Ayn Rand
It is true that the welfare-statists are not socialists, that they never advocated or intended the socialization of private property, that they want to “preserve” private property—with government control of its use and disposal. But that is the fundamental characteristic of fascism.
“The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 211
The "control and use" of anything, even one's personal talents is not to be the object of anyone else's designs, without consent!! As otherwise, though one might hold the property or talent, it is not one's own to hold responsibly.
As James Madison said, ""As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Friday, April 29, 2011
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Why Would Anyone Be Interested in Ends?
In the last post, I asserted that the progressive is interested in "ends" or "outcomes". Why would this be important? I can think of two reasons.
The first reason is if the progressive can control the information or how the information is given (what frame of reference, and what "concern" should the particular individual have), then, the individual will not be educated, but propagandized, indoctrinated, etc. For critical thinking to occur, then there has to be freedom of information. There should never be limited information or unhindered bias. Journalists know that this is always hard, as the journalists themself is biased or "invested" in the political realm. And unbiased reporting is rare and exceptional.
In education, if bias is not acknowledged or there is forthright propaganda, then humans can be controlled, and this is useful for those who might want that control for "other ends", which brings me to my second point.
The second reason the progressive might want to manipulate the populace, is for control of resources. If one can gain power over humans by false information, or skewed, biased reporting, then one can appeal to pride, power or position to "control" others. In the mean-time, the progressive will use this control to manipulate the whole system in his "favor" and those he "owes" . The "end justifies the means", because the progressive values control, which ends up giving him the advantage of opportunity, if not down-right control of resources at his disposal. This way the government can be useful for "other means", while promising "better days" ahead.
Everyone knows how easy it can be to "use" government resources that are readily available, and when government can manipulate the markets through owning the "store", then the outcome is confiscation of other's resources (the tax-payer pays).
E
For instance, it was reported that the government would grant scholarships, ( this sounds like benvolence), but these scholarships will indebt the student to the government, which will require payment through "public service", just as the military does today with those who "sign on the dotted line". This way, the government "owns" you, so to speak, whenever you want to better yourself, you will be required to give back to society, not voluntarily, but co-ercively....because there will be no other choices, if one wants to go to school.
Doesn't this sound like a miltary STATE and not a liberal democracy? Ends, for the greedy, which means power and money, is a necessary part of the whole "determined plan".
The first reason is if the progressive can control the information or how the information is given (what frame of reference, and what "concern" should the particular individual have), then, the individual will not be educated, but propagandized, indoctrinated, etc. For critical thinking to occur, then there has to be freedom of information. There should never be limited information or unhindered bias. Journalists know that this is always hard, as the journalists themself is biased or "invested" in the political realm. And unbiased reporting is rare and exceptional.
In education, if bias is not acknowledged or there is forthright propaganda, then humans can be controlled, and this is useful for those who might want that control for "other ends", which brings me to my second point.
The second reason the progressive might want to manipulate the populace, is for control of resources. If one can gain power over humans by false information, or skewed, biased reporting, then one can appeal to pride, power or position to "control" others. In the mean-time, the progressive will use this control to manipulate the whole system in his "favor" and those he "owes" . The "end justifies the means", because the progressive values control, which ends up giving him the advantage of opportunity, if not down-right control of resources at his disposal. This way the government can be useful for "other means", while promising "better days" ahead.
Everyone knows how easy it can be to "use" government resources that are readily available, and when government can manipulate the markets through owning the "store", then the outcome is confiscation of other's resources (the tax-payer pays).
E
For instance, it was reported that the government would grant scholarships, ( this sounds like benvolence), but these scholarships will indebt the student to the government, which will require payment through "public service", just as the military does today with those who "sign on the dotted line". This way, the government "owns" you, so to speak, whenever you want to better yourself, you will be required to give back to society, not voluntarily, but co-ercively....because there will be no other choices, if one wants to go to school.
Doesn't this sound like a miltary STATE and not a liberal democracy? Ends, for the greedy, which means power and money, is a necessary part of the whole "determined plan".
Friday, January 8, 2010
What Does a Good Citizen Do?
What does a good citizen do? That question could be answered in various ways, depending on how one understand the individual and society.
A good citizen is defined by individuals based on certain values they hold. Do they hold liberty as the ultimate social value or is society itself of ultimate value and concern. The latter are more socialistic in thier view politically.
The political ideal for the socialist is equality of property versus an elitist view that supports capital and investments and individual initiative.
Religion has been useful to serve the ends of socialist's agendas. But religion itself is a question of value. Does one believe that the world was "caused"? Is God personal or an abstraction? Should someone act in faith without evidence? Or should one base their decisions on reason alone?
Is society the basis of values, or is there a moral theist view about society?
Are individual's free, or determined and how hard is the determination? What determines an individual, genetics, or environment? Can someone be held accountable to actions that are beyond his control because of a genetic predisposition or environmental conditioning? What is justice, then?
Is justice or morality relative, or are they absolute? Multiculturalism would uphold a relativistic view, but international law, human rights activists, and the Founding Fathers believed that all people were created with certain inalienable rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Is happiness the only ultimate value, or are there a "world of values" in a pluralistic view?
Where people answer these questions will determine their commitments and behavior in certain situations.
Humans are thinkers, whether they think so or not. They are always being influenced by the things they read, hear or see. And in free societies, we allow most any information to be sorted by the individual's free determination. But, the value question comes in, as to what sort of information is productive? Should there be an evaluation of what is productive based on what society wants the outcome to be? And organist view of society would believe so, as would the socialist and moral theist.
But, if one thinks of society as a social contract, one will come to different conclusions than one who thinks of society as an organism, itself. The individual will be of uptmost importance because he, the individual cannot be dissolved into his function in society alone. He is a human being, who has his own desires, purposes and goals, which should never be stolen.
A social contract view of society affirms individuals making an agreement about their affliation with society in a certain culture. This is what makes for liberty, in regards to choices about one's life commitments, and values. "Big Brother' does not determine what one should or should not to in the speicific choices of vocation or mate selection. And this is what has made America great because the individual is motivated by his own goals, for his own life. He owns his life, no one owns it for
Life cannot be lived fully without the freedom to choose and be in the world as one comes to understand the world. And as one understands that many in the world do not have the choice or right of individuality, and live in fear of torture or torment from government or religion, one comes to value the American ideals of individuality and liberty.
A good citizen is defined by individuals based on certain values they hold. Do they hold liberty as the ultimate social value or is society itself of ultimate value and concern. The latter are more socialistic in thier view politically.
The political ideal for the socialist is equality of property versus an elitist view that supports capital and investments and individual initiative.
Religion has been useful to serve the ends of socialist's agendas. But religion itself is a question of value. Does one believe that the world was "caused"? Is God personal or an abstraction? Should someone act in faith without evidence? Or should one base their decisions on reason alone?
Is society the basis of values, or is there a moral theist view about society?
Are individual's free, or determined and how hard is the determination? What determines an individual, genetics, or environment? Can someone be held accountable to actions that are beyond his control because of a genetic predisposition or environmental conditioning? What is justice, then?
Is justice or morality relative, or are they absolute? Multiculturalism would uphold a relativistic view, but international law, human rights activists, and the Founding Fathers believed that all people were created with certain inalienable rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Is happiness the only ultimate value, or are there a "world of values" in a pluralistic view?
Where people answer these questions will determine their commitments and behavior in certain situations.
Humans are thinkers, whether they think so or not. They are always being influenced by the things they read, hear or see. And in free societies, we allow most any information to be sorted by the individual's free determination. But, the value question comes in, as to what sort of information is productive? Should there be an evaluation of what is productive based on what society wants the outcome to be? And organist view of society would believe so, as would the socialist and moral theist.
But, if one thinks of society as a social contract, one will come to different conclusions than one who thinks of society as an organism, itself. The individual will be of uptmost importance because he, the individual cannot be dissolved into his function in society alone. He is a human being, who has his own desires, purposes and goals, which should never be stolen.
A social contract view of society affirms individuals making an agreement about their affliation with society in a certain culture. This is what makes for liberty, in regards to choices about one's life commitments, and values. "Big Brother' does not determine what one should or should not to in the speicific choices of vocation or mate selection. And this is what has made America great because the individual is motivated by his own goals, for his own life. He owns his life, no one owns it for
Life cannot be lived fully without the freedom to choose and be in the world as one comes to understand the world. And as one understands that many in the world do not have the choice or right of individuality, and live in fear of torture or torment from government or religion, one comes to value the American ideals of individuality and liberty.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Discrimination, Liberty, and Value
What is the highest value when it comes to a culture?
I just read on 'First Things" that there was a distinction made between the values of equality and liberty. Where Europe prioritizes equality, the United States values liberty. Which value should be prioritized?
If one prioritizes equality, then, how is there anyway to 'police" that value? Wouldn't government be a form of inequality, as those in power posiition would determine who was or wasn't discriminating and on what basis (law/rule) that would be determined. Society cannot function apart from government, therefore, equality cannot be prioritized.
If liberty is prioritized, then, would there be equality, because those in government would be implementing laws that would gurantee freedom under law. As long as an individual respected law, then there would be liberty to pursue their own ends. Therefore, good government must prioritize liberty, so that justice can be upheld. There is not justice without liberty.
There has been much talk about Obama being a socialist. I don't know whether he is really commtted to the ideology of socialism, so much as against discrimination and inequality. If you listen to the pastor whose ministry he listened to for over 20 years, then one begins to understand that he wants to make sure that those who have been discriminated against will get their just due. He is for globalization on a wide scale, so that America, as an imperialistic nation, will not implement their culture on another. He is against faith based institutions because he believes in universal education, as well as universal healthcare. He wants government to implement OT law, so that individual liberty is limited to moral responsibilty. This is just short of Shairia law.
I hope that those who care enough about the benefits of living in a free society will take seriously what is at stake in this election and not "toy" with the idea of a Utopian "promise for tomorrow"!
I just read on 'First Things" that there was a distinction made between the values of equality and liberty. Where Europe prioritizes equality, the United States values liberty. Which value should be prioritized?
If one prioritizes equality, then, how is there anyway to 'police" that value? Wouldn't government be a form of inequality, as those in power posiition would determine who was or wasn't discriminating and on what basis (law/rule) that would be determined. Society cannot function apart from government, therefore, equality cannot be prioritized.
If liberty is prioritized, then, would there be equality, because those in government would be implementing laws that would gurantee freedom under law. As long as an individual respected law, then there would be liberty to pursue their own ends. Therefore, good government must prioritize liberty, so that justice can be upheld. There is not justice without liberty.
There has been much talk about Obama being a socialist. I don't know whether he is really commtted to the ideology of socialism, so much as against discrimination and inequality. If you listen to the pastor whose ministry he listened to for over 20 years, then one begins to understand that he wants to make sure that those who have been discriminated against will get their just due. He is for globalization on a wide scale, so that America, as an imperialistic nation, will not implement their culture on another. He is against faith based institutions because he believes in universal education, as well as universal healthcare. He wants government to implement OT law, so that individual liberty is limited to moral responsibilty. This is just short of Shairia law.
I hope that those who care enough about the benefits of living in a free society will take seriously what is at stake in this election and not "toy" with the idea of a Utopian "promise for tomorrow"!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Concern for America Continued
Last night I turned on Charlie Rose too late I'm afraid to catch the name of the CEO of AEI (I think that is the company). This company is struggling to keep afloat because of a lack of liquid assests...
This CEO (I didn't catch his name), was saying that the federal government is trying to bail the company out, by lending the monies needed. BUT, he was unable to sit in on the discussions. Why is he not allowed to sit in on this discussion? He had built this company up for the past 40 or so years...Is Nationalism at the door in America's future? Are we headed for nationalized companies like we see in communist countries? I hope not.
Even though we have chased the Almighty dollar, our nation's free markets have been the "success stories" of the American people. What is one to do, when there may be powers that be that would like to limit our free market, because of "a higher good"? What "higher good"? Individuals in our country have been innovators, discoverers, and business entrepreneurs. Now, we see that the government has underwritten our mortgage companie and is bailing out Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac...and this is afffecting the market..
What are we to think? I agree that we have sold our country's future in depending on "slave trade" and seeking to build our own personal economic interests on the backs of others, but, how can we continue to allow the freedom to pursue our "dreams" without socializing our futures.? Is universal health care the answer to the uninsured? Is the nationalization of our country's individual rights the answer to our future?"The Common Good" is the call of Obama, and the Democrats, I'm afraid. But, have the business interests become too powerful in the Republican party for the individual's voice to be heard?Is the individual able to do anything to change the country around? Or have we become too selfish to change?
Someone called in on a radio program yesterday and said that the "crows have come home to roost" because of Clinton's mortgaging our national debt. The interest has come due now in a Republican administration, so that the Democrats can position themsleves as the ":saviors" of our economic futures...What are we to think, when things go on in places of power that we have no access to and know nothing about? And while these things have been going on, America sleeps, the world watches and the leaders continue to be corrupted.
This CEO (I didn't catch his name), was saying that the federal government is trying to bail the company out, by lending the monies needed. BUT, he was unable to sit in on the discussions. Why is he not allowed to sit in on this discussion? He had built this company up for the past 40 or so years...Is Nationalism at the door in America's future? Are we headed for nationalized companies like we see in communist countries? I hope not.
Even though we have chased the Almighty dollar, our nation's free markets have been the "success stories" of the American people. What is one to do, when there may be powers that be that would like to limit our free market, because of "a higher good"? What "higher good"? Individuals in our country have been innovators, discoverers, and business entrepreneurs. Now, we see that the government has underwritten our mortgage companie and is bailing out Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac...and this is afffecting the market..
What are we to think? I agree that we have sold our country's future in depending on "slave trade" and seeking to build our own personal economic interests on the backs of others, but, how can we continue to allow the freedom to pursue our "dreams" without socializing our futures.? Is universal health care the answer to the uninsured? Is the nationalization of our country's individual rights the answer to our future?"The Common Good" is the call of Obama, and the Democrats, I'm afraid. But, have the business interests become too powerful in the Republican party for the individual's voice to be heard?Is the individual able to do anything to change the country around? Or have we become too selfish to change?
Someone called in on a radio program yesterday and said that the "crows have come home to roost" because of Clinton's mortgaging our national debt. The interest has come due now in a Republican administration, so that the Democrats can position themsleves as the ":saviors" of our economic futures...What are we to think, when things go on in places of power that we have no access to and know nothing about? And while these things have been going on, America sleeps, the world watches and the leaders continue to be corrupted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
