Socialism's march across America

World Net Daily ^ | 7/10/04 | Henry Lamb

[Dog Anchor]

"We will take things away from you for the common good."
- hillary clinton

[DumpsterDiver]

Ask people if they think the government should grocery stores and they will say no. Ask them if the government should run public schools and they will say yes. Ask them to explain why the laws of economics mutate depending on the type of good or service that is being delivered and they will stare at you incomprehensibly.

I would be one of those people staring at you.

Why do the laws of economics mutate (and I have absolutely no idea what that means) depending on the type of good or service that is being delivered? Is it the type of goods or services causing this mutation, or is it having the government running it that's the problem?

Anyway, do you have a book, article, website (anything!) that you could recommend I read as a starting point? I am woefully ignorant when it comes to anything other than my own personal finances.

[narses]

Read Robert Ringer: Restoring the American Dream, Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Davidson's The Sovereign Individual.

[DumpsterDiver]

Thank you for the reading list.

[narses]

You're welcome. They're all readable. Hayek is the toughest, Ringer the easiest.

[beavus]

The argument against socialism is very simple:

Thou shalt not steal.

It is the epitome of incivility to use force or intimidation to make someone give up what he peacefully obtained. Any child can understand this, and it is a concrete that no highly abstract marxist argument can defeat.

However, we must face the fact that one cannot justify taxation without leaving open the door for socialism. Both violate the same tenet of civil interactions. Unless we are willing to be continually vigilant in finding ways to eliminate taxes--realizing that any tax-supported spending is for a value superior to basic civility--socialism will always be nipping at our heels.

[beavus]

Then we must end government schools. www.sepschool.org

Amen, brother.

[beavus]

Why do the laws of economics mutate

They don't. That is the whole point.

Another argument that doesn't make sense is why government needs to support any business that is popular. If it is popular enough that a majority of constituents want it, then it is popular enough to be supported by the free market. That FACT is, governments only do things that are unpopular. If people want to buy something, you don't have to force them to pay for it.

You don't need to raise taxes for things that people are WILLING to pay for.

[LA Conservative]

Re: Hayek's "Road to Serfdom"
Milton Friedman writes in the introduction, "I use the term "liberal"...in the original nineteenth-century sense of limited government and free markets, not in the corrupted sense it has acquired in the United States, in which it means almost the opposite".

There used to be a time when a "liberal arts" education would have taught students the classics, including critical thinking skills. Now, the socialist professors have corrupted the minds of the latter-day baby boomers and generations "X" and "Y".

Liberal Arts now means creating, identifying, and using the government to protect society's "victims", why Republicans are mean, stupid, and evil geniuses, and how to braid your underarm hair (for womb-en only).

Allan Bloom covered the subject of the loss of a true liberal education in his book, "The Closing of the American Mind".

[DumpsterDiver]

They don't. That is the whole point

The whole point of what, BigAzzHam's post? LOL

I was asking because of what he wrote:

"Ask people if they think the government should grocery stores and they will say no. Ask them if the government should run public schools and they will say yes. Ask them to explain why the laws of economics mutate depending on the type of good or service that is being delivered and they will stare at you incomprehensibly."

I have no idea what "the laws of economics mutate" portion of his sentence even means.

You don't need to raise taxes for things that people are WILLING to pay for.

Exacty!

[beavus]

You then asked why the laws of economics mutate. They don't mutate. They don't do anything at all--which WAS his point. You surely understand the difference between staying the same and mutating--regardless of what mutating economics are.

[DumpsterDiver]

Milton Friedman writes in the introduction, "I use the term "liberal"...in the original nineteenth-century sense of limited government and free markets,

It also encompassed the sovereignty of the individual. Gone are those days.

[DumpsterDiver]

You then asked why the laws of economics mutate. They don't mutate. They don't do anything at all--which WAS his point.

BigAzzHam:

The level of economic ignorance in this country is truly astounding. Take government schools - if the government was capable of running a school system than it should be able to run grocery stores.

(1) Ask people if they think the government should grocery stores and they will say no.

(2) Ask them if the government should run public schools and they will say yes.

(3) Ask them to explain why the laws of economics mutate depending on the type of good or service that is being delivered and they will stare at you incomprehensibly.

My confusion over his post is twofold. 1) I had never heard of the laws of "mutating" economics, and 2) I don't see the logic behind sentence #3 following sentences 1 and 2.

My guess is that his point was that if people don't think that government should run grocey stores, then why would they think that government should run schools.

You surely understand the difference between staying the same and mutating

Yes, I do.

--regardless of what mutating economics are.

I was trying to find out why he even added that to the mix. Maybe he'll post later.

[beavus]

You needn't keep clarifying, I understand you. I'm just saying the light bulb still hasn't gone off in your head. They will "stare at you incomprehensively" because you have caught them in a fallacy by pointing out something they had never considered and they can't further explain themselves--a check mate in debate. Since his point is that the economics do not change in any way, it doesn't matter what "mutate" means, only that it doesn't mean "stay the same".

Now we're getting silly by going on about this. Let's just stop and say "viva la liberte!".

[ovrtaxt]

Do you have the Commie Party platform from that era? If so, post it. About 95% of it has been enacted by Dems and Republicans. Sad.

[ovrtaxt]

Get the Cliff Notes for Atlas Shrugged.

[DumpsterDiver]

Get the Cliff Notes for Atlas Shrugged.

I'd have to. Rand is too long-winded an author for me. I've started both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead at least 3 times. She made Moby Dick seem like fun reading (and I hated Moby Dick).

[tpaine]

" -- Ask people if they think the government should grocery stores and they will say no.
Ask them if the government should run public schools and they will say yes.
Ask them to explain why the laws of economics mutate depending on the type of good or service that is being delivered and they will stare at you incomprehensibly."

I would be one of those people staring at you.

Is it the type of goods or services causing this mutation, or is it having the government running it that's the problem?

It's the government running schools that's the problem.
Its incomprehensible that most people still think otherwise.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Socialism can't march if we break it's legs.

You'll have to, as it isn't working in the voting booth, as even that has been tainted and undermined by massive voter fraud.

[NH Liberty]

"Socialism can't march if we break it's legs."

Whoa! Good one!