THAT'S the place an American child is indoctrinated to disavow parental influence in favor of government doctrine.
“That means an individual will know that if there is success, most of the earnings will end up in the income earners pocket. That provides a real incentive to work hard and produce more.”
In The Heartland, maybe, where we’re chock-full of PRODUCERS, versus the TAKERS on the coasts.
50+ years of Socialist Public Education Indoctrination has set us back, greatly. Kids don’t leave High School or even College, with USEFUL skills these days. :(
Great post. HOORAY Michael Busler. It’s a start. MAGA.
One knit to pick: I wish authors would get this: In these United States, we do not have freedom, we have LIBERTY.
I agree that the principle of individual responsibility should be paramount, but attempting to support this against the overwhelming flood of gibsmedats, it may be too daunting a task. There simply are too many that expect the government to provide their every want and need, and their numbers are growing with every border incursion and birth.
The sky high cost of medical care needs to come down. If you are overweight, your insurance premium should be higher. Professors do not need to make more than 60K annually to pontificate and teach 5 hours a week. Doctors do not need to make more than 100K. Those steps are a start.
True and the single biggest threat to our Nation is not China, nor Russia, it is the teachers union which is destroying our yutes.
Since their skulls full of mush are already swimming in socialist swamp juice, by the time they get to college, many {if not most} believe the communist clap trap being fed to them by the full red college system.
We may be able to save this country for another 6 six years because of Trump, but fundamental changes need to be made in the entire "educational" system.
I probably won't live long enough to see if the changes occur, and that might be a good thing, but there are millions of real, red blooded American Patriots that will be effected.
I pray for you.
That is going to take an intensive, decades long re-education campaign, aimed at the young, whose minds have been totally poisoned.
Socialism celebrates the collective and at its core denies the existence of a free will. Claims that individual decisions and actions are directed by the social and physical environment which when molded accordingly it will dictate behavior. Capitalism at its core celebrates individual creativity and initiative. It acknowledges a free will and holds individuals accountable for the exercise of that free will.
If someone shoots someone, the socialist finds blame with the gun or society as the definitive factor. A capitalist holds the individual responsible for their actions and looks for personal motive as an explanation.
rationality + private property rights + capital accumulation + technological advances/progress = increased productive ability, which leads to economic progress, which leads to mass prosperity. This is what leftardism is trying to destroy.
250 years later some Democrats have forgotten history. They need to be reminded.
And that will cause marked noise pollution as the Lefties howl in agony....I might have to wear my shooting muffs 24/7.
When they put the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast of the USA, they forgot to put a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.
I’ve been reading about the sociology term “ Anomie” and how it creates chaos in society. It explains what is happening in our country today. The idea of anomie means the lack of normal ethical or social standards. This concept first emerged in 1893, when French sociologist Emile Durkheim published his book entitled, The Division of Labor in Society. It outlines the consequences when individual values differ from society values and the resulting crime and chaos in society.
The other concept we need to educate liberals is the “Law of Unintended Consequences. “
Here is an excellent article:
Unintended Consequences
By Rob Norton
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/UnintendedConsequences.html
The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it.
In the first half of the nineteenth century, the famous French economic journalist Frédéric Bastiat often distinguished in his writing between the “seen” and the “unseen.” The seen were the obvious visible consequences of an action or policy. The unseen were the less obvious, and often unintended, consequences. In his famous essay “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” Bastiat wrote:
There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.1
Bastiat applied his analysis to a wide range of issues, including trade barriers, taxes, and government spending.
Souless and value neutral proposals are inadequate.
bump