About the end result? Yes. About the mechanisms that are affecting America? No.
Socialism is a Beautiful Idea, Markadelphia. Many, many people wish fervently that it were true. Enough that they struggle mightily to see it implemented.
But Edward O. Wilson was right: "Marvelous theory. Wrong species."
Thomas Sowell, John Locke, and the Founding Fathers were right about the "constrained vision." That philosophy created the greatest engine of economic and personal freedom ever seen on Planet Earth.
And we're about to throw it all away because it isn't "fair." Alexis de Tocqueville was right when he said:
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
In your previous comment you stated:
First, Obama is going to re-distribute wealth and turn our country into a socialist state. Everyone will be equal and there will no longer be any wealthy people.
He doesn't have the power to do that, and we're all aware of it, including him. But is that the path I think he's going to be leading us down, with the support of the Democrat-led Congress? Yes. I do.
There will still be rich people though, those "more equal" than others. They'll be the legislators and friends of the legislators, like they always have been. Warren Buffett has nothing to fear.
I chillingly note how your colleague gradually lets the mask drop, slipping into easy acceptance and celebration of his socialist nature, buoyed by his unfounded belief that this time, it will be different, that this time, the world is ready, that this time, it is too big to fail, because this time, it will be championed by America, and made possible by that living, breathing constitution of his.
You'd think he'd have read a recent headline on the topic of too big to fail, wouldn't you?
---===|===---
One genius aspect of our system is that it lets people not in agreement share power, without the necessity of drawing blades.
A big part of the bit that obviates the necessity of drawn blades is the limitation on that power: it was designed to touch nothing for which blades need be drawn.
But when one of those parties is dedicated to the destruction and transformation of that system, and to the wielding of forbidden powers, it becomes fair and just to question whether really is room in town for the two of us.
Our...adversaries... have exploited and profited from our national peaceable nature, counting upon the ratcheting increments made possible by and driven through many, many cycles of the peaceable transfer and flow of power for which we have a long and fine tradition.
---===|===---
As for Bezmenov, the jury's out for me. I certainly see the mechanisms he references in action, the uncertainty is towards the degree to which they were intelligently and intentionally fostered in any sort of coherent program by outside forces, but that's my natural aversion to conspiracy theory coming out.
Then again, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.....
I certainly see the mechanisms he references in action, the uncertainty is towards the degree to which they were intelligently and intentionally fostered in any sort of coherent program by outside forces, but that's my natural aversion to conspiracy theory coming out.
I concur. The machinery was set in motion, but there's nobody behind the controls anymore.
Give me an address and I'll send you $20 to give that Obama person you know a swift kick in the ass for me. Now I know how out-of-touch that a person can be and still function...
Markadelphia,
Put down the bong, turn off NPR, and take off the kaleidoscope glasses and look around at the world. The info about Obama is out there and is double-checked for accuracy and I don't want him anywhere near the White House in January of 2009! I don't want to live like a Soviet citizen did from the end of the Great Patriotic War to the 1990's and watch my money going to someone else to make it fair for everybody ( except for the very rich and the political class.)
"The machinery was set in motion, but there's nobody behind the controls anymore."
And there doesn't need to be, once the insanity-idea is rooted and begins to spawn in the minds of the wishful and fabulous the mind-thing takes it own walk in the sunshine...
The US is the US. It is to big, to powerful and to recognized to suddenly fall into dictatorship as suggested by Tytler.
Ah, but it won't happen all at once. The Bush Admin has ratcheted executive power up a notch over what Clinton did. The next admin, regardless of party will do the same thing (and in that sense thank god it will be Obama and not Clinton II).
What's that ol' country story about how to boil a frog?
Your correspondent is the living embodiment of the idea that socialism has only failed before (every time) because it was not done _properly_.
Now, if only we could get the "right" people in charge, it would work.
Here's the thing -- even if Obama is the absolute perfect person, and could make socialism work -- in eight years all that power we've handed to government will move into the hands of someone else -- someone, inevitably, imperfect.
The only way to pretect ourselves from the inevitably imperfect people who will be running government in the future, is to keep as much power as possible in the hands of individuals. That is, individuals must have control over _themselves_ as much as possible.
Now, if only we could get the "right" people in charge, it would work.
Thus proving the worthlessness of socialism. If it requires such exacting circumstances to work, then it's of no practical use to humans. People who still believe in socialism are operating under the very persistent delusion that we can attain perfect equality. That's the fundamental -- de facto religious -- difference between liberals and conservatives. None of us is going to win over liberals to our side until we first convert them to a belief that freedom is more important than equality of outcome.
"None of us is going to win over liberals to our side until we first convert them to a belief that freedom is more important than equality of outcome."
We must first convince them to not violate the First Law of Parasite: Don't kill the host.
"The US is the US. It is to big, to powerful and to recognized to suddenly fall into dictatorship as suggested by Tytler."
Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism makes out a fair case that it actually did, under Wilson.
Who may have replaced Jimmeh Peanut as Worst President Evar in my eyes (the Georgia Giant is still by far the worst of my lifetime, which began during the Kennedy administration).
DJ -- We must first convince them to not violate the First Law of Parasite: Don't kill the host.
I guess in their view, the definition of perfection is that the host should want to continue supporting the parasite indefinitely, or at least not have the desire or instinct to do otherwise. So, as Kevin already alluded, it's a great theory if you happen to be an insect.
Stephen -- I figured that's the point you were making, I just wanted to reiterate it.
My conservative brother, whose business partner is decidedly liberal, finally made this discovery as a result of their many political discussions. All of my bro's arguments flow from the premise that freedom is the highest value; all of his partner's arguments flow from the importance of equality. He finally realized the futility of arguing with this guy, because -- unless one of them alters his basic premise -- it's impossible for them to ever see eye-to-eye.
I recall that 9/11 ostensibly changed a fair number of people from liberal to conservative, e.g. Charles Johnson and David Zucker. What I wonder is whether these people were basically deep-down conservative and finally realized it once faced with a crisis, or whether 9/11 caused them to actually convert from equality to freedom. That might be the ticket right there.
>>What I wonder is whether these people were basically......
FWIW:
I was well on the road to my own awakening when 9/11 sealed the deal.
Upon reflection, I realized that nothing had fundamentally changed about *my* values system; I had always valued freedom most highly, etc.
What had changed dramatically was my view of the opposition. Where I had once viewed the Left as a benign and valid alternative viewpoint, my research into the matter brought me to the point where I could no longer reject that null hypothesis; and I had to conclude that there was malignancy.
The people who, in an effort to get banks to issue loans to poor credit risks, harassed banks and bankers families, who sued banks, who changed the banking regulations to disfavor those seen as not issuing enough mortgages to minorities, who got freddy and fanny to buy up those soon-to-be junk mortgages from the banks so the banks could turn around and issue more of them, who threatened to filibuster against any increased regulation on freddy and fanny, who took campaign donations from bankers, who took sweetheart loans at interest rates unavailable to anyone else, who then claimed ignorance to those unavailable interest rates while chairing a congressional banking committee, who have done nothing to change the situation save for blame Bush for their own fecklessness?
They aren't going anwyere - they will still be in power come January 20th.
Prepare for four years of show trials and lots of blaming Bush, while changing nothing.
Kevin,this, "The world has changed. It has advanced...", is historicism, the idea that history is advancing towards an ideal end. Not so. But it is an idea beloved, usually (I think) unconsciously so, by the left. One simple line of questioning which can expose this tacit assumption is to ask those on the left what they think/believe about human nature. Does it exist or not? Is it perfectible? (I once asked a lefty that last question and got not the deer, but the stegosaurus in the headlights look. The Founding Documents are based upon natural law, and a clear belief in a flawed human nature. Thus power is divided and hopefully, thereby checked. Of course, I simplify.) The adulation of the Inflated One says to me that they do not believe in human nature, but a utopia finally made manifest, (person-i-fest?...heh), with the elevation of the right man, uh, person. The next time I cross paths with an Obambabot I'll ask him-her-them specifically what problem(s) He will not be able to solve. I anticipate more stegosauruses, (stegosauri...?).
I agree, Kevin. When I hear that specious argument about the Contitution being written for the changing times, I always respond that it was written for human nature, and that HASN'T changed, except maybe to get worse.
I dunno Crotalus. I've been reading about stuff that happened thousands of years ago, and, if anything, human nature has evolved slightly in the direction of "better." Mostly in the West, though. Elsewhere, it seems like not much has changed.
No, no, get it straight! The world has "Progressed".
The opposite of Progression is Regression, an apt label for those who oppose Progressivism. (Clearly, such are motivated solely by seeking to preserve some position of illicit, exploitative advantage.)
Thank you for your attention,
You may now return to your knuckle dragging and rock banging.
Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the socialist uptopia is 1) actually attainable, and 2) that Sen. Hussein and his cronies are actually capable of achieving it.
Okay, that's the benefit. But any rational person, when looking at a potential benefit, also looks at what it's going to cost.
We have:
1 President
9 Supreme Court Justices
100 Senators
435 Representatives
So in exchange for utopia, where everything is hunky dory and the hokey pokey really IS what it's all about, there is the price:
A grand total of 545 people of the 300 million in this country are actually allowed to be GROWNUPS.
That sound like a good deal to you?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/10/we-are-so-screwed.html (30 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Kevin, did it ever occur to you that Bezmenov could be wrong?
About the end result? Yes. About the mechanisms that are affecting America? No.
Socialism is a Beautiful Idea, Markadelphia. Many, many people wish fervently that it were true. Enough that they struggle mightily to see it implemented.
But Edward O. Wilson was right: "Marvelous theory. Wrong species."
Thomas Sowell, John Locke, and the Founding Fathers were right about the "constrained vision." That philosophy created the greatest engine of economic and personal freedom ever seen on Planet Earth.
And we're about to throw it all away because it isn't "fair." Alexis de Tocqueville was right when he said:
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
In your previous comment you stated:
First, Obama is going to re-distribute wealth and turn our country into a socialist state. Everyone will be equal and there will no longer be any wealthy people.
He doesn't have the power to do that, and we're all aware of it, including him. But is that the path I think he's going to be leading us down, with the support of the Democrat-led Congress? Yes. I do.
There will still be rich people though, those "more equal" than others. They'll be the legislators and friends of the legislators, like they always have been. Warren Buffett has nothing to fear.
Markadelphia, did it ever occur to you that YOU could be wrong? Does the term "Cognitive Dissonance" ring any bells?
I chillingly note how your colleague gradually lets the mask drop, slipping into easy acceptance and celebration of his socialist nature, buoyed by his unfounded belief that this time, it will be different, that this time, the world is ready, that this time, it is too big to fail, because this time, it will be championed by America, and made possible by that living, breathing constitution of his.
You'd think he'd have read a recent headline on the topic of too big to fail, wouldn't you?
---===|===---
One genius aspect of our system is that it lets people not in agreement share power, without the necessity of drawing blades.
A big part of the bit that obviates the necessity of drawn blades is the limitation on that power: it was designed to touch nothing for which blades need be drawn.
But when one of those parties is dedicated to the destruction and transformation of that system, and to the wielding of forbidden powers, it becomes fair and just to question whether really is room in town for the two of us.
Our...adversaries... have exploited and profited from our national peaceable nature, counting upon the ratcheting increments made possible by and driven through many, many cycles of the peaceable transfer and flow of power for which we have a long and fine tradition.
---===|===---
As for Bezmenov, the jury's out for me. I certainly see the mechanisms he references in action, the uncertainty is towards the degree to which they were intelligently and intentionally fostered in any sort of coherent program by outside forces, but that's my natural aversion to conspiracy theory coming out.
Then again, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.....
I certainly see the mechanisms he references in action, the uncertainty is towards the degree to which they were intelligently and intentionally fostered in any sort of coherent program by outside forces, but that's my natural aversion to conspiracy theory coming out.
I concur. The machinery was set in motion, but there's nobody behind the controls anymore.
I'm not sure that makes me feel any better.
It's not soda...it's pop dammit!
Kevin,
Give me an address and I'll send you $20 to give that Obama person you know a swift kick in the ass for me. Now I know how out-of-touch that a person can be and still function...
Markadelphia,
Put down the bong, turn off NPR, and take off the kaleidoscope glasses and look around at the world. The info about Obama is out there and is double-checked for accuracy and I don't want him anywhere near the White House in January of 2009! I don't want to live like a Soviet citizen did from the end of the Great Patriotic War to the 1990's and watch my money going to someone else to make it fair for everybody ( except for the very rich and the political class.)
Joe R.
"The machinery was set in motion, but there's nobody behind the controls anymore."
And there doesn't need to be, once the insanity-idea is rooted and begins to spawn in the minds of the wishful and fabulous the mind-thing takes it own walk in the sunshine...
The US is the US. It is to big, to powerful and to recognized to suddenly fall into dictatorship as suggested by Tytler.
Ah, but it won't happen all at once. The Bush Admin has ratcheted executive power up a notch over what Clinton did. The next admin, regardless of party will do the same thing (and in that sense thank god it will be Obama and not Clinton II).
What's that ol' country story about how to boil a frog?
Kevin,
Can you give your co-worker a lesson in the proper use of to/too?
Yet more proof of Bezmenov winning.
"The US is the US. It is to big, to powerful and to recognized to suddenly fall into dictatorship as suggested by Tytler."
Riiiiight... The "it can't happen here" mentality. How many German's thought Hitler's Holocaust could happen in a society as advanced as Germany?
"Kevin, did it ever occur to you that Bezmenov could be wrong?"
It's theoretically possible Markapedia, but history has proven him right.
Kevin, did it ever occur to you that Bezmenov could be wrong?
Mark, using your methodology, Bezmenov is a "primary source" and thus unimpeachable.
Remember?
Would you prefer to retract your Bezmenov statement, or amend your "Frost" and "Wilson/Plame" methodologies?
Instapundit linked something that made me think of your argumentative style: HEARING ABOUT UNTRUSTWORTHINESS from people you can't trust.
Gee, it's almost like... a teacher who's demonstrably dishonest using as a reference "Lies My Teacher Told Me"
Your correspondent is the living embodiment of the idea that socialism has only failed before (every time) because it was not done _properly_.
Now, if only we could get the "right" people in charge, it would work.
Here's the thing -- even if Obama is the absolute perfect person, and could make socialism work -- in eight years all that power we've handed to government will move into the hands of someone else -- someone, inevitably, imperfect.
The only way to pretect ourselves from the inevitably imperfect people who will be running government in the future, is to keep as much power as possible in the hands of individuals. That is, individuals must have control over _themselves_ as much as possible.
To respond to Rodney King: No, no I cannot "get along" with someone whose goal is subjugation.
Feh.
"Kevin, did it ever occur to you that Bezmenov could be wrong?"
Markadelphia, did it ever occur to you that Bezmenov could be right?
Now, if only we could get the "right" people in charge, it would work.
Thus proving the worthlessness of socialism. If it requires such exacting circumstances to work, then it's of no practical use to humans. People who still believe in socialism are operating under the very persistent delusion that we can attain perfect equality. That's the fundamental -- de facto religious -- difference between liberals and conservatives. None of us is going to win over liberals to our side until we first convert them to a belief that freedom is more important than equality of outcome.
"None of us is going to win over liberals to our side until we first convert them to a belief that freedom is more important than equality of outcome."
We must first convince them to not violate the First Law of Parasite: Don't kill the host.
Sarah -- That's the point I was making. Sorry, I forgot the /sarcasm tags. :)
However, your well phrased response is very quotable!
"The US is the US. It is to big, to powerful and to recognized to suddenly fall into dictatorship as suggested by Tytler."
Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism makes out a fair case that it actually did, under Wilson.
Who may have replaced Jimmeh Peanut as Worst President Evar in my eyes (the Georgia Giant is still by far the worst of my lifetime, which began during the Kennedy administration).
III
DJ -- We must first convince them to not violate the First Law of Parasite: Don't kill the host.
I guess in their view, the definition of perfection is that the host should want to continue supporting the parasite indefinitely, or at least not have the desire or instinct to do otherwise. So, as Kevin already alluded, it's a great theory if you happen to be an insect.
Stephen -- I figured that's the point you were making, I just wanted to reiterate it.
My conservative brother, whose business partner is decidedly liberal, finally made this discovery as a result of their many political discussions. All of my bro's arguments flow from the premise that freedom is the highest value; all of his partner's arguments flow from the importance of equality. He finally realized the futility of arguing with this guy, because -- unless one of them alters his basic premise -- it's impossible for them to ever see eye-to-eye.
I recall that 9/11 ostensibly changed a fair number of people from liberal to conservative, e.g. Charles Johnson and David Zucker. What I wonder is whether these people were basically deep-down conservative and finally realized it once faced with a crisis, or whether 9/11 caused them to actually convert from equality to freedom. That might be the ticket right there.
>>What I wonder is whether these people were basically......
FWIW:
I was well on the road to my own awakening when 9/11 sealed the deal.
Upon reflection, I realized that nothing had fundamentally changed about *my* values system; I had always valued freedom most highly, etc.
What had changed dramatically was my view of the opposition. Where I had once viewed the Left as a benign and valid alternative viewpoint, my research into the matter brought me to the point where I could no longer reject that null hypothesis; and I had to conclude that there was malignancy.
Well, we're screwed due to more than that.
The people who, in an effort to get banks to issue loans to poor credit risks, harassed banks and bankers families, who sued banks, who changed the banking regulations to disfavor those seen as not issuing enough mortgages to minorities, who got freddy and fanny to buy up those soon-to-be junk mortgages from the banks so the banks could turn around and issue more of them, who threatened to filibuster against any increased regulation on freddy and fanny, who took campaign donations from bankers, who took sweetheart loans at interest rates unavailable to anyone else, who then claimed ignorance to those unavailable interest rates while chairing a congressional banking committee, who have done nothing to change the situation save for blame Bush for their own fecklessness?
They aren't going anwyere - they will still be in power come January 20th.
Prepare for four years of show trials and lots of blaming Bush, while changing nothing.
Kevin,this, "The world has changed. It has advanced...", is historicism, the idea that history is advancing towards an ideal end. Not so. But it is an idea beloved, usually (I think) unconsciously so, by the left. One simple line of questioning which can expose this tacit assumption is to ask those on the left what they think/believe about human nature. Does it exist or not? Is it perfectible? (I once asked a lefty that last question and got not the deer, but the stegosaurus in the headlights look. The Founding Documents are based upon natural law, and a clear belief in a flawed human nature. Thus power is divided and hopefully, thereby checked. Of course, I simplify.) The adulation of the Inflated One says to me that they do not believe in human nature, but a utopia finally made manifest, (person-i-fest?...heh), with the elevation of the right man, uh, person. The next time I cross paths with an Obambabot I'll ask him-her-them specifically what problem(s) He will not be able to solve. I anticipate more stegosauruses, (stegosauri...?).
I agree, Kevin. When I hear that specious argument about the Contitution being written for the changing times, I always respond that it was written for human nature, and that HASN'T changed, except maybe to get worse.
I dunno Crotalus. I've been reading about stuff that happened thousands of years ago, and, if anything, human nature has evolved slightly in the direction of "better." Mostly in the West, though. Elsewhere, it seems like not much has changed.
>>"The world has changed. It has advanced..."
[sarcasm]
No, no, get it straight! The world has "Progressed".
The opposite of Progression is Regression, an apt label for those who oppose Progressivism. (Clearly, such are motivated solely by seeking to preserve some position of illicit, exploitative advantage.)
Thank you for your attention,
You may now return to your knuckle dragging and rock banging.
[/sarcasm]
I don't understand the mentality behind this "it'd work if we had the right people" attitude.
Even if it COULD work, why would anyone WANT it to?
As far as I'm concerned, freedom is a moral imperative. Not simply a practical matter. Socialism, workable or not, is a TERRIBLE idea.
Socialism: lovely theory; wrong species.
Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the socialist uptopia is 1) actually attainable, and 2) that Sen. Hussein and his cronies are actually capable of achieving it.
Okay, that's the benefit. But any rational person, when looking at a potential benefit, also looks at what it's going to cost.
We have:
1 President
9 Supreme Court Justices
100 Senators
435 Representatives
So in exchange for utopia, where everything is hunky dory and the hokey pokey really IS what it's all about, there is the price:
A grand total of 545 people of the 300 million in this country are actually allowed to be GROWNUPS.
That sound like a good deal to you?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>