A Joke And What It Reveals

[MissusDe]

John Hood - The Corner

Speaking in front of a huge audience at downtown Raleigh rally yesterday, Barack Obama threw off a humorous line about John McCain's accusation that the Obama tax plan is redistributionist:

    McCain has ?called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,? Obama said. ?I don?t know what?s next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.?

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.

[Plane]

Oh ... good point!

[Michael Tee]

<<Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun.>>

A sick, twisted and perverted view of government.  Sad that there are those who actually believe in this garbage.  Again I think it comes down to some kind of tragic failing in the American educational system that allows views like this, which would normally be laughed or booed right off the stage, to be misperceived as "wisdom" and thus bring the day that much closer when disrespect for democratic government and institutions will reach levels that make a fascist coup d'etat possible.

[Amianthus]

<<Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun.>>

A sick, twisted and perverted view of government.

If you do something the government does not like, it does not send armed men around to correct your ways?

[Michael Tee]

<<If you do something the government does not like, it does not send armed men around to correct your ways?>>

Normally they use no more force than is necessary to repress anti-social elements or enemies of the people. Every government needs enforcement mechanisms but that bit that I quoted made it sound like repression for its own sake were the sole raison d’être of the government.

[Amianthus]

<<If you do something the government does not like, it does not send armed men around to correct your ways?>>

Normally they use no more force than is necessary to repress anti-social elements or enemies of the people. Every government needs enforcement mechanisms but that bit that I quoted made it sound like repression for its own sake were the sole raison d’être of the government.

The statement preceding - "Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner." - is true. And it's not a "polite request," rather a threat (veiled or not) at the point of a gun. They use "no more force than is necessary" - but it is force, nonetheless.

[_JS]

This would be relevant if Obama were proposing collectivisation.

He is not.

He is proposing a policy change that would remove the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and decrease taxes for the middle income Americans.

That is nothing near socialism, would that it were - I'd love to have a real socialist party in this country, but that isn't likely right now.

This charge of socialism is a falsehood. The charge of collectivization a lie. The article sets up a strawman.

[Michael Tee]

The statement preceding - "Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner." - is true. And it's not a "polite request," rather a threat (veiled or not) at the point of a gun. They use "no more force than is necessary" - but it is force, nonetheless.

=====================================================================

But what's the alternative to government?  Anarchy?  That has its own problems.  The basic political philosophies that we studied in university all seem to start from some depiction of man in his natural state and then some kind of formula, as in Hobbes or Rousseau, where man agrees to surrender some of his own sovereignty over himself in order to partake of the benefits of a governed society.  It seemed pretty clear to me that while everyone recognized the irksomeness of government intervention and control, it was universally recognized as superior overall to the anarchy which preceded it.

[_JS]

What I find fascinating about this argument is that it is not in the least bit believable.

If it were coming from a true libertarian, such as Prince, I would most certainly take it to heart. Yet, this argument sprang from conservatives. Even more hypocritical - conservatives supporting Senator McCain.

They speak of government metaphorically holding a gun to a citizen's head to pay taxes, but what of the government literally holding a gun to individual's heads in the form of the Iraq War, police brutality, or the war on drugs?

These are individuals whose political creed supports "separate but equal" (or not even that) for individuals with same sex partners. They typically support the most brutal of all state-held powers: capital punishment.

I don't buy it. The conservatives use libertarianism when it suits them, then turn and look the other way when it does not. At least be man enough not to don the disguise.

[BT]

He is proposing a policy change that would remove the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and decrease taxes for the middle income Americans.

He'll raise taxes on both. The alternative is to cut spending and that goes against his redistribution of wealth mantra.

[Plane]

Government ownership of everything would be socialism , a very high tax rate would accomplish this .

Private ownership of everything and government controll of nothing would be Anarchy.

Neither being the desired state, the amount of government controll and priviate personal controll can be adjusted to have the adequate amount of government involvement and the adequite amount of priviate controll .

A true conservative would disagree little with a Libertrian about the government governing best that governs least, the elder meaning of "Liberal" would have also agreed that limiting the government as much as possible was a good idea.

A paternalistic government involved in the lives of the people to the maximum amount tolerable seems like the modern "Liberal" want. The modern conservative seems tobe quite lost in real politic and compromise , both liberal and conservative governments too concerned with continuance in power and forgetting too much the confidence in the wisdom of the people that seaparated us from the Monarchists eight generations ago.

Power bought by rented loyalty and paid off votes is slow death to our freedoms , we vote for the petty rewards that forge our chains.

[sirs]

And what's truely insidious is the tactic.  Make the people who generate the jobs, generate the money, make them more and more of a minority, by way of tax cuts for the vast majority, who would have no compelling interest not to continue to tax "the rich"

And while we're at it, get Government more and more involved with all reamls of livelyhood, be it increasing regulations, increasing entitlements, increasing the Government footprint, and as more and more of the economy and businesses can't deal with the madness and increased mandates placed upon them.......enter the Government to do it for them

And the viscious cycle deepens

[Plane]

And what's truely insidious is the tactic.  Make the people who generate the jobs, generate the money, make them more and more of a minority, by way of tax cuts for the vast majority, who would have no compelling interest not to continue to tax "the rich"

And while we're at it, get Government more and more involved with all reamls of livelyhood, be it increasing regulations, increasing entitlements, increasing the Government footprint, and as more and more of the economy and businesses can't deal with the madness and increased mandates placed upon them.......enter the Government to do it for them

And the viscious cycle deepens

A sort of genius .

A small part of the population becomes the owner of a large amount of the wealth , pays more tax and becomes indespensible to the government. The feedback to this system is to make the government depend more on an even smaller number?

When the government depends on 5% of our peoiple to pay 85% of governments cost , it will behoove the government well to ensure that this small fraction has plenty of wealth to tax.

[BT]

When the government depends on 5% of our peoiple to pay 85% of governments cost , it will behoove the government well to ensure that this small fraction has plenty of wealth to tax.

Apparently that function pays well.

Observe the obscene amount of funds needed to be raised just to lease the franchise of the executive branch.

[Plane]

When the government depends on 5% of our peoiple to pay 85% of governments cost , it will behoove the government well to ensure that this small fraction has plenty of wealth to tax.

Apparently that function pays well.

Observe the obscene amount of funds needed to be raised just to lease the franchise of the executive branch.

I note that BHO presidential campaign has spent more so far than both Bush and Kerry spent together through the whole campaign in 2004.

And the record setting money collection is entirely from the middle and lower class during a period when the lower rungs of earners is in severe distress , or so the myth goes.

Could it be that the distress is exaggerated , or that the donations of the rich and powerfull are showing up in the mix?

Or both?