Connect with us

Economy

Scrap Socialism: Part I

Published

on

Scrap Socialism Part I

The collectivist ideologies have left a trail of death and destruction for centuries, isn’t it time to be rid of them as a viable form of government?

“A society based on the freedom to choose is better than a society based on the principles of socialism, communism and coercion.” – Milton Friedman

Why the economic slavery of Socialism, etc. need to be eliminated

Since the Socialist-Left insists on recycling the absurd idea of abolishing the economic liberty of the Free-Market [Or their pejorative terminology ‘capitalism’] why not consider the reverse position of abolishing the economic slavery of Socialism? The means scraping it’s dizzying array of alternate labels which all can be included ‘collectively’ as: Socialism, etc.

We will make the case for the abolition of theses ideologies and the keeping of economic liberty. This will be built upon three main parts. The first will be an examination of the age of experimentation of governance and why the best forms should be kept and the worst rejected. The second will be a brief overview of the history of the collectivist ideologies and why its variations of failure make the case for their abolition. Finally we will examine the sins of socialism, etc., as a basis for humanity rejecting collectivism.

The age of experimentation of governance

It could be argued that the past few centuries since the dawn of the industrial revolution have been a crucible for the refinement of how people can govern themselves. Agriculture had originally made it more advantageous for people to live in groups and governments were instituted to protect property and bring order out of chaos. The industrial age saw the creation of new forms of governance with some being far more successful than others. Now is the time to consider which of these should be utilized and which should be relegated to the ash heap of history.

The origin of collectivist ideologies could be traced back to ancient times exemplified with the expression of the ideas in the works of Plato. These were followed centuries later with Thomas More’s seminal work ‘Utopia’ published more than 500 years ago in 1516.  Even the Marxists have acknowledged that this 500 year old tome was the first ‘genuinely socialist position’.

The collectivist fantasy world envisioned in the book didn’t have to accede to the flaws and foibles of the reality of imperfect human beings, thus it could be a perfect society. This tendency to assume that fanciful theoretical constructs can work the real world is a common denominator with the Socialist-Left. This is partially how they can explain away the repeated failures of their base ideology down through the centuries. Since there can never be a melding of the real world and the theoretical, they always have a ready made excuse for why it’s never worked.

These Utopian fantasies are postulated on the idea that human beings can be made perfect and thus can be the basis of a perfect society. History should teach us that this is an impossible task because people will always have flaws and imperfections. Collectivists of the past have tried to reform people into perfect beings through various means and have always failed. Governmental systems that take into account that people are imperfect are far more successful.

While the Socialist-Left would like people to think that it’s tired old concepts are ‘fresh’, ‘scientific’ and the wave of the future, the plain fact is that they are centuries old with a consistent history of incessant failure. This contention is rather ironic given that experimentation in the collectivist forms of governance were some of the first new forms and prevalent within the historic record of the past few centuries.

It is also supremely ironic that the first trial runs of the failed collectivist ideologies took place in the Americas, given that these ideas are now thought of as new and originating in Europe. The first colonies in the new world of Jamestown and Plymouth practised a disastrous form of collectivism that saw the first vestiges of death that has plagued that ideology since it’s inception. The fruits of everyone’s labour were placed in a common store, and since there was no advantage to work the results were pitiful and the people starved. It was only after the protection of private property whereby people were able to keep their earnings that the colonies flourished.

Of course, the rest of the story was that the colonies formed a nation and won their independence. Thankfully, the founding fathers were learned men and they studied what works and what does not and brought forth the best form of government ever created. Their study of the works of John Locke and Charles de Montesquieu taught them to restrain the government and ‘provide new guards for their future security’.

The representative republic they created is the best form of governance by far, and it’s track record speaks for itself. The Socialist-left is constantly disavowing it’s string of past failures with repetition of the lie ‘that wasn’t real socialism’ or that ‘Socialism has never really been tried’. No one has ever said that about a representative republics, that alone should point to that form of government being the best and that the collectivist ideologies being the worst.

The true genius of the founding fathers was that they understood the basic forms of government and selected the best for the new nation. Thomas Jefferson wrote the following encapsulation of the three types of government in a letter to James Madison, in 1787:

“Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics.

History has taught us that the second type is the best form. It should also be clear that the collectivist forms fall into the third category given that they depend on force to impose collective instead of individual rights.

The collectivist ideologies depend on force to redistribute property.

Force and coercion are the only way to control people and properly redistribute their wealth. At some point the guns have to come out to pay for all the free-stuff promised by the Socialist-Left, that is the ugly truth of Socialism, etc. and the collectivist ideal. It is also the reason the Socialist-Left has to couch it’s ideology in terms of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’. But just like it’s pretence of creating a perfect society, those two concepts are incompatible.

“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Takeaway

We need to recognize the true genius of the founding fathers in what they created. The government they formulated has served us well for over 240 years. No government or society can ever be perfect, because they are based on imperfect beings. The collectivist forms are based on the arrogant but impossible idea that people and societies can somehow be perfected. History teaches us that these beliefs will lead to simple failure in the best case scenario, and concentration camps and mass murder in the worst. This is why these ideologies need to be eliminated as viable forms of government.

Democrats

PragerU: What’s wrong with government-run healthcare?

Published

on

By

PragerU Whats wrong with government-run healthcare

This latest video from PragerU details how another vote-buying pipe dream from the Left can never work.

A new video from PragerU features policy expert Lanhee Chen from the Hoover Institution at Stanford, who explains how ‘Free Healthcare’ can never work in the real world. As is the case with most Leftist vote-buying schemes, the ‘The Medicare for all’ fiction is long on promises and short on how it will be funded. The tax burden for such a scheme would destroy the economy and would have to be levied on almost everyone. This kind of national socialized healthcare would also take away the incentive for innovation, which has made for the best healthcare system in the states and the rest of the world.

One often suspects that these assurances of freebies are never meant to operate as promised. Witness the much vaunted Obamacare that was supposed to eliminate the uninsured, but did nothing of the sort. Such is also the case with their push for Liberty control, since it never works as advertised.  In most cases, it should be apparent that the Left doesn’t care if their schemes will work or not. If they did actually care, they would try something else, something that actually works.

For the Left, their ‘Ends justifies the means’ mantra extends to most of their agenda. It doesn’t matter if their system of societal slavery works or not, only that it brings them the power they crave.

Continue Reading

Economy

Wayne Dupree on cutting entitlement programs

Published

on

Wayne Dupree on cutting entitlement programs

When the truth goes against the narrative, it’s hard for many to swallow. Entitlement reform, which has been on the Republican platform for decades, has been in the perpetual state of always getting promised but never getting delivered. The reason it keeps getting kicked down the road is because it’s simply too hard to take away things that millions have gotten used to receiving.

At least President Trump was honest enough to say from the beginning that he wasn’t touching entitlements.

What Democrats don’t want you to know and what Republicans only want you to remember on election day is that entitlements are crippling the economy. We can no longer say they’re going to hurt our children and grandchildren. It’s now to the point that we can’t make fiscal decisions as a country without considering the huge chunk that encompasses entitlements.

Conservative Radio Host Wayne Dupree has been fighting this battle for a while. He rightly contends that the pain we’d feel today if entitlements were cut is small compared to the pain we’ll feel in the near future and beyond if they’re not cut.

Yes, it’s hard to make cuts to something that supports millions of Americans, but there are ways to reform the system and still protect the most vulnerable. Kudos to Wayne Dupree for fighting this unpopular battle.

Continue Reading

Economy

Trump’s best fiscal move yet: Telling his cabinet to shave 5% off their budgets

Published

on

Trumps best fiscal move yet Telling his cabinet to shave 5 off their budgets

I’ve been harsh towards the President when it comes to budgets and deficits. At times he has seemed more like President Obama, albeit reluctantly, with outrageous budgets signed and deficits that would make Democrats blush. His latest move is one that I can support wholeheartedly.

He just told his cabinet to shave off 5% from their 2020 budgets.

Trump asked members of his cabinet to figure out how to cut 5 percent of their budgets

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/10/17/trump-asked-members-of-his-cabinet-to-figure-out-how-to-cut-5-percent-of-their-budgetsI’m going to be ask each of you to come back with a 5 percent budget cut from your various departments, whether it’s a secretary or administrator, whatever. I’m going to ask everybody to come back with a 5 percent cut for our next meeting. I think you’ll all be able to do it. There may be a special exemption, perhaps. I don’t know who that exemption would be. If you can do more than five, some of you will say ‘hey, I can do much more than 5.’

Most conservatives would point to last year’s tax cuts as his best fiscal move, but it was really an action by Congress. The White House gave input and helped sell it to the people, of course, but it wasn’t really a “move” made by Trump. We’ll give him some credit for it, but most of the heavy lifting was done on Capitol Hill.

Telling his cabinet to cut 5% across the board is a Presidential move and by far his best fiscal decision to date. The key to this will be follow-up; if he doesn’t hold his team accountable, then it was simply a soundbite. If he holds their feet to the fire and dishes out repercussions to those who don’t comply, then this will represent a seismic shift in the way the White House operates.

It’s a business move made by a businessman who has had to make this move many times in the past. He brought several things to the table shifting from the boardroom to the Oval Office. Second only to his deal-making skills are his skills in operating a sound financial operation. This is indicative of his experience.

To be fair, this is more of a campaign move than an expression of conservative fiscal values, but we’ll take it no matter what motivated the move. 2020, the target for these cuts, is his reelection year. Hitting the stump and talking about how he forced every agency and department to cut their budgets by 5% will go a long way towards wooing conservatives.

One of the biggest reasons Americans put Donald Trump in the White House is because of his business acumen. This move exemplifies why millions trusted him to sit in the Oval Office. With budgets where they are, DC must cut, cut, and cut some more.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report