Posted from another site.
P.S.- Kosar- always glad to read your posts. Eddie- your included, just can't help but think of you as Dr. Moriarity. As Capt Kirk once said..."on different worlds, we might have been friends"- (this is the part where you blow up your Romulan spaceship.) Fight the good fight counselor.
Once upon a time, a main difference between the left and the right was fiscal "responsibility". The socialist-influenced left pandered to voters by promising programs and entitlements paid for largely by other people's tax dollars. The libertarian-influenced right promised to cut spending, reduce government, and cut taxes. These days, these differences have deteriorated to a matter of symantics. Now the only difference between the right and the left are that the right will cut taxes, and the left will raise them. Both pander to voters by promising exorbitant entitlements and social programs, but one wants to tax people to do it, the other wants to drive us into debt.
The problem with both sides is that they don't seem to understand or maybe don't care about the implications of the programs they sell to the public. A lot of leftists tell me that they are social libertarians and economic socialists. That is the hip new thing, apparently: Support individual liberty, but want to help those in "need". Sound good, except it's the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. The point I've made before is that neither armchair nor actual politicians seem to realize that when they casually toss out ideas for these social programs, they are talking about sending men with guns, the police, against people who may not agree with their programs and may not be willing to comply with them. That is what is being suggested. You create a program that may or may not be a good idea, and it is paid for through taxes (eventually). If someone thinks this program is garbage, and refuses to pay new taxes for it, then police are sent against him. If this man believes that armed agents of the state have no right to come against him and force him to pay an arbitrary tax for a program he believes is worthless or even harmful or immoral, and decides to defend himself or resist arrest, he could even be killed. That is the choice. Comply with the state, allow the state to take what you have earned and spend it as they please, or face deadly force. I would say that sounds suspiciously like authoritarianism, but nah, that couldn't be. That only happens in other countries, right?
There are many programs that are, at the very least, debatable, and many that are obvious failures. Many people who are absolutely against the war on Iraq are forced to finance it or face the state's deadly force. People who are morally opposed to the war on drugs are forced to finance it or face the state's deadly force. There is some baptist minister in Tennessee that is being forced to pay for the federally funded museum in Brooklyn that displays the "Jar filled with piss and cow's blood with a crucifix dropped in it" display. He is forced to finance this museum that openly mocks everything he believes in or face deadly force from the state. People are forced to give up portions of their income that state senators and representatives conspire to divide amongst their state's pet programs in order to pander to groups to help their local re-election campaigns. People are forced to finance this or face deadly force from the state. Socialism and libertarianism are not compatible, a welfare state and liberty are not compatible.
You have to ask the question, if the government can take even a small portion of someone's income and spend it on an arbitrary, non-essential program, then does he really own anything he earns? He can't "sort of" own his property. He either owns his property or he doesn't. The government can either arbitrarily take it or they can't. Individual ownership of one's earnings and property rights are an illusion in this country. The government has, for years, shown the willingness to take from people for dubious or even immoral reasons, and to back this taxation up with deadly force, so the fact that they "allow" some people to keep a portion of their income doesn't really make much of a difference. It is theirs if they want it. We have given up too much power to a corrupt government, and we have been sucked into the illusion that because we can throw one thief out and replace him with another that the government is accountable to us. These guys are all from the same club, they all go to the same parties, and they all have the same goal: Keep the system intact to ensure their power base stays firm. Look at Kerry and Bush... say what you want to defend "your guy", but they are basically the same on the major issues. They both said they would have started a war of choice against Iraq even if they knew beforehand that there were no WMDs, they both want to spend ridiculous amounts of money (although, again, Kerry would raise taxes, while Bush just drives us into debt), they are both beholden to corporations and special interest groups, they are both long-standing members of a social and political elite that have lived the political life so long that they are completely detached from the reality of what goes on down on the ground. Still, a bunch of us "peasants" get so worked up defending one guy or the other that 100,000 people march on NYC, people get violent and scream and literally hate each other simply for supporting the other guy. There are not enough differences between these two cats to tear this country apart like this. Kerry wants to throw Bush out of office because he wants his 4-8 years in the spotlight. Bush wants another 4 years in the spotlight. And that's it. That's what they're fighting over. And they are trying to appeal to particular groups of people who will help them win a corrupt popularity contest that will do nothing but decide which corporate and special interest groups get to **** us all in the ass for the next four years. Neither of them are going to do anything to change the horribly corrupt system that has crippled this country and dropped us from the place that the world used to look to for inspiration and hope. Kerry supporters want to say that this only just happened. Bush supporters say that other countries don't understand what is going on. The fact is, our government has been so corrupt for so long, and held onto so tightly by a powerful oligarchy, that it has not answered to the American people for a long, long time.
The 100,000 leftists who protested Bush in NYC should join the libertarians and the reformists, and everyone else who thinks they are so disgruntled with one party or the other need to come to understand that it is the system and the government that they are disgruntled with. There can be no satisfaction in a nation governed by an elite that does not answer to the people. It is time for a revolution, because right now we are not being governed, we are being ruled.
P.S.- Kosar- always glad to read your posts. Eddie- your included, just can't help but think of you as Dr. Moriarity. As Capt Kirk once said..."on different worlds, we might have been friends"- (this is the part where you blow up your Romulan spaceship.) Fight the good fight counselor.
Once upon a time, a main difference between the left and the right was fiscal "responsibility". The socialist-influenced left pandered to voters by promising programs and entitlements paid for largely by other people's tax dollars. The libertarian-influenced right promised to cut spending, reduce government, and cut taxes. These days, these differences have deteriorated to a matter of symantics. Now the only difference between the right and the left are that the right will cut taxes, and the left will raise them. Both pander to voters by promising exorbitant entitlements and social programs, but one wants to tax people to do it, the other wants to drive us into debt.
The problem with both sides is that they don't seem to understand or maybe don't care about the implications of the programs they sell to the public. A lot of leftists tell me that they are social libertarians and economic socialists. That is the hip new thing, apparently: Support individual liberty, but want to help those in "need". Sound good, except it's the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. The point I've made before is that neither armchair nor actual politicians seem to realize that when they casually toss out ideas for these social programs, they are talking about sending men with guns, the police, against people who may not agree with their programs and may not be willing to comply with them. That is what is being suggested. You create a program that may or may not be a good idea, and it is paid for through taxes (eventually). If someone thinks this program is garbage, and refuses to pay new taxes for it, then police are sent against him. If this man believes that armed agents of the state have no right to come against him and force him to pay an arbitrary tax for a program he believes is worthless or even harmful or immoral, and decides to defend himself or resist arrest, he could even be killed. That is the choice. Comply with the state, allow the state to take what you have earned and spend it as they please, or face deadly force. I would say that sounds suspiciously like authoritarianism, but nah, that couldn't be. That only happens in other countries, right?
There are many programs that are, at the very least, debatable, and many that are obvious failures. Many people who are absolutely against the war on Iraq are forced to finance it or face the state's deadly force. People who are morally opposed to the war on drugs are forced to finance it or face the state's deadly force. There is some baptist minister in Tennessee that is being forced to pay for the federally funded museum in Brooklyn that displays the "Jar filled with piss and cow's blood with a crucifix dropped in it" display. He is forced to finance this museum that openly mocks everything he believes in or face deadly force from the state. People are forced to give up portions of their income that state senators and representatives conspire to divide amongst their state's pet programs in order to pander to groups to help their local re-election campaigns. People are forced to finance this or face deadly force from the state. Socialism and libertarianism are not compatible, a welfare state and liberty are not compatible.
You have to ask the question, if the government can take even a small portion of someone's income and spend it on an arbitrary, non-essential program, then does he really own anything he earns? He can't "sort of" own his property. He either owns his property or he doesn't. The government can either arbitrarily take it or they can't. Individual ownership of one's earnings and property rights are an illusion in this country. The government has, for years, shown the willingness to take from people for dubious or even immoral reasons, and to back this taxation up with deadly force, so the fact that they "allow" some people to keep a portion of their income doesn't really make much of a difference. It is theirs if they want it. We have given up too much power to a corrupt government, and we have been sucked into the illusion that because we can throw one thief out and replace him with another that the government is accountable to us. These guys are all from the same club, they all go to the same parties, and they all have the same goal: Keep the system intact to ensure their power base stays firm. Look at Kerry and Bush... say what you want to defend "your guy", but they are basically the same on the major issues. They both said they would have started a war of choice against Iraq even if they knew beforehand that there were no WMDs, they both want to spend ridiculous amounts of money (although, again, Kerry would raise taxes, while Bush just drives us into debt), they are both beholden to corporations and special interest groups, they are both long-standing members of a social and political elite that have lived the political life so long that they are completely detached from the reality of what goes on down on the ground. Still, a bunch of us "peasants" get so worked up defending one guy or the other that 100,000 people march on NYC, people get violent and scream and literally hate each other simply for supporting the other guy. There are not enough differences between these two cats to tear this country apart like this. Kerry wants to throw Bush out of office because he wants his 4-8 years in the spotlight. Bush wants another 4 years in the spotlight. And that's it. That's what they're fighting over. And they are trying to appeal to particular groups of people who will help them win a corrupt popularity contest that will do nothing but decide which corporate and special interest groups get to **** us all in the ass for the next four years. Neither of them are going to do anything to change the horribly corrupt system that has crippled this country and dropped us from the place that the world used to look to for inspiration and hope. Kerry supporters want to say that this only just happened. Bush supporters say that other countries don't understand what is going on. The fact is, our government has been so corrupt for so long, and held onto so tightly by a powerful oligarchy, that it has not answered to the American people for a long, long time.
The 100,000 leftists who protested Bush in NYC should join the libertarians and the reformists, and everyone else who thinks they are so disgruntled with one party or the other need to come to understand that it is the system and the government that they are disgruntled with. There can be no satisfaction in a nation governed by an elite that does not answer to the people. It is time for a revolution, because right now we are not being governed, we are being ruled.
