There is a phrase that I use at work from time to time to illustrate and explain the apparent laziness of those people who seem to have the easiest of jobs but who fail, again and again to do them efficiently or correctly. Unfortunately the phrase has proven correct more often than I care to remember.
The truism? “The less people do the less they want to do.”
I’ve used it time and again but I’ve never thought of it as being applicable to an entire society or an entire social system. It is.
This is a lesson in socialism and Theodore Dalrymple has it learned well.
Showing posts with label Socialists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialists. Show all posts
Monday, June 21, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Socialists Don't Understand The Nature of Work
This article exemplifies the difference between those that do deserve bonuses and those that don’t. Pat Martin’s statement that; “The Bank of Canada is not a private business. It's not tied to performance or productivity outcomes, it's not a profit-making venture where you can measure a good year from a bad year ... What is the merit they are being rewarded for, coming to work on time?" is absurd, ignorant and disrespectful.
The comment is absurd because as long as this country has a public service it should strive to have the best possible public service. That means to have people who work their asses off to do the best possible job. It is common for corporations to give huge bonuses to their top performers if the public service wants to attract any of that sort of talent they must compete, they must show their employees that they are valued and that their work is valued and that productivity and excellence is recognized.
Mr. Martin’s comment demonstrates his ignorance of the nature of the work that goes on in the Bank of Canada. Canada has come out of the global recession far in advance of the rest of its G8 and G20 counterparts due in no small way to the prudent fiscal policies and monetary controls instituted by none other than The Bank of Canada. For Mr. Martin to then lambaste the Bank’s executives (people who work so very hard behind the scenes) as not deserving of bonuses because the crown corporation doesn’t produce profits is to ignore the immense benefit that those policies and controls provide to Canadians and Canadian corporations,,, Talk about the creation of profit! When the rest of the worlds banks are being wiped out not a single Canadian Bank has even come close. When sovereign debts in Europe are being downgraded and nations fear economic collapse Canada is rebounding stronger than any other country on the planet.
Mr. Martin’s words are disrespectful of workers and executives everywhere. They imply that Mr. Martin believes only if a profit is made is a person working hard enough to earn a bonus. Perhaps he, as a public servant, isn’t deserving of a gold plated pension for only working 6 years maybe he ought to work for 20 or 25 years first. After All Mr. Martin has produced even less profit as an MP than the good people at the Bank of Canada.
But the ideological heart of the matter is revealed when “Martin argues the system creates divisiveness among public sector workers -- labelling some as winners and some as losers -- he's most worried about their effect on productivity.”. You see in the socialist world everyone is a winner, which is to say that they all loose equally. There is no such thing as equality among and between people. You can’t create it, enforce it or demand it. There is no way to have a functioning society if you can not even bring yourself to admit that some people are smarter, more industrious and more driven than others. The blind equality that would see no one
praised for effort or productivity is the end result of the failed socialism of the USSR and its satellites.
If you want to negatively effect productivity in a workplace tell everyone that no one will be recognized for their effort. What is the end result of a place like that? Well it isn’t a rush for excellence. It’s a slow and steady decline, a march to the lowest common denominator. As Russians working in state sponsored factories used to quip about that very same sort of system. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
It’s a strange sort of schism that a socialist like Mr. Martin, indeed I would argue all socialists, do not understand the nature of work as being an essential part of the human experience. The benefit in work to the individual is not in the work itself but in the personal satisfaction in and the recognition of the work itself.
Only a complete imbecile would believe that the world will be a better place when everyone from the Doctor to the ditch-digger is equally valued and earns the same wage and praise.
The comment is absurd because as long as this country has a public service it should strive to have the best possible public service. That means to have people who work their asses off to do the best possible job. It is common for corporations to give huge bonuses to their top performers if the public service wants to attract any of that sort of talent they must compete, they must show their employees that they are valued and that their work is valued and that productivity and excellence is recognized.
Mr. Martin’s comment demonstrates his ignorance of the nature of the work that goes on in the Bank of Canada. Canada has come out of the global recession far in advance of the rest of its G8 and G20 counterparts due in no small way to the prudent fiscal policies and monetary controls instituted by none other than The Bank of Canada. For Mr. Martin to then lambaste the Bank’s executives (people who work so very hard behind the scenes) as not deserving of bonuses because the crown corporation doesn’t produce profits is to ignore the immense benefit that those policies and controls provide to Canadians and Canadian corporations,,, Talk about the creation of profit! When the rest of the worlds banks are being wiped out not a single Canadian Bank has even come close. When sovereign debts in Europe are being downgraded and nations fear economic collapse Canada is rebounding stronger than any other country on the planet.
Mr. Martin’s words are disrespectful of workers and executives everywhere. They imply that Mr. Martin believes only if a profit is made is a person working hard enough to earn a bonus. Perhaps he, as a public servant, isn’t deserving of a gold plated pension for only working 6 years maybe he ought to work for 20 or 25 years first. After All Mr. Martin has produced even less profit as an MP than the good people at the Bank of Canada.
But the ideological heart of the matter is revealed when “Martin argues the system creates divisiveness among public sector workers -- labelling some as winners and some as losers -- he's most worried about their effect on productivity.”. You see in the socialist world everyone is a winner, which is to say that they all loose equally. There is no such thing as equality among and between people. You can’t create it, enforce it or demand it. There is no way to have a functioning society if you can not even bring yourself to admit that some people are smarter, more industrious and more driven than others. The blind equality that would see no one
praised for effort or productivity is the end result of the failed socialism of the USSR and its satellites.
If you want to negatively effect productivity in a workplace tell everyone that no one will be recognized for their effort. What is the end result of a place like that? Well it isn’t a rush for excellence. It’s a slow and steady decline, a march to the lowest common denominator. As Russians working in state sponsored factories used to quip about that very same sort of system. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
It’s a strange sort of schism that a socialist like Mr. Martin, indeed I would argue all socialists, do not understand the nature of work as being an essential part of the human experience. The benefit in work to the individual is not in the work itself but in the personal satisfaction in and the recognition of the work itself.
Only a complete imbecile would believe that the world will be a better place when everyone from the Doctor to the ditch-digger is equally valued and earns the same wage and praise.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Ponzi Statism
According to Wikipedia...
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."
If you replace the promise of cash returns for government "services" then the definition above doubles as the definition of a welfare state...
A Welfare State is a fraudulent investment operation that pays social services to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The welfare state usually entices new citizens by offering social services that are either abnormally efficient or unusually inclusive . The perpetuation of the services that a welfare state advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from citizens to keep the scheme going.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."
If you replace the promise of cash returns for government "services" then the definition above doubles as the definition of a welfare state...
A Welfare State is a fraudulent investment operation that pays social services to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The welfare state usually entices new citizens by offering social services that are either abnormally efficient or unusually inclusive . The perpetuation of the services that a welfare state advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from citizens to keep the scheme going.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The End of The Beginning of the End
"This really is Act V of the fiscal welfare state, in which monetary policy becomes the shameless handmaiden of fiscal policy in order to sustain an unsustainable kind of riskless society with massive benefits for everyone paid for by a few."Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Socialism is...
A child of democracy, who upon hearing that times are tough and that there isn't enough to go around, immediately asks for a raise in his allowance.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Running out of other People's Money
Margaret Thatcher once famously quipped that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.
Greece is in the middle of proving that the people who support the socialist ideal will turn on the government they created as soon as that eventuality comes to fruition.
Greece is in the middle of proving that the people who support the socialist ideal will turn on the government they created as soon as that eventuality comes to fruition.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Say No to "Fair Trade"
I've always avoided "fair trade" products, equating them with collectivism and anti-industrialists, this article proves my assumptions correct.
Capitalism and freedom remain the best and surest road to prosperity.
H/T Diana at Noodlefood
Capitalism and freedom remain the best and surest road to prosperity.
H/T Diana at Noodlefood
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Cap and Enslave
This is Liberals threatening to do what Liberals(socialists) do best...
Take your hard earned money and give it to people who haven't earned it. This plan makes a virtual slave of the Canadian economy and Canadian business. For the sake of what... Global warming, something that is either a natural cyclic occurrence or a big fat lie.
Cap and Trade = Wealth redistribution. The liberals want us to count on buying carbon credits from third world dictators and despots, so that we Canadians can continue to produce goods and services in order to live in the manner that we work for, which in turn makes this country the envy of every single one of those third world thugs. This is the actualization of the punishment of the good for being good. Our productivity is what is being paid for here, not global warming. AGW is a theory at best, and as pointed out elsewhere in this post it may in fact be a complete fabrication.
The fact that this plan to screw the Canadian economy (and Canadian business) comes out the same week as Climategate is astounding.
News today is that PM Harper will be going to Copenhagen for the climate summit. I hope he's there to deliver this...
Take your hard earned money and give it to people who haven't earned it. This plan makes a virtual slave of the Canadian economy and Canadian business. For the sake of what... Global warming, something that is either a natural cyclic occurrence or a big fat lie.
Cap and Trade = Wealth redistribution. The liberals want us to count on buying carbon credits from third world dictators and despots, so that we Canadians can continue to produce goods and services in order to live in the manner that we work for, which in turn makes this country the envy of every single one of those third world thugs. This is the actualization of the punishment of the good for being good. Our productivity is what is being paid for here, not global warming. AGW is a theory at best, and as pointed out elsewhere in this post it may in fact be a complete fabrication.
The fact that this plan to screw the Canadian economy (and Canadian business) comes out the same week as Climategate is astounding.
News today is that PM Harper will be going to Copenhagen for the climate summit. I hope he's there to deliver this...
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Nature of Governments
We’ve heard it all before… “Government is a necessary evil.” Well, that is a lie, and a dangerous lie at that.
By implication the statement seems to say that if we dumb humans could only get it right we could exist in a society free of government. This is the anarchist dream, but even they recognize the need for the protection of rights, for national and personal security. However, their solution is not governmental but private. They say that a society let a man hire a company to protect his rights that he could be safe, that he would be protected.
Of course that all falls disastrously apart when Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith each having hired different security forces both maintain their rights have been violated and each attempts to have the other arrested for the transgression. Protection Company “A” plus Protection Company “B” minus the stability of a single government equals bloodbath.
Alternatively such anarchy panders to the far too human tendency toward the principal that might makes right and gangs, private armies and warlords turn the anarchist utopia into a Hobbesian life, cruel, brutish and short.
On the other side of the coin is the belief that Government, (still as a necessary evil) is what makes a society, that it is an end in itself, that it is more important than any one man. The socialist and communist while promising that someday the state will “whither away” still believe in it indeed they make it the causus beli of their society.
In following the false notion of collective rights, they come to believe that in order to provide what is “good” to “all” it is necessary to destroy the concept and meaning of the individual. “You” as an entity do not exist. You are a cog in the wheel, insignificant when measured against the needs of others. What others? The others. What need? Their need. Who is the “all” that they are working so hard for? Why it’s anyone but you, the individual.
So where does this leave us? Well, to be honest, metaphysically it leaves us way, way back before government and politics and society ever enter into the picture, but that is a subject for another day so let me just make a “simple” assertions here.
The previous two extremes attempted, or claimed to protect mans rights. What essential right is it that the Anarchist and the Socialist seek to protect? Mans right to life.
Life is the right from which all other rights spring, be they true rights like liberty and property or false printing press rights like the right to healthcare or to a job.
Can one sell a right, or hire it out? Certainly not.
Who has a life worthy of the term right? Society, a nation, some group, government or gang? No.
Only an individual can possess rights and no individual can ever hold his rights higher than the rights of another. And it is that principle that brings us to the nature, purpose and necessity of government.
Government is necessary to protect the rights of individuals, to ensure that their rights are held on par with all other individuals. No mans position, strength, wealth, need or wants can ever place his rights above the rights of another man. That assurance is the sole function of government, it is not evil, it is just and proper and rational.
How a government approaches the defence of individual rights defines its nature. The anarchist disallows government as the arbiter of disputes and consequently the protector of rights, so rights are destroyed.
The socialist perverts the concept of rights and applies it to some nameless, faceless undefined collective making slaves of all.
The welfare statist attempts to make rights out of needs consequentially following the socialists path to hell.
And finally religionists of whatever political persuasion subverts mans right to live his own life for the commandments of some supernatural fairy tale and the promise of something better when he is dead..
So the next time you hear someone say that government is a necessary evil ask him to name which evil he prefers more, slavery, servitude or death.
By implication the statement seems to say that if we dumb humans could only get it right we could exist in a society free of government. This is the anarchist dream, but even they recognize the need for the protection of rights, for national and personal security. However, their solution is not governmental but private. They say that a society let a man hire a company to protect his rights that he could be safe, that he would be protected.
Of course that all falls disastrously apart when Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith each having hired different security forces both maintain their rights have been violated and each attempts to have the other arrested for the transgression. Protection Company “A” plus Protection Company “B” minus the stability of a single government equals bloodbath.
Alternatively such anarchy panders to the far too human tendency toward the principal that might makes right and gangs, private armies and warlords turn the anarchist utopia into a Hobbesian life, cruel, brutish and short.
On the other side of the coin is the belief that Government, (still as a necessary evil) is what makes a society, that it is an end in itself, that it is more important than any one man. The socialist and communist while promising that someday the state will “whither away” still believe in it indeed they make it the causus beli of their society.
In following the false notion of collective rights, they come to believe that in order to provide what is “good” to “all” it is necessary to destroy the concept and meaning of the individual. “You” as an entity do not exist. You are a cog in the wheel, insignificant when measured against the needs of others. What others? The others. What need? Their need. Who is the “all” that they are working so hard for? Why it’s anyone but you, the individual.
So where does this leave us? Well, to be honest, metaphysically it leaves us way, way back before government and politics and society ever enter into the picture, but that is a subject for another day so let me just make a “simple” assertions here.
The previous two extremes attempted, or claimed to protect mans rights. What essential right is it that the Anarchist and the Socialist seek to protect? Mans right to life.
Life is the right from which all other rights spring, be they true rights like liberty and property or false printing press rights like the right to healthcare or to a job.
Can one sell a right, or hire it out? Certainly not.
Who has a life worthy of the term right? Society, a nation, some group, government or gang? No.
Only an individual can possess rights and no individual can ever hold his rights higher than the rights of another. And it is that principle that brings us to the nature, purpose and necessity of government.
Government is necessary to protect the rights of individuals, to ensure that their rights are held on par with all other individuals. No mans position, strength, wealth, need or wants can ever place his rights above the rights of another man. That assurance is the sole function of government, it is not evil, it is just and proper and rational.
How a government approaches the defence of individual rights defines its nature. The anarchist disallows government as the arbiter of disputes and consequently the protector of rights, so rights are destroyed.
The socialist perverts the concept of rights and applies it to some nameless, faceless undefined collective making slaves of all.
The welfare statist attempts to make rights out of needs consequentially following the socialists path to hell.
And finally religionists of whatever political persuasion subverts mans right to live his own life for the commandments of some supernatural fairy tale and the promise of something better when he is dead..
So the next time you hear someone say that government is a necessary evil ask him to name which evil he prefers more, slavery, servitude or death.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Ironic isn't it
One of the charges made against the Objectivist, and Objectivism by both the socialists and the religious conservative right is that the philosophy is elitist.
This assumption is made through superficial readings of Ayn Rands books, where no deeper meaning is never sought out, and the mind is sequestered from the possibility of contamination by contradictory principals. In reading Atlas Shrugged they ignore the characters like Eddy Willers, Sheryl Gallant, the young brakeman. In The Fountainhead "Mike" the construction worker is forgotten. So because of their selective understanding, intellectual dishonesty and evasion they label Objectivism elitist. But is it?
Objectivism holds that anyone can strive for perfection in anything they do. That every man has it within his own being and his own reasons for being to be happy on his own terms, to be successful on his own terms, to be his own ideal.
The socialist on the other hand believes that some men will never amount to anything unless those who are better off (smarter, richer, healthier) give him, or more rightly force others to give him that which he could surely never achieve on his own.
The right wing fundamentalist believes that some men need to be shown the error of their ways, even that they must be forced toward "the good" (as defined in their scripture) through laws and prohibitions so that they might be able to reach the lofty heights of heaven.
Which one of these philosophies was the one labelled as elitist?
Yup, Objectivism, the philosophy of man and the only one of the three that says anyone can achieve, anyone can be moral and anyone can be happy by being the best he can be, by living his life for himself.
Ironic isn't it. The socialists and the right wing mystics tell you you're not good enough to achieve "it" on your own, but it is Objectivism, that tells you, you can and are, that gets labelled as being elitist
This assumption is made through superficial readings of Ayn Rands books, where no deeper meaning is never sought out, and the mind is sequestered from the possibility of contamination by contradictory principals. In reading Atlas Shrugged they ignore the characters like Eddy Willers, Sheryl Gallant, the young brakeman. In The Fountainhead "Mike" the construction worker is forgotten. So because of their selective understanding, intellectual dishonesty and evasion they label Objectivism elitist. But is it?
Objectivism holds that anyone can strive for perfection in anything they do. That every man has it within his own being and his own reasons for being to be happy on his own terms, to be successful on his own terms, to be his own ideal.
The socialist on the other hand believes that some men will never amount to anything unless those who are better off (smarter, richer, healthier) give him, or more rightly force others to give him that which he could surely never achieve on his own.
The right wing fundamentalist believes that some men need to be shown the error of their ways, even that they must be forced toward "the good" (as defined in their scripture) through laws and prohibitions so that they might be able to reach the lofty heights of heaven.
Which one of these philosophies was the one labelled as elitist?
Yup, Objectivism, the philosophy of man and the only one of the three that says anyone can achieve, anyone can be moral and anyone can be happy by being the best he can be, by living his life for himself.
Ironic isn't it. The socialists and the right wing mystics tell you you're not good enough to achieve "it" on your own, but it is Objectivism, that tells you, you can and are, that gets labelled as being elitist
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Barack Hussein Obama: Slightly left of Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev
The only thing missing from this are the "Comrade" and "Dear Leader" honorariums.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Are We There Yet?
“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Ayn Rand
If you read the news today or have been reading it for the last while you are virtually assaulted by the systemic use of tax money to bail out here, or subsidize there. The workers cry out for it, the Unions beg for it, the businessmen complain that they can not survive without it and the politicians dole it out.
When this is done a majority of consumers sagely nod their heads, Unions and businessmen grimly set their jaws and make a show of “getting to work” and Politicians on the left and on the right preach the gospel of regulation, control and “social responsibility”.
It’s systemic, invasive, pervasive and sickening.
So, as the title of this post asks… Are we there yet? Is it necessary for honest rights respecting folks to be criminals in order to live their lives as men?
Ayn Rand
If you read the news today or have been reading it for the last while you are virtually assaulted by the systemic use of tax money to bail out here, or subsidize there. The workers cry out for it, the Unions beg for it, the businessmen complain that they can not survive without it and the politicians dole it out.
When this is done a majority of consumers sagely nod their heads, Unions and businessmen grimly set their jaws and make a show of “getting to work” and Politicians on the left and on the right preach the gospel of regulation, control and “social responsibility”.
It’s systemic, invasive, pervasive and sickening.
So, as the title of this post asks… Are we there yet? Is it necessary for honest rights respecting folks to be criminals in order to live their lives as men?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Gauchos in Jackboots
Round Two, the Cold war of the Americas.
Anyone who thinks that this is anything less (or any less important) is just lying to himself.
Anyone who thinks that this is anything less (or any less important) is just lying to himself.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The New World Order... Same as The Old World Order
Ten year plans...
helping humanity to move from its often selfish, self-centered adolescence to a more globally responsible adulthood...
create and implement global strategies to improve the prospects for humanity...
coordination for effective and adequate action...
Is it just me or does this sound a lot like something that was already tried.
More government, more government programs and more government control are not going to get us out of the problems that have been created by more government, more government programs and more government control.
Ten year plan? Really? You show me a government that is able to stick to a 1 year plan and I'll show you a dictatorship.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Socio-economic Mathematics
2 (the most socialized province in Canada)
+
2 (the most restrictive social & business environment in Canada)
4 (economic destruction and apathy)
All of this apparent soul searching and he still isn't able to see the answer.
+
2 (the most restrictive social & business environment in Canada)
4 (economic destruction and apathy)
All of this apparent soul searching and he still isn't able to see the answer.
Monday, June 22, 2009
First Casualty Of The Left - Truth
This story doesn't document a retelling of the story, nor even a misunderstanding of the original event it is a bald faced, politically motivated fabrication.
What is Ignatieff's intent here?
The article's author suggests the only plausible one, to make this crime the responsibility of the nation... which is to say, make the white man responsible for every "evil" action taken, from the colonization of this land right up to the moment that Christopher Pauchay's innocent daughters drew their last fridgid breath.
This is the Left's ideal. They withdraw personal responsibility in favor of collective responsibility. When the time comes that no one man is responsible as an individual but everyone is responsible collectively for his actions, the government no longer has to concern itself with those pesky individual freedoms (and responsibility). From that point on our rights will be those printing press ones the government dreamed up for the Canadian Charter. Granted and denied at whim.
Life, liberty and property you say? Don't be such a philistine.
What is Ignatieff's intent here?
The article's author suggests the only plausible one, to make this crime the responsibility of the nation... which is to say, make the white man responsible for every "evil" action taken, from the colonization of this land right up to the moment that Christopher Pauchay's innocent daughters drew their last fridgid breath.
This is the Left's ideal. They withdraw personal responsibility in favor of collective responsibility. When the time comes that no one man is responsible as an individual but everyone is responsible collectively for his actions, the government no longer has to concern itself with those pesky individual freedoms (and responsibility). From that point on our rights will be those printing press ones the government dreamed up for the Canadian Charter. Granted and denied at whim.
Life, liberty and property you say? Don't be such a philistine.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Politics Without Philosophy
I don't give a rats ass about Michael Ignatieff being out of Canada for 34 years, what I care about is his ideas on running the country. And seriously, to call a person an intellectual and to mean that as a slur, well you might as well be praising a village idiot for his ability to drool on himself.
Why is our government spending 13 million dollars to prosecute a Prime Ministerial has been like Brian Mulroney? Over what? An admitted payment of $225,000? Only in political circles could a negative return of 57,777% be considered worthwhile.
All of the major parties in Canada are bankrupt in ideas, ideals and ideology. None of them is looking out for you, they are all just looking to screw their opponents. Leading the nation is an afterthought at best.
If we as citizens elect our public officials to govern our nation only to have them spend more of their time trying to discredit the opposition or dream up new ways of spending our money on their interests then I say democracy is dead.
And what killed it? Politics without philosophy.
ALL levels of government have too much power. Government in Canada is not constrained in any shape or form. From provincial governments banning pesticides on lawns* because it's not safe for "the environment" (yet allowing the same pesticides to be used on our food). To the Federal Government stealing our tax money to prop up companies that should have been allowed to fail in the 1970's (do they seriously believe that ANYONE with more than two brain cells to rub together is going to buy a car from a company that is only being kept afloat by stolen taxes?). We, the taxpayers, the rubes that elect these dolts are paying the price.
Our governments are completely out of control. They have lost sight of the reason they were elected (to govern, not to smear) and all of them hold to the idea that they are entitled to decide how to divide up your money.
What this country needs is a properly limited government, and to achieve that we need a political party built on philosophical principals, which is not the same thing as having a political philosophy.
Politics is only one branch of philosophy and is as useless as a screen door on a submarine without the more important branches of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
The reason our political parties are so driven by partisanship is because they have no underlying rational philosophy. The reason they flip and flop is because the only thing of importance to them is getting elected, all positions, policies and proposals are pragmatic easily discarded lies the day after the election.
Ask a liberal, socialist or a conservative where he stands on the concept of rights and they will give you an equivocal answer. Give them more information and their position will change.
The rights to life, liberty and property are constrained at whim by the liberal acting for the "just society", by the socialist seeking the "greater good" or the conservative imposing standards of "morality".
This is where politics leads without philosophy to ground it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
