27
Apr
09

I am an Individual, Are You?

stripedpajamas

Everyone would tend to agree that what happened against the Jews (and others) by Nazi Germany to be an attrocity. It was at this time that humanity demonized a people and felt privledged to do what they pleased to them – enslave them, talk to them like dogs (actually, better then dogs), strip them of their posessions, and kill them at will.

And, we should remember these events as if they happened yesterday.

We should remember them because this same mindset continues today. The mindset that we can negate the fact that people are individuals. Today, it is called collectivism.

Think about it. During the general election we heard a lot about collectivism and individualism. Barack wanted to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. What about that 5%? Aw, screw em! They make too much anyways right? This is a fine example of collectivism – he essentially is saying “Mob rule, baby! Forget the rich, they can afford to pay more.” Of course, forget the fact that the “rich” already pay 96% of our tax burden while the bottom 50% of people pay <4%. It is the “rich” vs “everyone else” – collectivism folks.

How about Obama’s church pastor – Rev Wright – of which he listened to for years. (Yes, I am going here). In this church Barack heard how the white man is out to get the black man. Sure Rev Wright, there are some white people that hate you because you are black. However, I’m sure there are plenty of black people that would do the same to a white man. But not all white people are like this just like not all black people are like this. Honest! To put me, a white man, into this “black hater group” is dispicable. I happen to be friends with many black people – I was even out having fun out on the town with a few last night. They were fun individuals. Why is it OK for Obama to sit in on this [collectivist] racist garbage and be given a pass but if I happened to sit in on a church sermon where my white pastor said something about blacks that I would be a racist? Bologna.

Face it, the Left loves to bring race up. They brought it up against Clinton when she was running against Obama. And recently they brought it up with the Tea-Parties. Jane Garofalo said it best, “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.” Nope Jane, it is about a bunch of individuals being tired of getting their money, their government, and their rights taken away. Guess what, the tea parties drew in all sorts of individuals – Democracts, Republicans, Independents, black, white, yellow, smart, ignorant, young and old. This is another fine example of the collectivist ideals – if you don’t tow line with us and Obama and our current politicians, then you are just a “teabagging redneck” or a “white power activist.”

Abortion? Well here, the individual life is less important then the collectivist group of “women” (even though, shouldn’t the choice be made by women and men, both before and after conception?). And who supports abortion (and thus does not support the individual life) – the Left.

Gun control? Take guns away from everyone and let the governement protect us. Don’t let individuals protect themselves because individuals are too incompetent to safely handle firearms. And who supports more gun control (and thus does not support the individuals right to protect themselves) – the Left.

Health care? Give the health care to the government. Don’t let individuals chose who they want to see. Don’t let individuals chose what procedures/operations they want to receive. And who supports Universal Health Care (and thus removes the privledge of doing what the individual wants to their body and by who) – the Left.

Unions? You can’t represent yourself, bucko. You need a Union to show your boss (of whom you work with every day) to come in and tell them how good you are doing! And who wants to make sure that Unions stay alive even when the workers don’t want them (and thus removes the individuals option to represent and vouch for themselves) – the Left.

And the list really goes on and on.

I know I’ve gone way far off base with the movie, but what I’ve said is something that just drives me nuts. I cannot stand collectivism. I don’t ever want anyone to put me in some group and judge me as such. I want everyone to meet me and decide what they think of me. The movie does a fine job of showing how bad collectivist ideas/actions are. Unfortunately, many people, like in the movie, don’t realize how bad it is until it directly affects them.

Wake up people. Be an individual. (And go watch the movie!)

Advertisements

35 Responses to “I am an Individual, Are You?”


  1. 1 DJ
    28 April 2009 at 14:21

    Yes, I am an individual.

  2. 2 grok
    29 April 2009 at 22:50

    I don’t have a choice for what healthcare provider I get to see because I don’t have healthcare coverage like more than 45 million other people in this country. This in spite of the fact that the U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other country. I think the U.S. joining the rest of the industrialized world (and several countries in the non-industrialized world) in recognizing that healthcare is a right not a privilege that only belongs to some would be a major step forward for all of us. Not to mention a hell of a lot cheaper.

    And last I heard what you referred to as mob rule is democracy.

    And by the way comparing a humane healthcare system to the Nazi genocide is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Apparently someone needs to learn that healing is not the same as mass murder.

  3. 29 April 2009 at 23:30

    @grok:

    I don’t have a choice for what healthcare provider I get to see because I don’t have healthcare coverage like more than 45 million other people in this country.

    — Interesting, I have two other posts on here talking about how many are uninsured. It also talks about how many of those chose to be uninsured and how many can fully afford the health care. For this reason, I feel that your number is bunk. Please visit 19MAR08 and 12OCT08 postings.

    This in spite of the fact that the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country.

    So our health care sucks you say… so to fix the problem you think that if we dump even more money into health care, then we will be better off? Is this correct? If it is, then where is this money going to come from?

    I think the U.S. joining the rest of the industrialized world (and several countries in the non-industrialized world) in recognizing that healthcare is a right not a privilege that only belongs to some would be a major step forward for all of us. Not to mention a hell of a lot cheaper.

    It is my belief that the health care problem is caused by government. Before government came in and regulated or put salary caps, people just went to the doctor when they needed it and they worked out a payment plan with their doctor. Why can’t we go back to that? (In fact, there are some doctors that do run on this system).

    And by the way comparing a humane healthcare system to the Nazi genocide is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Apparently someone needs to learn that healing is not the same as mass murder.

    And apparently someone needs to learn what the article was about and not try to put words into people’s mouths. I was showing that health care is a collectivist idea, not an individualist idea. Can you please show me where I said that health care was the same as mass murder?

  4. 4 DJ
    30 April 2009 at 03:06

    Grok,

    “…in recognizing that healthcare is a right not a privilege…”

    Please explain where this right comes from? Health care is a privilege. If our founding fathers had wanted health care to be a God given right, it would have been included in the Declaration of Independence or the the Constitution. It is in neither. We are given, by our Creator, certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty ad the pursuit of happiness. If the right to life is your evidence for a right to health care, please explain why. If the right to Liberty is your evidence, again, please explain. If the right to the Pursuit of Happiness is your evidence, please explain. I am very curious as to how you have determined that a skill which MUST be learned, by an individual who makes a conscious choice to excel in high school, excel in college, and excel in Med school just to have the shit beat out of him during residency and then to be “passed” in residency so they can go on to practice in the field of medicine, is an entitlement for you!

    “…because I don’t have healthcare coverage…” So your choice to (I assume) have a job that does not pay for health care, and your choice NOT to find health care coverage on your own, somehow entitles you to have ME pay for your coverage? Please explain why.

    “…more than 45 million other people…” That is an overblown number by about 30 million. The vast majority of those without heath care are “young and invincible” (just ask them) 20 somethings.

    Provide an example of one UHC plan on the face of this planet that works? The United States medical system is the most productive in the world. We research, develop, and deliver more medical technology to all corners of the world than any other nation on the face of this planet, and you want to wreck that because you choose not have your own health care, that is just sad.

  5. 5 Alan Scott
    3 May 2009 at 14:46

    grok,

    I always ask you liberals the same question and I never get a good answer. You want someone else to pay for your health care like they do over seas. Those of us who oppose this basically say it doesn’t work, at least not very well. So here is the $64,000 question. Can you give me a country where government provided health care works well and is cost effective?

    Now let me educate you on what a right is. A right is defended by the government. It is not provided by the government. In talking about the right of free speech, the government does not provide you with vocal cords so that you can tell everyone what you think. The government did not even provide you with this board to write on, you had to find that yourself. The government protects you from being thrown in jail or being beaten up for expressing your opinion. In the same way the Constitution protects my right to bear arms, it also does not mean that President Obama must provide me with a gun. I don’t think I’d like anything he would pick anyway, especially judging by those crappy gifts he gave the Queen of England.

  6. 6 Crimzaer
    5 May 2009 at 10:51

    This is one of my favorite myths- the concept of liberals being ‘collectivists’ and conservatives being ‘individualist’; kind of like how liberals are big government and how conservatives are small government, right? (Nevermind the patriot act and all that stuff!)

    The fact of the matter is thus- liberals and conservatives both balance collectivism and individualism within their respective ideologies, and both propose a government of similar size. However, the applications of these are not agreed upon. I will grant you this: liberals often take an altruistic and socially-oriented approach to the economy. The problem is that most people do not want to be seen as collectivists, being that a very negative connotation is associated with it. Altruism? It’s more positive. Individualism is also seen as very positive, but selfishness? Damn, doesn’t sound all that good anymore. These words are interchangeable. But barring that, there is the fact that humans are, by nature, social creatures. Through millions upon millions of years, evolution through natural selection have led towards the creation of the most evolutionary efficient creatures possible; and, for humans and most other mammals, altruism works. If everybody works and every pays, and everybody contributes to the common good, then the standard of living and survivalist abilities of the entire society is heightened. For example, back when humans were living in tribe constructs, it was an almost entirely altruistic society- everybody functioned together and shared their findings, thus leading towards an increased standard of living for the tribe in question.

    If a hunter was to return home with a fresh catch, and another man in the tribe fell sick with a life-threatening disease, the hunter would not keep the catch to himself and then scream about how it “Belongs to ME!”. Rather, he would grant the sick man a piece of his catch, helping him heal himself and one day return to being a productive member of society, at which point his catches also assist the stability, survival, and ultimate quality of that society. It is programmed within the human psyche to exist as social creatures, thus creating the need for something called a ‘society’. It is precisely that ideal that drives liberal economic philosophy- the concept of altruism and everybody paying, in the form of taxes, as a return for the benefits granted by a government. The free market system would not exist without a government to uphold it; taxes are simply the method of paying back for legal protection and other such public services that are used by everyone. Absolute self-reliance is a myth created in order to make people feel better about themselves.

    The wealthy made a lot of money. Kudos to them. While they cannot possibly be seen as doing it exclusively due to their individual merit; being that they are, themselves, generally born to wealthy families, the existence of superior socio-economic factors, like a more stable family, further opportunities to hone their intellect (including vastly superior private education, tutoring, and an easier opportunity to attend college), inheritance, connections, and, hell, even physical traits like attractiveness have been consistently proven to be factors, we can, for the moment, ignore this factor. Further taxation for the rich = enforcement of the middle class and the lower class and the granting of opportunities for self-betterment for them = better economy, better society, better standard of living.

    Think about it this way: the middle class is the engine of the economy, not the upper class. You can think of this in battlefield terms: the wealthy are the ‘generals’, the ‘leaders’ of the economy, so to speak, while the middle class and the lower class are the ‘soldiers’. What good is a general without effective soldiers? Enforcing them is, quite simply, vital to society: a capitalist market furthers the gaps between the poor and the rich and it makes the former get poorer and the latter get richer. It is both unjust to not work towards the provision of equalized opportunity and it is inefficient: indeed, we can clearly see the results of this in the United States’ economic history. Hoover’s laissez faire policies led towards the expansion of the wealthy but led towards the vast lowering of the opportunities and, ultimately, the success of the middle class and the poor class, resulting in a society not all that unlike aristocratic ones (where the minority rule while the others suffer). It resulted in the worst economic collapse in history. Franklin D. Roosevelt, meanwhile, rekindled America’s wealth through his New Deal programs; that is to say, he created more equality of opportunity and thus supported the lower and the middle class. It is quite simple: an altruistic policy is more effective, more efficient, and more just. We naturally see the ramifications of this outside of just money: European societies are more equal and more socialist in nature than American ones, and they also have faster-growing economies and less social problems.

    You know something is wrong with our priorities when a wealthy man’s right to buy yet another luxury car overrides the right of a poor child to get decent healthcare. You call it individualism, and I call it sheer greed.

    I, however, scoff at the notion of abortion somehow being a form of collectivism. It is the woman’s choice to dictate what she wants to do with her body- and we liberals strictly value her own right to a life of quality over the rights of what is a a ‘potential person’ with no consciousness and no cognitive relationship towards that future, which, in itself, leads towards the inevitable conclusion that a fetus has no rights. We thus value quality over quantity: the quality of life of existing humans over the potential life of a baby. In another word, we’re supporting the mother’s right to lead an individual life of her choosing and we are thus advocating individualism, in that case.

    Have you ever heard about something called ‘individual morality’? Liberals uphold that morality is relative and up to the individual to dictate for himself (so long as it does not harm society), instead of being forced to conform to the Republican’s religious standards. What conservatives support is called moral absolutism: the idea that there is one correct truth that should be forced upon individuals who do not agree with it. Liberals support freedom of sex, freedom of speech, right to privacy, etc- while conservatives would have all of these thrown away in order to secure an ‘orderly’ society. Conservatives maintain that there are ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ lifestyles; otherwise to say, ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ lifestyles, and thus the concept of private and individual morality is a myth. It is for the government to press a universal morality for all to uphold: and for that reason, for all of their ramblings about individualism and liberty, these are conservatives who believe in order over freedom. And, ultimately, social freedom is infinitely more important towards an individual’s pursuit of happiness than economic freedom: it serves to heighten one’s right to a higher standard of living and for one’s right to be protected from religious authorities. Try telling me now that liberals are ‘pure’ collectivists with a straight face.

    The ultimate goal of liberals is in order to create a society that maximizes happiness and minimizes pain. Equality and freedom are directly intertwined; equality serves to result in economic growth and enables the middle class and the poor to better themselves economically, while freedom enables one to pursue his own individual faith and thus practice his own individual standards: essentially, to dictate his own morality. That’s because ‘social order’ is simply another word for fascism and results in the oppression and depression of a country’s populace, while ‘economic order’ maximizes growth and happiness. As I’ve demonstrated, liberals and conservatives advocate government intervention- economic in the case of the former and moral in the case of the latter- and it is, at least in my opinion, the liberals who have correct priorities.

  7. 6 May 2009 at 02:20

    Crimzaer, thank you for your visit to my blog and your thoughts.

    I don’t have time to go through it all and address each point. However, I think that you have a very incorrect view of what a Liberal is and especially what a Conservative is.

    Just because someone says that they are a “conservative” does not make them one. Just because someone is a Republican does not mean that they are a conservative and it surely does not mean that they are an individualist or practice individualism. This is no more true than many of our current GOP members (How about A. Specter changing from R to D? Obviously labels mean nothing when you evaluate a person on what they say and do. And it seems that Specter finally realized that he was never a R but rather always a D. Kudos to him for realizing that).

    So in other words, drop the Patriot Act jab (and other jabs) until you know what the words you are using truly mean, not just the casual flippiant meanings that everyone throws around.

    Equality and freedom are directly intertwined [sic]

    I disagree with this entirely.

  8. 8 Crimzaer
    8 May 2009 at 05:53

    Conservatism- a political ideology that is, essentially, social authoritarianism and economic libertarianism. This is the very definition of conservatism as a political philosophy, and if you do not believe in it, you are not a conservative.

    Liberal- a political ideology that composes of economic authoritarianism and social libertarianism. Basically the opposite of conservatism.

    Republican- A party affiliation. The Republican party is generally composed of conservative ideals, but some libertarians are also members.

    The only ‘true’ hardcore individualists are libertarians, who are both social and economic libertarians (naturally).

    As for the equality and freedom thing, the thing is that a society that does not ensure, beyond every shadow of doubt, absolutely equalized opportunity is not an ‘individualist’ society. If capitalism goes unchecked, then children of the poor will remain poor and children of the rich will remain rich. Why? Because they have access to superior social influences, connections, inheritance, education, etc- and these are all external influences that are not, in themselves, dependent upon the individual’s actual traits. Capitalist society lets favoritism run rampant.

    On the other hand, if the equalization of social and external circumstances are assured, then the only logical assumption is that success in life will not be dependent upon societal favoritism and other such things- but rather upon the individual’s trait themselves. If everyone has equal opportunity to have a great education and to attend college, then we can only assume that those who succeed do so because of their individual traits and hard work.

  9. 9 DJ
    8 May 2009 at 21:59

    Crimzaer,
    I do not think you fully grasp what Collectivism and Individualism are. In your example regarding the hunter giving his catch to a sick man, that is pure individualism. The individual gave the catch to another, who was down (for whatever reason). The collectivist point of view is everything caught belongs to the society, and the collective will disperse the “booty” to the group. Individualism promotes charity, which is what helping out someone down on there is. In a collectivist society, the group takes care of the group. When a society is self-reliant, the individual prepares for the worse, and when a crisis strikes, the society adapts and overcomes, in a collectivist society, no one prepares for anything, so when a crisis hits everyone is looking at the group for a solution. If collectivism prepared, there would not have been hours of waiting in lines in the former Soviet Union for a loaf of bread or empty shelves in Venezuela today. The whole point of collectivism is to make every member of the society dependent upon the group. The whole purpose of individualism is to make each person dependent upon himself. An entire society that is self-reliant is much more productive and responsible than a collective. A good example of this is the communes that were so popular in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, the idea was grand, a whole group will live together, reap together, sow together and share in the bounty of what they produce, it didn’t take long before some started realizing, they didn’t have to work so hard, because someone else would do the job for them, eventually (average less than 2 years), the commune failed and everybody went their separate ways. The communes were comprised of people with your ideology, and yet they failed. The former Soviet Union, was based on the same premise you are promoting, it failed. China has had to adopt capitalist economic principles to avoid its entire economy collapsing, North Korea, is governed by someone with your ideology, the freedom and wealth are non-existent.

    On the other hand, America was built on a capitalist foundation and in less than 200 years we became the most powerful nation on the face of God’s green Earth. More wealth has been created in this country in 200 years than at any other time history, and people like you want to screw it up. I always hear people like you screaming about how WE have to help the poor- funny thing that what is poor here in America is at worst middle class in most of the rest of the world, and people like you want to change that. Why? Is there too much success here? Instead of bringing America down, why not try and bring the rest of the world up? That’s what Conservatism wants to do.

    Collectivism promotes a class based society; the elites and the workers. Yet you post that just the opposite is true, that is not only a misrepresentation, it is an outright lie. Please provide one example where a Collectivist society enhanced the life style of the “poor”. I am certain you will not find one. Collectivism ruins moderately successful (read middle class) people and forces them into the “poor” group, in other words, it does not raise the poor up, it brings the middle down-again, creating two distinct classes.

    I do not believe you understand what a Conservative is, you seem to think that a Conservative is a Republican is an Evangelical, you couldn’t be more wrong, until you learn the difference, I would recommend you NOT try and classify the ideology of Conservatism.

    Regarding abortion, in what manner is killing an unborn child in anyway individualist? Your logic from above is not only wrong, it is really sad, this again, shows a lack of understanding on your part regarding Individualism and Conservatism. Conservatism places Life as the absolute highest priority. Conservatives are pro-life for that reason. If you look back at the Terri Schiavo case, Conservatives fought for her right to live-granted some dumbass Republicans had to politicize it, but it doesn’t change the fact that Conservatives valued her life, from our view point, only she had the right to pull her own plug (and by that, I mean via a living will or some other DNR style document), not her husband. Your ideology advocates “freedom of choice” yet you fail to acknowledge that a result of choosing to have consensual sex is pregnancy, therefore the choice is made when two consenting adults engage in the act of sex. Your response to the phenomena of a pregnancy-kill it, it is not human. Contrary to what you want to believe, the ONLY “thing” the union of the human male sperm with the human female egg can produce is a human being. The individualist recognizes this and treats the fetus as a future productive member of society, the collectivist says, this is not fair, I don’t want a baby, I want my freedom, I want to live my life, even though the act of having sex was a freely made, conscious choice (in most cases). Conservatism and Individualism promote personal responsibility, not recklessness. You are aware that the most efficient way we have to propagate our species is through the act of sex don’t you?

    Lastly, Conservatives do not want the same size government as liberals do. Conservatives want small (read limited) government. Republicans, on the other hand due seem to advocate a government of comparable size to that of the Liberals. Once again, proving my point you have no concept of what Conservatism is

  10. 9 May 2009 at 05:48

    Crimzaer:

    If capitalism goes unchecked, then children of the poor will remain poor and children of the rich will remain rich. Why? Because they have access to superior social influences, connections, inheritance, education, etc- and these are all external influences that are not, in themselves, dependent upon the individual’s actual traits. Capitalist society lets favoritism run rampant.

    Orly?

    So, rags and riches is purely fictional? The only way you can succeed is by someone making life “fair” for you? The only way to succeed is for the playing field to be level…

    What about all the people who came from nothing and made something of themselves. They just fairy tales?

    Singers: 50 Cent, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Jewel, Ozzy, Chad Kroeger, Jay-Z, Elvis Presley, etc.
    Actors: Jim Carrey, Jackie Chan, Whoopi Goldberg, Halle Berry, Mark Wahlberg, etc.
    Politicians: Benjamin Franklin, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, etc.
    Entrepreneurs: Andrew Carnegie, Oprah Winfrey, Madam C.J. Walker, Gordon Ramsay, Liz Murray, etc.
    Athletes: Brian Piccolo, Thierry Henry, etc.

    So what are all these people, just flukes? They accomplished the impossible?

    OR, is it because capitalism does allow people to be rewarded for their hard work? I’d like your thoughts on these people and how they broke through the impossible capitalist system to become rich, famous, and adored.

  11. 11 Crimzaer
    9 May 2009 at 06:01

    ‘Rags to riches’ is a myth. There are, of course, certain individuals who are talented, work hard enough, or are simply sufficiently lucky to rise out of poverty: it is not an impossibility. But when it does happen, it is generally an exception to the rule.

    All of these people you listed are remarkably intelligent individuals; one cannot expect that any person born into poverty has the potential to become 50 Cent N.2. Even the most extreme of capitalists must concede that the current system leads towards the assumption that the poor have a far harder time becoming wealthy than the born-rich or middle class; it is only a logical assumption. Why is that?

    -Connections
    -Domestic stability; superior environmental influences and greater chances of a more stable family. The poor often come from broken families of some sort.
    -Inheritance: in order to make money, you have to spend money.
    -Education; the rich can afford private schools, private tutors, can better home-school their children and can grant them access to college regardless of their skills. This in itself means that the wealthy have a greater chance to gain more knowledge and to receive an infinitely superior education over the poor, who are trapped with a far inferior standard of education and thus need to work harder than the wealthy in order to attain a comparable education. Even gaining a college scholarship requires having a lot of talent and intellect, which the rich have greater access to.

    And many, many more causes. It is not fair that one group has a superior chance to succeed than another group, regardless of their personal traits. Therefore, in order to ensure that people who succeed do so because of their traits and hard work rather than their societal superiority and favoritism, equality of opportunity must be absolutely ensured. If it is not, than an economic system can never be said to thrive upon individualism.

  12. 12 Alan Scott
    9 May 2009 at 20:46

    Crimzaer,

    Before I get in to some of what you wrote, I’d like to make one general criticism. Your writing is too long and you jump around too much. For these reasons, I did not read everything you wrote. All of us at least want our comments to be read.

    Now to comment on some of what you wrote.

    “Think about it this way: the middle class is the engine of the economy, not the upper class. You can think of this in battlefield terms: the wealthy are the ‘generals’, the ‘leaders’ of the economy, so to speak, while the middle class and the lower class are the ’soldiers’. What good is a general without effective soldiers? Enforcing them is, quite simply, vital to society: a capitalist market furthers the gaps between the poor and the rich and it makes the former get poorer and the latter get richer. It is both unjust to not work towards the provision of equalized opportunity and it is inefficient: indeed, we can clearly see the results of this in the United States’ economic history”

    You are wrong. The middle class is not the economic engine and the economy does not function like a top down military or a 19th century corporation. The opportunity for upward mobility is the economic engine. The incentive is to move up. The new immigrant at the very bottom, who works 20 hour days, saves his money, gets an education, and in 20 years is upper middle class. The middle class guy or girl who develops a talent, or invents something that the market values and moves up to become moderately rich. The rich mogul who risks his capital to get even richer, instead of putting it in to inefficient tax shelters.

    All of these people, by finding ways to serve their customers in the market place, are rewarded and also bring the rest of us along with them. You look at wealth as a static pumpkin pie. If someone gets a bigger piece than you, you believe your slice is smaller. In reality the person getting the big piece helped create a bigger total pie. Your idea of penalizing that rich guy will make your slice much smaller because it will come from a diminished desert.

    Pure capitalism is the most fair system ever invented. It is by definition a meritocracy. It does not care about your skin color, your class, or your religion. You are rewarded by how much wealth you create or how much value you bring to other people’s lives.

    Let’s now talk socialism. By definition it does not reward economic excellence. It does not punish inefficiency. Wealth distribution is by politics. Politics is the only way to upward mobility. Producers have no incentive to produce more because it will be taken away. They have more of an incentive to be inefficient, because if they do produce something better, they are probably threatening another politically powerful entity.

    Would you rather be served by a capitalist or socialist waiter? The capitalist waiter will give you excellent service because he is fighting for a big tip and his boss will fire him if he is really bad. The socialist waiter can’t keep his tip and can’t be fired, no matter how bad his service is.

  13. 10 May 2009 at 01:40

    Crimzaer:

    ‘Rags to riches’ is a myth. There are, of course, certain individuals who are talented, work hard enough, or are simply sufficiently lucky to rise out of poverty: it is not an impossibility. But when it does happen, it is generally an exception to the rule.

    So are you saying that the only way that they got out of poverty is by luck? Well, Cimzaer, that is really sad that you are negating their hard work. Let me put it this way – there are a lot of talented people that are born every day. Most of them we will never know. Nobody will ever know. Why? Because they didn’t put in any hard work. The aforementioned people became rich/famous not because they simply got lucky, but because they worked hard. If you disagree with this… do you think it is possible to just be “born talented” and just somehow be recognized and then become a star?

    I think that you are being facetious in your assumptions of people and what you are born into. The fact of the matter is that people who are born with silver spoons can succeed. However, they can also fail. Have you never met someone that was born privledged and they threw it all away for drugs or theivery or something else that doesn’t contribute to society. I know I have. I’ve met people that have had full ride scholarships, mom and dad buys them everything, and they left it all for a life of crime, drugs, or anything against what their parents wanted. It is simple to see that even the wealthy don’t just maintain their wealth by sitting around. They have to chose to work for it. Likewise, if one is born into poverty or a broken family or whatever your excuse is, they too can break out of that poverty. Or, they can remain in it. It is their own personal choice.

    Before you respond, I would like you to go and read one of my earlier blogs, The American Dream (27FEB08). It is a story about someone who wanted to see if he could work up from nothing. He started with $20 and a duffel bag and went out to see if he could work his way out of poverty. If he can make a decent life starting out with $25, then why can’t everyone? Hint: He put in some hard work.

  14. 10 May 2009 at 01:48

    Alan Scott:

    Would you rather be served by a capitalist or socialist waiter? The capitalist waiter will give you excellent service because he is fighting for a big tip and his boss will fire him if he is really bad. The socialist waiter can’t keep his tip and can’t be fired, no matter how bad his service is.

    I’ve always wanted to round up all the waiters that believe in socialism and tell them that there is a new rule to the game… They all work and whatever tips they receive, they are going to put in a hat. At the end of the night, everyone is going to take an equal share of what is in the hat. $200 is in the hat at the end of the night and you waited tables all night while the guy who calls himself a demi-god sat in the back and ate rolls all night – and now he is going to take a portion of your tips!

    Morale and quality of service will go down the tube real quick. I wonder how long before they would be begging to go back on the capitalist system? I wonder how many people would quit that night? I wonder how long the business would stay open after their service went to hell and nobody wanted to eat there any more… Hmmm…

  15. 15 Crimzaer
    10 May 2009 at 07:16

    It is a nice fantasy to say that anybody who works hard succeeds in life- however, it is a delusion designed to make people feel better about the inequal opportunity within capitalism. I’ve seen plenty of people work their asses off and simply fail; because of lack, because of talent, because of circumstance, because of parentage There are countless factors outside of exclusively hard work.

    For every man who fulfills the ‘American Dream’ by rising out of poverty, there are hundreds who fail. For every man born with a silver spoon who fails, there are hundreds who succeed. This is life and this is capitalism- it is easier for those born into wealth to maintain their wealth than it is for an individual who is born into poverty; no sane, rational human being would deny that the poor have to work harder to get out of the ‘poverty trap’ than the wealthy. And hell, a rich dude doesn’t have to work hard to remain rich: all he needs is parental connections and inheritance. Hell, those who get 100 million dollars in inheritance do not need to work a single day of their lives. There are countless of stupid, lazy people who are wealthy because their parents are and because they had access to an infinitely higher standard of education; meanwhile, there are plenty of poor people who fail because they lack the privileges the rich are born with.

    You’ve mentioned Whoopie Goldberg, Clinton, and Obama as examples of people who fulfilled the rags to riches fairy tale. Have you ever heard of politician and actor dynasties, though? You’d see that the majority of actors were born into ‘royalty’, and politicians are traditionally born into elite families. Think of the Kennedy family, for example. Think George W. Bush. Would Bush have become president of the United States without daddy dearest to help him out? He’s a remarkably average man: I strongly doubt that he would have been capable of achieving the same success in life without his family.

    Look, all you need is to agree with the following statement: it’s harder for the poor to succeed in life than it is for the rich or the middle class. If you agree with this, then you simply must concede that we cannot possibly think that everybody who succeeds does so because of their individualistic merits, period. Thus, unequal opportunity exists- unfair.

    I don’t have time to get to the points of the rest of you, but some mentions:

    1. A fetus is not a human being: as a true individualistic and not a fake one, I value the mother’s INDIVIDUAL right to choose how she wants to operate her body and how she desires to use her reproductive system: it is the most basic of human rights; the right to choose what you want to do with their own body. The parasitic sack of cells you deem a ‘human’ violates the mother’s body against her will, and thus, forcing her to keep them is an act of anti-individualism: society makes the choice for you as to how you want to use your body, not you yourself.

    A fetus is not a person. It is a potential person without a conscious mind and a cognitive desire to achieve life- it is thus, while it is within the mother, no more a human than an undeveloped sperm cell and killing it is not murder. It is a human because it carries a human DNA; but it is most certainly not a human in the same the mother in question is. Her rights override the fetus’ in all cases, and granting her the right to live a life of her choosing over the right of a potential human to become a fully-developed human is perfectly acceptable. In the majority of times, contraception was used in the case of the impregnation; in a modern world, we ought to give women the tool for sexual freedom and the right to have sex without fear of having their body exploited.

    You are aware that minimizing reproduction is a good thing, right? Because of overpopulation an such? By controlling reproduction, we can deter overpopulation problems and create a better functioning society that thrives upon ‘quality over quantity’.

    2. Incorrect: the tribal example is a perfect example of societal altruism. It is not individualism or self-reliance, as the sick man did not, himself, help: he depended upon the mercy of ‘society’. I do not exactly call it collectivism, but the concept of interdependence is a healthy one: everybody works and everybody pays for society, and that money is distributed by society itself in order to grant people’s fundamental human needs and intervene in the case of misfortune. Interdependence is not ‘everybody’s too lazy to work’; it can be argued that it is the base assumption of communists, which is unhealthy. Liberals like myself advocate what is called ‘social capitalism’- a system that does reward those with the most merits and encourages hard work, but is regulated and taxed to ensure economic and social justice.

    And please. America did not become wealthy through laissez-faire capitalism. America only achieved such a state in the 20’s and something close to it not too long ago in the Bush years; both times culminated in severe economic collapse due to the crime, greed, and selfishness that it advocated. It also widened the gaps between the rich and the poor: it did not concern itself with equality of opportunity, and thus valued societal connections and influence over individual merit: who became wealthy was not dictated exclusively due to who that individual, himself, was, but rather due to who his parents (and his environment, etc, etc) were. Franklin D. Roosevelt rose after the 20’s to become the most socialistic president in American history; he also led to an era that saw the greatest economic boom in American history and, essentially, validated America’s position as the world’s wealthiest country. All through policies I’m sure you would deem ‘collectivist’. By asking the wealthy to give more of their already excessive money back to society, we create superior job opportunities and options for self-betterment for the poor and the middle class: in the case of the former, helping them out of poverty via governmental programs is an entirely positive thing, and in the case of the latter, it is the enforcement of the single most important class in the economic system: without the middle class, an economy would not survive.

    3. Welfare does not breed irresponsibility. Perhaps surprisingly, you’d find out that there is no correlation between unemployment rates and welfare programs: the U.S has a higher one of these than the average European country, despite being a more capitalist and economically libertarian country overall. Studies have consistently proven that people never resort to welfare as a first choice: both because of the humiliating nature of it, and because it pays far less than ‘real’ jobs. That’s acceptable, naturally.

    A capitalistic society creates inequality of opportunity, pollution, exploitation of workers, white collar crime, starvation, etc. A more regulated one can minimize these problems while still encouraging self-dependence and individualism.

  16. 16 Alan Scott
    10 May 2009 at 10:53

    Crimzaer,

    “it is easier for those born into wealth to maintain their wealth than it is for an individual who is born into poverty; no sane, rational human being would deny that the poor have to work harder to get out of the ‘poverty trap’ than the wealthy.”

    Give me a country, anywhere in the world, where it is more possible for someone to rise from poverty to riches, than in the United States. Give me an economic system that works better than capitalism for creating wealth and creating upward mobility. READ American history. Most of the rich, such as Andrew Carnegie started at the bottom. This is not Europe or India, with their class and caste systems. YOU can do it too.

  17. 17 Crimzaer
    10 May 2009 at 11:11

    ‘Most of the rich’? Please. Politicians, actors, businessmen, whatever… very few of them are actually started life as poor people. I’m certain it’s plausible for a poor guy to become wealthy, but it is remarkably difficult- far more difficult than it is for one born into a wealthy family.

    Well, in more socialist countries, with superior equality of opportunity, I would assume that people succeed in life more due to their individual skills and traits over their societal influence and favoritism: the poor still have to work harder to succeed, but it’s certainly easier and more fair than the United States system. ‘Personal responsibility’ and ‘individualism’ can only be acknowledged in a system where equality of opportunity is assured- and this is certainly not the case at the moment.

  18. 10 May 2009 at 17:01

    Crimzaer,
    So, what country? You never answered Alan Scott’s question directly.

    It is a nice fantasy to say that anybody who works hard succeeds in life- however, it is a delusion designed to make people feel better about the inequal opportunity within capitalism. I’ve seen plenty of people work their asses off and simply fail; because of lack, because of talent, because of circumstance, because of parentage There are countless factors outside of exclusively hard work.

    Couple of questions for you… What is your definition of “fail.” And you said that they failed because a lack of talent? Well of course they are not going to become a star if they are not skilled or talented, now are they? Because of circumstance? What is that supposed to mean? How are we supposed to give everyone the circumstance to succeed? I’d like to tack on another question onto Alan’s – what country has had more people go from rags to riches than the US?

    For every man who fulfills the ‘American Dream’ by rising out of poverty, there are hundreds who fail. For every man born with a silver spoon who fails, there are hundreds who succeed. This is life and this is capitalism- it is easier for those born into wealth to maintain their wealth than it is for an individual who is born into poverty; no sane, rational human being would deny that the poor have to work harder to get out of the ‘poverty trap’ than the wealthy. And hell, a rich dude doesn’t have to work hard to remain rich: all he needs is parental connections and inheritance. Hell, those who get 100 million dollars in inheritance do not need to work a single day of their lives. There are countless of stupid, lazy people who are wealthy because their parents are and because they had access to an infinitely higher standard of education; meanwhile, there are plenty of poor people who fail because they lack the privileges the rich are born with.

    And I’ve already discussed with you that for anyone to succeed, they have to work for it. Period. Are you saying that the rich maintain their riches simply by being rich (and sitting there)? If so, please show me a family that has maintained to be filthy rich by not doing anything but just sitting there.

    You’ve mentioned Whoopie Goldberg, Clinton, and Obama as examples of people who fulfilled the rags to riches fairy tale. Have you ever heard of politician and actor dynasties, though? You’d see that the majority of actors were born into ‘royalty’, and politicians are traditionally born into elite families. Think of the Kennedy family, for example. Think George W. Bush. Would Bush have become president of the United States without daddy dearest to help him out? He’s a remarkably average man: I strongly doubt that he would have been capable of achieving the same success in life without his family.

    And the simple little fact is that all these people who make it to stardom have to be talented to some degree. With the actors, they have to be good or nobody is going to want to watch them – are they? As for the politicians, if they are just born into politics, is still us who vote them huh? So again, they have to be politically talented for you to vote for them too – right? At least in America I know you can vote for whoever, even write someone’s name in if you wanted. Nobody is forcing you to vote for a last name or whatever as you purport.

    Look, all you need is to agree with the following statement: it’s harder for the poor to succeed in life than it is for the rich or the middle class. If you agree with this, then you simply must concede that we cannot possibly think that everybody who succeeds does so because of their individualistic merits, period. Thus, unequal opportunity exists- unfair.

    I disagree. Sure, go ahead and throw your fit. Work is relative. Circumstances are not universal. Ever heard the saying of “Right place at the right time” or “Wrong place at the wrong time”? Those sayings mean a lot, truthfully. Sometimes people get their break – they get noticed, they stumble across a new invention, they meet someone who helps them – simply because they are at a particular location at a particular time. Destiny, if you believe in that.

    Of course it is harder for a person born with absolutely nothing to become someone with everything (complete rags to riches). That is rags to riches on a macro level. Me, at least, is more arguing micro rags to riches. For example, my grandparents were middle class and they worked hard to maintain their family. Then my parents were middle class and they worked hard to maintain their family. Then me, I’ve worked hard and I am about to break into upper-middle class. Hopefully my children will maintain the upward progression and be squarely in the upper middle class.

    I’ve never advocated that one can just bust their tail and make it to stardom. That is not reality. But, I do believe that if you work at what you want, you can achieve it. You may not achieve stardom or break into the uber-riches, but maybe a few generations down your work will help your family step up. This is true progression. To just force “equality” as you want is just ludicrous. I’d be interested to hear how everyone is given a chance to become something in your system. How do people move up, etc.

    1. A fetus is not a human being: as a true individualistic and not a fake one, I value the mother’s INDIVIDUAL right to choose how she wants to operate her body and how she desires to use her reproductive system: it is the most basic of human rights; the right to choose what you want to do with their own body. The parasitic sack of cells you deem a ‘human’ violates the mother’s body against her will, and thus, forcing her to keep them is an act of anti-individualism: society makes the choice for you as to how you want to use your body, not you yourself.

    Then what is it? It has 46 chromosomes so what else is it going to be? “INDIVIDUAL right to choose how she wants to operate her body and how she desires to use her reproductive system” EXACTLY! She chose to have sex! She did chose! I’m glad we agree on something…

    Franklin D. Roosevelt rose after the 20’s to become the most socialistic president in American history; he also led to an era that saw the greatest economic boom in American history and, essentially, validated America’s position as the world’s wealthiest country. All through policies I’m sure you would deem ‘collectivist’. By asking the wealthy to give more of their already excessive money back to society, we create superior job opportunities and options for self-betterment for the poor and the middle class: in the case of the former, helping them out of poverty via governmental programs is an entirely positive thing, and in the case of the latter, it is the enforcement of the single most important class in the economic system: without the middle class, an economy would not survive.

    So America was just a bucket-o-garbage before FDR?

    3. Welfare does not breed irresponsibility. Perhaps surprisingly, you’d find out that there is no correlation between unemployment rates and welfare programs: the U.S has a higher one of these than the average European country, despite being a more capitalist and economically libertarian country overall. Studies have consistently proven that people never resort to welfare as a first choice: both because of the humiliating nature of it, and because it pays far less than ‘real’ jobs. That’s acceptable, naturally.

    And the extreme opposite of this – if we had no welfare whatsoever – people would know that if they didn’t work that they would starve. Work or starve. Inhumane to a degree, but I think it would be incentive to maintain that job. Whereas with welfare we know we have a safety net to fall back on. Numerous studies have been shown that when we feel safe/secure that we are more careless and carefree. If we know that we can fall back on welfare, then we will work less hard.

    I don’t support the 100% abandonment of welfare. I think we should help people get back on their feet. But not as we do now and certainly not like you want to do.

  19. 19 Alan Scott
    10 May 2009 at 19:03

    Crimzaer,

    “Well, in more socialist countries, with superior equality of opportunity, I would assume that people succeed in life more due to their individual skills and traits over their societal influence and favoritism: the poor still have to work harder to succeed, but it’s certainly easier and more fair than the United States system.”

    How do you know this??????? Have you lived in a socialist country? Have you ever talked to an Eastern European, who lived under a socialist system? I have!!!! Do you have statistics from some publication that any of us have ever heard of, to back up your statement? Can you cite any articles that we could check out, to prove your theory? Again, how do you know what you think you know?????????????????

    “Politicians, actors, businessmen, whatever… very few of them are actually started life as poor people.”

    If I wanted to bore the crap out of everyone, I am sure I could find hundreds of examples contradicting this statement.

  20. 11 May 2009 at 01:13

    Alan Scott:
    I have already provided a list of people that came from nothing and became rich and famous. Not only did I provide a list, but I included people that became singers, actors, politicians, entrepreneurs, and athletes.

    However, by no effort was my list complete… The fact is that some people do not want to recognize what has been said and proven. They have their thoughts/opinions and want to stand by them regardless of what is shown to them. (Reminds me of a certain someone else, honestly). But, if you want to add to my list, please do. :)

  21. 21 DJ
    11 May 2009 at 02:22

    “Franklin D. Roosevelt rose after the 20’s to become the most socialistic president in American history; he also led to an era that saw the greatest economic boom in American history and, essentially, validated America’s position as the world’s wealthiest country.”

    Roosevelt and his policies EXTENDED the Great Depression until the second World War! What “Boom” are you referring to?

    We do agree that he was the “most socialistic President in American History”, at least until the current occupant of the White House.

    “And please. America did not become wealthy through laissez-faire capitalism.”

    Yes we did. The proverbial proof is in the pudding. This country went from a rag tag group of quasi-independent states to the most productive, most powerful, and richest nation on God’s Green Earth through Laissez-Faire Capitalism. What you leftists fail to realize is that EVERY economic system has highs and lows, its called the economic cycle.

    “Incorrect: the tribal example is a perfect example of societal altruism.”
    Once again, you do not understand Conservatism nor Individualism Comrade. The most generous (read charitable) people on the face of this planet are Conservatives-if I am not mistaken, our gracious host has an article regarding that very statement on this blog. You really need to spend a little QT with a Conservative and LEARN what we believe in and stand for.

    Regarding abortion, what else is the union of the human male sperm and the human female egg going to result in? The ONLY “thing” it can become is a human being. Why do you leftists conveniently ignore this fact?

    As far as over population, travel to Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas or New Mexico, there is plenty of land with NO people living on it. Current reproductive rates in the several States are decreasing, so actually more Americans are dying than are being born. We don’t need abortions to amplify this trend.

    “A capitalistic society creates inequality of opportunity, pollution, exploitation of workers, white collar crime, starvation, etc.”

    I don’t consider myself exploited and opportunities for me are abundant.
    People starve because they are lazy.
    Get rid of the regulation and it will be much easier to detect “white collar crime”

  22. 22 Crimzaer
    11 May 2009 at 05:25

    Konfusing Kancer and DJ (you made mostly the exact some points, after all):

    Inequality of opportunity: I still find it absurdly hard to understand how even the most vehement of capitalists can deny the fact that the wealthy have a better chance of succeeding than the poor. Think: you gave some nice examples of ‘rags to riches’ in order to substantiate your fantasy of ‘hard work = success!’; but for everyone of these, you have countless of successful people born with a silver spoon in their mouth who would not have succeeded in life. Think George W. Bush- the man is a moron. Sure, he needed some hard work to get where he was, but could you not say that being the son of a president certainly helped? He had connections, he had money, he had a high level of education (despite being unintelligent); if he was born to an ordinary family, can you honestly conceive the thought that he would have become the president of the United States? The answer is: most certainly not. I’ve known intelligent people- really intelligent people- who failed in life because of circumstances beyond their control. Because of their environmental influence and their education, for example. You need to work in order to succeed, but it helps to have societal favoritism pave your way and increase your chances of success.

    There are prodigies. There are exceptions to the law. But they are rare- very rare. When I see a person like Paris Hilton, I feel physically sick. She succeeds in life because of her parents- not herself. Here is a genuine example of someone who does not work in order to succeed- they can live off inheritance. It’s frankly repulsive. And yes, I do believe some of the rich can succeed by just ‘sitting there’. If you admit the existence of ‘right place in the right time’, you admit that chance and probability are factors in success; and thus, individual responsibility can never be fully assumed.

    In my system, absolute equality of opportunity is assured as far as we can- that means we prevent exploitation, help struggling families, establish a universal education system that includes equal ability to attend college by perhaps abolishing private education (undecided on that); we will be returned to a proportionally-divided society instead of having ethnic minorities compose the majority of the poor and enabling whites to utterly dominate our society. Rags to riches will be supported and made plausible by granting more opportunities for self-betterment and effective application of hard work to children of the poor: there will be no more Paris Hiltons and George Bushes and more Bill Clintons and Whoopie Goldbergs.

    FDR: Please. FDR is historically credited as having launched the ‘New Deal’ era, an era of extreme progressive taxation that is almost universally seen as having saved America’s ass from the economic crisis. He most certainly did not further the Depression; indeed, he worked to alleviate it, and utilized governmental-controlled programs in order to effectively exploit WWII for economic gain. He succeeded marvelously: and he it was his policies that eventually led towards America’s establishment as the wealthiest and most influential nation in the world. Sure, America was quite successful before that, but never to the same extent. It was never truly a massive superpower before.

    Laissez faire capitalism was established twice in America history- the Roaring 20’s and the not-so-Roaring beginning of the 21st century. Both times led to a severe recession and economic collapse from abuse by the rich and the widening of the gaps between the rich and the poor due to inequality of opportunity; mass starvation and death ensued. It did not establish America’s wealth by any extension of the imagination.

    Welfare, unemployment, and laziness: See welfare statistics- few of them are actually unemployed in comparison to those who work in manual jobs like factories and such. Very few also choose to remain on the program long-term; the majority quit after 2 or so years. That is to say that welfare far from encourages laziness- on the contrary. It encourages the poor to get off their feet and assists them by granting them more financial opportunity; it assists in pulling them out of the ‘poverty trap’ and it makes up for misfortune. People do not decide to stay on welfare their entire lives: the money gained from it is, appropriately, less than what will be gained from jobs and is only fit in order to cover one’s basic human needs. Water, shelter, food: could you live such a life, especially in with our current average standard of living? I most certainly think not. Welfare does not lead to unemployment as it is never a first choice and only chosen by those who simply fail to get a job.

    And more on that- are you aware of Milton Friedman’s discovery, the ‘natural rate of unemployment’? He won a nobel prize for it. He discovered that there is a natural rate of unemployment that is necessary to a country’s economic survival and that it can never be shrunk to 0% or anything close to it, certainly not in a vast economy like the United States. Therefore, we can even say that due to this, shrinking welfare will most certainly not encourage people to work- as there will always be unemployed people as a law of economics, and the fact that welfare is never an individual’s first choice. It does not breed irresponsibility or leads an individual to be less likely to eventually get a decent-paying job- sociological studies and statistics all support this point of view.

    People starve because they are lazy? You know, why don’t you have the nerve to tell it to the facts of the single mothers who work 70 hours a week in manual, back-breaking jobs and still don’t have the money to afford a decent life? Yes, it is perfectly logical to inform them of their laziness- I’m sure you would have no problem switching places with them and then telling me how absurdly easy it is to make a living in such a way. Here is how poverty happens: the poor have an access to a lower standard of education; they are also generally geographically disadvantaged and come from potentially broken homes and are regularly exposed to crime. They thus fail in the ‘cerebral education’, leaving them to fill what is, after all, a vital part of society- the manual, physical labor that is the dullest and most physically straining of jobs. With today’s economy and the dawn of the electronic/cerebral age, such jobs are becoming more and more pointless- making things even more difficult for the highly unfortunate poor.

    On abortion: A fetus is a human just like a piece of hair- it contains 46 chromosomes and has a human DNA and genetic information, but it is not a person due to its lack of an active conscious, memories, feelings, desires, and thus killing it cannot possibly be called murder in the same way that killing a grown man is. It is merely a potential person- and killing the potential before it materializes into the actual is most certainly not an act of murder.

    People should have the right to use their body as they desire: women should have the right to transcend beyond their primal nature and have the right to engage in sexual activities without fear of having their reproductive system exploited by what is simply a parasite. People have the individual right to control their body as they please, without conforming to society’s laws and demand- and an abortion is thus perfectly justifiable.

  23. 11 May 2009 at 08:13

    Crimzaer:

    Think George W. Bush- the man is a moron.

    I quit reading after this. You citing your opinion does not equate fact and it is getting old. Please cite your sources to show that GWB is a “moron” and I will continue reading your writings.

  24. 24 Crimzaer
    11 May 2009 at 09:35

    Maybe not a ‘moron;, per se- but can even a conservative claim that the man’s presidency was anything more than a bloated disaster? Do you genuinely think he would’ve been capable of ascending to such a position without extensive assistance from daddy?

  25. 25 DJ
    11 May 2009 at 12:06

    Crimzaer,

    Regarding FDR’s failed New Deal policies: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html.

    Bush is not and never was a Conservative. You have yet again shown your ignorance to what a Conservative is, and what we stand for.

    “Laissez faire capitalism was established twice in America history- the Roaring 20’s and the not-so-Roaring beginning of the 21st century. Both times led to a severe recession and economic collapse from abuse by the rich and the widening of the gaps between the rich and the poor due to inequality of opportunity; mass starvation and death ensued. It did not establish America’s wealth by any extension of the imagination.”

    The Great depression was started by the banking industry manipulating the money supply, it had nothing to do with Capitalism. Bankers are NOT Capitalists, they are manipulators. Thanks to the Federal Reserve Act, bankers create money out of nothing and they produce only debt. Capitalism is based on production, you must produce something someone is willing to pay for, bankers do not do that.

    Our current crisis is more than likely the result of yet another bank related issue; http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/business/defusing_a_5_5t_run_on_the_banks_155245.htm.

    “…but it is not a person due to its lack of an active conscious, memories, feelings, desires,…” Really? Where is your proof that children still in the womb do not have conscious, memories, feelings or desires? Conventional wisdom disagrees says, reading aloud while pregnant and listening to classical music have been shown to effect the child. Where do you draw the line? How about an eleven year old retarded kid? How about an Alzheimers patient? Are they wihtout conscious, memories, feelings and desires?

  26. 26 Alan Scott
    11 May 2009 at 17:27

    Crimzaer,

    I wonder, is Crimzaer a pseudonym for Barak Obama? His technique at news conferences is the same as yours is. His every answer to a question is a mini speech, after which no one cares what he said.

  27. 11 May 2009 at 19:45

    Crimzaer,

    Maybe not a ‘moron;

    So in other words… you have no facts to back up your claim? If so, provide them. I will be waiting.

    Do you genuinely think he would’ve been capable of ascending to such a position without extensive assistance from daddy?

    I’ve already answered this in comment 18.

  28. 28 Crimzaer
    12 May 2009 at 13:18

    DJ: FDR’s New Deal policies had to create a form of recession in order to fix it- and the ultimate success of his ideology is clearly visible in the post-war American economic boom, you know. Through heavy governmental intervention and intelligent exploitation of international conflicts, FDR and his successors were capable of leading America to great success- and I’m going to have to ask you to name me a single time (hopefully in the 21st century) in which laissez faire capitalism led to economic growth. Just one. For everyone of these, you have liberals using leftist economic policies to enforce the middle class and promote further economic equality and justice- which can only lead to effective economic development. This is essentially the historical consensus on the subject, as we can see by the way FDR is revered as one of the greatest presidents in American history.

    If banks are corrupt, would regulation (if not outright nationalization of that system) help? What contributed to both economic downfalls were lies and deceptions orchestrated by the greedy- and through monitoring and regulating that greed with hawkish economic laws, we can minimize the negative effect these things have upon our society.

    As for abortion: we can see in an infant’s brain pattern that a genuine, active self-consciousness only begins to occur after the birth and not while the child is within the womb. Whatever responses it has to external factors is purely subconscious instead of active in nature; it is equipped with an unconscious (and underdeveloped) ‘survival instinct’ of sorts, like all beings, but it lacks the self-definition, conscious memories and desires that define a ‘person’ and grants us ‘human rights’ (although maybe ‘person rights’ is a better name for them- a hair follicle is a human, but it is most certainly not worthy of rights).

    I do not consider an infant to be a full human and I do not think infanticide is equal to killing an adult- but it is still murder. Why? Because the infant and all of the people you mentioned exhibit another characterizing trait of people- independent life. While it can be argued that no one is utterly independent and that a child is still dependent upon its mother, it is a different sort of dependency than being specifically housed within her womb (and exploiting it against her will). Murdering it or neglecting it is refusing to acknowledge the alternative options that exist in order to assist the child and keep it alive; there are none in the case of a pregnancy.

    As for George W. Bush- I’m certain he worked his ass off, but there are societal and environmental factors that happen to making that hard work pay off more easily and more effectively. He had his father to open doors for him, to grant him a great education that increased his chances of success (while the poor have far inferior chances of gaining a decent education); he would not have ascended to such a position without originating from an elite family.

    In my ideal system- a system of absolutely equalized opportunity that does not allow one side to have a complete monopoly on prestigious education while the other side has a vastly inferior chance of getting it- the story of rags to riches would not be quite so stunning. Beating the odds could not happen, because there will be no odds (or at least less odds) favoring one group over the other: everybody will have a similar chance and opportunity to succeed, thus ensuring individual responsibility and the success of individualism.

  29. 12 May 2009 at 19:21

    Crimzaer:
    You keep asking questions but not answering any of the questions asked to you. What gives? You have no answers for our questions?
    So, I will enumerate a few of them below so you don’t have to go back and search. Apologies in advance if you answered them already.

    Post 9 by DJ:

    Please provide one example where a Collectivist society enhanced the life style of the “poor”.

    Post 12 by Alan Scott:

    Would you rather be served by a capitalist or socialist waiter?

    Post 16 by Alan Scott:

    Give me an economic system that works better than capitalism for creating wealth and creating upward mobility.

    Post 18 by Kyle Huwer:

    Are you saying that the rich maintain their riches simply by being rich (and sitting there)? If so, please show me a family that has maintained to be filthy rich by not doing anything but just sitting there.

    Post 21 by DJ:

    Regarding abortion, what else is the union of the human male sperm and the human female egg going to result in? The ONLY “thing” it can become is a human being. Why do you leftists conveniently ignore this fact?

    In other words, you state that the human is only human when exhibits “independent life;” however, as DJ pointed out in post 25

    How about an eleven year old retarded kid? How about an Alzheimers patient? Are they wihtout conscious, memories, feelings and desires?

    They too do not meet the condition of independent life. Also, how about the person hooked up to an iron-lung because their lung collapsed. They are not living independently, so should we just pull the plug on them since they are not independent?

    Post 23 by Kyle Huwer:

    Please cite your sources to show that GWB is a “moron” and I will continue reading your writings.

    To make things fair, if there have been any questions of yours of which have not been answered fully, please present them so we can fully answer them. It seems that all of yours have been though. I think that it is important that you answer the above questions before commenting again so we can all see where you stand. I will let DJ respond to your last question in the post above. Thanks.

  30. 30 Crimzaer
    13 May 2009 at 10:51

    Fair enough. I did respond to them, but I’ll do it point-by-point now.

    “Please provide one example where a Collectivist society enhanced the life style of the “poor”.”-

    I’m not a collectivist and I do not support a true communitarian society, but I will say that the European welfare states, the ones who conform to your standards of ‘collectivist’, have considerably less income inequality and most certainly have a higher standard of living for the poor.

    “Would you rather be served by a capitalist or socialist waiter?”

    I’m not a socialist. Sure, I’m closer to socialism than to capitalism, but I believe in a meritocracy- just a moderate one and not that extreme one laissez-faire capitalism is advocating. I believe it is acceptable to fire incompetent workers; but firing should be held up to judicial review and the burden of proof is placed upon the employer. The more competent should have the right to a better lifestyle: this is why we have the rich and this is why we have the poor.

    As for waiters, the better earn better tips- competition is suitable and should be encouraged. But that’s the thing; a capitalist society lets the less successful waiters wither away, while a more socialistic one grants the less successful waiters further opportunities for self-betterment. It is not cutthroat competition at all costs: instead, even the less successful ones are assisted and enforced, thus granting them further reason and assistance to become more competent.

    “Are you saying that the rich maintain their riches simply by being rich (and sitting there)? If so, please show me a family that has maintained to be filthy rich by not doing anything but just sitting there. ”

    Basically any inheritor type of guy who gets to live a life of luxury through the one million dollars fortune he or she got from his parents. Can you honestly claim that people legitimately have to work if they have such amounts of money? It’s more than enough to sustain a lifestyle of extremely high quality.

    “Regarding abortion, what else is the union of the human male sperm and the human female egg going to result in? The ONLY “thing” it can become is a human being. Why do you leftists conveniently ignore this fact?”

    Person, person, not ‘human’. A hair follicle is human and a sperm cell is human, but can one say that they have rights because of them? They are not people- and thus ‘killing them’ is not immoral.

    “They too do not meet the condition of independent life. Also, how about the person hooked up to an iron-lung because their lung collapsed. They are not living independently, so should we just pull the plug on them since they are not independent?”

    Different form of dependency- they’re capable of sustaining themselves (mostly) and even have some degree of conscious desire to live. They’re not absolutely dependent upon the body of an unwilling an individual: they’re not exploiting anybody’s internal workings.

    “Please cite your sources to show that GWB is a “moron” and I will continue reading your writings. ”

    ‘Sources’? From observation, we know that GWB is a remarkably incompetent and inept president. There is historical evidence to suggest that he had access to societal favoritism- after all, his father is a rich and an influential man. It angers me to see such a blatantly biased society elect such a man to power.

    Here are things you mostly left unaddressed:

    1. An infant’s personhood.
    2. Societal altruism as seen in the tribal structure- how interdependence is simply more efficient than absolute independence, being that the forging of a society is an evolutionary beneficial activity.
    3. The natural rate of unemployment.
    4. Welfare as a last resort and not a refuge of the lazy.
    5. The factor of luck and chance- if it exists, personal responsibility can never be assumed.

    I’m sure there are more, but I can’t think of them right now.

  31. 31 Alan Scott
    13 May 2009 at 19:28

    Crimzaer,

    “I believe it is acceptable to fire incompetent workers; but firing should be held up to judicial review and the burden of proof is placed upon the employer.”

    This is an incredible statement. I can only guess that you never ran a small business , or ever worked for a business that had to survive in a competitive environment. In good times and bad, Western European countries tend to have higher unemployment than in the United States. Employers try not to hire full time workers, because they can’t get rid of anyone either for cause or when business has slowed down.

    This is because of government mandates. It’s great if you are one of the lucky ones with a full time job. Socialist economies self destruct in the long run. In France they have a 35 hour work week. Read all about it. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/27/60II/main704571.shtml

    “Sources’? From observation, we know that GWB is a remarkably incompetent and inept president. There is historical evidence to suggest that he had access to societal favoritism- after all, his father is a rich and an influential man. It angers me to see such a blatantly biased society elect such a man to power.”

    You say that from observation GWB is incompetent and inept. That is opinion. As opposed to a truth backed up with facts. I don’t expect you to understand that there is a difference. You don’t list the historical evidence or define what “societal favoritism” is. So his father was rich and powerful, he still had to go out and get millions of Americans to vote for him, twice. Your anger towards your country seems typical for an Obama voter.

  32. 14 May 2009 at 01:01

    Crimzaer,
    To be honest, I don’t think you responded to them – neither before or in post 30. Let me be clear of what I am looking for…

    “Please provide one example where a Collectivist society enhanced the life style of the “poor”.”- I’m not a collectivist and I do not support a true communitarian society, but I will say that the European welfare states, the ones who conform to your standards of ‘collectivist’, have considerably less income inequality and most certainly have a higher standard of living for the poor.

    Is tihs your opinion or do you have some sort of proof that you can quote?

    “Would you rather be served by a capitalist or socialist waiter?” – I’m not a socialist. Sure, I’m closer to socialism than to capitalism, but I believe in a meritocracy- just a moderate one and not that extreme one laissez-faire capitalism is advocating. I believe it is acceptable to fire incompetent workers; but firing should be held up to judicial review and the burden of proof is placed upon the employer. The more competent should have the right to a better lifestyle: this is why we have the rich and this is why we have the poor. As for waiters, the better earn better tips- competition is suitable and should be encouraged. But that’s the thing; a capitalist society lets the less successful waiters wither away, while a more socialistic one grants the less successful waiters further opportunities for self-betterment. It is not cutthroat competition at all costs: instead, even the less successful ones are assisted and enforced, thus granting them further reason and assistance to become more competent.

    Meritocracy eh? So who gets to decide what it meritable? Judicial review? Holy crap. That is gotta be one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. If you are working and not meeting a quota or job requirement the boss has to have a judge review before you can be fired? So better waiters get better tips? OK, good. But what is this cut-throat stuff you are talking about. If waiter A is better then waiter B, does that automatically mean that waiter B is going to starve? No. It simply means they are going to make less because they are providing a lesser service. If they want to make more, then all they have to do is increase ther service (maybe ask waiter A how they do it). Are you saying that waiters can’t learn to be better waiters?

    “Are you saying that the rich maintain their riches simply by being rich (and sitting there)? If so, please show me a family that has maintained to be filthy rich by not doing anything but just sitting there. ”- Basically any inheritor type of guy who gets to live a life of luxury through the one million dollars fortune he or she got from his parents. Can you honestly claim that people legitimately have to work if they have such amounts of money? It’s more than enough to sustain a lifestyle of extremely high quality.

    And if nobody in that family (as I said originally) does anything, that money will go away right? Or do you think that wealthy families have unlimited money supply? Also, how did they did their money in the first place – did they work for it? Of course any schmuck can live off a large inheritance, however, how many generations can people just live off inheritance? Will that family remain rich forever by continuing that or do they have to pick up and work for it?

    “Regarding abortion, what else is the union of the human male sperm and the human female egg going to result in? The ONLY “thing” it can become is a human being. Why do you leftists conveniently ignore this fact?” Person, person, not ‘human’. A hair follicle is human and a sperm cell is human, but can one say that they have rights because of them? They are not people- and thus ‘killing them’ is not immoral.

    How many chromosomes does a “human” have? How many chromosomes does a “person” have? Please do tell. And since when is a hair folicle a human!? And a sperm? Are you kidding me – what science class did you attend? Even the definition of human is “a person” and a perseon is defined as “a human being.” Will you please show me the part in the dictionary that refutes me here that they are different?

    “They too do not meet the condition of independent life. Also, how about the person hooked up to an iron-lung because their lung collapsed. They are not living independently, so should we just pull the plug on them since they are not independent?” -Different form of dependency- they’re capable of sustaining themselves (mostly) and even have some degree of conscious desire to live. They’re not absolutely dependent upon the body of an unwilling an individual: they’re not exploiting anybody’s internal workings.

    You must think science is bogus huh? When people are in comas, are they capable of sustaining themselves? Are they conscious enough to have a desire to live? By your definition, no. Furthermore, who says that unborn babies do not have a desire to live? As DJ pointed out, they play music to babies in the womb and science says that it may affect the temperment of the baby? Or how about talking to the baby to get it used to the parents’ voices? Science again says that matters to unborn children. So if these things matter to the child when unborn, then how can you say that they have no will to live. On an opposite note, how can you say that when born (let’s say 1.5yrs old) we have a desire to live even? We are crawling around trying to pull knives off the counter and into our eye, we try sticking scisors into electrical outlets, and we try to eat rat poison simply because we can fit it in our mouth. To me, it sounds like for the first few years of our life we DON’T want to live. But somehow, killing us when we are 1.5yrs old is different than when we are unborn. Whate is the “desire to live”? When does that desire start in life? Again, please cite any science articles you feel support your position.

    “Please cite your sources to show that GWB is a “moron” and I will continue reading your writings. ” -‘Sources’? From observation, we know that GWB is a remarkably incompetent and inept president. There is historical evidence to suggest that he had access to societal favoritism- after all, his father is a rich and an influential man. It angers me to see such a blatantly biased society elect such a man to power.

    YES. SOURCES. Like, websites. Like, scientific studies. Societial favortism!? Again, please cite ANY sort of studies to back up your claim. Also, you may note that the man was elected not once, but TWICE. Voted. He didn’t get placed into power… VOTED my friend.

    1. An infant’s personhood.
    2. Societal altruism as seen in the tribal structure- how interdependence is simply more efficient than absolute independence, being that the forging of a society is an evolutionary beneficial activity.
    3. The natural rate of unemployment.
    4. Welfare as a last resort and not a refuge of the lazy.
    5. The factor of luck and chance- if it exists, personal responsibility can never be assumed.

    1. I already addressed it. 46 chromosomes from a human egg AND a human sperm create and can only create a human-being. Science has dictated that even though it may not be able to talk to you or fight you or spit in your face that it does respond to its environment. Furthermore, it does have a heart beat and the genetics of a human. The dictionary and science both define a mammal with 46 chromosomes (23 from each parent) to be a person. Furthermore, science says that we are not even aware that we are real (cognitive) until around 18 months. This is to say that we have no idea of what is going on and therefore your “desire to live” banter is invalid – either that, or you are a hypocrite.

    2. I think DJ already answered you on this one in post 9. I just think you ignored the answer because you don’t agree with the answer.

    3. What about unemployment? What do you want to know about it?

    4. What about welfare? What is your question?

    5. What about luck and chance? What is your question?

  33. 33 DJ
    14 May 2009 at 13:55

    Crimzaer,

    “…and I’m going to have to ask you to name me a single time (hopefully in the 21st century) in which laissez faire capitalism led to economic growth. Just one.”

    I am limited to the last nine years, and you go back to FDR? A tad bit intellectually dishonest, but that’s ok;

    Ireland: The EU’s assault on one of its low-tax members — Ireland — is instructive of the ominous, oppressive trend in international taxation. In early 2000 Ireland adopted a 10% corporate income tax on foreign companies. This policy has led to an economic-financial boom in Ireland that’s envied by the tax-crazed Europeans. In 1999 Ireland’s equities had underperformed other European equities by 23% points (measured in U.S. dollars); but by mid-2001 they were outperforming those in Europe by 34% points. Ireland also has been attracting entrepreneurs, foreign investment — and brains. It’s now the largest exporter of software in the EU. And today its unemployment rate is down to 3.8% — well-below Britain’s (5.1%) and less than half the jobless rates in high-tax nations like Germany (9.6%), France (9.1%) and Italy (9%).

    Thus through tax cuts, the land of pubs and drunks has been “miraculously” transformed into one of high-tech firms and entrepreneurs (from: http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=1836).

    China: “…visit China today and you find the most dynamic capitalist nation in the world. In 2005, it had the distinction of being the world’s fastest-growing major economy.”

    “China shows that when it comes to economics, the dividing line among the world’s nations is no longer between communism and capitalism. Capitalism has won hands down. The real dividing line is no longer economic. It’s political. And that divide is between democracy and authoritarianism. China is a capitalist economy with an authoritarian government” (from: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-42.htm).

    Being limited to the past nine years does not provide a deep data pool to dive into, however, as far as ECONOMIC GROWTH are concerned, capitalism wins hands down.

    Obviously, the the political atmosphere in China does allow the down trodden to succeed, but this is typical of all socialist schemes, surely, Crimzaer, you can not disagree with that. Socialism and socialist policies do not foster growth. Capitalism, on the other hand, has proven time and again to be the best and fastest economic engine ever invented. Being that China’s government controls every aspect of the country, I am willing to concede the China’s economy is more Italian style Fascism (circa Mussolini) than a true laissez-faire system, but it is still capitalist in nature.

    Have there been any “true” laissez-faire economies in the past nine years? None that I could find, but this is not due to a failure of Capitalism, it has been because of Socialism and regulation-Collectivist designs.

  34. 34 Alan Scott
    14 May 2009 at 16:07

    Konfusing Kancer,

    I have to correct myself. Crimzaer is much more like MG than BO. Thousands of words of pseudo intellectual garbage, can’t answer questions, and can’t defend details. In fact, if he isn’t MG, then he is a clone.

  35. 14 May 2009 at 17:42

    DJ-
    Excellent rebuttal. It will be interesting to see what Crimzaer comes up with. More interesting is that you used CommonDreams, which is a Progressive source!
    -K

    Alan Scott-
    I am beginning to wonder the same thing…
    -K


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: