Utopia is a name for an ideal community or society, that is taken from Of the Best State of a Republic, and of the New Island Utopia, a book written in 1516 by Sir Thomas More describing a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean, possessing a seemingly perfect socio-politico-legal system. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempted to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature.
The problem with a true Utopia is that, one person’s version of Utopia is another’s version of Hell. For example, if one is a child molester and is living in a Utopian society where every person is free but never harms another in their pursuit of personal happiness or fulfillment, then how could it be a Utopia for a child molester? Wouldn’t it, in fact, be Hell? The same example could be applied to just about any fetish or ideology as one person’s pleasure may be derived from another one’s pain or be in dispute with a viewpoint or opinion. Therefore, the concept of creating a Utopian society or “global community” where everything is fair to everyone is a flawed line of thought or ideological base and, actually hypocrisy.
Further, hypocrisy comes in many forms. The current push for National Health Care, Cap and Trade, and the anti-capitalistic policies and proposals of the “progressive” left agenda are done under the auspices of how bad and greedy capitalists are and that the playing field must be leveled for the “general good of the collective”. But has anyone ever really examined who those are who speak out the loudest against capitalism? Most of them are rich and got that way via capitalism! Paul Pelosi, Speaker of the House Nancy’s husband, earned most of his fortune through real estate investments and ties to the insurance industry. Their net worth has estimated to being between $14.7 and $55 million as of 2005. How much of that net worth came from funds steered Mr. Pelosi’s way through Nancy’s PAC or questionable earmarks of TARP funds funneled to his company to divest of foreclosed homes? What are the ties to “green jobs” and “carbon offset credits” that Al Gore will personally profit from through Cap and Trade and the bogus “the sky is falling” global warming initiatives in the US, let alone worldwide? What about George Soros? His fanatically liberal, “common good”, one world order ideology funds many of the politicians and organizations currently pushing forward the liberal (fascist?) agenda. He was a Hungarian immigrant to the US who has made his more than $1 billion fortune speculating on currency values, investing in stocks (in companies that make profits!), and the founder, funder, or director or chairman of the board of non-profit(??!!) organizations like the Center for American Progress, the Tides Foundation, and the Apollo Alliance.
So, the begging and nagging question is: Why do people who made their fortunes in a capitalistic economy hate capitalism and want to destroy it by creating a Socialistic/Communistic/Fascist/Marxist society in the US? The answer: POWER!!!!
Although they may use the arguments and ideology based on “feelings” or “compassion” and “helping the downtrodden” or “leveling the playing field to make everything more fair and just” (i.e. Social Justice), they really want to alleviate any chances for future generations of US citizens to financially be able to accomplish what they themselves have done (through legal, questionable, or illegal means) and maintain power over the masses through economic and government imposed regulation and control.
Although our system has its problems and faults, the governing system established by the U.S. Constitution is still the best the world has ever seen.WE MUST FIGHT FOR IT!!!! If we lose our economic freedoms—we will surely loseALL FREEDOMS.
When listening to President Obama’s speech to Congress last night about a “health care” plan, one thing really struck me. Obama was referring to a letter written by recently deceased Sen. Edward (Teddy) Kennedy. Obama stated that Kennedy wrote, “This is the year that health care reform, that great unfinished business of our society, will finally pass.” Obama said, “It reminded me that it concerns more than material things.” Obama went on to quote Kennedy’s letter: “What we face is, above all, a moral issue. At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.” Obama then went on to speak about the character of our country by talking about “our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, and our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government.” Doesn’t that sound like conservative or decentralist comments?!! Isn’t that the whole point of the opponents of the proposed health care plan that we are self-reliant, rugged individuals who are trying to defend our freedoms from intrusion by an out of control, Big Brother, federal government?
But, if we take a look at the words social justice, it becomes more clear what Obama and his minions are suggesting and, will again, try to ram down the throats of the American citizens with health care reform, Cap and Trade, FCC “diversity of ownership” policies, and much more: social justice.
Social justiceis a term that is used to describe an issue in politics, religion, and society in general. Most individuals wish to live in a just society, but each political ideology has its own concept of what constitutes a “just society”. The term “social justice” is often employed as a euphemism by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.Economists refer to policies aimed toward achieving this asequality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The very idea of believing that social justice is feasible is contradictory to understanding the principles of liberty, free will, self-reliance, and rugged individualism; social justice will require all liberty, free-will, self-reliance, and rugged individualism to be destroyed.
The most complete rejection of the concept of social justice comes from Friedrich Hayek of the Austrian School of economics:
“There can be no test by which we can discover what is ‘socially unjust’ because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone’.”
According to the Green Party of the US, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Remember Van Jones and his speeches? He also referred to social justice.
Just remember, the buzz words “social justice” mean reparations and taking from those who have to give to those who have not based on need, past discriminations, or any other premise to “equalize both opportunity and outcome”. Wasn’t that what the basis of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto?
From the Marx’s Communist Manifesto:
“We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged…the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes…. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.”
Or, perhaps his best known quote: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs).
And who now wants to still say our current government and administration are not Marxists? Social justiceis just a euphemism for “the collective” or communist ideology.
Have you ever tried to buy anything that is “one size fits all”? Rarely is that statement true! How can clothing garments fit someone 4’ 9” and 100 pounds and also still fit someone 6’ 7” and 320 pounds? Even the makers of spandex would tell you that this is an impossible order to fill! The same applies to educational curriculum, health care or any other proposed national (governmental) programs. A “one size fits all” curriculum will not take into account any geographical, economic, values, or demographic aspects of individual school districts, let alone plan for meeting the educational needs of individual students. “One size fits all” health care programs will not meet the needs of individuals or give them the choices they desire and deserve. “One size fits all” is definitely NOT the answer!! Especially when the product is “made in the USA” by the Federal Government!!
One of the main reasons the United States has been as successful and prosperous as it has over the last 233 years is not only attributed to the wisdom of our founding fathers and the beautiful structure of the Constitution they provided as a framework to protect the people of this great land FROM the government, it is also attributable to the social/economic system of capitalism as a basis of operation. You see, capitalism allows the means of production to be privately owned and controlled. Even in a mixed economy where true capitalism is the basis but the government has imposed laws and restrictions on the markets through environmental protection premises, established wage laws, and where labor unions have imposed control and restrictions on the capital of labor, the basic element of our economic system has been a free market. In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Although humans are complex creatures, every Psychology101 student who has paid attention in class can tell you that motivation is a driving force throughout life. Humans have simple drive-reduction motivations for the basic biological requirements for food, water, sleep, and sex. These are what the field of psychology terms “primary drives” and they exist not only in the human species, but in all species that walk, crawl, swim, slither or grow upon this planet. Once an individual has fulfilled these primary drives, human motivation then turns to incentive based behaviors and these incentives may be internal or external. Entire psychological theories have been developed to explain human motivation: the humanist perspective suggests that all individuals naturally strive to grow, develop, and be in control of their lives and behavior. Humanistic psychologists maintain that each of us has the capacity to seek and reach fulfillment in our lives. Abraham Maslow created a hierarchy of needs to explain human motivation where the fulfillment of needs at each level of the hierarchy allows an individual to be motivated to seek to fulfill the needs at the next level. Maslow’s levels within the hierarchy include 1) Physiological needs—food, water, sleep, and sex; 2) Safety Needs-the need for a safe and secure environment; 3) Love and Belonging-the need to obtain and give affection; 4) Esteem-the need to develop a sense of self-worth; and, 5) Self-Actualization-the state of self-fulfillment.
So, to tie the economic and social system of capitalism together with what we know about human motivation, we get a prime situation where individuals, free from governmental control, can seek to fulfill their highest motivational need of self-actualization or self-fulfillment. Under socialism, communism, or fascism, incentives either play a minimal role or are totally ignored. By failing to emphasize incentives, these forms of social/economic theory are inconsistent with human nature and are therefore doomed to fail as all are based on the theory that incentives don’t matter; they disregard the driving force of motivation and the role incentives (both internal and external) play for humans.
In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly. However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. Given the choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available and the one which is most aligned with the natural course of human motivation.
No matter what your profession or area of interest, if you have studied the history of that field, you have a greater understanding about why things are the way they are, what has worked or not worked in the past as the field has evolved, and what directions the field is projected to take in the future. The same principles apply to the history of countries, policies, and politics. As philosopher and poet George Santayana proclaimed, “Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it”.
FACT: In 1928, while campaigning as a member of the Nazi party, Hitler began to argue that “capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead.” Hitler claimed that National Socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich. Some prosperous industrialists were convinced by these arguments and gave donations to the Nazi Party.
FACT: Throughout 1929 and 1930, Hitler attempted to play down his extremist image, and claimed that he was no longer in favor of revolution but was willing to compete with other parties in democratic elections.
FACT: In the General Election that took place in September 1930, the Nazi Party increased its number of representatives in parliament from 14 to 107. Hitler was now the leader of the second largest party in Germany. The German Social Democrat Party was the largest party in the Reichstag, it did not have a majority over all the other parties. Adolf Hitler used this situation to his advantage, claiming that parliamentary democracy did not work. The Nazi party argued that only Hitler could provide the strong government that Germany needed. Hitler and other Nazi leaders travelled round the country giving speeches putting over this point of view. What said depended very much on the audience. In rural areas he promised tax cuts for farmers and government acting to protect food prices. In working class areas he spoke of redistribution of wealth and attacked the high profits made by the large chain stores. When he spoke to industrialists, Hitler concentrated on his plans to destroy communism and to reduce the power of the trade union movement. Hitler’s main message was that Germany’s economic recession was due to the Treaty of Versailles. Other than refusing to pay reparations, Hitler avoided explaining how he would improve the German economy.
FACT: In the May 1932 elections, The German Communist Party made substantial gains by winning 100 seats. Hitler used this to create a sense of panic by claiming that Germany was on the verge of a Bolshevik Revolution and only the Nazi party could prevent this from happening. A group of prominent industrialists who feared such a revolution sent a petition to Paul von Hindenburg asking for Hitler to become Chancellor. Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to their request and at the age of forty-three, Hitler became the new Chancellor of Germany.
FACT: It took just three short months from when Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, then a democracy, to take control of Germany as Fuehrer or Reich Chancellor.
FACT: After the burning of the Reichstag by a supposed “communist”, Hitler asked German President Hindenburg to grant him emergency powers in view of the “communist takeover”. Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.
FACT: In March, 1933, Adolf Hitler used this “emergency” as the impetus to bully the political parties and obtain passage of the “Enabling Act” which gave him dictatorial powers.
FACT: After the elections of March 5, 1933, the Nazis began a systematic takeover of the state governments throughout Germany, ending a centuries old tradition of local political independence. Armed SA and SS thugs barged into local government offices using the state of emergency decree as a pretext to throw out legitimate office holders and replace them with Nazi Reich commissioners. On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.
FACT: On March 21, 1933, Hindenburg signed two decrees put before him by Hitler. The second of these decrees allowed for the arrest of anyone suspected of maliciously criticizing the government and the Nazi party. A third decree, which was signed only by Hitler and Papen, allowed for the establishment of special courts to try political offenders. These courts were conducted in the military style of a court-martial without a jury and usually with no counsel for the defense. (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/dictator.htm)
FACT: That same day, Hitler told the Reichstag, “The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures…The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.” He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. A two-thirds majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from the Catholic Center Party after making a false promise to restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.
FACT: “Germany became a nation of snoops. People were employed in each street, in each building complex etc. with the sole purpose of keeping an eye on others in their ‘area’ and reporting them to the authorities if they believed that something was amiss.” (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm)
FACT: Democracy in Germany was ended. Hitler and the Nazi party had brought down the German Democratic Republic legally. From this day onward, the Reichstag would be just a sounding board and a cheering section for Hitler’s pronouncements.
Does anything contained in this history lesson chill anyone else to the bone? Can any of the circumstances that brought Hitler and the Nazi Party to power in the former Democratic Republic of Germany be compared with current issues and events within the United States of America (also a Democratic Republic)?
FACT: November 19, 2008, Rahm Emanuel, then only the appointed White House Chief of Staff, stated, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Sound familiar?
FACT: March 2009, Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, insists that the Treasury Department be granted increased powers to takeover major nonbank institutions and even privately owned businesses that, “if at risk for failure”, would pose a risk to the monetary system. This from the man who couldn’t (or wouldn’t) pay his own income tax liability.
FACT: While President Obama bashes the greed of Wall Street and big business, he secretly meets with and obtains support from these same “villains”. Witness condemnation of Billy Tauzin (Big Pharma) and then the “behind the scenes” agreement and handshake:
FACT: In February, 2009, Jeffrey Immelt, CEO and Chairman of the Board of GE, was appointed as a member to thePresident’s Economic Recovery Advisory Boardto provide the president and his administration with advice and counsel on fixing America’s economic downturn. Yet, under Mr. Immelt, General Electric has received large scale debt support from the United States government through the bailout money provided to subsidiary GE Capital. Additionally, he also has great influence and input in the proposed Cap and Trade legislation and the National Health Care Bill which stands to gain GE billions of dollars in new business with the successful passing of either bill (and of course, by default, Mr. Immelt would also personally gain and probably receive a raise over his current paltry $3.3 million a year salary!!). I propose that GE’s slogan “We Bring Good Things to Life” should be changed to: “GE—We Want to Run Your Life”!!!
I could go on and on providing mirror images linking the past to the present. And, besides repeating again George Santayana’s famous quote, “Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it”, I would close with these historical quotes for further reflection on our current historical re-run:
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”-John F. Kennedy
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”—James Madison
“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”–Franklin D. Roosevelt
As you well know by now, the “community organizing” group ACORN has radical liberal roots and deep ties in with the Obama administration. The nuts from ACORN were dispatched by the administration to demonstrate in front of the homes of AIG executives and, more recently, have been showing up in conjunction with SEIU labor union thugs to bully average, every day citizens as they attend town hall meetings to express their dislike of, disgruntlement with, and downright anger over the proposed House health care reform bill.
As you may also know, liberal Queen Nut, Nancy Pelosi has accused some of these citizens of carrying or wearing Swastikas and says that those speaking out against the House legislation for health care reform are “Astroturf” –her term for hired protesters—sent by big Pharma or the Republican party!!
So, like many average, everyday citizens, I AM FED UP WITH THIS LIBERAL CRAP!!!
I propose we form our own community organization—SQUIRRELS!
SQUIRRELS
Sent
Quickly
Under
Independence for the purpose of
Rescuing the
Republic and redeveloping
Elemental
Leadership
Stances
You see—SQUIRRELS eat ACORNs!!!!
Join the SQUIRRELS and help gather, store and defeat the nuts from ACORN!!!
Now I just need to find some billionaires (like George Soros or Peter Lewis ) or some conservative foundation similar to the Tides Foundation that funds the ACORN lunacy, fill out grant applications and receive rewards of millions of dollars of hard-working taxpayer funding, and we’re off and chompin’ ACORNs!!!!!
I read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand not too long ago. This is a classic book, originally published in1957, yet still in popular demand. This book made me shiver with the correlations to some of the current issues and events happening within our government and country. The book is a work of fiction set in a future USA whose economy is collapsing as a result of the common theme that everything must be done under the premise of “what is good for all” or “the collective” and that rich businessmen are evil. Industries are taken over, one by one, by government issued directives or laws, and the masses are starving because the government does not know how to efficiently or effectively run businesses. Laws are changed at the whim of the government only to benefit a few powerful, behind the scenes government officials whose only goal is power and control. Sound eerily familiar to some of the things happening in our country? The Treasury department’s takeover of banks like AIG , Citigroup, and Chase, or the auto companies of GM, and Chrysler? Timothty Geithner’s asking for the blanket power to take over any public or privately owned business that may “threaten our economy”?
Now the government wants to run the health care system which comprises 1/6 to 1/7 of our total US economy. In a recent interview with Glenn Beck, Great Britain’s Daniel Hannan, a Tory (Conservative) member of the European Parliament, really provided the “Aha” moment we have all been looking and waiting for. He said that the reason Great Britain cannot get rid of its abysmal socialized, nationalized health care system is because it is the third largest employer in the WORLD—only behind China’s Red Army, and India’s government owned Indian Railways—and any time a candidate for office in government proposes scrapping the government run system and returning to a private, capitalistic or market- based system, the 1.5 million employees of the British National Health care system push back; this would mean certain defeat for the candidate. The most recent unemployment rates in Great Britain are much lower than currently seen in the US—around 6.3% as of December 2008—in part because so many citizens are employed by the government within the health care system bureaucracy!! Mr. Hannan also stated that the health care system is the single largest item in the country’s budget each year! He issued a dire warning: If the US passes and implements a nationalized health care system, there will be no turning back. The government will run the economy (even more than it currently does) and will have POWER AND CONTROL over the most elemental and fundamental aspects of our daily lives—our health. Too fat? Sorry, no knee replacement for you. Oh, you smoke? Sorry, no treatments for pneumonia or COPD. Oh, you need dialysis and are over 65? Sorry, no money available for that—you are no longer a “productive” member of the collective. Oh, you think you can refuse the H1N1 flu shot? Sorry, government directive 5413 makes it a mandatory inoculation. That precious baby you have been waiting for was born prematurely and needs life-saving critical care for the next four months—sorry, that will cost too much and the baby has no economic value to the collective.
Every step a government takes to control the economy of a country takes its citizens one step further away from freedom. “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)”—Ayn Rand. Our founding fathers put into place the most perfect document to protect citizens of the United States of America from their government. It’s time we stand up and use our Constitutional rights to oppose being a “collective”, whether referring to nationalized health care or any other governmental scheme that proposes to take away our rights and freedom and return again to the insistence that each individual in this once great country has the right to freedom of choice—including economic freedom of choice.
SQUIRRELS EAT ACORNs!!