Socialism, the devil is in the details, literally.
What is wrong with the producers owning the means of production? What is wrong with providing a generous safety net for those "unwilling to work" as Occasional Cortex said? What is wrong with any of this?
So, we can have a debate about the welfare state, or social safety net or whatever you want to call it. Countries that are falsely accused of being socialist, such as the Scandinavian nations, are not really socialist at all. In fact, those nations frequently score higher on the Freedom Index than the US. But aren't they socialist? No. They do have a very generous welfare state, which is being threatened by refugees that are partaking but not contributing. But what are the differences? What do those nations have that the US doesn't?
They have universal health care
They have generous housing benefits
They have free tuition at state universities.
Is there anything that they don't have that the US does? You betcha.
No minimum wage
No oppressive regulations governing businesses
A progressive income tax.
Wait, what? That last one? Well who pays for all of their FREE!?
Well, they don't consider any of those bennies free. Why? Because they are paid for by a heavy tax burden on everyone. The "Rich" (however that is defined) do not carry any greater burden than does the Middle Class. This is a point that I frequently try to make, and it is unfortunate people believe the truth to power that Bernie (Senator Sanders I-VT) you can fill in the blank what the I stands for but I bet it is like this I___t. He is a huge liar. He makes Donald Trump seem like Honest Abe. Why? Because he is selling his Scandinavian brand of Democratic Socialism as a "the rich pay their fair share" scheme. In a way he is right, but not like he means. In those nations, the very wealthy pay a far smaller share of income tax than here.
They consider that FREE! stuff to be prepaid, not FREE! That isn't even the worst part of what Cortex is selling.
Ronald Reagan said that "Socialism only works in two places. In Heaven, where they don't need it, and Hell, where it is already in place." I would respectfully disagree with President Reagan. Why? Because there is another place that Socialism works. Where?
On a chalkboard.
Because on a chalkboard, you can lay a 100% tax rate on the rich, and they will keep producing at the same level as before. Or if that doesn't work, then you just change the variable to indicate that the producers will work at 150% of what they were doing. See!?! It works! Let's implement it.
Whether it is Atlas Shrugged, or 1984, or whatever dystopian future (in the case of Atlas, we are living it) those that produce will stop producing. It isn't because:
Stalin screwed up socialism
Hitler screwed up socialism
Castro screwed up socialism
Chavez screwed up socialism
Maduro screwed up socialism
It is because it can't work. People will choose to not be as productive. They will become needier and needier. As the burden on those carrying the load increases, more of them will be less productive, and become needier themselves. It happened with the Pilgrims, it happened with every failed socialist state.
It can't work.
I know what you are saying. Why is Hitler on that list? Because fascism is a different form, but a form, of socialism nonetheless. In fact the socialists here in the US were split on whether they were in love with Hitler and his transformation of Germany (and before that Mussolini who made the trains run on time) and Stalin. THEY LOVED BOTH OF THEM. So why is calling someone Hitler so much worse than Stalin? Because Hitler betrayed Stalin in WWII. When that happened, the gloves came off. All of the socialists here hated him and wanted him buried.
I mentioned 1984 earlier. Did you know that Orwell was a socialist? And that he never stopped believing? You may say, well, why 1984? Or Animal Farm? Well, he may have believed in the ideal, but he experienced first hand when the ideal of socialism runs into state socialism.
He volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War, on the side of the Republic against the fascist Franco. In Catalonia there was freedom (unless you owned property, then it was seized.) People lived as they would helping each other, and even with the war, they were fighting for something that they believed in, at first. Problem is that with a vacuum of power in the Republic, something is going to fill that vacuum. In this case, it was the Stalin's Communists who rounded up the leaders of the anarchist state, and they disappeared.
The thing is, I have no issue with helping others, but it should be an individual's choice. It should not be at the point of a gun. That was Satan's plan in the beginning, it is his plan now. Forcing people to do what they are told. Not because of fear (though that is the motivation to start) but they want to condition people to want to do what they are told, regardless of personal impact.
They want people to not only say 2 + 2 = 5 because they are forced to, they want to condition people to say it because they believe it.
So until we are in Heaven or Hell, it can't work, except on a chalkboard.
So, we can have a debate about the welfare state, or social safety net or whatever you want to call it. Countries that are falsely accused of being socialist, such as the Scandinavian nations, are not really socialist at all. In fact, those nations frequently score higher on the Freedom Index than the US. But aren't they socialist? No. They do have a very generous welfare state, which is being threatened by refugees that are partaking but not contributing. But what are the differences? What do those nations have that the US doesn't?
They have universal health care
They have generous housing benefits
They have free tuition at state universities.
Is there anything that they don't have that the US does? You betcha.
No minimum wage
No oppressive regulations governing businesses
A progressive income tax.
Wait, what? That last one? Well who pays for all of their FREE!?
Well, they don't consider any of those bennies free. Why? Because they are paid for by a heavy tax burden on everyone. The "Rich" (however that is defined) do not carry any greater burden than does the Middle Class. This is a point that I frequently try to make, and it is unfortunate people believe the truth to power that Bernie (Senator Sanders I-VT) you can fill in the blank what the I stands for but I bet it is like this I___t. He is a huge liar. He makes Donald Trump seem like Honest Abe. Why? Because he is selling his Scandinavian brand of Democratic Socialism as a "the rich pay their fair share" scheme. In a way he is right, but not like he means. In those nations, the very wealthy pay a far smaller share of income tax than here.
They consider that FREE! stuff to be prepaid, not FREE! That isn't even the worst part of what Cortex is selling.
Ronald Reagan said that "Socialism only works in two places. In Heaven, where they don't need it, and Hell, where it is already in place." I would respectfully disagree with President Reagan. Why? Because there is another place that Socialism works. Where?
On a chalkboard.
Because on a chalkboard, you can lay a 100% tax rate on the rich, and they will keep producing at the same level as before. Or if that doesn't work, then you just change the variable to indicate that the producers will work at 150% of what they were doing. See!?! It works! Let's implement it.
Whether it is Atlas Shrugged, or 1984, or whatever dystopian future (in the case of Atlas, we are living it) those that produce will stop producing. It isn't because:
Stalin screwed up socialism
Hitler screwed up socialism
Castro screwed up socialism
Chavez screwed up socialism
Maduro screwed up socialism
It is because it can't work. People will choose to not be as productive. They will become needier and needier. As the burden on those carrying the load increases, more of them will be less productive, and become needier themselves. It happened with the Pilgrims, it happened with every failed socialist state.
It can't work.
I know what you are saying. Why is Hitler on that list? Because fascism is a different form, but a form, of socialism nonetheless. In fact the socialists here in the US were split on whether they were in love with Hitler and his transformation of Germany (and before that Mussolini who made the trains run on time) and Stalin. THEY LOVED BOTH OF THEM. So why is calling someone Hitler so much worse than Stalin? Because Hitler betrayed Stalin in WWII. When that happened, the gloves came off. All of the socialists here hated him and wanted him buried.
I mentioned 1984 earlier. Did you know that Orwell was a socialist? And that he never stopped believing? You may say, well, why 1984? Or Animal Farm? Well, he may have believed in the ideal, but he experienced first hand when the ideal of socialism runs into state socialism.
He volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War, on the side of the Republic against the fascist Franco. In Catalonia there was freedom (unless you owned property, then it was seized.) People lived as they would helping each other, and even with the war, they were fighting for something that they believed in, at first. Problem is that with a vacuum of power in the Republic, something is going to fill that vacuum. In this case, it was the Stalin's Communists who rounded up the leaders of the anarchist state, and they disappeared.
The thing is, I have no issue with helping others, but it should be an individual's choice. It should not be at the point of a gun. That was Satan's plan in the beginning, it is his plan now. Forcing people to do what they are told. Not because of fear (though that is the motivation to start) but they want to condition people to want to do what they are told, regardless of personal impact.
They want people to not only say 2 + 2 = 5 because they are forced to, they want to condition people to say it because they believe it.
So until we are in Heaven or Hell, it can't work, except on a chalkboard.
Comments
Post a Comment