Monocrats are all the same, yet we continue to be surprised.
Posted by coaldigger 10 years, 1 month ago to Government
A King is just the figurehead (given the right to govern by god) of a governmental system called a Monarchy where everything belongs to the King (government). Communism/Socialism are just systems whereby everything belongs to the collective people. A Dictator is just a King who obtained his right to govern by force. They are all Monocrats. Most countries of the world are governed by some entity that does not recognize private ownership of anything. Stateists in the US, both from the left and right, beneath the facade of their claims of belief in Representative Democracy and Capitalism, are Monocrats no better than any of the others. It may be argued that this is not so, that there are examples of leaders in Russia, China, Iran and elsewhere that are much worse but it is because in those countries there were no countering forces like exist in the US, feeble though they may be.
Given the the underlying principle that the government owns everything, it is easy to understand the concepts of "living wages", guaranteed entitlements, universal healthcare and free education from preschool through college paid for from the revenue, unfairly retained by the rich. Most governmental discussions of tax policy are laced with the concept that ALL revenue belongs to the government and the amount that citizens retain is a benefit granted by and a cost to government. Dirty words like "Free Markets" and "Capitalism" are used to describe the means used by the greedy not to produce the wealth but to get an unfair share. All Monocrats believe that "wealth" is naturally occurring, provided by nature or God, is fixed in quantity and it is necessary for an authority to exist to divide it up for the collective good. Virtually all of our politicians believe this to some degree and the ones that don't have not been able to make their case.
Given the the underlying principle that the government owns everything, it is easy to understand the concepts of "living wages", guaranteed entitlements, universal healthcare and free education from preschool through college paid for from the revenue, unfairly retained by the rich. Most governmental discussions of tax policy are laced with the concept that ALL revenue belongs to the government and the amount that citizens retain is a benefit granted by and a cost to government. Dirty words like "Free Markets" and "Capitalism" are used to describe the means used by the greedy not to produce the wealth but to get an unfair share. All Monocrats believe that "wealth" is naturally occurring, provided by nature or God, is fixed in quantity and it is necessary for an authority to exist to divide it up for the collective good. Virtually all of our politicians believe this to some degree and the ones that don't have not been able to make their case.
The American Political system operates as such ! Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all the other idiots are a perfect example and that's why it's important to give ALL OF THEM the boot !
While I doubt the founding Fathers would be satisfied with the state of our modern politics, it is easy to see how the few maintain rule. All one has to do is look at the Bush family, John Kerry, Al Gore, the Kennedy family (includes Arnold Schwartzenneger who married a Kennedy), and many more. Money - rather than good ideas - is more commonly the ticket into national politics. How many of our current leaders were "groomed" for their Senate or House seats by virtue of well-connected beneficiaries? Nearly all of them, not least of these being our current President.
"All Monocrats believe that "wealth" is naturally occurring, provided by nature or God, is fixed in quantity and it is necessary for an authority to exist to divide it up for the collective good."
I think they probably would say "no" to this, but if you changed the wording a little, I bet many people in the public policy world would agree.
It's like that saying, "these tax cuts will be very expensive."
It's also like the saying "the president created jobs," or "jobs are being shipped abroad," as if jobs were things created by the gov't and rationed out.
There's also the saying that "I can't succeed in this economy", as if the economy were some magical entity rather than people coming together to help each other in trades.
They see it, as you say, as being about greed. But money is made when you do something that gives people a product or service they want.
The average person in public policy would say, "oh yes, yes, of course," but not really think about how little decisions like my wife creating a system to help people with paperwork and then training an associate attorney on the system IS the economy. It's not some magical thing out there controlled by politicians.
Capitalism is honest, up front and the most human system of economy there is. When socialist viewpoints are pinned, then what seems fair on paper is truly unfair in reality. Yes, why should the rich pay more than the poor? If it´s only because "they can" then reason has been lost. It may seem fair that if I apply a percentage to taxes, then we all contribute what we can. But hey, that should also give me more rights than others than. Like, if my contribution is 1000% greater than John Doe´s than, I should not have to wait in line at the DMV, to say the least.
It´s all very complex and confusing, and that´s where John Doe is fooled and convinced more easily than others. When health care, roads, education and whatnot is cheaper to me than it actually costs, well then I become a looter. And well, conditions actually permit this to be and be those who actually are paying more are really sustainning these Doe´s and the system as well. This is a fact. Henry James passed an interesting idea once about taxes, unifying all in one concept that, though goes against the idea of private property at some point (in a real estate eye), it litterally defends it in every other way. He came up with the idea that the only tax should be on the land and it´s use, period. In Great Britain, home of the great Smith and other free thinkers, leasing and some of Henry James´ ideas are put more into practice than in the states.
Imagine, use of land by the acre or the square footage. If it´s for residential use, the value is low. If it´s for commercial use, it gets higher. Depending on how it uses the land you see. Land, that midevil craving of the more, the richer. We all know that land itself has up to a certain amount of value. But we forget what the land produces, the riches it has. Not only gold, oil or cotton; but space, exclusivity and freedom. So Johnny pays for his residential rights, and Mister Rockefeller for the exploits he has everywhere on the land. Then, the buildings, the oil, the gold, the shares, the banks, the actions, the cars, the plains, etc. Well, they´re all tax free. Those assets, though obtained by a fine line called heritage, are private property and therefor should pay no taxes what soever. Dunno, just ramblin on...
First look at the physical world around you. If there is a Creator it would make sense that the creation could be a witness to the mind, thoughts and way of the Creator. The state of the physical and biological worlds are determined primarily by might. What ever force or animal has the greatest power has the greatest control over the current state of it's sphere of effect or control. There is no right or wrong here, just reality. The creation could be used as a model for structuring human social relationships. The result would be the principle that might makes/determines right. This is the model that Cain chose and the authoritarians have chosen ever since Adam and Eve rejected the Creator's judgments and chose to make their own. These judgments are what the Christ called the commandments of men that make the commandments of God of no effect. Another model can be developed based on the Creator's use of the creation to benefit or harm humans. The Creator seems to follow a rule similar to Star Trek's Star Fleet prime directive of non-interference in the development of any society of intelligent beings. Adam and Eve were left ignorant of the abilities of the Creator and thought they could hide behind a plant. The Creator had the power to stop them before they ate of the forbidden fruit but chose not to. This revealed a right to choose that the Creator seems to have endowed them. The Creator warned them of the results of their choice which would be their suffering or benefitting from their choice. The Christ pointed out the Creator's witness in the creation that all humans good or bad have been endowed by the Creator with equal rights by pointing out that the sun and rain bless both the good and bad and not just the good. Israel and the nations that interacted with it are a special case. They can not be used as an example and the reason would make this already too long comment even longer. The model that the Creator has revealed for a Godly human society is based on equal rights and mutual respect/love for all humans.
Kings, aristocracies, oligarchies, dictatorships, democratic majorities are all authoritarian social structures based on the superior/inferior rights paradyme. Authoritarians try to claim it is the way that God has chosen for humans but it is not. It is the way of man under the influence and deception of satan who has deceived the whole world. Some individual or group because of their sex, race, religion or superior talent, intelligence, knowledge, wealth, power, etc. has a superior right to rule and control an inferior individual or group. Under the might makes right way of Cain, whoever has the greatest power is able to enjoy their claim to superior rights.
The Founding Fathers chose the Godly way and model of equal rights based on the Creator's/the Christ's commandment that we love/respect our neighbors and our selves equally. If this Godly model and principle were fully implemented, the overwhelming majority of social conflicts between spouses, parents/children, neighbors, states and nations would be resolved.
http://www.TheSocietyProject.org
Rand was very very pro-distinguishing actual differences in people and in distinguishing reality generally. She never ever said any person can be replaced with another.
Go read what she actually wrote and think on it before saying such obviously misinformed things.
Seriously, she was an athiest, but the Antichrist? That's one toke over the line.
Rand - just like everyone else - chose to see the world in her own terms. She took a fairly radical approach to such and chose to focus on money as a status symbol: that wealth could be used as a measure of productiveness. She then placed this in context of a society based wholly on the market. She came from a society where the true market was underground - both empirically and socially and where government control of everything had doomed it to a haven for the politically connected, so one shouldn't ignore her history when evaluating her view of the world.