Posted on 02/26/2011 8:37:04 AM PST by ventanax5
I agree with you.
Another way of looking at is that SLAVERY always, eventually leads to a revolution, peaceful or not.
Socialism, including the U.S.-type of entitlement socialism, is a form of slavery. If someone has a “right” to stuff that costs money, that means that someone must be forced (i.e., enslaved) to pay for it.
This is why socialism is unsustainable from both the point-of-view of the taker (the government eventually runs out of other people’s money) and the producer (at some point slavery just becomes utterly intolerable).
As for oil, if the Middle East cut it off completely, while it would destabilizing for a while, I believe that within a year or two -— so long as our government gets the hell out of the way -— American scientists and engineers would have a work-around that the market would accept and soon thereafter thrive on.
The Middle East, however, would then go back to the STone Age, at least for a while. Which is not necessarily a bad thing if it keeps extremism there while the rest of the world resets.
“I’m leaving and I’m taking my ball with me!”
“No public employee unions, no Democratic party” JB Williams
News With Views. Corollary: No Democratic Party, no RINOs
I agree. Let’s start with recalling James Madison on
“pure democracies” ; vile, brutal and short, and take
note of Article IV section 4, guaranteeing to every state
a *republican* form of government.
Richard Fernandez, in “That Lonesome Road” at his PJM blog
The Belmont Club, says the same, drawing parallels between
the unions and Qaddafi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.