Topic: Collectivism
Collectivism De-bunked Why I Hate Socialismby R.J. Moeller
(Conservative)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
"We're gonna have to take from some to give to others." -Hillary Clinton, November 2007
"If you work hard in America, you shouldn't be poor." -Barack Obama, February 2008
Whether you have recognized it yet or not, the deceptively alluring forces of collectivism (socialism/Marxism) are gathering at the gates of our beloved "City on a Hill" (America). A strange and alarming way of thinking that is altogether foreign to our historical experience as a nation has surfaced in the 2008 Presidential campaign - most notably from the two Left-leaning candidates of the Democratic Party who are both vying for the White House.
Only because far too many of us have been subtly indoctrinated from grade school with collectivist ideas and maxims can Senators Obama and Clinton go unchallenged using such blatantly Marxist rhetoric. Both are promising economic security and equality to all Americans in return for a fundamental restructuring of the American capitalist economy and government into a neo-socialist state. That perhaps some of you find this potential threat I am describing to be overstated does not justify, or explain away, the words and promises of the Democratic candidates themselves.
As both a vigilant American and a prudent student of history, I find it offensive that Hillary and Barack should so enthusiastically and shamelessly dismiss our proud 232 years of American capitalist traditions and heritage. We have for two and a half centuries prospered as no other nation has because we championed capitalism over collectivism, the individual over the State, and most important of all, liberty over equality. These values lie at the very heart, at the very core of the great American experiment in self-governance.
Both our representative democracy and our free-market capitalism are based squarely on the principle that liberty, freedom, and autonomy (and the protection of all three) are inherently more valuable than strict equality, economic security, and regulated outcomes (particularly of the "central planning" type being unproductively served up in Europe today, and now advocated by our current batch of Democratic presidential hopefuls).
The French, in their somewhat bungled attempt at a revolution in the late 18th century, recklessly embraced the idea that "equality trumps liberty"; or at least that the latter should be subservient to the former. This subtle decision - to work at making everyone equal rather than making everyone free - is the precise error in judgment that brought economic, cultural, and political failure to France over the last two centuries (as with any other Socialistic nation on earth).
The deeper wisdom of the American Founding Fathers' was to opt for liberty rather than equality and this has been a fundamental secret of our success for over two hundred years. They rightly believed that liberty does not originate from some intellectual or philosophical fountainhead; no, liberty is a gift from God and God alone. Thus, we have believed no government or political party or system of economics has the right to deprive the American people of what God freely bestowed on all of us - liberty, not even in the name of some arbitrary brand of "equality" that sounds good because the person espousing it has a nice smile and looks handsome in a suit ("pant-" or otherwise).
It's bad enough that Clinton and Obama are so wrong in their understanding of our nation's political and economic history. But for them to then wrap their naïve, simplistic, pie-in-the-sky, un-American, and Constitutionally-challenged statements under the cover of quasi-Christian and ostensibly religious language, in hopes of catering to the simple-minded and weak-willed among us, is, as far as I'm concerned, unconscionable.
For example last fall in South Carolina, Senator Obama stood in the pulpit of a church audience on a Sunday morning, supposedly "the Lord's Day," and implored the congregation to "Make me an instrument of God...and usher in a new Kingdom on earth." Under slightly different circumstances, someone making those same statements in public would be referred to a licensed psychiatrist or therapist for help in exploring such clearly self-proclaimed messianic assertions.
So what will this new "instrument of God" do to usher in the Kingdom? Translation: I'll give you free health care, allow you to abscond from your mortgage debts, and "usher in" a Nanny-state that will put those heartless Pharisees on the Right (Republicans) to shame once and for all......
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
2008 R.J. Moeller, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of R.J. Moeller only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. R.J. Moeller is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-18 15:05:18
I liked most of the ideas in this piece. Until this--
" They rightly believed that liberty does not originate from some intellectual or philosophical fountainhead; no, liberty is a gift from God and God alone. Thus, we have believed no government or political party or system of economics has the right to deprive the American people of what God freely bestowed on all of us - liberty..."
If you have evidence that there is a god who grants "liberty" other than an old book full of weird stuff like genocide, child molestation, dancing dead people and children born of virgin mothers... I'd sure like to see it.
Otherwise, one can only ascertain that the founders were wrong in the source for our liberties. Liberty is an intellectual ideal, not a magical gift from an invisible man...
The founders were deluded in this, but given the science available to them at that time, you can't blame them.
I agree with your premise, but if you really are a "prudent student of history," I don't see how you could have missed the fact that America has been immersed in collectivism for almost 100 years now, and that free market capitalism went out the door along with individualism in the 1930's.
Since the 1930's at the latest, but definitely beginning in 1914, the U.S. economy started devolving into socialism. Today we have all-out central planning, the complete package with price-fixing, wage controls, bureaucratic regimentation and control, state-sanctioned cartels in pharamceuticals, weapons manufacturing, and of course the great Marxist institution, the state partnership with the central banking cartel, which has monopoly control of the money supply (the single most important market commodity) and fixes interest rates (one of the most important market signal prices).
So, yeah; I'm 100% on board with free markets and free international trade , individualism, limited government, and God-given rights.
But I'm not deluding myself that we've actually had any of things in my lifetime, or even in my parents' lifetimes, and I'm certainly not going to pretend that its only the Democrats that are responsible for our market-socialism economy, our out-of-control central government, or our complete loss of property rights and individual liberty.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-19 17:27:13
Long ago I escaped from a country taken over by Stalin, as they were in the process of installing a (puppet) communist "Government". There was an anecdote going around to "explain" to the people the meaning of communism. It went something like this (it's actually better in the original language):
Q: " Comrade, if you had two houses, would give one to your Comrades?"
A: "Sure, of course!"
Q: "And, Comrade, if you had two cars, would you give one to your Comrades?"
A: "Sure, of course!"
Q: "And, Comrade, if you had two shirts, would you give one to your Comrades?"
I also hate socialism, so as far as that goes I agree with you. Your name tag says you're a conservative. If that means you support John McCain then I disagree with you on that point. The thought of having a short tempered neo-con war monger with his finger on "the button" doesn't appeal to me much. McCain also got an F- rating from Gun Owners of America and his authorship of the BCRA is not a selling point either. That leaves me left with the only option being to write-in Ron Paul.
David- You sound reasonable and I appreciate your take on the issue. The only thing I would ask if that you consider not throwing your vote away for Dr Paul, but that you would vote for McCain and work to get someone elected as your district's Rep or your state's Senator who agrees more readily with your entirely defensible position. I too dislike certain things about McCain, but the reality for many of us is a debate between "the lesser of two evils." While that scenario is not ideal nor desirable, it is reality and a pragmatic thinking person (as you sound to be) must realize that true change towards your position is at least possible under someone like McCain, but you are guaranteed being unhappy with the neo-Socialist policies both Obama and Hillary are touting. As Madame Thatcher was known to say: "First you win the argument, then you win the vote." Real change is possible, but it's going to start on the grass-root level in our homes, our neighborhoods, and in our states. But as disappointing as McCain might be in your mind, we have to be responsible adults and consider who of the three currently still in the race would you be MOST comfortable with if and when we're attacked. I think we assign too much power in our minds to the President on one hand, but then also fail to gras that his (or her ) primary role is as Commander-in-Chief and I seriously doubt anyone would even bother trying to defend the position that Hillary or Barack is better suited for that position.
Anyway, thanks for posting and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my reponse here. Take care.
RJ Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful reply. Many years ago I decided to never again vote for the lesser of two evils. Doing so only lends my support to a candidate that I don’t want.
I don’t think I need to dwell on my reason s for opposing the Dems since you also oppose them. So let’s focus on McCain:
As I said before McCain got an F- rating from Gun Owners of America. Since the second amendment is very important to me that makes him unacceptable.
The BCRA which McCain wrote, takes a bite out of the 1st amendment by preventing corporations and unions from mentioning a candidate within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary. The first amendment is vital to preserving a free society so its very disturbing when politicians pass laws that infringe on it.
McCain’s support for the war in Iraq is another reason I can’t support him. After 911 we were all justifiably enraged and ready to kill whoever did it. But Iraq didn’t do it. President Bush has publicly stated that Iraq was not involved in 911 and also that they did not have weapons of mass destruction. Further, from the 911 report we know that none of the attackers were even from Iraq. Most were from Saudi Arabia. And Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. But we haven’t done anything to Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden remains free. During Bush’s recent trip to Saudi Arabia he was photographed hugging the Saudi diplomats. So what we have done is attack and destroy a country that had nothing to do with 911 while embracing the country whose fingerprints are all over 911. We have also not secured our borders, which seems like a sane thing to do to keep terrorists out. None of that makes sense if the objective is to retaliate for 911 or to prevent future attacks. And yet McCain wholeheartedly supports the attack on Iraq and has said he would do it all over again. Why??? We have lost more lives in Iraq than we did on 911. It has cost us over ½ trillion dollars. So why would he choose to do it again even knowing that Iraq was not involved in 911? And why would he want to perpetuate such a war for 100 years?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 R.J. Moeller, all rights reserved.