Socialism

[moondog]

Sounds like you are practicing this:

Subjective Value(s)

One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality.

The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one's emotions.

A second consequence to espousing subjective values is a demand for no moral judgment. Since morality is subjective, and right or wrong are not real, it makes no sense to judge others by your own personal moral whims. And when moral judgment is not practiced, justice is impossible. Crimes cannot be punished. The innocent cannot be protected. It is easy to see who benefits from this policy.

[moondog]

Do The Poor Suffer Under Capitalism?

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So the saying goes. Opponents of Capitalism like to claim that the poor suffer because the rich are constantly increasing their wealth and using it to oppress the poor. They see the successful as a parasite somehow living off the suffering of the unsuccessful.

The fallacy here is that wealth and success are zero-sum - one man's gain is another's loss. That there is a pie to be divvied up and one man's larger portion is another's smaller portion. Under this false premise the above would make sense - the rich have more (it doesn't matter how they got it), so the rest have less. How unjust!

The truth is that there isn't one big pie being divvied up. There is a separate pie for each individual, each sized according to how productive he is. Every man's consumption is a direct result of his production. One man's effort and consumption in no way negatively affects another's.

There are two common sub-fallacies to the notion of zero-sum wealth. The first is that if one looks around at any given time, there is a finite amount of stuff to behold. Yes, at any instant there is a finite amount of wealth which is somehow divided up between owners. But what must be taken into consideration is that every piece of property was created. Everything that is somehow valuable to anybody was created in some way - the value was unlocked in some way. An item was either manufactured by someone, discovered by someone, or the use of which was invented by someone. The potential wealth of any man is practically unlimited, any creation, invention, or production that he may make does not diminish to potential of any other person.

The second sub-fallacy to zero-sum wealth is that because there are limited natural resources, and those are all owned, then those without resources have no way to generate wealth. The problem with this is that it's wrong on two accounts. First there is no limit to natural resources, unless you consider that limit to be the entire mass of the universe. The ultimate resource is human labor. (See The Ultimate Resource 2 by Julian Simon) Which leads into the second problem which is that those without resources have no way to generate wealth. With human labor as the ultimate resource, and each man the owner of his own labor, each man has the potential to gain anything he wants - depending on his productivity.

Those who view the disparity between rich and poor as an indication of tragedy usually want to rectify the situation. But the only means to achieve egalitarianism in a world where each man has equal rights but unequal ability is to trample those rights. The only tool available is force. And no amount of force will make men more able, force can only make men less able. The only means of making "the poor" successful under capitalism is to destroy the rich. But because wealth is created and consumed individually, this won't make anyone better off for long. You can kill or rob a successful man and live off of the fruits of his labor for a while, but you will have killed the tree, and once those initial fruits are gone, there are no more where those came from unless you find a new victim to rob. This is a pyramid scheme that can only end in death for all.

The truth is that the wealthier those around you are, the better off you are. This is very important. The more wealth your neighbors have, the more they can buy. The economies of scale drive prices down, increasing your standard of living, and decreasing your cost of capital so you can increase your productivity and further increase your standard of living. One man possessing enormous wealth does in no way negatively affect any other people, unless he uses that wealth as a means to initiate force.

The saying should be: the rich get richer and the poor get richer. Everyone gets richer under capitalism where they are free to do so.

[saunterelle]

Bush is supposed to LEAD us. He sets our country on a course of action. He came out and asked publicly asked congress to approve the bank bailout. The orders for socialism came directly from the top. It seems like you are the one who is being selective.

[harpman1]

And, of course, he rules the country, er, world with his iron fist.
Congress has no part in legislation.
Or does it?

[saunterelle]

Of course Congress has a part in this too. It just seems like most people posting here blame the Democrats when the Republicans are leading the charge toward socialist "bailout" strategies.

[harpman1]

The Republican appointees; not the legislators.
A correction & clarification.

[moondog]

Nov 24, 2008 20:20:43 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Bush is supposed to LEAD us. He sets our country on a course of action. He came out and asked publicly asked congress to approve the bank bailout. The orders for socialism came directly from the top. It seems like you are the one who is being selective.

Well then let me continue to be selective here.

It seems to me that this country was created on the idea that opposing points of view on how to solve a problem were a good place to start. After all, our forefathers recognized that it is virtually impossible for one person to have all the solutions. Though one certainly can not discern that from our most recent election, it seems we picked a person that claims just that, to have all the solutions. Hence change.

Our government was divided into three branches, or four if you believe that the media is doing their job as the fourth branch. I suppose it depends on where you get your information though. And now you have the progressives in congress insisting that free speech does not apply to radio talk shows because the do not present progressives in a good light, hence the fairness doctrine. One can only hope it is equally applied to an obviously biased media on television, especially the big three stations. But, I would not hold my breath.

Now, as I was pointing out, our government is divided into three branches.

The judicial branch has the job of determining if our laws are valid in regards to the constitution. They also, in the inferior courts, hear evidence for criminal trials and render verdicts. So basically they are in charge of applying and reviewing our laws. Simple as that.

The executive branch has the job of Commanding the Military, entering into treaties with the approval of congress and he is responsible for foreign relations. He can appoint ambassadors and other ministers and consuls, Judges to the Supreme Court and other Officers of the country whose appointments are not covered by another branch of government. That is the extent of his power, with the exception of signing bills lawfully presented by Congress, which he can sign or not sign and allow to become law or he can mark up his objections and send it back to congress for reconsideration.

The legislative branch, which consists of the House and Senate, has the job of setting elections and meetings and setting the rules, memberships and journals of said elections. They have the power of setting compensation. The House is the one responsible for originating all revenue bills, to which the Senate must concur. The have the power to lay and a collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debt and provide for the common defense of the people. They alone can borrow money, regulate commerce, establish uniform rules of Naturalization and uniform laws of bankruptcy. They have the power to coin money and set its value and to fix the standard of weights and measures. They can establish post offices and post roads. Promote the siences and arts. Constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. Define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations. Declare War. Raise and support armies. Provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union. And even more still.

So, as you can clearly see from what I have posted, you are incorrect in your assertion that the President, or Bush as you put it, is supposed to lead the Congress in their decision making process. And though he came out and asked congress to approve a bank bailout, which the majority party in congress was more then happy to do, it was still the responsibility of Congress to make sure we never got to that point to begin with. They clearly had the authority to prevent the melt down, they just failed to act. There are many possible reasons that the majority party in congress failed us as citizens, my personal belief was they spent to much time on attempting to win the White House. And now we have the end result.

[subdjoe]

Moondog, first, welcome to this forum, glad to have you on board. I have no idea who you are but your posts are great. One exalt from me.

I do have one quibble. You wrote: "Our government was divided into three branches, or four if you believe that the media is doing their job as the fourth branch."

Actually, We the People are the fourth branch. Well, really the first branch, since per one of our founding documents "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So in the broadest sense, WE are part of the government and empower the State (my term of art for any level of government). The media is our arm for information. And it has historically never been "fair and balanced." Rather it has been rather rabidly partisan. Only recently, say since WWII, has the myth of the imprtial press taken hold.

Moondog wrote: " I suppose it depends on where you get your information though. And now you have the progressives in congress insisting that free speech does not apply to radio talk shows because the do not present progressives in a good light, hence the fairness doctrine. One can only hope it is equally applied to an obviously biased media on television, especially the big three stations. But, I would not hold my breath."

Can you imagine NPR having to broadcast NRA/ILA pieces? KPFA airing in full the comments of Wayne LaPierre? I for one do hope that the new version of the Fairness Doctrine DOES take hold. Then all the leftist organs would have to give time to conservative points of view. This is another case of progressives feeling the need, and rushing to Do Something without thinking it through. In this instance though, the Law of Unintended Consequences will only bite them in the ass rather than costing all of society.

Also, when the progressives try to take over the few conservative stations/shows all that will do is give one more platform for them to show the world how narrow minded, petty, and ignorant they really are.

[moondog]

I agree to a certain point. There really are six levels of government. Executive, Legislative, Judicial, State, the Press and the People.

I agree also that a progressive/liberal can not hold up under the light of truth. Lee Rodgers would take them to task each and every time.

[moondog]

Nov 24, 2008 20:39:56 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Of course Congress has a part in this too. It just seems like most people posting here blame the Democrats when the Republicans are leading the charge toward socialist "bailout" strategies.

Excuse me?

At this moment, in congress, a greater percentage of Republicans are opposed to the bailout then Democrats. One can easily discern this with a simple review of the subject.

[jgaffney]

Nov 25, 2008 16:05:53 GMT -5 @moondog said:

Nov 24, 2008 20:39:56 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Of course Congress has a part in this too. It just seems like most people posting here blame the Democrats when the Republicans are leading the charge toward socialist "bailout" strategies.

Excuse me?

At this moment, in congress, a greater percentage of Republicans are opposed to the bailout then Democrats. One can easily discern this with a simple review of the subject.

Moondog, the more time you spend around here, the more you'll learn that criticism of Saunterelle like that is falling on deaf ears. To ask him to research a subject before posting on it is asking waaaay too much.

[moondog]

Thank you for the advice jgaffney. I will keep it in mind.

It also explains why I have seen no response from saunterelle as well.