When I started Socialist Watch, I did not anticipate how quickly things would unravel in the US and abroad. Perhaps it is because despite my best judgment, I did not want to believe it. Unfortunately, my worst nightmares are being realized. This time, things are different. When Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” he meant business, like Ari Gold negotiating on the High Holidays.
Glancing over the headlines of the week, it is clear that a creeping sense of socialism in this country is no longer creeping — it is a very real threat that no future administration may come close to being able to stop. If I am reading this situation correctly, we are at a true turning point in world history. The forces of freedom and liberty are fast being swept aside. We are heading into a Rousseaun era in which the United States and indeed all other states will degenerate in a large collectivist cesspool. Ayn Rand said, “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” How right she was.
As I forewarned, other states, besides just New York are beginning to come up with creative ways to tax their citizens. One policy analyst says, “The most common phrase you hear from the states is, everything is on the table.” A California legislator says “We’re all jonesing now for money.” States are throwing out creative “solutions” to their shortfalls like making marijuana legal so as to tax it, or allowing gay civil unions in order to boost tourism.
But think this through for a second. If people are struggling to make ends meet, why should taxation to support government be the number one priority? Why does a state have a right to our property to support itself before we do? Why in the hell do they have these big budgets to support in the first place? If we are having trouble paying our own bills, then forget about the state’s bills. Let it wither away! If I sound angry, it’s because I am.
Meanwhile, on a national scale, things are no better. We continue to throw money down the bottomless pits that are AIG and Citi. If what we are doing is not nationalization, then I don’t know what is. We are nationalizing everything: banks, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers and the housing market. We are burdening future generations with insolvent and bankrupt institutions that should have been allowed to go under months ago. I thought this was America, but alas, we have car czars (call it the Presidential Task Force on Autos, same thing) and urban czars too. Lenin is blushing in his grave right now.
Then we have this whole green issue. I largely ignore reading what environmentalists have to say because it generally enrages me. Being at Columbia, everywhere I go everything is green anyway. It’s not that I have anything against nature…I like clean air and clean parks just like everyone else. But this stuff is not about a clean world. This is about politics. Al Gore has made a fortune selling global warming to idiots across the world. Scientists have made their careers off of pandering about this stuff. But the bottom line is, as I understand it, there is no consensus at all as to whether or not what we do on Earth even makes so much as a dent in the overall climate patterns that occur over thousands of years.
Even if we did, how could anyone honestly feel that their livelihood should be sacrificed to nature. If people want to reduce themselves to foraging for berries then they can go right ahead, but they should bear in mind that they wouldn’t be able to survive without that food taken from nature. I for one will continue eating what I want, driving cars, using my computer, television, lights and paper because I want to live my life. It is not the government’s job to tell me what I can and can’t consume.
If we followed this kind of philosophy from the start, we would still be cavemen. There would have been no Industrial Revolution. A million of the things that we take for granted today would have never come to be. If we didn’t use the fruits of nature, we would not be able to live. But I suppose the Democrats might prefer this.
Their cap-and-trade bill looks to me like Smoot-Hawley’s little grandson in terms of its disastrous implications and terrible timing. For a little taste of what we might be looking at, listen to what Obama himself had to say about it:
“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
But forget about specifics. What this represents is a commitment to the environment over the people. It seems like a great idea to me to raise the price of all types of energies, while putting hundreds of people out of business by imposing these costs on our economy in the midst of a depression.
There is also talk of funding roads with a tax based on how many miles we drive. The government would be able to implant some kind of chip in our cars to keep tabs on us. I mean is there any way possible that this could be considered Constitutional? What justification is there for this based upon the limited powers we are supposed to grant our government? This stuff is sickening. They are literally looking to make robbery legal.
More sickening are Gordon Brown’s a musings on a “global New Deal,” led largely by President Obama and himself. This sounds like another brilliant idea — what better way to shepherd in socialism then to subject everyone in the civilized world to it. What is so ironic about it all is that Brown calls for a world “where we defeat not only global terrorism but global poverty, hunger and disease.” Yet socializing one’s nation creates these very things. It brings civil unrest and leads to poverty, hunger and disease for the masses. This also factors into the discussion of having a world government. We see the problems that have befallen the EU now that some states aren’t quite carrying their weight, yet with the world putting their blind faith in Barack Obama, there is more and more talk of global solutions to problems, and perhaps even a global regime. When all the paper currencies collapse, I won’t be to surprised if at the least we move to a global currency, so we can all enjoy the hyperinflation together.
It is dizzying how fast this is all unfolding before us. Dizzying and also sobering. I for one do not want live in a world in which I have to pay for someone else’s mistakes. I don’t want to live in a world in which the government has a claim on my property before I do. I don’t want to live in a world in which the government determines that the environment takes precedence over my life. I don’t want to live in a world in which free speech is protected, yet I have to be afraid that everything I say is “politically correct.” Most of all, I don’t want to live in a world in which the rights of the smallest and most important minority, THE INDIVIDUAL, are sacrificed to the mob for the public good.
One of the reasons I look to Rousseau in all of this is that his love of the state of nature is reflected in the socialism of the day. Rousseau said of leaving the state of nature that “most of our ills are of our own making…we could have avoided nearly all of them by preserving the simple, regular and solitary lifestyle prescribed to us by nature.” Of imagination he says, “Imagination, which wreaks so much havoc among us, does not speak to savage hearts.” Rousseau marvels at the barbarian whose, “desires do not go beyond his physical needs. The only goods he knows in the universe are nourishment, a woman and rest; the only evils he fears are pain and hunger.” Of private property he said, “The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” Clearly ’tis better to be a savage than a civilized human being.
This is the philosophy that is waging its war on whatever shreds of Lockeanism are left in this once great place. We need to fight this. People should be in the streets rioting over the ridiculous usurpations of power that the state is making right now, yet most seem to go on with their lives in many ways completely unaffected and ignorant of the terrors surrounding them.br /br /But these ignorantly blissful folk are getting the government they deserve to be sure. This is the ultimate result of a democracy in which every man seeks to gain at the sake of every other man through the instrument of legal plunder that is the state.
Turning back to Rand, she said that, “It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.” Barack Obama is the man collecting the sacrificial offerings and being served. But I don’t want to sacrifice my life to him. Deep down, I don’t think most Americans desire to either. But if the people do not awake shortly, they may find that one day soon they may not recognize the land they once called home, nor will they much appreciate the masters of the house.
Related posts:
Blogs RSS feeds [
Ah yes the free trade versus socialism argument! These are systems not values. They are approaches to the same means. Both can operate within a capitalist system. Neither are good and neither are bad.
The arguments made appeal conservatives for who this matters. Most people though just don’t care and many right now are losing faith in capitalism altogether as a system. Why?
Well, in capitalism there are winners and losers and Americans hate to lose. Most want to experience some level of success in their lives. They hate the players but they hate game even more. As a result players will want to change the rules to their favor. Kids do this all the time to get ahead. Do you think that adults are any different?
There is not such thing as fair or right in individualism there mine and right now folks are tire of losing. Don’t hate the players protect your game.
Obama was elected because of envy of the rich. As more of the middle class see their jobs and retirement funds go down the toilet, their anger will grow and getting back at the rich won’t be worth ending up on Obama’s extended government welfare programs. I’ve lost faith in my country and it’s petty jealous little people.
Hi Eric,
Actually, free trade versus socialism is, at its root, very much about values. It is the idea of freedom, where the individual is responsible for his own actions and his own well being, versus collectivism, where the individual is subordinated to the will of the collective. They are both opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. They are not at all “systems”, in the sense that someone sets up a system to work in a certain way.
Capitalism is, at its heart, freedom. It is free trade in the most expansive sense. In capitalism, private property guarantees that any individual can accumulate wealth in any form that he or she deems best. By the same token, he or she is free to squander it in any way desired. What they aren’t free to do is take someone else’s property, either by directly stealing it or by using democratically elected officials to steal it for them.
It is never possible for socialism to exist with capitalism. To the extent that socialism is implemented, capitalism is extinguished. There are things called “mixed economies”, but rather than being a homogenous mixture, there are only certain sectors in which capitalism, the freedom to trade, is killed off. The more sectors that are killed off by socialism, the worse the country will fare.
Socialism is not a system any more than capitalism is a system. Socialism is only the use of collective force, in the form of limited or total dictatorship, to restrict the freedom of individuals to trade with whoever they want, whenever they want and under whatever terms they can mutually agree upon. At its very base, socialism is slavery and theft.
In America, there are winners and losers, just as there have been around the world, since the first humans walked the earth. As long as people are free to trade on their own terms, there can be no losers from trade. The only reason that people will freely agree to trade is if they expect to be better off after the trade. The loss that people experience is from conditions external from trade. The current meltdown has nothing to do with trade, but rather the collapse of the expansionary credit bubble created by the Federal Reserve and the fractional reserve system. The losses were not, in any way due to free trade.
There definitely are people who have been the victims of fraud. The criminals should be punished according to the crime. The criminals were not capitalists. They were criminals. Fraud is not a characteristic of capitalism any more than it is of socialism. The incentives of socialism actually encourage crime and corruption on a much greater scale, and those same incentives discourage productivity of the victims.
There is, very definitely, fair or right in individualism. Fair and right is not taking what does not belong to you, it is taking responsibility for your own actions and not making someone else pay for your mistakes.
Hi Kathy,
Don’t lose faith in the country. It’s foundation of individual freedom is the source of all progress. Rather, take up the fight and help to turn the tide. Ideas are powerful and in time, your voice can can make a difference. (You can tell that to me when I’m discouraged too)
Ben,
Thanks for being angry. We need a few million people more to be as angry, and maybe we can get somewhere.
Dan,
My pleasure. Bottom line is that we need to be ready with the answers when things totally collapse, and be able to effectively fight for them in order to avoid a tyrant or perhaps worse the tyranny of the mob.
Ben