Socialism
Posted by Kaeaea 10 years, 4 months ago to Government
Socialism works until you run out of other people's money....short and sweet.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
― Margaret Thatcher
http://goo.gl/OiIfiK
Socialism is the politician’s siren song. Thanks to society’s embrace of altruism, politicians appeal to our “better selves” to accept their socialist schemes. Ayn Rand noted that altruism took hold in America after the Second World War. Today, we see the devastation altruism has brought to us.
1 unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
A mother who gives her dinner to her hungry child acts out of love and the responsibility she assumed when she chose to give birth to her child. An altruistic mother would give her dinner to a stranger, leaving both her and her child hungry.
When being "unselfish" is a choice, there is no problem. When being "altruistic" is forced, it is not altruism, it is tyranny. AR: "Never initiate force."
The Salvation Army solicitor rings his bell in front of my grocery store. I slip a $5 bill in his collection pot. He says thank you and I am happy that most of my $5 will make someone's lot in life a little better. My charitable act represents my good will toward my fellow man. I really won't miss the $5. That is charity, not altruism.
The politician appeals to his voters to raise their own taxes to help the less fortunate. If you do, fine. If you don't, the politician calls you greedy and sends the IRS to audit you. He is depending on you practicing voluntary self sacrifice. That is altruism.
When government takes resources from me and my family, redistributing to people who government thinks deserves my money more than I do, that is altruism.
The mother who does without food so that her hungry child won't go hungry is not altruistic. The choice to eat and let her child go hungry would be anathema to any moral mother.
Giving her meal to a stranger while she and her child both go hungry is an altruistic, and morally reprehensible, act.
The politician uses your own virtues against you. By appealing to voters' acceptance of altruism, he persuades them that the "moral" thing to do is to act against their own self interest.
John Galt explains this concept pretty clearly.
Disagree, from an entirely Christian viewpoint. In the Old Testament is one of my favorite stories - the widow of Zarapheth. She is a mother of a single child in the middle of a famine. On her last supposed day (the region is in the middle of a famine), she is about to make one last meal for herself and her child before resigning herself to fate: starvation. (Note: starvation is one of the worst ways to die). Elijah the prophet asks her to make a small cake for him first, asking her to have faith. She does so and all three survive the famine when her stores of oil and meal miraculously sustain them.
Is her action altruism? Self-destruction? Sacrifice, yes, but in the end she benefited immensely. I would strongly caution against the outright labeling of sacrificial actions as immoral because morality must necessarily then deal with ultimate right and wrong which would then necessitate a theological debate, and Rand was unabashed in her derision of organized religion.
Now please do not misconstrue this to be an endorsement of the looter mentality. It is merely a check on the hardline attitude I see prevalently here on this board which focuses so much on decrying altruism as an unmitigated evil. I echo other comments that say that fraud and deceit used to justify the taking of means from some to give to others is absolutely wrong. But to say that the willful sacrifice of one's goods/means to another is evil is to decry love for one's fellow man as evil: that selfishness should reign as the supreme motivation and ruling cause. If one wants to argue that the motivation for giving is as important as the giving itself, one can not deny that one must walk a line between sacrifice and selfishness - both extremes can lead to adverse outcomes.
Does this mean we should grant politicians the ability to tax and distribute welfare? I echo dcwilcox when unequivocally, I say NO. Such again is the product of deceit and fraud. But to label private charity in that category is simply unwarranted from a moral standpoint that allows all to participate in the market of ideas. If you choose to give to another out of charity or desire to help that person - regardless how the beneficiary then uses it - the judgement of the value of that act is for that person (and their god of choice) to determine and not for us to place an arbitrary value on (especially a value of zero). If the beneficiary goes on to waste the gift, can we then label that individual as foolish and unappreciative? Absolutely, and rightly so. Would it be justified to refuse to grant an unappreciative recipient further gifts? Sure. But I would strongly caution against labeling the initial gift a morally reprehensible thing lest you fall into a moral trap of your own device.
Again, there is nothing wrong with altruism unless it is the rationale for the use of force.
Toohey and Jim Taggart (and all collectivists) initiate fraud against individuals, in the name of the collective, when they promote the sacrifice of an individual's value (Roark or Reardon or Dagny). AR crystallized a lot in my mind when she elucidated the "sanction of the victim" concept. Going back to the motivation for one's choice, it is not within my purview, literally or figuratively, to influence anyone's choice to be a victim. Atlas shrugged to stop being a victim. I would wager you and I could spend hours listing people that made bad choices for good reasons ("to help the children") and suffered for it (and, unfortunately, made others suffer for their folly).
As some forgotten psychologist said, "All behavior is motivated." I find it tedious (I am 70+) these days to quibble over motivations when it is the outcome that affects a person's quality of life. Tom Sowell said don't measure intentions, measure out comes. Simplifies life, if you ask me.
I didn't know you were in your 70s. I'm 68 myself:)About the worth of knowing about motivations, oy veh, amigo. If you choose to try out my releasing workshop in about a month, I suspect you'll find that out in a week or two:) Looking at things somewhat more towards a Randian perspective (though when I talked with Dr. Weinberg over the phone, he told me he didn't agree with Branden's advocating of Objectivism, even though he admired the theoretical structure that Branden wove in "The Psychology of Self-Esteem") I'd like to suggest that you check out Weinberg's book "Self-Creation." Weinberg clearly shows why it is important to know one's motivation as well as look at one's external behaviors if one wishes to change the way one feels inside. You can try out his ideas of habit change in your own life, as I have--though I admit that it all goes down better when seasoned with my proposed teaching of "releasing.":) Back to Atlas, I don't see Jim Taggart as terribly fraudulent to others. He lied to himself and was a model of irresponsibility but he neither used force nor fraud most of the time in his tenure as head of TT. I except the way he attacked Dan Conway's railroad to get a monopoly on carrying oil for Wyatt! About the sanction of the victim, to me, Jim, the issue is, once you see the philosophy of not being a victim, *how* do you stop it within yourself. And then, amigo, we turn to psychology:)
Jack smiled. “Which you’ve told me six or seven hundred times.”
“Oui. I’ve found that I can’t answer many of those questions so I ask them. It’s my contribution to epistemology."
Keep us posted on your workshop......
Mike
Jim
It generates the most complex mental images, using the smallest number of words.
For some reason that is where my mind drifted, when I saw the number of comments on this elegantly succinct post.
As to altruism, it is evil. In some cases it makes the giver in vogue for the fleeting moment, and he feels good. He is looking to the approval of others, in other words. Bad. Then there is the recipient, who is rarely actually helped to become independent. Is not the goal for man to be responsible and think with reason? Is that not what benefits the rational society? Most altruism leads to control of the recipient, and to a lesser degree, control of the giver. Some elite somewhere is going to profit from it all. If the recipient learns to expect the gift, he has been weakened and not helped to stand and become independently self-sufficient. All members of the society are harmed. My husband's Kiwanis club sponsors a "Cribs for Kids" program, given to, usually single teen moms-to-be. It raises my hackles, as the cribs must be new and unused, they are not returned, and rarely is thanks given. The program has grown to the point of being the go-to program. To me, that is altruism run amok. When I was a reporter, they asked me to join, and I had to say, "I do not do altruism." The same group's scholarship fund seems like altruism, but it leads to one becoming educated, and I have not decided how that fits in. That one, at least is earned via grades point average.It seems one programs contributes to lessening the responsibility of a human, while the second should contribute to the growth of a human. That is the micro version of what we are seeing in our ever increasingly socialist US.
Lots of options..all bad...
Keep your powder dry.
Regards,
O.A.
Meanwhile, in my household...watching the AFC Championship...and "The future is so bright, gotta wear shades."
However, the bankers have had a 100 year run stealing our wealth. So they are capable of passing on their thieving DNA.
Regards,
O.A.
A little piece of paradise. :)
O.A.
My solar collector design, the Bradford Collector, will economically provide all of the energy and water requirements of an Off-Grid Home or community. Manufacturing Bradford Collectors and associated systems, and operations and maintenance will provide many jobs for the community.
But, importantly, it will be possible to comfortably survive the coming Great Depression.
Please visit offgridtexan.net for more info
I know how you feel.
I like your approach to solar. Everyone that can do it when it makes economic sense and their environment they live in provides adequate sun power should consider it. Having the power companies set up solar and wind etc. systems still leaves one at the mercy of the cronies. Independent systems have much potential. I live in Michigan and we have a miserable amount of sunny days so it doesn't provide a quick ROI, but combined with a wind turbine and other energy saving measures there is still potential for those desiring that independence. I'm afraid your link only displays the first page for me. Perhaps I have something blocking more functionality... Anyway I regularly vacation in the Florida keys on an Island that uses solar. It is off grid and provides all the necessities. I am all for the freedom, independence and technology aspects of these systems. I am not for government mandates and taxpayer forced investments.
Best of success in your endeavors,
O.A.
Yes, it was terrible that the Jews were targeted for being Jews. But they were roughly 1/3rd of those who died in the camps, and I don't think it right to forget about the rest who died.
horrible tragedy, and not
being able to find info only
adds to the horror. I am
so sad for you.
They say it can't happen here, whoever they are. Even without an organized Army, when we get hungry or pressed beyond our limit, how many of our own can we kill?
Conspiracy theorists point to those plastic coffins in Texas as a harbinger of what's coming. In the history of genocide no unwanted population has ever been laid to rest in a coffin. A trench is all the unwanted receive. Those coffins ore for the anticipated losses on the government side.
I recently had the opportunity to hear Gen Dempsey speak about character to the Air Force Academy cadets. What a joke. This is the man who failed to protect our civilians in Benghazi, and continues to fail to tell the truth about what happened and the cause of the failure to protect them. That's the type of character you can expect from our Sr military leaders. And I'm ashamed to call him a fellow member of the Long Grey Line.
And you base this on what?
Gen Dempsey has become a politician.
Also, you have no clue about any of my experiences, military or otherwise.
You may keep your assumptions of me to yourself, and I will defer to you, nothing.
Good day.
On the other hand, as I said, the gestapo that makes up the components of the DHS will have no problem firing on fellow citizens. It comes from the basic character of the individual.
I know members of the Armed Services and I echo Robbie in saying that you would see a mass mutiny in the ranks if they were ordered to fire on their own citizens. They would gladly lay down their lives in defense of our nation and I salute them for that.
Now, as I have said several times, the gestapo in the DHS, I have found, will have no such restrictions.
That, and any Sr Officer of any integrity has recently been culled from the ranks. This gives me an indication that the attempted take over should be anticipated within the next 3 yrs.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/FEMA_concen...
that global warming as proven by the hockey schtick is due to human released carbon dioxide and not changes in radiation emitted by the sun. A hypothesis of great attraction to those who want more central government power.