novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts in Socialism

So we have a state election for the top candidates and the zombies (that would be mindless/low information voters) elect 2.5 sleazy candidates. McAwful was right up front on his socialist intentions. Herring made assertions to pander to a select voting block. He informed that block that he would work to CHANGE the law (a constitutional amendment). Unfortunately, instead of doing it the legal way and upholding his newly sworn oath as the chief law guru for the state, he pulls a Holder and gets to decide what he will and will not enforce. Check it out. So he lied to reach his position. Now he is refusing to do his job. Perfect.

And meanwhile, the lefties are all about ruining their enemies’ lives, like what they are doing to McDonnell. Unfortunately, what McDonnell did was not against the law in Virginia. Who else do we know who got hung for NO wrong doing. I’m not saying that it doesn’t appear personally unethical, but that doesn’t make it a crime. Just change the rules. The lefties know this and that is why there is a FEDERAL indictment, where there is no jurisdiction. Sound familiar still? Well, aside your personal feelings on this, is this any worse than these clowns? I mean really, what’s the stink? Hmmmm?

I liked this satirical picture from Dan Mitchell’s site so much that I wanted to share it with you all here. Question of the day: Is it is more compassionate to give away other people’s money or did Jesus intend for us to feed the poor and donate our own money using our own free will?

When you go vote make sure the result is what you intended. There have been reports of people voting Romeny, and getting Obama as the result. In one case the citizen had to vote THREE times to get their intended result — which was a vote for Romney. Considering how many places this has happened there is a distinct possibility that something foul is afoot. The latest reported such incident occurred in Topeka, Kansas:

“He played around with the field a little and realized that in order to vote for Romney, his finger had to be exactly on the mark,” Nancy wrote in an email. She said “the invisible Obama field came down about 1/4 [of an inch]” into what should technically have been the Romney area.

It appears that the ‘calibration’ is rigged to cause mistakes in the Democrat’s favor. Last week the reports of such incidents in Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, Colorado, and Missouri. In all states where this has occurred the error is always in Obama’s favor. Coincidence? Only if you believe in the Easter Bunny.

As Edmund Burke once said:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.

Do something. Go out and vote. Pay very close attention to the result coming up on the machine. You can get a printout of your vote; do this. The Democrats are desperate, and their dear leader is from Chicago. Need I say more?

Thomas Sowell, mentioned in an earlier post, wrote a wonderful article, The Fallacy of Redistribution. Sowell’s article concentrates on the practical aspects — redistribution has never achieved its stated goals, and never will. I want to examine the fallacies and hypocrisy inherent in the redistributionist philosophy itself.

In the United States, great wealth has invariable come from someone offering goods and services that others purchased. The Kennedy’s, for example, “allegedly” got their wealth trucking booze in from Canada during Prohibition. Gates got his wealth producing and selling software. Buffet got his wealth as an investment manager. In every case, people purchased what they were producing. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and architects sell their professional services. Even hairdressers and barbers get their money selling their services. The difference is that people value the services of doctors, lawyers, architects, and engineers more than they value the services of hairdressers and barbers. If hairdressers and barbers tried to charge the same rates as lawyers and doctors, no-one would purchase their services. (Well, almost no-one.)

Sure, some people inherited their money. So what? If they are stupid, they will spend it all an be broke. It’s not much different from winning the lottery. And isn’t that part of the American Dream — to leave your children better off than you were? Sure. Even the 0bama’s send their daughters to private school. Is that “fair” to the poor kids who cannot afford private school? Well, since 0bama does not support school vouchers, I guess he doesn’t really care about fairness in that regard. But even inherited money was first earned by the person it was inherited from.

So, that money was earned in free exchanges. If you don’t think Microsoft Windows is worth the price Gates wants to charge you, don’t buy it. Just get a pirated copy from the Chinese. Do you think the 5-Season set of Babylon 5 CD’s is overpriced? Don’t buy it. Just get a pirated copy from the Chinese.

People do not purchase products and services if they think the price is too high. Nor will producers sell at a price they do not consider fair. That is the beauty of free commerce — both sides think they are getting a good deal. Every purchase truly is a win-win scenario.

But along come the redistributionists, who think you were robbed! The man that sold you that widget charged you too much. You were too ignorant and stupid to see it at the time, so you paid too much. Your doctor charges too much, and you are too ignorant and stupid to know it. So the redistributionists have to come in, take some money from the doctor, and give it back to you stupid and ignorant people.

So, if the masses are so stupid and ignorant that they are repeatedly getting overcharged, how can these stupid and ignorant people possibly be trusted with the franchise?

Now, let’s look at the source of the money instead of the sinks. If the people believe that a cause is worthwhile — The Boy Scouts, Planned Parenthood, Meals on Wheels, Head Start, the Virginia Association of Free Clinics — they will give their own money to those causes. They will start their own charities. If the people cannot be trusted to make wise decisions of how to donate their time and money, as consumers cannot be trusted to make wise decisions spending their money, how can they possibly be trusted with choosing those who will choose for them how much will be taken from them and what causes to put it to?

Those are the two dilemmas of redistributionism in a republic: the people are too stupid to spend their money wisely, and too stupid to give their money wisely, so how can they be trusted to vote wisely?

That is why redistribution requires totalitarianism.

citizen: Hello?
Peggy: Helloh, dis iz Peggy!
citizen: Yes?
Peggy: We have special offer today.
citizen: Not interested.
Peggy: Wait, it FREE Health Care!
citizen: Free?
Peggy: Yes, Iz Free!!
citizen: Free.
Peggy: Yes.
citizen: Bullshit. Nothing is free.
Peggy: No. is free.
citizen: Who is going to pay the Doctor?
Peggy: Doctor. Free.
citizen: Who is going to pay for the medicine?
Peggy: Medizine. Free.
citizen: Who is going to pay for the Hospital?
Peggy: Hoshpital. Free.
citizen: Bullshit. The Doctor ain’t gonna work for free, the drug companies are not going to give away the pills and the Hospitals need maintenance and utilities.
Peggy: Government pay. Not you.
citizen: Bullshit. Where do you think the government gets its the money from?
Peggy. I see. Need retraining.
citizen: You gonna get hit with the bat again?
Peggy: No. You go for retraining. Bye-Bye.

UPDATE:

For the intellectually vapid, and clueless, the above picture is of Peggy

The left is on the march. Hundreds of protesters, brought to you by Van Jones and George Soros are drinking latte’s from Starbucks, while pleading poverty. They cry police brutality while antagonizing and rushing the police. Their leaders obviously have read, Rules for Radicals by Alinsky.

So, a “U.S. Day of Rage” is scheduled to start an “Occupy Wall Street” camp-out on “17/9/2011″ (which would denote orchestration by those who use the British means of writing dates)

It all began late this summer, when the anti-capitalist magazine AdBusters put out a call for people to occupy Wall Street on Sept. 17. From Andrew Sullivan:

The article clearly states Adbusters’ hand in perpetuating this into being, which is exactly the problem. Adbusters makes caviar socialists like Dominique Strauss-Kahn look like the salt of the earth, saviors of the working class. They basically prey on college students and twenty-somethings unsure of themselves but with distrust in authority, selling their massive and expensive glossy magazine.

The Democrats attempted to smear the TEA Party by summarily declaring it to be ‘astro-turf.’ The trouble with that idea was there was no smoking gun, just a lot of innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations. The TEA party’s success is in large part due to the fact that there is no centralized command and control. The TEA Party protesters came in their hundreds of thousands and filled the National Mall. That level of participation is real democracy in action. Despite pipe dreams to the contrary, the movement as a whole is maintaining its independence from the GOP.

When the Tea Parties started. They were founded by Ron Paul supporters. Ever since Obama was sworn into office.The ranks were swollen with new comers standing against the socialist leftist agenda over taxes,the loss of freedoms and national sovereignty. These groups nationwide were eclipsing beyond the control of the Republican establishment. Any long term incumbent person in either party was booed in every public appearance they made.

On the other hand, the unemployed college graduates who are doing the protesting are getting a little organizational help right off the bat. ACORN is back. It has been resurrected as Take Back Boston, which is one of several fronts for the disgraced original.

Among the Take Back Boston organizers is a spinoff of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Amid a massive fraud scandal and a series of criminal probes, ACORN supposedly dismantled but the reality is that it simply changed its name. In fact, Judicial Watch recently published a special report (“The Rebranding of ACORN”) about the organization’s transformation into various spinoffs and affiliated groups.

Then there is the SEIU angle. This ‘occupy wall street’ idea has been in the works for some time. It appears that the only issue was not what to do, but when. SEIU called for a day of rage against Wall Street as early as March 25th of this year. The SEIU organization began planning in earnest back in March, and we are seeing the results.

On March 25 ACORN founder Wade Rathke, a one-time president of an SEIU local in New Orleans, announced what he described as “days of rage in ten cities around JP Morgan Chase.” Rathke said the forthcoming campaign of demonstrations, strikes and disruption will mark “the beginning of the anti-banking jihad.”

Obama is supporting this group. This should be no big surprise as SEIU made massive contributions to his campaign, and its officers visit The President often. It is also no big surprise that Obama supports Occupy Wall Street as many of their demands echo Obama Policy on many levels. It appears we are looking at the beginning of the Democrat campaign for 2012. The party has already ‘rallied’ behind the protesters.

Astro-turf indeed, the Democrats are hoping for a counter to the TEA party. This is not the same animal. The TEA party did not seek confrontation with the police. The TEA party actually looked like Middle America. The tattooed, pierced, anarchists/zombies are incoherent at best, and frighteningly violent and totalitarian in many cases.

The zeal for totalitarian government amongst some of the “protesters” is shocking. One sign being carried around read, “A government is an entity which holds the monopolistic right to initiate force,” which seems a little ironic when protesters complain about being physically assaulted by police in the same breath.

It appears The American People will get a truly stark choice in the election booth come 2012. The question is will the left let if get that far.

The government has no money except what it takes from the people.  But the people are not donating their money to the causes that the socialists want them to, so they have to take the people’s money to fund these causes.  So who is to decide how much money to take and which causes to give it to?  Well, the politicians, of course.  But who elects the politicians?  The same people whom the socialists think are not smart enough to decide where their money should go.

So there is the dilemma of democratic socialism: if the people are not smart enough to decide where their money should go, how can they be smart enough to decide who the deciders will be?