Skip to comments.Are progressives now out there openly calling for a planned economy?
Posted on 02/26/2012 7:30:28 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
Normally, progressives will try to hide their claims and goals in dubious sounding fluff code words. "Economic justice" and so forth. But not here. The call has actually been made for a planned economy. I did a little bit of searching, and I think this may be the first sign of it. So if history is our guide, they're going to call more and more for a planned economy in the future. It's what the progressives really want.
A Planned Economy for the 1%
This thing is loaded with fallacies from front to back. First off, if they're "planning for the 1%", then they are necessarily planning for everybody. It's impossible to do the kind of separation that they're implying, this is just a way to sell it better. Second off, right out of the gate, the fallacy is thrown out that 'all economies are planned to some extent', to which they build up as a false either/or; either the government is going to plan it, or the banks plan it. Individuals do most of the planning on their own, when the government is not involved, and the banks don't care enough to do systematic planning, as long as whatever your venture is is making money. It's only when you start not being able to pay your bills, do the banks come sniffing at your doorstep. But with this either/or fallacy as the basis of the whole interview, it follows that the rest is fallacious as well.
For those seeking further background into how dangerous governmental planning is, see "The Road to Serfdom", by Friedrich Hayek, pages 1-283.
It is called Fascism. Democrats can try to deny claims that it is tied to Hitler and Mussolini with their economic plans, but it should be obvious to intelligent people
This was just figured out? Barney Frank was going on about eliminating “risk” from the economy for years.
The left is totally out of the box now, Obama’s campaign is hard left and the republican candidate has to be smart enough to scare the heck out of the American people with that fact.
Actually we already are scared to death, the candidate just has to be smart enough to tell us he sees the danger as well.
They usually aren't afraid, however, to praise Francisco Franco and Juan Peron.
AMEN! I am disgusted by the fact that NONE of the candidates can see it much less articulate it.
Yeah...these people classical fascists...they have married selective corporations, like General Electric among others, with the mainstream media.
And that’s a problem...if the media is part of the problem...who is left to investigate the rise of fascism?
OKAY...the House of Representatives...but the House investigations of this administration remain largely uncovered in the media.
Fox does a nice job...but it has been marginalied by the rest of the press. The msm is a huge problem for the Republicans.
They believe the country is finally past the tipping point and they can now openly discuss their true intent. They have the presidency, one chamber of Congress, the media, a large part of the opposition party and enough of the populace has been brainwashed over generations to be able to deny them achieving their ultimate progressive goals.
When Hillary openly declared in a debate, “I consider myself a proressive” with a disgusting smile on her face I knew the end was just around the corner. It is the same as openly declaring, “I am a Nazi” and having the electorate to stupid to realize that’s a bad thing.
This is one of IMB’s chief technocrats, David Chess. They don’t come any more progressive, or more obamunist:
The best way to “plan” an economy, is to let Capitalism do its thing - the results will be a healthy and growing economy. The “progressive” version always leads to the crap we’re in now.
Our President “came out” as an anti-capitalist in his Osawatomie speech about a month ago. Since then, yes, it seems as if all progressives have been emboldened.
Socialist or Communist? No, they’re not willing to use those words. They have ditched “liberal” in favor of “progressive” and those who now call themselves the latter are far less afraid to show their hand, it seems to me.
uncoverednonexistent. However I am get the impression that Issa is getting really, really, really mad.
Fixed it for you.
From Chapter XI, "The End of Truth:"
"It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced."
"Every act of the government must become sacrosanct and exempt from criticism. If the people are to support the common effort without hesitation, they must be convinced that not only the end aimed at but also the means chosen are the right ones."
"Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support."
"And the whole apparatus for spreading knowledge - the schools and the press, radio and motion picture - will be used exclusively to spread those views . . ."
"The disinterested search for truth cannot be allowed in a totalitarian system, and the vindication of the official views becomes the sole object."
Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."
Readers of this thread might be interested in the following:
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classesthe class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal lifeimperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive stridesbroadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
So does socialist egalitarianism with its extreme concentration of power in the hands of elite planners. Libtards will grab any excuse and use any rationalization to gain power by fooling the ignorant masses.
Eggsactly! The ‘Progressives’ have covered all bases. To think they are only in liberal establishments is naive.
Thanks for the link. Looks like an interesting collection of essays.
Most of the smarter “progressives” understand that they can’t just come out and tell everyone what their goals are, what the country would look like under those goals, and what the “sacrifices” would be to achieve those goals.
Of course, the people that are so pitiful and frustrating are the sheeperals that honestly believe that their ideology has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or fascism.
the thanks for the link was meant to go to loveliberty2. need coffee!
The writings, speeches, and documents available at that digital Library and others online today may, in fact, undo all the censorship and propaganda the "regressives" have foisted upon generations of Americans.
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.