another Ron Paul post

[Michael Tee]

<<America was not all bad before FDR>>

Whoever said it was ALL bad? 

<< . . .  there was a lot of good going on >>

Did you ever hear of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?  The Crash of 1929?    Events like that cried out for regulation.   It's kind of funny to hear "conservatives" direfully explain how human nature and greed would guarantee communism's failure.  Apparently human nature and greed will not exist in an unregulated economy, though - - employers will make every effort to ensure a safe workplace, bottom line be damned, stockbrokers will sell only the most reliably managed corporate securities, etc. and everyone will be on their best behaviour even without government regulators.   LMFAO.  What a crock a shit.

<<and now that FDR has had his day whatever good he has done will not be forgotten or abandoned >>

Sounds like somebody's trying to suck and blow at the same time - - ditch FDR, remember FDR.  You can't do both.  The New Deal is FDR's lasting contribution to the American political landscape.  It's either gonna be kept - - as most sane and normal people would want - - or jettisoned to please a fringe group of anarchist lunatics.  one.  or the other.

[Plane]

<<America was not all bad before FDR>>

Whoever said it was ALL bad? 

<< . . .  there was a lot of good going on >>

Did you ever hear of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?  The Crash of 1929?    Events like that cried out for regulation.   It's kind of funny to hear "conservatives" direfully explain how human nature and greed would guarantee communism's failure.  Apparently human nature and greed will not exist in an unregulated economy, though - - employers will make every effort to ensure a safe workplace, bottom line be damned, stockbrokers will sell only the most reliably managed corporate securities, etc. and everyone will be on their best behaviour even without government regulators.   LMFAO.  What a crock a shit.

<<and now that FDR has had his day whatever good he has done will not be forgotten or abandoned >>

Sounds like somebody's trying to suck and blow at the same time - - ditch FDR, remember FDR.  You can't do both.  The New Deal is FDR's lasting contribution to the American political landscape.  It's either gonna be kept - - as most sane and normal people would want - - or jettisoned to please a fringe group of anarchist lunatics.  one.  or the other.

Regulation can be overdone very easily, enough regulation to remove all risk is enough to prevent all change.

FDR's programs did not all survive the first months of his presidency and some just didn't work, his efforts were varied and complex , what did work and what didn't should not be looked on as a monolinth that must all be consdered as a unit. Some of his banking reforms were really good ideas some of his alphabet agencys wer emergency measures that were abandoned by all participants when better opurtunity arose.

The New Deal is already devided  improved on and superseeded in parts.

Social Security in particular has been considered a success untill recently , and if it had been managed properly it might have lasted a few centurys , but it was made into what it is , a Ponzi scheme, by congress when they decided to spend every bit of its receipts the same year that they came in. Now that the inflow is redued and the outflow is increased it is gonna fail , but throu no fault of FDR's , I hope no one blames him for the SS mess.

[Brassmask]

I should point out here that I don't really care if people like Michael Tee want to live in a socialist society. What I care about is that people like Michael Tee want to see that everyone lives in a socialist society whether or not everyone else wants to do so..... If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them. I just don't want them acting to force everyone else to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler.

Think of it this way, UP.  When we're all living in a socialist society, you can go away somewhere in the woods and have a nice little capitalist utopian society where you FORCE everyone to give up something of theirs in order to get some vital resource (let's say clean water) that you just happen to have seen and claimed first then slapped a fence around while everyone else is enjoying a sharing society where NO ONE owns the clean water, we all just work together so we can all have clean water...

and electricity...

and internet connections...

and phone service...

and cable...

and health care...

etc.

You then will be the Brassmask of the socialist society.  You'll have the absolute choice to slap a fence around some resource then demand that someone give you something of their in order to have what you happen to have but don't come crying to all of us when you're family doesn't want to pull up stakes and move out into the woods or CAN'T move out into the woods. 

Don't let us hear your whining about how you don't have lights, tv, phones, health care, etc because no one wants to play in your little fantasy land of property rights socially-acknowledged resource-hijacking.

After all you could just build yourself a bicycle when you can't get anyone to play along in your fantasyland and take some of your hoarded resource in exchange for a car and some gas.  'Cause I know you.  You'll be too damned principled to just take that stuff for free without having "earned" it Smith/Barney-style.

;P

[Universe Prince]

I'm against all forms of U.S. imperialism.

Apparently not.

But state-sponsored is better than corporate-sponsored.

I'm not sure how corporations are going to impose empire on other countries.

I'm for a society where the state respects the sovereignty of other nations and also either owns the means of production or closely audits the books of all companies  having business interests in foreign states to ensure that the corporations are not doing privately what the fascist Amerikkkan state formerly did publicly for their interests.

Such as? Do we have a problem with corporations bombing people in other countries? Waging war? Torturing people? And, if the corporations did do these things, what in the world makes you think the government would stop the corporations from doing something that the government, as historical precedent shows us, tends to want done? Stopping the imperialistic tendencies of the government seems extremely unlikely, but you want people to trust the government to stop someone else? The more likely result will be corporations and government working together, coughcoughhaliburtoncough, in these efforts not less.

Well I guess the people of liberated Venezuela and liberated Cuba aren't as impressed with Orwell's warnings as you are, or they don't see their leaders as the equivalent of Big Brother or Napoleon.  But hell, what would they know?  They only live there.

Oh I am sure there are people who absolutely adore Chavez and Castro, just like people idolized Stalin. That does not mean they're right. Some people like President Bush too. Doesn't mean I'm going to give the guy a pass.

Why wouldn't an anti-fascist complain about social Darwinism?

You missed the point. The point wasn't that people who criticize fascism shouldn't complain about Social Darwinism. The point was that some people who criticize fascism also criticize liberty. They're complaining about authoritarianism on the one hand and on the other suggesting individual liberty is too dangerous. It seems incongruous to me.

To the extent that fascism provided ANY social welfare benefits, it was only to compete with the appeal of communism to the working class.  It was certainly not the social welfare aspects of fascism to which the anti-fascists and/or socialists objected.

I'm sure that second sentence is true, but I think you're selling fascism short. The social welfare benefits were an integral part of the whole fascism package. No one focuses on that these days because no one wants to say anything that seems like it might suggest fascism did something good.

<<And what people usually mean by Social Darwinism is some sort of every person for himself society where criminality runs rampant and people (anyone but the absolute wealthiest people) die horrible, lingering deaths all alone with no one to care. >>

Why not just say "pre-New-Deal Amerikkka?"

Because I'm not into oversimplification. I like to be clear about what people mean and what I mean. I don't obsess over details (usually) but context helps.

That's why FDR was able to bring in the New Deal in the first place.  The folks had just about had it up the old wazoo with old-fashioned laissez-faire capitalism.

What old-fashioned laissez-faire capitalism? You mean the interventionist policies of Herbert Hoover? Do you think the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was some grand laissez-faire capitalism scheme? By the time Roosevelt got into office people had not seen laissez-faire capitalism for several years at the very least.

All they have to do is listen to idiots like Murray Rothbard.

Whatever else Rothbard might have been, an idiot he was not.

My parents, my aunts and uncles all LIVED though those years.  I know first-hand what they were like.    The Great Depression, the bread lines, the factory closings, the Hoovervilles, the labour violence, "Brother Can You Spare a Dime?, that's all just a figment of my imagination, right?

Of course not. No one said they were. But Roosevelt's policies did not alleviate the Great Depression. They extended it.

And before them, Coxey's Army, the Ludlow Massacre, the Pullman Strike, the child labour, the right to hire and fire on racial prejudice alone, the frauds on pension funds, the unregulated workplaces, the unregulated consumer products.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Plain and simple.

Coxey's Army, a protest march by unemployed workers. Unemployment in 1894, the year of the march, is estimated to be somewhere between 12% and 18%. Unemployment in 1939, several years into Roosevelt's New Deal policies, was somewhere around 15%. Wow. Gee, sure glad we had that New Deal to solve that problem. The Pullman Strike, a strike by workers against the Pullman Company because Pullman had to cut wages as a result of drop in demand for his product. I supposed he could have fired a bunch of people but he didn't. And it is not as if Pullman's workers were poverty stricken. Pullman not only paid higher wages than most employers, he provided housing and schooling for the families of his workers. Pullman was what is known as a "welfare capitalist" and had a very socialist sort of community for his workers. The right to hire and fire on racial prejudice alone, not quite as bad as Roosevelt's New Deal that practically mandated unions, unions that deliberately kept out dark-skinned folks to the point that the New Deal's N.R.A. was referred to by some as the "Negro Removal Act". I think of the two of us, you're the one who does not know what he is talking about.

The old people ARE better off when the government takes their money and invests it responsibly.  Period.

I bet you said that with a straight face too. Invests it responsibly? Since when does the government do that?

They are NOT better off when the banking and finance industry is allowed to get their dirty, greedy little fingers into it.  One financial scandal after another should prove that conclusively to anyone who has the basic reading skills to handle a daily newspaper.

Yes, those lousy banks and their damned interest rates for savings accounts. The evil bastards (For those keeping score at home, yes, that was more sarcasm.)

I hate to bring you back to the real world when you're on such a roll, but the fact is that most of Amerikkka's wealthy are inheritors, and of those who made millionaire or higher "rank" on their own, most of them made it through speculation (i.e., gambling,) mainly in real estate.  Their sole contribution to a better world was to needlessly escalate housing prices through their bidding up the market so they could sell early and cash out.

I don't know about the numbers there, but who gives a crap if people inherit wealth? They generally ain't gonna keep it unless they continue to do something for which someone is willing to pay them money. Of course, when there is a system in place that punishes people for financial success by not only trying to take a higher percentage of money away from them but also to tax that wealth again when they die, should anyone be surprised that many of the wealthy today are inheritors of wealthy? If you want to see that change, getting out of the way of people trying to achieve financial success would be a big help.

Socialists want the state to serve the people, to protect the people against exploitation, wage slavery, unregulated production of harmful products, unregulated workplaces (i.e. sweatshops, fire traps) and unregulated labour relations, i.e., sexual and other exploitation.

I might believe that from JS, but not from Michael Tee, supporter of Joseph Stalin. What you leave out of your sunny explanation of socialism is that you expect the government to "protect" people by controlling society and the choices made by individuals.

I have laid out for you readers what a socialist state is expected to do for its citizens.  Consider what I think a socialist government can and should do for people.

Consider also that he thinks Stalin was a good leader who was protecting the people from enemies of "the Revolution". This is an example of what he thinks a socialist government can and should do for the people.

Then consider the way Prince characterizes both (a) what the socialist state can do for you as a citizen and (b) what kind of person you, as a citizen, must be if you wish to accept the services of such a state. Are you really "selfish children" for expecting the state to regulate the production of drugs and food and baby cribs, etc. to reduce harm to the citizens?

Bzzzz. I gotta stop you right there. I did not say people were selfish children for wanting government regulations. What I said was: "We're supposed to hate people who attain economic wealth by running a company that produces, via the cooperation of many people, something many more people want, but we're supposed to like people who want people to become the servants of the state, i.e. the ruler, and will do what is necessary to support that goal. Do you see what this means? You're all selfish children who need someone to think of your best interests for you because you cannot be allowed to do that on your own." The point you've misrepresented is actually that you and folks like you consider people to be selfish children who need someone, i.e. socialist rulers, to control society by deciding for people what is in their best interests because people cannot be trusted to do this on their own. So the proper question is not the one you asked, but rather: Are you really selfish children if you think you can decide on your own what sort of society you want to live in and how much you need to contribute to that society and how you contribute to society? In short, are you selfish if you think you can make decisions on your own or selfish if you think other people need to make to think and act as you desire?

Do you really believe that on your own, you can enforce safety in the workplace, adherence to the highest standards of consumer safety, invest your savings wisely and never get ripped off in the world of financial services, thereby guaranteeing yourselves a secure old age?

Do you really believe that you need government regulations out the wazoo to keep you safe? Do you really think you need government to tell you not to endanger your customers? Do you really trust the government to never waste your money, to never be greedy, to never suffer abuses of power if you allow it to control your money and your workplace? Do you really believe that bureaucrats are going to care as much about your family as you do? Do you really think that only saints are going to work for this extremely powerful socialist government? Do you really think that if the government owned everything that there would be no special privileges for the few, no abuse of power, particularly since increasingly in this country the only people with the money and connections to run for office are those who are already wealthy? Do you really think that a government supposedly focused on the "collective good" is going to always look out for your safety and best interests as an individual? Would you like to buy some ocean front property in Wyoming?

Prince is appealing to your ego and fantasizing a world that never was and never will be.

On the contrary, I am not fantasizing about anything. But this is common among defenders of authoritarian socialism. Speak of liberty, and they assure people that such is just a fantasy. I suppose I am appealing to ego. Is that so bad? "Love your neighbor as yourself" begins with loving yourself. If you don't want government to treat you as a child, why should everyone else?

In the real world, there are unscrupulous manufacturers, and unscrupulous employers, financial sharks, swindlers and con men.

Indeed there are. There are also corrupt law enforcement agents, corrupt politicians, power-hungry bureaucrats, and snake-oil politicans who will wrap anything in deceptive language to sell you crap with words that stroke your ego more so and more effectively than anything I've said. The manufacturers and employers have no authority to force you to do things you do not want. And no one here is arguing against anti-fraud laws. On the other hand, if those same kind of people manage to end up in public office, where they have the power to create laws that mandate behavior and the authority for enforce compliance with guns and imprisonment, what is your protection?

You may or may not navigate the real world successfully on your own.  Before the New Deal, many did not.

Many do not do so now. A great many did not do so during the 1930s when the New Deal was in full effect.

There will still be Triangle Shirtwaist fires in workplaces, poisonous products sold in the marketplace, none of these things can ever be eliminated 100%.  But the New Deal and its reforms cut back significantly and to a very large degree on all kinds of abuses.  It DID provide a safety net.  Anyone who thinks in this complex society we live in that he or she can do it all on his or her own is just living in a dreamworld.

Please pay attention here that Michael Tee is making this situation out to be trusting the government or being on your own. Somehow, without socialist policies, you won't ever decide to work with others, never decide to pool resources with others, never help other people. You won't and no one else will either. You'll be completely on your own. Not even your friends will help you. Boo! Except of course, this is not how the world works. The government does not make cooperation exist. The government does not make you compassionate or charitable. It's nice that he admits the government cannot eliminate all bad things from happening. But then he tries to claim the New Deal provided a safety net. In point of fact, it screwed society by prolonging the economic conditions that were the Great Depression. Does that sound like a social safety net to you?

I know, some of you don't believe me that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Would a couple of economists published in the Journal of Political Economy ("One of the oldest and most prestigious journals in economics") help convince you? I can't pull up the article, but I can show you the abstract for the article "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis" by
Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian.

There are two striking aspects of the recovery from the Great Depression in the United States: the recovery was very weak, and real wages in several sectors rose significantly above trend. These data contrast sharply with neoclassical theory, which predicts a strong recovery with low real wages. We evaluate the contribution to the persistence of the Depression of New Deal cartelization policies designed to limit competition and increase labor bargaining power. We develop a model of the bargaining process between labor and firms that occurred with these policies and embed that model within a multisector dynamic general equilibrium model. We find that New Deal cartelization policies are an important factor in accounting for the failure of the economy to recover back to trend.

<<Is liberty a panacea, a cure-all for society? Absolutely not. I'm not suggesting there would be no problems. I'm merely saying that I think people have a right to their own lives, their own liberty, and their own pursuits of happiness. >>

People had all that before the New Deal, and the New Deal left their right to their own lives and liberty largely intact (except that nobody's free to set his own standards if he manufactures drugs for public consumption or operates a workplace that he or she thinks is "safe enough.")  Pretty much everybody can pursue happiness his or her own way.  Your argument, to the extent that you imply that a socialist state imperils liberty, the right to pursue happiness, etc. is flagrantly dishonest.  The activities that are regulated are largely those that impact upon other people's lives and happiness.

Here, I'd like to quote something else Michael Tee said. "Don't be so fucking stupid." I realize that many people think that regulating trade is merely protecting people from abuse and doesn't really infringe on anyone's liberty, but this is not the case. During the Great Depression, many people were struggling to afford food, and the government's idea was to have livestock and grains destroyed to keep prices artificially high. Another brilliant idea was to set price controls that prevented anyone from selling good for less than a specified amount. That's right, selling for less could result in jail time. Impact on other people's lives and happiness? Yes, just not in the way Michael Tee would have you believe.

Yes, some business folks are unscrupulous bastards who will abuse people without a second thought. No one here is suggesting that people should have no protections from that or no legal recourse in such situations. What is being argued to to stop interfering needlessly in trade and to stop trying to solve society's problems by government controlled social engineering. Did you know that in some cities in the U.S. there are black markets in hair braiding. Yes, I said hair braiding. Want to know why? Because to own a business that does nothing but braid hair, one has to have a cosmetologists license. Does that interfere with no one's liberty? We're not talking about hair dying or plastic surgery. Just braiding hair.

Look, I'm not saying all socialists are evil people out to oppress everyone. As I said before, I realize that folks like Michael Tee think of advocating socialism as humane and as helping other people. No one here is a Saturday morning cartoon villain out to serve evil and make everyone miserable. Socialism, at least as Michael Tee seems to promote it, seems to me to be highly authoritarian. Some people like that and want it. Okay. I'm not out to prevent them from living that way. I just happen to believe they shouldn't force that on everyone else also. Is that selfish? I'm not arguing against society. I am all for society and mutual cooperation and the interconnectedness of individuals within society. I want to see people helping other people, working with other people, that sort of thing. I just happen to disagree with Michael Tee on how that should occur.

As you readers and lurkers and anyone else out there considers his position and my position, please remember that behind the rhetoric of argument, including the sarcasm and the sniping (and the many typos that I'm sure I committed), we all want to help people.

[Universe Prince]

Think of it this way, UP.  When we're all living in a socialist society, you can go away somewhere in the woods and have a nice little capitalist utopian society where you FORCE everyone to give up something of theirs in order to get some vital resource

Why would I force people to give up something? In a capitalist system, people cooperate through trade with each other. If other people want to trade with me, and I agree to trade with them, and we trade, then that would be capitalism. No coercion needed.

[Universe Prince]

If Libertarians were taken seriously, they would be elected in far greater numbers than just Ron Paul. We would award Ayn Rand the Medal of Freedom posthumously at the very latest. I am not the only one that refuses to take them seriously. I favor some of their views, such as the futility of the war on drugs, and their opposition to government intervention in education, sex and sexual orientation.

To borrow a quote from another post Xavier made, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

[Michael Tee]

<<I'm not sure how corporations are going to impose empire on other countries.>>

They buy their way in.  Or hire their own mercenaries if the victim is weak enough.  Corruption usually works.  They have to work harder than if the government does their heavy lifting for them.  Some projects they might not be able to pull off.  But when they do pull it off, they owe nothing to government, they are totally unaccountable to anyone except their own shareholders (maybe!) and that means even more misery for the victimized colonial people.  Remember, before the British Empire in India, there was the British East India Company.  Before the Marines in Nicaragua, there was William Walker (the "W" in Dubya.)

<<Do we have a problem with corporations bombing people in other countries? Waging war? Torturing people? >>

Sure but now they get the U.S. government to do their dirty work.

<<And, if the corporations did do these things, what in the world makes you think the government would stop the corporations from doing something that the government, as historical precedent shows us, tends to want done? >>

THIS government sure as hell wouldn't, but in general, governments in the so-called "democracies" are accountable to their people, and if enough outrage is generated, there has to be a response.  Even this government has to at least PRETEND that it does not torture.  If they could distance themselves from the actual atrocities (what do you think Blackwater's advantages are?) it's easier to say, well, that's private, we can't do jack-shit about any of that stuff.  We deplore it.  Even easier in the next stage where the corporations themselves would be off-shored to make governmental deniability even more plausible.

<<Stopping the imperialistic tendencies of the government seems extremely unlikely, but you want people to trust the government to stop someone else? >>

No, my only point was that where the dirty work of imperialism is done by the government, they are more accountable than if it were done by corporations themselves.  The upside for the corporate interests would be a freer hand, the downside would be they couldn't use taxpayer money directly to fund the whole thing, nor if they ran out of manpower could they just draft the suckers like they did in Nam.

<<The more likely result will be corporations and government working together, coughcoughhaliburtoncough, in these efforts not less. >>

Huh?  That was the STARTING POINT of my argument, that now you have a government doing the dirty work of the corporations.  And as I said, there's more accountability.  Doesn't stop the atrocities but they've got to be a lot more circumspect in how they go about them.

<<Oh I am sure there are people who absolutely adore Chavez and Castro, just like people idolized Stalin. That does not mean they're right. Some people like President Bush too. Doesn't mean I'm going to give the guy a pass.>>

My point was not that "some people" like Chavez and Castro.  It was that the people who live there - - most of them - - have no problems with them.   If they were as bad for the general welfare as North Americans claim, you'd see a revolution going on against them.

<<The point wasn't that people who criticize fascism shouldn't complain about Social Darwinism. The point was that some people who criticize fascism also criticize liberty. They're complaining about authoritarianism on the one hand and on the other suggesting individual liberty is too dangerous. It seems incongruous to me.>>

Your logical error was in rolling up a lot of different things under the general term "liberty."  So if I object to a manufacturer rolling up horse-shit into cigarette paper and selling his product as tobacco, I'm criticizing "liberty."  If I object to racial minorities voting, I'm criticizing "liberty."  If I object to the right to criticize the "President" in war-time, I'm criticizing "liberty."  If I object to an employer not installing fire-extinguishers and locking every fucking exit from the outside, I'm criticizing "liberty."  That's bullshit.  You've just rolled up a hell of a lot of things that socialists object to  with a whole bunch of other stuff they don't object to, called the whole package "liberty" and claimed (on the basis of your own definition of "liberty") that socialists are against "liberty."  That kind of sloppy thinking just won't fly.

Prince, you gave a pretty thoughtful and detailed exposition of why you're right and why I and old Joe Stalin are all fulla shit, but today is a kinda busy day for me and I gotta break off here and now.  (Quitting while I'm ahead)  I hope to come back to this in bits and pieces over the next few days (will be in NYC visiting the grandchildren) and otherwise will pick up where I left off next week.

[Universe Prince]

Your logical error was in rolling up a lot of different things under the general term "liberty."  So if I object to a manufacturer rolling up horse-shit into cigarette paper and selling his product as tobacco, I'm criticizing "liberty."  If I object to racial minorities voting, I'm criticizing "liberty."  If I object to the right to criticize the "President" in war-time, I'm criticizing "liberty."  If I object to an employer not installing fire-extinguishers and locking every fucking exit from the outside, I'm criticizing "liberty."  That's bullshit.

It certainly is, because I did not say or imply anything like that. Interesting though that you included an objection to criticizing the President. Seems to me, that one might qualify as objecting to liberty, coughfreedomcoughspeechcough.

You've just rolled up a hell of a lot of things that socialists object to  with a whole bunch of other stuff they don't object to, called the whole package "liberty" and claimed (on the basis of your own definition of "liberty") that socialists are against "liberty."  That kind of sloppy thinking just won't fly.

I'm not trying to fly it. I'm not rolling all these things together. I'm not saying laws against fraud or abuse are anti-liberty. Of course they are not. Laws that take one's money so that everything one does and has is then owned, controlled and regulated in fact or de facto by the government, yeah, I'm saying that intrudes on the liberty of individuals, of society. When a worker ends up working for the government because the government owns and/or controlls everything, and the worker's labor is owned by the government rather than the worker, that ain't liberty. That doesn't require me to make up some catch-all definition of liberty. That fits the actual definition of liberty, you know, freedom from captivity or control by others, power to act and/or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing, that kind of thing.

Prince, you gave a pretty thoughtful and detailed exposition of why you're right and why I and old Joe Stalin are all fulla shit, but today is a kinda busy day for me and I gotta break off here and now.  (Quitting while I'm ahead)  I hope to come back to this in bits and pieces over the next few days (will be in NYC visiting the grandchildren) and otherwise will pick up where I left off next week.

Okay. That's cool. Have fun.

[_JS]

I don't see people telling you to move to Switzerland or Norway or Venezuela or Cuba. You're the hypocrite for suggesting libertarians should all leave if they don't like it here. When you move, then maybe you'll have some grounds to talk about libertarians leaving the country.[/color]

Victor told me to move to Sweden, does that count?

 

[_JS]

Ah yes, the old Social Darwinism bit. It always pops up when people discuss liberty. And the funny thing is, much of the time, the people who bring it up are the folks to complain about things like fascism (usually from the left) or socialism (usually from the right). And what people usually mean by Social Darwinism is some sort of every person for himself society where criminality runs rampant and people (anyone but the absolute wealthiest people) die horrible, lingering deaths all alone with no one to care. Scary isn't it? The problem is, that whole scenario (that Michael Tee tries to express with "dog-eat-dog Darwinian society" and "Amerikkka") is entirely wrong. Not pre-New Deal, merely a post-New Deal progress that reasonably addresses what is left of a program that hobbled economic and individual progress. The old "people will become financially better off if we just keep taking money away from them" thinking belongs in the dustbin of history along with the geo-centric universe.

There are a great number of people who would be better off if the economic system was geared towards social equity, it isn't a matter of "people will become financially better off if we just keep taking money away from them." It is a matter of redistributing wealth. The problem comes from half-ass attempts to do so. Or, as in the United States, Benthamite attempts to punish people who seek any kind of government assistance.

Ultimately the problem with Michael Tee's complaint is that it is based on the notion the people need a government to tell them how to live. Otherwise society will devolve into "dog-eat-dog Darwinian society" of chaos and criminals, like some sort of movie version of a bad town in the Old West.

No. It is the difference between Hobbes and Locke's version of Natural Law. With Locke it is an alpine meadow where Pollyanna runs through barefoot and everyone is happy and laughing freely. The only role for government is to ensure that contracts are enforced by law, otherwise commerce is not feasible. With Hobbes it is a short, brutal, and cold world where man is cruel and the strongest take what they want.

We're supposed to hate people who attain economic wealth by running a company that produces, via the cooperation of many people, something many more people want, but we're supposed to like people who want people to become the servants of the state, i.e. the ruler, and will do what is necessary to support that goal.

That is rather patronising. I don't know what Tee's view is, but my view is that people are generally good and therefore they, the working people should own the means of production and run the companies and industries. Works Councils would gradually replace the functions of the state anyway.

Do you see what this means? You're all selfish children who need someone to think of your best interests for you because you cannot be allowed to do that on your own. From this view of society comes the notion that liberty is going to result in Social Darwinism.

Because the elite respect liberty? Huh. History is replete with evidence to the contrary of your view.

I should point out here that I don't really care if people like Michael Tee want to live in a socialist society. What I care about is that people like Michael Tee want to see that everyone lives in a socialist society whether or not everyone else wants to do so. I realize that folks like Michael Tee think of that position as humane and as helping other people. I don't agree with them. What they don't seem to realize is that I think of my position as humane and as helping other people. If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them.

Patronising equine excrement. The truth is that it will not matter one way or the other how you view it. Capitalism will rise and rule completely for a while, hence the acceptance, even by most of the left of neoliberalism. Then, it will collapse upon itself, destroyed by the very inequality it promotes as "liberty" and "necessary" to economic growth. You can piss on the backs of the peons and tell them it is raining for only so long. Education is coming a long way. It is easier to access. Class consciousness is an inevitability, and the only real question is what the transition will look like.

I just don't want them acting to force everyone else to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler. I see this as little different than, say, Christian fundamentalists deciding they want to have their lives ruled by the Bible and their preachers. I don't care, so long as they don't try to force everyone else to do the same. And if you look at their arguments, the folks like Michael Tee and the fundamentalist Christians, they are quite similar. Without the control of their preferred rulers, society will devolve into the worst possible scenario because there are evil forces that would ruin everything for everyone, and everyone is too selfish to be allowed the liberty to make such decisions for themselves. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. It comes down to the same thing, controlling society.

The latter is mystical, the first concrete.

Is liberty a panacea, a cure-all for society? Absolutely not. I'm not suggesting there would be no problems. I'm merely saying that I think people have a right to their own lives, their own liberty, and their own pursuits of happiness. I'm not calling for no government, just a better one, one that protects the rights of individuals rather than imposing the social desires of some on everyone else. And I can already guess the comeback. Aren't I arguing for the imposition of my social desires on everyone else? No. I'm not arguing for the imposition of anything. The right to freedom of religion does not impose a religion on other people. Arguing for freedom of association does not stop you from deciding to live with Socialists or fundamentalist Christians or anarcho-Capitalists or Wiccans or teetotaler, vegan, free-love Atheists. Nothing is imposed on you, but nothing is imposed on others either.[/color]

Liberty is what it is. A feel good word for a concept that mostly exists as an abstract in the mind, not in reality. All of the major declarations and charters of rights come from Governments, revolutionary groups, or organizations like the UN. Of course they sound wonderful, until you see that the social equality and social justice is missing without fail from every one. As I said, they exist on paper...not in reality.

So what is really being suggested? Nothing.

Nothing at all. And that my friends is the real difference. Karl Marx once said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.? It is easy to promote nothing that resembles the realm of reality. But what is the point?

Everyone is for liberty. Everyone is for integrity. Everyone is for the children.

Socialism, whether you like it or not, is a philosophy that promotes concrete and real changes to bring equity and justice to the people...to ALL of the people. Libertarianism promotes what? An abstract notion that does what? Nothing.

[sirs]

There are a great number of people who would be better off if the economic system was geared towards social equity, it isn't a matter of "people will become financially better off if we just keep taking money away from them." It is a matter of redistributing wealth. The problem comes from half-ass attempts to do so. Or, as in the United States, Benthamite attempts to punish people who seek any kind of government assistance.

Because what we really want to do is punish success, to punish anyone that dares leaves the fold of mediocrity & mendacity.  We must all be "equal", since that's the most "fair".  And, by god, if it requires taking other peoples money to do (theft if done by anyone else besides the Government), then that's what we must do, because some folks just know better than others         

[Universe Prince]

There are a great number of people who would be better off if the economic system was geared towards social equity,

Social equity defined as what and by whom?

There are a great number of people who would be better off if the economic system was geared towards social equity, it isn't a matter of "people will become financially better off if we just keep taking money away from them." It is a matter of redistributing wealth. The problem comes from half-ass attempts to do so.

I disagree. The problem comes from trying to force a redistribution of wealth that punishes people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair".

Or, as in the United States, Benthamite attempts to punish people who seek any kind of government assistance.

I have to confess, I don't know what you're referring to. I know basically what Benthamite means, but what attempts are you calling Benthamite?

No. It is the difference between Hobbes and Locke's version of Natural Law. With Locke it is an alpine meadow where Pollyanna runs through barefoot and everyone is happy and laughing freely. The only role for government is to ensure that contracts are enforced by law, otherwise commerce is not feasible. With Hobbes it is a short, brutal, and cold world where man is cruel and the strongest take what they want.

As I understand it, yes, Hobbes has an extremely dismal view of the world and of people, and uses this as a reason why people need a huge, intrusive government to take care of them and control them. I'm not sure your description of Locke's view is accurate, but even if it is, I reject the either/or scenario.

We're supposed to hate people who attain economic wealth by running a company that produces, via the cooperation of many people, something many more people want, but we're supposed to like people who want people to become the servants of the state, i.e. the ruler, and will do what is necessary to support that goal.

That is rather patronising. I don't know what Tee's view is, but my view is that people are generally good and therefore they, the working people should own the means of production and run the companies and industries. Works Councils would gradually replace the functions of the state anyway.

Patronizing to whom? Personally, I think the workers owning the means of production is a nice idea, though I oppose trying to force it. I also think we would get to a place where more workers did own more if we stopped trying to control trade and stopped the vast regulations that essentially marry large, extremely wealthy corporations to the government, and allowed more entrepreneurship. Then people who agree with you can start more businesses and establish them as worker controlled and owned entities, and then various models for that can be tried and the successful one(s) will flourish. As they succeed, more businesses will emulate them. This is something to which I am not at all opposed.

Do you see what this means? You're all selfish children who need someone to think of your best interests for you because you cannot be allowed to do that on your own. From this view of society comes the notion that liberty is going to result in Social Darwinism.

Because the elite respect liberty?

Not what I said. And where I sit, what socialism proposes is making the government the elite who are in control. So if we agree the elite are not going to be trusted to respect liberty, then why would I want to establish socialist control of society?

I should point out here that I don't really care if people like Michael Tee want to live in a socialist society. What I care about is that people like Michael Tee want to see that everyone lives in a socialist society whether or not everyone else wants to do so. I realize that folks like Michael Tee think of that position as humane and as helping other people. I don't agree with them. What they don't seem to realize is that I think of my position as humane and as helping other people. If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them.

Patronising equine excrement.

Did you just call me a liar?

The truth is that it will not matter one way or the other how you view it. Capitalism will rise and rule completely for a while, hence the acceptance, even by most of the left of neoliberalism. Then, it will collapse upon itself, destroyed by the very inequality it promotes as "liberty" and "necessary" to economic growth. You can piss on the backs of the peons and tell them it is raining for only so long. Education is coming a long way. It is easier to access. Class consciousness is an inevitability, and the only real question is what the transition will look like.

I don't believe you. Capitalism does not promote inequality. Inequality exists and will exist even in a socialist society. Capitalism does not prevent the faster, the smarter, the talented, the stronger from working with those are not. It does not circumscribe a person's place in society and demand he remain there. It allows the person to decide for himself what goals to pursue, how to make use of his time, how to live. There is no demand for economic or social pigeonholing. Yes, sometimes in society people attempt to erect artificial social barriers, but those are not supported by capitalism. Capitalism is a means of breaking down those barriers. Capitalism, for all it's faults, eventually leaves its most potent power in the hands of the peons, as you called them, and we do them no favors by taking that power away by creating partnerships between corporations and the government via onerous regulations that only corporations can meet.

The latter is mystical, the first concrete.

On the contrary, the authoritarianism of the fundamentalist Christians would be just as concrete as authoritarianism by socialists. And both would claim the same goal, the common good of the people.

Liberty is what it is. A feel good word for a concept that mostly exists as an abstract in the mind, not in reality. All of the major declarations and charters of rights come from Governments, revolutionary groups, or organizations like the UN. Of course they sound wonderful, until you see that the social equality and social justice is missing without fail from every one. As I said, they exist on paper...not in reality.

So what is really being suggested? Nothing.

Nothing at all. And that my friends is the real difference. Karl Marx once said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.? It is easy to promote nothing that resembles the realm of reality. But what is the point?

Everyone is for liberty. Everyone is for integrity. Everyone is for the children.

Socialism, whether you like it or not, is a philosophy that promotes concrete and real changes to bring equity and justice to the people...to ALL of the people. Libertarianism promotes what? An abstract notion that does what? Nothing.

As you might say, JS, "Patronising equine excrement." Equity? Equity according to whom? Socialists. Ideas of equity with which people will be forced to comply whether they agree or not. Equity decided for you by people who insist they know better. Equity which leaves little protection for those who dissent. Equity which is, by my way of thinking, not equity at all.

If the world is a brutal place where the strong abuse the weak, if people are so awful that liberty and laissez faire capitalism are sure to result in misery, suffering and abuse, then what does socialism bring to the table that changes people into trustworthy and charitable folks who only look out for their neighbor's best interest? Nothing. The same weaknesses and vices of human nature that exist now will exist in a socialist society.

The socialist offers social equity and social justice. Sounds really great, doesn't it? They complain that liberty is just a concept but you're supposed to accept that their ideas about social equity and social justice are concrete terms that cannot be disputed. Except of course that this is not so. Yes, liberty is a concept. But ask someone freed from jail or slavery if liberty is nothing. Ask them is liberty is not a reality. If liberty is not a reality, then neither is confinement or slavery. And yet, we know this is not so. The concepts of freedom and enslavement exist because they reflect reality, not because some dreamers with wild ideas invented them.

Does liberty mean the same thing to all people? No. Some people find relationships with a strong leader to be liberating. JS asks "Libertarianism promotes what?" The power of the individual to choose for himself. Is that nothing, as JS claims? Is it nothing for you to have the liberty to choose your own life? Do you see the tactic here? Liberty is proclaimed to be nothing. Liberty leaves you with nothing, you're adrift, with nothing concrete, so the idea goes. And then the socialist says "Here, I offer you something concrete, social justice, social equity," and you're expected to cling to this as secure footing, solid ground. But is it?

"Everyone is for liberty. Everyone is for integrity. Everyone is for the children." says JS. Who isn't for equality? Who isn't for justice? Yet, while he paints liberty as some pie-in-the-sky notion that means nothing, he offers in exchange vague concepts of equality and justice. Yes, you say you know what equality is. Don't you also know what liberty is? And really, whose notion of social equity are we talking about here? Can you claim that there is only one universal notion of social equity?

The socialist will talk about social equity in terms of everyone having the same of everything. Me, I see social equity as people being free to find their own place in society. Some people want to be rich. Some people like a simple middle class life. Allowing them both to decide, that makes them socially equal.

Now mind you, I may have an odd sense of justice. I think not taking what belongs to others and punishing those who do is justice. I think trying to have what other people have by forcing them to comply with one's personal desires is not justice. I don't believe forcing McDonald's to pay millions to a person who spilled hot coffee on herself is justice, but some people do. So whose notion of social justice are the socialists talking about? Their own obviously.

So when socialists offer social equity and social justice, they mean compliance with their preferences, not some brotherly, let's-all-get-along love.

When people talk about liberty and equality and justice, by all means you should question what people mean when they talk about these things. And when people talk about things like "wealth redistribution" as part of their explanation, rest assured they mean making other people comply. You may or may not agree with that, but let's not deny the reality of what is being discussed.

I could go on, but this is all I have time for at the moment. So I'll let it go for now. I'm sure someone will step up to challenge everything I said.

I'm rather enjoying this. This is the best discussion I've had here in some time.

[_JS]

Let me say that I am rather enjoying this as well.

Social equity defined as what and by whom?

Social Equality is a system of relationships where everyone has equivalent privileges and status, which can only exist in a classless society.

Social Justice is concerned with two primary areas: the Life and Diginity of the human person, and the development of a classless society to eradicate poverty.

These are taken from Marxist and Christian traditions.

I disagree. The problem comes from trying to force a redistribution of wealth that punishes people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair".

Why is it a punishment to come together and help your fellow man by developing a nation, a world, free of poverty? Free of hunger? With healthcare, education, and guaranteed employement for all?

The problem there is with Nietzschean concepts of individualism that disregard society.

I have to confess, I don't know what you're referring to. I know basically what Benthamite means, but what attempts are you calling Benthamite?

That would be humiliating the poor and needy, in an attempt to make Government assistance such a vile process that it is better to go without. It was the idea behind the Poor Houses of Britain in the time of Dickens, and it is the idea behind why some people dying of AIDS keep being denied the disability benefit. Make it humiliating for them, make it cost all sense of pride and dignity, so that only a few can tolerate the process.

As I understand it, yes, Hobbes has an extremely dismal view of the world and of people, and uses this as a reason why people need a huge, intrusive government to take care of them and control them. I'm not sure your description of Locke's view is accurate, but even if it is, I reject the either/or scenario.

I am just explaining Tee's point on that one. I disagree with the either/or scenario as well. Though I think Americans tend to favor Locke, who is one of the most overrated philosophers of all time. He's easy to like because he plays well with our foundational myths.

Patronizing to whom? Personally, I think the workers owning the means of production is a nice idea, though I oppose trying to force it. I also think we would get to a place where more workers did own more if we stopped trying to control trade and stopped the vast regulations that essentially marry large, extremely wealthy corporations to the government, and allowed more entrepreneurship. Then people who agree with you can start more businesses and establish them as worker controlled and owned entities, and then various models for that can be tried and the successful one(s) will flourish. As they succeed, more businesses will emulate them. This is something to which I am not at all opposed.

Patronizing to Tee. There are some very successful companies owned by the customers and others owned by the employees. I agree with you, of course, on the issue of trade, labor, and the relationship of mega-corporations with the government. Yet, I'm realistic too. That is democracy. It may not be textbook democracy for wide-eyed high school American History students, but it is the grotesque reality whether one is a Democrat, Republican, Labour Party, Conservative Party, SPD, or CDU/CSU, Liberal, NDP, or Tories. That is part of the Neoliberal Consensus. That is part of Capitalism's reign.

Not what I said. And where I sit, what socialism proposes is making the government the elite who are in control. So if we agree the elite are not going to be trusted to respect liberty, then why would I want to establish socialist control of society?

Socialism promotes that the people establish control within a classless society. There is no ruling elite or bourgeoisie. (In fairness there are different schools of socialism, as with libertarianism, so I'm going to address my views as I suspect you will do with your own views.) The works councils will govern and democracy will be paramount, without the hindrances placed on it by social status.

Did you just call me a liar?

No. I am saying that your last sentence: " If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them" is patronising and by no means a view of most socialists.

I don't believe you. Capitalism does not promote inequality. Inequality exists and will exist even in a socialist society. Capitalism does not prevent the faster, the smarter, the talented, the stronger from working with those are not. It does not circumscribe a person's place in society and demand he remain there. It allows the person to decide for himself what goals to pursue, how to make use of his time, how to live. There is no demand for economic or social pigeonholing. Yes, sometimes in society people attempt to erect artificial social barriers, but those are not supported by capitalism. Capitalism is a means of breaking down those barriers. Capitalism, for all it's faults, eventually leaves its most potent power in the hands of the peons, as you called them, and we do them no favors by taking that power away by creating partnerships between corporations and the government via onerous regulations that only corporations can meet.

Capitalism most certainly promotes inequality. The data has proven this with the rising Gini Coefficients over time for most western nations (with the exception of Scandinavia). The United States ranks with Cameroon and Uruguay. Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway are the top in equality by Gini Coefficient standards and notably have larger welfare states than the United States (or Cameroon or Uruguay).

On the contrary, the authoritarianism of the fundamentalist Christians would be just as concrete as authoritarianism by socialists. And both would claim the same goal, the common good of the people.

Your comparison is still flawed. The former is based on mysticism, the latter on scientific socialism. Claiming the same goal is irrelevant in your attempt to make the two equivalent. You could say that a shaman and a medical doctor are both trying to heal a patient. That does not make the two equivalent to one another, though their goal is identical. Your logic is flawed and you're better than smear tactics.

As you might say, JS, "Patronising equine excrement." Equity? Equity according to whom? Socialists. Ideas of equity with which people will be forced to comply whether they agree or not. Equity decided for you by people who insist they know better. Equity which leaves little protection for those who dissent. Equity which is, by my way of thinking, not equity at all.

Who says there is no room for dissent? Rosa Luxemburg, a famous German Communist and founder of the Sparticist League and later killed by the German Government, had a famous quote from one of her writings:

Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party ? though they are quite numerous ? is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of "justice", but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenters. If "freedom" becomes "privilege", the workings of political freedom are broken.

I'd suggest reading much more from Rosa, who at the time (from around 1911 to 1920) wrote some amazing works and was anathema to the German junker establishment and the rising Fascists, who viewed women's role as something much less than what Rosa had achieved. Writings of Rosa Luxemburg

If the world is a brutal place where the strong abuse the weak, if people are so awful that liberty and laissez faire capitalism are sure to result in misery, suffering and abuse, then what does socialism bring to the table that changes people into trustworthy and charitable folks who only look out for their neighbor's best interest? Nothing. The same weaknesses and vices of human nature that exist now will exist in a socialist society.

Socialism removes the system by which the elite attain their advantages. It also removes the system by which the bourgeoisie live what Pink Floyd would call a "comfortably numb" existence. It removes any reason for nationalism and the wars that erupt from that. People are people. They are no longer their assets, their vehicles, their possessions, their ability to delegate power over other people.

Again a quote from Rosa:

Bourgeois class domination is undoubtedly an historical necessity, but, so too, the rising of the working class against it. Capital is an historical necessity, but, so too, its grave digger, the socialist proletariat.

[/i]

The socialist offers social equity and social justice. Sounds really great, doesn't it? They complain that liberty is just a concept but you're supposed to accept that their ideas about social equity and social justice are concrete terms that cannot be disputed. Except of course that this is not so. Yes, liberty is a concept. But ask someone freed from jail or slavery if liberty is nothing. Ask them is liberty is not a reality. If liberty is not a reality, then neither is confinement or slavery. And yet, we know this is not so. The concepts of freedom and enslavement exist because they reflect reality, not because some dreamers with wild ideas invented them.

Sure, liberty is real to those who have been locked away or enslaved. But we're not really talking the same "liberty" there, are we? This is a bit disengenuous of the libertarian. In fact, this only goes to prove the point more. The Government of our time can grant liberty, or it can take it away (jail, slavery). That was my point above. There is no, what Thomas Jefferson called, "self-evident truths." There is no liberty that exists for all men. So long as class exists, there is no real freedom for the majority of mankind. Who has real political power? Who has real freedom and authority? George Bush, John Kerry, Vladimir Putin, or you?

Does liberty mean the same thing to all people? No. Some people find relationships with a strong leader to be liberating. JS asks "Libertarianism promotes what?" The power of the individual to choose for himself. Is that nothing, as JS claims? Is it nothing for you to have the liberty to choose your own life? Do you see the tactic here? Liberty is proclaimed to be nothing. Liberty leaves you with nothing, you're adrift, with nothing concrete, so the idea goes. And then the socialist says "Here, I offer you something concrete, social justice, social equity," and you're expected to cling to this as secure footing, solid ground. But is it?

Socialism does offer something concrete, but I admit it is the more difficult path. Libertarianism is the easy route. It is individualistic. If you like you can take Nietzsche's and Ayn Rand's view that selfishness is good, everything you do is and should be for you, alone. It is not much different than hedonism. "But that isn't libertariansim" comes the protest, ah - but it is! Ultimately it is the liberty to do as you please with the most minor of caveats. Everyone does as they please and the invisible hand of the market will fill all your needs.

Socialism offers the cold truth of reality. Without classlessness, without social justice, social equality...we keep going the same direction. What is that direction? Inequality becomes greater and greater. Wealthy nations dominate poor nations. The wealthy class dominates the poor as the middle class feeds off the scraps and thanks the wealthy for it. Democracy continues to promote the elite, who continue to promote what is best for them and their class. Liberty shrinks as class consciousness grows and more and more people begin to understand that society is falling apart.

The socialist will talk about social equity in terms of everyone having the same of everything. Me, I see social equity as people being free to find their own place in society. Some people want to be rich. Some people like a simple middle class life. Allowing them both to decide, that makes them socially equal.

That isn't social equity...see above.

Now mind you, I may have an odd sense of justice. I think not taking what belongs to others and punishing those who do is justice. I think trying to have what other people have by forcing them to comply with one's personal desires is not justice. I don't believe forcing McDonald's to pay millions to a person who spilled hot coffee on herself is justice, but some people do. So whose notion of social justice are the socialists talking about? Their own obviously.

That isn't social justice - see above.

So when socialists offer social equity and social justice, they mean compliance with their preferences, not some brotherly, let's-all-get-along love.

It certainly isn't an opportunity to sing in harmony and buy the world a damn coke.

When people talk about liberty and equality and justice, by all means you should question what people mean when they talk about these things. And when people talk about things like "wealth redistribution" as part of their explanation, rest assured they mean making other people comply. You may or may not agree with that, but let's not deny the reality of what is being discussed.

It isn't about "making other people comfy." It is about removing class from society and establishing social equity and social justice. It is about eradicating poverty. It is about establishing work for everyone. It is about world class education, universal health care, top of the line scientific research, not allowing anyone to go hungry, not allowing anyone to go cold, establishing a safety net with no cracks, top of the line infrastructure, etc.

It is a society for everyone and not for the few and priveleged.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I can agree with pretty much everything you say here, JS. 

It is unfortunate that Rosa Luxembourg was assassinated before she had a chance to implement her theories.

If one small segment of the population (let us call them 'the greedheads') insist that is their absolute right to buy and hold  resources, money and power without limit because to do so it their birthright, with every bit more money and power they will be even more capable of getting even more. The Hunt Brothers are a good example of the greedhead mentality, as is the Mars family, who are immortalized by both M's in the candy M&M's.

It is folly to assume that every economy is an ever-expanding pie. Resources are LIMITED. Power to control the State are limited only to holding it all, such as Trujillo did in the Dominican Republic beginning in the 1930's through the early 1960's, when he was assassinated. He owned a monoploy on salt, he owned the only brewery (the beer is still named Cerveza Presidente), he controlled both exports and imports. He came to own so much that American sugar and tobacco interests were unable to own all they wanted. At this point, he fell out of favor with the US government and, even though they knew he was about to be assissinated and could have informed him, as they had done in the past, they did nothing and allowed him to be pumped full of lead. The next year there was an orgy of destruction of Trujillo statues, which were said to be even more plentiful than Stalin statures. There are none left now, not even in pieces.

One can only say, as John Wilkes Booth once said, and with far less justification "Sic Semper Tyrranus" Thus should it always be with Tyrants.

When one individual or one social class comes to own too much, they will be dispossessed and, unless they are quite lucky, slaughtered. Sooner or later, but inevitably. In the aftermath, there will be confusion, rivalry, violence and death and not any guarantees that the situation will change. This has happened many many times in history. The Tsar of all the Russias, the Empress Dowager, and many colonial and post colonial regimes. Pu-Yi, the Last Emperor of China was spared by Mao, and he became a rather humble urban gardiner.

It is best if the acquisition of too many resources in too few hands can be prevented. Evolutionary change is nearly always preferable to revolutionary change.

I am hoping that the next administration will try a bit harder to cause the wealth to be spread more widely, by reinstating the inheritance tax with a higher and inflation-linked ceiling (I would think that $2,000,000 adjusted for inflation would be satisfactory) and perhaps a higher tax rate on income from investments.

[Plane]

and electricity...

and internet connections...

and phone service...

and cable...

and health care...

etc.

Which of these was invented in a socialist society , or by a socialist?