problems of creating a libertarian socialist society.

Anonymous said...

I want to ask you a question if i may. To me, you talk about freedom and liberty, but have you ever excerised either of the?

Please dont give me the answer i vote. Because you only do that every four years and you pick between a or b. Specifically your civic liberties and duties as a citizen of a state.

I just turned 18 and i plan on going to my first protest in march

JMK said...

THAT'S your solution? That's your view of "real power, that the banks and energy companies, should be owned BOTTOM-UP?

They ARE owned by US (the PEOPLE) they are ALL publically traded Corporations, Christian.

I have a few hundred shares in Citi Group, I had some before the current crisis and bought quite a bit more now at its current low price, believing that it will eventually and inevitably come back...same with GM – low price + 12% of China’s emerging car market looks like a formula for future success to me.

The bulk of the stock of such Corporations are owned by mutual funds, public pension funds, 401-Ks and 457s use such stocks as vehicles. So, Citi Group, Ford, GM, Exxon-Mobil Chevron, etc. are NOT “owned by a few wealthy Americans.”

If that’s what you’ve gotten out of Noam Chomsky, you’ve probably misread him, as I don’t believe Chomsky (as naïve as he is) doesn’t recognize that publically traded companies are primarily owned by the people in the form of pension funds, mutual funds, 401-Ks, etc.

The problem with those running these Corporations aren’t that they’re NOT “the best and brightest.” In fact, they are. They’ve tested out at the top at every level of their educations along the way and that’s almost certainly why they’re often so arrogant.

In 2002 Alan Greenspan spoke to bankers and mortgage brokers and warned them about the long-term ill effects of their making so many bad loans, but almost to a man, they felt confident (based on their earlier successes) that they’d know when the right time to get out was.

So, your assessment, “The ability to govern sometimes has nothing to do with education or how much money you have. To me we should at least have some form of test to see what these representatives know before coming into office,” is erroneous at least so far as the “testing” goes. As for education, etc. not having anything to do with how well one is capable of governing? Well, Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler were both poorly educated, but fairly bright men, who also suffered from that perverse “will to power” I mentioned above.

Ironically enough, it was Hitler, who almost made socialism work. He, like Benito Mussolini, recognized that economic socialism CANNOT exist absent political fascism. In an age when the world, including England, France and America was enamored of the new social theory of eugenics, Hitler took from the lessons he learned in England and America, where “mental defectives” and violent felons were being sterilized, so as not to “propagate their kind,” Hitler saw a means and a rationale to speed up that Darwinian process via exterminating mental defectives, the chronically dependent poor and ultimately “impure races.” It’s ironic that it was only the latter (the Jew killing) considered in a vacuum, that he is judge today to be “the modern world’s worst tyrant,” despite the fact that Stalin (50 million killed) and Mao (80 to 100 million killed) dwarfed Hitler’s body count), if not his personal pathology. In fact, Stalin, killed off the most prominent Jewish socialists involved in the Russian Revolution - Kerensky and Trotsky and then went about taking out the "university class" (heavilly peopled by Jews) and made common laborers out of those folks and university professors out of former construction workers and miners....with the expected poor results. But he did that, specifically to marginalize the intellectual influences of the radical utopianists. In many ways, Stalin was every bit the "racist" and not even as true a socialist as Hitler.

For his part, back in May of 1927, Adolph Hitler said this; “We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." THAT, to me, is one of the most vile and repugnant things ever uttered, far worse than preaching mass murder in the name of racial purity or anything else.

So, the world’s been replete with “average men” who assumed power (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, among many others) and promptly oppressed their people far more severely than any Monarch or Colonial power ever had.

As I noted, I’m a part owner of Citi Group and Exxon-Mobil, and as such, I resent the idea of people who haven’t invested their savings in such companies claiming to want “their say” in how they’re run, just as I cede that those who own more shares than I SHOULD (and DO) have a greater say, relative to the number of shares owned, in how those entities do business.

In that way, those companies respond to their investors, who generally have ONE unwavering demand – “Keep making us money.”

The market works best because ONLY the market-based economy puts the consumer first. The government-managed economy tries to put the worker first...and ALWAYS with disastrous results all around.

Anonymous said...

I wonder who let all those dictators come into power...Seems to me they had to be a very apathetic obident population, perhaps if the people would take an active role and stand up to those dictators there never would have never been a holocaust. I would rather die fighting for what i believe in and the betterment of my fellow man instead of allow corrupt insitutions destroy our enviroment and our very lives. One day i dont know when people will realize that the Market has become one of the most destructive forces on this planet. A obident apathetic population that allows this sort of thing to go on is far more cynical and dangerous then the occasional mal, pol pot, hilter or stalin.

Roadhouse said...

"you talk about freedom and liberty, but have you ever excerised either of the?"

My freedom and liberty is found in the decisions I make for myself. My education, my choice of profession, my wife, my children, my friends, my finances, my writing, my home, my hobbies, my choice of employment, and my color of underwear are all a result of decisions that I have made...not some beurocratic nightmare scenario.

"I wonder who let all those dictators come into power...Seems to me they had to be a very apathetic obident population, perhaps if the people would take an active role and stand up to those dictators there never would have never been a holocaust."

Dictators and tyrants usually come to power by making outlandish promises to the people in order to gain their trust, then they whittle away at their rights and liberties until the people wake up one morning and realize that they have no power to fight back after the true agenda is put in place. After that, brute force is all you need.

1. Control the media: MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR, CBS, Washington Post, New York Times, Time Magazine, as well as most entertainment outlets are left-leaning supporters of the Democrat agenda.

2. Control the wealth: "stimulus package" and excessive taxation coupled with nationalizing of key industries (banking,health care)

3. Disarm the populous: "gun control", ammo registration, gun bans

4. Destroy free speech: "Fairness Doctrine"

5. Work in secret: The recently passed, 1100 page "stimulous bill" was release at midnight and voted on the next day. Not one congressman who voted for it was able to actually read it, the American people have no idea what's in it.

6. Control the demographics: The Obama administration is attempting to take the national census from the authority of the commerce dept and put it under White House control.

There is one particular party and one particular President who is doing these things as we speek. Not wanting to be part of an "apathetic or obediant population" I have decided to excercise my right to educate myself on these subjects so that I can "take an active role and stand up" against this garbage.

I believe your first post here was an essay praising Obama and his heavily padded record. Now who's being obediant?

Please don't take this as condecention or insult. Take it as advice from someone who's been there. You're 18. That means you have no idea what freedom or liberty are beyond what you've read in some book somewhere. You haven't held a real job yet. You haven't experienced the birth of your first child (at least I hope not yet). You haven't lived long enough to pay property taxes or watch the government take half your pay and give it to degenerate slackers. On 9/11, you hadn't had your first pubes yet. I had to calm my wife who was going to work at a major financial institution that day while knowing that her man was going to be driving a rig in a target rich environment.
Pay a mortgage, meet a payroll, pay some taxes, comply with some government regulations, slog through some beurocracy, and do all this while trying to be a good father and husband. Then get back to me and JMK about your brand of injustice.

You feel powerless because you're supposed to...YOU'RE 18!!! Pay your dues like the rest of us had to. It's part of life. How about putting down the propaganda and experience the REAL WORLD before you try to re-invent the wheel for the rest of us. If you have time to protest, you have time to put in some extra hours at work.

Anonymous said...

So you accept injustice, you accept being powerless and you accept being a wage slave.
I go to school full time and work 30 hours a week and i have it easy. I do my part and i have a clear idea on how the world works. You get out of school spend 10's of thousands of dollars on your education. ( to put it bluntly the only reason why someone would go to college is to make more then his neighbor). You get out of college, get handed a piece of paper that says you make 20 percent more then other people. Then you a apply for a job and possibly take a job position that someone has been working for 10 years. Then you work for 25 30 years get a house pay taxes and die. And you experience the hardships of not having enough money and probably staying debt for years before paying it off.

By the way, you living your life working and raising your family and choosing between consumer product a, b, or c has nothing to do with your civic duties or liberties. In a libertarian socialist society you would have all that and more. What a silly way to try to insult a person by saying someone is inexperienced, I know more then 80 percent of the population. I didnt try to insult you either, i wanted to know how you excercise your civil liberties, its a difficult question. On obama, i praised his track record. He came from nothing and got a scholarship to go to harvard law and columbia then he taught at the university of chicago for 13 years. Then i systematictally destroyed him with 3 points on the american political system.

JMK said...

Hey! I see you’ve taken at least ONE thing from Noam Chomsky, his odious essence of misanthropy – he reviles “the people.”

The USA is the ONLY nation that was able to violently throw off the chains of imperial colonialism and forge a nation based solely on INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY - NOT “freedom as LICENSE (“the right of ALL people to do whatever they’d like”) BUT INSTEAD “freedom as LIBERTY (complete self-ownership and the grinding burden of responsibility that comes with that – in short the right to do whatever we’d like ONLY so much as we can afford to do so, on our own dime).

You need to get up to speed on history Christian.

It’s rarely if EVER “the people’s fault” once a dictator gets power...Stalin came to power after an undemocratic revolution and Hitler was elected in a plurality after Germany was crushed and raped by the Versailles Treaty. He was a riveting speaker who claimed to be a Centrist...“moderate” compared to the radical communists.

Once in power, the apparatus of the state easily controls the people.

Here in the U.S. the USMC (the Marine Corps) is trained to obey orders unflinchingly. One told me, matter of factly, “If I were, as a Marine pilot (he was) told to drop ordinance on Charlotte, NC (his family lived there) I’d wince, but I’d do it...without question, I’d do it.”

Police are the same way. NYC cops, would have no problem pepper spraying and clubbing down anti-globalist protestors EVEN those personally opposed to globalization.

Once ensconced in power, a modern dictatorship (1) first and foremost eradicates the intellectuals and dissidents BOTH Right and Left and (2) moves to protect the new state at all costs and with all the force required.

It’s always been that way. Read Tolstoy’s later works (NOT Anna Karinina and War and Peace) his later works all deal with such dichotomies within man.

IF you believe the market is a “force for evil,” quit’s doing you no good at all.

The state run economy has failed EVERYWHERE it’s been run, from the former USSR (that’s why it’s “former” to Albania’s and Bulgaria’s economies before communism fell.

That’s why TODAY, the MOST market-oriented economy in the world, Hong Kong’s has the world’s LOWEST Misery Index (6.0), while government controlled economies like Venezuela (despite having far more natural resource wealth) has a 38! Zimbabwe, another state-run economy has one well over 100!

No, the market consistently provides the MOST prosperity to the MOST people. Moreover with economic freedom (the market, people owning what they produce as self-owning beings) there is only a universal slavery to the state.

I’m going to be brutally honest with you for a second. The problem with naïve young idealists, like yourself, Christian, is that you, for some inane reason, see YOURSELF as part of that government that enslaves and controls.

Au contraire! READ some history, my young pal. What ALWAYS happens is that a group of naïve, young, idealists put a sweet, caring face on a violent revolution, and once that’s done, a thuggish brute...a Stalin, a Mao or Pol Pot steps up to the podium, punches the idealist’s leaders (maybe Chomsky) in the face and takes power. The he picks the idealist’s leader off the floor and says, “You’re now the assistant Deputy of Agriculture.”

THAT’S how that works.

The idealists, the Trotsky’s and Kerensky’s are swept aside in favor of the thugs, like Stalin and Mao.

If you’re being taught otherwise, you’re being woefully mis-educated, Christian.

What you consider "social justice" is complete faith in an all-powerful state that delivers decisions that are consistently arbitrary and capricious.

That ain't "justice," that's a "tyranny of good intentions."

JMK said...

MISSING WORD: "Moreover withOUT economic freedom (the market - people owning what they produce as self-owning beings) there is only a universal slavery to the state.

Anonymous said...

Exactly so get rid of the state or another forms of power hungry insitutions. Then have all the people make decisions collectively in the market to produce empathy, compassion,cooperation, and solidarity. Furthermore, give people the chance to actively particapte in social and political plans for their communities. In essence you will have everything checked so there will not be a rise of evil governments or dicators, you have no one subordinate or obident to another and you have the growth and prosperity of mankind. This breeds cooperation and solidarity between mankind. Something you obviously do not want to see. This also doesnt mean you have to get rid of the market, you are making it better and more efficent. do you understand?

Roadhouse said...

"I go to school full time and work 30 hours a week and i have it easy. I do my part and i have a clear idea on how the world works."

Factoring in your age, your posts thus far and the facts that you work thirty hous a week and are a full time student, there is no way that you have the foggiest idea of how the world works beyond what you've read about in a book or been told about by someone else.

Consider the following:
"You get out of school spend 10's of thousands of dollars on your education. ( to put it bluntly the only reason why someone would go to college is to make more then his neighbor)."
No, you spend tens of thousands to further your education in a field that you enjoy so that you can afford a better more prosperous lifestyle. Or you simply value a higher education and want to benefit from it according to your wants, needs or passions. Your neighbor has the option to attempt the same...if he chooses (liberty).

"You get out of college, get handed a piece of paper that says you make 20 percent more then other people."
No. You get out of college and get handed a piece of paper that may or may not help you do anything at all, depending on your attitude and aptitude. The paper simply means that you have achieved a certain level of education through hard work, and determination. It does nothing more than certify that you have learned something that may be of value to someone. It is your value to someone that will garner you the extra dough.

"Then you a apply for a job and possibly take a job position that someone has been working for 10 years. Then you work for 25 30 years get a house pay taxes and die. And you experience the hardships of not having enough money and probably staying debt for years before paying it off."

If that's the route you choose to take and how you want to look at it. It still beats someone else making those decisions for you...especially some "collective societal organization by ANY name".

"you living your life working and raising your family and choosing between consumer product a, b, or c has nothing to do with your civic duties or liberties."

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with it by virtue of simply being MY decisions (liberty) and educating myself while being a participant in social discoarse and the electoral process, as well as being a law abiding citizen (civic duty) and raising my next generation to follow do the same.

As for being a "wage slave", I offer my services to someone who is willing to pay me for them. We enter a mutually binding contract that either of us can break at any time in the event that circumstances warrant it. Neither party is forced or tricked into the agreemant and I reserve the right to leave at any time. The employer excercises his right to hire, and I excercise my right to offer my services. He accepts that I can leave if I am not afforded a certain level of contentment in my job, and I accept that he can fire me if he is not afforded a certain level of return on his investment in me. This provides an unwritten system of checks and balances 9mutual understandin)and demands that both parties produce a certain level of quality.

Having to settle for whatever a higher power (government) "issues" me regardless of my acheivement or decisions is a hell of alot closer to slavery than what my life is right now. My level of acheivement is based on decisions (both good and bad) that ROADHOUSE made, not what some omnipitant "collective" deems sufficiant.

You are going to great lengths to avoid the all important factor of human nature in this discussion, but as I said many posts ago "I am not that easily distracted".

Your assignment is to explain in simple terms exactly how your utopia dals with man's WANTS...not need. Explain how you get around passion, jealosy, personal satisfaction, ambition, opinion, greed, sloth, achievement, want of better things, want of advancement, privacy, and all the other things that make humans human...without upsetting the utopian apple cart.

"Then have all the people make decisions collectively in the market to produce empathy, compassion,cooperation, and solidarity."

We have that right now. It's called "the free market"...also known as "voting with your wallet".
If the people don't like what a company is doing, they stop buying their product (liberty). As opposed to a "collective" ISSUING products regardless of what the people actually think about said product (totalitarianism).

Nothing says freedom and liberty like being issued a YUGO and being told it's fair because every slacker and pot head in the community has been issued the same piece of crap car...regardless of how much you apply yourself in life.

Anonymous said...

Roadhouse said...

I had almost forgotten about "P-Park". I had seen that years ago, I forget exactly where. It was sort of an early seventies prototype to Micheal Moore movies.
It's not a bad concept. They should try it in real life. I know some hippies today that could use a lesson in humility and personal discipline.

Anonymous said...

Is this the view you give people? Im curious. Do you think violence and punishment should be inflicted upon those who want to see social progression in the world?

I think a very small minority consists of those who really want to bomb throw and burn buildings, the rest are non violent, peaceful people.

I mean if this is the way you view people there is no reason to continue this discourse. I will be writing a 15 page paper on libertarian socialism and the work of noam chomsky as well as others by the end of the semester, i can post it on here when i am finished

Roadhouse said...

Do they have humor at Mt. Alto? Back when I was hitting the keggers there in the eighties they did. You do know it was just a movie, right? You know, fiction.

But to your point, being given a choice between three days at a real world, less abusive P-Park and federal prison for a ligitimate conviction might be worth looking into.
I'm sure it would be a heck of alot nicer than Siberian gulags or Viet Cong prison camps. You know, "real life" abuses.