Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona

[WIP]

Well, I guess it's time to get to work! I was avoiding this post because of limited time and I knew this would take me a while to get through:

The common thread of your concern then does not seem to be political but economic. In other words you have already determined the political model you prefer in handling economic equity - basically, the Marxist concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need".

Wasn't that an early Christian economic model? Acts 2:44-47 (New International Version, ©2010)

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

This would require, on a voluntary basis, a very high moral standard in a society, on a govenrmental policy basis it would require enforcement.

That could be why it wasn't working for the Pilgrims, and they had to divy up the land and have everyone grow their own food.

Enforcement being necessary due to the fact that all things are not available to all people and such things as shortages and famines, attack the moral fibre of individuals bringing conflict to their natural instinct to survive. The constantly changing and drifting of supply and demand creates plenty and shortages in time. It is never constant. I think that's what is primarily wrong with the enforcement of a redistribution of wealth. It assumes there is always wealth to redistribute and by it's nature does not encourage the production of wealth, only the sharing of such, thus being a self-defeating policy.

The problem with capitalism is that it makes no distinction between wants and needs. And today, for the most part, we have a generation that has no capacity to tell the difference, and runs headlong into debt regardless of their income -- there is always more crap to buy.

A command economy, which is what most Marxist countries used at first, can be very successful in that early period. I'm reminded that during my youth, the Soviet Union was taken very seriously, not only as a military threat, but also as an economic threat. After WWII, and through the 1950's, the Soviet economy was growing as fast as the U.S. and Japan. Planning an economy to meet basic needs and plowing the rest into building more industrial production (what they called the input-input system) was very successful for at least 10 years. According to some older Ukrainians I talked to, they felt life was good until about the 1970's. That's when they started getting dissatisfied with their tenement flats, and having a very limited choice and selection of consumer products: there was only two or three different types of watches if available; most of the time there were too many of some clothing items and not enough of others. During the 70's, nylons and bluejeans were huge on the blackmarket....so, no doubt eventually a command economy is going to run into trouble dealing with the whims of the consumer.

But, is a consumer-driven economy the better choice? Besides the jaded values that have been instilled in young people, my other beef with what we have now is how do maintain this system at a time when it is approaching the limits to growth? As mentioned previously, the planet isn't growing to accommodate our wishes and demands! At some point very soon, we are going to hit the wall. A smart course of action would be to start slowing down now and re-adjusting our priorities; because the other choice is to go over the cliff like the inhabitants of Easter Island did centuries ago. Today the Earth is one giant Easter Island! And that's my main problem with our present economic system. We may not have the luxury of having the system that provides the highest level of economic growth for much longer.

Those that hold the Marxist concept of forcibly redistributing wealth condemn it's accumulation and they themselves are then focused entirely on wealth, the very thing they accuse capitalists of, for the purpose of it's, in their view, proper and equitable redistribution. The means by which wealth is produced and the real value of life, such as happiness, are lost to them.

In reality, humans started becoming hierarchical as soon as there was stuff to fight over.....in most places that meant that when the agricultural revolution began, we had land to defend, goods to accumulate and status to achieve and maintain. This is part of the reason why it is so difficult for aboriginal cultures to integrate into a modern dog-eat-dog world. But, since status and hierarchy are ingrained values, a "classless" society soon discovered that "some pigs have to be more equal than others" as according to Animal Farm. So, in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, Communist Party members had to be rewarded in some way according to their status within the Party. They had access to better housing, cars and even special stores where western consumer products were on the shelves. Even if they had to wear the same drab clothing, they found ways to distinguish themselves. For example, members of the Red Army in China all wore exactly the same uniforms, with no ranks or medals displayed....but western delegates soon were made aware that they could tell the rank of a military officer by the number of pens he had attached to his shirt pocket.

It may be true of capitalists as well that they lose perspective and live for profit. I believe the current economic structure designed by the current macroeconomic theory of economic manipulation by central banks and governments, and the use of "money" as a system of punishments and rewards by governments, does more to facilitate that perspective and in a self-fulfilling prophesy creates the greedy capitalist itself in order to have a villain in the piece.

In illustrating the inability of the current tax structure to fulfill it's purpose of providing for those in need it is only necessary to point to how inflation and taxes marginalize those on fixed incomes and the lower middle class swelling the ranks of the poor over time. A person loses 10-20% of their purchainsg power over a period of ten years through inflation, couple that with increased taxes and the people just making it are thrown into poverty. The necessity then becomes a call for increased taxation to help the poor and a villification of those who complain about the confiscation of their production. Soon everyone is focused on money itself. Those that have some wish to keep it and those that don't look to the government to provide it for them. It is a definite substandard of life in a materially high standard of living.

But, in both the U.S. and Canada, income gaps decreased from WWII to the 80's, and strongly coincided with progressive taxation. The move to flatter taxation, especially cuts to investment taxes and the top income bracket have created a surge in income for the wealthiest, while everyone else has stagnated over the last 30 years or fallen. If you want to help the poorest members of society, we have conclusively proven that you don't do it by giving tax breaks for the wealthy and hoping that it will trickle down to everyone else....this was the greatest hoax perpetrated in the last 30 years.

Creeping socialism is not an unfamiliar term. It is today embodied in the universal social democracies of western society. It is a means to the end. You personally endorse this progression and although you may today disagree with the extremes of the far-left you support the means to their end and ultimately the destruction of the democratic state through an intolerance of the ownership of private property, All property must be available to the State for siezure and redistribution.

But, a term like "creeping socialism" is meaningless without context. According to rightwing pundits and talk show hosts, anyone who breathes a word about raising upper income taxes or protecting pensions and medicare is a socialist. When it's applied to someone like President Obama, it becomes laughable, because here we have a leader who is working directly for corporate interests...check out his latest state visit from the Chinese Premier, and how he brought the chairmen of G.E., Goldman Sachs, Microsoft etc., and made the summit about advancing their economic interests in China, rather than anything that would directly benefit the average American. Another example would be his latest free trade agreement with South Korea, and his attempt to expand these trade deals in Latin America. If Obama worked as hard for the people who were swept up in the last election and voted for him, he might be somewhere on the left; but instead, he is putting the interests of the people who pay him, ahead of those of the ones who voted for him. From some of the early rumblings, I've heard that the Obama Re-election Campaign is hoping to raise one billion dollars for the 2012 election!!!!.....this is not the kind of money you get from internet contributions....this money...if he gets it, will be a reward from the captains of industry who want to thank him for carrying out their agendas, while throwing a few bones to the great unwashed masses to prevent any sort of instability that might threaten their prosperity.

The great conspiracy. I abandoned the idea of conspiracy quite a few years ago. One cannot deny there are plans and planners who are managing global issues, this is true, but the direction of policy and goals is obvious. That some will take advantage of position, status and privlege is a given but are more about stupidity than conspiracy. Essentially, most are trying to do what they feel necessary for the welfare of the planet and collective good. That they fail due to cross-purposes or ignore the plight of the individual for the common good or have agendas the ydon't know how to achieve other than through force, overt or covert, is a given.

In light of the recent firing of Keith Olbermann, it seems we have another example of just how far someone on the left can rock the boat before they are terminated. Consider all of the nutcases on the right who have TV and radio shows. The MSM has a few pet liberals on staff for much the same reason as Sean Hannity kept Alan Colmes around for several years - to give an appearance of balance and bi-partisanship. I'm thinking recently of Rachel Maddow and her condemnation of Wikileaks...and worse, her reluctance to even discuss the countless examples of malfeasance and war crimes that have been uncovered. Unless it's a gay issue, it's not a primary concern for her, and her silence over the suspension of Olbermann and now his termination, tell me that the liberal commenters on MSNBC and Huffpo who are worrying if she'll be next, have nothing to worry about.

Your concern is once again the redistribution of wealth. Those people, the real socialists, exist today under the cloak of the environmental movement, among other movements. I am not sure whether or not you have ever seen sites like the "World Socialist Website". They say pretty much what you do only your ideal somehow excludes the fact of the use of force in the redistribution of wealth. You think that taxes are something that people can vote on and see the necessity for taxation and voluntarily give a share of their property to the government.

Okay, I'm on their front page now, and there's a lot here that I agree with. I can better identify what's wrong than how to fix the problem....just like on the environment, the global warming crisis is getting so large, I'm a little lost on how it's going to be solved this late in the game.

A real socialist system may be impossible to create without going to war against the monied interests that run things, but gains can be made to level out a capitalist system if the rich start getting scared and decide to make concessions, rather than support a fascist tyranny. In South America, a number of resource-rich countries forced the foreign business interests to back down because they had the support of the majority of people on their side.

Were the "modest curbs" brought in by Obama or did the healthcare insurance industry demand them?

This increase in their client list, from those not paying means those paying are paying more? The insurance industry has to service the extra clients so they are not benefitting but have to boost premiums to cover them and the people paying more are not benefitting with increased premiums.

Some insurance companies consider Obamacare a necessary compromise, otherwise they wouldn't be sending campaign dollars his way. The deal-breaker was the Public Option...which had no legitimate arguments opposing it. Afterall if someone wanted to buy in to the government insurance system, why shouldn't they be free to do so? The right claims to be all about freedom, yet they were very adamant that this was one freedom they wouldn't allow the average citizen. And the Democrats....well, what can you say about them! They dangled that Public Option like a carrot, even though every insider who's been interviewed since, has told us that the Obama Administration or the Democratic-controlled Congress had no intentions from the start, to include that Public Option in the final draft of the Bill. Some businessmen are pragmatic, and the ones who support the Democratic Party are the business interests who want a Plan B just in case their slavishly devoted Republicans go overboard.

Town hall meetings across th enationdo not support the view that people wnated a public option. It was in the original bill and had to be removed, even democrats wouldn't touch it. Earlier efforts to have a federal healthcare system, such as Hillarycare, failed because people didn't want it. Even the Democrats voted against them. Mitt Romney's experiment in state sponsored health-care is facing economic tribulations that have bankrupted the State.

From a quick google search front page results: Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option

CBS News/New York Times Survey Shows Most Americans Approve Of Government Intervention In Health Care Coverage

reuters Most in U.S. want public health option: poll

Sam Stein

[email protected] New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option

Maybe the polls you were reading came from the industry-funded interests who rig the questions to get the desired results. Dropping the Public Option is considered by many left pundits, one of the big reasons why most Democrats sat on their hands in the last election cycle and didn't go out to vote. And let's not forget that aside from fringe players like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Anthony Weiner etc., the Democrat leaders (including the President) did nothing and said nothing to make the case for the Public Option. The handling of this issue reminds me of the way McGuinty handled his promise to offer a referendum of proportional representation in the last election. He did nothing to promote it or explain it (even in election literature for Christs sake), but he wanted it to fail, and to come away saying that he tried.....I see the same thing with Obama on the Public Option issue.

I think this covers most of the important issues and I'm out of time, so I'll have to wrap this one up here...take care and have a nice weekend.

[Pliny]

Until the right-wingers in the movement killed al the leftists.

Sometimes reality gets in the way of ideology though, so I can understand why you would want to forget that.

They did? There are still a few neocons in there. They actually mix in well with the old ultra conservative republicans.

[Pliny]

And your free market/neoliberal economic ethos is also "income redistribution"...

Just a different form...

Neo liberal? What do you mean by that?

If someone or an agency is actively taking from one group and deeming he shall give it to another and that is the sum of his activities then it is income redistribution. But in a free market the individual decides where he will distribute his income.

[Pliny]

Is Pliny trying to tell us again that all Totalitarian/Authoritarian movements come from the Left again??

That the Fascism of Adolph Hitler,Benito Mussolini,Francisco Franco,Oliviera Salazar,General Augusto Pinochet were constructs of the political left?

Is he trying this silliness again?

Some people just can't admit they have a few nutbar extremists in their historical political closet I guess?

Don't forget, Stalin and Castro, Pol Pot and Mao. They were dictators weren't they? What's the difference.

If you pay attention, Jack. I have said that the right and left are irrelevant political terms.

Statism of all flavours are similarly big government, authoritarian and totalitarian.

And it is true that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists. Hitler didin't like the Communists because he thought they were controlled by the Jews and Mussolini was a member of the Italian socialist movement from the time he became involved in politics until the early twenties when he was forcibly kicked out.

Read Hitler's national socialist "workers" party manifesto and tell me if it sounds socialist or not.

[Pliny]

Well, I guess it's time to get to work! I was avoiding this post because of limited time and I knew this would take me a while to get through:

Hope your week-end is going well or went well if it has passed.

Most of what you have written is in defence of leftist ideology. I do not adhere to leftist or rightist doctrine. It is true I have more in common with conservatism socially but both Republican and Democrat or Conservative and Liberal parties of the US and Canada are more interested in gaining the power seat than reducing the size of goevernment. While liberals will grow government their way, republicans will grow it their's and neitehr side of the electorate will tolerate a loss or reductoin of already gained entitlements.

Basically, your support of the left leaves you with arguing with the right. I am for small government and think society should be developed the way the people develop it not how the State develops it.

Wasn't that an early Christian economic model? Acts 2:44-47 (New International Version, ©2010)

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

The above for instance you should agree with. Good leftist doctrine. Are you a Christian?

Or do you think this is right wing religious doctrine?

That could be why it wasn't working for the Pilgrims, and they had to divy up the land and have everyone grow their own food.

Yes, communal living did not work for the Pilgrims. Some fell ill or became infirm and the ones left were living on what meagre supplies they could muster. The strong became too weak and overworked to provide for all and it made no sense to continue or all would die. When they changed the system and divy'ed up the land they found enough could be produced for all. This occurred merely because there was an incentive and once ones needs were filled they could produce enough for all.

The problem with capitalism is that it makes no distinction between wants and needs. And today, for the most part, we have a generation that has no capacity to tell the difference, and runs headlong into debt regardless of their income -- there is always more crap to buy.

Is that capitalism? Unfettered Capitalism hasn't been around for at least a century. I don't understand how it could be blamed for people not being able to tell the difference between wants and needs.

If the economy is bad the opposition blames the government and it's fiscal policies and the government blames market circumstances. If the economy is good the government takes the credit and extols the virtue of their fiscal policy while the opposition either looks at their shoes or points to some other fiasco. Capitalism? Where is it? Corporations aren't running the world they, like a hundred other special interests are lobbying for favour and privilege from government. Government deciding winners and losers.

There are reasons that people can't tell the difference between needs and wants, as you see it, but it isn't capitalism.

A command economy, which is what most Marxist countries used at first, can be very successful in that early period. I'm reminded that during my youth, the Soviet Union was taken very seriously, not only as a military threat, but also as an economic threat. After WWII, and through the 1950's, the Soviet economy was growing as fast as the U.S. and Japan. Planning an economy to meet basic needs and plowing the rest into building more industrial production (what they called the input-input system) was very successful for at least 10 years. According to some older Ukrainians I talked to, they felt life was good until about the 1970's. That's when they started getting dissatisfied with their tenement flats, and having a very limited choice and selection of consumer products: there was only two or three different types of watches if available; most of the time there were too many of some clothing items and not enough of others. During the 70's, nylons and bluejeans were huge on the blackmarket....so, no doubt eventually a command economy is going to run into trouble dealing with the whims of the consumer.

But, is a consumer-driven economy the better choice? Besides the jaded values that have been instilled in young people, my other beef with what we have now is how do maintain this system at a time when it is approaching the limits to growth? As mentioned previously, the planet isn't growing to accommodate our wishes and demands! At some point very soon, we are going to hit the wall. A smart course of action would be to start slowing down now and re-adjusting our priorities; because the other choice is to go over the cliff like the inhabitants of Easter Island did centuries ago. Today the Earth is one giant Easter Island! And that's my main problem with our present economic system. We may not have the luxury of having the system that provides the highest level of economic growth for much longer.

Hit the wall? You mean run out of ideas? This pessimistic attitude prevails throughout history.

Command economy or consumer driven economy. The first is the Marxist nihilist brutal way that dre brought up and the second is the "gentle" liberal progressive nihilist route.

It is government that cannot sustain itself or grow without a growing consumption level. It is government that worries the most if people aren't working. It affects their revenues. Certainly most of us could barter or earn a buck or a meal if we needed to and hard times is when people pull together but government can't live on barter or labour.

In reality, humans started becoming hierarchical as soon as there was stuff to fight over.....in most places that meant that when the agricultural revolution began, we had land to defend, goods to accumulate and status to achieve and maintain. This is part of the reason why it is so difficult for aboriginal cultures to integrate into a modern dog-eat-dog world. But, since status and hierarchy are ingrained values, a "classless" society soon discovered that "some pigs have to be more equal than others" as according to Animal Farm. So, in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, Communist Party members had to be rewarded in some way according to their status within the Party. They had access to better housing, cars and even special stores where western consumer products were on the shelves. Even if they had to wear the same drab clothing, they found ways to distinguish themselves. For example, members of the Red Army in China all wore exactly the same uniforms, with no ranks or medals displayed....but western delegates soon were made aware that they could tell the rank of a military officer by the number of pens he had attached to his shirt pocket.

But, in both the U.S. and Canada, income gaps decreased from WWII to the 80's, and strongly coincided with progressive taxation. The move to flatter taxation, especially cuts to investment taxes and the top income bracket have created a surge in income for the wealthiest, while everyone else has stagnated over the last 30 years or fallen. If you want to help the poorest members of society, we have conclusively proven that you don't do it by giving tax breaks for the wealthy and hoping that it will trickle down to everyone else....this was the greatest hoax perpetrated in the last 30 years.

I believe aboriginal cultures, at least in North America, had their tribal wars.

We have conclusively proven that government, given the responsibility of helping the poor, will fail.

There are a myriad of agencies and organizations and groups and we find the ranks of the poor swelling.

Your view that it is because we don't tax the rich enough is odd but not uncommon. If the rich are taxed more then what will they have left to help the poor? Government certainly doesn't seem to be resolving the problem withtheir money. Oh yes, there is always the cry of lack of resources and never a shortage of theoretical presentations to experiment with.

But, a term like "creeping socialism" is meaningless without context. According to rightwing pundits and talk show hosts, anyone who breathes a word about raising upper income taxes or protecting pensions and medicare is a socialist. When it's applied to someone like President Obama, it becomes laughable, because here we have a leader who is working directly for corporate interests...check out his latest state visit from the Chinese Premier, and how he brought the chairmen of G.E., Goldman Sachs, Microsoft etc., and made the summit about advancing their economic interests in China, rather than anything that would directly benefit the average American. Another example would be his latest free trade agreement with South Korea, and his attempt to expand these trade deals in Latin America. If Obama worked as hard for the people who were swept up in the last election and voted for him, he might be somewhere on the left; but instead, he is putting the interests of the people who pay him, ahead of those of the ones who voted for him. From some of the early rumblings, I've heard that the Obama Re-election Campaign is hoping to raise one billion dollars for the 2012 election!!!!.....this is not the kind of money you get from internet contributions....this money...if he gets it, will be a reward from the captains of industry who want to thank him for carrying out their agendas, while throwing a few bones to the great unwashed masses to prevent any sort of instability that might threaten their prosperity.

Maybe, President Obama is turning into a neo-con.

In light of the recent firing of Keith Olbermann, it seems we have another example of just how far someone on the left can rock the boat before they are terminated. Consider all of the nutcases on the right who have TV and radio shows. The MSM has a few pet liberals on staff for much the same reason as Sean Hannity kept Alan Colmes around for several years - to give an appearance of balance and bi-partisanship. I'm thinking recently of Rachel Maddow and her condemnation of Wikileaks...and worse, her reluctance to even discuss the countless examples of malfeasance and war crimes that have been uncovered. Unless it's a gay issue, it's not a primary concern for her, and her silence over the suspension of Olbermann and now his termination, tell me that the liberal commenters on MSNBC and Huffpo who are worrying if she'll be next, have nothing to worry about.

well, I'm glad you think the right wing media is so powerful. Just go on thinking it.

I can spot the difference between what conservatives I would support. Most I have my disagreements with

and who know maybe I will be able to return to the classical roots of liberalism that existed prior to their ousting from the left by the socialiasts along with everyone else they viewed as competition.

Okay, I'm on their front page now, and there's a lot here that I agree with. I can better identify what's wrong than how to fix the problem....just like on the environment, the global warming crisis is getting so large, I'm a little lost on how it's going to be solved this late in the game.

A real socialist system may be impossible to create without going to war against the monied interests that run things, but gains can be made to level out a capitalist system if the rich start getting scared and decide to make concessions, rather than support a fascist tyranny. In South America, a number of resource-rich countries forced the foreign business interests to back down because they had the support of the majority of people on their side.

The real monied interests are the only ones interested in war. I think you will agree, most people don't like it, especially liberals. They will support the socialists if they wish the same as the western bankers supported the Communist revolution.

Some insurance companies consider Obamacare a necessary compromise, otherwise they wouldn't be sending campaign dollars his way. The deal-breaker was the Public Option...which had no legitimate arguments opposing it. Afterall if someone wanted to buy in to the government insurance system, why shouldn't they be free to do so? The right claims to be all about freedom, yet they were very adamant that this was one freedom they wouldn't allow the average citizen. And the Democrats....well, what can you say about them! They dangled that Public Option like a carrot, even though every insider who's been interviewed since, has told us that the Obama Administration or the Democratic-controlled Congress had no intentions from the start, to include that Public Option in the final draft of the Bill. Some businessmen are pragmatic, and the ones who support the Democratic Party are the business interests who want a Plan B just in case their slavishly devoted Republicans go overboard.

They did include a public option in the bill from the start. If there were one private insurance would have been history in no time.

From a quick google search front page results: Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option

CBS News/New York Times Survey Shows Most Americans Approve Of Government Intervention In Health Care Coverage

reuters Most in U.S. want public health option: poll

Sam Stein

[email protected] New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option

Maybe the polls you were reading came from the industry-funded interests who rig the questions to get the desired results.

Were yours a poll of the readership of the New York Times and the Huffington Post? And did they write the right questions. We can continue to bat this back and forth endlessly. Most Americans do want change in their health care system and it can be done. Once it becomes run by government, like the Canadian system, they won't be able to change it until it collapses. I am against it because then society cannot resolve its' problems on it's own. Frankly, I don't think it is constitutional but then again, in my view, neither is the Federal Reserve, and wouldn't you know it that ain't changing too soon.

Dropping the Public Option is considered by many left pundits, one of the big reasons why most Democrats sat on their hands in the last election cycle and didn't go out to vote. And let's not forget that aside from fringe players like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Anthony Weiner etc., the Democrat leaders (including the President) did nothing and said nothing to make the case for the Public Option. The handling of this issue reminds me of the way McGuinty handled his promise to offer a referendum of proportional representation in the last election. He did nothing to promote it or explain it (even in election literature for Christs sake), but he wanted it to fail, and to come away saying that he tried.....I see the same thing with Obama on the Public Option issue.

Dropping the public option was certainly not popular with the far left.

[dre]

Don't forget, Stalin and Castro, Pol Pot and Mao. They were dictators weren't they? What's the difference.

If you pay attention, Jack. I have said that the right and left are irrelevant political terms.

Statism of all flavours are similarly big government, authoritarian and totalitarian.

And it is true that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists. Hitler didin't like the Communists because he thought they were controlled by the Jews and Mussolini was a member of the Italian socialist movement from the time he became involved in politics until the early twenties when he was forcibly kicked out.

Read Hitler's national socialist "workers" party manifesto and tell me if it sounds socialist or not.

And it is true that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists

No thats actually not even remotely close to being true. It would be impossible for you to write that if you put even one iota of thought or research into it... same goes for the sophormoric "neocons are liberals" pap.

[Pliny]

No thats actually not even remotely close to being true. It would be impossible for you to write that if you put even one iota of thought or research into it... same goes for the sophormoric "neocons are liberals" pap.

Don't believe your eyes? It's a matter of record. Here's an iota.

Mussolinj

By now, he was considered to be one of Italy's most prominent Socialists. In September 1911, Mussolini participated in a riot, led by Socialists

NSDAP - National Socialist German Workers Party

Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists, the party supported middle-class citizens, and that the party's socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race.[

The big difference is national aspirations of German superiority as opposed to the international objectives of communism but their socialist concepts cannot be denied. Here's the NSDAP manifesto drawn up by Hitler amd Drexler since it appears you haven't read it.

We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people's right to self-determination.

We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.[12]

For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Pliny

[dre]

Under the Nazis the means of production was owned by capitalists. Youre making the common and rookie claims that have been debunked over and over again. Instead of looking at what Hitler actually DID once he was in power, you go by the name of the party, and some propoganda written to sway german opinion.

Hitler was just another crony capitalist, and hardcore right winger.

Don't believe your eyes? It's a matter of record.

No Pliny... its a matter of you revising history conform to your biases and prejudices. Its really nothing more than that at all.

Edited January 23, 2011 by dre

[Jack Weber]

Don't believe your eyes? It's a matter of record. Here's an iota.

Mussolinj

NSDAP - National Socialist German Workers Party

The big difference is national aspirations of German superiority as opposed to the international objectives of communism but their socialist concepts cannot be denied. Here's the NSDAP manifesto drawn up by Hitler amd Drexler since it appears you haven't read it.

Excellent...

Please explain the part where Mussolini ESCHEWED Socialism for his "Third Way"????

German Workers Party...Kinda like the "German Democratic Republic...

It's called semantics...

Mussolini,Hitler,Franco,Salazar...All right wing Fascists...

Edited January 23, 2011 by Jack Weber

[dre]

Excellent...

Please explain the part where Mussolini ESCHEWED Scoialism for his "Third Way"????

German Workers Party...Kinda like the "German Democratic Republic...

It's called semantics...

Mussolini,Hitler,Franco,Salazar...All right wing Fascists...

The said thing is that he could figure this out for himself if was willing to even do a little bit of research on what the "third way" is, and how fascists outright rejected BOTH capitalism and socialism.

The other notable thing is his linguistic scope creep. He thinks that since social welfare, and socialism both have the word "social" in them, that they are interchangable parts of the political lexicon when they most certainly arent. Socialists advocate state ownership of the means of production... if they dont... then they arent socialists. And he just never seems to learn... his argument in other threads that fascism and socialism are the same thing was not only completely curb-stomped by posters in those threads, but its been soundly and resolutely destroyed from every angle by historians, political scientists, economists, and everybody else thats taken even a summary look at how those societies were ran.

[Jack Weber]

The said thing is that he could figure this out for himself if was willing to even do a little bit of research on what the "third way" is, and how fascists outright rejected BOTH capitalism and socialism.

The other notable thing is his linguistic scope creep. He thinks that since social welfare, and socialism both have the word "social" in them, that they are interchangable parts of the political lexicon when they most certainly arent. Socialists advocate state ownership of the means of production... if they dont... then they arent socialists. And he just never seems to learn... his argument in other threads that fascism and socialism are the same thing was not only completely curb-stomped by posters in those threads, but its been soundly and resolutely destroyed from every angle by historians, political scientists, economists, and everybody else thats taken even a summary look at how those societies were ran.

Well...'Ol Pliny is a Conservative Libertarian who probably cannot come to grips with the fact that the political right has a few scary skeletons in its closet...

And your right,once in a while,his research leaves a little to be desired...

[dre]

Well...'Ol Pliny is a Conservative Libertarian who probably cannot come to grips with the fact that the political right has a few scary skeletons in its closet...

And your right,once in a while,his research leaves a little to be desired...

I kind of wistfully admire the guy to be honest. Reality can be a real ball and chain, and imagine being able to invent your own facts? Your own version of history? And actually believe it?

Im wondering if maybe the last laugh will be had at OUR expense!

[Pliny]

Excellent...

Please explain the part where Mussolini ESCHEWED Socialism for his "Third Way"????

The claim is that Mussolini was a socialist. This is unarguably true in his poltical career until 1920. When WWI came along he didn't support the socialists pro-war stance, and after the war was more or less excommunicated from the socialist party. At which point he declared,"I am still a socialist and will always be a socialist!"

It is kind of a given that once power in a government is centralized enough the leaders of particular socialist parties, who have obviously gained popularity (otherwise power would have remained in the hands of the people) heavily compete for that power. Such as the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia. The Communists, the Socialists and the NSDAP all ran on a socialist platform (Compare Communist and NSDAP manifestos). In Italy, Mussolini developed his own form of Statist socialism that is Fascism.

Socialists, or statists, desiring power for themselves tried to separate Nazism from their socialist movements in order to win back some of the socialist base that had left them. A lot of socialists turned to the Nazi form of socialism which was nationalistic, and promoted Aryan racial superiority - the science of Eugenics also being popular at the time. No other socialist party promoted or held nationalistic views more than the NSDAP. But their social policies were quite similar. They wanted complete control over health care, education, old age security, economics, etc.

Because Nazism and Fascism don't mention forwarding the proletariat as the owners of production or condemn the bourgeoisie doesn't make them less statist or less controlling. The ownership of production was mainly the state or determined by the State.

Read the NSDAP manifesto. It is not my opinion and it is what the Nazi's implemented.

German Workers Party..Kinda like the "German Democratic Republic...

Or the fully democratic former USSR.

It's called semantics...

Mussolini,Hitler,Franco,Salazar...All right wing Fascists...

Look at it like this. Try and find a similarity between the extreme left and the extreme right. Look st them not form a political spectrum but from their similarities and differences.

If one didn't know what side of the political spectrum the people political figures you mention have been assigned to and just looked at their regimes in general and how they were run one wouldn't be able to tell the social differences between the ones you mention and Stalin's, Castro's or Mao's. There are so many similarities, a central authority, totalitarian tactics, political prisoners, millions killed. Who cares that the economic models were somewhat different - they were all run by the State and the society was generally engineered by the State. That each dictatorial figure on both sides had their economic peculiarities doesn't make too much difference to the general populace. The State made the decisons for them in all cases.

Sweden is called socialist and hailed as the great example of socialism working in practicality.

Well, it is probably now less socialist than France. Norway another "socialist" state is being held up as successful but when it's oil runs out we'll see how tolerant of high taxes they will be.

I am not particularly rightest in my political view. I am for limited, small government. Perhaps because I view both the right and the left as proponents of large government I more easily see the similarities in growing government, how they come about and the State as dictator. I condemn both sides for fostering their big government special interests.

I am socially conservative because I believe the individual has to set his own ethical standards and live by them rather than have the State legislate ethics and mores. Left wing leaning Libertarians I think beleive that they can do and should be able to do whatever they want as long as other people aren't hurt by it and abandon the concept of right and wrong as being, like a moral, only an opinion. They can therefore, romp freely around doing drugs and hiring prostitutes and indulging in whatever form of depravity that doesn't "hurt" someone else.

[Pliny]

The said thing is that he could figure this out for himself if was willing to even do a little bit of research on what the "third way" is, and how fascists outright rejected BOTH capitalism and socialism.

that should read,"rejected both capitalism for corporatism and other socialist movements, particularly communism".

The other notable thing is his linguistic scope creep. He thinks that since social welfare, and socialism both have the word "social" in them, that they are interchangable parts of the political lexicon when they most certainly arent. Socialists advocate state ownership of the means of production... if they dont... then they arent socialists. And he just never seems to learn... his argument in other threads that fascism and socialism are the same thing was not only completely curb-stomped by posters in those threads, but its been soundly and resolutely destroyed from every angle by historians, political scientists, economists, and everybody else thats taken even a summary look at how those societies were ran.

"Social welfare" is a measure, a barometer if you will, of the amount of state control and intervention in society, that you cannot make the connection between social welfare and the level of socialism is your failing.

As for State ownership of the means of production, has Sweden ever been considered to be a socialist country or Norway or Denmark? By your measure they are not.

I do expect to be curb-stomped by people fed the pablum they have from even anyone else who has taken a summary look over the last seven or eight decades to spew it back out.

Remember history is always written by the victor or from the singular view of the historian, whom I do not expect to be an expert on economics, social engineering, political ideology, human behavior but to merely make an account of the record as he sees it or the victors tell him.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Reality can be a real ball and chain, and imagine being able to invent your own facts? Your own version of history? And actually believe it?

Most of what I post here is my opinion. However, something I post that is a matter of record that happens to disagree with other views or rub academics the wrong way cannot be disputed.

Im wondering if maybe the last laugh will be had at OUR expense!

I hope not! What will I do then?

[dre]

that should read,"rejected both capitalism for corporatism and other socialist movements, particularly communism".

"Social welfare" is a measure, a barometer if you will, of the amount of state control and intervention in society, that you cannot make the connection between social welfare and the level of socialism is your failing.

As for State ownership of the means of production, has Sweden ever been considered to be a socialist country or Norway or Denmark? By your measure they are not.

I do expect to be curb-stomped by people fed the pablum they have from even anyone else who has taken a summary look over the last seven or eight decades to spew it back out.

Remember history is always written by the victor or from the singular view of the historian, whom I do not expect to be an expert on economics, social engineering, political ideology, human behavior but to merely make an account of the record as he sees it or the victors tell him.

As for State ownership of the means of production, has Sweden ever been considered to be a socialist country or Norway or Denmark? By your measure they are not.

"Social welfare" is a measure, a barometer if you will, of the amount of state control and intervention in society, that you cannot make the connection between social welfare and the level of socialism is your failing.

That you dont understand the basic definitions of words is yours.

[LonJowett]

Actually, a more accurate barometer of state control over individuals' lives is the government's willingness to interfere in private citizens' daily habits and concerns.

Arguing for the continued prohibition of mariguana would make someone a "statist" on an almost fascist level, I would think.

[Bonam]

Communism would work if all the people were communists Iv been to communities that were basically structured this way, and it works fine, but only for people that like it and want to stay.

And what happens if someone grows up in the community and decides that they don't like communism?

[bloodyminded]

The great conspiracy. I abandoned the idea of conspiracy quite a few years ago.

WIP was not engaging in conspiracy theory, but in institutional analysis. The powerful try to retain and expand power. Whether you deem that a "conspiracy theory" or not doesn't change the truth of it.

One cannot deny there are plans and planners who are managing global issues, this is true, but the direction of policy and goals is obvious.

It is self-evidently not obvious, not to a lot of people. To many people--particularly to mainstream (conservative, liberal, and centrist) commentators and media leaders, Western militaries flit about the globe trying to do good, in the face of an ungrateful global majority.

Since you broguht up the notion of conspiracies, and all. That's a particularly virulent conspiracy, plagiarized from fairy tales.

[Pliny]

And what happens if someone grows up in the community and decides that they don't like communism?

Communes like the Amish, Hutterites and Mennonites manage to stay together but they must hold a common bond to be true. In the above mentioned communes religion provides the common bond. But you will notice they don't change with time and that is true of all belief systems that have concluded their social structure is the ideal. Imagination as to what could be better is gone. As these communes fall further and further behind in technological and scientific advance the less likely they are to sustain themselves. The young have a little more imagination. Gradually the agreed upon mores and beliefs will crumble.

So in order for a society to sustain itself, it must never reach an Ideal or constantly create a new one if it should happen to realize one.

So socialism is at best a short lived structure and the larger the population the shorter the guarantee of it's longevity.

[Pliny]

That you dont understand the basic definitions of words is yours.

That really put me away. Once again a real curb-stomping defeat.

[Oleg Bach]

Thank-you for that lesson in culture. I will have to remember that if I ever to decide to fight in the cold. Such a prospect is highly unlikely.

What are your thoughts of Joseph Stalin? Did he display the qualities described in your post?

No...firstly he was not even of Russian origin ...secondly he was hard hearted and extremely stupid...He killed anyone that could think..most of his best officers were destroyed and THAT cost millions of lives because of the brain drain to the grave...My dad operated as one of his elite honour guards at the Kremlin...Pops hated the guy and was tempted to kill him when close...but then I would not have been born...and we could not have that - could we? Stalin and other jerks like Hitler always had these weasil advisors that quietly ran the show...History lets those bastards go free...we will never know where the true evil dwells because all POWER is conducted in secrecy.

[WIP]

Hope your week-end is going well or went well if it has passed.

Thanks, fortunately the storm that started building Saturday in Niagara didn't get too bad. We were able to make it through.....and I try to get down to visit my mom at her nursing home every weekend.

Most of what you have written is in defence of leftist ideology. I do not adhere to leftist or rightist doctrine. It is true I have more in common with conservatism socially but both Republican and Democrat or Conservative and Liberal parties of the US and Canada are more interested in gaining the power seat than reducing the size of goevernment. While liberals will grow government their way, republicans will grow it their's and neitehr side of the electorate will tolerate a loss or reductoin of already gained entitlements.

If I had to pick, I would take growth for social development, rather than for rightwing pet projects like military and empire. The 50th anniversary of Ike's famous warning about allowing the Military-Industrial lobby to become too large really became apparent after the end of the Cold War, and only modest reductions in U.S. military took place. And most of the reductions in numbers were offset by growth of expensive, high-tech weaponry. A defense contractor who is producing multimillion dollar missiles for example, is not going to be motivated to try to lobby the political establishment to look for opportunities to use them. Even a little proxy war is necessary to waste a few, and make an argument for buying more. The main reason why America is stuck with an empire that is draining its financial reserves, is because there is so much money at stake in trying to maintain the empire. I'll take spending on health, welfare, education and infrastructure any day, instead of this!

Basically, your support of the left leaves you with arguing with the right. I am for small government and think society should be developed the way the people develop it not how the State develops it.

Why should government be small? Other than the obvious trend that larger systems tend to be more complicated and inefficient. The philosopher and ethicist Isaiah Berlin gave the best one line quote for why libertarian anarchy is a bad choice: “Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.” I've asked many fiscal rightwingers how a limited government that lowers taxes and legal controls on business is able to remedy the problems created by unscrupulous Wall Street firms, banks and big oil companies, and I'm not hearing anything except a faith-based notion that markets are self-correcting.

The above for instance you should agree with. Good leftist doctrine. Are you a Christian?

Or do you think this is right wing religious doctrine?

No, I`m not a Christian, but I think that would be a better principle to aspire to than `every man for himself` or something else that Any Rand supporters might come up with.

Yes, communal living did not work for the Pilgrims. Some fell ill or became infirm and the ones left were living on what meagre supplies they could muster. The strong became too weak and overworked to provide for all and it made no sense to continue or all would die. When they changed the system and divy'ed up the land they found enough could be produced for all. This occurred merely because there was an incentive and once ones needs were filled they could produce enough for all.

We don`t know completely what was going on at the time, but I am wondering if the Pilgrims` Calvinist ideology about the depravity of man might have been partially to blame. Why shouldn`t depraved people act depraved, if they have a strong suspicion that they are destined for hell anyway. There have been some examples of successful communal systems...the Israeli Kitbbutzim were success stories, although I haven`t heard lately if or how they function these days.

Is that capitalism? Unfettered Capitalism hasn't been around for at least a century. I don't understand how it could be blamed for people not being able to tell the difference between wants and needs.

Maybe it`s a matter of unfettered advertising. I know it eventually falls on the individual to have the right priorities in life, but there is so much about the excess of modern consumer culture that is unhealthy, both on a personal level and for society as a whole. So much energy wasted for buying crap by people who don`t know the difference between the things they want or the things they need. But, the capitalist system, in principle, makes no distinction between the two.

If the economy is bad the opposition blames the government and it's fiscal policies and the government blames market circumstances. If the economy is good the government takes the credit and extols the virtue of their fiscal policy while the opposition either looks at their shoes or points to some other fiasco. Capitalism? Where is it? Corporations aren't running the world they, like a hundred other special interests are lobbying for favour and privilege from government. Government deciding winners and losers.

Who pays for the lobbyists. A modern politician, regardless of ideology, has one of two choices: vote for what the people want, or vote for what the contributors and benefactors want. It seems to me that most are going with the money these days.

It is government that cannot sustain itself or grow without a growing consumption level. It is government that worries the most if people aren't working. It affects their revenues. Certainly most of us could barter or earn a buck or a meal if we needed to and hard times is when people pull together but government can't live on barter or labour.

And that becomes a problem for the whole economy, not just the politicians worried about re-election. At least up till now, a no-growth capitalist economy means higher unemployment and a decline in personal wealth for most people. So, when we hit the limits of growth, how does capitalism help us deal with the situation.

We have conclusively proven that government, given the responsibility of helping the poor, will fail.

Then why is it that things are getting worse in the age of the cutbacks to social programs.

Your view that it is because we don't tax the rich enough is odd but not uncommon. If the rich are taxed more then what will they have left to help the poor? Government certainly doesn't seem to be resolving the problem withtheir money. Oh yes, there is always the cry of lack of resources and never a shortage of theoretical presentations to experiment with.

There is a false argument that influences too many people, that trickle-down economics is real. Somehow the crumbs fall off the table and benefit everyone down the food chain...but it doesn`t happen! As the rich have gotten richer over the last 30 years, the other income groups have stagnated and fallen back in real income. The era of higher taxes on the rich also coincided with the growth of the middle class and the lessening of income disparities. Since 1980, all of this has started to unravel. Since the threat of Communism and the Soviets were previously mentioned, I`m starting to think that the wealth class was in a more generous mood during the Cold War, especially at the beginning; because they really feared being overrun by foreign and domestic communists. The problem is that, as it stands today, the right has feared no confiscation of wealth for the last 30 years. Maybe this threat has to be revived before we can expect them to do anything more than advance their own interests at everyone else`s expense.

Maybe, President Obama is turning into a neo-con.

Obama got a lot of Wall Street money early on when Hillary was the expected Democratic nominee; what was promised in return for their generous donations to his campaign. It might explain a lot of why his administration is so anemic at dealing with Wall Street and other business interests.

Were yours a poll of the readership of the New York Times and the Huffington Post? And did they write the right questions. We can continue to bat this back and forth endlessly. Most Americans do want change in their health care system and it can be done. Once it becomes run by government, like the Canadian system, they won't be able to change it until it collapses. I am against it because then society cannot resolve its' problems on it's own. Frankly, I don't think it is constitutional but then again, in my view, neither is the Federal Reserve, and wouldn't you know it that ain't changing too soon.

Dropping the public option was certainly not popular with the far left.

The public option or the promise of a Medicare-buy in, were not popular with the private insurance companies; but I`m still waiting to hear an answer of why having a public choice should not have been made available for the average American. And that`s why most of the legitimate polling showed it to be a popular choice. The false negative polls were the product of clowns like Rasmussen, that considered all negative responses to be opposition to a public option - including the responses from people who said the public option didn`t go far enough. That`s why you can`t just take a polling number at face value....especially from a polling service for Foxnews.

[Pliny]

If I had to pick, I would take growth for social development, rather than for rightwing pet projects like military and empire. The 50th anniversary of Ike's famous warning about allowing the Military-Industrial lobby to become too large really became apparent after the end of the Cold War, and only modest reductions in U.S. military took place. And most of the reductions in numbers were offset by growth of expensive, high-tech weaponry. A defense contractor who is producing multimillion dollar missiles for example, is not going to be motivated to try to lobby the political establishment to look for opportunities to use them. Even a little proxy war is necessary to waste a few, and make an argument for buying more. The main reason why America is stuck with an empire that is draining its financial reserves, is because there is so much money at stake in trying to maintain the empire. I'll take spending on health, welfare, education and infrastructure any day, instead of this!

Conservatives would disagree with you about the military, I suppose. I am inagreement with you on this.

But...if the country should have just a minimal standing army, if one at all, then people must be able to keep arms themselves. That's the other side of the coin that you would disagree with.

Why should government be small? Other than the obvious trend that larger systems tend to be more complicated and inefficient. The philosopher and ethicist Isaiah Berlin gave the best one line quote for why libertarian anarchy is a bad choice: Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs. I've asked many fiscal rightwingers how a limited government that lowers taxes and legal controls on business is able to remedy the problems created by unscrupulous Wall Street firms, banks and big oil companies, and I'm not hearing anything except a faith-based notion that markets are self-correcting.

The wolves are few and the lambs are many which is why I would even tolerate a small limited government, to ensure those small number of wolves were kept pent up and liberty was ensured for the lambs. Unscrupulous, fraudulent, criminal Wall St. firms, banks and oil companies? They all exist now with big government. That is what you see today isn't it?

What government does is lower people's necessity to look for themselves. Government is supposed to do all the due dilligence and we are supposed to have guarantees and insurances, a risk free investing climate and money if we fall on our face. Wall st. is particularly tricky because poeple know they are investing with a certain amount of risk on return. They may lose everything. Government cannot eliminate the risk all it can do is police the players. One of the basic problems with Wall St. is that what is called money is not money anymore. It is too easy to change it into different forms of paper and trade that.

No, I`m not a Christian, but I think that would be a better principle to aspire to than `every man for himself` or something else that Any Rand supporters might come up with.

In supporting that principle one could mistake you for a conservative.

Ones longevity is risked if they live by the rule "every man for himself". I think most people know that. It even sounds criminal and violent - but perhaps that is the intent. People live better when their is a division of labour and a voluntary co-operative effort in society. I don't think that was the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I saw a bit of elitism in her works which I didn't care for but she was just illustrating the intervention of the state and it's encroachment upon individuals and society.

Since she came from the USSR to the US in the thirties she was well aware of the overwhelming power of the totalitarian/authoritarian State.

She was very controlling herself, from what I understand.

We don`t know completely what was going on at the time, but I am wondering if the Pilgrims` Calvinist ideology about the depravity of man might have been partially to blame. Why shouldn`t depraved people act depraved, if they have a strong suspicion that they are destined for hell anyway. There have been some examples of successful communal systems...the Israeli Kitbbutzim were success stories, although I haven`t heard lately if or how they function these days.

It isn't the depravity of man but the weaknesses of the flesh. Man, for the most part attempts to direct and control his life in a moral and ethical manner to the point of personal sacrifice.

Some use treachery and debauchery as a form of control over others.

I think most of those Pilgrim's would have left that outpost to die on their own rather than violate the oath they had taken but in the end all finally agreed to amend.

I think small communes can work if there is a common bond between members that they all do abide by on their own volition. Policing themselves individually and turning themselves in as "sinners" soto speak when they violate the rules.

The larger the population the harder to keep a common bond strong enough that each can and will police themselves on.

Maybe it`s a matter of unfettered advertising. I know it eventually falls on the individual to have the right priorities in life, but there is so much about the excess of modern consumer culture that is unhealthy, both on a personal level and for society as a whole. So much energy wasted for buying crap by people who don`t know the difference between the things they want or the things they need. But, the capitalist system, in principle, makes no distinction between the two.

the problem is a key property of money is missing in today's "money". It is that missing quality that drives consumerism. People used to not waste anything - they darned their socks, repaired their shoes and made things last as long as possible. Government removed that quality so they could stabilize wages and prices on a general or macroeconomic level. The Keynesian general theory of economics was adopted which was basically an institutionalization of already developed banking practices.

It was adopted more as a protection of the banking system than the general welfare of the people.

Who pays for the lobbyists. A modern politician, regardless of ideology, has one of two choices: vote for what the people want, or vote for what the contributors and benefactors want. It seems to me that most are going with the money these days.

The special interests. The public can be propagandized or cultivated and finally forced to go along.

And that becomes a problem for the whole economy, not just the politicians worried about re-election. At least up till now, a no-growth capitalist economy means higher unemployment and a decline in personal wealth for most people. So, when we hit the limits of growth, how does capitalism help us deal with the situation.

The answer lies in the missing quality that has been extricated from the defintion of "money". That quality would eliminate debt and increase savings that allow any period of slow or no growth to be ridden out by the people. Our form of money only allows government to ride it out by deficit spending and borrowing.

Then why is it that things are getting worse in the age of the cutbacks to social programs.

I don't see soical porgrams disappearing? Cutbacks is a kind of doublespeak word. Today cutbacks refer to, not a cutback in budget, as one immediately thinks, but a cutback to the usual annual increase in budget.

There is a false argument that influences too many people, that trickle-down economics is real. Somehow the crumbs fall off the table and benefit everyone down the food chain...but it doesn`t happen! As the rich have gotten richer over the last 30 years, the other income groups have stagnated and fallen back in real income. The era of higher taxes on the rich also coincided with the growth of the middle class and the lessening of income disparities. Since 1980, all of this has started to unravel. Since the threat of Communism and the Soviets were previously mentioned, I`m starting to think that the wealth class was in a more generous mood during the Cold War, especially at the beginning; because they really feared being overrun by foreign and domestic communists. The problem is that, as it stands today, the right has feared no confiscation of wealth for the last 30 years. Maybe this threat has to be revived before we can expect them to do anything more than advance their own interests at everyone else`s expense.

Things haven't changed that much. Government has gotten more expensive and that's probably why the gap between rich and poor is widening. It is that the lower class is marginalized by any increase in taxes and becomes poorer, his buying power decreasing with annual inflation. the rich can absob the extra costs and still appear to be rich.

Obama got a lot of Wall Street money early on when Hillary was the expected Democratic nominee; what was promised in return for their generous donations to his campaign. It might explain a lot of why his administration is so anemic at dealing with Wall Street and other business interests.

I don't trust Obama. He realizes that in order for him to win a second term he can't plug his usual big government programs and expect Americans to swallow them. Finding out what's in them after they are passed. Deep down he is a socialist.

The public option or the promise of a Medicare-buy in, were not popular with the private insurance companies; but I`m still waiting to hear an answer of why having a public choice should not have been made available for the average American. And that`s why most of the legitimate polling showed it to be a popular choice. The false negative polls were the product of clowns like Rasmussen, that considered all negative responses to be opposition to a public option - including the responses from people who said the public option didn`t go far enough. That`s why you can`t just take a polling number at face value....especially from a polling service for Foxnews.

They have a public choice already in medicaid and medicare.

We can argue about what polls are legitimate but...their accuracy is generally not proven unitl after.

I think, judging from the losses in the mid-terms last November by the Democrats that the Rasmussen polls were fairly accurate. The "legitimate" polls you liked were alittle more rosy than reality.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Pliny

[WIP]

Conservatives would disagree with you about the military, I suppose. I am inagreement with you on this.

But...if the country should have just a minimal standing army, if one at all, then people must be able to keep arms themselves. That's the other side of the coin that you would disagree with.

Conservatives and liberal war hawks are only able to justify the size and cost of the U.S. Military by continually pressing the alarm button. This has been the pattern all through the 60's and up till the present. We didn't learn until decades later, that McNamara and the later Nixon Administration drum beaters greatly exaggerated the conventional Soviet threat at every turn....which was conveniently used by the defense contractors to build more aircraft carriers, and more sophisticated and expensive planes, tanks, missiles etc. And then, when Soviet weaponry was finally tested in battle during the first Gulf War, they tried to play dumb and express their surprise at how poorly the Soviet-bought planes, tanks and anti-aircraft guns performed. It was a confidence game from the start, and it still is from what can be discerned from the low level cables revealed by Wikileaks. But, the worst aspect of the Military Industrial Complex is not the enormous cost; it's the incentives to constantly be at war and looking for new wars, because of defense industry lobbyists.

The "well regulated militia" envisioned by the Founding Fathers is a good illustration of why constitutions (like bibles) have to be interpreted in the present, not treated like an instruction manual! Back in those times, a collection of farmers with muskets and bayonets, were an army; and with a little training, could be an effective army. This is not the case today; and the notion that 'bearing arms' is for protecting the nation is pure fantasy of the gun nuts.

The wolves are few and the lambs are many which is why I would even tolerate a small limited government, to ensure those small number of wolves were kept pent up and liberty was ensured for the lambs. Unscrupulous, fraudulent, criminal Wall St. firms, banks and oil companies? They all exist now with big government. That is what you see today isn't it?

Who is giving orders to whom? Are the politicians telling the business leaders what to do? Or are the corporate paymasters selecting the politicians who's primary objective is to carry out their interests? I would argue the latter, based on the evidence presented by their actions. The only difference I can see between Republicans and 90% of the Democrats, is that the Repubs worship money and the people who've got it....recalling that embarrassing example during the summer of one Texas Congressman apologizing on behalf of the Government to Tony Hayward, the CEO of British Petroleum. The Democrats try to have it both ways -- pretend that they are only concerned about the people, while doing their best to keep corporate contributors happy.

I posted this short essay called Inverted Totalitarianism before; at the present, it provides the clearest explanation of who's in charge. The primary difference between this upside down fascism and the typical fascism we understand as dictatorial rule, is that author Sheldon Wolin sees the corporations as the real power base in the present political system; whereas the usual fascist examples of Hitler and Mussolini, give us a cowed aristocracy and business class that takes orders from a political ruler. But, if we consider that business leaders in Italy and Germany, turned to Mussolini and Hitler to protect them and their money from the Communists, it's not a big stretch to see that an inverted totalitarianism could turn into a real fascism once society becomes unstable. When the rich start to fear for their wealth, and their lives, then the opportunistic fascist leader, skillfully using all of the rhetorical buttons of faith, patriotism, domestic and foreign enemies, will be the one they back to save their hides. But hopefully that day doesn't come too soon.

What government does is lower people's necessity to look for themselves. Government is supposed to do all the due dilligence and we are supposed to have guarantees and insurances, a risk free investing climate and money if we fall on our face. Wall st. is particularly tricky because poeple know they are investing with a certain amount of risk on return. They may lose everything. Government cannot eliminate the risk all it can do is police the players. One of the basic problems with Wall St. is that what is called money is not money anymore. It is too easy to change it into different forms of paper and trade that.

There is just so much to go through, it could take a whole page in itself. But, the 'let the buyer beware' dictum falls flat in light of more recent revelations that the modern convoluted mortgage financing scheme has seen scores of houses foreclosed by banks that can't even prove they have legal title to the properties! That, and 30 page fineprint mortgage contracts with escalator clauses etc. and there is a clear case of outright fraud committed not only to these buyers, but also the investors in mortgage-backed securities who were grossly misled about the level of risk involved. The whole thing was a ponzi scheme that was due to fail as soon as real estate prices hit their limit....and yet Bernie Madoff was the only one sent to prison! Most likely because his victims were among the rich and powerful, not the average homeowner!

In supporting that principle one could mistake you for a conservative.

Conservatism is not about sharing the wealth...it's a pragmatic political philosophy that started from observing the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, to present a way for aristocrats to adapt to change when necessary, while preserving most of their power. Edmund Burke had no intentions of sharing the wealth...or at least sharing any more than would be absolutely necessary to preserve the class system.

Ones longevity is risked if they live by the rule "every man for himself". I think most people know that. It even sounds criminal and violent - but perhaps that is the intent. People live better when their is a division of labour and a voluntary co-operative effort in society. I don't think that was the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I saw a bit of elitism in her works which I didn't care for but she was just illustrating the intervention of the state and it's encroachment upon individuals and society.

Since she came from the USSR to the US in the thirties she was well aware of the overwhelming power of the totalitarian/authoritarian State.

She was very controlling herself, from what I understand.

Yes, she was all full of contradictions in her personal life, but even in her writing, her claim to fame is that she provides legitimacy for greed and self-interest, which were universally considered vices prior to her. Now every self-important billionaire from Trump to the Koch Brothers can pretend their John Galt, and are the real heroes of the story, instead of the villains. She turned the whole basis for morality upside down by trashing altruism, and fabricating her own substitute: "ethical egoism" as if this was something that could be internalized by a society and replace a basic lesson that parents try to teach their children when they're young: to not be selfish, and help others.