Replies

"One student noted that she had been taught that Communism is fine in theory..."

False premise. Communism is not "fine in theory" even if it could be made to work. Communism "in theory" (I assume she means a stateless commune) is contrary to human nature, in that it denies the self. The only way to create and maintain the commune is to deny the innate determinants of human behavior. This is why the left always, INEVITABLY, ends up in social engineering. It is not a matter of a favorable environment. Communism requires an organism which does not have human characteristics.(The Stalinists were at least honest enough to admit they were trying to "create the New Soviet Man" who would not be governed by the usual rules of human nature. THAT is why thwey failed.)

O.K...
Communism IS socialism, Socialism is a symtom of the political disease of democracy..
Democracy, Oligarchy, and Plutarchy are all MOB Rule..
Mob rule by mobsters that are all mobbed up..

The biggest Mob or consortium of mobs rules.. and their are other versions of mob rule.. i.e. tribal governments etc...

There has been only ONE unique government that has ever existed that was not mob rule..
OURS,, this unique and very special Constitutional Republic (its not a democracy)... America
All the governments of URP and Canada are democracys.. with no rights at all only privledges given by that government.. There zero rights inalienable or otherwise in all the countrys of this world now and in the past.. but democrays are the worse of all..

Why?.. Because the rights secured in the United States are rights given by the judeo-christian God.. the United States government has nothing at all to do with our rights.. they are God given rights.. not privledges.. No other country in this world in the past or now has these rights.. All other governments grant privledges to their citizens.. except here in the United States. We have inalienable rights and they are inalienable because the government cannot "legally" alienate them.. Who would or could alienate god given rights except a government.. Democracy is a disease.. a political disease that kills rights given by god to humans.. ALL Democrats love and have faith in democracy and are politically sick..

Long live this free republic.. I spit on democracy and all democrats.. because they are sick by choice.. Removing my glasses giveing a Curly(Howard) SALUTE AND a nYUCK, nYUCK, nYUCK.. resting my case and exiting with the Curly shuffle..

Question 1: Communism is not a good idea. It is in fact the environment, not so much underdeveloped vs. developed, but that it has only been applied to humans. Communism centralizes power and therefore requires a group of infallible humans to run the system and be run by the system. Based of the philosophy that human nature is malleable, and therefor can be perfected, it is doomed to failure. Human nature is constant.

Communism is also contradictory. It relies on infallible humans so as not to become a homicidal dictatorship (and kill 100Million people). While it's perceived need is to counter human greed ie Capitalism. If we can't trust fat cats at Enron, why would we trust fat cats in DC??

Besides, Communism is immoral. Have them explain how wealth redistribution is different then slavery or theft. That leads into the difference between Republic and Democracy. ie 3 wolves and a lamb deciding whats for lunch.
(Communism loves a pure democracy)

2. Blatantly racist, or fundamentally wrong, analogy. Are we to assume affirmative action is necessary to tap into the superior potential of the minority??? I don't think that is what was intended, just bad logic and an analogy that doesn't map to reality.

As to your pointing out the "big lie". Let them know the GOP ended slavery, integrated the military, ended Jim Crow, and forced the 1964 Civil Rights Act down the Democrats (and Al Gore Sr.) throat.

Then let them discuss the difference of teaching someone to fish vs. giving them the fish. And the resultant Dependant/Codependent relationship resulting from each.

"...an argument for Affirmative Action. Two boys are running. One is doing his very best at 8 sec. per 200 yards. The other needs to learn proper form but is doing his best at 8 1/2 secs. Which one gets the chance to be coached by the best? The one who has already reached his peak or the other who could improve much more after learning proper technique?"

Again, false premises. AA is specifically not based on performance and it is not based on assumptions about the outcome. It is based on a false sense of equity. (false because it is applied to individuals but based on group membership).

The analogy also evades the basic problem of AA: the allocation of scarce resources based on an arbitrary and irrelevant criterion(skin color), at the expense of a rational criterion (performance.) The "8 second runner", at his peak, has no need of coaching time, so is not competing for it and does not miss it.

In the runner example, an honest analogy would be for the "8 1/2 second runner" to be put on the team instead of the "8 second runner," based on the hope that he will achieve the "8 second" level also, and that this is a good thing to do regardless of whether he ever even improves at all..

One student noted that she had been taught that Communism is fine in theory but that it hasn't found the ideal environment yet in which it could succeed. All the countries which tried it (Russia, China, etc.) were backward countries. She thought it might work in more working class countries. (To the credit of other students, they disagreed. And I countered this too, by saying that Communism depends on force to exist and that human nature resists being limited to being equal to others instead of striving to do better. But I'm interested in what you all have to say.)

Communism has not found a proper environment; it doesn't work where Humans are involved. Individuals have different wants and desires. To insure "fairness", communism must tell, and eventually force, people to want other things that are within the economic plan. You cannot properly plan an economy if every Tom, Dick, and Harry is off deciding what will or won't be made. Simple market forces drive the economy in directions that planners would call "unfair" (i.e. it's unfair that Bob lost his job making Brussels Sprouts flavored ice cream just because no one wanted it). The use of force to correct this "unfairness" is inevitable.

And we drifted into Affirmative Action a bit, because I wanted to demonstrate the abuse of repeating lies over and over until they become the truth. (And I expect we may get some pubic hairs on the coke can lies again soon....) So I said that many believe Republicans are racist because it is repeated so often in the press. I noted that it may be because Republicans are against Affirmative Action and quotas.

So one student gave me this analogy from another teacher as an argument for Affirmative Action. Two boys are running. One is doing his very best at 8 sec. per 200 yards. The other needs to learn proper form but is doing his best at 8 1/2 secs. Which one gets the chance to be coached by the best? The one who has already reached his peak or the other who could improve much more after learning proper technique?

Now, I don't think that any of us ever peaks at total capacity, but beyond this, let me know what arguments you might come up with. It seems to be a narrow and silly analogy, but I need a definitive argument with which to knock it down.

Affirmative action has nothing to do with ability. It has to do with the color of your skin. In the student's analogy, specify that the faster runner is Black. Because he's black, under affirmative action, he would be entitled to a better coach. It has nothing to do with his ability or the other runner's potential. The reasons to favor one over the other are literally only skin deep.

In re the communism question - so, the idea of communism that leads a life of dreamy abstraction between your ears is the "real" communism, and the ones out in the material world spanning continents for decades and directing the lives of hundreds of millions, are "false" communism. And this is an example of "scientific materialism". Uh huh. What would "loopy idealism" look like, then?

The fundamental basis of the idea of socialism is the exploitation theory of profit and interest - the idea that profit exists because workers are paid less than the value of what they produce, and for no other reason. This economic idea has a long history, and it was not known to be false at the time Marx wrote. But it was known to be false by the 1880s, a generation before communism was imposed in any country.

The real cause of the existence of profit, and of interest, is the phenomenon of time value. Eugene Bohm-Bawerk explained the relation and demolished the exploitation theory of value. He proved that even under full socialism, the same phenomena that cause profit under capitalism, would continue to operate, and would effect the value produced by workers employing different quantities of capital for different lengths of time. The fundamental justification of communist economics is a known error.

One can tell if a person is giving his honest opinion on a question of value, by whether he is willing to take both sides of a transaction, on the terms he proposes. Every child learns this principle of fairness - "you cut, I choose". The exploitation theory of value implies that the rate of interest on use of real capital ought to be zero. You can tell whether someone really believes this, rather than just wanting to borrow at a real interest rate of zero, by whether he is also willing to lend at an interest rate of zero - or zero plus a dollar.

The communist tells the capitalist he does not deserve any profit, and should lend his capital to the workers for free. But the communist is not willing to lend the value of his own property for free, to say me. Proof - I offer to repay him half the value of his earnings over the next ten years, at the end of those ten years, plus one dollar - in return for him paying me half his earnings over the same period. Nobody takes this deal. Therefore, he knows he is being benefitted by being paid now, rather than ten years from now. If he knows he is being benefitted but is unwilling to pay for this benefit, then he is unfairly asking to both cut and choose.

If you agree that it is better to be paid now than later, and aren't willing to lend without some compensation, then capital deserves to be paid for. The exploitation theory of value is therefore false. If capital deserves its "rent", then those who provide it deserve to be paid for providing it. Capitalism.

As for more elaborate reasons why communism does not work, Socialism by Mises and the Road to Serfdorm by Hayek are the standard works on the subject. But easily grasped illustrations like those above may stay with most students longer.

A good coach would take a second string junior varsity runner and teach him the skills and discipline he needs to improve. He will also remind the parents that it is up to them to see that the runner eats right, stays fit, and reports to practice on time. As the runner improves he will automatically be promoted to first string, and then maybe to varsity and the Olympics, talent and hard work permitting.

A bad coach would promote the runner to first string varsity. The coach might feel great that he is being a nice guy, but that wouldn't do much for the runner when he lost his races. And he would lose, since basic skills take years to develop and are not magically granted with the varsity letter on the jacket.