Steve Forbes - The Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs

Yes, there are many far right "syncophantic" fans of the capitalists here. They admire what they can't have, while those of us who done well simply smile at and wish the wingnuts well.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That you see no irony there is quite amusing.

And it's "sycophantic" stupid. Trying to use words you cannot spell and don't understand really exposes you for the idiot you are.
 
I'm amazed that Conservatives continually preach that we should trust the capitalists, who have absolutely no obligation or sense of responsibilty to anyone but themselves, and not trust the government, which is responsible and accountable to us and which ultimately we control.

At this point in time government for and by the people is a government that puts a leash on all the irresponsible pigs that have caused this economic crisis and makes damn sure that it doesn't happen again.

There are some few responsible, ethical capitalists and they won't be affected by increased regulation, since most of it restricts activity that they would not participate in anyway. They also don't whine about paying taxes as they're intelligent enough to understand that they are part of an economically interdependant soceity and that their own wealth is due to both the freedoms and protections of that society.

But the biggest hinderence to the progressive movement to create an economically fair and free soceity is the legions of conservative sycophants who for fear that an economically fair soceity would be an economic disaster for them and who therefore spend their lives lustfully kissing pig ass in the vain hope of aspiring to the same.

:cranky:

Progressivism doesn't create a free or fair society. It's essentially Fascism. Progressives are fascists.

We define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production, socialism as state ownership of the means of production, and fascism as splitting the difference , with government CONTROLLING private ownership of the means of production. The "Third Way".

Just as communism, defined as public ownership of the means of production, and socialism both, in practice, result in state ownership... so too does fascism. Because, absolute control of a thing IS de facto ownership of it. All collectivist ideologies are essentially the same, as they have the same end result... power and wealth held by the few who are cagey enough to rise up over the many.

The struggle is NOT Democrats against Republicans or liberals against conservatives. It's Collectivism as opposed to Individualism. Liberty.

Our founders UNDERSTOOD human nature. We are imperfect beings with the potential for great compassion AND the potential for great destruction. Greed is as natural to us as generosity. Ambition as compelling as contentment. The framers were educated men, even by our standards. What's more, they had a fundamental reliance upon the study of philosophy, human thought recorded for posterity going back for as long as written history.

They selected carefully from these philosophies in their desire to gift their progeny with the best system they could devise. It's not an accident that the first mention of "rights" is our right to our own property. When we boil it all down, the centerpiece of our system is the Freedom to act in our own Self-Interest, just so long as we aren't impinging upon the rights of other citizens to do the same.

It's no coincidence that Self-Interest is also the driving force of Capitalism.

This is not a system which guarantees equal results to all people. All it guarantees is equal opportunity by virtue of freedom for each citizen to act in his own self-interest, without molestation by the government, so long as he is not impinging upon the unalienable rights of others to do the same.

A collectivist would no doubt find this system less than "fair" on grounds that not all citizens are equally capable. And that's true. But... the collectivist fails to understand just how true it is. The cream WILL rise to the top. More capable human beings will inevitably be more successful than less capable ones. The difference between a system run on freedom of self-interest and a collectivist system is that one is no longer FREE to act in his own best interest. The determination of what his best interest should be is made by others, those who have risen to the top of the power structure. The citizen is then dependent upon the good will of other men and not himself, and as we know... man is an imperfect being, greed as apt as generosity, ambition as endemic as contentment.

Rather than place your faith in yourself... you've placed it in the hands of another, who, as is natural to humans, has his OWN self-interest at heart. And lest you invest that faith in the notion of Democracy...
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-John Adams, 1814

The belief that Democracy will surely protect us is an immature one which doesn't take human nature into account. In actuality, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch". :eek:

Unmolested, it always results in mob rule with the ruling class promising anything and everything to keep themselves in power. We see that clearly in run-away entitlement programs that cannot be fixed because no politician can expect to be elected if he goes on the record to say what we all know must be done. Instead, he BUYS his power as he buys his votes, promising more and more from the public treasury.

Eventually though, the public treasury ends up empty. And the promises cannot be fulfilled because there's nothing much left with which to fill them. And lacking the freedom to act on our own self-interest, we are dependent upon whatever scraps the ruling class can manage to scrape together and ration to us. This is done to mollify the public as best they can, and the portioning decided in whatever way benefits the continuation of power and personal self-interest of the ruling class.

Democracy is fatally flawed. It always has been. Our framers KNEW it through their intensive study of history and philosophy. That's why they gave us a Democratic REPUBLIC, cemented in Constitutional Law.

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin...
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."


They designed for us a system of Limited Government and gifted us with the freedom of Individualism, Liberty. This done, so that each of us could act in our own best interest without molestation, making the most of our lives to whatever degree we're capable.

Collectivists would make pejoratives of words like "Self-Interest" and "Capitalism". But they fail to note the FREEDOM of Individuality embedded in this verbiage, placing their trust instead in a Utopian ideal which is unnatural to the state of man.

The collectivist sees the economy as a pie, where in his arbitrary sense of fairness, each citizen should be provided with an equal slice. The Individualist, the Capitalist, understands that as long as we are in possession of the freedom to do so... we can always make MORE PIE. A preferable state of affairs indeed, in that once a pie is devoured, there is no more unless we MAKE more.

Understand... that the state cannot produce enough pie to fuel a robust economy. It is self-interest, the ability to succeed and to profit, which fuels both quality and abundance. This too is human nature. The self-interest of government bureaucrats is limited to acquiring power and wealth for themselves and UNTIED to the production of product. But the self-interest of an individual causes him to strive, in boldness, for economic success, resulting in quality of product for the sake of quantity sales.
More initiative. More creativity. More pie.

Capitalism is not a dirty word. Neither is "regulation". Republicans DO acknowledge the need for some regulatory intervention. That's why the Constitution enumerates it as a government power. But there is a world of difference between the use of regulation, limited to the bare amounts necessary for the security of the country as a whole, and the massive amounts proposed by Progressives which would result in de facto ownership of private production by the state. And that difference DOES, in fact, "remake" America as Barack Obama has said was his intent. Only a fool would believe that THAT's a good thing.

We've already seen the failures of the proposition. It's an old one which has NEVER worked to any degree of success. Just as Steve Forbes has said. It's "the last gasp of the dinosaurs". They've stomped us nearly to death since the time of FDR, but they cannot last much longer. They've eaten up all the pie. :eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top