This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Bernie Sanders, Don't Kid Yourself!
Submitted by Tibor Machan via Acting-Man.com,
From the Cradle to the Grave
When during the last presidential election campaign Mitt Romney suggested that some 47 percent of Americans choose to be dependent on the government, he seems to have been right. (The exact number is probably impossible to ascertain.) And at this time, the Democrats are pretty much hoping that at least that many Americans believe they are the beneficiaries of government wealth redistribution, consisting of welfare payments, subsidies, Medicare, unemployment benefits, public works, public education, etc., etc., which they will secure for them.

A slightly adapted ad for socialism
To generalize this, let us simply take it that a very large proportion of the citizenry sees itself as dependent on government support. This is how most people in Europe and elsewhere around the globe see themselves. They require cradle to grave handouts. The rest are the producers, people who take the initiative to be productive, creative, and so forth. It is this latter group that supplies the resources from which the former take the wealth they require for their survival and flourishing. So Mitt Romney had it roughly right.

Mitt Romney: it was impolitic of the rich guy to say it out loud, but it was one thing he did get roughly right. If you wonder whether the Democrats really dream of a “cradle to grave” nanny state, just consider Obama’s comically helpless and utterly creepy Julia
What is one to make of this? Well, before we can answer we need to figure out if those who depend on government support in their lives have it right — do they have it coming to them? Do the others, the productive ones owe them the support they require and gain?
The Democrats evidently think so. But they have a problem: how is the support to be supplied? After all, both groups are in need of sustenance and if only one group supplies the resources, will the support be sufficient? And will those who produce it be willing to continue to do so?
The Deciders
Socialists believe that the society is just one “organic body” and as with all such entities resources are used indiscriminately by the organism so as to support its various functions, organs, faculties, etc., never mind who produces and who consumes the resources; those are for the whole system to use as is needed: “From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need!”
Trouble is some of the people will have to decide about all this. It is not automatic, contrary to what Marxists think. And here is where the politicians and their appointed bureaucrats enter the picture. So called democratic socialists give the impression that there can be some grand democratic process that handles the administration of the distribution of responsibilities and uses, who must produce and who may consume.

Karl Marx somehow neglected to mention that someone will have to decide who will get what in the socialist State. So someone else will make those decisions for you. What will qualify him to do so? Naturally most supporters of socialism think they will be among the deciders. A grave error as many tend to find out once it is adopted.
And that tends to foster internal conflict within the society subject to the democratic socialist process. After a while those who take from the system will insist that those who produce in it need to work harder. Or enormous debt will be accumulated that member of future generations must shoulder. And the willingness to do this may not be forthcoming after a while. Inter-generational conflict will arise.
Marx and other communists thought that the distribution of responsibilities would occur automatically and peacefully, but he was counting on a new human being, “the new man,” he called it, to emerge, but that is a myth. No such new man is in sight. So ordinary human beings, for ordinary human beings, must handle the administration of the socialist system etc., etc. No magic will be forthcoming.

A bunch of socialist supermen, gazing sternly toward the future. The socialist superman was a myth Marxists propagated for decades…no longer would humans be plagued by human nature, so the story went…
Ordinary human beings, however, don’t stand for being coercively used by their fellows, so in time there will be clashes. At first they will do this politically but in time coercive force will arise. The gulags will be utilized, to rid the system of people who don’t want to be used. So democratic socialism degenerates into Soviet style socialism.

Bernie Sanders, don’t kid yourself!
If he really believes that socialism is the solution, then he is misguided – even though his criticism of oligarchic cronyism is justified.
- 14339 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


What's the solution?
I rarely take time to listen to a 6 min. video, but guess I had a few minutes to spare and found this appalling!
Where are we headed??? !!! Well worth taking time to listen to https://www.youtube.com/embed/XELWyJeKSV0?feature=player_detailpage Europe and Canada, oh how we've fallen. Great times ahead.
Socialism is never for the Socialists.
What's the solution?
The solution to too much government is less government.
"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." -- Thoreau
Hey Mark, Canadians need to learn to adapt to their new rulers. Have you been to Montreal lately?
Canada has been a brainwashed Zionist ghetto for decades.
Islam is the religion of the NWO since the masses are so easily manipulated emotionally and mentally.
Islam, like all conservative ideologies, is a target for the NWO. It's much harder to force traditional people to accept the changes the NWO demands. The NWO combats this problem by setting one conservative group (like US Christians) against another conservative group (Muslims).
The Muslims are proving to be a bigger thorn in the side of the NWO at this point. Here in American the NWO is already turning men into girls and while there's some complaining the process has begun. I have yet to see any Iranians turn into women.
When during the last presidential election campaign Mitt Romney suggested that some 47 percent of Americans choose to be dependent on the government, he seems to have been right.
He was off by 53%, the correct number is 100% of Americans are dependent on their government.
The Muslims are proving to be a bigger thorn in the side of the NWO at this point. Here in American the NWO is already turning men into girls and while there's some complaining the process has begun.
I'm all for diverse religions, Muslems, no issues with LGBT etc., but for you Billy - might want to look a bit deeper into Pakistani & related culture..
And Iran was a secular country before the west went in and fucked it all up.
Bernie has a dilemma: the corporate fascism of today's America requires a huge government. So does his version (or any, for that matter) of socialism. The trick for Bernie will be to wrest control of the government away from the Fed owners and corporate oligarchy. To succeed at this, he would first have to dramatically limit the power of federal government. Dude has to be vibrating like a tuning fork.
In a country of children, Santa Claus wins every election.
Ho and change.
LOL Now that is funny.
It's good to indoctrinate peeples at an early age so it sinks in good. As you say, teaching the yutes to "get in touch wit thier feminie side" ... become doclie ... support gun control ... and so on. total brianwarshing.
Forward, Free Shit Army!
"Yes we can!"
Socialism: Where people pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them.
If you really want your skin to crawl speak to some young people about Bernie Sanders and his ideas. They love the thought of the government being in charge. They are all for more government, even if they have no idea what that concept means in a practical sense.
The Religious Left is winning in America. Their high priests, and priestesses, such as the Clintons, Obamas, Pelosi, Sanders, etc. have imbued their zeal into the minds of the millennials and beyond. At this point, a crash is about the only thing that can stop this march forward towards the destruction of the individual.
The same is true of the Religious Right, which has won over roughly half of the country. My personal favorite is the guy who speaks of personal responsibility and freedom from government in the same breath as 1) Snowden is a traitor who should be executed for giving out government secrets;2) moar war; 3) more war on drugs; 4) more MIC; 5) more law and order (police state), 6) more government intrusion into social issues, and so forth.
The problem is that 95% of the population believes in a strong central government, which is championed by both Teams, though for ostensibly different reasons. The oligarchs control both Teams, and they could care less which one wins any given time. Bitching about one of the Teams without recognizing the broader problem is exactly what they want you to do, and exactly what has kept them in power.
Rand, I know you're a dyed-in-the-wool collectivist. You show it on the Hedge all the time. I love how you had to create a straw man and not deal with the actual issue at hand. I am sure most Hedgers despise the Religious Right, but they also despise the Religious Left. The Lefties are the group that seldom gets criticized in the MSM. A Rightie does something blatantly stupid and there is howling and wailing on the airwaves. The Lefties destroy families, create rampant poverty, support candidates solely on the basis of race, and nary a peep is heard.
"Hey, look over there," cried Let Them Eat Rand as he was offended because his deeply felt religious belief in the infallability of government was being challenged.
Excellent description of the LTER modus operandi.
One day perhaps you will be able to appreciate the difference between advocating for collective action against oligarchs, and being ruled by oligarchs with no check or balance whatsoever, which is what would happen if you got your way and elected government were abolished. Circle jerk away on how I just don't understand that everyone would just get along with no rule of law.
Why do you believe that oligarchs can only be opposed if the majority gives up their freedom as individuals and hands over power to a small group of people? Isn't that handing power directly to the oligarchs? Wouldn't it make more sense for individuals to work together voluntarily against the oligarchs rather than to create an elite class of oligarchs supposedly to save us from oligarchs?
You do not understand or appreciate what an oligarch is, which makes sense given that you subscribe to the sophomoric Randian vision of the world run by benevolent industrialists. Merely deciding to form a government of elected representatives is not equivalent to creating an elite class. Of course it can (and has) been turned into this in the United States, but the fundamental problem you seem to have is not seeing that there are alternatives other than A (what we have) and B (no government).
Yeah, let's just hand control from one set of tyrants to a totally different set of tyrants because they promised us free healthcare and schooling.
Use any words you want they're are no benevolent tyrants.
Merely deciding to form a government of elected representatives is not equivalent to creating an elite class.
How could any government operate without taking its operating expenses from productive individuals and without enforcing its edicts with violence and threats of violence? How can a small group of people with the supposed legal authority to take from others and inflict injury upon others not be rightly described as an elite class and an oligarchy?
ol·i·gar·chy -- noun: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.e·lite --noun: a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities.
"How can a small group of people with the supposed legal authority to take from others and inflict injury upon others not be rightly described as an elite class?"
By your definition of "elite class," you could not have any type of third-party law enforcement in your utopia. Arming some guys and paying them to enforce laws against things like murder and robbery in your community, would render them an "elite class." After all, they would have the authority from you to inflict injury upon others and take from others to enforce your laws, even if they did not consent to your laws or the authority of your police. It is probably kind to call your ideology sophomoric.
in your utopia
Utopia is a fictional, centrally planned society. If you think that the idea of a Utopia is foolish (as you should) then criticize central planning and not the freedom of the individual to make his own decisions.
It is probably kind to call your ideology sophomoric.
Why do you believe that individuals do not own their own bodies?
By your definition of "elite class," you could not have any type of third-party law enforcement..Arming some guys and paying them to enforce laws against things like murder and robbery in your community, would render them an "elite class." After all, they would have the authority from you to inflict injury upon others and take from others to enforce your laws, even if they did not consent to your laws or the authority of your police.
A security firm limited to the protection of people and property would not have a right to initiate violence against anyone. Here's a real world example. Note that these individuals provide protective services without taking anything from others against their will.
Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State's "Security" Monopoly"How would things be different,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”
Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the opposite of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies. This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the protection of persons and property, rather than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit.“We’ve been hired by three of the most upscale neighborhoods in Detroit to provide 24/7 security services,” Brown proudly informed me during a telephone interview. “People who are well-off are very willing to pay for Lamborghini-quality security services, which means that our profit margin allows us to provide free services to people who are poor, threatened, and desperate for the kind of help the police won’t provide.”
“Unlike the police, we don’t respond after a crime has been committed to conduct an investigation and – some of the time, at least – arrest a suspect,” Brown elaborates. “Our approach is based on deterrence and prevention. Where prevention fails, our personnel are trained in a variety of skills – both psychological and physical – to dominate aggressors without killing them.”
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/09/call-anti-police-ending-sta...
I keep forgetting that everyone will get along in your non-utopia utopia, and that all crime will be stopped before it happens, thus eliminating the paradox of how to enforce laws without violence against parties who do not consent to your views. Now it all makes sense. And as proof, we have your example of Detroit, where there is no longer crime or the need for violence against criminals. One thing is for sure -- there is no middle ground. We couldn't recognize that police are necessary, but also train them to diffuse and avoid violence whenever possible. It is all or nothing.
I've beaten my head against the brick wall of your ideology enough for one day.
You keep forgetting that the majority of individuals are not criminals and that by working together voluntarily those individuals have the best chance of living secure, productive lives.
Detroit's problems were created by the government you defend. It is the government security apparatus that does not respond to citizens in trouble. The Threat Management Center linked above helps individuals to be safe in a city destroyed by the policies you support.
Got it -- subject changed. We can just gloss over the whole paradox about how to enforce laws against violence or theft in your lawsless soceity, because most people don't commit crimes.
And I must support the policies of Detroit because I think we need police, and I disagree with your Randian view of the solution. There is no possible other viewpoint. Got it again.
And I almost forgot. All violence and other criminal activity in Detroit is the fault of government. Got it yet again.
Discussing the frequency of criminal behavior and those who are most or least likely to engage in that behavior is germain to the topic of how to prevent crime. Only someone who was desperate to avoid the subject entirely would claim that it was a different subject.
Discussing the frequency of criminal behavior and those most likely to engage in that behavior is germain to the topic of how to prevent crime.
Statistically, poor people are the most likely to engage in criminal behavior (or at least be caught for it). Now go on...
I would say that government authorities are those most likely to engage in criminal behavior as government is based on the idea that those running it have the supposed right to take what is not theirs and to kidnap and attack those who don't comply.
I would recommend that you stop hating the poor and look at who your real enemies are. When the crimes of government can be ended the ensuing rush of opportunity will lift up the poor and enable all of us to better care for our neighbors voluntarily rather than having our money siphoned off to bomb foreigners for "freedom."
You are taking a specific - potentially factual - argument and abstracting it into a vague unquantifiable one.
No, I am focusing on the root of the problem. A system based on theft and violence doesn't curtail theft and violence.
Individuals making their own decisions in-spite of circumstances, isn't that a conservative principal?
But you're arguing separate things, there are many tiers of 'law.' Poor people are not all shining angels, oppressed or not. Same goes for the ruling class. i.e. the necessity of a democratic government.
There is only One Law provided by nature:
Each individual has a right to be secure in his person and property and may defend himself in proportion to any threat made against him.
Individuals in specific situations may wish to devise corollaries by voluntary agreement but any such agreements must recognize the One Law as noted above.
Each individual has a right to be secure in his person and property and may defend himself in proportion to any threat made against him.
When you say it is a 'right' I take it you mean it's a nice ideal, but quite obviously this is not a 'law' based on any reading of history or global populations.
No, self determination is a right. The perversion of the One Law by depraved persons does not negate the law but rather informs us that the One Law must be vigorously defended by all individuals who value life and freedom.
If you disagree please make your best case for denying that individuals own their own bodies and will reflexively defend themselves against injury.
These are nice platitudes but reality is less sanguine, the amount of the 'one law' any individual is able to experience is congtingent on where and to whom they are born.
One of the better arguments against your idealistic claim is pronably slavery - something which has existed since humans first started keeping records. Even today there are places on earth where children are born into literal prisons and may never experience any life outside of that, entirely dependent on their parents etc. 'criminal' behaviour.
You've lost your humanity. You believe that because some people abuse other individuals through the institution of slavery that that proves that individuals are rightfully slaves and do not own their own bodies.
Have a great evening, it's time to light the fire and fix some dinner, what with me being self reliant and all.
You've lost your humanity. You believe that because some people abuse other individuals through the institution of slavery that that proves that individuals are rightfully slaves and do not own their own bodies.
No, my argument is that historically an individuals level of autonomy has been dependent on the society in which they exist and their place within that hierarchy rather than natural 'rights' 'laws' etc.
An obvious inference would be that amount of personal wealth increases or decreases autonomy in many societies (i.e. US).
It's not a controversial claim..
Statistically, poor people are the most likely to be PROSECUTED for illegal behaviour.
Only those found guilty show up in the official statistics.
FIFY
Utopia? You really grasp at straws sometimes. It's embarrassing.
There are really two types of governments: governments that represent the peoples democratic interests and governments that don't. The rest is degrees.
Americans tend to favour undemocratic governments that wield with an iron fist their (social left/right) particular view of the world and then rationalize it all later. Hence why so many zh'ers love putin.
Meanwhile, American economic/ military (the two things that really matter) policy has been dominated by the right for the past 50 years+, anyone arguing the reverse is delusional.
Yeah, the massive welfare state in America dominated by the left doesn't matter?
LOL, speaking of "delusional".
Yeah, the massive welfare state in America dominated by the left doesn't matter?
If GE, Boeing, Wal-mart etc. were state owned enterprises you might have a relevant point, but they are not and you do not.
JRobby answered your question below.
So what's your point? Do you have one?
American economic/ military (the two things that really matter) policy has been dominated by the right for the past 50 years+
You've been here how long and you're still using terms like "right" and "left" in any context other than to discuss people who self-describe that way?
Left vs Right
Liberal vs Conservative
Social Welfare State vs Corporate Welfare State
Democrat vs Republican (laugh track deafening!)
Until you realize that the above bullshit that so many hold so dear as "ideological debate" is nothing more than the oldest trick in the ruling class book:
"Divide and Conquer" you will remain sheep to be slaughtered.
Recognition of the problems created by the welfare state does not have to be an exercise in enmity against those who are "cared for" by the government. Those enthralled to the welfare state are victims to be liberated not foes to be attacked. Exhibit A: public schooling.
Social Welfare State vs Corporate Welfare State
Americans always gloss over the obvious: unless the social welfare funds go to public enterprises, this should be written:
Social Welfare state is a subset of corporate welfare state
Social Welfare state is a subset of corporate welfare state
That's true. But do you see that as being a justification for the welfare state or as just another good reason to end the welfare state once and for all?
But do you see that as being a justification for the welfare state or as just another good reason to end the welfare state once and for all?
The 'welfare state' in all its permutations is fundamental to the US economy.
The present US economy is a zombified apparatus designed to transfer wealth to oligarchs. Do you see that as a justification for the welfare state or just another good reason to end it once and for all?
When considering a problem, your solution - at the very least - needs to address the complexity of the problem.
Your attitude explains why humanity never extricates itself from foreseeable problems but rather waits for poorly conceived complex systems to fail entirely thereby bringing pain and death for millions before things can be set right once again.
Governments steal from the productive members of society then give just enough back to keep Joe Public just happy enough (not miserable enough?) not to revolt.
Humans, before governent had even been thought of, used to collectively look after the infirm, there's lots of archeological evidnece for this.
Government is the problem and so can't even be part of the solution.
Amen Robby... two political and ideological crime syndicates with one joint goal - to divide the spoils as "we" chew each other to death while they just get stronger and assume more power over us every day, with the sock puppet media brainwashing us all and driving a stake down the middle. WE are like two animals stuck in traps, chwewing our legs off rather than going after our mutual enemy. Personally, I fear it is too late already.
You are correct that government is necessary, but very small and limited to delivering the mail, protecting the shores, and staying the hell out of my life. Anything beyond that is asking for trouble.
Why wouldn't competition in a free market increase the efficiency of mail delivery just like it would for anything else?
Because then "citizens" who lived in close proximity to each other wouldn't subsidise "citizens" who didn't?
Mispricing of a service is inefficient in itself and may lead to greater inefficiency in the future due to inaccurate price discovery. Thanks for the confirmation of the superiority of private enterprise.
They're probably beaming some type of wave through the screens of these iPhones at all the users effectively making them more susceptible to these type of messages, that and brainwashing from kindergarten through high school and up into college.
Does the deluge of Bernie Sanders hit pieces mean Zero Hedge's masters have raised the color coded socialist threat level from orange to red ?
OK, mouthbreather, where were you when ZH ran a hit piece on Trump yesterday?
And, what deluge of hit pieces are you whining about.
Provide all the links to these hit pieces on ZH or STFU!
DSM IA - 10.24.2015
~7000 at a Bernie rally, featuring...Bernie Sanders
....also that same day...'several hundred' at the Clinton rally that featured Bill Clinton and KATY PERRY!
I bet Hillary was fuming when that embarrassment ended; or was it just another of her "planned events" where she likes small crowds because it's more "personable"...LOL!
The brought in KATY PERRY and still couldn't get 500 people to show up! There were probably more than 500 people at the airport when Katy arrived! Social media DISASTER! Broadcasting high and low that Katy would be at the Clinton rally and still a horrible turn out.
DEMOCRATS have no love for Hillary..good luck with the swing voters!
God I hope you are right... However the field of 'choices' we are fed is pretty nauseating overall. Seriously, is the pool of leader candidates for the largest economy in the world so thin that our choices are 'Good', 'Bad' or 'Ugly'? I guess that's the inherent problem when psychopathy is the highest prerequisite.
We need more free shit.
Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie dat.
I didn do nuttin!
I have to ask. Why is receiving Social.Security and.Medicare, which recipients have paid into their entire lives, mischaracterized as "free shit?" When I withdraw money from my bank account, or when a insurance policy I paid for compensates me for a loss, is that me getting free shit too? No it isnt. So why the scorn for collecting from a Social Security account?
Social Security is structured like a Ponzi scheme. Current recipients are receiving Munny from Current workers, NOT what they paid into the system, that Munny was spent long ago.
Trying to find pics of the Clinton/Katy rally...not going well...
HillaryClinton.com...it's like it never happened.
Hillary's FaceBook page...ONE pathetic picture of Hillary holding hands with Katy...
Katy Perry has 46,555,829 twitter followers. She was even granted access to Hillary's twitter feed...DISASTER!
More than 2 MILLION of Hillary Clinton's Twitter followers are fake or never tweet – and she's already under fire for 'buying' fake Facebook fans"Although Hillary Clinton boasts a robust 3.6 million Twitter followers, not even a vast right-wing conspiracy would be able to interact with 2 million of them.
According to two popular online measuring tools, no more than 44 per cent of her Twitter fan base consists of real people who are active in using the social media platform"
Maybe they should start sending her out in public with a porkchop around her neck?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038621/More-2-MILLION-Hillary-Clinton-s-Twitter-followers-fake-never-tweet.html#ixzz3pbQteqGBI believe there's a decent pic of Hillary with Bill and some female, not sure who it is, dancing in the background over on Drudge.
Mmm, pork chops... :>D
There are no "choices". The campaign is one big reality show, the winner will be chosen by the big bosses behind the curtains. Illusion of hope, vote/choice and freedom
I know this which is why I put the word in quotes... My point is that you would think they could find better puppets wouldn't you? I mean really, this lot is a joke
The only solution for a peaceful society is self-government.
Anything less is merely a madman/madwoman with a gun, effecting the basic hostage technique of, "Do as I say and nobody gets hurt!"
misguided really is the best summation of BS. his heart appears to be in the right place. he sees the problems with the banks and the elite, however, he has an old-fashioned notion that this is the fault of capitalism. we all know that this system buried true capitalism some time ago. we are indeed run by a centrally planned group of unelected, just like a socialist system. and all the money is going to this group, just like in a socialist system.
so, we are already a socialist nation, but BS clings to the illusion that he can redistribute the wealth. as if those benefitting from this will willing give it all up, and we will somehow maintian a nation of no rich or poor, just middle class.
ZHers all know this is a dangerous pipe dream, and now that we are moving into an age of a much poorer America it is simply out of the question.
When .gov redistributes wealth only the State and its apparatchiks benefit, everyone else loses.
At one time Sweden was a model for working socialism with its small ethnically homogeneous population. Everyone was willing to pitch in because they knew their fellow citizens would be there to help them when they were down. Everyone worked toward the same common goals.
Now, Sweden is a failed state. It has imported it's own Free Shit Army that absolutely hates its indigenous population. The FSA does not want to assimilate much less add to the well being of the host.
The imported population is parasite on the Swedish population as a whole and will kill it within two decades.
Europe and the US have run out of other peoples money. The D.C. apparatchiks are killing the middle class to pay for the FSA infesting the US. In order to keep the game going they borrowed and printed their way to a false prosperity.
If Bernie was elected and got his way he would usher in the final collapse of a corrupt and degenerate system as there is no way the US government can pay for all his social programs with the US economy on verge of collapse.
capitalism without cronyism
Note that Tibor avoided the misnomer "crony capitalism" and used the accurate phrase, "oligarchic cronyism."
JUst make me Emperor of the world. Free bagels for all!!
"What's the solution?"
According to the average poster on this forum the solution is destruction, chaos, mayhem, and death. Goodness knows, we most certainly cannot look at anything that has been successfully done elsewhere in the world, because that would be very bad, and there are a million very good reasons why it would never work here. So, all that leaves is the aforementioned death and destruction. Welcome to Zero Hedge!
maybe "what has worked elsewhere in the world" is the result of the ingenuity of Americans coupled with the protective shield we have laid around you. what would europe, az, nz, japan be without big daddy? you are all a bunch of rotten, ungrateful children.
Madame Guillotine solved some "problems."
As Einstein once said "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". We need a new type of ism
Anarchism is a pretty old ism.
Looks better than the rest, to me.
Bernie Sanders is a nice, comedic fodder distraction for the masses.
IF the election were for real, he'd truly poll 20%...but this old codger after 8 years of Fuckbama?
No.
TPTB are amused..for now. Not for long.
Right, Bernie Sanders isn't in it to win it.
He made that clear in the debate when he said "We are sick of hearing about Hillary's emails!" which gave her a pass.
What he does is provide cover for Hillary, making her appear to be the reasonable adult in the room.
In actuality, she's every bit the socialist Bernie Sanders is, she's just better at putting up the mask.
Bernie is a Socialist; Hillary is EVIL...big difference..and I'm not alone in that opinion...Who is Bernie Sanders?...who the fuck knows, but HE'S NOT HILLARY!...so the crowds pour out to support him with the real motive being the defeat of the Clintons.
This is a replay of Obama rising from nothing to bring down the Clintons.
ALL SOCIALISM IS EVIL.
Bernie is a tyrant wannabe. He'd be as bad as Idi Amin if he had half the chance.
Pure Capitalism is JUST AS evil as Pure Socialism.
If the American people are turning TO SOCIALISM, then what is it that they are TURNING AWAY FROM?
What has failed them so badly, that they're willing to give up their Political/Social/Economic "Freedom" to escape it?
Pure Capitalism is JUST AS evil as Pure Socialism.
Capitalism is an economic method whereby one sets aside some of today's profit (capital) so that one can be more productive in the future. A farmer who refrains from eating his entire crop but rather saves some seeds for next year's planting engages in capitalism. There's nothing evil about that. The evil come when the farmer doesn't save his seed and can plant no future crop. It's called "eating your seed corn," and it leads to starvation and death.
Texbook definitions/examples always look and feel so good...but when you implement those "perfect" systems in the real world, it all falls apart rather quickly.
Part of "setting aside" todays profit for "more productivity in the future", in the real world, requires an "investment" in the political arena..and down hill your Capitalism races from there.
Part of "setting aside" todays profit for "more productivity in the future", in the real world, requires an "investment" in the political arena
That's not capitalism. Why pretend that it is?
He doesn't get it, Billy. You'd have better success engaging in this type of philosophy with a common house cat.
My cats get it!
Your "Capitalism" can only exist on paper; once implemented in the real world, it, eventually, fails horribly.
PS> ALL "ism's" work best on paper..they ALL fail when faced with reality.
Not at all. Saving some of today's profit (capital) in order to be more productive in the future works in the real world. If it didn't then you would still be catching insects by hand and washing them down with muddy water dredged from a puddle by hand. Every tool ever made and every plan for more efficient production ever carried out were capitalist endeavors.
Your "Capitalism" can only exist on paper; once implemented in the real world, it, eventually, fails horribly.
PS> ALL "ism's" work best on paper..they ALL fail when faced with reality.
Capitalism isn't a system. There are institutions that evolve to facilitate (and parasitise) it, like the stock market, or banking, but they are not capitalism.
It's true that capitalism (probably*) can't exist without some monopolist of coercion enforcing rule of law and contracts, but that goes for any functioning society.
People seem to think that any polity that allows some free-market capitalism is a "capitalist" country, and then blame "capitalism" for various woes that have nothing to do with capitalism.
*though I'm sure Billy would argue with this one
If anything, government gets in the way of capitalism. Here's Thoreau on the subject:
"Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. ... Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads."
And here is Rothbard's take:
"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism."
I have something you want and you don't have anything I want.
Joe over there wants something you have but you don't have anything Joe wants.
I have something Joe wants.
Enter 'currency'
Government stands in the middle demanding a piece of all three with the threat of violence.
Doesn't seem right to me.
Everything was fine up to, and including 'currency'.
I think Rothbard pretty much nails it.
So what would your opinion be if Hillary won the nomination and made Bernie her VP?
If Hillary is on the ticket in any way, I'm voting Republican.
If it's Bernie vs. Trump or Carson, I'll have to think about that one..the lesser of the evils isn't totally clear there...but Hillary is PURE evil so no way my swing vote goes to her.
Women like to support other women in their effort to succeed in a "mans world"; trying to gauge Hillary's support strickly because of her female status..it's not good. I know "Middle Ground Voter" women that voted for Bill, but they're not thrilled at the thought of voting for Hillary; they're "waiting to see" what the Republicans offer up.
"but Hillary is PURE evil"
Your moral clarity would make George Bush proud.
FireBrander, I read your comments and just laughed and shook my head. You're stuck in the matrix. Realize that your vote is meaningless and is merely an illusion of choice. There is a one-party system that is run by the .0000001%. They select the candidates that you get to "vote" for, knowing full-well that no matter who is elected, they win and you lose.
I'm "stuck" in the reality of the situation...yes I am "given" two choices...but I if don't pick one, then someone else gets to pick for me.
While they both end up acting pretty much the same, there are some differences; so I get to pick my crumbs at least.
The time to complain about the choices is not Election Day, it's the day after...and along with that complaint you must act locally to try and send better choices to the top.
That's my reality and I'm dealing with it.
Maybe someday you'll get it. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
..yes I am "given" two choices...but I if don't pick one, then someone else gets to pick for me.
Should I smash you in the head with a hammer or with a tire iron? It's entirely your choice.
Happy?
Pretty much my first thought.
I decided on a more gentle approach!
The point is YOU ARE NOT GIVEN ANY CHOICE.
If you can't see that, you have to be totally blind to reality.
If you vote you validate the corrupt games being played with your life.
If you vote you are complicit in the crimes of government.
Write an article when you understand the difference between Marxism and Socialism. Piss poor article.
Tibor Machan is a brilliant individual and an effective writer. It's not his fault that you can't understand that one must actually make an effort in life in order to achieve anything of value. That's your fault.
Does it matter to the slave if he is enlsaved by a Pharoah or a Marxist-Leninist? Such distinctions are purely academinc and mean NOTHING to those enslaved.
Nitpicking like this is NOT any kind of counter-argument to the article. It's puling from a dipshit who is trying to look smart without doing the work to be smart...but then if you did the work, you would not be quibbling about trivia...
Only an idiot would care to make such a distinction between these two methods of enslaving humanity.
What's so hard about understanding the idea that other people are NOT your property?
He had no other cogent argument other than to try and bring up a false dichotomy between to different ism's.
.
Don't fool yourself, Americans, it's going right up your poop chute.
- word play on a Zappa lyric
Don't let Obama know or he'll be first in line bent over like a tranny giving blow jobs on Easy Street.
Where the fuck is Krugcunt these days? You'd think with Socialism in the ascendant he'd be jacking off on national TV and telling everyone how wonderful it is to be a Keynesian *ahem* Socialist. Hitlery must be saving him to beat Trump.
Plutocracy/Oligarchy 2016 2+2=5
Your vote is useless...
Bernie is just a side show untill the main headliner takes the stage. The trick to the whole presidential campaign is how the rules hide the strings attached to all the pupet candidates
Enough strawmen to field a NFL team in the article...
And yet you couldn't trot even one out onto the field.
The implicit equivalence between nordic social democracry and Stalinism is a start...
Only ten more straw men to go. Get them out there, the game is about to start! And let's hope that they have a little more meat on their bones than that first guy. Of course that's what you get for recruiting your players from Gulag Archipelago U.
In an ideal world........
Unfortunately, this ain't it!
more bs. the biggest receipient of .gov largesse are the oligarchs. how much of romney's check originated as tax dollars? this articles cries about people receiving a coupla hundred bucks/month when their fate was decided by oligarch who decided the chinese needed jobs more than americans did so they could pocket billions. walmart refuses to pay their workers enough to live on so the welfare checks they collect to make ends meet goes right to walmart's bottom line.
yea, socialsim, bullshit.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
In an article which explores Bernie Sanders campaign promises as they are popularly understood it makes sense to consider those specific ideas. Like welfare for the rich, toe fungus is a bad thing but as Bernie has promised us neither toe fungus nor welfare for the rich (as far as I know) then there's no need to mention it in an article about what Sanders does promise
That's how tight, effective writing works. No superfluity.
One could write additional articles which discuss how Bernie's policies can only be funded through an expansion of central bank credit and how that puts massive amounts of wealth into the pockets of the oligarchs but we can save that for another day.
since his plans include taxing the rich to pay for these programs and not the shared sacrifice implied by socialism and marxism then the points i raised certainly fit somewhere(side notes) in an article implicating sanders as either or both.
But the rich don't have enough money to make Bernie's dreams come true. You could take every single penny from every American with more than $250,000 in assets and it wouldn't be sufficient to cover even one term of a Sander's presidency.
The government is bankrupt when considering only the existing promises to retires, veterans and the disabled. Adding more debt on top of bankruptcy is not a workable plan even if you rape and pillage every "rich" person you can find.
raising the taxable ss income solidifies ss. a fair solution works. the tax on financial transactions for free public education, as long as it doesn't hinder speculation, is a little dicier. i prefer something more of a mandate for corporations to fund public education in all states where they have an office. they know the need dynamicly, they know how to train people, and they know how to handle money. degrees are old school. certifications are the new way to do things.
As the government does not engage in reasonable accounting practices the real numbers are difficult to discover, however unfunded liabilities amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 trillion to $200 trillion over the next few decades.
There isn't enough money out there to pay this off as well as the additional debts accrued along the way even without adding more socialism into the mix.
i am not arguing that there is hope for the future. there is none. this system has to collapse. as much as most of us here realize it and talk shit about how we are prepared i can tell you from my father and his friends' stories from the grest depression that you really don't want to be around. back then people were pretty peaceful. today, american society has a huge predatory element that will do anything to eat. i saw it personally in the aftermath of hurricane andrew. the same element showed up after hurricane katrina. forget about the system blowing up financially. you'll have much bigger existential issues. i am too old to deal with a collapse so kicking the can down the road looks good to me.
I am arguing that there is hope for the future. When individuals accept the fact that each of us owns his own body and the fruits of our own labor then the rebuilding can begin.
that may have a chance after the collapse.
That's the plan.
Bernie's SS fix isn't actually a fix. Eliminating the cap social security tax payments doesn't do anything to save social security on a long enough timeline, although it may allow the program to remain solvent through the currently projected (and thoroughly BLS'd) bankruptcy date. In addition to removing the cap on SS taxes, a cap on benefit accruals needs to be implemented (which is a non-starter because "Uncle Sam is paying me MY money" and the oligarchs "need" bigger handouts than the po' folk), and the program needs to be means tested (which is non starter because SS "isn't welfare, and we EARNED it" (absent massive immigration and a job renaissance, and/or massive inflation that isn't passed on through COLAs, i.e. instead of a little over $1000/month perhaps covering rent, the same $1000/month SS check will cover a couple bags of groceries, so not really a solution... except to bean counter).
When a self identified Democratic Socialist is too afraid to honesty discuss the needed reforms of the system, there is NO ALTERNATIVE but to crash and burn (and wish the victims of a conflagration as painless a death as possible).
I liked the Ron Paul plan in which US troops are withdrawn from the hundred plus counties where they are based, they return home to defend our own borders and the savings could be used to prop up SS for a few decades until folks could be weaned off that bad system.
there is actually a simple system that may have an expensive transition cost but it is the only way to keep the system solvent. a lifetime bond is deposited (say 50grand)whenever a person becomes an american citizen (at birth or when you are sworn in). with an inflation adjusted +2% rate attached to it that can be collected when the benefactor pays off the original deposit, reaches retirement age or is on permanent disability or some such plan. the details can be worked out.
When a banker uses a trust fund or a special purpose vehicle, it to shield the banker from liabilities and associated "costs", not the other way around. Governments are no different.
The simplest and quickest solution would be to eliminate the trust fund and roll Social Security obligations into the general budget as general obligation of the United States, which would place Social Security recipients pari passu with US bondholders.
Of course the politicians would have to admit they have been lying and stealing for 80 years, and actually modify the program terms so that Social Security is sustainable.
The Supreme Court already stated in some case that Congress can change Social Security at any time. (Good luck getting re-elected afterwards!)
why should anyone have money (stored labor) bestowed upon them just for being born?
why should a corporation pay to educate someone's child? I had 4 and paid for their private education
romney is no oligarch
Feel The Bern Bitches