FT200: “Only force can make people live in a world without choice.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 13th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

College Students and Hippies of Yesteryear have a Soft Spot for their Communist Heroes

The hippies in the Sixties saw a brotherhood of man.  They wanted to link arms and sing Kumbaya.  Live in their communes.  Get high.  Have unprotected sex with multiple partners who bathed infrequently.  While being one with nature.  And poop and pee in the great outdoors.  Like the animals.  Only with less grooming.  For they hated the Man.  And didn’t want anything to do with their parent’s generation.  They protested any figure of authority.  Protested the Vietnam War.  And protested against their government.  Speaking truth to power.  And yearned to bring the Marxist-Leninist revolution to America.

The hippies were rabid anti-capitalists.  Which is why they loved communism.  Where there were no possessions.  No religion.  Or greed or hunger.  Just imagine all the people sharing all the world.  Words from John Lennon’s song Imagine).  Former Beatle.  And one of the leaders of the counterrevolution.  Not to be confused with the other Lenin.  Vladimir Ilich Lenin.  Of Soviet Marxism-Leninism fame.  Or, rather, infamy.  One of many icons of the counterrevolution.  Along with Mao Zedong.  Ho Chi Minh.  Fidel Castro.  And, of course, Che Guevara.  Whose bearded and beret-wearing image adorns many a university dorm room wall and student t-shirt to this day.

College students today, just as the hippies of yesteryear, still have a soft spot for their communist heroes.  Thanks to many of these hippies of yesteryear having joined the establishment.  And are now teaching our kids in college the evils of capitalism and the goodness of government.  Despite their one-time fierce opposition to the Man.  Guess things change once you get money.  Like someone in the rock band The Who said when asked if he still hopes to die before he gets old (a line from My Generation-a song about youthful angry rebellion against their parent’s generation).  The reply was that being old wasn’t all that bad when you were rich.  Something the old hippies of the Sixties no doubt discovered.  And best of all they got rich by taking money from the capitalist pigs.  Their students’ rich parents.  Or the taxpayers who worked in that detested capitalist system.

Nations with the Marxist Brotherhood of Man with No Possessions have been the Worst Places to Live

It is ironic that without capitalism these communist-loving parasites could not be parasites.  For if no one was creating economic activity there would be no income to tax.  Or to pay for the one thing growing more expensive than health care.  College tuition.  Interestingly, there is no ‘Obamacare’ for our colleges and universities.  No.  They never label them greedy despite their being the greediest of them all.  But you know who they do label as greedy?  The taxpayers who oppose higher taxes to pay for the ever higher cost of higher education.  They’re the greedy ones.  Not the old hippies of the Sixties.  And their fellow anti-capitalists.

Another interesting thing about these anti-capitalists?  They yearn for one-party rule.  Which is why public education teaches our kids to distrust capitalism and to trust government.  And our colleges and universities teach our kids to be ashamed of their nation’s past.  And the importance of diversity.  Which is code for anything that isn’t American.  For America was founded by rich white slave-owners who stole the land from the Native Americans.  And America’s imperialist aggression is the only source of strife in the world today.  While ignoring the expanding communist revolution that was spreading out from the Soviet Union into the Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas.  The one ideology that has killed more people than any other.  Through state oppression, wars and famine.

Yes, this brotherhood of man where there are no possessions have been in fact the worst places to live.  The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Mao’s Peoples Republic of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.  These are all nations that had gulags or reeducation camps for political prisoners.  Those people who spoke—or thought—truth to power.  They all had police states where the people lived in fear of their government.  They suffered for the want of the most basic items (soap, toilet paper, etc.).  There was state censorship.  They persecuted anyone practicing any religion.  The people suffered from constant hunger.  And the occasional famine.  They killed anyone trying to escape their communist utopia.  Or sent them off to hard labor and torture.  If they escaped successfully then the state punished any family remaining behind.  To warn others what would happen if they escaped their communist utopia.

The Great Flaw of Socialism is being unable to Determine What is the Greater Good

Why did these communist states have police states and brutally oppress their people?  Because they had to.  When the communists built the Berlin Wall it wasn’t to keep people from West Berlin out of East Berlin.  It was to stop people escaping from East Berlin to West Berlin.  For the East Germans were suffering a terrific brain drain.  Capitalists believe in liberty.  The freedom to do what they want.  And to get paid for their services.  A highly skilled doctor expects a higher salary than a janitor.  And that just isn’t going to happen in a communist state.  You get what the state gives you.  No more.  Creating a heck of a free rider problem.  When your economic system works based on the Marxist premise from each according to ability to each according to need what you get is a lot of people showing little ability and a lot of need.  For the more ability you had the harder they forced you to work.  While the greater your need the more you got.  Such a system encourages people to do the minimum and not be extraordinary.  Which is why Sony, Samsung, Microsoft, Apple, The Beatles, etc., did not come from communist countries.

A communist state has a planned economy.  Instead of a free market economy.  Communist state planners manage the economy from top down.  Telling the raw material industry what materials to extract.  They tell what factories get these raw materials and what they are to build.  Etc.  Whereas in a free market economy the economy is driven bottom up by the consumers.  When consumers start buying a lot of one thing the price for that one thing rises.  Attracting other businesses into the market to meet that rising demand.  Who place orders with their wholesalers.  Who place orders with their manufacturers.  Who place orders with their industrial processors.  Who place orders with their raw material extractors.  Hundreds of thousands of decisions happen as this consumer demand travels up the stages of production in a free market economy.  Giving the people what they want.  And not what a state planner decides to give to the people.

This is why communist (and socialist) states are oppressive dictatorships.  Because state planners decide for the people.  Which must start with the supreme decision maker.  The Joseph Stalin, the Mao Zedong, the Ho Chi Minh, the Kim Jong Un, the Raul Castro, the Hugo Chávez, etc.  And these people don’t take polls or hold elections.  Well, at least elections that are legitimate.  Kim Jong Un continues the state policy of his predecessors.  No economic reform.  Money goes to the military first (especially for his nuclear toys) and whatever is left over may go to the people.  And anyone who disagrees with him or thinks wrong goes to the gulag.  Or is executed.  Like his uncle.  While the people suffer the want of the most basic things.  Like food.  North Korea to this day still suffers the occasional famine because of its economic policies.  But one problem the North Koreans don’t have?  Deciding where to go for lunch.

“Where do you want to eat?  I don’t know, where do you want to eat?”  This can go on until someone forceful makes the decision for the group.  Often making no one happy.  But it will end the endless “where do you want to eat?”  This is the great flaw of socialism.  Being unable to determine what is the greater good.  Because people rarely agree on what’s best for other people.  Just look at the recent budget agreement that made few people happy.  They were unhappy because they disagreed on what was the greater good.  People are different.  One size does not fit all.  You just can’t please all of the people all of the time.  So you have to force your will on the people.  The only mechanism that makes socialism work.  Force.  Because people can rarely agree on where to go to lunch let alone national policy.  And this is why all communist/socialist states end in brutal dictatorships.  Because only force can make people live in a world without choice.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT182: “Obamacare will do to health care what the Soviet Union did to their economy.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 9th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The whole East versus West Cold War Showdown was a Battle between Capitalism and Socialism

If you’re not old you may not be familiar with the Soviet Union as it no longer exists.  The Soviet Union was also known as the USSR.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  And in that full name lies the key to understanding what the Soviet Union was.  That socialist part.  For the USSR was socialism on a grand scale.  Formed following the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Also known as the October Revolution.  When the revolutionaries toppled the Russian monarchy.  And set up a communist state.  Which spilled over in counties surrounding Russia.  And by ‘spilled over’ I mean they conquered those surrounding countries.

People like to make distinctions between communism and socialism but they’re the same thing with a little different window dressing.  Central to both ideologies is a hatred of free market capitalism.  And that enlightened state planners can do everything better than unfettered free markets.  For in socialism they put people before profits.  Whereas in that evil, greedy capitalism they put profits before people.

The whole East versus West showdown of the Cold War was about settling that question.  Which system of government was better?  The free market capitalism of the West?  Or the state planning of the East?  And for a clue to that answer go back to that first sentence.  Where I noted that the Soviet Union no longer exists.  In fact when that socialist utopia did exist those people on the inside dreamed of one thing.  Getting out.

Socialist States use Secret Police to coerce People to Stay and Work for the Greater Good

So why did the people want to get out of their socialist utopia?  Two reasons.  The first was the economy.  Which was horrible.  With state planners managing the economy people waited in line at stores for the things they needed.  Staring at empty shelves where those things should have been.  And seeing shelves full of stuff they didn’t want.  East Berliners risked their lives to climb over the Berlin Wall to get to West Berlin for a better life.  And to go to those stores full of wonderful Western goods.

This brings us back to that other reason.  Which ties into the Berlin Wall.  Which East Berliners risked their lives to climb over.  Why?  Because they couldn’t walk across the street to get to West Berlin.   Or drive there.  And why couldn’t they walk or drive to West Berlin?  Because the East German government wouldn’t allow them to.  The communists built the Berlin Wall because the best and brightest were leaving East Berlin for West Berlin.  And East Berlin, as well as East Germany, couldn’t survive if that brain-drain continued.

Given the choice the people would leave.  If they all left there would be no doctors, scientists, engineers, etc., required in a modern state.  And if they didn’t want to stay and work for the greater good the state used a secret police force (the Stasi, in East Germany) to coerce them to stay and work for the greater good.  To make sure people had the right attitudes and the right thoughts the Stasi spied on people.  Turned people into snitches.  Jailed people.  Tortured people.  And simply made people disappear.  By killing them.  And expunging them from the public record.  As if they never existed.

Liberals in the West loved the Soviet Union and National Health Care

Growing up in the West it’s hard to comprehend life in these socialist utopias.  Thankfully, there are some good movies that bring the fear and loathing of living in a socialist utopia to life.  There’s V for Vendetta.  And Nineteen Eighty Four.  Both set in a futuristic socialist Britain.  If you’re interested in seeing actual life in the former East Germany there’s The Lives of Others.  A movie everyone should watch.  As it is the inevitable destination of creeping socialism.  Life gets worse, not better.  People have less, not more.  And the further we creep towards socialism the worse things get.  And the less we have.

The Democrats passed Obamacare into law on strict party lines.  No Republicans voted for it.  Because history has shown that when the government manages things life gets worse, not better.  And people have less, not more.  This is the basis of the Republican opposition.  On Monday (8/9/2013) President Obama held a rare press conference.  Where he said the holy grail of the Republican Party is taking away health care from 30 million people.  Not their fear of creeping socialism.  Of their fear that health care will get worse, not better.  And that people will have less, not more.

The Soviet Union had national health care.  Liberals in the West loved it.  As they loved the Soviet Union.  College professors.  Public school teachers.  Hollywood.  Even the mainstream media.  Who were (and are) liberal Democrats.  Who all wanted what they had in the Soviet Union.  At least what they believed the Soviets had.  Because the Soviet press wrote glowingly about the Soviet economy.  And the high quality of Soviet health care.  Because enlightened state planners made things better.  Despite the Soviets and the eastern European countries having to use secret police to keep their people from escaping their socialist utopias.  Even with that free high-quality health care.  Because for those living in those utopias it wasn’t everything the liberals in the West thought it was.  Instead, for them, life got worse, not better.  And they had less, not more.  While suffering the brutal oppression of the secret police.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Socialist Utopia of Oil-Rich Venezuela is Rationing Gasoline

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Venezuela is a lot like Iran in a way.  They have lots of crude oil.  But little refining capacity.  Which is a problem because nothing really runs on raw crude oil.  It’s what we refine from it that we use in our cars, trucks, buses and power plants.  Causing a bit of a problem in Venezuela.  Because in their socialist utopia they virtually give their gas away.  Which was one thing when they refined it.  But another when they have to buy it (see Chavez’s gasoline rationing plan causes uproar by FABIOLA SANCHEZ, Associated Press, posted 7/20/2012 on Yahoo! News).

As home to the world’s cheapest gasoline, Venezuela has long had to contend with the hemorrhaging of supplies as smugglers haul gas across the border to cash in where the fuel costs far more.

In neighboring Colombia, drivers pay 40 times as much as Venezuelans to tank up — $1.25 a liter ($4.73 a gallon), compared to 3 U.S. cents a liter (11 cents a gallon).

So much gasoline is being taken out of Venezuela illegally that President Hugo Chavez’s socialist government imposed rationing on motorists in one state bordering Colombia last year, and now it’s touched off a furor in a second border state by announcing it will ration gasoline there, too…

Venezuela is a major oil exporter but its refining capacity is limited, so the government buys gasoline from the United States, losing money by then selling it at home for almost nothing. Those imports have been steadily rising since 2009…

Ramon Espinasa, a Georgetown University economist, blames “operational problems” at some Venezuelan refineries as well as rising demand from power plants built in the past two years that burn gasoline and diesel fuel.

“They’re not producing specialized (petroleum) products and must import finished products,” Espinasa said…

“It’s not rationing,” [Hugo Chavez] said. “It’s a means of control, to give everyone gasoline, because the gasoline here is practically free, so the idea is to give everyone what they need.”

One of the problems of socialism is that there is no incentive to risk capital.  Because if you invest and build a refinery the state will just take it away.  So that leaves the state to build their refineries.  And based on their refinery capacity shortfall that’s something the state just doesn’t know how to do.  Or else they would have done it.  And not have gasoline rationing.

Another problem with socialism is the whole ‘from those according to ability to those according to need’ nonsense.  Something that requires some people to work hard so others can have more.  Never a great inducement to get people to work hard.  So they don’t.  In socialism those who show the most need get the most.  And if they show no ability they don’t have to work hard to learn and acquire skills that will advance the economy.  So what can happen is that a chemical engineer with a college degree but no children may earn the wages of a janitor while a janitor with no college degree but with lots of kids can get the wages of a chemical engineer.  From those according to ability.  To those according to need.  You know what this gets you in the long run?  Gasoline rationing.

So socialism requires everyone to sacrifice for the greater good.  And based on the very large black market for gasoline that isn’t happening.  Which is why socialism fails as an economic system.  For people always look after their own interests.  Not the greater good.  Even in the socialist utopia of Venezuela.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All Men are Created Equal. And, no, Liberals are NOT more Equal than Others

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 4th, 2011

The Rule of Law and Contract Rights

This is the 4th of July.  A big holiday in America.  In most places.  It fell out of favor for awhile in Vicksburg, Mississippi, what with that city falling on the 4th during the American Civil War.  Some said that the Union‘s win kept the spirit of the 4th of July alive.  Many in the South said it killed it.  Especially those who have reframed the Civil War as a struggle between federal power and states’ rights.  And it is those who say states’ rights lost.  And the spirit of 1776 died.

Of course, the Civil War wasn’t about maintaining states’ rights in the South.  In fact, the South was all for a strong federal government to overrule states’ laws when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  When northern states refused to send back escaped slaves to their southern owners, they asked for the federal government to enact a law to compel them to do so.  You see, the southern planter elite (a small percentage of the southern population who owned the vast majority of the slaves) was all about making the law favor them.  Much like the land-owning aristocracy had done it for centuries in feudal Europe.  Which is decidedly not in keeping with the Spirit of ’76.

The American colonies had already been at war with the British Empire for about a year when Thomas Jefferson presented the Declaration of Independence to the Continental Congress.  The cornerstone of that document is that all men are created equal.  Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.  Key to these rights is the Rule of Law.  Simply stated, it means the new nation would be a nation of laws.  Not of kings.  Or an aristocracy.  And the law would rule supreme.  No one would be above the law.  Not the planter elite.  Kings.  Or presidents (see Missing the Point on July 4: The Right to Vote Was Not The Main Achievement in 1776 by Warren Meyer posted 6/30/2011 on Forbes).

For about 99% of human history, political power has been exercised at the unchecked capricious whim of a few individuals.  The great innovation of western countries like the US, and before it England and the Netherlands, has been to subjugate the power of government officials to the rule of law.  Criminal justice, adjudication of disputes, contracts, etc. all operate based on a set of laws known to all in advance and applying equally to all.

And key to the Rule of Law are property rights and contracts.

Today the rule of law actually faces a number of threats in this country.  One of the most important principles of the rule of law is that legality (and illegality) can be objectively determined in a repeatable manner from written and well-understood rules.  Unfortunately, the massive regulatory and tax code structure in this country have created a set of rules that are subject to change and interpretation constantly at the whim of the regulatory body.  Every day, hundreds of people and companies find themselves facing penalties due to an arbitrary interpretation of obscure regulations.

Worse, with the growing power of the Federal government, it has become an increasingly accepted practice that Congress or the President may selectively violate the rule of law to benefit their particular constituents. Just ask secured bondholders at Chrysler (who had their legal rights wiped out by executive fiat in favor or the Administration’s pet union) or restaurants burdened with Obamacare compliance (whose competitors with better political access have gotten cost-saving waivers), what they think of the rule of law.

It’s a slippery path.  And it starts out small.  Little losses of liberty along the way.  Then the losses get bigger.  With the ruling powers always justifying that it was for the greater good.  Adolf Hitler rose to power through free elections.  And seduced the Germans.  People accepted his vision and willingly gave up their rights for the greater Germany.  With Germany ultimately becoming a dictatorship. 

Appealing to the greater ‘good’ is a powerful force.  It just takes a good speech to get the people to willingly follow you.  Such as when JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  You’ll be hard-pressed to find any such sentiment in any of America’s Founding Documents.  Because it goes completely against the American creed.  Americans don’t serve government; government serves Americans.  But this sentiment has prevailed.  And gave America the welfare state.  An explosion in the size of government.  And a loss of individual liberties ever since.  All to serve a greater good.  Such as when the president of the United States arbitrarily revoked the contract rights of those Chrysler bond holders.  So he could reward his friends and cronies in the UAW by giving them stock shares they had no legal claim to.

The central concept on which this country was founded is that an individual’s rights do not flow from government, but are inherent to all human beings.  Government in this context only legitimately exists to the extent that it is our servant in the defense of our rights, rather than as the vessel from which these rights grudgingly flow.

Statists of all stripes have tried to challenge this assumption over the last 100 years.   While their exact details have varied, every statist has tried to create some larger entity to which the individual should be subjugated:  the proletariat, the common good, God, society, the master race.  They all hold in common that the government’s job is to sacrifice the property and well-being of one group to another in the name of some vague meta-entity.

And they’re still doing it today.  But now it’s for the greatest greater good of them all.  The planet itself.  Without which none of us can live.

The Soothing and Incessant Whine of Renewable Energy

Renewable energy.  That’s the latest tool of subjugation.  We all must sacrifice.  Because if we don’t, the earth won’t be long on this planet.  So we’re seeing more and more wind farms.  Replacing a small percentage of reliable fossil-fuel produced electricity.  With a very unreliable but noisy windmill-produced electricity (see Noisy wind farm ‘drove couple out of their home’ posted 7/4/2011 on The Telegraph).

Jane and Julian Davis, moved out of Grays Farm, Deeping St Nicholas, near Spalding, Lincs, four years ago because of the strain of living with the incessant noise…

Mrs Davis, whose husband’s family cultivated Grays Farm for over 20 years before they were uprooted by the noise, said it had been a “nightmare living there”, and that they had no option but to leave.

Speaking before today’s High Court hearing, she added: “The noise is unpredictable and mainly occurs at night, you can never get to bed with the assurance that you will stay asleep…

“We want them to stop the noise so we can move back in,” she said, adding: “We want them to recognise that the noise is a nuisance so we can go back and get some rest and sleep like we did five years ago. “

You see, the problem with this couple is that they are not rich and/or famous.  Therefore, they have no rights to live peacefully in their homes.  Now on the other side of the pond, the rich and/or famous have fought to live peacefully in their homes.  Like the Kennedys.  Who are all Big Government liberals who support renewable energy.  Just not in their backyard.  And to date the rich and/or famous of Martha’s Vineyard have been successful in keeping windmills out of Nantucket Sound.

The Spirit of ’76

Liberal politicians and the planter elite have a lot in common.  For they believe they are above the law.  Yes, people should sacrifice so we can build windmills near their property.  But we shouldn’t build them where the rich and/or famous sail their yachts. Because that wouldn’t be right.  But writing laws that further restrict our lives while exempting themselves from those laws is perfectly fine.  Again, this goes completely against the American creed.  The intent of our Founding Fathers.  And the Spirit of ’76.  Which we should note well on this day of days.  July 4.  Independence Day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #39: “Socialism is easier said than done.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 11th, 2010

The Bolshevik Revolution Gave Russian Peasants Freedom.  And Famine.

Russia was one of the most backward nations at the turn of the 20th century.  Feudalism was still the economic model.  The only European nation still using it.  There were two Russias.  Hungry and impoverished peasants.  And a rich and well-fed ruling elite.  Then World War I came.  Russia bled on the Eastern Front.  There was a lot of discontent.  Germany took advantage of this by returning the exiled Vladimir Lenin to Russia via Germany.  And it worked.  Marxist revolutionary fervor forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate.  Russia pulled out of the war.  Lenin led the Marxist Bolshevik Revolution against capitalism.  White and Red Russia plunged into civil war.  And a few assassination attempts later, Joseph Stalin launched the Red Terror to kill all enemies of the Soviet state.  Including the Romanov family.  When Lenin died, Stalin consolidated his power.  Through terror.  And he would rule by terror.

With capitalism suppressed, Stalin was ready to build the new socialist/communist state.  He industrialized the state (with foreign engineering and machinery).  He collectivized farms to increase output.  Soviet industry made a great leap forward.  But the cost was devastating.  Famine.  Forced deportations.  Terror.  Millions died.  And the quality of life for the common Russian peasant went into the toilet.  Anyone who complained was an enemy of the state.  There were chronic grain shortages.  Which were blamed on farmers hiding grain to force prices higher.  The solution?  Stalin deported or executed these farmers as enemies of the state.  But they never found any ‘hidden’ grain.

Dictators rise to power through terror and violence.  And they hold power by even more terror and violence.  To silence their enemies.  These enemies of the state.  You see, if you disagree with the dictator, you disagree with the state.  For they are one and the same.  So they get a little testy when their policies fail.  They blame others.  Attack those who are clinging to capitalism and liberty.  Who don’t submit themselves completely to the state.  And herein lies their fatal flaw.  Slaves don’t willingly work for the greater good.  They only do the bare minimum to minimize their pain and suffering.  Either the work or the state will kill them.  They know that.  So they work hard enough to keep the state from killing them.  But not too hard that the work does.  It’s a bleak world.  But that is the life of the slave.

China’s Great Leap Forward Resulted in Even Greater Famines

The communist/socialist movement spilled over into China from Russia.  Mao Tse-tung rose to power much like Stalin.  Ruthlessly.  He industrialized China.  And collectivized their farms into giant collective communes.  He forced peasant farmers into these communes.  Which lowered the quality of life for millions.  The result?  China’s industrial output did increase.  But, like in Russia, the cost was devastating.

The Great Leap Forward was their second five-year plan.  The plan was to increase grain harvests by using the power of the state to collectivize and direct giant farming communes.  Party members (i.e., career politicians who kissed communist ass) ran these communes.  They reported to Mao.  None of them were farmers, though.  But they acted like they were.  Trying some screwy new ideas that only reduced the harvest.  But, being good party men, they lied.  They reported record harvests.  As the lying went up the party chain of bureaucracy, party leaders made decisions based on the lie.  They took so much of the harvest for party members, cities and for export that the peasant farmers working on the communes starved in history’s greatest famines.  Note that ‘famines’ is plural.  Yeah, it was that bad.  Tens of millions starved to death.  All in the name of helping the poor and oppressed.

Everyone lives in fear in a totalitarian state.  Even members in the ruling elite.  The communes were supposed to increase the harvest.  So those responsible for that increase lied.  To minimize their own pain and suffering.  For they knew if they failed the greater common good, the state would come after them.  So they protected themselves.  At the expense of the peasant.  The life of the peasant/proletariat only got worse.  The Bolshevik Revolution was supposed to free them from the oppression of the bourgeois capitalists.  It only oppressed them more.

Using Capitalism to Attack Capitalism

The socialists/communists learned some valuable lessons.  Although they may be good at terror and violence, they didn’t have any real talent or ability.  And though they hate capitalism (because they lack any real talent or ability), they understood that they needed capitalists to be their bitch.  They couldn’t kill them.  Because if they did, nothing would get done.  No wealth created.  And they needed these people to create wealth.  Because they can’t take wealth if the wealth creators don’t create it.  With no wealth to take, they have nothing to give the masses.  To keep them dependent.  And subdued.  So this was the next phase in the socialist/communist revolution.  To exploit the wealth creators for state gain.

The social democracies followed the same general plan.  Attack capitalism.  Oppress the poor by making them dependent on the state.  But instead of using physical fear and intimidation, they used psychological fear and intimidation.  At election time.  They, the compassionate state, wanted to give them stuff.  The mean, cold-hearted capitalists wanted to take away their Social Security.  Eat their children.  And other nasty things.  It worked.  It got votes.

The problem they ran into was that populations grow.  And costs go up.  That meant the social democracies had to give more and more people these ‘benefits’.  While at the same time the costs of these ‘benefits’ kept going up.  And herein lies their fatal flaw.  To keep the people dependent (and docile) you have to keep raising taxes.  But if you raise taxes too much, you kill the golden goose.  Because you can push the wealth producers only so far.  If the state makes them work harder for less so others can enjoy the fruit of their labors, the state is for all intents and purposes enslaving these wealth producers.  And what do we know about slaves?  They don’t willingly work for the greater good.  They do the bare minimum to minimize their pain and suffering. 

Communist China Concerned About the United States’ Anti-Capitalistic Behavior

There are all sorts of ways they can do this.  If the cost of hiring employees is too great, businesses will hire fewer employees.  If taxes are too high, people will cut back on their spending and businesses will lay off workers because of the weaker demand.  If the investment climate is too unfavorable (say, because of a high capital gains tax), investors will invest their money where the climate is more favorable (and not create jobs).  If taxes get too high, the economy will go underground where people pay no taxes.  As more of this happens, the government collects less and less in taxes.  They get to a point where they simply can’t raise them anymore.  So they borrow.  And when they borrow to excess and cannot borrow any more, they have to do the unthinkable.  Cut the benefits that have so successfully enslaved so many people to the government.  And when governments try, the enslaved fight back.

Following the financial crisis of 2008, some debt-ridden nations tried to do just that.  Cut benefits to avoid bankruptcy.  Greece tried.  France, too.  Both had riots.  Other nations are at the tipping point.  Great Britain is making draconian cuts that the people aren’t too happy with.  Ireland is staring down bankruptcy and may need a Greece-like bailout.  (Interestingly, Ireland’s problems don’t stem from a fat social welfare state.  Their troubles resulted from a real estate bubble fueled by the European Central Bank keeping interest rates low.  They, like the U.S., saw no downside in cheap, risky mortgages.)  And, of course, Communist China is lecturing the United States about the evils of currency devaluation as a solution to our problems.  Which we’re doing.  In a last-ditch attempt to stimulate our economy.  A weaker dollar would help.  It would make our exports cheaper.  And make our massive debt cheaper to pay off.  Which really concerns the Chinese as they’re holding the majority of that debt.  So they are not going to sit idly by while we slash the value of their U.S. holdings.  They’ll fight back.   And do whatever it takes (capital controls, tariffs, etc.) to protect their investment.

Whether by physical fear and intimidation or by bribery and deceit, socialism ends the same.  In failure.  For it to work people have to work hard so others can live better.  And people just don’t willingly submit to slavery.  When they’re forced into it, they do the bare minimum to minimize their pain and suffering.  And when people do, the economy will never reach its full potential.  Which is why the United States won the Cold War.  Capitalism encourages people to do their best.  Socialism encourages them to do the least they can get away with.  And you just don’t achieve greatness with mediocrity.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #29: “The problem with doing what is best for the common good is that few can agree on what the common good is.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 31st, 2010

CHOOSING IS EASY WHEN ONLY ONE IS CHOOSING

Lunch groups can be a pain in the you-know-what.  Ass.  I mean, if you’re hungry, you can go and eat whatever you want.  If you want pasta you can eat pasta.  But if you’re dragging 3 others with you, there’s a chance at least one of them doesn’t want pasta.  He or she may want Thai.  And be the only one who wants Thai.  Another may be trying to lose weight and wants a healthy vegetable sub.  Which may be the last thing someone wants if they have their heart set on a good, juicy piece of dead cow.

So you know what happens.  You don’t have pasta, Thai, the sub shop or the steakhouse.  You end up going to that greasy diner that smells like an old, unwashed ashtray.  The food’s not that bad and they have a huge menu.  Which never ceases to amaze you.  And worries you.  Just a little.  (You know they’re not selling broiled haddock every day and you wonder just how long it’s been in the freezer.)  There’s something for everyone.  It may not be the best.  No one is particularly happy with the choice.   But it was the best compromise everyone could agree to. 

Picking a movie can be just as fun.  “What do you want to see?”  “I don’t care.  What do you want to see?”  And this can go on and on.  And on.  An action thriller?  Too violent.  A romantic comedy?  Too sappy.  That r-rated comedy?  Too many boobs.  That 3-hour movie that’s like Steel Magnolias only sadder?  I can sleep at home for a hell of a lot less. 

And round and round you go.  Finally, you settle on a compromise.  Great Moments in Opera History – a film of a live performance of Verdi’s Rigoletto that includes some nudity.  There’s singing, a sad story, some comedy, a tragic ending and, of course, boobs.  No one was bursting with anticipation to see this movie.   No one is particularly happy with the choice.   But it was the best compromise everyone could agree to. 

When you’re deciding for one, you only have to please yourself.  The more people involved with the decision-making process, the less you please yourself and the more you try to please others.  Key word being ‘try’.  Because the more people in the decision-making process, the less likely anyone is going to be pleased.

E PLURIBUS UNUM (OUT OF MANY, ONE)

They call America the melting pot.  Canada is a mosaic, but we’re a melting pot.  America became a mixture of the different immigrants that came to this country.  These people assimilated into being Americans.  People with different nationalities and religions melted together and made a singular national identity.  Out of many, one.  (In Canada, there’s no melting.  Hence the mosaic.  And no singular national identity.)

Many say our diversity is our strength.  We’re not conformists.  Just look at the explosion in television channels.  We’re so diverse that we can’t agree on what to watch on TV.  So there are hundreds of channels to choose from.  To satisfy our very different tastes and interests.

We like different things.  Television shows, restaurants, movies, books, newspapers and blogs.  To name just a few.  There is, in fact, little that we really agree about.  Other than agreeing we should be able to enjoy the things we wish to enjoy.  And not be forced to endure the things we don’t.  Mosaic or melting pot, however you want to look at it, individuals make up the whole.  Persons with individual tastes and interests.  With individual hopes and dreams.

WHO’S TO SAY WHAT’S BEST?

Now put the two together and what do you get?  A lot of people who don’t agree with each other trying to agree with each other.  It’s sort of like drawing a square circle.  You can’t do it.  Now take that group and ask them to make a decision for the common good.

Sounds easy, right?  Most are willing to sacrifice a little.  If it’s for the common good.  We just need to list the things that everyone would agree are important for the common good.  Like better fuel economy in our cars to reduce pollution and our dependence on foreign oil.  Or making cars safer so people get hurt less in accidents.  Both of these appear to be for the common good.  But they also conflict with each other.  More of one means less of the other.  Little boxes with sewing-machine engines will give great fuel economy.  But they can get blown off bridges (like that Yugo that blew off the Mackinac Bridge in 1989) and don’t fare well when struck by an 18-wheel truck. 

Which is the greater good?  It depends on your definition of the greater good.  Which is, must be, subjective.  Big, heavy cars are safe.  Light, little cars have good fuel economy.  Some people so hate the internal combustion engine that a rise in highway fatalities is acceptable to them.  Others would rather give up a few MPGs for a safer car for their family.  These people aren’t likely to agree.  They’re probably not all that willing to compromise either.  For, unlike the lunch group, there’s no real motivation to get along with each other.

Now multiply this by thousands of other issues.  More arts funding.  A stronger military.  Stem cell research.  Lower taxes.  The Decriminalization of drugs.  Better border security.  Abortion.  AIDS research.  High-speed rail.  Etc.  Each of these has strong proponents.  And hefty price tags.  Or provoke bitter social/moral/ethical debate.  Can we agree which of these is the greater good?  Ask 10 of your family, friends and coworkers and find out.

SHARED SACRIFICE

Getting people to agree that we should do what’s best for the common good is easy.  Getting those same people to agree on exactly what that common good is, well, is impossible.  We’re too many people with too many diverse interests.  I know what’s best for me.  But how does my neighbor know what’s best for me?  And how do I know what’s best for him?  We can’t.  And the more we try the more we must settle for something less. 

When we start deciding for others, some will have to sacrifice for the greater good.  But that’s okay.  Because everyone is for ‘shared’ sacrifice.  If it’s for the common good.  As long someone else’s share of sacrifice is bigger than yours, that is.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,