America's New Enemy

[JohnGalt]

America has faced a magnificent number of enemies in its short history. The greatest of enemies was communism, but since the 50's it has been slandered enough to ensure that it will never again hold a foothold with the goal of unifying the world. However, the world seems to have turned to communism's little brother, socialism, which has been tried on every continent in the world. The advocates of socialism argue that they do their work for the progress of man-kind, and this is their weapon. The first sign is famine such as in Cuba. And the true difference between capitalism and socialism has been answered once and for all, just look at east and west Berlin of the late eighties. The socialist leaders are power lusted and search for the unearned always. They are full of indefinable altruist slogans for the advancement of collectivism all for the purpose of supporting their self-deception. One sure way to spot a dangerous socialist leader is to look at the monuments he builds, for the purpose of his prestige. In the days of the pharaohs' thousands of men died so that their leader will be able to rest in a senseless structure so that he may have prestige in the eyes of the unborn future generations. America's greatness lies in the fact that her monuments aren't public. The skyline of New York is a far greater monument then the pyramids will ever be.
So remember, there will always be a no contest between humanrights and property-rights, No human rights can exist without property rights. Since the material goods that an individual man works for are produced by mind and effort, and are needed to continue to live, if the producer doesn't own the payment of his effort, then he doesn't own his life. Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming he right to treat human beings as nothing more than a herd of mindless cattle. When you think of socialism, think of the mindless mediocrity that was spawned not of effort, but of unearned prestige, and then think of the public park, public houses, public theaters, and then remember the New York skyline, and think of what made America.
Clearly America is under attack, not from the soundness of mind, but from the sickness of heart, and only the individual man with reason as his weapon could ever defeat the enemy.

 

[DKSuddeth]

just as good as the propagandists of the communist era.

congratulations.

 

[SLClemens]

Welcome to the board. Now what the heck are you talking about? Socialism is our greatest enemy now? OK, have fun riding your hobby-horse.

 

[JohnGalt]

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.

Bashing every one that is against Capialism is my hobby, but I have a just crusade, and will fight it out with anyone.

 

[eric]

Hey John, nice to have a fellow capitalist on board.

 

[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.

 

[SLClemens]

Very well put, isaac. There's no such thing as absolute capitalism - every country has it to a degree. Even North Korea has to work with it and recognize the necessity of a black market. Capitalism - the private ownwership and free exchange of goods - is just the most natural system. If Jon is so distressed by socialism, I wonder what he thinks of public money spent on schools, roads, government investment in research and development, farm subsidies, and veterans' affairs. Is this not private money taken to spend on societal goals - i.e. socialism?

 

[SLClemens]

I might add, as well, if any degree of socialism leads to such dire things economically, why is it we need to place tarriffs on so many European and Canadian products, even ones not subsidized by their governments? Shouldn't we be able to compete against, say, the European steel industry?

 

[JohnGalt]

Having the Government spend tax dollars on roads and public education is great. However, it is when the government bcomes a business and deals with insurance and other commercial enterprises that it becomes a danger and must return the market to the people. The government should have two functions... To protect the people, and to to ensure that we recieve our individual rights (which include property rights).

The proof has been shown (i.e. Soviet Russia, China , Cuba, and the freed East Berlin) that any one who claims to be doing something for the public good is really condoning the abolition of all freedom and all rights, the expropriation of all property, executioons without trial, slave-camps, torure and the abandonment of the individual's happiness.

The character in Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged, who I have named myself (John Galt) says it best, "The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A-and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is RIGHT for him to use his mind, it is RIGHT to act on his own free judgment, it is RIGHT to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a RIGHT to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational."

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by JohnGalt
Having the Government spend tax dollars on roads and public education is great. However, it is when the government bcomes a business and deals with insurance and other commercial enterprises that it becomes a danger and must return the market to the people. The government should have two functions... To protect the people, and to to ensure that we recieve our individual rights (which include property rights).

The proof has been shown (i.e. Soviet Russia, China , Cuba, and the freed East Berlin) that any one who claims to be doing something for the public good is really condoning the abolition of all freedom and all rights, the expropriation of all property, executioons without trial, slave-camps, torure and the abandonment of the individual's happiness.

The character in Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged, who I have named myself (John Galt) says it best, "The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A-and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is RIGHT for him to use his mind, it is RIGHT to act on his own free judgment, it is RIGHT to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a RIGHT to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational."

The most common misconception of modern socialism is that it mirrors the utopian socialism of the 19th century. Socialism does not require the abolition of rights in order to succeed. Last time I checked I'm writing on a board about free speech. Why isn't CSIS (our CIA/FBI) after me?

Freedom and socialism are not opposite point and I reject your assertment that one necessarily leeds to the oppression of the other. I might politely suggest that you move beyond the our Engelistic version of socialism.

Do you know what democracy is? Perhaps you think you do, and perhaps most of us think we do. It's individual freedom and equality amongst the classes right? Well that's only 2/3rd's right. Democracy as introduced by the French had 3 tenents: "Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité". In Western democracies we have Liberty and Equality which is to say for the most part we have of individual freedoms and equality amongst the classes, however we do not have fraternity. Fraternity can be described as our social welfare, our protection of the poor.

I suppose you could even say Communism in a sense was a part democracy having Equality (minus corruption of course) and Fraternity, but no liberty. Again, 2/3rd's of the tenets.

Modern liberal socialist states try to have all three. Not to say it's perfect by any means, but that's the goal. Not to create communism or some sort of Orwellian oppressive state, but to meet Western Democracy with the inherint support of our poor and less fortunate. You could argue social darwinism, but I'd say protecting our week is one thing that makes, well, human, for better or worse.

 

[JohnGalt]

Don't dance around the fire, jump in. Don't tell me what the 1700th century french thought. What do you think. And don't tell me that you think exactly what you wrote, because those weren't thoughts, they were memorized facts for the purpose of avoiding a dangerous arguement. I am a 15 year old that is very confused, beleive me, nothing you say can be more explicit than what i hear at my High School, however, I also hear people stating their opinion. Not statements to avoid the truth. George Orwell's negative utopia is very extreme, but most things that start out small end up extremely inflated. The "I Supose you could." statements in your response show me that you don't have an articulate opinion of your own, and that you probably took it from your boss, favorite author, or even your dad. I await your response.(although rather shyly for my outspoken words that will probably be proved wrong)

 

[Annie]

Seems to be heating up, more than I thought it would. Perhaps China thinks we are too preoccupied to pay attention, perhaps we are. Then again, perhaps we will help Taiwan, if we haven't already:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/11/24/willy.column/index.html

China plots showdown with U.S. over Taiwan
By Willy Wo-Lap Lam
CNN Senior China Analyst
Tuesday, November 25, 2003 Posted: 0437 GMT (12:37 PM HKT)



Thatcher experiences the new China during 1984 negotiations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


America's two-faced policy that has encouraged and condoned 'Taiwan independence' forces
-- Xinhua news agency



(CNN) -- Will Hu Jintao do to George W. Bush on Taiwan what Deng Xiaoping did to Margaret Thatcher on Hong Kong?

Hardline elements in Beijing who are getting increasingly alarmed over Taipei's "creeping independence" -- and Washington's apparent connivance at Taiwan separatism -- have proposed "doing a Thatcher" to the Americans.

Soon after Sino-British negotiations over Hong Kong's fate began in the early 1980s, late patriarch Deng refused to entertain suggestions by then British Prime Minister Thatcher about alternate ways to prolong Britain's lease over the crown colony.

In a heated exchange in 1982, Deng simply told the Iron Lady that times had changed, China had become much stronger -- and there could be no nonsense over Hong Kong's return to the motherland's embrace at the stroke of midnight, June 30, 1997.

Thatcher was reportedly so taken aback that upon leaving, she slipped while going down the steps of Beijing's Great Hall of the People in front of the Chinese and international press.

Despite significant improvement in Sino-U.S. relations since the September 11, 2001 incident, Beijing is convinced that for purposes including "containing" China, there will always be strong American support for some form of Taiwan independence.

Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's successful transit through New York earlier this month, plus continued sales of sophisticated American arms to the island, has reinforced Beijing's perception that the U.S. is the crux of the Taiwan imbroglio.

The official Xinhua news agency last Friday quoted leading Chinese experts on Taiwan as claiming that "it is America's two-faced policy that has encouraged and condoned 'Taiwan independence' forces."

In other words, Chen's provocative gestures the past months, including proposals for a law on plebiscites and changing the Taiwan constitution to reflect full-fledged statehood, would not have been possible if the U.S. had followed a clear-cut one-China policy.

The corollary is that unless Beijing is prepared to stare down the U.S. on Taiwan -- as Deng Xiaoping did with the British over Hong Kong -- there will be no solution in sight even as Chen or his successors continue pushing the envelope toward independence.

The big question is: when will the Sino-U.S. showdown take place? Most likely not during Premier Wen Jiabao's American tour early next month.

This is despite the fact that Wen is preparing a series of harsh warnings for Taipei -- and Washington.

'Pay any price'

All smiles: Analysts say Hu will not have any qualms about laying down the law with the U.S. when it comes to Taiwan.
In an interview with the Washington Post last week, Wen indicated that Beijing would "pay any price" to safeguard national unity, and that the U.S. "must be crystal clear" in opposing President Chen's separatist agenda.

A Beijing source familiar with China's Taiwan policy said given the gap between the military strength of China and that of the U.S. -- and China's dependence on the U.S. market -- a showdown over Taiwan was not yet imminent.

He pointed out, however, that the hardliners' belief that an ugly Sino-U.S. confrontation is inevitable is gaining ground among a growing number of moderate leaders.

"A showdown may be sooner than most people think because Beijing has begun taking a multi-pronged approach to prepare for the day when it will bluntly tell the U.S. to buzz off on the Taiwan issue," he said.

The following developments testify to Beijing's increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan -- and the U.S.

The first is the legal framework. Beijing has continued to resist the theory, first propounded during the 1999 Kosovo crisis, that globally shared principles such as the defense of democracy and humanitarianism override national boundaries.

In London last week, Bush cited one version of this principle to justify American action in Iraq.

While discussing the cross-Straits crisis, however, Tsinghua University judicial expert Li Zhaojie insisted that "according to international law, a country has the right to safeguard its territorial integrity according to international law" -- and that no other country can interfere with this prerogative.

On the diplomatic level, Chinese overseas embassies have been instructed to brief their host governments in the near future on Beijing's determination to use whatever means to combat Taiwan separatism.

In light of widespread reports that if re-elected next March, Chen may take advantage of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing to declare formal independence, the Chinese diplomats are expected to stress that fear of an international boycott of the Games would not hold China back.

As Beijing-based Taiwan expert Xu Bodong pointed out last week, Beijing "will not swallow the bitter fruit [of Taiwan independence] just because of the Olympics."

Diplomatic sources said Beijing had a special message for Asian countries who are U.S. allies: that they should not provide bases for US aircraft and naval vessels that may be used to "interfere" with China's crusade against the "splittists."

Yet potentially the most destabilizing action taken by Beijing concerns military means to prevent the U.S. from helping Taiwan in case the latter was attacked by the mainland.

The People's Liberation Army has been flexing its muscles in extraordinary moves the past weeks.

For example, a Ming-class submarine was dispatched to keep an eye on recent U.S.-Japan naval exercises in the Sea of Japan.

There are also reports that the PLA has added two more missile brigades to bases close to the Taiwan Strait -- and that the missiles are capable of hitting American aircraft carriers that might be dispatched to the region.

While such saber rattling would paradoxically boost Chen's re-election prospects, Beijing seems convinced it needs to make a tough gesture before it is too late.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by JohnGalt
Don't dance around the fire, jump in. Don't tell me what the 1700th century french thought. What do you think. And don't tell me that you think exactly what you wrote, because those weren't thoughts, they were memorized facts for the purpose of avoiding a dangerous arguement. I am a 15 year old that is very confused, beleive me, nothing you say can be more explicit than what i hear at my High School, however, I also hear people stating their opinion. Not statements to avoid the truth. George Orwell's negative utopia is very extreme, but most things that start out small end up extremely inflated. The "I Supose you could." statements in your response show me that you don't have an articulate opinion of your own, and that you probably took it from your boss, favorite author, or even your dad. I await your response.(although rather shyly for my outspoken words that will probably be proved wrong)

First thing, I'd watch your tone, Jim has a rather low tolerance for personal attacks.

Secondly, why not draw one's opinion upon the past and find out what others think? What use is one person's opinion if he or she has no facts to back them up? The past is our pool in which we draw knowledge, to forget it, would be to loses a wealth of knowledge gathered over many lifetimes. The truth is still that your version of socialism (from what you describe) is based upon the socialsim proposed by Marx and Engels where whole societies are founded on the oppression of the individual for the "good" of the whole.

That is not the modern socialist state. Yes, there are so-called marxist states out there, such as your China (Perhaps more Maoist than Marxist) and Cuba, but they are nothing more than dictatorship headed by tyrants bearing very little ressemblence to a real communist state, which in my mind is none the less deplorable.

Modern socialist democratic states are simply a progression of western capitalistic democracy (having fully acknowledge that Marxist economies are junk and do not promote growth) to embrace some sort of social welfare for its people? What's so wrong with that? How can that possibly be an evil?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
First thing, I'd watch your tone, Jim has a rather low tolerance for personal attacks.

That is correct. That wasn't always the case, but it's in the best interest of the debates and the board.

Isaac is perhaps the last one on the board deserving or personal criticism. Please show him the respect he shows you.

 

[JohnGalt]

I am sincerely sorry, I did not mean to intentionally demean you...and I will not issue forth any more personal attacks.

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.

On a second note. Non-profit organizations are fine, my own mom works for one, however, the government has only the ability to rule. And when they try to redistribute wealth for the purpose of welfare...then things go bad. I'll take your advice and look to the past for an example... remember Affirmative action, it was created to get even with the white persecutors, but now it is out of control and whites are being persecuted...this is what happens when a government decides to handle the peoples money. Also, women will get pregnant and be encouraged not to work because they will have a nice welfare check waiting for them. Welfare from the government is clearly bad.

 

[JohnGalt]

My examples are really geared more twards the present, but that is just as well.

 

[DKSuddeth]

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.

and this is a primary reason why not only capitalism, but socialism as well, will fail and is failing.

Those who think helping their fellow man, or humanity, is a waste is someone who has no faith in humanity or is only interested in self serving interests, i.e. no humanity in themselves.

Now, I admit that there are some 'freeloaders' out there that are not deserving of ANY assistance whatsoever but that is a very small amount and could be weeded out with little effort.

The main reason 'capitalism' is failing is that it is no longer about being the most competitive, but about destroying the competition. Control over that part of the market to the point of disregard for anything else, including fellow man.

when we cease to care for our fellow man is when society fails in general.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by JohnGalt
I am sincerely sorry, I did not mean to intentionally demean you...and I will not issue forth any more personal attacks.

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.

On a second note. Non-profit organizations are fine, my own mom works for one, however, the government has only the ability to rule. And when they try to redistribute wealth for the purpose of welfare...then things go bad. I'll take your advice and look to the past for an example... remember Affirmative action, it was created to get even with the white persecutors, but now it is out of control and whites are being persecuted...this is what happens when a government decides to handle the peoples money. Also, women will get pregnant and be encouraged not to work because they will have a nice welfare check waiting for them. Welfare from the government is clearly bad.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

It is certainly true that affirmative action is perhaps misused, but to say it is outcontrol might be a bit much. Truth be told, it pushed us in the right direction. I believe and i'm certainly open for debate, that the effect of affirmative actions has pushed the gap between the new generation of technically able minority/underrepresented people have been developped (so to say) from the first reciepients of A.A. and us typical white folks.

Now interestingly enough, it was worked much better in Canada (and maybe other places???) than the US. Why? I'm really not too sure. This especially evident in policeforces and starting to really begin breaking the political barrier.

Should it be annulled now? Maybe? I don't really know. I guess what I'm getting at, and i think i may be rambling, but simply put how else do you get minorities to the standard of living of the rest of the country. Yes, I know through hard work, but remember. let's not kid ourselves, that minority poverty leads to crime, racism and other social ills which simply reflects an un-civility in our society as a whole.

Welfare works very similarly also. Without welfare do you think the poor will just disappear? No, not really. Human survival instincts kick in and they begin to steal and beg.

I REALLY think DSuddeth put this best when he said:

Those who think helping their fellow man, or humanity, is a waste is someone who has no faith in humanity or is only interested in self serving interests, i.e. no humanity in themselves.

I'll have to remember that one!

he truth is, is that i'd rather subdize the poor even if not everyone deserves it for no other reason than my humanity. It's the same reason I give money to Sally Ann and why i think volunteering is very important. Because i am human above nationality, race, sex and all else and believe that I have an inexorable responsibility to serve my common man.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Oops... posted twice.

I suck.

 

[Annie]

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.