Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

It would seem that no advanced civilization has yet developed without a government which saw its chief aim in the protection of private property, but that again and again the further evolution and growth to which this gave rise was halted by “strong” government.

Governments strong enough to protect individuals against the violence of their fellows make possible the evolution of an increasingly complex order of spontaneous and voluntary cooperation.

Sooner or later, however, they tend to abuse that power and to suppress the freedom they had earlier secured in order to enforce their own presumedly greater wisdom and not to allow “social institutions to develop in a haphazard manner” (to take a characteristic expression that is found under the heading ‘social engineering’ in the Fontana/Harper Dictionary of Modern Thought (1977)).

- F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism

Hayek

He begins this discussion in Chapter 2 of the book and references classical antiquity and the trading societies surrounding the Mediterranean as a prime example of nations that went through that rise and decline, but as noted, modern society is going through much the same thing.  The Anointed, to borrow Thomas Sowell’s phrase, know better and begin to “nudge” society where they want it to go.  As Jonah Goldberg noted, American totalitarianism and government control comes with a smiley face, though they’re making pseudo-erudite academic arguments for more outright thuggery.

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

- Thomas Jefferson

What Socialism Looks Like

Posted: February 10, 2014 by ShortTimer in Government, Leftists, Redistribution, Socialism

From The People’s Cube:

fidel eggs joke

In a dispassionate, purely economic view, she has an economic incentive to not work.  Her behavior is reprehensible to those who work, but in an amoral view, her behavior is quite logical.

Parasitism is rewarded, and if it provides all she desires, why not be a parasite?

Margaret Thatcher gave conservatives/libertarians/classic liberals the answer in a simple sentence years ago:

margaret-thatcher other peoples money

To the individual riding the socialist gravy train, however, that’s not a concious concern.  The welfare recipient isn’t concerned about where the next handout is going to come from as long as they keep coming, and if the handouts stop, there’s always someone to blame and some politician willing to buy votes.  The career welfare recipient is almost always someone who isn’t concerned about their long-term well-being, otherwise they’d be actively working to improve their lot in life.  Those rare few that are concerned are those who demand more from others simply because they exist.

At the point that the handouts stop completely, they’ll either starve or work.  Whether that’s because of welfare reform that stops giving people disincentives to work or whether the system collapses and no longer can give handouts, either way, the practically Randian caricature of the moocher exemplified by that caller will simply cease to exist.

If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare goes away by reasoned economic decision-making in government, there’s going to be gnashing of teeth, bleeding hearts bleeding, and knee-jerkers jerking knees.  There will also be private charities for those who truly need, rather than the taxation at gunpoint that leads leftists who “care about the poor” to ignore the poor since they have government to care for them.

If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare has gone away because of collapsing government

mad-max2

That’ll make things interesting.

If Obamacare Were Coffee

Posted: December 4, 2013 by ShortTimer in Government, Healthcare, Music, Obamacare, Socialism

From ReasonToday:

Which prompts this response to government coffee…

From UK Daily Mail:

Responding to an angry constituent’s letter about the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama allegedly used a sexually charged derogatory term referring to members of the Tea Party movement.

Thomas Ritter, a fifth-grade school teacher from Irving, Texas, has sent the president a note criticizing Obamacare – the controversial law offering health care to the uninsured, which has become the butt of jokes following a disastrous launch last month.

‘This bill has caused such a ­divisive, derisive and toxic environment… The reality is that any citizen that disagrees with your ­administration is targeted and ridiculed,’ the Texas man wrote to the commander-in-chief.

“Allegedly”… in his own handwriting:

obama teabagger letter 1obama teabagger letter 2

There are a couple things here to really look at.

The first is that he casually tosses around the term “teabagger”, because as Mary Katherine Ham at HotAir notes – he’s either using it to annoy the guy who wrote the letter further, or Obama’s in a bubble where everyone uses it, so it means nothing to him.

The second is that he equates “teabagger” as being on the same level as socialist as name-calling.  “Teabagger” is a pejorative description given by leftists to Tea Partiers, referencing “teabagging”, which if you don’t know what it is, well, here’s a hint:

dog tennis balls

Because people who want limitations on government, less government spending on wasteful programs, reduction of regulation and government interference in business and private life, and in general prefer a government that respects the individual and leaves them alone are of course synonymous with this:

dog tennis balls 2

Socialist isn’t an insult, yet the president puts it in quotes to imply that it is.  It’s a description of an ideology and political philosophy.  It’s what someone who favors more government and more government interference in private life believes in.  Things like government controlling certain aspects of the market for “the greater good”, and government “spreading the wealth around” are all socialist ideals.

Of course the president knows this, but much like Hillary saying in 2007 or so that she didn’t thing of herself as a liberal but as a “modern progressive”, it’s because the American people understand on an intrinsic level that socialism is bad – it’s anathema to the American way of life, and people who live under socialist rule quickly find out it’s not something they like.  (The same is very true of Progressives, but most folks don’t think of Progressives as the vile war-mongering alcohol-prohibitionist eugenicists they were – it’s a name game.)  People who on the surface are socially lefty and like the idea of government doing one thing or another rapidly get sick of it when they find out they can’t buy raw milk, or can’t order foie gras, or find out there are regulations on their own behaviors that they object to.  There are those who really are socialists and believe that “the greater good” means restricting people from 20 oz sodas, but even the brainwashed modern liberal begins to see that this stuff is tyranny.  And the casual modern liberal suddenly sees that socialism isn’t liberal at all.

Which all goes to why Obama is mocking the term socialist.  He puts it in quotes and equates it to “teabagger” because he’s trying to maximize criticisms of his critics while walking himself towards the middle by saying his own socialist policies aren’t “socialist” and those are just names thrown around by partisans.  Saying he’s a socialist isn’t namecalling – it’s looking at his history, statements, policies and deeds and saying he is what he is.

That’s why to him, it’s okay to force people to buy health insurance, and for government to create winners and losers – because socialists believe that some people shouldn’t win and other people shouldn’t lose – so they’ll use the government’s gun to the heads of the successful to pay for the mistakes of the unsuccessful – thereby harming both parties by subsidizing failure and disincentivizing success.

Everyone loses except the socialist, who is the fair redistributor.  If you’re a socialist, it’s much more convenient to use Alinksy’s rule of mockery to make fun of people for calling you a socialist – so they won’t recognize you for what you are.

It’s a well-known leftist tactic to change the language once something’s been exposed.  In the early 20th century, the left called themselves “progressives”.  When the public got sick of eugenics, prohibition and mass murder, they decided to call themselves “liberals”, despite being anything but liberal.  When “liberal” began to get a bad name, they called themselves “progressives” again (note everything in that video is HRC denying that progressive and modern liberals are all big government, top-down authoritarian statists).

Now we see the same thing with Obamacare.  The left is calling it by the bill’s official title: the Affordable Care Act, because it’s a failure and they don’t want Obama’s name associated with Obamacare.  Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act and vice versa.  But it’s time to hush up the failure by changing the language used.

(H/T Jawa Report)

From the Weekly Standard:

“Jessica Sanford was cited by the president as an Obamacare success story at a health care event he had here at the White House in the Rose Garden on October 21,” says a reporter for CNN from the White House. “That of course being just last month….”

Of course, she found out her coverage was being taken away by Obamacare and she can’t afford what she’s offered by Obamacare.

-

Jonah Goldberg over at NRO has decided to just sit back and enjoy watching Obama fail.  After all, this was warned against for a long, long, long time.  They were warned, they were told it wouldn’t work, they were told why it wouldn’t work, and they rammed it down our throats anyway… and now they get to fail.

If you can’t take some joy, some modicum of relief and mirth, in the unprecedentedly spectacular beclowning of the president, his administration, its enablers, and, to no small degree, liberalism itself, then you need to ask yourself why you’re following politics in the first place.  …

The hubris of our ocean-commanding commander-in-chief surely isn’t news to readers of this website. He’s said that he’s smarter and better than everyone who works for him. His wife informed us that he has “brought us out of the dark and into the light” and that he would fix our broken souls. The man defined sin itself as “being out of alignment with my values.” We may be the ones we’ve been waiting for, but at the same time, everyone has been waiting for him. Or as he put it in 2007, “Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama’s been there.”

In every tale of hubris, the transgressor is eventually slapped across the face with the semi-frozen flounder of reality.  …

During the government shutdown, Barack Obama held fast, heroically refusing to give an inch to the hostage-taking, barbaric orcs of the Tea Party who insisted on delaying Obamacare. It was a triumph for the master strategist in the White House, who finally maneuvered the Republicans into revealing their extremism. But we didn’t know something back then: Obama desperately needed a delay of Healthcare.gov. In his arrogance, though, he couldn’t bring himself to admit it. The other possibility is that he is such an incompetent manager, who has cultivated such a culture of yes-men, that he was completely in the dark about the problems. That’s the reigning storyline right now from the White House. Obama was betrayed. “If I had known,” he told his staff, “we could have delayed the website.”

This is how you know we’re in the political sweet spot: when the only plausible excuses for the administration are equally disastrous indictments.

Of course we’re all going to suffer for the government takeover of 1/6 of the US economy, but at least we can enjoy watching the left fail at it.  We can enjoy some schadenfreude watching the leftist supporters have their hopes and dreams dashed as they look on in baffled confusion and pain like a dog who’s just discovered how skunks work.