Posted on 06/15/2003 6:43:14 AM PDT by Pharmboy
A somewhat useful idea totally corrupted government by becoming the sole purpose, in many ways, of government. Take money from people and pretend to do them a favor by giving some of it back now and then.
The kibbutzim of the Zionists?
Bolshevikism combined with an ethnic/religious twist. I don't care if any religious group form such communes and keeps to itself. When they get into politics, I worry. A pity Israel did it. Had they embraced liberty from the start, they would probably not be in the mess they are today. The country could have been the jewel of the mideast. So, no thanks.
Fabian socialism . . .?
The ultimate useful idiots. Admirers of Mao and every other communist con man who comes down the path. Gramscian termites who undermine everything good, decent and honest. Anti-Christian bigots.
Modern trade unions?
Public employee unions are the result. And they dominate unions today. Economic fascism. Government unions buying up Wall street. Government employees lobbying for more government.
Universal health care?
I would rather sit under a tree and drink myself to death.
Social Security ?
Ponzi scheme. Despicable kids washing dishes are paying for the meals of those who eat at four star restaurants.
Child labor laws?
Well you got one right.
Environmental preservation?
The left's way of stealing private property. Fascistic. The best way to preserve the environment is to create wealth.
What is the deal here? Your screen name seems appropiate. I thought this forum wasn't designed--as I have done above and you do a lot it appears--to debate the merits of liberalism. Thought we were here to get liberals out of the body politic.
The kibbutziks built Israel with blood and sweat - a lot more than just good intentions
Social Security doesn't have to be a Ponzi scheme
Trade unions are an attempt to get employers to share the wealth. That only works under favorable conditions. Otherwise they become guilds, mafias, or unworkeable (if employers are forced to compete against others employing non-union labor)
and so on.
Socially, righties are for the status quo, lefties for change. I don't see how you can devalue either in any general way.
It could be made into a chain letter, like medicare.
Probably. I am not what one would normally call a moral relativist - but I'm not a moral absolutist either.
When I look at the opponents of no-growth, slow-growth, or sustainable growth I don't see a bunch of doddering old farts.
Maybe all of American capitalism, or all of capitalism, or all modern social systems are just elaborate Ponzi schemes. Maybe the Luddites were right.
I was responding to a very specific question...asking me to name Left-wing ideas with merit. You appear offended by that - so I'll honor your desire not continue in this direction.
As to my more general responses Jim Robinson continues to take my money, no-one has asked me to leave, and many have been as happy to debate me as I have been to debate them.
Just saw this post. Sorry. They worked on it because they thought Hitler was working on it and they couldn't allow him to get it first. Read Einstein's 1940 letter to Roosevelt...or Feynman's autobiography.
But they never liked it, they always had second thoughts, and their fears and doubts intensified when its use was proposed after Hitler was defeated.
Einstein may have been a brilliant scientist; he wasn't a brilliant anything else.
Your " exemplars " are more tarnished than you know. Just give it up, or go over to DU.
False.
It's a close call. Stalin's creatures certainly thought they were. But they were right about the bomb's dangers, right about the need for international control, right about the arms race, and - most important - right that the secret couldn't be kept.
Dr. Szilard wasn't all that " brilliant " about a lot of things. He had, many years prior to the Manhattam project, figured out the rudiments of A-Bomb. He wrote it all down and then did nothing much with it. Much of his life, both scientific and other, was like that. He was a sacastic man, had a biting sense of " humor ", and, from boyhood, had a wish to save the world. He was also something of an eccentric and NO, he did NOT really understand politics, the Russians, nor have a " clearer and better view of the world than you and I ". You only assume this to be a fact.
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.