tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post5658618469516523900..comments2023-09-29T06:58:20.125-07:00Comments on Badtux the Snarky Penguin: Word for today: SocialismBadTuxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-85538562694250388112010-04-07T23:28:45.920-07:002010-04-07T23:28:45.920-07:00We had socialism in the constitution to about the ...We had socialism in the constitution to about the same extent as cookies have a little salt in them. Nobody operates at the extremes. You need some balance and some thoughtfulness. In communist countries they have a bit of capitalism. It doesn't make them capitalists at heart or in principle. <br /><br />What we're talking about here is where your heart is, and then we make realistic compromises and go from there. I can see you're heart is in statism without hesitation if any bespectacled number crunching intellectual can show you it serves your interests in some way. I feel that statism is the right place for people who think their thought processes are superior, because they know if they run the show everything will turn out right. I, on the other hand, am for freedom first. It doesn't mean I don't compromise. <br /><br />I feel many of your posts box people into neat little extreme caricatures. I personally am an 80/20 man. 80% capitalism, and 20% socialism. That is my utmost limit. Under 20%, and you'll find me more easily swayed to social paternalism. Over 20%, and I'm fighting you every inch. Furthermore, though, based on the concept of Federalism and the 10th amendment, the 20% needs to be at the State level as much as possible. So I'm fighting you most of the time when it comes to Federal programs. I don't care if bigger is better or more efficient. It's when we hold true to the rule of law, that societies do best. <br /><br />The constitution was clearly by any reasonable interpretation written to constrain the role of the federal government in favor of the states. In Federalist 45, the "father" of our Constitution James Madison says it best ""The powers delegated ... to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.""<br /><br /><br />When it comes to the concept of the government's only object being to "provide services where the market place doesn't work". If that is the operational definition, then there is absolutely no limit to what government should do. The government can do anything better than the private sector because it has nearly unlimited access to resources. (It just can't do it as efficiently and it can't do it without infringing on freedom) So while technically accurate, your definition is framed to produce your desired statist result. The definition I think Americans true to the Constitution should have is this: the government is there to protect your inalienable rights. These are rights you have even in the absence of other human beings (right to life, liberty, and property). As soon as other human beings enter the picture, they tend to interfere with those inalienable rights. Your socialist utopias interfere a little with life and a lot with liberty and property. The sleight of hand that liberals/progressives/socialist perform is treat vested rights as inalienable ones. In light of the fact that one of the inalienable rights is to democratically engage in collective projects means that sometimes our goal of protecting rights must necessarily break down for the minority who doesn't agree with the majority. But the American system even tries to protect the minority. The majority should not always get its way. Checks, balances, and compromise. In case you didn't know this, the founding fathers despised pure democracy. We have a republic, not a democracy. Again, because we don't want "We the people" turning themselves over to dictators, or wannabees like Obama.<br /><br />I wrote more about this <a href="http://nathanstudy.blogspot.com/2009/10/when-freedom-is-slavery-by-another-name.html" rel="nofollow"> here </a>.nathan3700https://www.blogger.com/profile/04423294092652508970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-80404615452761890382010-04-07T07:29:12.531-07:002010-04-07T07:29:12.531-07:00Hi Nathan, I hope you don't think I'm igno...Hi Nathan, I hope you don't think I'm ignoring you, it's just that I've been very busy this past week preparing for my spring migration, and will be migratory for the next week or so. <br /><br />We have, of course, had socialism in America since 1787, when Ben Franklin wrote it into the U.S. Constitution (it's there -- read the section where Congress gets the power to create post offices and post roads). It's sort of the whole point of government, actually -- to provide services in a socialist manner where the private marketplace won't work. Fire protection, police protection, public libraries... all of those are socialist, and we've had all of those provided by government since before the founding of our nation. I am baffled as to why you are stamping your widdle feetsies and saying this is a bad thing. If government can do it more effectively and efficiently than the private market, and choice is not important (and let's face it, I don't care <i>who</i> provides police services to my apartment complex, I just care that <i>somebody</i> provides police services to my apartment complex), what is the problem? <br /><br />Remember, in a democracy, government is We The People. It is right that We The People should be able to provide goods and services in a more efficient manner collectively (i.e., socialism) when We The People decide this is appropriate. I realize that right-wingers hate democracy, probably because We The People often make decisions that right-wingers disagree with, but the alternative -- a tyranny of the minority over the majority -- is unacceptable.<br /><br />Regulation to ensure that people are providing quality-goods in a non-fraudulent manner -- i.e., to make sure that health care companies provide what we're paying for -- is socialism? Uhm, no. Prohibitions against fraud date back to the founding of our nation too, indeed some of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases involved federally chartered canal companies that defrauded stockholders. Regulation is good ole' liberalism, taking a proactive approach to making sure fraud doesn't happen rather than a reactive approach. Preventing fraud rather than allowing people to be defrauded then reacting afterwards is a liberal thing to do, and you're quite correct about that. But it's not socialism, and you sound like you're hyperventilating when you claim it is.<br /><br />In short: Your biggest beef appears to be with democracy itself, which has decided, everywhere that it has been tried, that certain functions are better done by government (i.e. socialism!) and that markets need to be properly regulated in order to prevent fraud and other criminal activity (i.e., regulation!). These things did not happen because they were imposed on the democracies of the world by some tyrannical power. They happened because the people of these democracies <i>wanted</i> them to happen. And, occasionally, changed their mind and <i>un</i>-wanted them to happen -- thus why there is no longer an automobile company called British Leyland.<br /><br />- Badtux the Democratic PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-58952988144679141182010-04-07T00:38:06.155-07:002010-04-07T00:38:06.155-07:00Socialism is an abbreviation for the concept of bi...Socialism is an abbreviation for the concept of bigger government. Just because somebody uses a shorthand word to describe a complicated movement doesn't make them stupid. Why do you use epithets like teabuggers? It evokes a lot of images and feelings instantly (negative ones when the word is used pejoratively). It saves typing.<br /><br />Regardless of whether or not the term is correctly used, it is undeniable that Obama is taking us further down the road to socialism. Making utilities of insurance companies is socialism. If you control the means of production by mandates or by ownership, it is the same. <br /><br />If you want to be technical about it, you can say we're not at all becoming more socialist, but more liberal. Who cares, we all know it is bigger government. The more correct term of "statism" just doesn't seem to be catching on.<br /><br />Eisenhower almost ran as a Democrat. The tax rates were in place as part of the New Deal which he inherited.nathan3700https://www.blogger.com/profile/04423294092652508970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-42121805437131080382010-04-05T17:08:28.118-07:002010-04-05T17:08:28.118-07:00as if to make my point.... twitter:
RT @tilleryla...as if to make my point.... twitter:<br /><br />RT @tillerylakelady Obama is crying because #beck and #Limbaugh are educating the people on Socialism #teaparty #912project #libertarian #deGhost Dansinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15216056025402469120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-91684788259491774222010-04-05T17:04:32.562-07:002010-04-05T17:04:32.562-07:00hey... their language isn't the language of lo...hey... their language isn't the language of logic or precise meaning. it is a language of emotions.... mainly negative emotions. words are used to get an emotional response. you might have noticed you can't actually "reason" with them very much before they fall back on ditto-head parroting. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm9A3J294Ic" rel="nofollow">whiskey in the jar</a>Ghost Dansinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15216056025402469120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-77865676019974395362010-04-05T16:56:34.557-07:002010-04-05T16:56:34.557-07:00Good one!Good one!zztopdoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01857583016929986836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9612609.post-56117871695228833742010-04-05T16:44:56.834-07:002010-04-05T16:44:56.834-07:00Well dang, Tux. If Obama isn't Socialist he ha...Well dang, Tux. If Obama isn't Socialist he has to be Nazialist because there is no way a black president can be an Americanist, especially if he is a Muslimist. ;-)montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333471337818106739noreply@blogger.com