|
Right vs. Left
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
Interesting article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...o20030722.shtml
Democracy & free markets vs socialism
Paul Crespo (back to web version)
July 22, 2003
I recently came under fire for referring to Saddam Hussein's regime as fascist. Some argued that I was wrong because the Baath Party was actually socialist. Well, both views are correct. Hussein ran a totalitarian fascist regime that in practice was similar to a totalitarian socialist regime -- or maybe it was vice versa. While there are many differences between the two, the finer ideological distinctions are generally lost on the regime's victims.
In either dictatorship, the state reigns supreme. Secret police roam at will, the maximum leader's images are omnipresent in schools and workplaces, the masses are mobilized to support the state, there's a bloated state-run economy and militarized society as well as lots of prisons where dissenters are tortured and killed. In practice, when it comes to state control, there's little difference between extreme socialism and fascism. Both are the antithesis of American constitutional principles.
With most of these dictatorships, only the ideological rhetoric differs. For Hussein's Socialist Baath Party, it was about Pan-Arabism. For Castro's Communist Party, it's international socialism. For Hitler, it was national socialism (Nazism). For Mussolini, it was corporate statism (true fascism).
While some had much more blood on their hands than others, all these dictatorships shared similar forms of totalitarian repression. In fact, what many of them have in common is their espousal of populist socialism of one form or another.
Ironically, it's the left that constantly uses the fascist bogeyman against the so-called conservative right. While this may have some resonance in Europe or Latin America where the right may still be associated with militarists, statists and nationalists, it certainly has little relation to reality in the United States, where conservatives generally promote uniquely American ideas of liberty and constitutional republicanism.
So, it's entertaining to hear the left regularly denounce President Bush and his conservative supporters as fascists. Either these folks have no idea what fascism means, or conservative Republicans really do want a militarized, one-party, state-run society. I tend to believe the former.
In fact, mainstream American conservatism and the GOP, for the most part, actually promote classical liberal ideas of liberty and individual rights. Like our Founding Fathers, they believe in a smaller, less intrusive government; less taxation, property rights, the rule of law, individual responsibility, and free and competitive markets. They are staunch defenders of the Constitution and the principles it represents. Those who veer too much from that consensus -- Pat Buchanan may be an example -- quickly find themselves on the outside.
Even among the religious conservatives who focus on promoting traditional American social values, I haven't found any fascists or theocrats. Most are regular folks who believe strongly, as our founders did, that a self-restrained, moral people is the bedrock of democracy and that government should not be eroding the moral values that form the foundation of our democratic system.
In reality, modern American conservatives have more in common with classical liberals than many of today's so-called liberals can ever hope to have. This is particularly true because American liberalism in many ways has been hijacked in recent years by a collectivist and pacifist left wing that is closer to European socialism than to American ideals.
These differences do matter because the battle now is not between right-wing fascism and left-wing liberalism. The contest is between American constitutional democracy and free markets on one side and leftist socialism, rightist statism and ultimately totalitarianism of any stripe on ther other.
Today ''right-wing'' conservatives are the ones promoting democracy and liberal American ideas throughout the world, while many of our so-called liberals seem bent on opposing them.
This is the real battle between right and left. |
|
|
| Eugene |
Shakka... what exactly is the point of this post?
If you agree with the author and his anti-socialist stance then I feel sorry for you because you've been brainwashed. There is nothing wrong with socialism, it is the basis and socioeconomic fiber of all European nations as well as Canada and Australia and Israel, all prosperous democracies with liberal values and a secular atmosphere.
You can't really talk about socialism unless you've lived in a socialist country for some time. I have (spent 12 years in Russia), so has occrider I think. Have you? Many of the ideas stigmatized about socialism here in America are false.
Besides, if you've noticed, people in socialist countries are generally more relaxed in terms of their social policies, and more in tune with the rest of the world and nature.
"smaller, less intrusive government"? Tell that to your senator who enacts draconian sex laws (e.g. sodomy - repealed quite recently) and is anti-drug-decriminalization, anti-prostitution, anti-world community, anti-women's-and civil rights. |
|
|
| drgoodvibe |
I can't agree with a few things that were written above, the most obvious that sticks out in my mind is this...
| quote: | | In fact, mainstream American conservatism and the GOP, for the most part, actually promote classical liberal ideas of liberty and individual rights. Like our Founding Fathers, they believe in a smaller, less intrusive government; less taxation, property rights, the rule of law, individual responsibility, and free and competitive markets. They are staunch defenders of the Constitution and the principles it represents. Those who veer too much from that consensus -- Pat Buchanan may be an example -- quickly find themselves on the outside. |
So far.. we've see John Ashcroft and the conservative government reduce the constitution to nothing. The patriot act, and all such laws that have been put in place since 9/11 have reduced personal privacy to virtually nill. The constitution that the Founding Fathers wrote, is no longer the same as it is now, and hence shows that they are NOT defenders of the principles it represents. SImply put they changed it to meet there wants and needs. As well so far i've seen government intrusiveness only increase, as well as increased government in general. Homeland security, as well as other government programs are only being expanded. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eugene
I have (spent 12 years in Russia), so has occrider I think. Have you? Many of the ideas stigmatized about socialism here in America are false.
|
Nope never been to Russia ... only lived in Austria and Belgium (for Europe). Although I've galavanted about pretty much all of Eastern Europe. You gotta love all those former communist high rise apartment buildings! If you've seen one of them, you've pretty much seen them all hehe. |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Nope never been to Russia ... only lived in Austria and Belgium (for Europe). Although I've galavanted about pretty much all of Eastern Europe. |
what I meant was *some* socialist countries in Europe. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eugene
Shakka... what exactly is the point of this post?
If you agree with the author and his anti-socialist stance then I feel sorry for you because you've been brainwashed. There is nothing wrong with socialism, it is the basis and socioeconomic fiber of all European nations as well as Canada and Australia and Israel, all prosperous democracies with liberal values and a secular atmosphere.
You can't really talk about socialism unless you've lived in a socialist country for some time. I have (spent 12 years in Russia), so has occrider I think. Have you? Many of the ideas stigmatized about socialism here in America are false.
Besides, if you've noticed, people in socialist countries are generally more relaxed in terms of their social policies, and more in tune with the rest of the world and nature.
"smaller, less intrusive government"? Tell that to your senator who enacts draconian sex laws (e.g. sodomy - repealed quite recently) and is anti-drug-decriminalization, anti-prostitution, anti-world community, anti-women's-and civil rights. |
Well the point of this post is to get a good read out so that maybe you and some others will think outside the box a little bit.
Brainwashed??? Ha! please. Who are you kidding. Don't try to push your socialist viewpoints on me--I don't subscribe to your point of view that everyone should have exactly the same amount of benefits and coverage if they've worked hard for themselves and benefit from their own hard work. Why should I be forced to give up most of my earnings so that some homeless crackhead can live the same quality of life as me? Socialism is plain wrong if you believe in any sort of independent thought.
Brainwashed....sadly the point of this post was wasted on you. |
|
|
| occrider |
VERRRYYYYY long read. But very interesting with some valid points. I have a feeling that Shakka and possibly Vesa would subscribe to some of these views (as do I).
Commencement Address
I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have enough smoke blown your way today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration.
You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.
This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.
By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.
Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a Liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in. Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast .. including your own assessment of just how much you really know.
So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.
That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and Libertarians think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.
Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives (and Libertarians, myself among them I might add) think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.
In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.
If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a libertarian or a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.
Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You're going to actually get a full time job! You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort, you're your earnings.
Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent. An agent representing a strange and diverse group of people. An agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child. An agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist ... but who just can't manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.
Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills ... but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million-dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment and benefit.
That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has. Power that you do not have. A power that no individual has, or will have. This agent has the legal power to use force deadly force to accomplish its goals.
You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.
Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I'm sorry, there just isn't any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can't decrease it's share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.
So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes ... a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.
Now let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.
First that favorite buzz word of the media, government and academia: Diversity!
You have been taught that the real value of any group of people - be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual's abilities or character, but on a person's identity and status as a member of a group. Yes it's that liberal group identity thing again.
Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the individual's integrity, character or other qualifications.
Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. From this day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.
We also need to address this thing you seem to have about "rights." We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called "rights" in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.
You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a Beemer, for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.
Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are! You have a right to live free, and to the results of your labor. I'll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another.
You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After all, Hillary said so, didn't she? But you cannot receive health care unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof.
You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would scream if some urban outdoorsmen (that would be "homeless person" for those of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.
The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.
By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase "less fortunate" a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.
To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.
If the Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit.
This "success equals luck" idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as "people who have won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky.
It's not luck, my friends. It's choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled "The Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple: "Use wisely your power of choice."
That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You S.O.B.! You did this to me!"
The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.
Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.
Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.
Quite a few people have made that mistake.
The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.
Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.
Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.' The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more "fair."
You have heard, no doubt, that in the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor ... there's an explanation — a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.
Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor in America. So, you need to know that under our government's definition of "poor" you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and $1 million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as "living in poverty." Now there's something you haven't seen on the evening news.
How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is "living in poverty," the government measures one thing — just one thing. Income. It doesn't matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are 'living in poverty."
This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it?
Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics show that people who are said to be "living in poverty" spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. just remember all this the next time Peter Jennings puffs up and tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.
Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of "poor" is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.
I'm about to be stoned by the faculty here. They've already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get. That's OK, though. I still have my Ph.D. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you'll be unable to deal with life, or the truth. So, get over it.
Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.
* You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again.
* When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for president. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.
* Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the United States. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing.
* Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it — to take their money by force for your own needs — then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.
* Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you the hell alone.
Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.
Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,
1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.
2. Use wisely your power of choice.
3. Go the extra mile ... drive home in the dark.
Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can.
Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get the hell out of here and never come back.
Class dismissed.
This was penned by Neal Boortz if you must have someone to criticize and was to stupid to infer from the text of his speech ;) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Yep, I've read the Boortz speech and he definitely hits a lot of points that I believe in. Too bad he's never made that speech at a university--he'd probably get booed of stage. |
|
|
| Izzy |
great speech, i hope i get someone that cool to speak at our graduation in May. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Wow, occrider. An amazing article. Probably the best of the many good ones I've read on this forum.
Yes, I agreed to some extent with the part bashing leftist liberals. The article made them look really clueless.
But I don't subscribe to the conservative view of hard work as the key to success. Hard work and good choices do not get a person lots of money, girls nor great parties. Hard work makes them good little servants of the really rich, of the ladies men and of the party scene in-crowd.
|
Yes well hard work will only get a person so far in life ... what largely differentiates a hard worker who's making average earnings from a hard worker who is wealthy is intelligence, and perhaps to a smaller extent opportunity/luck. However, I think that if a person is intelligent they are more likely to gravitate towards situations where they are confronted with opportunity and luck hehe.
| quote: |
How long could this academic guy last in a bloody Machiavellian power struggle or in a biker bar? An individual is extremely helpless alone in this world. A group may be strong or weak, depending on the group. Luck plays a part in who wins the last round between finalists. |
I think that the argument he would make in this case is that as a libertarian/conservative he should have the right to pick who to be allied with in his "group", whereas with a liberal viewpoint a person would be forced to be coupled with individuals that would weaken the group as a whole. Wouldn't that be the perfect Machiavellian strategy to utilize when confronted with such a scenario? :D |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I don't subscribe to your point of view that everyone should have exactly the same amount of benefits and coverage if they've worked hard for themselves and benefit from their own hard work. Why should I be forced to give up most of my earnings so that some homeless crackhead can live the same quality of life as me? Socialism is plain wrong if you believe in any sort of independent thought.
|
Hold on there my friend. That statement just implies you know very little about socialism (at least the european version of it). People don't earn the same no matter how hard they might have been working (or not working). A "homeless crack head" will definetly not have the same benefits as a working, tax-paying citizen. If you sit on your ass and do nothing you will be a poor S-O-B in a socialist country as well. Sure you can choose to use & abuse the well-fare state but that won't be giving you top notch standard of living. The well-fare state is there to help citizens that's down on their luck or who made some bad/stupid misstakes during their life. It's there to give them a second chance and try to prevent them from being homeless, out on the street where they usually start doing criminal stuff.
Sure the system is definetly being used by some lazy ass people that just don't wanna work but I'd rather have a proper well fare state with a few leechers than a society where you can be severly screwed and shut out of the community if you are down on your luck. (Kind of like a good FTP, come to think of it :p )
And besides, all people don't have the same opportunities from start. And it's not always just a matter of working hard. As you might have noticed, in life, things aint fair and if you're not at the right time at the right place or know the right people you might never get yourself out of whatever situation your in. No matter how hard you work.
The very point of the european socialism is to not be so bloody selfish. To actually consider the community and not only ones self interests. The main points usally being to provide a free education system, even up to university levels, free health care (or at least cheap health care) and some sort of safety net for when things goes belly-up in once life, etc. Sure you might sit there and say "If I'm down on my luck I'll work hard as hell to get me out of that pickle". And that's the correct spirit IMO, but don't come and tell me you wouldn't appreciate some help in getting started.
Sure, this means we have to pay taxes through our noses, but as I see it, it's worth it in order to get a better society as a whole. It also means it's damn near impossible to get ultra rich (and I mean filthy stinking rich) but at the same time the amount of homeless & poverty striking people will be less in the society as a whole because there are more systems to take care of them.
I'd prefer a socialist country any time :) |
|
|
| rupert |
If someone like that had given a speech like that at my graduation I would have walked out. That radical individualism sickens, all it is dressed up elitism.
Are there poor people who are lazy? sure. Are there poor people who dont want to work and feel the world owes them? Sure. Are their poor people that are victims of the system? That would be most of them. By this guys logic the billions who live on less than a dollar a day deserve what they got. That logic that says that "what the poor need most is the lash of their own poverty" is just straight out evil.
The statement "if you work hard you will be successful" is just a straight out myth. If you are a Stockbroker and you worked hard sure you will be successful and rich, if you are a cleaner or a childcare worker and you work hard - Never.
That it is individuals who are the only thing that matters flies in the face of how things actually happen. Societys gains can only be achieved by collective means. When Rosa Parkes got on the bus that day she didnt do so alone, she had an organisation to support her. Malcolm X and Dr King didnt work alone, they had a large group of well organised people to support them and get their message out.
If people like this guy had any real integrity he would talk about how government american style is just one gigantic wealth transfer from individuals to the corporate sector. President Eisenhower in his final speech very presciently described exactly the way the US systme has turned out. It is well worth a read. |
|
|
|
|
