Sunday, February 21, 2010

So Who Should Govern Us , SkyNet?

In my last post, I railed on the Austin IRS Jihadist not only for his chicken-shit attack on innocents, but his chicken-shit conceptual attack on capitalism, namely, the implications of the last two lines in his alleged online suicide note/manifesto:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

The communist creed sounds all fair and fluffy, doesn't it?  Makes you want to join hands with everyone, sing "We Are the World", then retire to your straw hut for a delicious, communally apportioned Vegan meal, does it not?

I've had discussions about this capitalist/free market economy vs. communist/centrally planned economy debate with many of the fair & fluffy "progressive" robots being manufactured by our public school system and universities.  The fluffers insist that greed and selfishness are inherent human traits and that the unwashed masses cannot, must not be entrusted with the stewardship of a free market economy.  Only through government intervention and regulation can a properly fair and fluffed economy be erected.

Hmmm, okay, so if human greed and selfishness are root causes, then who exactly do we populate the government with, SkyNet Certified Terminators?
(Insert California/Arnie joke here)

"...to each according to his need"

My question to the fair and fluffy crowd has always been "Who the kumbaya determines the "need" part of this equation?"  Am I supposed to believe that elected officials are somehow immune to the "greed & selfishness" root causes, then hand them the keys to the US Treasury, an immoral progressive income tax system, and an army of locked & loaded tax collectors so they can "fairly" apportion everyone's needs?

I've never gotten an answer out of the fluffers that doesn't reek of elitism or the naive Utopianism that is Marxist Communism.   People, the great experiment of communism/economic central planning has already failed miserably as evidenced by the former Soviet Union, so why do US "Progressives" think they can do a better job of economic central planning than the Russians?   Is it some weird red strain of "American Exceptionalism" we are witnessing here?

Again, do the progressives think they are somehow immune to human greed and selfishness?

Yeah, that's what I thought.  Better get Miles Dyson on the horn.

-- Browncoat

8 comments:

justino said...

I agree that the Soviet Union was a failure of state socialism. And the United States is an example of the failure of state capitalism.

Your question about progressives being immune from greed is a good one. Of course, no one is. We as libertarians should recognize that is why we cannot have a government, because the control freaks gravitate toward that power.

Browncoat Libertarian said...

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on the "no government" part. IMHO, that anarchist screed is as naive as the "all government" screed of communism.

A society of Utopian volunteerism would still requires some semblance of law enforcement and managerial structure. Like it or not, it's called government.

The key is to minimize government as much as possible, ESPECIALLY at the very high levels that tend to promote mass collectivism and mass corruption.

The US founders had the right idea with the Constitution, but they allowed that fucking monarchist Alexander Hamilton to sneak in vague, ambiguous language that corrupt, collectivist scum would later use to erode States rights, transfer every possible fucking power to the National level and ultimately, result in the worthless, lip-service document we have today.

Zelig Skykiller said...

i'm curious as to what the libertarian definition of "progressive" is. when i think of progressive i think of progress, not communism. i don't know anyone whom most would characterize as a leftist/progressive/liberal who would actually welcome communism as a system of government.

like you said, it failed miserably everywhere (china is not communist per se so can't use them), so why would anyone ever want to implement it?

Browncoat Libertarian said...

Well, I've had many a conversation with Che Guevara tshirt wearing, self-proclaimed "progressives" who have such utter disdain for capitalism and the free market that they might as well be advocating communism.

Their "solutions" to our country's ills always involve government intervention, government takeover of private interests, more laws, more regulations, more Nanny State.

Are they, and the politicians they elect going to come right out and use the word "communism" or "socialism"? Of course not, that would never sell. Instead, they hijack words like progressive and smear words like capitalism.

This is why I use scorn quotes when referencing the word "progressive". The word has become Orwellian double-speak for "progress" via government intervention which at some point inevitably becomes socialism, which inevitably becomes communism.

That's the "beauty" of the socialist/communist takeover of the US, they've managed to convince us that we're making "progress" while we erode personal liberty in favor of liberty-snuffing collectivist thought.

Khrushchev said something to the effect of "We'll take you without firing a shot." -- and they are, slowly but surely, one regulation, one government intervention, one nanny state law at a time.

BoneDaddy64 said...

Spot on.
By the way, your email addy is bouncing. I tired to get ahold of you.

Browncoat Libertarian said...

@Bonedaddy - Thanks, and hmm, dunno, it's set correctly in my profile.

Browncoat Libertarian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Browncoat Libertarian said...

@Bonedaddy - Ok, loolks like the profile section wasn't the place to change my email address. It's been corrected, feel free to try again.