America's New Enemy

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Gentlemen, I fall inbetween all of you. I do not think that Mr. Galt's pronouncements will cause the fall of capitalism, very few would agree with John's quote:

Helping the welfare of others in the name of humanity is simply a waste. I admit that my ideas do leave some of the less fortunate people behind... but I am not one of them, and so I can say that welfare is a waste.

However, many would agree that government provided welfare has been a sieve, as well as a failure, as far as helping the poor, especially for those that could get out of poverty on their own, with a combination of help and incentives. The private charities may well be more qualified in accomplishing that goal, of both the giver and the recipient.

Government has always been about control and power, by those who rule. Those people, of whatever political stripe, by and large are ruled by lust for power. Some because they just enjoy it, others because they wish to forward their 'enlightened' agenda-whether it be far right or far left.

I am not against helping the 'poor' whether minority, majority, whole, or disabled, young or old. However, I DO believe in setting objectives and goals; incentives and cut-offs, (when the goals were obtainable); and the always absent 'means testing.' The just passed Medicare prescription plan is an example of the Republican's, (of which I am a registered member), lust for power. Are there people who need help with prescriptions? Undoubtedly. Are there people who should receive free presciptions? Are there some that could pay $10 per month? $20 per month? $200 per month? $10,000 per month?

If each were to pay what they could afford, the program would better suit those that can pay nothing and save money for the young people whose taxes are footing the bill. The rich do not need this kind of program, yet they will be entitled to it. The poor need much more than this provides, but it won't be there.

So why did this pass? The Republicans want to win, so like Clinton 12 years ago, they hijacked a popular Democrat idea, made it their own and got it through. The dems are no less power hungry. They are using rhetoric that may well be putting our nation at risk, by using bellicose election year rhetoric, which is not backed by Congressional action, (including democrats), but may well be giving aid to the misthinking of terrorists.

Very well said indeed Kathianne!

I would agree with you that the government does not need necessarily be the provider of welfare. The only problem is, is that if government doesn't have to help its people you are putting faith in our society to protect our poor, unlegistlated. I wish very much I could have that sort of faith, but i am afraid of the tyranny of the majority (This might open a can of worms). Now I now that very much makes me seem like a socialist, and I suppose in many respects I am. But certainly a humanist foremost.

However, it's very true the government welfare can be political tool and frankly that's a terrible thing. I for one would love nothing more that to rid the world of many politicians as I am sure everyone else would agree. In that sense, a welfare constitution in a the democratic tradition would perhaps be something that might be very different to seperate welfare from the politics, with, as you say and I agree wholeheartedly, cleary defined cutoffs.

Also, let me be clear. I am no opponent of capitalism. It's the best system we got. I also, ironically, think it could be another way of solving poverty in the world, however the capitalistic system has never put a large value of human life nor the environment in its equation, which I think is a terrible thing.

For some VERY interesting reading i would suggest "Natural Capitalism" by Hawkin, Lovins and Lovins. An amazing book in how capitalism with new rules could be more productive and social social and environmental problems.

 

[JohnGalt]

I am learning new things every day, and I love it... so I will definitely look for the book on better capitalism. However, I too have a recomended reading. The book is The Virtue of Selfishness, it is a combination of essays by Ayn Rand. It shows that the largest minority in the world is the individual, and to support minorities is to support the individual also. To comment on the Tryanny of the Majority would be a major mistake (for reasons of feirce response) so I won't. However, it is no secret that I don't hold much stock in humanity, only America, and so I also believe that, at first, affirmative action was grand. The minorities in the country should have every much a chance to succeed as any one else... but success requires effort, and welfare checks don't encourage any recepient to get a job.

Then I start to think, and my human side kicks in... there are indeed some circumstances in wich a welfare department is good. For example, when a wife with three young kid's husband dies, and she has to watch over the kids rather than get a job, then a welfare check is very ok. All in all welfare can be warranted, but I believe that it is a falacy to sign a check to a perfectly fine man whose only disadvantage is that he's foreign.

 

[Bry]

Yes it's easy to criticize wellfare when you have never been in need.

Ms. Rand can be very bad news for young readers. She's mind candy. I've never seen her on a university reading list unless it was to set her up as an easy target to be torn down as the course progressed. If you're really interested in theory on the individual and liberal capitalism, read John Rawls. Then read some of the people that take him on. Or better yet, here's a book that gives a good introduction, though it's seems a bit biased toward the Individualism side.

Communitarianism vs. Individualism
by Authors: Shlomo Avineri , Avner De-Shalit
Released: March, 1992
ISBN: 0198780281

 

[eric]

Very well said indeed Kathianne!

Yes, I agree very well said !

I disagree with John's philosophy of "every man for himself". Even though I support Capitalism 100% and believe it is the only system that could ever work in reality, we must not lose site of compassion. Now we must be careful in how we implement compassionate social programs, as there is a great potential for abuse. I do not have a problem with helping people who are truely in need, but our current system is little more than a joke and needs to be fixed.

 

[JohnGalt]

Originally said by Bry
Ms. Rand can be very bad news for young readers. She's mind candy. I've never seen her on a university reading list unless it was to set her up as an easy target to be torn down as the course progressed.

I am starting to agree. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is very harsh to the people that can't make it for themselves. My old teacher used to tell me that her basic flaw is that she forgot the "human factor"...now I know what he meant.

Compassion for other humans is OK. But I still can't advance myself by occupying my time with them. And I have not been shaken of the fact that looking out for myself is better than looking out for someone else. My mom works for a non-profit organization that helps pregnant teens get back on their feet...The organization has a very hard time getting grants, while the government has no problem dishing out money, if organizations like my mom's had the money that the government has, then it wouldn't go to waste helping the lazy. I think that I'll reitterate my earlier post when I say that the government shouldn't be a business, leave that to the people.

Originally said by Kathianne
Government has always been about control and power, by those who rule.

That is absolutely correct. And I have resigned to the fact that there is nothing that I can do to make politicians a little less power-lusted. But when you're 15 you make alot of those discoveries. And I am definetely eager to read those books.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

You know, communism is the best form of government...if the leaders use their power in the right way. Of course, that has never happened giving communism a bad name. Unless you always have honest people running the government, it won't work.

 

[Avatar4321]

"America's only new enemy is Socialism...unless you consider terrorism to be new. In that case you don't consider the assassination of Lincoln to be terrorrism."

I dont think either are very new. Socialism has been an enemy since Marx opened his mouth and Muslim Funadmentalists have been fighting the west since the founding of Islam.

 

[Avatar4321]

"You know, communism is the best form of government...if the leaders use their power in the right way. Of course, that has never happened giving communism a bad name. Unless you always have honest people running the government, it won't work."

This is BS. Communism doesnt work because it is fundamentally flawed. By denying people private property and making everyones pay equal it destroys the motivation to work hard and produce. Thus communism can never work even with the most virtuous person running things.

What makes communism worse is it fails to take into account the human nature. It refused to recognize that there are in fact evil people in the world. By refusing to take into account human nature, there are no checks or balances to stop communist regimes from destroying everything it touches.

Capitalism and Democracy work because they recognize that there is a darker side of humanity and creates ways use these darker impulses to check and balances powers while giving people motivation to work and produce.

There is a reason Capitalism works and Communism doesnt. It rooted in the fundamental ideas of the theory.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
You know, communism is the best form of government...if the leaders use their power in the right way. Of course, that has never happened giving communism a bad name. Unless you always have honest people running the government, it won't work.

Communism is terrible. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yay democracy!

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Communism is terrible. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yay democracy!

But if someone with good sense has absolute power, then they can truely create the greatest country in the world without the obstacles of a democracy.

 

[Avatar4321]

"But if someone with good sense has absolute power, then they can truely create the greatest country in the world without the obstacles of a democracy."

Having absolute power can exist without Communism. And you are right if you have a righteous ruler, you dont have problems. But as it takes alot of bloodshed to take absolute power from a wicked ruler, Democracy is far superior.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Better round up those swedes, norweigans and canucks. A little social welfare in the wrong hands could be quite deadly! Imagine Canadians gathering in throngs armed with their ruthless politeness, desire to end poverty and ideas of global citizenry. The consequences may be dire indeed.

I'm no fan of communism. It's a failed system, but last time I checked the social-welfare states of the above countries are hardly worthy of fear mongering, nor are they progressing into some sort authoritarianistic regime. In fact, I'd say these countries are doing progressing just fine as global citizens.

I reject the assertment that liberal socialist democracy is a "sickness of heart". It is a reaction to both the benefits and pitfalls of capitalism. I would even venture to say it is an embodiment of the evolution of our human social conscience and one that i am proud to me a member of.

It's more actually a distemper of the mind, as well as the heart, a sick, twisted outlook, based on a self induced paralysis and self loathing.