Day by Day

Monday, January 08, 2007

Another view

On my post about the liberals who expect people to take care of them, I chalked up their attitude to arrogance. Og has another viewpoint - social immaturity, or arrested social development.

There's a lot to suggest socialism is a kind of arrested development. When we are babes in arms, everything is given to us. Our every need is catered to- to the extent that we can communicate our needs. The more we communicate our needs, though, the more we are expected to deal with them ourselves. Potty training is probably the first harsh reality we have to encounter- which brings with it, the first time we have to plan in advance, the first time we have to recognize the signals of an impending event and react to them in time.


At some point in your life, you are brought to the awareness that your life is in your hands- that is, unless you have an arrested social development. When we're young and idealistic, we think that if everyone just worked together for a common goal we'd all be in nirvana, and anyone who didn't want to work for the common good should be forced to do so- for their OWN good. Except there is nobody who can apply a "common good" fairly to all men. Except that anytime a government agency is involved fully 1/3 (if not dramatically more) of the money is lost to corruption and graft. Except that everyone's "common good" is different from everyone else's . Common isn't so common. When we begin to understand that people are different, when we start being aware of the fact that some jobs pay more, that some jobs pay less, that there are balances between power, income and responsibility, we begin to direct our own lives.


John Smith and William Bradford saw the socialist social experiment fail, right before their eyes.

Since then, millions of people have made excuses for the failure of socialism every single time it has failed. "there was nobody to help". "Too many people interfered". "Not enough people worked hard enough". "the officials were too corrupt". Always excuses.

Capitalisim is robust. It works despite interference from all corners. Socialism is not. The only reason for believing socialism can work is an arrested social development.

Conservative capitalism is robust in this country, and it has survived all attempts to regulate, litigate, duty, asses, and tax it out of existence. Conservative capitalism is the poles holding up the tent- and as there are a lot of poles, it's hard to see the tent collapsing until they're all gone. The pilgrim colony could not absorb the failure of social experimentation. the United States Economy can- for a time. After it has absorbed so much, it could reach a point of unstoppable decay. Where is that line? I have no idea. I'd rather not cross it at all.

I'd rather just potty-train the socialists among us, so they understand that the idea is fundamentally flawed and can never work.

You know, there are probably a lot of reasons for the liberal mindset. I still think of it as a mental disorder, albeit one that can be cured. But I have to admit that the mental image of liberals as pants-crapping babies made me grin.

The problem is, how do you potty train people when those same people ardently scream that squatting and shitting all over yourself is the only way to live? In order to understand the call of liberalism, you have to first understand that to many of the people who push socialism and communism, it's not about improving society, or bettering mankind - it's about the control those people would have over the rest of society. Most, if not all of the socialism pushers in Congress don't actually adhere to any of socialism's tenants. DANEgerus at one point had a link up regarding Bela Pelosi's sidestepping of the unions at her private vineyards. Now, here's someone who supposedly supports the unions, and gets flaming assloads of money for her support. Yet, when it came time to put her words into actions, she refused.

In short, she's a massive hypocrite, and anyone who deals with her knows it. All those environmental regulations she wants to push on America? Couldn't be bothered by them when she built her golf course (from the same link above).

Yeah. Her golf course. Now you tell me, if Nancy Pelosi truly believed in socialism, would she be building a golf course and charging $250,000 membership fees? Of course not! So she's shown by her actions that she's a capitalist, through and through. So why in the name of all that's holy would she be a member of the Democratic Socialists of America?

Because of the power of control. If Nancy Pelosi can control your money, she can control you. Just like gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. The goal of Socialism is Communism. Socialism is just communism light; it's communism without the gulags yet. And just where do you think that Comrade Pelosi would be in the hierarchy of the Communist state? You think she would be performing her state-mandated job at the local sewage treatment plant?

Hell no, she'd be doing what communist leaders have done for years - eating caviar, sipping champagne, and ordering the plebes around.

"Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance". It's a good quote. By and large, it's a good rule to go by. However, when I see people support socialism and communism despite the sheer failure of both, I can no longer assume that these people are just ignorant. In modern history, there has never been a single Communist leader that actually practiced what they preached. EVER. Do you think Castro gets his healthcare at one of his state run hospitals? Do you think Chavez follows his own gun control policies? Do you think Kim Jong Il waits for his daily ration of rice?

Hell no. And that shows them to be the lying hypocrites that they are. Pelosi and her fellow socialists are just the same, only they haven't been able to push their plans that far ahead. I'd like to make sure that they remain frustrated. Because the option is far, far worse than anything George W. Bush could ever do to this country.

No comments: